Alerts
These postings are provided to help publicize the efforts of affiliated groups and individuals related to industrial wind energy development. Most of the notices posted here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch.
Save the outstanding landscape of Nant y Moch in the Cambrian Mountains
Petition:
We, the undersigned, request that Scottish and Southern Energy plc drops its plans for a wind power station at Nant y Moch and that the Infrastructure Planning Commission listens to local and national objections and declines permission for such a development.
We also request that the importance of this scenic landscape is recognised by the Welsh Assembly Government by dropping it from the wind energy target areas.
Background (Preamble):
One of the last truly remote, wild and undeveloped parts of southern Britain, the Cambrian Mountains are epitomised by the iconic mountain Pumlumon, source of the Wye, Severn, and Rheidol. Its north-western flanks rise from a hilly plateau, which plunges precipitously into the Dyfi valley from a jagged escarpment, fretted by a series of majestic waterfalls.
This area contains a blend of moorland hills and forests around the fjord-like waters of Llyn Nant-y-Moch, created forty-years ago to generate hydro-electric power, but now helping to produce a dramatic and unique landscape. The Countryside Council for Wales’ Landmap assessment classes this area as ‘Outstanding’ – its highest rating reserved for areas ‘of international or national importance’. In addition, much of the area forms part of the Dyfi Biosphere, a United Nations designation and the only one in Wales.
The area is rich in archaeological remains and is famous in Welsh history as the setting for Owain Glyndwr’s defeat of the Anglo-Flemish forces at the battle of Hyddgen in 1401 prior to his establishment of a Welsh parliament at Machynlleth in 1404. In the nineteenth century, the writer George Borrow climbed Pumlumon in his walk around Wales. In his influential book Wild Wales, he relates how he was awestruck at the scale and beauty of this remote landscape. In 1947 the Cambrian Mountains were selected as a ‘Conservation Area’ in the Hobhouse Report; in 1965 officially proposed as a National Park; and in 1972 designated as such by the Countryside Commission, citing that the “deep wooded valleys and gorges, their rolling moorlands are colourful at all seasons and are one of Britain’s loveliest and most attractive countrysides …. attracting discerning visitors in increasing numbers who appreciate that this ‘spirit of Wales’ is the equal in beauty of many existing national parks.” Designation was never confirmed but there is currently a campaign to recognise the landscape as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (a status equal to that of a National Park).
Despite this history and the quality of the landscape, the giant energy corporation Scottish and Southern Energy plc (SSE) is planning to build an enormous wind power station dominating hill crests and forest skylines in a site area of 5 miles by 5 miles with 60 to 80 turbines each proposed to be 145m or 475 feet tall. This is one and a half times the height of Big Ben, and as much as three times the height of turbines used in much smaller earlier projects in Ceredigion. This project would industrialise views towards the Snowdonia National Park from Pumlumon (and vice-versa) and devastate the landscape character, tranquillity and recreational value of the Nant y Moch area.
Why is SSE targeting this outstanding landscape? The Welsh Assembly Government has targeted seven ‘Strategic Search Areas’ for wind power stations. They were primarily defined by wind speed, while filtering out National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but did not reflect the conclusions of CCW’s Landmap assessment. Although there was a consultation process, responses were over-ruled which pointed out the scenic value of Nant y Moch and its history. Other Search Areas are larger, outside areas of national importance, and targets are being met and exceeded by several proposals in each. In its rush to meet arbitrary targets the Welsh Assembly Government is in this case promoting the destruction of a landscape of great cultural and national significance.
This petition is supported by the Cambrian Mountains Society.
http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/33775.html
Action alerts, Health, Meetings, New York, Noise, Ontario •
Source: Great Lakes Regional Wind Energy Institute
Wind Turbine Syndrome: Myths and Facts
Webinar presented by the Great Lakes Regional Wind Energy Institute with support from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
[Colby and Leventhall and the audience of this webinar need to hear from the people they say don't exist about the symptoms they say aren't real.]
Please join us Thursday February 11th at 11am EST for a discussion of the myths and facts behind wind turbine syndrome and how scientific research is used to both support and deny the claims made.
