Cohocton Wind Watch

Planned wind farm session criticized as biased

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:16:29 PDT

CLAYTON — Thousand Islands High School will host a wind information session next week which has already been questioned by some as biased.

The session, called "Life in a Wind Farm," will have three speakers from the region who are living on wind farms. It is billed as an opportunity for people to learn the pros and cons of what it's like after the wind farm has been built.

The free session will be at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the school, 8481 County Route 9. A question-and-answer session will follow.

Cape Vincent resident John L. Byrne, one of the organizers, said the sponsors of the session are not the local groups who have voiced opposition to proposed local wind projects, but a collection of citizens from Cape Vincent, Clayton, Hammond, Lyme and other surrounding towns.

"Some are members of the groups and some aren't," he said. "We want a fair non-biased look at this issue."

Mr. Byrne is a member of Wind Power Ethics Group in Cape Vincent.

The speakers include Cohocton Town Justice Hal E. Graham, a leaseholder in First Wind's Cohocton Wind Farm; Steve Trude, a nonparticipating resident in Cohocton and president of opposition group Cohocton Wind Watch; and Gail Kenney, a nonparticipating resident on Wolfe Island and a founding member of opposition group Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment.

Though all three speakers are known for their criticism of the completed projects, Mr. Byrne said they were chosen because they supported wind power at some point.

"It was important to have people speaking who are not 'anti-wind,'" he said. "We wanted to get a fair assessment as to the effects of wind farms."

But the session's fairness has already been questioned by some.

At the Cape Vincent Town Council meeting Thursday night, Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck said to session sponsors, "Now my understanding is that if somebody wants to speak, they are not going to be allowed."

Carol A. Simpson, another organizer for the event and member of WPEG, responded, "The citizens of the townships have gotten together and are paying for this thing and, yes, we have a full schedule for this time."

Mr. Rienbeck asked if people from other areas living near wind farms who want to talk would be allowed.

"Uh, no," she said. "They can ask questions. And, if you wanted, you could have a presentation of your own."

Mr. Byrne said the forum is in response to questions and requests from local citizens.

"We'd all like to learn from people who are living with this," he said. "This is the largest development that has ever hit this area."

First Wind Employees Update

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:31:17 PDT

Steve Schauer and Steven Chwiecko have new jobs at First Wind, a wind power company headquartered in Newton. Schauer, who has served as First Wind's vice president of finance since joining the company in November 2008, was promoted to senior vice president of finance and treasurer. In this new position, he will be responsible for all project finance, tax equity, corporate debt capital, and treasury operations. Chwiecko joins the company as senior vice president of commercial asset management. Mr. Chwiecko has more than 25 years of experience in the unregulated power generation area focusing on asset management and acquisitions, most recently for Atlantic Power Corp. In this newly created role at First Wind, Chwiecko will oversee the company's leases, power sales agreements, REC sales contracts, and interconnection agreements for current operating wind projects.

Town eyes selective wind moratorium

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:14:04 PDT

CAPE VINCENT — While a new wind power development zoning law is in a holding pattern, the Town Council at its August meeting will consider a moratorium on all wind power development in the river and lake districts.

On Thursday night, Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck suggested a yearlong moratorium "since we can't seem to come up with a suitable zoning law dealing with wind power."

The other council members at the meeting agreed it was a good idea.

"We've said all along we didn't want them in the lake and river district," said Councilman Marty T. Mason.

Councilman Joseph H. Wood suggested the moratorium could expire in the event that a zoning law is passed.

Town resident Thomas M. Gormel asked why the rest of the town would not be covered.

"Currently, we have two projects under review in the ag district and we're not going to suspend those," Mr. Rienbeck said. "One is almost complete."

The proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm would be in the southern part of the town's agricultural district and the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm is planned for the northern agricultural district.

Councilman Donald J. Mason agreed. "Those projects are too far along and it's not fair to the wind companies, to begin with, to suspend them now."

Town resident John L. Byrne asked where recommendations from the town's Wind Committee stood regarding the new wind power development zoning law. Mr. Rienbeck said the town's Albany-based law firm, Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, is continuing to fine-tune the new law.

"We're trying to get it so that if we do enact it, that it will be able to stand up for any legal challenges, from either side," Mr. Rienbeck said. "And we've been criticized that we didn't have enough voting members on the board to enact a law, so I'm not sure about that now."

Town officials are hesitant to bring a new law up for a vote because they have faced criticism from the Wind Power Ethics Group charging that councilmen Marty Mason, Donald Mason and Mr. Wood have conflicts of interest due to leases on their property for turbines.

Mr. Rienbeck said other holdups on the law include developing an enforcement mechanism and establishing a set ambient noise level.

According to the committee's suggestions, the town would field complaints on noise and other compliance issues from residents. He said he wanted to avoid repeated, groundless nuisance calls.

"We would like to have an ambient noise level established," he said. "The wind farms have done their own sound studies and they paid the piper, and WPEG has done a sound study and they paid the piper, and the question is whose tune is right."

The council will hold a public hearing on the moratorium at 6 p.m. Aug. 13 at the town office.

Sheffield Wind Project Awaits Permit From Barton Village

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:10:35 PDT

Another delay has stopped the progress of the Sheffield windmill project. The retirement of the Commissioner of Transportation, Bonnie Rutledge, has put a hold on Barton Village’s issuance of the permit First Wind needs to use Duck Pond Road to transport the wind turbines to the Sheffield site. This delay is bad news for First Wind but good news to the project’s opponents.

Last week the Barton Village trustees met with the village’s attorney to discuss the idea of getting a bond from First Wind to guarantee damage done to the road or to village systems will be repaired, Village Supervisor Brian Hanson said.

“The village is concerned. We want to make sure all our t’s are crossed and the i’s are dotted to make sure water lines and sewage and drainage systems are protected,” Hanson said.

The village originally asked First Wind for a $1 million bond. The company did not agree.

“A million dollar bond would cost them about $25,000 to $30,000 depending on the rates. I think the amount may be negotiable but we’re really trying to protect the village,” Hanson said.

A First Wind representative was not available to comment on the reason the company does not want to put up a bond.

(Click to read entire article)

Sen. Inhofe On Global Warming: 'This Thing Is Phony'

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:30:59 PDT

Looming Large

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:14:54 PDT

Wind energy is marketed as a clean alternative to powering homes and businesses, one that should cut greenhouse gas emissions, and, at the same time, slowly wean the nation away from its dependence on fossil fuels. It sounds like a miracle cure to global warming and foreign investment - all at the same time.

But that may not be the case.

