Resource Library -- latest additions
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. This resource library is provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.
They’re Not Green Episode 10
Author: Peña, Nettie
Dr. Nina Pierpont, physician and scientist, conducted hundreds of surveys on residents who live near wind turbines. They all expressed similar symptoms. Dr. Pierpont and other scientists call it Wind Turbine Syndrome. Headaches, sleeplessness, nausea, vertigo, were a few of the symptoms.
Peña Productions You Tube page
Investigating the impacts of windfarm development on peatlands in England
Author: Natural England
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Blanket mire covers about 1.5m hectares of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, mostly in the uplands, and is often a dominant part of our landscape. Its altitudinal limit depends on its location with the UK and is found even at sea level in the extreme north and west. It is composed of peat deposits up to several metres thick and represents a significant store of carbon as partially decomposed plant material. It is also an important biodiversity resource because of its plant communities and the animals and plants inhabiting it. It also represents a group of locations in which wind velocities are reliably high, and where the agricultural value is relatively low. The development of wind farms on peat raises a number of issues, some of which are not easy to resolve. This report describes the issues, reviews the available literature and provides guidance at stages from drawing up wind farm proposals, through Environmental Impact assessment requirements, to the provision of effective mitigation where this is possible.
Although peat is a widespread substance its physical properties differ from those with which engineers are more experienced. For example, it is mostly water, relatively light and compressible, but has very low internal cohesion. As a continuous deposit that may have accumulated without interruption over several thousands of years it has a two-layered structure that enables water to flow through its top few tens of centimetres. It is waterlogged below, and the anoxic conditions make it an ideal environment for the preservation of human artefacts and even bodies, and of other biogenic indicators of past human activity and climate.
The living biological (biodiversity) resource is concentrated at and above (birds) the surface where growth can take place, but is dependent on maintaining the hydrological and hydro-chemical conditions arising from the long and uninterrupted accumulation of the peat. The growth of the Sphagnum mosses and cotton sedges, so important in the continued accumulation of peat, can only occur where the rain-fed water table remains within a few centimetres of the peat surface for most of the year.
Changes have taken place over time so that much of the UK’s blanket peat is no longer peat-forming, and is described as degraded. The processes involved in degradation, such as the lowering of the water table and the concentration of surface water flow so that the peat becomes eroded from ever-widening gullies, are incremental, and can lead to complete peat loss in locations such as Holme Moss, West Yorkshire. In such areas the peat can no longer support the specific plant cover which makes up its biodiversity importance; and erosion of the peat results in sedimentation and increased colour (dissolved organic carbon) down stream which have negative impacts on water resources, such as drinking water reservoirs. Much of the UK’s upland peat is degraded. It may retain vestiges of its previous vegetation, or contain replacement plant types characteristic of non-peat environments. The UK BAP has a target to restore 70% of the degraded area to active bog. It is against this background, of a mixed intact and degraded resource, that the potential impact of wind farms on deep peat has been assessed.
Wind farm developments can have impacts at the construction, operational and decommissioning stages. The types of impact are common to all stages, and involve: changes in water levels and flow, and dissection of the peat mass, but the duration and intensity varies. In summary, impacts result from the construction of access roads, the casting of turbine bases, the installation of turbines, drainage works associated with the construction process and operation of the site, ongoing maintenance, and then removal of turbines at decommissioning.
Roads may “float” on the peat surface or be cut and filled to the sub-peat base. They require vegetation to be removed, waste peat to be disposed of, non-peat materials to be introduced, the movement of water over the peat surface and through its layers to be interrupted. They change the balance of water availability to different parts of the peat bog and channel surface flow so that is has a greater risk of initiating, or exacerbating, erosion. The digging of voids to caste turbine bases generates waste peat, introduces alkaline concrete and requires some drainage, as do the tracks. Drainage measures have the potential to lower the water level in the blanket bog, resulting in degradation and oxidation of peat. At sites which have a risk of peat slide, there is the additional risk of catastrophic peat failure and landslide. This can have catastrophic consequences for land and the environment, including water resources and fish populations, downstream. The actions taken in construction and operation of wind farms can add to the risk of peat slide.
Although the impacts on intact and degraded bog are much the same, on a degraded bog there are opportunities for the wind farm construction works to include measures that would improve the condition of the degraded bog, which are not present with an intact bog. On all types of blanket bog, how a wind farms is designed, constructed and operated makes a significant difference to how much the blanket bog is affected. Tracks can be designed to reduce the existing erosive forces, and be engineered so as not to create new ones. The blocking of existing drains and moor-grips can lead to beneficial changes towards “favourable condition”, the index of quality condition used in biodiversity assessments.
The ease with which erosion can be triggered, and the amount of material that can be eroded, increases with the depth of the peat deposit. In general, there are far more risks associated with the development of wind farms on deep peat than on peat less than 0.5m thick, or on the fringes around blanket peat. The imperatives for avoiding development on blanket bog sites are greater for those sites with international and national conservation designations. This leaves the remainder blanket bog resource relatively unprotected. These guidelines are intended to ensure that, where there are choices, wise judgements are made, so that the necessary proportion of the resource remains intact for biodiversity improvement and for atmospheric carbon capture in designated and undesignated sites alike.
