2.2.4. Noise interferes with sleep in several ways. Firstly, it may be sufficiently loud or annoying to prevent the onset of sleep or the return to sleep following an awakening. It is clear also that some types of noise are more annoying than others. Constant noise is less annoying than irregular noise which varies in frequency and loudness, for example, snoring, particularly if accompanied by the snorts of sleep apnoea (breath holding). The swishing or thumping noise associated with wind turbines seems to be particularly annoying as the frequency and loudness varies with changes in wind speed and local atmospheric conditions. While there is no doubt of the occurrence of these noises and their audibility over long distances, up to 3-4km in some reports, the actual cause has not yet been fully elucidated (Bowdler 2008). Despite recommendations by the Government’s own Noise Working Group, UK research in this area has been stopped.

2.2.5. Secondly, noise experienced during sleep may arouse or awaken the sleeper. A sufficiently loud or prolonged noise will result in full awakening which may be long enough to recall. Short awakenings are not recalled as, during the transition from sleep to wakefulness, one of the last functions to recover is memory (strictly, the transfer of information from short term to long term memory). The reverse is true for the transition from wakefulness to sleep. Thus only awakenings of longer than 20-30 seconds are subsequently recalled. Research that relies on recalled awakenings alone may underestimate the effect.

2.2.6. Noise insufficient to cause awakening may cause an arousal. An arousal is brief, often only a few seconds long, with the sleeper moving from a deep level of sleep to a lighter level and back to a deeper level. Because full wakefulness is not reached, the sleeper has no memory of the event but the sleep has been disrupted just as effectively as if wakefulness had occurred. It is possible for several hundred arousals to occur each night without the sufferer being able to recall any of them. The sleep, because it is broken, is unrefreshing resulting in sleepiness, fatigue, headaches and poor memory and concentration (Martin 1997), many of the symptoms of “wind turbine syndrome”. Arousals are associated not just with an increase in brain activity but also with physiological changes, an increase in heart rate and blood pressure, which are thought to be responsible for the increase in cardiovascular risk. Arousals occur naturally during sleep and increase with age (Boselli 1998) which may make the elderly more vulnerable to wind turbine noise. Arousals may be caused by sound events as low as 32 dBA and awakenings with events of 42dBA (Muzet and Miedema 2005), well within the measured noise levels of current “wind farms” and the levels permitted by ETSU-R-97 . Arousals in SWS may trigger a parasomnia (sleep walking, night terrors etc.). Pierpont (2009 and personal communication) notes that parasomnias developed in some of the children in her study group when exposed to turbine noise. …

2.2.9. Sleep disturbance and impairment of the ability to return to sleep is not trivial as almost all of us can testify. In the short term, the resulting deprivation of sleep results in daytime fatigue and sleepiness, poor concentration and memory function. Accident risks increase. In the longer term, sleep deprivation is linked to depression, weight gain, diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. …

3.8.2. In weighing the evidence, I find that, on the one hand there is a large number of reported cases of sleep disturbance and, in some cases, ill health, as a result of exposure to noise from wind turbines supported by a number of research reports that tend to confirm the validity of the anecdotal reports and provide a reasonable basis for the complaints. On the other, we have badly designed industry and government reports which seek to show that there is no problem. I find the latter unconvincing.

3.8.3. In my expert opinion, from my knowledge of sleep physiology and a review of the available research, I have no doubt that wind turbine noise emissions cause sleep disturbance and ill health. …

4.4.1. Table 1 (see end of text) shows recommendations for setback distance by a number of authorities. References can be found in the Bibliography. In general, noise engineers recommend lesser setback distances than physicians. The former rely more on measured and/or calculated sound pressures and the latter on clinical reports. It is logical to prefer the actual reports of the humans subjected to the noise rather than abstract calculations, even if the latter accurately measure ambient noise and allow for the low frequency components of wind turbine noise. Calculations can not measure annoyance and sleep disturbance, only humans can do so.

4.4.2. A setback distance of at least 1.5km is necessary to ensure, with a reasonable degree of confidence, that the wind turbine noise will not disturb the sleep of those living in proximity to the proposed Swinford development.

Download original document: “Sleep disturbance and wind turbine noise”

Is it true that we are passing up on a gold mine of renewable energy in favor of unnecessary and harmful fossil and nuclear fuels?

Let’s start by looking at what we use to generate the power we use today. Renewables, such as wind, solar, biomass, etc, provide 2.4% of our electricity. The bulk of our power, 51%, comes from coal, followed by natural gas at 20% and nuclear at 19%.

Included below in the category “other renewables”, wind energy is currently supplying about 1% of our electricity

Can we replace coal and natural gas with renewable energy sources? Let’s examine the facts.

Wind energy is harnessed by windmills that are similar to the types that have been around for centuries. The windmills that produce electricity are called wind turbines; they employ fan blades that turn when the wind is blowing. These blades are connected to electric generators.

Keep in mind that sometimes the wind blows slowly or not at all, and windmills don’t produce any power until the wind reaches about 8 MPH. A location for a windmill is not considered viable unless wind speeds average 14 MPH.

The percentage of its rated power that a windmill can actually produce, given the variation of wind speeds at the installation site, is called its capacity factor. A realistic capacity factor is 25%. That means that over time, the windmill actually delivers 25% of its rated power.

(Electrical [power] is measured in units called watts. A kilowatt (KW) is 1,000 watts, a megawatt (MW) is a million watts. )

A typical large wind-driven turbine is rated at about 1,500 kilowatts. It’s 350 feet tall and has a fan blade of about 240 feet in diameter. It will actually deliver about 375 kilowatts. It can power about 375 microwave ovens, or 6250 60-watt light bulbs simultaneously (only when the wind is blowing at about 25 miles per hour, which is a very strong wind). An average (1 gigawatt) power plant can power nearly a million microwaves, or 16 million light bulbs at the same time.

A power plant near me produces 1,100,000 kilowatts (1.1 gigawatts) of power. At a 25% capacity factor it would take nearly 2600 large wind turbines to produce the same power as this nuclear power plant. And this is not a particularly large plant.

If you placed these 2600 wind turbines the recommended 5 rotor-blade diameters apart, they would stretch for 600 miles. That’s as far as the distance from Michigan to Georgia. In practice wind turbines are not placed single file, they are placed in several rows, like crops, in what are called wind farms, but you get the idea.

The amount of electricity generated by a wind turbine is proportional to the wind speed to the 3rd power (a 20 MPH wind will produce 8 times as much energy as a 10 MPH wind). Therefore wind turbines often produce energy in bursts; when the wind gusts, the energy output spikes, when the wind dies down, energy output dips.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to store these bursts of energy for later use. There are no batteries large enough that are also practical, and pumped-storage systems, which use unwanted energy to pump water into an aboveground reservoir for later use in turning a water-driven generator, require a large body of water.

And when there is no wind, windmills produce no power, so a traditional power plant must be operational at all times to provide power during those in-between times.

Also, most areas of the country have so little wind that wind turbines are not practical. As indicated in the wind resource map below, most of best energy-producing wind power areas are located far from population centers. The white areas are those that don’t have fast enough winds to make wind power viable.

Wind power does work. It is a clean and renewable source of energy. But it does have its limitations; we would have to have wind turbines stretching from sea to sea to equal the energy output we can get from traditional power plants, and they would only be a match for conventional power plants when the winds were strong. On calm days they would produce no energy.

And since most of the power would be generated in unpopulated areas, because that’s where the strong winds are, (see map above) we would have to incur huge losses to transport this energy to where it is needed.

And after all that, we would still need to maintain our current system of traditional power plants because we would have to have a backup source for when the wind is calm.

And since the traditional power plants can’t be turned on and off like a light bulb, it will be necessary to use the traditional power plants to provide the bulk of our power and use the wind generated power to supplement the power plants.

