HOWARD - Complaints were the rule - not the exception - at a trio of public hearings in Howard Wednesday night.
The town board hosted three public hearings on Local Laws 1-3 - code of ethics, and amendments to the town's planning board and wind energy laws - and nearly 100 people showed up to voice their opinions.
After dealing with public comments for around two hours, the board approved all three local laws unanimously.
The wind law amendments changed the way permits will be approved, taking the power from the town board and giving it to the planning board, which town Attorney Tom Reed said was done as a result of a lawsuit against the town that alleged conflict of interest by board members that had ties to a proposed wind farm in Howard.
Other amendments to the wind law, which was approved February 2006, also added agricultural districts, which had been omitted from the previous law, and allowed for a licensing fee to be charged for permits.
(Click to read entire article)
Thursday, March 15, 2007
United States - Wind Resource Map
The map below illustrates the average wind resources available across the country. Of course, the actual wind resource on your site will vary depending on such factors as typography and structure interference.
Firm seeks new Maine wind farm
BANGOR, Maine – The company that built New England's largest wind farm in Mars Hill, which went on line earlier this year, is seeking state approval to go ahead with an even larger project in a remote area of eastern Maine.
Evergreen Wind Power LLC has filed an application with the Land Use Regulation Commission to build 38 towers on Stetson Mountain in northern Washington County, between Danforth and Springfield. The $100 million project would generate about 57 megawatts for the New England power grid.
The Stetson Mountain project would be larger than one on Mars Hill Mountain in northern Maine, which has 28 turbines and a capacity for 42 megawatts of power, enough to provide the power needs for 45,000 average Maine homes.
Maine's land-use board, which regulates development in the state's unorganized territory, moved in January to reject a proposed 30-turbine wind farm on Redington and Black Nubble mountains in western Maine. Commissioners cited its proximity to the Appalachian Trail and noted that the development area is a habitat for several endangered species.
A separate proposal calls for 44 turbines in Kibby Township, near the Canadian border in western Maine. The application by Alberta-based TransCanada is pending before LURC.
Evergreen Wind Power LLC of Bangor, a subsidiary of UPC Wind Management of Newton, Mass., says in its application before LURC that the Stetson project is not in a high-value scenic area. The application says the turbines would be visible on the horizon from Baskahegan Lake near Brookton, about nine miles away, and from a small portion of a scenic byway along U.S. Route 1.
The company estimates that the turbines will help to reduce air pollution by 100,000 tons per year. LURC's staff will evaluate Evergreen's application for completeness before beginning a formal review.
Gov. John Baldacci has identified wind power as an important component of efforts to reduce the state's and region's dependence on power plants that emit greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming.
Evergreen Wind Power LLC has filed an application with the Land Use Regulation Commission to build 38 towers on Stetson Mountain in northern Washington County, between Danforth and Springfield. The $100 million project would generate about 57 megawatts for the New England power grid.
The Stetson Mountain project would be larger than one on Mars Hill Mountain in northern Maine, which has 28 turbines and a capacity for 42 megawatts of power, enough to provide the power needs for 45,000 average Maine homes.
Maine's land-use board, which regulates development in the state's unorganized territory, moved in January to reject a proposed 30-turbine wind farm on Redington and Black Nubble mountains in western Maine. Commissioners cited its proximity to the Appalachian Trail and noted that the development area is a habitat for several endangered species.
A separate proposal calls for 44 turbines in Kibby Township, near the Canadian border in western Maine. The application by Alberta-based TransCanada is pending before LURC.
Evergreen Wind Power LLC of Bangor, a subsidiary of UPC Wind Management of Newton, Mass., says in its application before LURC that the Stetson project is not in a high-value scenic area. The application says the turbines would be visible on the horizon from Baskahegan Lake near Brookton, about nine miles away, and from a small portion of a scenic byway along U.S. Route 1.
The company estimates that the turbines will help to reduce air pollution by 100,000 tons per year. LURC's staff will evaluate Evergreen's application for completeness before beginning a formal review.
Gov. John Baldacci has identified wind power as an important component of efforts to reduce the state's and region's dependence on power plants that emit greenhouse gases and contribute to global warming.
Arkwright Town Board passes wind energy law
ARKWRIGHT — The ayes carried the vote Tuesday night, passing the local law governing wind energy development in the Town of Arkwright.
But, it wasn’t unanimous.
Councilmen Jeff Dietrich and Roger Prince voted no while Councilmen Larry Ball and Dan Dietzen were joined by Supervisor Fred Norton in voting yes.
Prior to the vote, Dietrich introduced an amendment that called for extending the setbacks, which was in keeping with a petition presented to the board signed by 84 town residents.
Dietrich said the proposed changes followed guidelines established by wind energy trade associate Windustry and by New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA).
(Click to read the entire article)
But, it wasn’t unanimous.
Councilmen Jeff Dietrich and Roger Prince voted no while Councilmen Larry Ball and Dan Dietzen were joined by Supervisor Fred Norton in voting yes.
Prior to the vote, Dietrich introduced an amendment that called for extending the setbacks, which was in keeping with a petition presented to the board signed by 84 town residents.
Dietrich said the proposed changes followed guidelines established by wind energy trade associate Windustry and by New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA).
(Click to read the entire article)
Wind turbines could force family to leave Fairfield home by Bryon Ackerman
FAIRFIELD — If wind turbines are built in this northeastern Herkimer County town, one family may be forced to move.
Lisa Sementilli's 11-year-old daughter Alisha has central auditory processing disorder, which means Alisha hears fine but can't concentrate when she is around background noise.
