Jerusalem Preservation Association

Jerusalem needs bond rule for wind farm regulations

2011-10-13T11:53:00.000-07:00

By John Christensen
The Chronicle-Express

Penn Yan, N.Y. —
During a public hearing in the Sept. 21 Jerusalem Town Board meeting, resident John Grabski praised the work done by the town on wind farm regulations, calling it “a wonderful job,” but asked the board why there was no clause requiring a bond for property value protection. With three of the four major wind energy companies being owned by foreign corporations, Grabski asserts that without the bond requirement, it would be difficult if not impossible to recover any damages even if proved. Board member Michael Folts agreed, saying, “If it’s not in there, it should be. I won’t entertain passing if it isn’t.”

Resident James Fitzgibbons handed the board a recommendation for a resolution to insert the clause into the regulation. Town Attorney Phil Bailey suggests this could be interpreted as a major change which requires another public hearing. Town Engineer Wayne Ackart concurred, but said no time would be lost because the State Environmental Quality Review won’t be passed until November.

Public Hearing

2011-09-06T08:26:00.001-07:00

To the Friends of the JPA:

Thank you for requesting to be informed with news concerning the Town of Jerusalem’s Proposed Wind Ordinance. After two years of time, work and effort, the JPA is happy with the changes made to the ordinance. We have worked together with the Jerusalem Wind Committee and have made several changes and also additions to the proposed ordinance. Additions include Property Value Protection for the landowner.

There is a scheduled Public Hearing at the next town board meeting to discuss the new ordinance/wind farm regulations. This will also need to be presented to the Yates County Planning board before approval by our Town Board.

The Public Hearing will take place at the Town Hall on September 21, 2011 during the scheduled Town Board meeting, beginning at 7:00 pm.

Thank You,
The JPA
JerusalemPreservationAssoc@gmail.com

The Wind Subsidy Bubble

2010-12-20T07:26:00.000-08:00

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023820064646268.html

The Wind Subsidy Bubble
Green pork should be a GOP budget target
Wall Street Journal
December 20, 2010

Ethanol isn't the only heavily subsidized energy source that won a multibillion dollar jackpot in last week's tax deal. The other big winner was the wind industry, which received a one year extension of a $3 billion grant program for renewable energy projects.

Talk about throwing good money after bad. Despite more than $30 billion in subsidies for "clean energy" in the 2009 stimulus bill, Big Wind still can't make it in the marketplace. Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, had warned that without last week's extension of the federal 1603 investment credit, the outlook for the wind industry would be "flatline or down." Some 20,000 wind energy jobs, about one-quarter of the industry's total, could have been lost, the wind lobby concedes. For most industries that would be an admission of failure, but in Washington this kind of forecast is used to justify more subsidies.

But what have these subsidies bought taxpayers? According to AWEA, in the first half of 2010 wind power installations "dropped by 57% and 71% from 2008 and 2009 levels." In the third quarter, the industry says it "added just 395 megawatts (MW) of wind-powered electric generating capacity," making it the lowest quarter since 2007. New wind installations are down 72% from last year to their lowest level since 2006. And this is supposed to be the miracle electricity source of the future?

The coal industry, which Mr. Obama's Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department have done everything possible to curtail, added almost three times more to the nation's electric power capacity in the first nine months of 2010 (39%) than did wind (14%), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The grant program that Congress has extended was created in the 2008 stimulus bill. It forces taxpayers to pay 30% of a renewable energy project's costs. Big Wind insisted on these grants because wind energy producers don't make enough net income to take advantage of the generous renewable energy tax credit.

The industry also wants a federal renewable energy standard, which would require utilities to buy power from green energy projects regardless of price. Without that additional subsidy, AWEA concedes that wind power will "stall out." It is lobbying for billions of dollars of subsidies to cover the cost of hooking off-shore wind projects to the electricity transmission grid. And now that the cap-and-tax scheme on coal and oil and gas has failed in Congress, the windmillers want the EPA to use regulation to raise costs on carbon sources of power.

Big Wind also has lobbying operations in state capitals, where it has been pushing state renewable energy standards. More than half the states—mostly in the West and Northeast—have enacted these mandates, which are already inflating home and business electricity bills.

According to an analysis by Chris Horner, an energy expert at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the stimulus bill's subsidies for renewable energy cost taxpayers about $475,000 for every job generated. That's at least four times what it costs a nonsubsidized private firm to create a job—a lousy return on investment even for government.

The wind industry claims to employ 85,000 Americans. That's almost certainly an exaggeration, but if it is true it compares with roughly 140,000 miners and others directly employed by the coal industry. Wind accounts for a little more than 1% of electricity generation and coal almost 50%. So it takes at least 25 times more workers to produce a kilowatt of electricity from wind as from coal.

Given this level of inefficiency, it's no wonder that wind and solar energy require at least 20 times more in government subsidies per unit of electricity generated than the average for coal and natural gas, according to a 2007 study by the Energy Information Administration.

The wind industry gave the vast majority of its campaign contributions this election cycle to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Democrats. If Republicans are serious about shrinking the federal budget and ending corporate welfare, a very good target would be green pork, starting with wind.

A new slant on wind farms....

2010-10-27T18:55:00.000-07:00

By Loujane Johns
The Chronicle-Express
Posted Oct 26, 2010 @ 02:45 PM

Jerusalem, N.Y. — John Grabski, representing the Jerusalem Preservation Association, brought a seldom explored topic to the subject of wind farms at the Oct. 20 Jerusalem Town Council meeting - economic devaluation.

Public discussions on wind farms usually include noise, flicker, dead birds and discontented cows. Grabski pointed to those briefly, but his main point was to suggest measures to protect against personal property value loss.
Instead of looking at the big picture of how much money wind turbines could bring to the town and landowners, he pointed out in a detailed approach how money could be lost long term.

“According to expert organizations such as professional Certified Real Estate Appraisers, industrial wind development adversely impacts land values within the immediate wind-zone and a peripheral area of approximately two miles,” according to Grabski.

He based his data on research conducted by the Certified Real Estate Appraisers in various states for property within two miles of wind turbines. He then applied this formula to the 346 homes and land affected by wind development, as defined by the Town of Jerusalem as a possible site. He then narrowed it down to 180 parcels located in the immediate vicinity or High Impact Area.

According to the findings, the property value of the 180 parcels is $18,674,000 which generates $356,000 in school and property taxes annually.

Based on CREA studies, property value declines from 20 to 43 percent can be expected in parcels within two miles of turbine sites. Assuming an average of this estimate, the taxable loss would be $5,602,200 for the 180 homes.

Over the term of a 20 year wind project, the tax revenue loss could be $2,780,571 to $5,561,014, according to calculations, based on the formula.

Grabski said a bondposated by the wind developer would help with lost tax revenue, and added, “People would start to sell and others would ask for lower assessments. It’s happening all over the country.”

“If what developers say is true, and there is no desire on the part of landowners to exit the development area, and that newcomers will continue to seek and purchase property in the wind zone, then there should be no negative impact on property values. If this is true, wind developers should be both willing and able to provide a property value guaranty to landowners with no economic risk on their part. Conversely, if property values indeed decline, then neither the wind company nor the town at large should profit at the expense of the home and land owners,” said Grabski in his address to the board.

The Jerusalem Preservation Association recommends putting a Property Value Bond requirement into the Wind Ordinance to protect both the citizens of Jerusalem from personal loss and the Town from citizens seeking remedy or remuneration for damage or economic loss from wind farm development.

The organization also presented the board with three pages of other recommendations for the wind turbine law dealing with setbacks, noise, health and other issues.

The Jerusalem Preservation Association was formed in the summer of 2009, when some residents learned areas near their properties were being proposed as possible wind farm sites. The group is also discussing the risks of Marcellus Shale drilling.

The Jerusalem Town Board has been exploring the possibility of wind turbines in the town for a few years. A committee was formed and several public meetings have been held, but there has been no action.
Councilman Neil Simmons, who was active in the public meetings, thanked Grabski for bringing to light a different approach that the town hadn’t looked at before.

Councilman Ray Stewart asked people in the audience of about 40, how many were there in regard to this topic. About 30 raised their hands. Grabski said the association could have filled the parking lot, “But the topic is too important to make a circus of it.”

Jerusalem Town Board Meeting - October 20, 2010

2010-10-17T09:03:00.000-07:00

The October Jerusalem Town Board meeting will be held this Wednesday the 20th
at 7:00 pm at the Town Hall. The JPA (Jerusalem Preservation Association) has requested to present a proposal designed to protect property values, limit noise levels and suggest set-backs critical to those living in the Town of Jerusalem.

We are hopeful that the town board will honor our request to speak and hopeful that all concerned citizens will attend. The presentation will be delivered by John Grabski.

“Dear NY Times, Please get your wind energy facts straight!”

