Five myths about green energy
Americans are being inundated with claims about renewable and alternative energy. Advocates for these technologies say that if we jettison fossil fuels, we'll breathe easier, stop global warming and revolutionize our economy. Yes, "green" energy has great emotional and political appeal. But before we wrap all our hopes -- and subsidies -- in it, let's take a hard look at some common misconceptions about what "green" means.
The Washington Post By Robert Bryce Sunday, April 25, 2010
1. Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all.
Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of "energy sprawl," including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.
Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction.
Denmark, the poster child for wind energy boosters, more than doubled its production of wind energy between 1999 and 2007. Yet data fromEnerginet.dk, the operator of Denmark's natural gas and electricity grids, show that carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in 2007 were at about the same level as they were back in 1990, before the country began its frenzied construction of turbines. Denmark has done a good job of keeping its overall carbon dioxide emissions flat, but that is in large part because of near-zero population growth and exorbitant energy taxes, not wind energy. And through 2017, the Danes foresee no decrease in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation.
2. Going green will reduce our dependence on imports from unsavory regimes.
In the new green economy, batteries are not included. Neither are many of the "rare earth" elements that are essential ingredients in most alternative energy technologies. Instead of relying on the diversity of the global oil market -- about 20 countries each produce at least 1 million barrels of crude per day -- the United States will be increasingly reliant on just one supplier, China, for elements known as lanthanides. Lanthanum, neodymium, dysprosium and other rare earth elements are used in products from high-capacity batteries and hybrid-electric vehicles to wind turbines and oil refinery catalysts.
China controls between 95 and 100 percent of the global market in these elements. And the Chinese government is reducing its exports of lanthanides to ensure an adequate supply for its domestic manufacturers. Politicians love to demonize oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, but adopting the technologies needed to drastically cut U.S. oil consumption will dramatically increase America's dependence on China.
3. A green American economy will create green American jobs.
In a global market, American wind turbine manufacturers face the same problem as American shoe manufacturers: high domestic labor costs. If U.S. companies want to make turbines, they will have to compete with China, which not only controls the market for neodymium, a critical ingredient in turbine magnets, but has access to very cheap employees.
The Chinese have also signaled their willingness to lose money on solar panels in order to gain market share. China's share of the world's solar module business has grown from about 7 percent in 2005 to about 25 percent in 2009.
Meanwhile, the very concept of a green job is not well defined. Is a job still green if it's created not by the market, but by subsidy or mandate? Consider the claims being made by the subsidy-dependent corn ethanol industry. Growth Energy, an industry lobby group, says increasing the percentage of ethanol blended into the U.S. gasoline supply would create 136,000 jobs. But an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that no more than 27,000 jobs would be created, and each one could cost taxpayers as much as $446,000 per year. Sure, the government can create more green jobs. But at what cost?
4. Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.
Nissan and Tesla are just two of the manufacturers that are increasing production of all-electric cars. But in the electric car's century-long history, failure tailgates failure. In 1911, the New York Times declared that the electric car "has long been recognized as the ideal" because it "is cleaner and quieter" and "much more economical" than its gasoline-fueled cousins. But the same unreliability of electric car batteries that flummoxed Thomas Edison persists today.
Those who believe that Detroit unplugged the electric car are mistaken. Electric cars haven't been sidelined by a cabal to sell internal combustion engines or a lack of political will, but by physics and math. Gasoline contains about 80 times as much energy, by weight, as the best lithium-ion battery. Sure, the electric motor is more efficient than the internal combustion engine, but can we depend on batteries that are notoriously finicky, short-lived and take hours to recharge? Speaking of recharging, last June, the Government Accountability Office reported that about 40 percent of consumers do not have access to an outlet near their vehicle at home. The electric car is the next big thing -- and it always will be.
5. The United States lags behind other rich countries in going green.
Over the past three decades, the United States has improved its energy efficiency as much as or more than other developed countries. According to data from the Energy Information Administration, average per capita energy consumption in the United States fell by 2.5 percent from 1980 through 2006. That reduction was greater than in any other developed country except Switzerland and Denmark, and the United States achieved it without participating in the Kyoto Protocol or creating an emissions trading system like the one employed in Europe. EIA data also show that the United States has been among the best at reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per $1 of GDP and the amount of energy consumed per $1 of GDP.
America's move toward a more service-based economy that is less dependent on heavy industry and manufacturing is driving this improvement. In addition, the proliferation of computer chips in everything from automobiles to programmable thermostats is wringing more useful work out of each unit of energy consumed. The United States will continue going green by simply allowing engineers and entrepreneurs to do what they do best: make products that are faster, cheaper and more efficient than the ones they made the year before.
Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His fourth book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future," will be out Tuesday, April 27.
Concern for birds
Although the turbine industry claims that turbines kill less than 1% of the bird population, the majority of these birds would comprise of the species related to birds of prey. And since prey creatures are usually only 10% of any animal population, this 1% claim suddenly becomes more of a concern. ...There's nothing wrong with green initiatives, but it's important to put wind turbines in locations that are logical for people, wildlife and the environment and not just because of a convenient power supply.
April 23, 2010 by Andres Hoag in The Lindsay Post
I read the article on the success the osprey is having here in the City of Kawartha Lakes and it certainly is a good news story.
But with the possible allocation of wind turbines throughout our municipality, I have real concern for the future of our birds of prey. It would be difficult for anyone to argue this area seems to be a hot spot for birds. I've counted 10 species of hawk, falcon and eagle including osprey and the bald eagle just off the top of my head and there could be possibly more.
Although the turbine industry claims that turbines kill less than 1% of the bird population, the majority of these birds would comprise of the species related to birds of prey. And since prey creatures are usually only 10% of any animal population, this 1% claim suddenly becomes more of a concern. We also have to hope that 1% is the truth and not a doctored number. Birds of prey are attracted to the up drafts the turbines produce and tend to circle the turbines until they get too close and get struck by one of the blades. A bald eagle has already been found dead in southern Ontario only 40 metres from a wind turbine.
I feel the City of Kawartha Lakes is part of a natural migration route and the wind turbines will have a significant toll on our birds of prey simply because of the numbers of prey birds that live in this area.
Once the turbines are up they will not be moved, so we need to ask ourselves if this is a logical place for them. In California which is also another part of the migratory route of birds of prey, 2,000 to 5,000 birds are killed each year.
According to a web site called the Heartland Institute, quote, "A study conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that Altamont Pass bird deaths are more prevalent than previously thought. According to the Jan. 30Oakland Tribune, previous studies conducted by wind farm operators had underestimated Altamont Pass bird kills by 25 to 300%. Moreover, new technologies designed to reduce the number of bird deaths will actually have the effect of increasing turbine bird kills.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory determined that new technology that would reduce the number of turbines by increasing the size of each tower's blades would kill more birds than the preexisting turbines. The larger turbines would increase the area of "swept" air and would have more lethal blades and components than their smaller cousins.
There's nothing wrong with green initiatives, but it's important to put wind turbines in locations that are logical for people, wildlife and the environment and not just because of a convenient power supply.
Remember, we're supposed to be making the world a better place, not a more dangerous one.
Preserve and protect our Seashore
Although there were many reasons to believe the Wellfleet wind turbine project was a terribly ill-conceived idea, it is gratifying to know that, at the end of the day, the town of Wellfleet — the developer of the project — just couldn't bring itself to sacrifice the incomparable natural beauty of the landscape or the pristine upland pine woods in the heart of the National Seashore.
