TESTIMONIES & DATA
Nothing between your book ends? Read Wind Turbine Syndrome

Wind energy only blew by the grace of a $23.37 per megawatt hour subsidy from taxpayers
Caledonian Record 6/5/08 read more...

Vermont Edition 5/21/08
VPR asked How do we balance the cost of power with environmental impact?
read more...

give pause to policy makers
Washington D.C. Examiner 5/22/08 read more ...

"pleased with the judge's decision,"
Press Republican 5/7/08 read more...

Eminent Domain in Prattsburgh?
WETM 4/22/o8 read more...

price of wind power from new projects doubled
Telegram 3/12/08 read more (pay more)...

selling your soul to the devil
Caledonian Record 3/13/08 read more...

gives industrial wind power a tax break at the expense of the education fund
Caledonian Record 3/8/08 read more...

mining of Vermont’s undeveloped and fragile ridge-lines
Deerfield Valley News 3/6/08 read more...

SUSTAINABLE?

have the existing towers taken down
Caledonian Record 2/19/08 read more...

Stop activities that might adversely affect the bats
Burlington Free Press 02/20/08 read more...

What a surprise
Caledonian Record 2/14/08 read more...

Trade off not worth it
Caledonian Record 2/14/08 read more...

Hello Max we don't generate electricity from fossil fuels
Caledonian Record 2/11/08 read more...

Wind power generation isn't necessarily green
Burlington Free Press 02/05/08 read more...

PSB should have denied the certificate of public good outright
The Barton Chronicle 1/30/08 read more...

PSB's serious legal deficiency in its decision
Caledonian Record 1/30/08 read more...

Croteau, said he's not sure
Caledonian Record 1/26/08 read more...

Judge rules against wind permits
The Daily Star 12/18/07 read more...

Sheffield part of the NEK
Burlington Free Press 12/18/07 read more...

Nothing beautiful about wind turbines
Burlington Free Press 12/12/07 read more...

A Few More Points
Caledonian Record 11/25/07 read more...

Wind Power Hot Air
Bangor Daily News 11/21/07 read more...

Right on Jeanette, Marv, & Marc
Deerfield Valley News 11/21/07 read more...

Wind power in Vermont is pure politics.
Caledonian Record 11/23/07 read more...

not in keeping with the general benefit and well-being of the town of Barton.
The Chronicle 11/21/07 read more...

federally propped up profiteers
Burlington Free Press 11/11/07 read more...

“feebates” (penalty taxes)
Caledonian Record 11/6/07 read more...

I want my money back
Burlington Free Press 11/05/07 read more...

will harm tourism and state's rural character
Times Argus 10/30/07 read more...

Ridgeprotectors Press release
10/29/07 read more...

We hear you way up north Mr. Johnson - you are not alone
Deerfield Valley News 10/18/07 read more...

"people of Southern Vermont should vigorously resist"
Bennington Banner 10/15/2007 read more...

A tale of two petitions
Caledonian Record 10/16/07 read more...

 Ridgeline Protectors will take their opposition to the Supreme Court.
Barton Chronicle 10/10/07 read more...

spend enormous sums of money doing very little
The Washington Post 10/7/07 read more...

real product is tax avoidance and green tags
Brattleboro reformer 10/12/07 read more...

Yumpin' Yiminy
Berkshire Eagle 10/10/07 read more...

“Smoke was rolling out of it,”...
Globe Gazette 10/3/07 read more...


Emission Free clean energy

Wind power is "fraught with perils"...
Times Argus 10/2/07 read more...

People who are serious about using less energy could...
Newsweek 9/24/07 read more...

federal government is not buying the PSB's approval...
Caledonian Record 9/21/07 read more...

Its Not Nice to Mess with the Iron Workers read more...

UPC Wind must file for a federal permit
Caledonian Record 9/15/07 read more...

You may not proceed with any proposed work
Burlington Free Press 9/14/07 read more...

 

A Certificate of Public Junk (same model UPC Sheffield wants to use)? read more...

Gracefull, Slow moving? Or ineffective taxpayer ripoff?

Tragic death on a wind turbine
Northwest news 8/28/07 Read more...

"badly sited and underperforming"
Daily Mail UK 8/30/07 Read more...

How safe is wind energy?
Der Spiegel 8/20/07 Read more...

