We have many concerns after spending many hours researching wind farms here in the U.S. and abroad. Our primary concerns would be Wind Turbine Syndrome (the turbines being too close to residences), and there not being an adequate noise ordinance for this very rural part of the state; second diminished property values and inability to be able to resell our homes should we be forced to leave; thirdly, our concerns for the surrounding wildlife — elk and their huge migrations, antelope, deer, etc. and not to mention that our area is a major migration zone for the snow geese and sand hill cranes, not to mention the disturbances to our raptors, songbirds, owls, etc. This is an area of huge revenue for the state and large game hunting. And there is no local set-back ordinance on these big turbines. Our property line is less than 1/4 mile from the proposed site; and the other site is only 40’ from a private residence.

Several stories have been published in the Taos News, and the first of many meetings takes place at the Taos County Planning Commission on Tues. July 8, 2008 @ 6pm.

Listen to “Top 5 reasons for industrial wind”

Wind turbines threaten northwest Oklahoma (MP3)

Wind energy needs regulation to protect northwest Oklahoma (MP3)

“Following a press release last week it seems that several of the leading industrial companies in Israel are going to enter the wind business. These are deeply connected to leading politicians. Our ministry of environment is quite hopeless. The future seems bleak.”

From Gibraltar, from Sicily, from the US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, and now from Israel, day by day more bad news comes in from the main bird migration flyways of the world. For windfarm developers think nothing of erecting their wind turbines in migration bottlenecks. Wind speed and maximisation of profit is their main concern.

Birds are killed by the large blades, whose tips revolve at speeds exceeding 100 mph while deceiving the victims by an appearance of slowness. In Sweden, one wind turbine is reported to have killed 895 birds in one year [ref: California Energy Commission, A Roadmap for PIER Research on Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines in California, Dec. 2002, quoting Benner et al. (1993)].

They also get killed by the powerlines, which are built next to each windfarm to carry puny amounts of this very expensive, intermittent electricity to the grid. According to the report “Protecting Birds from Powerlines”, high tension lines may kill over 500 birds per km per year in migration zones [ref: Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats -- Birdlife International (2003)]. Smaller windfarms may not require high-tension lines, but overhead cables are still needed to connect to the distribution network, and they, too, maim and kill birds that collide in the fog, or at night, or while fleeing some danger.

In short: if someone wanted to set about exterminating the world’s migrating birds, placing windfarms in migration hotspots would be looked upon as best practice.
We are not doing any better in the UK. For instance, the “Bird Sensitivity Map to Provide Locational Guidance for Onshore Wind Farms in Scotland” designates practically the whole of the Western Isles as highly sensitive — except for two areas, one of them being the site where a windfarm project is seeking approval (Pairc).

Yet the Pairc environmental statement predicts the possible death of 66-165 golden eagles as a result of collisions with the giant blades. No other project in Scotland declares that it may kill so many eagles; and the subject of migrating birds is poorly addressed. The applicant for the Pairc windfarm is Scottish & Southern Energy.

The same map marks the whole of the Shetlands as highly sensitive, except for a few tiny yellow spots — presumably where Scottish & Southern Energy plans to erect more wind turbines. How on earth will migrating birds be able to avoid the giant rotors when adverse winds push them towards one of these “yellow spots”? or when they fly or make landfall at night? Yet a bird society is actually supporting a large windfarm project on Shetland. Don’t they know the island is a crucially important staging post for migrating birds?

Until these and many other pertinent questions are answered by the ornithological fraternity, we ask that all those who cherish Britain’s heritage of migratory and other birds ask their favourite bird society why windfarms are allowed in migration corridors, e.g., in the Hebrides or in the Shetlands. Also ask your electricity suppliers how much of the electricity supplied to your homes comes from wind. Details from BWEA’s web site indicate that windfarms supply only 1.5% of Britain’s electricity. Then ask yourselves if the slaughter of our birds is really necessary, and join the thousands who are already campaigning against the erection of these wind monsters across Britain.

March 26th 2008

Professor David Bellamy
Mark Duchamp

Few laws currently govern regulation of wind farms. That is slowly changing and wind developers are in a big rush to build facilities before new laws are enacted.

Developers claim this is a “community based” project. That might sound good at first but just how good is it? A few landowners would financially benefit. Labor force for construction of turbines would be short lived (3-5 yrs) and probably done with outside interests. Monitoring of turbines shouldn’t require employment of many people.

Wind developers usually target less populated rural areas because of less people to oppose their projects.

With the huge number of turbines proposed and the transmission lines needed to support the project, impacts on wildlife could be significant. This area is a primary migration route for the endangered Whooping Crane. It is also home to Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge and the unique coteau prairie ecosystem that is comprised of wetland inventories as high as 100 per square mile.

This project would transform our natural prairie landscape in exchange for the financial gain of primarily out of state developers.

www.savecoteauprairielandscape.com

Alex.Salmond.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

cc: snp.hq@snp.org, FirstMinister@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Office of the First Minister
St. Andrew’s House
Regent Road
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG

Dear First Minister

A National Conversation has been set up by your party to engage the views of the people of Scotland on Independence and the future of our country.

Why is there no National Conversation on wind farms?

Areas of high scenic value in Scotland are under attack by wind developers!

Prior to your election you told the people of Scotland that you would listen to their views.

More than 5,000 people objected to the Barvas Windfarm in Lewis. Will you listen to them or ignore them?

Will SNP be known as the party that helps a rich ‘few’ make vast sums of money through wind farm subsidies, whilst the poor, the vulnerable, the sick and the elderly are expected to suffer increasing fuel poverty?

