The siting of wind facilities in New York is by and large a local affair. Unlike some states, New York does not have in place a comprehensive statewide framework for wind energy facility siting. Enter the state legislature.
Assembly Bill A04793 would establish a New York state task force on wind generating facilities siting to study the need to implement a uniform statewide policy regarding the siting and permitting of wind energy production facilities. The bill, referred to the Energy Committee, has no Senate “same as” as of 3/14/2011.
The Senate does have pending a somewhat related bill pending, however. Senate Bill S01086 would authorize and direct NYSERDA to conduct a comprehensive study of the potential siting processes required to establish wind energy production facilities. The Senate bill has been referred to the Energy and Telecommunications Committee.
With the legislative session set to end in a few months, at this juncture passage of either bill seems somewhat remote.
Text of Bill A04793
Text of Bill S01086
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Turbine foes host forum on wind power downside
Local resident Elaine Pacheco was among the crowd of more than 100 on Saturday who listened in rapt attention as Executive Director Lisa Linowes of Industrial Wind Action detailed the costs, both environmental and financial, of wind turbines.
The crowd was drawn by a grassroots group, FairWindCT, that has formed in opposition to the proposal by BNE Energy, Inc. to build six wind turbines in town, each standing up to 492 feet tall when the blade is at its vertical limit.
Linowes said the power generated by wind creates no polluting emissions, but offered few other positives. "What I am trying to do today is balance out what is in the (BNE Energy) application," Linowes said.
She detailed many limitations faced by the large-scale development of wind power around the region, including a lack of existing power transmission capacity from the remote areas most conducive to wind power. Linowes challenged many of the contentions and assumptions detailed in the application, including the potential $400,000 tax windfall for the town and the applicant's contention that property values will hold up once the turbines rise.
The crowd was drawn by a grassroots group, FairWindCT, that has formed in opposition to the proposal by BNE Energy, Inc. to build six wind turbines in town, each standing up to 492 feet tall when the blade is at its vertical limit.
Linowes said the power generated by wind creates no polluting emissions, but offered few other positives. "What I am trying to do today is balance out what is in the (BNE Energy) application," Linowes said.
She detailed many limitations faced by the large-scale development of wind power around the region, including a lack of existing power transmission capacity from the remote areas most conducive to wind power. Linowes challenged many of the contentions and assumptions detailed in the application, including the potential $400,000 tax windfall for the town and the applicant's contention that property values will hold up once the turbines rise.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Can wind farms aid criminals?
Could wind farms in Northern New York unwittingly help drug smugglers?
That is a question the federal government may have to tackle if the Department of Homeland Security does as Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., has asked, and deploys military-grade radar along the U.S.-Canadian border to nab low-flying aircraft. The Defense Department has warned that wind turbines interfere with radar and has opposed their placement near military installations.
Turbines' effect on radar hasn't been a big issue along the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario, where developers have eyed a number of locations for wind farms. That could change if DHS deploys the more sophisticated radar — something Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano strongly hinted last week could happen.
"It's certainly something we study," said James H. Madden, project manager for Cape Vincent Wind Farm, where 84 turbines are proposed.
Read the entire article
That is a question the federal government may have to tackle if the Department of Homeland Security does as Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., has asked, and deploys military-grade radar along the U.S.-Canadian border to nab low-flying aircraft. The Defense Department has warned that wind turbines interfere with radar and has opposed their placement near military installations.
Turbines' effect on radar hasn't been a big issue along the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario, where developers have eyed a number of locations for wind farms. That could change if DHS deploys the more sophisticated radar — something Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano strongly hinted last week could happen.
"It's certainly something we study," said James H. Madden, project manager for Cape Vincent Wind Farm, where 84 turbines are proposed.
Read the entire article
Monday, March 14, 2011
WindTamer seeks name change
Rochester wind turbine company WindTamer Corp. is looking to change its name to Arista Power Inc.
Shareholders will vote on the name change at the annual stockholder meeting to be held May 18.
If approved, the company’s wind turbines still will bear the WindTamer brand name.
In a statement, CEO William Schmitz said the name change “reflects the fact that we have significantly broadened our suite of product offerings” in recent months. Those additional offerings include its Power on Demand system of battery storage that stores and distributes power from such renewable sources as wind and solar.
Shareholders will vote on the name change at the annual stockholder meeting to be held May 18.
If approved, the company’s wind turbines still will bear the WindTamer brand name.
In a statement, CEO William Schmitz said the name change “reflects the fact that we have significantly broadened our suite of product offerings” in recent months. Those additional offerings include its Power on Demand system of battery storage that stores and distributes power from such renewable sources as wind and solar.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Prattsburgh officials applaud wind ruling
Rochester — Prattsburgh town officials are celebrating a court ruling giving a developer five months to put in substantial work on a 16-turbine wind farm in the town.
“I think it’s good news,” said town Supervisor Al Wordingham. “It may not be a homer, but it’s a double.”
According to a complex March 7th ruling by state Supreme Court Justice John Ark, windfarm developer Ecogen and the town must work out a road use agreement that satisfies both parties. If necessary, Ark said he will determine the final agreement between the long-time combatants.
After the agreement is signed, Ecogen has exactly 168 days to make substantial progress in the project it has insisted for two years is “shovel-ready.”
“I don’t think they can do it,” said Prattsburgh’s attorney Ed Hourihan, of Bond, Schoeneck and King. “They don’t have the turbines, they don’t have the contracts, they don’t have all of their permits.”
The key issue in Ark’s ruling is the matter of vested rights — the right to carry out a project because of the work already put into it.
Ark ruled a settlement with Ecogen by a lame-duck town board in December 2009 was based on the mistaken impression the developer already had vested rights in the project.
But any delay in going forward with the project was “partly attributable” to Ecogen’s actions, Ark said. In addition, Ark ruled Ecogen has not put in the substantial work needed to secure vested rights.
Hourihan said the decision based on vested rights also gives the town a powerful tool in any appeals court.
“The appellate court has said it very simply,” he said. “No vested rights — no project.”
The town also is in a strong position to appeal based on the board’s right to rescind a December decision that led to the current lawsuit, Hourihan said.
Ecogen and the town have been at odds several times during the past few years, with tensions increasing after February 2009, when residents in nearby Cohocton complained about intolerable noise levels at the operating First Wind wind farm. The board considered a moratorium in order to look at the noise issue, but dropped it when Ecogen threatened to file a lawsuit.
Ecogen did sue the town following fall, charging the town had failed to approve a road use agreement opposed by pro-wind board members.
After several pro-wind board members were ousted by 2-to-1 margins in the November elections, Ecogen threatened another lawsuit if the current board did not reach a favorable settlement by the end of the year.
The settlement was swiftly approved by the lame-duck board, then rescinded by the new board — and the year-long litigation between Ecogen and Prattsburgh in Ark’s court began.
