HAMMOND - Despite adopting a recommendation to the town board on acceptable sound levels for industrial wind turbine development, a suggested recommendation - tabled for next week on setback distances - may end the possibilities for a wind farm in Hammond altogether, according to members of the wind committee.
The committee voted 9 to 1, with leaseholder Michele W. McQueer again casting the lone opposing vote, to adopt Dr. Paul D. Schomer's suggested sound limits for its recommendation to the town board.
The backbone of Dr. Schomer's suggested noise standards includes three separate limits for different times of the day and night. According to the recommendation documents provided by the committee, these limits include: 45 decibels (dB) in the daytime from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; 40 dB in the evening from 7 to 10 p.m.; and 35 dB during nighttime hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
However, it was during a discussion on setbacks that several committee members, including Don A. Ceresoli Jr., Richard K. Champney, and Leonard D. Bickelhaupt, suggested that the committee's recommendation may be to suggest that industrial wind development is just not right for Hammond.
Read the entire article
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Wind foes thwarted townwide noise study
CAPE VINCENT — In an ironic turn of events, Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall disclosed Wednesday that it was the opponents of wind development — who forced the board to adjourn its November meeting prematurely owing to vocal and physical protests— who killed the new townwide sound study they have been fighting for.
At an unusually calm Planning Board meeting Wednesday, Mr. Edsall said he had persuaded board members, at town Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey's request, to pass a resolution at the Nov. 10 board meeting to hire an independent, third-party consultant to collect sound data on the ambient noise around town.
"When I went to the meeting that night, I was fairly certain that I had four votes to vote for a sound study as long it was done in the next 45 days," Mr. Edsall said. "That was the night the public didn't allow us to have our meeting. So we never got to bring that up."
Mr. Edsall said that he met with Mr. Hirschey, who made some "convincing arguments," several days before the meeting and that he called every board member to persuade them to approve the study.
Read the entire article
At an unusually calm Planning Board meeting Wednesday, Mr. Edsall said he had persuaded board members, at town Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey's request, to pass a resolution at the Nov. 10 board meeting to hire an independent, third-party consultant to collect sound data on the ambient noise around town.
"When I went to the meeting that night, I was fairly certain that I had four votes to vote for a sound study as long it was done in the next 45 days," Mr. Edsall said. "That was the night the public didn't allow us to have our meeting. So we never got to bring that up."
Mr. Edsall said that he met with Mr. Hirschey, who made some "convincing arguments," several days before the meeting and that he called every board member to persuade them to approve the study.
Read the entire article
Dollars and Sense
Abandoned Big Island Project
Two years ago, the State (DBEDT) estimated that the interisland cable would cost taxpayers and/or ratepayers $1,000,000,000 (one BILLION dollars.) Castle & Cooke and First Wind have estimated that their components of this project would cost from $750,000,000 to $1,000,000,000 ON EACH ISLAND. Today, some estimate the costs to be double that original estimate.
The total costs for this project, estimated two years ago before a single shovel touched a piece of Hawaiian soil, equals $2,300 for EVERY HAWAII RESIDENT.
Assuming an average cost of $40,000 for installing photovoltaic panels on the average Hawaii house, $3 billion dollars could cover 75,000 homes (about 1/5 of Oahu’s total) thereby saving about 400,000 barrels of imported oil every year. Or, every household on Oahu (400,000) could have solar hot water, saving about 525,000 barrels of imported oil every year.
Using the publicly announced figures for the recently approved Kahuku wind farm, were Castle & Cooke to build all 400 MW of wind-generated power, David Murdock’s privately held, California-based company’s annual revenue — for selling the wind — would exceed $250 million dollars.
More Conflict In Hartsville
Board Member Seeks to Dump Town Attorney
Hartsville - At Wednesday night's Hartsville Town Board re-organizational meeting, board member Michelle Herrnacker pushed for hiring a new town attorney. Mrs. Herrnacker is looking to replace David Pullen of Fillmore, who is currently Hartsville’s official town lawyer.
The group that wanted a wind farm in Hartsville were present at Wednesday night's meeting in full force, arguing that David Pullen’s legal bills are too expensive. The group that was more skeptical of the proposed (former) wind project were also there at last night's meeting, arguing that Hartsville’s legal bills are caused by the a faction of town residents who filed lawsuits that wasted taxpayer money.
This is not the first time that Mrs. Herrnacker and David Pullen have clashed. Attorney Pullen defended the Town of Hartsville in a case two years ago when Michelle Herrnacker, along with fellow town board member Benjamin Ray, and Hartsville residents John and Carol Bowles, sued the Town of Hartsville. At that time, Pullen defended the Town of Hartsville against the two board members and two town residents, and Pullen won the case, which was heard by Judge Peter Bradstreet.
Mrs. Herrnacker and her husband Phil are scheduled to appear in court next week in the Village of Bath. The Herrnacker’s are accused of $62,000 worth of welfare fraud.
Hartsville - At Wednesday night's Hartsville Town Board re-organizational meeting, board member Michelle Herrnacker pushed for hiring a new town attorney. Mrs. Herrnacker is looking to replace David Pullen of Fillmore, who is currently Hartsville’s official town lawyer.
The group that wanted a wind farm in Hartsville were present at Wednesday night's meeting in full force, arguing that David Pullen’s legal bills are too expensive. The group that was more skeptical of the proposed (former) wind project were also there at last night's meeting, arguing that Hartsville’s legal bills are caused by the a faction of town residents who filed lawsuits that wasted taxpayer money.
This is not the first time that Mrs. Herrnacker and David Pullen have clashed. Attorney Pullen defended the Town of Hartsville in a case two years ago when Michelle Herrnacker, along with fellow town board member Benjamin Ray, and Hartsville residents John and Carol Bowles, sued the Town of Hartsville. At that time, Pullen defended the Town of Hartsville against the two board members and two town residents, and Pullen won the case, which was heard by Judge Peter Bradstreet.
Mrs. Herrnacker and her husband Phil are scheduled to appear in court next week in the Village of Bath. The Herrnacker’s are accused of $62,000 worth of welfare fraud.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Wind power projects losing steam on Cape
Last year could be considered a banner one for wind power in Massachusetts.
