ALL:
The Impending Global Liquidity Crisis by Mike Whitney
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=22355
This article is not on WIND but underscores the nature of the global monitory scam that drive the global warming hysteria in order to achieve this conclusion: “Maybe this will finally convince the dozy American public that the corporatists who run Washington are a disloyal gaggle of traitorous swine. “Globalization” is public relations swindle designed to steal jobs, plunder the economy, and shift wealth to ruling elites."
In order to understand the reality of DC politics in Committee chairman backs off rules for wind turbines
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/E7273DB4-B683-4438-B1ED-C7BB4B7E1AE2/
one needs to link the global warming mantra as the excuse for further economic globalization of the world economy.
“Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., had put into an energy bill a requirement that the Interior Department regulate the siting and operation of energy wind turbines to ensure the safety of wildlife.
His action unleashed intense lobbying by the wind industry and renewable energy advocates, who argued that such restrictions would stop wind farm development at a time when wind is viewed as the most viable renewable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power for producing electricity.”
From - The Impending Global Liquidity Crisis:
“The name of the game now is to keep the stock market flying-high for as long as possible while the transfer of wealth continues unabated. That means the hucksters on Wall Street will have to devise even better scams for expanding debt---increasing margin limits, escalating derivatives trading, loosening accounting standards, inflating the booming hedge fund industry, and---the new darling of Wall Street---increasing the mega-mergers, the biggest swindle of all.”
The point in The Impending Global Liquidity Crisis article is that the debt far surpasses the economic means of repayment. WIND projects are a prime example of this principle. Only a hyper inflation increase in electric rates could offer any prospects of paying for industrial wind projects. The wealth transfer to developers, underwritten by public subsidy and paid for by taxpayers and consumers is part of the global scheme to impoverish ordinary people.
When combating destructive Wind Projects, raise the link to the hucksters on Wall Street that are devising even better scams for expanding debt . . .
James Hall
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Study Shows Windmills Kill Hundreds Of Birds & Bats
The final results of a study on the Maple Ridge Wind Farm's impact on wildlife will be released this Friday. Initial reports show the turbines on the Tug Hill Plateau are killing hundreds of birds and bats.
A consultants' report for PPM Energy and Horizon Energy identified 123 birds, mostly night migrants, and 326 bats found dead over the course of five months beneath 50 wind turbines on the plateau.
"With any tall construction, there has always been a collision impact with birds and bats, but it is still important to study it further," said biologist Aaftab Jain.
About two-thirds of the dead birds found from July through November were songbirds, and 82 percent were night migrants, the report said.
Almost one-third of the windmills have flashing red aviation warning beacons.
The study, prepared by consultants Curry & Kerlinger, said there was no clear evidence the lights attracted birds and bats.
The report said the turbines are less deadly to wildlife than taller communications towers, and flashing beacons are less attractive than steady burning lights.
Scientists said bats are colliding with turbines for reasons nobody can explain.
"There may be some bat deterrent devices that could help here. We're certainly looking into the possibility of testing some of those devices," said Patrick Doyle of Horizon Energy.
The ongoing study at the largest wind farm in New York state is required to assess its environmental impact. The initial results were distributed to state and federal wildlife and energy officials.
The Adirondack Council repeated concerns that wind farms have been proposed in a virtual ring around the 6 million-acre Adirondack Park. The group says the threat to migratory birds needs to be better studied before towers are built.
A National Research Council panel reported to Congress this month that wind farms could generate up to 7 percent of U.S. electricity in 15 years.
But it said too little is yet known about the risk to birds and bats.
At Maple Ridge, the wind turbines have 262-foot towers, three 134-foot blades that turn between 12 and 20 rpm (more than 130 mph at their tips), and a generator in the base, according to the company.
They have a maximum height of 400 feet, are painted white and each can produce up to 1.65 megawatts of electricity. On an annual basis, they operate at about 30 percent of capacity.
Share your thoughts. Send us an E-mail by clicking here. So we can verify that you're the one who actually sent the E-mail, please leave us a valid phone number and name. We may use a portion of your comments on Your Turn With Diane Rutherford seen on 7 News At 6 every Monday. If you don't want us to use your name on the air, tell us and we won't. Anonymous comments and emails without phone numbers will not be used.
A consultants' report for PPM Energy and Horizon Energy identified 123 birds, mostly night migrants, and 326 bats found dead over the course of five months beneath 50 wind turbines on the plateau.
"With any tall construction, there has always been a collision impact with birds and bats, but it is still important to study it further," said biologist Aaftab Jain.
About two-thirds of the dead birds found from July through November were songbirds, and 82 percent were night migrants, the report said.
Almost one-third of the windmills have flashing red aviation warning beacons.
The study, prepared by consultants Curry & Kerlinger, said there was no clear evidence the lights attracted birds and bats.
The report said the turbines are less deadly to wildlife than taller communications towers, and flashing beacons are less attractive than steady burning lights.
Scientists said bats are colliding with turbines for reasons nobody can explain.
"There may be some bat deterrent devices that could help here. We're certainly looking into the possibility of testing some of those devices," said Patrick Doyle of Horizon Energy.
The ongoing study at the largest wind farm in New York state is required to assess its environmental impact. The initial results were distributed to state and federal wildlife and energy officials.
The Adirondack Council repeated concerns that wind farms have been proposed in a virtual ring around the 6 million-acre Adirondack Park. The group says the threat to migratory birds needs to be better studied before towers are built.
