Germany's renewable energy companies are a tremendous success story. Roughly 15 percent of the country's electricity comes from solar, wind or biomass facilities, almost 250,000 jobs have been created and the net worth of the business is €35 billion per year.
But there's a catch: The climate hasn't in fact profited from these developments. As astonishing as it may sound, the new wind turbines and solar cells haven't prohibited the emission of even a single gram of CO2.
REUTERS
Under current EU law, German wind turbines aren't helping to reduce CO2 emissions. They simply allow Eastern European countries to pollute more.
Even more surprising, the European Union's own climate change policies, touted as the most progressive in the world, are to blame. The EU-wide emissions trading system determines the total amount of CO2 that can be emitted by power companies and industries. And this amount doesn't change -- no matter how many wind turbines are erected.
Experts have known about this situation for some time, but it still isn't widely known to the public. Even Germany's government officials mention it only under their breath. No one wants to discuss the political ramifications.
It's a sensitive subject: Germany is recognized worldwide as a leader in all things related to renewable energy. The environmental energy sector doesn't want this image to be tarnished. Under no circumstances does Berlin want the Renewable Energy Law (EEG) -- which mandates the prices at which energy companies have to buy green power -- to fall into disrepute.
At the same time, big energy companies have an interest in maintaining the status quo. As a result, no one is pushing for change. Everyone involved is remaining silent.
Not an Instrument against Climate Change
In truth, however, even the Green Party has recognized the problem, as evidenced by an e-mail exchange last year between party energy experts and obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE. One wrote the following message to a colleague: "Dear Daniel, sorry, but the EEG won't do anything for the climate anyway." Ever since the introduction of the emissions trading system, the Renewable Energy Law had become "an instrument of structural change, but not an instrument to combat climate change."
That means: wind turbines and solar energy plants are revolutionizing Germany's mix of power sources, creating jobs and making the country more independent from imports. But they aren't helping in the fight against climate change.
In the worst case scenario, sustainable energy plants might even have a detrimental effect on the climate. As more wind turbines go online, coal plants will be able to reduce their output. This in itself is desirable -- but the problem is that the total number of available CO2 emission certificates remains the same. In other words, there will suddenly be more certificates per kilowatt of coal energy. That means the price per ton of CO2 emitted will fall.
That is exactly what happened in recent trading. A certificate to emit a ton of CO2 cost almost nothing. As a result, there was very little incentive for big energy companies to invest in climate friendly technologies.
On the contrary. Germany was able to sell unused certificates across Europe -- to coal companies in countries like Poland or Slovakia, for example. Thanks to Germany's wind turbines, these companies were then able to emit more greenhouse gases than originally planned. Given the often lower efficiency of Eastern European power plants, this is anything but environmentally beneficial.
This phenomenon is especially apparent whenever the sustainable energy industry grows more quickly than anticipated -- as in recent years when growth in the renewable energy branch quickly rendered the EU Commission's CO2 plans obsolete.
Building Renovations Are Better than Windmills
Experts from the Green Party are taking the problem very seriously: "We are in a veritable crisis situation, and that means we must reconsider and alter things we once took for granted," writes one contributor, adding that it's important to re-examine "whether we have set the right priorities."
Another expert begins his e-mail with a general clarification: "Dear People, I'm not fundamentally against the EEG. I only emphasize this because Manfred has repeatedly and erroneously described me as an opponent of the EEG." But here comes the big "but": "When reduction of CO2 emissions is more cheaply achieved through insulating a building than using a wind turbine, that is where we should concentrate our support." When it comes to climate change, everything else is secondary to reducing CO2 emissions.
The Costs of CO2 Reduction
To reduce CO2 emissions by one ton, it costs (in euros):
Building Renovations (90% of cases)
<0 *
Building Renovations (5% of cases)
0-100
Building Renovations (5% of cases)
>100
Modernizing an old black-coal power plant
20
Reductions in industrial CO2 emissions
>20
Replacing black coal with natural gas
28
Brown-coal power plant with carbon capture technology
>30
Modernizing a new black-coal power plant
50
Replacing brown coal with natural gas
50
Black-coal power plant with carbon capture technology
>50
Biomass
>50
Biofuel
>50
Wind Energy
50-60
Geothermal Energy
>100
Solar Energy (Photovoltaic)
300-500
* A value less than zero indicates that the measure is actually profitable.
Sources: McKinsey, RWE, German Renewable Energy Federation
Indeed, when it comes to climage change, investments in wind and solar energy are not very efficient. Preventing one ton of CO2 emissions requires a relatively large amount of money. Other measures, especially building renovations, cost much less -- and have the same effect.
The e-mail exchange ends with a conciliatory "What do you think?" But it is quickly followed by a bitter PS: "Do the Greens think that this problem (of climate change) will solve itself if we just screw solar panels onto our rooftops?"
Environmental Groups Admit to the Problem
The German Renewable Energy Federation is clearly not thrilled about the debate. The lobbying group's official line is: "By implementing renewable energy, there will by a reduction in 2008 of 120 million tons of CO2." When pressed, however, representatives of the federation will admit that this only applies to Germany. But the reality is that the freely traded CO2 certificates can be sold and used abroad.
Likewise, one federation employee openly said that there is "a certain degree of inconsistency" between the EEG and emissions trading.
But does it really have to be like this? Is it really so impossible to reconcile both of these instruments for protecting the climate?
In theoretical terms, of course it's possible. To do so, however, currently existing laws designed to prevent CO2 emissions would have to be reconciled. In real terms, for example, that means that every time a new wind turbine is built, the state would be forced to take certificates off the market. It is only in this way that you can achieve real positive effects on the climate.
Politicians Buckle to Business
There were discussions about such a system under Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who governed in a coalition with the Green Party. At the time, Minister of the Environment Jürgen Tritten wanted to exclude the amounts of energy covered by the EEG from the calculations used in the carbon-trading scheme. Instead, the industry-friendly regulations currently in effect were pushed through. Major energy corporations, which had claimed as many CO2 certificates as they possibly could, lobbied heavily.
So why has nothing changed? According to experts, one reason has to do with technical problems. In the course of an ongoing trading period, they claim, adjusting the volume of CO2 certificates is no easy task.
Still, an SPD insider provides yet another explanation: "Politicians just have to resign themselves to certain things." As he sees it, if the state went back to the companies and took away the certificates they had been allotted, the result would be an uproar. "What do you think the companies would say to us?" he asks. "As a politician, there are certain storms that you simply can't weather."
This is information from an institute dedicated to understanding sound in response to Massachusetts foolish report claiming that Industrial Wind Turbines have NO health impact.
The Oregon Health Authority has released a draft of its first “Strategic Health Impact Assessment on Wind Energy Development in Oregon.” The approach taken by Oregon health officials marks a subtle but significant departure from previous government reports on the topic. Most fundamentally, rather than being simply a literature review of past studies, this paper is a first attempt to sketch out the parameters by which health impacts of specific projects might later be assessed. The hope is that a final HIA would provide a basic understanding and framework that could allow future specific developments to look at local details, rather than repeating this big-picture overview. While it’s not all that clear how this framework for understanding the possible direct and indirect health effects will be used to actually assess on-the-ground responses in communities, the paper is notable for inclusion of several indirect pathways by which annoyance and sleep disruption can lead to physiological impacts, and also for its consideration of the impact of community discord on stress and well-being.
To begin with, the authors emphasize that “HIAs are guided by the World Health Organization’s definition of health as ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.’” At the same time, the report makes clear that completely avoiding all health effects is not necessarily the goal, recognizing that economic development and public health are not in opposition to each other, but mutually inter-related, so that “the long-term public interest is best served when the interdependence of these goals is recognized and balanced through a process that empowers people to shape their lives and communities.” This investigation has particular timeliness in many Oregon communities, given that Oregon’s current 2500MW of wind capacity will double when projects under construction or approved are completed, and would more than triple if those in the permitting process now are built out.
The report follows many others in finding that direct impact on the body from the sound levels commonly received around wind farms is not likely, and that infrasound is generally below levels that are likely to be perceived. But unlike other reports, which often simply mention that annoyance is possible in response to audible wind farm sound, this one looks more closely at the health effects of stress and annoyance. In particular, it concludes: ”Sound from wind energy facilities in Oregon could potentially impact people’s health and well-being if it increases sound levels by more than 10dBA, or results in long-term outdoor community sound levels above 35-40dBA.” And further: “The potential impacts from wind turbine sound could range from moderate disturbance to serious annoyance, sleep disturbance and decreased quality of life. Chronic stress and sleep disturbance could increase risks for cardiovascular disease, decreased immune function, endocrine disorders, mental illness, and other effects. Many of the possible long-term health effects may result from or be exacerbated by sleep disturbance from night-time wind turbine sound.”
Especially notable in this report is an entire section on “community conflict,” and the conclusion that “Community conflict over controversial siting or environmental decisions may contribute to or exacerbate this stress, and thus increase the risks of these negative health effects,” and that “rural communities may be disproportionately impacted by community-level conflicts because these conflicts may erode traditional sources of social and interactional support that community members rely on.”
Also strikingly, the report acknowledges that sound levels “at or near” regulatory limits can trigger these effects. Therefore, it recommends that “planners should evaluate and implement strategies to minimize sound generation from wind turbines when outdoor sound levels are at or near Oregon’s standard for wind turbine noise,” and suggest close consideration of site-specific factors that can affect sound propagation and perceived loudness, especially at night. The idea appears to be that this site-specific analysis can help to minimize the error factors in more generalized sound modeling (which can routinely lead to brief periods of sound well above that suggested by the models), thus reducing the likelihood of excess or “just at the limit” sound events.
These and other considerations of subtle, indirect effects, as well as differences in noise sensitivity and responses to wind farms among both individuals and communities, make this report far more comprehensive than most that have come before. It does not, however, make a case that all these impacts or health effects are necessarily likely to occur at levels that would preclude wind development. I recommend you read it in full to get a better sense of the overall context within which these innovative perspectives are included.
In particular, the report stresses that long-term average sound remains the best predictor of annoyance and thus possible health effects; it notes an EPA recommendation that if a sound source is new to an area, 5dB should be added to its sound output in assessing likely negative community responses, though again notes that problems are related to 5-10dBA increases in 24-hour sound averages caused by turbines, more so than short-term increases in sound.
And, while noting that “a small number of epidemiological studies have linked wind turbine noise to increased annoyance, feelings of stress and irritation, sleep disturbance, and decreased quality of life,” with “annoyance from wind turbine noise…more likely when levels exceed 35-40dBA,” the report also stresses that except for some sleep disruption and reports of lower energy, people closer to turbines may report a lower sense of how healthy they perceive their environment to be, or lower satisfaction with living conditions, but that there is generally “no difference between the two groups for social, psychological, and general health-related quality of life.” Still the report acknowledges the role (and limitations) of case series reports, which are more often simply dismissed by other similar reports. Finally, the report stresses the contributing role played by general attitudes toward the wind energy development, and encourages an open process that provides opportunities for widespread public engagement and a clear process for reporting noise or health issues if they arise, as well as urging developers to outline and communicate proposed mitigation techniques that can be employed should problems arise.
This probably looked like a great place for a wind farm: only a handful of homes within a half mile, and nearly all the more densely-populated roads to the east and west well over a mile from the ridge on Flathead Mountain, where the Record Hill Windfarm was to be built. After the bad experiences at Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, where residents within 3000-3500 feet reported serious noise issues, this location likely seemed like just the ticket. But this week, after a month of operations, several residents told the Roxbury selectmen that the slowly turning turbines had changed their peaceful lakeside existence for the worse.
Linda Kuras told the selectmen, “I know what the ice in the lake sounds like and this noise is not that. This is a repetitive thumping sound: a whemp, whemp. What was once a quiet night’s sleep is now this.” She described the low-frequency sound as being akin to heavy items in a clothes dryer tumbling around. Selectman Tim DeRouche concurred, saying, “It sounds like wind gushing right over the mountain. It sounds like a jet.” Both DeRouche and Kuras live along Roxbury Pond (noted as Ellis Pond on Google Maps); the closest homes along the lake shore are between a mile and a quarter and a mile and a half from the turbines, according to this map from Record Hill Wind.
Selectmen encouraged residents to report their complaints to the State Department of Environmental Protection, which is still in the process of setting up a complaint management system for this new wind farm. Record Hill’s director of community relations, a Roxbury resident, was in attendance, and noted the issues; he also shared that one turbine is awaiting a replacement part to fix a problem (the article didn’t clarify whether this turbine is operating or not).
By all accounts, the noise at the pond is not particularly loud, and is only sometimes audible, most notably when the pond and environs are otherwise dead quiet (which, we may presume, is one of the reasons many folks live there).
A new book, Windfall: Wind Energy in America Today, by historian Robert Righter, was recently published by University of Oklahoma Press. Righter also wrote an earlier history of wind energy, published by UofO Press in 1996. In the intervening years, of course, the wind industry has blossomed from its initial mini-boom-and-bust in the California hills (Altamont, anyone?), with bigger turbines, larger government incentives, and growing commitment to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) for electric generation all leading Righter to feel that an update was in order.
As a hearty advocate of wind energy and continued rapid growth of the industry, Righter will startle many with his strong call for not building turbines “where they are not wanted.” He spends chunks of three chapters addressing the increasing problems caused by wind farm noise in rural communities, chides developers for not building farther from unwilling neighbors, and says that new development should be focused on the remote high plains, rather than more densely populated rural landscapes in the upper midwest and northeast. While not ruling out wind farms in the latter areas, he calls for far more sensitivity to the quality of life concerns of residents. (Ed. note: Righter’s book shares a title with, but should be clearly distinguished from, a recent documentary investigating local anti-wind backlash in a NY town.)
Righter seems to be especially sensitive to the fact that today’s turbines are huge mechanical intrusions on pastoral landscapes, a far cry from the windmills of earlier generations. At the same time, he suggests that a look back at earlier technological innovations (including transmission lines, oil pump jacks, and agricultural watering systems) suggests that most of us tend to become accustomed to new intrusions after a while, noting that outside of wilderness areas, “it is difficult to view a landscape devoid of a human imprint.”
He acknowledges the fact that impacts on a few can’t always outweigh the benefits for the many in generating electricity without burning carbon or generating nuclear waste, but goes on to ask:
No matter how admirable this is, should a few people pay the price for benefits to the many? Should rural regions lose the amenities and psychological comforts of living there to serve the city? Should metropolitan areas enjoy abundant electricity while rural people forfeit the very qualities that took them to the countryside in the first place? The macro-scale benefits of wind energy seldom impress local opponents, who have micro-scale concerns. The turbines’ benefits are hardly palpable to impacted residents, whereas the visual impact is a constant reminder of the loss of a cherished landscape.
Righter also takes a realistic stance about the fact that our appetite for electricity leads to inevitable conflicts wherever we might want to generate it. He says, “…wind turbines are ugly – but the public produced the problem and must now live with it. Turbine retribution is the price we must pay for a lavish electrical lifestyle.”
But unlike most wind boosters, he doesn’t content himself with this simple formulation. He goes on to stress that even as recently as 2000, most experts felt that technical hurdles would keep turbines from getting much bigger than they were then (500kW-1MW). The leaps that have taken place, with 3MW and larger turbines in new wind farms, startle even him: ”They do not impact a landscape as much as dominate it….Their size makes it practically impossible to suggest that wind turbines can blend technology with nature.” He joins one of his fellow participants in a cross-disciplinary symposium on NIMBY issues, stressing: ”Wind energy developers must realize the ‘important links among landscape, memory, and beauty in achieving a better quality of life.’ This concept is not always appreciated by wind developers, resulting in bitter feeling, often ultimately reaching the courts.”
He was obviously touched by the experience of Dale Rankin and several neighbors in Texas, who were affected by the 421-turbine Horse Hollow Wind Farm. Righter generally agrees with my experience there, that such wide open spaces seem the perfect place for generating lots of energy from the wind. But two of these hundreds of turbines changed Rankin’s life. These two sat between his house and some wooded hills, and Righter says that to him, “the turbines seemed inappropriate for this bucolic scene. For the Rankins the change is a sad story of landscape loss…” He asked whether the developer had talked with them before siting the turbines here, but they hadn’t, since the land belonged to a neighbor and local setback requirements were met, so “the utility company placed the turbines where its grid pattern determined they should be. Perhaps such a policy represents efficiency and good engineering, but (reflects) arrogance and poor public relations….(The developer) crushed Rankin with their lawyers when fairness and reason could have ameliorated the situation…the company could well have compromised on the siting of two turbines. But they did not.”
On the question of noise, Righter is equally sensitive and adamant, stressing the need to set noise standards based on quiet night time conditions, “for a wind turbine should not be allowed to invade a home and rob residents of their peace of mind.” He says, “When I first started studying the NIMBY response to turbines I was convinced that viewshed issues were at the heart of people’s response. Now i realize that the noise effects are more significant, particularly because residents to not anticipate such strong reactions until the turbines are up and running – by which time, of course, it is almost impossible to perform meaningful mitigation.”
If AEI were a mass media outlet, publishing this on New Year’s Eve would be considered an attempt to “bury” the story on a weekend when few people are following the news. But since our readership works on a longer time scale and are likely to find their way here over the next couple of weeks, I hope you’ll instead consider this a New Year present! It’s taken many (many…) hours of work, and I hope it helps all those working on wind farm noise issues – including local and state regulators, environmental consultants, wind developers, and community groups – to make sense of the insanely confusing world of low-frequency noise and infrasound. Here’s to a constructive 2012 as we continue to work toward siting policies that protect residents from unwanted changes to their sense of place while encouraging responsible and widespread growth of wind energy.
As regular readers will know, AEI’s wind farm coverage has focused primarily on the ways that nearby neighbors respond to the audible noise from wind turbines, with far less emphasis on infrasound. However, given the ongoing public dialogue about the contribution of infrasound and low-frequency sound to the annoyance, sleep disruption, or health effects reported by some wind farm neighbors, I do like to keep abreast of research into the lower end of the sound spectrum. In this post, I’ll be summarizing several papers that have appeared in journals and conference proceedings over the past several months. This will be a much longer post than normal, but I encourage you to take the time to read through it, and to download the source papers for further study. What you’ll find here is a close reading of work from both mainstream and more cautionary acousticians, which I believe will help you to understand the subtleties of our current state of understanding in a new and clearer way.
I think it’s fair to say that the bottom line continues to be roughly the same as it’s been: wind turbines clearly produce much of their sound energy at lower frequencies, including the low end of the audible spectrum (20-250Hz) and the infrasonic range (below 20Hz, which is generally below the range humans tend to hear, simply because it has to be very loud to be perceptible). Conventional wisdom continues to be that the infrasound in wind turbine noise is well below human perceptual limits, even of the more sensitive fringe of the population. This summary doesn’t directly challenge that idea, though as you’ll see, there are some indications that we may have been a bit too quick to entirely rule out any perception of infrasound produced by wind turbines. Still, I hasten to stress that any possible connection between physically perceptible infrasound and health effects remains beyond the scope of most of these papers (with a couple of exceptions).
More importantly, though, it’s increasingly being recognized that low-frequency audible sound could very well be a key factor in widespread annoyance about wind farm noise. It’s important to not conflate infrasound and low-frequency sound; while the former is (always or mostly) imperceptible, the latter is clearly very audible in many situations, and indeed, is the dominant sound component of wind farm noise at moderate and larger distances. It’s quite likely that much of the annoyance people report could be triggered by very low frequency, moderately audible noise, which can be more ear-catching (or perhaps even cause physiological reactions) when it contains one or more dominant tones or fluctuates rapidly. Further, increasing evidence confirms neighbors’ reports that moderate but extremely bothersome low frequency noise can be more perceptible inside their homes than outside. These elements are part of the reason that several of the papers here from relatively mainstream perspectives (and which consider infrasound a non- or minimal issue) recommend lower noise limits than the 45-50dB standard commonly used in the US; you’ll see in these papers that 40dBA is becoming a common recommendation. Most of the more cautionary acousticians tend to recommend 30-35dB; it’s striking to me that the gap between these two perspectives has narrowed considerably in the last year or so.
Among the highlights of the recent research is Møller and Pedersen’s finding that larger turbines produce more low-frequency sound (especially audible low-frequency), and that in many atmospheric conditions, sound levels will remain annoyingly high for much farther than often assumed by more idealized sound modeling. Also of note, Bray and James’ field measurements of wind turbine sound, using equipment designed to capture very short time segments, reveals a remarkable variability and surprisingly high peak sound levels in the low-frequency and infrasonic sound, to a degree that raises questions about our tendency to rely on longer-time-period averages that indicate infrasound is always well below perceptual limits. As we look more closely into low-frequency and infrasound data, both the mainstream papers and the more cautionary acousticians’ work suggest that these questions are far from settled.
(I should clarify that my use of the word “mainstream” is meant to simply mean studies by folks working with techniques and perspectives on bothersome noise levels that have been standard in noise control assessment for many community noise sources. And conversely, the use of the term “cautionary acousticians” does not imply they are less qualified or biased in any way. Indeed, most of them have decades of noise control experience and have been drawn to the study of wind farm noise only because of the unexpectedly robust complaints that have arisen, and are professionally interested in trying to ascertain the reasons, either by using innovative measurement techniques or closely assessing annoyance patterns. They may be more “cautionary” in their recommended noise limits simply because they’ve looked more closely at specific problems, rather than keeping their distance and approaching the issue through standard noise modeling and analysis techniques.)
