On this page you will find letters, alternative energy ideas, and articles concerning our cause.
MENU
Click on the link below to go to a section
What Wind Developers Don't Want Us To Know
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
In National Precedent, Industrial Wind Turbines Planned in Tourist Mecca,
Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont
Searsburg, VT -- In what could be a national precedent, the Vermont Public Service Board is reviewing a plan to build 17 industrial wind turbines on more than 80 acres of the Green Mountain National Forest. Known as Deerfield Wind, the turbine project would be located along a prominent ridgeline in the towns of Searsburg and Readsboro, Vermont.
Deerfield Wind would be the first industrial wind-energy facility in a national forest anywhere in the country, and it could be the first of many in the Green Mountain National Forest. The Green Mountain National Forest is one of only two national forests in New England. The U.S. Forest Service has designated nearly 20,000 acres at 37 sites within the Green Mountain National Forest as “potentially both viable and suitable” for wind power development. Recently, a proposal for a second industrial wind-energy facility within the Green Mountain National Forest was initiated.
The industrial wind turbines proposed in the Green Mountain National Forest will be 410 feet tall, or the equivalent of 41-story skyscrapers. They will require five miles of access roads cut through the forest, up to 38 feet wide not including sideline clearing (which would make them wider than any other town road), corridors for transmission lines, an electric substation, and constantly flashing warning lights. The largest bear habitat in Vermont will be irreparably harmed. The area will be closed for recreation by hikers, snowmobilers, and hunters. In the 1990s, the Sierra Club and other organizations sued the U.S. Forest Service successfully to prevent logging in part of the remote area now being considered for this industrial wind-energy facility.
"Vermont already gets most of its electricity from clean energy sources. We don't need these wind turbines at the expense of our state's wilderness," said Gerry DeGray, president of Save Vermont Ridgelines. "Tourists come to Vermont to admire our spectacular mountains, our beautiful unbroken ridgelines, our black night skies, not industrial structures littering the landscape," he added.
Save Vermont Ridgelines is a group formed by local residents to fight construction of industrial wind turbines in the national forest. The company planning to build the turbines is PPM Energy, a subsidiary of Iberdrola, and one of the largest wind developers in the country.
"We think PPM targeted this area because we're a small, struggling community, and they figured we couldn't muster the resources to fight back," explained Jeanette Lee, a board member of Save Vermont Ridgelines. "Why should we accept these massive wind turbines in our national forest so that people elsewhere can feel virtuous about supporting wind power?"
Save Vermont Ridgelines is an intervener in the Vermont Public Service Board review of PPM Energy's Deerfield Wind proposal. Interveners in favor of the industrialization of the national forest are the Conservation Law Foundation and Vermont Public Interest Research Group. A decision by the state agency is expected later this year.
If the Vermont Public Service Board approves Deerfield Wind, the U.S. Forest Service will then review the proposal for development in the Green Mountain National Forest.
Save Vermont Ridgelines’s website is www.clearskyvt.org.
April 3, 2008 by Jeanette Lee in Deerfield Valley News
I read last week's article "Forest Service buys Handle Road parcel" with trepidation. It is important to realize that the United States Forest Service no longer protects forest lands, even national forests, from development. Their 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vermont's Green Mountain National Forest identifies 37 sites, for a total of 19,700 acres, as "potentially both viable and suitable" for wind power development.
As quoted in their report on Page 3-298, "Alternative E [has] several large contiguous sites available for consideration, including the entire potentially viable area of Corporation Mountain - Round Mountain - Wilcox Peak site in Chittenden and Pittsfield, the Rice Hill area in Dover, and the area from Mount Snow south to State Route 9 in Dover, Somerset, Searsburg, and Wilmington. ...Alternative E has the Hoosac Range." This report can be viewed at www.fs.fed.us/r9/gmfl/ in the "Forest Plan Revision Pages" section.
Like the Handle Road parcel, the GMNF land in Searsburg, which is being considered for 17 industrial wind turbines, each 41 stories high, is also important bear habitat. It includes the beech stand most used by bears in Vermont and nearly 500 of those trees would be destroyed if the Deerfield Wind project is approved by the Public Service Board. The public would be denied their right to hike and snowmobile on many acres of their national forest. The project would also set a devastating precedent for industrialized wind projects in our national forests.
Currently, 131 wind turbines are being considered for the George Washington National Forest in Virginia and large-scale wind projects are already being considered for national forest lands in West Virginia and Michigan. If approved, the Deerfield Wind project would be just the beginning of ridgeline industrialization of our national forests in Vermont and across the United States.
Save Vermont Ridgelines was formed to protect our ridgelines from the negative impacts of wind energy development. We are an intervening party in the Vermont Public Service Board's Docket No. 7250 - Petition of Deerfield Wind LLC.
If, like us, you feel that our national forests should be protected from industrialization, please visit our Web site at www.clearskyvt.org and learn how you can help.
Writer suggests a public debate on wind turbines
To the Editor:
As one of the founding members of “Save Vermont Ridgelines,” I am deeply concerned about the proposed commercial wind turbine development above 2,500’ sea level in Vermont. Over 40 years ago, in recognition of the value and fragile nature of land 2,500’ above sea level, policy makers in our state chose to declare this area of Vermont virtually “off limits” to development. Little has changed since then except for the modifications to Act 248, Vermont’s environmental policy, when considering commercial development,which falls under the purview of the Vermont Public Service Board.
What these changes mean is, if the PSB decides commercial wind turbines and the electricity they produce meet their level of “greater public good,” the PSB can choose to ignore unmitigable environmental impacts which would halt other types of developers and their proposals. Energy and the ever-expanding ways in which we, as consumers, make use of it are skyrocketing.
We simply cannot generate our way out of our energy dilemma. While well-intended energy conservation efforts by “Efficiency Vermont” and others are noble efforts, they are simply outgunned by our society’s thirst for ever greater amounts of electricity. Energy conservation programs and energy construction policies will contribute to an overdue change in our mind sets as energy consumers. Unfortunately, it most likely will be the price we pay for energy that really causes America to modify its habits when it comes to energy consumption.
On a recent trip through Albany, NY, I observed innumerable multistory office buildings, retail stores, closed gas stations, etc., all with one thing in common; Countless lights blazing away after midnight with not a soul in sight. This kind of blatant disregard for what it takes to create energy has further convinced me that the mining of Vermont’s undeveloped and fragile ridge-lines in support of this status quo behavior is totally premature. To allow companies like PPM Energy to construct commercial wind turbines across a 19,000-acre corridor of our national forest in Vermont is only putting off the inevitable. The inevitable being successfully changing human behavior when it comes to the consumption of energy. Not accomplishing this change first will mean that hundreds of wind turbines across Vermont will have been constructed in vain.
If we want to place wind turbines in Vermont for the purpose of achieving a specific goal for our energy future, then let’s have a public debate which considers and addresses energy consumer habits. If we are going to place commercial wind turbines across our state without a plan which includes measures to address our wasteful energy consuming habits as a society, then wind energy development in the name of the “greater public good” is an unfair trade-off for the destruction of pristine ridgelines all across Vermont
Sincerely,
Clifford C. Duncan, Wilmington
Published December 6, 2007
To the Editor of the Deerfield Valley News:
Regarding Mickey Nowak's recent letter to the Editor.
I would recommend the writer read the feature article in the same issue that the letter was published. It gives a much more informed explanation of what is being proposed in Searsburg.