A National Research Council panel reported to Congress this month that wind farms could generate up to 7 percent of U.S. electricity in 15 years.
But it said too little is yet known about the risk to birds and bats.
At Maple Ridge, the wind turbines have 262-foot towers, three 134-foot blades that turn between 12 and 20 rpm (more than 130 mph at their tips), and a generator in the base, according to the company.
They have a maximum height of 400 feet, are painted white and each can produce up to 1.65 megawatts of electricity. On an annual basis, they operate at about 30 percent of capacity.
Share your thoughts. Send us an E-mail by clicking here. So we can verify that you're the one who actually sent the E-mail, please leave us a valid phone number and name. We may use a portion of your comments on Your Turn With Diane Rutherford seen on 7 News At 6 every Monday. If you don't want us to use your name on the air, tell us and we won't. Anonymous comments and emails without phone numbers will not be used.
White-tailed eagle studies at Smøla
One year has gone by since the 9th white-tailed eagle was found at the Smola windfarm, litterally chopped by the turbines - see picture : http://www.ivt. ntnu.no/bat/ mb/vindkraft/ 2006/30aug2006. htm
Around August 2005, we were also told that seven more eagles had crashed into the low voltage power lines that feed the fishermen's houses. Officially, the windfarm power line never killed any.
Then, from August 2005 and May 2006, respectively, the power lines and the turbines became eagle-friendly. That, or the eagles were taught avoidance behaviour by a canny professor who speaks their language. Or, more simply, it was decided to withhold disclosure of eagle mortality. This way, more windfarms may be built where eagles fly, in Scotland for instance.
The fact that the RSPB is conducting a study on the Smola eagles probably has nothing to do with it.
We don't know either if more eagle carcasses have been found at the Hitra windfarm. One had been found in august 2006, and we were told a complete search would be made. But here again, silence seems to be the policy.
Whether RSPB or Norwegian ornithologists are involved, or both, if the wind industry wanted the world to forget about eagle mortality at Norwegian windfarms, they seem to have found the right partners.
(Click to read report)
Around August 2005, we were also told that seven more eagles had crashed into the low voltage power lines that feed the fishermen's houses. Officially, the windfarm power line never killed any.
Then, from August 2005 and May 2006, respectively, the power lines and the turbines became eagle-friendly. That, or the eagles were taught avoidance behaviour by a canny professor who speaks their language. Or, more simply, it was decided to withhold disclosure of eagle mortality. This way, more windfarms may be built where eagles fly, in Scotland for instance.
The fact that the RSPB is conducting a study on the Smola eagles probably has nothing to do with it.
We don't know either if more eagle carcasses have been found at the Hitra windfarm. One had been found in august 2006, and we were told a complete search would be made. But here again, silence seems to be the policy.
Whether RSPB or Norwegian ornithologists are involved, or both, if the wind industry wanted the world to forget about eagle mortality at Norwegian windfarms, they seem to have found the right partners.
(Click to read report)
Monday, June 04, 2007
State may take windmill review from locals
Draft legislation in Albany would make the state the chief reviewer of wind turbine projects throughout New York, wresting that control away from local communities, a preservation advocate said Wednesday in Albion.
"This represents a fundamental shift from home rule (where local communities decide)," said Daniel Mackay, public policy director for the Preservation League of New York State. "This will expedite windmill siting."
Mackay urged about 40 people at a forum on wind turbines to contact their state legislators and urge them to kill the draft legislation before it is proposed in the Legislature.
He worries upstate New York will be asked to "sacrifice" for the entire state by hosting hundreds, maybe even thousands, of the wind turbines that top 400 feet high. He said upstate is loaded with historic landmarks and parks that should be protected from the turbines.
"We all want the goal of renewable energy in New York State,but we have to do it right." Mackay told a group at the Pullman Memorial Universalist Church.
The Public Service Commission was the state's central reviewer of wind turbine projects until 2003, when the role was returned to local communities. But before 2003, there were only a few wind turbine projects in the state, including a small wind farm in Wethersfield in Wyoming County.
Since 2003, wind energy development has been pushed in many rural communities throughout the state. Wind energy companies have complained to the state that local communities are not consistent with how they want to site the turbines, Mackay said.
He believes local leaders are within their rights to have differing approaches to siting the towers, including the setback distances from property lines and residences. He doesn't think a state-wide policy is the best approach, given unique characteristics in communites.
He also worried the turbines could be declared public utilities, which would give wind energy companies eminent domain powers, under which they could claim private land for their projects.
Mackay urged the communities to document valuable viewsheds and historic resources in their communities. They could build a case that turbines and wind farms should not encroach on historic resources.
Andrea Rebeck, a Barre resident and historic preservation architect, doesn't want turbines near the Erie Canal. She asked Mackay if there is an effort to have the canal corridor declared off limits to the turbines.
Thus far, Mackay said there isn't a push to protect the canal corridor from the structures.
Rebeck said the "space-age" intrusions" (wind turbines) will destroy the ambiance along the canal and hurt efforts to promote "heritage tourism" at the historic waterway.
Airtricity is considering a wind farm in Gaines and Albion, with many of the turbines eyed just north of the canal.
Mackay urged the group to keep pressing for information from wind companies and municipal leaders.
"It's about asking questions," he said. "We don't have all the answers yet."
And those asking questions shouldn't be treated with scorn, he said.