Some of the papers I’m summarizing here address aspects of annoyance and sound characteristics of wind farm noise that are not limited to low frequency and infrasound issues (especially including acknowledgement of the extreme variability of the overall sound levels); these papers provide important perspectives that may help us to understand why wind farms are producing more annoyance reactions than we might expect, considering their moderate sound levels.
For more (much more…but worth it!), click on through to read lay summaries of the following recent papers:
Møller and CS Pedersen. Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129 (6), June 2011, 3727-3744.
O’Neal, Hellweg, Lempeter. Low frequency noise and infrasound from wind turbines. Noise Control Eng. J. 59 (2), March-April 2011.
Bolin et al. Infrasound and low frequency noise from wind turbines: exposure and health effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 6 (2011) 035103
Bray and James. Dynamic measurements of wind turbine acoustic signals, employing sound quality engineering methods considering the time and frequency sensitivities of human perception. Noise-Con 2011.
Stephen E. Ambrose and Robert W. Rand. The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study: Adverse health effects produced by large industrial wind turbines confirmed. December 14, 2011.
David Hessler, Best Practices Guidelines for Assessing Sound Emissions From Proposed Wind Farms and Measuring the Performance of Completed Projects. Prepared for the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, under the auspices of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). October 13, 2011.
Knopper and Ollsen. Health effects and wind turbines: A review of the literature. Environmental Health 2011, 10:78
Kroesen and Schreckenberg. A measurement model for general noise reaction in response to aircraft noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129 (1), January 2011, 200-210.
HGC Engineering, Low frequency noise and infrasound associated with wind turbine generator systems: A literature review. Ontario Ministry of the Environment RFP No. OSS-078696.
Bob Thorne. The Problems with “Noise Numbers” for Wind Farm Noise Assessment. Bulletin of Science Technology and Society 2011 31: 262.
The Pinnacle Wind Farm in West Virginia has been gearing up in recent weeks, with all of its 23 turbines to be spinning by the end of the year. But even as the wind farm began initial operations, neighbors have petitioned their county commission to request that the state PSC require the turbines to be shut down from 10pm to 7am.
Richard Braithwaite, who lives three-quarters of a mile from the nearest turbines, says that he he “never would have believed they would make that much noise.” He told the commissioners, “If you turn the turbine one way, it sounds like a railroad train. If you turn it another way, you hear the whine. The noise wakes me up; I can’t sleep. It’s so loud … you can’t drown it out with the television or anything.” He says a simple sound meter has shown levels of 60dB and more inside his home on most nights (ed. note: it’s possible that this included other sounds); the wind developer has done some sound monitoring recently as well, though the results have yet to be released; the company has also sent a representative to visit with neighbors this week.
The Umatilla County Commission approved construction of a 33-turbine wind farm, rejecting a citizens’ challenge of the recent OK given by the County Planning Commission. In June, Umatilla County enacted a 2-mile setback provision for new wind farms, but the Chopin Wind Project application was submitted in April, so was not subject to the new rules. The 2-mile limit is at least twice that used in other Oregon counties.
The County says the Chopin Wind Project, which will be built using 3MW turbines, will be subject to Oregon’s state noise standard of 36dB; another Oregon county recently decided not to enforce this limit (the state delegated enforcement to the counties years ago). The 36dB limit tends to lead to setbacks of about a half mile or so, depending on terrain and other factors used in modeling likely sound propagation.
Jane and Julian Davis’ long-running dispute with a wind farm located 1km (just over a half mile) from their home in Deeping St. Nicholas has come to an end. On the day before their case, seeking either a permanent shut-down of the wind farm or 2.5 million pounds in damages, was due to hear the final witnesses at London’s High Court, a settlement was announced between the Davis’ and the wind farm developer. The details of the settlement are confidential, and likely less than the Davis’ were seeking, but we can likely presume that it is enough for them to buy another piece of rural property; they moved out of their home less than a year after the wind farm began operation in 2006. Update, 12/6/11: a local newspaper talks to the couple.
The settlement comes as somewhat of a surprise, considering the vehemence with which their claims of being forced from their home were challenged in the first round of testimony at the High Court this summer. However, a spokesman for Renewable UK, the wind energy trade association, welcomed the news of a settlement, saying that the organization always encourages its members to work closely with local residents when planning projects to ensure that any local issues are resolved without ending up in court.
To which I might say, they were a bit behind the curve this time! Yet certainly the industry would prefer to not risk negative court judgments in a high profile case such as this, which was the first such challenge to a wind farm on basis of a “nuisance” rather than as violating specific wind farm operational guidelines. This settlement is but the latest of quite a few situations in which wind developers felt it made more sense to buy property or otherwise settle disputes financially than fight nearby neighbors who had moved out of their homes or were prominent local voices about the noise impacts of siting choices. (That spree of links reflects buyouts in Ontario, Washington, Oregon, and Australia.) While the prospect of purchasing property is often said to introduce untenable uncertainty into project financing, the actual cost of purchasing a few nearby properties is dwarfed by the cost of the turbines themselves (over a million dollars each). Most of these settlements have been concessions by developers after problems arose, though in at least one Australian case, the buyouts were presented as a “sell your house or live with it” option prior to construction, which neighbors felt was an untenable and unfair choice.
There is clearly movement here, in that developers are recognizing that impacts are more dramatic on some neighbors than on others, and than had been expected. Yet we also clearly have a way to go before we can say that dialogue on these variable impacts has become routine or an influence on setback distances proposed by developers. So far, we’ve yet to see any developers take the proactive approach of agreeing to keep turbines well away from unwilling neighbors, and to work with willing neighbors or willing sellers to come up with a viable site plan. That time is not far away, though, I suspect; the industry will surely benefit from reducing the contention that results when site plans lead to significant audible noise impacts on unwilling neighbors.
For the first time, an onshore wind farm has triggered calls for caution from marine mammal protection organizations. The 2500-acre, 56-turbine wind farm will be built along a steep shoreline that funnels nutrient-rich waters from Antarctica to the surface, spawning a dense aggregation of phytoplankton and krill. Along the coast of Isla Grande de Chiloé, blue whales and right whales gather from January to April to feast on this abundance; blues come as close as 400m to shore, and rights have been seen only 5m offshore.
Environmentalists, including local organizations like Santiago’s Centro de Conservación Cetacea, and international voices such as the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society have raised dual concerns, regarding construction of a new port to bring construction materials to the site, vastly increasing ocean noise from ship engines in this relatively acoustically pristine area, and possible disturbance or even displacement of animals due to noise from pile driving during construction and airborne wind turbine noise during operations. Even the International Whaling Commission’s scientific committee has called for ”the urgent development of an environmental impact assessment in this region and to reconsider locating the wind farm towers further away from coastline.”
The importance of the feeding ground to southern hemisphere blue whales, combined with having 40% of the turbines right along the shore, raise the question of whether the ongoing blade noise will keep whales at a distance; there is some evidence that airplane overflights cause whales to move away, and the sound levels of the turbines will be similar to a small plane. Whether whales might be able to move a small distance away and still find enough krill is the big question. Chile’s environmental authorities approved the project in August after requiring a simple environmental declaration, rather than a detailed impact study; the Chilean Supreme Court is hearing a lawsuit from opposing groups, and will make a decision in the next few months.
An article in the Independent this week details the steps taken by four English wind farms to reduce noise experienced by neighbors. In each case, the wind farm operator made changes in at least some turbines’ operation, including slowing them down or shutting them off when the wind hit certain speeds or came from directions that heightened the problems.
An ongoing research project in New Mexico continues to shed more detailed light on the question of how moderate human noise affects nearby wildlife. In a study design that effectively separates out the impact of the noise from other habitat disruption effects, Clint Francis and his colleagues are finding that some species are displaced, while others seem to thrive in areas with coalbed methane compressor stations creating noise around the clock. The most recent paper to be published by Francis et al finds that species that sing at lower frequencies are most likely to avoid the noisy areas, while those who vocalize at higher frequencies are more apt to be unaffected or even thrive.
While this research studies an area with oil and gas development noise, it’s likely that similar effects would occur in and near wind farms, which also produce predominantly low-frequency noise. And, as the authors note to conclude their paper: “At the community-level, we must still determine whether noise is an agent of ecological filtering for other taxa that rely on acoustic communication.”
Rather than doing the full AEI lay-summary of the most recent paper, I want to point you to the great summary already written by Caitlin Knight, biologist who studies the ways in which anthropogenic disturbance impacts animals, on her Anthrophysis blog.
Town officials from Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin recently visited a wind farm in Brownsville in order to listen and take sound measurements of turbines similar to three being proposed by a local plant that aims to generate all its energy needs on site.
What they heard reassured them, after hearing noise concerns from some local residents. ”At 800 feet, measurements came in at 46 - 47 decibels, and at 1,200 feet it was less than 40 decibels, ” said Planning Director Ron Meyer. By comparison, he said a passing car on the paved road came in at 62 decibels. Even within a thousand feet, they could sometimes not hear the turbines spinning.
Of course, any quick visit to a wind farm offers just a snapshot view (or listen). In many cases, neighbors’ noise issues occur mainly in particular atmospheric or wind conditions, so the question becomes how common these above average noise events are. Stable sound-reflecting air layers above the turbines, high levels of turbulence in the air hitting the blades, and wind speed differences from the bottom to top of the blades are all factors that tend to contribute to higher or more intrusive noise levels. And, night time noise tends to be a bigger issue than day time; even moderate noise levels can become the loudest sound heard out a bedroom window at night.
Still, it’s good to get out there and get a sense of what may be heard near the proposed turbines. Unfortunately, no residents were able to join the town officials on this trip, though they were invited. It’s hard to know what degree of investigation will really give a complete picture of what may be experienced by people near the plant; spending a few nights in Brownsville might help. More generally, many towns considering wind project siting questions would be well served by a series of well-designed survey projects around wind farms, which might best capture the range of experiences at existing wind farms.
A couple living roughly 5000 feet from a proposed 5-turbine wind farm has appealed the project’s approval by the town of Clifton, Maine, citing quality of life concerns due to the likelihood that they will hear the turbines from their home and farmlands. “Our land is our home. We work here. We farm here. We recreate here and we restore our souls here,” said Peter Beckford. Beckford and his wife Julie run an organic flower business on a sixty-acre property, which also includes several small cabins where farm apprentices and other visitors live.
The proposed wind farm, on Pisgah Mountain, was designed to include 4000-foot setbacks from homes, but the Beckfords say that their cabins and other buildings used for their business were improperly excluded as protected or occupied structures when the setback was applied.
The Beckford’s challenge is notable in that it is making a quality of life argument that audible turbine noise is an inappropriate addition to the local soundscape. The appeal rests on several permitting issues, including the outbuilding distance and other aspects of the town’s planning process, but their statements indicate that the turbine noise is the crucial issue for them. Their challenge is perhaps the strongest expression yet of the feeling by some rural residents that any noise intrusion is unacceptable; several more cautionary acousticians have recommended noise limits, at least at night, of 30-35dB, and setbacks of a mile to a mile and a half, in acknowledgement that any turbine noise readily audible above quiet rural background sound levels will trigger significant annoyance in some neighbors.
Most previous challenges of wind farm approvals have attacked siting standards that placed turbines much closer than a half mile, or noise standards that could allow intrusive sound levels (15dB or more over ambient) at some or many homes. In saying that three-quarters of a mile is not far enough away, the Beckfords are standard-bearers for rural residents who want wind farms to be far enough away to be effectively inaudible. For people living deep in rural areas, it’s an understandable desire; some towns have have banned tall industrial turbines altogether, to assure local soundscapes will remain unblemished. Other towns, aiming to be somewhat more welcoming to wind projects, have set half-mile to 4000-foot setbacks in order to reduce the severity and frequency of noise intrusions. Time will tell whether new wind farms built with these larger setbacks will be more easily accepted by rural communities.
A wind farm in South Australia has been shutting down 16 of its 34 turbines at night since last December, after a nearby neighbor complained of noise keeping his family awake at night. This week, the state Supreme Court affirmed that the wind farm was breaking its noise limit, due to a tonal noise component, and sent the issue to the Environmental Resources and Development Court for adjudication.
The neighbor, Bill Quinn, said his mother and sister, who live near the existing turbines, had been in “absolute heaven” since the decision was made to shut the turbines down at night. A spokesman for AGL Energy said that ”We understand that one of our neighbours has been inconvenienced and we apologise. We want to be a good neighbour and we’re committed to working with local communities and taking any concerns that they have about our projects seriously.” AGL is working with the turbine supplier on a “permanent acoustic treatment” to dampen tonal noise.
Several Australian states have recently moved to increase setbacks from new wind farms. In Victoria, the Baillieu government has announced strict regulation of wind farm developments, including a minimum 2km (1.25mi) distance from houses. In NSW, Premier Barry O’Farrell has indicated he intends to introduce similar laws. South Australia’s guidelines limit noise to 35dB in areas “primarily intended for rural living” and 40dB elsewhere, while providing for agreements with landowners to allow higher sound levels.
Town votes in Riga, Michigan, and Rumford, Maine have both adopted wind farm siting standards that are somewhat more cautionary than most. Riga township voted 440-236 to uphold an ordinance that establishes setbacks of 4x turbine height (1200 or so feet) from non-participating property lines, and sets a noise limit of 40dB at night and 45dB during the day. The distance setback shouldn’t be an issue for developers (1200-1500 foot setbacks are typical of many wind farms), though the night time noise limit could make it difficult to site turbines closer than a third to half mile from homes. It wasn’t clear from initial press reports whether the Riga ordinance provides an option for neighbors to sign waivers allowing closer siting or higher noise levels.
Meanwhile, the third time was the charm in Rumford, where two previous proposals went down to defeat, one for being too stringent (including setbacks of a mile), and the next for not protective enough (the sticking point likely being a 45dB night time noise limit). The current proposal garnered overwhelming support, winning by a margin of 1137-465, and includes a 40dB night/50dB day noise limit, along with a 4000-foot setback from non-participating neighbor property lines. Neighbors can, however, sign a Mitigation Waiver agreement to allow closer siting.
I’m traveling this week, so not monitoring the news on a regular basis, but tonight I thought it would be useful to simply highlight a few news items that came through my custom Google News section on wind farm noise in the past few days. The mix of stories is pretty typical of what occurs each week:
Representing the widespread efforts of local planning authorities to make sense of conflicting voices are two towns, one near the end of its process, and one still close to the beginning. Supervisors in Palmyra Township in Michigan (right) decided to rescind an earlier tightening of their noise and siting regulations, after a wind developer said the rules as adopted would likely prohibit construction in the town. In a 3-2 vote, the majority were concerned about such a prohibition, agreeing with Supervisor Dale Terry, who said, “I’m not sure that is fair or proper,” while one joined with Steve Papenhagen, who stressed that “I don’t know how we can force this on landowners that don’t want to be a part of it.” The Supervisors re-established a noise limit of 45dB at buildings on neighboring properties, up from 40dB in the previously amended plan.
In Frankfort, Maine, where a four-to-six turbine project is planned, a community meeting on a proposed wind farm ordinance got heated, culminating in a shouting match between a developer and an anti-wind activist outside the building after the meeting ended. (Apparently, they embodied the state of our current dialogue to perfection, each yelling that the other was a liar!) A committee that had developed a draft ordinance presented it at the meeting; they proposed a 1-mile setback, and noise limits of 45dB during the day and 32dB at night, measured at neighboring property lines. State regulations currently call for 55db during the day, and a recently proposed 42dB at night, measured at homes. Josh Dickson, who served on the committee, noted that noise heard at homes, especially at night, can cause insomnia and hypertension, according to their findings. “At the end of the day, this is research. It’s not perfect. Neither are we,” Dickson told the crowd. “We did the best we can. The decision will be up to you guys, not us.” The small wind developer planning the project, Eolian Renewable Energy, is proposing a setback of three times the height of the turbines, or about 1000 feet, and also calls for using the state noise limits.
A woman from Freedom, Maine, spoke at the Frankfort meeting, and shared an unusually clear and poignant story of noise impact at their home, 3000 feet from one of several turbines. Her three kids have all been prescribed sleeping pills due to wakefulness since the turbines began operating; this strikes me as particularly noteworthy, since the kids are less likely to be affected by pre-existing concern or fear, which some blame for the reports of sleeplessness and stress in adult wind farm neighbors.
In North Devon, England, the Fullabrook wind farm (left) is gradually becoming operational, with all turbines planned to be spinning by the end of November. Several neighbors have noted that noise has been a problem as the wind farm begins to ramp up. Sue Pike’s bungalow is 600 meters (about 2000 feet) from one of the turbines at the new wind-farm and she says: “It is dreadful – the main sound is like a huge great cement mixer going around – then you get the loud whoosh and also whistles and hums. Altogether we have counted four different noises coming from it. Back in the warmer weather when the turbines were being tested we couldn’t open the bedroom or lounge windows – fortunately we are double-glazed so that helps cut out the noise – but we were stewing indoors.”
The wind developer in Devon, ESB, will begin noise monitoring once the wind farm is fully operational. ”ESB will continue to work closely with the local community – particularly our immediate neighbours and North Devon Council – to ensure we not only meet all conditions of the planning permission, but that we are able to discuss local concerns and take what measures we can to address issues,” commented a company spokesman. North Devon Council’s Environmental Health Department will also conduct site analysis at five locations in response to residents’ concerns.
On the other side of the coin, Barnstaple town councillor and Green Party member Ricky Knight visited a friend’s house near the wind farm (though the distance wasn’t specified), and said, that ”essentially all we heard was the wind, birds and farm machinery. I was not able to discern any sound coming from the turbines. I am in receipt of criticisms (from people who don’t like the wind-farm) but I get far more support from people who simply register confusion about this subject.”
While it’s quite common to hear from wind farm supporters who were surprised and dismayed by the noise levels they encountered once the turbines were operating, we hear the opposite tale from Leicestershire, UK. There, after living for seven months with a new wind farm, some opponents are saying it’s not as bad as they feared it would be. The article quotes two former objectors and one wind turbine host and doesn’t specify many distances, but one farmer “less than a mile” away says ”I went to all the protest meetings and I was against them from the start. But now, I must say they don’t really bother me. I can’t hear them and I can barely see them. It’s like the industrial revolution all over again – people don’t like change until it actually happens and they get used to it.” This could be a simple case of people a fair distance away being more worried than they needed to be; a quick search online didn’t come up with news reports of problems from other (closer) residents, but it may be too early to assume there are none, especially since they’ve yet to go ’round all the seasons.
Knight’s experience in Devon, as contrasted with Pikes, is a great illustration of the disconnect that continues to dog wind farm development and ordinance-writing. I think we can safely assume that Pike’s not imagining the sound that’s bothering her, and that Knight visited at a time and place where the turbines were inaudible (and it must have been daytime, since farm machinery was operating). Complicating the challenge before town boards is a widespread uncertainty about who to trust; as noted by Palmyra Supervisor Jim Isley, “I have to wonder sometimes if one side doesn’t exaggerate their claims, and the other side perhaps doesn’t tell all that they know.” Indeed, AEI’s continuing attempts to make sense of the polarized rhetoric coming from the two sides suggest that both tend to overstate their case. Developers often downplay potential noise issues; for example, the Eolian website lists typical rural sound levels at 40dB (probably a 12 or 24 hour average), while night time sound levels in deeply rural areas are often measured as low as 20dB, so that a turbine may become a truly dominant sound. Meanwhile, community groups tend to assume that the worst-case responses they hear about elsewhere will be common, even at great distances. For example, a letter published this week about a proposed wind turbine at a gravel plant in California, expressed concerned that a school is “only 1.5 miles away.” The letter claims that Oregon requires a two-mile setback (they don’t: though their noise limit is one of the lowest, 36dB, setbacks tend to be in the half-mile to mile range). Even many more cautionary acoustics experts, who tend to favor noise limits of 30-35dB, suggest that 2km (1.25 miles) is a reasonable minimum setback, with some recommending a mile and a half; the gravel plant turbine doesn’t appear to be close enough to warrant alarm or heightened concern. We clearly have a long way to go before we can have a clear, reasoned discussion about whether current setback standards are providing a degree of community noise protection that’s similar to that we’ve become used to from other noise sources.
A brief article from a local paper in Illinois shed some new light on two key issues that have come up in many communities considering new wind farm proposals. The meeting of the Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals featured an hour-long presentation from Carl Phillips, an epidemiologist who has published a peer-reviewed study saying there is “overwhelming evidence” of health effects near turbines. He said that people up to two miles away have reported health issues such as sleep and stress issues and mood disorders. When asked what percentage of residents report health problems, he said that there have not been solid studies of that, but that his best guess, based on what research has been done, is about 5 percent of those within a mile or so. This relatively low estimate may surprise some, but such reports from many wind farms lead Phillips to conclude that anyone denying health effects exist is ignoring the evidence or “trying to mislead.” And, even this low estimate was challenged by representatives from Mainstream Renewable Power, who characterized Phillips’ presentation as “personal hypotheses.” (Ed. note: the continuing effort of industry representatives to discredit suggestion of any problems at all, including Phillips’ modest 5% estimate, or recordings that reflect higher levels of sound or amplitude modulation than expected, has become a major impediment to constructive engagement on wind farm siting decisions; ongoing diligent study by more cautionary experts deserves to be given more credence.)