While the writer doesn't feel that the turbines will be the death of the Deerfield Valley, they’ll most certainly blight the ridgetop of Searsburg. They’ll do little to correct the energy mix used by Vermonters and absolutely nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil or the cost of gasoline. Wind turbines are intermittent producers of electricity, shutting down with unfavorable wind (too light OR too strong) without notice. They will require (as do the existing turbines) constant backup. Foreign developers will be profiting from the huge expansion, not Vermonters.
The tourism aspect is questionable. The operators of the existing turbines give tours a few times a year. They shut the turbines off during the tours, but never fully explain why. Is it noise? Is it the danger of a human fatality should one of the rotors, whose tips reach speeds of 200 mph, break yet again? Is it safe to hike the area when they are spinning? Who knows, the operators won't tell us. Whatever the explanation, they certainly have something to hide.
About "getting used to the turbines", I live under the existing eyesores. I have not, nor will I get used to them. They are noisy, with constant whirring and intermittent clunks that I first mistook for gunshots. I can hear this inside my house with the windows shut. The proposed expansion will, by the developers’ estimates, put the average noise level at my house at 44.9 dBA. The World Health Organization defines 45 dBA as unfit for human habitation. Several acres of my property, and that of dozens of neighbors, will be above this limit. I doubt that I would get used to that. Would you?
Add the visual impact of soiling this pristine section of National Forest, including constantly flashing aircraft beacons, and you have an industrial complex, not a wilderness. Each of these behemoths would be 400 ft. tall. As an idea of how huge this is, the Statue of Liberty and the Bennington Monument are each over 100 feet shorter than each of the 17 proposed turbines. There is a graphic representation of this fact here:
There are better alternatives for electricity production. One is located right in Somerset. Vermont leads the nation (by a large margin) in percent of energy consumption from renewable sources. Adding more wind turbines would not alter that ratio, for reasons stated above.
The turbines will not help our energy needs and don’t belong in the National Forest. Let's keep it a forest.
Tom Shea
Searsburg
On Wednesday, October 10, there was a meeting at the Memorial Hall regarding a proposal from an international power company. I was amazed at the small turnout on such a large problem facing the valley.
PPM Energy has put an application in to the state of Vermont to build 17 new wind turbines near the existing ones in Searsburg. The big difference is that these new wind turbines will be more than twice the size of the existing ones, will have turbines and blades that weigh 15,000 pounds (I wonder what the supports weigh), be lit, and sit at the top of ridgelines on national forest land. This will have a negative impact on the beauty of the southern Vermont ridgelines, the natural habitat, tourism, quality of life, and real estate values.
If this project goes through, there are 19,700 acres of the Green Mountain National Forest that might be used for future wind production and lots of it in your backyard! They are inefficient eyesores. With an expected 32% efficiency, one must ask, “there must be a better way?”
Hydro power. Most of the Vermont hydro plants are very outdated. A fairly simple upgrade to existing plants will greatly improve their efficiency to more than seven percent, keep more fish alive, and increase oxygen levels in the water. I asked the question on what the efficiency was on the existing hydro plants; I could not get an answer. But, when I called an engineer at the Idaho National Laboratory (a leader in alternative energy research) he explained how new hydro technology is much more efficient than the old and much more eco-friendly. Well, before we allow a possible 19,700 acres of national forest to be industrialized shouldn’t some sort of pro and con study be done?
PPM Energy has nothing to lose from this proposed project, in fact, they will make millions. Will we see a reduction in our utility bill? I don’t think so. Will the Green Mountain state be marred forever? I think so. Renewable energy is on all our minds; being fuel free someday will be nice, it will happen. Wind power will definitely not be the answer. Ask Great Britain. There’s a moratorium on any future wind development projects, voted the biggest eyesore in the country.
I am part of a newly formed, not-for-profit group, opposing the destruction of these beautiful mountain tops and industrializing of southern Vermont. We have a Web site: www.clearskyvt.org. I urge you to log on and get informed. We have pictures, articles, and more information on this proposal. Please get involved!
There are much greener alternatives that run at a much higher efficiency that will give the United States the alternative power it needs.
Tony Lopez, Wilmington
The Deerfield Valley News - October 25, 2007
Don’t allow industrialization of National Forest land
Dear Editor:
Concerned about the wind turbine facility proposed for ridgelines on National Forest land within 1 mile of my home in Searsburg, I recently visited the Maple Ridge wind generating facility in the Tug Hill region of northern New York State. There are 195 turbines there and they are 390 feet tall (vs. the 410 foot tall proposed turbines in Searsburg and Readsboro). I arrived there on a calm day when the blades of only about 5 of the many turbines I saw were turning slowly. The rest were completely still. In photos of me standing at the base of one of these turbines, I appear to be an ant barely noticeable to the naked eye. Most of the turbines are inaccessible as the roads leading to them are gated and posted with “no trespassing” signs, prohibiting access to hunters, snowmobilers and the general public. I stood at the side of the road near one of the turning turbines, and even while turning slowly, the blades made a constant distinctive whooshing sound and also an intermittent metallic clanking noise. Even at the low speed, the whirling shadows cast on the ground from the huge blades were unsettling. The turbines were towering over many homes and cabins, several of which had views of at least 40 turbines. If many or all of these turbines were operational, it would be difficult for people living nearby to engage in any outdoor activities, even on their own property, because of the disconcerting effects of the turbine noise and shadows.
The proposed Searsburg/Readsboro project is part of the Forest Service’s Alternative E Modified plan wherein they identify a total of 19,700 acres of the Green Mountain National Forest as “diverse forest use”. Areas in the southern part of the National Forest deemed “viable and suitable” for wind power development run from Mt. Snow/Dover down to the Massachusetts border. This plan ties in with a government Executive Order for executive agencies to expedite projects that will increase the production and transmission of energy including the use of Federal lands to meet those goals.
By allowing these 17 proposed wind turbines on National Forest land in Searsburg/Readsboro, it will open the door for more industrialization of our ridgelines, not only in Vermont, but across the country. Send your comments on this issue to the Vermont Public Service Board at psb.clerk@state.vt.us (reference “Docket No. 7250 –Deerfield Wind Project”). I would hate to see our National Forest land looking like the area of Tug Hill I just visited, with huge turbines looming as far as the eye can see.
Sincerely,
Jeanette Lee
Searsburg
October 22, 2007
Not Feeling the Shame
Dear Editor:
I feel the need to defend myself, my position and to educate your readers, especially the author of the October 10 letter, “Backyard views don’t rival climate change”. That author, when he wrote “Shame on the letter writer, only thinking of her backyard views”, apparently believes my only reason for opposing Deerfield Wind’s proposed energy facility project in Searsburg and Readsboro is that my ridgeline view will be ruined. Untrue. For the record, I live within 1 mile of this proposed project. I would hear the wind turbines from my home but probably not see them. There are many negative aspects of this particular proposed project. Allow me to list some of them here, condensed for space constraints:
In my original letter of 10/12, I mentioned that these proposed turbines would be visible from many towns merely to point out that this project will not only effect Searsburg and Readsboro. If turbines are allowed to be built on National Forest land, it will start a freight train of ridgeline industrialization that we will not be able to stop. If the author of “Backyard View” had read my entire letter, he would have read my statement “Alternate energy sources are needed and should be developed, but a wooded ridgeline in a National Forest is definitely not the right place for a wind energy project.” As for the giant lit turbines, if the author of “Backyard View”, after reading all these negatives and educating himself about wind energy, would still “welcome the day they sit in my fields”, then good for him. I think he, and others who feel the same way, should contact wind farm developers and offer their own private land as future sites. That would save myself and everyone else fighting this proposed Searsburg/Readsboro project (and there are many of us) a lot of time and money.