"People have a right to protect their community," he said. "People's backyards are important to them."
"This represents a fundamental shift from home rule (where local communities decide)," said Daniel Mackay, public policy director for the Preservation League of New York State. "This will expedite windmill siting."
Mackay urged about 40 people at a forum on wind turbines to contact their state legislators and urge them to kill the draft legislation before it is proposed in the Legislature.
He worries upstate New York will be asked to "sacrifice" for the entire state by hosting hundreds, maybe even thousands, of the wind turbines that top 400 feet high. He said upstate is loaded with historic landmarks and parks that should be protected from the turbines.
"We all want the goal of renewable energy in New York State,but we have to do it right." Mackay told a group at the Pullman Memorial Universalist Church.
The Public Service Commission was the state's central reviewer of wind turbine projects until 2003, when the role was returned to local communities. But before 2003, there were only a few wind turbine projects in the state, including a small wind farm in Wethersfield in Wyoming County.
Since 2003, wind energy development has been pushed in many rural communities throughout the state. Wind energy companies have complained to the state that local communities are not consistent with how they want to site the turbines, Mackay said.
He believes local leaders are within their rights to have differing approaches to siting the towers, including the setback distances from property lines and residences. He doesn't think a state-wide policy is the best approach, given unique characteristics in communites.
He also worried the turbines could be declared public utilities, which would give wind energy companies eminent domain powers, under which they could claim private land for their projects.
Mackay urged the communities to document valuable viewsheds and historic resources in their communities. They could build a case that turbines and wind farms should not encroach on historic resources.
Andrea Rebeck, a Barre resident and historic preservation architect, doesn't want turbines near the Erie Canal. She asked Mackay if there is an effort to have the canal corridor declared off limits to the turbines.
Thus far, Mackay said there isn't a push to protect the canal corridor from the structures.
Rebeck said the "space-age" intrusions" (wind turbines) will destroy the ambiance along the canal and hurt efforts to promote "heritage tourism" at the historic waterway.
Airtricity is considering a wind farm in Gaines and Albion, with many of the turbines eyed just north of the canal.
Mackay urged the group to keep pressing for information from wind companies and municipal leaders.
"It's about asking questions," he said. "We don't have all the answers yet."
And those asking questions shouldn't be treated with scorn, he said.
"People have a right to protect their community," he said. "People's backyards are important to them."
All Power Plants Not Equal? by Danny Hakim
Gov. Eliot Spitzer and lawmakers have been negotiating for several weeks to revive a law that speeds approval of power plants by overriding local ordinances. This week, the issue will be the subject of one of three rare public conference committees held by the Democrat-led Assembly and the Republican-controlled Senate.
Finding homes for new power plants, as one might imagine, is controversial.
Last week, both the Senate and the Assembly passed legislation that would bring back the law, known as Article X, which expired in January 2003. Both the Assembly and the governor, below, want to allow only coal plants with low emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, though the specifics of their proposals differ. Neither would permit fast approval for nuclear plants under Article X, and they argue that the length of the federal review process makes speedy approval impossible anyway.
The industry favors the Senate’s version and had a hand in writing it. That bill would allow nuclear plants and a broader range of coal plants.
“There aren’t that many plants being built,” said Patrick J. Curran, executive director of the Energy Association of New York State, a consortium of power producers. “If you’re looking at demand and what’s expected to come online, the numbers don’t add up.”
Senator Jim Wright, an upstate Republican who sponsored the Senate bill, said the other proposals would not encourage the industry to build enough new plants. Further, he said, it would create too many emissions rules.
The other side of the aisle disagrees. “If we pass our bill, we would expect thousands of megawatts, or about 20 percent of today’s capacity, will be approved through the process within the first few years,” said Christine Anderson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Spitzer.
Jason K. Babbie, a policy analyst at the New York Public Interest Research Group, said, “The governor and the Assembly recognize this is an expedited process that overrides local law and is an incentive program, therefore we should be incentivizing those technologies that best serve New York residents and rate payers.”
The Senate bill, he said, allows for too many kinds of plants. “If you can generate power using hamsters,” he said, “it can be included.”
Finding homes for new power plants, as one might imagine, is controversial.
Last week, both the Senate and the Assembly passed legislation that would bring back the law, known as Article X, which expired in January 2003. Both the Assembly and the governor, below, want to allow only coal plants with low emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, though the specifics of their proposals differ. Neither would permit fast approval for nuclear plants under Article X, and they argue that the length of the federal review process makes speedy approval impossible anyway.
The industry favors the Senate’s version and had a hand in writing it. That bill would allow nuclear plants and a broader range of coal plants.
“There aren’t that many plants being built,” said Patrick J. Curran, executive director of the Energy Association of New York State, a consortium of power producers. “If you’re looking at demand and what’s expected to come online, the numbers don’t add up.”
Senator Jim Wright, an upstate Republican who sponsored the Senate bill, said the other proposals would not encourage the industry to build enough new plants. Further, he said, it would create too many emissions rules.
The other side of the aisle disagrees. “If we pass our bill, we would expect thousands of megawatts, or about 20 percent of today’s capacity, will be approved through the process within the first few years,” said Christine Anderson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Spitzer.
Jason K. Babbie, a policy analyst at the New York Public Interest Research Group, said, “The governor and the Assembly recognize this is an expedited process that overrides local law and is an incentive program, therefore we should be incentivizing those technologies that best serve New York residents and rate payers.”