Doctors have suggested that Alisha live at least one-and-a-half miles from any wind turbine, but Hard Scrabble Wind Farm towers planned in Fairfield would be less than half a mile away, Lisa Sementilli said.
"If they come, I have to move," she said. "I'm not going to put my daughter in any harm."
(Click to read entire article)
Lisa Sementilli's 11-year-old daughter Alisha has central auditory processing disorder, which means Alisha hears fine but can't concentrate when she is around background noise.
Doctors have suggested that Alisha live at least one-and-a-half miles from any wind turbine, but Hard Scrabble Wind Farm towers planned in Fairfield would be less than half a mile away, Lisa Sementilli said.
"If they come, I have to move," she said. "I'm not going to put my daughter in any harm."
(Click to read entire article)
Freedom awaits next step on wind farm effort by CRAIG CROSBY
FREEDOM -- Competitive Energy Services has not given up hope for erecting wind turbines on Beaver Ridge, but neither is the company committed to fighting another round.
Competitive Energy is mulling its options after the board of appeals last week revoked the company's permit to erect three electricity- generating wind turbines on the ridge. The Portland-based company is considering all of its options, from appealing to Waldo County Superior Court to abandoning the project altogether, said project manager Andy Price.
"Obviously we're disappointed that the project the town has clearly stated it would like to be built in their town was not allowed to go forward," Price said. "The appeals board overturned a very carefully considered decision by the planning board."
(Click to read entire article)
Competitive Energy is mulling its options after the board of appeals last week revoked the company's permit to erect three electricity- generating wind turbines on the ridge. The Portland-based company is considering all of its options, from appealing to Waldo County Superior Court to abandoning the project altogether, said project manager Andy Price.
"Obviously we're disappointed that the project the town has clearly stated it would like to be built in their town was not allowed to go forward," Price said. "The appeals board overturned a very carefully considered decision by the planning board."
(Click to read entire article)
Wind farm would be N.E.'s largest
AUGUSTA - The company behind New England's largest wind farm is seeking regulatory approval for an even bigger, $100 million wind-energy project in a remote corner of northern Washington County.
Evergreen Wind Power LLC hopes to build 38 wind turbines on Stetson Mountain, a rural ridgeline that runs along Route 169 between the communities of Danforth and Springfield. The company said the turbines could be operating by the beginning of next year.
Each of the turbines would measure nearly 400 feet from base to blade tip. Collectively, they would generate approximately 57 megawatts of electricity for the New England power grid, according to an application filed with the Land Use Regulation Commission. The LURC staff is reviewing the application for completeness.
As proposed, the project is even larger than the company's Mars Hill Wind Farm, which came on line earlier this year. That would make the Stetson Mountain project the largest wind farm in New England, although another company is seeking LURC approval for a 44-turbine farm in northern Franklin County near the Canadian border.
(Click to read entire article)
Evergreen Wind Power LLC hopes to build 38 wind turbines on Stetson Mountain, a rural ridgeline that runs along Route 169 between the communities of Danforth and Springfield. The company said the turbines could be operating by the beginning of next year.
Each of the turbines would measure nearly 400 feet from base to blade tip. Collectively, they would generate approximately 57 megawatts of electricity for the New England power grid, according to an application filed with the Land Use Regulation Commission. The LURC staff is reviewing the application for completeness.
As proposed, the project is even larger than the company's Mars Hill Wind Farm, which came on line earlier this year. That would make the Stetson Mountain project the largest wind farm in New England, although another company is seeking LURC approval for a 44-turbine farm in northern Franklin County near the Canadian border.
(Click to read entire article)
"The Hired Hand Who Was Gone With The Wind" - Wind is one 'employee' whose resume doesn't stand up to examination
Editor,
I am writing in response to a letter from Roger Thurber in the February 19th edition of the Daily News. Among his praises for electric power, he refers to electricity as "the cheapest hired hand" that he could hire on the farm. Let's examine the wind power he favors so much in just those terms - as an employee, or "hired hand", of the electrical grid.
Wind power is intermittent, so this hired hand would show up, and leave, at any given time. This would happen so often that you really couldn't rely on this hired hand to get the job done. Consequently, you would have to keep other hands working at the same time (reliable, reserve power plants). In fact, if you tried to look up references on this hired hand, you wouldn't be able to find any proof that he had done any work at all, despite the great estimates he had given you on the amount of work he 'might' do.
Now, since this hired hand sees himself as something really special, he expects that he will be given special treatment on taxes, and anywhere he lives he feels he deserves a special agreement (PILOT - Payment In Lieu Of Taxes). Perhaps this hired hand feels he deserves this special treatment because he is over 100 years old. Over the course of those 100+ years, the utilities would tell him that we need power that works all the time, not one that comes and goes with no warning!
However, this hired hand has now found friends in Albany. With his pockets full of our tax dollars, he is now a very popular guy. In Albany, you don't need to show how much work you did elsewhere, just how much you might do. Of course, his new friends really like the fact that he won't be living in Albany, the Adirondacks, Catskills, or any area downstate for that matter! Some hired hand! Only a politician would accept his resume.
Mr. Thurber also stated that he was disappointed that opponents of wind energy had offered no other non-polluting alternatives, and challenged those that are skeptical of wind promises to live without electricity. Luckily, with our fine utility crews we do not suffer that fate often. Utilities are not politicians - they don't accept hired hands that don't work all the time. Whether it is a crew restoring power, or a power plant that is producing power, you need to be dependable and work non-stop! Perhaps an equal challenge would be to run a farm on just wind power. I can hear it now, "Quiet down girls! We will run the milking machines when the wind comes up ... maybe tomorrow!"
