And so an anti-windmill culture has arisen, also parading under the banner of environmentalism. They have names like "Windstop," "War Against Wind," "Vermonters With Vision," "Stop Ill Wind," "Save Our Allegheny Ridges," and "Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy." Most of them have now aggregated in Internet communities such as Wind-watch.org, WindAction.org, and AWEO.org (American Wind Energy Opposition).
"I started out a strong environmentalist supportive of alternate energy and concerned about global warming," says Jon Boone, a western Maryland resident who has become a prominent opponent of wind farms on the East Coast. "But the more I looked into it, the more I realized how insubstantial the claims of wind advocates have become."
(click to read entire article)
Friday, February 16, 2007
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Town of Howard meeting rescheduled
Hello everyone,
I wanted to make sure you all knew that the Howard Town Board meeting that was scheduled for tonight was postponed until March 14, 2007. It was to be a very important one because it was Public Hearings for 3 very important local laws. Code of Ethics, Planning Board changes and The local Wind Energy Law, all of which will greatly impact the residents of the Town of Howard and even people within earshot and eyesight of Howard ( yes- all 3 in one night!). Everyone impacted should put it on their calendar now.
Thanks
Donna Marmuscak
I wanted to make sure you all knew that the Howard Town Board meeting that was scheduled for tonight was postponed until March 14, 2007. It was to be a very important one because it was Public Hearings for 3 very important local laws. Code of Ethics, Planning Board changes and The local Wind Energy Law, all of which will greatly impact the residents of the Town of Howard and even people within earshot and eyesight of Howard ( yes- all 3 in one night!). Everyone impacted should put it on their calendar now.
Thanks
Donna Marmuscak
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
WSJ letter to the editor by Glenn Schleede
February 13, 2007
Editor, Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal’s February 12 article, “The New Math of Alternative Energy,” is deficient in many respects. Unlike its purported objective, the article does not provide a sound analysis of whether “going green” makes “economic sense.” The section on “wind energy,” for example, has four major deficiencies.
First, when attempting to compare the costs of electricity from various energy sources, the article fails to recognize that electricity produced from wind has less value than electricity produced from reliable generating units. Specifically:
a. Electricity must be produced at all times in the amounts required to meet customers’ demands because electricity cannot be stored in any appreciable amounts. In order to keep electric grids in balance in terms of supply and demand, grid managers must be able to control the output from generating units supplying the grid. Generating units subject to increased or decreased electricity production on command are called “dispatchable” units.
b. Wind turbines are not “dispatchable.” They produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. Their output is intermittent, volatile, and unreliable. Furthermore, wind turbines are most likely to produce at night and in winter when winds tend to be strongest – not on hot weekday summer afternoons in July and August when electricity demand is highest and electricity has its highest value.
c. Because wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce when electricity demand reaches its highest levels, they have virtually no “capacity value” to grid managers. Therefore, areas experiencing significant electricity demand growth will have to add reliable, dispatchable generating units whether or not they add wind turbines.
Second, the article purports to compare costs of electricity without acknowledging the full costs of electricity from wind. The article mentions only one of the huge federal tax breaks available to “wind farm” owners. There are many other tax breaks and subsidies. On a per kilowatt-hour basis, wind is probably now the most heavily subsidized of all energy sources for generating electricity. Hundreds of millions in tax breaks and subsidies are flowing to “wind farm” owners each year while, according to EIA, wind provided only 36/100 of 1% of US electricity in 2005 and is expected to provide only 89/100 of 1% of US electricity in 2030.
Wind advocates have publicly acknowledged that 2/3 of the economic value of a “wind farm” is from two generous federal tax breaks (i.e., Production Tax Credit and 5-yr 200% declining balance accelerated depreciation), and that tax breaks from some states may be worth another 10%. Subsidies worth additional millions to the wind industry include artificial markets created by state “Renewable Portfolio Standards” and “green energy” programs that permit “wind farm” owners to sell electricity at above market prices. Transmission lines built to serve “wind farms,” but with the costs charged to electric customers, are still another subsidy.
Still another part of the true cost of electricity from wind is the cost of keeping reliable generating units immediately available, but running at less than peak efficiency or in spinning reserve mode, to serve as backup for the intermittent, volatile output from wind turbines so that electric grids can be kept in balance.
Third, the article tacitly accepts spurious claims about the cost per kWh of electricity from wind that are made by the wind industry, IEA or EIA. Valid claims about cost per kWh require knowledge of (a) the capital costs of turbines and associated equipment, (b) the useful life of the wind turbines, (c) the amount of electricity that will be produced each year, and (d) the cost of operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing and decommissioning the “wind farms.”
