Today Fox News published this article: 'Cape Cod community considers taking down wind turbines after illness, noise'.
Journalist Molly Line writes:
"Two wind turbines towering above the Cape Cod community of Falmouth, Mass., were intended to produce green energy and savings -- but they've created angst and division, and may now be removed at a high cost as neighbors complain of noise and illness.
"It gets to be jet-engine loud," said Falmouth resident Neil Andersen. He and his wife Betsy live just a quarter mile from one of the turbines. They say the impact on their health has been devastating. They're suffering headaches, dizziness and sleep deprivation and often seek to escape the property where they've lived for more than 20 years.
"Every time the blade has a downward motion it gives off a tremendous energy, gives off a pulse," said Andersen. "And that pulse, it gets into your tubular organs, chest cavity, mimics a heartbeat, gives you headaches. It's extremely disturbing and it gets to the point where you have to leave."
The first turbine went up in 2010 and by the time both were in place on the industrial site of the town's water treatment facility, the price was $10 million. Town officials say taking them down will cost an estimated $5 million to $15 million, but that is just what Falmouth's five selectmen have decided to move toward doing.
"The selectmen unanimously voted to remove them. We think it's the right thing to do, absolutely," Selectman David Braga said. "You can't put a monetary value on people's health and that's what's happened here. A lot of people are sick because of these."
Now the matter will go to a town meeting vote in April and could ultimately end up on the ballot during the municipal elections in May.
"It's highly likely that what the voters will be determining is are they willing to tax themselves at an appropriate amount to cover the cost and dismantle and shut down the turbines?" Falmouth Town Manager Julian Suso said.
In the meantime, the turbines are being run on a limited schedule as the selectmen respond to the concerns of nearby neighbors. The turbines only run during the day -- from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. -- which means they're operating at a loss.
The dispute has been a bitter three-year battle in the seaside town where officials argue the project was thoroughly vetted, researched and put to public vote multiple times."
You can read the rest of the article here.
This is with only TWO turbines. What will it be like here with 30, 40, or more?
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
What it's like to live with turbines
Kevon Martis writes:
This video shows Cary Shineldecker of Riverton Township in Mason County, MI testifying about life inside the CMS Energy Lakewinds wind plant.
It contains 56 Danish 0-1.8MW V100 turbines. Each device is 476' tall. The closest turbine is 1139 feet from his home. CMS received $73 million in stimulus funding for the $255 million project. The installed cost for this wind project is $2,500/KW, which is 25% higher than the national average. This is because MI must use "low wind" wind turbines due to an average 6.5M/s wind resource, far lower than IA's 8.5M/s resource. This plant will have an annual average capacity of perhaps 25MW.
CMS is currently planning a new CCGT natural gas plant of 700MW capacity, with a price tag of $750 million. It will have an average capacity of nearly 700MW or 28 times more capacity than the wind plant for only 3 times the cost and will actually be able to replace coal generation at a 1:1 ration while slashing emissions.
His home can be seen here. Why must anyone be compelled to live this way without consent or compensation when the devices he now lives with are impotent regarding emissions reduction?
The video is here:
This video shows Cary Shineldecker of Riverton Township in Mason County, MI testifying about life inside the CMS Energy Lakewinds wind plant.
It contains 56 Danish 0-1.8MW V100 turbines. Each device is 476' tall. The closest turbine is 1139 feet from his home. CMS received $73 million in stimulus funding for the $255 million project. The installed cost for this wind project is $2,500/KW, which is 25% higher than the national average. This is because MI must use "low wind" wind turbines due to an average 6.5M/s wind resource, far lower than IA's 8.5M/s resource. This plant will have an annual average capacity of perhaps 25MW.
CMS is currently planning a new CCGT natural gas plant of 700MW capacity, with a price tag of $750 million. It will have an average capacity of nearly 700MW or 28 times more capacity than the wind plant for only 3 times the cost and will actually be able to replace coal generation at a 1:1 ration while slashing emissions.
His home can be seen here. Why must anyone be compelled to live this way without consent or compensation when the devices he now lives with are impotent regarding emissions reduction?