As for suggestions on other non-polluting sources of electricity, you are assuming that wind energy contributes to savings on the grid for us to compare to. We know this hired hand is getting a huge paycheck. Can you show us what work he did to deserve that paycheck? It would take very little to outperform this intermittent resource. There are many more dependable options, such as hydro (which due to outdated laws is still being sold to municipal power companies for 2 cents per kilowatt hour while the grid is being forced to buy wind at 9 cents per kilowatt hour - how do you figure this will make for "the cheapest hired hand" available?), geothermal, and most appropriate for our rural areas, methane digesters, which are already being used very successfully in Wyoming County. These are all dispatchable forms of power - hired hands that can be called on when needed.
What about conservation? If our government took all the subsidy money (our tax dollars) that is being funneled into the pockets of the likes of Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, and GE to fund this bogus hired hand's paycheck, and instead, funneled that money back to every tax-paying citizen to subsidize the installation of proper insulation and energy-efficient appliances in EVERY person's home, CO2 emissions would actually be enormously reduced! EVERY TAXPAYER, AND THE ENVIRONMENT, WOULD TRULY BENEFIT!
To point the finger of responsibility in the right direction, a more appropriate question to ask is: Why have the multi-billion dollar corporations seeking to exploit our areas not provided a complete listing of alternatives to our Town Boards in their DEIS's as they are supposed to do? That's right - these corporations are required to provide a complete listing of alternatives in their Draft Environmental Impact Statements, but they neglect to fulfill this obligation hoping that they will not be called on it. The answer here my friend, is that these multi-billion dollar corporations do not want to fulfill this requirement. Why would they want to educate anyone about any other possible alternatives when their goal is their bottom line, not what's actually best for our rural/residential areas and the environment?!
Lastly, Mr. Thurber warned us that wind turbines would be declared a utility. The State separates the laws for transmission lines and power plants. Of course, the wind proponents use the criterion for transmission facilities as their basis for utility treatment. This is both mistaken and a bit ironic - they are trying to utilize the portion of the law that is for non-productive parts of the utility grid. Hmmm ... wait a minute ... NON-PRODUCTIVE ... perhaps this is the right portion of the law after all!
Part of this law is that you have to show how you are filling a need of the community. Sure hope they accept estimates, or all the "hired hand's" claims - or is this when we finally get some real numbers?!? We are further warned in Mr. Thurber's letter that if wind farms are granted "utility status", this would mean that your land could be used without your permission. Ummm ... isn't that what is already happening when they are determining setbacks from non-participating neighbors' residences?!? Actually, the utility treatment as he described simply means that we would ALL now be non-participants! How does it feel?
In short, the people who are skeptical of this subsidy-driven, corporate rush to sell this old technology as "that which will save us all", simply want proof that it actually works - like a real hired hand would have to if he expected to keep his job! Furthermore, we want our property lines respected! And finally, we want our State to use OUR tax dollars as intended - for REAL services - not as a bribe to accept questionable technology in our towns, and not to accept some "hired hand's" boasts of what he 'might' be able to do just because he's the latest fad with lots of money - OUR money - in his pockets! Show us this "hired hand's" work record - Show us proof!
Sincerely,
Mary Kay Barton, Perry
I am writing in response to a letter from Roger Thurber in the February 19th edition of the Daily News. Among his praises for electric power, he refers to electricity as "the cheapest hired hand" that he could hire on the farm. Let's examine the wind power he favors so much in just those terms - as an employee, or "hired hand", of the electrical grid.
Wind power is intermittent, so this hired hand would show up, and leave, at any given time. This would happen so often that you really couldn't rely on this hired hand to get the job done. Consequently, you would have to keep other hands working at the same time (reliable, reserve power plants). In fact, if you tried to look up references on this hired hand, you wouldn't be able to find any proof that he had done any work at all, despite the great estimates he had given you on the amount of work he 'might' do.
Now, since this hired hand sees himself as something really special, he expects that he will be given special treatment on taxes, and anywhere he lives he feels he deserves a special agreement (PILOT - Payment In Lieu Of Taxes). Perhaps this hired hand feels he deserves this special treatment because he is over 100 years old. Over the course of those 100+ years, the utilities would tell him that we need power that works all the time, not one that comes and goes with no warning!
However, this hired hand has now found friends in Albany. With his pockets full of our tax dollars, he is now a very popular guy. In Albany, you don't need to show how much work you did elsewhere, just how much you might do. Of course, his new friends really like the fact that he won't be living in Albany, the Adirondacks, Catskills, or any area downstate for that matter! Some hired hand! Only a politician would accept his resume.
Mr. Thurber also stated that he was disappointed that opponents of wind energy had offered no other non-polluting alternatives, and challenged those that are skeptical of wind promises to live without electricity. Luckily, with our fine utility crews we do not suffer that fate often. Utilities are not politicians - they don't accept hired hands that don't work all the time. Whether it is a crew restoring power, or a power plant that is producing power, you need to be dependable and work non-stop! Perhaps an equal challenge would be to run a farm on just wind power. I can hear it now, "Quiet down girls! We will run the milking machines when the wind comes up ... maybe tomorrow!"
As for suggestions on other non-polluting sources of electricity, you are assuming that wind energy contributes to savings on the grid for us to compare to. We know this hired hand is getting a huge paycheck. Can you show us what work he did to deserve that paycheck? It would take very little to outperform this intermittent resource. There are many more dependable options, such as hydro (which due to outdated laws is still being sold to municipal power companies for 2 cents per kilowatt hour while the grid is being forced to buy wind at 9 cents per kilowatt hour - how do you figure this will make for "the cheapest hired hand" available?), geothermal, and most appropriate for our rural areas, methane digesters, which are already being used very successfully in Wyoming County. These are all dispatchable forms of power - hired hands that can be called on when needed.
