Pentwater (Michigan) village councilors say “NO” to Lake Michigan industrial wind.

From the Ludington Daily News:

Pentwater: No to wind farm

Village Council passes resolution opposing Scandia proposal

CINDY SHAFER – OCEANA CORRESPONDENT

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

PENTWATER — Pentwater village councilors made their voice known.

When it comes to the offshore wind turbines proposed by Scandia/Havgul Clean Energy 1.4 to 3.7 miles from the area’s shoreline, the answer is no.

The village council voted unanimously Monday to reject the wind farm project. The resolution, drawn up by Councilman Tom Sturr, voices the community’s concerns for the introduction of projects of similar scope and location in Lake Michigan waters, how it may affect migratory bird routes, fish populations and feeding grounds, and admitted lack of turbine construction foundation experience with Lake Michigan wave and ice floes.

The final paragraph of the resolution reads: “Therefore be it resolved that the Pentwater Village Board strongly indicates its objection to, and its rejection of the Wind Farm Project proposed by Scandia Wind LLC with Havgul Clean Energy.”

“I think it’s important to act on this as soon as possible so they know where we stand,” he said.

Scandia and Havgul are proposing construction of 100 to 200 wind turbines on 100 square miles of Lake Michigan bottomlands off the shore of southern Mason County and northern Oceana County. Company officials are seeking support for the plan from governments in that area, which includes Pentwater.

See PENTWATER, A8

PENTWATER

From page A1

Village President Juanita Pierman said the village has received about 70 letters from people concerned about the proposal.

“Fifteen came from property owners in the village, 45 were from non-property owners from Hart, Shelby, Ludington and other areas. Ten came via e-mail. Most were not in support of the wind farm project, though two were in favor of it.”

Scandia Wind’s Steve Warner was not surprised by the action. “It was not any sort of departure from what we might anticipate from them,” he told the Daily News this morning.

“We certainly acknowledge it, we respect it, but we will also try and sit down with them and discuss it, like we will with all the governmental entities in the footprint (of the proposal),” Warner said.

“We haven’t made a decision whether one defecting entity is going to derail our approach to it,” he said.

The companies will be looking at the municipalities’ actions “in the aggregate,” Warner said.

He’s hoping to schedule times to meet with municipal boards in the near future to talk about the size and shape of the proposed project as well as a community trust, a fund set up for a portion of the wind turbine project’s profits to benefit the area. The governmental units have had some time now to receive feedback from residents, Warner said.

“That’s been part of our thought process from the beginning,” Warner said. As the companies learn more about how much they may have to pay in royalties to the state if the project is approved, it is better able to negotiate “a fair community trust,” he said.

Warner also is available to meet formally with a group, such as Rotary clubs and Chambers of Commerce and informally “for coffee and conversation,” he said.

The Downtown Merchants Association of Pentwater also made its voice known recently, with the majority of those polled, 32 people, stating they are against the proposal, two undecided and one in favor of it. Eighteen people did not respond.

“For those of you who do not know us, we are the merchants in the C3 District (downtown commercial district) in Pentwater. Every merchant within the district is a member of our group, whether they care to participate or not is their own choice,” Mike Castor, association board chair, stated in an e-mail Monday. “We are the economic heart of the Village of Pentwater. We have spoken.”

Patti Klevorn contributed to this report.

Investigations | Wind Energy Funds Going Overseas | Investigative Reporting Workshop

From Sign On San Diego:

Foreign energy firms getting windfall of U.S. stimulus funds

Money is used to buy turbines made abroad

BY BROOKE WILLIAMS WATCHDOG INSTITUTE

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010 AT 12:02 A.M.

China’s A-Power Energy Generation Systems lists a vacant office in downtown San Diego as its U.S. address. Brooke Williams

Online: Local wind-energy leaders explain why U.S. firms are falling behind in getting stimulus dollars on10News.com. And for the workshop’s full investigation into wind-power funding, go toinvestigativereportingworkshop.org.

Of the more than $2 billion the federal government has given out to boost the economy and create green-energy jobs, more than three-quarters has gone to foreign-owned companies that dominate the global wind-power industry. This latest finding by the Investigative Reporting Workshop, a nonprofit atAmerican University in Washington, D.C., is illustrated clearly in San Diego County, where about a dozen commercial wind developers have offices.

La Jolla is the headquarters for Eurus Energy America, the subsidiary of a Japanese firm that received $91 million in federal stimulus money for a wind farm in western Texas. It plans to apply for more money to fund a wind project in Oregon.

EnXco, a French-owned firm with American headquarters in Escondido, has received $69.5 million in stimulus money for its wind farm in Indiana. It installed 53 German-made turbines at the site. EnXco also is operating the Texas wind farm for Eurus.

A-Power Energy Generation Systems, a Chinese-owned company that might get federal grants through a consortium building a wind farm in western Texas, lists a vacant office in downtown San Diego as its U.S. address on recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Cannon Power Group of San Diego has received $19 million to expand a wind farm east of Portland in Washington. The company spent about half of that money overseas to pay for wind turbines it said it couldn’t get stateside.

The Reporting Workshop’s initial analysis of wind-energy grants was released in October and outraged some lawmakers. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., cited the group’s report — and news that $450 million in stimulus money might go to a group installing Chinese-made wind turbines in Texas — when he asked the secretary of energy to deny federal financing to firms that use foreign-made turbines.

American wind companies are receiving stimulus grants, but some such as Cannon Power spend much of that money abroad because few U.S. companies manufacture turbines.

Mark Anderson, chief executive officer of Eurus Energy America, a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Eurus Energy Holdings Corp., said his company would not have been able to move forward with other projects without the guarantee of stimulus money.

Eurus received $91 million in grants for the Bull Creek Wind Farm in Texas. It has the capacity to power about 48,000 homes a year.

Eurus is building a wind farm in Oregon. The company plans to seek green grants for that project, Anderson said.

“We plan to put more and more money into the United States,” he said.

Eurus employs 20 people in San Diego, Anderson said, and has assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Its Texas project created between 300 and 400 jobs for construction, including 10 for operation, and is benefiting the local economy through property taxes and land leases, Anderson said. For the project, Eurus bought Mitsubishi turbines, which are manufactured abroad.

EnXco, the French-owned firm based in Escondido, also went abroad to buy turbines, from German manufacturer REpower. A spokesman for enXco said the project created more than 200 construction jobs as well as a dozen permanent jobs. It has the capacity to power about 29,000 homes per year.

A-Power, based in northeast China, is part of a group building a wind farm in western Texas using turbines it is manufacturing in China. This is the project that affronted Schumer after the group announced plans to collect $450 million in stimulus grants.

In a letter, Schumer asked Energy Secretary Steven Chu to reject requests for stimulus grants from companies that buy key components abroad.

“In all due respect, I remind the secretary there is a four-letter word associated with the stimulus — J-O-B-S,” Schumer told ABC News. “Very few jobs here, lots of jobs in China. That is not what I intended or any other legislator who voted for the stimulus intended.”

Chu responded on Facebook: “But manufacturers will not build plants here and grow their production capacity here unless there is domestic demand; and, until recently, that was not the case.”

In SEC filings this year, A-Power Energy Generation Systems lists a suite in a high-rise in downtown San Diego as its business and mailing address. However, the suite door is locked, and a building manager said A-Power is not a tenant.

When reached on his cell phone, Chief Operating Officer John Lin said he did not have time to answer questions.

Gary Hardke, president of Cannon Power Group, a renewable-energy company near Torrey Pines, said his company had no choice but to go abroad to buy parts for its wind farm in Klickitat, Wash. Two main U.S. manufacturers, GE Energy and Clipper Windpower, either did not make a turbine the size that Cannon wanted or were sold out.

Cannon bought the turbines — made up mostly of blades, towers and nacelles (the part in the middle that houses components such as the rotor and generator) — from Siemens, a German company that also was the main contractor.

In all, Hardke estimated, more than 50 percent of the stimulus grant went to Siemens.

“I appreciate that cosmetically it doesn’t look good, but the reality is … the grants (must) go into the project costs,” he said.