The voters of Wellfleet, and the board of selectmen by unanimous vote, ultimately rejected a project from which they stood to profit, in order "to preserve the character of the Seashore." We applaud their decision.
We hope the management of the National Seashore will take heart from Wellfleet's example and reassess the paramount importance of its primary mission — to preserve the park in its natural, unimpaired condition for all future generations — relative to the other competing interests to which Superintendent George Price has repeatedly and steadfastly insisted that it must be "sensitive," including the interests of the abutting towns and the perceived interests of other organs of the federal government.
All national parks have a very clear mandate from Congress that intentionally includes categorical prohibitions against any encroachment on their core conservation mission: "no commercial or industrial use is permitted within the park." This mandate is fortified by hundreds of pages of detailed director's orders and almost 100 years of tradition.
In addition, with respect to land-based industrial wind turbines, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, responding to an order from the secretary of the Interior and in cooperation with a federal advisory committee especially appointed for that purpose, has spent over two years developing detailed policy prescriptions for "responsible development" of land-based industrial wind energy resources. It is abundantly clear from reading these guidelines that the fundamental concept underlying the recommendations of the wind turbine advisory committee is the urgency of avoiding inappropriate sites for wind energy development — such as fragile habitats, conservation areas and, by extension, national parks.
We hope Price can now finally appreciate that in his mission to safeguard the integrity of the National Seashore and to reject any form of intrusion compromising the core conservation mission of the park, he has the full backing of Congress; the Department of the Interior; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Wind Turbine Guidelines Federal Advisory Committee — whose members are drawn from the ranks of both prominent wind energy developers as well as every leading conservation group in the country; the board of selectmen and voters of Wellfleet; and, doubtless, the majority of both the local residents and the citizens of the United States.
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100407/OPINION/4070344
In other words, in considering any projects — including wind turbines — that are incompatible with the fulfillment of the park's mission and threaten the fundamental integrity of the park, the only sense of "balance" that must be applied is to reject them out of hand. The superintendent has Congress, the law, 100 years of tradition, the entire apparatus of the Department of the Interior and popular sentiment on his side. What authority does he lack?
As they consider any other current or future proposals to introduce industrial wind turbines within the National Seashore, we urge the superintendent and the advisory commission to use these tools, without apology, for the continued preservation of the park, and on behalf of all of the park users who place their faith in them and rely upon them to do their duty for the sake of "all future generations."
Eric Bibler of Weston, Conn., a longtime regular visitor to Wellfleet, is president of Save Our Seashore.
Will Lessons be Learned about National Parks and Wind Turbines? OP-ED SaveOurSeaShore
March 31, 2010
Dear Mr. Price, and Members of the CCNS Advisory Commission,
Although there were many reasons to believe that the Wellfleet Wind Turbine Project was a terribly ill-conceived idea, it is gratifying to know that, at the end of the day, the Town of Wellfleet – the developer of the project – just couldn’t bring itself to sacrifice the incomparable natural beauty of the landscape or the pristine upland pine woods in the heart of the National Seashore. The voters of Wellfleet, and the Board of Selectmen by unanimous vote, ultimately rejected a project from which they stood to profit in order “to preserve the character of the Seashore.” We applaud their decision.
We hope that the management of the National Seashore will take heart from Wellfleet’s example and reassess the paramount importance of its primary mission – to preserve the park in its natural, unimpaired condition for all future generations – relative to the other competing interests to which Superintendent Price has repeatedly and steadfastly insisted that it must be “sensitive,” including the interests of the abutting towns and the perceived interests of other organs of the federal government.
All national parks have a very clear mandate from Congress that intentionally includes categorical prohibitions against any encroachment on their core conservation mission: “no commercial or industrial use is permitted within the park.” This mandate is fortified by hundreds of pages of detailed Director’s Orders and almost one hundred years of tradition.
In addition, with respect to land based industrial wind turbines, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, responding to an Order from the Secretary of the Interior and in cooperation with a Federal Advisory Committee specially appointed for that purpose, has spent over two years developing detailed policy prescriptions for “responsible development” of land-based industrial wind energy resources. I think that you will agree, when you read these Guidelines, that the fundamental concept underlying the final recommendations of the Federal Advisory Committee is the urgency of avoiding inappropriate sites for wind energy development – such as fragile habitats, conservation areas and, by extension, national parks.
It is our hope that the Superintendent will appreciate that he now has the full backing of Congress; the Department of the Interior; the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; the Federal Advisory Committee – whose members are drawn from the ranks of both prominent wind energy developers as well as every leading conservation group in the country; the Board of Selectmen and the voters of Wellfleet; and, doubtless, the majority of both the local residents and the citizens of the United States; to safeguard the integrity of the National Seashore and to reject any form of intrusion which compromises the core conservation mission of the park.
In other words, the only sense of “balance” that must be applied to the consideration of any projects – including wind turbines -- which are incompatible with the fulfillment of the park’s mission, and which threaten the fundamental integrity of the park, is to reject them out of hand. You have Congress, the law, one hundred years of tradition, the entire apparatus of the Department of the Interior and popular sentiment on your side. What authority do you lack?
We urge the Superintendent and the Advisory Commission to use these tools, without apology, for the benefit and preservation of the National Seashore and on behalf of all of the park users who place their faith in you, and who rely upon you to do your duty.
Sincerely,
Eric Bibler
President
Save Our Seashore
French Vote in Le Figaro 62% to Stop Building Wind Farms
In the French newspaper Le Figaro 62% of 21,460 people voted to stop the building of wind farms. As many of the negatives have been exposed across the world more and more countries are learning the many negatives out weigh the limited positivies.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/environnement/2010/03/26/01029-20100326QCMWWW00596-faut-il-arreter-de-construire-des-eoliennes-en-france-.php
It is time to end this lunacy
The announcement of plans for a £200million windfarm at Moy, near Inverness, was accompanied by the claim that it would provide power to 100,000 homes. This great lie is perpetuated every time a new wind development is reported. People need to understand what is actually being claimed, and this can be found in the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) publication Calculations for Wind Energy.
March 26, 2010 by Stuart Young in Press and Journal
The announcement of plans for a £200million windfarm at Moy, near Inverness, was accompanied by the claim that it would provide power to 100,000 homes.
This great lie is perpetuated every time a new wind development is reported. People need to understand what is actually being claimed, and this can be found in the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) publication Calculations for Wind Energy.
BWEA claims: "A typical turbine therefore produces enough electricity each year to meet the needs of 1,000 homes."
I have no argument with this statement. A 1.75MW turbine at 30% load factor will annually generate 4,599MWh, which is close enough to the 4,700kWh average annual consumption per home for me.
But does it actually meet the needs? The answer is no. To meet the needs, the power needs to be there when needed.
At 2am on March 19, the 1,588MW connected windpower metered by the National Grid was generating 1,355MW when nobody wanted it, and at the morning peak demand time of 8.35am on March 20, the same 1,588MW wind fleet could manage only 107MW.
The overnight excess generation wasn't used by households, and when it was needed at breakfast time, it just wasn't there. An average of 731MW was generated over the period, but it was needed at breakfast time, not over the period. This surplus generation formed part of the "electricity produced each year", but it didn't "meet the needs" of homes.
So what happened to that surplus wind-generated electricity? The wind conditions on March 22 provide a good example.