What about conservation? If our government took all the subsidy money (our tax dollars) that is being funneled into the pockets of the likes of Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, and GE to fund this bogus hired hand's paycheck, and instead, funneled that money back to every tax-paying citizen to subsidize the installation of proper insulation and energy-efficient appliances in EVERY person's home, CO2 emissions would actually be enormously reduced! EVERY TAXPAYER, AND THE ENVIRONMENT, WOULD TRULY BENEFIT!
To point the finger of responsibility in the right direction, a more appropriate question to ask is: Why have the multi-billion dollar corporations seeking to exploit our areas not provided a complete listing of alternatives to our Town Boards in their DEIS's as they are supposed to do? That's right - these corporations are required to provide a complete listing of alternatives in their Draft Environmental Impact Statements, but they neglect to fulfill this obligation hoping that they will not be called on it. The answer here my friend, is that these multi-billion dollar corporations do not want to fulfill this requirement. Why would they want to educate anyone about any other possible alternatives when their goal is their bottom line, not what's actually best for our rural/residential areas and the environment?!
Lastly, Mr. Thurber warned us that wind turbines would be declared a utility. The State separates the laws for transmission lines and power plants. Of course, the wind proponents use the criterion for transmission facilities as their basis for utility treatment. This is both mistaken and a bit ironic - they are trying to utilize the portion of the law that is for non-productive parts of the utility grid. Hmmm ... wait a minute ... NON-PRODUCTIVE ... perhaps this is the right portion of the law after all!
Part of this law is that you have to show how you are filling a need of the community. Sure hope they accept estimates, or all the "hired hand's" claims - or is this when we finally get some real numbers?!? We are further warned in Mr. Thurber's letter that if wind farms are granted "utility status", this would mean that your land could be used without your permission. Ummm ... isn't that what is already happening when they are determining setbacks from non-participating neighbors' residences?!? Actually, the utility treatment as he described simply means that we would ALL now be non-participants! How does it feel?
In short, the people who are skeptical of this subsidy-driven, corporate rush to sell this old technology as "that which will save us all", simply want proof that it actually works - like a real hired hand would have to if he expected to keep his job! Furthermore, we want our property lines respected! And finally, we want our State to use OUR tax dollars as intended - for REAL services - not as a bribe to accept questionable technology in our towns, and not to accept some "hired hand's" boasts of what he 'might' be able to do just because he's the latest fad with lots of money - OUR money - in his pockets! Show us this "hired hand's" work record - Show us proof!
Sincerely,
Mary Kay Barton, Perry
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Hamlin board approves wind farm moratorium
(March 13, 2007) — HAMLIN — By a vote of 3-0, the Town Board on Monday approved a one-year moratorium on wind farm development, giving a nine-member town committee time to research wind farms and make recommendations.
"This moratorium will give our committee time to thoroughly discuss the facts without the fear of a developer coming in tomorrow" asking for a project approval, said Supervisor Denny Roach.
One board member, Paul Rath, abstained. He is a landowner in Hamlin and has been approached by a wind power company. Another board member, David Rose, was out of town.
Developers haven't yet asked the town to approve a wind farm. However, Massachusetts-based Competitive Power Ventures Inc. negotiated some land-lease agreements with property owners and built two 200-foot-tall meteorological towers in the town's northwest quadrant late last year. The towers will collect wind speed and direction information for up to 18 months. That information will tell the company if Hamlin is a good spot for wind power.
Residents living there say they don't want to look at a bunch of 400-foot-tall eyesores, don't want the noise a wind farm would bring to their rural neighborhood and worry about the effect such a farm so close to Lake Ontario could have on migratory birds.
"I see a moratorium as one step in a long line of steps the town will take in regards to wind towers," said Matt McDonald, a Cook Road resident.
More than 100 people attended the hearing and overwhelmingly urged the board to pass the moratorium.
Linda Morey of Moscow Road opposed the moratorium. "An individual has the right to request a property use in any way they see fit," she said. "I don't think it's fair."
The wind tower committee is expected to make its recommendations to the Town Board in December.
"This moratorium will give our committee time to thoroughly discuss the facts without the fear of a developer coming in tomorrow" asking for a project approval, said Supervisor Denny Roach.
One board member, Paul Rath, abstained. He is a landowner in Hamlin and has been approached by a wind power company. Another board member, David Rose, was out of town.
Developers haven't yet asked the town to approve a wind farm. However, Massachusetts-based Competitive Power Ventures Inc. negotiated some land-lease agreements with property owners and built two 200-foot-tall meteorological towers in the town's northwest quadrant late last year. The towers will collect wind speed and direction information for up to 18 months. That information will tell the company if Hamlin is a good spot for wind power.
Residents living there say they don't want to look at a bunch of 400-foot-tall eyesores, don't want the noise a wind farm would bring to their rural neighborhood and worry about the effect such a farm so close to Lake Ontario could have on migratory birds.
"I see a moratorium as one step in a long line of steps the town will take in regards to wind towers," said Matt McDonald, a Cook Road resident.
More than 100 people attended the hearing and overwhelmingly urged the board to pass the moratorium.
Linda Morey of Moscow Road opposed the moratorium. "An individual has the right to request a property use in any way they see fit," she said. "I don't think it's fair."
The wind tower committee is expected to make its recommendations to the Town Board in December.