All things considered, wind power has limitations that will relegate it to a role as a supplementary, not a primary, source of our electrical energy.

So the next time you hear a pundit say that we should throw over fossil and nuclear fuel in exchange for wind, know that it is not possible. And any proposals that are predicated on the replacement of natural fossil fuels, such as the replacement of real jobs with “green jobs” is as fallacious as an equation that is predicated on 2 plus 2 equaling 5.

Bird reserves are not even spared from this destruction. On the Isle of Lewis, for instance, a wind farm is to be built in a designated Important Bird Area ( Park UK224 ), and another in the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area ( the Pentland Road road windfarm project ).

Your modus operandi is to object at first, then to withdraw your objection based on scientifically worthless “revised” bird mortality predictions. More disturbing still : you are helping developers to come up with these lower estimates by suggesting that they use a slightly modified variable that has the effect of minimising mortality predictions well below current available evidence of such mortality.

The precautionary principle is one of the cornerstones of wildlife conservation ; but you systematically ignore it and by and large espouse the interest of developers. You tell them they can use an “avoidance factor” set so high that the resulting mortality prediction is but 10% of what it should be if real-life mortality at wind farms were taken into account.

We first became aware of this during Mark’s resistance against the approval of the Edinbane wind farm project, in one of Europe’s most strikingly beautiful islands : the Isle of Skye. The location was in itself a crime against Scotland’s natural heritage, but neither you nor your political masters thought anything of it.

Opposition was fierce because of the danger to the eagles, another of Skye’s treasures besides a stunning landscape. The developer’s first eagle mortality prediction was too high for comfort, so you invited him to do more studies and to review his copy, especially the mortality prediction. You too did some work, and modified a key parameter for the mortality calculations : from 95% the “avoidance factor” was increased to 98%, which has the effect of reducing mortality predictions exponentially. You also indicated that the predicted mortality should be no bigger than a certain number : this was tantamount to showing the fox how to get into the hen house.

Helped by your clue and by the new avoidance factor you had decreed, the developer presented his new prediction and you lifted your objection, which allowed the project to be approved. Yet the viability of the nearby Cuillins SPA, a nature reserve for golden eagles, is at stake in this tragedy.

Not only did you discard the precautionary principle in this exercise : you applied it in reverse. What conservationist in his right mind would tell a businessman something that may be summarized as follows : you predict your machines will kill too many eagles, so I´ll help you reduce your prediction by manipulating the numbers — and for cosmetics, I´ll ask you to do some more field studies.

Based on mortality evidence available from other countries, of which you are well aware, wind turbines at Edinbane are likely to kill ~150 golden eagles over 25 years, not ~15 as predicted by the developer under your guidance. The wind farm location is a hill where young eagles are seen flying daily, at a rate of about one sighting per hour. Edinbane is known to be a “dispersion area” for eagles, i.e. one where immature birds come to hunt, soar, and interact. It is also located on a commonly used eagle flightpath from one side of the island to the other. Placing lethal wind turbines on their route is not just an aberration : it is a crime against wildlife.

Some will say : when a bird is killed by a wind turbine, it is an accident. There is no intent of killing, so there is no crime. But you are guilty of gross negligence, to put it mildly. Numbers have been manipulated in order to minimise mortality prediction by an order of magnitude ( from 150 eagle-kills down to 15 ) ; the precautionary principle has been laughed at ; and the Wild Birds and Habitats Directives of the EU are being violated since there are alternative locations for the project.

Eagles don’t avoid wind turbines : they are attracted to them. In California, Dr Smallwood has observed that golden eagles fly twice as often near wind turbines than they would by chance. This explains why so many collide with the blades, which travel at up to 300 km/h at the tip. Two thousand three hundred golden eagles have been killed that way in California, and you know that : an official report confirms it.

You strayed even further with the white-tailed sea eagles. With your consent, at Edinbane the risk for sea eagles has been estimated to be near zero whereas it is likely that dozens will be killed during the useful life of the wind farm. Indeed, many of these magnificent birds are being stricken dead every year by wind turbines in Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Japan. Ornithologists from these countries have sent us the statistics and the pictures.

In the autumn of 2003, a sea eagle was found dead next to a wind turbine on the Scottish island of Pabay, a couple of miles from Skye. An alleged autopsy report appeared on Internet saying that the bird in question had an unusually large heart, and that its death could have been caused by a heart failure in mid air ( sic! ).

Again in Scotland, golden eagles have been disappearing at or around the Beinn Ghlas wind farm, yet we are asked to believe that Beinn Ghlas is a success story regarding cohabitation with eagles. Beinn an Tuirc is another “success story” being cited in the press as evidence that eagles and wind farms, in Scotland, can live together in close contact. Yet in 2006 the male of the golden eagle breeding pair disappeared from its range at Beinn an Tuirc.

All of this is documented, and it is false to say that wind farms do not kill eagles in Scotland. It’s just that the public is not aware of the eagles that die or disappear near wind farms.

More eagles, and other birds from protected species, will be colliding with power lines linking wind farms to the grid, resulting in more deaths. You, SNH, never requested that this added risk be assessed for Edinbane or any other wind farm project. Yet you do know that many birds, including eagles, are maimed or killed by overhead cables when they collide with them in poor visibility conditions. For instance, a scientific study has estimated that high tension lines kill on average 200 birds per kilometre/year ( Koops – 1987 ). In migration zones, the toll is higher at 400-500 birds/km/yr ( Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, BirdLife International 2003 ).

Based on the Koops study, it was estimated that high tension lines in the US could be killing 150 million birds a year, according to Mick Sagrillo of the American Wind Energy Association (2003). The same figure is also reported in Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines, a Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States — Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. (2001) .

How many more eagles and other protected birds will die on Skye and across Scotland on account of new transmission lines built to accommodate wind farms ? You have not commissioned any study on this added hazard, as far as we know. Yet the Scottish golden eagle population is already in demographic difficulty ( Whitfield et al. 2006 ), and the sea eagles are even less numerous.

It was clearly irresponsible of you to withdraw your objection to Edinbane, and Mark denounced it many times. You are now applying the same tactics to the Eisgein and Pairc projects on the Isle of Lewis. If approved, these wind farms may kill over one hundred eagles, plus the migrating birds who stopover for food and rest before the long journey to Iceland and Greenland. And on the subject of migrating birds : you seem to be minded to endorse a large wind farm project on Shetland, an island that is a staging post for thousands of migrating birds on their route to and from the Arctic. How irresponsible of you if you do.

The Eisgein turbines will be erected in and around a designated Important Bird Area that arguably harbours the most important concentration of adult eagles in the whole of Scotland. But everything indicates that you are about to remove your objection to this project as you did for Edinbane. Indeed, you have now further increased your avoidance factor to 99%, which will have the result of reducing the developer’s mortality prediction, even though with 98% it is already smaller than real life by an order of magnitude.

These manipulations are being done under the cover of science. But the famous mathematician John von Neuman once wrote : “Give me four adjustable parameters and I can simulate an elephant. Give me one more and I can wag its tail.”

- Your avoidance factor is what wags the tail.

Besides the predictable slaughter of eagles, swans, geese and other birds protected by EU and UK legislations, the Eisgein wind farm may have a detrimental effect on a National Scenic Area, and even possibly on other important tourist attractions such as the Callanish Stones and a unique cultural event : the “Birth of the Moon”.

Several hundred wind farms are to be built in Scotland, yet no cumulative study of their effects on protected bird species has been made. Eagles stand to be wiped out, but you have ignored Mark’s request to consider the cumulative impact of thousands of wind turbines on their vulnerable population. You support the case-by-case approach, but it is a recipe for disaster. It makes a mockery of the cumulative effect principle, which is another cornerstone of wildlife conservation.

In the circumstances, we cannot but conclude that you are doing the opposite of what the Scottish people, who pay your salaries, are expecting you to do : that which is embedded in your name.