Cannon is expecting $151 million more in stimulus grants to expand the wind farm and hopes all the parts will come from the United States.

Hardke pointed to ways the stimulus cash will do what lawmakers intended — boost the local economy. Cannon pays about $3 million a year to lease land from about 40 individual owners as well as $2 million in property taxes.

The project is in a county where nearly 20 percent of residents earn less than the poverty level, according to a 2009 U.S. Census release. It created more than 300 construction jobs, Hardke said, and 20 to 30 to operate the farm.

“There isn’t a family in Klickitat that doesn’t know someone employed by the project,” he said.

“The ongoing economic development benefit in rural America is really significant.

The icing on the cake, he said, is “clean energy — really significantly helping the environment.”

Brooke Williams: brookewilliams@watchdoginstitute.org kevincrowe@watchdoginstitute.org

Review the full investigative report here:  Investigations | Wind Energy Funds Going Overseas | Investigative Reporting Workshop

Posted using ShareThis

“Yeah, you’re going to kill some birds…” Yeah, and that’s just in Maryland!

I used to write off a few chopped birds too, when I actually thought industrial wind was an economical, reliable, eco-friendly solution to all our energy needs of the future.  Plop the big fans anywhere and the job market would be booming, tax revenues would be flooding into local coffers and buses full of sightseers would be driving into town staying in motels, buying hot dogs and t-shirts by the thousands and all the dirty old fossil fueled power plants would be shuttered.  But then I began to understand that none of that good stuff happens in real life.

The quote about killing birds in the title comes from the Baltimore Sun article today, tipped here by Mr. John Bambacus, which discusses a study funded by the Abell Foundation and conducted by the University of Delaware’s Center for Carbon-free Power Integration.

The article, Study boosts notion of offshore wind production – (Abell Foundation says turbine operation could generate jobs, too), says “Offshore wind energy can furnish Marylanders with as much as two-thirds of the electricity they currently use, and if aggressively developed, could turn the state into a net exporter of power” and ”There is, if Maryland so chooses, a significant opportunity to develop a very robust offshore wind energy economy and create a new economic and job base in the state.”

Not bad so far, but I suppose in the excitement this clunker popped out, “Capitalizing on offshore wind energy also could significantly reduce climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.”  This might not be as effective a comment as it once was, since the “climate warming” scare tactic thingy seems to be evaporating faster than Kilimanjaro’s snows.  Folks aren’t nearly as enthused about all that right now as before.

But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.  See, we’re not here to rain on anyone’s parade, we just hope that they’ve also considered these few items among the many others which suggest industrial wind, as an excellent energy source, might need another look-see:

JOBS:  “Despite record growth in generating capacity, the (wind) industry is creating few employment opportunities overall.”

RELIABILITY:  ”Wind farms produced ‘practically no electricity’ during Britain’s cold snap“

COST:  ”Cape Wind’s big secret – Power will cost millions extra” and “WSJ: “Government subsidies are turning renewable energy into big business.”

WHEELS AND DEALS:  ”Ms. Industrial Wind get’s hitched to Mr. National Grid while Pastor Politics holds the shotgun“  and  ”Uh Oh! Is another “shotgun wedding” in the offing for National Grid?”

CO2 REDUCTION:  ”Denmark’s massive 20 year industrial wind effort brings no reduction in CO2 emission“

REPLACING FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS:  ”The dirty little secret – Denmark still generates most of its energy from coal.” and “Confucius say, “adding more polluting coal-fired power plants is unavoidable if you want to be green.” and “Will industrial wind replace fossil fuel? Just do the math!” and “Just a little reminder – wind won’t replace coal. Sorry, but it’s just a fact!“

finally, FOR GOOD MEASURE:

Glenn Schleede: “The True Cost of Electricity from Wind is Always Underestimated and its Value is Always Overestimated”

Rethinking wind power – John Droz, Jr. | Cleantech Group

Selling Industrial Wind: Government, the Media and Common Sense – UPDATE

and “Industrial wind – just the facts, folks!“

So, as I said, I don’t want to dismiss the good intentions displayed in the article.  But if you’re thinking is along the lines of “Yeah, you’re going to kill some birds…” like mine was, you might want to be sure that what you’re getting is worth the price.

Oh, and one more thing … the article mentions that “We’re not looking to fill every spot out there with wind turbines,” and that’s good because this article only concerns itself with Maryland.  Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Virginia and all the coastal states are looking to place turbines offshore as a way of producing jobs and energy.  Some of us are concerned that as individual states rush to develop their place in the energy market for industrial wind plants onshore, offshore or both, the result will be a cumulative disaster.

As I mentioned in a recent email to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, “My concern, and my plea to the Committee is that, in making recommendations, they continue to keep in mind the cumulative impact of industrial wind across our lands.    My own state, West Virginia, has established goals for renewable energy, yet my suspicion is that no one in the state legislature has a clear concept of what the goals mean in terms of potential land and air saturation.  Unless “land mass and air space consumed” is part of the calculation when establishing renewable energy percentage goals, our migratory flyways may well become so obstructed that species will not be able to navigate the path which they are driven to fly by their ancient instincts.

The same concerns hold true for our neighbors due to their great responsibility to protect oceans and bays.

Cape Wind: Letter is a call to “honor Obama Administration’s commitment and Trust responsibility to Native Americans”

Barbara Durkin’s letter to Secretary Ken Salazar is provided courtesy of Jon Boone:

February 8, 2010

To the Honorable Secretary Ken Salazar:

President Obama, the adopted son of Crow Indians, has made a commitment to fully consult and collaborate with Native Americans on federal decisions.  The President cited a long history of abuse of the first Americans, their culture, and of broken promises and violated treaties.  “There is too little consultation between governments”, stated our President.

Noting the extraordinary leap of faith on the part of the largest assembly in the history of our nation of Native American’s, President Obama made a promise to have meaningful consultation with Tribes.  “Today’s conference is not lip service” stated our President.

The time is now, Secretary Salazar, to demonstrate the integrity of this Administration.  Our honor as a nation is at stake as the President is the representative of all Americans.

http://www.ncai.org/Nation-to-Nation-The-United-S.447.0.html

Cape Wind would have a devastating adverse effect on the Federally Recognized Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and the Federally Recognized Mashpee Wampanoag’s Traditional and Cultural Property.  Their Eastern View is the essence of; and a fundamental component of their Cultural Identity, Traditional Beliefs and Religious Practices.

“Because there is strength in unity”

United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc. (USET) Resolution No. 2009:026
CALL TO DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR TO HALT MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICES ACTION ON CAPE WIND PROJECT, NANTUCKET SOUND, MASSACHUSETTS.

Document excerpts:

United South and Eastern Tribes, Incorporated (USET) is an intertribal organization of twenty (25) federally recognized Tribes…”

The USET Board of Directors…“…calls upon the Department of Interior to halt any further Minerals Management Services action on the Cape Winds Wind Farm Project due to lack of or failure to complete good faith meaningful consultation, lack of compliance with existing regulation and failure to adequately consider reasonable and/or other variable alternatives.”

“Brian Patterson, president of the United South and Eastern Tribes, wrote to Salazar on behalf of the organization’s 25 federally recognized member tribes to support the Wampanoags’ efforts to assure that the Cape Wind project is not developed “at the expense of ancient tribal cultural and spiritual practice and beliefs.”

“The waterways around the United States are not vacant spaces. They belong to the history and culture of the coastal peoples of America,” Patterson wrote.

The particular waters of Nantucket Sound are essential to spiritual purposes that go to the heart of the Wampanoags’ identity as the People of the First Light, Patterson wrote.

“For those not familiar with Native culture, it can be hard to see the sacred spaces of America as Native people have seen them for thousands of years, but most Americans would understand that you could never build a wind turbine farm on top of the Gettysburg battlefield.”

http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/national/82379187.html

Cheryl Andrews-Maltais Chairwoman of the
Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) said in my presence:

“The idea of blasting our ancients’ remains is repugnant.”