In addition, the mayor of the village of Lee asked representatives of Mainstream whether confidentiality agreements signed by landowners leasing land for turbines will prevent them from discussing any health problems that they may notice once the turbines are operating–reflecting a widespread concern that health problems may be under-reported due to such agreements. One Mainstream rep spurred laughter from the audience when he said he couldn’t talk about what the confidentiality agreements address, since they’re “inherently confidential.” But another Mainstream rep stressed that the agreements do not preclude talking about health. (Ed. note: Many confidentiality agreements with landowners are primarily designed to keep financial details private; this is especially true when a house is bought by developers.)
For the past three years, I’ve been learning what I can about the ways that wind farm noise affects nearby neighbors. While most online information tends toward the black-and-white—the sound levels are lower than most human noise sources and current siting standards are fine; the noise is invasive and we need to totally rethink the efficacy of wind energy—AEI has been dedicated to fleshing out the shades of grey. A noise that drives one person crazy is considered a gentle whoosh by another; ranching areas tolerate wind farm noise at levels far above those that are causing problems in rural areas where residents especially value peace and quiet; community noise standards that minimize complaints about, say, road noise, can appear to be too high for wind farms. As important as it is to tell the whole story, including the fact that much is yet unclear, I feel a bit adrift in the grey these days. When it comes right down to it, how does one describe a shade of grey?
In the coming months, AEI is going to take a different approach. More to the point, I’m going to focus my energies toward a different purpose, a new task. Rather than trying to “tell the story” in a way that helps everyone see the issue from a larger perspective, I’m going to use my time and energy to put together a toolkit aimed at providing the necessary information to allow anyone to come to their own conclusions: an annotated collection of concrete information about the sound levels and varied community responses observed around wind farms. Given the limits of what one person can do, it probably won’t be totally comprehensive, but it will draw from the full spectrum of researchers and experiences, and will attempt to provide some context to understand what is known, what is mostly unknown, and where we might most fruitfully direct further investigations.
I think that AEI’s publications over the past couple of years have done a fairly decent job of telling the big-picture story of wind farm noise. The various presentations, articles, and reports have taken different approaches toward a common goal: to explore the paradoxes and subtleties that belie both the black and the white views.
The wild and turbulent public debate about wind farm noise issues continues to generate steady new eruptions in Ontario. And while what’s coming out could be extremely valuable information for others struggling to support a more cautionary approach to wind farm siting, media reports are contributing to an increasingly jumbled public perception about the troubling health impacts that some wind farm neighbors have experienced.
Ironically, the spotlight currently shining on Ontario could be shedding a clear, focused light on the shortcomings in current siting standards – even Ontario’s relatively stringent ones. That light would reveal regional regulatory staffers raising concerns about whether the standards as currently applied are in fact protecting residents from undue disruption by wind farm noise, increasing anecdotal evidence from homeowners and realtors that wind farms make it harder to sell homes at their fair value, and telling examples of homes bought at market value by wind developers and later sold at large losses. Instead, these important and fascinating stories are being jumbled into a far less coherent mess of public perception, with negative health impacts becoming the dominant theme. (See the final paragraphs of this post for AEI’s prescription for moving forward more constructively.)
As real as the health effects can be — there’s no doubt that some nearby neighbors have struggled mightily with them, to the point of leaving their homes to find relief — it doesn’t serve the public to conflate every noise complaint with a health complaint, or to distort the sources of noise complaints to make the suffering of the most afflicted appear to be far more widespread. This is, unfortunately, the effect of recent media reports from Ontario, Read the rest of this entry »
I have wasted a perfectly good day reading the Wind Turbine Health Impact Study: Report of Independent Expert Panel January 2012, prepared for the state departments of Environmental Protection and Public Health.
I have to start by questioning the very title. Only two of the members have any experience with wind turbines. The two (Manwell and Mills) that have wind experience are both pre-disposed to find against adverse health effects. Mills has already testified in 2009 that according to previous literature searches she performed while employed as a public health official of Maine, she found no link to adverse health affects with turbines. So we know she didn't have an open mind.
Manwell runs the UMass Amherst Wind Energy Center, which studies and promotes the use of wind turbines. So he is also pre-disposed to find no problems with wind turbines. His academic reputation and funding depend on the wind industry and funding from the state. Hmm.
We all know what this is called: Stacking the deck.
I did notice with interest that the panel included in the bibliography the Philips article from the August 2011 Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society. I know they must not have had too much time to read it, because the Philips article argues convincingly that the omission of thousands upon thousands of adverse event reports from citizens affected by proximity to wind turbines is not only indefensible scientifically but dishonest and immoral to boot.
Adverse event reporting is how new diseases become identified. So ruling out first-hand self-reported health, social and economic events that occur after the arrival of wind turbines in communities across the world, basically prevents any true investigation from taking place.
You notice I use the term "true" investigation. That's the next problem. No one in most local governments and certainly not the wind developers have created and carried out such a study, despite problems being reported by ordinary citizens all over the world.
So if I understand this whole situation correctly, the report from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts did not look at or include adverse citizen reports of symptoms from Falmouth, and then found no evidence of adverse health effects because they didn't include the data that would form the basis of any claim to the contrary.
That doesn't seem right to me.
What if we had collected the evidence from Falmouth residents? Why didn't the panel gather the event reports, interview and perform tests such as EKG's and EEG's from Falmouth residents while they were experiencing symptoms in their homes. Those results could have been correlated with the results of turbine and wind speeds, noise levels and infrasound data. That's what the citizens of Falmouth asked for from the town, the developers and the state.
Instead, the state picked a secret panel that met a total of three times. They only reviewed literature and further seem to have been pretty selective about what they reviewed. The Philips article is just one of the articles in the August 2011 Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, yet the entire issue is devoted to the problems with wind turbines, noise (including infrasound), public health and social justice. But for some reason they only looked at the Philips article. Why not also look at the articles written by Bronzaft, Krogh, Shain or Thorne?
Not once was the suggestion ever made that perhaps the evidence of adverse health effects could and should be looked at in a cumulative way. Yes, perhaps one study has its limitations, but put that study in context of other studies and, well, just think if the "study" had included adverse health events and testimony from the good citizens of Falmouth; it might have been hard for the panel to come to the conclusions it did.
I think we should be clear that we are asking a small part of the Fairhaven community to bear the potential health, economic and social costs for the presumed, although as yet also unproven, good of the greater Fairhaven community. I don't think that's fair. Shouldn't the state and wind industry be required to prove that wind turbines are not harmful to neighbors, not demanding that neighbors prove to DEP and DPH that they are being harmed, as in the case in Falmouth? They should also be required to indemnify neighbors to turbines from health harm, property value loss, safety concerns, etc., and guarantee to compensate neighbors should anything adverse happen to them from the turbines.
And I certainly don't think this report proves anything. All this report has done has insulted the intelligence of anyone who has done their homework, and the integrity of anyone who has reported health symptoms from proximity to wind turbines. I guess that's why citizens from Falmouth went to the Statehouse this week to complain about the so-called "study". I wish I had gone with them.
THE Following ESSAY is by the respected former chairman of Deutsche Bank, the Australian Securities Exchange and, most recently, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation:
By Maurice Newman, The Spectator Australia, 21 January 2012
Even before they threatened my property, I was opposed to wind farms.
They fail on all counts. They are grossly inefficient, extremely expensive, socially inequitable, a danger to human health, environmentally harmful, divisive for communities, a blot on the landscape, and don’t even achieve the purpose for which they were designed, namely the reliable generation of electricity and the reduction of CO2 emissions.
Even if you buy the anthropogenic global warming case, experience shows that wind energy is not the answer. How is it, then, that governments around the world have embraced this technology with abandon, in the process spending hundreds of billions of dollars of other people’s money in a shameless wealth transfer from the poor to the rich? Surely the economic effect of taxing hardest those who can least afford it was thoroughly examined ahead of politically motivated empty gestures designed to placate climate change alarmists?
Apparently not.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but we have witnessed the birth of an extraordinary, universal and self-reinforcing movement among the political and executive arms of government, their academic consultants, the mainstream media and vested private sector interests (such as investment banks and the renewables industry), held together by the promise of unlimited government money. It may not be a conspiracy, but long-term, government-underwritten annuities have certainly created one gigantic and powerful oligopoly which must coerce taxpayers and penalise energy consumers to survive.
Not even independent UK research which shows 3.7 jobs in the broader economy are lost for every ‘green’ job created has engendered any real sense of concern within this politically protected and publicly funded class. After all, those who are crowded out by ever-more-costly green schemes are simply, as one bureaucrat informed me, ‘collateral damage’ and victims of ‘the greater good’.
But to whom do the ‘damaged’ now turn? All political parties to a greater or lesser degree follow the same irrational policies, mindlessly repeating slogans about renewable energy targets and CO2 reductions plans, lest they be labelled climate change deniers.
Yet nowhere is there evidence that these policies work. Even Europe, with its huge investment in wind energy as well as an ETS, has not reduced emissions. And the much-vaunted Kyoto Protocol, which until the Rudd government Australia refused to sign, saw emissions of signatories grow substantially faster than those of non-signatories. So why should we be optimistic that any future global agreement on emissions will be more successful? Experience with trade and nuclear nonproliferation treaties suggest domestic considerations will prevail over lofty ideals. Political correctness may go down well at elite gatherngs, but it doesn’t pay the bills.
This fact is finally being recognised in Europe, where climate tipping points are now of less concern than economic tipping points. Hence the Clayton’s agreement at Durban. But in Australia, with its relatively strong balance sheet, waste on climate gestures is apparently more affordable. With religious zeal and the voice of authority, we plough ahead as if consumed by a deathwish.
At the local level this religion is evangelically spread by state bureaucrats who regularly pander to the oligopoly’s wishes. In a perverse distortion of the democratic process, the mostly multinational wind power industry has influence but no votes, while those most affected have votes but no influence.
For example, while citizens’ groups in New South Wales are begrudgingly granted access to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, the wind power industry is given a workshop and a colour document replete with pictures of wind towers taken through daisies and a group of happy campers surrounded by a forest of turbines. No prize for guessing on which side of the fence the Department of Planning and Infrastructure sits.
An academic adviser to the New South Wales Department of Health says he does not accept the expert testimony which led an Ontario court to conclude that wind turbines are harmful to human health. One wonders how thoroughly that adviser examined the peer-reviewed clinical studies on which the court based its decision. Perhaps his public service masters employ him only for confirmatory bias?
And, when an existing wind farm, approved under the inadequate South Australian noise guidelines, is in breach of the rules under which consent was given, is action taken? Not so far, even though an authoritative source found that noise far exceeds the conditions of approval. This is because official monitoring maintains the wind farm is still compliant. Given the qualifications of the independent acoustician, this calls into question the integrity of the monitoring process.
There are countless other examples in which the rights of citizens are treated as ‘roadkill’, to quote another bureaucrat. Rules are bent and blind eyes turned. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is the consent authority as well as the arbiter in dispute resolutions. Sham community information meetings are held simply to tick a box.
The height of wind towers can be materially changed without consultation. Environmental details have been checked at nightfall and, if no fauna are observed, consent is given, regardless of information provided by local residents. The harmful health effects, despite peer-reviewed and anecdotal evidence, are dismissed as being unconfirmed, psychosomatic or the politics of envy. It’s true. Not everyone who lives near wind turbines experiences adverse health effects. But then not everyone who smokes contracts lung cancer. Unaffected residents are bought off with bribes of better roads, community improvements or offers of employment. But these are token gestures and lead to bitterness and deep divisions in the community.
There is clearly an imbalance when cash-poor local residents are pitted against governments and powerful corporations. Rather than listen to their constituents, politicians are lending their support to oligopolistic insiders and, in so doing, are destroying the property rights of the very people they have pledged to protect.
But don’t expect help from academia, mainstream media or the public service. They are members of the same establishment and worship together at the altar of global warming. By ruthlessly perpetuating the illusion that wind farms can somehow save the planet, they keep the money flowing. All the while the poor become poorer, ever more dependent on welfare and colder in winter.
The conclusion is clear. Our once independent public service is no longer servant but master! Sir Humphrey is firmly in control.
Maurice Newman is former chairman of Deutsche Bank, the Australian Securities Exchange and, most recently, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
The State of Massachusetts custom made "report" that Wind Turbines don't cause health problems, seems to fly in the face of what every other country is finding. Of course I am sure that they were fully vetted for their unwavering support of wind energy before they were hand selected. Gov. Patrick has made no bones about how it is going to build these turbine regardless of impact on the people of Mass. I am sure James F. Manwell, Director of the Wind Energy Center, University of Massachusetts would be fully truthful in denying the state(his employer) of their wishes to build as many wind turbines(his profession) regardless of implication.
Seems these studies by more open and honest organizations make a fraud to Governor Patrick’s handpicked group of flunkies.
Note I would have found more but English language studies from Germany, Japan, Spain are hard to come by.
AUSTRALIA: A parliamentary inquiry into the social and economic impacts of wind farms has concluded that local government noise standards should take into account the impact of low frequency noise and vibrations from turbines.
“Adequate mandatory setbacks and rigorous enforcement of maximum noise standards would reduce the adverse impacts on properties neighbouring wind farms. A minimum setback of two kilometres or 20 times the maximum height, including the blades, of wind turbines to the nearest dwelling would be a desirable first step.”
“…the risk of annoyance was increased in quiet areas, indicating that the contrast between the wind turbine noise and the background sound makes it not just easily detectable, but also annoying.”
“A statistical significant correlation was found between sound pressure levels outside the dwelling of the respondents and the rated perception of and annoyance with wind turbine noise”
12 month diary of a UK women and her experience at her home in Tuscany, Italy “Their lives ever since have been hellish”
Here is a good graph of noise versus distance and how some countries limit noise…I believe Massachusetts allows the turbine to be 10 db louder as the background noise. Note A sound 10 times more powerful is 10 dB. A sound 100 times more powerful than near total silence is 20 dB. I know for a fact that when doing a sound study for the Wellfleet turbine they did it on the windiest day with the wind blowing away from local building(monitors) to cheat the model that knows that if the wind blows toward the building it would take the sound to 100 Times more powerful 20 db. The high winds raise the background noise to allow the highest possible wind turbine noise over the “background noise”. Obviously this is allowed and encouraged by the state, whose appointed sound consultants are paid based on getting more sites allowed.
Quotes from Dr Peter Guldberg court testimony whose company Tech Environmental Inc now makes a lot of money doing wind studies for the state of Mass. Previous to figuring out where the big money was, this is his testimony concernng a proposed wind farm in VT.
“…certainly at distances between 500 and 1000 meters from the wind park, one can hear a low pitch thumping sound…” “A resident living at 1.5 km from the wind park desribes the sound as “an endless train”
The one common denominator is that that people making money off wind turbines or in league with them, deny any problem and many with expereince or who have actually studied them have clearly documented negative affects!
The following is a report of the deaths of birds and bats at the Atlantic City, NJ Wind Turbine Array from ACUA. The American Wind Energy Association Lobby group claims that wind turbines only kill 1-2 birds per turbine per year. Well at this 5 turbine array the number is 74 birds and bats per turbine per year. It killed at least 4 Osprey (pop 800 in NJ) and 1 Peregrine Falcon (pop 30 in NJ) which are both Endangered in NJ. The 74 birds and bats is an estimate since their own research shows they find only about 37% of the birds and bats killed. The ACUA proximity to water would suggest a 37% rate is too high and that even more birds are killed than shown in the report below. Using their numbers these turbines are killing at least 15 Endangered birds per year.
The killing of these birds is illegal under Migratory Bird Treaty Act, NJ Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1973 and should be stopped!
POST-CONSTRUCTION WILDLIFE MONITORING AT THE ATLANTIC CITY UTILITIES AUTHORITY- JERSEY ATLANTIC WIND POWER FACILITY
PROJECT STATUS REPORT IV
Submitted to: New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
New Jersey Clean Energy Program
Two Gateway Center (8th Floor)
Newark, NJ 07102
INTRODUCTION
The following narrative describes activities New Jersey Audubon Society (NJAS) engaged in during its post-construction wildlife monitoring study conducted at the Jersey Atlantic Wind, LLC (JAW)/Atlantic City Utilities Authority (ACUA) wind power facility. The period covered by this report is 1 January to 31 August 2009 and is the fourth progress report submitted for this project.
WORK PERFORMED
Task 1 - Monitor bird and bat flight patterns using dual mobile radar system
From 1 January - 31 August 2009, we collected data with our dual marine radar system (i.e., horizontally- and vertically-oriented, see previous reports for system description and operation) 24 hours/day. It is important to note that the agreement between NJAS and JAW only provides support for analysis of data collected between sunset and sunrise during "migration" periods (i.e., 16 Mar – 31 May, 16 Jul – 15 Dec) and between sunrise and sunset during the "breeding" and "winter" periods.
During the winter period, we collected radar data two days/week, on average, while during the spring migration period we collected data an average of five days/week. We collected data two days/week, on average, during the breeding season and five days/week, on average for the remainder of the reporting period, which encompassed the beginning of the fall migration period.
Table 1. Start and end dates, number of weeks, data collection effort and total days of data collection for each sampling periods between 1 January and 31 August 2009.
Period
Start Date
End Date
# Weeks
Days/Week
Total days
Winter
1-Jan
15-Mar
10.5
2
21
Spring Migration
16-Mar
31-May
11
5
55
Breeding season*
01-Jun
15-Jul
6.5
2
13
Fall Migration
16-Jul
31-Aug
6.5
5
32.5
Total days for reporting period
121.5
*Overlaps w/spring migration
This resulted in data collection on 121.5 days and approximately 87,500 data images during the reporting period from each radar. The effort described above and in Table 1 adheres to the data collection time frame outlined in the agreement between NJAS and JAW (i.e., 180 days of data collection in each year of the project).
During the reporting period, we began processing data from the first year of the project (1 Aug 2007 – 31 Jul 2008) and completed approximately half. We anticipate that data processing for the entire project period (1 Aug 2007 – 31 Jul 2009) will be completed by the end of January 2010 and a draft final report completed by the end of April 2010. The final report will contain summaries of all radar, carcass search and point count data, analyses that explore relationships among these data sets, and the affects of local and regional weather patterns on bird/bat movement patterns and collision events.
Task 2 - Monitor evidence of bird and bat collisions with wind turbines
During the reporting period, we conducted systematic searches three days per week on the ACUA facility for birds and bats that apparently collided with on-site wind turbines. Searches were conducted around each turbine by a single, trained NJAS staff person (see previous report for detailed description of search methodology). This resulted in approximately 515 hours (103 days, approximately five hours/search day) of searching.
The following is a preliminary account of the birds and bats we encountered during our searches for collision events. The numbers of carcasses we report here are uncorrected for observer efficiency or scavenger removal. Additionally, these estimates are not corrected for the area around turbines not searched because they were inaccessible. Correcting for these biases will increase our estimates of collision mortality.
During the reporting period, eight birds of at least seven species (i.e., two were unidentifiable) were discovered during systematic searchers around turbines (see Table 2). Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla) was encountered two times and continues to be the most frequently encountered bird on our mortality searches. Three of the birds were first time encounters for the survey: Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), Dunlin (Calidris alpina) and Green Heron (Butorides virescens). On 18 August 2009 an Osprey (Pandion haeliatus) was found by facility workers and reported to us. Although we were unable to evaluate the cause of death, facility workers were certain that it resulted from collision with a wind turbine, based on a significant laceration across the birds chest. This is the fourth Osprey mortality at the facility and the third encountered or reported since our study began in August 2007. Since the beginning of the project (i.e., August 2007) we have encountered 40 bird carcasses, two of which appear unrelated to collisions with the wind turbines. The 38 putative bird collisions included at least 25 species.
Table 2. Date, time, turbine location, species and GPS coordinates of birds found at the ACUA wind power facility during systematic searches conducted betweem 1 January and 31 August 2009.
Date
Time
Turbine
Species/Identify
Easting
Northing
Notes
03/09/09
1230
T2
Dunlin
547537
4359437
Not collected/wings & keel only.
05/27/09
0900
T4
Unidentified sm. passerine
547370
4359321
Not collected/wing & sm. part of body
05/27/09
0925
T1
Unidentified sm. passerine
547439
4359092
Not collected/wing & some feathers
06/08/09
0750
T2
Laughing Gull
547499
4359538
Two wings only.
06/24/09
0745
T2
Laughing Gull
547765
4359511
Not collected.
07/31/09
1000
T1
Barn Swallow
547363
4359319
Not collected. Under truck.
08/18/09
-
T3
Osprey
547546
4359241
Collected/removed by ACUA staff.
08/24/09
0000
T4
Green Heron
547408
4359091
Not collected.
Five bats were discovered during the reporting period. Eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis, four times) and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus, one time) were the only species encountered. Fifty-eight bat carcasses have been located during our searches since the start of the project and to-date, we have encountered only two species: Eastern red bat and hoary bat. During our searches, we have encounterd three times as many red bats as hoary bats and our data suggest that more than 85% of all bat collision events occur during August and September.
Our data also suggest that bird and bat collisions are not evenly distributed among turbines. When we adjusted the number of bird carcasses found to account for the proportion of "searchable area" around each turbine (i.e., see earlier reports for map of "searchable" and "search" areas) relative to the total search area, we found the greatest proportion of bird carcasses at turbine #2 (0.39 of total carcasses encountered, Table 3, see earlier reports for turbine/# locations). Turbine #2, is the most northerly of the five turbines and is located right along the marsh edge that is bordered by a large channel. Conversely, the lowest proportion of carcasses we encountered was at turbine #5 (0.10 of total carcasses encountered, Table 3). The distribution of bat carcasses encountered appeared more uniform among the five turbines compared to birds. Turbines #2, #3 and #4 accounted for approximately 0.70 of the total carcasses we found (Table 4), while Turbines #1 and #5 accounted for approximately 0.30 of the total carcasses (Table 4).