Since then, the town has enacted a moratorium on wind-related construction, in order to develop a “wind utility law.” The moratorium is still in place.
While Ark noted Ecogen could claim it is “grandfathered” in and allowed to begin work, Hourihan said the ban is “in effect and in full force” for any wind-related activity.
Ecogen and its financial backer, Pattern Energy, have declined to comment throughout the proceedings.
However, Ecogen attorney Robert Burgdorf told the Democrat and Chronicle Thursday the developer "is pleased the court recognized its right to proceed with this important project."
Wordingham said the town board has not made any decision on whether it wants to appeal the ruling. Some officials believe Ecogen may want to appeal the ruling in order to ask for more time, he said.
“It’s early days yet,” he said. “The road use agreement is on my desk. We look at it. We sign it. Let the clock begin.”
“I think it’s good news,” said town Supervisor Al Wordingham. “It may not be a homer, but it’s a double.”
According to a complex March 7th ruling by state Supreme Court Justice John Ark, windfarm developer Ecogen and the town must work out a road use agreement that satisfies both parties. If necessary, Ark said he will determine the final agreement between the long-time combatants.
After the agreement is signed, Ecogen has exactly 168 days to make substantial progress in the project it has insisted for two years is “shovel-ready.”
“I don’t think they can do it,” said Prattsburgh’s attorney Ed Hourihan, of Bond, Schoeneck and King. “They don’t have the turbines, they don’t have the contracts, they don’t have all of their permits.”
The key issue in Ark’s ruling is the matter of vested rights — the right to carry out a project because of the work already put into it.
Ark ruled a settlement with Ecogen by a lame-duck town board in December 2009 was based on the mistaken impression the developer already had vested rights in the project.
But any delay in going forward with the project was “partly attributable” to Ecogen’s actions, Ark said. In addition, Ark ruled Ecogen has not put in the substantial work needed to secure vested rights.
Hourihan said the decision based on vested rights also gives the town a powerful tool in any appeals court.
“The appellate court has said it very simply,” he said. “No vested rights — no project.”
The town also is in a strong position to appeal based on the board’s right to rescind a December decision that led to the current lawsuit, Hourihan said.
Ecogen and the town have been at odds several times during the past few years, with tensions increasing after February 2009, when residents in nearby Cohocton complained about intolerable noise levels at the operating First Wind wind farm. The board considered a moratorium in order to look at the noise issue, but dropped it when Ecogen threatened to file a lawsuit.
Ecogen did sue the town following fall, charging the town had failed to approve a road use agreement opposed by pro-wind board members.
After several pro-wind board members were ousted by 2-to-1 margins in the November elections, Ecogen threatened another lawsuit if the current board did not reach a favorable settlement by the end of the year.
The settlement was swiftly approved by the lame-duck board, then rescinded by the new board — and the year-long litigation between Ecogen and Prattsburgh in Ark’s court began.
Since then, the town has enacted a moratorium on wind-related construction, in order to develop a “wind utility law.” The moratorium is still in place.
While Ark noted Ecogen could claim it is “grandfathered” in and allowed to begin work, Hourihan said the ban is “in effect and in full force” for any wind-related activity.
Ecogen and its financial backer, Pattern Energy, have declined to comment throughout the proceedings.
However, Ecogen attorney Robert Burgdorf told the Democrat and Chronicle Thursday the developer "is pleased the court recognized its right to proceed with this important project."
Wordingham said the town board has not made any decision on whether it wants to appeal the ruling. Some officials believe Ecogen may want to appeal the ruling in order to ask for more time, he said.
“It’s early days yet,” he said. “The road use agreement is on my desk. We look at it. We sign it. Let the clock begin.”
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Turbine project delayed again
Defective turbine blades will set back the completion of Potsdam's hydroelectric project by about a month.
Village Administrator David H. Fenton said Friday the problem was discovered when workers assembling the components in Barrie, Ontario, noticed that air pockets had formed in the stainless steel castings. The air pockets left several holes in the steel, raising concerns about the strength of the blades.
The twin turbines have four blades each on them, with a ninth blade sent over as a spare part. The blades were made by Orengine International Ltd. of Genova, Italy.
"Five of the blades were not considered serviceable," Mr. Fenton said. "They will have to recast all of the turbine blades."
Read the entire article
Village Administrator David H. Fenton said Friday the problem was discovered when workers assembling the components in Barrie, Ontario, noticed that air pockets had formed in the stainless steel castings. The air pockets left several holes in the steel, raising concerns about the strength of the blades.
The twin turbines have four blades each on them, with a ninth blade sent over as a spare part. The blades were made by Orengine International Ltd. of Genova, Italy.
"Five of the blades were not considered serviceable," Mr. Fenton said. "They will have to recast all of the turbine blades."
Read the entire article
Friday, March 11, 2011
Ruling: Wind farm can proceed in Prattsburgh
A judge has ruled that an energy-development company may proceed with a wind farm in Prattsburgh, Steuben County, over the objections of the town board, though the company must complete a substantial amount of work in a short period of time or the deal's off.
For nearly a decade, Ecogen Wind LLC has been seeking approval to erect about three dozen wind turbines in Prattsburgh and neighboring Italy, Yates County.
Shortly after several candidates who opposed the project were elected to the Prattsburgh board in November 2009, but before they took office, the Erie County company filed suit against the town. Lame-duck town board members who were not hostile to the project then agreed to settle the lawsuit and allow the project to go forward.
When the new board members were seated in January 2010, they attempted to rescind the lawsuit settlement, leading to a protracted legal fight.
State Supreme Court Judge John Ark, who presided over a five-day trial in January and February, said in a ruling released Thursday that the current town board could not void the settlement with Ecogen. The company's lawyers had argued that the 2009 legal settlement had given them "vested" rights to undertake the project that could not legally be taken away.
Ark directed the town and company to negotiate an agreement for use of town roads, an item left open when the parties began their legal warfare. Once done, Ark said, the company then must complete a "substantial" amount of work on the project to fully "vest" their rights. He gave them 24 weeks to do that.
Edward Hourihan, a Pittsford lawyer who represented the town, said Thursday morning that he had not yet discussed the decision with his clients and did not know if they would appeal it.
He asserted, though, that Ecogen "is not in a position to vest any rights. They're far from being able to do that." He said they lack financing, turbines, necessary permits and approval for work in the town of Italy, and could not comply with Ark's 24-week time limit.
A Rochester lawyer who represents the company, Robert Burgdorf, said Ecogen "is pleased the court recognized its right to proceed with this important project." Burgdorf said the company "looks forward to developing this uniquely productive wind resource."
For nearly a decade, Ecogen Wind LLC has been seeking approval to erect about three dozen wind turbines in Prattsburgh and neighboring Italy, Yates County.
Shortly after several candidates who opposed the project were elected to the Prattsburgh board in November 2009, but before they took office, the Erie County company filed suit against the town. Lame-duck town board members who were not hostile to the project then agreed to settle the lawsuit and allow the project to go forward.