After a decade in the regulatory pipeline, the 130-turbine Cape Wind project received federal approval. And Gov. Deval Patrick’s re-election puts his goal of 2,000 megawatts of wind power by 2020 back on track.
But it was not so cheery a year for Cape wind power proponents, though the region’s substantial wind resources are considered key to the state’s goals.
Municipal wind turbine proposals in Harwich and Wellfleet were defeated by town votes. The Old King's Highway Historic District Commission struck down a wind turbine at Cape Cod Community College in West Barnstable and a private turbine at Aquacultural Research Corp. in Dennis, though the latter project is under appeal. Most recently, the Cape Cod National Seashore withdrew its wind turbine proposal for Highland Arts Center in Truro.
Add in earlier defeats of turbines in Eastham and Orleans, and the future of land-based wind turbines here doesn't seem so rosy.
Last year, anti-wind forces became more organized, gaining political traction by questioning aesthetics and the health impacts of turbine noise and shadow flicker. They used the term "industrial wind power" to contrast turbines with the rural values they believe many Cape residents cherish.
Even the most adamant proponents for land-based wind turbines see an about-face.
"I'm not sure how realistic it is to see significant deployment on the Cape," Charles McLaughlin, president of Cape and Vineyard Electric Cooperative, said.
The cooperative, established by the Cape Light Compact in 2006, hoped to fund a network of wind turbines in Cape towns to share the benefits and costs of wind power. But in three years, it has yet to erect a single turbine, and after losing money in Harwich, it is changing its financing rules for towns. Only Brewster, which proposes two large turbines on town-owned land with co-op money, has a project under consideration.
Now, the co-op is focused on what McLaughlin said is currently the largest solar power project in the East: 25 megawatts of photovoltaic cells to be located in town landfills.
Read the entire article
After a decade in the regulatory pipeline, the 130-turbine Cape Wind project received federal approval. And Gov. Deval Patrick’s re-election puts his goal of 2,000 megawatts of wind power by 2020 back on track.
But it was not so cheery a year for Cape wind power proponents, though the region’s substantial wind resources are considered key to the state’s goals.
Municipal wind turbine proposals in Harwich and Wellfleet were defeated by town votes. The Old King's Highway Historic District Commission struck down a wind turbine at Cape Cod Community College in West Barnstable and a private turbine at Aquacultural Research Corp. in Dennis, though the latter project is under appeal. Most recently, the Cape Cod National Seashore withdrew its wind turbine proposal for Highland Arts Center in Truro.
Add in earlier defeats of turbines in Eastham and Orleans, and the future of land-based wind turbines here doesn't seem so rosy.
Last year, anti-wind forces became more organized, gaining political traction by questioning aesthetics and the health impacts of turbine noise and shadow flicker. They used the term "industrial wind power" to contrast turbines with the rural values they believe many Cape residents cherish.
Even the most adamant proponents for land-based wind turbines see an about-face.
"I'm not sure how realistic it is to see significant deployment on the Cape," Charles McLaughlin, president of Cape and Vineyard Electric Cooperative, said.
The cooperative, established by the Cape Light Compact in 2006, hoped to fund a network of wind turbines in Cape towns to share the benefits and costs of wind power. But in three years, it has yet to erect a single turbine, and after losing money in Harwich, it is changing its financing rules for towns. Only Brewster, which proposes two large turbines on town-owned land with co-op money, has a project under consideration.
Now, the co-op is focused on what McLaughlin said is currently the largest solar power project in the East: 25 megawatts of photovoltaic cells to be located in town landfills.
Read the entire article
Monday, January 10, 2011
Maine Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Industrial Wind
Friends of Maine's Mountains Attorney to Argue Public Hearing Process
Wilton, ME - Friends of Maine's Mountains (FMM), the leading group dedicated to protecting Maine's mountain regions from threats to their natural and human environments, including the rampant proliferation of industrial wind turbines on hundreds of miles of ridgelines, announces two oral arguments to be heard before the Maine Supreme Court on Tuesday, January 11 at the Court House in Portland. FMM attorney Rufus Brown of Brown and Burke will argue on behalf of Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury Pond and Martha Powers Trust according to the following schedule:
January 11, 2011, at Portland: 2:15 PM
BEP-10-206 Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury Pond et al. v. Board of Environmental Protection
Attorneys: Rufus E. Brown and Gerald D. Reid, Margaret A. Bensinger, Juliet T. Browne, Gordon R. Smith
On appeal by Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury Pond et al.
Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury, the Silver Lake Camp Owners Association, and several individuals (collectively CCSR) appeal, pursuant to 38 M.R.S. § 346(4) (2009), from a decision of the Board of Environmental Protection that approved the issuance of permits to Record Hill Wind, LLC, to construct a wind energy facility in the Town of Roxbury. CCSR argues that the Board erred in: (1) denying a request to hold a public hearing, (2) denying a request to supplement the record, (3) finding that Record Hill made adequate provisions to prevent adverse health effects from noise, (4) finding that Record Hill demonstrated financial capacity to fund the project, and (5) finding that Record Hill met licensing requirements with respect to decommissioning the project.
January 11, 2011, at Portland: 3:00 PM
BEP-10-339 Martha A. Powers Trust et al. v. Board of Environmental Protection
Attorneys: Rufus E. Brown and Margaret A. Bensinger, Gerald D. Reid, Juliet T. Browne, Gordon R. Smith
On appeal by the Martha A. Powers Trust et al.
The Martha A. Powers Trust and Brian Raynes (collectively Trust) appeal, pursuant to 38 M.R.S. § 346(4) (2009), from a decision of the Board of Environmental Protection that approved the issuance of permits to Evergreen Wind Power II, LLC, to construct a wind energy facility in the Town of Oakfield. The Trust argues that the Board erred in: (1) denying a request to hold a public hearing; (2) finding that Evergreen made adequate provisions for the control of noise from the proposed facility, (3) finding that Evergreen demonstrated financial capacity for the proposed facility, and (4) finding that Evergreen met licensing requirements with respect to decommissioning the proposed facility.