You are also projecting a degraded image of Scotland worldwide. In the international community of wildlife conservation, your country has gained a new reputation, where spin and the reckless destruction of pristine wilderness rise above anything else.

Your press releases often end with this line : “Scottish Natural Heritage is the Scottish Executive’s statutory advisor in respect to the conservation, enhancement, enjoyment, understanding and sustainable use of the natural heritage.”

- We think your slogan needs editing.

Co-signed :

Professor David Bellamy
Mark Duchamp

However, within the agricultural industry, there is a new game in town, being wind energy. The key issue is how, as farmers, we can make money in the wind energy game if we do not know the rules. Specifically, who will win with this part of the “Green Energy” boom? Will it be the developer, the utility companies, the landowner, or consumers?

Most recently, in 2008, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) reported that the US dethroned Germany as the world leader in wind generating capacity. This market boom has developed into the hottest ticket for property owners and economic development. Many large commercial wind farms now dot the American rural landscape.
Wind developers are currently actively courting farmers and landowners for land leases to install wind farms. Many of these companies are curre ntly in a feeding frenzy mode for buying up lease agreements at low rates (i.e. option contracts) for the future development of large-scale wind projects. Thus, landowners should exercise caution and understand all aspects of the wind energy game before entering into any agreements. A few of the things a landowner should consider:

• All contracts are negotiable, but most developers come with a “take it or leave it approach”. Thus, a landowner should know, especially groups of landowners working together, that a better deal can be negotiated.
• Almost all wind energy contracts are written to progressively protect the developer and include lengthy contract requirements, often 30 pages or more.
• The first 10 years are the most profitable time for wind farm developers due to the frontloading and issuance of generous tax incentives.
• The normal payback period for a wind turbine is 9 to 11 years, just about the time the manufacturing warranty expires. However, most wind contracts are written to last 60 plus years.
• A landowner should ensure that fixed or royalty payments adequately increase with the proper rate of inflation. Some contracts use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to forecast future revenue increase. This representation does not adequately gate the rate of inflation over time.
• Many contracts do not include provisions for project end and equipment destruction.

Lastly, landowners need to understand what rights they lose under these agreements. Some terms to watch out for:

• Confidentiality clause: prevents the landowner from discussing with other area landowners or the release of preliminary wind collection data for future use.
• Length of the lease clause: limits or extension rights will limit the ability of the landowner to enter into new agreements new developers.
• Compensation clause: There are many payment options, tax consequences, renewable energy credits, and tax credits that pertain to the compensation. A landowner must know all forms of compensation available so as to not leave money on the table.
• Assignment clause: permits the developer to sell or transfer lease rights to another party. So, a landowner has no idea who they may be dealing with in the future.
• Choice of law/Venue: Makes it so any disputes or litigation must happen in whatever state the developer chooses. How would you like to be an Indiana resident forced to bring legal proceedings in a state far away?

Perhaps the largest drawback to a long term lease, whether it be for wind, oil & gas, or other, is the cloud it puts on the title of the land. Such clouds can make transferring of the property very difficult. A landowner may find themselves spending large sums of legal fees getting the title unclouded.

Lastly, when faced with wind energy leases, it is wise to consult with an attorney who is knowled geable of the industry so as to broker the best deal possible. A skillful attorney often times can negotiate a deal for a landowner that pays the cost to hire the attorney several times over. Most importantly, take note that the developers have armies of attorneys who have drafted the agreements and handle their legal affairs. Going up against such without legal counsel of your own is like going into battle with plastic sword; you just won’t get very far.

John J. Schwarz, II, is a farmer and attorney in Steuben County, Indiana. He focuses his practice on agricultural law and legal issues important to farming communities. He can be reached at 260-665-9779 or jschwarz@cresslaw.com. These articles are for general informational purposes only. If you have a specific legal question, you should consult an attorney.

Special to National Wind Watch.

Texas is Boones Pickens country and we were all bombarded with commercials and television appearances by the legendary oilman who went green and hoped to construct enormous Texas style wind farms and sell us wind –to save the day!!! Let’s see how his claims stand up in reality.

Load is the term to describe the demand of electricity at a point in time and the highest load in Texas is during the summer afternoons when the air conditioning needs are the highest. This is the case for almost all of the United States. The companies plan and ensure they have enough capacity to supply the electricity for these few short months. In some areas, they have special peak units that are only used a few times per year on these very special high demand days. The chart to the left, from here, shows that at the time of peak demand only 342MW of 2300 MW of installed wind produced electricity, or 14%. (Double-click any charts to enlarge for better view) 2300 MW represents about 1500 turbines spread out across the enormous state of Texas. It’s big they say. Each of these turbines cost approximately about $2-3 million dollars to build or a total of $3-5 billions dollars was spent on these turbines which only produced 7% of their total ability on this day. Please note: without getting too deep into cost detail now, coal plants cost more per MW to construct, while natural gas costs less and nuclear somewhat more, but all in the same ballpark when capitalized over 20-30 years per MW installed. These estimate vary and are increasing rapidly and a separate post is necessary to compare different construction estimates. Texas makes most of its electricity using natural gas, see their profile here.

The slide to the left, click to enlarge, shows you the 2005 annual capacity for those 1500 turbines is 29%. That means that the 2300 MW of potential power referred to in the slide above only averages out to less than 800 MW over an entire year. 667 MW is a ONE small coal or natural gas plant which might sit on 20 to 50 acres, while the 1500 turbines each sit on a large concrete pad requiring 4 acres of clear cut in a forested area, a total of 6,000 acres. If we assume the capitalized cost per MW for construction is similar, then the 30% capacity of the wind means the output cost is almost 3 times as much per unit of electricity.

America paid about three times as much per unit of output to build these beasts and let’s see what we got for our money. Our money, because if you are a US Citizen you paid for them in federal tax credits which returned almost 70% of the construction costs to the investors within the first five years.

The slide to left the electricity graphs output for ALL 1500 turbines from January to July 2006. Ercot is the grid manager who provides the transmission of electricity to Texas. Outpout is often close to zero and is never over 1750 MW which means turbine output never breaks 75% of their potential, not even for a moment. The output is completely variable during these seven months of data. Can you see the smoothing of power that is so often referred to?

Electricity grids in the US are strained to provide their highest use in the summer months because almost all most air conditioning is produced with electricity. To the right you can see that there is an enormous daily fluctuation of output and output frequently reaches close to zero for these 3 billion dollars worth of turbines. If we had output graphs for nuclear, coal or natural gas the could be essential flat, however natural gas and some coal plants can be precisely adjusted to match the demand of users.

In the blog post below I address that each 15 minute interval has wide oscillations of output and for wind to work their has to be a substitution of fossil energy. Meaning, for every MW produced their has to be a synchronous and immediate decrease in fuel consumption whether that is nat gas or coal. If the speed of the wind varies even by a couple percent that will drastically alter the MW output because E = xV3(velocity cubed, see below or google it for yourself, that is accepted by the wind industry).

To the right is the wind output for July 2006 but in terms of capacity. The capacity averages about 25% for most of the month with an output rise during the end of the month. Boone Pickens proposes this kind of erratic energy is what America needs and his plan is to construct wind farms then spend billions more to build power lines to supply America with electricity. This might work if we constructed millions of turbines and only needed electricity a few hours per day, when the wind felt like blowing.