2010-10-07T07:02:00.000-07:00

Wednesday October 6, 2010
To: NY Times Fact Checking Department
From: Eric Bibler, President, Save Our Seashore, Wellfleet, MA

Re: “For Those Near, The Miserable Hum of Clean Energy”
Article below......

·Dear New York Times Fact Checking Department,

I object to your newspaper’s lazy, inaccurate and blanket characterization of wind turbines as “a clean alternative” — perpetuating the myth that wind turbines can substitute for conventional electricity and provide an environmentally benign alternative. You do a gross disservice to your readers by perpetually applying such words as “clean,” “renewable,” “environmentally sensitive,” “sustainable” and “alternative” to these technologies uncritically, without even the most cursory examination or explanation of the limits of such power –- or the degree to which such claims are routinely inflated and taken at face value.

You should know better. If you don’t know better, you should get busy and start researching the fundamental limitations of these technologies so that you can avoid repeating this same error –- over and over again –- and so that you can avoid giving the NY Times “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” to a set of fallacies that is assiduously repeated and promoted by wind developers.

There is no reason to believe that the constant repetition of such fallacies is any more honorable when the NY Times engages in it than when the same practice is followed by such “media” organs as Fox News.

Here are some substantive facts of life that you rarely, if ever, report and that you never bother to reiterate in the context of stories like your recent story on Vinalhaven, Maine (a story with which I am very familiar):

1. Because the chaotic power generated by wind turbines is unpredictable, unreliable, cannot be stored for future use in commercial quantities and is not “dispatchable” –- i.e. not available upon demand –- wind factories must always be paired with conventional electric power plants of equal capacity that ARE dependable — to provide power to fill in the shortfalls when the wind doesn’t blow, or blows too fast, to enable operation of the wind turbine.

The bottom line is that both the dependability and the quality of electrical energy is not directly comparable to the quality and dependability of conventional power –- and never can be. Electricity from wind is so problematic and impractical that it should be regarded as expensive garbage compared to the gold standard of cheap and reliable electricity from conventional sources, including nuclear power. Comparing the sputtering electricity generated from wind power to the predictable flow of power from conventional sources is like comparing a car that may –- or may not –- start at any given moment with the one you rely on to get to work every day.

2. It is equally maddening that, in addition to ignoring the qualitative aspect of wind energy –- i.e. the extremely low quality of wind energy — the NY Times habitually blurs the distinction between the so-called “rated power” of open air wind factories and their conventional counterparts.

A so-called 100MW wind installation has a “rated capacity” or “nameplate” capacity of 100MW. What this means is that the maximum amount of power that it can deliver –- if the wind blows at a constant, optimum speed, without interruption, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year –- is 100MW. But, as noted, this power is NOT available upon demand, which is why it is said to have a “capacity value” of ZERO per cent. That is the engineering term for the amount of its “theoretical” or “installed capacity” that is “firm and reliable.” The figure is ZERO.

In practice, the amount of power available from a land-based wind turbine like those at Vinalhaven is in the vicinity of 25% of its “rated capacity.” This is called the “Capacity Factor.” But there is a catch: the wind turbine produces that power when it wants to –- but not necessarily when you need it. And since you don’t know that it is coming, you can’t organize any kind of grid plan around it. For all intents and purposes, it is garbage.

Bottom line: the 100MW wind factory (the number which the NY Times and others invariably lift from information supplied by the factory owners) produces, on average, about 25MW of power –- except you never know, in advance, when that may, or may not happen.

Because electricity must be reliable to be useful — consumers and businesses must know that they can have electricity when they need it –- the 100MW wind factory –- which only produces 25MW of electricity, on average –- must be mated with an honest-to-goodness 100MW conventional plant that is always running!

Not only does this plant produce the 75MW of electricity that is MISSING, it must actually overlap substantially, to offset the wind energy’s unpredictable, minute to minute surges and lapses AND it must also operate far less efficiently than it ordinarily would if it didn’t have to compensate for this “green” technology.

A number of credible studies have determined that the actual savings in fossil fuel consumption –- and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, in this instance –- after building a sprawling, redundant, “green” wind factory –- may be on the order of 10% to 15%. Other studies have actually suggested that we may consume MORE fossil fuel and emit MORE greenhouse gases after building redundant wind energy facilities –- and that is without counting all of the energy that goes into the roads, transmission lines, 400 foot machines, massive concrete and steel foundations, and so forth, all of which are incredibly energy intensive.

3. Finally, what about the “footprint” for this “clean” and “green” technology? Perhaps in its reporting –- for once –- the NY Times could perform a public service and attempt to put the AMOUNT of power generated (or not generated, or hiccupped and coughed out) by such facilities in perspective for its readers by comparing the size of the facility –- and its space requirements –- to more conventional alternatives.

How much space would be required to install a good sized natural gas power plant producing 1GW of power? I don’t know; you tell me. 10 acres? 20 acres? Give me a number and I’ll accept it at face value. Let’s call it 20 acres.

How much space would be required to install an open air, land-based wind factory that had a “rated capacity,” or theoretical maximum capacity (as the NY Times likes to say) of 1GW? We need to do some figuring.

The first thing we need to do is to admit that our “1GW wind factory” is only capable of producing, on average, a mere 250MW of power, because wind factories anywhere and everywhere only produce a fraction of their theoretical maximums (see above).

The second thing we need to do is set aside 20 acres for the 1GW natural gas plant we’re going to have to build anyway –- because we’re still going to need it, unless you are content to be without power for a significant amount of time.

Third, let’s perform a calculation. Wind turbines need to be spaced by a significant distance so that the turbulence from one gargantuan machine doesn’t rob the one behind it of its ability to derive power from the wind. We’re “harvesting the wind,” remember?

With perfect efficiency –- that is assuming that you don’t have ANY obstructions like roads, bridges, lakes, houses, hostile terrain, and so forth, it would be fair to assume that you will need a square mile of territory for every 6MW of rated power that you generate. With some of the newer, more powerful, truly monstrous wind turbines, you might only need a square mile per 7.8MW of rated power.

So that implies that you’re going to need somewhere between 167 square miles and 128 square miles of land for the installation of your wind factory –- plus the 20 acres for the natural gas plant which continues to run anyway and which still supplies the majority of your power.

Let’s suppose that the wind turbines are 2MW of rated power, each. You’re going to need 500 of them, each of them over 400 feet tall. Or, if you prefer, you can use the real monsters, the 3MW rated power machines. Then you “only” need 333 of them.

These calculations ignore the additional carnage that you must inevitably do to the landscape to build all of the new roads and transmission lines to service your sprawling 128 to 167 square mile “green” wind factory. Not only is that a lot of material –- a lot of steel and concrete –- but those roads cannot rise or fall in grade by more than six inches every 50 feet and they absolutely cannot have any significant turning arcs –- because you have to get the 150 foot wind turbine blades to the towers.

The American Wind Energy Association is on record as saying that it takes approximately 10 acres of additional land, per tower, to accommodate the roads and transmission lines to service them. My head is already spinning at this point, and I’m too tired to convert acres into additional square miles. You do the math.

And remember, the natural gas plant is STILL running and you didn’t really build a wind factory that produces 1GW. You built a 1GW “rated capacity” that, in a perfect world, may produce 25% of that.

Of course, you are free to build a 4GW wind factory that produces, on average, garbage electricity that is about 1GW –- but then you’ll need four times as much land, four times as many colossal towers and four times as many miles of roads and transmission lines.

And you’re also going to need a total of three more 1GW conventional natural gas power plants –- for a total of four — if you promise to actually deliver 4GW of power to your customers.

Have I ever seen this calculation in the NY Times regarding the “green” energy produced by wind energy? Has the NY Times ever told me that the conventional plants must continue to run?

Has the NY Times ever told me that “payoff” we get from building a 1GW “rated capacity” wind factory –- despoiling the landscape and subjecting countless homeowners, citizens and wildlife to misery –- is a scant 250MW of virtually unusable electricity at a price that is four to five times the cost of the conventional plant which STILL runs?

Does the NY Times suppose that we should devote something on the order of 150 square miles of land to a project that produces sputtering electricity that is “equivalent” (but not functionally equivalent by a long shot) to one-quarter of the output from a natural gas plant?

Granted, articles like this one are not editorials –- but the NY Times has written numerous sanctimonious, uninformed, naïve and irresponsible editorials favoring just such proposals –- without reference to such relevant facts.

Furthermore, articles like this make it abundantly clear that the NY Times editorial board certainly is not exercising itself unduly to avoid such reports which gloss over these facts –- facts that are, in fact, the CORE issues to be considered in determining the efficacy and the advisability –- and the true environmental benefits (if any) — of this technology.

I am a committed environmentalist and I am not a global warming “denialist.” We are all striving to solve the same problems and achieve the same goals. But how can we debate the issues if even the NY Times fails to report them, or frame them, properly and if newspapers as respected as yours don’t know the difference between the facts on the ground and the self-serving claims of this technology’s most ardent proponents?