When the new board members were seated in January 2010, they attempted to rescind the lawsuit settlement, leading to a protracted legal fight.
State Supreme Court Judge John Ark, who presided over a five-day trial in January and February, said in a ruling released Thursday that the current town board could not void the settlement with Ecogen. The company's lawyers had argued that the 2009 legal settlement had given them "vested" rights to undertake the project that could not legally be taken away.
Ark directed the town and company to negotiate an agreement for use of town roads, an item left open when the parties began their legal warfare. Once done, Ark said, the company then must complete a "substantial" amount of work on the project to fully "vest" their rights. He gave them 24 weeks to do that.
Edward Hourihan, a Pittsford lawyer who represented the town, said Thursday morning that he had not yet discussed the decision with his clients and did not know if they would appeal it.
He asserted, though, that Ecogen "is not in a position to vest any rights. They're far from being able to do that." He said they lack financing, turbines, necessary permits and approval for work in the town of Italy, and could not comply with Ark's 24-week time limit.
A Rochester lawyer who represents the company, Robert Burgdorf, said Ecogen "is pleased the court recognized its right to proceed with this important project." Burgdorf said the company "looks forward to developing this uniquely productive wind resource."
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Cape Vincent group doing survey on support, opposition to wind
While the Town Council works on a townwide survey on development, including wind power projects, a pro-wind-power group has begun a short survey of its own.
Voters for Wind is calling all of the registered voters in the town and asking whether they support or oppose wind power development.
"We want to be better prepared for the elections and to know where to put the right people in office," said Beth A. White, president of the group. "We're trying to get as up-to-date information as possible."
Voters for Wind considered conducting a similar survey before the 2009 election, she said, but didn't, and underestimated the turnout needed. Two candidates critical of wind power development were elected to the Town Council during those elections.
Read the entire article
Voters for Wind is calling all of the registered voters in the town and asking whether they support or oppose wind power development.
"We want to be better prepared for the elections and to know where to put the right people in office," said Beth A. White, president of the group. "We're trying to get as up-to-date information as possible."
Voters for Wind considered conducting a similar survey before the 2009 election, she said, but didn't, and underestimated the turnout needed. Two candidates critical of wind power development were elected to the Town Council during those elections.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
ONE VIEWER’S REACTION TO SEEING WINDFALL
Since seeing the film, Windfall, yesterday afternoon at the Clayton Opera House, I have been reflecting on how fortunate the other members of the audience and I were that this film was made, and that it was made available to be shown here.
I have been reviewing every scene in the film in my head, and thinking how directly applicable it was in so many respects to the dramas that are being played out presently in Cape Vincent, Clayton, Hammond, and Lyme. The parallels are numerous and spot on.
One of the characteristics of human nature is the tendency to want to be sure that your own feelings and reactions to any situation are valid. In your mind and in your heart you want to better understand yourself by seeing and hearing others living through a comparable experience. In Windfall, we saw a beautifully crafted film that, with great sensitivity and care, does exactly that.
I think – I hope – that seeing Windfall yesterday is going to cause most people who were in the audience to allow themselves to get justifiably more angry in a way that they may have not completely allowed themselves to feel so far – even with all of the shenanigans and blatantly unethical conduct they have seen displayed by some of their local officials. Anger is a counter-productive force when not well channeled and properly directed. But well directed anger is an entirely appropriate emotion to have under the present circumstances. We need more of it. Well directed anger often must precede more participatory citizenship.
There is no doubt that the "anger quotient" has been going up and up over the continuing and persistent threat to trash our St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario shoreline towns. That's good. But we need to see that response kicked up a few notches and spread among our troubled but still silent fellow citizens who too often behave like passive onlookers. Watching Windfall will help to do that -- in a serious and careful way.
I think in the coming weeks and months people are going to react to Windfall by saying to themselves, "I have a perfect right to feel angry that these wind companies are coming in here trying to radically change the nature of my town in a fundamental and profound way – – and all they can tell me is, essentially, that I will learn to get used to it. And I'm also angry at my lifelong neighbors and friends who are doing business with the wind developers with complete disregard for how it's going to affect the majority of their fellow citizens."
The Windfall movie does not cast the large landowner wind leaseholders in a negative way. The leaseholders who are interviewed come across as very decent people who simply did not comprehend or appreciate how invasive and unwanted the wind turbines would be to others. They approach the issue – aside from the matter of needing and wanting another source of income -- with an almost complete obliviousness to the ways in which the turbines would destroy the atmosphere and an entire way of life for the majority (yes, the majority) of the residents of Meredith, NY. (If only it were obliviousness that we were dealing with in our current struggles here.)
Among the things that I hope Windfall will reinforce in the minds of those who saw it is that there is not anything wrong – not anything remotely selfish – about passionately protecting the rural quietude and rare beauty of the Thousand Islands Region. Our treasured views of land and water and sky, our clear dark star-filled nights, without the contamination of hundreds of giant twirling machines and red blinking lights, is something to be protected with no apologies to anyone.
Because Windfall does not deteriorate to the level of character assassination and name-calling on either side, it is going to be very difficult for any pro-Big Wind viewers in the audience (those who had the good judgment to come) to criticize it for driving a wedge even deeper into the community. At the same time, Windfall reminds its viewers that it is entirely legitimate to feel profoundly sad and distressed, and thoroughly un-accepting of misguided development and shoddy underhanded dealings that make such bad deals possible.
I am very hopeful that as we move further into this critical local election year that the collective will to protect our shoreline towns will become an iron determination. Intolerance of local public corruption and uncompromising insistence on preserving our most valuable natural assets will continue to grow faster and become more widespread among our residents -- stimulated, in part, as a result of seeing Windfall.
There are dozens of responsible and proper ways to act upon anger channeled and applied to block the unethically corrupted processes that are still slowly grinding away leading to what would be the essential destruction of our towns. Without a broad-based and high level of citizen anger and indignation, those grinding processes will ultimately work in favor of the Big Wind corporations and their local leaseholder accomplices.
Take back your town. Windfall has shown us that it can be done, and how it should be done.
Thanks and congratulations to Windfall creator and director, Laura Israel, and to all those who helped in any way to bring this fine documentary to us.
I have been reviewing every scene in the film in my head, and thinking how directly applicable it was in so many respects to the dramas that are being played out presently in Cape Vincent, Clayton, Hammond, and Lyme. The parallels are numerous and spot on.
One of the characteristics of human nature is the tendency to want to be sure that your own feelings and reactions to any situation are valid. In your mind and in your heart you want to better understand yourself by seeing and hearing others living through a comparable experience. In Windfall, we saw a beautifully crafted film that, with great sensitivity and care, does exactly that.