The Senate bill, he said, allows for too many kinds of plants. “If you can generate power using hamsters,” he said, “it can be included.”
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Fighting TRAIL power line
State Rep. Bill DeWeese is sponsoring a petition for residents who want to add their voice to the growing number of people opposed to the TrAIL power line. By signing the petition, you also will receive periodic updates about the plans.
Everyone must remain vigilant against the power line. Although a proposed route has been submitted to the state Public Utility Commission by the power company, it’s possible they could modify the route once the process works its way through the system. A rate increase for everyone in Southwestern Pennsylvania is sure to follow, because the power company will seek to recoup its expenses of building the new power line.
There are three ways that you can join the hundreds of people who already have signed the petition.
Visit his Web site www.pahouse.com/DeWeese to add your name. On the site, you also can learn more about what Bill DeWeese and other groups are doing to protest the TrAIL and keep our families safe.
If you would like to sign the petition in person, please stop by any of Bill DeWeese’s offices at your convenience.
Sign the attached petition and drop it off at one of Bill DeWeese’s offices or mail it to his Harrisburg Office: 110 Main Capitol Building, House Box 202050, Harrisburg, PA 17120-2050
Everyone must remain vigilant against the power line. Although a proposed route has been submitted to the state Public Utility Commission by the power company, it’s possible they could modify the route once the process works its way through the system. A rate increase for everyone in Southwestern Pennsylvania is sure to follow, because the power company will seek to recoup its expenses of building the new power line.
There are three ways that you can join the hundreds of people who already have signed the petition.
Visit his Web site www.pahouse.com/DeWeese to add your name. On the site, you also can learn more about what Bill DeWeese and other groups are doing to protest the TrAIL and keep our families safe.
If you would like to sign the petition in person, please stop by any of Bill DeWeese’s offices at your convenience.
Sign the attached petition and drop it off at one of Bill DeWeese’s offices or mail it to his Harrisburg Office: 110 Main Capitol Building, House Box 202050, Harrisburg, PA 17120-2050
Idiot Wind by HENRY S. F. COOPER Jr.
MUCH of upstate New York, from north of Albany to Buffalo, from the Catskills to the Adirondacks, is in danger of being transformed beyond recognition by industrial wind parks. Some 50 of these wind parks are being planned and even built.
All of this is being done in the name of clean energy and saving the planet. But it isn't clear that wind power is such a panacea in the battle against global warming that developers of these wind parks should be allowed to run roughshod over some of our loveliest land. What we need are statewide siting guidelines that take other environmental factors, including visual impacts, into consideration.
One upstate project, 70 miles west of Albany, is the Jordanville Wind Power Project proposed by Community Energy, a subsidiary of the Spanish conglomerate Iberdrola. The project is not far from where I live in Cooperstown. About 70 turbines, as tall as 40-story buildings, are proposed near the top of a ridge where they will be visible far across the Mohawk Valley to the north and to the south down the length of Otsego Lake, the centerpiece of the Glimmerglass National Historic District. There are six national historic districts and sites eligible or listed, in the area, covering some 40,000 acres. One that is eligible but not listed is the Holy Trinity Monastery, the spiritual center of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Another, Glimmerglass, includes the landscape that inspired the artists of the Hudson River School and novelists like James Fenimore Cooper (an ancestor of mine).
The effects nearer the turbines will be even more devastating. The towers loom all around; their blades, 150 feet long, cause the sunlight to flicker; the nacelles — the hub of the blades — make a high-pitched whine.
Real estate values, certainly for second and retirement homes, but also primary residences, would likely plummet, damaging the local tax base. The carnage among birds and bats is considerable.
The Jordanville project would be built on an unstable soluble layer of karst limestone riddled with cracks, fissures and caverns. It could affect local wells and fish hatcheries; springs in this area are the source not only of Otsego Lake but of the Susquehanna River, which starts there.
Of course, the sacrifice of much of upstate New York in the name of saving the planet would be admirable and noble if it was clear that wind power would play a major role in combating global warming. But a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences casts doubt on this theory.
Wind is an iffy resource. It blows hard enough to generate electricity about 30 percent of the time. When wind-power companies talk of a project supplying electricity to, say, 60,000 houses, which is what the Jordanville project claims, those homes are dark and powerless 70 percent of the time. Or they would be, if it wasn't for conventional power sources, which need to be kept on line to take over when the wind drops. Realistically, Jordanville will power about 18,000 houses or less. In the trade-offs between wind power and other environmental considerations, the less wind contributes to reducing global warming, the more important other environmental factors — including visual impact — become.
So why then are we destroying large tracts of upstate New York in the name of an uncertain energy source? In part, it is because the Spitzer administration, even more than the Pataki administration did, is increasing subsidies and tax credits for these alternative energy companies. Indeed most wind companies concede that if it weren't for government support, they wouldn't be in business.
The Spitzer administration has introduced wording to the Clean Economic Power Supply Act that would revamp utility siting law. Its Article X would speed approval for industrial wind parks, in particular by circumventing home rule and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the cornerstone of the state's environmental laws, which is responsible for determining whether local ordinances conform with state environmental law when a town or municipality accepts or rejects a project.