Table 3. Proportion of bird carcasses encountered from August 2007 – August 2009 at each turbine after adjusting for unequal search area (i.e., proportion of area searchable)
Turbine
Carcasses encountered (raw)
Proportion of area searchable*
Carcasses encountered (adjusted)**
Proportion of all carcasses encountered
1
4
0.32
12.37
0.15
2
10
0.31
32.47
0.39
3
14
0.83
16.87
0.20
4
8
0.64
12.52
0.15
5
2
0.24
8.22
0.10
*Relative to total search area (16,900 m2)
Table 4. Proportion of bat carcasses encountered from August 2007 – August 2009 at each turbine after adjusting for unequal search area (i.e., proportion of area searchable)
Turbine
Carcasses encountered (raw)
Proportion of area searchable*
Carcasses encountered (adjusted)**
Proportion of all carcasses encountered
1
6
0.32
18.56
0.16
2
8
0.31
25.98
0.22
3
20
0.83
24.10
0.21
4
20
0.64
31.30
0.27
5
4
0.24
16.44
0.14
*Relative to total search area (16,900 m2)
**Carcasses encountered (raw)/Proportion of searchable area
We also conducted four searcher efficiency and scavenger removal trials during the reporting period. A detailed justification for this activity and the particular methods and protocols used are described in our first report. The fact that estimates of animal fatalities at wind power generating facilities can be dramatically affected by differences in observer efficiency and from carcass removal by a variety of scavengers is widely acknowledged (Morrison 2002). Consequently, estimates of total bird or bat fatalities can only be determined after correcting for searcher and carcass removal biases.
After two years of study we have generated reliable estimates of observer efficiency and scavenger removal based on 20 trials. We found that on average, our observers detected 37% of the carcasses in the trials and that scavengers removed 27% of carcasses during the 2-3 day interval between searches. We used these elements, along with the ratio of searchable to total search area in the following equation (Jain et al. 2007),
Chat=(C/(Sc*Se*Ps)),
to adjust our carcass estimates. In this equation C = the number of carcasses detected, Sc is the proportion scavenged, Se is the observer detection efficiency and Ps is the proportion of the area searched. This adjustment resulted in an estimate of 302 bird carcasses over the two year study period, or approximately 30 birds/turbine/year. For the same study period, this adjustment resulted in an estimate of 461bats, or approximately 46 bats/turbine/year. In the final report, these estimates will be analyzed to investigate how collisions events vary by season, with local and regional weather patterns and are related to daily variation in the magnitude and altitude of passage.
Task 3 - Monitor temporal and spatial bird abundance and distribution patterns on the ACUA wind power facility
We conducted 31 weekly, systematic point count surveys to determine abundance and distribution of residents and transient birds throughout the reporting period. Surveys began at sunrise and were conducted at five points, each randomly selected within the general area of a turbine. We followed standard point count data collection protocols, which included recording observations in 2-, 3-, and 5- minute sampling periods, and recording distance and direction of each detection. We will compare these data to our carcass encounter and radar data to (1) assess relationships between bird densities on site and the number of carcasses we found and the number of targets we detect using radar the previous night and (2) investigate relationships between the species composition of birds detected during point counts and carcass searches.
What Is American Bird Conservancy’s (ABC) policy regarding wind energy?
Wind power can be an important part of the solution to global warming, but wind farms can also kill birds—including eagles, songbirds, and endangered species—through collisions with turbines, and also harm them through loss of habitat. By 2030, there will likely be more than 100,000 wind turbines in the U.S., and these are expected to kill at least one million birds each year—probably significantly more. Wind farms are also expected to impact almost 20,000 square miles of terrestrial habitat, and over 4,000 square miles of marine habitat by 2030, some of it critical to threatened species.
Letter from Vestas: Low-frequency noise and wind turbines
December 16, 2011 by Engel, Ditlev
Summary:
This important letter written by the CEO of Vestas Wind to the Danish Environmental Minister complains that proposed regulations in Denmark to address low-frequency noise will force larger setback distances. In his letter he admits: "Why it is that Vestas does not just make changes to the wind turbines so that they produce less noise? The simple answer is that at the moment it is not technically possible to do so ..."
Dear Karen Ellemann,*
Following previous correspondence, I am writing this letter to express my concern regarding the limits for low frequency noise from wind turbines now being proposed.
Back in January 2011 we applauded your announcement of the new regulations regarding low frequency noise and the fact that you also then emphasised that those regulations would not be tightened and that it was a question of improving the security in connection with the installation of wind turbines. Accordingly, the reaction from the industry branch back in January 2011 was positive, although as an industry we were uneasy about having heavier demands imposed on us than other industries.
When the new regulations were then published on 26.05.2011, we were of course convinced of your initial point of view. As a result, we were extremely surprised to find that the proposed new regulations do in fact include a significant and severe tightening of the previous noise regulations.
In fact, according to our analyses, the most economical turbines, the 3 MW category, are the ones that will be strongly affected by the new rules. This applies to open terrain in particular, where in future low frequency noise will dictate and increase the distance requirements to neighbours for close to half of the projects that we are already aware of over the next 2 to 3 years.
In a small country such as Denmark this means that a significant number of projects will not be viable as the increased distance requirements cannot be met whilst maintaining a satisfactory business outcome for the investor.
The Danish market for wind turbines is of minor importance for Vestas in terms of sales, typically less than 1% of our sales per year. However, the Danish market provides a number of other functions for Vestas which are of considerable value from a business point of view. By means of its high wind penetration, 24% in 2010 - still a world record - Denmark has a role as a forerunner country and a full scale laboratory for conversion to renewable energy.
This means that other countries often look to Denmark when adjusting their legislation regarding wind energy. We are therefore concerned - justifiably so as history shows - that the proposed Danish regulations for low frequency noise from wind turbines will spread to a large number of other markets with much higher commercial impact for Vestas and consequently for employment in the business.
The Danish wind turbine industry employs approx. 25,000 people in Denmark and boasts an export which is about 8.5% of total Danish exports. Such "over-proportional" presence has become possible because Denmark has been able to create the conditions for good correlation between demonstration, education and industry research and development. In reality we fear that the demonstration element will suffer irreparable damage as a result of the new regulations regarding low frequency noise. When combined with the imminent danger that important markets will copy the new Danish regulations, I consider the new regulations to be extremely damaging to the prospects of further popularisation of land-based wind energy.
At this point you may have asked yourself why it is that Vestas does not just make changes to the wind turbines so that they produce less noise? The simple answer is that at the moment it is not technically possible to do so, and it requires time and resources because presently we are at the forefront of what is technically possible for our large wind turbines, and they are the most efficient of all.
In the light of this it seems strange that the wind turbine industry is being discriminated against compared to other industries. All other industries are subject to differential noise requirements regarding low frequency noise for night and day (20, respectively 25 dB), whereas the wind turbine industry are subject to requirements of 20 dB 24 hours a day.
The proposed low frequency limit values may hinder the development of onshore wind in Denmark, including meeting our commitments in relation to the EEC. Ultimately, we consider there is a danger that the regulations will be copied by other countries and accordingly this will provide an obstacle to the popularisation of wind energy at a global level. Both issues will damage Vestas as a business, including affecting Danish activities.
Yours sincerely,
Vestas Wind Systems A/S
[Signature]
Ditlev Engel
Chief Executive Officer
Alsvej 21, DK-8940
Dir. +45 9730 0000, www.vestas. com
A copy of this letter was sent to Lykke Friis, Minister for Climate and Energy
*Karen Ellemann, Minister of Environment
Department of Environment
Højbro Plads 4
1200 Copenhagen K
Note: Estimates of the total population of Golden Eagles in California are 1100...Golden Gate Audubon estimates 75 to 110 are KILLED EVERY YEAR. Do the math...that means in less than 10 years(especially with more taller turbines every year)...most of the eagles will be WIPE OUT! This is being repeated in many places. Though Federally protected(with no allowance for exceptions) the government stands by and does nothing due to the sacrosanct(and lucrative) nature of wind energy as the Golden Eagles(and other raptors) are being wiped out!
Golden Eagles, named for the golden feathering at the nape of their necks, are majestic raptors that can be found throughout most of California and much of the northern hemisphere. California protects these magnificent raptors as both a species of special concern and a fully protected species, making it illegal to harm or kill them. Golden Eagles are also protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Golden Eagles typically prefer open terrain, such as the rolling hills of eastern Alameda County. The open grasslands, scattered oaks, and bountiful prey make this area ideal habitat for Golden Eagles. Today, it supports the highest-known density of Golden Eagle nesting territories in the world.
Conservation Issues
Every year, an estimated 75 to 110 Golden Eagles are killed by the wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Some lose their wings, others are decapitated, and still others are cut in half. The lethal turbines, numbering roughly 6,000, are arrayed across 50,000 acres of rolling hills in northeastern Alameda and southeastern Contra Costa counties.
The APWRA, built in the 1980s, was one of the first wind energy sites in the U.S. At the time, no one knew how deadly the turbines could be for birds. Few would now deny, however, that Altamont Pass is probably the worst site ever chosen for a wind energy project. According to a 2004 California Energy Commission (CEC) report, as many as 380 Burrowing Owls (also a state-designated species of special concern), 300 Red-tailed Hawks, and 333 American Kestrels are killed every year. In all, as many as 4,700 birds die annually as a result of the wind turbines.
Our Goals
Golden Gate Audubon is committed to reducing the levels of bird mortality at Altamont Pass to the greatest degree possible. In early 2004, Golden Gate Audubon joined the Center for Biological Diversity and Californians for Renewable Energy in a formal appeal to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors challenging the renewal of permits for 18 of Altamont’s 20 wind farms in Alameda County. The permits were reissued without requirements to decrease the bird mortality caused by the turbines and without environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act. Golden Gate Audubon requested an environmental review of the permitting and urged the county to mandate that the wind industry reduce bird mortality. We subsequently sued the county and wind companies in order to force a reduction in avian mortality at APWRA.
Reducing the kill entirely may not be possible, as long as the wind turbines continue to operate at Altamont. But we believe that significant progress can be made. The CEC estimates that wind operators could reduce bird deaths by as much as 50 percent within three years–the goal stated in our settlement agreement–and by up to 85 percent within six years–all without reducing energy output significantly at APWRA. These reductions could be achieved by removing turbines that are the most deadly to birds and shutting down the turbines during four winter months when winds are the least productive for wind energy, combined with some additional measures.
Golden Gate Audubon is working with Alameda County to ensure that the permits granted to the wind industry achieve reductions in bird mortality, in addition to other requirements that will help address the unacceptable bird kills at Altamont Pass over the long term. We also seek to support clean energy technologies, which help reduce the risk of global warming and its impacts on wildlife.
What You Can Do
Contact our East Bay Conservation Committee to find out how you can help support our efforts to protect Golden Eagles and other birds at Altamont Pass.
The American Wind Energy Association has begun a major lobbying effort in Congress to extend some soon-to-expire renewable-energy tax credits. And to bolster that effort, the lobby group’s CEO, Denise Bode, is calling the wind industry “a tremendous American success story.”
But the wind lobby’s success has largely been the result of its ability to garner subsidies. And those subsidies are coming with a big price tag for American taxpayers. Since 2009, AWEA’s largest and most influential member companies have garnered billions of dollars in direct cash payments and loan guarantees from the US government. And while the lobby group claims to be promoting “clean” energy, AWEA’s biggest member companies are also among the world’s biggest users and/or producers of fossil fuels.
A review of the $9.8 billion in cash grants provided under section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (also known as the federal stimulus bill) for renewable energy projects shows that the wind energy sector has corralled over $7.6 billion of that money. And the biggest winners in the 1603 sweepstakes: the companies represented on AWEA’s board of directors.
An analysis of the 4,256 projects that have won grants from the Treasury Department under section 1603 over the past two years shows that $3.37 billion in grants went to just nine companies -- all of them are members of AWEA’s board. To put that $3.37 billion in perspective, consider that in 2010, according to the Energy Information Administration, the total of all “energy specific subsidies and support” provided to the oil and gas sector totaled $2.84 billion. And that $2.84 billion in oil and gas subsidies is being divided among thousands of entities. The Independent Petroleum Association of America estimates the US now has over 14,000 oil and gas companies.
The renewable energy lobby likes to portray itself as an upstart industry, one that is grappling with big business and the entrenched interests of the hydrocarbon sector. But billions of dollars in 1603 grants – all of it exempt from federal corporate income taxes – is being used to fatten the profits of some of the world’s biggest companies. Indeed, the combined market capitalization of the 11 biggest corporations on AWEA’s board – a group that includes General Electric and Siemens -- is about $450 billion.
Nevertheless, the clock is ticking on renewable-energy subsidies. The 1603 grants end on December 31 and the renewable-energy production tax credit expires on January 1, 2013. On Monday, AWEA issued a report which predicted that some 37,000 wind-related jobs in the US could be lost by 2013 if the production tax credit is not extended.
But the subsidies are running out at the very same time that a cash-strapped Congress is turning a hard eye on the renewable sector. The collapse of federally backed companies like solar-panel-maker Solyndra and biofuel producer Range Fuels, are providing critics of renewable subsidies with plenty of ammunition. And if critics need more bullets, they need only look at AWEA’s board to see how big business is grabbing every available dollar from US taxpayers all in the name of “clean” energy. Indeed, AWEA represents a host of fossil-fuel companies who are eagerly taking advantage of the renewable-energy subsidies.
Consider NRG Energy, which has a seat on AWEA’s board. Last month, the New York Times reported that New Jersey-based NRG and its partners have secured $5.2 billion in federal loan guarantees to build solar-energy projects. NRG’s market capitalization: $4.3 billion.
But NRG is not a renewable energy company. The company currently has about 26,000 megawatts (MW) of generation capacity. Of that, 450 MW is wind capacity, another 65 MW is solar, and 1,175 MW comes from nuclear. So why is NRG expanding into renewables? The answer is simple: profits. Last month, David Crane, the CEO of NRG, told the Times that “I have never seen anything that I have had to do in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects.”
Or look at E.On, the giant German electricity and natural gas company, which also has a seat on AWEA’s board of directors. In 2010, the company emitted 116 million metric tons of carbon dioxide an amount approximately equal to that of the Czech Republic, a country of 10.5 million people. And last year, the company – which has about 2,000 MW of wind-generation capacity in the US -- produced about 14 times as much electricity by burning hydrocarbons as it did from wind.
Despite its role as a major fossil-fuel utility, E.On has been awarded $542.5 million in section 1603 cash so that it can build wind projects. And the company is getting that money even though it is the world’s largest investor-owned utility with a market capitalization of $45 billion.
Another foreign company with a seat on AWEA’s board: Spanish utility Iberdrola, the second-largest domestic wind operator. But in 2010, Iberdrola produced about 3 times as much electricity from hydrocarbons as it did from wind. Nevertheless, the company has collected $1 billion in section 1603 money. To put that $1 billion in context, consider that in 2010, Iberdrola’s net profit was about 2.8 billion Euros, or around $3.9 billion. Thus, US taxpayers have recently provided cash grants to Iberdrola that amount to about one-fourth of the company’s 2010 profits. And again, none of that grant money is subject to US corporate income taxes. Iberdrola currently sports a market cap of $39 billion.
Another big winner on AWEA’s board of directors: NextEra Energy (formerly Florida Power & Light) which has garnered some $610.6 million in 1603 grants for various wind projects. NextEra’s market capitalization is $23 billion. The subsidies being garnered by NextEra are helping the company drastically cut its taxes. A look at the company’s 2010 annual report shows that it cut its federal tax bill by more than $200 million last year thanks to various federal tax credits. And the company’s latest annual report shows that it has another $1.8 billion of “tax credit carryforwards” that will help it slash its taxes over the coming years.
The biggest fossil-fuel-focused company on AWEA’s board is General Electric, which had revenues last year of $150 billion. Of that sum, about 25 percent came from what the company calls “energy infrastructure.” While some of that revenue comes from GE’s wind business, the majority comes from building generators, jet engines, and other machinery that burn hydrocarbons. The company is also rapidly growing GE Oil & Gas, which had 2010 revenues of $7.2 billion. GE Oil & Gas has more than 20,000 employees and provides a myriad of products and services to the oil and gas industry.
GE has a starring role in one of the most egregious examples of renewable-energy corporate welfare: the Shepherds Flat wind project in Oregon. The majority of the funding for the $1.9 billion, 845-megawatt project is coming from federal taxpayers. Not only is the Energy Department providing GE and its partners – who include Caithness Energy, Google, and Sumitomo -- a $1.06 billion loan guarantee, as soon as GE’s 338 turbines start turning at Shepherds Flat, the Treasury Department will send the project developers a cash grant of $490 million.
On December 9, the American Council on Renewable Energy issued a press release urging Congress to quickly extend the 1603 program and the renewable-energy production tax credit, because they will “bolster renewable energy’s success and American competitiveness.”
But time is running short. Backers of the renewable-energy credits say that to assure continuity on various projects, a bill must be passed into law by March 2012. If that doesn’t happen, they are predicting domestic investment in renewable energy could fall by 50 percent. A bill now pending in the House would extend the production tax credit for four additional years, through 2017. The bill has 40 sponsors, 9 are Republicans. [They need to be tarred & feathered AFTER they are voted OUT next election! mkb] The bill is awaiting a hearing by the House Ways and Means Committee.
Because Wind Energy require massive tower that require lots of maintenance in an open enviroment....the logical result of this are deaths. Where you might have one require power plant...wind requires 500 turbines that all require climbing hundreds of feet in the air in remote unsupervised location. As owners aren't too proud of these deaths they rarely make it to the news.
Family, friends mourn wind farm worker killed in collapse
12:36 PM PDT on Wednesday, August 29, 2007
By KGW Staff
The Sherman County wind farm where one man was killed and another injured Saturday when a wind turbine collapsed was cited for two violations just a few months ago, officials said Monday. Courtesy SEIU Healthcare 1199 NW Chadd Mitchell
Chadd Bryce Mitchell, 35, was killed in the accident. Mitchell was a father of three who had been working at the farm since July 10th. Slideshow: Collapsed turbine
Blog: Profound sadness “He was the myth, the man, the legend. The leader of the family. He was the most respectful
human in the world, never did anything but help other people. His family loves him more than anything in the world,” said brother Bradd Mitchell. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued two minor citations to Klondike
Wind Farms in May. One was regarding the farm's lack of a formal safety committee. The other citation had to do with stairs that were too high. Mitchell and another man had been working on a non-operational turbine at the Klondike Wind Farms east of Wasco, Oregon. Officials said Mitchell, who was at the top of the turbine, was killed when it buckled. The second man had to be rescued from the barrel of the collapsed structure. He was taken to an area hospital where his condition was unknown. OSHA was investigating the cause of the collapse. A team of engineers from Finland was expected to investigate the site.
Wind turbine worker hurt in fall remains hospitalized
· By Sarah Kleiner Varble
· Posted April 21, 2008 at 9:49 p.m.
The man who fell 50 to 60 feet inside the shaft of a wind turbine last week is still recovering at
University Medical Center in Lubbock. Christian Mendoza seems to be improving, but he still needs a lot of care, said George Bunting, general manager of Global Windpower Services, Mendoza's employer. Global Windpower Services contracts with GE to perform wind turbine maintenance. GE contracts with FPL Energy, the company that owns the Horse Hollow wind farm where the accident occurred. GE is conducting an investigation into the accident, so it is still not clear how Mendoza fell
inside the tower, Bunting said. "We're all just devastated that it happened," Bunting said, adding that Mendoza was a popular
employee. "The thing we're thankful for is that he was given such rapid medical attention" and it appears he
is going to recover. Global Windpower Services has never had an accident like this, Bunting said.
The industry is safety-conscious and ensures all employees know how to properly use protective
equipment, such as harnesses, steel-toed boots, hats and glasses, Bunting said. Mendoza had
been through all the training and was very experienced.
farm-accident-86908-21678314/ Maintenance worker killed in wind farm accident
Sep 16 2009
A MAN has died in an accident while carrying out maintenance at a wind farm today. It is understood the man was working high up on one of the turbines but did not fall. Police were called at around 9.15am to the Causeymire Wind Farm, south of Spittal, near the A9 in Caithness.
A spokesman for Northern Constabulary said: "Police inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the death are ongoing and a report will be submitted to the procurator fiscal in due course. "The Health and Safety Executive has been made aware of the incident. "No details of the deceased will be issued until all next of kin have been informed." Highlands and Islands Fire and Rescue Service said it was called at 9.11am today with a report that a man was unconscious and stuck on a turbine. Three fire engines were sent to the wind farm but left the scene when it was confirmed the worker had died at 10.25am. RWE npower renewables owns the wind farm. In a statement, a spokeswoman said: "RWE npower renewables has regretfully been informed of
a fatality at one of its operating wind farms today. "The incident involved a contractor at Causeymire Wind Farm in Thurso, Scotland. "Our thoughts at this time are very much with the individual's family. "The cause of the incident is being investigated by RWE npower renewables and we will be fully co-operating with the Health and Safety Executive."