Some say these predictions are not necessarily true, and that further research must be conducted to get a comprehensive picture of the true efficiency of harvesting the wind. Some say wind farms might not be as functional and reliable as we think. Some say there's actually nothing green about wind energy - except the gross profit.

Recent negotiations have hovered over a proposed construction of a wind farm in Enfield, currently under development by John Rancich, who has reported that his farm would generate enough electricity to power homes across the entire county.

"At 100 percent peak production, the wind farm will power all of the residences in Tompkins County," Rancich said. There is no guarantee, however, that homes within the county would receive wind energy from the Enfield Wind Farm.

"The wind farm will produce 50 megawatt-hours, but the electricity from these wind mills will not actually for sure go into every residence in the county. I'm saying they'll power the equivalent amount of energy, to give people and idea," he said, adding that his statement was a way of phrasing the situation in comprehensible terms, in a way that people would understand.

In fact, such language adjustments are not uncharacteristic of wind developers, lobbyists and politicians in pursuit of community support, as documented by Glen Schleede, a former associate director of energy and science for the White House Domestic Council.

And, according to New York scientists, it leaves many questions unanswered.

John Droz, a physicist from the Adirondacks, said Americans ought to think more critically before believing everything they're told.

"Marketers know that the average person won't do more than a superficial, trivial analysis of wind power," Droz said. "When they realize you're not going to think, they throw out words like 'clean' and 'green,' and to the average person, it sounds like a good idea. That's what has happened with wind power in New York State."

While wind is considered a "renewable" source of energy, benefiting the environment is not the real objective of this business. The primary goal is the potentially immense profit.

Financial windfall

Through a program called the Renewable Portfolio Standard, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority pays $14.75 for every megawatt of renewable energy capacity generated by a facility that harvests "clean" or "green" sources of energy, like wind. This is equal to approximately 1.5 cents (i.e. $0.015) per kilowatt.

"We procure contracts that basically pay these developers an average payment per megawatt of production," said Sal Graven, records access officer at NYSERDA.

The funds for this program ultimately come from ratepayers, however.

According to James Denn, a spokesman for the Public Service Commission, said the RPS was an initiative of the PSC that was developed several years ago. NYSERDA plays the role of administrator.

The main purpose of the RPS was to patronize and promote the development of all renewable resources in New York State, Denn said, including hydro, solar, and wind.

"In that initiative, it set forth a collection of a certain amount of money to be collected from all ratepayers, so all ratepayers have an assessment on their bill," Denn said. "That's money NYSERDA uses to provide credits to wind energy."

Each investor-owned public utility charges customers this additional and separate fee for renewable power usage, based on each individual household's consumption of electricity.

The RPS fee fluctuates depending on the size of a household's utility bill and is calculated at $0.00070 per kilowatt-hour of electricity used. This equates to 70 cents (i.e. $0.70) for every megawatt-hour.

NYSERDA euphemistically refers to this fee as a "systems benefit charge." New York State utility companies collect this surcharge via consumer electricity bills and transfer the capital to NYSERDA, which in turn hands the money to developers - of wind, for example - for generating renewable energy.

This tax thus supports the growth of wind commerce, basically turning ratepayers' money into a lucrative income for businessmen of the wind industry.

"This is the rate set forth in tariffs for each of the utilities," Denn said, adding that public hearings were held for more than a year prior to establishment of the RPS.

"You're being charged to develop renewable resources in New York State, including wind," Denn said. "All of us ratepayers are making an investment in the development of renewable energy supplies in New York State because that is the best way to ensure fuel diversity and to help safeguard the environment."

As of January 2009, there are 1,164 megawatts of renewable energy now under contract with the RPS program, Graven said. The PSC has a statutory role to approve wind farms at 80 megawatts or larger.

(Click to read entire article)

Study to determine health effects of turbines

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:08:59 PDT

By now, the residents of Wolfe Island, Ont., are getting used to the whirr and thump of wind turbines overhead. By next year, they'll get a glimpse of whether those whirrs and thumps could be damaging their health.

Researchers at nearby Queen's University have embarked on the first study to probe whether wind turbines built over communities can cause adverse health effects. The study measures residents' health and well-being before the turbines arrived on the island, again when the turbines were built but not yet operational and again after they'd been operating for a few months.

People living close to turbines in other regions have reported nausea, headaches, dizziness, anxiety, sleep deprivation and tinnitus - an incessant ringing in a person's ears.

However, there has yet to be any substantive research linking those ailments to the presence of windmills, says lead study author Neal Michelutti, a research scientist in the Queen's University biology department.

"To our knowledge, this is the first time that people have acquired a snapshot of community health prior to wind turbines," he says. "It gives us [a sense of] community health that we can use in a before-and-after comparison."

The issue of health has become a lightning rod in the debate dividing communities where wind farms have been built, Wolfe Island being no exception.

While the Ontario government recently legislated a 550 metre setback for wind turbines, the 86 machines on Wolfe Island that officially hissed to life on June 26, are only 400 metres from people's homes.

Last July, Dr. Michelutti and his Queen's colleagues mailed out 1,000 SF36 surveys, a standard, multipurpose health questionnaire, to every registered address on Wolfe Island. Between 150 and 200 people returned the anonymous surveys.

On the survey, residents gave a snapshot of their general health, describing any illnesses or health problems both physical and emotional and sharing their level of physical activity and mental concentration. The researchers sent a second questionnaire asking about symptoms commonly reported by people living near wind turbines and for the residents' attitudes toward the wind project.

The same survey was completed this spring and another will be mailed in late August after the turbines have chopped the air for two months. When the third round of surveys comes back, Dr. Michelutti and his colleagues will analyze the data to find out whether community health has suffered, he says.

They plan to follow up on an annual or biannual basis for a number of years to see whether the health impacts, if any, continue to persist or crop up later. It's tricky to attribute ill health effects to turbines, without knowing a person's health beforehand, Dr. Michelutti says, which is why a before-and-after comparison is so crucial.

"A lot of these symptoms are pretty commonly reported symptoms - anxiety, sleeplessness, these sort of things," he says. "It's difficult without having that baseline data to attribute them to a specific cause and effect like the windmills."

Questions in the second survey which ask whether a respondent is for or against the wind farm may help them find out if symptoms are psychosomatic, he says.

Previous research, much of which has not been peer reviewed, links wind turbines with a variety of physical and emotional problems. Researchers in Portugal claimed the turbines contributed to "vibroacoustic disease," a full body reaction to low frequency noise that affects the auditory and vestibular system, which controls a person's ability to balance. A pediatrician in the United States coined the term "wind turbine syndrome" to describe the symptoms people experience from living near wind turbines, such as sleep disturbance, headache, vertigo, ear pressure, tachycardia (rapid heart rate) and concentration and memory problems.