But what we need to do is strengthen the siting provisions in the Clean Economic Power Supply Act. Three bills that are before the State Senate would impose moratoriums on wind projects while siting guidelines are established and the effects of a project on neighboring areas are assessed. One of the bills would give New York's commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation a veto on approving turbine siting. All these bills are steps in the right direction; they have critical elements that are worth incorporating into the new Article X legislation, to assure burdened upstate towns that community character and historic and scenic resources will be protected.
Wind has a role to play, but perhaps not as strong a one as other clean energy sources, especially those like safer nuclear energy and cleaner coal, which provide not erratic but constant energy. We need to think carefully about where we place wind farms and whether the benefits outweigh the losses. But more important, we can't let wind power, and projects like the Jordanville one, distract our attention and financial resources from better solutions for saving our planet. Wind may be something of a red herring hidden inside a pork barrel.
All of this is being done in the name of clean energy and saving the planet. But it isn't clear that wind power is such a panacea in the battle against global warming that developers of these wind parks should be allowed to run roughshod over some of our loveliest land. What we need are statewide siting guidelines that take other environmental factors, including visual impacts, into consideration.
One upstate project, 70 miles west of Albany, is the Jordanville Wind Power Project proposed by Community Energy, a subsidiary of the Spanish conglomerate Iberdrola. The project is not far from where I live in Cooperstown. About 70 turbines, as tall as 40-story buildings, are proposed near the top of a ridge where they will be visible far across the Mohawk Valley to the north and to the south down the length of Otsego Lake, the centerpiece of the Glimmerglass National Historic District. There are six national historic districts and sites eligible or listed, in the area, covering some 40,000 acres. One that is eligible but not listed is the Holy Trinity Monastery, the spiritual center of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Another, Glimmerglass, includes the landscape that inspired the artists of the Hudson River School and novelists like James Fenimore Cooper (an ancestor of mine).
The effects nearer the turbines will be even more devastating. The towers loom all around; their blades, 150 feet long, cause the sunlight to flicker; the nacelles — the hub of the blades — make a high-pitched whine.
Real estate values, certainly for second and retirement homes, but also primary residences, would likely plummet, damaging the local tax base. The carnage among birds and bats is considerable.
The Jordanville project would be built on an unstable soluble layer of karst limestone riddled with cracks, fissures and caverns. It could affect local wells and fish hatcheries; springs in this area are the source not only of Otsego Lake but of the Susquehanna River, which starts there.
Of course, the sacrifice of much of upstate New York in the name of saving the planet would be admirable and noble if it was clear that wind power would play a major role in combating global warming. But a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences casts doubt on this theory.
Wind is an iffy resource. It blows hard enough to generate electricity about 30 percent of the time. When wind-power companies talk of a project supplying electricity to, say, 60,000 houses, which is what the Jordanville project claims, those homes are dark and powerless 70 percent of the time. Or they would be, if it wasn't for conventional power sources, which need to be kept on line to take over when the wind drops. Realistically, Jordanville will power about 18,000 houses or less. In the trade-offs between wind power and other environmental considerations, the less wind contributes to reducing global warming, the more important other environmental factors — including visual impact — become.
So why then are we destroying large tracts of upstate New York in the name of an uncertain energy source? In part, it is because the Spitzer administration, even more than the Pataki administration did, is increasing subsidies and tax credits for these alternative energy companies. Indeed most wind companies concede that if it weren't for government support, they wouldn't be in business.
The Spitzer administration has introduced wording to the Clean Economic Power Supply Act that would revamp utility siting law. Its Article X would speed approval for industrial wind parks, in particular by circumventing home rule and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the cornerstone of the state's environmental laws, which is responsible for determining whether local ordinances conform with state environmental law when a town or municipality accepts or rejects a project.
But what we need to do is strengthen the siting provisions in the Clean Economic Power Supply Act. Three bills that are before the State Senate would impose moratoriums on wind projects while siting guidelines are established and the effects of a project on neighboring areas are assessed. One of the bills would give New York's commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation a veto on approving turbine siting. All these bills are steps in the right direction; they have critical elements that are worth incorporating into the new Article X legislation, to assure burdened upstate towns that community character and historic and scenic resources will be protected.
Wind has a role to play, but perhaps not as strong a one as other clean energy sources, especially those like safer nuclear energy and cleaner coal, which provide not erratic but constant energy. We need to think carefully about where we place wind farms and whether the benefits outweigh the losses. But more important, we can't let wind power, and projects like the Jordanville one, distract our attention and financial resources from better solutions for saving our planet. Wind may be something of a red herring hidden inside a pork barrel.
Naples Record Ad by Advocates for Prattsburgh
Developers are pushing people in Prattsburgh and Cohocton to sign Right-of-Way agreements for Transmission Lines and Easements to Widen the Roads. While this sounds simple, please BEWARE. The potential impact on you is far more than just a few feet of your property.
These Power Transmission Poles they want to run across YOUR PROPERTY will be 65 feet high, twice the height of typical power poles, with extended arms that may be double or quadruple what presently exist.
The developer says they need a 40 foot right-of-way with 50 feet on either side of the pole for "clearing" - potentially a 100 foot wide section of your property. Clearing away your trees, do you want the view from your house dominated by these massive, double-height quadruple-wide transmission poles?
People have been told "you might as well sign because all your neighbors have signed", even though many people have refused. People who have refused to sign have been surprised to see on wind project maps that power lines cross their land anyway - while the developer claims in public this is a done deal.
This is deception. Without your written approval, NYSEG cannot let the developers put these lines across YOUR PROPERTY.