In 1990 the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), was passed. In 1992 NHPA was amended again, to expand federal agency responsibilities and establish programs for supporting tribal historic preservation programs. National Register Bulletin 38 (1990:10) says that “the integrity of a traditional cultural property must be considered with reference to the views of traditional practitioners; if its integrity has not been lost in their eyes, it probably has sufficient integrity to justify further evaluation.”

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) expresses the strong federal public trust policy in favor of respecting the traditional religious beliefs and practices Native Americans. AIRFA provides for the protection and preservation of traditional religions of Native Americans.

On and after August 11, 1978, it shall be the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.

The thought of the federal government awarding a Limited Liability Corporation a precedent “no bid” deal for the Tribes’ “traditional cultural property” is repugnant.  The notion that a Limited Liability Corporation, in a for profit venture, by special interest “no bid” deal, could be given preferential treatment that effectively ends the 10,000 year ancestral use of Nantucket Sound by Native Americans is repugnant.

Renewing the trust responsibility with Native American’s by Executive Order is a promise that I hope and pray this Administration will not betray.  You have reached out to Native American’s promising things will be different with this Administration.  To betray this Trust would be an abomination.  We cannot ignore the needs of rights of Native Americans, and refer to our Nation as honorable and civilized.

I ask you to please acknowledge that Cape Wind has selected the Nantucket Sound site, and that its principle attractiveness to this Limited Liability Corporation is a “no bid” deal.  Cape Wind has no incentive, unless provided one, to move their project to a less conflicted location that will not cause the desecration of Sacred Land, a traditional cultural property.

Please honor this Administration’s commitment and Trust responsibility to Native Americans.  The Federally Recognized Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and the Federally Recognized Mashpee Wampanoag must have their treaties honored.  Their 10,000 year stewardship of Nantucket Sound must continue if the United States and its citizens are to be considered moral, just and honorable.  Our integrity as a nation must not be compromised again as it has been in the past.

Most Respectfully,

Barbara Durkin

Northboro, MA  01532

Supplemental information:

‘Cape Wind is a proposed public safety hazard’

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/19/3290406-cape-wind-a-public-safety-hazard-proposed-for-nantucket-sound-

‘Even Rich Nimbys can’t afford Cape Wind energy’

http://bjdurk.polls.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/05/2400385-even-rich-nimbys-cant-afford-cape-winds-energy

‘Cape Wind presents immitigable harm to migratory and endangered birds’

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/03/11/2534556-dear-secretary-salazar-please-do-not-sign-off-on-cape-wind-
‘The Cape Wind review v taxpayers and ratepayers (Cape Wind does not provide a fair return to the Nation for the use of our resources’

http://bjdurk.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/13/2813446-cape-wind-offshore-project-review-v-taxpayers-and-ratepayers
‘Cape Wind is in conflict with the OCS Final Rules’

http://bjdurk.polls.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/13/2813346-cape-wind-is-in-conflict-with-final-ocs-rules-and-applicable-laws?threadId=0

How much electricity does it take to run an industrial wind plant? No, that’s not a trick question!

This article - Wind farm system excels at remote monitoring and control – at HazardEx, writes that “new ethernet technology is being utilised by a wind power generating company to better maintain and control their installations.“

The device, which you can learn more about at the HazardEx link above, operates by “detecting the wind’s direction, the control system can use a motorised yaw gear to turn the entire wind turbine into the proper direction of the wind to maximise power generation.”  For for the benefit of the novice (me), the article explains that “at the top of each windmill is a turbine drive train with an adjustable blade that typically turns at 10 to 15 RPM. The blades’ pitch can be changed to allow the windmill to adjust for different wind conditions. The blade shaft connects to a gearbox inside the housing, which steps up the shaft rotation to around 1500 RPM and turns a generator. Each windmill has a control box comprised of an Industrial PC and PLC enclosed in the top of the windmill in the housing. Sensors for wind speed, wind direction, shaft rotation speed, and numerous other items collect data and transfer it to the PLC.”

Again, those interested in this technology can visit HazardEx.

But all that is not the reason for this post.  Having stumbled on to the technology article, I was reminded of a post I read a little while back at Eric Rosenbloom’s AWEO site.  If you haven’t been there before, that’s a stop you’ll want to make.  Lots of excellent material there for anyone looking to improve their knowledge of industrial wind.

The article I’m speaking of is “Energy consumption in wind facilities,” which is linked in the highlighted text for your convenience.

What struck me when I first read Mr. Rosenbloom’s article was the fact that these giant turbines require electricity to operate.  I guess I should have known, with the flashing lights and all.  But then, things like consumption are not usually found at AWEA (American Wind Energy Association) or in the LLCs developer’s brochure.  There’s a lot of talk about energy production, but I don’t recall hearing a peep about energy consumption.

That’s what made Mr. Rosenbloom’s post stick with me.  He points out that “large wind turbines require a large amount of energy to operate. Other electricity plants generally use their own electricity, and the difference between the amount they generate and the amount delivered to the grid is readily determined. Wind plants, however, use electricity from the grid, which does not appear to be accounted for in their output figures. At the facility in Searsburg, Vermont, for example, it is apparently not even metered and is completely unknown [click here].* The manufacturers of large turbines — for example, Vestas, GE, and NEG Micon — do not include electricity consumption in the specifications they provide.”

In Mr. Rosenbloom’s laundry list of energy consuming activities at industrial wind facilities, guess what shows up as the first two items:

• yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) — the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine
• blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)

The very two items in the HazerdEX article that pointed me back to Mr. Rosenbloom’s article today.  (My ADD really comes in handy now and then!)  I contacted Mr. Rosenbloom explaining there were plenty of folks like me who hadn’t really thought about the consumption factor, and probably more who at least needed a little reminder, and he kindly gave us permission to use his work.

Here are additional “consumers” listed by Mr. Rosenbloom:

• lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.
• heating the blades — this may require 10%-20% of the turbine’s nominal (rated) power
• heating and dehumidifying the nacelle — according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, “power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds”
• oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox
• hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)
• thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) — 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost
• magnetizing the stator — the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a “large” amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous “cage rotor” that encloses the generator shaft; at the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine’s rated capacity, in slower winds possibly much more
• using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not,‡ particularly during important site tours) — it seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning, along with the gears that increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind§

Darn, the things look innocent enough!

Mr. Rosenbloom suggests that “it may be that each turbine consumes more than 50% of its rated capacity in its own operation. If so, the plant as a whole — which may produce only 25% of its rated capacity annually — would be using (for free!) twice as much electricity as it produces and sells. An unlikely situation perhaps, but the industry doesn’t publicize any data that proves otherwise; incoming power is apparently not normally recorded.“

He asks, “Is there some vast conspiracy spanning the worldwide industry from manufacturers and developers to utilities and operators?” and suggests:  ”There doesn’t have to be, if engineers all share an assumption that wind turbines don’t use a significant amount of power compared to their output and thus it is not worth noting, much less metering. Such an assumption could be based on the experience decades ago with small DC-generating turbines, simply carried over to AC generators that continue to metastasize. However errant such an assumption might now be, it stands as long as no one questions it. No conspiracy is necessary — self-serving laziness is enough.”

Where does that leave us?  ”Whatever the actual amount of consumption, it could seriously diminish any claim of providing a significant amount of energy. Instead, it looks like industrial wind power could turn out to be a laundering scheme: “Dirty” energy goes in, “clean” energy comes out. That would explain why developers demand legislation to create a market for “green credits” — tokens of “clean” energy like the indulgences sold by the medieval church. Ego te absolvo. ”

Footnotes to the article:

(One need only ask utilities to show how much less “dirty” electricity they purchase because of wind-generated power to see that something is amiss in the wind industry’s claims. If wind worked and were not mere window dressing, the industry would trot out some real numbers. But they don’t. One begins to suspect that they can’t.)

*There is also the matter of reactive power (VAR). As wind facilities are typically built in remote areas, they are often called upon to provide VAR to maintain line voltage. Thus much of their production may go to providing only this “energy-less” power.