Wind-farm construction has polarized communities across the country. Those in favour of wind energy say the environmental and economic benefits are plenty. Those against the farms have argued that they are annoying, disruptive and that they are harming the health of residents.

Dr. Michelutti says he and his colleagues are neutral on the issue and have not accepted funding from any anti-wind turbine groups or wind-energy development companies.

"What's important to note is no one on this study is against windmills," he says. "I think most people think windmills are great, but the question is does it make sense to build them on top of communities? Really what we're hoping our study can contribute is information on proper setbacks for the turbines."

Conducting unbiased research on the health effects of living near wind turbines is key, says Robert McMurtry, a professor emeritus at University of Western Ontario and former assistant deputy minister of population and public health at Health Canada. Such a hot button issue deserves proper tracking in order to advise on setback rates for future wind farms, he says.

"Repeating it in year two and three will really add important information to the understanding," he says. "And then if you start doing correlations between setbacks and health problems, that will be very important too."

Iberdrola to use 4.5 MW Gamesa Turbines on Clayton Project

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:25:33 PDT

Clayton's developer Iberdrola informed the town council that wind turbines are not getting smaller they are increasing in size. Gamesa has produced the largest turbine to date. The GX10 4.5 MW !!

Size: tower: 120 meters: 393.70 ft tall
One blade: 64 meters: 209.97 ft - (blade diameter; 419.94 ft)
TOTAL Height of turbine: 603.67 feet high

More importantly the turbine is made of steel and concrete.

To protect residents from shadow flicker and noise impacts LOCAL WIND LAWS must have responsible regulations regarding the siting of turbines using (whichever is greater) noise levels at property lines (no greater than 5 above ambient) and rotor blade dimensions (setbacks 10x the diameter of the rotor blades).

Gamesa Presents G10X-4.5 MW Wind Turbine Prototype

'Mad Money' Spotlight: Cramer Kicks Zoltek

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:52:41 PDT

If you are looking to beef up your retirement account, steer clear of Zoltek(ZOLT Quote), Jim Cramer advised during his "Mad Money" segment on Monday.

Zoltek makes carbon fibers for aircraft brakes and industrial applications including wind energy and deep-sea drilling. While there is potential for the company to resume growth, right now there is little stability in the sector.

During the first quarter ended March 31, profit plunged 89% to $473,000, or 1 cent a share, compared with $4.3 million, or 13 cents, in the year-ago period. This drastically missed analysts' forecast of earnings of 9 cents.

Sales also tumbled 27% to $36 million from $49.6 million last year.

Shares of the company have been trading between $4.29 and $26.08 during the 52-week period, and closed down 4% on Monday to $9.15.

Those who might be swayed by the company's involvement in green development, must also consider that the uncertainty over governmental financial support for wind power has stunted the movement.

"New wind-farm activity has slowed as developers, wind-turbine equipment manufacturers and their financing sources are waiting to see what government benefits can be expected," CEO and Chairman Zsolt Rumy said in a statement. "Although project cancellations are very uncommon, a number of them are on hold until the economic uncertainties are cleared up."

Pickens paring down wind farm project

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:37:00 PDT

T. Boone Pickens' plan to build the world's largest wind farm is off.

Instead, Pickens said he will build five or six smaller wind farms, in the Midwest and possibly Texas, though he hasn't settled on locations.

Last year, Pickens announced that he would build a 1,000-megawatt wind farm in Pampa, Texas. The problem a lack of a transmission line to bring the juice to population centers, Pickens said in an interview last week.

"I don't think the first place we build, though, is where we thought we would because we don't have the transmission," he said.

Remember that idea he had to build his own transmission line? "It was a little more complicated than we thought," he said.

In May 2008, Pickens announced that his company, Mesa Power LP, would order 687 wind turbines, or 1,000 megawatts of capacity, from GE for about $2 billion. By 2014, he expected to expand the Panhandle wind farm to 4,000 megawatts.

That's a massive amount of wind power. One nuclear power reactor is typically about 1,000 megawatts of capacity. Most wind farms offer only a few hundred megawatts.

Shortly after announcing the plan, Pickens ran into roadblocks. Natural gas prices took a dive, bringing electricity prices down with them, and making it difficult to finance a new wind farm.

"You had them standing in line to finance you when natural gas was $9" per million British thermal units, he said. "Natural gas at $4 doesn't have any people trying to finance you."

But, he said, he's lined up financing.

He couldn't easily line up a transmission line.

The Public Utility Commission created a plan to build $5 billion in transmission lines to bring wind power from several areas of West Texas to North Texas and the Houston area. The lines will reach as far as the Panhandle but won't follow a path that Mesa had suggested for the Pampa project.

Still, Pickens already ordered the initial round of wind turbines.

GE will start delivering them in the first quarter of 2011. Pickens has about 18 months to find a place to put them.

"I don't have that big a garage to put them in, so I've got to start getting ready to use them," he said.

Pickens said company officials are considering six sites, including places in Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas. He aims to build three or four wind farms with around 150 turbines each.

He said he still wants to expand to 4,000 megawatts, but he hasn't placed that order yet.

Pickens also said he is rebuilding his three hedge funds after turning them into cash last year.

When the markets dropped, Pickens decided to allow his investors to take their money out of the funds early.

Before the markets declined, Pickens managed more than $4 billion in the funds. Now the funds hold about $1.5 billion.

Pickens is reinvesting the energy funds and said, "We got a good year going."

WLEA Interview of John Droz

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:59:46 PDT

(Click to listen to the entire radio interview)

Wind energy industry tells the truth

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:06:30 PDT

Links and summary of several items on the real motives and consequences of industrial wind.

Are wind turbines truly safe?

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:26:16 PDT

Amidst accolades surrounding the completion of the Wolfe Island wind turbines, a friend and I just took our first trip of the season to my small property on Simcoe Island.

About 5 km west of Marysville, at the turnoff to the Simcoe Island ferry, stand about 15 or more turbines, quite evident on the boat trip across. We drove west another 4 or 5 km to the property, which faces south.

It's a lovely spot, though noticeably different this year. We did not stay late enough to see the flashing light on each tower, though you can see these from the Kingston waterfront quite clearly, reflecting over the lake.

What we can't see from Kingston, but what one island neighbour told me is among the biggest changes to their lives, is the noise. When the wind is up, "it sounds like a jet engine coming through -- and they're not all up and running yet."