This may be one of the single most important stories of the decade. Please work a little harder to get the facts straight.

For Those Near, the Miserable Hum of Clean Energy

By TOM ZELLER Jr.

Published: October 5, 2010

VINALHAVEN, Me. � Like nearly all of the residents on this island in Penobscot Bay, Art Lindgren and his wife, Cheryl, celebrated the arrival of three giant wind turbines late last year. That was before they were turned on.

Matt McInnis for The New York Times

Residents living less than a mile from the $15 million wind facility in Vinalhaven, Me., say the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of the 123-foot blades is making life unbearable.

�In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,� Mr. Lindgren said. �Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.�
Now, the Lindgrens, along with a dozen or so neighbors living less than a mile from the $15 million wind facility here, say the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of the 123-foot blades is making life in this otherwise tranquil corner of the island unbearable.

They are among a small but growing number of families and homeowners across the country who say they have learned the hard way that wind power � a clean alternative to electricity from fossil fuels � is not without emissions of its own.

Lawsuits and complaints about turbine noise, vibrations and subsequent lost property value have cropped up in Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, among other states.

In one case in DeKalb County, Ill., at least 38 families have sued to have 100 turbines removed from a wind farm there. A judge rejected a motion to dismiss the case in June.

Like the Lindgrens, many of the people complaining the loudest are reluctant converts to the antiwind movement.

�The quality of life that we came here for was quiet,� Mrs. Lindgren said. �You don�t live in a place where you have to take an hour-and-15-minute ferry ride to live next to an industrial park. And that�s where we are right now.�

The wind industry has long been dogged by a vocal minority bearing all manner of complaints about turbines, from routine claims that they ruin the look of pastoral landscapes to more elaborate allegations that they have direct physiological impacts like rapid heart beat, nausea and blurred vision caused by the ultra-low-frequency sound and vibrations from the machines.

For the most extreme claims, there is little independent backing.

Last year, the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group, along with its Canadian counterpart, assembled a panel of doctors and acoustical professionals to examine the potential health impacts of wind turbine noise. In a paper published in December, the panel concluded that �there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.�

A separate study financed by the Energy Department concluded late last year that, in aggregate, property values were unaffected by nearby wind turbines.

Numerous studies also suggest that not everyone will be bothered by turbine noise, and that much depends on the context into which the noise is introduced. A previously quiet setting like Vinalhaven is more likely to produce irritated neighbors than, say, a mixed-use suburban setting where ambient noise is already the norm.

Of the 250 new wind farms that have come online in the United States over the last two years, about dozen or so have generated significant noise complaints, according to Jim Cummings, the founder of the Acoustic Ecology Institute, an online clearinghouse for information on sound-related environmental issues.

In the Vinalhaven case, an audio consultant hired by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection determined last month that the 4.5-megawatt facility was, at least on one evening in mid-July when Mr. Lindgren collected sound data, in excess of the state�s nighttime sound limits. The developer of the project, Fox Island Wind, has contested that finding, and negotiations with state regulators are continuing.

In the moonlit woods behind a neighbor�s property on a recent evening, Mr. Lindgren, a retired software engineer, clenched a small flashlight between his teeth and wrestled with a tangle of cables and audio recording equipment he uses to collect sound samples for filing complaints.

At times, the rustle of leaves was all that could be heard. But when the surface wind settled, a throbbing, vaguely jetlike sound cut through the nighttime air. �Right there,� Mr. Lindgren declared. �That would probably be out of compliance.�

Maine, along with many other states, puts a general limit on nighttime noise at 45 decibels � roughly equivalent to the sound of a humming refrigerator. A normal conversation is in the range of 50 to 60 decibels.

In almost all cases, it is not mechanical noise arising from the central gear box or nacelle of a turbine that residents react to, but rather the sound of the blades, which in modern turbines are mammoth appendages well over 100 feet long, as they slice through the air.

Turbine noise can be controlled by reducing the rotational speed of the blades. But the turbines on Vinalhaven already operate that way after 7 p.m., and George Baker, the chief executive of Fox Island Wind � a for-profit arm of the island�s electricity co-operative � said that turning the turbines down came at an economic cost.

�The more we do that, the higher goes the price of electricity on the island,� he said.

A common refrain among homeowners grappling with sound issues, however, is that they were not accurately informed about the noise ahead of time. �They told us we wouldn�t hear it, or that it would be masked by the sound of the wind blowing through the trees,� said Sally Wylie, a former schoolteacher down the road from the Lindgrens. �I feel duped.�

Similar conflicts are arising in Canada, Britain and other countries. An appeals court in Rennes, France, recently ordered an eight-turbine wind farm to shut down between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. so residents could get some sleep.

Richard R. James, an acoustic expert hired by residents of Vinalhaven to help them quantify the noise problem, said there was a simpler solution: do not put the turbines so close to where people live.

�It would seem to be time for the wind utility developers to rethink their plans for duplicating these errors and to focus on locating wind turbines in areas where there is a large buffer zone of about a mile and one-quarter between the turbines and people�s homes,� said Mr. James, the principal consultant with E-Coustic Solutions, based in Michigan.

Vinalhaven�s wind farm enjoys support among most residents, from ardent supporters of all clean energy to those who simply say the turbines have reduced their power bills. Deckhands running the ferry sport turbine pins on their hats, and bumper stickers seen on the island declare �Spin, Baby, Spin.�

�The majority of us like them,� said Jeannie Conway, who works at the island�s ferry office.

But that is cold comfort for Mrs. Lindgren and her neighbors, who say their corner of the island will never be the same.

�I remember the sound of silence so palpable, so merciless in its depths, that you could almost feel your heart stop in sympathy,� she said. �Now we are prisoners of sonic effluence. I grieve for the past.�

Renewable Energy

2010-08-13T12:19:00.000-07:00

The Jerusalem Open Space
and Renewable Energy Committee presents
Bringing Renewable
Energy Home
Saturday, August 28, 2010
9:00am—1:00 pm
Branchport Firehouse
Refreshments Provided

BRINGING RENEWABLE ENERGY HOME
∗ Find out how energy audits can help
determine how energy efficient your
home is now.
• Get ‘low-cost’ and ‘no-cost’ energy
saving tips.
• Learn about renewable energy
systems:
∗ Geo thermal and
∗ Solar thermal
∗ Solar
∗ Wind
• Let the experts answer your
questions
• Hear from a panel of homeowners
who have used solar, wind or
geothermal on their own home or
farm!
• Meet and greet with local renewable
energy contractors!
For More Information:
Megan Fenton
Sustainable Agriculture Educator
Land Protection Specialist
Cornell Cooperative Extension of
Yates County
417 Liberty Street
Penn Yan, New York 14527
Phone: (315) 536-5123

Municipal Training Credits
Available
Our distinguished speakers
include Alfred State
College professor Jeff
Stevens; Cornell Cooperative
Extension Educator Sheri
Bone and many other
industry professionals and
homeowners who have
already implemented
renewable energy systems.

Cornell University Cooperative Extension provides
equal program and employment opportunities. CCE
does not endorse or recommend any specific
product or service. This program is solely intended
to educate consumers about their choices.

Cost is $10 per person, $5 for students
Scholarships available

JPA Members and Friends Meeting- July 19 7:00 PM

2010-07-19T04:20:00.000-07:00

Please come to the JPA Members and Friends Meeting.
Meeting to be held at Friend Church, Friend Rd., Branchport, Monday, July 19, 7:00 Pm - 9:00 Pm.
Spread the word to anyone interested! Refreshments served.

Gone With The Wind-Times of Wayne County-

2010-07-14T08:02:00.000-07:00

Direct Link: http://www.thetimesofwaynecounty.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1342:main-story&catid=108:featured-news

For three years, Empire Wind Energy, LLC had been whipping up dreams of wind towers and wind farms in the towns of Huron, Wolcott, Butler, Sodus, Rose and Galen. Countless meetings were held with each municipality and general presentations were made to the combined host towns. Along the way “Host Community Agreements” were formulated that promised jobs, revenue sharing and eventual ownership back to the host communites of any wind towers constructed.

Landowners were getting excited as every hilltop was proclaimed a possible windfall for wind generated energy. Farmers were ready to mow down trees and crops to cash in on the chance of getting in on the ground floor of green wind energy production. Towns throughout the area began changing zoning laws to allow for both small and giant wind turbines.

The idea was that Empire Wind Energy LLC, backed by Rochester/Paychex founder and billionaire Tom Golisano, would upfront the money for the projects and it would be a win-win for municipalities jumping onboard. Golisano, along with Pitman made a presentation to area business leaders, town board members, supervisors and county officials at a luncheon held at the former Cutter’s (Way Point) Restaurant on Sodus Bay in the Town of Huron two years ago.

According to Wolcott Town Supervisor Kim Park, the last time the towns of Wolcott, Butler, Sodus, Galen and Rose had a meeting with Empire Wind Energy back in April, the joint group was pushing to get progress reports and information from the Company.