†Much of this information comes from a Swedish graduate student specializing in hydrogen and wind power, as posted in aYes2Wind discussion. Also see the Danish Wind Industry Association’s guide to the technology. The rest comes from personal correspondence with other experts and from industry spec sheets.

‡An observer in Toronto, Ontario, points out that the blades of the turbines installed at the Pickering nuclear plant and Exhibition Place turn 90% of the time, even when there is barely a breeze and when the blades are not properly pitched — in a region acknowledged to have low wind resource.

§”In large rotating power trains such as this, if allowed to stand motionless for any period of time, the unit will experience “bowing” of shafts and rotors under the tremendous weight. Therefore, frequent rotating of the unit is necessary to prevent this. As an example, even in port Navy ships keep their propeller shafts and turbine power trains slowly rotating. It is referred to as “jacking the shaft” to prevent any tendency to bow. Any bowing would throw the whole train out of balance with potentially very serious damage when bringing the power train back on line.
“In addition to just protecting the gear box and generator shafts and bearings, the blades on a large wind turbine would offer a special challenge with respect to preventing warping and bowing when not in use. For example, on a sunny, windless day, idle wind turbine blades would experience uneven heating from the sun, something that would certainly cause bowing and warping. The only way to prevent this would be to keep the blades moving to even out the sun exposure to all parts of the blade.
“So, the point that major amounts of incoming electrical power is used to turn the power train and blades when the wind is not blowing is very accurate, and it is not something the operators of large wind turbines can avoid.
“[In addition, there is] the likely need for a hefty, forced-feed lubricating system for the shaft and turbine blade assembly bearings. This would be a major hotel load. I can’t imagine passive lubrication (as for the wheel bearings on your car) for an application like this. Maybe so, but I would be very surprised. Assuming they have to have a forced-feed lubrication system, given the weight on those bearings (40 tons on the bearing for the rotor and blades alone) a very robust (energy sucking) lubricating oil system would be required. It would also have to include cooling for the oil and an energy-sucking lube oil purification system too.”
–Lawrence E. Miller, Gerrardstown, WV, an engineer with over 40 years of professional experience with large power train machinery associated with Navy ships.

See, I knew this would get you thinking.  For those of you who hear about the CO2 reductions, but can’t find concrete numbers to verify; folks looking for the list of fossil plants closing as a result of industrial wind; taxpayers at state and local levels trying to get our legislators to provide transparency regarding tax credit deals; or consumers just trying to find out how much it’s going to cost; this may end up being just one more item on the list of “take our word for it.”  I hope not.  I hope we hear from the wind developers, the AWEA or windplant operators who must certainly know all this detail in order to report their successes back to their Boards.

Unfortunately, one thing I’ve found in my rather short time posting at Allegheny Treasures – the wind industry tends to ignore certain issues, which I suppose they feel uncomfortable defending.  I know if I were in a business that generated cheap electricity, reduced emissions by closing down fossil plants, hired folks by the thousands and tossed my profits back at customers and the communities that permitted my operation in their midst, I’d be shoving statistics up the noses of all the naysayers.  Numbers would be my friend!

You see, we do hear from folks that believe industrial wind will be a valuable contributor to the energy needs in the US.  We appreciate that we do, since it is only in discussing opposing views that we learn.  We just hope one day that the industry itself will come off script and respond to the many unanswered questions we’ve posed.  Maybe they could bring along some actual performance data and a list of the dirty old plants that no longer operate.

We’re here to learn!  How about helping us out?

Again, we thank Mr. Rosenbloom for the courtesy he extended in allowing us to use his work.

AT Note:  Mr. Eric Rosenbloom is a science editor and writer living in Vermont.

National Journal: What’s A Winning Strategy For Renewables? – Energy & Environment Experts

Ms. Amy Harder of the NationalJournal.com asks: How can renewable energy keep up the momentum?

In the last year, renewables have been booming, according to recent reports. But due to the recession, electricity demand isn’t increasing as much as anticipated, and experts say that could translate into lower demand for all new sources of electricity, including renewables. On top of that, President Obama recently told Democrats that “we’re not going to be able to ramp up solar and wind to suddenly replace every other energy source anytime soon, and the economy still needs to grow. So we’ve got to look at how to make existing technologies and options better.” And in his State of the Union address, Obama threw his weight behind nuclear energy and offshore drilling.

For the immediate future, how can renewable sources of electricity position themselves to become the top energy source? How should Congress balance emerging technologies with existing ones? Is it wise for Obama to pour resources into adapting traditional technologies, like clean coal, or should he focus more on wind, solar and other renewable sources of energy?

Here’s a little tease of the two responses from opposing sides.  Go to the National Journal article to read each complete response from Mr. O’Keefe and Mr. Hay:

FEBRUARY 8, 2010 8:43 AM

Don’t Follow The Yellow Brick Road

By William O’Keefe

CEO, George C. Marshall Institute

The current promise of renewables is founded in fantasy: a glittering yellow brick road that leads to nowhere. This is a harsh indictment but also an accurate one.

and:

FEBRUARY 8, 2010 8:40 AM

U.S. Not Serious About Renewables

By Lewis Hay

Chairman and CEO, FPL Group

As the CEO of America’s largest provider of renewable energy, I obviously have a bias on this topic, but in my view we are simply not serious about building a robust renewable energy industry in the United States.

I know going from $15.3 to $42.1 Million seems like a lot in 1 year Commissioner, but this Smart Grid stuff is really confusing.

So, feeling pretty good about future energy cost estimates, are we?  Check this out this little ditty from the Boulder Colorado Daily Camera and then let me know how you feel:

When Boulder was chosen for the smart grid project in March 2008, Xcel Energy projected that capital expenditures for the SmartGridCity would be about $15.3 million. By May 2009, Xcel had changed its projected cost to $27.9 million, and now the company believes the total bill will reach $42.1 million, not including the costs of operating and maintaining the new grid.

A large part of the increased price tag is associated with the unanticipated difficulty of constructing the system’s fiber network.

“The company had to install far more underground fiber than initially projected, substantially increasing the cost …” Xcel officials wrote in a document filed with the utilities commission last May. “We also ran into unexpected construction conditions such as having to drill through granite with diamond-tipped drill bits and remove large boulders with cranes and dump trucks … .”

So, are you a little concerned now?  Well, not to worry says Xcel spokesman Tom Henley.  Mr. Henley says “the increase in the smart grid’s forecast cost is not cause for alarm.”  ”SmartGridCity has always been a research and development process,” he said. “It’s a living and breathing laboratory, and we’ve always said all along that there’s parts that will work and parts that won’t work.”

Geesh!  As calm as he is with the increase, you would think Mr. Henley was spending someone else’s money!  By the way, aren’t these the same guys that think industrial wind is free?

The full article from Laura Snider, Boulder Daily Camera is linked below:

Xcel smart grid costs blow up, PUC orders more transparency – “Latest rate increase charges all Colo. customers for Boulder’s grid“

The industrial wind health impact debate rages on at the Rutland (Vermont) Herald

What follows is a volley of letters to the Editor of the Rutland (Vermont) Herald, which demonstrates the intensity of the debate within communities facing industrial wind installations regarding the issues of of industrial wind and resident’s health.  If nothing else, the back and forth witnessed here should serve as evidence that this debate should, in fact, be ongoing throughout the country, well before the wind LLC shows up at your County Commissioner’s door with a smile and a lot of promises.

For the most part, the discussion of the negative health effects of industrial wind is smothered by the heavily funded wind propagandists and often supported by a compliant press.  Politicians, who should be taking a lead role asking for balanced discussion of critical issues are silent, at least until the subsidies roll in and the ribbon cutting ceremony is held, only to disappear again when the jobs do not come and the revenues promised by the wind developers do not materialize.

While they make the post a bit long, we feel it’s instructive to see the comments from readers that follow letters to the editor, so we’ve taken the liberty to post them for your convenience at the end of each letter.  One might question whether they add to the debate, but we feel some certainly do.  Others just provide for darned good entertainment.