On the website www.windturbinesyndrome.com, families in Shelburne, Ont., Wisconsin, Missouri and England make similar comments when telling stories and showing their YouTube videos about the effects of living near turbines -- headaches, nausea and insomnia, to name a few.

Some cope, while others sell or abandon their homes because of the effects on their health.

I wonder if some of the research and commentaries by Dr. Nina Pierpont (going back to 2005) about the health effects of noise, low-frequency vibrations and something called "shadow flicker" are the same sources of information behind the rumours I've heard of a possible Ontario government policy to restrict turbines to at least 1.5 km away from where people live and work.

I wonder, too, about how many turbines would have been built on Wolfe Island had the project been caught by such a policy.

Eleven years ago, I helped organize an international conference about breast cancer here in Kingston. Delegates talked about the emerging environmental risks to human health of chemicals used to make soft plastics.

Speakers urged a precautionary approach and to avoid the use of these chemicals in food containers and baby pacifiers.

Now the science about these chemicals has become the basis for bans on soft plastic toys from overseas that contain these same substances. Are we missing a similar lesson? Should we be making comparisons to "wind turbine syndrome"?

I'm all for green power and the policy to support it, but not if it risks human health and communities.

I'm worried about the health of my island neighbours.

The science isn't complete yet, but what about the precautionary tales of families, physicians and scientists such as those on the website?

In the case of the Wolfe Island wind project, and for the sake of the folks with whom I share a small part of Simcoe Island, I hope it won't take 11 years to figure it out.

I guess time will tell.

Karen Weisbaum Kingston

Schumer to FERC: No more NYRI extensions

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:55:43 PDT

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has called on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to grant no more extensions to NYRI, a group of investors who want to build an electrical transmission line from Oneida to Orange counties.

In April, New York Regional Interconnect Inc. withdrew its application to the state's Public Service Commission to build a $2.1 billion power line that could run through Chenango, Delaware and/or Otsego counties. Since then, however, NYRI has asked FERC to review its case, trying to keep the project alive.

The firm was supposed to have all its information sent to FERC by last month, but was granted an extension to July 9.

In response, Schumer wrote to FERC this week, asking that the commission ``discontinue granting further extensions to NYRI for filing arguments for a rehearing.''

Schumer noted that communities in the area have been fighting the proposal, and extensions granted to the company sap their energy and limited resources.

``These communities produced grass-roots organizations, catalyzing an outpouring of support against NYRI's attempt to set aside community concerns, and invested significant resources in fighting the plan,'' he wrote.

``NYRI has had ample opportunity to present their case and appeal the process to the necessary state and federal agencies," Schumer's letter continued. "Postponing this decision is only exacerbating the financial strain which the localities are currently under and will continue to incur from NYRI.

``This maneuver is inexcusable and can clearly be seen as a last-ditch effort to keep their project alive," the letter continued. "It is for these reasons that I am asking FERC to deny NYRI's request for a rehearing and to end this once and for all.''

David Kalson has been a spokesman for the firm, but said Thursday he is no longer associated with the project.

Kalson suggested contacting Albany attorney Leonard Singer for a corporate response, but Singer was unavailable by phone for comment Thursday.

Chris Rossi, co-chairwoman of Stop NYRI Inc., a group that has opposed the project, said members appreciate efforts made by Schumer and 24th District Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-Utica, to declare the project dead.

``We had a steering committee meeting last night,'' she said Thursday, ``and we know this isn't over yet.

``Even if NYRI is abandoned, we want to make sure we're not vulnerable to a NYRIesque project in the future,'' she added.

Under the guise of environmental progress and green energy, Rossi said, some proposals before the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate could do great harm to this area by allowing unnecessary power lines to be built.

``We realize we have to stay on top of this, because even if NYRI is officially dead, who knows what will come next,'' she said.

Group members would like to let down their guard, Rossi said, but don't dare to do so.

Turbine blade shredded

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:13:18 PDT

A fierce storm on the afternoon of July 2, 2009 destroyed portions of an industrial wind turbine located between Brieske and Schwarzheide in Germany. Pieces, as shown in this photo, flew 150 meters through the air landing about 50 meters from federal highway Nr. 169. No one was injured. The approximately 40 meter blade broke several trees as it cut a track through the forest. The blade showed signs of lightning damage.

Prattsburgh wind turbines - Hearing on permit law to be held by mid-July

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 04:30:55 PDT

PRATTSBURGH — A public hearing on a proposed permit law regulating wind energy in the town will be held by mid- July, the Prattsburgh Town Board said Monday night.

Board members took more than an hour during a special board session Monday night to scrutinize the proposed law, designed to set permit fees for wind turbines erected in the town.

The town is the site of proposed wind farms by two energy companies, Ecogen and First Wind.

A representative of Ecogen who attended the meeting said the proposed guidelines are too restrictive.

"We're going to have to fight back," said Robert Burgdorf, an Ecogen attorney.

First Wind announced in December it was delaying plans for its 50-turbine farm for a year, citing the faltering national economy as the reason.

In addition to its current plans to set up 16 turbines in Prattsburgh and 18 turbines in the neighboring town of Italy, Ecogen is reportedly considering a second phase of wind farm construction.

Town Councilman Steve Kula said the board should use a draft drawn up in February, since later versions had included input from Ecogen.

Kula said board members did not need to consider Ecogen's interests because the conditions of the permit law do not apply to Ecogen's current plans.

"So let's not use it to suit Ecogen. Let's use it to suit ourselves," Kula said.

Proposed changes included:

• Permits must be renewed if a turbine has not been constructed two years after the original permit has been issued. Currently, all other building permits must be renewed after one year.

• Any plan to replace a defective turbine must be overseen by an independent engineering firm paid for by the developer.

• Setbacks for meteorological towers will match the height of the towers.

• Setbacks from property lines for wind turbines will be twice the height of the tower, or 1,000 feet.

• The developer must show interconnections between turbines to avoid potential issues with eminent domain.

• A clause stating the permit law does not apply to the current Ecogen project.

A proposed change dealing with the issue of noise was tabled for further discussion.

Burgdorf told the board the firm's sound expert, Peter Guldburg, dismissed the
proposed noise standards as "impossible."

Burgdorf said the standards would prevent any new business from setting up in the town and pointed out federal laws ensure all industries are dealt with equally.

Board members had expected an independent noise consultant to attend the special meeting, but Town Supervisor Harold McConnell said he had not been able to contact one. McConnell said he had seven referrals for the board's review.

The board agreed to meet at 7 p.m. Tuesday to review the draft in its final form, after which it is expected to call for a public hearing and pass the law within 10 days.