Local town supervisors rallied around the plans that included huge tax incentives for the initial investor, but questions began surfacing concerning the eventual ownership of the wind turbines. After the tax credits expired, the host towns would eventually take over the wind power generating machines under the developed host community agreements. Plans were presented that showed how the host communities and landowners could gradually cash in on the green technology.

What wasn’t made clear was who would pay for upkeep once they became a landowner/municipality responsibility. Would the aging wind structures even be profitable? Could the wind projects generate the energy promised? What about potential grants? Could wind energy in this part of the state exist without grants and tax credits?

Wayne County participating towns and supervisors began getting the calls this past week. Empire State Wind Energy LLC, President and Chief Operating Officer Keith Pitman told Huron Supervisor Laurie Crane last Thursday that it was not economically feasible for Huron to get any wind turbines “at this time”. The remaining town supervisors also received calls from Pitman informing them that the projects were out of wind.

Park said she heard that costs for selling energy to the grid did not meet Company projections.

Empire State Wind Energy called Benton (Yates County) NY Town Supervisor Bob Clark last Tuesday. “He (Pitman) told me the proposed project would not happen, that it was not a profitable situation.” Clark said he also heard that Empire had ended their project in the Alfred area. “I did not have a good feeling about this from the beginning. A project is only as good as the developer,” added Clark.

Clark also said that, from the beginning, his town flatly refused to take ownership of any wind towers in their community agreement. “In ten years, those things go bad,” he commented.

Luckily, attorney fees accumulated by the towns following the Empire plan were paid, except in the Town of Huron, where Supervisor Crane said the company still owes their attorney about $5000. The other fees following through on developing the agreements have been paid by Empire Wind Energy.

Wolcott Town Supervisor Kim Park, along with Rose Supervisor Lucinda Collier, stated that although the potential wind project has derailed, they both sought only to advance any project that could bring a revenue stream into town coffers. “My town has minimal industry and it is my obligation to look for any resources for income,” said Collier. She stated that a great deal of time has been put in by the town board as well as zoning and planning boards based upon Empire’s proposals.

One supervisor said he became suspect when Pitman showed up in his town with his wife and one of his children to erect a sample wind testing tower on their own.

Calls to Keith Pitman’s private cell phone and the Company’s headquarters in Oneida, NY yielded only answering messages and no calls were returned.

JPA Members and Friends Meeting-July 19 7:00 PM

2010-07-13T06:04:00.000-07:00

The Answer Is Not Blowing In The Wind

2010-07-13T04:16:00.000-07:00

The Answer Is Not Blowing In The Wind
by Dr. Donald PerryMarch 03, 2010
Direct link: http://prudentbear.com/index.php/guestcommentaryview?art_id=10350

"The underlying problem remains that wind power is far too dependent on taxpayer subsidies. Thus it can't stand on its own feet, yet is growing like mad. That's the definition of a bubble." Vincent Fernando – Business Insider, January 27, 2010

Here in upstate New York it would be difficult not to notice the forests of steel, concrete and whirling blades that are materializing over vast stretches of land, often replacing forests of wood, leaves and wildlife. And so the war continues between "green" technology and the green earth. Numerous pro and con articles have appeared debating the many aspects of power produced by windmills, but even those who object to windmills concur that the power produced by them is truly "clean" energy. As a biologist and an environmentalist, I disagree.

Even a third-grader knows that wind-driven turbines produce clean energy, right? It is plain to see that the majestic tower and its spinning blades burn no fuel that would spew dirty CO2 into the atmosphere. The major problem is that Congress does nothing to correct the misleading information now circulating around the country. With a third-grade mentality, our leaders herald windmills as the miraculous solution that will curtail our growing dependence on oil, coal and natural gas, the main contributors to an increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

One of our biggest national fears is dependency on Middle Eastern oil. With tax incentives and grants funneling taxpayer dollars into the development of windmills, Congress hopes to reduce that dependence. Ironically, the government is spending trillions of additional taxpayer dollars on a war with a main goal of tapping into Middle Eastern reserves for as long as possible.

It is absurd to claim that wind farms will reduce oil dependence. In 2002, for example, of 3.8 trillion kilowatt hours of generated electricity (the total for the United States), only 95 billion kWh were produced by oil-fired facilities. That's only 2.5%. By 2008, electricity generated with oil was reduced to 1%. The oil-fired electricity plants that produce this power are typically on standby, yet they must be ready to switch on at any time with increasing daily demand. Windmills can't do this, so they play no role in reducing our dependence on oil.

Greenhouse warming and rising ocean levels have incited additional fear. Here again lobbyists promise that wind power can help. But the rise in CO2 emissions is an international problem. The second largest emitter behind the U.S. is China, which produces 15% of the world's total, but they show little interest in making significant cuts in CO2. The trajectory of China's industrial growth suggests they may catch up with the U.S. (25% of world total) in a few years. They argue that Americans and Europeans should take the economic hit necessary to reduce the rate of CO2 emissions.

Over the past 38 years, global CO2 emissions have increased 100% from 16.3 billion metric tons in 1970 to 31.6 billion in 2008. At the same time, world population grew from 3.7 to 6.7 billion. This 81% increase accounts for much of the increase in CO2 emissions. Even if (and that's a big if) wind power could reduce CO2 emissions, it is more than likely that future gains will be offset by population growth. That growth undoubtedly will increase dirty energy usage.

To stop the growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations would require approximately a 40% reduction of all CO2-producing activities worldwide. The burden of emission control would fall on developed nations. It would require fewer cars, large-screen digital televisions, computers, hot tubs, home heaters, and electronics that leak power. One hot shower a week would help, as would the elimination of suburbs and the stagnation of business growth.

Habitat destruction and slash and burn deforestation produce approximately 20% of the world's annual emissions, which is nearly as much as U.S. total emissions. As people are encouraged by industry to consume like Americans and Europeans, and as more and more habitat destruction occurs due to population growth, what is the likelihood that earth's inhabitants will unite to curtail business growth and other activities in order to reverse the production of CO2? We can't even unite to stop rising highway tolls. Nothing short of a vast pandemic or a nuclear winter promises to halt the inevitable rise in atmospheric CO2. Of course, I cannot mention the taboo subject of reducing an overpopulated planet's population. This solution to the world's many problems, including energy issues, water shortages, collapsed fisheries, and the pollution of land and sea with garbage and sewage is not seriously considered.

There are approximately one trillion tons of recoverable coal worldwide, with a minimal value of 100 trillion dollars, as well as vast supplies of natural gas. It is highly unlikely that any country will abandon this wealth. In fact, most countries are calculating how long their cheap energy reserves are going to last. So contrary to popular and governmental rhetoric, all available cheap energy will be consumed; its stored carbon destined for the atmosphere.

If it is true that human activity is the culprit behind melting glaciers, the shrinking of Greenland's ice cap and rising ocean levels, we probably reached the point-of-no-return more than a decade ago. This leaves future climate change at the mercy of potential natural disturbances that can release huge amounts of CO2 both above and below the oceans, such as volcanic activity. The release of methane from hydrates has been implicated in climate changes of the distant past, and vast amounts of methane hydrates lie in wait on the ocean floor. Methane is 10 times more damaging than CO2 as a climate-warming molecule. If released, the oceanic storehouse of these hydrates would dramatically increase the greenhouse effect. As I write, Siberia's shallow seabed, which contains billions of tons of these hydrates, is heating up and beginning to release its stored methane. The ball is rolling regarding rising oceans and efforts at devising alternate sources of energy are at best a Band-Aid on a metastasizing tumor.

In guilt-ridden America and Europe, the avid support of wind power is a front for leaders who don't want to be accused of doing nothing if ocean levels rise. In practice, our government lacks concern about rising oceans. When import restrictions on goods produced by dirty energy were recommended, congress denied them. Wall Street helped relocate U.S. industry to China and other countries that use dirty energy, then lobbied relentlessly to allow the import of those goods. It is neither ecofriendly nor economically friendly to ship goods from so far away. Many of these items could be produced here, and shipping contributes substantially to ocean pollution.

Congressional policy is this: allow corporations to benefit by taking advantage of the dirty –energy policies of other countries, ignore American job loss, condone ocean pollution, and tax Americans to produce ineffectual "clean" energy. When Congress begins to fret about CO2 and embraces wind farming as a hypothetical solution, rest assured something else is motivating them.

From a biological point of view, wind power is merely a dirty parasite that has latched onto the body of the green movement. We've seen these parasites before in the form of Enron, CDOs and derivatives – favored products of Wall Street. To keep taxpayer money flowing into wind power, the green-wash must be maintained.

A critical failure of wind power is its unreliability. Clipper ships lost favor as a means of oceanic transport in part because no one likes to wait: not for the arrival of a becalmed merchant ship, or for the air conditioning to cool down the room, or for the computer to turn on, of even for the tea water to boil. Actually, no one likes to wait for anything. So when the wind dies down, we must fall back on our old standbys -- oil, gas and coal. In order to satisfy our needs, no coal, natural gas or oil plant will be closed, and this inefficiency raises the price of electricity.