Friends of Maine's Mountains is a research and educational organization whose mission is to research, formulate and promote effective and reliable energy and power solutions that will protect Maine's natural resources, especially Maine's mountains, as well as Maine's industries and private property owners, while also ensuring that those solutions have a positive environmental and economic impact for Maine people and businesses.
Wilton, ME - Friends of Maine's Mountains (FMM), the leading group dedicated to protecting Maine's mountain regions from threats to their natural and human environments, including the rampant proliferation of industrial wind turbines on hundreds of miles of ridgelines, announces two oral arguments to be heard before the Maine Supreme Court on Tuesday, January 11 at the Court House in Portland. FMM attorney Rufus Brown of Brown and Burke will argue on behalf of Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury Pond and Martha Powers Trust according to the following schedule:
January 11, 2011, at Portland: 2:15 PM
BEP-10-206 Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury Pond et al. v. Board of Environmental Protection
Attorneys: Rufus E. Brown and Gerald D. Reid, Margaret A. Bensinger, Juliet T. Browne, Gordon R. Smith
On appeal by Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury Pond et al.
Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury, the Silver Lake Camp Owners Association, and several individuals (collectively CCSR) appeal, pursuant to 38 M.R.S. § 346(4) (2009), from a decision of the Board of Environmental Protection that approved the issuance of permits to Record Hill Wind, LLC, to construct a wind energy facility in the Town of Roxbury. CCSR argues that the Board erred in: (1) denying a request to hold a public hearing, (2) denying a request to supplement the record, (3) finding that Record Hill made adequate provisions to prevent adverse health effects from noise, (4) finding that Record Hill demonstrated financial capacity to fund the project, and (5) finding that Record Hill met licensing requirements with respect to decommissioning the project.
January 11, 2011, at Portland: 3:00 PM
BEP-10-339 Martha A. Powers Trust et al. v. Board of Environmental Protection
Attorneys: Rufus E. Brown and Margaret A. Bensinger, Gerald D. Reid, Juliet T. Browne, Gordon R. Smith
On appeal by the Martha A. Powers Trust et al.
The Martha A. Powers Trust and Brian Raynes (collectively Trust) appeal, pursuant to 38 M.R.S. § 346(4) (2009), from a decision of the Board of Environmental Protection that approved the issuance of permits to Evergreen Wind Power II, LLC, to construct a wind energy facility in the Town of Oakfield. The Trust argues that the Board erred in: (1) denying a request to hold a public hearing; (2) finding that Evergreen made adequate provisions for the control of noise from the proposed facility, (3) finding that Evergreen demonstrated financial capacity for the proposed facility, and (4) finding that Evergreen met licensing requirements with respect to decommissioning the proposed facility.
Friends of Maine's Mountains is a research and educational organization whose mission is to research, formulate and promote effective and reliable energy and power solutions that will protect Maine's natural resources, especially Maine's mountains, as well as Maine's industries and private property owners, while also ensuring that those solutions have a positive environmental and economic impact for Maine people and businesses.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Cuomo faulted over ag post
CAPE VINCENT — Some opponents of commercial wind farms believe Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo spurned his ethical-government campaign promises in appointing Darrel J. Aubertine to the state's top agriculture post.
Mr. Aubertine's nomination as commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Markets was announced Thursday.
Then-Assemblyman Aubertine raised a stir among wind-power opponents in June 2006, when he wrote to the Cape Vincent Town Council urging council members who had agreements with wind power companies to vote on a law that created townwide setbacks for turbines. The law would regulate all projects, both present and future.
"After careful reflection, I feel that it is ethically proper that, in this case, all board members should vote on the issue at hand. In fact, I believe it is their responsibility to do so," Mr. Aubertine wrote.
Read the entire article
Mr. Aubertine's nomination as commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Markets was announced Thursday.
Then-Assemblyman Aubertine raised a stir among wind-power opponents in June 2006, when he wrote to the Cape Vincent Town Council urging council members who had agreements with wind power companies to vote on a law that created townwide setbacks for turbines. The law would regulate all projects, both present and future.
"After careful reflection, I feel that it is ethically proper that, in this case, all board members should vote on the issue at hand. In fact, I believe it is their responsibility to do so," Mr. Aubertine wrote.
Read the entire article
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Wind farms don't work in the cold: Why it's no use waiting for turbines to keep us warm as the snow returns
Britain’s wind farms almost ground to a halt during the coldest spells in December, it has emerged.
As temperatures plunged below zero and demand for electricity soared, figures reveal that most of the country’s 3,000 wind turbines were virtually still, energy experts say.
During some of the chilliest weather, they were working at less than one-hundredth of capacity, producing electricity for fewer than 30,000 homes.
The National Grid was forced to compensate for the still, cold conditions by cranking up conventional coal and gas-fired power stations.
December was the coldest month in more than a century – and yesterday, as some in northern England, the Midlands and Wales were hit with more snow, residents will have been switching on the heating again. But critics have warned that the UK is becoming too dependent on wind for power.
There are 3,153 working turbines in 283 wind farms across the UK, capable of generating more than 5.2 gigawatts of electricity – enough to power almost three million homes, the wind industry says.
Over the next decade, another 10,000 turbines will go up to meet Europe’s climate change targets. By 2020, the Government says 30 per cent of all Britain’s electricity will be generated by wind.
But at best, turbines work at just 30 to 40 per cent of their capacity. And in cold winter snaps, often caused by vast, slow-moving high-pressure systems over Northern Europe, winds drop to almost nothing.
Helen Chivers, of the Met Office, said cold spells were often accompanied by low winds. ‘It is fairly common in winter to have these high pressure systems that bring cold, still conditions over Britain.’
During December’s cold snaps, the windfarms’ output repeatedly fell sharply, National Grid data shows.
On the coldest day, December 20, the average temperature was minus 5.6C. But just as demand for electricity to heat homes was rising, the winds failed.
That evening the recorded output from the UK’s wind farms dipped to 59 megawatts.
