Cohocton Wind Watch: January 2011
Cohocton Wind Watch is a community citizen organization dedicated to preserve the public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life in Cohocton, NY and in surrounding townships. Neighbors committed to public service in order to achieve a reasonable vision for a Finger Lakes region worthy of future generations.

READ about the FIRST WIND Connection to the Obama Administration

Industrial Wind and the Wall Street Cap and Trade Fraud


Monday, January 31, 2011

Letter to the Editors at The Batavia Daily News

Dear Editors at The Batavia Daily News,

I am writing in regard to the 1/25/11 Letter to the Editor, "The dangers associated with windmills" (Link).

The word "satire" is defined:

1.) a literary work in which vices, follies, stupidities, abuses, etc. are held up to ridicule and contempt
2.) the use of ridicule, sarcasm, irony, etc. to expose, attack or deride vices, follies, etc.

So by its very definition, the author of this "satire" (and apparently the Daily News by its printing of this attack) considers anyone who speaks out against industrial wind to be "a folly, stupidity, or abuse, that should be held up for public ridicule and sarcastic attacks." The story's the same as it's always been -- When they don't have the facts, they resort to personal attacks.

How has printing this sarcastic attack helped to further an educated, civil discussion on the wind issue? How does printing what is nothing more than a sarcastic, completely false, negative attack against (1) those who are suffering through the negative effects themselves, (2) those still embroiled in litigation in their respective towns, and (3) the many of us who have actually spent countless hours doing the research on the issue - help to foster good feelings and/or, a better understanding of the issue based on sound, unbiased information and investigative news reporting?

I have painstakingly documented sources in the letters I have sent in on the issue over the years - ever since the "Good Doctor" from North Dakota (an obvious Big Wind affiliate) attacked my position on industrial wind many years ago now. I know that the sources I, and others, have cited in our letters have been checked by your editors. I'm sure that had one of us printed such an insulting, totally false satirical letter, it most definitely would NOT have been published -- as it shouldn't have been! I guess I should be happy you printed this "satire", since it makes all wind proponents look bad. Unfortunately, knowingly printing such lies makes the Daily News look bad, too.

The only people who still blindly support wind energy are those with personal financial motivations, and/or those who have not done a lick of research on the issue themselves. If they had, they would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that industrial wind is NOT technically, economically, or environmentally sound energy policy for a number of reasons, including:

1.) wind can not, and will not replace oil or coal,
2.) over 100,000 turbines later worldwide, and wind has not reduced CO2 and/or reduced Global Warming,
3.) it is the American taxpayers & ratepayers that are footing the bill for this energy scam (originated by ENRON, and bought up by GE when ENRON was going down), and
4.) this "green", "political agenda" only serves to enrich the multi-national corporations who will continue to leech off all of us as long as they can.

As a supporter of Clear Skies Over Orangeville (and all groups fighting this energy scam), I am very well aware of letters (including one by me) that have been sent in to the Daily News in recent weeks, that have yet to be published. I do hope that in the interest of relating both sides of the story, we will be seeing these letters in the Daily News in the days to come.

Also, in the interest of furthering the education of everyone about the truth behind industrial wind, I have pasted several recent articles below (the first is very disturbing, especially considering that 4000 lbs. of rare earth elements are used in each turbine), and attached a couple good articles from the Energy Advocate for you to read.

As Robert Bryce, author of Power Hungry: The Myths of Green Energy & the Real Fuels of the Future, has stated as to why wind won't work, "It's simply a matter of physics". Regarding the physics, it is important to realize that wind power is proportional to the *cube* of wind speed. If the wind blows at 20 mph and drops to 10 mph, the power output drops by 87.5%. This is not a matter of engineering, but entirely related to the properties of the moving air. Because of the violent fluctuations of wind power, there must always be backup running at 50% of full power to compensate for both increases and decreases in wind power. Ramping our conventional power sources up and down to accommodate wind on the grid actually causes their CO2 emissions to increase. (documented in The Colorado/Texas Bentek studies, and )

I do hope you can take a few minutes to read some of these enlightening articles.

Thank you very much for your consideration of my thoughts about this unfortunate occurrence, and of the included information,

Mary Kay Barton
Silver Lake, NY

Sunday, January 30, 2011

China is dying for the sins of our “clean, green” wind turbines (UK)

“The true cost of the clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale”
This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for Britain’s [plus the rest of the world's] latest wind turbines, and is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem”
—Simon Parry in China & Ed Douglas in Scotland, The DailyMail (1/29/11)

On the outskirts of one of China’s most polluted cities, an old farmer stares despairingly out across an immense lake of bubbling toxic waste covered in black dust. He remembers it as fields of wheat and corn.

Yan Man Jia Hong is a dedicated Communist. At 74, he still believes in his revolutionary heroes, but he despises the young local officials and entrepreneurs who have let this happen.

‘Chairman Mao was a hero and saved us,’ he says. ‘But these people only care about money. They have destroyed our lives.’

Vast fortunes are being amassed here in Inner Mongolia; the region has more than 90 per cent of the world’s legal reserves of rare earth metals, and specifically neodymium, the element needed to make the magnets in the most striking of green energy producers, wind turbines.

Live has uncovered the distinctly dirty truth about the process used to extract neodymium: it has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology.

The reality is that, as Britain flaunts its environmental credentials by speckling its coastlines and unspoiled moors and mountains with thousands of wind turbines, it is contributing to a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China. This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about.

Hidden out of sight behind smoke-shrouded factory complexes in the city of Baotou, and patrolled by platoons of security guards, lies a five-mile wide ‘tailing’ lake. It has killed farmland for miles around, made thousands of people ill and put one of China’s key waterways in jeopardy.

This vast, hissing cauldron of chemicals is the dumping ground for seven million tons a year of mined rare earth after it has been doused in acid and chemicals and processed through red-hot furnaces to extract its components.

Rusting pipelines meander for miles from factories processing rare earths in Baotou out to the man-made lake where, mixed with water, the foul-smelling radioactive waste from this industrial process is pumped day after day. No signposts and no paved roads lead here, and as we approach security guards shoo us away and tail us. When we finally break through the cordon and climb sand dunes to reach its brim, an apocalyptic sight greets us: a giant, secret toxic dump, made bigger by every wind turbine we build.

The lake instantly assaults your senses. Stand on the black crust for just seconds and your eyes water and a powerful, acrid stench fills your lungs.

For hours after our visit, my stomach lurched and my head throbbed. We were there for only one hour, but those who live in Mr Yan’s village of Dalahai, and other villages around, breathe in the same poison every day.

Retired farmer Su Bairen, 69, who led us to the lake, says it was initially a novelty – a multi-coloured pond set in farmland as early rare earth factories run by the state-owned Baogang group of companies began work in the Sixties.

‘At first it was just a hole in the ground,’ he says. ‘When it dried in the winter and summer, it turned into a black crust and children would play on it. Then one or two of them fell through and drowned in the sludge below. Since then, children have stayed away.’

As more factories sprang up, the banks grew higher, the lake grew larger and the stench and fumes grew more overwhelming.

‘It turned into a mountain that towered over us,’ says Mr Su. ‘Anything we planted just withered, then our animals started to sicken and die.’

People too began to suffer. Dalahai villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white at unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children were born with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed.

Official studies carried out five years ago in Dalahai village confirmed there were unusually high rates of cancer along with high rates of osteoporosis and skin and respiratory diseases. The lake’s radiation levels are ten times higher than in the surrounding countryside, the studies found.

Since then, maybe because of pressure from the companies operating around the lake, which pump out waste 24 hours a day, the results of ongoing radiation and toxicity tests carried out on the lake have been kept secret and officials have refused to publicly acknowledge health risks to nearby villages.