At midnight on March 21, the output from the metered windfarms was 305MW. This rose steadily to 1,024MW at 8.05am on the 22nd, then fell steadily to 456MW at midday.
It continued falling after midday, but let's just consider this 12-hour period.
As the wind output rose, National Grid was switching off output from coal-fired power stations and, as the wind output fell, the same power stations were being reconnected.
Note that coal output was switched off, not that the coal fire was doused. During that 12-hour period, almost the same amount of coal was burned as would have been if the power was being fed into the grid.
That coal was burned and no benefit whatsoever was derived from it. It was burned solely so that wind energy could be used.
It was an obscene waste of a valuable and rare resource. The wind-generated electricity the consumer was forced to buy - because the government says the National Grid must take wind energy when it is being generated - cost about three times the coal-generated power, and the cost of constraining off the coal plant was almost as much as the electricity would have been.
During this period, our electricity was about four times the cost of coal-generated power, and virtually no carbon emission was saved.
Then there is the other great lie. BWEA says: "Electricity from wind turbines replaces the output of coal and gas-fired power stations as these are the most flexible plant on the system."
Actually, this is not a lie, simply throw a switch and you stop the electricity being transmitted, and throw it again and electricity flows into the system once more. You can't get any more flexible than that.
The great lie is in the unspoken implication that just because you are using wind energy, carbon emissions are being reduced.
The coal stations can't be turned off. The wind is about to drop, but nobody knows when.
In the 12 hours from midday on March 22, wind generation went down from 456MW to 405MW, up to 554MW, then down to 381MW, up to 511MW, then down to 460MW, up to 679MW, and then down to 522MW at midnight, after which it fell to 322MW at 4.35am on March 23.
All of these swings required juggling coal power stations on and off to keep the grid balanced, and all the switches were costly.
Not one ounce of carbon emission was saved.
It is time to end this lunacy.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1661...
Start by challenging the claim "Enough power for X thousands of homes".
Follow on by exposing the deceitful disingenuity of "Electricity from wind turbines replaces the output of coal and gas-fired power stations".
Faut-il arrêter de construire des éoliennes en France ?
… today, in France, one of the birthplaces of American liberty (see Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot, etc.), the good people of France are taking part in a nationwide poll to express the national sentiment on wind farms. “Should there be a moratorium? Oui ou Non?” The poll is being run by The Figaro, France’s grande national newspaper.
Please add your vote. France, Canada, and America are joined at the hip. We are all Frenchmen and women! Vivre la france!
Log onto this site and put a “dot” in the “oui” (yes) circle.
Long time Resident Makes Statement on Wellfleet Wind Turbine to Cape Cod Advisory Commission
Film examines drawbacks of wind turbines
Wind energy farms may sound environmentally friendly. Nettie Pena's documentary film "They're Not Green" aims to show that they're anything but. The one-hour film was shown last Saturday night at the Yucca Valley Community Center in an event hosted by the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy and the Homestead Valley Community Council.
March 23, 2010 by Kris Reilly in The Leader
YUCCA VALLEY • Wind energy farms may sound environmentally friendly. Nettie Pena's documentary film "They're Not Green" aims to show that they're anything but.
The one-hour film was shown last Saturday night at the Yucca Valley Community Center in an event hosted by the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy and the Homestead Valley Community Council.
The issue is relevant to Lucerne Valley, as 28 wind turbines are planned for the mountains northwest of town.
The film shows interviews with people who live near wind farms, and they say their negative consequences go far beyond the effects on views and property values.
One man who lived near a turbine that caught fire said that firefighters can do little or nothing when the turbines burn because they are so tall. He said he inhaled so much toxic smoke from the burning fiberglass that his coughing resulted in hernia surgery. He also said the company that owned the turbines refused to pay his medical bills.
Other residents spoke of the strobe effect that the windmills create inside their houses as they intermittently block sunlight during the day as well as the flashing red lights that go off during the night.
A scientist interviewed in the film said thousands of birds are killed each year by windmills, and many other problems were examined. Furthermore, the film asserts that the amount of energy provided by these turbines is relatively minuscule.
Pena, who has worked as an assistant film editor at NBC News and Paramount Studios, has been making documentary films since attending UCLA as a graduate student. The destruction of the 1992 Los Angeles riots inspired here to try to improve society, and she became an inner-city math teacher.
Pena said she moved from Los Angeles to Palm Springs three years ago and the windmills "were right in my face." She took her camera to a city council meeting where citizens protested new wind farm developments, and thus "They're Not Green" was born.
Pena spoke after the screening, as did Jim Harvey of the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy. Both of them are supportive of rooftop solar energy, which does not destroy desert environments and can help people lower their energy costs.
Harvey spoke about AB 811, a state law that makes it easier for homeowners to get low-interest loans for rooftop solar installation. The funding for this program comes from municipal bonds sold by local governments, Harvey said. He's hopeful San Bernardino County will enact an AB 811 program.
Pena said she would like to eventually show "They're Not Green" in Lucerne Valley. Visit web.me.com/thrnotgreen to view portions of the film.
http://www.lucernevalleyleader.com/node/396
Letter to Superintendent Cape Cod National Seashore and Our Connection to the Natural World
Haven't you wondered how it is possible that some are so viscerally opposed to this project while others see no particular problem with erecting a 400 foot wind turbine within park boundaries? For us, it goes back to the ongoing debate presenterd in the Ken Burns' series on the National Parks - between those who say, "It's beautiful; leave it alone" and those who want to use the land, just a little - dam just this river, cut down just a few trees here, put up this one wind turbine there, using "just 2 or 3 percent of the area", to use Wellfleet Energy Commission Geof Karlson's rationale .
We noticed that the book, Last Child in the Woods, by Richard Louv is available at the Visitors Center bookstore; we hope you've read it. As you probably know, the book addresses the issue of the many children being brought up in our culture, with no connection to the natural world and the deleterious consequences that ensue from such an upbringing. We agree with the book's main thesis, and feel that what's happening to our children and grandchildren is only possible because their caregivers have already lost their connection to the natural world. In short, there is a significant component of human consciousness that has atrophied in many children and adults, making it possible to view the natural world solely in utilitarian terms.
We hope that you will not regard the above as an exercise in pop psych and sociology, for we offer it in all seriousness.
One issue that got away from us yesterday (like so many people, we think of our best lines later): you noted how unacceptable the use of South Wellfeleet by the Sea would be for acres and acres of photovoltaics; we certainly agree that such a use would be absurd. As you know, we also insist that use of that area for a 400 foot wind turbine is equally absurd. But there is a place in Wellfleet with acres and acres of space for photvoltaics; it's known as the rooftops of Wellfleet. We realize your direct concern is not with the financial decisions of Wellfleet, but couldn't a little more creativity be exercised on the part of Wellfleet, when it comes to spending 5.5 to 8 million dollars? Why is a four hundred foot wind turbine within the Seashore the only answer to our multiple environmental crises?
You mentioned the directives from President Obama, and Secretary Salazar as justification for what you regard as the NPS' complementary mission of enabling green energy projects within park boundaries. We voted for President Obama and probably will again, but we do not feel that we owe him absolute and uncritical allegiance. Politicians and their plans come and go. As much as anything in this country the National Parks (America's best idea) are "eternal" (loosely speaking) and ought not to be desecrated by the fall-out of unexamined political rhetoric and fast changing technologies.
Isn't it possible that even Barack Obama and Ken Salazar would profit from re-viewing Ken Burns series on the National Parks and reading Last Child in the Woods?