The dirty secret about wind turbines is that they are not exactly clean. Heat (BTUs) is needed to manufacture the components of windmills. The construction of their huge concrete bases is an energy-hungry process. (Concrete production emits 7% of the planet's total annual CO2 emissions). Power poles must be harvested from forests. Rock must be extracted from the earth, then crushed, then smelted, then drawn into wire, thousands of miles of wire that must then be coated with insulation. Similarly, huge steel towers require ore to be mined, transported, smelted, forged, then transported again. Massive machinery must be used to make roads, clear forests, move earth, erect poles and construct new power grids. Where does the power come from to complete these tasks? Dirty, CO2-producing BTUs!

Each and every windmill begins life in abysmally deep, dirty BTU debt. No one knows how large this debt is because the data is either hidden or simply has not yet been calculated. Nevertheless, for a windmill to be a certifiably clean-energy producer, it must first pay off its dirty energy debt. Let's assume that in eight years a windmill can produce enough clean BTUs to cancel out its dirty BTU debt. Issue two: how long do they run without an overhaul? The data is unavailable. Remanufacturing and maintenance will incur substantial additional dirty BTU debt. Add a couple more years to the debt for the overhaul and it may take at least a decade before a windmill can get a green card.

There is plenty of hope that windmills will remain viable for that long. Yet behind the scenes, companies aren't taking any chances. So they lobby Congress into supplying the real green quickly, before the bubble pops. Not only do they get a five-year, double-declining, balance-accelerated depreciation that allows recovery of capital costs in about five years, they also receive numerous other incentives paid for by taxpayers and electricity users.

Windmills are also stealing jobs away from our economy at a time when they are desperately needed. Wind power is sucking away stimulus money, the money that was supplied to help create badly needed jobs in the U.S. As stated in a letter by U.S. Rep. Eric Massa (D- New York), much of the equipment for wind generators is purchased from foreign suppliers.

A few years ago the miracle of wind power stood as a shining green knight who would solve our energy needs. But politicians are beginning to hear rumblings from people who, unlike Congress, have actually researched wind-power technology and become knowledgeable about its shortcomings. In location after location, the unlucky citizens who live near wind generators, regardless of political persuasion, are spreading these truths via the media, especially the internet and public gatherings. They are steadily washing the green image off the wind-power industry.

A huge political bomb looms in the property-value arena. Many of us suffered dearly when Wall Street's real-estate bubble popped. In many locations property values plummeted by fifty percent or more. Nevertheless, when the money began to dry up Wall Street clambered into the lifeboat with yet another toxic asset that destroys land value – wind power. Landowners within close proximity to a windmill can expect to lose up to 80% or more of their property's value. This is leading to yet another real-estate disaster.

Presently, windmill companies claim that property values are not affected, but since property near windmills has ceased to sell, few records exist to document this decline. But the truth can be found in the fine print. While landowners get ample verbal assurance of stable values, they don't get a guarantee in writing that prices will not decline. Windmill companies want to pad their wallets at the expense of landowners. They believe landowners should roll over and take an 80% hit on their property value and even file bankruptcy, all for the "higher good".

Why do property values near windmills fall? The blades of windmills are huge fans atop 200-foot towers, some are higher. As the sun sets, their shadows grow longer and cross property after property. Even miles away, a treasured sunset can become a disturbing flickering panorama. Any time of the day your living room's peaceful ambiance can be invaded by a maddening strobe light. That's not green.

Wind power is claimed to be silent or very quiet. Yet the unfortunate residents who live near them complain of low-frequency sound that is viscerally disturbing. Many report jet-engine-like noise or loud whooshing sounds day and night. That's not green.

Wind Turbine Syndrome is the name now given to the disruption of sensory input. Symptoms include sleep problems, headaches, dizziness, exhaustion and depression, in part due to loss of property values. There are reports of "pulsations laying down in bed and when the turbines get into a particular position, tremors going through your body…it feels like something is vibrating your body, like sitting in a vibrating chair but your body is not moving."

Another feature damaging to property values is the appearance of windmills. People who wish to purchase in rural areas are usually looking for a site with attractive scenic vistas. Windmills directly and dramatically reduce the appeal of a property. As the dirty truths about windmills become known, their image will worsen, and so will property values.

The preposterous claim that wind power is green falls apart when one observes a littering of windmills over a destroyed landscape. Windmills would need to cover entire state-sized regions in order to meet the nation's power needs. That would be far from green. But locating them in lower Manhattan would be very green! Clearing some room for them there would solve many of our other problems as well.

A clutter of windmills across the horizon is reminiscent of a gigantic advertisement of Wall Street's disrespect for others, an abstract parade of towering Bernie Madoffs flipping the bird at residents and nature. In this land of beautiful, spacious skies and amber waves of grain, we, the little people, have become no more important than the plight of migratory birds.

Add up strobe-light flicker, disturbing visceral noise, destruction of vast land areas, dirty BTU's, a failed business plan, job loss, fraudulent allocation of taxpayer dollars, and destruction of property values and one can say unequivocally that wind power is bad business and not at all green. As more and more landowners experience negative health effects and enter into bankruptcy because of wind power, and if thousands and thousands and of square miles of the earth's green face become trashed with windmills, political fallout will follow.

With a possible taxpayer revolt led by "tea baggers" in the making, keep a close eye on the toxic products of the green windmill myth. Shorting opportunities on this technology are quickly maturing.

Dr. Donald Perry, a biologist, author and inventor, lives in the Finger Lakes region of New York State known for its magnificent scenic beauty and growing ecotourism. Right now, wind power companies are seeking permits to build, or have already built, on some of the most-scenic vistas in the region. As far as he knows, his property will not be affected directly. He does not own any securities or short positions in the wind industry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Views are as of March 3, 2010, and are subject to change based on market conditions and other factors. These views should not be construed as a recommendation for any specific security.

Federated Equity Management Company of Pennsylvania

42224

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of www.PrudentBear.com. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security, commodity or contract.

Wind power provides no relief during heat wave-Democrat and Chronicle

2010-07-12T04:03:00.000-07:00

The current heat wave in the eastern United States provides a perfect example of the fallacy of the arguments put forth by the wind industry for industrial wind development in upstate New York and other inland areas of the Northeast. When the demand for additional power is greatest, inland wind facilities are useless. There is no appreciable wind during these episodes of stagnant air under Bermuda High conditions. Thus, not only does wind provide no relief in these times of maximum power demand, but conventional power sources (coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro) must operate at maximum capacity in order to meet the demand. In other words, wind power cannot replace ANY conventional power sources.

The wind industry is well aware of this problem. (See, for example, “The Effects of Integrating Wind Power on Transmission System Planning, Reliability, and Operations”, prepared for The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority by GE Energy Consulting, dated March 4, 2005, especially Section 7, “Effective Capacity”.) The report concludes that for every 100 megawatts of installed capacity, inland industrial wind turbines can be expected to produce only about 10 megawatts of useable power, essentially none if it during times of peak demand. Developers, however, choose to ignore this reality in favor of the huge subsidies and tax breaks offered by federal and state authorities at taxpayers' and ratepayers' expense.
It is time for the public to be made aware of this gigantic boondoggle paid for by our tax money. Perhaps now, while we are all suffering under this heat wave, is the right time.
Michael Herzog

An Ill First Wind Hits the Public in the Pocketbook

2010-07-06T06:34:00.001-07:00

http://batr.org/view/052310.html
An Ill First Wind Hits the Public in the Pocketbook

The promises of alternative energy generated from industrial wind turbines are suspect when examined on the facts. The basis for justification for the entire industry is that electricity generated from uneconomical technology is environmentally friendly. The public is supposed to accept higher costs from inefficient and unreliable generation just because it is "green". Touting wind as a free source of energy is dishonest. This old technology from skyscraper size industrial machines is anything but free. The media seldom reports that industrial wind does not produce cost effective reliable electricity. Cowardly politicians who dare not oppose the industry ignore indisputable and inescapable facts about wind.

Rational reasons against spending public expenditures for subsidizing a technology that has never yet replaced a fossil fuel power plant is overwhelming. If industrial wind factories were a real solution, why will not entrepreneurs develop their projects the old fashion way, with their own money?

Government policy that favors and protects the economic failure of wind projects is essential for the deception to continue. Even proponents of the most radical global warming myths are taxpayers and consume electricity. Where is their outrage when costs increase at exponential rates, from ill-conceived wind projects, with no ceiling in sight? For answers, an examination of the First Wind Company provides a window on a culture of corruption that is indefensible.