There are 17 ‘rare earth metals’ – the name doesn’t mean they are necessarily in short supply; it refers to the fact that the metals occur in scattered deposits of minerals, rather than concentrated ores. Rare earth metals usually occur together, and, once mined, have to be separated.

Read the entire article

Friday, January 28, 2011

UPC Renewables China Closes Financing Round

UPC Renewables China Ltd., a Hong Kong and Beijing-based developer of wind projects, has completed its financing round with a total investment of $60 million. CIAM Group Ltd. and Global Environment Fund participated in the second closing, adding to existing investments from Macquarie Bank Ltd. and DB Masdar Clean Tech Fund LP announced in December 2010.

The funds will be used by UPC to construct more wind projects and further develop the company's wind power portfolio in China. UPC is currently completing construction and commencing operations on 150 MW of wind projects. The company recently signed an agreement with China Guodian Corp. to jointly develop seven wind power projects with capacity exceeding 1,075 MW in total.

SOURCE: UPC Renewables China Ltd.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Does America Need Wind Energy?

Jan 26, 2011
- 6:37 -
American Wind Energy Association CEO Denise Bode on the push to get the U.S. running on wind energy.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

“There is a measurable and significant loss of [property] values within 2 to 3 miles”

I am writing regarding the Ian Hanna case being heard presently in Ontario, and to offer a little more information and insight than was described in Lee Greenberg’s article today (1-24-11).

My expertise is not in health issues, but there is a direct relationship between those impacts and my proffesional studies of real estate impacts.

For example, numerous families have been forced to abandon their homes due to the factual impacts to health, sleep disturbances and the like, which the Canadian Wind Energy Association and the American Wind Energy Association prefer to dismiss as “concerns.” Many others have been unable to sell their homes due to the presence of nearby turbines, and which a growing list of realtors and estate agents report as being the deciding factor in would-be buyer’s decisions to look elsewhere.

There is a measurable and significant loss of values within 2 to 3 miles, and noise impacts have been broadcast as far as 5 miles or more, in some instances, with 1 to 2 miles being commonplace. Value losses have been measured at 20% to 40%, with a total loss of equity in some instances.

Wind developers have been known to buy out the most vocal neighbors who refuse to roll over and play dead when they are initially ignored, and then turn around and sell those same homes for 60% to 80% below the appraised value—thus confirming value losses by their own actions.

Other developers have avoided future liability by bulldozing the purchased homes.

In fact, wind developers and the existing Canadian setback are even inadequate to protect neighbors from ice throw or from sections of turbine blades, which are documented as occurring up to half a mile from the turbines, and I have personally heard of a blade throw (piece) that went about 1 mile.

Regardless of these facts, the wind industry often tries to convince the siting decision makers that safety issues are satisfied by setbacks of 1.1 X the height of turbines (550 meters in Canada), as if preventing a toppling turbine from landing on a neighbors house is the correct standard.

It is obvious what is happening here: The wind industry is playing a numbers game, under the assumption or actuarial calculations that it is less costly for them to fight a number of lawsuits from citizens who do not have deep pockets, than it is to buy out the property they need to create huge projects.

The solution is simple, also: Mandate that all property they seek to encompass with industrial overlays be purchased outright, so people have an option as to whether they choose to live in a large, noisy industrial setting.

I am quite certain any of your staff can confirm my factual comments by simply driving to any number of projects and counting the abandned and for sale homes, talking with a few remaining neighbors, etc. Maybe start with the Clear Creek project, where a dozen homes are reported abandoned, due to proximity of about 3 dozen turbines. The list will grow as large as time devoted to research of this issue will allow.

Like most other people, I initially assumed that wind energy would be a good trend. Unlike most people, I have expended something on the order of 2,000 hours looking into it, and my findings are quite contrary to the “positions” of the wind industry and their lobbyists. However, even the wind industry’s counterpart to my profession, Mr. Ben Hoen, has now gone on record saying that Property Value Guarantees should be used for nearby homeowners, and that “if wind developers won’t guarantee that, then they really don’t have a leg to stand on.”

Your publication can do much to bring the truth to public view, and I am available to answer any questions you may have. Also, you have my permission to publish this letter as you see fit.

Incidentally, if you Google my name + Adams County, Illinois, you will find a lengthier report which provides more details of property value impacts, along with public documents on buyouts made by Canadian Hydro of turbine neighbors homes.


Michael S. McCann
McCann Appraisal, LLC
500 North Michigan Avenue, Suite # 300
Chicago, Illinois 60611

Real Estate Appraisal & Consulting

Fax: (312) 644-9244
Cell: (312) 961-1601

Giacalone takes 'pro-resident' approach

His critics call him anti-development and an obstructionist, and he has found himself on the losing end of some high-profile cases. But attorney Arthur Giacalone says he knows - and more important, his clients know - for what he stands.

Though he has spent much of his 34-year career fighting for the rights of residents against corporations, cities and counties - passing up a more-lucrative legal practice in the process - Giacalone wouldn't have it any other way.

Sitting in a modest office in the front of his East Aurora home, he doesn't look like a man who was just handed a bitter defeat in a headline-grabbing case. In fact, just days after losing a bid to block Verizon from building a 1 million-square-foot data center across the street from his client's farm, he remains passionate about why he should have won the case yet reflective on "David vs. Goliath" battles that he has often finds himself involved in.

Read the entire interview

Monday, January 24, 2011

Judge sets Ecogen, Prattsburgh hearing

Prattsburgh, NY — A court hearing has been set for Jan. 27 to learn more details about the events behind a year-long lawsuit between the town of Prattsburgh and a wind farm developer.

The hearing will resolve some issues and lead to a final decision in the dispute between the town and the developer, Ecogen, according to state Supreme Court Justice John Ark.

Ark wants sworn testimony from former town officials, including Attorney John Leyden and Supervisor Harold McConnell, Ecogen representatives and other town officials.
Questions appear to pinpoint Ecogen’s contention that it has been ready to set up 16 turbines for more than two years and questions Ecogen’s claim it had “vested rights” by late 2008.

Ecogen also claims board members have stymied the builder’s efforts to proceed with the project.

“Which is funny, when they’re on record telling the Town of Italy, Prattsburgh has been very cooperative throughout,” said Prattsburgh’s attorney Ed Hourihan.

Hourihan said the town is pleased to see the judge has narrowed the issues to “specifically pin down Ecogen’s ever changing position. Since this litigation has started, Ecogen had changed its position so many times its hard to tell what is the truth.”

Hourihan said he will question the witnesses and can present evidence proving any testimony is incorrect.

Last fall Ark said he was close to a decision in the case, but urged Ecogen and the town to meet and find an out-of-court compromise.

Town officials offered to provide other sites for the proposed turbines, but Ecogen maintained the December 2009 agreement was binding and refused to compromise.

An offer to meet with Prattsburgh by Ecogen’s parent company, Pattern, apparently fell through last month, current town Supervisor Al Wordingham said.

Wordingham said he called Pattern representative John Galloway just before Christmas to follow up on several phone conferences and a plan to meet.

“He told me he had some internal issues to resolve,” Wordingham said.

Galloway has not returned his final call, Wordingham told residents at the town board meeting Monday night.

“And we still don’t have their final site map,” Wordingham said.

In related action, the board held a public hearing on extending their moratorium on tower construction another six months. Several residents said they supported the moratorium, although they thought six months was too long.

The board will vote on the moratorium during their regular Feb. 22 meeting.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

The Week In Green Energy: Mr. Hu Comes to America

In remarks published on the Huffington Post, Energy Secretary Steven Chu bluntly stated that when it comes to green energy, the U.S. has one goal: Beat China. “The United Sates is competing for leadership in energy innovation,” Chu wrote.