Burgdorf said the draft would be reviewed by Ecogen's legal counsel.

Riverstone Buys Babcock & Brown's Wind Portfolio

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:24:21 PDT

Private equity group Riverstone Holdings LLC has purchased the wind development portfolio from Babcock & Brown LP to form Pattern Energy Group LP.This is Riverstone's first foray into wind power.

The project pipeline exceeds 4,000 megawatts (MW) of wind power spanning 11 states and 4 countries in addition to several power transmission projects.

Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed, but Riverstone, which has approximately $17 billion under management across six investment funds, said it is committing $400 million to expand and support Pattern Energy’s renewable energy business.

Pattern Energy is set up as an independent energy company to develop, construct, own, and operate renewable energy and transmission assets across North America and parts of Latin America. It will retain the 80 staff members that put into operation more than 2000 MW of wind for Babcock & Brown's North American group.

“We are highly impressed with the extensive renewable energy and transmission experience of the Pattern Energy team and are fully committed to Pattern,” said Chris Hunt, Managing Director of Riverstone Holdings. “We welcome the Pattern Energy team as an important new part of our renewable energy platform in North America.”

Pattern's first wind project is expected to be the 103-MW Hatchet Ridge Wind Farm in northern California, will begin construction in the next few months.

Australia-based Babcock & Brown, which was founded in 1977, is divesting all assets after failing to renegotiate debt in March 2009 and being declared insolvent.

Website: www.riverstonellc.com

Finger Lakes Preservation Association Court Hearing

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:04:11 PDT

Dear Friends,

The FLPA has filed a petition with the Yates County Supreme Court againts the Italy Town Board contesting Italy's local law #5 of 2009 as having violated several important requirements of New York State's Environmental Quality Reivew Act (SEQRA). The FLPA has also submitted a request for an injunction against the Town Board advancing their review of the Ecogen application during the courts review of this case.

A court date for the a hearing on the injunction has been set for Tuesday July 7, 2009 at 1:30pm at the Yates County Court House, which is located at 415 Liberty Street, Penn Yan. The Honorable W. Patrick Falvey will be presiding. We encourage everyone who can to attend this important hearing. An injuction would prevent the Italy Town Board from approving the Ecogen application before the judge has a chance to fully review the case and determine a ruling.

If you can, please attend this court hearing!

Thank you for your continued support,

The Finger Lakes Preservation Association

New York inches closer to offshore wind farm

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:52:52 PDT

NEW YORK, July 1 (Reuters) - Government agencies and power companies said on Wednesday they are gauging interest from developers and manufacturers about building a wind farm about 13 miles (21 km) off the New York city coast that could end up being the largest such project in the United States.

The Long Island Power Authority, the New York Power Authority, other agencies and Consolidated Edison Inc (ED.N) hope to build the 350 megawatt wind farm off the Rockaway Peninsula in the Atlantic.

Potentially, the project could be expanded to 700 MW, giving it a shot of being the biggest U.S. offshore wind farm. One megawatt powers about 1,000 homes in New York, but wind does not blow all of the time.

Taking stock of the interest of developers is a precursor to issuing a request for proposal for the project which is anticipated for release by the end of the year, the collaboration said.

"There clearly is growing interest in this proposal by many parties," Kevin Burke, chairman and CEO of Con Edison, said in a release.

"If the technical, environmental, economic and social challenges can be met, and we have the support of government, energy and environmental leaders, I am confident this project will be built and produce enormous benefits for our region," he said.

The group did not offer a price estimate for the project, but according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a work that size would cost about $1.35 billion to $2.7 billion.

Also on Wednesday, New York's state power authority said it had selected five firms to study the possibility of building an offshore wind farm on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario in western New York.

Such projects are consistent with New York Gov. David Paterson's "45 by 15" program, which establishes the goal for the state to meet 45 percent of its electricity needs through energy efficiency and renewable sources by 2015.
The Rockaway project would not be the first time a large wind farm was planned in the region.

The LIPA proposed the construction of a 40-turbine wind farm that would have produced 140 MW of energy off the shore of Jones Beach on the south shore of Long Island. The project was canceled in 2007 after estimates it would cost $800 million, more than double the initial estimate.

Anneke Radin-Snaith June 30, 2009 Letter to the Editor

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:14:10 PDT

To The Editor:

At the June 29th special meeting, the Prattsburgh Town Board discussed the town’s wind permit law. The meeting was open to the public, but the public was not given copies of the draft of the proposed law, and no public comment was allowed. This was as I expected, and not really an issue, except for the fact that the attorney for Ecogen was provided with a copy of the draft, and was also allowed to comment on and even write portions of the law. Isn’t the town board supposed to be working for its constituents, the taxpayers and people of Prattsburgh, not an outside developer? Why is Ecogen’s attorney being given special treatment?

On another note, shouldn’t the town attorney, whose salary our tax dollars pay, be working on our behalf? Each time Councilman Kula brought up a point in an effort to retain some local control or gain some money for the town, Attorney Leyden put up an argument. Often, when directly asked for an opinion, Mr. Leyden’s response was something to the effect of, “You just tell me what to write and I’ll put it in there.” Well, if that’s the case, what do we pay an attorney for?

Sincerely,
Anneke Radin-Snaith
Prattsburgh, NY

NYSERDA's 6/16/09 Environmental Stakeholders' Meeting - Part II

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:09:34 PDT

Dear Dr. Thorndike,

As one of the attendees of NYSERDA's 6/16/09 Environmental Stakeholders' Meeting specific to wind power, I am writing to thank you for having the meeting, and to follow-up on some remaining issues.

It was acknowledged at the meeting that we would be provided with a copy of the meeting's attendee list, including the various panel members, as we have also received at the previous Environmental Stakeholder meetings. Can you tell me when we can expect to receive a copy of that list? We are hoping to receive it as soon as possible so that we can pursue follow-up questions with the correct individuals.

Mr. Bert Bowers shared the response he received from you in which you suggested he speak to meeting attendees to verify that our concerns had been addressed. As I voiced in my second of only two question opportunities I was allowed at the meeting that day, my questions were not answered and I left the meeting with just as many unanswered questions as when I arrived.

As a matter of fact, the same questions we've been asking for several years now, still remain unanswered - most notably:

What independent, transparent measurement has been done anywhere in the world demonstrating that wind projects have actually offset significant levels of CO2 throughout an electricity grid system?

With some 60,000 industrial wind turbines in the world today, the proof to verify this claim - which is the very basis for the existence of the industrial wind industry, should be very easy to come by. However, what we received at the meeting that day were "Assumptions" based on studies done by GE - one of the largest wind developers in the world, and presentations from industry promoter, Truewind. This is hardly independent, objective, unbiased information that NYSERDA claims to pride itself on.