Sincerely,
Jeanette Lee
Feeling No Shame in Searsburg, Vermont
Decided it was time to get off the fence
To The Editor:
On Tuesday, October 2, I attended the Public Service Board meeting in Readsboro on the proposed windmill project that is slated to go in the towns of Searsburg and Readsboro and spoke my piece as a citizen.
I was there as a citizen speaking my personal views and the views of fellow citizens that, for one reason or another, could not. After all these years of staying on the fence I felt this was the time to jump off and speak my mind. Again, in this letter, I am expressing my personal views and am not representing the town in any official capacity.
In the town of Searsburg the private citizens own about 20% of the land and the rest belongs to the power companies,the state, and the National Forest. That extremely limits our growth as a town, yet they continue to destroy more forest land in the name of public good.
The profits from this public good go to foreign investors. The efficiency rating of windmills is about 26% in this area, which computes to between $3 million and $3.5 million a year return for this project.
This project is expected to cost over $60 million to build and destroy 80 acres of prime pristine forest land. How can you justify the cost with the return? Is there a price on our National Forests? Is there a price on the people’s lives that live nearby that will surely be changed by the noise and lights? Is there a price on the many others who will see the nine to 12 red flashing lights from a distance in the night sky? They paint a rosy picture, but is it?
I ask you all, Is this in the public good? I am sorry if I am one of the few that think it is not. I would like to think that I am one of the few that is more informed and not some crazy guy in the mountains blowing his horn.
After all, I have been listening and asking for six years with many questions going unanswered.
This being the first project of its kind on forest service land it will set a national precedent. It is time all of you weigh in on this, voters and nonvoters, be heard.
You can send your comments to the Public Service Board by e-mail at: psb.clerk@state.vt.us or by mail to: Vermont Public Service Board, 112 State Street, Montpelier, VT 05620-2701.
Is this not one of those cases where “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” applies? If I am just one of the “ few” and all of this is justifiable, I apologize for caring to speak out, but I think I am one of the silent majority or “many.”
Concerned citizen,
Searsburg
To: Vermont Public Service Board
Re: PSB Docket No. 7250
On Tuesday, Oct. 2 we were at the meeting at the Readsboro Elementary School regarding the expansion of the Searsburg Windmills. We were very upset to see the potential devastation of our National Forest ridge line and to hear about the health effects this could have on the residents who live nearby, as well as to picture the visual effect these turbines will have on our ridge line, our night sky, the beauty of our reservoir and many of our residents & second home owners views and property values. It is unfortunate that a foreign company and their representatives think they can tromp all over these small towns, disrupting the lives of the residents/taxpayers of Vermont. As one of the Searsburg residents stated so loud and clear, "Teddy Roosevelt would be rolling over in his grave" if he knew that Vermont was going to allow this precedent setting ridge line destruction in a National Forest. As one speaker stated, when the existing 198' tall windmills were allowed to be constructed, the towns were told that there wouldn't be any more. Now they want to add 17 new turbines at over TWICE the size, with blinking lights.
The state of Vermont has been very diligent in creating strict guidelines to prevent development and protect our lands from being chopped up. Things like Act 250, the restrictions against billboards and other sign laws were passed to preserve the beauty of our state and our ridge lines. PPM needs to take their wind project to another area. If the representatives of the Vermont Public Service Board think this is a good idea, maybe they should put it in their own backyard and keep it out of ours. Don't sell our National Forest, our beauty, our starry sky and our peaceful homes to corporate greed - especially when the profits from the destruction of our lands are going to another country.
Dear Vermont Service Board,
You are welcome to come on my land and photograph and impose projected windmills from where I live on Ray Hill Road. We own 12 acres, subdivided into two 6 acre parcels. The existing windmills can be seen and the ridgeline that will be effected by them. From my back porch can been seen what we call “The Breasts of Vermont”. Two beautiful green mountain sized mounds. If this project goes through, those breasts will have FOREIGN OWNED (SCOTLAND) INDUSTRIAL WIND MACHINES 410 FT. HIGH, FLASHING 24 HOURS A DAY, SITUATED ON THE MAJOR VIEW RIDGELINE FROM WILMINGTON TO DOVER. I hope uninformed, windmilleyed, wind supporters take the time to educate themselves enough to understand the big picture.
A Letter to Wilmington Selectboard
It is my understanding that at next week's Selectboard meeting there will be discussion considering whether the town of Wilmington wishes to be a party in the deliberations concerning the expansion of the Searsburg wind farm. I am unable to attend the meeting, so I am expressing my sentiments in writing.
As a taxpayer, I strongly oppose the expansion and I encourage the town to become a party in the deliberations.
The ridge line that would be affected by the expansion, located to the west of Harriman Reservoir, is visible for miles. The presence of huge turbines, much taller than those already in place, to be lit 24 hours a day seven days a week, would be an eyesore.
They would be visible to many more people in Wilmington than in Searsburg or Readsboro.
Several years ago we purchased land and built a home off of Boyd Hill Road. The view from the home encompasses the Green Mountain National Forest, including the proposed site of the expansion. We, as well as our neighbors, chose to build there because of the location's isolation, scenic beauty, and charm, which we thought were protected by strict environmental regulations. The construction of wind factories would fly in the face of these hard-won restrictions. People vacation here, settle here, and buy second homes in this very special section of Vermont for these reasons. We certainly did. In fact, we bought in Wilmington because of the view, and we had planned to retire there in a few years.
Our annual real estate taxes are astronomical. There are already several other homes in the area affected as well.
A recent article in the Deerfield Valley News described the poor economy in the Deerfield Valley, to a large extent attributable to a decline in tourism. It is feared that the industrialization of our ridgelines and the desecration of our state's natural beauty would add to that decline, as well as to a decline in real estate values and new building. Simply put, it would cheapen Vermont, taking one more step toward the New Jerseyfication of Vermont.
Aside from aesthetic considerations, there are compelling economic reasons to oppose the expansion.
Those who believe wind proponents' claims that wind power will meaningfully contribute to fighting global warming are victims of an elaborate, unfortunate misinformation campaign. Wind power is, at best, a symbolic gesture. It is unreliable: when there is too much wind, too little wind, or no wind at all, there is no energy. There is not one instance in the US where wind power has eliminated the need for more reliable energy sources. Wind will never replace oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, coal, hydroelectric power, or other reliable sources of energy. Moreover, according to the American Wind Energy Assn, Vermont ranks 34th among the states for potential wind resources. Even more importantly, petroleum-generated electricity currently accounts for only 1 per cent of all electricity used in Vermont. Wind power is clearly not a substitute for energy conservation and judicious use of energy. Evidence strongly suggests that wind farms are being built in the US mainly to avoid taxes. Federal subsidies for wind developers mean higher taxes for ordinary citizens.
Nowhere in the US have wind turbines been constructed in a National Forest, as is proposed with the Searsburg expansion. Vermont should not be the first exception.
Several years ago Governor Dean declared that the land around Harriman Reservior is a state treasure, one that should be protected from development. As the ridgeline proposed for the expansion is in the viewshed of the reservoir, the value of those mountains is clearly recognized. Furthermore, Governor Douglas has made known his opposition to huge industrial turbines along our ridgelines and hasinstead indicated his support for smaller, local windmills. The large wind project at Glebe Mountain in Londonderry apparently has been put on hold or abandoned, and the projects in the Northeast Kingdom and Manchester have run into major obstacles as well.