This important exchange, begins with commentary from Dr. Stan Shapiro who recently wrote a piece in Heart Health News on the cardiac consequences of sleep deprivation.  Dr. Shapiro’s letter is titled “ Health effects must be studied “

A recent piece I wrote in Heart Health News on the cardiac consequences of sleep deprivation has been accused of fear-mongering on wind turbines. I wish to address several of the author’s comments and correct them.

First, the work is entirely my own and does not represent an opinion nor position of Rutland Regional Medical Center. I understand that the medical center will host a balanced forum on Health Issues of Wind Turbines in the spring. Additionally, a group of Rutland area physicians have a committee to study the health impacts of wind turbines. This is laudatory, and the people of Rutland County should be proud their institution and area physicians are willing to study difficult issues that affect health.

Personally, I stand by the facts of the article. Sleep deprivation is harmful to one’s health. It imposes psychological, physiological, and health effects that have morbid consequences. I argued in the Heart Health piece that increased morbidity leads to increased risk of mortality. This is a medical axiom that is clearly supported in the cardiology literature.

Preliminary findings in Mars Hill, Maine, conclude that adults living within 1,100 meters of industrial wind turbines suffer higher incidences of chronic sleep disturbance compared to a control group 5,500 meters away. In Japan 90 percent of complaints against wind turbines have been health-related, with insomnia being among the leading concerns.

The AWEA-CANWEA that is cited by the author is said to rebut the “myths” I put forward. This paper barely addresses sleep deprivation and does not deal with the facts I advanced. This industry-financed paper did not study wind turbine health effects it merely reviewed available literature, and no where does it interview one person whose life has been turned asunder living in proximity to industrial wind turbines.

The intersection of health and renewable energy is a brand new area of medical inquiry that must be studied. To say that no further study of the issues is necessary as the AWEA-CANWEA authors did is shameful. The precautionary principlemust be applied to projects that have the potential of worsening our lives. I and others will continue to work unceasingly on issues we believe in.

I am thankful that RRMC is an institution whose culture encourages dealing with hard, complex issues in a robust and learned manner and where dissent can be embraced as one of the building blocks of further understanding and growth.RRMC is an organization with integrity. I am hopeful that my studied position on this important issue will be seen for what it is and not as a position of RRMC .

STAN SHAPIRO, M.D.

(AT Note:  We do not have access to Dr. Shapiro’s original article from Heart Health News for your review.)

Reader Comments to Dr. Shapiro’s letter:

so stupid

– Posted by None None on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, 5:16 am EST

report this comment

---

There are a few who still dispute the health affects of wind turbines on people who live close in. But you know what, it doesn’t stop the fact that people ARE suffering. We have no one to go to except Representatives like Dave Potter, Joe Baker, Peg Andrews, Bill Carris and Bob Helm. I trust these folks won’t let us down. We elect them to protect us from things like this. Don’t take Dr. Shapiro’s word for it. Don’t take my word for it. Read what Susan Wylie in Vinalhaven, Wendy Todd of Mars Hill or Hal and Judy Graham of Cohocton, NY have to say. These are REAL people who are suffering the effects that Wind Developers like Jeff Wennberg, Per White Hansen and Steve Eisenberg are telling us don’t exist. We get it….they’ve got a lot of money to lose. I suggest that we have many renewable options which will better our state’s energy portfolio. Industrial wind, with it’s many drawbacks, is not the answer to Vermont’s problems.

www.EnergizeVermont.org

Check it out.

.

– Posted by Local Yokel on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, 10:54 pm EST

report this comment

---

Political debate is wonderful, grab a platitude, i.e. Sleep Deprivation is…., and plaster it on the side of anything, demand a study before any action. Precious Green Mountains, Snail Darter, Acid Rain, Shin Splints, Elbow Room, or whatever. I think the whirly super fans are laughably the worst gadget to come down the pike since electric cars. “You must have one or Hugo Chavez will own the Florida Keys”. March to Montpelier to save the Keys. YIKE!!!

– Posted by None None on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, 8:19 am EST

report this comment

————————————————————————————————————

Next up is this letter from Jeff Wennberg , community outreach director for Vermont Community Wind, a Charlotte-based company.  Mr. Wennberg took exception to Dr. Shapiro’s writing this letter titled “ Factual view of wind power“

On behalf of Vermont Community Wind Farm I want to thank Jill Jesso-White and the Rutland Regional Medical Center for their prompt apology following the publication of an article claiming adverse health effects from wind turbines. The Medical Center clearly stated that they take no position on this and has taken the positive step of sponsoring a community forum on the subject this spring.

Wind energy opponent Stan Shapiro continues to cite the claims of health problems at Mars Hill in Maine, but fails to mention the hundreds of wind farms around the nation where no such claims are made . He misquotes the concerns raised by the World Health Organization for adverse health effects associated with sleep disturbance (not “deprivation”), but does not acknowledge the Vermont regulatory standard for wind farm noise levels.

Here is what Dr. Dora Ann Mills, director of Maine’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention wrote: “In my review I found no evidence in peer-reviewed medical and public health literature of adverse health effects from the kinds of noise and vibrations heard by wind turbines other than occasional reports of annoyances, and these are mitigated or disappear with proper placement of the turbines from nearby residences.”

The World Health Organization studied night noise from all sources and stated that the ideal night noise level to avoid sleep disturbance is 30 decibels . The Vermont Public Service Board limit for wind turbine noise in the bedroom is 30 decibels , and it is measured even more stringently than WHO recommends.

Vermont Community Wind Farm welcomes a balanced and factually grounded discussion of this important issue. Readers interested in learning more about it are invited to review the following: Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, World Health Organization, 2009; http://www.euro.who.int/document/e92845.pdf; Wind Turbine Neuro-Acoustical Issues, June, 2009;http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/boh/wind-turbines.shtml; and Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects; An Expert Panel Review, AWEA, CWEA, December 2009; http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/12-15-09-sound panel release.html.

JEFF WENNBERG

(AT Note:  We do not have access to Jill Jesso-White and the Rutland Regional Medical Center’s apology for your review.)

Reader Comments to Mr. Wennberg’s letter:

Hell, Let’s ******** everyone. What about a tire burning plant to generate electricity? Tires are not a fossil fuel. They come from trees. We wouldn’t have to worry about all of those tires in the land fills either.

– Posted by Smart Thinking on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, 11:36 pm EST

report this comment

---

Hey Jeff. SHUT UP.

– Posted by No More on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, 4:29 pm EST

report this comment

---

Mr. Wennberg,

You have no credibility on this issue. Your company, Vermont Community Wind Farm, has trespassed on private land on several occasions, installed monitoring equipment without owners permission, and were even ordered to remove a MET tower you illegally placed in Ira, after you received approval from the Public Service Board! Even when the MET tower was being removed as per the order of the PSB, you still trespassed on private land in the process! It is also a known fact, that you would be fined by the PSB if you did not follow their recommendation for removing the illegally placed tower. It’s these instances that people question your integrity and the Wind developers as a whole. Your inclusion to the link to the American Wind Energy Association, is a joke! All you have done is just expose the man behind the curtain, in your feeble attempt to sugar coat the genuine concern the public has about large scale wind development.

Your supercilious reactions to the general public at town meetings was obvious, when presented with facts and questions that opposed yourlarge scale wind development.
It is far more “Green” to leave these ridges as they have been for millions of years. The Vermont mountains are some of the oldest on the entire planet!

The disdain you have showed the public that dare question Vermont Community Wind Farm’s attempt to destroy the landscape, in favor of an incredibly inefficient technology, is offensive to the morality and decency of ordinary people.

Another revealing fact about Wind developers, is their required to sign an ethics pledge!

You sir, represent an industry that can’t be trusted!

– Posted by p c on Fri, Feb 5, 2010, 8:32 am EST

report this comment

---

If you lived in Ira Jeff, you’d find out what it’s like to sleep in a room that is so quiet the sound of a timex watch left in the room will keep you from sleeping.

The other thing is this, I don’t care how many decibels the public service board says is ok. If the lungs of a bats get burst as they fly through the perimeter of a wind turbine, I know there is something extra going on that I can’t hear. Something that when combined with the DBc, is keeping people up at night. You can deny it Jeff, but it’s happening in a deer camp in Lempster, in homes on Vinalhaven, out in Cohocton, and also in Mars Hill.