Wind experts say the National Grid only detects half the output of wind farms and that the real figure was 120MW – still only one-fiftieth of maximum capacity.
The following day, when the average temperature was minus 5.2C, turbines were recorded as generating just 20MW. The real figure was probably around 40MW – the equivalent of just 20 turbines at full capacity – powering fewer than 30,000 homes.
Winds dropped again after Christmas. On December 30, the recorded output from wind turbines fell to 25MW at 6.30pm.
John Constable, of the Renewable Energy Foundation, which argues against wind farm expansion, said: ‘When you get a high pressure system at this time of year it can cover most of the UK.
‘The whole of the UK is becalmed just when it gets really cold and when demand for electricity goes up. Regardless of how much wind you have installed you need to have the same amount of conventional stations ready to switch on if the wind fails.’ The wind industry insisted wind was reliable – and that still spells are rare. Nick Medic, of Renewables UK, said if the wind does drop, we can import energy from overseas, or use energy stored in dams.
Yesterday, up to 4in (10cm) of snow fell in some upland areas, Leeds Bradford Airport was closed for several hours and dozens of schools in Yorkshire were shut.
However, a band of rain followed the snow and the Met Office said it was expected to have disappeared by morning. A relatively dry weekend was forecast.
As temperatures plunged below zero and demand for electricity soared, figures reveal that most of the country’s 3,000 wind turbines were virtually still, energy experts say.
During some of the chilliest weather, they were working at less than one-hundredth of capacity, producing electricity for fewer than 30,000 homes.
The National Grid was forced to compensate for the still, cold conditions by cranking up conventional coal and gas-fired power stations.
December was the coldest month in more than a century – and yesterday, as some in northern England, the Midlands and Wales were hit with more snow, residents will have been switching on the heating again. But critics have warned that the UK is becoming too dependent on wind for power.
There are 3,153 working turbines in 283 wind farms across the UK, capable of generating more than 5.2 gigawatts of electricity – enough to power almost three million homes, the wind industry says.
Over the next decade, another 10,000 turbines will go up to meet Europe’s climate change targets. By 2020, the Government says 30 per cent of all Britain’s electricity will be generated by wind.
But at best, turbines work at just 30 to 40 per cent of their capacity. And in cold winter snaps, often caused by vast, slow-moving high-pressure systems over Northern Europe, winds drop to almost nothing.
Helen Chivers, of the Met Office, said cold spells were often accompanied by low winds. ‘It is fairly common in winter to have these high pressure systems that bring cold, still conditions over Britain.’
During December’s cold snaps, the windfarms’ output repeatedly fell sharply, National Grid data shows.
On the coldest day, December 20, the average temperature was minus 5.6C. But just as demand for electricity to heat homes was rising, the winds failed.
That evening the recorded output from the UK’s wind farms dipped to 59 megawatts.
Wind experts say the National Grid only detects half the output of wind farms and that the real figure was 120MW – still only one-fiftieth of maximum capacity.
The following day, when the average temperature was minus 5.2C, turbines were recorded as generating just 20MW. The real figure was probably around 40MW – the equivalent of just 20 turbines at full capacity – powering fewer than 30,000 homes.
Winds dropped again after Christmas. On December 30, the recorded output from wind turbines fell to 25MW at 6.30pm.
John Constable, of the Renewable Energy Foundation, which argues against wind farm expansion, said: ‘When you get a high pressure system at this time of year it can cover most of the UK.
‘The whole of the UK is becalmed just when it gets really cold and when demand for electricity goes up. Regardless of how much wind you have installed you need to have the same amount of conventional stations ready to switch on if the wind fails.’ The wind industry insisted wind was reliable – and that still spells are rare. Nick Medic, of Renewables UK, said if the wind does drop, we can import energy from overseas, or use energy stored in dams.
Yesterday, up to 4in (10cm) of snow fell in some upland areas, Leeds Bradford Airport was closed for several hours and dozens of schools in Yorkshire were shut.
However, a band of rain followed the snow and the Met Office said it was expected to have disappeared by morning. A relatively dry weekend was forecast.
Friday, January 07, 2011
Hammond Discusses Life After Windfarms
HAMMOND - While the Hammond Wind Committee spent its 25th meeting since April discussing economics, tourism and environmental issues - with no formal action - it did revisit a wind energy issue Tuesday that committee members find extremely important: the decommissioning process.
With Iberdrola Renewables, Inc.'s proposal to erect a large-scale industrial wind farm in Hammond over the next few years, paying to make such a project disappear at the end of its service life or if the unit is out of commission is something that must seriously be considered and ensured, according to committee member Allen P. Newell.
Mr. Newell has been involved in the wind energy discussion in Hammond for several years. Also a member of the town's original wind committee that had finished its work in mid-2008, he has advocated educating the public and was the original vice-president of Concerned Residents of Hammond.
On Tuesday, Mr. Newell provided committee members with documentation from several wind committees in New York towns in regards to the decommissioning issue, specifically, from the towns of Bethany, Rensselaerville, Hartsville and Litchfield. He additionally distributed a West Virginia-based article by Tom Hewson, principal of Energy Ventures Analysis, Va., on the lessons learned from wind decommissioning costs.
Read the entire article
With Iberdrola Renewables, Inc.'s proposal to erect a large-scale industrial wind farm in Hammond over the next few years, paying to make such a project disappear at the end of its service life or if the unit is out of commission is something that must seriously be considered and ensured, according to committee member Allen P. Newell.
Mr. Newell has been involved in the wind energy discussion in Hammond for several years. Also a member of the town's original wind committee that had finished its work in mid-2008, he has advocated educating the public and was the original vice-president of Concerned Residents of Hammond.
On Tuesday, Mr. Newell provided committee members with documentation from several wind committees in New York towns in regards to the decommissioning issue, specifically, from the towns of Bethany, Rensselaerville, Hartsville and Litchfield. He additionally distributed a West Virginia-based article by Tom Hewson, principal of Energy Ventures Analysis, Va., on the lessons learned from wind decommissioning costs.