Elseshere, the Cape Wind Project in Massachusetts is all but dead. I wonder what the local response would be wind farms were proposed in view of expensive parcels along Lake Champlain, or Stratton, or Camel's Hump.
In summary, I believe that Wilmington should be aparty in the deliberations about the Searsburg expansion. Before jumping on the bandwagon in support of wind power, we should have knowledge of the facts and the consequences. We live in a very special state, one that does not even allow roadside billboards. To allow huge industrial wind factories along our ridgelines makes no sense. The GreenMountains are not the Oklahoma dust bowl, or the plains of North Dakota. They are in a very special place. It makes no sense to sacrifice Vermont -- what it has been, what it is, and what it will be, for no useful purpose.
Sincerely yours,
Richard (and Adele) Mattern
A letter to The Vermont public service board:
I am writing this letter after attending the Public comment portion of the Deerfield Windmill Project slated for Searsburgh and Readsboro. I first became interested in Windmills when they were placed in Searsburg years ago. At the time I thought they were a great idea to help assist cleaner ways to produce electricity at a reasonable cost, while still being green. After several years of watching their output, and their actual cost per kilowatt-hour, it became all too apparent that Windmills in this area would represent a negligible blip on the radar screen for the demand to produce environmentally friendly electricity. Year's later technology has improved, but the need to go higher calls for towers double the size. Total height being at 200ft, now exceeds 400 ft. Windmills represent a huge visual blight to Vermont Mountains or any other range that plans on putting up Windmill farms. With this said here are a few concerns about expanding Windmills in Southern Vermont Windmills will upset the wildlife and the natural environment that has not been significantly altered for thousands of years.
*River Generators and Ocean Wave generators are proving to be more cost effective, with the lowest kilowatt price to date. These generators along with highflying altitude windmills allow for non-stop production of electricity without being disrupted for a fraction of the cost to install or operate.
This is just a short list why the people of Southern Vermont should vigorously resist the installation of ineffective, unsightly windmills. These structures will alter our view, and what we must live with for years to come. Please take the time to investigate any of the claims made above to help you better understand the truth.
Best regards
Dave Saldo
Selectman Stamford Vermont
Benefits of Solar Power
In one hour, the earth receives more energy from the sun than its inhabitants currently use in an entire year. With the use of photovoltaics (PV), this energy can be converted into electricity. As the technology improves and becomes more cost-effective for a wider range of energy generation applications, PV will become an essential component among the world's renewable energy sources. Among the many benefits of solar energy are the following:
© 2007, Beacon Power Corporation.
Patrick banks on sunshine
By STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press
Monday, January 28, 2008
BOSTON -- The Patrick administration has some advice for businesses and homeowners struggling with rising energy costs: Let the sunshine in.
The administration is launching a new program offering rebates to companies and individuals who install solar panels on their roofs as part of an effort to dramatically increase the state's reliance on energy from the sun.
The goal of the Commonwealth Solar program is to help defray the cost of installation of the panels for owners of commercial, industrial, municipal and residential properties.
Part of that commitment is reaching a goal of increasing solar power generation in Massachusetts from 5 megawatts now to more than 250 megawatts by the year 2017.
Under the program, businesses and homeowners will be eligible for rebates of at least $2 per watt, reducing their costs from about $8 per watt for commercial and $9 per watt for homes.
Commercial customers who install a typical 50 kilowatt solar power system can expect to reduce costs by 40 percent under the program. Rebates will be higher for solar panels that are manufactured in Massachusetts.
Residential customers will be eligible for rebates on installation of solar panels up to 5 kilowatts. About $2 million will be reserved in the first two years of the program for solar panels on school buildings.
Gov. Deval Patrick said the shift to solar energy will be good for the environment -- and people's pocketbooks.
"This is an attempt to create a most robust market for solar among businesses and homeowners so people can begin to see the savings of solar power," Patrick said Sunday.
A Web site offering step-by-step instructions about going solar -- from estimating the size of a rebate to selecting a contractor -- went live on Wednesday.
In the first 24 hours, more than 300 individuals downloaded applications.Each kilowatt of hydroelectric capacity can, on average, produce 4,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity. The average price in 2005 in New England was 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. So, for example, a 100 KW hydro site would generate $30,000 in income anually at wholesale rates.
For more on the benefits of updating on some of our outdated hydro kinetic plants visit www.hydro.org
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) devices optically focus or concentrate the thermal energy of the sun to drive a generator or heat engine. They do so by means of lenses or more commonly mirrors arranged in a dish, trough or tower configuration.
"Trough" systems, such as those manufactured focus the sun's energy on a pipe filled with a heat exchange fluid, and use that heat to turn a steam generator in a central plant. These plants can be very large; over 354 MW has been installed in California alone, and with the construction of a 50 MW plant near Boulder City due for 2005, there should be enough of this type of generation to power over 100,000 American homes.
"Power Tower" systems, use a field of computer-controlled flat mirrors to focus solar heat on a central tower, which then runs a central generator. Demonstration systems have shown power outputs of over 10 megawatts, along with the ability to run overnight or in bad weather by storing heated transfer fluid in a hyper efficient"Thermos bottle."
"Dish" systems use a dish which tracks the sun to focus energy onto a high-efficiency heat engine which generates electricity directly.
When the sun is unavailable, CSP plants can also provide constant output using natural gas or landfill gas.
For more information on new and advanced Solar energy technology please visit www.seia.org
Waymart facility troubles residents
By Tom Venesky, Staff Writer
05/16/2005
Standing at the base of one of the 43 turbines comprising the Waymart Wind Farm, it's easy to see how the towering structures dominate the landscape.
Each structure stands 213 feet high, and the three blades, each measuring 110 feet in length, spin effortlessly atop Moosic Mountain in western Wayne County. The first glimpse of the turbines from state Route 6 presents a surreal image like something from a Road Warrior movie.
"It's not beautiful or complimentary," said Waymart resident Donald Goetz. "From a distance, it looks like hell. It's not an asset to the community."
When the Waymart facility was constructed in 2003 in Clinton and Canaan townships, Goetz said residents in a 10-mile square area lost their television reception from turbine interference. He said FPL Energy has "piece-mealed" the problem by erecting two television towers, but it hasn't been solved.
"This is like a six-mile-long fence," he said.
In Bear Creek Township, Energy Unlimited will pay the municipality an initial sum of $39,000 plus an annual fee of approximately $3,000 per turbine for the Penobscot Mountain Wind Farm.
The facility is located on land owned by Luzerne County, and Energy Unlimited purchased the wind rights to the property from the Theta Land Corp. before it was sold.
The property is in the process of being turned over to the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for its state park system, which would allow public access.
Turbine blades can accumulate ice that can be thrown several hundred feet, according to Wells, which makes safety a concern.
She said the turbines are monitored for ice build-up and when it does occur, employees leave the area.
"We build our facilities on private property and it's our expectation that people abide by posted signs," she said.
"On those occasions when we do have ice, we don't want people near them."
Because the Penobscot Mountain site is on public property, the danger of ice presents a unique dilemma. Connelly said he never envisioned an ice accumulation on the blades. DCNR spokeswoman Gretchen Leslie said there's no precedent for wind facilities on state parks or forests, so her agency would have to discuss the matter with the owner.
"We would have to look at options, which could be shutting down the turbines during icing periods or closing off areas for safety reasons," she said. "It remains to be seen what the solution is, but we are concerned with public safety and would take precautions."
FPL Energy, which owns the Waymart wind facility, pays the private landowner a lease between $1,000 and $5,000 each year, according to Mary Wells, community outreach coordinator for FPL.