Except for initial capital costs, all other factors used in estimating costs per kWh of electricity from wind are based on assumptions. In fact, unlike generating units using the “traditional” energy sources, none of the type of wind turbines now being installed have been in service long enough to have reliable track records of even 5 years.
Quite likely, the cost per kWh of electricity from wind cited in the article is based on an assumption that the wind turbines will have useful lives of 20 years. If, however, the useful life turns out to be 10 years rather than 20, only about half the expected number of kWh will have been produced. This means that the actual cost per kWh will be approximately twice the cost often claimed by wind advocates when they assume a 20-year useful life. Furthermore, “wind farm” owners will have less incentive to spend the money required to maintain wind turbines once the highly lucrative tax breaks run out (i.e., after 5 and 10 years), and costs of maintaining the aging turbines rise. Owners may even find it more advantageous to sell or abandon the turbines rather than spending the money needed to keep their performance from deteriorating.
Fourth, the article fails even to mention the adverse environmental, ecological, scenic and property value impacts of wind farms – all of which are key factors in the growing opposition to the construction of wind farms in the US – from Maine to Texas and Virginia to California and Washington – as well as in Europe.
Wall Street Journal readers deserve a higher quality of current research, objective analysis and discernment than is reflected in the “New Math” article.
Sincerely,
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
Editor, Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal’s February 12 article, “The New Math of Alternative Energy,” is deficient in many respects. Unlike its purported objective, the article does not provide a sound analysis of whether “going green” makes “economic sense.” The section on “wind energy,” for example, has four major deficiencies.
First, when attempting to compare the costs of electricity from various energy sources, the article fails to recognize that electricity produced from wind has less value than electricity produced from reliable generating units. Specifically:
a. Electricity must be produced at all times in the amounts required to meet customers’ demands because electricity cannot be stored in any appreciable amounts. In order to keep electric grids in balance in terms of supply and demand, grid managers must be able to control the output from generating units supplying the grid. Generating units subject to increased or decreased electricity production on command are called “dispatchable” units.
b. Wind turbines are not “dispatchable.” They produce electricity only when the wind is blowing within the right speed range. Their output is intermittent, volatile, and unreliable. Furthermore, wind turbines are most likely to produce at night and in winter when winds tend to be strongest – not on hot weekday summer afternoons in July and August when electricity demand is highest and electricity has its highest value.
c. Because wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce when electricity demand reaches its highest levels, they have virtually no “capacity value” to grid managers. Therefore, areas experiencing significant electricity demand growth will have to add reliable, dispatchable generating units whether or not they add wind turbines.
Second, the article purports to compare costs of electricity without acknowledging the full costs of electricity from wind. The article mentions only one of the huge federal tax breaks available to “wind farm” owners. There are many other tax breaks and subsidies. On a per kilowatt-hour basis, wind is probably now the most heavily subsidized of all energy sources for generating electricity. Hundreds of millions in tax breaks and subsidies are flowing to “wind farm” owners each year while, according to EIA, wind provided only 36/100 of 1% of US electricity in 2005 and is expected to provide only 89/100 of 1% of US electricity in 2030.
Wind advocates have publicly acknowledged that 2/3 of the economic value of a “wind farm” is from two generous federal tax breaks (i.e., Production Tax Credit and 5-yr 200% declining balance accelerated depreciation), and that tax breaks from some states may be worth another 10%. Subsidies worth additional millions to the wind industry include artificial markets created by state “Renewable Portfolio Standards” and “green energy” programs that permit “wind farm” owners to sell electricity at above market prices. Transmission lines built to serve “wind farms,” but with the costs charged to electric customers, are still another subsidy.
Still another part of the true cost of electricity from wind is the cost of keeping reliable generating units immediately available, but running at less than peak efficiency or in spinning reserve mode, to serve as backup for the intermittent, volatile output from wind turbines so that electric grids can be kept in balance.
Third, the article tacitly accepts spurious claims about the cost per kWh of electricity from wind that are made by the wind industry, IEA or EIA. Valid claims about cost per kWh require knowledge of (a) the capital costs of turbines and associated equipment, (b) the useful life of the wind turbines, (c) the amount of electricity that will be produced each year, and (d) the cost of operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing and decommissioning the “wind farms.”
Except for initial capital costs, all other factors used in estimating costs per kWh of electricity from wind are based on assumptions. In fact, unlike generating units using the “traditional” energy sources, none of the type of wind turbines now being installed have been in service long enough to have reliable track records of even 5 years.