I think – I hope – that seeing Windfall yesterday is going to cause most people who were in the audience to allow themselves to get justifiably more angry in a way that they may have not completely allowed themselves to feel so far – even with all of the shenanigans and blatantly unethical conduct they have seen displayed by some of their local officials. Anger is a counter-productive force when not well channeled and properly directed. But well directed anger is an entirely appropriate emotion to have under the present circumstances. We need more of it. Well directed anger often must precede more participatory citizenship.
There is no doubt that the "anger quotient" has been going up and up over the continuing and persistent threat to trash our St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario shoreline towns. That's good. But we need to see that response kicked up a few notches and spread among our troubled but still silent fellow citizens who too often behave like passive onlookers. Watching Windfall will help to do that -- in a serious and careful way.
I think in the coming weeks and months people are going to react to Windfall by saying to themselves, "I have a perfect right to feel angry that these wind companies are coming in here trying to radically change the nature of my town in a fundamental and profound way – – and all they can tell me is, essentially, that I will learn to get used to it. And I'm also angry at my lifelong neighbors and friends who are doing business with the wind developers with complete disregard for how it's going to affect the majority of their fellow citizens."
The Windfall movie does not cast the large landowner wind leaseholders in a negative way. The leaseholders who are interviewed come across as very decent people who simply did not comprehend or appreciate how invasive and unwanted the wind turbines would be to others. They approach the issue – aside from the matter of needing and wanting another source of income -- with an almost complete obliviousness to the ways in which the turbines would destroy the atmosphere and an entire way of life for the majority (yes, the majority) of the residents of Meredith, NY. (If only it were obliviousness that we were dealing with in our current struggles here.)
Among the things that I hope Windfall will reinforce in the minds of those who saw it is that there is not anything wrong – not anything remotely selfish – about passionately protecting the rural quietude and rare beauty of the Thousand Islands Region. Our treasured views of land and water and sky, our clear dark star-filled nights, without the contamination of hundreds of giant twirling machines and red blinking lights, is something to be protected with no apologies to anyone.
Because Windfall does not deteriorate to the level of character assassination and name-calling on either side, it is going to be very difficult for any pro-Big Wind viewers in the audience (those who had the good judgment to come) to criticize it for driving a wedge even deeper into the community. At the same time, Windfall reminds its viewers that it is entirely legitimate to feel profoundly sad and distressed, and thoroughly un-accepting of misguided development and shoddy underhanded dealings that make such bad deals possible.
I am very hopeful that as we move further into this critical local election year that the collective will to protect our shoreline towns will become an iron determination. Intolerance of local public corruption and uncompromising insistence on preserving our most valuable natural assets will continue to grow faster and become more widespread among our residents -- stimulated, in part, as a result of seeing Windfall.
There are dozens of responsible and proper ways to act upon anger channeled and applied to block the unethically corrupted processes that are still slowly grinding away leading to what would be the essential destruction of our towns. Without a broad-based and high level of citizen anger and indignation, those grinding processes will ultimately work in favor of the Big Wind corporations and their local leaseholder accomplices.
Take back your town. Windfall has shown us that it can be done, and how it should be done.
Thanks and congratulations to Windfall creator and director, Laura Israel, and to all those who helped in any way to bring this fine documentary to us.
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Wind farm plan nixed in Brimfield
BRIMFIELD - Boston-based First Wind has withdrawn a proposal to build a wind farm on top of West Mountain, a move that has pleased its opponents.
"West Mountain was not the place for eight to 10 wind turbines, and I'm happy that they're leaving. I'm calling everybody that I can think of," Selectman Diane M. Panaccione said.
First Wind issued a statement on Thursday about the decision, saying that there is not enough wind at the site to support a wind farm. The company had proposed installing eight to 10 wind turbines to generate electricity. The proposed site on the mountain is near Steerage Rock, the town's symbol.
"We have made the decision not to pursue permitting of a wind project in the town of Brimfield," First Wind's communications director John R. Lamontagne stated. "After assessing the meteorological data collected in Brimfield, we have determined that the wind characteristics do not meet our requirements at this time. We remain strongly committed to wind development in the Northeast. We will continue to look for potential projects in Massachusetts and appreciate the local interest and support we received as we explored this potential project."
In September more than 200 residents packed a selectmen's meeting to make their opposition to the project clear. There were some supporters, but most of the people at the meeting expressed worries about noise, changes to the landscape and blasting that could affect water wells.
Opponents organized the No Brimfield Wind group against the project, and also cited concerns about the project's proximity to 79 homes.
Selectmen last year refused to accept a $30,000 payment from First Wind that could be used by the town to hire experts to help investigate economic, environmental, engineering and other aspects of the project. Panaccione said that First Wind never provided any of its study results to selectmen in its 11 months of studying the site.
State Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, who was notified of the development earlier this week, said "science should always determine these investments. If you don't have the wind in this location, then you don't have the wind."
Brewer said he believes in green energy, but also believes in the self-determination of communities.
There is a wind farm siting bill pending in the Legislature that Brewer said is "nebulous" and could have the potential to override local zoning ordinances. Brewer has filed an amendment to the bill ensuring that local zoning remains in effect when dealing with these projects.
In Brimfield, representatives of the company and the town had said the project could not be built without a zoning bylaw change that would take a two-thirds vote at Town Meeting to be approved.
Corporation representatives have said First Wind would wind up paying the town up to $170,000 annually if the turbines were operational, plus some additional money for community purposes.
First Wind was interested in Brimfield because Lamontagne said the company was under the impression it would be a strong location for wind and transmission. Lamontagne said a meteorological pole was erected at the site approximately 11 months ago to test the wind at the site.
Lamontagne said because "it was early in the process" the size of the turbines had not been determined. He said in other areas where the company has wind turbines, such as Maine and in New York, turbines can range in size from 260 feet to 420 feet. If built, the project in Brimfield would have had the capacity to generate 20 to 30 megawatts of power, roughly enough electricity to power between 7,000 and 10,000 homes a year, he said.
Lamontagne acknowledged the project had its detractors, and said there were "a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions spread about wind energy." But he said they had also spoken to folks who were supportive of it.
Virginia A. Irvine, a founding member of No Brimfield Wind who lives near the site, said she is pleased the fight is over, but is continuing to monitor the legislation for siting such projects. Another member, David G. Carpenter, said he is "cautiously happy" about the development.
"Wind projects are really good in places where there are no people, the wilderness of Maine, off in the ocean, the top of the mountains in Hawaii," Carpenter said.
Carpenter added that "it's a good day for the people in Brimfield who turned out in droves" to oppose the project at meetings.
William B. Hull, general partner of Hull Forest Lands in Pomfret, Conn., which owns 300 acres in Brimfield, said he has not heard anything directly from First Wind about its plans. Hull uses part of the Brimfield site as a tree farm, and First Wind had an option on the property. He declined to say how much land First Wind wanted to use, or how much money was involved.
"It is our further understanding that the company is in the process of contacting the landowners and will be removing the equipment from the site in the near future," Kate Cohen, Brewer's chief of staff, wrote in an email.