Read the entire article
Iberdrola submits redesigned application
CLAYTON — Like Gen. Douglas MacArthur in the Philippines, Horse Creek Wind Farm has returned.
Developer Iberdrola Renewables brought in an application for a redesigned wind farm to the joint town and village Planning Board on Thursday night. The new application pares down the scale of the project to 50 turbines producing 100 megawatts. The proposal leaves the town of Orleans out entirely, when the previous plan had eight turbines in that town.
But nothing in the Horse Creek process has been smooth, and so it was Thursday when, after Iberdrola representatives left, zoning officer Henry R. LaClair said the application wasn't complete because the developer had not submitted an application form or the application fee. That will be taken up with the company later.
Jenny L. Burke, business developer with Iberdrola, said the developer and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were satisfied that they could change operations to protect a federally listed endangered species. Indiana bats were the reason for the developer's three requests for year-long suspensions on the application. The first two were honored, but the last, in June, was voted down by the board.
Read the entire article
Developer Iberdrola Renewables brought in an application for a redesigned wind farm to the joint town and village Planning Board on Thursday night. The new application pares down the scale of the project to 50 turbines producing 100 megawatts. The proposal leaves the town of Orleans out entirely, when the previous plan had eight turbines in that town.
But nothing in the Horse Creek process has been smooth, and so it was Thursday when, after Iberdrola representatives left, zoning officer Henry R. LaClair said the application wasn't complete because the developer had not submitted an application form or the application fee. That will be taken up with the company later.
Jenny L. Burke, business developer with Iberdrola, said the developer and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were satisfied that they could change operations to protect a federally listed endangered species. Indiana bats were the reason for the developer's three requests for year-long suspensions on the application. The first two were honored, but the last, in June, was voted down by the board.
Read the entire article
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Friends of Maine's Mountains Denounces LURC Ruling on Kibby Expansion
Ruling Highlights Flaws in Maine Law Expediting Industrial Wind
Wilton, ME - Friends of Maine's Mountains (FMM), the leading group dedicated to protecting Maine's mountain regions from threats to their natural and human environments, has denounced the decision announced Wednesday by the Land Use Regulation Commission which formally approves an 11-turbine expansion to the Kibby Wind Power Project in northern Franklin County.
The expansion along the 3,300-foot Sisk Mountain ridgeline of the TransCanada project was originally rejected in a December straw poll of LURC commissioners. Despite being fought by the Maine Audubon Society, the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Natural Resources Council of Maine, the Friends of the Boundary Mountains, the Citizen's Task Force on Wind Power, Friends of Maine's Mountains and many private citizens, the application for expansion was accepted and the erection of eleven additional industrial wind turbines atop Kibby Mountain was approved by a 5 to 1 vote at Wednesday's brief meeting of LURC.
Opposition to the expansion among the members of the Land Use Regulation Commission was greater than the vote results displayed. Commissioners Sally Farrand and Ed Laverty remarked that they believe tthe state's expedited wind law, LD 2283, An Act To Implement Recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Wind Power Development, was a bad idea and that they could not effectively do their jobs unless they ignored the law. Complaining that LD 2283 left him no choice but to approve the plan, Laverty said, "I don't think we are in a position to flout the position of the State Legislature. We're not legislators. We don't dictate policy; we implement it. Maybe I should consider resigning. Maybe that's what I need to do."
Registered Maine Master Guide David Corrigan of Concord Township attended yesterday's hearing. "By their own comments before the vote, several of the LURC commissioners made it clear that they believed they were following the will of the Legislature," observed Corrigan. "They also made it apparent that they are not happy about this, and would like the Legislature to rethink the wind permitting laws that are at odds with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the very mandate of LURC to protect the Unorganized Territories. I hope the Legislature takes notice."
Commissioner Rebecca Kurtz was the dissenting vote, noting she couldn't support the 11-turbine expansion due to the sensitivity of the region's ecology. "It makes no sense. We all know from Ecology 101 that all these resources are interconnected, that you can't impact one without impacting the others," said Kurtz. "Why we are allowing this to happen when there are rare species of concern being disturbed and there are other places to put wind towers, I don't know."
Steve Thurston, co-Chair of the Citizen's Task Force on Wind Power and member of the Board of Directors of Friends of Maine's Mountains, remarked, "Clearly the problem here is with the process. By the admission of some of their own members, LURC is constrained by the law that results in disregarding their own mandate to protect the environment from these industrial wind construction projects. This has happened in each and every wind project that comes before LURC, and unless something changes in the law, I fear we will see this repeated again and again."
Friends of Maine's Mountains is a research and educational organization whose mission is to research, formulate and promote effective and reliable energy and power solutions that will protect Maine's natural resources, especially Maine's mountains.
Wilton, ME - Friends of Maine's Mountains (FMM), the leading group dedicated to protecting Maine's mountain regions from threats to their natural and human environments, has denounced the decision announced Wednesday by the Land Use Regulation Commission which formally approves an 11-turbine expansion to the Kibby Wind Power Project in northern Franklin County.
The expansion along the 3,300-foot Sisk Mountain ridgeline of the TransCanada project was originally rejected in a December straw poll of LURC commissioners. Despite being fought by the Maine Audubon Society, the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Natural Resources Council of Maine, the Friends of the Boundary Mountains, the Citizen's Task Force on Wind Power, Friends of Maine's Mountains and many private citizens, the application for expansion was accepted and the erection of eleven additional industrial wind turbines atop Kibby Mountain was approved by a 5 to 1 vote at Wednesday's brief meeting of LURC.
Opposition to the expansion among the members of the Land Use Regulation Commission was greater than the vote results displayed. Commissioners Sally Farrand and Ed Laverty remarked that they believe tthe state's expedited wind law, LD 2283, An Act To Implement Recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Wind Power Development, was a bad idea and that they could not effectively do their jobs unless they ignored the law. Complaining that LD 2283 left him no choice but to approve the plan, Laverty said, "I don't think we are in a position to flout the position of the State Legislature. We're not legislators. We don't dictate policy; we implement it. Maybe I should consider resigning. Maybe that's what I need to do."