8 January 2010
Download the: Appendices and References
Wind Farms, Residential Property Values, and Rubber Rulers
Author: Wilson, Albert
I recently examined a document published by the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory titled “The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis”. I express no opinion concerning the impact of wind power projects on residential property values and instead focus on the underlying methods used in the development of the Report, and the resulting serious questions concerning the credibility of the results. …
While I have other issues with the Report and again reiterate that I have no opinion on the influence of wind farms on residential sales prices, the concerns I have addressed here lead to the conclusion that the Report should not be given serious consideration for any policy purpose. The underlying analytical methods cannot be shown to be reliable or accurate.
The reasons for the conclusion may be summarized as:
1) Lack of access to the underlying data prevents the independent validation of the data, replication of the analysis, testing of alternative analyses, or testing of the conclusions against the real market.
2) The peer review process used for both the literature and the Report can only determine the acceptability of the papers for publication. It cannot reveal the validity, accuracy or reliability of the work behind the papers.
3) Given the peer review actually conducted the fact that no published and recognized standards for the development of an accurate and reliable regression on sales price were used render the Report of highly uncertain value for any purpose.
4) The exclusive use of a test of statistical significance only indicates that the coefficients for Distance and View variables are not conclusive. What we do not know is what those coefficients actually represent. Only tests of economic significance would provide an answer, and none has been conducted.
5) Low explanatory power, 13% less than an acceptable minimum for an accurate regression on sales price.
Download original document: “Wind Farms, Residential Property Values, and Rubber Rulers”
Wind Energy’s Ghosts
Author: Walden, Andrew
Wiwo…wiwo…wiwo.
The sound floats on the winds of Ka Lae, this southernmost tip of Hawaii’s Big Island, where Polynesian colonists first landed some 1,500 years ago.
Some say that Ka Lae is haunted — and it is. But it’s haunted not by Hawaii’s legendary night marchers. The mysterious sounds are “Na leo o Kamaoa”– the disembodied voices of 37 skeletal wind turbines abandoned to rust on the hundred-acre site of the former Kamaoa Wind Farm.
The voices of Kamaoa cry out their warning as a new batch of colonists, having looted the taxpayers of Spain, Portugal, and Greece, seeks to expand upon their multi-billion-dollar foothold half a world away on the shores of the distant Potomac River. European wind developers are fleeing the EU’s expiring wind subsidies, shuttering factories, laying off workers, and leaving billions of Euros of sovereign debt and a continent-wide financial crisis in their wake. But their game is not over. Already they are tapping a new vein of lucre from the taxpayers and ratepayers of the United States.
The Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill appears to be politically dead since Republican Scott Brown’s paradigm-shattering Massachusetts Senate victory. But alternative proposals being floated by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and others still promise billions of dollars to wind developers and commit the United States to generate as much as 20% of its electricity from so-called “renewable” sources.
The ghosts of Kamaoa are not alone in warning us. Five other abandoned wind sites dot the Hawaiian Isles — but it is in California where the impact of past mandates and subsidies is felt most strongly. Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy’s California “big three” locations — Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio — considered among the world’s best wind sites.
Built in 1985, at the end of the boom, Kamaoa soon suffered from lack of maintenance. In 1994, the site lease was purchased by Redwood City, CA-based Apollo Energy.
Cannibalizing parts from the original 37 turbines, Apollo personnel kept the declining facility going with outdated equipment. But even in a place where wind-shaped trees grow sideways, maintenance issues were overwhelming. By 2004 Kamaoa accounts began to show up on a Hawaii State Department of Finance list of unclaimed properties. In 2006, transmission was finally cut off by Hawaii Electric Company.
California’s wind farms — then comprising about 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity — ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills.
The City of Palm Springs was forced to enact an ordinance requiring their removal from San Gorgonio. But California’s Kern County, encompassing the Tehachapi area, has no such law. Wind Power advocate Paul Gipe, who got his start as an early 1970s environmental activist at Indiana’s Ball State University, describes a 1998 Tehachapi tour thusly:
“Our bus drove directly through the Tehachapi Gorge passing the abandoned Airtricity site with its derelict Storm Master and Wind-Matic turbines and the deserted Wind Source site with its defunct Aeroman machines. We also got a freeway-close glimpse of Zond’s wind wall with its 400 Vestas V15 turbines, the former Arbutus site on rugged Pajuela Peak where only the Bonus turbines are still in service, and steep-sided Cameron Ridge topped with FloWind’s few remaining Darrieus turbines before reaching SeaWest, our first stop.
“As we approached SeaWest from the desert town of Mojave, the old Micon 108s were spinning merrily, but the Mitsubishis with their higher start-up speed were just coming to life. SeaWest and Fluidyne had done a commendable job of cleaning the Mitsubishis of their infamous oil leaks for the tour’s arrival.”