The video is here:
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Wind Rush documentary
Last week the Canadian Broadcasting Channel aired a documentary regarding industrial wind turbines called Wind Rush.
The film's description reads: "A growing anti-wind movement says giant turbines have gone up without sufficient research into health impacts. In the rush to embrace wind power, have the people who live among the wind farms been forgotten?"
It's available in its entirety on YouTube. It's worth your 42 minutes. Please share it with others in our community.
The film's description reads: "A growing anti-wind movement says giant turbines have gone up without sufficient research into health impacts. In the rush to embrace wind power, have the people who live among the wind farms been forgotten?"
It's available in its entirety on YouTube. It's worth your 42 minutes. Please share it with others in our community.
Monday, February 11, 2013
The Wind Power Tax
The Wall Street Journal published an editorial this weekend: "The Wind Power Tax: A regulator socializes transmission-line costs, and a utility fights back."
It begins:
Should businesses and families have to pay higher electricity rates to underwrite the cost of wind energy they don't even use?
That is the issue as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission takes up a complaint by Interstate Power and Light Co. (IPL) that 500,000 rate payers in Iowa and Minnesota will have to pay $170.5 million from 2008-2016 for transmission lines and upgrades to connect wind farms to the electric grid.
The utility provides compelling evidence that "the burden of these huge costs is unrelated to any benefits that may accrue to IPL and its customers." And they are paying even though they "have not experienced any material improvements to reliability or lower energy prices."
The case has ramifications nationwide because the price tag for upgrading and expanding power lines to reach offshore and remote wind turbines could reach $150 billion. The green energy lobby and Obama Administration want to socialize these costs on the backs of all rate payers.
We criticized this stealth consumer tax two years ago ("The Great Transmission Heist," Review and Outlook, November 8, 2010). Michigan rate payers were asked to subsidize about 20% of the $16 billion cost to build wind-based power lines outside the state even though those customers received little benefit. These cost-shifting schemes would seem to violate the Federal Power Act, which says FERC should establish "just and reasonable" rates to cover transmission costs.
Read the rest of the article here.
It begins:
Should businesses and families have to pay higher electricity rates to underwrite the cost of wind energy they don't even use?
That is the issue as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission takes up a complaint by Interstate Power and Light Co. (IPL) that 500,000 rate payers in Iowa and Minnesota will have to pay $170.5 million from 2008-2016 for transmission lines and upgrades to connect wind farms to the electric grid.
The utility provides compelling evidence that "the burden of these huge costs is unrelated to any benefits that may accrue to IPL and its customers." And they are paying even though they "have not experienced any material improvements to reliability or lower energy prices."
The case has ramifications nationwide because the price tag for upgrading and expanding power lines to reach offshore and remote wind turbines could reach $150 billion. The green energy lobby and Obama Administration want to socialize these costs on the backs of all rate payers.
We criticized this stealth consumer tax two years ago ("The Great Transmission Heist," Review and Outlook, November 8, 2010). Michigan rate payers were asked to subsidize about 20% of the $16 billion cost to build wind-based power lines outside the state even though those customers received little benefit. These cost-shifting schemes would seem to violate the Federal Power Act, which says FERC should establish "just and reasonable" rates to cover transmission costs.
Read the rest of the article here.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Study shows turbines exceed ordinance
From Kevon Martis, Director of Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition:
Please note the study below.
Grey Highlands 2012 Wind Turbine Noise Study
At 1800’, this study concludes the turbines violate 40dBa the majority of the time. A quick look at the charts will show they routinely and regularly exceeded 45dBa as well. This is fully consistent with post-construction noise studies from turbine installations around the nation. It is not unique or novel. It is typical. And the noise level will rise a fair amount when adjusted down to Clinton County setbacks instead of the larger 1800’ required in Ontario.
The study was 6 months long.
The sound pressure level varied in direct correlation with the operating speed of the turbine. Extreme weather events were excluded.
Forest Hill Energy would need to have a miracle turbine to ever comply with the Clinton County zoning ordinance, and if any such turbine actually existed it would be a huge hit and turbine noise issues would be a thing of the past.