Minnesota FACE Investigation 94MN01301 Construction Worker Dies After Falling From a Wind Turbine Tower
SUMMARY
A 29-year-old male rigger (victim) died after falling between 20-40 feet during wind turbine tower construction. He was wearing, but not using, a safety belt and lanyard at the time of the incident. The tubular, slightly tapered, turbine tower consisted of two vertical sections which were being bolted together. The bottom tower section had been set and the victim and two coworkers were attaching the top section. They were working from a pre-installed factory manufactured work platform inside the bottom section, at approximately 50 feet. Access to the platform was by way of a pre-installed metal ladder, attached to the wall with heavy steel supports. Tower section interiors were cleared of snow and ice prior to setting; except for ice on the bolt flange which was removed, the tower's top section appeared clear. After attaching four bolts, the workers noticed additional ice and snow inside the top tower section. They decided there was insufficient accumulation to warrant its removal for further cleaning, and one coworker climbed up the ladder and began to dislodge it. A large chunk of ice fell to the platform and struck the other coworker's head. As the victim and injured coworker began descending the ladder to exit the tower, more ice fell from the sides of the top section, through the platform's ladder opening, and onto the men on the ladder. The victim was knocked from the ladder by the falling ice. As he fell, his head struck a steel ladder support and he sustained instant, fatal, head injuries. MN FACE investigators concluded that, in order to prevent similar occurrences, employers should:
· ensure workers use fall protection, even in emergency situations, when ascending/descending fixed ladders;
· cap wind turbine tower sections exposed to inclement weather to avoid ice build- up inside; and
· provide employees with adequate training to ensure that they can recognize potential hazardous exposures.
INTRODUCTION
MN FACE was notified of a March 2, 1994, work-related death of a rigger on March 3, 1994. MN OSHA, the county coroner, and the county sheriff were contacted and releasable information was taken. Copies of the sheriff's report and photos were obtained. A site investigation was conducted on March 4, 1994. The victim worked as a rigger for a construction company erecting wind turbine equipment. The company had been on the 73-tower site for five months, working throughout the fall and winter months. Rigging began four months prior to the incident. The victim had been provided on-the job training by his employer. The incident occurred about 10:00 a.m.
INVESTIGATION
A 29-year-old male rigger (victim) died from injuries incurred after falling from a ladder inside a wind turbine tower under construction. He and two coworkers (Coworker 1 and Coworker 2) were bolting two tower sections together when the incident occurred. All were equipped with hard hats and safety belts with lanyards. The 120-foot tall tubular, tapered tower consisted of a
bottom and top section, 56 and 64 feet tall, respectively. The bottom section, already bolted to a base concrete pad, was 11 feet in diameter. It tapered to 9 feet at the top, where the two sections were connected using 36 bolts. A door at the base of the bottom section allowed access to the inside of the tubular structure. Inside, a pre-installed metal ladder, secured with heavy steel supports at 12-inch intervals, ran along one side of the section. Workers climbed the ladder with the wall at their backs and the steel supports at their sides. During construction, fall protection for riggers consisted of a safety belt and two lanyards equipped with clips to tie/clip off to the ladder rungs as they ascended or descended it. A cable climbing kit for self-retracting lifelines had not yet been installed behind the ladder as permanent fall protection. The ladder led to a preinstalled work platform at about 50 feet, where workers stood while bolting the tower sections together. See Figure 1. The platform's ladder opening, about 3-foot square, could be covered with a hinged metal cover after the platform was gained. Figure 1.; Interior of bottom section of tower. Not to scale. Tower construction began in the fall and proceeded throughout the winter. Before erection,
sections were stored lying horizontally, open-ended, and unprotected on the ground. Tower erection protocol called for the dislodging of any snow or ice accumulation on or inside tower sections before sections were set by rapping on its outside walls with 3 lb. rubber mallets until the snow/ice was cleared out. Snow removal took place while the sections were held in a vertical
position by a crane. Except for ice on the bolt flange, which was removed, the tower's top section appeared clear. The
top section was lifted into position, and the workers on the platform began bolting it into place. Four bolts were connected when the workers noticed more ice in the top section. They decided there was insufficient accumulation to warrant its removal; Coworker 1 climbed up its preinstalled ladder to dislodge it instead. A large chunk of ice fell to the platform and struck
Coworker 2 on the head, knocking his hard hat off. Coworker 2 complained of feeling dizzy and the victim, also on the platform, notified crew on the ground that he and injured Coworker 2 were coming down; Coworker 2 descended the ladder first. Apparently, neither worker clipped off to ladder rungs during their descent. More large pieces of ice, estimated to be up to 1 foot
square and 6 inches thick, suddenly let loose from the sides of the top section and fell through the platform's ladder opening onto the men on the ladder. The victim, above Coworker 2 on the ladder at between 20-40 feet, was struck by the ice and knocked from the ladder. As he fell, his head struck a steel ladder support and he sustained instant, fatal, head injuries. Other workers on site placed a 911 call immediately after the incident The victim's falling body had knocked Coworker 2 off the ladder and landed on top of him; he required hospitalization for several days. Coworker 1 managed to avoid the falling ice and escaped major njury. No resuscitation was attempted on the victim after the incident.
CAUSE OF DEATH
The cause of death reported by the county coroner was severe head injuries.
RECOMMENDATIONS/DISCUSSION
Recommendation #1: Ensure workers use fall protection, even in emergency situations, when ascending/descending fixed ladders. Discussion: Because of the height of the fixed ladders in the towers, workers were required to use fall protection (safety belts equipped with lanyards) during ascent and descent. During project start-up, in fact, it had been necessary to equip lanyards with larger clips to accommodate the towers' ladder rung size. In addition to making any necessary mechanical adjustments during start-up, and as part of fall protection training, employers should address appropriate procedures to use in emergency situations. The urgency of this situation demanded that the workers leave the tower as quickly as possible, but both the injured coworker and the victim should have used the supplied fall protection as they descended the ladder. In addition to the falling ice hazard, the injured coworker, feeling weak and dizzy, could have lost consciousness and fallen.
Recommendation #2: Cap wind turbine tower sections exposed to inclement weather to avoid ice build-up inside.
Discussion: Tower sections were stored lying horizontally, open-ended, and unprotected on the ground prior to erection. Open ends could be securely capped with a tarpaulin or similar covering to prevent snow from entering during winter months. This procedure, in addition to eliminating the hazard which caused this incident, may actually save time during tower erection.
Recommendation #3: Provide employees with adequate training to ensure that they can recognize potential hazardous exposures. This recommendation is in accordance with CFR 1926.21(b)(2).
Discussion: Employers should provide employees with adequate training to ensure that they can recognize potential hazardous exposures. The interior of tower sections were painted white, and snow and ice accumulation may have been difficult to see and/or assess, especially when they were hanging in a vertical position. Training should, therefore, emphasize that dislodging ice
above workers who may be in the tower is always hazardous and should be avoided. When new company procedures or guidelines are developed or existing ones are modified, employers should ensure that workers are provided with appropriate supplemental training. REFERENCES 1. Office of the Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, Labor, 29 CFR Part
1926.21(b)(2), U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Washington, D.C., July 1, 1992.
Sioux Falls utility worker dies in fall from Minnesota wind tower Man, 26, installing turbine before fire broke out; 2 others injured From Staff & Wire Reports Article Published: 11/12/05 CHANDLER, Minn. - A Sioux Falls man was killed after falling more than 200 feet from a wind tower after it caught fire Friday morning near Chandler, authorities said. Benjamin James Thovson, 26, died at the scene after falling about 210 feet, Murray County (Minn.) sheriff's deputy Randy Donahue said. The victim was installing a Suzlon Wind Energy Corp. wind turbine, according to a statement released Friday evening by Suzlon and another company, Gary, S.D.-based Energy Maintenance Service. The workers were replacing a bolt when the fire started, the Associated Press reported. Two other employees of the Gary firm were injured and treated at a local hospital, according to the statement. They were able to climb down and escape. The sheriff's office had received a call just before 10 a.m. reporting the fire, and that one person had fallen. When help arrived, Donahue said, "the wind generator was engulfed in flames." Names of the injured workers and details on the extent of their injuries were not released Friday. The tower is owned by Dean DeGreeff of Chandler, who is part of an eight-person private ownership group called East Ridge Wind Farm. Energy Maintenance Service and Suzlon officials said they were cooperating with federal, state and local authorities in the investigation. "Our sincerest condolences go out to the family and friends of our co-worker, and to all employees of Energy Maintenance Service, LLC., and Suzlon Wind Energy Corporation," according to the statement. "This is a difficult time for all of us," it stated. "As is the case when workplace tragedies happen, Energy Maintenance Service and Suzlon will provide grief counseling services to employees as needed."
According to Suzlon's Web site, the company's Minnesota Project includes about a dozen wind farms in the southwestern part of the state. The firm supplies wind turbines for farms. The power produced is sold to Northern States Power Co., a subsidiary of Xcel Energy, and to Great River Energy, according to Suzlon.
Highway 58 reopened Monday morning after a faulty windmill near Tehachapi shut down all lanes of the road between highways 202 and 14.
Mojave CHP got the call about the out-of-control windmill located in the Tehachapi Wind Farm a little after 1:20 Sunday afternoon.
"For some reason the internal breaking mechanism or whatever they use to control the speed of the blades has failed," explained Mojave CHP Sgt. Royal Johnson. "It's turning at a high rate of speed which they can't stop or slow down, possibility is it can fragment and come apart."
Unfortunately, there was no easy way to shut off the windmill or quickly fix the problem.
Gary Spiller, the safety coordinator of Energy Maintenance Service, LLC, which operates the windmills in that area, said they had to wait until the winds died down below 30 mph before anyone could get close enough to fix it.
Given how close the windmill is to Highway 58 and to keep drivers safe, the main artery to Las Vegas and Barstow was closed for about a half day.
Drivers who Eyewitness News spoke with understood the reason for the closure, and one traveler, Daniel Bright, on his way to Arizona to visit his nephew who just got back from Iraq, wasn't too upset about the lost time.
"I'm pretty laid back. I don't stress about much. I just take it easy," he said.
But just about every other driver was frustrated.
Greg Tovar was on his way home when got stuck in the two hour, 25 mile detour.
"We're hungry and tired," he lamented. "So hopefully we get home soon."
According to the National Weather Service, the Tehachapi Mountain Pass is one of the three busiest areas in California, and this is also one of the windiest times of the year.
Wind turbines, often depicted twirling benignly in against a serene hilly backdrop, has become somewhat of a poster child for renewable energy. But the technology received a bit of bad publicity recently when one of the massive structures exploded at wind farm in Ardrossan, Scotland.The disaster was part of the widespread destruction left behind as a powerful Atlantic storm that packed high winds whipping at speeds of up to 165 mph ripped through the British Isles. In its wake, about a 150,000 homes were suddenly left without power partly because a wide network of the energy-generating sites were forced to shut down temporarily, a sequence of events that has once again stirred up doubts over the long term viability of wind power.Seizing on the opportunity, the Country Guardian, an anti-wind power organization, released a statement to the Sunday Express:“There is a general trend upward in accident numbers over the past 10 years. This is predicted to escalate unless the Health and Safety Executive makes some significant changes, in particular to protect the public by declaring a minimum safe distance between new turbine developments and occupied housing and buildings (currently 2km in Europe), and declaring ‘no-go’ areas to the public.”Proponents on the other side of the debate have played down the explosion as a “freak accident.
Charles Anglin, of the trade organization RenewableUK, told the Press Association, “There’s some pretty freak weather going on and any piece of large power generating equipment can be subject to freak accidents or mechanical faults.“But there’s an excellent health and safety record, and it was only a small fire in a field that was put out before the fire brigade got there, and no one was hurt. In stressful situations any power equipment may develop faults, and that’s true of gas, nuclear, oil, and is also true of wind.”But what’s especially troubling is that these types of malfunctions aren’t supposed to happen since wind turbines are designed with safety features that kick in whenever there are excessively strong winds. This enables them to operate in places with consistent gusts such as offshore sites and rural swaths of land. The manufacturer, Vestas is planning a thorough investigaion and Infinis, which operates the turbines, has since suspended operation of the site.In the meantime, a few in the media have speculated as to what might have have happened (or didn’t happen) within that intricate interconnected patchwork of gears and safety mechanisms. Paul Marks over at New Scientist outlines the various possibilities of what might went wrong:
It’s not yet clear what happened, but attention is likely to focus on the turbine’s ability to shut itself down in high wind. A wind turbine normally shuts down when winds reach 55 mph - but something clearly went awry in Ardrossan, perhaps causing excess current in the generator windings, which may have led to the fire.
The shutdown is normally performed by ‘feathering’ the turbine blades so they do not turn. “In general the turbine blades will pitch out in high winds, keeping the turbines in idle mode,” confirms a spokesman for the turbine’s manufacturer, Vestas of Aarhus, Denmark.
Another source of the problem may be a fault in the turbine’s gearbox, which ensures the rotor speed is adjusted so that the generator provides electricity that matches what is required by the grid it is feeding.
Even before the explosion, the industry already had its hands full convincing the public that the technology is worth pouring money and confidence into. Currently, it supplies about 2 percent of the world’s energy needs. Critics like the Country Guardian have also derided the whole underlying concept as fruitless since, they claim, that the energy from wind isn’t constant enough to be reliable. And of course, there’s that well-known problem of accidental bird fatalities that has some environmentalists reticent about the technology.
It wasn’t too long ago that Billionaire oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens announced plans to build the world’s largest wind farm before eroding financial support caused him bail out on the whole idea. Now the industry would probably need a to deliver a sufficient way to address and fix the problem as the storm of doubt is brewing.
I am writing to ask anyone who has ever visited, intends to visit, or thinks that they might one day care to visit the island of Nantucket to take a moment to send a brief e-mail to the Board of Selectmen and a group of other interested parties there (including the Town Manager, Land Bank Commission, Historic District Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, various conservation groups and the local newspaper opposing a proposal to install a 325 foot wind turbine at the town landfill. The e-mail addresses of these parties appear below.
The Nantucket Energy Committee, after years of preparation, has asked the Board of Selectmen to vote on January 4th to add an article on the warrant for the town meeting in March authorizing the town to borrow $3.5 million to pursue the project. (See the article in the Cape Cod Times today (also attached): Island Residents Fight Municipal Wind Plan).
The next step would be to seek a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals of Nantucket's height restriction for any structures on the island to allow construction of the wind turbine.
It is my understanding that there currently is no Special Permitting process for wind turbines and that it is a matter of dispute whether this proposal should actually require approval by the Planning Board -- or merely a variance from the ZBA on the height restriction.
Despite the typical claims of the energy committee that there have been many "public meetings" on the proposal -- by which they mean that it has been superficially discussed by various town boards and committees who know next to nothing of any of the ramifications -- residents of the island did not become aware of the imminent request for borrowing authority until a few weeks ago.
And since the BoS vote, the appeal to the ZBA to grant a variance and the town meeting in March all occur during the off season, the vast proportion of summer residents, who constitute 80% of the peak population, have no idea that their island is about to be transformed or that the current plan is to greet their arrival with a 300 foot crane this summer.
Everyone on Nantucket is new to this idea -- including the Board of Selectmen. They do not appear to have been paying close attention to events on Cape Cod -- and elsewhere -- over the past two or three years where one project after another has been repudiated by the local community once residents learned of the profound sacrifices to the character of the community and to their quality of life that they would be obliged to endure -- forever.
I believe that those of us who know better -- who have had some prior experience with this process -- could perform a valuable public service by educating the Board of Selectmen, and various other important constituencies on Nantucket, including the press, about what lays in store for them.
It seems to me that this project will ultimately be repudiated by the residents and other members of the community in Nantucket. But it also seems to me that there is no reason for them to learn the hard way -- instead of learning from the experience of others.
I have been thinking that perhaps some residents from Falmouth, Brewster, Harwich, Eastham, Wellfleet, Dennis, Wareham, Plymouth, Duxbury and Bourne might be able to drop a line to these folks, especially the BoS, to let them know what this process has been like for you -- and why you would urge them to avoid going down the same road.
I thought that you might also tell them -- since all of Nantucket is a designated historic district -- that if they build a 325 wind turbine there, they will be depriving ALL of us of something rare and precious -- a piece of our national heritage.
I thought you might want to tell them that Nantucket, like Cape Cod, is a rural area -- an island in the ocean, for heaven's sake -- and that an industrial wind turbine is completely incongruous with the natural landscape (where the tree line is 30 feet, if that) and the tranquil rural soundscape, characterized by extremely low ambient noise.
I thought you might like to remind them that Nantucket lies in the heart of an important bird migration highway -- an officially designated "Important Bird Area."
And I thought you might like to remind them that all of us who do not live in Nantucket, or manage its affairs, count on those who do to be good stewards of these aspects of the place -- a summer tourist mecca, and rightly so -- which have drawn so many of us to visit them through the years. You might ask them if they are comfortable with the idea that the addition of this 325 foot industrial machine to the landscape of Nantucket will be their legacy to all future generations.
Please take a moment to cut and paste the e-mail addresses listed below into the bcc space and send a brief e-mail to: "The Nantucket Board of Selectmen and other members of the Nantucket Community" -- or something similar -- and let them know what is at stake here.
Several residents in Nantucket have contacted me, having experienced an all-too-familiar combination of panic and despair over this proposal. As in so many other communities in the past, they feel abandoned, marginalized or threatened. They see this proposal steaming down the tracks -- over the holidays, no less -- and are at a loss as to how to reach other members of their community -- or get through to their public officials -- before it is too late.
What is most distressing to me is the prospect of yet another community being torn apart -- unnecessarily so -- over such a transparently misguided -- one could even say outrageously bad -- idea. Why should they have to go through this?
Please take a moment to let them know what YOU have learned and what YOU have been through -- and why they should not tread the same path.
I don't think that you have to be a Nantucket resident -- or even a resident of Massachusetts, for that matter -- to feel that you have something at stake here. Nantucket is a storied place -- one of the first beachheads of the European settlement of our country and a part of our national heritage -- and officially designated as such.
I hope that you will find a moment to make your voice heard. It will make a difference. And it goes without saying, if you don't take the trouble to speak up, they can't hear you. Please spread the word.
By Patrick Cassidypcassidy@capecodonline.com December 16, 2011
The controversial wind energy siting bill under consideration on Beacon Hill is effectively dead.
State Sen. Benjamin Downing, D-Pittsfield, the co-chairman of a committee responsible for the legislation, announced this week that he will ask that the measure be tabled.
The announcement hands a major victory to opponents concerned about the bill's effect on local control over wind energy projects.
In remarks Wednesday during an energy forum at the Berkshire South Community Center, Downing said those concerns, plus issues with siting standards and other problems with the legislation and wind energy, prompted him to call for a study of the bill — a move that would prevent the bill from being taken up by the full Legislature in the current session.
The full committee must still vote on his recommendation.
Downing is co-chairman of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy. State Rep. John Keenan, D-Salem, is the committee's other co-chairman.
A representative from Keenan's office said the lawmaker had no comment on Downing's remarks.
The original bill was meant to streamline permitting and provide standards for large wind energy projects. It would consolidate the permit process for turbines 2 megawatts or larger under a single, local board for municipalities in areas such as Cape Cod that the state designates as a "significant wind resource area."
In making his decision, Downing said he had considered what he heard from constituents and state officials during 15 hours of hearings on the bill held in Hancock and Barnstable.
The siting bill has been fought by those opposed to putting wind energy projects near residential areas.
Opponents of the bill often cite health problems allegedly caused by a wind turbine at the Falmouth wastewater treatment facility as a reason to be wary of locating wind turbines near homes.
Downing's comments come on the heels of Senate President Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, earlier this month withdrawing her support for the bill, which has been a major initiative for Gov. Deval Patrick's administration in its drive to meet wind energy goals he set for the state.
"After continuing to learn more about local control and the siting decisions of individual towns, the Senate president expects that for any legislation to go forward, it must have clear language about local control and siting standards that protect residential areas," David Falcone, Murray's director of communications, wrote in a statement sent to the Times Thursday.
The Patrick administration and other proponents of the siting bill have argued that it would not diminish local control and that without changes in the permitting process, wind energy projects will continue to be bogged down in years of unnecessary and redundant review.
In a statement sent to the Times, Massachusetts Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Richard K. Sullivan Jr. said that the Patrick administration will continue to hold discussions with legislators on the bill, including on siting standards and municipal oversight.
"Wind siting reform is an important tool in our clean energy portfolio," Sullivan said, adding that the administration is encouraged by comments Downing made about the need for investments in energy efficiency and solar power.
"The governor's clean energy agenda is achieving the intended results — we are in it for the long haul," he said.
Sullivan touted that Massachusetts recently beat out California for the top spot in the country for energy efficiency, according to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.
The local wind energy siting boards called for in the bill would be populated with members from other municipal boards, state Assistant Secretary for Energy Steven Clarke said during a recent interview with the Times.
"The primary logic behind the creation of these wind permitting boards is to provide a single point of entry," Clarke said. "The bill really does not undermine local control."
Clarke said the state takes complaints, such as those emanating from Falmouth, seriously.
A panel formed by the state Department of Public Health and Department of Environmental Protection to study health issues surrounding wind energy projects is expected to release its findings within the next week.
State Rep. Randy Hunt, R-Sandwich, who is a member of Downing's committee, said a study group's work on the bill will include a look at regulations for siting wind turbines in advance of changes to the permitting process.