Quite likely, the cost per kWh of electricity from wind cited in the article is based on an assumption that the wind turbines will have useful lives of 20 years. If, however, the useful life turns out to be 10 years rather than 20, only about half the expected number of kWh will have been produced. This means that the actual cost per kWh will be approximately twice the cost often claimed by wind advocates when they assume a 20-year useful life. Furthermore, “wind farm” owners will have less incentive to spend the money required to maintain wind turbines once the highly lucrative tax breaks run out (i.e., after 5 and 10 years), and costs of maintaining the aging turbines rise. Owners may even find it more advantageous to sell or abandon the turbines rather than spending the money needed to keep their performance from deteriorating.
Fourth, the article fails even to mention the adverse environmental, ecological, scenic and property value impacts of wind farms – all of which are key factors in the growing opposition to the construction of wind farms in the US – from Maine to Texas and Virginia to California and Washington – as well as in Europe.
Wall Street Journal readers deserve a higher quality of current research, objective analysis and discernment than is reflected in the “New Math” article.
Sincerely,
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Turbine, power-line proposals connected by Andy McEvoy
The manner in which the citizens, politicians, business owners and residents of Oneida and Herkimer counties have organized to put a stop to the proposed New York Regional Interconnect transmission line has been inspiring.
Anytime a for-profit company wants to disrupt people's lives, take their property or cause pain and suffering in the course of its business, the people should pull together and fight it. Any revenue gained from such businesses should be recognized as "blood money." This should be stopped at the state and federal levels.
Not far away, in the towns of Fairfield and Norway, Atlantic Wind LLC has proposed an industrial wind turbine facility consisting of 60 to 70 wind turbines almost 400 feet tall, about three times the height of a power line tower. They estimate the projects nameplate capacity will be about 120 megawatts, (nameplate capacity is the power a turbine could produce under maximum-wind conditions) a very misleading number.
(click to read entire article)
Anytime a for-profit company wants to disrupt people's lives, take their property or cause pain and suffering in the course of its business, the people should pull together and fight it. Any revenue gained from such businesses should be recognized as "blood money." This should be stopped at the state and federal levels.
Not far away, in the towns of Fairfield and Norway, Atlantic Wind LLC has proposed an industrial wind turbine facility consisting of 60 to 70 wind turbines almost 400 feet tall, about three times the height of a power line tower. They estimate the projects nameplate capacity will be about 120 megawatts, (nameplate capacity is the power a turbine could produce under maximum-wind conditions) a very misleading number.
(click to read entire article)
No, President Bush did NOT state that wind could supply 20% of US Electricity
While officials in the US DOE spend millions of tax dollars each year to help the wind industry and pay for lobbying on behalf of wind industry projects, President Bush’s statements about wind energy seem to have become more measured. Perhaps White House and Executive Office of the President staff have cautioned him not to believe the claims from DOE and other wind advocates and to recognize the truly tiny role that wind energy will be able to play in supplying US energy requirements – and even that at great cost to taxpayers and electric customers.
(click to read entire article)
(click to read entire article)
Some Towns Not Listening On Wind by Stephen Berg
Moresville Energy Center in Stamford (fronting for Invenergy LLC), encouraging placing industrial wind turbines, or IWTs, in the Catskills, is running advertisements promoting these 420-foot monsters as opportunities for children to experience "a cleaner tomorrow."
Its incentive comes from indecisiveness by town supervisors hesitating, even though their citizens have spoken out against IWTs.
One supervisor stands out against a sea of poor leadership and courage: Tom Garretson of Cherry Valley. The Freeman’s Journal in Cooperstown, applauding Mr. Garretson’s efforts against Reunion Power, wrote: "A freshman town supervisor, he firmly and courteously followed the logic of facts in the face of resistance from his family, his political mentor and longtime friends and associates."
"Our purpose is to project potential noise into the community,"
UPC Group, backed by almost $1.8 billion in European financing, is nearing completion of a wind energy facility on Mars Hill, Maine. But the noise complaints have already begun, with just a few of the turbines operating. The Public Service Board hearings for UPC's project in Sheffield, Vt., is currently in progress. From the Barton (Vt.) Chronicle, February 1, 2007 (click the title of this post):
Until now the issue of noise, which some believe should be included in an aesthetic assessment [which has been a farce of denial, self-rationalization, andd dismissal of local sensibilities -- Ed.] has been relegated to studies from competing experts, who often challenge one another's methodology.
But last week, as complaints about turbine noise begins to surface from places like Mars Hill, Maine, where a UPC wind farm recently went on line, a debate has started to shape up over how much weight the board should give tests that measure noise.
On the stand testifying as a panel for UPC were sound experts Chris Menge and Chris Bejedke. They testified that tests they conducted in the area indicated that turbine noises would not have an adverse effect on the community.
"Our purpose is to project potential noise into the community," noted Mr. Menge.