Who speaks up for the wild beauty of the Cape Cod National Seashore, if not the NPS itself?
We'll see you again. Thanks for listening.
Jim and Pat Rogers
Wind energy will leave Mainers, the nation, shackled to a heavy weight
March 21, 2010 by J Dwight in Sun Journal
Mainers have been condemned for global warming on circumstantial evidence by a stacked jury and without due process. The jury was stacked with biased legislators, environmental sellouts, state bureaucrat enforcers, and industry insiders. The verdict -- LD 2283 The Expedited Wind Power Law -- was rushed through the Legislature. These jurors then became our self-appointed "judges," "wardens" and "jailers."
Maine is headed to prison. A prison, painted green.
Let me show you the motion picture analogy.
You probably have seen the movie "The Shawshank Redemption" based on Stephen King's novel where Andy Dufree (played by Tim Robbins) is convicted on circumstantial evidence of murdering his wife.
Dufree is sentenced to two consecutive life sentences at Shawshank State Penitentiary, a fictional prison in Maine. After a noble struggle, Andy Dufree breaks out, leaving behind evidence of the warden's corruption and brutality.
In other words, Mainers have been condemned for global warming on circumstantial evidence by a stacked jury and without due process.
The jury was stacked with biased legislators, environmental sellouts, state bureaucrat enforcers, and industry insiders. The verdict -- LD 2283 The Expedited Wind Power Law -- was rushed through the Legislature.
These jurors then became our self-appointed "judges," "wardens" and "jailors."
We are promised freedom and independence, a "green redemption," if we just put in the years and pay.
Only through wind power, they say, will come salvation.
Wind turbines are hailed as "free and clean, bringing green jobs." They will bring "freedom and independence from foreigners who hate us," we are told.
But, they bring decades of torture and servitude, high cost and debt.
Maine is headed to such a prison, it seems to this columnist, replete with sleep deprivation, heavy chains of cost on the "inmates," and strict "jailers and wardens."
Recently, courageous journalists have written news stories about health complaints from the people of Mars Hill, Freedom, and Vinalhaven who say they are victims of sleep deprivation from low-frequency thrumming of the wind turbines.
Our "‘warden-legislators" ignore the "inmates" pleas for mercy. They are literally locked in. They now have difficulty selling their homes because of noise and visual pollution.
Others who decry the betrayal and the destruction of Maine's islands and hills -- beauty that inspires and brings many to our state -- are put down as just NIMBYs.
The "warden-legislators" gave preferential treatment for and excessive compension (through extra-ordinary incentives not granted to any other source of electricity) to developers and investors of massive wind turbine industrial parks.
Permitting is fast. The appeal process is shortened, stifled and silenced.
The current wind power law, and announced offshore wind power law, will lock Maine people into usurious long-term electricity costs. Contracts at almost double the current wholesale cost of electricity have been granted to First Wind's Rollins Project.
Spot prices for electricity from traditional sources average about $46 per megawatt hour, the equivalent of 1,000 kilowatts. Wind energy, which is being sold at long-term contract prices not spot prices, would cost about $80 per mwh hour, or almost twice as much. Wind is the only energy producer which has been recently allowed to sell its electricity on a long-term contract basis rather than at spot prices. This arrangement allows wind producers the advantage of providing investors with the potential for a more stable revenues, buffeted from the ups and downs of the spot market prices, and making their cash flows potentially more attractive to investors, but is more costly for ratepayers.
For every onshore wind turbine installed in Maine $1 million to $2 million is added to the national debt, due in large part to federal subsidies from stimulus money and tax credits granted to wind energy firms; costs and debt our children and grandchildren will be shackled to.
Incentives given to industrial wind developers mean there will be scant additions to state tax revenues.
Local property taxes are promised, but few are delivered. The town of Mars Hill for example, receives a only net $100,000 per year from First Wind, the company that owns the turbines.
No other business is given such favorable treatment in the state of Maine.
Unfortunately, we don't have documents like Andy Dufree to show cronyism.
Just interesting connections for all Mainers to see.
• Former governor and his son: Angus King developer of a $283 million wind project, whose son Angus King III is head of mergers and acquisitions at First Wind.
• Former legal counsel and friend of John Baldacci, Kurt Adams, is now vice president of transmission development at First Wind.
• First Wind's attorney is Juliette Brown. Her husband, Rep. Jon Hinck, (D-Portland) was formerly with the Natural Resources Council of Maine where he worked to promote wind power. He is the current chairman of the Energy and Utilities Committee which overseas the wind industry.
Former defenders of Maine's mountains and water, The Natural Resources Council of Maine, have turned promoters for the wind power industry, after receiving contributions and money for "natural resources protection," in a deal arranged by Juliette Brown.
But, according the "warden-legislators" at the Ethics Commission, there are no problems here.
Hinck has just introduced legislation, LD 1820, to allow expedited permitting for new transmission lines, but only for wind turbines.
The new transmission lines cannot be used to buy cheaper hydro-electric power from Canada. However, that will not stop other ISO New England states from doing so. This will further lock Maine into the wind power prison.
All this for being falsely convicted on circumstantial evidence? Where is the justice in that?
http://www.sunjournal.com/node/815993
NATIONAL SEASHORE MUST BE PRESERVED
GUEST COMMENTARY – CAPE CODDER – FRIDAY, MARCH 19
NATIONAL SEASHORE MUST BE PRESERVED
There have been several statements recently relating to the Town of Wellfleet’s proposal to install a huge industrial wind turbine within the National Seashore shich are worthy of correction or comment. Here are two:
1. Town of Wellfleet to NPS: None of Your Business.
At a recent meeting of theWellfleet Forum, both Mr. Dale Donovan, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, and Mr. Karlson referenced – and even quoted – a legal opinion provided by Wellfleet’s Town Counsel asserting that the Town of Wellfleet can do whatever it pleases on Town land within the Seashore – anything – because the Town was there before the Seashore. According to these gentlemen, even if the NPS opposed Wellfleet’s ambitions, they would be wasting their time because “they have no legal standing.”
Clearly, this assertion takes direct aim at the bedrock provision contained in the enabling legislation for the National Seashore – and for ALL national parks – prohibiting “commercial or industrial use” of land within the park. This categorical prohibition against such use, which is embedded within the Act of Congress that created the Seashore, applies to all land within the boundaries of the park and not merely to “government property”:or to “property owned by the national park.
Mr. George Price, Superintendent of the National Seashore, who was in the audience then came forward at the end of the meeting to flatly contradict this assertion and even cited the Blasch case as proof that the NPS does indeed have legal standing to defend its rights.
So who is right? Since this is a matter of fundamental importance, it would be extremely helpful to all interested parties – including park users and the Town of Wellfleet -- if the National Park Service would issue a response to the Town of Wellfleet elaborating on whether or not Congress intended the park service to have control over the use of land within the Seashore and if park users can expect any relief or assistance from the NPS or from Superintendent Price in resisting such a desecration of this beloved national park.
2. “Preservation of the Natural and Cultural Landscape in Its Original Condition”
Recently, Ms. Helen Miranda Wilson repeated a statement that she had made to the CCNS Advisory Commission to the effect that she believes that colossal industrial wind turbines are beautiful objects which would grace the landscape of the park. As many know, the Seashore has conducted an exercise they call “view shed analysis” in the company of a handful of wind turbine proponents (primarily members of the respective Energy Committees of the towns that abut the Seashore) in an attempt to determine the least objectionable sites to install the massive structures. Some members of CCNS management have asserted that the perceived effect of industrial wind turbines upon the visual landscape is “inherently subjective.”