And without your signature as the landowner, the road will not be widened. Do you want the hundreds of trucks going by your property to build the project that much closer to your house?
As if this weren't enough, these overhead high-power transmission lines will be carrying 34.5 kv - far higher power and voltage than distribution lines. Is this what you want?
Don't stand for it! Refuse to grant the developer UPC or NYSEG an expanded easement across your land for these large power transmission poles. They can't do this without your written approval. We urge you to stand up and protect your property rights.
PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY! NOW is the time to stand up for your rights.
ADVOCATES FOR PRATTSBURGH
PO Box 221, Prattsburgh, NY 14873 prattsburgh@prattsburgh.org
visit our website at: www.prattsburgh.org
These Power Transmission Poles they want to run across YOUR PROPERTY will be 65 feet high, twice the height of typical power poles, with extended arms that may be double or quadruple what presently exist.
The developer says they need a 40 foot right-of-way with 50 feet on either side of the pole for "clearing" - potentially a 100 foot wide section of your property. Clearing away your trees, do you want the view from your house dominated by these massive, double-height quadruple-wide transmission poles?
People have been told "you might as well sign because all your neighbors have signed", even though many people have refused. People who have refused to sign have been surprised to see on wind project maps that power lines cross their land anyway - while the developer claims in public this is a done deal.
This is deception. Without your written approval, NYSEG cannot let the developers put these lines across YOUR PROPERTY.
And without your signature as the landowner, the road will not be widened. Do you want the hundreds of trucks going by your property to build the project that much closer to your house?
As if this weren't enough, these overhead high-power transmission lines will be carrying 34.5 kv - far higher power and voltage than distribution lines. Is this what you want?
Don't stand for it! Refuse to grant the developer UPC or NYSEG an expanded easement across your land for these large power transmission poles. They can't do this without your written approval. We urge you to stand up and protect your property rights.
ADVOCATES FOR PRATTSBURGH
PO Box 221, Prattsburgh, NY 14873 prattsburgh@prattsburgh.org
visit our website at: www.prattsburgh.org
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Pa. considers wind farms on public land
Pennsylvania officials say they may consider opening state forests and state parks to the development of wind turbines.
Michael DiBernardinis, secretary of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said his agency must first decide if wind turbine development is compatible with its stewardship mission, The Harrisburg Patriot-News said Thursday.
DiBernardinis, speaking at PennFuture's Clean Energy Conference, said the DCNR lacks legal authority to allow wind development on public lands but would seek authorization from the Legislature.
Michael DiBernardinis, secretary of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said his agency must first decide if wind turbine development is compatible with its stewardship mission, The Harrisburg Patriot-News said Thursday.
DiBernardinis, speaking at PennFuture's Clean Energy Conference, said the DCNR lacks legal authority to allow wind development on public lands but would seek authorization from the Legislature.
Friday, June 01, 2007
More bird, bat study opinions emerge: Local opponents warn about impact; one company says it's already part of plan by ROB MONTANA
Self-proclaimed bird lover Larry Newhart lives at the top of Call Hill in Hartsville, where he watches birds frequent the nearly 50 birdhouses on his property.
Among all the species of birds that have made a pit stop at his property, he said even migrating bald eagles have made an appearance.
“I observe, on a daily basis, raptors seeking updraft in search of food,” Newhart said.
News of a recently released consultants' study that found 123 birds and 326 bats dead - during a five-month period last year beneath approximately 50 turbines on the Tug Hill Plateau - has him worried the impact may be even more severe on birds and bats than the study found.
“It's not a good thing for avian life,” Newhart said, adding he'd previously contacted Cornell University's ornithology department to check on impact turbines have. “I'm going to send this information out to Cornell to see if that engages them.
“Hopefully, we can put everything on hold while more research is conducted,” he added. “I would compare this to the FDA putting out a new drug and not testing it until they put it out on the market, then realizing ‘This is more harmful than we thought.'”
Newhart said he was offered a lease by Airtricity, the wind company proposing a wind farm project for the Town of Hartsville, but turned it down.
“I turned it down because I was concerned about the impact on avian life,” he said.
He doesn't expect the study to have much of an impact, however, on slowing down the development of wind farms.
“This is about money and anyone who's got a signed lease, nothing's going to sway their minds,” Newhart said. “I don't see any good coming from this, and I don't see anyone I can go to to present my concerns and get any action.”
Newhart's feelings were in line with another wind farm opponent's - Eric Hosmer of Howard. On Thursday, Hosmer said he feels like wind farm tests aren't focused on the impact to people.
“You've got to rely on animals to protect the people,” he said, adding the latest study is a concern for people concerned with potential adverse affects from wind farms. “That is one issue of many issues that need to be addressed before rushing into a project like this.”
Hosmer has been a vocal critic of that town's wind ordinance, as well as the town board's involvement with a potential wind farm project by EverPower in the community.
“It's a concern to people trying to slow the process down so we can get better information and real factual information,” he said, “before we push these things through that we'll have to live under for 20 or 40 years.”
Kevin Sheen of EverPower, the wind company proposing a wind farm in the Town of Howard declined to comment on the report specifically, saying he had not read it yet. He did, however, say bird and bat kill is something EverPower studied when determining where turbines should be located in Howard.
“I would point to the draft EIS (environmental impact statement), that shows we did various bird migratory and avian impact studies,” Sheen said. “We're very confident we determined locations in Howard that are not in a busy migratory pattern.