Wind power rejected by Bovina board by Patricia Breakey
BOVINA CENTER The Bovina Town Board adopted a local law Tuesday banning industrial and residential wind-energy systems, but the decision wasn’t unanimous.
Councilman Randall Inman cast the only dissenting vote in a 3-1 decision after stating that the Alliance for Bovina "distorted the truth and used scare tactics to sway public opinion" about wind energy.
A final public hearing, held before the board convened a special meeting to adopt the proposed local law, brought out a crowd of about 50 people.
Ten people commented on the law, suggesting changes that should be made before the board made a final decision.
Marian Jardine, a longtime Bovina resident and former teacher, said, "I am against passage (of the law) because I would like to see wind turbines. I am concerned when we have a nice, clean way of producing energy. Producing energy by burning wood, like the project at the college in Delhi, is much worse than the noise or whistling."
Ed Rossley said the board had done its job, but suggested that the law should have provisions for special permits for residential wind systems, rather than "saying no completely."
Carver Farrell added "limiting right for residents to generate their own energy is not good for this town."
Neil Bevilacqua said the wording of the law contained "nimbus, fuzzy terms." He added that "descriptions of what might happen in the future should be clearer."
Luke Dougherty said he didn’t agree with banning residential wind systems when "we need alternative solutions to the energy crisis."
Kevin Brown said people should have a right to have a backup energy system to use at their residence. He added that in 10 years, "wind power is going to be a public utility, whether people like it or not."
Larry Karam, Alliance for Bovina spokesman, said he believed the board had come to the right decision but added that the wording of a section allowing small wind-energy conversion systems for farms might allow the installation of multiple wind turbines.
Peter Henner, Alliance for Bovina attorney, lauded the board for consulting with special land-use attorney Rosemary Nichols but then offered to reword the section dealing with farm wind-energy systems.
Each of the Bovina Town Board members read prepared statements outlining their reasoning on the proposed law before the vote.
Councilman Charles McIntosh said he hoped that the town had not "let an opportunity slide away."
He said the benefits of wind power might outweigh the disadvantages, but he was voting for the law because the material presented to the board showed that a large majority of town residents were opposed to industrial turbines and that there was not a clear majority in favor of residential systems.
"Majority rules," McIntosh said. "I hope the divisiveness stops in Bovina and we can continue to live and work together as a community."
Councilman Ken Brown said the board it had been a long and difficult year filled with intimidation and accusations.
"I must place my support with the majority point of view," Brown said.
Karen Brain, wife of the late Councilman Roger Brain, read a statement he prepared before his death Jan. 29.
Brain had written that the insinuations and accusations made during the hearings on the issue of wind power had made him question whether it was worth serving the community in an elected position.
"We did not deserve all we went through during the process," Roger Brain wrote.
Councilman Randall Inman cast the only dissenting vote in a 3-1 decision after stating that the Alliance for Bovina "distorted the truth and used scare tactics to sway public opinion" about wind energy.
A final public hearing, held before the board convened a special meeting to adopt the proposed local law, brought out a crowd of about 50 people.
Ten people commented on the law, suggesting changes that should be made before the board made a final decision.
Marian Jardine, a longtime Bovina resident and former teacher, said, "I am against passage (of the law) because I would like to see wind turbines. I am concerned when we have a nice, clean way of producing energy. Producing energy by burning wood, like the project at the college in Delhi, is much worse than the noise or whistling."
Ed Rossley said the board had done its job, but suggested that the law should have provisions for special permits for residential wind systems, rather than "saying no completely."
Carver Farrell added "limiting right for residents to generate their own energy is not good for this town."
Neil Bevilacqua said the wording of the law contained "nimbus, fuzzy terms." He added that "descriptions of what might happen in the future should be clearer."
Luke Dougherty said he didn’t agree with banning residential wind systems when "we need alternative solutions to the energy crisis."
Kevin Brown said people should have a right to have a backup energy system to use at their residence. He added that in 10 years, "wind power is going to be a public utility, whether people like it or not."
Larry Karam, Alliance for Bovina spokesman, said he believed the board had come to the right decision but added that the wording of a section allowing small wind-energy conversion systems for farms might allow the installation of multiple wind turbines.
Peter Henner, Alliance for Bovina attorney, lauded the board for consulting with special land-use attorney Rosemary Nichols but then offered to reword the section dealing with farm wind-energy systems.
Each of the Bovina Town Board members read prepared statements outlining their reasoning on the proposed law before the vote.
Councilman Charles McIntosh said he hoped that the town had not "let an opportunity slide away."
He said the benefits of wind power might outweigh the disadvantages, but he was voting for the law because the material presented to the board showed that a large majority of town residents were opposed to industrial turbines and that there was not a clear majority in favor of residential systems.
"Majority rules," McIntosh said. "I hope the divisiveness stops in Bovina and we can continue to live and work together as a community."
Councilman Ken Brown said the board it had been a long and difficult year filled with intimidation and accusations.
"I must place my support with the majority point of view," Brown said.
Karen Brain, wife of the late Councilman Roger Brain, read a statement he prepared before his death Jan. 29.
Brain had written that the insinuations and accusations made during the hearings on the issue of wind power had made him question whether it was worth serving the community in an elected position.
"We did not deserve all we went through during the process," Roger Brain wrote.
Hornellsville considers pros, cons of wind farm by RYAN WESTERDAHL
ARKPORT - The Hornellsville town board discussed the benefits and drawbacks of a wind farm at its meeting night.
With the Steuben County towns of Howard and Hartsville set to vote this week on wind laws developed for these communities, Hornellsville is still in the talking phase. Hornellsville still has a moratorium on wind farm development in place.