Consider that the yearly capacity is 29%, but for that number to be “real” it needs to replace it’s output with an EXACT synchronous amount of fossil fuel. That doesn’t happen because the grid can’t possibly follow those steep curves around. At both the top and the bottom, they would have to be EXACTLY synchronized to wind output and either reducing or increasing the amount of fuel on the fire, and without loss of efficiency. Just like your cars gas mileage becomes less or more efficient at high or low speeds, the same concept generally applies to thermal power plants. Power plants do follow the varying demands of our daily electricity needs, 60% variation in a day is typical, so they are certainly capable of varying their output suddenly, but the fluctuation problem remains. A grid has to ensure that they have an extra reserve so they won’t be caught off guard by a sudden unexpected decrease in wind output. The estimates are that anywhere between 20-40% of the wind output is wasted because of a combination of duplication and loss of efficiency of thermal power by the fossil plants. This fluctuation problem is widely discussed in grid company internal documents wherever wind is installed. Look at the charts on my website and you can see this is an universal problem.

Here is another set of slides where ERCOT, the Texas grid company, considers this problem. Just about every line on those slides is considering the fluctuation and intermittent characteristics of wind, which means ERCOT needs to duplicat a small of wind output with fossil to provide reliability also know as robustness to the grid. But even a 20% duplication lowers the true capacity of a turbine. Are you starting to realize why our electricity experts never thought of this before their state legislatures mandated that they are required to play this silly game! They comply because this is a political decision, not what is best for the consumer. We have no choice, we buy it.

This means that instead of the 29% the figure is only 70% of that if we consider that about 30%(ave of 20/40%) of that energy is duplicated by the fossil to compensate for the fluctuating wind so we get only 20% capacity output. To replace ONE medium-sized 1,000 MW coal or natural gas plant you would need 5,000 turbines, however that would not work because quite often there is little output from the turbines as the charts plainly show.

30 miles from me is a nuclear plant(environmentally friendly, on about 30 acres) that is rated at 2400 MW and it ran at that level continuously all last year. The same amount of energy would need over 6,000 MW turbines with 25% yearly capacity and 80% replacement of fossil fuel to match its’ output. 6,000 x 2 MW x .25 cap x .80% fossil replement = 2400 MW. But, the charts above demonstrate that the turbines often produce almost nothing in the summer and in the middle of the afternoon when our needs are the highest.

Either Boone Pickens is a great shyster or he doesn’t understand wind!!!

You electricity grid is always planning for the worst case scenario and that is the peak electricity use during the hot summer months of high air conditioning needs. Especially in Texas! The chart to the right graphs the wind output at 5PM during the hot month of July. An eyeball average would be 350 MW output with some days only 100 MW produced, out of a possible 2300 MW! On those days billions of dollars of transmission lines will side IDLE, click, yes billions.

To the left is the same MW output but expressed in terms of capacity. The output often stays below the 10% line for much of the month, meaning if the constructions costs were similar, you are getting only 10% of wind for your money compared to coal or gas. ERCOT, the electricity grid company of Texas, needs a margin of safety while planning and originally gave the wind farms a 2.9% capacity credit while planning, which they call their “confidence factor”. See page 19 here. (later they considered raising it to between 5-16%).

If you are an American who cares about our deficit, this should bring tears to your eyes. Much of the wasted cost on construction and further production tax credits are piled right on our federal budget. Then the states force the grid companies to purchase the wind output and provide additional state incentives and tax breaks. Finally a federal Production Tax credit of 2.1cents is given for every kWhour produced which for many states is 20% of your per kWh electric bill.

There is no amount of green utopia wishful thinking(ie. their prayers) that will allow Texas to contribute useful energy to our electricity grid nationally. NONE! 3% CONFIDENCE, remember that number, and next time you see Boone tell him you are 3% confident in his Big Man’s Plan! Maybe instead of wind farms we should call them swindle farms. And remember, Texas is number two! I couldn’t bear the misery of looking at the reality of our other states that are not so windy. The Wind is not FREE!!!

Presentation taken from company slides here.

The YouTube edition of this post.

The acoustic consulting engineering firm Hessler Associates, Inc., Haymarket, Virginia produced two sound level assessment reports for two wind projects proposed for Cape Vincent, New York: the first report in 2007 for BP and the second report in 2009 for AES-Acciona. Because there were concerns early on among local citizens that the BP report was misleading, the Wind Power Ethics Group (WPEG) contracted with Schomer and Associates, Champaign, Illinois to conduct an independent background sound survey of Cape Vincent.

Hessler’s BP study for the Cape Vincent Wind Power Facility appears to have selected the noisiest sites, the noisiest time of year, and the noisiest positions at each measurement site. Collectively, these choices resulted in a substantial overestimate of the a-weighted ambient sound level, 45-50 dB according to Hessler.

The present study was designed to address a number of flaws noted in Hessler’s BP study.

A summer survey was planned so it would not coincide with the emergence of vocal adult insects (e.g., fall crickets and cicadas on August 1). Two monitoring sites were selected within the Town of Cape Vincent. One site was a rural residence and the other a small dairy farm. At each of these sites, two sound level meters and a single small weather station were run for one week of continuous data collection. At each site one meter was set up close to the house or farm building and a road. This site was called the “Hessler” position, because it was typical of sites selected by Hessler for his studies in Cape Vincent. The other position was called the Community position and it was located back away from the noise influences of roads, houses and farm operations. The Community position also reflected guidelines adopted by the Cape Vincent Planning Board whereby sound levels were to be measured at the property lines, not residences.

The analysis of the spectral (frequency) content of the sound showed that much of the difference in sound levels between Hessler’s study and the present study was attributable to insect noise, sounds near 5000 Hz. Hessler failed to remove insect sound from his data and recalculate A-weighted sound levels, even though he previously (2006) recommended this procedure to other scientists and engineers in a professional journal publication. Had he followed his own advice, ambient sound levels would have been more comparable to the results in this study.

Furthermore, and more importantly, wind turbine sound spectra are low-frequency and mid-frequency phenomena; therefore, higher-frequency insect noise will not mask wind turbine sounds. So even if insect noise was present year round instead of for a few weeks it should still not be included in the ambient because it provides little or no masking of the wind turbine sound.

Other examples of Hessler’s misleading choices include arbitrarily discarding sound data from one of his sites because the levels were too low. Remarkably, the levels at that site were more similar to those in this study. Also, Hessler described position 3 in the BP study as “representative of a typical residence along NYS Rte 12E.” However, he failed to show that the trailer in the photograph was a field office for a construction company installing a new Town of Cape Vincent water district. Furthermore, at the back of the trailer, out of view, was a marshalling yard for trucks, supplies and heavy equipment. The choice of this site and suggesting it as a typical residence were very misleading.

The accurate measurement of spectrally relevant ambient sound is important because these levels are used by wind developers to assess wind turbine noise impacts on nearby, non-participating residents. Local Cape Vincent Planning Board guidelines suggest that these impacts should not exceed 5 dB above the A-weighted ambient at the property lines of non-participating residents. New York State noise assessment policy states that any new sound that exceeds 6 dB above the A-weighted ambient should undergo a detailed assessment and that the developer is required to mitigate any excessive noise. Therefore, using an inaccurate, elevated A-weighted ambient level, such as 47 dB, allows wind developers to place wind turbines much closer to non-participating residents in such a way that the A-weighted wind turbine noise level will be 52 dB (e.g., 5 dB above Hessler’s elevated ambient level). A much more accurate and typical ambient level is 30 dB, which is an average of both “Hessler” and Community positions during daytime, evening and nighttime periods from the present study. Using 30 dB as a typical A-weighted ambient level would then require wind developers to plan a wind farm where predicted noise at non-participating property lines would not exceed 35 dB, or 5 dB above this study’s A-weighted ambient level. Again, to adequately protect rural residents that are not participants in proposed wind farms it is essential to have accurate, unbiased assessments of ambient sounds.