The U.S. might have ambitious goals in developing its renewable and cleantech industries, but right now , Beijing is is well ahead of Washington.

China’s renewable sector enjoys huge government subsidies, a seemingly endless demand for wind turbines and solar panels, and, most importantly, the ability to produce these turbines and panels at bargain basement prices. The numbers back up China’s position; last year renewable energy and cleantech investments into China topped to more than $51.1 billion, up 30 percent from 2009 levels. In fact, China accounted for 21 percent of all global green investments last year.

The U.S. only managed to attract $18 billion in investments to its own green energy sector in 2009. And largely because of lingering regulatory uncertainty and cheap natural gas, 2010 proved to be little better. According to the American Wind Energy Associations the third quarter was the slowest for the U.S. wind industry since 2007.

The investments flowing into China have helped create game-changing companies like solar panel makers (and World Cup sponsor) Yingli Solar and Suntech, which recently said it expected its panel shipments to jump by 50 percent this year. With a host of well capitalized Chinese companies looking to grow their market share both at home and abroad, U.S. companies are rightfully worried about potential competition from China.

Some Chinese companies are already moving in on U.S. companies’ turf. For example, GoldWind, a subsidiary of Urumqi, China-based Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co,recently hired First Wind CFO Tim Rosenzweig to oversee its U.S. expansion, including the development of the 104 megawatts Shady Oaks farm in Illinois.

GoldWind is serious about growing its U.S. revenues and is scouting for major office space in Chicago to house its North American subsidiary. Coincidentally, Chicago was also the only stop President Hu made outside Washington during his American sojourn.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Bellying-up to the Corporate Welfare Bar Hurts Us All

Dear Editor,

After reading Invenergy's self-serving pontifications in their 1/13 article, "Invenergy and NYSERDA enter renewable energy credit purchase agreement", it seems we need to step back and take a look at the bigger picture here:

1.) I (and most citizens) agree we have environmental and energy issues, and
2.) I (and most citizens) agree that these technical matters should be solved using real science - not propaganda being put forth by corporate salesmen.

Real Science is not a collection of theorems, but is a PROCESS - the core process being the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method consists of a hypothesis (e.g. that wind energy is equivalent to our conventional power sources) being subjected to a: (1) comprehensive, (2) objective, (3) independent, (4) transparent, and (5) empirical-based assessment.

The fact is: This has NOT been done for wind energy - Anyplace!

Said in an another easy-to-understand way:

Since we are in agreement that we have energy and environmental issues, let's say that some entrepreneurs step forward and present us with a black box they claim holds a partial solution to these issues. Due to "confidentiality" reasons, they can't tell us what's in the box, but they assure us that it will work. Would we just say, "Great - Who do we make the $100 Billion Dollar check out to?" I think not.

We would say something like, "Thanks - that sounds good, but FIRST we need to see the PROOF that your product will be an effective cost-benefit solution BEFORE we mandate your product on citizens."

Again, this is exactly what has NOT been done for wind energy. All the Invenergy & NYSERDA propaganda puff-pieces in the world will not change this simple fact. As we've been asking for years now -- Show us the PROOF!

The fact is: Because industrial wind is NOT reliable, predictable, or dispatchable - it provides virtually NO Capacity Value (specified amounts of power on demand), and therefore, needs constant "shadow capacity" from our conventional power sources. Thus, wind has NOT, and can NOT replace our conventional power generators (i.e. - coal plants), and has NOT been proven to significantly reduce CO2 emissions anywhere.

The "economics" of wind are just as grim. (See) The direct grant program from the U.S. treasury worth 30% of the value of these industrial wind projects had been due to expire 12/31/10. However, thanks to politics in Washington, this very generous federal grant program (OUR money) was extended for another year when it was inserted at the last minute into in the recent federal tax compromise bill. We wouldn't even be talking about the Stony Creek project anymore if this "FREE taxpayer money handout program" had not been extended. This my friends, is corporate welfare!

Adding insult to injury, now NYSERDA is paying Invenergy for the "RECs" (Renewable Energy Credits) using ratepayer dollars that NYSERDA collects from us every month in our electric bills via the "Systems Benefit Charge" (SBC) - transferring even more of our money from our pockets to the international developers' pockets.

What part of "It's OUR money!" don't our political leaders get? Industrial wind salesmen offer to give communities back a mere pittance of their own money in return for permission to destroy the very environment they claim they wish to save. Those who are content to participate in this energy scam, drawing in dollars by bellying-up to the corporate welfare bar, are - unwittingly or not, hurting us all.
Environmental Activist for Sound Scientific Solutions,

Mary Kay Barton

Ag commissioner’s ethics questioned

I am writing in response to the Batavia Daily News/Johnson News Service editorial (“Ag and Markets”) of Jan. 14, 2011, praising the appointment of Darrel Aubertine’s appointment by Gov. Cuomo.

Voters in the 48th State Senate District kicked out Darrel Aubertine in November’s election. His term as senator didn’t last long — from February 2008 to December 2010. Aubertine’s defeat comes mainly as a result of his advocacy with wind energy and his blatant conflicts of interest with wind developers. Now, like a bad penny, Gov. Cuomo has cursed New York State voters and hired Aubertine as commissioner of the state Department of Agriculture and Markets. So here’s Aubertine feeding again at the public trough after North Country voters just ousted him — bounced out of the Energy Valley of New York State by voters who understand the truth.

But Aubertine is still very much a conflicted state officer and should not have been appointed by Cuomo to this patronage position because of his conflicts of interest, integrity and ethics — well known by Mr. Cuomo from his AG days. His appointment is in direct violation of Public Officer’s Law §73 and §74 (See entire article at BewareNYWind, to read the blatant violations of the law by Aubertine). Aubertine, by his own admission, has wind contracts (See ).

Cuomo has reneged his position, violated his own ethics policies, and forced an unwanted, conflicted turbine-hugger back on the public payroll. And what has Cuomo done to deal with the corrupt municipal officials in Cape Vincent (and across New York State, for that matter) since starting his investigation — nothing! (See)

Aubertine, now a New York State officer who is being compensated by a wind developer that has leases with mainly agricultural lands in New York State. Aubertine is being investigated by the state’s AG. Aubertine’s New York State ag business would be directly involved and interface with rural land owners, farmers, etc., many of whom already have leases with wind energy companies or might soon sign leases. Wind leases are part of ag business — can anyone dispute that? Could anyone possibly think rural property owners wouldn’t want to discuss wind leases with Aubertine as he makes his rounds as ag commissioner? How would Aubertine respond? This is an unquestionable conflict of interest. How could Cuomo appoint Aubertine knowing Aubertine is conflicted and part of an ongoing investigation? Why would Cuomo taint his strong ethics/integrity stand by taking such controversial action thus making himself a certifiable hypocrite?

Alan Isselhard

Great Lakes Wind Truth

Great Lakes Concerned Citizens


First Wind TIF deal rejected

Commissioners in Somerset County recently voted against forming a tax-increment financing district proposed by Massachusetts-based wind farm developer First Wind.

The refusal to set up a TIF in Mayfield Township marks the first time a wind farm developer's TIF request has been turned down in the state, according to the Morning Sentinel. It's also the first time First Wind has seen a TIF request rejected for any of its projects in the country. In their decision, commissioners expressed concern over the environmental and tourism impacts of First Wind's proposal to build 52 turbines in the town of Bingham, Mayfield Township and the Piscataquis County town of Blanchard, with 32 of those planned for Mayfield. First Wind, operating as Bingham Wind Power LLC, plans to submit its permit applications this spring, and a company representative said the project will continue. The TIF decision for Mayfield will not impact any TIF arrangements in the other two towns.