Writing in the February, 1999 edition of New Energy, Gipe explains:
From 1981 through 1985 federal and state tax subsidies in California were so great that wealthy investors could recover up to 50 percent of a wind turbine’s cost. The lure of quick riches resulted in a flood of development using new and mostly untested wind turbines. By the end of 1986, when projects already underway in 1985 were completed, developers had installed nearly 15,000 wind turbines. These machines represented 1,200 MW of capacity worth US$2.4 billion in 1986 dollars.
It took nearly a decade from the time the first flimsy wind turbines were installed before the performance of California wind projects could dispel the widespread belief among the public and investors that wind energy was just a tax scam.
Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst focusing on energy and environmental issues for the Heritage Foundation, is not surprised. He asks:
“If wind power made sense, why would it need a government subsidy in the first place? It’s a bubble which bursts as soon as the government subsidies end.”
After the collapse, wind promoters had a solution to their public image problem. Hide the derelict turbines. Gipe in 1993 wrote for the American Wind Energy Association:
Currently most of the older, less productive wind turbines are located within sight of major travel corridors such as I-580 and I-10. Many first generation turbines and some of the second generation designs are inoperative, and all turbines of these generations are more prone to mechanical failure than contemporary designs. Public opinion surveys have consistently found that inoperative wind turbines tarnish the public’s perception of wind energy’s efficacy.”
Gipe then quotes a 1991 UC Davis study, which explains:
“Our research and that of others show that turbines’ non-operation and public fear of wind farm abandonment is still a critical issue, and it therefore behooves the wind industry to return to the ‘big three’ wind farm sites (Altamont, San Gorgonio, and Tehachapi) and to ensure that these areas are operating as efficiently as possible, and all turbine arrays which do not contribute significantly and conspicuously to power production are either replaced or, if necessary, removed.”
Altamont’s turbines have since 2008 been tethered four months of every year in an effort to protect migrating birds after environmentalists filed suit. According to the Golden Gate Audubon Society, 75 to 110 Golden Eagles, 380 Burrowing Owls, 300 Red-tailed Hawks, and 333 American Kestrels (falcons) are killed by Altamont turbines annually. A July, 2008 study by the Alameda County Community Development Agency points to 10,000 annual bird deaths from Altamont Pass wind turbines. Audubon calls Altamont, “probably the worst site ever chosen for a wind energy project.” In 2004 the group unsuccessfully challenged renewal applications for 18 of 20 Altamont wind farms.
From its beginnings as a slogan of the anti-nuclear movement, wind energy has always been tied to taxpayer support and government intervention. Wind farms got their first boost with the Carter-era Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) which encouraged states to enact their own tax incentives. PURPA also for the first time allowed non-utility energy producers to sell electricity to utilities — the first step towards a bungled half-privatization of electricity supply which would come two decades hence.
In the 1985 book “Dynamos and Virgins” a San Francisco based PG&E utility heir tells the story of how he joined forces in the 1970s with lawyers from the Environmental Defense Fund. Together they worked for years to obstruct coal and nuclear power plants until utilities were forced to do business with wind energy suppliers.
Protest and litigation remain among the foremost competitive tools used by the now multi-billion dollar “alternative” energy industry. Reviewing the book, Robert Reich, a Kennedy School of Government professor who would later become Clinton’s Secretary of Labor, wrote:
“The old paradigms of large-scale production, centralized management, and infinite resources are crumbling. We are on the verge of a new political economy.”
The new paradigm created by the generation of 1968 is more political and less economy. Without government intervention, utilities normally avoid wind energy. Wind’s erratic power feed destabilizes power grids and forces engineers to stand by, always ready to fire up traditional generators. Wind does not fit into an electric supply model made up of steady massive low cost “base load” coal or nuclear plants backed up by on-call natural gas powered “peaker” units which kick in during high demand. No coal or nuclear power plant has ever been replaced by wind energy.
Although carbon credit schemes often assign profitable carbon credits to wind farm operators based on a theoretical displacement of carbon emitted by coal or natural gas producers, in reality these plants must keep burning to be able to quickly add supply every time the wind drops off. The formulae do not take into account carbon emitted by idling coal and natural gas plants nor the excess carbon generated by constant fire-up and shut down cycles necessitated to balance fluctuating wind supplies.
But with PURPA on the federal books, the State of California quickly created “Interim Standard Offer” (ISO4) contracts guaranteeing a purchase price based on utilities’ “avoided costs”–launching the first “California Wind Rush”. By 1982 turbines were sprouting from the dusty terrain of Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio. The ISO4 contracts were written with the assumption that fuel prices would continue to soar.
But that’s not what happened.
By 1985 oil and natural gas prices were dropping. This changed the “avoided cost” calculations to the disadvantage of alternative energy producers. ISO4 contracts no longer guaranteed a price sufficient to attract investment in wind energy. Construction of new turbines stopped. As the old ten-year contracts began to expire in the late 1980s, renewals were pegged at much lower avoided cost estimates. As a result, many California wind developers quickly closed up shop, abandoning their turbines to moan out the one note song.
Then Enron got involved.