Under the revised layout that cut the original project from 26 turbines to 16, Mr. Bejedke testified that although the new Clipper turbines are bigger, they will produce less noise on the order of one to two decibels. Testimony from the panel also indicated that noise levels would come well under existing Environmental Protection Agency standards. And at high wind speed, according to their testimony, the noise of wind through the trees would tend to mask the noise from the turbines.[Three decibels is generally described as the smallest difference detectable by human ears in normal conditions, so "one to decibels" will hardly make a difference, especially since being taller the Clipper turbines will project their noise farther.]Yet, under cross examination from Sutton's attorney, Mr. Hershenson, the panel acknowledged that noise complaints have surfaced in other host communities despite test results. Displaying an article written by Mr. Bejedke that appeared in a trade magazine, North American Wind Power, Mr. Hershenson cited passages showing that complaints over noise began airing as soon as the turbines came on line.
In Lincoln, Wisconsin, for example, the attorney noted that complaints surfaced even when the noise levels were in compliance with the permit. As a result, he added, a moratorium had been imposed throughout the county on wind farms.
Vermont has no standards for noise studies, but according to testimony, a Massachusetts public agency uses as a cap ten decibels over the measured background noise. [Emphasis added] No permit is awarded if the noise exceeds the cap.[An increase of ten decibels is perceived to be a doubling of the noise level. It has been stated that community concerns generally begin around an increase of six decibels.]Mr. Hershenson argued there are numerous locations in the Sheffield project where turbine noise would exceed the ten-decibel cap. That was an assertion that Mr. Bejedke rejected.
Argument Monday suggested there may be a bias at work when background samples are collected in rural areas that are quiet.
Most of the complaints at the Lincoln wind farm came during the night. According to expert testimony on the Sheffield project, none of the studies was conducted at night. Mr. Bejedke testified that most of the samplings were collected between 8:45 a.m. and 2 p.m.
However, Mr. Menge contended that if there were a bias, it would work against wind farms. Quiet background noises at night in the country, he said, "would require the wind turbines to be practically silent."[Exactly! Not only is it quieter at night, sound typically carries farther. Wind turbines don't care if you're trying to sleep. In Oregon, the 10-dB limit was modified to use urban noise levels instead of those of the actual (i.e., rural) site -- this was done at the behest of wind developers, who, as Menge concedes, know that giant moving machines in a rural area will be distinctly, intrusively, and disruptively noisy. So, as with the "issue" of aesthetics, change the law when reality is in the way.]
Pitched as source of clean energy, ranchers say mills are an eyesore by THOMAS KOROSEC
JACKSBORO — The wind rustling the oak trees on the Squaw Mountain Ranch soon may be its undoing as a starkly empty, unspoiled corner of North Texas.
Riding the boom that last year pushed Texas past California as the nation's leading wind energy producer, a wind power company wants to scatter 100 turbines across an area roughly nine miles long and two miles wide, with at least a dozen of the 250-foot towers on the ranch.
"I'm not interested in having blinking red lights causing the Milky Way not to be as bright or to hear them when now I hear nothing up here except the sounds of nature," said ranch manager Dan Stephenson, explaining why the ranch declined to lease land for the project and objects to its neighbors leasing as well.
(click to read entire article)
Riding the boom that last year pushed Texas past California as the nation's leading wind energy producer, a wind power company wants to scatter 100 turbines across an area roughly nine miles long and two miles wide, with at least a dozen of the 250-foot towers on the ranch.
"I'm not interested in having blinking red lights causing the Milky Way not to be as bright or to hear them when now I hear nothing up here except the sounds of nature," said ranch manager Dan Stephenson, explaining why the ranch declined to lease land for the project and objects to its neighbors leasing as well.
(click to read entire article)
Yes! Wind has it all wrong by Karl Palmiter
Is protecting your home and property from huge financial loss so a large neighboring landowner can make huge financial gains selfish? Yes! Wind thinks so!
Is protecting the wild animals, both big and small, like the bald eagles that are just starting to make a comeback from mans use of poisons from years ago, is that selfish? Yes! Wind thinks so!
Is protecting the very landscape that was zoned agricultural to keep our natural land from industry that would destroy it so it would be here for our great great grandchildren selfish? Yes! Wind thinks so!
Yes! Wind feels sacrifices have to be made as long as someone else is making them. Yes! Wind severely twists and distorts facts to fit their own agenda. Yes! Wind is a group of people trying to get those that are truly protecting the environment pushed out and industry in, not Global Warming, Not for the Environment, just for the all mighty Buck!
CWW is very much for Clean Safe Energy! We just are not gullible. Our homes and the environment are very sacred to us. We’ve done the research, research that proves wind farms are not reliable; they are very inefficient, that they pollute our environment from the start of putting concrete and re-rod into the ground. Wind Developers and their wind turbines are fraudulent! These turbines actually use power from the grid to turn those blades when the wind is not strong enough. That’s to give people like Yes! Wind the perception that they are producing power.