The TIF would have funneled estimated additional tax revenue of $1.35 million, with an undetermined percentage going to First Wind and the rest used by county commissioners for economic development projects.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Monroe Co. Rejects GLOW

Rochester, NY - Monroe County Republican legislators have passed a non-binding resolution opposing the GLOW (Great Lakes Offshore Wind) project being promoted by the New York Power Authority and Gov. Cuomo. The Republican majority in the legislature (16 to 13) is what passed the resolution while all 13 Democrats did nothing - voters will be reminded of this come November. This NO Glow resolution is a Memorializing Referral (resolution). So signatures "Lend Support" to this Monroe County opposition to the presence of wind turbines off the shores of Monroe County in Lake Ontario as part of the GLOW project. It's non-binding. The article in this morning's Rochester Democrat & Chronicle newspaper by Steve Orr is found below. Monroe County now joins Jefferson, Oswego, Wayne, Chautauqua counties in rejecting the NYPA's GLOW project or any other project seeking to industrialize the Great Lakes.

Legislator Rick Antelli of Greece, NY sponsored the resolution beginning last July after hearing members of the Great Lakes Concerned Citizens make a presentation in Greece to area residents on the problems an offshore wind farm would create. Originally Antelli's resolution could not gain enough votes to carry a majority but in November he recirculated the resolution and it finally did produce a majority vote. Another nail in NYPA's coffin!

A BIG thanks to Greece, NY legislator Rick Antelli!

On July 20 the Greece town board voted unanimously against GLOW. On July 22, representatives of the Great Lakes Concerned citizens made a presentation to the Webster town board and at their August 5 town board meeting they voted unanimously against the GLOW project. Our same group spoke to the Irondequoit town board on July 27 sharing the same anti-GLOW message and spoke again on October 19 at a packed Irondequoit TB meeting. At the Oct. 19 town board meeting after listening to numerous Great Lakes Concerned Citizens and many others in attendance speak against GLOW - the Irondequoit town board (including 2 Democrats) voted unanimously against the GLOW proposal. Greece, Webster and Irondequoit have now joined many other Great Lakes lakeside towns and counties in opposing the GLOW project after each municipality did their own independent research on GLOW and came to the same conclusions.

The heavily Democrat controlled city council of Rochester didn't care to listen to our anti-GLOW message when we approached them nor did former Rochester mayor, Democrat Bob Duffy - now Lt. Governor. We had just sent a letter offering to speak to Democrat Tom Richards who was made Rochester mayor after Duffy resigned to become NYS Lt. Governor 3 weeks ago but now Richards has resigned after only 3 weeks over problems involving the Hatch Act. Do you think Democrats have problems??

Unfortunately, the Niagara County legislature is still stalling on considering reversing their original vote to support GLOW and the Erie County legislature has their head in the sand. Several Great Lakes Concerned Citizens made their presentations at the Sept. 21 Niagara County legislature meeting in Lockport, NY and the legislature has taken no action since then which is unfortunate for their constituents and helpful to NYPA. NYPA is hardly a friend of Niagara County and several entities there have expressed their outrage to legislators over the possibility of wind turbines in Lake Ontario. Waiting for NYPA to announce the GLOW project location(s) is dangerous and helpful to NYPA and the developer(s) and not the county near where the project is located. Hasn't Erie County seen enough with the failed Steel Winds I project in Lackawanna, NY and failure to see even the start of Steel Winds II that was supposed to be completed in 2010? The cost & availability of natural gas has pulled the rug out from under wind energy, among many other things, and people are finally beginning to realize nuclear is an ever better non-polluting cost effective energy choice.

The November elections will see more wind advocates kicked out. Thanks to so many anti-GLOW committee members that have contributed to the fight against the GLOW project and the encouraging actions like the one just taken by the Monroe Co. Republican legislators is encouraging. We can and will defeat the GLOW project and any similar offshore wind project.

Al Isselhard
Great Lakes Concerned Citizens
Great Lakes Wind Truth
Wolcott, New York

Read the D&C; Article

Ron Stephens ‘Why Wind Farms?’

WIND FARMS EXPOSED as a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT land grab and economic scheme based on carbon tax/credits, Wind Energy & U.N. Agenda 21 explained in a presentation by Ron Stephens at the ‘What is Truth Conference’ in Woodford, Ontario, Canada (19/12/2010)

Toronto Truth Seekers –
MORE VIDEO FOOTAGE of the Woodford Truth Conference COMING SOON…

Residents raise noise on windmills

Town of Allegany officials once again heard from local residents who are against a wind turbine farm in their community during a public hearing Tuesday at the Allegany Senior Center.

The public hearing was held to hear comments from residents regarding a requested increase for the noise level that would be emitted by an industrial wind turbine farm proposed for the Chipmonk and Knapp Creek area. A 29-turbine commercial wind farm has been proposed for the town by New York City-based EverPower Renewables. EverPower officials have requested that the noise level emitted by the wind turbines be raised to 40 decibels. The current town law allows for the noise level to be raised 3 decibels above the ambient level of 25 decibels.

Residents who have attended meetings and hearings in the past have generally opposed a wind turbine farm locating in the community. Their opposition to the proposal has included concerns that a wind turbine farm will create noise, aesthetic and environmental issues for the community.

Lawsuit over wind turbine noise

Wind Power Ethics Group asking for residents’ aid in lawsuit

CAPE VINCENT, N.Y. — The Wind Power Ethics Group began gathering public comments Sunday regarding its Article 78 lawsuit filed against both the town Planning Board and Acciona Wind Energy USA in an effort to gain momentum against its defendants.

Jefferson’s Leaning Left and Pandora’s Box of Rocks, two local blogs apparently against wind development in the town, featured a message from WPEG entitled, “The Pen is Mightier than the Sword.”

Directly naming Acciona Project Manager Tim Q. Conboy, Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall, former supervisor Thomas K. Reinbeck and Planning Board attorney Todd M. Mathes, the message reads, “If anyone has knowledge about any unreasonable, unfair or devious actions of the Cape Vincent Planning Board, the wind developer Acciona or their attorneys, please let us know.

John L. Byrne, the organization’s president, said WPEG has had an “overwhelming response” from town residents. Included with the group’s message are affidavits from various town officials, along with their testimonies regarding the lawsuit.

“We’ve received, I would say 20 to 30 e-mails so far that have come in with solid holes in their response,” he said. “The citizens are actually participating in the lawsuit now, which is a really interesting thing.”

But not all Cape Vincent town residents say they are in favor of the plaintiff, WPEG, or its claim, “The residents are suing the town in Cape Vincent,” as read in the subject line of an e-mail sent to from Byrne.

“They would like to believe that, but that’s not true,” Darrell E. Burton, Jr., a member of Voters for Wind said. “You know, there’s been an awful lot of lies and that’s not how you win a case. You win a case by proving what’s been going on.”

Burton, referring to WPEG’s allegations that the Planning Board breached the State Environmental Quality Review Act, which played into the Article 78 lawsuit filed Oct. 27, 2010, believes the anti-wind group’s concern with sound is over-exaggerated.

“These noise, sound tests that they’ve done, they’re so far off,” Burton said. “They don’t really give you the true picture, they choose when they do them. If they do it out in the farmer’s field and the farmer happens to drive his tractor, which makes an extreme amount a noise, they eliminate that.”

He continued, “I live right on the Lake Ontario shore and you should have been here last night to hear the noise from the waves and the ice bouncing on the shore. It doesn’t bother me at all.”

Last week Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey was criticized by town citizens for allegedly sharing confidential documents regarding the sound study with WPEG, labeled as “Soundgate” by wind development critics.

Byrne, however, believes the ambient sound study, conducted by Hessler Associates Inc., Haymarket, Va., is a critical piece of information to town residents and should be publicly available.