Building on the foundation laid by PURPA, 1992 Energy Policy Act (EPAct) began the partial deregulation of wholesale — but not retail — electricity. Reich in 1985 had lauded the “crumbling” of “large-scale production (and) centralized management”. He got his wish. EPAct set the stage for Enron’s California energy market manipulations which led to the 2003 recall of Governor Gray Davis (D-CA). The movement started by a PG&E heir led to the bankruptcy of PG&E. Perhaps this is why some call the children of the 1960s “the destructive generation.”
Designed to create a renewable energy trading market, EPAct — much of which took effect in 1997 — created a combination of mandates, incentives, and tax credits. These included:
- laws requiring large wind producers to be allowed to tie into the existing utility grid
- “Renewable Portfolio Standards” forcing utilities to buy intermittent wind generated electricity.
- “Renewable Energy Certificates” tradable separately from the electricity itself to sell to companies needing to meet the portfolio standards.
- A 10-year “Production Tax Credit” that now equals $.019/kWh
- * Accelerated depreciation allowing tax write-off using an accelerated 5-year double-declining-balance method (40% per year).
Wind capacity had stagnated through the mid-1990s. But Enron in January, 1997 bought out Tehachapi-based industry leader Zond Corporation – launching the second California Wind Rush.
Four years later, Enron would implode. The company which gamed a government-crippled artificial marketplace was deconstructed as poster boy for unbridled capitalism.
But the tax credits, mandates, and regulations which made Enron possible did not die with it. Enron Wind’s turbine manufacturing subsidiary was purchased by General Electric. Many of its wind farms went to Florida Light and Power. By 2009, the US Department of Energy estimates mandate-and-subsidy-driven wind capacity would rise to 28,635mw.
That much coal or nuclear “capacity” would power 28.635 million homes, but wind “capacity” is calculated assuming perfect wind 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. At the best wind sites, such as Kamaoa, newly installed turbines generate only 30-40% of “capacity”. At most sites, the figure is 20% or less. After 30 years of development, wind produces only 2.3% of California’s electricity.
And then there is maintenance. The turbines installed in the first wind rush were not very reliable. Some never worked at all. As the years passed and the elements took their toll, downtime climbed ever closer to 100% and production dwindled to negligible amounts. Developers often set malfunctioning turbines to “virtual” mode — blades spinning without generating electricity — in order to keep oil circulating inside the turbine drive. Of course this habit also gives passing drivers an illusion of productivity.
Wind developers claim that today’s American and European-made turbines are more reliable and longer-lasting than their old-tech predecessors. But new Chinese turbine manufacturers of untested quality are crowding the marketplace Europe’s subsidy-driven turbine meisters are chased from their home markets.
After the debacle of the First California Wind Rush, the European Union had moved ahead of the US on efforts to subsidize “renewable” energy–including a “Feed in Tariff” even more lucrative than the ISO4 contracts. EU governments provided government-backed securities to support utilities burdened by Feed-in Tariff costs. But last year, as the national debt of wind-intensive EU countries became unbearable, the EU subsidy bubble burst.
Wind maven Gipe proudly takes a page from the disastrous European playbook, crediting himself with “Almost single-handedly launch(ing) a campaign for Advanced Renewable Tariffs (electricity feed laws) in North America.”
But addressing a Heritage Foundation seminar last May, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, Professor of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid explained what Feed In Tariffs and other wind subsidies did to Spain (as well as Portugal and Greece) got into debt:
“The feed-in tariff… would make (utility) companies go bankrupt eventually. So…the government guarantees…to give back the money in the future — when (they) are not going to be in the office any more. Slowly the market does not want to have these securities that they are selling. Right now there is a debt related to these renewable energies that nobody knows how it is going to be paid — of 16 Billion Euros.”
In early 2009 the Socialist government of Spain reduced alternative energy subsidies by 30%. Calzada continues:
“At that point the whole pyramid collapsed. They are firing thousands of people. BP closed down the two largest solar production plants in Europe. They are firing between 25,000 and 40,000 people….”
“What do we do with all this industry that we have been creating with subsidies that now is collapsing? The bubble is too big. We cannot continue pumping enough money. …The President of the Renewable Industry in Spain (wrote a column arguing that) …the only way is finding other countries that will give taxpayers’ money away to our industry to take it and continue maintaining these jobs.”
That “other country” is the United States of America.
Waxman-Markey seems dead, and Europe’s southern periphery is bankrupt. But the wind-subsidy proposals being floated in Congress suggest that American political leaders have yet to understand that “green power” means generating electricity by burning dollars.
hawaiifreepress.com, Monday, February 15, 2010 — with many pictures, videos, and references
(originally published at americanthinker.com)
Aberdeenshire turbine location map
Author: Cuminestown Against Wind Turbines
As part of our group’s campaign to stop 50m+ sized turbines being erected in our locality, we have prepared a Google Map of all known erected, planned, refused and pre-planned 50m+ turbine developments in Aberdeenshire. The coordinates are taken from Aberdeenshire Council planning applications (publicly available from their website). There are approx. 200 turbines planned for this area. The map is a work-in-progress, but the majority of known developments are plotted already.
click image to go this Google Maps project
Cuminestown Against Wind Turbines
Cape Wind won’t save billions for New England electric customers
Author: Schleede, Glenn
February 12, 2010
The Editor
Cape Cod Times
319 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
Dear Editor:
Thanks for the article in your February 11, 2010, edition, but electric customers in New England should not believe the claim that the Cape Wind project will save them “Billions” on their electric bills.