When I reitterated to you at the end of the meeting that no PROOF had been provided to back up the claim of CO2 emissions reductions, you assured me that it did indeed exist, and that this information would be included on the website. We anxiously look forward to seeing it.

While some speakers offered commentary on a few of the Citizens' Questions, our questions were by no means "addressed" from the perspective of providing full and unbiased answers. There were a few speakers (i.e.- Dr. Jan Storm, Dan Driscoll & Tom Brown) who acknowledged the numerous existing problems and gross inadequacies with what's going on in NYS relative to industrial wind developement, but no potential solutions were offered to the problems they mentioned by any NYSERDA or attending State agency representatives. Hopefully, NYSERDA's written answers to our questions will solve these omissions.

We very much appreciate your commitment to having all of the Citizens' Questions posted on NYSERDA's newly revamped website, along with complete and technically-accurate answers to each. Since we are now five years into the RPS program, it would seem that answers to all of our Citizens' Questions would be at the tip of NYSERDA's proverbial tongue, and that they could be provided within a very few days.

I hate to dispute the assertions of such an experienced person, Dr. Thorndike, but the "the role of wind energy as a renewable to replace part of fossil fuel use/emissions is one that is now being promoted by every scientific organization," is not a factual statement.

The American Physical Society, which is most certainly a scientific organization (is it not?), released a comprehensive white paper called, Energy = Future: Think Efficiency, addressing what we need to do to fix our energy situation. Industrial wind power was NOT a part of it.

Professor Jack Steinberger, a Nobel prize-winning scientist, stated, "Wind is NOT the future," at the 5/26/09 symposium of Nobel laureates at the Royal Society in Europe. Steinberger said "wind represented an illusory technology -- a cul-de-sac that would prove uneconomic and a waste of resources in the battle against climate change." (Read Link)

Furthermore, there are "multiple perspectives" held by many scientists who are in direct opposition to the political agendas currently being doled out, who argue that the debate on climate change is not over. Here are just a few recent articles addressing this very issue:

1.) The Triumph of DoubleSpeak explains some of the political (i.e. non-scientific) goings-on behind the scenes regarding the IPCC and their Global Warming policy, written by an expert (Dr. Vincent Gray) who was there: (Read Link) ,

2.) A Princeton Physicist’s view about CO2 (note that Al Gore fired him for expressing it) (Read Link) ,

3.) An MIT PhD’s views are stifled by the EPA, as being “against policy”: (Read Report)
- Report itself: (Read Link)

As you said, industrial wind is being heavily promoted as a political solution by NY and Washington politicians. However, we are advocating sound scientific solutions. Doesn't it only stand to reason that proposed ideas to solve our technical problems should be subjected to scientific methodology? Or, does NYSERDA now believe that pursuing corporate-political agendas supercedes the pursuit of sound scientific solutions?

We continue to get obfuscation when asking for the scientific basis for this enormous expenditure of time and money. The best that anyone could do at the meeting was to cite a NAS report that was just released - the value of which is certainly in question for a number of reasons. Independent Energy Expert, Glenn Schleede, was asked to review the draft by the NAS, though he ended up refusing to do so officially. You can read his 12/08 report, "Can the National Academies Produce an Objective Report?", at (Read Link) .

We have written to the Union of Concerned Scientists and Pace, and have received zero scientific information supporting the validity of wind power being a meaningful or cost-effective reducer of CO2 emissions. While we anxiously await the written answers to be posted on NYSERDA's website, if you have this information at your disposal, could you please provide it to us immediately?

Maybe you can also cite for me, with urls, the independent, objective scientific reports that existed to support the RPS program (and wind power) in 2004, or thereabouts? That would very quickly clear up the question as to whether this started out as a political foray, or began as an effort firmly grounded in science.

The people for whom NYSERDA is employed as a "public benefit" agency to serve - ALL NYS citizens, taxpayers, and ratepayers, thank you for your efforts to address all of our Citizens' Questions as soon as possible. (To refresh your memory, I've listed several more of those still-unanswered questions below.)

Sincerely,

Mary Kay Barton, lifelong NYS resident & environmental activist for Sound Scientific Solutions

NYSERDA's 6/16/09 Environmental Stakeholders' Meeting - Part I

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:40:38 PDT

Dr. Thorndike, since you made it clear that you simply did not understand the fact that we felt that most of our questions did NOT receive adequate answers at the 6/16/09 meeting, I am reitterating just a few more of the questions we've been asking for years now, that still have NOT been answered:

1.) How many industrial wind turbines, scattered over how many square miles of permanently disfigured landscapes & fragmented habitats, will it take to collectively deliver a Capacity Value equivalent to any conventional generating system — defining Capacity Value as the ability to produce specified amounts of energy at a specified rate at any time?

As I explained in my first of the only two question opportunities I was allowed that day, Mr. Bailey did not correctly answer the question as it was asked. The question asks for the land mass & number of turbines needed to deliver a "Capacity Value" equivalent to a conventional generating system, not a figure representing an "Installed Capacity" - as he provided. Mr. Bailey also used "30 acres per turbine" to determine his calculation, when, as I cited that day, developers here have been quoted as saying that each turbine requires 100 acres. Instead of an answer, my question was dismissed with the reply, "We'll take that as a comment."

2.) Unbelievably important, but never even touched upon at any of the meetings, or on NYSERDA's website, is the fact that the United States wastes more energy making electricity than it takes to run all of Japan. Considering that it is nearly criminal to be adding new generation given the magnitude of such thermal losses (especially for the inimical, unreliable, volatile source of wind), what is NYSERDA doing to address Waste Heat from electric power plants? (See: http://www.chpcenterpr.org/wasteheat2power07/PDF/TCasten%20presentation.pdf)

3.) Since the U.S. DOE designed and specified that these 400+ foot industrial towers were meant for installation in Texas and on the Great Plains - not in populated areas such as rural/residential NYS, why is NYSERDA totally disregarding the original appropriate placement recomendations for the size and scale of these machines, and any adequate setback recomendations which would ensure that the people they work for, New York State citizens, were being protected?

4.) Since the Attorney General's suggested General Ethics Code of Conduct for industrial wind developers is intended to protect NYS citizens - the very people NYSERDA is employed to serve, why doesn't NYSERDA make signing this Code of Ethics agreement MANDATORY before industrial wind developers are allowed to do business in NYS?