“We feel the placement of the turbines are responsible in terms of avian impact,” he added.
As for post-turbine placement studies, Sheen wasn't sure whether it would be required with the Howard project.
“I know, in certain areas, they do ask for post screening, such as in Pennsylvania,” he said.
Among all the species of birds that have made a pit stop at his property, he said even migrating bald eagles have made an appearance.
“I observe, on a daily basis, raptors seeking updraft in search of food,” Newhart said.
News of a recently released consultants' study that found 123 birds and 326 bats dead - during a five-month period last year beneath approximately 50 turbines on the Tug Hill Plateau - has him worried the impact may be even more severe on birds and bats than the study found.
“It's not a good thing for avian life,” Newhart said, adding he'd previously contacted Cornell University's ornithology department to check on impact turbines have. “I'm going to send this information out to Cornell to see if that engages them.
“Hopefully, we can put everything on hold while more research is conducted,” he added. “I would compare this to the FDA putting out a new drug and not testing it until they put it out on the market, then realizing ‘This is more harmful than we thought.'”
Newhart said he was offered a lease by Airtricity, the wind company proposing a wind farm project for the Town of Hartsville, but turned it down.
“I turned it down because I was concerned about the impact on avian life,” he said.
He doesn't expect the study to have much of an impact, however, on slowing down the development of wind farms.
“This is about money and anyone who's got a signed lease, nothing's going to sway their minds,” Newhart said. “I don't see any good coming from this, and I don't see anyone I can go to to present my concerns and get any action.”
Newhart's feelings were in line with another wind farm opponent's - Eric Hosmer of Howard. On Thursday, Hosmer said he feels like wind farm tests aren't focused on the impact to people.
“You've got to rely on animals to protect the people,” he said, adding the latest study is a concern for people concerned with potential adverse affects from wind farms. “That is one issue of many issues that need to be addressed before rushing into a project like this.”
Hosmer has been a vocal critic of that town's wind ordinance, as well as the town board's involvement with a potential wind farm project by EverPower in the community.
“It's a concern to people trying to slow the process down so we can get better information and real factual information,” he said, “before we push these things through that we'll have to live under for 20 or 40 years.”
Kevin Sheen of EverPower, the wind company proposing a wind farm in the Town of Howard declined to comment on the report specifically, saying he had not read it yet. He did, however, say bird and bat kill is something EverPower studied when determining where turbines should be located in Howard.
“I would point to the draft EIS (environmental impact statement), that shows we did various bird migratory and avian impact studies,” Sheen said. “We're very confident we determined locations in Howard that are not in a busy migratory pattern.
“We feel the placement of the turbines are responsible in terms of avian impact,” he added.
As for post-turbine placement studies, Sheen wasn't sure whether it would be required with the Howard project.
“I know, in certain areas, they do ask for post screening, such as in Pennsylvania,” he said.
Wind Industry Position on Energy Bill is Anti-Environment
Industrial Wind Action Group calls upon wind industry to stop misinformation campaign, and support federal measures to protect the natural environment
NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 1, 2007). Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group responded today to the aggressive campaign by the wind industry aimed at eviscerating portions of the Energy bill (HR 2337) now before the House Committee on Natural Resources. Title II, Subtitle D of the bill seeks to establish standards for wind energy development that will provide protections for wildlife resources.
"Frankly, we're surprised at the vehemence coming from the industry and some environmental groups over this issue," says Lisa Linowes, Executive Director for IWA, "Subtitle D merely proposes what the wind industry and its proponents already profess to support." The bill provides for the proper siting of wind facilities to "avoid impacts, including cumulative impacts, on birds, bats, and other wildlife to the greatest extent practicable[1]" [section 231, pp.B.2].
The Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Academies' National Research Council (NRC) are all on record asserting the need for more site-specific information from scientific experts to properly assess impacts of wind energy projects on wildlife.
"If wind power is to be a piece of our energy puzzle, it should not be at the expense of wildlife and other natural resources," said Linowes. "Given the alarming mortality rates at wind facilities in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, among others, it's time for the industry to accept responsibility for the adverse impacts and support Subtitle D," she added. IWA has long expressed frustration with wind developers and their proponents who have used green power as justification for ignoring the environmental harms caused by industrial wind power plants.
To date, the federal government has played only a limited role in ensuring wind turbines are sited and constructed safely, leaving responsibility to state and local land-use boards that are often inexperienced with wind development. The proposed legislation would enforce NEPA-like[2] review for wind development and bring uniformity to the review process. "I've heard many developers complain that the inconsistent, uneven review from one region to next has left them uncertain as to what's expected of them. Subtitle D presents us with an opportunity to bring clarity to the process," Linowes explains.
Radical assertions by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)[3] that the proposed legislation will collapse the wind market or criminalize wind development are contrary to what many developers are saying privately. According to IWA, the wind industry installed over 2400 MW of wind in the U.S. last year. Based on some estimates, wealthy utilities are reaping $2.75 billion annually in production tax credits, in addition to the millions in public funds paid out for the renewable energy.
"Wind power is no longer a fledgling industry. It's time for the rhetoric to stop," Linowes said, warning that denying the environmental problems caused by turbines could turn public opinion against them. "The AWEA's objections to HR 2337 are either simple self-interested misrepresentations, or worse, indicate the industry is not capable of upholding its claims to be environmentally sound and cannot deliver sustainable value in the foreseeable future," Linowes observed.