In conclusion:

1. The Hessler position at a measurement site systematically and significantly yields higher sound levels than does the Community position.
2. The sound levels measured in the present study show Cape Vincent to be a quiet rural area, much as depicted by the data for Hessler’s position 4.
3. Measurements, such as those conducted at Hessler’s position 3, are not indicative of the noise environment of typical residences in the Cape Vincent area.
4. Failure to remove insect noise in Hessler’s study violated his own recommended survey and analytical techniques and substantially misrepresented typical ambient sound levels.
5. In assessing potential noise impacts from wind turbine development, rather than using 45-50 dB A-weighted levels as suggested by Hessler, a more accurate level would be 30 dB, which is the average value for the daytime, evening and nighttime L90 sound levels observed at both the “Hessler” and Community positions for sites A and B in this study. Arguably, the level should be 20 to 25 dB, since an A-weighted L90 of 20 dB occurs during the quietest nighttime hours, and the A-weighted L90 for the whole 9-hour night is 25 dB.

May 11, 2009

Paul Schomer, Ph.D., P.E.
Schomer and Associates, Inc.
Champaign, Illinois

Donwload original document: “Background sound measurements and analysis in the vicinity of Cape Vincent, N.Y.”

‘Renewable Energy a ‘Finance-driven’ Industry’

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/06/renewable-energy-a-finance-driven-industry-52854

‘AWEA 2009 and the wild west’

15 05 2009

“The dust has settled after the American Wind Energy Association’s meeting and tradeshow in Chicago, IL last week.”

“At this tradeshow, you could even find examples of modern day medicine shows.”

“Promises of a brave new energy future based on eye-catching, grandiose claims. There’s no way to know if these claims are valid because there’s no time to check. If you’re not on the bandwagon already you’ve missed the opportunity.”

“You could also find companies resting on their laurels. They are the “standard”, but that “standard” was established pre-1990. However, investment companies have nothing else to latch onto as a benchmark. So some companies are in the catbird seat because they dominate the industry with old science and technological superstition.”

Link provided:

“Medicine shows were traveling horse and wagon teams which peddled miracle medications and other products between various entertainment acts.”

http://spackle.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/awea-2009-and-the-wild-west

Barron’s

May 16, 2005

Thomas Donolon

Monday, May 16, 2005.

‘Edison’s Legacy Has No Place for Wind Power’

“…It is shameful that GE, a highly profitable company, has decided to take advantage of faulty federal and state wind energy policies by producing turbines for “wind farms.”

“In addition to environmental damage…, wind power has an economic flaw that any GE engineer ought to be able to imagine: Since no human power can turn the wind on and off when it’s wanted for electricity, every bit of wind power capacity must be backed up by another generating source…Immelt, an engineer, understands this but he provided the executive’s counter argument:” “The customers want it, so it’s GE’s job to produce it.”

BJD editor’s note:

Jeffrey Immelt is the CEO and Chairman of the Board of GE, operating in more than 100 countries, employing over 300,000 people, with revenues of over $131 billion in 2002. Immelt concedes that he understands the flaws behind the premise that wind turbines provide any “solution.” GE is the U.S. largest wind turbine manufacturer.

Wall Street Journal moderated debate.

“Benjamin W. Heineman, Jr., has served as a senior vice president, general counsel and secretary of GE since 1997″:

“Mr. Heineman writes:”

“Fred, when Jeff Immelt announced this initiative he made absolutely clear it was about business and increasing profits. Our short form summary was, as I mentioned a moment ago, “green is green.”

“The whole initiative is market driven. We are not asking for government regulation. We believe our customers want this technology.”

http://cei.org/pdf/5081.pdf

Renewable Energy World

“The clean tech sector is the fastest growing area of the venture asset class and fertile ground for growth and profits, said Ira Ehrenpreis, general partner, Technology Partners, and conference chairman. The environment and profit go hand in hand, according to Ehrenpreis. “Clean tech is all about the green, not the environment,” he said.”

Source, the Chairman of the Clean Tech Investor Summit: “The Clean Tech Investor Summit, now in its fifth year, brought venture capitalists and emerging clean tech companies from diverse sectors together in Palm Springs, CA, in January, for two days of panel sessions and networking opportunities.”

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/02/venture-capitalists-money-is-tight-in-the-green-sector

New York Times

March 27, 2009

‘Cape Wind Navigates Shifts in Market’

By Kate Galbraith

“But G.E. no longer makes any offshore turbines, according to Steve Fludder, the head of G.E.’s green business unit who sat own for a wide-ranging interview with the Times on Wednesday.”

“G.E. has instead focused its turbine business where it sees the vast majority of demand: on land.” “Offshore wind”, said Mr. Fludder, is “just a vastly costlier proposition — not for us but for the world.”

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/cape-wind-navigates-shifts-in-market/#comment-45839

Country Guardian UK

March 17, 2009

‘Shell dumps wind, solar and hydro power in favour of biofuels’

“Shell will no longer invest in renewable energy technologies such as wind, solar and hydro power because they are not economic, the Anglo-Dutch oil company said today…”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/17/royaldutchshell-energy

Boston Globe

September 9, 2008

World’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines, Vestas, President and CEO Ditlev Engle stated of the Cape Wind project proposal to the Boston Globe:

“And, therefore, I am really wondering why anybody wants to put them up offshore because it’s twice the price. So just as an outsider, I am just scratching my head saying, “Why?”

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/09/21/the_answers_to_him_are_blowing_in_the_wind/

Business Green

“Vestas, the world’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines, has today urged political leaders to focus more on increasing capacity from onshore wind farms, amid warnings that the cost of installing offshore wind turbines will continue to rise.”

Senior Vice President of Vestas Peter Kruse:

“The only way forward is more turbines in virgin ground onshore ,” and, “Politicians want offshore so they can avoid the Nimby discussion, but they are allowing a tiny minority to force the rest of the population to pay double for renewable energy.”

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2217931/vestas-calls-greater-focus

Los Angeles Times

November 15, 2002

“General Electric Co. is seeking the refund of almost half the $358 million it paid to an Enron Corp. unit for wind-turbine manufacturing assets, lawyers told a federal bankruptcy judge in New York on Thursday. “It’s standard procedure,” said Dennis Murphy, a spokesman for GE Power Systems, who confirmed the company’s refund request. “Purchasers have certain protections built in. If the purchase price didn’t accurately reflect the value of the asset, we can petition,” he said.”

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/15/business/fi-wind15

Telegraph UK

‘Wind farms fail to deliver value for money, report claims’

By Patrick Sawyer 14 Sep 2008

“Wind farms are failing to deliver value for money and distorting the development of other renewable energy sources, a report claims” “Excessive subsidies make them an expensive and inefficient way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a study by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) think-tank says.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2910739/Wind-farms-fail-to-deliver-value-for-money-report-claims.html

Reuters

November 7, 2008

By Bernie Woodall

‘California study shows high cost of renewable power’ “While renewable power one day may compete with baseload power sources such as natural gas, coal and nuclear, it currently is more costly, and much less dependable.”

California Public Utility Commission Report

http://in.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idINN0629356520081107?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

Renewable Energy World

“The nation needs an ambitious plan to promote the deployment of wind and other renewable energy technologies — and the urgent first step it must take is to rapidly extend the expiring renewable energy credits, which are the primary incentive that the nation provides for these technologies today.”

– Randall Swisher, Executive Director, AWEA

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/08/us-leads-in-wind-power-production-but-policy-uncertainty-weighs-on-industry-53325

Wind Power Monthly

‘The Gearbox: Wind power’s Achilles heal’

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/gear-box-problems.doc

Jim Gordon of Cape Wind

“We looked at the portfolio — we’ve got gas, we’ve got oil, and we’ve got coal,” Gordon says, drumming his desk for emphasis. “But we don’t have renewable energy.”

http://in.rediff.com/money/2007/jul/21spec.htm

The Union Leader

April 6, 2009

“According to a March 26, 2008 report by the Daily News in Bangor, Maine, UPC Wind president and CEO Paul Gaynor said the company would do a better job in the future about letting local residents know what to expect from wind farms.