In Pennsylvania, machinery and equipment isn't taxed as real estate, so FPL Energy pays the townships $50,000 total in taxes for the buildings and tower pads.
Goetz said the municipalities have been seeking additional tax revenue from FPL Energy, but the company has been unwilling to compromise.
"In Bear Creek, they will realize financial benefits, but not here," he said. "That amounts to short-changing the community."
Wells acknowledged that residents were concerned about the project in the beginning, but she said worries have been quelled since construction was completed.
The scale of the project has attracted the interest of sightseers, she said, and the turbines have blended in with the community.
"In most places, they settle in very quickly," Wells said. "There are individuals who can't be reconciled and we understand that people like their view. But there's value to renewable energy and these are baby steps."
No matter how small the step, the project has impacted residents.
Rose Marie Derk, who lives a mile away from the turbines, said the noise and aesthetic impact have been significant.
She said the turbines sound like a large industrial fan and the disturbance is more noticeable at night when there is no traffic.
"When you go to bed and your windows are open, you're hit with this buzz and roar," Derk said. "They're in the wrong place."
Derk said numerous residents tried to stop the project at the township level to no avail.
Now that the turbines are up, she said they look "outrageous and scary" and the benefits to the community have been minimal.
"People thought they'd get their electric bill reduced, but ours went up and we're getting nothing," Derk said. "I can't understand what anybody thought they'd get out of this. This company came in, destroyed the top of the mountain and left us with it."
Prompton resident Raymond Vogt, who lives about three miles from the Waymart turbines, said the facility has destroyed the view of the area.
"As far as I'm concerned, they've been more of a detriment so far," he said. "They take up much more room than other forms of power and in Bear Creek there'll be people who won't like what they do to the view. It's like a fence."
Several residents, along with the Northeastern Chapter of the Sierra Club and the North Branch Land Trust, have opposed the Bear Creek Township location for Energy Unlimited's planned turbine facility.
The location was identified by the Nature Conservancy as one of the most environmentally valuable places in the county in 2001, namely due to the presence of oak barren habitat and rare plant species.
Bud Cook, director of the Nature Conservancy's Northeast Office, said they reviewed a map of the turbine locations in Bear Creek and determined the project would have a minimal impact on the barrens habitat.
Energy Unlimited has completed studies on bald eagles and has implemented an Indiana bat study to avoid any impact on those species, according to Project Manager John Connelly.
Energy Unlimited has also hired a consultant, Dr. Kenneth Klemow, to delineate wetlands and conduct a rare plant and oak barrens survey so the turbines wouldn't be erected in those areas.
Klemow also served as an environmental consultant for the Waymart site, which he said has a more diverse forest habitat than the Bear Creek Township location.
"At this site we will avoid the scrub oak (barrens) and we're looking at impacting woodland that is average or lower in the ecosystem," he said.
But environmental concerns do persist with the project.
Dr Henry Smith, a board member with Defend Our Watershed, said the property is the wrong place for a wind facility that he classifies as an industrial use.
Smith has started a Web site (www.savecrystallake.org) to raise awareness of the potential environmental impacts, which include the barrens habitat and the Crystal Lake reservoir, which supplies drinking water to the area. Nine of the turbines would border Crystal Lake, and Smith is concerned about degradation to the watershed.
"The Nature Conservancy has made it clear this is one of the most important parcels in the county and the Northeast for preservation. Industrializing it is grossly inappropriate," Smith said.
"I suspect we will only recognize our mistake when we witness the destruction of the watershed and forests required for installing these turbines. By then, it will be too late."
Derk agreed and said she has been through the same process with the Waymart facility.
She said a group of residents tried to warn the community about the negative aspects of the project-ranging from noise to aesthetics- but the damage has already been done.
"My message to the people in Bear Creek is keep saying no and keep fighting because it's horrendous. We feel we got shafted and there's nothing we can do," Derk said. "Unless they want their land values destroyed, keep fighting it. If you don't, you'll be sorry in the long-run."
tvenesky@citizensvoice.com
©The Citizens Voice 2008
Wind Turbines Barred On State-Owned Land
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 13, 2008; Page C04
Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) announced yesterday morning that he will bar commercial wind turbines from state-owned land, satisfying Western Maryland opponents of the turbines but disappointing supporters of the wind energy industry.
Speaking at a scenic overlook in the Savage River State Forest in Garrett County, O'Malley said the state remains committed to exploring renewable energy sources but said the wind energy industry should look to other land for large-scale wind farms.
"While we must continue to explore and make progress on creating a more sustainable and independent energy future for Maryland, we will not do so at the expense of the special land we hold in the public trust," he said.
The decision primarily affects one project, a proposal by Pennsylvania-based U.S. Wind Force to build 100 wind turbines, each 400 feet tall, in two state forests in Garrett County. The company had asked to lease state land for the project.
The idea attracted considerable opposition from residents who feared the turbines would mar the area's natural beauty and hurt tourism.
"A big part of our economy is based on tourism. You'd have to put in roads, dig up property to put these things in," said Sen. George C. Edwards (R-Garrett). "It would distract from the scenery of the forestlands."
At a packed state hearing in January, many residents said they feared that construction of the turbines would hurt the wildlife of the state forests. Olivia Campbell, a spokeswoman for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, said the state received about 1,400 comments on the idea, 82 percent of them opposed.
Proponents of wind energy believe it is a clean alternative to coal-burning plants and other energy sources. Although disappointed with O'Malley's decision, they said they would press ahead with plans for commercial wind farms on private land. O'Malley noted that private land as well as property owned by local jurisdictions or the federal government would not be affected by his decision.
"I definitely think this will be empowering to opponents," said Frank Maisano, a spokesman for the mid-Atlantic wind power industry, including U.S. Wind Force.
He cited polls showing that most state residents favor the use of wind energy, including the building of turbines on state land.
"We'll have to keep fighting from every mountaintop, saying why these projects are important, not only to the environment but to local economies," he said.
Maisano played down the decision's practical impact, noting that U.S. Wind Power is pursuing two other projects on private land.
The debate has pitted environmentalists committed to preserving open space against those who fear the effect of power production on climate change.
Legislation adopted by the Maryland General Assembly in its recently concluded session requires that 20 percent of the state's energy come from renewable sources by 2022. The bill awaits O'Malley's signature.
Meanwhile, energy demand in Maryland is on the rise, but the supply has not expanded. A report by state regulators last year predicted brownouts by 2011 if more power plants are not built.
O'Malley said yesterday that he remains "committed to becoming a more sustainable Maryland by increasing development and use of clean, renewable energy sources."
"Working together, we will implement innovative sustainable solutions to address climate change and energy independence without destroying the resources that are already providing invaluable environmental, social and economic benefits," he said.
To the Editor:
Two recent letters made a claim that the proposed Deerfield Wind project will provide energy to 78% of Windham County residents. Where did this incorrect figure come from? If any of you actually went to PPM Energy’s “informational” meetings, you would have heard the same answer I got when I asked their reps if any of the electricity produced was staying locally – “The energy would go into the grid. It would go where it was needed at that moment, which could be locally, maybe Connecticut, or Maine.” There is no guarantee that any of the electricity generated would stay locally, or even in Vermont.
Far from being “environmentally friendly”, the proposed project would effectively destroy one of the largest, if not the largest, bear habitats in Vermont. The VT Agency of Natural Resources stated in recent testimony that the project “would result in significant adverse impacts to black bear habitat” and would “cause long-term harm to the bear population in southern Vermont”. The VT Natural Resources Council has stated that the wildlife habitat in the western project area could not be mitigated. In other words, once destroyed, that habitat cannot be repaired or replaced.