Although regulations are usually developed after the passage of related legislation, in the case of siting wind turbines, the details are so important that it appears reasonable to develop regulations first, Hunt said.
In any case, the bill's chances of getting out of committee in the current session are nil, he said.
"The answer is there's zero chance that this will be voted on at all," Hunt said.
In his speech Wednesday, Downing said he would push for the administration to develop siting standards separately from the proposed bill.
"I think the right siting policy is not to affect the local permitting process at this time and not to affect our existing environmental laws at this time," he said.
"I think we ought to develop siting standards first, and I think that is what should move forward. It's what I support, and it's what I'm going to advocate for in this legislative session."
The news of the Fairhaven Board of Health ("Board of Health rebuffs residents concerned about wind turbine" Dec. serves as testimonial to the disconnect government has with the citizen.
If it did thorough research, the Board of Health would find amounts of science-based data supporting adverse health arguments concerning the health impact of wind turbines. To shed further light and widen the board's perspective, may I suggest that these new and unfamiliar challenges may be too big for a volunteer board. Only look across the bay to the Falmouth Board of Health dilemma. They've sought state guidance. To date. Silence from the Department of Public Health.
To gain the best possible perception, if the best possible solution is the desire, all views, sounds and experiences require consideration. Perceptions that are limited or are not given the full spectrum of truth's light leave little chance for meaningful success.
The most damning aspect of the Fairhaven Board of Health's selective opinion is the airy declaration that implies no further study of the problem is needed. Do they know five bills are in front of the Massachusetts Legislature asking similar turbine health questions?
The Fairhaven board serves as an example as exploiting the void left by absent fact-finding. Their behavior undermines the potential for the best possible success. Real people, having real concerns with Fairhaven's industrial-sized turbine plan, cannot be minimized.
Is the health and well-being of those neighbors so easily expendable? Will the potential victims and their concerns, likened to those in Falmouth until recently, fade into the background winds of apathy, ignorance and greed?
If not to serve and protect the public good, what use has become of the Fairhaven Board of Health?
Senator Ben Downing, Chair of the Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy Committee, announced he is recommending that the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act (WESRA) be sent down for "Further study" effectively ending debate on the measure for this legislative session. He told the administration, John Keenan and the environmental community today before announcing it tonight in Great Barrington. Preserve Lenox Mountain applauds Ben for making this courageous choice and thank him for hearing all of us on this issue. Bravo Ben!
Thank you Ben Downing for abandoning WESRA. WESRA's brazen attempt to codify the breaking of the 5th Amendment of US Constitution"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." was shocking! You need to pass rules to protect those being assaulted as well as those who will be harmed when local control oversteps those tenets. A flood of government money is overwhelm those individuals.
I am getting ready to attend the court proceedings involving the town of Falmouth versus Anderson el al. I’m reminded from my high school poly- sci classes that property rights in the US must be protected and that these rights should never be taken for granted.
A municipal capital wind energy project (i.e. Falmouth, Fairhaven) IS an attack on private property rights.
The State constitution establishes strong property-rights protections and place clear limitations on the government’s ability to infringe on these fundamental rights. However, even when constitutional language is clear, courts can, and will, expand the meaning of the text far beyond what is intended.
The nation’s Founding Fathers never intended, nor imagined in their wildest dreams, that economic- renewable energy development, would be constitutional.
A key term, being examined in the Falmouth case is “public use”. The language in the Constitution is very specific to prevent this element from being read too broadly by courts. Yet, in Massachusetts, it is.
“Public Use” Should Mean Public Use. The traditional understanding of “public use” is for public ownership (e.g. road, school) or for use by the public (e.g. stadium, railroad).
Falmouth (i.e. Falmouth versus Anderson el al) has broadened “public use” to mean “public benefit” or “public purpose.” As a result, the town has authorized a benefit (purpose) beyond what was ever intended.
A great misuse of zoning law has taken place in Falmouth, and may take place in Fairhaven. If “public benefit” is touted as the reason for a capital wind project, can such a “use” simultaneously threaten private citizen public health or safety?
The question of whether Wind I’s use is a public use is a judicial matter. Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have given so much deference to legislative bodies that the legislatures are the ones defining “public use.”
When they have this deference, as with the Falmouth case (building commissioner), they will define it without regard to the true meaning of “public use” (as seen with economic-development, environmental - renewable energy goals).
Property rights, for some reason, have been forgotten and neglected by too many leaders, and even by too many citizens. I pray the judge doesn’t forget or neglect this afternoon.
No public benefit or additional tax dollar justifies taking away fundamental rights of health and safety - FOR ALL CITIZENS.
Britain was battered by gales of up to 165mph yesterday, leaving a trail of destruction across the country.
In one spectacular incident a 300ft wind turbine exploded in flames as it was buffeted by the high winds.
Another wind turbine was completely blown down on Wednesday, raising questions about whether wind farms were simply unable to cope with the weather.
A £2million, 100metre-tall wind turbine caught fire in hurricane-force winds at Ardrossan, North Ayrshire, Scotland, during severe weather
Burning: The flaming debris from the wind turbines flew off into nearby fields due to the wind
Collapse: A wind turbine lies on its side after crashing to the ground on Wednesday afternoon at Coldingham in Lothian and Borders
Crashing down: The fallen turbine in Coldingham caused several homes to be evacuated and a road to be closed
Homes had to be evacuated and a road was closed after a turbine fell over in gusts of wind in the Borders. The incident happened near Coldingham in Berwickshire on Wednesday. The turbine had been erected but was not turned on and appears to have been unable to cope with gusts of up to 50mph. The A1107 was shut from the north side of Coldingham, at the Croftlaws Caravan Park, down to Lumsden Farm and a 200m cordon was in place. Lothian and Borders Police said the turbine had suffered a brake system failure and had been "freewheeling".
Local resident Billy Muir saw the results of the incident. "The tip of one blade made it to within five metres of the road," he said. "We live 500m away but there are a few houses about 200m away. "No-one was injured - it was dealt with by Lothian and Borders police."
Today temperatures are expected to plummet with blizzards, snowdrifts and black ice expected in the north, and continuing wind and rain in the south.
The flaming £2million wind turbine was in Ardrossan, North Ayrshire, Scotland. Witnesses said its blades were locked at the time, because the National Grid would be unable to cope with a sudden power surge.
Photographer Stuart McMahon, who took the incredible image, said: ‘The centre of the turbine caught fire first and the flames spread to the covering of the blades.
‘There was burning debris being swept off in the wind and across the fields. These are huge structures and to see one on fire was a spectacular sight.’
The turbine knocked over by high winds near Coldingham in the Borders caused several homes to be evacuated and a road to be closed.
Although ScottishPower has not blamed the weather for its collapse, Lothian and Borders Police said the turbine ‘suffered brake system failure and had been freewheeling’ in 50mph winds.
ScottishPower, which has 15 wind farms north of the Border, said turbines were switched off at ‘most of them’. A spokesman said: ‘Individual turbines have self-protection mechanisms that are activated in sustained storm force winds to prevent damage. They re-activate when the wind speed drops.’
-- State Senate President Therese Murray said on Wednesday that she would not support a moratorium on wind turbines in Massachusetts because all options need to be considered to satisfy the state’s future energy needs.
"There are places where you can put them where they are not harmful to people," Murray said, while answering questions at a Berkshire Chamber of Commerce function at the Country Club of Pittsfield.
As examples, the Plymouth Democrat referred to two projects in her home district: A windmill going up on a landfill in Kingston and a similar facility that supplies power for dormitories at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy in Bourne.
"You can’t just cut everything out of the mix," Murray said. "Everything has to be done correctly and they have to be placed in the right place."
Murray, who attended the event with state Sen. Benjamin B. Downing, D-Pittsfield, fielded several questions about wind power, broadband, and the proposed Wind Energy Siting Reform Act from Berkshire residents Jonas Dovydenas, Terry Flynn, Eleanor Tillinghast and Harley Keisch. Keisch is a member of Preserve Lenox Mountain, an advocacy group that opposes the siting of industrial-scale wind turbines on Berkshire ridges.
Flynn said he was in favor of declaring a state moratorium on wind energy because of concern for environmental damage the construction of wind turbines would cause, the higher fees that ratepayers would be assessed, and the increasing concerns that surround wind power.
"We need to do more research," he said.
Noting that state funding for tourism in the Berkshires increased this year, Keisch said wind turbines on ridges would be "devastating to property values" in the county, would cause utility rates to go "up instead of down," and are not a reliable source of energy.
"You say that they should be part of the mix, but I think until we really understand the scientific basis for it, there are other alternatives," Keisch said.
"Putting [wind turbines] on a ridge, that’s your issue out here," Murray responded. "I get that. I certainly can hear you on that. But taking them out of other places where they do fit, I don’t agree with. It does fit in some places. It may not be right for your ridge. But it has to be part of the mix."
Dovydenas asked Murray for her opinion on the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act, which would shift the responsibility for siting wind turbines to an unelected board that would have the power to override local government decisions. Murray said some towns in her district, notably Falmouth, have had problems with the siting of wind facilities on municipal property.
"I think wind power has to be part of the solution for our energy fixes," Murray said, "but I don’t believe losing local control is the way to go. So I would have to support my towns that don’t support the siting bill."
Her comments were met with applause.
Downing, who chairs the joint Committee on Telecommunications and Energy, invited those interested in the siting bill to attend an energy forum that he will hold on Wednesday, Dec. 14, at the Berkshire South Community Center in Great Barrington.
"Please come there because we’re going to be talking about that issue and others as well," he said, "and I really want it to be a dialogue."
Referring to state energy issues in general, Downing said, "I don’t think anybody can dispute that there are complex issues around all of it."
"There’s a lot of programs out there that aren’t getting into communities, into neighborhoods," he said. "I think there’s more work to be done around any number of different energy issues."
EGMOND AAN ZEE, Netherlands | Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:55am EST
(Reuters) - When the Netherlands built its first sea-based wind turbines in 2006, they were seen as symbols of a greener future.
Towering over the waves of the North Sea like an army of giants, blades whipping through the wind, the turbines were the country's best hope to curb carbon emissions and meet growing demand for electricity.
The 36 turbines -- each one the height of a 30-storey building -- produce enough electricity to meet the needs of more than 100,000 households each year.
But five years later the green future looks a long way off. Faced with the need to cut its budget deficit, the Dutch government says offshore wind power is too expensive and that it cannot afford to subsidize the entire cost of 18 cents per kilowatt hour -- some 4.5 billion euros last year.
The government now plans to transfer the financial burden to households and industrial consumers in order to secure the funds for wind power and try to attract private sector investment.
It will start billing consumers and companies in January 2013 and simultaneously launch a system under which investors will be able to apply to participate in renewable energy projects.
But the new billing system will reap only a third of what was previously available to the industry in subsidies -- the government forecasts 1.5 billion euros every year -- while the pricing scale of the investment plan makes it more likely that interested parties will choose less expensive technologies than wind.
The outlook for Dutch wind projects seems bleak.
COUNTRY OF WINDMILLS
For centuries, the Netherlands has harnessed wind power, using windmills to drain water from low-lying marsh and turn it into arable land.
Now however, one of the most densely populated countries in Europe -- with 489 people per square kilometer (0.6 miles) compared to 356 in Belgium or 192 in Luxembourg -- is falling out of love with its iconic technology.
Arguments over the high cost and maintenance of sea-based turbines, as well as complaints from residents about unsightly land-based models, have brought the Dutch to an impasse.
Offshore wind farms produce more electricity than onshore ones but it costs twice as much as onshore wind power due to the higher cost of materials, more expensive drilling methods, and more complex maintenance.
Wind turbines in the sea need to be more robust to withstand strong winds and salt water; their maintenance some miles away from the coast requires special equipment and transportation.
Drilling the seabed is more expensive as it requires a specialized workforce and equipment. Then there's the additional cost of connecting the offshore farms to the grid.
Onshore, wind turbines face local resistance.
In 1994, a group of entrepreneurial farmers around the Dutch town of Urk got together and decided to build the country's largest onshore wind farm with 86 wind turbines nearby. Maxime Verhagen, then minister for economy, innovation and agriculture, said this would be enough to supply 900,000 people.
The project has since been adapted to meet changes in legislation and 20 years after it was launched, construction may finally start this year and be completed in 2014. The only thing holding up the project now is a lawsuit filed by local residents. They say the 30-meter-high wind turbines will spoil their views.
"If we have wind turbines here this old picture will be destroyed," said the mayor, Jaap Kroon. "We are also concerned about the safety and noise."
Ironically Urk itself used to be an island until windmills were used to drain the surrounding land and connect it to the mainland. The Dutch Wind Energy Association says about half the country's onshore wind projects such as the one in Urk are disputed.
"People don't want big wind turbines in their backyards," said Kasper Wallet, an energy consultant. "They think it will impact the value of their property."
SHORT-TERM SAVINGS?
Renewable energy meets just four percent of the Netherlands' total energy consumption. That makes the country's target for its share to rise 14 percent by 2020 challenging enough.
"We have come to the conclusion that the most likely targets with the current policy to be reached will be in the range of 8 to 12 percent," said Paul van den Oosterkamp, manager of the Energy Research Center of the Netherlands (ECN), an independent institute for renewable energy.
Under the government's new system aimed at attracting private sector involvement, known as SDE+, investors will be able to apply in four phases to participate in renewable energy projects, with government subsidies set between 9 and 15 cents per kilowatt hour of produced electricity they produce.
A spokeswoman for the ministry of economic affairs, agriculture and innovation said this would not cover the current subsidy cost of offshore wind projects.
"Some technologies like offshore wind, tidal and wave energy and solar are on average more expensive than the SDE+ maximum cost price," said Esther Benschop in an email to Reuters.
Dutch power firms say wind remains key to meeting green energy targets but is still too expensive for them to manage alone.
Dutch grid operator TenneT, which became a major player in German electricity transmission after it bought E.ON's high-voltage grid, has complained about the cost of connecting offshore wind farms to the national grid because of the expensive materials, particularly cables, involved.
It currently has nine projects in Germany involving wind farms where it has run into financing difficulties and is seeking a stakeholder.
Nico Bolleman -- managing director of Netherlands-based Blue Technologies, a company which develops platforms for offshore wind turbines -- says fairer comparisons need to be made when calculating the cost of wind power.
"Even if you take everything into account, wind energy is not expensive. Take into account the hidden costs of fossil fuels. For example, transport of coal generates more carbon dioxide emissions and no-one calculates that into the electricity price."
Others insist the negative impact will be short-term.
"The new subsidy scheme is not supportive, (but) offshore wind is a long-term game," said Greven Hein, spokesman for Dutch utilities firm Eneco, recently given subsidies to build a 129 megawatt offshore wind farm.
"In a couple of years it will be back on the agenda."
(Additional reporting by Christoph Steitz in Frankfurt; Editing by Sophie Walker)
Pine Tree facility in the Tehachapi Mountains faces scrutiny over the deaths of at least six golden eagles, which are protected under federal law. Prosecution would be a major blow to the booming industry.
August 03, 2011|By Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times
Federal authorities are investigating the deaths of at least six golden eagles at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's Pine Tree Wind Project in the Tehachapi Mountains, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Tuesday.
So far, no wind-energy company has been prosecuted by federal wildlife authorities in connection with the death of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A prosecution in the Pine Tree case could cause some rethinking and redesigning of this booming alternative energy source. Facilities elsewhere also have been under scrutiny, according to a federal official familiar with the investigations.
"Wind farms have been killing birds for decades and law enforcement has done nothing about it, so this investigation is long overdue," said Shawn Smallwood, an expert on raptor ecology and wind farms. "It's going to ruffle wind industry feathers across the country."
Wildlife Service spokeswoman Lois Grunwald declined to comment on what she described as "an ongoing law enforcement investigation regarding Pine Tree."
Joe Ramallo, a DWP spokesman, said, "We are very concerned about golden eagle mortalities that have occurred at Pine Tree. We have been working cooperatively and collaboratively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game to investigate these incidents.
"We have also actively and promptly self-reported raptor mortalities to both authorities," he said. "Moving forward, we will be ramping up further our extensive field monitoring and will work with the agencies to develop an eagle conservation plan as part of more proactive efforts to monitor avian activities in the Pine Tree area."
An internal DWP bird and bat mortality report for the year ending June 2010 indicated that compared to 45 other wind facilities nationwide, bird fatality rates were "relatively high" at Pine Tree, which has 90 towers generating 120 megawatts on 8,000 acres.
Golden eagles weigh about 14 pounds and stand up to 40 inches tall. Their flight behavior and size make it difficult for them to maneuver through forests of wind turbine blades spinning as fast as 200 mph — especially when they are distracted by the sight of prey such as squirrels and rabbits.
DWP officials acknowledged that at least six golden eagles have been struck dead by wind turbine blades at the two-year-old Kern County facility, about 100 miles north of Los Angeles, which was designed to contribute to the city's renewable energy goal of 35% by 2020.
Although the total deaths at Pine Tree pale in comparison with the 67 golden eagles that die each year in Northern California's Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, the annual death rate per turbine is three times higher at the DWP facility. The Altamont Pass facility has 5,000 wind turbines — 55 times as many as Pine Tree.
Nationwide, about 440,000 birds are killed at wind farms each year, according to the Wildlife Service. The American Wind Energy Assn., an industry lobbying group, points out that far more birds are killed by collisions with radio towers, tall buildings, airplanes and vehicles, and encounters with household cats.
Attorney Allan Marks, who specializes in renewable energy projects, called the Pine Tree deaths "an isolated case. If their golden eagle mortality rate is above average, it means the industry as a whole is in compliance."
About 1,595 birds, mostly migratory songbirds and medium-sized species such as California quail and western meadowlark, die each year at Pine Tree, according to the bird mortality report prepared for the DWP last year by Ojai-based BioResource Consultants.
BioResource spokesman Peter Cantle suggested that those bird deaths may be unrelated to Pine Tree's wind turbines.
"It's hard to tease out those numbers," he said. "Basically, we walked around the site to find bird mortalities, which could have been attributable to a number of things including natural mortality and predators."
The death count worries environmentalists because the $425-million Pine Tree facility is in a region viewed as a burgeoning hot spot for wind energy production.
"We believe this problem must be dealt with immediately because Pine Tree is only one of several industrial energy developments proposed for that area over the next five to 10 years," said Los Angeles Audubon President Travis Longcore. "Combined, they have the potential to wipe this large, long-lived species out of the sky."
The arguments for wind farms just became obsolete. We’re entering an era when gas will be cheap, plentiful – and green
Which would you rather have in the view from your house? A thing about the size of a domestic garage, or eight towers twice the height of Nelson’s column with blades noisily thrumming the air? The energy they can produce over ten years is similar: eight wind turbines of 2.5 megawatts (working at about 25 per cent capacity) roughly equal the output of an average Pennsylvania shale gas well (converted to electricity at 50 per cent efficiency) in its first ten years.
Difficult choice? Let’s make it easier. The gas well can be hidden in a hollow, behind a hedge. The eight wind turbines must be on top of hills, because that is where the wind blows, visible for up to 40 miles. And they require the construction of new pylons marching to the towns; the gas well is connected by an underground pipe.
Unpersuaded? Wind turbines slice thousands of birds of prey in half every year, including white-tailed eagles in Norway, golden eagles in California, wedge-tailed eagles in Tasmania. There’s a video on YouTube of one winging a griffon vulture in Crete. According to a study in Pennsylvania, a wind farm with eight turbines would kill about 200 bats a year. The pressure wave from the passing blade just implodes the little creatures’ lungs. You and I can go to jail for harming bats or eagles; wind companies are immune.
Still can’t make up your mind? The wind farm requires eight tonnes of an element called neodymium, which is produced only in Inner Mongolia, by boiling ores in acid leaving lakes of radioactive tailings so toxic that no creature goes near them.
Not convinced? The gas well requires no subsidy — in fact it pays a hefty tax to the government — whereas the wind turbines each cost you a substantial add-on to your electricity bill, part of which goes to the rich landowner whose land they stand on. Wind power costs three times as much as gas-fired power. Make that nine times if the wind farm is offshore. And that’s assuming the cost of decommissioning the wind farm is left to your children — few will last 25 years.
Decided yet? I forgot to mention something. If you choose the gas well, that’s it, you can have it. If you choose the farm, you are going to need the gas well too. That’s because when the wind does not blow you will need a back-up power station running on something more reliable. But the bloke who builds gas power stations is not happy to build one that only operates when the wind drops, so he’s now demanding a subsidy, too.
What’s that you say? Gas is running out? Have you not heard the news? It’s not. Until five years ago, gas was the fuel everybody thought would run out first, before oil and coal. America was getting so worried even Alan Greenspan told it to start building gas import terminals, which it did. They are now being mothballed, or turned into export terminals.
A chap called George Mitchell turned the gas industry on its head. Using just the right combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) – both well-established technologies — he worked out how to get gas out of shale, where most of it is, rather than just out of (conventional) porous rocks, where it sometimes pools. The Barnett shale in Texas, where Mitchell worked, turned into one of the biggest gas reserves in America. Then the Haynesville shale in Louisiana dwarfed it. The Marcellus shale mainly in Pennsylvania then trumped that with a barely believable 500 trillion cubic feet of gas, as big as any oil field ever found, on the doorstep of the biggest market in the world.