One opponent of Howard's wind farm - Howard resident Eric Hosmer- was on hand at the meeting. He spoke about the impact of the turbines- usually between 400-450 feet tall - particularly the sound the windmills make.
When spinning, the blades can make a pulsing or squeaking sound, Hosmer said, adding the sound was similar to bass coming from a stereo. He also raised concerns about the impact of electromagnetic fields created by the turbines on children living nearby. Strong fields can cause health problems in developing children, Hosmer said. The turbines also may create a visual effect known as a “flicker,” where light and shadow alternate rapidly.
Residents that allow construction of turbines on their property are paid by wind farm companies, but Hornellville resident Barbara Kull was skeptical of the trade-off.
“What if you're living right under it?” she said. “Does money make up for that?”
Supervisor Ken Isaman said Hornellsville would take people's concerns into account when a wind law is drafted.
“What we've got to do is develop a law that's bulletproof on both sides,” he said.
The board agreed to obtain a written proposal from Buffalo lawyer Dan Spitzer, a specialist in wind energy issues. Spitzer has helped draft wind laws for several townships.
In other business, Steuben County Commissioner of Public Works Vincent Spagnoletti introduced the county's new Highway Engineer, Peter Messmer. Messmer, who graduated from Cornell's Civil Engineering program, has had extensive experience in the field of rural road design.
“[He] is widely known as one of the top rural road design engineers in New York state,” said Spagnoletti in a letter. “We are fortunate to have him with us.”
With the Steuben County towns of Howard and Hartsville set to vote this week on wind laws developed for these communities, Hornellsville is still in the talking phase. Hornellsville still has a moratorium on wind farm development in place.
One opponent of Howard's wind farm - Howard resident Eric Hosmer- was on hand at the meeting. He spoke about the impact of the turbines- usually between 400-450 feet tall - particularly the sound the windmills make.
When spinning, the blades can make a pulsing or squeaking sound, Hosmer said, adding the sound was similar to bass coming from a stereo. He also raised concerns about the impact of electromagnetic fields created by the turbines on children living nearby. Strong fields can cause health problems in developing children, Hosmer said. The turbines also may create a visual effect known as a “flicker,” where light and shadow alternate rapidly.
Residents that allow construction of turbines on their property are paid by wind farm companies, but Hornellville resident Barbara Kull was skeptical of the trade-off.
“What if you're living right under it?” she said. “Does money make up for that?”
Supervisor Ken Isaman said Hornellsville would take people's concerns into account when a wind law is drafted.
“What we've got to do is develop a law that's bulletproof on both sides,” he said.
The board agreed to obtain a written proposal from Buffalo lawyer Dan Spitzer, a specialist in wind energy issues. Spitzer has helped draft wind laws for several townships.
In other business, Steuben County Commissioner of Public Works Vincent Spagnoletti introduced the county's new Highway Engineer, Peter Messmer. Messmer, who graduated from Cornell's Civil Engineering program, has had extensive experience in the field of rural road design.
“[He] is widely known as one of the top rural road design engineers in New York state,” said Spagnoletti in a letter. “We are fortunate to have him with us.”
UPC seeks 40 turbines on Sevenmile by RODGER NICHOLS
With wind-turbine farms in heavy construction in Klickitat and Sherman counties, it was only a matter of time before a large project surfaced in Wasco County.
That was the case Thursday at the Discovery Center, when a small contingent of local people turned out to hear a presentation by UPC Wind, a Newton, Maine-based company.
UPC’s project, Cascade Wind, would place 40 General Electric 1.5 megawatt wind turbines in a seven-mile footprint on (appropriately enough) Sevenmile Hill.
Power generated along the ridge would be brought to a new substation and connected to an existing 115 kilovolt line that runs from The Dalles to Hood River. The total capacity of the project would be 60 megawatts.
“You have a world-class resource in the gorge,” UPC’s Krista Kisch told the audience. She characterized the winds in the proposed Cascade Wind project area as “good to excellent, at 8.5 to 9 meters a second.”
She called the terrain in the project area “complex,” requiring calculations of wind shear so that placement doesn’t cause turbulence for the next tower downwind.
Most of the land in the project area is zoned A-2 Agriculture and F-2 Forest Zone. Kisch said 85 percent of the towers would be located in open fields.
UPC’s American headquarters are in Maine, but the company originally began in Europe 10 years ago, and has been in the U.S. for the past seven years. Kisch said the company currently has 3,600 megawatts planned in 35 projects under development.
(Click to read entire article)
That was the case Thursday at the Discovery Center, when a small contingent of local people turned out to hear a presentation by UPC Wind, a Newton, Maine-based company.
UPC’s project, Cascade Wind, would place 40 General Electric 1.5 megawatt wind turbines in a seven-mile footprint on (appropriately enough) Sevenmile Hill.
Power generated along the ridge would be brought to a new substation and connected to an existing 115 kilovolt line that runs from The Dalles to Hood River. The total capacity of the project would be 60 megawatts.
“You have a world-class resource in the gorge,” UPC’s Krista Kisch told the audience. She characterized the winds in the proposed Cascade Wind project area as “good to excellent, at 8.5 to 9 meters a second.”
She called the terrain in the project area “complex,” requiring calculations of wind shear so that placement doesn’t cause turbulence for the next tower downwind.
Most of the land in the project area is zoned A-2 Agriculture and F-2 Forest Zone. Kisch said 85 percent of the towers would be located in open fields.
UPC’s American headquarters are in Maine, but the company originally began in Europe 10 years ago, and has been in the U.S. for the past seven years. Kisch said the company currently has 3,600 megawatts planned in 35 projects under development.