"West Mountain was not the place for eight to 10 wind turbines, and I'm happy that they're leaving. I'm calling everybody that I can think of," Selectman Diane M. Panaccione said.
First Wind issued a statement on Thursday about the decision, saying that there is not enough wind at the site to support a wind farm. The company had proposed installing eight to 10 wind turbines to generate electricity. The proposed site on the mountain is near Steerage Rock, the town's symbol.
"We have made the decision not to pursue permitting of a wind project in the town of Brimfield," First Wind's communications director John R. Lamontagne stated. "After assessing the meteorological data collected in Brimfield, we have determined that the wind characteristics do not meet our requirements at this time. We remain strongly committed to wind development in the Northeast. We will continue to look for potential projects in Massachusetts and appreciate the local interest and support we received as we explored this potential project."
In September more than 200 residents packed a selectmen's meeting to make their opposition to the project clear. There were some supporters, but most of the people at the meeting expressed worries about noise, changes to the landscape and blasting that could affect water wells.
Opponents organized the No Brimfield Wind group against the project, and also cited concerns about the project's proximity to 79 homes.
Selectmen last year refused to accept a $30,000 payment from First Wind that could be used by the town to hire experts to help investigate economic, environmental, engineering and other aspects of the project. Panaccione said that First Wind never provided any of its study results to selectmen in its 11 months of studying the site.
State Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, who was notified of the development earlier this week, said "science should always determine these investments. If you don't have the wind in this location, then you don't have the wind."
Brewer said he believes in green energy, but also believes in the self-determination of communities.
There is a wind farm siting bill pending in the Legislature that Brewer said is "nebulous" and could have the potential to override local zoning ordinances. Brewer has filed an amendment to the bill ensuring that local zoning remains in effect when dealing with these projects.
In Brimfield, representatives of the company and the town had said the project could not be built without a zoning bylaw change that would take a two-thirds vote at Town Meeting to be approved.
Corporation representatives have said First Wind would wind up paying the town up to $170,000 annually if the turbines were operational, plus some additional money for community purposes.
First Wind was interested in Brimfield because Lamontagne said the company was under the impression it would be a strong location for wind and transmission. Lamontagne said a meteorological pole was erected at the site approximately 11 months ago to test the wind at the site.
Lamontagne said because "it was early in the process" the size of the turbines had not been determined. He said in other areas where the company has wind turbines, such as Maine and in New York, turbines can range in size from 260 feet to 420 feet. If built, the project in Brimfield would have had the capacity to generate 20 to 30 megawatts of power, roughly enough electricity to power between 7,000 and 10,000 homes a year, he said.
Lamontagne acknowledged the project had its detractors, and said there were "a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions spread about wind energy." But he said they had also spoken to folks who were supportive of it.
Virginia A. Irvine, a founding member of No Brimfield Wind who lives near the site, said she is pleased the fight is over, but is continuing to monitor the legislation for siting such projects. Another member, David G. Carpenter, said he is "cautiously happy" about the development.
"Wind projects are really good in places where there are no people, the wilderness of Maine, off in the ocean, the top of the mountains in Hawaii," Carpenter said.
Carpenter added that "it's a good day for the people in Brimfield who turned out in droves" to oppose the project at meetings.
William B. Hull, general partner of Hull Forest Lands in Pomfret, Conn., which owns 300 acres in Brimfield, said he has not heard anything directly from First Wind about its plans. Hull uses part of the Brimfield site as a tree farm, and First Wind had an option on the property. He declined to say how much land First Wind wanted to use, or how much money was involved.
"It is our further understanding that the company is in the process of contacting the landowners and will be removing the equipment from the site in the near future," Kate Cohen, Brewer's chief of staff, wrote in an email.
First Wind scraps plans for first Mass. project
First Wind Holdings Inc. will not seek to build a wind farm on a mountain in Brimfield, Mass., due to weaker-than-expected wind resources, the company said.
The Boston-based company, which develops, builds and operates wind energy farms, had faced stiff opposition from local residents since introducing the project to the town last June. The project would have required a local zoning change that only a vote by residents could have enacted, signalling the project might have been impossible for the company.
But the opposition didn’t ultimately factor into the decision to pull out, First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne said in an e-mail.
“For any possible wind project, we need to collect about a year’s worth of wind data before making a determination whether or not to move forward. It was very early in the process in Brimfield,” Lamontagne wrote. “After reviewing almost a year’s worth of data, we determined the site didn’t meet the requirements we need to move ahead with a project.”
The opponents of the project “raised concerns and created a lot of confusion about wind energy,” he added. “But we’re not going ahead with the project because the project didn’t meet the requirements we need to move ahead with a good wind energy project.”
First Wind — which has built wind farms in Maine, New York and Hawaii — had been seeking to build its first wind farm in Massachusetts with the 10-turbine, 30-megawatt project in Brimfield.
But a local opposition group, No Brimfield Wind, formed soon after First Wind’s arrival in the town. Opponents argued the project would bring industrial development to a pristine mountaintop, cause property values to plummet and create noise and visual impacts, such as a shadow “flicker” caused by spinning blades.
During a visit by the Business Journal to the town last fall, Brimfield selectmen Chairman Thomas Marino said previously that he had wanted to accept $30,000 from First Wind to study the project, until hearing from 50 opponents who spoke during a three-hour meeting on the project.
“The passion was amazing,” Marino said at the time. “The entire message was, ‘We don’t want your money, go home.’”
Last October, First Wind scrapped plans for an initial public offering after the company was unable to get the amount of money from investors that the company was looking for, CEO Paul Gaynor said previously. The company expects to complete private financing in the range of $300 million in the first half of 2011, which would enable the company to develop wind projects into 2013, he said.
The Boston-based company, which develops, builds and operates wind energy farms, had faced stiff opposition from local residents since introducing the project to the town last June. The project would have required a local zoning change that only a vote by residents could have enacted, signalling the project might have been impossible for the company.
But the opposition didn’t ultimately factor into the decision to pull out, First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne said in an e-mail.
“For any possible wind project, we need to collect about a year’s worth of wind data before making a determination whether or not to move forward. It was very early in the process in Brimfield,” Lamontagne wrote. “After reviewing almost a year’s worth of data, we determined the site didn’t meet the requirements we need to move ahead with a project.”
The opponents of the project “raised concerns and created a lot of confusion about wind energy,” he added. “But we’re not going ahead with the project because the project didn’t meet the requirements we need to move ahead with a good wind energy project.”
First Wind — which has built wind farms in Maine, New York and Hawaii — had been seeking to build its first wind farm in Massachusetts with the 10-turbine, 30-megawatt project in Brimfield.
But a local opposition group, No Brimfield Wind, formed soon after First Wind’s arrival in the town. Opponents argued the project would bring industrial development to a pristine mountaintop, cause property values to plummet and create noise and visual impacts, such as a shadow “flicker” caused by spinning blades.