“The information very, clearly shows that the sound study by the developer, which was accepted by our planning board, was flawed.”

If you know something about the actions of Cape Vincent'sconflicted officials and there accomplices, we need your help!

If anyone has knowledge about any unreasonable, unfair or devious actions of the CapeVincent Planning Board, the wind developer Acciona or their attorneys, pleaselet us know.If you are concerned, frustrated or angry about the actions of our conflicted officials youcan help support justice by reviewing the affidavits of Mathes, Edsall, Rienbeck, Accionaand Conboy If you find any statements made in their affidavits that you know to be false, or if youhave information that can refute any statements they make, pleaselet us know.

Send any information you may have that can help us in our legal battle to:

WPEG email address

Your name will be kept confidential. If you include your phone number, we will followup with a personal contact. Thank you for your help and assistance, all your efforts are greatly appreciated. WPEG's legal team

Majority of Monroe County legislators oppose state's wind farm plan

The New York Power Authority continues to consider proposals to build offshore wind turbines, but a majority of Monroe County legislators have now gone on record opposing the idea.

The Power Authority, an independent arm of state government, solicited proposals in 2009 from the private sector to build one or more wind farms in the near-shore waters of Lake Ontario or Lake Erie. Five proposals were submitted last June, and authority officials have been studying them since then. Officials have refused to reveal any information about the proposals.

Authority spokeswoman Connie Cullen said Tuesday that officials were on track to select one or more developers by the end of the first quarter, or March 31. The authority, which would purchase power generated by the wind turbines, is pushing the project as a source of renewable energy and green jobs.

A Voice of the Voter poll conducted in the fall found that 68 percent of the likely Monroe County voters surveyed supported allowing wind turbines offshore in Lake Ontario, 17 percent were opposed and 15 percent were undecided.

But opposition has surfaced in a number of shoreline communities, with county lawmakers in Wayne, Oswego, Jefferson and Chautauqua counties coming out against the idea.

Monroe County Legislator Rick Antelli, R-Greece, circulated a non-binding resolution among Monroe lawmakers in July, but drew only 12 signatures — three fewer than would constitute a majority of the 29-member body.

But Antelli said Tuesday that he resubmitted the resolution to his colleagues around Thanksgiving, and got four more signatures. All 16 Republicans have now signed, though none of the 13 Democrats joined them.

"There is a majority now. The Power Authority always said they're not going to go where they're not wanted," said Antelli, noting that town boards in Greece, Irondequoit and Webster also have expressed opposition. "At least in Monroe County, we're sending a message. So we'll see."

Power Authority spokeswoman Cullen said, "NYPA is always interested in receiving comment on the project, and will consider it as we do all public comment."

News of the four new signatories on Antelli's resolution first began making the rounds Tuesday, buoying offshore wind opponents.

"I believe it is clear that there is strong resistance ... around lakes Ontario and Erie, a message NYPA must consider," said Suzanne Albright, a Greece resident and a leader of Great Lakes Wind Truth, a citizens group that questions offshore turbines. "At a time when New York state is in serious debt, why would NYPA even be considering such a wasteful, expensive idea?"

Monday, January 17, 2011

green energy blues vindkraftverk

Wind Turbine Fire

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Wind Committee Tables Vote On Turbine Setbacks

HAMMOND - Despite adopting a recommendation to the town board on acceptable sound levels for industrial wind turbine development, a suggested recommendation - tabled for next week on setback distances - may end the possibilities for a wind farm in Hammond altogether, according to members of the wind committee.

The committee voted 9 to 1, with leaseholder Michele W. McQueer again casting the lone opposing vote, to adopt Dr. Paul D. Schomer's suggested sound limits for its recommendation to the town board.

The backbone of Dr. Schomer's suggested noise standards includes three separate limits for different times of the day and night. According to the recommendation documents provided by the committee, these limits include: 45 decibels (dB) in the daytime from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; 40 dB in the evening from 7 to 10 p.m.; and 35 dB during nighttime hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

However, it was during a discussion on setbacks that several committee members, including Don A. Ceresoli Jr., Richard K. Champney, and Leonard D. Bickelhaupt, suggested that the committee's recommendation may be to suggest that industrial wind development is just not right for Hammond.

Read the entire article

Wind foes thwarted townwide noise study

CAPE VINCENT — In an ironic turn of events, Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall disclosed Wednesday that it was the opponents of wind development — who forced the board to adjourn its November meeting prematurely owing to vocal and physical protests— who killed the new townwide sound study they have been fighting for.

At an unusually calm Planning Board meeting Wednesday, Mr. Edsall said he had persuaded board members, at town Supervisor Urban C. Hirschey's request, to pass a resolution at the Nov. 10 board meeting to hire an independent, third-party consultant to collect sound data on the ambient noise around town.

"When I went to the meeting that night, I was fairly certain that I had four votes to vote for a sound study as long it was done in the next 45 days," Mr. Edsall said. "That was the night the public didn't allow us to have our meeting. So we never got to bring that up."

Mr. Edsall said that he met with Mr. Hirschey, who made some "convincing arguments," several days before the meeting and that he called every board member to persuade them to approve the study.

Read the entire article

Dollars and Sense

Abandoned Big Island Project

Two years ago, the State (DBEDT) estimated that the interisland cable would cost taxpayers and/or ratepayers $1,000,000,000 (one BILLION dollars.) Castle & Cooke and First Wind have estimated that their components of this project would cost from $750,000,000 to $1,000,000,000 ON EACH ISLAND. Today, some estimate the costs to be double that original estimate.

The total costs for this project, estimated two years ago before a single shovel touched a piece of Hawaiian soil, equals $2,300 for EVERY HAWAII RESIDENT.

Assuming an average cost of $40,000 for installing photovoltaic panels on the average Hawaii house, $3 billion dollars could cover 75,000 homes (about 1/5 of Oahu’s total) thereby saving about 400,000 barrels of imported oil every year. Or, every household on Oahu (400,000) could have solar hot water, saving about 525,000 barrels of imported oil every year.

Using the publicly announced figures for the recently approved Kahuku wind farm, were Castle & Cooke to build all 400 MW of wind-generated power, David Murdock’s privately held, California-based company’s annual revenue — for selling the wind — would exceed $250 million dollars.

More Conflict In Hartsville

Board Member Seeks to Dump Town Attorney

Hartsville - At Wednesday night's Hartsville Town Board re-organizational meeting, board member Michelle Herrnacker pushed for hiring a new town attorney. Mrs. Herrnacker is looking to replace David Pullen of Fillmore, who is currently Hartsville’s official town lawyer.

The group that wanted a wind farm in Hartsville were present at Wednesday night's meeting in full force, arguing that David Pullen’s legal bills are too expensive. The group that was more skeptical of the proposed (former) wind project were also there at last night's meeting, arguing that Hartsville’s legal bills are caused by the a faction of town residents who filed lawsuits that wasted taxpayer money.

This is not the first time that Mrs. Herrnacker and David Pullen have clashed. Attorney Pullen defended the Town of Hartsville in a case two years ago when Michelle Herrnacker, along with fellow town board member Benjamin Ray, and Hartsville residents John and Carol Bowles, sued the Town of Hartsville. At that time, Pullen defended the Town of Hartsville against the two board members and two town residents, and Pullen won the case, which was heard by Judge Peter Bradstreet.

Mrs. Herrnacker and her husband Phil are scheduled to appear in court next week in the Village of Bath. The Herrnacker’s are accused of $62,000 worth of welfare fraud.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Wind power projects losing steam on Cape

Last year could be considered a banner one for wind power in Massachusetts.