UPC Public Outreach Coordinator, Rick Towner, lies to people. He claims he will have the Lent Hill view of Wolcott’s farm for the next 20 years. He actually lives down in a valley, 1 ½ miles away from that view, he won’t see anything, but I sure hope he’ll hear them for the next 20 years. He misleads people by saying they might get free electric and that their taxes will go down. He’s even got some people convinced that the majority of people in the town of Cohocton are for this project. Even the Town Board knows better than that, which is why they won’t allow a vote.
Yes! Wind people say a person should be able to do what they want with their property, I suppose you supporters of wind turbines in town wouldn’t have a problem with your neighbors raising pigs, goats, maybe chickens and roosters, or maybe your neighbor putting up a 30’ privacy fence.
I do believe that’s why zoning laws were developed, to protect you from an inconsiderate, intrusive neighbor. Zoning laws to protect residential areas from commercial development and agricultural land from Industry.
UPC sold this scam to the people at Mars Hill in Maine, their town board apparently went for it hook line and sinker also. Now, the project is almost complete, and some turbines powered up and residents are thinking, oh my gosh what did we get ourselves into. The noise they were told wouldn’t be an issue at 40-45dbs, seems to be a BIG problem now. Cohocton Board is allowing 50-55dbs, so who is protecting the town of Cohocton, it sure is NOT our Town Board.
Karl Palmiter
Is protecting the wild animals, both big and small, like the bald eagles that are just starting to make a comeback from mans use of poisons from years ago, is that selfish? Yes! Wind thinks so!
Is protecting the very landscape that was zoned agricultural to keep our natural land from industry that would destroy it so it would be here for our great great grandchildren selfish? Yes! Wind thinks so!
Yes! Wind feels sacrifices have to be made as long as someone else is making them. Yes! Wind severely twists and distorts facts to fit their own agenda. Yes! Wind is a group of people trying to get those that are truly protecting the environment pushed out and industry in, not Global Warming, Not for the Environment, just for the all mighty Buck!
CWW is very much for Clean Safe Energy! We just are not gullible. Our homes and the environment are very sacred to us. We’ve done the research, research that proves wind farms are not reliable; they are very inefficient, that they pollute our environment from the start of putting concrete and re-rod into the ground. Wind Developers and their wind turbines are fraudulent! These turbines actually use power from the grid to turn those blades when the wind is not strong enough. That’s to give people like Yes! Wind the perception that they are producing power.
UPC Public Outreach Coordinator, Rick Towner, lies to people. He claims he will have the Lent Hill view of Wolcott’s farm for the next 20 years. He actually lives down in a valley, 1 ½ miles away from that view, he won’t see anything, but I sure hope he’ll hear them for the next 20 years. He misleads people by saying they might get free electric and that their taxes will go down. He’s even got some people convinced that the majority of people in the town of Cohocton are for this project. Even the Town Board knows better than that, which is why they won’t allow a vote.
Yes! Wind people say a person should be able to do what they want with their property, I suppose you supporters of wind turbines in town wouldn’t have a problem with your neighbors raising pigs, goats, maybe chickens and roosters, or maybe your neighbor putting up a 30’ privacy fence.
I do believe that’s why zoning laws were developed, to protect you from an inconsiderate, intrusive neighbor. Zoning laws to protect residential areas from commercial development and agricultural land from Industry.
UPC sold this scam to the people at Mars Hill in Maine, their town board apparently went for it hook line and sinker also. Now, the project is almost complete, and some turbines powered up and residents are thinking, oh my gosh what did we get ourselves into. The noise they were told wouldn’t be an issue at 40-45dbs, seems to be a BIG problem now. Cohocton Board is allowing 50-55dbs, so who is protecting the town of Cohocton, it sure is NOT our Town Board.
Karl Palmiter
Saturday, February 10, 2007
It's Free, Plentiful and Fickle by Matthew Wald
Wind, almost everybody’s best hope for big supplies of clean, affordable electricity, is turning out to have complications.
Engineers have cut the price of electricity derived from wind by about 80 percent in the last 20 years, setting up this renewable technology for a major share of the electricity market. But for all its promise, wind also generates a big problem: because it is unpredictable and often fails to blow when electricity is most needed, wind is not reliable enough to assure supplies for an electric grid that must be prepared to deliver power to everybody who wants it — even when it is in greatest demand.
In Texas, as in many other parts of the country, power companies are scrambling to build generating stations to meet growing peak demands, generally driven by air-conditioning for new homes and businesses. But power plants that run on coal or gas must “be built along with every megawatt of wind capacity,” said William Bojorquez, director of system planning at the Electric Reliability Council of Texas.