First Wind has an application pending before the SEC for an IPO. A review of their S1, S1A and additional supplement filings paints a very dire picture. Prospectus disclosures, must describe risky conditions for a security offered to participants and buyers. The Boston Business Journal report, "In its latest Securities and Exchange Commission filing, the Boston-based company reiterated it could default on an $80 million loan due next month. First Wind currently is negotiating with a consortium of banks to receive $240 million in financing that would pay off a turbine loan that matures June 30."

Part of First Wind’s financial woes is the failed Cohocton, NY project. Original admission that the 50-turbine development cost of $265,000,000 have escalated by tens of millions after three seasons of refitting, repairs and substitutions. Clipper Windpower Liberty 2.5 MG turbine is a total bust as a viable generating unit. Clipper stock (CWP.L) traded on the London exchange; hit a new low this week. The NYISO lists the Canandaigua Power Partners, LLC (entity of ownership for the Cohocton First Wind project) as having a 2008 net energy production of 10,155 MWh and zero kilowatt capacity for 2009. When pushed the NYISO admits that the project is "In Service", which really means it is in the testing stage. No verified proof is available that any electricity generated by this project is going into the grid for sale to consumers.

Leaseholder’s agreements have a minimum payment amount with an extra small percentage for production. If First Wind were really selling electric into the grid, leaseholders are owed money on that production. The fact that Cohocton leaseholders have not received any funds on generated electricity is proof that the project is a failure.

Actually, the project consumes significant energy when not producing usable electricity. Energy consumption in wind facilities lays out the different requirements of a wind turbine that eats up significant portions of electricity generated. When the wind is not blowing or a project is not set up for the grid to accept energy, the facility is a net user of electricity.

In June 2008, First Wind filed a complaint against the NYISO with FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) to exempt CPP from the Open Access Transmission Tariff that had been previously agreed upon. The point is that First Wind seeks to transfer normal development costs onto the backs of the ratepayer.

First Wind received in the fall of 2009, $74.6 million in federal stimulus grants through the Department of Energy. These funds had no restriction for use and no accounting disclosure followed. Democratic and Chronicle reporter Steve Orr wrote on September 2, 2009 about First Wind’s compliance with the NYS AG ethic agreement. "First Wind was one of at least two clean-energy firms that state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo investigated last year after complaints about collusion between companies and improper dealings with local government officials."

Former U.S. Rep. Eric J. Massa (D-N.Y.) wrote to President Barack Obama, calling the grants "very alarming" and saying the company "abused the public trust" and had problems with U.S. tax dollars going to what he called "shell companies" for First Wind. Massa noted, "First Wind is under investigation by the New York Attorney General’s office for alleged corruption. The actual appropriation is going to Canandaigua Power Partners and Canandaigua Power Partners II, subsidiaries of First Wind."

"This is one of the most volatile issues in Western New York, and the award of $74.6 million dollars to corrupt companies that have changed names time and again, forming new LLCs and new Inc’s but maintaining their business model of lie, cheat, and corrupt at the expense of taxpayers, has stirred great unrest in New York’s 29th Congressional District," Massa wrote to the president.

First Wind CEO Paul Gaynor, a former Enron executive, responded in a letter to Obama, saying that First Wind's New York wind farms have produced 133,370-megawatt hours of clean, renewable energy, but never provided any proof of his claim.

How does a company like First Wind gain favorable benefits and access to energy policy?

Reporter Naomi Schalit of the Maine Center for Public Interest provided some insights in the article, Ex-PUC head enriched by utility company. "While he was Maine's chief utilities regulator, Kurt Adams accepted an ownership interest in a leading wind energy company . . . A recent First Wind filing with the federal SEC for 2009 shows Adams’ $1.3 million compensation included $315,000 in salary, $658,000 in stock awards, $29,000 of "other" compensation and $315,000 in "nonequity incentives."

The latest First Wind SEC filing attempts to downplay the conflict of interests and breach of ethical conduct of Mr. Adams. Their explanation does not pass the smell test. Such suspect business practices are standard behavior for First Wind. It has a long history of using political insiders to gain special treatment.

Documented in the Citizen Power Alliance essay, Industrial Wind and the Wall Street Cap and Trade Fraud is the dark origins of First Wind, previously called UPC. The Boston Herald asked Brian Caffyn, founder of UPC/First Wind, about the arrest for fraud of his former Italian wind developer partner Oreste Vigorito. "I read about it in the papers, and I was very surprised," Brian Caffyn said from Hong Kong where he is in business with Chinese interests.

The political cronyism between First Wind and the Obama administration extends to Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers and their involvement with the primary ownership interests of First Wind, hedge fund DE Shaw and private equity firm Madison Dearborn. Documented sources within the CPA article substantiate the trail of money and influence that flows from this wind developer to the highest levels of government.

New York State a den of thieves

NYS operates as if it is a suburb of Chicago. IDA (industrial development agencies) sell tax exemptions, state agencies ignore their own policy regulations to advance wind development, the attorney general office looks the other way when conflict of interest practices lead to criminal conduct and local public officials routinely take bribes for their vote and support of specific projects.

With each complaint to the Public Service Commission, the PSC bends over backward to have First Wind cover their paper trail discrepancies or modify their filings.

Governor Paterson’s State Energy Plan calls for a " '45 by 15' clean energy goal would reduce the amount of electricity used in 2015 by 15 percent below forecasted levels, while simultaneously meeting 30 percent of the State's remaining electricity needs through renewable resources."

First Wind is in business to claim their share of the booty. REC credits (renewal energy certificates) are the new coin of the realm. It makes little difference if actual electricity is generated into the grid for sale to reap the financial rewards of this slight of hand deception.

Carved in stone is a history of NYS favoring NYC over upstate. The latest insult is the Power for Jobs hoax. The Buffalo News describes this initiative, "The agreement between Paterson and the Senate leaders would set aside slightly less than a third of the electricity — at least 300 megawatts of the 910 megawatts available through the expanded Power for Jobs program — for upstate businesses served by National Grid, New York State Electric & Gas Corp. and Rochester Gas & Electric." The allocation difference goes to NYC. Assembly representative Joseph Morelle, opposition states, "it takes low-cost hydropower from Rochester and Upstate New York and ships it downstate . . . This proposed shift would result in an increase of approximately $80 to $125 per year on the bill of the average RG&E residential customer."

What does Western NY get out of this shady deal? You guessed it, more industrial wind turbine disasters from developers like First Wind so they can erect their unsuccessful projects using out of state labor or even undocumented foreign workers.

The fallout from the Cohocton Project is a horror story in its own right. Real estate values plummet; sales of properties are non-existent, "Wind Syndrome" health issues abound, an OSHA investigation of a construction crane collapse and final abandonment of residences because of low frequency noise, shadow flicker and safety risks prevent continued use of one home.

The tragic destruction of pastoral communities from insane government policy would fill volumes of books. Most people will never show concern for rural areas or even the corrupt business practices of crooked wind developers. First Wind is just the best example of the unholy alliance and revolving door of crony capitalism that is driving up the costs of electricity beneath the lies of "Greening America" and job promotion. The public is asleep. Their righteous outrage is long overdue. It is time to clean up the system from the dishonesty of industrial wind developers.

SARTRE – May 23, 2010

"Although our name has changed, our core values remain the same"

said Paul Gaynor, President and CEO of First Wind.

Article from the Vermonters for a Clean Environment-2010 Mid-Year Report- Cohocton Wind Towers

2010-06-29T12:18:00.000-07:00

http://vermontersforacleanenvironment.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/lessons-for-sheffield/
LESSONS FOR SHEFFIELD
Experiences with UPC/First Wind
and Clipper in Cohocton, New York
The names are the same. UPC. First Wind. Clipper Liberty.
Josh Bagnato. Lawrence Mott.
Residents of Cohocton, New York are
living with it. Residents of Sheffield and
Sutton, Vermont are still trying to stop it.
Why? A recent visit to UPC/First Wind’s
utility scale wind project in Cohocton NY
provides this cautionary tale for Vermonters.
UPC Wind, as it was known at the time, began development
of utility scale wind projects in Cohocton NY and Sheffield VT
at about the same time. The Cohocton project took three years
to build, and has been in operation since 2008. The Sheffield
project was permitted by Vermont regulators in 2007. In 2009,
the Vermont Supreme Court upheld its Certificate of Public
Good. Now the project’s stormwater construction permit is
under appeal to Environmental Court. UPC Wind changed its
name to First Wind in 2008.
Both projects use or plan to use 2.5
MW Liberty turbines made by California-
based Clipper Windpower, which
has a manufacturing plant in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa.
On my first visit to Cohocton
in April 2009, 15 of the 50 turbines
were not working. A year later, one turbine was not working.
Vermonters have a lot of questions about wind companies
and utility scale wind turbines. 􀄉e questions have been asked
numerous times at public forums. Some of the answers are
available in Cohocton. Here is what I learned on my recent trip
to Cohocton and two “big wind” turbine sites in Pennsylvania:
• Are tourists coming to see the Cohocton turbines?
I saw no evidence that the turbines are a tourist attraction.
• Is there a visitors center for tourists?
There is no visitors center, no office in town, no sign anywhere
identifying whose project it is, not even at the entrance to the
project’s maintenance building. The only signage was the word
“Clipper” on one of the mailboxes and a faded “Firstwind” sign
unreadable from the road on a post next to a parking place in
front of the building. The public face of the Bear Creek, PA
wind project was
similar, a dented
mailbox and
uninviting signs.