August 26, 2007, 8:07 pm
Blowin’ in the Wind

When the issue of energy came up in the debate among the Democratic presidential contenders on Aug. 7, the candidates began talking about “renewable” energy and one of them (Chris Dodd) mentioned wind power. Seems logical. Why spend all the effort and money to build huge electricity plants when the wind is always blowing? Who could argue against a technology that promises to derive energy from a renewable, and free, resource?

Everyone I know.

For five months of the year, I live in the very small town of Andes, N.Y. Each year has its signature event — floods, drought, road construction, caterpillars. And 2006 to 2007 has been the year of the wind turbines.

Like many of the other towns targeted by the wind turbine industry, Andes is a rural community that over the years has lost its economic base. At one time the hills and valleys were home to many small dairy farms, but most of them are no longer in operation, and no industry, light or heavy, has taken their place. Now the area relies for its revenue on retirees and second home owners who are educated, relatively well off and tend to be teachers therapists, lawyers, artists and social workers. In short, liberals. They are all soldiers in Al Gore’s army, into organic foods, hybrid cars, clean air, clean water, the whole bit.

They are also against wind power.

Their reasons are the ones always given by those who wake up to find the wind interests at their door. Even if large wind farms were in place throughout the country, the electricity produced would be a very small percentage of the electricity we use. Because the turbines are huge, 400 feet or more, installing them involves tearing up the ridges on which they are placed. Once in operation, they cast shadows and produce noise. Their blades cause a “flicker” effect, kill birds and interfere with migration. The outsized towers ruin scenic views and depress real-estate values.

These last two reasons are seized on by wind proponents who say that a few elite newcomers are putting their aesthetic preferences ahead of both the community’s welfare and the national effort to shift to green energy as a way of slowing down global warming.

It’s a nice line, but it won’t fly. The wind companies may advertise themselves as environmentalists, but they are really developers, which means that they do things with other peoples’ money — yours. Wind farms are attractive as an investment because the combination of tax credits, tax shelters and accelerated depreciation rates means that investors reap large profits in a few years. Meanwhile, those in the community pay twice for their electricity; once when their taxes go to subsidize the wind interests and a second time when the monthly bill arrives. And that bill will likely be larger than it would have been had the turbines never been erected.

Then there are the issues of “de-commissioning.” What happens when the turbines are no longer profitable and are shut down or fall into disrepair and become postmodern ruins larger than Stonehenge? Who fixes them? Who takes them down? Who repairs the ridges?

Don’t ask the original developers. Before the special tax and depreciation breaks have run their course, they will be long gone, either because they have sold the project to another developer or because they have just decamped and moved on to the next town.

So what do you do? Some towns have done nothing; they think it can’t happen here. Other towns take the developer’s money but extract promises that the turbines will be set back so many yards or miles. (Good luck if the promises aren’t kept; developers never return your calls.)

Others across the country have done what we did in Andes — organize. We formed an alliance, incorporated, raised money, sent out flyers, took polls, sponsored forums, wrote a zoning ordinance, presented it to the town council and planning board, and finally saw it pass. It was democracy in action.

But it’s not over. The Spitzer administration has been working on a plan to shift the authority for land use control from local communities to a state commission. Local zoning ordinances would be countermanded and communities like Andes could get wind farms even if they didn’t want them.

Perhaps the governor and his colleagues should be reminded of the company that made wind power into a big, profitable business in this country. It was called Enron.

source: http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com

A Citizen's Testimony: A short course in understanding the issues
01/24/06 · 8:20 am      posted by Magical Eye
A citizen, Lisa Linowes, from New Hampshire testifies for the House Science and Technology Committee on NH Bill 1568