Don’t go getting a big chest on us just because the RRMC issued an apology. People are suffering the effects of wind turbines whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Dr Shapiro and others are doing the right thing by putting this information out there for people to hear. Dr Shapiro has nothing to gain by lying to us. But you sure do Jeff.

– Posted by Local Yokel on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, 8:42 pm EST

report this comment

---

If you lived in Ira Jeff, you’d find out what it’s like to sleep in a room that is so quiet the sound of a timex watch left in the room will keep you from sleeping.

The other thing is this, I don’t care how many decibels the public service board says is ok. If the lungs of a bats get burst as they fly through the perimeter of a wind turbine, I know there is something extra going on that I can’t hear. Something that when combined with the DBc, is keeping people up at night. You can deny it Jeff, but it’s happening in a deer camp in Lempster, in homes on Vinalhaven, out in Cohocton, and also in Mars Hill.

Don’t go getting a big chest on us just because the RRMC issued an apology. People are suffering the effects of wind turbines whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Dr. Shapiro is doing the right thing by putting this information out there for people to hear. He’s got nothing to gain by lying to us. But you sure do Jeff.

.

– Posted by Local Yokel on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, 8:22 pm EST

report this comment

---

Will VCWF be contributing to a fund that is adequate to remove the turbines and “restore the site to it’s natural state” (my quotes, because that will be impossible) once they are no longer operable or necessary? I don’t believe so. I find it very hard to like Mr. Wennberg any more because I fear he is selling snake oil. Also, noise is in the ear of the beholder. If you subject me to noise that is intolerable to me and then tell me to get an attitude change, don’t expect a good reaction. In Vermont, it’s standard practice to propose something that will ruin some people’s lives, and then tell them to submit to mediation under which they might reach a compromise that ruins only 80 percent of their life. It’s especially galling when the benefits are so questionable. Wind makes little sense without a good storage medium for the electricity. Hydrogen is that medium. Itcan be made from water using electricity from wind and solar, and can power vehicles or be used to pump electricity into the grid at peak demand times. What we need is a farm-sized pilot project to demonstrate the concept.

– Posted by Captain Tenille on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, 3:01 pm EST

report this comment

---

Want a solution? Everyone use less and set up individual energy systems. A windturbine in my neighbors yard along with some solar panels would be a welcome sight! Buliding 80 turbines on the ridgelines so VCWF can trade the carbon credits for profit is much less desirable.

– Posted by Andy Farmer on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, 1:55 pm EST

report this comment

---

The sound of wind turbines, as demonstrated by Charles Gibson
http://www.mefeedia.com/news/11811416

– Posted by None None on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, 1:44 pm EST

report this comment

---

Solar, hydro, biomass are all viable solutions. Entergy and the wind developers are reading from the same playbook, not being truthful. Wennberg wants people to know facts about wind energy, but is denying there are health problems caused by the noise. Here links are videos where you can get facts:
Voices of Vinalhaven, Maine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtGijb_oNeQ
Wind Turbine Noise in Canada http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-sRfgwPgAQ
Life Under a Wind Plant in Pennsylvania http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNxvkrgoPLo
Voices of Tug Hill New York http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePZO76z2iBY
Welcome to Mars Hill Maine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp31TWPC5tc
Wind Turbines and Health http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sutK3bCPrY

– Posted by None None on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, 12:59 pm EST

report this comment

---

Proposing solutions isn’t a real strong suit for the forum trolls.

– Posted by Dave None on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, 10:08 am EST

report this comment

---

So, what’s your alternative energy source? Do you have one?
Something has to be done about the many negative aspects of our energy needs today and into the future.
First Question: What do you propose? If not wind, then what?
Second Question: If yours is such a great idea, why aren’t investors beating a path to our doors with your grandiose idealized new energy system?
I see far too many people complaining about solutions that are offered but those same people are unable to propose any sustainable solutions to our insatiable hunger for more energy.
Something has to be done.

– Posted by steve Nunya on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, 8:38 am EST

report this comment

---

Hold onto your hats, this is just the beginning of the corporate blitz the wind industry is about to unleash with their 18 minute video to be mass mailed to areas in Vermont where wind turbines are proposed. The wind industry is going on the offensive nationwide and Vermont is ground zero, with the trade organization Renewable Energy Vermont producing the video for sale for $20 to developers. Read more about their planned propaganda campaign here: http://www.energizevermont.org/profiles/blogs/wind-turbine-sound-and-health. How sad that we need solutions to our energy needs and instead we get well-funded government hand-outs to an industry that is using our tax dollars topromulgate their version of the truth. Go visit big wind turbines on a windy day and talk to people who live around them — not on one of those “fixed” trips the wind developers organize — and see for yourself just how loud and annoying the technology is. Big wind turbines do not belong on top of Vermont’s mountains!

– Posted by None None on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, 8:01 am EST

report this comment

---

Wind turbines DO cause sleep disturbance which leads to sleep deprivation. This in turn leads to a whole host of health problems. Also for Mr Wennberg to say that no problems have been found outside of Mars Hill is disingenous at best, as most other areas have not been studied, so obviously no “claims are made” about problems at these sights, and a quick look at the internet will show problems at many other sightsworldwide. The American Wind Association would like to keep it that way too because instead of acknowledging that problems clearly occur when studied as in Mars Hill, they recommended no further studies be done. What a surprise!!! Also he fails to mention that the wind industry uses gag orders to prevent victims from talking about the noise and health problems they have experienced…if no problems, why would they do that???

And finally I do agree with the WHO guidelines, but evidence shows that the wind industry skirts these guidelines by using inaccurate modeling tounderpredict noise problems and over predicts masking by ambient noise. Once the turbines are up all those people are now stuck with noisemuch louder than predicted. There are numerous reports of turbine noise exceeding 50dB at peoples homes. The WHO report clearly states that these noise levels unequivocally cause health effects including cardiac problems.

The wind industry has shown that with all that money at stake they cannot be trusted to tell the truth. After all they are there to make money pure and simple, and people’s health problems are an inconvenience to be swept under the rug so they can continue their uninterrupted greed.

– Posted by VT Nature on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, 6:32 am EST

report this comment

---

have you ever been within ten miles of a ski mountain making snow?, now thats noise.

– Posted by None None on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, 5:06 am EST

report this comment

————————————————————————————————————

Mr. Wennberg’s letter prompted this letter to the editor:  ”Wennberg lacks credibility“

On Feb. 1, the Herald ran a letter from Dr. Stan Shapiro clarifying a misunderstanding that an article he wrote in the Heart Health News was not meant as an endorsement by the Rutland Regional Medical Center. He cites several studies and then states, “Personally, I stand by the facts of the article.” The letter was titled, “Health effects must be studied.” On Feb. 4, Jeff Wennberg, the public relations rep for Vermont Community Wind Farm, describes Dr. Shapiro as a “wind energy opponent” and cites other studies. The Herald titled his letter, “Factual view of wind power.”

To state Mr. Wennberg’s letter as “factual” vs. Dr. Shapiro’s as an issue to be “studied” raises once again any claim the Herald might claim to objectivity. Mr. Wennberg is paid to promote his company and has shown no compunction to distortion, misstatements and even problems with the truth. Dr. Shapiro, on the other hand, doesn’t have the liberties with the truth as Mr. Wennberg.

Mr. Wennberg has a long history with questionable statements about energy. Years ago, when he was mayor of Rutland City, he assured his residents of the safety of the proposed Vicon waste-to-energy incinerator plant by stating: “With his training as a physicist [it] enabled him to study the evidence and conclude that health-related concerns were unfounded.” (New York Times, Nov. 29, 1987) Several years later the state denied an operating permit because “the plant failed to meet standards for emission of toxic substances, including dioxin ….” (Rutland Herald, March24, 1993).

As we’ve come to expect of Mr. Wennberg, anyone who opposes his ideas are obviously unlearned. The same New York Times article quotes him as saying the state “paid too much attention to the fanatical and shrill attacks by the opposition.”