The International Energy Agency reckons there is a quarter of a millennium’s worth of cheap shale gas in the world. A company called Cuadrilla drilled a hole in Blackpool, hoping to find a few trillion cubic feet of gas. Last month it announced 200 trillion cubic feet, nearly half the size of the giant Marcellus field. That’s enough to keep the entire British economy going for many decades. And it’s just the first field to have been drilled.
The impact of shale gas in America is already huge. Gas prices have decoupled from oil prices and are half what they are in Europe. Chemical companies, which use gas as a feedstock, are rushing back from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Mexico. Cities are converting their bus fleets to gas. Coal projects are being shelved; nuclear ones abandoned.
Rural Pennsylvania is being transformed by the royalties that shale gas pays (Lancashire take note). Drive around the hills near Pittsburgh and you see new fences, repainted barns and — in the local towns — thriving car dealerships and upmarket shops. The one thing you barely see is gas rigs. The one I visited was hidden in a hollow in the woods, invisible till I came round the last corner, where a flock of wild turkeys was crossing the road. Drilling rigs are on site for about five weeks, fracking trucks a few weeks after that, and when they are gone all that is left is a ‘Christmas tree’ wellhead and a few small storage tanks.
Jesse Ausubel is a soft-spoken academic ecologist at Rockefeller University in New York, not given to hyperbole. So when I asked him about the future of gas, I was surprised by the strength of his reply. ‘It’s unstoppable,’ he says simply. Gas, he says, will be the world’s dominant fuel for most of the next century. Coal and renewables will have to give way, while oil is used mainly for transport. Even nuclear may have to wait in the wings.
And he is not even talking mainly about shale gas. He reckons a still bigger story is waiting to be told about offshore gas from the so-called cold seeps around the continental margins. Israel has made a huge find and is planning a pipeline to Greece, to the irritation of the Turks. The Brazilians are striking rich. The Gulf of Guinea is hot. Even our own Rockall Bank looks promising. Ausubel thinks that much of this gas is not even ‘fossil’ fuel, but ancient methane from the universe that was trapped deep in the earth’s rocks — like the methane that forms lakes on Titan, one of Saturn’s moons.
•••
The best thing about cheap gas is who it annoys. The Russians and the Iranians hate it because they thought they were going to corner the gas market in the coming decades. The greens hate it because it destroys their argument that fossil fuels are going to get more and more costly until even wind and solar power are competitive. The nuclear industry ditto. The coal industry will be a big loser (incidentally, as somebody who gets some income from coal, I declare that writing this article is against my vested interest).
Little wonder a furious attempt to blacken shale gas’s reputation is under way, driven by an unlikely alliance of big green, big coal, big nuclear and big gas providers. The environmental objections to shale gas are almost comically fabricated or exaggerated. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, uses 99.86 per cent water and sand, the rest being a dilute solution of a few chemicals of the kind you find beneath your kitchen sink.
State regulators in Alaska, Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming have all asserted in writing that there have been no verified or documented cases of groundwater contamination as a result of hydraulic fracking. Those flaming taps in the film Gasland were literally nothing to do with shale gas drilling and the film-maker knew it before he wrote the script. The claim that gas production generates more greenhouse gases than coal is based on mistaken assumptions about gas leakage rates and cherry-picked time horizons for computing greenhouse impact.
Like Japanese soldiers hiding in the jungle decades after the war was over, our political masters have apparently not heard the news. David Cameron and Chris Huhne are still insisting that the future belongs to renewables. They are still signing contracts on your behalf guaranteeing huge incomes to landowners and power companies, and guaranteeing thereby the destruction of landscapes and jobs. The government’s ‘green’ subsidies are costing the average small business £250,000 a year. That’s ten jobs a firm. Making energy cheap is — as the industrial revolution proved — the quickest way to create jobs; making it expensive is the quickest way to lose them.
Not only are renewables far more expensive, intermittent and resource-depleting (their demand for steel and concrete is gigantic) than gas; they are also hugely more damaging to the environment, because they are so land-hungry. Wind kills birds and spoils landscapes; solar paves deserts; tidal wipes out the ecosystems of migratory birds; biofuel starves the poor and devastates the rainforest; hydro interrupts fish migration. Next time you hear somebody call these ‘clean’ energy, don’t let him get away with it.
Wind cannot even help cut carbon emissions, because it needs carbon back-up, which is wastefully inefficient when powering up or down (nuclear cannot be turned on and off so fast). Even Germany and Denmark have failed to cut their carbon emissions by installing vast quantities of wind.
Yet switching to gas would hasten decarbonisation. In a combined cycle, turbine gas converts to electricity with higher efficiency than other fossil fuels. And when you burn gas, you oxidise four hydrogen atoms for every carbon atom. That’s a better ratio than oil, much better than coal and much, much better than wood. Ausubel calculates that, thanks to gas, we will accelerate a relentless shift from carbon to hydrogen as the source of our energy without touching renewables.
To persist with a policy of pursuing subsidised renewable energy in the midst of a terrible recession, at a time when vast reserves of cheap low-carbon gas have suddenly become available, is so perverse it borders on the insane. Nothing but bureaucratic inertia and vested interest can explain it.
The following article was just published in the online edition of the NY Times (probably tomorrow's front page) -- a sobering look at the staggering public cost of "renewable energy" -- and the meager results that have actually been achieved.
I find this article particularly intriguing in light of the revelation yesterday, in a speech by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, that the Green Communities Act is likely to cost Massachusetts residents more than $4 billion.
One quibble: the lead paragraph of the article includes a typical misstatement of fact, saying that the solar project in question "will produce enough electricity to power about 100,000 homes." This is not true.
All megawatts are not created equal. Reliable megawatts are useful; unreliable megawatts are much less useful -- and abjectly dependent upon reliable sources to come to their rescue when they fail to produce. Wind and solar electricity projects never stand alone.
You have to have a serious back-up plan in place -- on a moment's notice -- for those times when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.
Wind energy and solar energy do not "replace" or "displace" conventional energy production. At best, they complement it -- after an expensive, and redundant, investment.
What the article should have said is that this project, "which may or may not produce any power at all at any given moment in time (because solar energy is not constant or reliable), will help to produce enough electricity to power about 100,000 homes -- assuming that the utility also provides 100% redundancy in the form conventional electric power facilities that can be switched on at night, or during a cloudy day, to make up for lost production."
The wind and the sunlight are free; but everything else costs a fortune to install and maintain.
The output is obscenely expensive and the quality is poor.
Consumers pay the bills while Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, GE, Exelon, Florida Power and Light and even Google are laughing all the way to the bank.
Here is the link (also pasted into the body below).
WASHINGTON — Halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco, on a former cattle ranch and gypsum mine, NRG Energy is building an engineering marvel: a compound of nearly a million solar panels that will produce enough electricity to power about 100,000 homes.
The project is also a marvel in another, less obvious way: Taxpayers and ratepayers are providing subsidies worth almost as much as the entire $1.6 billion cost of the project. Similar subsidy packages have been given to 15 other solar- and wind-power electric plants since 2009.
The government support — which includes loan guarantees, cash grants and contracts that require electric customers to pay higher rates — largely eliminated the risk to the private investors and almost guaranteed them large profits for years to come. The beneficiaries include financial firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, conglomerates like General Electric, utilities like Exelon and NRG — even Google.
A great deal of attention has been focused on Solyndra, a start-up that received $528 million in federal loans to develop cutting-edge solar technology before it went bankrupt, but nearly 90 percent of the $16 billion in clean-energy loans guaranteed by the federal government since 2009 went to subsidize these lower-risk power plants, which in many cases were backed by big companies with vast resources.
When the Obama administration and Congress expanded the clean-energy incentives in 2009, a gold-rush mentality took over.
As NRG’s chief executive, David W. Crane, put it to Wall Street analysts early this year, the government’s largess was a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and “we intend to do as much of this business as we can get our hands on.” NRG, along with partners, ultimately secured $5.2 billion in federal loan guarantees plus hundreds of millions in other subsidies for four large solar projects.
“I have never seen anything that I have had to do in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects,” he said in a recent interview. “It is just filling the desert with panels.”
From 2007 to 2010, federal subsidies jumped to $14.7 billion from $5.1 billion, according to a recent study.
Most of the surge came from the economic stimulus bill, which was passed in 2009 and financed an Energy Department loan guarantee program and a separate Treasury Department grant program that were promoted as important in creating green jobs.
States like California sweetened the pot by offering their own tax breaks and by approving long-term power-purchase contracts that, while promoting clean energy, will also require ratepayers to pay billions of dollars more for electricity for as long as two decades. The federal loan guarantee program expired on Sept. 30. The Treasury grant program is scheduled to expire at the end of December, although the energy industry is lobbying Congress to extend it. But other subsidies will remain.
The windfall for the industry over the last three years raises questions of whether the Obama administration and state governments went too far in their support of solar and wind power projects, some of which would have been built anyway, according to the companies involved.
Obama administration officials argue that the incentives, which began on a large scale late in the Bush administration but were expanded by the stimulus legislation, make economic and environmental sense. Beyond the short-term increase in construction hiring, they say, the cleaner air and lower carbon emissions will benefit the country for decades.
“Subsidies and government support have been part of many key industries in U.S. history — railroads, oil, gas and coal, aviation,” said Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman.
A Case Study
NRG’s California Valley Solar Ranch project is a case study in the banquet of government subsidies available to the owners of a renewable-energy plant.
The first subsidy is for construction. The plant is expected to cost $1.6 billion to build, with key components made by SunPower at factories in California and Asia. In late September, the Energy Department agreed to guarantee a $1.2 billion construction loan, with the Treasury Department lending the money at an exceptionally low interest rate of about 3.5 percent, compared with the 7 percent that executives said they would otherwise have had to pay.
That support alone is worth about $205 million to NRG over the life of the loan, according to an analysis performed for The New York Times by Booz & Company, a strategic consulting firm that regularly performs such studies for private investors.
When construction is complete, NRG is eligible to receive a $430 million check from the Treasury Department — part of a change made in 2009 that allows clean-energy projects to receive 30 percent of their cost as a cash grant upfront instead of taking other tax breaks gradually over several years.
Californians are also making a big contribution. Under a state law passed to encourage the construction of more solar projects, NRG will not have to pay property taxes to San Luis Obispo County on its solar panels, saving it an estimated $14 million a year.
Assisted by another state law, which mandates that California utilities buy 33 percent of their power from clean-energy sources by 2020, the project’s developers struck lucrative contracts with the local utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, to buy the plant’s power for 25 years.
P.G.& E., and ultimately its electric customers, will pay NRG $150 to $180 a megawatt-hour, according to a person familiar with the project, who asked not to be identified because the price information was confidential. At the time the contract was awarded, that was about 50 percent more than the expected market cost of electricity in California from a newly built gas-powered plant, state officials said.
While neither state regulators nor the companies will divulge all the details, the extra cost to ratepayers amounts to a $462 million subsidy, according to Booz, which calculated the present value of the higher rates over the life of the contracts.
Additional depreciation tax breaks for renewable energy plants could save the company an additional $110 million, according to Christopher Dann, the Booz analyst who examined the project.
The total value of all those subsidies in today’s dollars is about $1.4 billion, leading to an expected rate of return of 25 percent for the project’s equity investors, according to Booz.
Mr. Crane of NRG disputed the Booz estimate, saying that the company’s return on equity was “in the midteens.”
NRG, which initially is investing about $400 million of its own money in the project, expects to get all of its equity back in two to five years, according to a statement it made in August to Wall Street analysts.
By 2015, NRG expects to be earning at least $300 million a year in profits from all of its solar projects combined, making these investments some of the pieces in its sprawling portfolio, which includes dozens of power plants fueled by coal, natural gas and oil.
NRG is not the only company gobbling up subsidies. At least 10 of the 16 solar or wind electricity generation projects that secured Energy Department loan guarantees intend to also take the Treasury Department grant, and all but two of the projects have long-term agreements to sell almost all of their power, according to a survey of the companies by The Times.
These projects, in almost all cases, benefit from legislation that has been passed in about 30 states that pushes local utility companies to buy a significant share of their power from renewable sources, like solar or wind power. These mandates often have resulted in contracts with above-market rates for the project developers, and a guarantee of a steady revenue stream.
“It is like building a hotel, where you know in advance you are going to have 100 percent room occupancy for 25 years,” said Kevin Smith, chief executive of SolarReserve. His Nevada solar project has secured a 25-year power-purchase agreement with the state’s largest utility and a $737 million Energy Department loan guarantee and is on track to receive a $200 million Treasury grant.
Because the purchase mandates can drive up electricity rates significantly, some states, including New Jersey and Colorado, are considering softening the requirements on utilities.
Brookfield Asset Management, a giant Canadian investment firm, will receive so many subsidies for a New Hampshire wind farm that they are worth 46 percent to 80 percent of the $229 million price of the project, when measured in today’s dollars, according to analyses for The Times performed by Booz and two other two industry financial experts. (The wide range reflects a disagreement between the experts on the future price of electricity in New Hampshire.)
Richard Legault, the chief executive of Brookfield Renewable Power, the division that oversees the Granite Reliable project in New Hampshire, declined to discuss his profit expectations in detail, but said the project may not have happened without government assistance.
“When everything has come together, it is a good investment for Brookfield, it is no doubt,” Mr. Legault said. “We are quite happy with it.” (Brookfield is also the owner of the small park in Manhattan that is home to the Occupy Wall Street protesters.)
Even companies whose business has little to do with energy or finance, like the Internet giant Google, benefit from the public subsidies. Google has invested in several renewable energy projects, including a giant solar plant in the California desert and a wind farm in Oregon, in part to get federal tax breaks that it can use to offset its profits from Web advertising.
Industry executives and other supporters of the subsidies say that the public money was vital to the projects, in part because financing for renewable energy projects dried up during the recession. They also note that more traditional energy sectors, like oil and natural gas, get heavy subsidies of their own. For example, in fiscal 2010, the oil and gas producers got federal tax breaks of $2.7 billion, according to an analysis by the Energy Information Administration.
“These programs just level the playing field for what oil and gas and nuclear industries have enjoyed for the last 50 years,” said Rhone Resch, president of Solar Energy Industries Association. “Do you have to provide more policy support and funding initially? Absolutely. But the result is more energy security, clean energy and domestic jobs.”
Michael E. Webber, associate director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas, Austin, said renewable energy subsidies were a worthy investment. “It is a form of corporate welfare that is consistent with other social goals like job creation, clean air and boosting a domestic source of energy,” he said.
Overflowing Breaks
Obama administration officials said the subsidies were intended to help renewable-energy plants that were jumbo-sized or used innovative technology, both potential obstacles to getting private financing. But even proponents of the subsidies say the administration may have gone overboard.
Concerns that the government was being too generous reached all the way to President Obama. In an October 2010 memo prepared for the president, Lawrence H. Summers, then his top economic adviser; Carol M. Browner, then his adviser on energy matters; and Ronald A. Klain, then the vice president’s chief of staff, expressed discomfort with the “double dipping” that was starting to take place. They said investors had little “skin in the game.”
Officials involved in reviewing the loan applications said that Treasury Department officials pressed the Energy Department to respond to these concerns.
Officials at both agencies declined to discuss the anticipated financial returns of the clean-energy projects the federal government has agreed to guarantee, saying the information was confidential.
But Energy Department officials said they had carefully evaluated every project to try to calculate how much money the developers and investors stood to make. “They were rejected, if they looked too rich or too risky,” Mr. LaVera, the Energy Department spokesman said.
In at least one instance — NRG’s Agua Caliente solar project in Yuma County, Ariz. — the Energy Department demanded that the company agree not to apply for a Treasury grant it was legally entitled to receive. The government was concerned the extra subsidy would result in excessive profit, NRG executives confirmed.
In other cases, the agency required that companies use most of the Treasury grants that they would get when construction was complete to pay down part of the government-guaranteed construction loans instead of cashing out the equity investors.
“The private sector really has more skin in the game than the public realizes,” said Andy Katell, a spokesman for GE Energy Financial Services, which like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other financial firms has large investments in several of these projects.
But there is no doubt that the deals are lucrative for the companies involved.
G.E., for example, lobbied Congress in 2009 to help expand the subsidy programs, and it now profits from every aspect of the boom in renewable-power plant construction.
It is also an investor in one solar and one wind project that have secured about $2 billion in federal loan guarantees and expects to collect nearly $1 billion in Treasury grants. The company has also won hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to sell its turbines to wind plants built with public subsidies.
Mr. Katell said G.E. and other companies are simply “playing ball” under the rules set by Congress and the Obama administration to promote the industry. “It is good for the country, and good for our company,” he said.
Satya Kumar, an analyst at Credit Suisse who specializes in renewable energy companies, said there is no question the country will see real benefits from the surge in renewable energy projects.
“But the industry could have done a lot more solar for a lot less price, in terms of subsidy,” he said.
Eric Lipton reported from Washington and Clifford Krauss from Houston.
BOURNE — The New Generation Wind project has lost its first battle with the Cape Cod Commission.
A subcommittee reviewing the four-turbine project last week voted 4-1 that the project did not meet a county standard that measures local benefit and demand, commission Executive Director Paul Niedzwiecki said.
The vote could signal an initial disapproval for the project because, though the subcommittee does not have the final say, a project will not be OK'd by the full commission if it misses even one of the planning agency's 200-plus minimum performance standards.
Niedzwiecki would not comment further on the subcommittee's vote but said New Generation did not meet a required standard.
On Wednesday, New Generation Wind spokesman Greg O'Brien of the Stony Brook Group issued a statement that the subcommittee's review "has clearly gone beyond the bounds of its Regional Policy Plan and into an arena of subjective opinion. "It's unfortunate that the best sound bite wins today on the stage of public hearing."
Since announcing the original project in May 2010, New Generation Wind has come under fire from residents and others. This summer, it whittled its plans from seven turbines to four in response to the criticism.
Project supporters have touted the creation of a local energy source, as well as hundreds of thousands in annual tax revenue and an energy rebate for residents living closest to the proposed turbines.
In its statement, New Generation also alleged that the subcommittee's vote is inconsistent with the commission's own Regional Policy Plan for Barnstable County, which encourages the use of renewable energy.
"Increased use of renewable energy technologies "» could help establish an emerging clean-energy cluster as an important component of the regional economy," the plan states.
But a recent report by commission staffers, who advise the subcommittee on the turbine project, stated that New Generation has not "made a case that this project will increase or safeguard the availability of energy on Cape Cod" and have not addressed "whether this project will reduce or stabilize energy prices."
At its meeting last week, the subcommittee chose to delay making a final decision on whether to recommend the project to the full commission. It will likely do that in November, regulatory officer Elizabeth Enos said Friday.
The Wind Bill is coauthored by Deval Patrick's appointed Advisor Paul Gaynor CEO, President UPC First Wind AND beneficiary of the Wind Bill. This draconian Act eliminates public and environmental protections, zoning, setbacks, use, height restrictions and local control for wind developers. As our private property rights and local control are the obstacles to unlimited profit potential by Boston-based First Wind and Patrick Administration appointed Advisor, UPC First Wind CEO and President, Paul Gaynor and a litany of Patrick Administration Public Officials have financial interest in public subsidies for wind energy through their own wind energy and service companies listed below.
Public Hearing on the Wind Siting Reform Act (WESRA) will be on Thursday, October, 20th in the Barnstable High School Knight Auditorium (744 West Main Street, Hyannis, MA) starting at 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Please call your reps to ask them to vote "No" on the Wind Bills and their beneficiaries--Patrick Administration public officials. Your Rep contact list: http://www.malegislature.gov/People/CityList
OVERVIEW MA Public Officials in the Wind Biz enact the laws that require us to purchase their goods and services, (Wind Bill) and that require the public to subsidize their "green bubble" business ventures. A123 and Beacon Power are the next Evergreen Solar bubbles expected to pop that you have funded.
Cape Wind advanced under the Green Communities Act sponsored by Sal DiMasi whose friend Jay Cashman wanted to build a wind project in Buzzards Bay.
The Global Warming Solutions Act, Green Communities Act, net metering provisions of the Green Communities Act, The Jobs Act, all have one thing in common. The beneficiaries are Mass Public Officials like Secretary of Energy Ian Bowles founder of Rhumb Line Energy that services wind companies. The Patrick Administration has mandated goods and services Mass Public Officials too frequently provide. These are publicly subsidized renewable service companies spawned by crony capitalists in revolving doors as Public Officials. Their Acts mandate wind energy they sell and service and so should be repealed. Most of their companies rely on public subsidies and exist due to the mandates their Directors Presidents, CEOs, Partners, and Founders authored and coauthored. The Patrick Administration has restructured the energy market for the personal financial gain of Public Officials serving under this administration.
Evidence:
UPC First WindBoston-based First Wind CEO and President Paul Gaynor is Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick’s appointed Co-chair of “The Climate Protection Advisory Committee” under the Global Warming Solutions Act. UPC First Wind Paul Gaynor is co-chair of the Mass Department of Environmental Protection Advisory Committee “Low Carbon Energy Supply Subcommittee.”
Hawaii Wind Developer tied to Largest Ever asset seizure by anti-Mafia Police (subject First Wind Paul Gaynor Deval Patrick's appointed Advisor on green mandates):
Second Wind (Patrick appointed Advisor)First WindPaul Gaynor's Vice PresidentMichael Jacobs worked as a sales manager at Second Wind, Inc., and held the position of utility analyst for the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities
“Second Wind received a $500,000 loan from the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust to help develop the Triton.”