Here are excerpts from that testimony.
Less than 2 years ago, I was like most people. I supported renewable energy of any form, and gave little consideration to the downsides.  Since then, an industrial wind company proposed a 30-MW, 20 tower facility to be erected atop Gardner Mountain in Lyman , NH. My family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues were all treated to a crash course in wind technology.
•  Current assumption #1: Wind energy can address the pending energy crisis facing New England.
•  Contradicting factors: The New Jersey Blue Panel Interim report on offshore wind, November 2005, Page 5, states: “New Jersey’s energy needs are substantial and growing. Wind cannot provide “base load” power needed to meet every day energy demands.” “Wind cannot contribute to the base load because wind is intermittent.”) www.njwindpanel.org
• Current assumption #2: Through conversion to wind energy, New England would see marked reductions in emissions and independence from fossil fuels.
•  Contradicting factors: Wind energy will make a difference in emissions only to the extent to which traditional energy facilities are backed down, or turned off, while the turbines are generating electricity. E.ON Netz GmbH, the largest grid operator in Germany, and the largest manager of wind facilities than any other operator, had this to say in their Wind Report 2005: “Wind energy cannot replace conventional power stations to any significant degree.” “The more wind power capacity is in the grid, the lower the percentage of traditional generation it can replace.” Also, due to rapid, short-lived fluctuations in wind (wind gusts), wind energy causes other facilities on the grid to operate less efficiently, thus less clean.
www.eon-netz.com
www.ref.org.uk/images/pdfs/eon.2005.REF.pdf
•  Current Assumption #3: Wind energy facilities provide local jobs.
• Contradicting factors: Based on existing practices in PA, NY, WV, and elsewhere, local people are hired to clear for roads, land preparation, and security during the construction phase. Many of the workers hired to assemble the turbines on-site come from Europe. In any event, these are temporary jobs. When a site is on-line, it is usually unmanned. A wind firm may retain 2-3 employees for security.
•  Current Assumption #4: Wind facilities offer steady tax revenue to rural communities.
•  Contradicting factors: Throughout the US, state governments have dramatically reduced and in some cases (KS and PA) eliminated taxation on wind turbines as an incentive to develop renewable energy. Wind companies have promoted tax incentives to cash-poor communities all over New England, all the while lobbying the legislatures hard for pilot agreements or and other special considerations which translate into less dollars for communities.
•  Current Assumption #5: Wind turbines are good neighbors and produce no noise or other nuisances.
•  Contradicting factors: The sound report for the 400-foot tall, 2.0 MW towers proposed for Lempster Mountain gives a decibel level at 105 dB(A).
See p9, Airtricity contract agreement.
•  Current Assumption #6: Wind energy facilities are carefully sited and, with a few exceptions, have proven harmless to avian life (birds and bats).
•  Contradicting factors: The GAO report released in September 2005 found “Several gaps exist in research on wind power facility impacts on wildlife. Relatively few post construction-monitoring studies have been conducted and made publicly available. It appears that many wind power facilities and geographic areas in the US have not been studied at all”. www.gao.gov/new.items/d05906.pdf
In closing: The proposed industrial sites here in New Hampshire are slated for our most rural areas. The communities targeted are typically cash-poor, some with no zoning, many with only limited ordinances in place, and none that have dealt with large-scale development. All of us are struggling with the assumptions and the seeming contradicting factors. I ask this committee to recommend this bill to the legislature so we can begin to look past the assumptions and get the facts.  

GLENN R. SCHLEEDE of Round Hill, Va., is semi-retired after working on energy and related matters in government and the private sector for over 30 years. From 1992 until September 2003, he ran a consulting practice, Energy Market and Policy Analysis, Inc. Prior to that, he was vice president of New England Electric System based in Westborough.