Cohocton residents say there are about 5
local employees for the 50 turbines. This
matches what an Iberdrola employee told
me at Locust Ridge, Pennsylvania: there
are 6 – 7 local employees for 63 turbines,
or about 1 job for every 10 turbines. Besides
temporary construction and routine
maintenance jobs, local residents do not
seem to be employed by these projects,
which require specialized workers.
• Has the project been a boon to
the economy?
I saw no evidence of economic vitality in
Cohocton. To the contrary, in the areas
where turbines are located, I talked to
people who are abandoning homes or
hoping to sell out to First Wind.
• How much money has the town
gotten? What was it used for?
Residents told
me that it is
generally known
that the Town of
Cohocton has
received more
than $1 million
in payments from First Wind or one of
its LLC subsidiaries. However, according
to the Cohocton residents with whom I
spoke, there has been no public accounting
of the money, or what it was used for.
It may be that some people in town
know exactly what the money has been
used for, but the wind project has divided
the community in a manner similar to
what we are seeing happen in Lowell, VT,
where wind supporters are aligned with
town government and those who oppose
the project are now “outsiders”.
• How much money has the school
district received?
Similarly, residents I spoke with cited a
lack of transparency regarding payments
to the school district. They say a recent
report on the school district budget does
not contain an accounting of income
from First Wind or its subsidiary LLCs.
• Have the leaseholders been paid?
Leaseholders have received the minimum
payment amount, about $2400 per year.
• Was it the amount promised?
According to two landowners I talked to
in 2009 who had signed leases, leaseholders
expected payments of at least $5000
per turbine per year, a combination of the
minimum payment plus an amount based
on the electricity produced.
• Has the project impacted the area
real estate market? Are houses selling?
According to residents, there have been
no home sales in the areas around wind
turbines in Cohocton in two years.
• Are realtors taking listings of
houses near turbines?
No. Residents told me that realtors refuse
to list properties near wind turbines in
Cohocton. As I drove around all the
roads where the turbines are located in
May, I did not see any “For Sale” signs.
• Are property values affected?
There have been no sales, so there is no
way to evaluate the project’s impact on
property values. However, while driving
around this year, I asked our local tour
guide about each house. Who lives there,
what’s their position on the turbines, are
they bothered, etc.? The answers painted
a sobering picture. Leaseholders cannot
talk because their agreements contain gag
orders. Some of the nicer homes next to
leaseholders are empty, or rented to the
few First Wind employees who maintain
the project. Next to leaseholders are
homeowners who hate the turbines. I got
the impression of a town and landscape
taken over by a technology and a corporation.
One homeowner I talked to asked
to speak “off the record” because of an
upcoming meeting with First Wind to
discuss buying the property due to noise
and vibration issues.
• What about the noise?
Noise is a problem for many Cohocton
residents, even a mile away. Clipper
turbines are noisy, not just the usual
“thump, thump, thump” but also they
make mechanical noises. A resident
describes them: “Many strange noises,
when the nacelles are moving there is a
moaning noise. We also get metal on metal
screeching noise and every so o􀄜en a loud
thunder type noise comes out! There is the
usual generator noise we hear all the time.”
• Can people who live near the
turbines sleep?
Some people living in homes near turbines
report serious problems with sleep
deprivation. Hal Graham is a leaseholder
who favored the project initially and has
spoken on videos posted on YouTube
about the problems he is having with the
turbines near his home. He regrets having
signed a lease, and says that UPC/First
Wind promised there would be no noise.
Other Cohocton residents brought up the
same point when discussing the turbines,
saying sadly, “they promised no noise.”
• Do houses vibrate?
Yes, people report that their homes
affected by vibrations. First Wind is
negotiating to buy out some people.
• Do the Clipper wind turbines
used by UPS/First Wind have any
design or structural problems?
Yes. A blog contains postings by former
and current Clipper employees about the
failed design of the Clipper Liberty turbines
(www.topix.com/forum/energy/
wind-energy/TPJF1TPVC4K7KU286).
Here is a typical post by a former worker:
The Clipper Gear Box is a Quantum Drive
it has 4 generators instead of just one, which
means the gearbox is much larger and contains
more gears and ratios, timing is essential
and very hard to achieve, what happens is the
gears end up getting chewed up fairly quick,
plus the vibration from this unit has and
does cause major oil leaks. Clippers blades
come from Brazil as does their base, hub and
gearbox castings. The blades are broke by the
time they reach the port of Houston, part of
the cause is Clippers design, so they only get
partial warranty, so they are really eating
allot of expense on repairs and warranty, with
issues they just can’t clear up. The product is
old school, the reason nobody uses this design
would be for all these reasons.
These are the same turbines that First
Wind is planning to use in Sheffield

The Clipper employee blog includes
postings by current employees who claim
Clipper is resolving the blade and gearbox
issues, and attributes those problems to
start-up growing pains. Former employees
seem skeptical that the design flaws
can be or have been fixed. United Technologies
Corp. (UTC) recently purchased
a major interest in Clipper Windpower,
bringing gearbox and blade expertise to
the company, but it remains to be seen if
UTC can fix the flawed design.
Since the Cohocton project came online
in 2008, the blades have been taken
down and repaired and put back up.
• Are blade failures unique to
Clipper turbines?
No. On the same trip, I visited Iberdrola’s
Locust Ridge project north of Mahanoy
City in Pennsylvania which uses Gamesa
2 MW turbines. I witnessed a turbine
blade being delivered and learned from
the driver that it came from Texas (even
though Gamesa has a manufacturing
plant in Pennsylvania). In all, five blades
were being replaced on the Gamesa turbines,
which went into service in 2009.
The Iberdrola worker said that turbine
blades come with a two year warranty,
and it costs more for a longer warranty.
A recent report projects operation and
maintenance costs for wind turbines are
likely to “spiral” as warranties expire.
• Do turbines leak oil?
Yes. I saw oil coming from the nacelles in
Cohocton. The Clipper former employee
blog says: “The turbines do have an oil heating
element that enables them to operate in
cold climates. If the oil is leaking out of the
turbine nacelle that means that a major failure
has occurred. The turbines have splash
decks to catch oil, If the oil is over􀄚owing
these.......nuff said.”
According to data on file with Vermont’s
PSB, each Clipper Liberty turbine
gearbox contains 110 gallons of hydraulic
and lubricating oil. 500 gallons of mineral
oil are used in each turbine’s transformer.
• How much dynamite was used to
build the roads?
In Cohocton, none. Unlike Vermont, the
landscape is rolling hills where it is easy to
drive heavy equipment onto farm fields.
In Lempster NH, where Iberdrola
erected twelve 2 MW Gamesa turbines,
one million pounds of explosives were
used for the road construction and
preparation of turbine sites, according to
the landowner. The terrain in Lempster is
nowhere near as rugged as sites proposed
for Vermont, including Sheffield.
• Were roads damaged during construction?
Did First Wind pay promptly
to fix damage to roads?
During construction, residents described
the destruction to Cohocton area roads as
horrible. The Town discussed suing First
Wind to get the roads fixed after First
Wind did not keep agreements.
• Are there any other problems?
Local workers have disclosed to Cohocton
residents that they are concerned
about the possibility of concrete base
failures. Cohocton residents are seeing a
lot of dirt dumped at the base of one turbine,
where
workers say
the turbine
was built
on a wet
spot and no
matter how
much dirt
they pour into it, water keeps surfacing.
• Are the turbines making a difference
to New York’s electricity needs,
and are they contributing to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions?
Residents question whether the turbines
are actually generating electricity that is
going into the grid, especially after the
leaseholders received only minimum
payments with no additional payment for
electricity generation.
• If there are problems, is the company
quick to respond?
Not according to the people I talked to.
Complaints about noise, sleeplessness,
and house vibrations have been ignored
or ridiculed for more than a year. Anybody
who wants to sell out to First Wind
must sign a gag order.
• Can residents hold the company
accountable for problems?
The people who live in Cohocton that
I talked to feel they are now living in a
town under a corporation’s control, where
nobody is responding to the problems
residents are living with.
• What about the view?
Wind turbines dominate the view in
Cohocton. They are prominently visible
from most roads and homes.
Will it be any different in Sheffield?
- Annette Smith