5.) Since Big Wind LLC's are using public money to fund these projects (65%+ with federal tax breaks and subsidies, and another 10% with State incentives), then why are they allowed to withhold output information as "proprietary", when public funds = public information?

6.) Since wind industry LLC's go to great lengths to declare that property values will NOT be affected by industrial wind installations, why doesn't NYSERDA recommend the creation and adoption of "Property Value Protection Plans" to protect NYS citizens?

And finally, in my brief sampling of still unanswered questions, and as I asked at the meeting in my second of only two question opportunities I was allowed that day, while again receiving the reply, "We'll take that as a comment":

7.) Why aren't we looking at, and considering, what has been proven to be an unproductive experience in other countries long-invested in industrial wind before making the same expensive mistake here in the U.S.???

A recent Spanish study by researcher Gabriel Alvarez at King Carlos University in Madrid concluded that Spain's mad rush to meet overly aggressive renewable standards has destroyed jobs. For every job created in the wind industry, 2.2 jobs were lost in the rest of the economy. Even worse is the fact that only one in 10 of those wind energy jobs was permanent. (See: http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/uploads/Calzada-Spain-jobs-renewables.pdf and http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/uploads/Calzada-Spain-renewables-boom-bust.ppt )

Consider the fact that the U.S. Cap & Trade Bill currently being proposed contains a mandate that anyone who loses their 'new' renewable job will get 3 years unemployment, health care, and job re-training - exposing the fact that it is known that this bill will lose jobs in the long run.

The end result in Spain: Investing in wind has driven up Spain's real cost of electricity, while carbon emissions have increased 50% since 2000 according to data from the European Environment Agency.

The irony is that Spain's entire renewable industry was built on the promise of creating millions of new, high-paying "green jobs" while simultaneously meeting requirements for cutting carbon emissions - the same political agendas NYSERDA is now unquestioningly pursuing. Where is the common sense in ignoring the expensive lessons already learned by others???

Dr, Thorndike, if industrial wind power has no significant impact on the problem of CO2 emissions; if wind causes electricity prices to "skyrocket" - costing us two to three times as much as conventional sources of energy; if wind kills at least twice as many jobs as it creates; and, if wind also has extraordinary additional costs due to significant adverse environmental, ecological, scenic, and personal health and property value impacts --

Then why would any person in their right mind agree to this madness?

Please see the Citizens' Questions Document for the complete list of questions we are seeking answers to: tinyurl.com/kkkuqz .

Mary Kay Barton

Wind power can generate headaches for nearby residents

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:31:10 PDT

REACT-ND wants to increase turbine setbacks

Wind turbines located too close to homes and humans can pose a health hazard, a Mars Hill area resident warned New Denmark homeowners during as REACT (Reacts Efforts Against Construction of Turbines in New Denmark) sponsored meeting held in the community recently.

Sam Porter, co-chairperson, of REACT ND said his group was formed because of residential concerns about the possibility of large wind turbines erected beside their New Denmark homes and farms. A group of farmers have joined forces with Prowind Canada to study the possibility of constructing a 60-megawatt wind farm in the community.

"We spent countless hours gathering information and looking at reports and studies. Our concern is the health implications. What we asking the government to do is extend the setback from the present 500 meters to two kilometres. These studies are being dons by doctors and many have recommend a minimum setback at two kilometres."

About 100 people attended the meeting to listen to Wendy Todd, who described herself as a housewife and mother, who lives near several of the 28 turbines that make up the First Wind project on and around Mars Hill. She gave a lengthy and sometimes emotional description of life underneath the wind turbines.

"We tried to do everything the right way. When the developer first came to town most of the town thought, what a great idea. We attended the public meetings and listened to information that was given, we thought we had all the answers. The project was approved and went through the DEP (Maine Department of Environmental Protection). The project went on-line in March two years ago and we have been dealing with the problems ever since."

Todd said as soon as the wind turbines came on-line the complaints started coming in. Landowners were told the turbines would not produce any noises, perhaps a gentle "whoosh" on several days of the year.

"The printed document said we would hear nothing at the bottom of the mountain. Other issues were never mentioned at all like shadow strobes, we would told our property values would go up."

Todd said landowners complained to the First Wind developers, but they provide no response. Complaints to the town of Mars Hill yielded little help, and the Maine DEP is now involved to see if the project meets the compliance. The frustrated landowners have contacted lawyers and are launching legal action.

"Right now the project is running about 50 per cent capacity. We have days the turbines don't run at all in the summer time, but on the days the turbine are off, you drop everything you are doing to go outside to remembers what life was like before the turbines," Todd stated. "I want to make sure you know how this project has affected so many families."

Todd some of the turbine effects have to be experienced to be believed. She talked about shadow flickers, the strobe-like effect of mile-long shadows rolling across the landscape when the sun is either rising or falling before the turbines.

"When people talk about noise from turbine, it is really hard to explain what turbine noise is like. I am hoping that each person's perspective will help you understand."

Todd read numerous experiences of her friends and neighbours about their issues with the wind turbines. Homeowners complained about excessive noise, shadow flicker, negative effects on pets and livestock, complaints that wildlife has moved out after the turbine installation, the landscape changes,

"Many of the residents are struggling to understand how the government could allow these turbines to be put so close to people's home and how it is disturbing the watershed and forests. Each turbine pad is a little over two acres, and the amount of concrete in each slab is anywhere from 15 to 290 feet deep and the anchors can go up to 40 feet deep so these turbines won't topple."

The landowner said the "gentle whooshing sound" heard on a nice sunny day in June is the optimal conditions. She quoted numerous studies that show why the noise from turbines is so disruptive to people in their homes.

"That basically, I hate to say this, is what you people have to look forward to. All of these people were under the impression that what they were inviting into their back yards was a good thing, that it was green, that it was renewable, they are doing something wonderful for our planet, for our children and our grandchildren… When you discover the truth and what you have to sacrifice, it won't be so wonderful anymore."

Todd said many of the homeowners complaining about the wind turbine live between 3,000 to 3,500 feet away from the 1.5-megawatt units. The New Demark project would use proposed turbines that could be two to three megawatts in size.

"You need to be concern about the noise levels from unit that size," she stated. "Once the turbine pick up speed they pick up aerodynamic noise. As they near capacity the blades pick up noise from the tower and inside a house you will hear a rhythmic thumping."

Todd said landowners must also be concerned about ice buildup during the winter months. The DEP shut down the two turbines on top of the ski hill during icy conditions because of safety concerns.

"There are reports of huge chunks of ice hitting the ground. The turbines are supposed to shut down if there is any ice buildup. But if there is a gradual ice buildup, the turbine will not shut down," she told residents.