(click to read entire article)
Engineers have cut the price of electricity derived from wind by about 80 percent in the last 20 years, setting up this renewable technology for a major share of the electricity market. But for all its promise, wind also generates a big problem: because it is unpredictable and often fails to blow when electricity is most needed, wind is not reliable enough to assure supplies for an electric grid that must be prepared to deliver power to everybody who wants it — even when it is in greatest demand.
In Texas, as in many other parts of the country, power companies are scrambling to build generating stations to meet growing peak demands, generally driven by air-conditioning for new homes and businesses. But power plants that run on coal or gas must “be built along with every megawatt of wind capacity,” said William Bojorquez, director of system planning at the Electric Reliability Council of Texas.
(click to read entire article)
Debate Over Wind Power Creates Environmental Rift by FELICITY BARRINGER
OAKLAND, Md. — Dan Boone has no doubt that his crusade against wind energy is the right way to protect the Allegheny highlands he loves. Let other environmentalists call him deluded at best, traitorous at worst. He remains undeterred.
For four years or more, Mr. Boone has traveled across the mid-Atlantic to make every argument he can muster against local wind-power projects: they kill birds and bats; they are too noisy; they are inefficient, making no more than a symbolic contribution to energy needs.
Wind farms on the empty prairies of North Dakota? Fine. But not, Mr. Boone insists, in the mountainous terrain of southwestern Pennsylvania, western Maryland or West Virginia, areas where 15 new projects have been proposed. If all were built, 750 to 1,000 giant turbines would line the hilltops, most producing, on average, enough electricity to power 600 homes.
(click to read the entire article)
For four years or more, Mr. Boone has traveled across the mid-Atlantic to make every argument he can muster against local wind-power projects: they kill birds and bats; they are too noisy; they are inefficient, making no more than a symbolic contribution to energy needs.
Wind farms on the empty prairies of North Dakota? Fine. But not, Mr. Boone insists, in the mountainous terrain of southwestern Pennsylvania, western Maryland or West Virginia, areas where 15 new projects have been proposed. If all were built, 750 to 1,000 giant turbines would line the hilltops, most producing, on average, enough electricity to power 600 homes.
(click to read the entire article)
Friday, February 09, 2007
Bovina wind survey finds concern by Dana Cudmore
The results of a survey on wind power by the town of Bovina released Monday night indicated most residents were concerned about turbines.
The survey, conducted in January, contacted all 870 of Bovina’s residents and asked for opinions on dozens of topics related to wind-power generation.
A survey last fall by the Alliance For Bovina, opponents of large wind turbines, asked two questions in a yes-or-no format.
Those results showed more than 80 percent of the town’s residents opposed the large, industrial turbines.
While the town survey’s results were less clearly defined, "a majority of people are concerned about wind turbines," Councilman Randall Inman said.
Like other Delaware County towns, Bovina officials are wrestling with a variety of issues and opinions as they consider laws to regulate wind-power generation for individual or industrial use.
There are no specific proposals for wind turbines in Bovina, but Chicago-based Invenergy has proposed a line of them along a ridge line between the town and its neighbor to the northwest, the town of Stamford.
Alliance members on Monday criticized the newly released survey commissioned by the town as "biased, confusing, and misleading."
But the town’s consultant, Tom Shepstone, called the survey "a pretty reliable instrument" that showed "a lot more agreement than disagreement" on the wind-turbine issue.
Attempts to contact town Supervisor Tina Mole by telephone Tuesday were unsuccessful.
Asked in the survey if wind farms would be an asset or a liability to the area, 387 said they would be a liability, while 115 said wind farms would be an asset.
The three-page town survey also asked residents if there were benefits to wind power and how strong their concerns were on several issues including impact on the landscape and noise.
Larry Karam, co-director of the alliance, said the town survey’s "confusing and biased nature makes it a disaster."
"It should be rescinded," he said. A petition created by the alliance has been posted on the group’s website, and Karam said 380 Bovina taxpayers and voters have signed it to protest the town survey.
Both surveys were expected to have reached all of the town’s taxpayers and voters, and both received a response rate of greater than 60 percent.
Both surveys show residents are mostly ambivalent toward smaller wind turbines, such as those that might be suitable for farm use, for example.
The alliance supports turbines that are 125 feet in height or less.
The survey, conducted in January, contacted all 870 of Bovina’s residents and asked for opinions on dozens of topics related to wind-power generation.
A survey last fall by the Alliance For Bovina, opponents of large wind turbines, asked two questions in a yes-or-no format.
Those results showed more than 80 percent of the town’s residents opposed the large, industrial turbines.
While the town survey’s results were less clearly defined, "a majority of people are concerned about wind turbines," Councilman Randall Inman said.