Attendees will hear experts in sound impacts discuss:
- The science of sound;
- Overview of wind turbine syndrome;
- Published research on sound impacts and how it is used to both support and deny claims of wind turbine syndrome;
- How the “nocebo” effect plays a role (A nocebo response occurs when the suggestion of a negative effect of an action leads to an actual negative outcome)
Who should attend?
- Landowners
- Local and state government officials
- Wind developers
- Renewable energy advocates
Format: There will be approximately 30 minutes of presentations followed by Q&A.
Speakers:
- W. David Colby, M.D.: Chatham-Kent Medical Officer of Health (Acting); Associate Professor, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario
- Geoff Leventhall, Ph.D.: Consultant in Noise Vibration and Acoustics, UK
Connection Instructions:
You will need an internet connection and a phone line to participate in this webinar. Simply copy the link below into your web browser to connect – you do not need to pre-register. In order to hear the audio, you will need to call into one of the phone numbers below.
Audio Access: Toll Free: 877-951-7311; Toll: 203-607-0666; Participant Passcode: 9348502
Web Access: https://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join.php?i=P W1627857&p=9348502&t=c or: https://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join/, Conference number PW1627857, Audience passcode 9348502
Questions or issues with connecting to the webinar? Please contact Sue Hinnen at NREL (Susan.Hinnen@nrel.gov).
Questions or comments about the webinar topic, speakers, or the Great Lakes Regional Wind Energy Institute? Please contact Christina Mills at Windustry (Christina@windustry.org) or visit http://www.windustry.org/GLRWEI
Action alerts, Environment, Law, Noise, Property values, Setbacks, U.K., Wildlife •
Source: Country Guardian
National Policy Statement concerning renewable energy
One of our supporters has brought the following to my attention and it would be good if you could respond with your comments.
The Government has published a draft set of National Policy Statements concerned with various large infrastructure projects. Of these, No.3 is concerned with Renewable Energy including onshore wind farms.
http://data.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk/documents/npss/EN-3.pdf
This section on onshore wind farms includes a number of points which we would consider to be undesirable or plain wrong:
- There is a section on “proximity to dwellings” which mentions “appropriate distances” but does not give any specific details of what might be appropriate.
- It claims that a wind farm of 25 years’ life (with an option to “repower”) is not to be considered permanent!
- It says that “there will always be significant landscape and visual effects” without saying that the wind farm should not be built if these are unacceptable.
- It states that ETSU-R-97 should be used for noise assessments without pointing out its multiple defects.
- it states that shadow flicker should be considered for a turbine within 10 rotor diameters of a house: I have not seen any justification for this distance.
- etc etc
There is a real opportunity to make your voice heard by making your points and comments. There is a deadline of February 22nd, so please act quickly.
http://www.nationalpolicystatements.org.uk/page2.html
https://www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk/home/responding/
Spread the word to as many people as possible for them to put in comments, to try to get the Policy Statement changed? We need to all make our voices heard, irrelevant of the timescales involved.
Thanks in advance.
Announcements, Press conferences, Press releases, Vermont •
Source: Energize Vermont
Energize Vermont Launch Press Conference
Energize Vermont Launch Press Conference
Tuesday Jan. 26 11:45 a.m.
Cedar Creek Room, State House, Montpelier
Energize Vermont Will Support Community Energy Solutions
New Grassroots Group Pushes For Responsible Renewables and Conservation
Grassroots activists from around the state will gather at 11:45 a.m. on Tuesday, January 26 in the State House in Montpelier to announce the formation of Energize Vermont, a new group supporting community energy projects in Vermont.
John Liccardi, the President of the Energize Vermont Board of Directors, will be one of the speakers at the event. “What we need are community-supported projects that are part of a mix of solar, wind, conservation, and other sources – and the policies to make that happen,” he said. “Energize Vermont will work around the state to support those goals.”
Liccardi is a Rutland attorney and former Chair of the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board.
Energize Vermont is setting up chapters around the state, and has identified leaders for four regional groups. The group has also launched a website, www.energizevermont.org.
Also speaking at the press conference will be Rep. David Potter, who is introducing two bills designed to ensure that industrial wind projects in the state are responsibly sited to take into account impacts on noise and health and on local airports.