Mr. Karlson has duly picked up on this theme, insisting that any opinion of the appropriateness – or inappropriateness – of installing wind turbines within the National Seashore is a matter of “mere personal preference.” In fact, at the Wellfleet Forum, Mr. Karlson displayed a pronounced proclivity for dismissing almost any concern about the numerous adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines as “matters of personal preference,” with the obvious intention of de-legitimizing any such criticism.
In fact, those who have decried the intrusion of one or more massive 410 foot industrial structures into the scenic landscape are NOT objecting as a “matter of personal preference” but are insisting upon adherence to the Congressional mandate that created the Seashore, which specifically provides that “in order that the seashore shall be permanently preserved in its present state, no development ….shall be undertaken therein which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing.”
This as an objective, rather than a subjective, criterion and any discussion of “personal preference” or “aesthetic beauty” completely misses the point. The Seashore is a national park – not a sculpture garden – and it was created expressly for the purpose of preserving the landscape “in its original condition for the enjoyment of future generations”, despite the personal preferences of Mr. Karlson, Ms. Wilson or anyone else.
Eric S. Bibler
Save Our Seashore
Wellfleet, MA
Wind turbines: ‘Eco-friendly’ – but not to eagles
Telegraph By Christopher Booker Published: 6:51PM GMT 13 Mar 2010
In all my scores of items over the years on why the obsession with wind turbines will be seen as one of the major follies of our age, there is one issue I haven’t touched on. The main practical objection to turbines, of course, is that they are useless, producing derisory amounts of electricity at colossal cost. (Yet the Government wants us to spend £100 billion on building thousands more of them which, even were it technically possible, would do virtually nothing to fill the fast-looming 40 per cent gap in our electricity supply.)
A feature of these supposedly environment-friendly machines that I haven’t mentioned, however, is their devastating effect on wildlife, notably on large birds of prey, such as eagles and red kites. Particularly disturbing is the extent to which the disaster has been downplayed by professional bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Britain and the Audubon Society in the US, which should be at the forefront of exposing this outrage, but which have often been drawn into a conflict of interest by the large sums of money they derive from the wind industry itself.
There is plenty of evidence for the worldwide scale of this tragedy. The world’s largest and most carefully monitored wind farm, Altamont Pass in California, is estimated to have killed between 2,000 and 3,000 golden eagles alone in the past 20 years. Since turbines were erected on the isle of Smola, off Norway, home to an important population of white-tailed sea eagles, destruction is so great that last year only one chick survived. Thanks to wind farms in Tasmania, a unique sub-species of wedge-tailed eagles faces extinction. And here in Britain, plans to build eight wind farms on the Hebridean islands, among Scotland’s largest concentration of golden eagles, now pose a major threat to the species’ survival in the UK.
The real problem is that birds of prey and wind developers are both drawn, for similar reasons, to the same sites – hills and ridges where the wind provides lift for soaring birds and heavily subsidised profits for developers. Eagles may thus be drawn from hundreds of square miles to particular wind farms. And, as can be seen from the YouTube video of a vulture circling above a turbine in Crete (Google “Fatal accident with vulture on windmill”), the vortices created by blade tips revolving at up to 200mph can destabilise such large birds, plunging them into a fatal collision.
This ecological disaster has been abundantly documented and publicised, not least in Europe by Save The Eagles International, run by Mark Duchamp, a retired French businessman living in Alicante. Spain has one of the three highest concentrations of turbines in Europe and, according to the Spanish Ornithological Society (see Mr Duchamp’s Iberica 2000 website), they may be killing up to a million birds a year. But he focuses his campaign on what he sees as the disturbing failure to protect birds by the bodies whose job it is to do so, from the RSPB to the European Commission.
In the US, the local branch of the Audubon Society withdrew its opposition to a giant wind farm off Cape Cod after a substantial sum of money was promised for ornithologists to monitor its effects on bird life. In Britain, the RSPB claims to keep a critical eye on those effects, but nevertheless urges a major expansion of wind farms, on the grounds that “climate change is the most significant threat to biodiversity on the planet”. The RSPB receives £10 from the wind-farm builder Scottish & Southern Energy for every customer signing up for electricity under its “RSPB Energy” scheme. Ornithologists also derive a good income from developers for providing impact assessments for planning applications or for monitoring existing wind farms for bird collisions.
Various official bodies, such as Scottish National Heritage (SNH), are responsible in law for protecting bird populations. One particular scheme that sparked a long and fierce controversy – and was mildly opposed by the RSPB – was a wind farm now under construction at Edinbane on the Isle of Skye, on hills known to attract young golden eagles and sea eagles. A first run of the SNH “collision model” showed that, over 25 years, this was likely to kill 137 golden eagles, nearly 10 times the permissible conservation limit of 15. But when SNH revised a key parameter, the “avoidance rate”, from 95 per cent to 98 per cent, and the developer removed nine turbines from its plan, the result was that predicted eagle deaths fell to exactly 15, allowing the scheme to go ahead.
Details of what Mr Duchamp calls “the scandal of the Edinbane wind farm” are included in a complaint he has lodged with the European Commission (also available on his Iberica 2000 website), asking Brussels to be much more rigorous in enforcing its own environmental legislation, such as the Birds and Habitats Directives, which are widely disregarded by national authorities. The Commission did order the Scottish Executive to veto a 178-turbine wind farm on the Hebridean island of Lewis (for once, strongly opposed by the RSPB) because its devastating effect on eagles and other protected birds would breach its directives. But many similarly damaging schemes on Lewis and elsewhere are still being driven forward as part of Edinburgh’s mad dream that 40 per cent of Scotland’s electricity should come from wind and other renewable sources within 10 years.
Large birds of prey are far from being the only victims of wind farms, and the thousands of miles of power lines needed to connect them to the grid. A study cited by Birdlife International shows that, each year, power lines can be responsible for up to 800 bird kills per mile. Vast numbers of other birds are killed by turbines each year, as are countless thousands of bats, which also seem to be drawn to wind farms, and which recent studies have shown die with their lungs distended by air pressure from the blades.
For the rest of us, it is a criminal offence to kill bats and golden eagles. But it seems that all those under the spell of the infatuation with windpower and global warming can claim exemption from the law. In return for ludicrously small amounts of very expensive electricity, wildlife must pay the price for their dreams.
What’s bad about wind power? More than just noise
Bangor Daily News
By Monique Aniel and Steve Thurston 3/6/2010
Recently Gov. John Baldacci scoffed at the Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power when we asked him to issue a moratorium on industrial wind power projects until adequate noise regulations are implemented. The Bangor Daily News backed Baldacci in an editorial titled “Wind Ban Wrong.” The Feb. 25 piece did acknowledge how right we are on several wind power issues, yet it still concluded that giving the state time would be wrong. We disagree with this, with the conclusion that noise is our primary consideration and with the common assumption that wind power’s supposed benefits outweigh its costs.
In characterizing us, the editorial asserts: “That opposition centers on one key concern — noise.” It also said: “At the heart of the debate is sound.” This is wrong.
While sound is obviously the central issue in our call for noise regulations and one of many wind power deficiencies, it is not the heart of our refusal to pawn away Maine’s landscape and mountain ridges for dubious compensation. There are negative impacts with any electric generating source. But those negatives must be weighed against positives.