After a decade in the regulatory pipeline, the 130-turbine Cape Wind project received federal approval. And Gov. Deval Patrick’s re-election puts his goal of 2,000 megawatts of wind power by 2020 back on track.

But it was not so cheery a year for Cape wind power proponents, though the region’s substantial wind resources are considered key to the state’s goals.

Municipal wind turbine proposals in Harwich and Wellfleet were defeated by town votes. The Old King's Highway Historic District Commission struck down a wind turbine at Cape Cod Community College in West Barnstable and a private turbine at Aquacultural Research Corp. in Dennis, though the latter project is under appeal. Most recently, the Cape Cod National Seashore withdrew its wind turbine proposal for Highland Arts Center in Truro.

Add in earlier defeats of turbines in Eastham and Orleans, and the future of land-based wind turbines here doesn't seem so rosy.

Last year, anti-wind forces became more organized, gaining political traction by questioning aesthetics and the health impacts of turbine noise and shadow flicker. They used the term "industrial wind power" to contrast turbines with the rural values they believe many Cape residents cherish.

Even the most adamant proponents for land-based wind turbines see an about-face.

"I'm not sure how realistic it is to see significant deployment on the Cape," Charles McLaughlin, president of Cape and Vineyard Electric Cooperative, said.

The cooperative, established by the Cape Light Compact in 2006, hoped to fund a network of wind turbines in Cape towns to share the benefits and costs of wind power. But in three years, it has yet to erect a single turbine, and after losing money in Harwich, it is changing its financing rules for towns. Only Brewster, which proposes two large turbines on town-owned land with co-op money, has a project under consideration.

Now, the co-op is focused on what McLaughlin said is currently the largest solar power project in the East: 25 megawatts of photovoltaic cells to be located in town landfills.

Read the entire article

Monday, January 10, 2011

Maine Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Industrial Wind

Friends of Maine's Mountains Attorney to Argue Public Hearing Process

Wilton, ME - Friends of Maine's Mountains (FMM), the leading group dedicated to protecting Maine's mountain regions from threats to their natural and human environments, including the rampant proliferation of industrial wind turbines on hundreds of miles of ridgelines, announces two oral arguments to be heard before the Maine Supreme Court on Tuesday, January 11 at the Court House in Portland. FMM attorney Rufus Brown of Brown and Burke will argue on behalf of Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury Pond and Martha Powers Trust according to the following schedule:

January 11, 2011, at Portland: 2:15 PM

BEP-10-206 Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury Pond et al. v. Board of Environmental Protection

Attorneys: Rufus E. Brown and Gerald D. Reid, Margaret A. Bensinger, Juliet T. Browne, Gordon R. Smith

On appeal by Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury Pond et al.

Concerned Citizens to Save Roxbury, the Silver Lake Camp Owners Association, and several individuals (collectively CCSR) appeal, pursuant to 38 M.R.S. § 346(4) (2009), from a decision of the Board of Environmental Protection that approved the issuance of permits to Record Hill Wind, LLC, to construct a wind energy facility in the Town of Roxbury. CCSR argues that the Board erred in: (1) denying a request to hold a public hearing, (2) denying a request to supplement the record, (3) finding that Record Hill made adequate provisions to prevent adverse health effects from noise, (4) finding that Record Hill demonstrated financial capacity to fund the project, and (5) finding that Record Hill met licensing requirements with respect to decommissioning the project.

January 11, 2011, at Portland: 3:00 PM

BEP-10-339 Martha A. Powers Trust et al. v. Board of Environmental Protection

Attorneys: Rufus E. Brown and Margaret A. Bensinger, Gerald D. Reid, Juliet T. Browne, Gordon R. Smith

On appeal by the Martha A. Powers Trust et al.

The Martha A. Powers Trust and Brian Raynes (collectively Trust) appeal, pursuant to 38 M.R.S. § 346(4) (2009), from a decision of the Board of Environmental Protection that approved the issuance of permits to Evergreen Wind Power II, LLC, to construct a wind energy facility in the Town of Oakfield. The Trust argues that the Board erred in: (1) denying a request to hold a public hearing; (2) finding that Evergreen made adequate provisions for the control of noise from the proposed facility, (3) finding that Evergreen demonstrated financial capacity for the proposed facility, and (4) finding that Evergreen met licensing requirements with respect to decommissioning the proposed facility.

Friends of Maine's Mountains is a research and educational organization whose mission is to research, formulate and promote effective and reliable energy and power solutions that will protect Maine's natural resources, especially Maine's mountains, as well as Maine's industries and private property owners, while also ensuring that those solutions have a positive environmental and economic impact for Maine people and businesses.

Sunday, January 09, 2011

Cuomo faulted over ag post

CAPE VINCENT — Some opponents of commercial wind farms believe Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo spurned his ethical-government campaign promises in appointing Darrel J. Aubertine to the state's top agriculture post.

Mr. Aubertine's nomination as commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Markets was announced Thursday.

Then-Assemblyman Aubertine raised a stir among wind-power opponents in June 2006, when he wrote to the Cape Vincent Town Council urging council members who had agreements with wind power companies to vote on a law that created townwide setbacks for turbines. The law would regulate all projects, both present and future.

"After careful reflection, I feel that it is ethically proper that, in this case, all board members should vote on the issue at hand. In fact, I believe it is their responsibility to do so," Mr. Aubertine wrote.

Read the entire article

Saturday, January 08, 2011

Wind farms don't work in the cold: Why it's no use waiting for turbines to keep us warm as the snow returns

Britain’s wind farms almost ground to a halt during the coldest spells in December, it has emerged.

As temperatures plunged below zero and demand for electricity soared, figures reveal that most of the country’s 3,000 wind turbines were virtually still, energy experts say.

During some of the chilliest weather, they were working at less than one-hundredth of capacity, producing electricity for fewer than 30,000 homes.

The National Grid was forced to compensate for the still, cold conditions by cranking up conventional coal and gas-fired power stations.

December was the coldest month in more than a century – and yesterday, as some in northern England, the Midlands and Wales were hit with more snow, residents will have been switching on the heating again. But critics have warned that the UK is becoming too dependent on wind for power.

There are 3,153 working turbines in 283 wind farms across the UK, capable of generating more than 5.2 gigawatts of electricity – enough to power almost three million homes, the wind industry says.

Over the next decade, another 10,000 turbines will go up to meet Europe’s climate change targets. By 2020, the Government says 30 per cent of all Britain’s electricity will be generated by wind.

But at best, turbines work at just 30 to 40 per cent of their capacity. And in cold winter snaps, often caused by vast, slow-moving high-pressure systems over Northern Europe, winds drop to almost nothing.

Helen Chivers, of the Met Office, said cold spells were often accompanied by low winds. ‘It is fairly common in winter to have these high pressure systems that bring cold, still conditions over Britain.’

During December’s cold snaps, the windfarms’ output repeatedly fell sharply, National Grid data shows.
On the coldest day, December 20, the average temperature was minus 5.6C. But just as demand for electricity to heat homes was rising, the winds failed.

That evening the recorded output from the UK’s wind farms dipped to 59 megawatts.

Wind experts say the National Grid only detects half the output of wind farms and that the real figure was 120MW – still only one-fiftieth of maximum capacity.

The following day, when the average temperature was minus 5.2C, turbines were recorded as generating just 20MW. The real figure was probably around 40MW – the equivalent of just 20 turbines at full capacity – powering fewer than 30,000 homes.

Winds dropped again after Christmas. On December 30, the recorded output from wind turbines fell to 25MW at 6.30pm.

John Constable, of the Renewable Energy Foundation, which argues against wind farm expansion, said: ‘When you get a high pressure system at this time of year it can cover most of the UK.