During a visit by the Business Journal to the town last fall, Brimfield selectmen Chairman Thomas Marino said previously that he had wanted to accept $30,000 from First Wind to study the project, until hearing from 50 opponents who spoke during a three-hour meeting on the project.
“The passion was amazing,” Marino said at the time. “The entire message was, ‘We don’t want your money, go home.’”
Last October, First Wind scrapped plans for an initial public offering after the company was unable to get the amount of money from investors that the company was looking for, CEO Paul Gaynor said previously. The company expects to complete private financing in the range of $300 million in the first half of 2011, which would enable the company to develop wind projects into 2013, he said.
Friday, March 04, 2011
Hammond wind decisions up to 3 men
HAMMOND — With James E. Langtry joining fellow Councilman James C. Pitcher on the sidelines, the Hammond Town Council will need all three remaining board members to agree in order for action to be taken on any wind issue.
Mr. Langtry's sister, Susan L. Dunham, and Mr. Pitcher have signed wind leases with Iberdrola Renewables. Both board members now are recusing themselves from wind discussions, leaving Supervisor Ronald W. Bertram and councilmen Dr. James R. Tague and Douglas E. Delosh with the three remaining votes.
"Any action will require the remaining three board members to vote in the affirmative," Mr. Bertram said.
The Town Council held its second special meeting Monday for the purpose of reviewing recommendations made by the wind committee on revisions to the town wind-farm regulations. Neither Mr. Langtry nor Mr. Pitcher was in attendance.
Read the entire article
Mr. Langtry's sister, Susan L. Dunham, and Mr. Pitcher have signed wind leases with Iberdrola Renewables. Both board members now are recusing themselves from wind discussions, leaving Supervisor Ronald W. Bertram and councilmen Dr. James R. Tague and Douglas E. Delosh with the three remaining votes.
"Any action will require the remaining three board members to vote in the affirmative," Mr. Bertram said.
The Town Council held its second special meeting Monday for the purpose of reviewing recommendations made by the wind committee on revisions to the town wind-farm regulations. Neither Mr. Langtry nor Mr. Pitcher was in attendance.
Read the entire article
Thursday, March 03, 2011
WIND FARM IS SPACED OUT
CAPE VINCENT — BP Wind Energy has reduced the size of its planned Cape Vincent Wind Farm to 84 towers.
When it submitted a draft environmental impact statement in December 2007, the project called for 140 turbines in the town. Under the supplemental draft environmental impact statement, submitted Feb. 10, the capacity of the project shrank from 210 megawatts to 134 megawatts, using 1.6-megawatt turbines.
BP evaluated project alternatives but "determined that a significant reduction in the Project's generating capacity would jeopardize its financial viability," the statement said. The developer reduced the number owing to the need for more spacing between turbines "to eliminate significant turbine noise impacts to residential structures within the site," the statement said.
But the developer designed the project allowing up to 50 decibels of audible noise at participating landowners' residences. The project is also designed to allow the turbines to generate at or below 48 decibels of audible noise on the property of nonparticipating landowners and at or below 47 decibels at nonparticipating residences.
Read the entire article
When it submitted a draft environmental impact statement in December 2007, the project called for 140 turbines in the town. Under the supplemental draft environmental impact statement, submitted Feb. 10, the capacity of the project shrank from 210 megawatts to 134 megawatts, using 1.6-megawatt turbines.
BP evaluated project alternatives but "determined that a significant reduction in the Project's generating capacity would jeopardize its financial viability," the statement said. The developer reduced the number owing to the need for more spacing between turbines "to eliminate significant turbine noise impacts to residential structures within the site," the statement said.
But the developer designed the project allowing up to 50 decibels of audible noise at participating landowners' residences. The project is also designed to allow the turbines to generate at or below 48 decibels of audible noise on the property of nonparticipating landowners and at or below 47 decibels at nonparticipating residences.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
Why aren't Lackawanna windmills turning?
Have you noticed many of the new windmills along Route 5 are not working?
This isn't the first time they've had mechanical problems, and we managed to dig up some hard numbers on just how much electricity they actually are generating.
In its first year, Steelwinds had to replace all of the gear boxes in the eight turbines. The next year, the blades had to be fixed. And for this entire winter, only half of the Lackawanna windmills have been working at any given time.
So we did some research to see just how much electricity these turbines have actually been producing. According to the numbers filed with the NY Independent System Operator, the eight Lackawanna windmills averaged about 40 Megawatt hours of electricity per year in 2008 and 2009. That's enough to power almost 6,000 homes, and works out to about 23 percent of its capacity. 100 percent would only be achieved in a constant wind, with turbines that never needed maintenance, so 30 percent is the average capacity for a wind farm.
The bottom line is Steelwinds is putting out less electricity than an average wind farm, partly because of mechanical problems, but it has no effect what Lackawanna gets.
Mayor Norman Polanski said, "We still get our money from them, our $100,000 a year. Uh, but people call about them all the time, they want to know what's going on."
At the going rate for electricity, Steelwinds is still making over $2 million a year for the electricity it is generating. On top of that, its investors get an extra two cents a kilowatt for going green. So the investors that helped pay a million bucks to build each one of these turbines get $800,000 every year in federal tax credits.
Steelwinds has plans to build six more, but the company just notified Erie County that plans have been "delayed for several months" until next December because of "delays in completing all of the PILOT agreements, and other circumstances beyond Erie Wind's control." You can read the full letter here.
We reached the project manager and a Steelwinds spokesman weeks ago about this story, but they had no comment about any of it.
UPDATE: John Lamontagne of First Wind contacted News 4 Tuesday night with this explanation: "The turbines are currently down due to composite work being completed in the towers. Given the scope of work being done and the the harsh winter conditions, there has been a delay in returning the turbines to service. We expect the turbines to return to service in the near future."
This isn't the first time they've had mechanical problems, and we managed to dig up some hard numbers on just how much electricity they actually are generating.
In its first year, Steelwinds had to replace all of the gear boxes in the eight turbines. The next year, the blades had to be fixed. And for this entire winter, only half of the Lackawanna windmills have been working at any given time.
So we did some research to see just how much electricity these turbines have actually been producing. According to the numbers filed with the NY Independent System Operator, the eight Lackawanna windmills averaged about 40 Megawatt hours of electricity per year in 2008 and 2009. That's enough to power almost 6,000 homes, and works out to about 23 percent of its capacity. 100 percent would only be achieved in a constant wind, with turbines that never needed maintenance, so 30 percent is the average capacity for a wind farm.
The bottom line is Steelwinds is putting out less electricity than an average wind farm, partly because of mechanical problems, but it has no effect what Lackawanna gets.
Mayor Norman Polanski said, "We still get our money from them, our $100,000 a year. Uh, but people call about them all the time, they want to know what's going on."