If after careful examination of noise issues and after a public process to design and apply rules protecting the public, perhaps then low-frequency noise could be deemed an acceptable cost of creating electricity. Maybe then we could agree that we did all we could to responsibly regulate this health threat. But the state has not done such an analysis and it has not written rules. Meanwhile we are rolling out red carpet for the wind industry, using the unsubstantiated justification.
The people around the world describing their misery are not lying. The residents of Mars Hill, Freedom and Vinalhaven (many of whom wanted wind projects) are not fabricating stories. While the state writes and enforces thousands of rules on everything from livestock to insurance to education, it has declined to address an imminent threat barreling like a July thunderstorm into Maine’s mountains.
Some two dozen mammoth, sprawling wind energy projects are now prospecting sites in some of Maine’s most cherished places. The speculators’ urgency is heightened by the 2010 availability of gratuitous government handouts which make the projects temporarily viable.
Public protection should be no less urgent. We suggest starting with a review of the concerns expressed by leading physicians, including the World Health Organization and the Maine Medical Association.
The BDN says “state regulators need not call a timeout” because they can work on the issues. Yes, they can. But they won’t. The Citizens’ Task Force has civilly engaged the Legislature, regulators and the administration. But they all backhanded us because, as you correctly observe, “state government is so bullish on wind that it is turning a blind eye to problems.”
Maine has made a value assumption based on sentiment rather than a value judgment based on careful consideration of wind’s benefits and costs. This is how houses of cards are built.
The editorial referred to wind as “the next energy wave.” Waves rise and fall like fads. The wind industry has thus far exploited a disconnect between fact and perception. Hence it has ridden a wave of green idealism to gain a toehold. Alas, even the press can get caught on a wave, as shown in the editorial where the BDN tacitly accepts myths about wind replacing some oil and coal.
The Citizens’ Task Force has thoughtfully compared the positives — such as wind is free — and negatives — such as turbine noise syndrome — and we conclude that wind power is unnecessary, unreliable, unaffordable and unsustainable. Despite being temporarily fashionable, its negatives far outweigh its positives, especially in Maine.
Because we so value our environment, we might be more inclined to embrace industrial wind power if it made sense for Maine. If there were a shortage of electricity, if Maine weren’t already a leader in renewables, if wind actually did anything to reduce oil usage, if 1,800 mountain-marring turbines on 360 miles of blasted ridge could contribute more than 5 percent of the grid’s electric needs, and yes, if turbine noise did not cause harm, then maybe we’d think the benefits are worth the costs. Noise-induced illness is one of many costs that, in total, are too high.
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/138366.html
Harwich Resident Learns about Wind Turbine and Doesn’t Like IT
I went rogue last night at the Board of Selectman's Meeting! Below is what I said during the public comment section early on. At around 10:30 they got to the agenda item about the wind turbines.
If you're interested, the meeting is on channel 18 at 7:00 tonight. I'm at the beginning and not again until around 10:15.
See you Thursday night.
Terry Hayden
My name is Terry Hayden and I live at 2 Headwaters Dr., at least according to where 0 Headwaters Dr. is located.
At the Harwich special town meeting of Nov. 12, voters supported an article authorizing selectmen to enter into an agreement with Cape and Vineyard Electric Cooperative to install two 400-foot turbines on town-owned land. These are 145 ft taller than the Pilgrim Monument (252 feet) in Provincetown.
Shame on me for not doing my homework before the special town meeting. The one turbine location was advertised as “Zero Headwaters Dr”. I incorrectly assumed that the property was at the beginning of Headwaters Dr. My house is about 1,000 feet from one of the two 400-foot turbines so for me this literally is a NIMBY issue. I have been living in my home and paying real estate taxes for 29 years. My home is one of 500 homes located within 3000 feet of these turbines.
I truly want to believe that none of you knew that there were 500 homes within 3,000 feet of these turbines. I KNOW that the majority of these homeowners still do not realize that their homes will be that close to these 400 foot turbines.
The Headwaters neighborhood is the largest panhandle development in the country. A panhandle development means that there is only one way in and one way out. Have you looked at the extra safety concerns this brings?
I believe that there are serious health issues to be considered. There will be noise. There will be flicker. Some people’s sleep will be disturbed by the noise and others will suffer migraines from the flicker. I look forward to hearing the Board of Health’s recommendation.
Everyone’s property value will be affected. What is the total property value of those 500 homes now? What will the figure become when these turbines are up and running?
While the town’s committees have been working for 8 years to get wind turbines erected it has only been within the last year that these sites have been considered.
I feel that I as a registered voter/taxpaying neighbor and you as elected officials have not been treated honestly and respectfully by the utilities and energy committee. They have told you as selectmen and us as neighbors that they planned a public communication effort that would include discussion with residents in the Headwaters area. This has not happened. I gave the committee all of my contact information as requested at their meeting that I attended and have not heard a thing from them.
We were promised a visit to a similar size working turbine and the surrounding area back in December and that has not materialized.
We were told in January that there would be a public informational meeting hopefully within 30 days with written notification going out to neighbors within 3,000 feet. It has since been discovered that there are 500 homeowners to notify. We now understand that a meeting of that type probably will not be scheduled until April.
The committee and the CVEC present more studies to more boards that are like comparing apples to oranges. There have been no studies published that have 500 homes within 3,000 feet of 400 foot turbines. Why do you think that is? I think it’s because we would be the first!
Do you really want to take that kind of chance? 500 homes within 3,000 feet.
I look forward to hearing the benchmarks and schedule for the wind tower approval that is on tonight’s agenda.
Thank you very much for your time and hopefully consideration.
The Brewing Tempest Over Wind Power
People living near turbines increasingly report sleep deprivation, headaches and vertigo. The wind lobby says there's no proof.
Imagine this scenario: The oil and gas industry launches an aggressive global drilling program with a new type of well. Thousands of these new wells, once operational, emit a noxious odor so offensive that many of the people living within a mile of them are kept awake at night. Some are even forced to move out of their homes. It's easy to predict the reaction: denunciations of the industry, countless lawsuits, and congressional investigations.
Now substitute wind for oil and gas and consider the noise complaints being lodged against wind projects around the world.
The Obama administration has made the increased use of wind power to generate electricity a top priority. In 2009 alone, U.S. wind generation capacity increased by 39%. But more wind power means more giant turbines closer to more people. And if current trends continue, that spells trouble.
In 2007, a phalanx of wind turbines were built around Charlie Porter's property in rural northern Missouri. Soon, Mr. Porter began to have trouble sleeping. So did his wife and daughter. The noise, he told me, made sleeping almost impossible. "We tried everything—earplugs, leaving the TV station on all night." Nothing worked. Late last year he moved his family off their 20-acre farm.
Mr. Porter's story is no isolated event. Rural residents in Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and England have been complaining about the noise from wind turbines, particularly about sleep deprivation. Dozens of news stories—most of them published in rural newspapers—have documented the problem.
I've spoken to nine other people in New York, Wisconsin, Ontario, New Zealand, Nova Scotia and England who live, or lived, near wind turbines. All complained of the noise, with sleep deprivation being the most common complaint. For example, Janet Warren, who raises sheep near Makara, New Zealand, told me via email that the turbines near her home emit "continuous noise and vibration," which disturb her sleep and are causing "loss of concentration, irritability, and short-term memory effects."