“I know there was an expectation (in Mars Hill) about what these were going to sound like,” Gaynor told the Daily News. “These are big structures and they do make sound.”

Shortly after Gaynor spoke to the Maine newspaper, the firm changed its name to First Wind. It was formerly known as Global Winds Harvest/UPC.

http://www.the-leader.com/homepage/x1931060317

Michael Alvarez, President First Wind

“At first, we were receiving great performance from the turbines,” said Michael Alvarez, executive vice president and COO of UPC Wind Partners LLC.

http://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/snapshot.aspx?ID=4088628

Copenhagen Post

January 1, 2007:

“ENERGY GIANTS SAY WIND POWER IS HOT AIR”

“The country’s energy companies are not convinced that wind power is the way of the future. Management at Denmark’s energy companies, DONG Energy and Vattenfall, do not subscribe to the current mindset that wind energy will be especially prominent in the future, reported national public broadcaster DR. The companies believe that coal-powered electricity will still be the largest supplier of the nation’s energy, despite the trend toward environmentally friendly sources.

‘Wind energy can’t solve the energy problem in the near future because it’s too unstable and possibly too expensive,’ said Anders Eldrup, chief executive of Dong Energy [Denmark's largest energy company].”

http://www.stopillwind.org/downloads/WhyWindWontWork.pdf

Flemming Nissen head of development at West Danish generation company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities):

“Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish CO2 emissions”

Neils Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries:

“In green terms windmills are a mistake and economically they make no sense…”

Aase Madsen, an MP who chairs energy policy in the Danish Parliament:

“For our industry it has been a terribly expensive disaster.”

Chief Executive of Dong Energy, Denmark’s largest energy company, Anders Eldrup:

“Wind energy can’t solve the energy problem in the near future because it’s too unstable and possibly too expensive.”

Download original doument: “The wind energy industry tells the truth”

July 2008.

Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 65, 2215–2234.

Click here for complete paper (available for purchase.

Published: 29 January 2009.

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, 9, 2917-2931, 2009.

Download original document: “Weather response to management of a large wind turbine array”

For the background as to how this meeting came about, please see the History section of the Citizens’ Questions document submitted to NYSERDA.

Reading through that material will also explain why this forum was a major abandonment of the original commitments given by NYSERDA to NYS citizens. As such, the overwhelming majority of citizens in our coalition chose to protest by boycotting this propaganda fest.

A skeleton group did attend, however, and they had three objectives: 1) to get all the questions answered that are in the Questions document; 2) to record the meeting; and 3) to get the answers to all our Questions document queries posted on NYSERDA’s Toolkit webpage.

Known NYS citizen attendees (alphabetically):
Noel Abbott (Rensselaerville), Don Airey (Schoharie), Sister Barbara (Jordanville), Mary Kay Barton (Silver Lake), Tom & Joyce Gormel (Cape Vincent), Robin Krawitz (Cooperstown), Dawn Jordan (Helderburg), Dave LaMora (Cape Vincent), Dan Mackay (NYS Historic Preservation), Bob & Cathi Orr (Orangeville), Cheryl O’Connor (Berne), Dorayne Peplinsk (Warren), Dan Wing (Rochester), Joe Woods (Stamford). [There were over 80 people in attendance.]

[Summary written by Mary Kay Barton, with additional commentary received from Noel Abbott, Bob & Cathi Orr, Dan Wing, other attendees, and John Droz (aaprjohn@northnet.org).]

6/16/09 NYSERDA Environmental Stakeholder Meeting on Wind Power Report By Mary Kay Barton

Opening remarks were given by meeting moderator, Dr. Ken Kearns.

Dr. Elizabeth Thorndike, a Cornell professor and the NYS environmental representative on NYSERDA’s Board of Directors, said in her opening statement that “NYSERDA is not an agency — it’s a non-regulatory authority. It cannot make regulations, it cannot make policy, it only acts on policies and regulations already set by political leaders/representatives and by State agencies.” She said that people need to realize that the NYS regulatory agencies, (like the PSC), are the agencies that people should also be directing their concerns to them. [Note: we have done that too.]

Dr. Thorndike also stated that “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and “Value judgments underlie public policy decisions.” [Note: this matter is NOT about beauty or value judgments, but about the science. Dr. Thorndike’s comments appear to be a continuation of NYSERDA’s multi-year campaign to falsely categorize citizens asking for answers to legitimate questions, as NIMBYs.]

Dr. Thorndike went on to say that NYSERDA answers to State agencies, and NYSERDA makes suggestions to State agencies. “NYSERDA will answer or investigate issues raised at this meeting, and in the weeks and months after the meeting, will upchannel any suggestions it ‘deems worthy’ to State agencies. What the State agencies do, or do not do, with NYSERDA’s suggestions are the State agencies responsibility.” [Note: NYSERDA people are supposed to be the energy technical experts in the state, so no NYS energy policies are made without consulting NYSERDA and getting their approval.]

Dr. Thorndike also said that while we were there to discuss the many questions that we have brought up about industrial-scale wind, wind power has already been deemed to be a ‘scientific solution’ to help reduce Global Warming, and New York State must take aggressive action to significantly change our dependence on fossil fuels in order to combat global warming. Political leaders/representatives in Washington and Albany have already set policy that wind power is very necessary to do that. Therefore, the meeting is not about stopping wind power construction and development as a policy in New York State, and the meeting’s ground rules won’t allow any discussion of stopping wind power as a policy of New York State. [Note: we have been asking for this scientific evidence for years now. Absolutely zero has been provided to date. None is on their website. It’s easy for them to say it’s science-based, but they have yet to backup their words.]

It boils down to the fact, as we also witnessed at the November, 2008 meeting at NYSERDA’s Albany Offices, that all policies and recommendations coming from NYSERDA are being determined by political agendas driven by Global Warming alarmism. As far as they are concerned, the debate is over — despite the science that says that there are other legitimate possible explanations to climate change. They have also chosen to dismiss the overwhelming costs that will be involved, both economically & environmentally.

We had written the meeting’s organizers prior to the meeting and requested that they skip the PR of self-serving panel members whose fortunes are tied to the promotion of industrial wind power, as we’ve all heard this time & time again. The sole reason for the meeting was to answer our concerns, which we carefully crafted into the Citizens’ Questions document.

Unfortunately, our requests went unheeded, and the greater percentage of the meeting was spent promoting the imagined wonders of wind by many of its unabashed profiteers, rather than dedicating the time to answering the questions of NYS citizens that NYSERDA is paid by, and employed as a “public benefit” authority to serve.

Both the obvious one-sided stacking of the panels (only 2 people had anything genuinely negative to say about windpower all day long), and the very limited question time we were allowed, fly in the face of NYSERDA’s own Mission Statement of “placing a premium on objective analysis and collaboration, as well as reaching out to seek multiple perspectives.”

The first presentation was “The Role of Renewable Energy in our Energy Future” by Jeff Deyette of the Union of Concerned Scientists. It was a 30-minute pitch for wind — same stuff we’ve all heard before from this very pro-wind group. Deyette bragged about the fact that wind grew more than any other energy source last year (forgot to mention nothing else new was allowed, and that a reason for a high percentage increase is because it was so tiny to begin with).

He stated wind normally competes against gas. [Note: this is misleading.] He said wind cost declined for 10 years, but is now creeping slightly higher. Said wind power is now getting profitable, and then cited the laundry list of subsidies, i.e. — Federal & State PTC, Federal Stimulus, Federal Grants & Loans, Federal & State Accelerated Depreciation. Said Installed capacity will double from 33 GW to 66 GW by 2030, and growth has increased need for expanded transmission. Referred to EIA numbers that non-hydro renewables currently make up 3% of nation’s output, but will reach 11% by 2030 (He failed to say what percentage of that was expected to come from wind.) Says wind power results in emissions reductions, but offered NO scientific proof.