DeepWater Wind (Patrick Appointed Advisor)Paul Gaynor Board of Managers andChief Executive Officer of First Wind; Michael Alvarez Board of Managers of DeepWater and President and Chief Financial Officer of First Wind
President and Chief Financial Officer of First Wind; former Vice President of Strategic Planning at Edison International and Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and General Counsel at Nexant, and President of Kenetech Energy Systems
“After all, TPI Composites has also received accolades from Barney Frank, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and President Obama. Iowa companies have received more than $160 million in Department of Energy stimulus grants. How unfortunate that some Republican contenders chose to endorse more of the same instead of taking the opportunity to explain the senselessness of such a system. One would think that the Iowa Straw Poll would have been the optimal event to explain the free market perspective rather than acquiesce to the demands for more corporate welfare…”
When the entire Hawaii politico-business establishment is in perfect unity behind a project such as the Kahuku Wind Farm, it can only mean one thing: disaster.
Here is a look (with proper annotations in parenthesis)at the alleged battery system that allegedly is going to “smooth out” the erratic supply of electricity from First Wind’s Kahuku Wind Farm. The akamai reader will note:
1. The whole project from beginning to end relies on taxpayer dollars and government mandates
2. The technology is secret and Hawaii is asked to rely on the claims of the developer
3. The developer refuses to name his price. An “analyst” admits that the price for Hawaii is likely over $500 per kilowatt hour just for the batteries
4. The analyst admits that lithium ion batteries are about $250 per kilowatt hour
5. The analyst admits it would also be cheaper to use windmills to pump water uphill and then generate hydro power from the reservoir discharge
6. Maui’s Na Wai Eha dispute shows the need for more underground water supplies to be developed on Maui.
Flo-DesignAdvisor Ian Bowles while serving as MA Secretary of Energy and Environment
News 22 WWLP.com
FloDesign receives $8.3 mill stimulus
Updated: Monday, 23 Nov 2009, 8:31 PM EST
Published : Monday, 23 Nov 2009, 8:31 PM EST
WILBRAHAM, Mass. (WWLP) - A Wilbraham company that is developing wind turbines to be used as a renewable energy source, has received an $8.3 million dollar federal stimulus grant.
FloDesign Wind Turbine is developing turbines that could lead to breakthroughs in how we produce energy.
Congressman Richard Neal announced the grant during a visit this morning.
Harvest Power Advisor Ian Bowles while serving as MA Secretary of Energy and Environment
Epsilon AssociatesDirector of Regulatory Affairs is Deerin Babb-Brott Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Coastal Zone Management and Director of the Office of Coastal Zone Management in the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. In that role, he led the development of the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, a first-in-the-nation comprehensive state ocean plan that designates wind energy development areas
EPSILON: Deerin will lead Epsilon’s work on off-shore energy projects and bring his considerable expertise to bear on Epsilon’s active coastal permitting practice.
Rhumb Line Energy: Founder and Managing Director of Rhumb Line Energy is Ian Bowles.
Five months after Leaving Office Rhumb Energy was founded by Ian Bowles and his former undersecretary PHIL GUIDICEis named MANAGING DIRECTOR. Bob Keough, who once served as the energy department’s head of public affairs, is listed by Rhumb Energy as “PARTNER” as is Vivek Mothta, former director of energy markets at the state’s Department of Energy Resources. http://www.rhumblineenergy.com/who-we-are-2/
At $10 million, the Enterprise Energy Management System (EEMS) contract represents nearly 20 percent of State Energy Program funding awarded to Massachusetts by the U.S. Department of Energy under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
The EEMS contract calls for tracking energy use at 33 state-owned sites encompassing 470 buildings throughout the Commonwealth. EnerNOC will install and monitor state-of-the-art energy meters to measure the performance
Energy storage developer Beacon Power Corp. has received a delisting warning from the Nasdaq Stock Market, citing the company’s failure to maintain a minimum $1 bid price throughout September.
Tyngsboro-based Beacon Power (Nasdaq: BCON), which is building flywheel based energy storage systems for the smart grid, said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it plans to bring its stock price into compliance with Nasdaq rules before the March 28 deadline. The company’s stock was trading at 39 cents early today.
Beacon Power also reported that it has hired advisory company and investment banking firm Group Robinson to help it find financing for Beacon’s planned 20 megawatt flywheel frequency regulation plan in Hazle Township, Pa. The company also plans to utilize Group Robinson to help bring in financing for what Beacon Power calls build-operate-transfer structures utilizing flywheel technology in locations outside the U.S.
Beacon Power said it has already secured more than half of the funds to build the $53 million Pennsylvania project, including a $24 million stimulus grant award from the U.S. Department of Energy and a $5 million state grant.
The company launched operations at its first 20 megawatt flywheel frequency regulation plant in Stephentown, N.Y., in January.
Frequency regulation helps to stabilize the flow of power through the grid, and in the case of flywheel-based systems uses no fuel.
Vice President and Chief Technical Officer, Beacon Power Corporation
Energy Storage Panelist
Mr. Lazarewicz is Vice President and Chief Technical Officer of Beacon Power Corp. Prior to joining Beacon Power, Mr. Lazarewicz worked for 25 years in the General Electric in various engineering and managerial capacities in Power Systems and Aircraft Engines. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Electricity Storage Association and is a member the IEEE Power Engineering Society, where he serves as Vice-Chairman of the Distributed Generation and Energy Storage Working Group within the Energy Development Subcommittee (EDS). He is also a member of ASME and CIGRE.
Beacon Power is building a 20 MW flywheel energy storage facility in Stephentown, New York. The $69 million facility is to provide frequency regulation on the grid – ironing out the lumps in the supply and demand of electricity consumption. (Wind and solar energy can supply lumpy power.) The facility is not a mass energy storage device that could store power for many hours or days. Still, even though the flywheels spinning at up to 16,000 RPM can supply power for only minutes, the technology is considered helpful in the continued development of renewables.
The company has two more similar 20 MW projects in stages of development. A $43 million Department of Energy loan guarantee was instrumental in building the Stephentown project.
Ian Bowles, Massachusetts secretary of energy and environmental affairs, said the grant to A123 will create between 100 and 300 engineering and science jobs in the state.
Watertown-based battery maker plans to build Mich. Factory
A123 previously received $100 million in economic incentives from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation to build a factory in Livonia, Mich., and that will be the first facility built with the federal money, the company said.
Revolving Credit Facilities— The Company entered into a line of credit (“LOC”) for up to $8.0 million, based on a portion of eligible receivables, with a financial institution. The line of credit accrues interest at the financial institution’s prime (4.0% at December 31, 2010 and June 30, 2011). The outstanding balance at December 31, 2010 and June 30, 2011 was $8.0 million. The LOC, as amended, has a maturity date of September 19, 2011. The Company is required to comply with the same covenants and terms required under the term loan mentioned above.
Mass Clean Energy Loan— The Company has a forgivable loan from the Massachusetts Clean Energy Technology Center for $5.0 million. If the Company complies with certain capital expenditure conditions, $2.5 million of the loan will be forgiven and if the Company complies with certain employment conditions an additional $2.5 million will be forgiven. As of December 31, 2010 and June 30, 2011, $2.5 million is recorded as an offset to property, plant and equipment in the condensed consolidated balance sheets as the Company is reasonably assured that the Company will comply with the conditions for the forgiveness related to the capital expenditure condition. As of December 31, 2010 and June 30, 2011, the remaining $2.5 million is recorded as long-term debt as the Company is not reasonably assured that it will comply with the employment conditions. The loan has a fixed interest rate of 6.0%, and all funds not forgiven borrowed under the agreement and accrued interest is due upon maturity in October 2017 if the Company has not complied with the forgiveness conditions.
But for investors who remember the dot-com boom, there is one potentially troubling part of A123’s pricey public offering: The company’s proven track record of spending more than it makes. In the first half of 2009, A123 had sales of $43 million and a net loss of $41 million. That followed last year’s net loss of $80.4 million on sales of $68.5 million.
Once-highflying A123 Systems (AONE) recently became the latest battery microcap to irk investors by announcing a dilutive follow-on stock offering designed to bolster its dwindling cash supply. And short sellers managed to trash the stock of another prominent player, Advanced Battery Technologies, (ABAT) by accusing it of fraudulent accounting. (China-based Advanced denies the so-far-unproven assertions.)
Pretty normal stuff, really. With so much money at stake -- one recent estimate suggests that in less than a decade, electric-vehicle makers could be buying $70 billion of lithium batteries yearly -- the industry is in a wild scramble. It’s reminiscent of the Gold Rush that was spawned by the arrival of the personal computer three decades ago, or the dot-com hype-fest of the late 1990s. Investors want a piece of the revolution, but picking a winner from the crowd is a nightmare: Different companies are backing competing “lithium-ion” battery chemistries and designs, rivals are forging alliances, and the technical landscape is shifting so fast that today’s leader could easily be tomorrow’s also-ran.
Bic Stevens Vice President of Marketing, Premium Power Corporation
Energy Storage Panelist
Bic Stevens is the Vice President of Marketing of Premium Power Corporation, a manufacturer of grid-scale flow batteries. Before joining Premium Power, Bic was a Managing Partner of Ardour Capital Investments, a research and investment-banking firm focused on assisting alternative energy and clean technology companies. Previously, Bic was a Managing Director at Zero Stage Capital, where he was involved in its alternative energy and clean technology investments. He was previously the founder and President of Eastech; a Boston-based early stage venture fund, and was a Vice President at Paine Webber, where he worked in its venture capital and corporate finance operations. Bic received a B.I.E. from Georgia Tech and an M.B.A. from the Harvard Business School.
In a message dated 10/12/2011 10:37:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Fnhaggerty@aol.com writes:
The issue here is that the state is trying push the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act to get around what happened with citizens groups in Fairhaven and Mattapoisett. Gov Patrick is pushing to take our rights of participation and appeals over how the wind turbines were stopped in Mattapoisett and Fairhaven.
The "so called" Wind Energy Siting Reform bill concentrates all power of siting wind turbines in one state appointed board (EFSB).
We used local bylaws, wetland issues and residential zoning to protect our homes.
The state is acting on behalf of commercial wind turbine contractors. The state has a long history of total disregard of our residential rights.
If the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act is made law here is what happens:
If the EFSB issues an approval, no other state or local law shall prevail, and no state agency or local government can require, impose, or enforce anything else.
Under this Act, there is no right of appeal for neighboring towns or citizens living outside the town but inside the impact zone.
Only a few parties have standing, and the only appeal of the EFSB’s decision is to the state's supreme judicial court, and only if the EFSB’s approval violates the US or state constitution or this new Act and its associated regulations.
The EFSB is the Energy Facility Siting Board all appointed by the governor.
The advantage is only for commercial wind turbine contractors. To protect our residential property rights we need to go through the state's supreme judicial court.
This is what happened in Mattapoisett as a result of the attempt to site a commercial wind turbine 650 feet from residential homes.
The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC) was stuck with two Vestas V 82 commercial wind turbines in 2004 at $3500.00 per month storage fees in a warehouse in Texas. The MTC was state's semi quasi economic development agency for renewable energy. The costs of the turbines were 5.2 million dollars. The Massachusetts
Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) has since taken over the many duties of the MTC.
The turbines were so old they were out of warranty. The semi quasi state agency had to produce good wind turbine studies for towns interested in wind turbines and sell these two politically embarrassing turbines to some town in Massachusetts. A report was prepared for the Town of Mattapoisett called, Wind Power in Mattapoisett, Marion & Rochester: Siting Considerations for a Met Tower and Fatal Flaws Analysis for a Wind Turbine.
The twenty-three page report for Mattapoisett had what was called "mistakes" on almost every page and on some pages had up to three factual "mistakes." MTC officials were asked at a public meeting about the "mistakes" in the report. The answer was given that the MTC paid University of Massachusetts engineering students $5,000.00 to build the report and it was not their issue. The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative at this point had become an economic development agency and commercial wind turbine sales agents.
The report for Mattapoisett had a section that asked: are there any areas designated by the Audubon Society as Important Bird Areas (IBA)? The report said NO. The fact is that Ram Island in Mattapoisett is the chief nesting area of all the Roseate Terns in North America. The island is less than 3/4 of a mile from the proposed wind turbine site on the town owned land.Mattapoisett borders Buzzards Bay.
The state at the time was also considering the Massachusetts Oceans Act. Wind turbine contractors were looking to build some 120 wind turbines in Buzzards Bay and understood that any mention of Ram Island and the Roseate Terns would have quickly ended the wind ocean turbine project.
Disgraced and convicted Massachusetts House Speaker Sal Dimasi met with wind turbine contractors on Beacon Hill on Oct 18.2007 and then on November 15, 2007, minutes before the gavel fell a final time and the Oceans Act bill was sent to the Senate, paper work was slipped in an 11-page single-spaced amendment, one paragraph of which allowed for wind turbines on Buzzards Bay.
Our group in Mattapoisett, Concerned Citizens for Responsible Wind Power, objected to the proposal of the wind turbine on 35 acres of town owned land. We hired a wetland scientist to show the large amount of wetlands and lack of a right of way to the town owned property. At this point the residents of our neighborhood had to finance our own report to protect wetlands and our own residential property rights. The MTC takes renewable energy taxes from our electric bills to build these reports and now we had to pay again to protect our homes.Many of the homes fell within 800 feet of the commercial turbine.
The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and the MTC-Renewable Energy Trust Fund issued a permit number 22811A on January 16.2007 for a meteorological structure at Naskatucket Bay State Reservation. The DCR went around Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution (land use) by telling local residents the state owned land and park was being used for "educational purposes." The Naskatucket Bay State Reservation is next to the proposed commercial wind site on the town owned 35 acres. All the open space in Naskatucket Bay State Reservation was taken for well over a year from the public.
Currently there are noise issues over the placement of commercial wind turbines. The Mattapoisett report done by the MTC states two different types of noise : A. Regulatory compliance and B. Human annoyance both on page 14 of the report.
The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. The state through its semi quasi state agency, the state legislators and the agenda of the current governor are creating a second class group of citizens with the poor siting of commercial wind turbines.
The wind turbine fray is sparking class warfare. Time after time one section of town after town, usually the blue collar section, has been selected to lose their property rights for the good of all the others in town. Even today years later negative and bitter feelings still exist between residents in Mattapoisett over the wind turbine.
We feel bewildered and betrayed by our own government, which is maliciously trying to steal our land through the poor siting of commercial wind turbines. We have lost our democratic rights and have become second class citizens, facing the theft of our land through regulation.
By the end of 2007 the town of Mattapoisett made the decision the wind turbine did not make "economic sense" to pursue. At about the same time the Town of Fairhaven dropped their bid for the other Vestas V 82 commercial wind turbine over a lawsuit by local residents.
The two older gear driven Vestas V 82 foreign made commercial wind turbines were repurchased in 2010 like a used car using an EPA waiver to use 2009 stimulus funds to purchase the turbines by the Town of Falmouth in 2010 . The two turbines are called Wind 1 and Wind 2 . Currently state officials have agreed to pay for a noise study on the Wind 1 turbine at the town's wastewater treatment facility on Blacksmith Shop Road. For over a year more than fifty Falmouth residents have complained about regulatory noise and human annoyance noise.
The hearing on the Wind Siting Reform Act (WESRA) will be on Thursday, October, 20th in the Barnstable High School Knight Auditorium (744 West Main Street, Hyannis, MA) starting at 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
It is critically important that hundreds of people to attend the hearing.
Hundreds of people must also to submit written comments to the full Joint Committee.
IF THIS BILL BECOMES LAW, IT WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT YOU, YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR FRIENDS. WE CAN NOT ALLOW ALL THAT WE HAVE WORKED ON TOGETHER TO BE LOST. PLEASE TAKE ACTION TODAY!
1.EMAIL WRITTEN COMMENTS OPPOSING WESRA BY OCTOBER 20TH
2.ATTEND THE HEARING ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20TH OF (WESRA) AT BARNSTABLE HIGH SCHOOL KNIGHT AUDITORIUM (744 WEST MAIN STREET, HYANNIS, MA) - 10:00 AM - 4:00 PM
EMAIL WRITTEN COMMENTS OPPOSING WESRA BY OCTOBER 20TH:
We sincerely need every person to submit written comments. The message we ask you to convey is that this is a flawed bill and no amendment can fix the language in the bill. The bill should be killed and not even come up for a vote.
Please see attached BACKGROUND INFORMATION concerning the bullet points about WESRA that was sent by Wind Wise - Massachusetts to town boards
(There is a template letter at the end of this email message.)
Please address your written comments to the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities & Energy
Email comments to:
Jessica Schifano, J.D., M.P.H.,Research Director,
Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
Please forward your written comments and testimony (once given) to Wind Wise ~ Massachusetts (info@windwisema.org ) for the record and to be posted online at: www.windwisema.org
ATTEND THE HEARING ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20TH OF (WESRA) AT BARNSTABLE HIGH SCHOOL KNIGHT AUDITORIUM (744 WEST MAIN STREET, HYANNIS, MA)
STARTING AT 10:00 AM;
AND ALSO TESTIFY ABOUT YOUR OPPOSITION TO WESRA:
BEING THERE IS MOST IMPORTANT!
IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SPEAK IT IS GREAT, BUT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO BE THERE EVEN IF YOU WILL NOT SPEAK
We really need to show a unified force of opposition to this bill. This is the day that hopefully will make a difference. We need the ‘cast of thousands’ to show up at Barnstable High School Knight Auditorium (744 West Main Street, Hyannis, Ma) On Thursday, October 20th starting at 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 pm (Free parking)
- Josie is a Windwise ~ Cape Cod Board Member. Please include your name, your email address, your cell phone number, indicate if you will speak and what topic/s you will address.
- Topics may be: loss of local control, loss of environmental law protection, loss of our day in court, adverse health impacts, adverse impact to business (economics 101 would indicate that there will be higher electricity rates and taxes - business can not afford this), no CO2 reduction, adverse impacts to tourism, loss of jobs, loss of real estate value, community fracture, loss of quality of life [living in an industrial zone instead of a semi-rural environment] and let’s work together to find responsible solutions that actually work, or any other topic you feel is important
If you are terrified to speak, we can help you so that you are able to say something small that will have a big impact, and if you do not want to speak, please be there and hold signs. Numbers do count!
Write out your comments ahead of time in order to make the strongest statement you can.
Your written comments can be longer than what your oral testimony is and they ask that you hand in your testimony after you speak
If you do not want to speak, you may hand in written comments
Please arrive at 9:30 AM and sign up to speak (They will be hearing testimony on 6 bills this day, please sign up to speak for the bills you would like to address. See attached document for more information.) RIGHT NOW THE BILLS ARE: S-1666, H-01775 and H-01759
Please hold signs and bring your own signs
We understand from the testimony in the Berkshires that the subcommittee appeared moved by personal stories, did not understand the adverse health impacts and seemed to think that minor tweaks to the language of the bill could fix the bill. Let’s educate this subcommittee so they leave CCCC knowing the truth.
We are told that you will have 3 minutes to speak. We understand that they gave people in the Berkshires a little more time than this.
TEMPLATE LETTER BELOW, PLEASE CUSTOMIZE AS APPRORIATE (it is more effective if you do customize this letter.):
Subject: Bills S.1666 and H.1775 - Wind Siting Reform Act - Voicing Opposition to Bills
In body of email:
Dear Jessica,
Please forward this email to all members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunication, Utilities, and Energy
Please confirm via email to me that this has been accomplished.
Thank you.
Your address
Date
Honorable Senator Benjamin Downing, Senate Chair
Honorable John D. Keenan, House Chair
Members of the Joint Committee on
Telecommunication, Utilities, and Energy
Dear Co-Chairs and members of the Joint Committee:
I wish to submit written testimony opposed to Bills S.1666 and H.1775 – “An Act relative to comprehensive siting reform for land based wind projects” - also referred to as the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act (WESRA).
I am opposed to WESRA because:
- it will take away local control and 200 years of law regarding citizen and community rights
- it will deny the chance by Town residents to take an “up” or “down” vote on a wind project in Town meeting.
- it will require the appointment of a Local Wind Energy Permitting Board by Selectmen.
- the appointed Local Wind Energy Permitting Board will be able to waive zoning and non-zoning requirements of the municipality’s local laws, regulations, policies or other regulatory requirements.
- any appeals by citizens of an approved wind permit will be made in front of the State Energy Facilities Siting Board whose members are appointed by the Governor and support his political agenda.
- an appeal by citizens to the Superior Court of the Commonwealth will not be allowed. However wind developers may appeal any decision to the courts and to the State Energy Facilities Siting Board.
There is no language that will fix this bill because the premise of the bill is flawed.
I further ask that you do the right thing and do not move forward with this legislation, but rather I ask that you invoke the Precautionary Principal and call for a one year moratorium so there may be more research to determine how much further than 1.24 miles from the property line of the nearest neighbor wind turbines need to be sited in order to not adversely impact the health and safety of MA residents and visitors.
Sincerely,
serves as testimonial to the disconnect government has with the citizen.
A £2million, 100metre-tall wind turbine caught fire in hurricane-force winds at Ardrossan, North Ayrshire, Scotland, during severe weather
Burning: The flaming debris from the wind turbines flew off into nearby fields due to the wind
Collapse: A wind turbine lies on its side after crashing to the ground on Wednesday afternoon at Coldingham in Lothian and Borders
Crashing down: The fallen turbine in Coldingham caused several homes to be evacuated and a road to be closed