Frankly, the numbers in the slick 9-page “consultant” study [i] released by the developer of the Cape Wind project claim of $4.6 billion in savings over 25 years just don’t add up for at least four major reasons:
1. Huge cost of Cape Wind electricity. The true cost of electricity from wind – particularly offshore wind — is huge. No one who is paying attention expects the price that Cape Wind charges for its electricity to be cheap. In fact, over 25 years, the wholesale cost to New England utilities for electricity from Cape Wind apparently will be well over $5.75 billion and probably much more.
The arithmetic is simple: The CRA “study” (table 1, page 6), shows that the developer expects to produce about 1,150,000,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year. If utilities are forced to pay even $0.20 per kWh, the utilities cost over 25 years would be $5.75 billion. [ii] The cost would be $6.9 billion if utilities have to pay the $0.24 per kWh that NatGrid apparently agreed to pay for electricity from the planned Rhode Island offshore “wind farm.”
Does anyone in New England seriously expect that the WHOLESALE price of non-Cape Wind electricity in New England will average $0.20 or $0.24 per kWh over the next 25 years (up from about $0.08 per kWh in 2008. [iii] ) You would have to believe that it would be well above $0.20 to $0.24 per kWh to believe that electric customers would SAVE $4.6 billion if Cape Wind is built.
2. The CRA “study” used old data. For some reason not explained in the “study,” CRA used the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) 2009 energy forecast (AEO2009 revised) rather than its 2010 forecast (AEO 2010) that has been available since last December. The fact is that a lot has changed since EIA’s 2009 report, particularly on US natural gas resources. As a result, the prices now expected by EIA for natural gas, electricity, and oil are dramatically lower than the outdated forecast used by CRA. [iv] Using current data would lower significantly the CRA-Cape Wind claim for savings.
3. Doubtful assumptions. The “savings” shown by the CRA report are driven by assumptions, including the assumption that Federal legislation will impose a $30 to $60 per ton charge for carbon emissions. Because of the high uncertainty, an objective analysis would have shown results both with and without this dramatic assumption.
4. Missing costs. The CRA report is silent on who would bear the cost of the transmission capacity that would be needed to bring the electricity from the Cape Wind project to New England customers. Unless Cape Wind is going to absorb those costs within the price it charges, those costs undoubtedly will be passed along to New England’s electric customers and hidden in their monthly bills.
Not mentioned at all – probably because it doesn’t affect electric bills – is the fact that the owners of the Cape Wind project would enjoy huge tax breaks if they build the project, and taxpayers in New England, as well as the rest of the US, will share in the tax burden that would be escaped by Cape Wind owners. These tax breaks are in addition to the income the owners would receive by selling electricity to New England utilities and selling “green energy” credits. For example:
- Production tax credit (PTC). The Cape Wind project owners would be eligible to receive a federal tax credit, currently $0.021 per kWh for electricity produced during the first 10 years of the project life. Using the production apparently expected by Cape Wind (1,150,000,000 per year) a $0.021 per kWh credit (which is adjustable for inflation), would permit the owners to avoid federal corporate income taxes of $24,150,000 per year or $241,500,000 over 10 years.
The recent federal “stimulus” legislation [v] gives “wind farm” developers the option of selecting an investment tax credit in lieu of the PTC or electing to receive from the US Treasury a cash grant equal to 30% of eligible capital costs! Again, ordinary taxpayers pick up the tab.
- Accelerated depreciation. “Wind farm” owners are also permitted by the IRS to use the lucrative “5-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation” (5-yr; 200%DB) to recover the capital costs from their otherwise taxable income . [vi] Depreciation deductions would permit the owners to avoid $490 million in federal corporate income taxes – in addition to the Production Tax Credit – again shifting the tax burden to ordinary taxpayers.
- Additional tax breaks and subsidies. The above does not include other federal or Massachusetts tax breaks and subsidies that could be available to the Cape Wind owners.
The electric customers in New England – as well as the taxpayers – deserve a far more complete and objective analysis of the potential cost impacts on them of the proposed Cape Wind project than is provided by the 9-page “study” attributed to Charles River Associates (CRA) and released by Cape Wind.
Sincerely,
~~~
Glenn R. Schleede (former Massachusetts resident)
18220 Turnberry Drive
Round Hill, VA 20141-2574
540-338-9958
[i] http://www.capewind.org/downloads/Final%20Cape%20Wind%20Report%20%202-8-2010.pdf
[ii] Arithmetic: 1,150,000,000 kWh x 25 years x $0.20 per kWh).
[iii] NE ISO 2008 Market Report. http://www.iso-ne.com/markets/mktmonmit/rpts/other/amr08_final_061709.pdf , page 3.
[iv] http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview.html , Table 1.