The panel members on “Technology, Power Markets, Economics” were: Dr. Bruce Bailey (AWS Truewind), Robert Pike (NYISO), Christina (Tina) Palermo (NYS PSC), & Lisa Petraglia of Economic Development Research Group.

Dr. Bruce Bailey of AWS Truewind (which obviously has a vested interest in the development of industrial wind), said we can reach 2030 goals at “reasonable costs”, and “save consumers money in the long run.” [Note: no independent evidence of these specious statements were provided.] He cited average Capacity Factors of 25%-33% [Note: these are GE stats: FERC numbers given NYSERDA at previous meetings have shown this is NOT actually being achieved in NYS.]

Bruce attempted to answer a question submitted to NYSERDA at both previous Environmental Groups meetings, and which was again included in the Citizen’s Questions Document: “How many industrial wind turbines, scattered over how large of an area, would it take to collectively deliver a capacity value equivalent to any conventional generating system (defining capacity value as the ability to produce specified amounts of energy at specified amounts of energy at a specified rate at any time?)”

Dr. Bailey failed to answer the question as it was asked because: 1) he claimed that each turbine only needs 30 acres [a developer in WNY recently reported in an interview for a local news article that each turbine needs 100 acres]; and 2) he gave the number he deemed would be necessary to meet a designated Installed Capacity — not the Capacity Value to meet that of conventional generating plants.

Bailey also tried to justify the massive footprints of these things by saying that 90% of the area involved can still be used for farming — allowing farmers in economically-struggling areas to harvest two crops from their properties.

[Of course, the fact that a large percentage of leaseholders are NOT farmers, and many other questions we submitted that would have been relative to this discussion, were not discussed, i.e. -- #E9, #E20, #E21, etc.]

When asked if the industry has any set recommendations for what they consider to be safe setbacks, Bailey said, “No.” Dr. Bailey was then informed of the Vesta’s safety recommendations of at least 1300 feet.

He also acknowledged that wind turbines can draw electricity from the grid (or reduce their reported output) to run lights, generators, heat blades for de-icing in the winter, etc. He provided no data to show exactly how much this was.

Bob Pike (NYISO: an organization of utilities, like National Grid) went over several technical grid facts. These included capacity (theorized vs anticipated and Winter vs Summer), moving electricity to load centers in NY State, transmission connection points, etc.

Dan Wing posed a question about the NYISO Press Release that said NYISO could not accept any electric power from the Cohocton Wind Farm until December 2009 at the earliest. The NYSERDA attorney Peter Keane very quickly got involved with the answer — obviously this is a hot button issue. Keane said this was a NYISO press release error. [Whether that is the case or not, who knows?] Shortly thereafter, Keane came over to Dan and told him that Keane had NYISO retract that press statement 3 days after its issuance.

Tina Palermo of NYS PSC (Public Service Commission: which is somewhat of a “watchdog” over NYSERDA) said that “wind power is a new technology” that still needs subsidies to compete.

[Note: this is yet another example of how answers are massaged to support their political agenda. When Jeff Peterson (the head NYSERDA technical person) was asked about the scientific evidence they had that shows wind power to be an effective energy source, he said “wind power has been around for thousands of years, so none is needed.” So one says it’s new, the other says it’s old.]

The RPS (a tax collected through ratepayer’s bills every month) is the subsidy NYSERDA has available. Palermo said that ‘wind farms’ must sell its produced electricity to NYISO before NYSERDA pays for that electricity.

Lisa Petraglia of the Economic Development Research Group, Inc. (EDRG) which co-authored the KEMA report, addressed some of the comments contained in the Questions Document relative to the KEMA report. Unfortunately, the woman rambled on for quite a while but was nearly inaudible, and refused to use the microphone she had her in hand but wouldn’t place near her mouth, though she was asked to speak up several times.

She took exception to the “the author of the Citizens’ Questions document comments on the KEMA report”. For instance, she said that “the $129,000 saved does not reflect the preservation of ecosystems“. [Funny, but I don't see that as what is happening!?! Furthermore the $129,000 was EDRG’s figure in EDRG’s report. If she thought that it should have been higher, why didn’t EDRG include it in their own report?] She said there would be a savings of 2 billion dollars over the 20-year interval. [Note: It didn’t appear that she provided any data to support these grand claims.]

At the end of the brief morning question segment, I asked, “Since most NYS citizens can’t make it to these meetings, will NYSERDA be posting the answers to the questions we submitted on their website so that all citizens can have access to this very valuable information?” After a period of silence, NYSERDA Program Manager Janet Joseph, stood up and said that NYSERDA had not promised to give us written responses to our questions — that the intention of the meeting was to disseminate the answers. [Note: We agree that this WAS the meeting’s intention, but the fact is that most questions were NOT answered because NYSERDA purposely wasted time with PR fluff. This is another example of them wanting it both ways.]

During lunch, I spoke with Dr. Thorndike about receiving written answers to our questions, and again asked why that wouldn’t be possible? She made no commitment, but seemed very receptive to my comments. She also acknowledged that the website did need updating.

After lunch, the meeting reconvened with The Environmental Panel, composed of Pace University’s Thomas Bourgeois (Pace has a well-known pro-wind activist group), Dr. James Newman of Pandion Systems (another company with a vested interest in the development of industrial wind), Dr. Jan Storm of the NYS Department of Health, Dr. Dan Driscoll (a former Noise Control Engineer for power projects of the PSC), and Jack Nasca, NYS DEC.

Mr. Bourgeois (who has other connections to the renewables business that he failed to identify) had a Power Point presentation on the “assumptions” they have made on the impact of wind generation on CO2 emissions in NYS. It included information provided by studies done by wind manufacturer/developer GE — more info NYSERDA continues to accept as “independent, objective analysis,” though we have called them out for using GE’s very biased, financially-motivated material at past meetings.

The most disturbing info of the day came from this PACE person, who said that the National Academy of Sciences had just put out a report on the Lifecycle Analysis of different technologies, and that wind was by far the best — having less carbon impact from cradle to grave than any of the other energy sources — even rating wind better than geothermal.

I don’t see how that could be true when you consider the concrete per base, [up to two million pounds per turbine!] the impacts of the overseas steel production for each tower, the carbon-filament blades, etc., etc. None of us knew about this report prior to their announcement of it at the meeting, but here is the link to it: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12619.

[Note: what Mr. Bourgeois neglected to say was that this report was coauthored by NYSERDA’s own Jeff Peterson, along with some similarly thinking cohorts. So in effect we have NYSERDA referencing itself for justification. Hmmm.]

As luck would have it, a few months ago independent energy expert Glenn Schleede was asked to review the draft by the NAS, although he ended up refusing to do so officially. You can read his 12/08 report, “Can the National Academies Produce an Objective Report?”. The picture will become much clearer for you after reading Mr. Schleede’s comments.

Dr. Newman of Pandion Systems, Inc. also played up the NAS report, but his life cycle analysis did not include CO2 produced in manufacturing, and his life cycle stage chart ELIMINATED the “Resource Extraction” stage. This is strange considering that the average turbine is made up of at least 400+ feet of steel per tower plus 350-500 cubic yards of concrete. This works out that each concrete base weighs in at around two million pounds. So, multiply this by the thousands of turbines proposed for NYS, will equal many billions of pounds of manufactured materials. Transporting that material (some from overseas) will most certainly use a significant amount of fuel, impacts roads, and have a significant effect on our environment. The key question: What makes up “Construction of Facility”, and what exactly does it include?

As a fellow attendee said, James seemed to indicate that those items were not normally included in Life Cycle Costing. If that is indeed the case, it seems to be to be a little bit like leaving the cost of the Iraq war as an “off balance sheet item” in our Federal budget!