January 25, 2010
Contact: Barbara Fenhagen
Phone: 802-287-9389
Energize Vermont
P.O. Box 605
Rutland, Vermont 05702
www.energizevermont.org
energizevermont@gmail.com
Action alerts, Aesthetics, Environment, Flyers, Health, Noise, Oregon, Wildlife •
Source: Brian Shortt
Don’t Assume. Get the Facts. Consider the Risks.
Wind Turbines in Hood River, Oregon
Financial Risks
A recent article in the Oregonian describes just how bad things can get when making revenue forecasts related to wind projects.
“State officials deliberately underestimated the cost of Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s plan to lure green energy companies to Oregon with big taxpayer subsidies, resulting in a program that cost 40 times more than unsuspecting lawmakers were told — The incentives are now under intense scrutiny at the Oregon Department of Energy, which is scrambling to curb their skyrocketing costs.” (Oregonian article: State low-balled cost of green tax breaks. October 31, 2009)
In light of this shocking revelation, and given the complexity of making accurate forecasts for any business (let alone the highly complex business of industrial wind-generated electricity), what assurances do the people of Hood River County have that revenue forecasts for the proposed Middle Mountain wind project are reliable?
Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that as of the date of this writing, Hood River County has yet to develop a comprehensive business plan for its proposed wind-farm project. This further begs the question of the reliability of their current revenue forecast. How is it that the County can forecast revenues of $10-million over the next 20 years if there is no comprehensive business plan to support the revenue forecast?
Environmental Risks
Few studies have been done in the U.S. to determine the true effect of industrial wind turbines on migrating birds and other animals. However, countries with greater experience with wind power, such as Denmark and Germany, are beginning to recognize the negative consequences on the environment, and are starting to curtail their wind-energy expansion plans.
Even in the U.S., stewards of the environment are demanding certain constraints. For instance, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service says that wind turbines should not be erected near wetlands, on mountain ridges, near shorelines, or in other known wildlife concentration areas, or where fog or low clouds are common during spring and fall migrations.
Regardless of these warning signals, the county is planning to put six gigantic turbines on a ridge of Middle Mountain, in an area where elk regularly concentrate, where migratory birds fly over, and where both fog and low clouds are common during the spring and fall migrations.
And what will the effect of these gigantic turbines be on our orchards? Bees pollinate 90% of the fruit in Hood River valley. No one has yet studied the effects of windmills on bee populations, so it’s impossible to know exactly what the impact might be. But if the wind turbines go up, perhaps Hood River orchardists will be in the enviable (or not so enviable) position of being the first to find out.
Scenic Risks
The county claims that there is little if any scenic risk because their plans are to construct only six turbines on Middle Mountain.
The reality is we’re really not talking about just six turbines. We’re talking about potentially hundreds of wind turbines on our east hills. Consider, for instance, the fact that SDS lumber —now not just a lumber company any longer, but also a developer of wind farms—owns 1,500 acres in the east hills.
Can there be any doubt that once the county takes the first step toward peppering our landscape with wind turbines that others such as SDS will follow? In fact, the County is already gearing up for this eventuality, as the topic “Dealing with other potential Wind Projects in HR County —Ordinance or CUO?” is a key topic on the Commissioner’s January 10, 2010 Goals Session agenda.
And what about the zoning issue? The Middle Mountain project is planned for an area zoned Primary Forest (F-2). The regulation governing that zoning states: “The purpose of the Primary Forest (F-2) is to assure the continuous growing and harvesting of trees.”
The county plans to circumvent this zoning restriction by appealing to the State of Oregon’s Department of Energy BETC (Business Energy Tax Credit) program, the very same arm of our State government which is now scrambling to curb their skyrocketing costs mentioned earlier.
One would think that it was the county’s job to enforce our zoning regulations. But it seems that in this case, that’s not the case.
Meanwhile, in its sixth annual survey of “destination stewardship,” released in November of 2009, National Geographic rated Hood River as one of the top ten scenic areas in the world, on a par with the Bavarian Alps. The survey results stated that Hood River deserved its rating not just because it was “The U.S.A.’s Rhineland,” but also because of the incredible job it was doing of protecting its views.