This story appeared on Page A16 of The Standard-Times on December 14, 2005Facts about wind energy
During the past three years, citizen-led groups in the U.S. and other countries where wind farms have been proposed or built have learned the facts about wind energy and are working to bring those facts to the public. Among the key, documented facts, which can only be summarized briefly here, are the following:
1. Tax avoidance, not environmental and energy benefits, has become the primary motivation for building wind farms. Two-thirds of the economic value of wind projects comes from federal tax benefits.
2. Huge windmills, some 35 stories tall, produce very little electricity. All the 12,000-plus windmills now scattered across thousands of acres in 30 states in the U.S. might be able to produce about 15 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually. That might sound like a lot of electricity, but it is equal to three-quarters of 1 percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. in 2003, and less than the 16.5 billion kilowatt-hours produced by Dominion's Millstone generating station in Connecticut during 2004.
3. Electricity from wind turbines has less real value than electricity from reliable generating units. Wind turbines produce electricity only when the wind is blowing in the right speed range. Their output is intermittent and largely unpredictable, and cannot be counted on when electricity demand is highest -- during hot weekday afternoons in summer.
4. The true cost of electricity from wind energy is much higher than wind advocates admit. Advocates ignore the huge costs of subsidies and fail to acknowledge that reliable generating units must be kept available and running to balance and back up the intermittent, volatile output from wind turbines so electricity always will be available when required by electric customers. Windmills use transmission capacity inefficiently, adding to costs.
5. Claims of environmental benefits of wind energy are exaggerated. For example, advocates generally ignore the fact that backup generating units must be immediately available and running at less than their peak efficiency or in spinning reserve mode, and that backup units continue to emit while in these modes. Also, under "cap and trade" rules, credits for sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides emissions that might be displaced by wind could be sold to other emitters, with no reduction in those emissions.
6. Wind farms have significant adverse environmental, scenic and property value impacts that wind advocates like to ignore. People living in areas where wind farms have been constructed have become painfully aware that, in addition to the high cost of the electricity, wind farms impair environmental, ecological, scenic and property values. Adverse impacts include noise, bird kills, interference with bird migration and animal habitat, destruction of scenic vistas and ecological rarities, distracting blade "flicker" and aircraft warning lights, and lower value of properties near the huge structures.
7. Wind farms produce few local economic benefits, which are overwhelmed by the higher costs imposed on electric customers through their monthly bills. A few landowners might get additional income, but the added cost of electricity to electric customers will overwhelm the total of these payments.
8. Wind energy has not been a great success in other countries. Denmark and Germany have residential electricity prices that are among the highest in the world, and are experiencing many problems due to their use of wind energy. Opposition to wind turbines also is growing in other countries. Expectations that wind energy will make significant contributions toward meeting European Kyoto goals have been discredited.
9. Renewable Portfolio Standards are an insidious device. They result in enriching a few renewable- energy producers at the expense of many ordinary electric customers.
Challenging incorrect popular wisdom is difficult but, in this case, well worth the effort.

Eric Rosenbloom:
Wind turbine power generation is variable. A 1.5-MW turbine produces at the rate of 1.5 MW only above a certain wind speed, e.g., 27 mph for one of GE's models. As the wind speed slows, so does the turbine's power output. At the GE model's cut-in wind speed of 9 mph, the blades are turning but no electricity is generated. In a wind speed of 18 mph, the GE 1.5-MW turbine will generate power at a rate of only 0.5 MW.
Wind power is unreliable. Wind speed is unpredictable except in general terms. Even on a windy day it varies, and therefore so does the output from wind turbines. On the electric supply grid, wind turbines behave less like a supplier and more like a user, in that they are outside of the control of the grid dispatchers who must continuously balance electricity supply and demand.
Widely distributed multiple wind turbine facilities mitigate this variability somewhat, but the level of steady supply is extremely low for the amount of investment and extent of development (which is typically in previously unindustrialized rural and wilderness areas). The U.K. boasts of the highest winds in Europe, but a 2003 memorandum by the Royal Academy of Engineers to the House of Lords projected that the most common output of 7,300 MW of industrial wind power installed across the U.K., along with the expanded transmission infrastructure to handle the maximum capacity, would be only 200 MW.
Wind power is able to replace very little, if any, conventional generating capacity. Wind turbines cannot replace base load generation and only affect peak load balancing (unfortunately the wind is stronger in most places during off-peak times, e.g., at night). And because wind turbine generation is nondispatchable other generators must be kept active to balance their variability. In its "Wind Report 2005," German grid manager E.ON Netz echoed two previous German studies to project that 48,000 MW of wind power on the grid (with a hugely expanded transmission infrastructure "overbuilt" to handle the maximum capacity) would replace only 2,000 MW of traditional power production capacity.
Wind power is unable to significantly reduce the use of other fuels in electricity generation. No promoter of wind power has been able to document reduced fossil or nuclear fuel use anywhere due to wind power on the grid.
Wind power is not "green." It is a uniquely intrusive industrialization of rural and wild areas and requires extensive expansion of the transmission infrastructure. It adds noise and light and visual pollution. It degrades and fragments wildlife habitat. It is a threat to bats and birds. And it does not reduce the use of other fuels, therefore does not reduce greenhouse gas or other emissions, to any degree that could justify, let alone necessitate, these negative effects.