At the going rate for electricity, Steelwinds is still making over $2 million a year for the electricity it is generating. On top of that, its investors get an extra two cents a kilowatt for going green. So the investors that helped pay a million bucks to build each one of these turbines get $800,000 every year in federal tax credits.
Steelwinds has plans to build six more, but the company just notified Erie County that plans have been "delayed for several months" until next December because of "delays in completing all of the PILOT agreements, and other circumstances beyond Erie Wind's control." You can read the full letter here.
We reached the project manager and a Steelwinds spokesman weeks ago about this story, but they had no comment about any of it.
UPDATE: John Lamontagne of First Wind contacted News 4 Tuesday night with this explanation: "The turbines are currently down due to composite work being completed in the towers. Given the scope of work being done and the the harsh winter conditions, there has been a delay in returning the turbines to service. We expect the turbines to return to service in the near future."
Wind power: questionable benefits, concealed impacts
EPA trumpets dubious shale gas risks – but ignores environmental impacts of wind turbines - America is running out of natural gas. Prices will soar, making imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) and T Boone Pickens’ wind farm plan practical, affordable and inevitable. That was then.
Barely two years later, America (and the world) are tapping vast, previously undreamed-of energy riches – as drillers discover how to produce gas from shale, coal and tight sandstone formations, at reasonable cost. They do it by pumping a water, sand and proprietary chemical mixture into rocks under very high pressure, fracturing or “fracking” the formations, and keeping the cracks open, to yield trapped methane.
Within a year, US recoverable shale gas reserves alone rose from 340 trillion cubic feet to 823 tcf, the Energy Department estimates. That’s 36 years’ worth, based on what the USA currently consumes from all gas sources, or the equivalent of 74 years’ of current annual US oil production. The reserves span the continent, from Barnett shale in Texas to Marcellus shale in Eastern and Mid-Atlantic states – to large deposits in western Canada, Colorado, North Dakota, Montana and other states (and around the world).
Instead of importing gas, the United States could become an exporter. The gas can move seamlessly into existing pipeline systems, to fuel homes, factories and electrical generators, serve as a petrochemical feedstock, and replace oil in many applications. States, private citizens and the federal government could reap billions in lease bonuses, rents, royalties and taxes. Millions of high-paying jobs could be “created or saved.” Plentiful gas can also provide essential backup power for wind turbines.
Production of this much gas would reduce oil price shocks and dependence on oil imports from the likes of Gadhafi and Chavez, while lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Talk about a game changer!
What’s not to like? Plenty, it turns out. The bountiful new supplies make environmentalist dogmas passé: the end of the hydrocarbon era, America as an energy pauper, immutable Club of Rome doctrines of sustainability and imminent resource depletion, the Pickens’ Plan and forests of wind turbines.
What to do? Environmentalists voiced alarm. HBO aired “Gasland,” a slick propaganda film about alleged impacts of fracking on groundwater. Its claims have been roundly debunked (for instance, methane igniting at a water faucet came from a gas deposit encountered by the homeowner’s water well – not from a fracking operation). A politically motivated Oscar was predicted, but didn’t happen.
The Environmental Protection Agency revealed a multiple personality disorder. Its Drinking Water Protection Division director told Congress there is not a single documented instance of polluted groundwater due to fracking. (Studies by Colorado and Texas regulators drew the same conclusion.)
EPA’s Texas office nevertheless insisted that Range Resources was “endangering” a public aquifer and ordered the company to stop drilling immediately and provide clean water to area homes. EPA officials then failed to show up at the hearing or submit a single page of testimony, to support their claims.
Meanwhile, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced plans to conduct a “life-cycle” or “cradle-to-grave” study of hydraulic fracturing drilling and gas production techniques, to assess possible impacts on groundwater and other ecological values. Depending on whether the study is scientific or politicized, it could lead to national, state-by-state or even city-by-city drilling delays, bans – or booms.
The industry and many states that have long experience with drilling and are confident the needed regulations, practices and testing procedures are already in place. They voice few worries, except over how long a life-cycle study could take or how political it might become. In fact, it’s a very useful tool.
But if a life-cycle study is warranted for hydraulic fracturing, because drilling might pass through subsurface formations containing fresh water, similar studies are certainly called for elsewhere: wind turbine manufacturing, installation and operation, for instance.
Turbines require enormous quantities of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earth minerals – all of which involve substantial resource extraction, refining, smelting, manufacturing and shipping. Land and habitat impacts, rock removal and pulverizing, solid waste disposal, burning fossil fuels, air and water pollution, and carbon dioxide emissions occur on large scales during every step of the process.
Over 95% of global rare earth production occurs in China and Mongolia, using their technology, coal-fired electricity generation facilities and environmental rules. Extracting neodymium, praseodymium and other rare earths for wind turbine magnets and rotors involves pumping acid down boreholes, to dissolve and retrieve the minerals. Other acids, chemicals and high heat further process the materials. Millions of tons of toxic waste are generated annually and sent to enormous ponds, rimmed by earthen dams.
Leaks, seepage and noxious air emissions have killed trees, grasses, crops and cattle, polluted lakes and streams, and given thousands of people respiratory and intestinal problems, osteoporosis and cancer.
In 2009, China produced 150,000 tons of rare earth metals – and over 15,000,000 tons of waste. To double current global installed wind capacity, and produce rare earths for photovoltaic solar panels and hybrid and electric cars, China will have to increase those totals significantly – unless Molycorp and other companies can rejuvenate rare earth production in the US and elsewhere, using more modern methods.
Made in China turbines are shipped to the USA, trucked to their final destinations, and installed on huge concrete platforms; new backup gas generating plants are built; and hundreds of miles of new transmission lines are constructed. That means still more steel, copper, concrete, fuel and land. Moreover, the backup power plants generate more pollution and carbon dioxide than if they could simply run at full capacity, because as backups for turbines they must operate constantly but ramp up to full power, and back down, numerous times daily, in response to shifting wind speeds.
Wind farms require roads and 700-1000 ton concrete-and-rebar foundations, which affect water drainage patterns in farm country. The 300-500 foot tall turbines affect scenery, interfere with or prevent crop dusting over hundreds of acres, and kill countless birds and bats. Farmers who lease their land for wind turbines receive substantial royalty payments; neighbors are impacted, but receive no compensation.
Despite these ecological costs, wind farm projects are often fast-tracked through NEPA and other environmental review processes, and are exempted from endangered species and migratory bird laws that can result in multi-million-dollar fines for oil, gas and coal operators, for a fraction of the carnage.
Perhaps worst, all this is supported generously by renewable energy mandates, tax breaks, feed-in tariffs, “prioritized loading orders,” and other subsidies, courtesy of state and federal governments and taxpayers. In fact, wind power gets 90 times more in federal subsidies than do coal and natural gas, per megawatt-hour of electricity actually generated, according to US Energy Information Administration data. And wind-based electricity costs consumers several times more per kilowatt-hour than far more reliable electricity from coal, gas and nuclear power plants.