More recently, the Yale Daily News (Sept. 30, 2009) in an article “Yale-backed wind plan incites controversy,” has Mr. Wennberg responding to issues of noise and illness raised by Rep. Dave Potter by exclaiming, “Wrong, wrong, and wrong. They certainly do make noise, but an awful lot of the fears people have are based on misinformation.”

When a lot of criticism developed in the follow-up blog to the article, Mr. Wennberg responded: “Once again, the misinformation machine is operating at full throttle. VCWF never proposed to build 60 turbines.” (I have VCWF’s own maps that prove otherwise.)

Mr. Wennberg’s credibility is suspect. To credit Mr. Wennberg with “factual” knowledge. knowing that behind him is the multi-billion dollar industrial wind industr, is a deep disappointment. When Mr. Wennberg devotes his obvious intellectual gifts to mislead, misinform, and, as noted above, lie, I believe it is incumbent upon the Herald to question motive to insure fairness in a reasonable attempt at objectivity.

PETER COSGROVE

Reader Comments to Mr. Cosgrove’s letter:

Vermontis, the Vermont Legislature is working on a bill for Sun removal..They are currently reviewing the Grandfather clause due to one Vermonter dying from skin cancer years ago from over exposure. Detractors of the bill are investigating the sun victims time spent in Florida as an agrument in support of keeping the Sun overhead. I’ll keep you posted..

– Posted by Back Nine on Sat, Feb 6, 2010, 1:33 pm EST

report this comment

---

The Vicon debacle is nonsense compounded with rhetoric and science fiction. The Permit to operate was denied, that is true. The balance is fantasy, there was no dioxin and no failure to meet emission standards. The rules were changed several times, due in part to the chanting of the badly misinformed, and the process was modified to meet the rules without actually running. The investors said “yes we can” and a computer program said “no you can’t”, permit denied. Dioxin(s) is or are compounds formed by burning Chlorine in a special limited set of circumstances, it is not produced by burning stuff. There is very little logic applied to public policy and it has been so for a number of years since sensationalism became the profit maker for the media. The good news is that the media is being excoriated for poor journalism. I am not a fan of making electric with fans, nor do I care for the flippant use of controversy as a substitute for logical argument. The fans are, to me, a “limited life” investment in a public utility better served by the kind of investment made when the builders of the Niagra Falls power stations conceived their plan. Obozo is lost in Washington with Leahy and Sanders biting at their detractors. We need a Panama Canal approach to creating what we need now and for the very long term. We need bigger thinkers.

– Posted by None None on Sat, Feb 6, 2010, 9:53 am EST

report this comment

---

Thank You Peter!!! Very well stated!! I’m anxious to attend the informational presentation Rutland Regional has promised to provide. At least Jeff’s letter did some good. It also highlighted the bias of the paper. Factual? I think not.

– Posted by Andy Farmer on Sat, Feb 6, 2010, 8:30 am EST

report this comment

---

Those generalizations, what about Geo-thermal Vermontitis? Small footprint, endless supply, no fish “banging their fins”, not radioactive, not noisy. That’s the ticket. Let’s focus on real solutions.

– Posted by MItch Adams on Sat, Feb 6, 2010, 8:19 am EST

report this comment

---

Every potential power source seems to have its detractors, usually a loud boisterous bunch. No wind power….its noisy…no nuclear power its radioactive…no coal its damaging to the air….no hydro…fish might bang their fins.

Its a good thing the SUN was grandfathered in or we would all freeze.

– Posted by * Vermontis on Sat, Feb 6, 2010, 6:03 am EST

report this comment

Allegheny Treasures is awaiting the next volley and your comments.  Stay tuned!

We make every attempt to be accurate .  Should you find errors, omissions or broken links please notify us in the comment section and we will remedy promptly.

Industrial Wind: Is there “a shift in the climate of opinion?”

Many readers of Allegheny Treasures point to a significant reassessment of industrial wind’s potential as a reliable source of “clean and green” power.  We note, in a piece by RocNow’s Steve Orr, he writes:  ”Some say the shine has worn off an industry that in many communities had been welcomed both for its green image and its ability to pump money into the local economy.”

There seems no question that, provided with accurate information, people begin to question the high cost and poor performance of these gigantic machines that consume such an enormous chunk of real estate and air relative to their “capacity” to produce electricity.  We use the term “capacity” simply because the historic output of industrial wind ranges at 20-30% of rated nameplate capacity.  As noted in Dennis Avery’s piece, A Chill Hits Wind Power, ”The Texas power grid’s experience is to rely on no more than 9 percent of the wind farm’s rated capacity.”

The claim that industrial wind will replace fossil fuel power plants and reduce CO2 is challenged by some of the best minds in the country and, when called upon to produce evidence of power plants shut down or evidence (not estimates from industry sources) of CO2 reduction, the reality is this, “With nearly 100,000 huge wind turbines now in operation throughout the world—35,000 in the USA—no coal plants have been closed anywhere because of wind technology. And there is no empirical evidence that there is less coal burned per unit of electricity produced as a specific consequence of wind.”  Even wind developers, when pressed about the CO2 issue tend to minimize industrial wind’s contribution.

The LA Times, in a surprisingly candid piece about the lack of job growth as promised by the wind industry, noted that “even though a record 10,000 megawatts of new generating capacity came on line, few jobs were created overall and wind power manufacturing employment, in particular, fell…”

So, when folks start to realize that industrial wind costs more, provides few jobs, very little and infrequent electricity to the grid and all the while sacrifices our environment and wildlife in the process, there’s bound to be a shift.  The industrial wind folks fight back with their propaganda and call doubters NIMBY (not in my back yard).  Well, as we said here in a previous post, Industrial wind calls it NIMBY. Perhaps! But “this problem runs from the arctic to the tip of South America — and that is one helluva big backyard!”

So, do as we and others have and challenge your political leaders to look past the curtain that is the industrial wind scam.  Reach out to your Governors and legislature to challenge their thinking.  Make them aware that you expect them to invest your tax dollars wisely.

We encourage you to review the links embedded here for your convenience.  We also encourage your respectful comments.

Take the time to read Mr. Orr’s article at RocNow by Democrat and Chronicle, provided here for your convenience:

Opinions shift on Rochester-area wind farms

Steve Orr – Staff writer
Local News – February 6, 2010 – 5:00am

Wind-energy developers, who have flocked to the breezy hills south of Rochester, now are finding parts of the region a less-than-hospitable one.

A cross-border project has been blocked by local officials in Steuben and Yates counties, prompting aggressive lawsuits by the developer involved.

Another wind-energy company just walked away from a planned project in Steuben County.

And most recently, a Wyoming County citizens group has challenged a town board action that paved the way for a new wind project there.

Some say the shine has worn off an industry that in many communities had been welcomed both for its green image and its ability to pump money into the local economy.

“I’m detecting a shift in the climate of opinion,” said Gary Abraham, a Cattaraugus County lawyer who has represented citizen groups in litigation related to wind projects.

The head of a statewide green-energy advocacy group said the public overwhelmingly supports wind energy, but despite that, discord and litigation in host communities has become an unfortunate fact of life.

“Certainly it sends the message that it’s not going to be easy to get something done in New York. That being said, there are still a number of projects going forward,” said Carol Murphy, executive director of the Alliance for Clean Energy New York.

Indeed, the region remains a center of wind-energy development. Wyoming County has four wind farms with 236 turbines, more than any other county in the state. There is a working wind farm in Cohocton, Steuben County, as well.

Those five projects have the capacity to generate up to 470 megawatts, which represents the electricity demand of about 200,000 households.

Those 470 megawatts are a little more than a third of all the wind-generation capacity in the state.

Nearly two dozen other wind-farm proposals in the Finger Lakes and western New York regions remain on the books of the agency that oversees New York’s electric grid, though developers have yet to make formal applications to town boards for many of them.

Of late, though, there has been a spate of controversy over the farms.

A citizens group in Orangeville, Wyoming County, filed suit last month against the Town Board there, asserting it had adopted an inadequate local wind-turbine siting law to make way for a 59-turbine wind project. That case has been assigned to a Supreme Court justice in Buffalo.