‘The whole of the UK is becalmed just when it gets really cold and when demand for electricity goes up. Regardless of how much wind you have installed you need to have the same amount of conventional stations ready to switch on if the wind fails.’ The wind industry insisted wind was reliable – and that still spells are rare. Nick Medic, of Renewables UK, said if the wind does drop, we can import energy from overseas, or use energy stored in dams.

Yesterday, up to 4in (10cm) of snow fell in some upland areas, Leeds Bradford Airport was closed for several hours and dozens of schools in Yorkshire were shut.

However, a band of rain followed the snow and the Met Office said it was expected to have disappeared by morning. A relatively dry weekend was forecast.

Friday, January 07, 2011

Hammond Discusses Life After Windfarms

HAMMOND - While the Hammond Wind Committee spent its 25th meeting since April discussing economics, tourism and environmental issues - with no formal action - it did revisit a wind energy issue Tuesday that committee members find extremely important: the decommissioning process.

With Iberdrola Renewables, Inc.'s proposal to erect a large-scale industrial wind farm in Hammond over the next few years, paying to make such a project disappear at the end of its service life or if the unit is out of commission is something that must seriously be considered and ensured, according to committee member Allen P. Newell.

Mr. Newell has been involved in the wind energy discussion in Hammond for several years. Also a member of the town's original wind committee that had finished its work in mid-2008, he has advocated educating the public and was the original vice-president of Concerned Residents of Hammond.

On Tuesday, Mr. Newell provided committee members with documentation from several wind committees in New York towns in regards to the decommissioning issue, specifically, from the towns of Bethany, Rensselaerville, Hartsville and Litchfield. He additionally distributed a West Virginia-based article by Tom Hewson, principal of Energy Ventures Analysis, Va., on the lessons learned from wind decommissioning costs.

Read the entire article

Iberdrola submits redesigned application

CLAYTON — Like Gen. Douglas MacArthur in the Philippines, Horse Creek Wind Farm has returned.

Developer Iberdrola Renewables brought in an application for a redesigned wind farm to the joint town and village Planning Board on Thursday night. The new application pares down the scale of the project to 50 turbines producing 100 megawatts. The proposal leaves the town of Orleans out entirely, when the previous plan had eight turbines in that town.

But nothing in the Horse Creek process has been smooth, and so it was Thursday when, after Iberdrola representatives left, zoning officer Henry R. LaClair said the application wasn't complete because the developer had not submitted an application form or the application fee. That will be taken up with the company later.

Jenny L. Burke, business developer with Iberdrola, said the developer and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were satisfied that they could change operations to protect a federally listed endangered species. Indiana bats were the reason for the developer's three requests for year-long suspensions on the application. The first two were honored, but the last, in June, was voted down by the board.

Read the entire article

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Friends of Maine's Mountains Denounces LURC Ruling on Kibby Expansion

Ruling Highlights Flaws in Maine Law Expediting Industrial Wind

Wilton, ME - Friends of Maine's Mountains (FMM), the leading group dedicated to protecting Maine's mountain regions from threats to their natural and human environments, has denounced the decision announced Wednesday by the Land Use Regulation Commission which formally approves an 11-turbine expansion to the Kibby Wind Power Project in northern Franklin County.

The expansion along the 3,300-foot Sisk Mountain ridgeline of the TransCanada project was originally rejected in a December straw poll of LURC commissioners. Despite being fought by the Maine Audubon Society, the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Natural Resources Council of Maine, the Friends of the Boundary Mountains, the Citizen's Task Force on Wind Power, Friends of Maine's Mountains and many private citizens, the application for expansion was accepted and the erection of eleven additional industrial wind turbines atop Kibby Mountain was approved by a 5 to 1 vote at Wednesday's brief meeting of LURC.

Opposition to the expansion among the members of the Land Use Regulation Commission was greater than the vote results displayed. Commissioners Sally Farrand and Ed Laverty remarked that they believe tthe state's expedited wind law, LD 2283, An Act To Implement Recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Wind Power Development, was a bad idea and that they could not effectively do their jobs unless they ignored the law. Complaining that LD 2283 left him no choice but to approve the plan, Laverty said, "I don't think we are in a position to flout the position of the State Legislature. We're not legislators. We don't dictate policy; we implement it. Maybe I should consider resigning. Maybe that's what I need to do."

Registered Maine Master Guide David Corrigan of Concord Township attended yesterday's hearing. "By their own comments before the vote, several of the LURC commissioners made it clear that they believed they were following the will of the Legislature," observed Corrigan. "They also made it apparent that they are not happy about this, and would like the Legislature to rethink the wind permitting laws that are at odds with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the very mandate of LURC to protect the Unorganized Territories. I hope the Legislature takes notice."

Commissioner Rebecca Kurtz was the dissenting vote, noting she couldn't support the 11-turbine expansion due to the sensitivity of the region's ecology. "It makes no sense. We all know from Ecology 101 that all these resources are interconnected, that you can't impact one without impacting the others," said Kurtz. "Why we are allowing this to happen when there are rare species of concern being disturbed and there are other places to put wind towers, I don't know."

Steve Thurston, co-Chair of the Citizen's Task Force on Wind Power and member of the Board of Directors of Friends of Maine's Mountains, remarked, "Clearly the problem here is with the process. By the admission of some of their own members, LURC is constrained by the law that results in disregarding their own mandate to protect the environment from these industrial wind construction projects. This has happened in each and every wind project that comes before LURC, and unless something changes in the law, I fear we will see this repeated again and again."

Friends of Maine's Mountains is a research and educational organization whose mission is to research, formulate and promote effective and reliable energy and power solutions that will protect Maine's natural resources, especially Maine's mountains.

Broken Wind Trubines on Lake Erie

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

Taxpayers subsidize wind power ‘scam’

Hidden in the tax bill passed by Congress last month is a grant program that pays cash to the wind industry to cover 30 percent of the cost of installing a wind farm. This is on top of state and federal tax breaks, doubly accelerated depreciation, and above market pricing that already amounts to 60 percent of capital cost. This costly stimulus program will provide billions of dollars to Spanish and Chinese companies.

The wind industry does claim to hire American workers. According to an energy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the stimulus subsidies cost taxpayers about $475,000 for every job generated. This is a lousy return on an investment even for government. It is pretty obvious that the public should take another look at industrial wind and that both Democrat and Republican parties share the blame.

The wind industry gave the vast majority of its campaign contributions this election cycle to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party. Top Democratic fundraisers and lobbyists with links to the White House are behind a proposed wind farm in Texas that stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China. How will our government deal with the issue of Homeland Security when all of our power is controlled by foreign companies? These same foreign companies control the computer systems that control the power generators.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Dallas entrepreneur T. Boone Pickens has finally admitted the obvious: “The wind energy business isn’t a very good one.” Pickens finally had the sense to abandon the wind business. But then, it’s his own money and he cares what happens to it. On the other hand, Congress is using our money, and they frankly don’t seem to care that it’s wasted. The industrial wind business is a scam from beginning to end.

It’s time for our federal, state and local elected officials to be held accountable if we are serious about the need to shrink the federal budget and end corporate welfare. Citizens in Wyoming County will continue to fight to preserve public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life for residents and future generations and we will continue to ask our Congressman, Senators, Assemblymen, New York Senator, county chairman, town boards and party chairmen where they stand on this issue. Are any of these elected officials part of the problem? Are any of these elected officials standing in line for this stimulus money? Are they adding to the debt that our grandchildren will have to pay?

The 2011 Budget/Appropriation bills will soon be presented at both the state and federal levels and our elected officials need to hear from us that we do not agree with these wasteful programs.