Compared to all of the prior presenters, Dr. Jan Storm (NYS Dept. of Health) was somewhat more middle of the road. She reported the fact that concerns about health impacts in respect to noise associated with industrial wind turbines are worldwide, but they still don’t know a lot about it. [Exactly!] She acknowledged that people are different, and have different sensitivities that increase risks. She said that though there are a lot of case studies, and some are very provocative, there still aren’t enough scientific studies. [Exactly -- so what is DOH doing to fix this omission? Not much according to her.]

She acknowledged the 3rd Annual Conference on Noise Associated with Industrial Wind Turbines that will convene in Europe again this year. Yet, though NYS did receive $10 million dollars of Stimulus money intended for grants, and the National Institute of Health has a call out for submittals, the DOH still has not applied for a grant to pursue studying the health issues in NYS. (Nice to know our health is such a priority before diving headlong into this mess, isn’t it?!?) [It was disappointing that considering the many health and safety issues that have been related to industrial wind power, that this DOH person only touched on a small part of just one of them: noise problems.]

Dr. Dan Driscoll, of Driscoll Engineering and former Noise Control Engineer for the PSC, was the first member of NYSERDA’s panel who seriously focused on one of the many negative realities associated with wind. He explained the problems associated with the noise emitted from industrial wind turbines. He said that “infrasound” (sounds below 20 Hz) are the sounds you can’t hear, but you can feel. He said they are NOT blocked by walls of residences, and they can very negatively affect the human body, especially after prolonged, continuous exposure. He said symptoms include headache, nausea, sleeplessness, etc. Dr. Driscoll recommended that the state use known higher quality testing methods. He ended his presentation by asking, “What are you going to do about it?” [Note: no NYSERDA person answered his question.]

The final panel was about Local Decision Making, comprised of Jack Nasca, NYS DEC (again), Linda King and Jeff Zappiere (both NYS Department of State), John Bonafide (NYS Historic Preservation) and Tom Brown (retired NYS DEC).

Jack Nasca, Chief of Energy Engineering Projects for the DEC (also spoke out at the end of the prior panel, but his remarks are combined here) complained that NYS has not had an energy siting law since Dec. 31, 2002. [We then heard, again, all about SEQRA.] Since NYS apparently has no intention of holding wind developers accountable, Nasca ended by suggesting that Towns use some of the PILOT money they receive from these projects to conduct their own studies, so that the towns can then hold the developers accountable if they don’t meet set guidelines. [Let me know how that works out for your town if you decide to try it!?! Remember that NYSERDA is chartered with oversight of these developers, so it is absurd that they pass the buck onto non-technical towns.]

Linda King, NYS DOS, said that land use falls squarely in the hands of local officials in Home Rule states. [This once again is an attempt to discount any responsibility or accountability from being placed on NYS for this whole mess. We don’t recall that she mentioned NYS’s efforts to take away Home Rule with Article X. When this was discussed, it was distorted as being a “benefit.”] She also advocated that towns do moratoriums on industrial wind power, until everything can be worked out properly. [ Note: we certainly agree with this, and hope that NYSERDA takes such a position on their Toolkit webpage too.]

Jeff Zappiere, also NYS DOS, was identified as their Offshore Wind Power expert. He said that “NY’s wind resources are all out on the water.” Although he stated that there are issues unique to siting wind towers offshore, he failed to mention that the latest federal government figures (EIA 2009) show offshore developments to be over 60% more expensive than land projects.

John Bonafide of NYS Historic Preservation said that his fellow employees at Historic Preservation all had heart arrhythmia’s when cell towers started going up. After seeing their first ‘wind farm’, they now all wished they would have listened to their mothers and become CPA’s. He said that these massive industrial complexes change the character of a town forever, and that it’s important that we preserve our cultural resources. [We interpreted John’s comments to mean that he and his organization weren’t thrilled by wind power.]

Tom Brown, retired DEC rep and Ecologist was the final panel speaker. Mr. Brown really called out the State for their “inadequate oversight” over industrial wind projects, and that “tragically”, this lack of oversight is happening with regards to wind farms across NYS. He said that rural towns are ill-prepared to deal with the well-financed industry. He noted the conflict-of-interests and corruption that has gotten the NYS AG involved, yet it continues on unchecked.

Tom Brown’s and Dr. Dan Driscoll’s testimonies were definitely the highlights of our day! Thank God there are still some highly-principled guys out there who aren’t afraid to speak out against the political pandering going on in our government today!

In one of the last sessions (sorry I forgot to note which) there was a brief discussion about the Wind Power Ethics Rules written by the NYS Attorney General. In our Questions document we recommended that NYSERDA require that all wind developers sign this before they are certified to do business in NYS. A NYSERDA person made the comment that they were not in a position to legislate ethics, and everyone should be ethical in how they work! [Of course we were NOT asking them to legislate anything, as the Ethics document is already released by the NYS AG. All NYSERDA has to do is require developers to comply. This effort in behalf of NYS citizens, also seemed beyond their interest and capability.]

Dr. Thorndike made the closing comments following the final panel segment. It was during these remarks that she said that NYSERDA would post the answers to our questions on their website as they update it. She originally said it would probably take about two months, but in a follow-up letter to a fellow advocate, stated that it would probably take about three months.

[Note: this is an unacceptable time as we have been asking for these answers for years. They always say that they have them. So, if they are right at their fingertips, then it should be a simple matter to post them on the website. There is nothing more important that NYSERDA has to do then to be responsive to legitimate citizen concerns.]

In my personal discussion with Dr. Thorndike following the meeting, I thanked her, but told her that they still had not answered our main question that underlies the very reason for the existence of the industry, (which I also asked during the last question phase of the meeting — with no answer). The question is: “Since the justification for the massive development of industrial wind is that it will help reduce Global Warming by reducing CO2 — Where is the scientific evidence from anywhere in the world that wind offsets significant CO2 emissions from any electricity grid?”

Dr. Thorndike responded, “Oh there is proof.” I asked, “Where? I still have not seen it? This is the kind of info you need to post on your website if it exists.” She reaffirmed to me personally that they would post this info on their website.

So THANK YOU to all the citizens who sacrificed a day of their life to represent the interests of the rest of NYS taxpayers and ratepayers!

We had some great comments and questions from our group during the very restricted time we were allowed (only one question per person on only one issue after each panel discussion).

Despite this fact, the major accomplishments of attending the meeting were that 1) we got very few of the Citizens’ Questions answered, 2) we videotaped and audiotaped the meeting, 3) NYSERDA did acknowledge their website needed updating and said that they would do so, and 4) after being publicly pestered to do so, NYSERDA agreed to post written answers to our questions on their website. Hopefully this will include answers to ALL of our questions.

During the meeting, NYSERDA’s attorney in attendance, Peter Keane, confronted Cathi Orr and asked who gave her permission to tape the meeting. She told him that I (Mary Kay) had written and asked for permission. We also informed them we would be taping, as is our right under the Sunshine Law.

Cathi also told Mr. Keane that she had spoken directly to Bob Freeman of the Committee on Open Government, to which he replied, “Bob Freeman isn’t going to be able to help you if you get sued.” He went on to say, “You better watch what you do with that tape. These are private citizens.” Cathi told him that it was a public meeting and they were speaking there as public service representatives, so we had every right to tape it. [THANK YOU Cathi! This blatant attempt to intimidate lawfully acting citizens is simply outrageous.]

The video tapes are in the process of being transferred to DVD’s, which will take a few days. If anyone would like to buy a DVD of the meeting, please contact Cathi Orr (bobcatcatch22@frontiernet.net) and they’ll make extra copies.

Dawn Jordan also made an audio recording of the meeting and copies will be available. It would be nice if someone offered to do a transcription of this important material. Please contact Dawn at info@helderbergcommunitywatch.org

Mary Kay Barton, Silver Lake, NY, mkbarton711@yahoo.com