Complaints about sleep disruption—as well as the deleterious health effects caused by the pulsing, low-frequency noise emitted by the giant turbines—are a central element of an emerging citizen backlash against the booming global wind industry.
Lawsuits that focus on noise pollution are now pending in Maine, Pennsylvania and New Zealand. In New Zealand, more than 750 complaints have been lodged against a large wind project near Makara since it began operating last April. The European Platform Against Windfarms lists 388 groups in 20 European countries. Canada has more than two dozen antiwind groups. In the U.S. there are about 100 such groups, and state legislators in Vermont recently introduced a bill that will require wind turbines be located no closer than 1.25 miles from any residence.
In theory, big wind projects should only be built in desolate areas. But the reality is that many turbines are being installed close to homes. Wind developers put a turbine within 550 meters of Mr. Porter's house. Hal Graham, a retired office manager in Cohocton, N.Y., complains about the noise pollution caused by a turbine 300 meters from his home. Tony Moyer, a plumbing superintendent in Eden, Wis., grumbles about the noise generated by three turbines built within 425 meters of his house.
Doctors and acoustics experts from the U.S. to Australia report a raft of symptoms that they blame on wind turbine noise, including sleep disturbance, headaches and vertigo. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., has studied 36 people affected by wind turbine noise since 2004 at her own expense. The people she interviewed were widely dispersed; they lived in the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland and Italy. She found that the collection of symptoms she calls "wind turbine syndrome" disappeared as soon as people moved out of their noise-affected homes and into new locations at least five miles from any turbines.
Across the border, Ontario-based orthopedic surgeon Dr. Robert McMurtry has been researching wind turbine noise for the past 18 months. Dr. McMurtry, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, counts more than 100 people in Ontario he believes are experiencing adverse effects from turbine noise. "It has compromised their health," he says.
The wind lobby has publicly rejected these claims. In December, the American Wind Energy Association in conjunction with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, issued a report titled "Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Review Panel." It declared: "There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects." It also suggested that some of the symptoms being attributed to wind turbine noise were likely psychosomatic and asserted that the vibrations from the turbines are "too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans."
Yet the report also noted that in "the area of wind turbine health effects, no case-control or cohort studies have been conducted as of this date." True enough—but it means there are no studies to prove or disprove the case. It also says that "a small number of sensitive people" may be "stressed" by wind turbine noise and suffer sleep deprivation. But who gets to define "sensitive" and "small number"? And if turbine noise and sleep disturbance aren't problems, then why are people in so many different locations complaining in almost identical ways? Such questions are only going to be pressed with more urgency in the future.
By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. According to the Department of Energy, meeting that goal will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, an eightfold increase over current levels. Installing tens of thousands of new turbines inevitably means they'll be located closer to populated areas.
The health effects of low-frequency noise on humans are not well understood. The noise in question often occurs at, or below, decibel levels that are commonly considered a public nuisance. And detecting low-frequency noise requires sophisticated acoustic gear. For all of these reasons, this issue should be investigated. If policy makers are serious about considering all of the impacts of "green" energy, then an impartial, international study of the effects of wind turbine noise should be undertaken without delay.
Maine: Myths, opinions, and facts
WindAction Editorial (Posted February 23, 2010)
This week, Angus King, former Maine Governor turned wind developer, set out to correct the record on what he termed 'myths' about wind power now circulating. His opinion piece, while devoid of any substantive proof other than his say so and a link to his project's web site, in fact, was teeming with his own myths and half-truths that deserve clarification.
King first takes issue with Jonathan Carter of Forest Ecology Network and Carter's description of mountaintop wind operations resulting in "the building of thousands of miles of additional power lines and roads [and]...the clear cutting of more than 50,000 acres of carbon-sequestering forestlands. Literally the tops of the mountains are blown-up in order to establish a bedrock base for the massive concrete pads needed to support 400-to-500-foot turbines."
King quibbles over the petty claiming dirt and rock on the mountain top are not actually removed from the mountain but merely "moved from one place to another in building the gravel access road and foundations." Perhaps the Governor missed the photos taken at the TransCanada wind site atop Kibby Mountain in Maine, where 50-60 foot ledge cuts into the side the of the mountain were required to construct roads stable enough to handle the weight and width of the turbine components. Or the more infamous photo of the Mars Hill wind site, also in Maine, showing just how much the mountaintop was blown off to make way for the towers. We believe that most people would agree with Jonathan Carter.
The next 'myth' King takes on is that of noise. He claims "our" law, presumably Maine's law, is "pretty restrictive" but that "several of the early wind projects in Maine got waivers from the noise limits and there are neighbors who are hearing them and are pretty upset." King would do well to check his facts. Only one wind project, Mars Hill Wind, was granted a variance that would permit the project to operate at 50 db(A) as opposed to the required 45 db(A). Nonetheless, his statement is not relevant to the project sites in Vinalhaven and Freedom, Maine -- both of which are experiencing severe noise issues. Nor does it apply to the Stetson wind facility, approved by Maine's Land Use Regulatory Commission, which follows different standards altogether for noise.
He goes on to say that "our" experience shows that setback distances of around half a mile are adequate for addressing noise problems. Since King has never operated a wind facility we're not sure whose experience he's relying on, but he may wish to speak with Ethan Hall of Vinalhaven. Hall, who lives 3,500 feet from three industrial towers, recently explained that the noise penetrates his home where he is unable to read, work, or get good rest.
King's third myth argues that Maine's wind power law was not pushed through the legislature by wind proponents as claimed by some. What he doesn't bother to tell his readers is that the "Expedited Permit" wind law was declared an emergency bill from the governor and it passed through the legislature in 15 days with very little scrutiny. And that State Representative Jon Hinck, co-chairman of Maine's utilities and energy committee, who was responsible for giving the bill the emergency designation, is married to Juliet Browne, an attorney who represents wind interests in the State and who sat on the Governor's Wind Task Force. This week, Hinck asked the Maine Ethics Commission for an advisory opinion on whether he has a conflict of interest when considering wind legislation. A little late, but at least he's asking.
Finally, King scoffs at the idea that wind turbines can make you sick. He makes vague reference to "independent analyses" including Maine's own Dr. Dora Mills and the Maine Center for Disease Control in claiming turbines can annoy people but nothing more.
In December, Windaction.org reported on the Industry's misuse of the term 'annoyance' in claiming that noise impacts are of no consequence.
Equally significant is the e-mail paper trail -- one that King is well aware of -- which begins February 10, 2009 after Dr. Albert Aniel of Rumford, Maine forwarded an open letter from the Rumford Hospital Medical staff, together with links to articles, to Dr. Mills asking for her support for a moratorium on new permits for wind turbine projects until further research could be done on possible health effects of wind turbines.
As detailed in the e-mails, Dr. Mills looked to Maine's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner David Littell, and others at DEP involved in reviewing wind turbine projects, for assistance in refuting the health concerns of Dr. Aniel.
King then closes with some misrepresentations of his own.
In a subsection of his essay entitled "A Dangerous Dependence" he claims that Maine is "dangerously dependent upon fossil fuels " citing 55 percent of its electricity coming from oil and gas with 100 percent imported "often from people who don't like us." But what he doesn't tell you is that Maine's net electricity generation is among the lowest in the United States with a large percentage of its energy exported to other states in the region. As with most of New England, natural gas -- imported mostly from friendly Canada --accounts for around 40 percent of generation. And renewable sources, mainly wood and hydroelectric, account for almost half of Maine's net electricity generation. In fact, nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources make up a larger share of net electricity generation in Maine than in any other State.