(Click to read entire article)
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The Texas Wind Powers A Big Energy Gamble by Jeffrey Ball
Only possible with heavy tax breaks and other public investments and will never be more than 5% of our needs.
(Click to read part of the WSJ article)
"SILVERTON, Texas -- Deep in the heart of Texas, multinational giants are gambling on a new supply of energy. The prize isn't oil. It's wind.
In this pancake-flat country, where the wind blows so relentlessly that the sagebrush and mesquite are permanently bent, Royal Dutch Shell Group, BP PLC and a wind-development company owned by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are racing to lease vast expanses of ranchland. In a bet on wind power's long-term viability, they're planning to erect what would be some of the biggest wind farms in the world, with thousands of wind turbines costing some $2 million apiece."
"It's "a land rush," says Mark Wilby, a petroleum engineer who once developed natural-gas power plants for Enron Corp., and now develops wind projects for Shell. In Shell's storefront office in the largely abandoned courthouse square of Silverton, the county seat, Mr. Wilby pulls out a color map showing how the Texas wind blows. The windiest areas are in red, and Briscoe County is bloody. Shell hopes to build an approximately 120-square-mile wind farm here, which would be several times larger than any in the world today."
(Click to read part of the WSJ article)
"SILVERTON, Texas -- Deep in the heart of Texas, multinational giants are gambling on a new supply of energy. The prize isn't oil. It's wind.
In this pancake-flat country, where the wind blows so relentlessly that the sagebrush and mesquite are permanently bent, Royal Dutch Shell Group, BP PLC and a wind-development company owned by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are racing to lease vast expanses of ranchland. In a bet on wind power's long-term viability, they're planning to erect what would be some of the biggest wind farms in the world, with thousands of wind turbines costing some $2 million apiece."
"It's "a land rush," says Mark Wilby, a petroleum engineer who once developed natural-gas power plants for Enron Corp., and now develops wind projects for Shell. In Shell's storefront office in the largely abandoned courthouse square of Silverton, the county seat, Mr. Wilby pulls out a color map showing how the Texas wind blows. The windiest areas are in red, and Briscoe County is bloody. Shell hopes to build an approximately 120-square-mile wind farm here, which would be several times larger than any in the world today."
Monday, March 12, 2007
Developers are in earliest stages in Hamlin
(March 12, 2007) — HAMLIN — When Kathy Habgood looks through her front window toward the rolling farmland just beyond Cook Road, she sees uncertainty.
An avid birdwatcher, Habgood enjoys the Canada geese, hummingbirds, turkey vultures, orioles and other songbirds that flock to her yard.
She's afraid the birds might stop coming if developers move forward with plans for a 50-turbine wind farm across from her home.
"This is such a rich area for birds, so near the shore," she said. "Anything that would deter them would be terrible."
(click to read entire article)
An avid birdwatcher, Habgood enjoys the Canada geese, hummingbirds, turkey vultures, orioles and other songbirds that flock to her yard.
She's afraid the birds might stop coming if developers move forward with plans for a 50-turbine wind farm across from her home.
"This is such a rich area for birds, so near the shore," she said. "Anything that would deter them would be terrible."
(click to read entire article)
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Wind energy and the banality of evil - Calvin Luther Martin
... meet Julian and Jane Davis (see "Gone with the wind," attached*). Jane, a former nurse, and Julian's a farmer. They live in Lincolnshire, England. "Gone with the wind" appeared in the Daily Mail (United Kingdom) yesterday (as far as I can tell).
Now, meet Noble Environmental (attached). Read "Gone with the wind," then read Noble's ads in the Malone Telegram from a year or so ago. And don't miss Charles Hinckley's e-mail, attached, about my wife and me. (Hinckley, CEO of Noble, sent this email around to people on my email list, including my wife's sister at Cornell.)
Noble believes it's on the verge of erecting hundreds of wind turbines in Clinton and Franklin counties, New York State. (As well as elsewhere in New York and Michigan, but I will leave those projects alone for the time being.) Noble was given approval to build these hundreds of turbines by the town boards of Clinton, Ellenburg, and Altona, and it is very likely going to get similar approval from the towns of Chateaugay and Bellmont. (Noble is not alone in this venture, of course; Horizon/Marble River is likewise planning on hundreds in Clinton County, as well as, perhaps, Franklin County.)
Compare Noble's ads in the Telegram to the story on the Davises. Interesting, huh? Kinda makes your blood boil, doesn't it?
This is why some of us -- many of us, in fact -- are fighting Noble. Because of stories like the Davises. Neighbors for the Preservation of the North Country hired attorney Robert Cohen last year to stop Noble in court, and so far it's succeeded. NPNC's lawsuit, filed last September, is holding, and Noble has not built a single turbine, despite promises it would have some up in 2006 (which ended 3 months ago). None, so far.
Besides the lawsuit, NPNC is fighting Noble before the Army Corps of Engineers, since Noble needs permits from the Corps. Once again, Bob Cohen is doing the heavy lifting on the Army Corps process.
When you go to bed tonight, think about Jane & Julian Davis. Chances are good they won't be sleeping much tonight. Or tomorrow night. Or last night, for that matter. Well, come to think of it, any night -- unless they vacate their home and stay in town. Like the d'Entremonts in Nova Scotia, who finally gave up, locked their front door, and abandoned their home. That was 13 months ago. Same reason. (But, again, don't forget Noble's ads in the Telegram.)
The wind salesmen: Who are these people? Are they real people?