[v] The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
[vi] They could deduct 20% in the first tax year, 32% in the second tax year and the remaining 48% over the ensuing four tax years. If project capital costs turn out to be $1.4 billion,[vi] the deduction would be $280 million in the first tax year and $498 million in the second tax year and the remaining $672 million over the next four tax years. These deductions from otherwise taxable income would permit additional tax deductions at the corporate rate of 35%; i.e., $98 million in the first tax year, $156.8 million in the second tax year and the remaining $235.2 over the next four tax years. Note that depreciation deductions apply to both equity and debt, so the owners would probably recover all their equity investment in less than 2 years!
Economics, Emissions, Environment, Health, Noise, Property values, Wales, Wildlife •
Formal objection to Tirgwynt wind farm application
Author: Conservation of Upland Powys
Conservation of Upland Powys was formed by people living within the county, our members range from families that have farmed the same land for generations to those who have more recently chosen the tranquillity, beauty and quality of mid-Wales life for their home. Our diverse membership, from all ages and all walks of life, shares the commitment to preserve the unspoilt uplands of Powys from inappropriate development for the benefit and enjoyment of everyone. We have inherited the timeless beauty of these landscapes from our forebears and we recognise our duty to hand these pristine landscapes and environments on to future generations in the same, or better condition as we received them. The proliferation of wind turbines is a serious current and long-term threat to upland wildlife, landscapes and the ways of life that they support. We base our statements and conclusions on real world evidence and find none to support the contention that wind farms will provide secure, reliable electricity or reduce carbon dioxide levels.
To begin we refer you to The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study which is a major international initiative to draw attention to the global economic benefits of biodiversity, to highlight the growing costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, and to draw together expertise from the fields of science, economics and policy to enable practical actions moving forward. http://www.teebweb.org/
The access to information in the EIA is grossly inadequate and not in keeping with Equal Opportunities or Social Inclusion legislation.
The fragmentation of information throughout numerous volumes and chapters of the application makes the assimilation of information time consuming and arduous. We question whether the information provided by the developers complies with DDA regulations and whether it is reasonable to expect local people to pay to be able to study the information; or alternatively travel to the nearest large town to view the ES for a short period. This and the other similar applications do not comply with Equal Opportunities or Social Inclusion objectives identified by Westminster and The National Assembly For Wales. With the best will in the world it would be almost impossible for any member of the public to study the documents in the Powys County Council Offices; the documents are difficult to navigate. We also point out that in the hardcopy some pages are not numbered and in the DVD copy the index/contents page does not work electronically: such simple matters left undone, but an example of the standard of this piece of work.
We conclude from information assimilated so far that this application is disproportionate, causing severe degradation of the landscape and social and economic dislocation for only a marginal, or even illusory, benefit. The layout is in conflict with the area and even with other applications. The LANDMAP description of Esgair Cwm Owen Uplands uses positive adjectives (harmonious, attractive) in contrast to adjacent upland areas where wind farms are sited. …
Letter from Nina Pierpont re: 2-km setback bill in Vermont
Author: Pierpont, Nina; et al.
February 10, 2010
Rep. Tony Klein
Vermont State House of Representatives
115 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05633-5301
Dear Representative Klein,
I am writing to express support for H.677, sponsored by Representative Potter and others, which (among other things) creates siting, setback, and noise requirements for industrial wind turbines in the good State of Vermont.
With increasing interest in building commercial-scale wind turbines in Vermont, it is imperative the Vermont legislature acts to ensure that these projects protect the health and safety of residents in communities where turbines are being proposed. As the saying goes, if you’ve got your health, you’re okay. Conversely, if you don’t, you’re not okay.
H.677 provides reasonable, clinically and scientifically-based protections against noise, vibration, and shadow flicker from industrial turbines. As a physician who has intensively studied health impacts from turbine noise, vibration, and shadow flicker, I can provide ample documentation from people all over the world who have suffered because of turbines placed too close to where they live, work, and recreate. My research, along with that of others, is building a formidable body of scientific and clinical literature demonstrating the necessity of protections that are written into H.677-protections the wind industry steadfastly refuses to acknowledge. The symptoms that people report follow a common pattern, or cluster, which I call “Wind Turbine Syndrome.” These are the most prominent:
- sleep disturbance
- headache
- ringing or buzzing in the ears (tinnitus)
- ear pressure
- dizziness and vertigo
- nausea
- visual blurring
- racing heartbeat (tachycardia)
- irritability
- problems with concentration and memory
- panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering, which arise while awake or asleep
People suffering from these health effects were, in nearly all cases, supportive of these wind energy projects. Let me be clear on this. Moreover, they were assured that as the closest neighbors they would not experience any disturbance or illness. Of the 10 families (38 individuals) included in my “Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment” (Santa Fe, NM: K-Selected Books, 2009), 9 families have had to leave their homes, and the tenth has sued and is living in misery. Mind you, this is just the families in my report; I have since learned of numerous people, globally, who suffer from Wind Turbine Syndrome and are being forced to leave their homes. My phone and email in-box are loaded with these complaints.