Like other Delaware County towns, Bovina officials are wrestling with a variety of issues and opinions as they consider laws to regulate wind-power generation for individual or industrial use.
There are no specific proposals for wind turbines in Bovina, but Chicago-based Invenergy has proposed a line of them along a ridge line between the town and its neighbor to the northwest, the town of Stamford.
Alliance members on Monday criticized the newly released survey commissioned by the town as "biased, confusing, and misleading."
But the town’s consultant, Tom Shepstone, called the survey "a pretty reliable instrument" that showed "a lot more agreement than disagreement" on the wind-turbine issue.
Attempts to contact town Supervisor Tina Mole by telephone Tuesday were unsuccessful.
Asked in the survey if wind farms would be an asset or a liability to the area, 387 said they would be a liability, while 115 said wind farms would be an asset.
The three-page town survey also asked residents if there were benefits to wind power and how strong their concerns were on several issues including impact on the landscape and noise.
Larry Karam, co-director of the alliance, said the town survey’s "confusing and biased nature makes it a disaster."
"It should be rescinded," he said. A petition created by the alliance has been posted on the group’s website, and Karam said 380 Bovina taxpayers and voters have signed it to protest the town survey.
Both surveys were expected to have reached all of the town’s taxpayers and voters, and both received a response rate of greater than 60 percent.
Both surveys show residents are mostly ambivalent toward smaller wind turbines, such as those that might be suitable for farm use, for example.
The alliance supports turbines that are 125 feet in height or less.
UPC pattern of business conduct - Is this the Public Good?
Docket No. 7156
Petition of UPC Vermont Wind, LLC, for a Certificate of Public Good, pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248, authorizing the construction and operation of a 52 MW wind electric generation facility, consisting of 26 wind turbines, and associated transmission and interconnection facilities, in Sheffield and Sutton, Vermont
Docket No. 6884
Petition of UPC Wind Management LLC for a Certificateof Public Good Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248(j) forInstallation of Three Temporary Wind MeasurementTowers on or in the Vicinity of Hardscrabble Mountain in Sheffield, Vermont
Petition of UPC Vermont Wind, LLC, for a Certificate of Public Good, pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248, authorizing the construction and operation of a 52 MW wind electric generation facility, consisting of 26 wind turbines, and associated transmission and interconnection facilities, in Sheffield and Sutton, Vermont
Docket No. 6884
Petition of UPC Wind Management LLC for a Certificateof Public Good Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248(j) forInstallation of Three Temporary Wind MeasurementTowers on or in the Vicinity of Hardscrabble Mountain in Sheffield, Vermont
LURC commissioners upheld rule of law
Congratulations to LURC commissioners for upholding the rule of law in their rejection of the proposed wind energy complex on Redington and Black Nubble mountains.
The Land Use Regulation Commission was created three and a half decades ago to keep the wild places in Maine wild. The law says new developments must “fit harmoniously into the existing natural environment.” There is no exemption for wind power.
It’s hard to imagine a site more in violation of the clear language of the statute. Or for that matter, what wouldn’t comply if this industrial complex should somehow be upheld by the courts as permissible. The proposal envisioned 30 four-hundred-foot-high, lighted turbines, some located just a mile from a 2,000 mile long national scenic trail.
To suggest as many have done that commissioners violated the law is absurd. The representative of the Attorney General’s Department at the decision meeting tried to be polite to the LURC staff, but his essential message was that it would have been extremely difficult and perhaps impossible to sustain the staff recommendation for approval should it be challenged in the courts. His comments essentially said that the staff was wrong when it claimed in news reports that the Attorney General staff had given it’s okay to the draft.
A key opponent of the project was the Maine Appalachian Trail Club, a tiny organization dedicated to protecting the trail from encroachment. MATC hired the lead opposition lawyer and paid the technical experts, investing, with help from the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, $180,000 of scarce funds to oppose the wind energy application…
MATC members clear the blow downs, bridge the bogs, and cut the brush that make the Maine section of the trail the envy of trail clubs up and down the Appalachian mountains. These are not wealthy, elitist, NIMBYs. No volunteer group in Maine does more hard, on the ground work. Last year 200 MATC members contributed 20,000 hours of volunteer work on behalf of the trail. Each of the several votes by these people who know the trail best has been unanimous in opposition.
Pamela Underhill, director of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, said it most eloquently, telling LURC commissioners:
“I’m here because protection of this unusual and wonder-inspiring unit of our national park system matters deeply to me, to the National Park Service and to millions of Americans. I’m here because… it is a national treasure of immense proportion, and it is a gift to the American people – past, present and future – from the American people.”