If consumers of electricity are expected to pay subsidies for wind farms, shouldn’t the people of Scotland have the right to a National Conversation about wind farms?

Golden eagles bring in huge amounts of cash that benefit the ‘many’, not the ‘few’.

Scotland does not need its own Altamont Pass, environmental law suits or massive EU fines.

The purpose of this development: to make money. If breaking EU law results in EU fines, that negates the whole purpose.

Will the people of Scotland perceive “minded to refuse” as being a wishy washy response by a party that wants to lead an Independent Scotland?

Please offer confidence with a decisive, resounding, ‘NO’ to this wind farm development.

I look forward to hearing that this development will not proceed.

Yours sincerely
~~~
Sylvia Wallace

Dear Mr Salmond

Over the past few days it has been reported that you are ‘Minded to Refuse Permission for the Lewis Wind Power development’

I applaud this stance and encourage you to stick to your intention.

Far from being the green solution that it has been claimed as, this development would be very damaging to the environment. Not just the damage to the landscape but the amount of carbon released from disturbing the peat bog would in fact negate any possible benefit gained from the ‘green’ energy.

The promise of jobs for the locals is just smoke and mirrors. I live in Mid Wales and at Cefn Croes the same promises were made — jobs for local people and economic benefits for the local community. None of this is true. There have been no jobs created locally at all. The contractors came in, tore up the landscape, poured masses of concrete into a primary water source, scattered the disturbed peat over the concrete bases in the name of conserving the environment and left. So far the local community are still waiting to see the benefits.

I urge you to refuse permission for this development and to mount a thorough review of your government’s policy on wind energy. An intermittent source of power can never provide the ‘base load’ energy that is required for a civilised society and will only every be a symbolic gesture of ‘greenness’

My husband and I are both artists and for many years we regarded Scotland as our second home, enjoying the unspoilt beauty of her wild places. The prospect of the industrialisation of the most inspirational views in the British Isles fills us with utter despair and we could not bring ourselves to visit Scotland again if it becomes the industrial wasteland that your government is proposing.

Please remember why tourists come to Scotland — for the scenery — don’t destroy it. Please.

With heartfelt feeling.

Yours sincerely
~~~
Jenny Keal

Dear First Minister,

I subscribe to the terms of Mrs Keal´s letter and invite you to ponder the enormity of the loss a windfarm on Lewis would represent. Tourism, wildlife, biodiversity, ruined quality of life for the inhabitants, who massively rejected the project in various polls …

The developer may present a revised plan with fewer turbines. But Lewis must be saved in its entirety. A stain on a beautiful painting is not acceptable, no matter its size. Likewise, placing giant de-facto bird traps within a bird reserve is an act of poaching, no matter their number.

The European Commission has been informed of this threat to the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area, and they may bring the matter to the European Court of Justice, who in turn may impose heavy fines that would burden Scottish taxpayers.

It would be regrettable if the Scottish National Party would tarnish its good name with the destruction of Scotland´s wildlife, of its landscape, and of its main renewable resource: tourism.

Yours, faithfully
~~~
Mark Duchamp

Wind energy development is an important component of Governor Eliot Spitzer’s clean renewable energy initiative in New York State as well as of New York’s ability to achieve the Renewable Portfolio Standard of twenty-five percent (25%) of energy produced from renewable sources by the year 2013. With increased construction of wind turbines comes increased potential for birds and bats to collide with the towers and rotating blades. The proposed guidelines outline DEC’s recommendations to commercial wind energy developers on how to characterize bird and bat resources at wind energy sites and how to document and estimate bird and bat mortality resulting from collisions with turbines. The protocols in the guidelines are intended to provide comparability of data collection among sites and between years so that the information from each site contributes to a statewide understanding of the ecological effects of wind energy generation. Protocols for both pre-construction studies and post-construction monitoring are included.

The guidelines (PDF, 135 Kb) are now available for review. Comments will be received until March 7, 2008, via mail to Brianna Gary, NYSDEC Bureau of Habitat, 625 Broadway 5th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-4756 or via email. To provide comments or for further information, contact the Habitat Protection Section mailbox.

Download “Draft Guidelines for Conducting Bird and Bat Studies at Commercial Wind Energy Projects”

Membership in the subcommittee is open to companies, government agencies, or professional, scientific or trade associations, with a direct and material interest in the work of the subcommittee. Members of the subcommittee may also elect to become members of Accredited Standards Committee S3 if they wish.

The subcommittee operates according to operating procedures that are accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and meet the ANSI requirements for openness, balance, and due process. Organizations wishing to learn more about this subcommittee or the other standards committees and U.S. Technical Advisory Groups administered by the Acoustical Society of America should contact the Standards Secretariat at the telephone number given below or by e-mail at asastds@aip.org.

The initial meeting of S3/SC 1 will be held in the Estherwood room of the Sheraton New Orleans Hotel on 30 November 2007 at 1:00. The meeting is open to the public.

The Acoustical Society of America is a nonprofit organization, founded in 1929. It is the premier international scientific society in acoustics, and is dedicated to increasing and diffusing the knowledge of acoustics and promoting its practical applications.

For Additional Information Contact:
David Delaney (217) 373-6744
Susan Blaeser (631) 390-0215

Acoustical Society of America
Office of the Standards Secretariat
35 Pinelawn Road, Suite 114 E, Melville, NY 11747

Susan Blaeser, Standards Manager
Telephone (631) 390-0215
Fax (631) 390-0217
E-mail asastds@aip.org