I am a retired professional historian. One of the things I studied and taught as a historian was Nazi Germany. How people in Hitler's Germany did horrible things to other human beings -- all because they were told to do so by some (deranged) superior. Hannah Arendt, the philosopher, attended the Nuremberg war crimes trials after WWII. She was especially interested in Adolph Eichmann, the SS officer who orchestrated the Death Camp process. The so-called Final Solution. Arendt took notes during the Eichmann trial, which happened some years after the Nuremberg trials, listening intently to this man's answers to cross-examination. She came away shocked by his coldness -- his chilly, matter-of-fact inhumaneness. She sat there looking at the face of evil, day after day, and found evil to be banal. Matter-of-fact. Just getting the job done.
"The banality of evil." Arendt didn't put it quite this way, but it's a now-famous summary of her analysis of Eichmann.
I would suggest applying this phrase to the wind energy salesmen: the banality of evil. Remember the Davises and imagine that the wind energy company behind this atrocity is ... yawning. They have a job to do -- for themselves, for their stockholders. The Davises are expendable. They don't matter.
Take a look at the wind energy ads in your local newspaper and think of the banality of evil. Not just banal, but even cheerful. Where truth just doesn't matter. Nor the pursuit of truth. My wife and I have pursued truth, and Mr. Hinckley responds with the attached "executive summary," he calls it.
Sitting here on this early spring morning, I think of Hannah Arendt and I think, of course, of George Orwell. His 1984. Where language, truth, decency, gravitas, grace -- they've all vanished.
Nineteen eight-four ended 23 years ago. We are now in the era of Noble Environmental. Re-read Mr. Hinckley's broadside against my wife and me, and ask yourself if you detect anything "noble" or "environmental" about it.
And remember Orwell. For that matter, remember Arendt.
Blessings on you,
Calvin
Calvin Luther Martin, PhD
Now, meet Noble Environmental (attached). Read "Gone with the wind," then read Noble's ads in the Malone Telegram from a year or so ago. And don't miss Charles Hinckley's e-mail, attached, about my wife and me. (Hinckley, CEO of Noble, sent this email around to people on my email list, including my wife's sister at Cornell.)
Noble believes it's on the verge of erecting hundreds of wind turbines in Clinton and Franklin counties, New York State. (As well as elsewhere in New York and Michigan, but I will leave those projects alone for the time being.) Noble was given approval to build these hundreds of turbines by the town boards of Clinton, Ellenburg, and Altona, and it is very likely going to get similar approval from the towns of Chateaugay and Bellmont. (Noble is not alone in this venture, of course; Horizon/Marble River is likewise planning on hundreds in Clinton County, as well as, perhaps, Franklin County.)
Compare Noble's ads in the Telegram to the story on the Davises. Interesting, huh? Kinda makes your blood boil, doesn't it?
This is why some of us -- many of us, in fact -- are fighting Noble. Because of stories like the Davises. Neighbors for the Preservation of the North Country hired attorney Robert Cohen last year to stop Noble in court, and so far it's succeeded. NPNC's lawsuit, filed last September, is holding, and Noble has not built a single turbine, despite promises it would have some up in 2006 (which ended 3 months ago). None, so far.
Besides the lawsuit, NPNC is fighting Noble before the Army Corps of Engineers, since Noble needs permits from the Corps. Once again, Bob Cohen is doing the heavy lifting on the Army Corps process.
When you go to bed tonight, think about Jane & Julian Davis. Chances are good they won't be sleeping much tonight. Or tomorrow night. Or last night, for that matter. Well, come to think of it, any night -- unless they vacate their home and stay in town. Like the d'Entremonts in Nova Scotia, who finally gave up, locked their front door, and abandoned their home. That was 13 months ago. Same reason. (But, again, don't forget Noble's ads in the Telegram.)
The wind salesmen: Who are these people? Are they real people?
I am a retired professional historian. One of the things I studied and taught as a historian was Nazi Germany. How people in Hitler's Germany did horrible things to other human beings -- all because they were told to do so by some (deranged) superior. Hannah Arendt, the philosopher, attended the Nuremberg war crimes trials after WWII. She was especially interested in Adolph Eichmann, the SS officer who orchestrated the Death Camp process. The so-called Final Solution. Arendt took notes during the Eichmann trial, which happened some years after the Nuremberg trials, listening intently to this man's answers to cross-examination. She came away shocked by his coldness -- his chilly, matter-of-fact inhumaneness. She sat there looking at the face of evil, day after day, and found evil to be banal. Matter-of-fact. Just getting the job done.
"The banality of evil." Arendt didn't put it quite this way, but it's a now-famous summary of her analysis of Eichmann.
I would suggest applying this phrase to the wind energy salesmen: the banality of evil. Remember the Davises and imagine that the wind energy company behind this atrocity is ... yawning. They have a job to do -- for themselves, for their stockholders. The Davises are expendable. They don't matter.
Take a look at the wind energy ads in your local newspaper and think of the banality of evil. Not just banal, but even cheerful. Where truth just doesn't matter. Nor the pursuit of truth. My wife and I have pursued truth, and Mr. Hinckley responds with the attached "executive summary," he calls it.
Sitting here on this early spring morning, I think of Hannah Arendt and I think, of course, of George Orwell. His 1984. Where language, truth, decency, gravitas, grace -- they've all vanished.
Nineteen eight-four ended 23 years ago. We are now in the era of Noble Environmental. Re-read Mr. Hinckley's broadside against my wife and me, and ask yourself if you detect anything "noble" or "environmental" about it.
And remember Orwell. For that matter, remember Arendt.
Blessings on you,
Calvin
Calvin Luther Martin, PhD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)