She added, “The concerns of the National Park Service over the proposed Redington wind farm are based solely upon its location adjacent to one of the most remote and scenic sections of the Appalachian Trail. The National Park Service supports the development of renewable energy in appropriate locations with appropriate environmental protections. We have not opposed some half dozen proposed wind farms in some proximity to the Trail in locations where special Trail values would not be compromised.”
MATC also is not opposed to wind energy. Members voted just this month not to oppose the Kibby Mountain wind power proposal, though this project also would be visible from the trail. Why? Members recognized, rightly, that there is a vast difference between an in-your-face industrial development on ridges abutting the narrow trail corridor, and proposals involving distant ridges.
Global warming is a real threat that this country must somehow recognize and combat. But a token wind project adjacent to the 2000-mile Appalachian Trail is not the place to start. The many miles along the open Saddleback ridge line and north through the twin Crocker Mountains rank among the wildest sections of the entire trail. The Redington/Black Nubble proposal would reverse that happy situation. The trail would overnight become among the most developed sections.
There are many ways to combat global warming. The most critical is conservation. No amount of wind energy will be sufficient. We must somehow reduce our wasteful ways. The true NIMBYs are not those that would protect a national treasure. Rather they are those who are too lazy and selfish to make the slight effort needed to conserve. The NIMBYs are those who grasp at any excuse to maintain their effortless comfort.
Please remember, that it is still not necessary to destroy the last wild places in order to save our planet.
Bob Cummings
Phippsburg, Maine
The Land Use Regulation Commission was created three and a half decades ago to keep the wild places in Maine wild. The law says new developments must “fit harmoniously into the existing natural environment.” There is no exemption for wind power.
It’s hard to imagine a site more in violation of the clear language of the statute. Or for that matter, what wouldn’t comply if this industrial complex should somehow be upheld by the courts as permissible. The proposal envisioned 30 four-hundred-foot-high, lighted turbines, some located just a mile from a 2,000 mile long national scenic trail.
To suggest as many have done that commissioners violated the law is absurd. The representative of the Attorney General’s Department at the decision meeting tried to be polite to the LURC staff, but his essential message was that it would have been extremely difficult and perhaps impossible to sustain the staff recommendation for approval should it be challenged in the courts. His comments essentially said that the staff was wrong when it claimed in news reports that the Attorney General staff had given it’s okay to the draft.
A key opponent of the project was the Maine Appalachian Trail Club, a tiny organization dedicated to protecting the trail from encroachment. MATC hired the lead opposition lawyer and paid the technical experts, investing, with help from the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, $180,000 of scarce funds to oppose the wind energy application…
MATC members clear the blow downs, bridge the bogs, and cut the brush that make the Maine section of the trail the envy of trail clubs up and down the Appalachian mountains. These are not wealthy, elitist, NIMBYs. No volunteer group in Maine does more hard, on the ground work. Last year 200 MATC members contributed 20,000 hours of volunteer work on behalf of the trail. Each of the several votes by these people who know the trail best has been unanimous in opposition.
Pamela Underhill, director of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, said it most eloquently, telling LURC commissioners:
“I’m here because protection of this unusual and wonder-inspiring unit of our national park system matters deeply to me, to the National Park Service and to millions of Americans. I’m here because… it is a national treasure of immense proportion, and it is a gift to the American people – past, present and future – from the American people.”
She added, “The concerns of the National Park Service over the proposed Redington wind farm are based solely upon its location adjacent to one of the most remote and scenic sections of the Appalachian Trail. The National Park Service supports the development of renewable energy in appropriate locations with appropriate environmental protections. We have not opposed some half dozen proposed wind farms in some proximity to the Trail in locations where special Trail values would not be compromised.”
MATC also is not opposed to wind energy. Members voted just this month not to oppose the Kibby Mountain wind power proposal, though this project also would be visible from the trail. Why? Members recognized, rightly, that there is a vast difference between an in-your-face industrial development on ridges abutting the narrow trail corridor, and proposals involving distant ridges.
Global warming is a real threat that this country must somehow recognize and combat. But a token wind project adjacent to the 2000-mile Appalachian Trail is not the place to start. The many miles along the open Saddleback ridge line and north through the twin Crocker Mountains rank among the wildest sections of the entire trail. The Redington/Black Nubble proposal would reverse that happy situation. The trail would overnight become among the most developed sections.
There are many ways to combat global warming. The most critical is conservation. No amount of wind energy will be sufficient. We must somehow reduce our wasteful ways. The true NIMBYs are not those that would protect a national treasure. Rather they are those who are too lazy and selfish to make the slight effort needed to conserve. The NIMBYs are those who grasp at any excuse to maintain their effortless comfort.
Please remember, that it is still not necessary to destroy the last wild places in order to save our planet.
Bob Cummings
Phippsburg, Maine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)