Let me emphasize, people abandon their homes (as in, lock the door and leave) because they find them unlivable. I explain in 300 pages (see above) the likely pathophysiology of their illness, showing in detail that these unfortunates are not fabricating their illness-this is not something “psychosomatic”-but genuinely suffering from genuine, and genuinely serious illness. Whether the precise pathophysiological mechanism I lay out is correct or not, there is no serious dispute among medical doctors that these people suffer from bona fide and serious illness-and that its cause is the wind turbines, and that this constellation of illness disappears when these people remove themselves from the vicinity of the turbines. I repeat, there is no serious clinical dispute about this.
A few have been “lucky” enough to be bought out by the offending wind company which, then, has them sign a gag agreement not to discuss publicly their case. The rest must suffer with the additional insult of official denial and even contempt.
This needs to stop. It can be stopped by adequate setbacks and noise limits as specified in H.677.
I urge the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee to schedule hearings on the bill this year.
I am willing to testify (depending on my schedule, either in person, by teleconference, web camera, or in writing) about the scientific and clinical evidence behind my support of H.677.
Sincerely,
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Malone, NY
Co-signed by the following:
George Kamperman, PE
President, Kamperman Associates, Inc.
Board-Certified Member of Institute of Noise Control Engineers
Fellow Member of Acoustical Society of America
Member of National Council of Acoustical Consultants
F. Owen Black, MD
Fellow of the American College of Surgeons
Board-Certified Otolaryngologist
Senior Scientist
Director of Neurotology Research
Balance & Hearing Center North West
Legacy Health System
Portland, OR
["Dr. Black's research focuses on disorders of the human vestibular system and the effects of microgravity on human postural control, with a major emphasis on the role played by otolith function. A component of his work is investigating how visual cues, which the brain receives from the eyes, work with the inner ear to help control balance. ... He regularly travels to the Johnson Space Center in Houston and the Kennedy Space Center in Florida to meet with his NASA collaborators, and serves on the medical advisory team for the space shuttle program. These studies are leading to a further understanding of the human vestibular system and its role in spatial orientation, equilibrium, balance, and debilitating disorders such as motion sickness that will lead to new diagnostic and therapeutic methods." (from Dr. Black's resume)]
Joel F. Lehrer, MD
Fellow of the American College of Surgeons
Board-Certified Otolaryngologist and Head and Neck Surgeon
Served on Hearing and Equilibrium Subcommittee of the American Academy of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery
Clinical Professor of Otolaryngology, University of Medicine & Dentistry of NJ
(also of Halifax, VT)
Stanley M. Shapiro, MD
Fellow of the American College of Cardiology
Board-Certified Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Diseases, and Nuclear Cardiology
Champlain Valley Cardiovascular Associates
Rutland, VT
[Dr. Shapiro was asked to join this list of signatories because of his expertise in the cardiac aspects of sleep deprivation, one of the most prominent symptoms of Wind Turbine Syndrome.]
Download original document: “Letter in support of wind turbine setback bill in Vermont”
Act relating to wind energy plants
Author: Potter, David
H.677.
This bill proposes to require standard setbacks, noise limits, and other requirements for wind energy plants that exceed 0.49 megawatts, to allow nearby property owners to waive these requirements, and to require that the Act 250 district commissions and appropriate municipal panels be the permit review authorities for wind energy plants not owned by Vermont electric utilities.
Sec. 1. 30 V.S.A. § 8008 is added to read:
§ 8008. WIND TOWER SITING REQUIREMENTS; ENFORCEMENT
(a) Applicability. This section applies to a plant that generates electricity using wind energy as a fuel source and has a plant capacity in excess of 0.49 megawatts (MW). The requirements of this section shall apply to any proceeding for approval of such a plant under chapter 151 of Title 10, chapter 117 of Title 24, or section 248 of this title, in addition to all other applicable criteria.
(b) Definitions. As used in this section:
(1) “dBA” means a decibel measure of overall sound level under American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Sl.4 that is designed to reflect the response of the human ear. Lower frequency sounds are given less weight than those in the mid-range of human perception. The resulting measure is said to be A-weighted, and the units are dBA.
(2) “dBC” means a decibel measure of overall sound level under ANSI S1.4 that is similar to dBA but does not de-emphasize low frequencies to the extent that dBA does. The resulting measure is said to be C-weighted, and the units are dBC.
(3) “Height” means the total distance measured from the grade of a property as it exists prior to the construction of a wind turbine or related facility at the base to the highest point of a wind turbine or related facility. In the case of a wind turbine, this includes the length of the blade at its highest possible point.
(4) “Kamperman-James Guidelines” means the proposed wind turbine siting sound limits contained on page 10 of George W. Kamperman, INCE, Bd. Cert. Emeritus, and Richard R. James, INCE, “Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks” (July 27, 2008) (Rev 1.0).
(5) “L90” means background sound, defined over a continuous ten-minute period to be the average sound level during the quietest one continuous minute of the ten minutes. The term refers to sound that is normally present at least 90 percent of the time, and excludes any sound generated by a plant subject to this section. L90 may be measured relative to A-weighting or C-weighting, in which case it is denoted LA90 or LC90.
(6) “Leq” means frequency-weighted equivalent sound level. The term is defined to be the steady sound level that contains the same amount of acoustical energy as the corresponding time-varying sound. Leq may be measured relative to A-weighting or C-weighting, in which case it is denoted LAeq or LCeq.