Industrial Wind Action Group seeks to promote knowledge and raise awareness of the risks and damaging environmental impacts of industrial wind energy development. Information and analysis on the subject is available through its website, www.windaction.org. To subscribe to the IWA weekly newsletter, visit http://www.windaction.org/subscribe.
NEW HAMPSHIRE (June 1, 2007). Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group responded today to the aggressive campaign by the wind industry aimed at eviscerating portions of the Energy bill (HR 2337) now before the House Committee on Natural Resources. Title II, Subtitle D of the bill seeks to establish standards for wind energy development that will provide protections for wildlife resources.
"Frankly, we're surprised at the vehemence coming from the industry and some environmental groups over this issue," says Lisa Linowes, Executive Director for IWA, "Subtitle D merely proposes what the wind industry and its proponents already profess to support." The bill provides for the proper siting of wind facilities to "avoid impacts, including cumulative impacts, on birds, bats, and other wildlife to the greatest extent practicable[1]" [section 231, pp.B.2].
The Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Academies' National Research Council (NRC) are all on record asserting the need for more site-specific information from scientific experts to properly assess impacts of wind energy projects on wildlife.
"If wind power is to be a piece of our energy puzzle, it should not be at the expense of wildlife and other natural resources," said Linowes. "Given the alarming mortality rates at wind facilities in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, among others, it's time for the industry to accept responsibility for the adverse impacts and support Subtitle D," she added. IWA has long expressed frustration with wind developers and their proponents who have used green power as justification for ignoring the environmental harms caused by industrial wind power plants.
To date, the federal government has played only a limited role in ensuring wind turbines are sited and constructed safely, leaving responsibility to state and local land-use boards that are often inexperienced with wind development. The proposed legislation would enforce NEPA-like[2] review for wind development and bring uniformity to the review process. "I've heard many developers complain that the inconsistent, uneven review from one region to next has left them uncertain as to what's expected of them. Subtitle D presents us with an opportunity to bring clarity to the process," Linowes explains.
Radical assertions by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)[3] that the proposed legislation will collapse the wind market or criminalize wind development are contrary to what many developers are saying privately. According to IWA, the wind industry installed over 2400 MW of wind in the U.S. last year. Based on some estimates, wealthy utilities are reaping $2.75 billion annually in production tax credits, in addition to the millions in public funds paid out for the renewable energy.
"Wind power is no longer a fledgling industry. It's time for the rhetoric to stop," Linowes said, warning that denying the environmental problems caused by turbines could turn public opinion against them. "The AWEA's objections to HR 2337 are either simple self-interested misrepresentations, or worse, indicate the industry is not capable of upholding its claims to be environmentally sound and cannot deliver sustainable value in the foreseeable future," Linowes observed.
Industrial Wind Action Group seeks to promote knowledge and raise awareness of the risks and damaging environmental impacts of industrial wind energy development. Information and analysis on the subject is available through its website, www.windaction.org. To subscribe to the IWA weekly newsletter, visit http://www.windaction.org/subscribe.
Where Now, for the Wind?
The problem is that the staying power of these companies is ultimately dependent on tax benefits from the capricious hands of lawmakers in Congress. A critical test comes at the end of next year, when the tax provisions fueling the initial wind power boomlet are due to lapse.
It takes only a brief visit to the office of Michael O’Sullivan, a senior vice president of FPL Energy at its Juno Beach headquarters, to see that the market experiment in renewable energy is far from settled.
Amid maps detailing wind speeds and transmission lines around the country, a large protest placard rests on Mr. O’Sullivan’s windowsill that proclaims: NO WIND FARM.
(Click to read entire article)
It takes only a brief visit to the office of Michael O’Sullivan, a senior vice president of FPL Energy at its Juno Beach headquarters, to see that the market experiment in renewable energy is far from settled.
Amid maps detailing wind speeds and transmission lines around the country, a large protest placard rests on Mr. O’Sullivan’s windowsill that proclaims: NO WIND FARM.
(Click to read entire article)
Congress Probes Bats & Wind Energy
The U.S. Congress aimed a spotlight on the growing problem of bat and bird fatalities at wind-energy plants with a May 1 hearing that brought testimony from top experts, including Bat Conservation International biologist Ed Arnett. He directs the BCI-led Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative, known as BWEC.
National Public Radio’s Living on Earth program noted that the House subcommittee hearing was titled: “Gone with the Wind.” NPR reporter Jeff Young suggested that “the title alone hinted at growing skepticism in Congress” with voluntary industry efforts to deal with the problem.
BCI, working with BWEC – an alliance of industry, government agencies, universities and conservation groups that was formed in 2004 – has clearly documented that many thousands of bats are being killed at wind-energy farms around the country. Collaborating scientists are working to find ways prevent those deaths.
(Click to read entire article)
National Public Radio’s Living on Earth program noted that the House subcommittee hearing was titled: “Gone with the Wind.” NPR reporter Jeff Young suggested that “the title alone hinted at growing skepticism in Congress” with voluntary industry efforts to deal with the problem.
BCI, working with BWEC – an alliance of industry, government agencies, universities and conservation groups that was formed in 2004 – has clearly documented that many thousands of bats are being killed at wind-energy farms around the country. Collaborating scientists are working to find ways prevent those deaths.
(Click to read entire article)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)