Do we really want to risk this amazing distinction awarded by National Geographic —and the tourism dollars that come with it—by constructing wind turbines that will destroy the very same views we have come to be known for worldwide?
Health Risks
How much of a health risk does a wind farm present? The county says there are essentially no health risks.
However, any semi-conscious person alive today would say that the disturbing thump, thump, thump of the blades as they turn could result in some serious psychological problems for people living in areas where the sound can be heard. And it’s a fact that sound travels further in remote areas, especially in areas where there are hills and valleys where sounds echo, and where other sounds are not present.
So, how many people would actually be disturbed by the incessant sound of the blades turning? And how many people would be disturbed by the blinking of the night lights in the sky? And how many people would be disturbed by the “flicker effect” of the windmills?
The county gives no credence to any of these concerns. But, an article dated March 27, 2009 in The Oregonian had this to say:
“Dozens of wind turbines west of Boardman are so noisy, nearby homeowners say they’re keeping them awake at night and even making them ill.
‘It’s not healthy for us,’ Dan Williams said of the 240-foot tall turbines he can see from his hilltop home. ‘It’s like a freight train that’s not coming or going.’”
So Who Benefits?
In the end, who really benefits from these “community based” industrial wind-farm projects?
- The companies and individuals receiving tax credits benefit.
- The industrial giants who are making their fortunes constructing the wind farms benefit.
- The lawyers who will be hired to sue or defend claims will benefit.
And who are the biggest losers?
- We the people of Hood River County are the biggest losers. We risk our scenery, we risk our environment, we risk our health, and we risk our financial futures.
Ask Questions & Get the Facts
Please — ask questions and get the facts.
Don’t assume that because these giant wind turbines are supposedly green, that they are. And, please don’t assume that Hood River County can benefit financially, because as of yet, there is no solid business plan that says we can. Letting wind turbines into Hood River County may be something you will regret for the rest of your life.
As a start, let your County Commissioners know that you have questions and concerns. Also, check out the websites and articles listed below:
- National Wind Watch: http://www.wind-watch.org/
- A Problem With Wind Power: http://www.aweo.org/
- Scenic Org: http://www.scenic.org/wind/
- Save Our Scenic Area (Whistling Ridge, WA): http://www.saveourscenicarea.org/contacts.htm
- Whistling Ridge article: http://www.saveourscenicarea.org/documents/Columbian_Article_-_August_23,_2009[1].pdf
Want to Know More?
A number of individuals and groups have come together privately to discuss these matters. Some of us feel it’s time we organized a more formal group to educate ourselves and the rest of the community about what’s going on and what’s at risk.
If this issue is important to you, and if you want to know more, please let us know.
For now, and until we can put the formal group together, please let us know of your interest by sending an email to Pat Case (patcase@gorge.net) or to Nilsa Zeman (nilsaz@centurylink.net).
Thank you for being concerned.
Download original document: “Wind Turbines in Hood River, Oregon – Get the Facts”
Aesthetics, Economics, Health, Law, Noise, Petitions, Setbacks, U.K. •
Source: Ian Corkin
Petition for minimum 2km between wind turbines and dwellings
UK citizens should have the same right as many in the rest of Europe, and be protected from huge turbines being built adjacent to their properties.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Introduce a minimum distance of 2km between wind turbines and dwellings. More details
Submitted by Ian Corkin – Deadline to sign up by: 23 December 2010
petitions.number10.gov.uk/tubine-distance/
Action alerts, Economics, New York, Petitions •
Source: Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and Thousand Islands Region
Opposition of PILOT for Upstate NY Power Corporation
Background (Preamble):
Upstate NY Power Corporation has applied for a PILOT as of October 5, 2009. The requested a decision not later than December 31, 2009 to allow their project financing to be completed. They also stated that they are under a strict deadline to allow their construction to start and reach a certain percentage completion, to qualify for 30% Federal subsidies from the Stimulus Fund.
The application has not provided sufficient details about their financial strength, and actually refuses to provide an SEC 10-K financial statement for the public to view.