The Chronicle Express- June 22, 2010

2010-06-25T06:13:00.001-07:00

Jerusalem residents: 'Protect our lands'By Loujane Johns
The Chronicle-Express
Posted Jun 22, 2010 @ 02:45 PM
Jerusalem, N.Y. —
People in the Town of Jerusalem will likely agree there are a lot of good things on the horizon in the town.
Foremost, of course, is the announcement that Keuka Lake State Park was chosen from 19 other sites to be the home of the multi-million dollar Finger Lakes Cultural and Natural History Museum on April 21.
One good thing leads to another. The long-empty Branchport School was purchased for use by the museum.
Application for a grant to spruce up the “downtown” area of Branchport a little for visitors and residents was approved at the June 16 meeting of the Jerusalem Town Council.
Council members discussed giving the building and zoning officer “more teeth” by revising local laws dealing with property maintenance to get things cleaned up. It was also reported that the first town-wide cleanup day was very successful.
However, the majority of the 35 plus people attending last week’s meeting were present to discuss concerns for environmental issues having no connection to the museum or revitalization. The meeting lasted three and one half hours and the council gave the public a lot of time for questions and answers.
The meeting began with a presentation by George Mathewson, member of the Committee to Preserve the Finger Lakes and candidate for New York State Assembly, on the Marcellus Shale.
Mathewson was armed with lots of proof as to the harm and disruption caused by hydrofracturing displayed in blown-up site pictures and numerous copies of articles from prominent sources.
The town of Dimock, Pa., about 20 miles south of Binghamton was referenced as a place with lots of drilling activity. Some people in the audience verified they had also visited Dimock, where drill sites are located in remote, hard to find areas. It was also noted that the trucks hauling water in and out of the sites bear no markings.
Mathewson noted many issues with the huge pieces of equipment used in the process which will travel on town and county roads, conceivably causing damage.
In drilling areas in Pennsylvania, Art Hunt said, road traffic is so heavy that the time to go into town has changed from five minutes to one hour from rural farms. Hunt and his wife, Joyce both expressed concerns for what they saw during visits to Towanda and Dimock.
The traffic and size of the equipment, Mathewson says, would also present problems for the slower moving Mennonite community buggies, bike riders and walkers. “This is what the board has to deal with,” Mathewson says.
As a retired lawyer, Mathewson contends there is a conflict with New York State laws dealing with towns having powers to regulate within their jurisdiction. As the laws are written, the towns and counties only have a say about regulations in regard to the roads.
On June 14 the Yates County Legislature approved a Road Preservation Use and Repair Policy to be passed on to other local governments for adoption to protect local roads.
The regular meeting proceeded until shortly after 9 p.m. when resident John Kiedel said a lot of people were there to get an update on windfarms.
John Grabski said there was a lot of talk about a map indicating possible wind development sites.
Councilman Neil Simmons confirmed the existence of a map charting a general area where there “might” be sites and at least 10 are on state land. He said Assessor Butch Comstock compiled the map.
A subcommittee has worked on the issue for over two years. At a recent meeting it was indicated that the subcommittee was done with their work until the town decides to take some action.
Simmons said, “We had three informational meetings and discussed this at monthly meetings and I didn’t see these faces there.”
Resident Frank Zifino said, “Some of us are playing catch-up, but we are fast learners.” He said the town needs to get financial data from the wind energy companies to see if they are really profitable.
Town Attorney Philip Bailey was asked questions about the possibility of eminent domain.
He said utilities can use that power and that is why it is sometimes better to make tough regulations rather than an all-out ban.
Simmons said it may be time to put some rules in place.
Neighboring Italy is in the midst of a legal battle with Ecogen LLC over the development of an 18-turbine wind farm there

Post for the day...

2010-04-20T09:15:00.000-07:00

It's not clean energy versus a select group's view. Everyone supports renewable energy. It's about responsible siting, finding appropriate locations and going into areas that don't have community opposition.

The Jerusalem Preservation Association Present Speakers Concerning Impacts of Wind Farms To Residents of the Finger Lakes Region

2010-03-17T08:48:00.000-07:00

On March 30th the Jerusalem Preservation Association (JPA) will present three speakers, each with local and close experience with wind farms. Councilman Steve Kula of the Town of Prattsburgh, landowner, Hal Graham of Cohocton and Brad Jones the newly elected supervisor for the Town of Italy will speak from their experiences on how wind farm development has affected the people who have to live with the wind turbines. Matters of turbine noise affecting health and well-being; the impact on property values; and the divisiveness that can permeate a town will all be discussed.

The meeting will be held at Keuka College’s Jephson Hall, Science Building, Room 104 at 7:00 PM on Tuesday evening, March 30, 2010.

For further information contact the JPA at JerusalemPreservationAssoc@gmail.com

Another kind of off-shore wind

2010-02-17T08:21:00.000-08:00

A non-profit reporting group has compiled new information showing that the lion’s share of federal stimulus money for renewable energy has gone to foreign companies.

The investigative Reporting Workshop, affiliated with American University’s communications school, says that 79 percent of the $2.1 billion in grants has gone off-shore.

The group reported that more than a quarter of that sum, $577 million, has gone to entities owned by Iberdrola SA, the Spanish energy giant. Iberdrola owns Rochester Gas & Electric and New York State Electric & Gas, two of the three regulated utilities in the Rochester region. (A British firm owns the third regional utility, the former Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.)

I cannot fully vouch for their figures, as the list I saw omitted a sizable New York project entirely. That 29 million grant went to Iberdrola’s NYSEG to help pay for an energy storage project. The largest grant in New York that I’m aware of, $74.6 million, went to Canandaigua Power Partners, the company that built the 50-turbine wind farm in Cohocton, Steuben County.

Canandaigua Power Partners is a paper company controlled by Massachusetts-based First Wind; the last time I checked, First Wind was owned by two U.S. investment firms.

That makes the Cohocton wind farm one of the few in our state that is fully American owned. Research I did a few months ago found that of the 14 wind farms in New York, only three appear to be wholly owned by American investors. Six were majority-owned by JP Morgan Chase (US-based, though almost a country onto itself), with the balance of ownership resting with a Canadian fund.

The remaining five were owned by firms from Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany and Ireland in varying combinations. A Scottish entity also financed some construction, though later seemed to sell of its interests.

If the flags of all these countries flew on the hilltops next to their turbines, it would make for a colorful display. But is it good policy to bestow hundreds of millions of dollars on these firms and others like them?

Read more at: http://blogs.democratandchronicle.com/520/2010/02/10/another-kind-of-off-shore-wind/

Jerusalem Residents United Against Industrial Wind Turbine Development

2010-02-16T10:37:00.000-08:00

On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the Jerusalem Preservation Association (JPA) held an informational meeting, at the Friend United Methodist Church, to educate residents about the harmful effects of industrial wind turbine development. Along with an instructive question/answer session, a standing room only crowd listened to presentations given by two Cohocton residents, Steve Trude, and Amy Wolfe. Both gave detailed personal experiences and trials caused by the construction and operation of industrial turbines near their homes. Residents voiced their shock and dismay upon comprehending the potential disaster that wind turbine development could have on the town of Jerusalem.

Proposed Wind Energy Overlay District

2010-02-12T12:23:00.000-08:00

Industrial Wind: High Impact-Low Benefit

2010-02-11T18:28:00.000-08:00

High Impact-Industrial scale wind energy is widely promoted as a clean and sustainable source of energy. It brings, however, many adverse impacts of its own which are often ignored or even denied. Of most immediate concern for communities targeted for wind power facilities are their huge size, unavoidable noise, and strobe lights day and night, with the consequent loss of quality of life and damage to health.

People concerned with the environment are increasingly concerned about the negative impacts of the giant machines and their additional supporting infrastructure on birds, bats, beneficial insects, and other wildlife--both directly and by degrading, fragmenting, and destroying habitat.

Considering these and other impacts, the construction of industrial wind energy facilities cannot be justified in most of the places they are proposed. They do more harm than good.

Low Benefit-And how much good do they actually do? The claims of reducing pollution or greenhouse gases appear to be greatly exaggerated.

Despite decades of experience and substantial installations in Denmark, Germany, and Spain, the giant turbines have not been shown to reduce the use of fossil fuels on the electric grid--such as natural gas, coal, and nuclear--let alone gasoline for transport and oil for heating.

For this reason, their ability to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming or pollutants that cause acid rain and health problems such as asthma is doubtful, despite their tremendous size and sprawl.

About the Jerusalem Preservation Association

2010-02-11T06:22:00.000-08:00

Upon learning of a proposed town ordinance that was seen as extremely conducive to the development of industrial wind farms in a pristine section of our town, a group of Jerusalem townspeople came together as the Jerusalem Preservation Association in the summer of 2009.

This group of concerned citizens united and grew to a significant number of people, committed to working with our town council to preserve and protect the healthy, safety and well being, natural environment, quality of life, and economic future of our town.

The JPA's immediate goal is to guard Jerusalem against the destructive consequences of industrial wind turbine development. Another issue is to become influential regarding the risky Marcellus Shale Hydraulic Fracturing process for natural gas extraction from the rock strata beneath Jerusalem.