Todd said if wind turbines setbacks were increased, the negative effects on nearby landowners would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated.

"I would recommend they you have more public hearings and bring in expert testimony to talk about these problems," she said.

Porter told the audience that numerous groups of residents have formed in Canada and around the world in an effort to have new safety and environmental regulations enforced around wind turbines.

"We are not unique in this venture. We are not generating information out of our minds, this is all documentation that can cited."

The co-chairman said the group has contacted numerous wind experts to compile data, and he asked everyone in the room to take time to examine the data and make up their own minds.

"If you have questions talk to a doctor and professional people about some of the problems that have been cited with the establishment of wind turbines. I can't make that decision for you, but I can tell you one thing, once they come here they are her it stay."

Porter said residents who want a larger setback need to make their voices heard to MLAs and politicians.

"You make the judgment on your own. But it is critical to act now," he concluded.

How realistic is 20% wind energy?

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:43:44 PDT

A year ago the US Department of Energy released "20% wind power by 2030", a study that envisioned the US satisfying 20% of its electricity needs through wind power. This February, the Joint Coordinated System Plan 2008 (JCSP'08) proffered a conceptual regional transmission and generation system plan to meet 20% of the Eastern region of the United States' energy needs with wind.

DOE's report called for the deployment of 305,000 MW of wind by the year 2030. The JCSP assumed 229,000 MW of new wind capacity built by 2024. In either scenario, the proposals included the need to build thousands of miles of new transmission lines towering 200-feet tall to deliver the energy from the Midwestern region of the country to points East (and West).

Windaction.org has had several opportunities to publicly debate these scenarios with ranking US energy officials (not politicians) and what we learned, frankly, surprised us:

It is clear that most had not read the DOE report. Many dismissed it as "academic" and unrealistic. Others openly call the JCSP study nothing more than a wind advocacy plan. Both the ISO New England and New York ISO withdrew from the publication of the JCSP report and Ian Bowles, secretary of energy and environmental affairs for Massachusetts, published an editorial in the New York Times where he discouraged a "national grid system" for renewable energy, arguing for a better, lower cost option.

We agree.

Achieving widespread adoption of renewable (wind) energy is not as easy as the popular catch phrases "25 x 2025" and "20% by 2030" would have us believe. Nor will it be cheap. It is worth revisiting some of the assumptions in the DOE report:

1. Wind energy does not provide capacity; it requires separate redundant and reliable backup generation

Electricity production in the US is predicated on reliability, affordability, and security. The ability to produce capacity -- electricity on demand -- is fundamental, since electricity cannot be stored at bulk levels. Yet, the DOE report states "Wind is an energy resource, not a capacity resource." In other words, while utilities are obligated to provide electricity, instantaneously, when customers demand it, wind does not, nor can it ever, do that.

According to the DOE, as installed wind capacity increases as a percentage of energy on the grid, wind power cannot replace the need for many ‘capacity resources' and that any capacity value for wind is "a bonus, but not a necessity." Put another way, building 305,000 MW of wind to satisfy the 20% wind energy goal will be independent of our need to build additional electric generating plants needed to meet demand.

2. Unrealistic projected rate of growth

The DOE report forecasts 305,000 MW of wind development by 2030 including 54,000 MW of off-shore wind. Assuming a starting point of 28,000 MW of wind now installed in the US (with none offshore), over 13,000 MW of new wind would need to be installed year after year through to 2030 - an amount equivalent to nearly double the capacity installed in 2008, a banner year.

Even if the industry were able to overcome all manufacturing and construction barriers to meet this goal, other barriers still remain including a) the public's resistance to wind turbines sited on publicly-owned lands, national forests and wilderness areas; b) sustained and substantial taxpayer-funded subsidies to ensure project viability; and c) the requirement for expansive and expensive power lines to access remote areas of the country.

3. The numbers don't add up: Optimistic capacity factors will not meet the 20% goal

According to DOE, U.S. demand for electricity will reach 5.8 billion megawatt-hours (MWh) by 2030, with 20% or 1.16-billion MWh satisfied by wind.

Assuming DOE's figure of 305,000 MW of installed wind capacity, the entire fleet of wind turbines would need to operate at an annual average capacity factor of 43.4%. Yet, few existing wind plants in the U.S. today, and none east of the Mississippi, come close to meeting this level of annual average capacity. The fact remains that many U.S. wind projects located in areas touted as having outstanding wind resources now report average capacity factors under 25%.

What's realistic?

The true impact of a national renewable vision based on wind, whether DOE's or the JCSP, is in the public cost, both in dollars and in the impacts wrought by transforming our open spaces into massive industrial power plants with associated transmission and other infrastructure.

Too many people are acting as though the discussion is over and all we need to do is build. In fact, it has barely just begun. While we may need to diversity our nation's energy portfolio with viable alternatives to fossil fuel, we hope it's not too late to step back and establish realistic goals based on validated costs and benefits.

U.S. Senate Summary of the American Clean Energy Leadership Act

cohoctonwindwatch@gmail.com (Cohocton Wind Watch) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:45:55 PDT

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee cleared by a 15–8 vote a broad energy bill.

The Senate committee has not released a full draft of the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, though a summary (PDF) is available for viewing on Committee Chair Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s website. It reflects many of the same proposals as the Waxman-Markey bill that is currently being considered by a handful of House committees, but it steers clear of a cap-and-trade program. The Senate legislation is based on six major bills—all with bipartisan sponsorship—and five other bills with either Republican or Democratic sponsorship that were introduced in this Congress.

Windmill disintegrates [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Tue, 12 May 2009 03:30:22 PDT

http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/ViewPost/99979

Data on Gamesa blow ill wind on Shaffer Mountain [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Mon, 11 May 2009 13:53:39 PDT

Out-of-control wind turbine forces closure of Hwy. 58 [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Mon, 04 May 2009 07:47:56 PDT

http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/ViewPost/99268

Section of falling tower causes death [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:20:51 PST

Turbines making a big difference to land values in Gippsland [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:53:35 PST

T. Boone Pickens puts Texas wind farm project on hold [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:40:15 PST

Group seeking freeze on wind [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 13:30:06 PST

SGC Wind signs contract with carbon-trading firm [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 12:24:25 PST

Exchange Rates Trigger Loss at Suzlon Energy [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 14:10:00 PDT

AG Establishes Wind Industry Ethics Code [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:33:58 PDT

Lincoln group calls for wind ban [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 07:31:38 PDT

Wind turbine blade crashes down in Illinois field [del.icio.us]

cohoctonwindwatch — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:23:52 PDT