In the 2+ years I have lived in Searsburg, I have found its residents to be proud, independent, tough, you fight for your beliefs, and you love the “wildness” of Searsburg. So why do some of you apparently feel that letting an international corporation come into our town, destroy our ridgelines and then give our town a pittance of money is okay? By building the equivalent of seventeen 41 story skyscrapers on our National Forest land that we will have to live with for the next 20-30 years, PPM will be making millions in tax credits and subsidies. The monetary benefit to town residents is small compared to the loss of critical wildlife habitat, the adverse impacts to our quality of life (especially for those living in one of the 60 dwellings within 1 mile of the project) and the industrialization of our ridgelines which will change the rural character of Searsburg.
This matter is still before the Public Service Board and is certainly not a “done deal”. On Town Meeting Day in March, Searsburg voters must ask themselves “Will this project be good for our town?”. From countless hours of research, attending meetings, etc., I see far more negatives from this project than any possible benefits. Unlike some residents, I don’t give up without a fight, I fight for what I believe in, and I believe this project would be detrimental to Searsburg.
Jeanette Lee
Searsburg
Health, hazard, and quality of life near wind power
installations — How close is too close?
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD*
March 1, 2005
Falling over
A nacelle (generator and gearbox) weighing up to 60 tons atop a 265 ft. metal tower, equipped with 135 ft. blades, is a significant hazard to people, livestock, buildings, and traffic within a radius equal to the height of the structure (400 ft) and beyond. In Germany in 2003, in high storm winds, the brakes on a wind turbine failed and the blades spun out of control. A blade struck the tower and the entire nacelle flew off the tower.
The blades and other parts landed as far as 1650 ft (0.31 mile) from the base of the tower.1 (Note that all turbines discussed in this article are “upwind,” three-bladed, industrial-sized turbines. “Downwind” turbines have not been built since the 1980s.) Given the date, this turbine was probably smaller than the ones proposed for current construction, and thus could not throw pieces as far. This distance is nearly identical to calculations of ice throw from turbines with 100 ft blades rotating 20 times per minute (1680ft).
Fires
Most fires in wind turbines are started by lightning and fueled by up to 200 gallons of hydraulic oil in the nacelle. Fire-fighting at 265 ft (26 stories) may not be possible with the equipment of a rural town. A fire may leave wind turbine controls malfunctioning until the equipment in the nacelle is repaired or replaced, making it more susceptible to the kind of accident described above.
Lightning and power surges
Wind turbines themselves cause irregularities in the power supply as wind speed changes. Within the power grid, supply and demand must always be balanced; there is no storage of electricity on this scale. When the wind dies, there is less power (brown-out) until a coal- or gas-powered plant at some distance from the wind installation fires up to increase production. When the wind gusts, there are power surges.
Residents living near a new wind turbine installation in Meyersdale, PA, which came on-line in December 2003, have had to replace stove elements and small appliances due to power surges which started at that time. Residents of Lincoln Township, WI, near a wind installation noticed an increase in lightning strikes in their area after the turbines went on-line in June 1999.
Two computers protected by surge protectors and a TV set, all in different houses, were simultaneously “fried” one evening when lightning struck a nearby wind turbine tower.
Flicker
When turning with the sun behind them, turbine blades cast moving shadows across the landscape and houses, described as a strobe effect within houses, which can be difficult to block out. Some people lose their balance or become nauseated from seeing the movement. As with car or sea sickness, this is because the three organs of position perception (the inner ear, eyes, and stretch receptors in muscles and joints) arenot agreeing with each other: the eyes say there is movement, while the ears and stretch receptors do not.
People with a personal or family history of migraine, or migraine-associated phenomena such as car sickness or vertigo, are more susceptible to these effects.
The strobe effect can also provoke seizures in people with epilepsy.
In Lincoln Township, WI, two years after installation, 33% of residents 800 ft to 1/4 mile from the turbines found shadows from the blades to be a problem, 40% 1/4 to 1/2 mile away, 18% 1/2 to 1 mile away, and 3% 1 to 2 miles away (230 people sampled).
Noise
In the same survey in Lincoln Township in 2001, 44% of residents 800 ft to 1/4 mile from the turbines found noise to be a problem in their households, 52% 1/4 to 1/2 mile away, 32% 1/2 to 1 mile away, and 4% 1 to 2 miles away (229 people sampled).
Under certain conditions the turbines could be heard up to 2 miles away. These numbers correspond well to measurements made by a sound engineer near a more recent 30 MW, 17 turbine installation on the Dutch-German border, where residents living 500 m (1640 ft, or 0.31 mile) and more from the turbines were reacting strongly to the noise, and residents up to 1900 m (1.2 miles) away expressed annoyance.
The engineer found that measured sound levels were higher thanpredicted by standard models because of differences in daytime and nighttime wind patterns, and that annoyance was increased by the impulsive nature or rhythmic thumping of the sound, a pattern found at a distance from the
turbines (documented at 1500 m, or 0.9 mile) but not immediately under or among the turbines. This was described as a “low pitched thumping sound.”
Noise levels sufficient to prevent or interrupt sleep, even with windows closed, are reported in dwellings close to wind power installations in all surveys. Low frequency sound, defined as 10-200 Hz, travels farther and comes through walls and around obstacles because of its long wavelength; sounds in the range of 25-150 Hz have wavelengths similar to room dimensions, and can reverberate in rooms. Low frequency sound is especially bothersome, according to the World Health Organization:5
“Low frequency noise, for example from ventilation systems, can disturb rest and sleep evenat low sound levels.”
“For noise with a large proportion of low frequency sounds a still lower [measurement] guideline (than 30dBA) is recommended.” [This means 30 dB total sound pressure usingan “A” filter.]
“When prominent low frequency components are present, noise measures based on Aweighting are inappropriate.” [An “A” filter, which filters out low-frequency sounds, is standard in loudness measurement.]
“Since A-weighting underestimates the sound pressure level of noise with low frequency components, a better assessment of health effects would be to use C-weighting.” [A “C” filter filters out less of the low-frequency sound.]
“It should be noted that a large proportion of low frequency components in a noise may increase considerably the adverse effects on health.”
In other words, the World Health Organization recommends that threshold standards for noise in communities be set lower than 30dB (as measured with the standard “A” filter) whenever the noise has a substantial low-pitched component — as it does from wind turbines. Again, this is because low-pitched noise is more disturbing and has a greater impact on health at low levels than higher-pitched noise. When measuring such noise, a “C” filter will give a more accurate reading of loudness by including more of the low-frequency sounds.
Dr. Amanda Harry, a British physician, found (near a 16-turbine installation in 2003) that 13 out of 14 people surveyed reported an increase in headaches, and 10 reported sleep problems and anxiety.
Other symptoms included migraine, nausea, dizziness, palpitations, stress, and depression. Noise itself can induce dizziness and loss of balance in people with a previous history of noise-induced hearing loss, since, when people damage their hearing through too much exposure to loud (e.g., machine) noise, the balance organs in the inner ear may also be damaged. This is known as the Tullio phenomenon.
Dizziness (specifically, vertigo) and anxiety are neurologically linked phenomena. Hence the anxiety and depression seen in association with other symptoms near wind installations are not a neurotic response to symptoms, but rather a neurologically linked response to the balance disturbances people experience from shadow flicker or low-frequency noise. Sleep deprivation, by the way, also causes anxiety and depression.
Older people, who often sleep less soundly, are more likely to have their sleep disturbed by turbine noise.