Please pass this along to your board of commissioners. It is my opinion that Forest Hill Energy has knowingly submitted a study that falsely suggests that their proposed project will meet the county’s wind turbine noise limits when in fact it will (in general terms) only comply when they are not operating.
I think it is fraud. It also means that the likelihood of this turbine project being the subject of litigation for failing to comply with the county’s ordinance is exceedingly high. Forest Hill’s investors could very well be stuck with a project that is ordered to curtail or cease operations all together.
I fail to see how Forest Hill, leaseholders or the county gains from that.
Please note the study below.
Grey Highlands 2012 Wind Turbine Noise Study
At 1800’, this study concludes the turbines violate 40dBa the majority of the time. A quick look at the charts will show they routinely and regularly exceeded 45dBa as well. This is fully consistent with post-construction noise studies from turbine installations around the nation. It is not unique or novel. It is typical. And the noise level will rise a fair amount when adjusted down to Clinton County setbacks instead of the larger 1800’ required in Ontario.
The study was 6 months long.
The sound pressure level varied in direct correlation with the operating speed of the turbine. Extreme weather events were excluded.
Forest Hill Energy would need to have a miracle turbine to ever comply with the Clinton County zoning ordinance, and if any such turbine actually existed it would be a huge hit and turbine noise issues would be a thing of the past.
Please pass this along to your board of commissioners. It is my opinion that Forest Hill Energy has knowingly submitted a study that falsely suggests that their proposed project will meet the county’s wind turbine noise limits when in fact it will (in general terms) only comply when they are not operating.
I think it is fraud. It also means that the likelihood of this turbine project being the subject of litigation for failing to comply with the county’s ordinance is exceedingly high. Forest Hill’s investors could very well be stuck with a project that is ordered to curtail or cease operations all together.
I fail to see how Forest Hill, leaseholders or the county gains from that.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Hello, turbines. Goodbye, eagles.
This article, 'The Fish and Wildlife Service Is Not for the Birds', was printed in today's Wall Street Journal. Here is an excerpt. You can read the entire article here.
-------
On June 20, 1782, the Continental Congress, after nearly six years of haggling and numerous design changes, finally approved the Great Seal of the United States. In doing so, it made the bald eagle our national symbol. This year, in the name of clean energy, the Fish and Wildlife Service is considering changing federal rules so that a wind-energy developer can be granted an "incidental-take" permit allowing wind projects to kill bald eagles and golden eagles for up to 30 years.
On Jan. 15, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the New Era Wind Farm—a proposed project near Red Wing, Minn.—might kill as many as 14 bald eagles per year. Despite that toll, the agency said the developer of the 48-turbine wind farm could go ahead and apply for an eagle-kill permit. If granted, it could be the first project to get one. At least one other wind-energy concern, Oregon's West Butte Wind Project, also has applied for an incidental-take permit, and others are sure to follow.
The Fish and Wildlife Service said that its estimate for bald eagle kills at the New Era facility was a "worst-case scenario" that "would not damage" the local population of bald eagles. That might be true. Nevertheless, the possibility that federal authorities are willing to issue such a permit once again exposes the double standard at work when it comes to renewable energy.
For years, the wind industry has had de facto permission to violate both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (which protects 1,000 species) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Federal authorities have never brought a case under either law—despite the Fish and Wildlife Service's estimate that domestic turbines kill some 440,000 birds per year.
While the wind industry enjoys its exemption from prosecution under these federal wildlife laws, the Interior Department has aggressively brought cases against the oil-and-gas industry. In 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service filed criminal indictments against three drillers who were operating in North Dakota's Bakken field. One of those companies, Continental Resources, was indicted for killing a single bird (a Say's Phoebe) that is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This law was adopted in 1918, at a time when several bird species were being decimated by hunters.