Registered Maine Master Guide David Corrigan of Concord Township attended yesterday's hearing. "By their own comments before the vote, several of the LURC commissioners made it clear that they believed they were following the will of the Legislature," observed Corrigan. "They also made it apparent that they are not happy about this, and would like the Legislature to rethink the wind permitting laws that are at odds with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the very mandate of LURC to protect the Unorganized Territories. I hope the Legislature takes notice."
Commissioner Rebecca Kurtz was the dissenting vote, noting she couldn't support the 11-turbine expansion due to the sensitivity of the region's ecology. "It makes no sense. We all know from Ecology 101 that all these resources are interconnected, that you can't impact one without impacting the others," said Kurtz. "Why we are allowing this to happen when there are rare species of concern being disturbed and there are other places to put wind towers, I don't know."
Steve Thurston, co-Chair of the Citizen's Task Force on Wind Power and member of the Board of Directors of Friends of Maine's Mountains, remarked, "Clearly the problem here is with the process. By the admission of some of their own members, LURC is constrained by the law that results in disregarding their own mandate to protect the environment from these industrial wind construction projects. This has happened in each and every wind project that comes before LURC, and unless something changes in the law, I fear we will see this repeated again and again."
Friends of Maine's Mountains is a research and educational organization whose mission is to research, formulate and promote effective and reliable energy and power solutions that will protect Maine's natural resources, especially Maine's mountains.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Taxpayers subsidize wind power ‘scam’
Hidden in the tax bill passed by Congress last month is a grant program that pays cash to the wind industry to cover 30 percent of the cost of installing a wind farm. This is on top of state and federal tax breaks, doubly accelerated depreciation, and above market pricing that already amounts to 60 percent of capital cost. This costly stimulus program will provide billions of dollars to Spanish and Chinese companies.
The wind industry does claim to hire American workers. According to an energy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the stimulus subsidies cost taxpayers about $475,000 for every job generated. This is a lousy return on an investment even for government. It is pretty obvious that the public should take another look at industrial wind and that both Democrat and Republican parties share the blame.
The wind industry gave the vast majority of its campaign contributions this election cycle to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party. Top Democratic fundraisers and lobbyists with links to the White House are behind a proposed wind farm in Texas that stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China. How will our government deal with the issue of Homeland Security when all of our power is controlled by foreign companies? These same foreign companies control the computer systems that control the power generators.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the Dallas entrepreneur T. Boone Pickens has finally admitted the obvious: “The wind energy business isn’t a very good one.” Pickens finally had the sense to abandon the wind business. But then, it’s his own money and he cares what happens to it. On the other hand, Congress is using our money, and they frankly don’t seem to care that it’s wasted. The industrial wind business is a scam from beginning to end.
It’s time for our federal, state and local elected officials to be held accountable if we are serious about the need to shrink the federal budget and end corporate welfare. Citizens in Wyoming County will continue to fight to preserve public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life for residents and future generations and we will continue to ask our Congressman, Senators, Assemblymen, New York Senator, county chairman, town boards and party chairmen where they stand on this issue. Are any of these elected officials part of the problem? Are any of these elected officials standing in line for this stimulus money? Are they adding to the debt that our grandchildren will have to pay?
The 2011 Budget/Appropriation bills will soon be presented at both the state and federal levels and our elected officials need to hear from us that we do not agree with these wasteful programs.
Steven Moultrup
Attica
The wind industry does claim to hire American workers. According to an energy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the stimulus subsidies cost taxpayers about $475,000 for every job generated. This is a lousy return on an investment even for government. It is pretty obvious that the public should take another look at industrial wind and that both Democrat and Republican parties share the blame.
The wind industry gave the vast majority of its campaign contributions this election cycle to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party. Top Democratic fundraisers and lobbyists with links to the White House are behind a proposed wind farm in Texas that stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China. How will our government deal with the issue of Homeland Security when all of our power is controlled by foreign companies? These same foreign companies control the computer systems that control the power generators.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the Dallas entrepreneur T. Boone Pickens has finally admitted the obvious: “The wind energy business isn’t a very good one.” Pickens finally had the sense to abandon the wind business. But then, it’s his own money and he cares what happens to it. On the other hand, Congress is using our money, and they frankly don’t seem to care that it’s wasted. The industrial wind business is a scam from beginning to end.
It’s time for our federal, state and local elected officials to be held accountable if we are serious about the need to shrink the federal budget and end corporate welfare. Citizens in Wyoming County will continue to fight to preserve public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life for residents and future generations and we will continue to ask our Congressman, Senators, Assemblymen, New York Senator, county chairman, town boards and party chairmen where they stand on this issue. Are any of these elected officials part of the problem? Are any of these elected officials standing in line for this stimulus money? Are they adding to the debt that our grandchildren will have to pay?
The 2011 Budget/Appropriation bills will soon be presented at both the state and federal levels and our elected officials need to hear from us that we do not agree with these wasteful programs.
Steven Moultrup
Attica
Monday, January 03, 2011
False claims that “wind farms” provide large economic and job benefits
One would think that by now Obama Administration officials would admit that “wind farms” do not provide large economic and job benefits. However, recent Administration statements suggest the delusion continues and, perhaps, that officials do not understand why their expectations are unrealistic.
False expectations may be due to the infamous “JEDI” model (Jobs and Economic Development Impact model) developed for DOE’s National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) by a wind industry consultant-lobbyist. Unfortunately, this “model”( paid for with our tax dollars) has been widely promoted by NREL and DOE and outputs from the model are used by “wind farm” developers to mislead the public, media, and government officials.
Economic models often produce false or misleading outputs because (a) the model itself is faulty, and/or (b) unrealistic assumptions are “fed into” to model, with the result that the models overstate national, state, and/or local job and other economic benefits. In the case of wind energy models, basic flaws and faulty assumptions often include one or more of the following:
1. Ignoring the fact that much of the capital cost of “wind farms” is for equipment purchased elsewhere, often imported from other countries. Some wind energy advocates claim that wind turbines are “manufactured” in the US when, in fact, they are merely assembled in the US using imported parts and components. About 75% of the capital cost of “wind farms” is for turbines, turbine parts and components, towers and blades – so a large share of the “wind farm” cost is for imports. These add to the outflow of wealth from the US and provide no economic or job benefits in the US.