The PILOT will strip US$54,000,000 from the tax rolls, as compared to full taxation. Additionally, the developer will receive nearly US$150,000,000 in federal direct cash subsidy, with an additional US$150,000,000 plus NYS and Federal subsidies in the form of tax credits. The developer is “rewarding” American Manufacturing Unions by investing US$200,000,000 in foreign manufacturing. They plan to create approximately US$15,000,000 in construction payroll (10 foreign jobs created for each American union worker employed).
The developer is an LLC formed under the NYS Transportation Laws, as a single purpose company. Their principal is a single person. The developer has agreements with other LLC and LP companies to provide construction management and technology. Dun and Bradstreet Risk Management reports do not provide adequate scores to loan US$54,000,000 of County taxpayer’s money.
Jefferson County is at great risk with the current PILOT proposal in the manner it is being rushed through our Board of Legislators. The Chairman has bypassed the jurisdictional committee normally tasked with all other PILOTs.
The PILOT lacks certainty required in a normal, well constructed business agreement, such as but not limited to:
- County Road Use Agreement for Construction Damages.
- Project Labor Agreement
- Decommissioning Bonds to protect County taxpayers
- Guarantee to the number, type and pay of jobs to be created and sustained for long-term operation
- Guarantee of short-term constructions jobs to be created and sustained from Jefferson County trades
Petition:
We, the undersigned ask the Jefferson County Board of Legislators to VOTE AGAINST the Enabling Resolution, which would allow the UPSTATE NY POWER CORPORATION PILOT to proceed.
Furthermore, the jurisdictional committee (Finance and Rules Committee), shall first review this, and any further PILOT applications, prior to the full Board voting on the Enabling Resolution.
Announcements, Puerto Rico •
Source: Coalicion Pro Bosque Seco Ventanas Verraco
Feliz Navidad CBSV
Advertisements, Environment, New York, Videos •
Source: Preserve the Golden Crescent
Preserve the Golden Crescent, America’s national treasure
The Golden Crescent, America’s national treasure and pristine gateway to Lake Ontario, the St Lawrence River and the Thousand Islands region is in immediate danger of becoming an industrial wind complex.
Thousands of foreign made turbines will blanket islands, shorelines and shallow waters.
High powered transmission lines are planned to slash through our crop and grazing lands. America’s best sport fishing, boating and sailing waters are in danger of ruin.
We have kept the golden crescent green for generations; please help us keep it that way. Visit our website www.preservethegoldencrescent.com. Make a contribution.
Before it’s too late.
The Wind Farm Scam
An excellent gift for your local councillors/selectmen/zoning administrators! (Combine it with Wind Turbine Syndrome, by Dr. Nina Pierpont.)
The spectre of global warming and the political panic surrounding it has triggered a goldrush for renewable energy sources without an open discussion of the merits and drawbacks of each. In The Wind Farm Scam Dr Etherington argues that in the case of wind power the latter far outweigh the former. Wind turbines cannot generate enough energy to reduce global CO2 levels to a meaningful degree; what’s more wind power is by nature intermittent and cannot generate a steady output, necessitating back-up coal and gas power plants that significantly negate the saving of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to the inefficacy of wind power there are ecological drawbacks, including damage to habitats, wildlife and the far-from-insignificant aesthetic drawback of the assault upon natural beauty and the pristine landscape, which wind turbines entail. Dr Etherington argues that wind power has been, and is being, excessively financed at the cost of consumers who have not been consulted, nor informed that this effective subsidy is being paid from their bills to support an industry that cannot be cost efficient or, ultimately, favour the cause it purports to support.
John Etherington was a Reader in Ecology at the University of Wales, Cardiff. Since his retirement from the University in 1990, he has devoted himself to researching the implications of intermittently available renewable electricity generation, in particular wind power. He is a Thomas Huxley Medallist at the Royal College of Science and a former co-editor of the International Journal of Ecology.
200 pages, Paperback
125×200mm, Portrait
Available from 30 September 2009
ISBN-10: 1905299834
ISBN-13: 9781905299836
Price £9.99
stacey-international.co.uk
Now available as well via Amazon U.K. and Amazon U.S.