Simply put, the wind might be free, when it blows. But the rest of the “renewable, green, eco-friendly” wind energy system is anything but.
It might be far better all around to simply build the most efficient, lowest-polluting coal, gas and nuclear generating plants possible, let them run at full capacity 24/7/365 – and just skip the wind power.
Life-cycle studies would be a positive development – for all energy sources. In fact …
“Think globally, act locally” might be a very good motto for EPA and wind energy advocates.
Paul Driessen
Barely two years later, America (and the world) are tapping vast, previously undreamed-of energy riches – as drillers discover how to produce gas from shale, coal and tight sandstone formations, at reasonable cost. They do it by pumping a water, sand and proprietary chemical mixture into rocks under very high pressure, fracturing or “fracking” the formations, and keeping the cracks open, to yield trapped methane.
Within a year, US recoverable shale gas reserves alone rose from 340 trillion cubic feet to 823 tcf, the Energy Department estimates. That’s 36 years’ worth, based on what the USA currently consumes from all gas sources, or the equivalent of 74 years’ of current annual US oil production. The reserves span the continent, from Barnett shale in Texas to Marcellus shale in Eastern and Mid-Atlantic states – to large deposits in western Canada, Colorado, North Dakota, Montana and other states (and around the world).
Instead of importing gas, the United States could become an exporter. The gas can move seamlessly into existing pipeline systems, to fuel homes, factories and electrical generators, serve as a petrochemical feedstock, and replace oil in many applications. States, private citizens and the federal government could reap billions in lease bonuses, rents, royalties and taxes. Millions of high-paying jobs could be “created or saved.” Plentiful gas can also provide essential backup power for wind turbines.
Production of this much gas would reduce oil price shocks and dependence on oil imports from the likes of Gadhafi and Chavez, while lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Talk about a game changer!
What’s not to like? Plenty, it turns out. The bountiful new supplies make environmentalist dogmas passé: the end of the hydrocarbon era, America as an energy pauper, immutable Club of Rome doctrines of sustainability and imminent resource depletion, the Pickens’ Plan and forests of wind turbines.
What to do? Environmentalists voiced alarm. HBO aired “Gasland,” a slick propaganda film about alleged impacts of fracking on groundwater. Its claims have been roundly debunked (for instance, methane igniting at a water faucet came from a gas deposit encountered by the homeowner’s water well – not from a fracking operation). A politically motivated Oscar was predicted, but didn’t happen.
The Environmental Protection Agency revealed a multiple personality disorder. Its Drinking Water Protection Division director told Congress there is not a single documented instance of polluted groundwater due to fracking. (Studies by Colorado and Texas regulators drew the same conclusion.)
EPA’s Texas office nevertheless insisted that Range Resources was “endangering” a public aquifer and ordered the company to stop drilling immediately and provide clean water to area homes. EPA officials then failed to show up at the hearing or submit a single page of testimony, to support their claims.
Meanwhile, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced plans to conduct a “life-cycle” or “cradle-to-grave” study of hydraulic fracturing drilling and gas production techniques, to assess possible impacts on groundwater and other ecological values. Depending on whether the study is scientific or politicized, it could lead to national, state-by-state or even city-by-city drilling delays, bans – or booms.
The industry and many states that have long experience with drilling and are confident the needed regulations, practices and testing procedures are already in place. They voice few worries, except over how long a life-cycle study could take or how political it might become. In fact, it’s a very useful tool.
But if a life-cycle study is warranted for hydraulic fracturing, because drilling might pass through subsurface formations containing fresh water, similar studies are certainly called for elsewhere: wind turbine manufacturing, installation and operation, for instance.
Turbines require enormous quantities of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earth minerals – all of which involve substantial resource extraction, refining, smelting, manufacturing and shipping. Land and habitat impacts, rock removal and pulverizing, solid waste disposal, burning fossil fuels, air and water pollution, and carbon dioxide emissions occur on large scales during every step of the process.
Over 95% of global rare earth production occurs in China and Mongolia, using their technology, coal-fired electricity generation facilities and environmental rules. Extracting neodymium, praseodymium and other rare earths for wind turbine magnets and rotors involves pumping acid down boreholes, to dissolve and retrieve the minerals. Other acids, chemicals and high heat further process the materials. Millions of tons of toxic waste are generated annually and sent to enormous ponds, rimmed by earthen dams.
Leaks, seepage and noxious air emissions have killed trees, grasses, crops and cattle, polluted lakes and streams, and given thousands of people respiratory and intestinal problems, osteoporosis and cancer.
In 2009, China produced 150,000 tons of rare earth metals – and over 15,000,000 tons of waste. To double current global installed wind capacity, and produce rare earths for photovoltaic solar panels and hybrid and electric cars, China will have to increase those totals significantly – unless Molycorp and other companies can rejuvenate rare earth production in the US and elsewhere, using more modern methods.
Made in China turbines are shipped to the USA, trucked to their final destinations, and installed on huge concrete platforms; new backup gas generating plants are built; and hundreds of miles of new transmission lines are constructed. That means still more steel, copper, concrete, fuel and land. Moreover, the backup power plants generate more pollution and carbon dioxide than if they could simply run at full capacity, because as backups for turbines they must operate constantly but ramp up to full power, and back down, numerous times daily, in response to shifting wind speeds.
Wind farms require roads and 700-1000 ton concrete-and-rebar foundations, which affect water drainage patterns in farm country. The 300-500 foot tall turbines affect scenery, interfere with or prevent crop dusting over hundreds of acres, and kill countless birds and bats. Farmers who lease their land for wind turbines receive substantial royalty payments; neighbors are impacted, but receive no compensation.
Despite these ecological costs, wind farm projects are often fast-tracked through NEPA and other environmental review processes, and are exempted from endangered species and migratory bird laws that can result in multi-million-dollar fines for oil, gas and coal operators, for a fraction of the carnage.
Perhaps worst, all this is supported generously by renewable energy mandates, tax breaks, feed-in tariffs, “prioritized loading orders,” and other subsidies, courtesy of state and federal governments and taxpayers. In fact, wind power gets 90 times more in federal subsidies than do coal and natural gas, per megawatt-hour of electricity actually generated, according to US Energy Information Administration data. And wind-based electricity costs consumers several times more per kilowatt-hour than far more reliable electricity from coal, gas and nuclear power plants.
Simply put, the wind might be free, when it blows. But the rest of the “renewable, green, eco-friendly” wind energy system is anything but.
It might be far better all around to simply build the most efficient, lowest-polluting coal, gas and nuclear generating plants possible, let them run at full capacity 24/7/365 – and just skip the wind power.
Life-cycle studies would be a positive development – for all energy sources. In fact …
“Think globally, act locally” might be a very good motto for EPA and wind energy advocates.
Paul Driessen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)