They may also suffer more disturbances in equilibrium near turbines because of age-related problems with the function of the inner ear (e.g., dizziness and tinnitus: ringing in the ears) or from the nerves or parts of the brain receiving signals from the inner ear. It is noteworthy that among healthy people age 57 to 91, 5% have chronic dizziness, and 24% tinnitus.
Setback
Based on these health effects and hazards, turbines should not be placed within 1700 feet of any road or dwelling. Those living within 1/2 mile (2640 ft) should be apprised that they are likely to experience very bothersome levels of noise and flicker, which continue (though to a lesser degree) to a mile or more from the turbines. At 2 miles, noise is sometimes heard, but few people are bothered. In Lincoln Township, WI, after two years with the turbines, 73% of people said they would not consider buying or building a house within a mile of the turbines, and 23% wished to be at least 2 miles away (212 people sampled).
It is significant that each of these setbacks (the first for hazard of falling objects, the second for noise) is supported by two unrelated pieces of data yielding the same result. For noise, the data from two wind installations of different ages in different countries, one by resident survey and the other an engineer’s measurements, yield the same distance at which noise stops being bothersome: at something greater than 1-1.2 miles.
Thus the age or specific type of equipment is not relevant to the noise issue, and specific measurements, properly done, support what neighbors of wind installations are saying.
In conclusion, based on these data, wind turbines should not be built within 1.5 miles of people’s homes.
Let it be understood, however, that there will still be health and life quality problems caused by wind turbines beyond this radius. People living 1.5 to 3 miles from a proposed turbine site should be notified of potential health and life quality effects, and for this they should be appropriately compensated.
* BA (Yale University, 1977), MD (Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 1991), PhD (Population Biology,
Princeton Univ., 1985). Dr. Pierpont was formerly a clinical professor of pediatrics at Columbia University,
and is now in private practice in Malone, NY. Contact Dr. Pierpont at 518- 651-2019 (Malone, New York,
USA) or rushton2@westelcom.com Visit her web site at http://www.ninapierpont.com
Footnotes:
1. See photos at http://www.pbase.com/wp/wind_turbine_photos
2. Personal communication, Prof. Terry Matilsky, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers Univ.,
Piscataway, NJ. See http://xray.rutgers.edu/~matilsky/windmills/throw.html
3. Bittner-Mackin, E. Excerpts from the Final Report of the Township of Lincoln [Wisconsin] Wind
Turbine Moratorium Committee, 12/4/03.
4. van den Berg, GP, 2004. Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound. Journal of Sound
and Vibration 277:955-970. Contact g.p.van.den.berg@phys.rug.nl For a prepublication copy of this
article, go to http://www.nowap.co.uk/docs/windnoise.pdf
5. Berglund, B, et al, 2000. Guidelines for Community Noise, World Health Organization. Quoted in
Leventhall, G, 2003, A Review of Published Research on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects;
see http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/lowfrequency/pdf/lowfreqnoise.pdf
6. Milner, C. 2004. Wind farms “make people sick who live up to a mile away.” Telegraph.co.uk,
1/25/04; see http://www.telegraph.co.uk
7. Balaban, CD, and Thayer, JF. 2001. Neurological bases for balance-anxiety links. Journal of Anxiety
Disorders 15:53-79.
8. Sataloff, J, et al. 1987. Tinnitus and vertigo in healthy senior citizens without a history of noise
exposure. American Journal of Otolaryngology 8:87-89.
Wind does not help fight global warming
Press Release
Contact:
Eric Rosenbloom, East Hardwick, Vermont, President
David Roberson, Rowe, Massachusetts, Vice-President
Rowe, Mass., March 1, 2007 -- Wind power will not help in the fight against global warming, says National Wind Watch, a coalition of individuals and grass-roots groups from around the country. Although many environmentalists look favorably towards large-scale wind power, it has proven to be ineffective and counterproductive.
Wind generated only 0.36 percent of the total electricity produced in the U.S. in 2005, according to the 2007 "Annual Energy Outlook" from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.1 They project that wind's share will be only 0.89 percent in 2030. A determined push could increase that number, but with many undesirable consequences for the environment, wildlife, and human health -- as documented on the National Wind Watch web site: www.wind-watch.org
"Even just five percent by 2030 would require 160,000 megawatts of wind, almost ten million acres -- most of it rural and wild -- turned over to 400-foot-high machines and their motion, noise, and lights,"2 says Lloyd Crawford, a director of National Wind Watch. "That's not a green solution, but a huge disaster any way you look at it."
Huge impact, very low benefit
There were 7,937 megawatts of wind power operating in the U.S. in 2005, according to industry figures.
The figure for their combined output, however, shows that they generated at only 21 percent of capacity: 1,667 megawatts.3 And that low average hides a highly intermittent and variable production pattern that is of little value to the grid. Since it responds only to the wind and rarely corresponds to customer demand, wind power can not be relied on for supplying electricity and adds to the burden of balancing the electricity supply.
Wind is unlikely to cause any fossil fuel plants to shut down. It can not effectively replace other sources, which still have to be available when the wind isn't blowing just right. Other plants may also operate less efficiently than if wind were not on the system -- burning more fuel instead of less, and burning it with more emissions.
"This is a key point," says National Wind Watch president Eric Rosenbloom. "Wind might sporadically replace the electricity from other sources, but it does not necessarily reduce fuel use or emissions at those sources to anywhere near the same degree."4
Global warming needs real, not symbolic, solutions
The production from commercial wind turbines is small, highly variable, and intermittent. Yet their size, cost, and sprawl are disproportionately huge. Industrializing more of our land and seascapes for wind energy does much more harm than good. It is not an environmentally wise choice.
Sue Sliwinski of Sardinia, New York, who is also a director of National Wind Watch, has written: "Commercial wind power development is an environmental and economic folly, but the true danger lies in the fact that it will divert our attention and resources away from finding effective solutions to our very real and urgent problems."
National Wind Watch information and contacts are available at www.wind-watch.org
2. In the EIA projection for 2030, 0.89% represents 51.85 million megawatt-hours (MWh). Five percent would therefore be 291.29 million MWh. Divided by the 8,760 hours in a year, that represents an average power rate of 33,253 MW, which would require, with an average output of 21%, 158,345 MW of installed wind capacity. The industry rule of thumb is 60 acres per installed megawatt of wind: 158,345 × 60 = 9,500,700 open acres. On mountain ridgelines, it would require about 16,000 miles.
3. Wind's reported production was 14.60 million MWh. Dividing by 8,760 hours gives an average rate of 1,667 MW.
4. An International Energy Agency graph of Danish electricity generation by fuel from 1971 to 2003, for example, clearly shows coal replacing oil in the 1970s but no such effect from the addition of wind since the mid-1990s, especially as electricity generation -- and coal use -- increased since 2000. www.wind-watch.org/documents/danish-electricity-generation-by-fuel-1971-2003/.
National Wind Watch® is a nonprofit corporation established by campaigners from around the U.S. in 2005 to promote knowledge and raise awareness of the negative environmental and social impacts of industrial wind energy development. Information, analysis, and other materials are available on its web site:www.wind-watch.org
National Wind Watch, Inc., P.O. Box 293, Rowe, MA 01367
The U.S. Forest Service's 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Green Mountain National Forest identifies 37 sites, for a total of 19,700 acres, as viable and suitable locations for wind power development.
(FEIS, p. 3-298)
This scenario is known as Alternative E Modified.