• After supporting Ecogen Wind LLC’s 17-turbine proposal for years, the Town Board in Italy, Yates County, acknowledged growing citizen opposition by voting in October to kill the development. Observers said Italy’s board may have been the first in New York state to vote down a wind project. A suit by Ecogen asking a judge to override the Town Board and allow the project to proceed is pending before a state Supreme Court justice in Rochester.
• Ecogen similarly sued the board in neighboring Prattsburgh, Steuben County, where the company has hoped to erect 16 more turbines. Pro-wind board members briefly settled the case in Ecogen’s favor before leaving office in December, but after a series of courtroom skirmishes, the newly seated Town Board canceled the settlement and declared a moratorium on wind-energy development in the town. Ecogen’s suit still is pending.

Another wind project proposed for Prattsburgh that had been in planning stages for years was formally canceled at the end of 2009. John Lamontagne, spokesman for developer First Wind, said the project was deemed expendable in light of the shaky economy.

The Massachusetts company, which was given $75 million in federal stimulus aid in partial compensation for the 50-turbine farm it built in Cohocton, will pursue other projects in Erie County, New England, Utah and Hawaii, Lamontagne said.

Abraham, who represents the citizens group suing the Orangeville board, said he believes public opposition to wind developments is growing.

Residents most often cite concerns about noise and the setback provisions that dictate how close turbines can be to homes and adjoining properties.

He said, though, that he thinks elected officials often pay less attention to those concerns than they do to a project’s financial benefit to friends and family members.

“They’re decided based on the importance the town (board) assigns to the money issue. That’s really the deciding factor. It’s not the environment,” Abraham said.

Murphy disputed the idea that people in host communities are turning against wind farms. “It’s the old adage about the silent majority. It doesn’t take more than a few people to stand up at a town board meeting and make a lot of noise and give people the impression there’s no support for it,” she said.

Murphy cited a 2008 public opinion poll in Lewis County — home to Maple Ridge, which at a 322-megawatt capacity is the largest wind farm east of the Mississippi River — that found 71 percent of residents thought the wind farm had had a positive impact. Nearly 80 percent of respondents said they would support more turbines.

“There’s always a lot of apprehension when there’s something new and something people aren’t used to seeing, but once they (turbines) are there we’ve found the level of support continues to grow over the years,” she said.

SORR@DemocratandChronicle.com

AT Note: Allegheny Treasures makes every attempt to be accurate.  Should you find errors, broken links or omissions, please note same in the comment section and we will make the necessary correction.

In the news – February 31, 2025

Washington, DC – February 31, 2025 (Paro – D Wire Service)

The US Supreme Court ruled today that the last known individual in the United States not signed up for a renewable energy credit program, must be permitted to do so.  In an 8-1 ruling, the Court, citing the equal protection clause, found in favor of Ms. Anita Sistance of Reemoat, West Virginia.

Writing for the minority, Justice Al Gore said that the equal protection clause, while perhaps applicable, should not be considered due to the potential for disaster he predicts will befall the nation.  Justice Gore also disagreed with the majority decision to wipe Ms. Sistance’s slate clean.  He reasoned that, in spite of the fact that Ms. Sistance’s $48 Billion monthly electric bill and $3 Trillion past due account may seem excessive, someone had to make up the difference between actual production cost and the reduced government mandated consumer price which citizens have become accustomed to paying for wind and solar – the sole remaining sources of electricity for the US.  Justice Gore also wrote that, in spite of having no phone and unable to see due to poor vision, it was Ms. Sistance’s “duty, as a citizen, to learn about the limited time offer to join the green revolution of the early 21^st century, and the rest of the citizens should not be expected to suffer due to the ignorance of one individual!”

Justice Gore, appointed to the Court at the end of the Obama term, further expressed concern that, should Ms. Sistance not be required to pay her outstanding bills, the renewable energy companies may fold.  In his opinion, Justice Gore challenged the notion that the amount due be shared with rest of the citizenry. He wrote that “our citizens have come to expect electricity for a full 4 hours a day, however there was no expectation that they would actually pay for it!” Justice Gore noted that “should the wind and solar plants stop producing due to lost revenue, the nation would be crushed.”  “In these days, facing Global Cooling as we are, it is no time for an energy shortage,” Gore warned.  “As I predicted back in 2011, the coming severe global cooling disaster enveloping the earth due to the limited CO2 in the atmosphere will create extreme demands on our energy grid and, as I suggested then, we should have placed a moratorium on renewable energy, and instead promoted clean coal, nuclear and natural gas.  But NOOOO!  Don’t listen to Al!  Well, you see where that got you people”, he wrote in Times New Roman 24 point – bold!

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Robert Byrd stated Justice Gore’s argument was insufficient to persuade that Ms. Sistance continue to pay for 95% of the nation’s electricity.  107 year old Chief Justice Byrd, also appointed during President Obama’s final days in what many thought a ceremonial gesture, came out firmly on the side of Ms. Sistance, a resident of his home state.  Justice Byrd agreed with attorneys representing Ms. Sistance that the LLCs “offering green power — defined as renewable energy credits and green electricity” back in 2009 and 2010 had an obligation to caution people not taking advantage of their offer “that they could shoulder the entire burden of the deficit resulting from the discounted consumer price of heavily subsidized Wind and Solar.”  Ms. Sistance’s attorneys noted that these “clean and green” companies, which often used the sales pitch “Usually renewable energy requires an upfront investment, but we’re in a unique situation where you can choose green power and save money at the same time …  it almost never happens,” have moved on to selling time-share weeks on the Moon or refrigerators to the newly frozen state of Florida and, as such, were not available for comment.

“Let us not be remiss in stating that we all erred in protecting Ms. Sistance,” wrote Byrd, the former Conscience of the Senate.  ”As I tried to tell my fellow Senators at the time, you just can’t be replacing all the good coal plants with these dadblamed new contraptions. But NOOOO! Don’t listen to Bobby!  Well, you see where that got you people,” he wrote in Times New Roman 24 point – bold!

Asked about the decision that will free her from the stresses of her massive debt, Ms. Sistance, 89, widowed and living on social security, said she was overwhelmed with joy, but also very concerned.  ”You don’t know how much hate mail I received from my fellow citizens now that they might have to pay full price,” she said.  ”I’m almost afraid to go home!”

Asked to comment on the role Congress will play in reconciling the vast difference in the purchase price and actual production costs of Wind and Solar, Senator Oprah Winfrey D-IL, Chair of the powerful Education, Energy and Entertainment Committee said she would be seeking emergency legislation clearing the necessary funding to retool decommissioned gas fired generators which would, in turn, power huge fans to provide the wind to spin the wind turbines.  Quoting Energy Secretary, Bill Nye the Science Guy she said, “Then we can use the power from the turbines to juice up those massive lamps and generate more than ample light to get those solar panels cooking!”

When asked how quickly this legislation could see President (Bill) Gate’s desk, Senator Winfrey noted that “it is winter after all, and the daylight hours are short.  We’ll have to see how much electricity is available for lighting the Senate chamber.”  “You have to recognize, with the extreme cold reducing wind availability here of late, our evening sessions have been extremely limited,” she said.  ”Even adding the extra three days in February hasn’t accomplished what we thought initially and, well, it’s not like we can just run out there and fire up a decommissioned nuclear plant, you know,” hastily adding, “oh, and thank God for that!”

Senator Winfrey cautioned that the public shouldn’t rely on the Supreme Court stepping in every time they have a dispute over an unpaid bill.  “We, in Congress, have always acted in the best interest of professional lobbyists, who clearly understand the people’s needs.  How could they have gotten so rich otherwise?  I remember when many of the same companies used to provide audience gifts on my show and the guests loved them.  They used to pump millions into advertising and hey … I’m rich!  That lady from West Virginia, Anita or whoever, could have put away a few bucks and paid her electric bill and we wouldn’t have this mess to deal with.  If she didn’t know what to do, she should have asked.  When I retire from the Senate I’m going to go back on TV and one of the first shows I do will be about …”