2. Assuming that employment during project construction results in new jobs for local workers -- when most “wind farm” construction jobs are short term (6 months or less) and the overwhelming share of them are filled by specialized workers who are brought in temporarily.
3. Assuming that the very few permanent “wind farm” jobs are new jobs filled by local workers – when, in fact, these few permanent jobs are often filled by people brought in for short periods. Some “wind farm” owners contracts with suppliers of wind turbines and other equipment for maintenance work with the result that no “new” jobs for local workers are added.
4. Assuming that temporary workers who are brought in for short periods live and spend their pay checks -- and pay taxes -- locally when, in fact, these workers spend most of their wages where they and their families have permanent residences -- where the workers spend most of their weekends and where they pay nearly all of their taxes.
5. Assuming that the full purchase price of the goods and services purchased locally (often minimal in any case) has a local economic benefit. In fact, only the local value added may have a local economic benefit. This truth is illustrated by the purchase of a gallon of gasoline -- let's say for $3.00. Only the wages of the service station employees, the dealer's margin, and the taxes paid locally or to the state mayl have a local or state economic benefit. Economic benefits associated with the share of the $3.00 that pays for the crude oil (much of it imported), refining, wholesaling, and transportation generally flows elsewhere.
6. Assuming that land rental payments to land owners for allowing wind turbines all have local economic benefit. In fact, these payments will have little or no local economic benefit when the payments are to absentee landowners OR if the money is spent or invested elsewhere or is used to pay income taxes that flow to Washington DC or state capitals.
7. Using "input-output" models that spit out "indirect" job and other economic benefits that, in effect, magnify (a) all of the overestimates identified above, and (b) use unproven formula and data to calculate alleged “multiplier" effects.
8. Ignoring the environmental and economic COSTS imposed by “wind farm” development, which include (a) environmental, ecological, and economic costs associated with the production of the equipment, and constructing and operating the "wind farm" (e.g., site and road clearing, (b) wildlife habitat destruction, noise, bird and bat kills and interference with migration and refuges, (c) scenic impairment, (d) neighboring property value impairment, and (e) infrastructure costs.
9. Ignoring the fact that electricity produced from wind turbines, has less real value than electricity from reliable generating units -- because that output is intermittent, volatile and unreliable. Also, the electricity is most likely to be produced at night in colder months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when demand is high and the economic value of electricity is high.
10. Ignoring the "backup power" costs; i.e., the added cost resulting from having to keep reliable generating units immediately available (often running at less than peak efficiency) to keep electric grids in balance when those grids have to accept intermittent, volatile and unreliable output from "wind farms.”
11. Ignoring the fact that electricity from “wind farms” in remote areas generally results in high unit costs of transmission due to (a) the need to add transmission capacity, (b) the environmental, scenic and property value costs associated with transmission lines, (c) the electric transmission "line losses" (i.e., electricity produced by generating units but lost during transmission and never reaches customers or serves a useful purpose), and (d) inefficient use of transmission capacity because “wind farms” output is intermittent and unpredictable and seldom at the capacity of the transmission line that must be built to serve the “wind farm.”
12. Ignoring the fact that the higher true cost of the electricity from wind is passed along to ordinary electric customers and taxpayers via electric bills and tax bills which means that people who bear the costs have less money to spend on other needs (food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care -- or hundreds of other things normally purchased in local stores), thus reducing the jobs associated with that spending and undermining local economies that would benefit from supplying these needs.
13. Perhaps most important, ignoring the fact that the investment dollars going to "renewable" energy sources would otherwise be available for investment for other purposes that would produce greater economic benefits. “Wind farms” have very high capital costs and relatively low operating costs compared to generating units using traditional energy sources. They also create far fewer jobs, particularly long-term jobs, and far fewer local economic benefits. “Wind farms” are simply a poor choice if the goals are to create jobs, add local economic benefits, or hold down electric bills.
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
False expectations may be due to the infamous “JEDI” model (Jobs and Economic Development Impact model) developed for DOE’s National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) by a wind industry consultant-lobbyist. Unfortunately, this “model”( paid for with our tax dollars) has been widely promoted by NREL and DOE and outputs from the model are used by “wind farm” developers to mislead the public, media, and government officials.
Economic models often produce false or misleading outputs because (a) the model itself is faulty, and/or (b) unrealistic assumptions are “fed into” to model, with the result that the models overstate national, state, and/or local job and other economic benefits. In the case of wind energy models, basic flaws and faulty assumptions often include one or more of the following:
1. Ignoring the fact that much of the capital cost of “wind farms” is for equipment purchased elsewhere, often imported from other countries. Some wind energy advocates claim that wind turbines are “manufactured” in the US when, in fact, they are merely assembled in the US using imported parts and components. About 75% of the capital cost of “wind farms” is for turbines, turbine parts and components, towers and blades – so a large share of the “wind farm” cost is for imports. These add to the outflow of wealth from the US and provide no economic or job benefits in the US.
2. Assuming that employment during project construction results in new jobs for local workers -- when most “wind farm” construction jobs are short term (6 months or less) and the overwhelming share of them are filled by specialized workers who are brought in temporarily.
3. Assuming that the very few permanent “wind farm” jobs are new jobs filled by local workers – when, in fact, these few permanent jobs are often filled by people brought in for short periods. Some “wind farm” owners contracts with suppliers of wind turbines and other equipment for maintenance work with the result that no “new” jobs for local workers are added.
4. Assuming that temporary workers who are brought in for short periods live and spend their pay checks -- and pay taxes -- locally when, in fact, these workers spend most of their wages where they and their families have permanent residences -- where the workers spend most of their weekends and where they pay nearly all of their taxes.