(7) “Occupied building” means any structure that is or is likely to be occupied by persons or animals and includes dwellings, commercial buildings, other business structures, hospitals, places of worship, schools, stables, and barns. This term shall include a structure on which construction has commenced at the time a complete application for a plant subject to this section is filed, if the structure otherwise meets the provisions of this subdivision (8).
(8) “Rotor” means an element of a wind turbine that acts as a multibladed airfoil assembly extracting, through rotation, kinetic energy directly from the wind.
(9) “Shadow flicker” means alternating changes in light intensity caused by the moving blade of a wind turbine casting shadows on the ground and stationary objects, such as a window at a dwelling.
(10) “Wind turbine” means a mechanical device that captures the energy of the wind and converts it into electricity. The primary components of a wind turbine are the rotor or other component that extracts energy from the wind, the electrical generator, and the tower. This term does not include wiring to connect the wind turbine to the grid.
(c) Setbacks. At a minimum, a wind turbine shall be set back horizontally:
(1) One and one-quarter miles from an occupied building, if the elevation change between the wind turbine and the occupied building is equal to or less than 500 feet.
(2) Two miles from an occupied building, if the elevation change between the wind turbine and the occupied building exceeds 500 feet.
(3) One-half mile from the closest boundary of the parcel on which the wind turbine will be located.
(4) One-third of a mile from any public highway or right-of-way and from any above-ground utility line or facility. However, this subdivision shall not apply to an electric line that directly connects a wind turbine to a substation or other utility facility.
(d) Sound limits. At a minimum, a plant subject to this section shall comply with each of the following:
(1) Audible sound limit. No plant shall be located so as to generate postconstruction sound levels that exceed preconstruction background sound levels by more then 5 dBA.
(2) Low frequency sound limit. The LCeq and LC90 sound levels from a wind turbine at the receiving property shall not exceed the lower of either:
(A) An LCeq-LA90 greater than 20 dB outside any occupied building; or
(B) A sound level of 50 dBC (LC90) from a wind turbine, without other ambient sounds, for a parcel the closest boundary of which is located one mile or more from a state highway or Class 1 or 2 town highway, or of 55 dBC (LC90) for a parcel with a boundary closer than one mile to such a highway.
(3) General sound limit. Sound from a plant subject to this section shall not exceed 35 dBA within 30 meters of any occupied building.
(4) Demonstrating compliance with sound limits. Use of the Kamperman-James Guidelines shall be required in demonstrating compliance with the sound limits of this subsection.
(e) Other requirements.
(1) A plant subject to this section shall comply with the interconnection requirements of the Independent System Operator of New England, Inc. or the interconnection rules of the board, as applicable.
(2) The applicant shall perform and submit with the application an analysis of shadow flicker effect for each wind turbine and proposed measures to mitigate or eliminate such effect.
(3) Roads and power lines associated with the plant shall be the minimum feasible length as determined by the permitting authority. Rights-of-way for such roads and lines shall be the minimum feasible width as determined by the permitting authority.
(4) A wind turbine shall have no lighting except those lights necessary to meet the requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration.
(5) The application shall include the depreciation schedule that the applicant will use for each wind turbine and other component of a plant.
(6) The application shall include a plan for replacement or removal of each wind turbine in the event of the turbine’s failure, including a failure due to natural disaster.
(7) The application shall include a decommissioning and site restoration plan containing the following information and meeting the following requirements:
(A) The plan shall provide for the removal from the project parcels and lawful disposal or disposition of all wind turbines and other structures, hazardous materials, electrical facilities, and all foundations. The plan shall provide for the removal or appropriate supervision and control of all access roads. The plan shall provide for the restoration of the project parcels to a condition as close as reasonably possible to that which existed before construction of the plant.
(B) The plan shall provide for the decommissioning of the site on the expiration or revocation of the permit or abandonment of the plant. The plant shall be deemed abandoned if its operation has ceased for 12 consecutive months.
(C) The plan shall include provision for the posting of a third party bond to assure completion of decommissioning and site restoration, in the amount of the full estimated costs of decommissioning and site restoration adjusted for inflation and in accordance with the plan as approved by the permitting authority.
(D) The plan shall include written authorization from the applicant and all owners of all project parcels for each municipality in which the plant is located, the permitting authority, or a designee of such municipality or authority to access the project parcels and implement the decommissioning and site restoration plan, in the event that the permittee fails to implement the plan. The written authorization shall be in a form approved by the permitting authority and recorded in the land records of each municipality in which the plant is located. …
Download original bill as introduced: “H.677 – An act relating to wind energy plants”
Danish wind power ’stalled’ since 2002
Author: Danish Wind Industry Association
Note that 2002 was the last year that any substantial on-shore wind power was erected in Denmark. The small changes since then have mostly been due to replacing existing machines with larger ones.
Off-shore, after the Horns Rev facility in 2002 and Nysted (Rødsand) in 2003, there was no development until the addition of Horns Rev II in 2009. Rødsand II (200 MW) may be completed in 2010.