Steven Moultrup


Monday, January 03, 2011

False claims that “wind farms” provide large economic and job benefits

One would think that by now Obama Administration officials would admit that “wind farms” do not provide large economic and job benefits. However, recent Administration statements suggest the delusion continues and, perhaps, that officials do not understand why their expectations are unrealistic.

False expectations may be due to the infamous “JEDI” model (Jobs and Economic Development Impact model) developed for DOE’s National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) by a wind industry consultant-lobbyist. Unfortunately, this “model”( paid for with our tax dollars) has been widely promoted by NREL and DOE and outputs from the model are used by “wind farm” developers to mislead the public, media, and government officials.

Economic models often produce false or misleading outputs because (a) the model itself is faulty, and/or (b) unrealistic assumptions are “fed into” to model, with the result that the models overstate national, state, and/or local job and other economic benefits. In the case of wind energy models, basic flaws and faulty assumptions often include one or more of the following:

1. Ignoring the fact that much of the capital cost of “wind farms” is for equipment purchased elsewhere, often imported from other countries. Some wind energy advocates claim that wind turbines are “manufactured” in the US when, in fact, they are merely assembled in the US using imported parts and components. About 75% of the capital cost of “wind farms” is for turbines, turbine parts and components, towers and blades – so a large share of the “wind farm” cost is for imports. These add to the outflow of wealth from the US and provide no economic or job benefits in the US.

2. Assuming that employment during project construction results in new jobs for local workers -- when most “wind farm” construction jobs are short term (6 months or less) and the overwhelming share of them are filled by specialized workers who are brought in temporarily.

3. Assuming that the very few permanent “wind farm” jobs are new jobs filled by local workers – when, in fact, these few permanent jobs are often filled by people brought in for short periods. Some “wind farm” owners contracts with suppliers of wind turbines and other equipment for maintenance work with the result that no “new” jobs for local workers are added.

4. Assuming that temporary workers who are brought in for short periods live and spend their pay checks -- and pay taxes -- locally when, in fact, these workers spend most of their wages where they and their families have permanent residences -- where the workers spend most of their weekends and where they pay nearly all of their taxes.

5. Assuming that the full purchase price of the goods and services purchased locally (often minimal in any case) has a local economic benefit. In fact, only the local value added may have a local economic benefit. This truth is illustrated by the purchase of a gallon of gasoline -- let's say for $3.00. Only the wages of the service station employees, the dealer's margin, and the taxes paid locally or to the state mayl have a local or state economic benefit. Economic benefits associated with the share of the $3.00 that pays for the crude oil (much of it imported), refining, wholesaling, and transportation generally flows elsewhere.

6. Assuming that land rental payments to land owners for allowing wind turbines all have local economic benefit. In fact, these payments will have little or no local economic benefit when the payments are to absentee landowners OR if the money is spent or invested elsewhere or is used to pay income taxes that flow to Washington DC or state capitals.

7. Using "input-output" models that spit out "indirect" job and other economic benefits that, in effect, magnify (a) all of the overestimates identified above, and (b) use unproven formula and data to calculate alleged “multiplier" effects.

8. Ignoring the environmental and economic COSTS imposed by “wind farm” development, which include (a) environmental, ecological, and economic costs associated with the production of the equipment, and constructing and operating the "wind farm" (e.g., site and road clearing, (b) wildlife habitat destruction, noise, bird and bat kills and interference with migration and refuges, (c) scenic impairment, (d) neighboring property value impairment, and (e) infrastructure costs.

9. Ignoring the fact that electricity produced from wind turbines, has less real value than electricity from reliable generating units -- because that output is intermittent, volatile and unreliable. Also, the electricity is most likely to be produced at night in colder months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when demand is high and the economic value of electricity is high.

10. Ignoring the "backup power" costs; i.e., the added cost resulting from having to keep reliable generating units immediately available (often running at less than peak efficiency) to keep electric grids in balance when those grids have to accept intermittent, volatile and unreliable output from "wind farms.”

11. Ignoring the fact that electricity from “wind farms” in remote areas generally results in high unit costs of transmission due to (a) the need to add transmission capacity, (b) the environmental, scenic and property value costs associated with transmission lines, (c) the electric transmission "line losses" (i.e., electricity produced by generating units but lost during transmission and never reaches customers or serves a useful purpose), and (d) inefficient use of transmission capacity because “wind farms” output is intermittent and unpredictable and seldom at the capacity of the transmission line that must be built to serve the “wind farm.”

12. Ignoring the fact that the higher true cost of the electricity from wind is passed along to ordinary electric customers and taxpayers via electric bills and tax bills which means that people who bear the costs have less money to spend on other needs (food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care -- or hundreds of other things normally purchased in local stores), thus reducing the jobs associated with that spending and undermining local economies that would benefit from supplying these needs.

13. Perhaps most important, ignoring the fact that the investment dollars going to "renewable" energy sources would otherwise be available for investment for other purposes that would produce greater economic benefits. “Wind farms” have very high capital costs and relatively low operating costs compared to generating units using traditional energy sources. They also create far fewer jobs, particularly long-term jobs, and far fewer local economic benefits. “Wind farms” are simply a poor choice if the goals are to create jobs, add local economic benefits, or hold down electric bills.

Glenn R. Schleede

18220 Turnberry Drive

Round Hill, VA 20141-2574


Wind power and big birds

Power from windmills is supposed to be great for the environment. But it’s not.

First, big wind farms are gobbling out vast areas of the West that until now were relatively undisturbed, sitting there as grazing land or farm fields, or as scenery.

Then there’s the deadly effect on birds. THe American Bird Conservancy says golden eagles, whooping cranes and a species of sage grouse are especially in danger from wind developments in the West.

The group reports that according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more than 400,000 birds a year are killed when they are struck by the fast-moving blades of wind turbines.

“This figure is expected to rise significantly, and will likely eventually pass the million mark as wind power becomes increasingly ubiquitous under a Department of Energy plan to supply 20 percent of America’s power through wind by 2030,” the group says in a statement to the press.

The blades are not the only problem. As wind farms are developed in the desolate places where the wind is the strongest and most steady, additional transmission lines have to be strung across the West. The conservation group says large birds such as whooping cranes, whose migration takes them across the places where transmission lines will have to go, are killed as they hit the wires.

The American Bird Conservancy urges improvements in the design of turbines and towers to minimize the damage. But even if that’s done, large wind farms still will mar the landscape and disrupt the feeding areas of migratory birds. And nothing can be done about transmission wires.

None of that would even come up as a problem if the nation, and states including Oregon, had taken a sensible approach to energy production that doesn’t dam up more rivers and put out more emissions.

It would have been smarter to encourage small generating stations closer to cities, powered by natural gas or the new generation of nuclear stations. And in rural areas where the wind is steady, households can make use of individual generators that are cylindrical and have no bird-chopping blades.

Click on link to submit your SEC complaint on the
First Wind Holdings Inc. IPO public offering

TEN Reasons
Why the SEC should not allow First Wind to be listed on NASDAQ

First Wind Holdings Inc. 12/22/09 SEC S1/A IPO Filing

First Wind Holdings Inc. 7/31/08 SEC S1 IPO Filing

May 14, 2010 addition to the First Wind Holdings Inc. SEC S1A IPO Filing

August 18, 2010 amendment 7 to the First Wind Holdings Inc. SEC S1A IPO Filing

October 13, 2010 Filing update to the First Wind Holdings Inc. SEC S1A IPO Filing

New October 25, 2010 Filing update to the First Wind Holdings Inc. SEC S1A IPO Filing

after Wall Street no confidence in company

Send email request to join - RIWT Facebook Groupsplus

RIWT is open to the public

Risks of Industrial Wind Turbines is a group of citizens and organizations dedicated to preserve the public safety, property values, economic viability, environmental integrity and quality of life of residents and future generations.