5. Assuming that the full purchase price of the goods and services purchased locally (often minimal in any case) has a local economic benefit. In fact, only the local value added may have a local economic benefit. This truth is illustrated by the purchase of a gallon of gasoline -- let's say for $3.00. Only the wages of the service station employees, the dealer's margin, and the taxes paid locally or to the state mayl have a local or state economic benefit. Economic benefits associated with the share of the $3.00 that pays for the crude oil (much of it imported), refining, wholesaling, and transportation generally flows elsewhere.
6. Assuming that land rental payments to land owners for allowing wind turbines all have local economic benefit. In fact, these payments will have little or no local economic benefit when the payments are to absentee landowners OR if the money is spent or invested elsewhere or is used to pay income taxes that flow to Washington DC or state capitals.
7. Using "input-output" models that spit out "indirect" job and other economic benefits that, in effect, magnify (a) all of the overestimates identified above, and (b) use unproven formula and data to calculate alleged “multiplier" effects.
8. Ignoring the environmental and economic COSTS imposed by “wind farm” development, which include (a) environmental, ecological, and economic costs associated with the production of the equipment, and constructing and operating the "wind farm" (e.g., site and road clearing, (b) wildlife habitat destruction, noise, bird and bat kills and interference with migration and refuges, (c) scenic impairment, (d) neighboring property value impairment, and (e) infrastructure costs.
9. Ignoring the fact that electricity produced from wind turbines, has less real value than electricity from reliable generating units -- because that output is intermittent, volatile and unreliable. Also, the electricity is most likely to be produced at night in colder months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when demand is high and the economic value of electricity is high.
10. Ignoring the "backup power" costs; i.e., the added cost resulting from having to keep reliable generating units immediately available (often running at less than peak efficiency) to keep electric grids in balance when those grids have to accept intermittent, volatile and unreliable output from "wind farms.”
11. Ignoring the fact that electricity from “wind farms” in remote areas generally results in high unit costs of transmission due to (a) the need to add transmission capacity, (b) the environmental, scenic and property value costs associated with transmission lines, (c) the electric transmission "line losses" (i.e., electricity produced by generating units but lost during transmission and never reaches customers or serves a useful purpose), and (d) inefficient use of transmission capacity because “wind farms” output is intermittent and unpredictable and seldom at the capacity of the transmission line that must be built to serve the “wind farm.”
12. Ignoring the fact that the higher true cost of the electricity from wind is passed along to ordinary electric customers and taxpayers via electric bills and tax bills which means that people who bear the costs have less money to spend on other needs (food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care -- or hundreds of other things normally purchased in local stores), thus reducing the jobs associated with that spending and undermining local economies that would benefit from supplying these needs.
13. Perhaps most important, ignoring the fact that the investment dollars going to "renewable" energy sources would otherwise be available for investment for other purposes that would produce greater economic benefits. “Wind farms” have very high capital costs and relatively low operating costs compared to generating units using traditional energy sources. They also create far fewer jobs, particularly long-term jobs, and far fewer local economic benefits. “Wind farms” are simply a poor choice if the goals are to create jobs, add local economic benefits, or hold down electric bills.
Glenn R. Schleede
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
Wind power and big birds
Power from windmills is supposed to be great for the environment. But it’s not.
First, big wind farms are gobbling out vast areas of the West that until now were relatively undisturbed, sitting there as grazing land or farm fields, or as scenery.
Then there’s the deadly effect on birds. THe American Bird Conservancy says golden eagles, whooping cranes and a species of sage grouse are especially in danger from wind developments in the West.
The group reports that according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more than 400,000 birds a year are killed when they are struck by the fast-moving blades of wind turbines.
“This figure is expected to rise significantly, and will likely eventually pass the million mark as wind power becomes increasingly ubiquitous under a Department of Energy plan to supply 20 percent of America’s power through wind by 2030,” the group says in a statement to the press.
The blades are not the only problem. As wind farms are developed in the desolate places where the wind is the strongest and most steady, additional transmission lines have to be strung across the West. The conservation group says large birds such as whooping cranes, whose migration takes them across the places where transmission lines will have to go, are killed as they hit the wires.
The American Bird Conservancy urges improvements in the design of turbines and towers to minimize the damage. But even if that’s done, large wind farms still will mar the landscape and disrupt the feeding areas of migratory birds. And nothing can be done about transmission wires.
None of that would even come up as a problem if the nation, and states including Oregon, had taken a sensible approach to energy production that doesn’t dam up more rivers and put out more emissions.
It would have been smarter to encourage small generating stations closer to cities, powered by natural gas or the new generation of nuclear stations. And in rural areas where the wind is steady, households can make use of individual generators that are cylindrical and have no bird-chopping blades.
First, big wind farms are gobbling out vast areas of the West that until now were relatively undisturbed, sitting there as grazing land or farm fields, or as scenery.
Then there’s the deadly effect on birds. THe American Bird Conservancy says golden eagles, whooping cranes and a species of sage grouse are especially in danger from wind developments in the West.
The group reports that according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more than 400,000 birds a year are killed when they are struck by the fast-moving blades of wind turbines.
“This figure is expected to rise significantly, and will likely eventually pass the million mark as wind power becomes increasingly ubiquitous under a Department of Energy plan to supply 20 percent of America’s power through wind by 2030,” the group says in a statement to the press.
The blades are not the only problem. As wind farms are developed in the desolate places where the wind is the strongest and most steady, additional transmission lines have to be strung across the West. The conservation group says large birds such as whooping cranes, whose migration takes them across the places where transmission lines will have to go, are killed as they hit the wires.
The American Bird Conservancy urges improvements in the design of turbines and towers to minimize the damage. But even if that’s done, large wind farms still will mar the landscape and disrupt the feeding areas of migratory birds. And nothing can be done about transmission wires.
None of that would even come up as a problem if the nation, and states including Oregon, had taken a sensible approach to energy production that doesn’t dam up more rivers and put out more emissions.
It would have been smarter to encourage small generating stations closer to cities, powered by natural gas or the new generation of nuclear stations. And in rural areas where the wind is steady, households can make use of individual generators that are cylindrical and have no bird-chopping blades.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)