(Record of Decision, pp. 43-44)
Here's a quote from the FEIS:
"Alternative E [has] several large contiguous sites available for consideration, including the entire potentially viable area of Corporation Mountain - Round Mountain - Wilcox Peak site in Chittenden and Pittsfield, the Rice Hill area in Dover, and the area from Mount Snow south to State Route 9 in Dover, Somerset, Searsburg, and Wilmington. ...Alternative E has the Hoosac Range."
(FEIS, p. 3-298)
According to the Record of Decision, Alternative E Modified became the 2006 Forest Plan for the GMNF. The modifications did not change the wind power development projections.
It's obvious from the description that the U.S. Forest Service could allow development of wind power in vast stretches of the GMNF, in numerous communities, with visual and environmental impacts in VT and MA.
People in all the identified areas need to become aware of this threat: if the Deerfield project is not stopped, it will undoubtedly become the first of multiple wind developments.
The article "Answers blowing in wind" (Oct. 11) states that the current
annual output of the existing Searsburg wind turbines is 27 percent of
their capacity.
That is incorrect.
For the last 4 years for which data are available, 2002-2005, the annual
output has ranged between 20.4 and 21.7 percent of capacity.
There is no reason to expect a new facility in the same area to perform
any better. The new machines are just bigger; they do not rewrite the laws of physics.
Searsburg's output for 2007 is likely to be much lower, since one of the
machines -- its blades destroyed by lightning some time ago -- has not been repaired.
Such abandonment after the tax benefits expire and manufacturers have moved
on to bigger machines is typical. It should be noted that
"decommissioning" is superficial: all such agreements leave the huge steel-reinforced
concrete foundation behind, permanently altering the terrain.
The extensive destructive of otherwise protected habitat necessary to
erect the giant new wind turbines would be done to produce an annual total of
barely one percent of Vermont's needs. It would, however, be practically
idle for a third of the time and produce at or above its average rate
only another third of the time -- depending on the wind and not grid demand,
making its actual value for providing power almost nil. (It's real
product is tax avoidance and green tags.)
It's time to admit that wind energy on the grid is a failure, not to
stubbornly expand the folly. The only result has been the destruction of
rural and wild lands that we and the earth can ill afford.
~~~
Eric Rosenbloom
President, National Wind Watch
Moratorium on windmills in the UK
One of the strongest objections has been how wind farms deface rural landscapes. There are now 87 wind farms in Britain, with 1,103 turbines, each reaching up to 80 metres to the sky. Last year Country Life readers voted them the worst eyesore and intense campaigns are being fought to oppose new wind farms on moor lands in the North West among other places.
The push for off-shore sites - where wind is stronger anyway - has taken some of the sting out of this. The new farms will be about five miles off shore and, according to Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt, the turbines will be nothing more than dots on the landscape.
Wind Farms Draw Mixed Response in Appalachia
Rural Tucker County, W.Va., has 44 mountaintop windmills. They're tall enough that their rotating blades can be seen for miles, and loud enough that their whooshing sound is heard in the nearby hollows.
Artist Paula Stahl, who lives within earshot of the Tucker County windmills, says they've scared off wildlife. Robert Burns, the county's former economic development director, says the towers are attracting sightseeing tourists.
Adam Hochberg, NPR
U.S. Wind Energy Projects
Installed U.S. wind energy capacity totaled 9,149 megawatts as of Dec. 31, 2005, up 36 percent from a year earlier. Source: American Wind Energy Association
NPR March 27, 2006 · The Appalachian states lead the nation in underground coal production, but now there's an effort to harness another type of energy there. Huge windmills are sprouting up on mountaintops from western New York through Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The futuristic machines are promoted as a source of clean, renewable power. But they're often not welcomed by locals, who saythey blight the rural landscape.
With just 2,400 residents, Highland County, Va., is the least populous county in the eastern United States. But Tal McBride envisions the area as a leader in America's quest for renewable energy. He wants to build 19 high-tech windmills -- white metal turbines as tall as 400 feet -- designed to harvest the gusts that roll across his mountain farm.
McBride says his farm is blustery enough to power about 20,000 homes. That may not be a lot in and of itself. But McBride's wind project is one of more than a half-dozen proposed for Appalachian hilltops from Pennsylvania to Virginia. It's part of a wind development boom sparked by generous tax subsidies and a growing interest in renewable power."This can't be the sole answer to challenges of climate change, but it can be a piece of the puzzle," says Frank Maisano, an energy industry spokesman, who's been promoting wind farms on the East Coast. "And if you have a renewable resource here that is non-polluting, has no emissions, it's a win, win, win for the environment, for the county itself, and for addressing some of the challenges that we as the United States face."
But before wind developers can take on those national challenges, they have to overcome some challenges closer to home.
When Virginia regulators held a hearing on Tal McBride's proposed wind farm, local opinion was overwhelmingly negative. Residents fear the windmills will destroy the area's scenic beauty. Real estate agent Randy Richardson says people come to Highland County to seeunspoiled mountain vistas -- not tall towers with whirling blades.
Richardson predicts the windmills will hurt tourism -- which is just about the only industry in Highland County. And Shawna Bratton -- whose family owns 900 acres near the proposed wind farm -- worries about its effect on property values.
Similar opposition has surfaced in other East Coast towns where wind farms are proposed. West Virginia residents have filed a nuisance suit to block construction of one wind project, while opponents of turbines off the coast of Cape Cod are hoping for congressional intervention to stop them.
Even the environmental community is divided over wind farms. Some groups -- like the Virginia Audubon Council -- oppose them becauseof the threat to bats and birds. Others -- such as Environmental Defense -- support them, arguing wind power harms the planet far less than fossil fuels do. One thing most environmentalists agree on is the need for better standards about where the big windmills should be built, both to limit their impact on local communities and help prevent more disputes over the future Appalachian skyline.
FAA Regulations for towers over 200ft
LIGHTING FIXTURE AND MARKING DESCRIPTION.
Research has shown that L-864 red flashing lights, in the form of incandescent or rapid discharge (strobe), are the most effective lighting devices to be used for wind turbine lighting. The second most effective light, the white L-865, is also permissible, although it is not as effective as the red L-864. The least desirable lights are the red, steady-burning L-810. Research showed that the white strobes were very distracting to pilots, due to the quick flash exposure and bright appearance. The L-810 research showed that the lights were virtually unnoticed until the aircraft was within 2 to 3 miles of the turbines. Although it is outside of the confines of lighting standards, studies have suggested that the use of red light emitting diode or rapid discharge style L-864 fixtures are effective in reducing impacts on neighboring communities, as the fixtures' exposure time is minimal, thus creating less of a nuisance. While preference is shown to use red flashing lights, the selection of red or white can be made by each site developer, based on their specific application. If white is used, however, all of the other guidelines in this document should still be followed. The key to developing a well-balanced lighting plan is to have all the light fixtures within the turbine farm flash at the same time, thus delineating the farm as one large obstruction and navigation between the turbines should be discouraged. The synchronization function can be accomplished through various means, either by radio frequency devices, hard-wired control cables, or independently mounted global positioning system synchronizer units. The site developer can decide the selection of the units, as long as the end result is that all lights flash perceivably at the same time. If the developer fails to synchronize the fixtures as suggested in this document, the developer will be required to add additional fixtures at closer spacing, as suggested in the guidelines cited in FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1J. The very basis of the proposed lighting standards for wind turbine sites is centered on the synchronous flashing of the perimeter lighting. A-2
Click to Download Reports
Big Money by Glenn Schleede ( pdf format 11pgs)
Anti-Trust Complaint - Filed with the Department of Justice by Concerned Citizens of New York, Vermont, Maryland and California April 25th, 2007 (pdf format 23pgs)