Compare the action taken against Continental Resources with the Pine Tree wind project, a three-year-old facility owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Since 2009, nine golden eagle carcasses have been recovered at the project and reported to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Los Angeles Times reporter Louis Sahagun reported on Feb. 16, 2012, that at least six of the birds had been struck by turbine blades. Yet there have been no indictments. Jill Birchell, special agent in charge of law enforcement for the Fish and Wildlife Service in California and Nevada refused to comment on the Pine Tree case, other than to tell me that "it is an ongoing criminal investigation."
-------
This article is particularly disturbing because we have just seen a resurgence of bald eagles in our area. After personally not seeing them for the last 30 years, we now have a family of bald eagles that we've frequently been seeing. Neighbors have been trading stories of bald eagle sightings, and people have been emailing around pictures of them when they're able to take them.
Now, with the turbines coming, they will most likely be wiped out. Not to mention the other birds.
There was an article in the Clinton County News today by Steven Reed about the commission passing the wind turbine resolution. Project developer Tim Brown of Forest Hill Energy "declined to comment when asked about the remaining obstacle - special ordinances passed by the Essex, Dallas, and Bengal Township boards."
Our desire to protect ourselves, our homes, and our wildlife from turbines is just an 'obstacle'.
-------
On June 20, 1782, the Continental Congress, after nearly six years of haggling and numerous design changes, finally approved the Great Seal of the United States. In doing so, it made the bald eagle our national symbol. This year, in the name of clean energy, the Fish and Wildlife Service is considering changing federal rules so that a wind-energy developer can be granted an "incidental-take" permit allowing wind projects to kill bald eagles and golden eagles for up to 30 years.
On Jan. 15, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the New Era Wind Farm—a proposed project near Red Wing, Minn.—might kill as many as 14 bald eagles per year. Despite that toll, the agency said the developer of the 48-turbine wind farm could go ahead and apply for an eagle-kill permit. If granted, it could be the first project to get one. At least one other wind-energy concern, Oregon's West Butte Wind Project, also has applied for an incidental-take permit, and others are sure to follow.
The Fish and Wildlife Service said that its estimate for bald eagle kills at the New Era facility was a "worst-case scenario" that "would not damage" the local population of bald eagles. That might be true. Nevertheless, the possibility that federal authorities are willing to issue such a permit once again exposes the double standard at work when it comes to renewable energy.
For years, the wind industry has had de facto permission to violate both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (which protects 1,000 species) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Federal authorities have never brought a case under either law—despite the Fish and Wildlife Service's estimate that domestic turbines kill some 440,000 birds per year.
While the wind industry enjoys its exemption from prosecution under these federal wildlife laws, the Interior Department has aggressively brought cases against the oil-and-gas industry. In 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service filed criminal indictments against three drillers who were operating in North Dakota's Bakken field. One of those companies, Continental Resources, was indicted for killing a single bird (a Say's Phoebe) that is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This law was adopted in 1918, at a time when several bird species were being decimated by hunters.
Compare the action taken against Continental Resources with the Pine Tree wind project, a three-year-old facility owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Since 2009, nine golden eagle carcasses have been recovered at the project and reported to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Los Angeles Times reporter Louis Sahagun reported on Feb. 16, 2012, that at least six of the birds had been struck by turbine blades. Yet there have been no indictments. Jill Birchell, special agent in charge of law enforcement for the Fish and Wildlife Service in California and Nevada refused to comment on the Pine Tree case, other than to tell me that "it is an ongoing criminal investigation."
-------
This article is particularly disturbing because we have just seen a resurgence of bald eagles in our area. After personally not seeing them for the last 30 years, we now have a family of bald eagles that we've frequently been seeing. Neighbors have been trading stories of bald eagle sightings, and people have been emailing around pictures of them when they're able to take them.
Now, with the turbines coming, they will most likely be wiped out. Not to mention the other birds.
There was an article in the Clinton County News today by Steven Reed about the commission passing the wind turbine resolution. Project developer Tim Brown of Forest Hill Energy "declined to comment when asked about the remaining obstacle - special ordinances passed by the Essex, Dallas, and Bengal Township boards."
Our desire to protect ourselves, our homes, and our wildlife from turbines is just an 'obstacle'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)