Maine is hardly the poster-state for dirty electricty!
Governor King is certainly welcome to respond to statements by those in his State who are raising concerns about wind, and of course he is entitled to his own opinion. But apparently, he also believes he's entitled to his own facts.
http://www.windaction.org/faqs/25780
Proposed Wind Turbine Wellfleet MA
To Barbara Gray, Chair and The Wellfleet Planning Board:
That tone is the democratic process
Geof Karlson's Jan. 20 My View ("Ugly tone besets Wellfleet project) appears to conflate criticism of the Wellfleet Energy Commision, of which he is the new chairman, with an attack on the will of Wellfleet voters and the democratic process.
In a more libelous version of his op-ed that appeared in The Provincetown Banner and The Cape Codder, Mr. Karlson "beseeched the leadership of SOS to direct their sympathizers to refrain from lawlessness," a reference to the recent unfortunate survey stake pulling at the proposed wind turbine site.
Members of Save our Seashore, among other concerned individuals, have raised many valid questions about the proposed wind turbine in Wellfleet. No commission or board in Wellfleet, or any town, is beyond public scrutiny, even if that public consists partly of nonresident taxpayers. Approximately 60 percent of the taxpayers in Wellfleet are nonresidents, who by definition do not vote in that town. Are the legitimate concerns of abutters to the proposed installation, resident and nonresident taxpayers alike, to be dismissed with accusations of maligning the will of the town and the democratic process?
Among Save our Seashore's concerns are: radical change to the landscape; financial viability of the project; noise; safety; the effect on property values for nearby residents; adverse impacts on wildlife and unfragmented habitat; and implications for all users of the National Seashore. The Wellfleet Energy Commission, Wellfleet Board of Selectmen and other town officials must more fully investigate these concerns with the understanding that the town of Wellfleet has a responsibility to all the aforementioned constituencies. The questions of Save our Seashore and others warrant detailed answers before Wellfleet proceeds with this project and spends any taxpayer (resident and nonresident) money on permitting and other related expenses.
Mass Audubon recently abandoned its plan to install a 200-foot wind turbine at the Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary (the same town!) — half the size of the wind turbine proposed by Wellfleet — because of grave concerns about noise (for neighbors, employees and members), risks to resident wildlife and migratory birds, and potential disruption to valuable habitat. Does Mass Audubon's extensive review and decision to reject a project half the size of the town's reflect the machinations of an irresponsible minority, or a principled decision based upon a thorough and unbiased review?
Mr. Karlson correctly applauds the citizenry of Wellfleet for their profound concern for the environment and, in particular, for maintaining the beauty of their town. Residents and nonresidents of Wellfleet, as thoughtful and caring citizens, are committed to contributing in helpful ways to solutions to the complex problems of global warming and energy independence.
One might argue, however, (as do members of Save our Seashore) over the appropriateness of siting a 400-foot industrial wind turbine on town land within the Seashore. What's the upside? Wellfleet gets a symbol of the new, green economy and a break on its utility bills, an expense the electric company will pass on to other towns. And the downside? One of the most beautiful panoramas in the Cape Cod National Seashore is gone forever and one of the three largest Capewide unfragmented forests with attendant wildlife is severely disturbed.
As Wellfleet voters become better informed on the positive and negative ramifications of the turbine project, resident and nonresident members of Save our Seashore are hopeful that resident voters will defeat the proposed turbine project at a future town meeting.
The democratic process at so many levels is a messy and difficult one. Feelings are bruised on both sides when the hard work of a committee is held up to scrutiny and criticized and, on the other side, when something very beautiful that has been in the hearts of people for so long is threatened. Geof Karlson seems to feel that hard-hitting criticism of the Wellfleet Energy Commission equals disloyalty to the town of Wellfleet and the democratic process. I would suggest that dissent and criticism is, in large measure, the democratic process.
James F. Rogers of Save our Seashore lives in Sandwich and is also a nonresident Wellfleet taxpayer.
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100209/OPINION/2090338/-1/NEWSMAP
Letter Concerning Wellfleet building a Wind Turbine in a National Park
To Whom it May Concern:Please forward to Wellfleet BOS, Energy Committee and Planning
I am writing about Wellfleet's plan to build a 400 foot wind turbine
On-Shore in Cape Cod National Seashore, one of only 10 National Seashores in
the country. I was reviewing various wind turbine siting guidelines.
Wyoming's seem so sensible and you would guess Massachusetts would have a
similar one. I am forwarding you a link to Wyoming's. Their slogan "Doing it
Smart from the Start". That is so important to avoid a BIG backlash against
Wind Power . That backlash for me has already begun; in that I was
ambivalent to wind power and thought National Parks were safe from Wind
Turbine. How wrong I was and how blind people in the pursuit money can be!Here is a challenge to the people allowing this wind turbine in a National
Park Is Wyoming a more informed and caring State than Massachusetts? You
would think that MTC the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative with their
$250,000,000 budget and a state with it's a renowned progressive liberal
very "green" establishment, would put a bunch of cowboys in a conservative
state such as Wyoming to shame. But alas Massachusetts, the Town of
Wellfleet and CCNS "show me the money guide to Wind Turbines Siting" and a
complete disregard for a NATIONAL PARK is SHAMEFUL!Please read the State of Wyoming Wind Turbine Guidelines. A beautiful
example of owning up to responsibilities of conservation! What exactly would
the town of Wellfleet, CCNS and state protect?http://www.voiceforthewild.org/WindPowerReport.pdf
The Superintendent of Cape Cod National Seashore says it is town land and he
is fine with a big industrial wind turbine. Again we have to look at a
responsible group in Wyoming who clearly state:Exclude from wind power siting consideration: National Parks, Monuments,
and Wildlife Refuges; USFS Roadless..and even "citizens proposed wilderness"Or
National Parks and Monuments
Units of the National Park system (including National Parks and National
Monuments) are managed under a strong legal mandate which
directs the federal government to "protect and preserve" these
lands and their natural resources "for the use and enjoyment of
the public." National Park units are precluded from industrial
development (although commercial development for tourism is
permitted. Wind energy development would not be allowed by
law in these units regardless of their wind energy potential, and
key viewsheds visible from park overlooks should be protected
from visible wind energy development as well.
Even the town of Wellfleet's own Audubon Society claims no position on the
turbine, no matter what birds fly or live where the turbine will be built.
Ideology over conservation is not a position of pride. Shame on
them...Wyoming's guide states:Many types of wildlife are expected to be sensitive to wind power
development. The propensity for wind turbines to kill birds (particularly
raptors) and bats through collisions with spinning blades is well known, and
thus turbines sited in areas where bird and bat activity is not concentrated
are preferable.Obviously Wyoming has lots more land, though a lot is federal and national
park and Massachusetts has lots more money. Responsibility is not relative!
Anyone who proposes or accepts a commercial industrial wind turbine in a
NATIONAL PARK is at fault EVERY STEP OF THE WAY! I am not waiting till the
studies roll in! A National Park is ZERO Tolerance for Industrial Wind
Turbines and I call on everyone involved to stop the Wellfleet Wind Turbine
in Cape Cod National Seashore TODAY!Shame on all involved!SincerelyBarry Doyle
barry@saveourshore.org