Camp Allegheny – Preparation for December 22 Hearing – Update

Posted on December 22, 2009 by morgan

From Brightside Acres:

Update on December 22 Hearing

Monday December 21, 2009

A whole lot besides really bad weather has happened since December 14.

Today, Virginia State Corporation Commission Hearing Examiner, Alexander Skirpan held a “telephonic pre-hearing conference” pursuant to a Ruling he issued December 17.

Read the Ruling.As a result of today’s conference, SCC sources indicate that tomorrow’s hearing will be an extremely brief establishment of the facts of the case between the Department of Historic Resources and Highland New Wind Development, whereupon the Hearing Examiner will request both parties to submit written briefs in lieu of making oral arguments. The hearing will be webcast at 10:00 am EST via http://www.scc.virginia.gov/case/webcast.aspx

Serious winter weather has made it physically impossible for Brightside to attend the hearing—perhaps just as well, under these new, ever-surprising circumstances.

Let’s attempt to decipher what’s occurred…

The Hearing Examiner’s December 17 Ruling was made in response to Highland New Wind’s “Answer to the Motion for Hearing” Read The Motion for Hearing
and “Motion for Summary Judgment” Read The Motion for Summary Judgment,
both filed on December 14. As well as the Defendant’s “Motion to Certify Issues to the Commission and for an Ore Tenus Hearing” filed on December 16. An Ore Tenus Hearing is an oral hearing. Read The Motion for an Ore Tenus Hearing.

Several aspects of HNWD’s recent filings are instructive.

The dismissive and disrespectful tone of each of these missives speaks for itself.

In summary, HNWD contends that “the Director of the DHR has exceeded her jurisdiction by seeking monetary compensation from HNWD for the alleged visual impact of the project.”

HNWD contends that, because “Camp Allegheny lies entirely in Pocahontas County, West Virginia…DHR does not have the jurisdiction nor the authority to seek mitigation of an alleged impact to this site, because it is not one of the Commonwealth’s significant historic, archaeological, and cultural resources. Further, the Commission lacks authority or jurisdiction to impose conditions pertaining to sites outside the Commonwealth.”

Furthermore, HNWD asserts that “The powers expressly conferred upon DHR do not include the ability to require monetary payments. In fact, the powers expressly conferred upon DHR do not include the ability to consult or coordinate with a developer regarding a project, or to require any type of mitigation related to that project’s alleged impact on historic resources.”

HNWD insists not only that the entire matter of “viewshed” was settled law when Highland County issued a Conditional Use Permit, and cannot, therefore be legally addressed by the SCC, but that no law related to the preservation of historic properties applies to their project.

HNWD is not denying that they will adversely impact a historic property. They fully know that they will. They are simply insisting that no law requiring historic preservation prohibits such destruction.

And, perhaps, given the narrowest interpretation of current laws designed to protect sites on the National Register of Historic Places, HNWD is correct.

But just because it’s technically legal, doesn’t make it right.

This is why Americans consider the Law as a living body, a living organism that adjusts, and often expands, to address society’s interests.

To this end, DHR’s “Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” submitted via the Attorney General’s office on December 17, is quite encouraging.

Read DHR’s Response.DHR contends that the agency’s interests in preservation of historic resources are in no way limited to those resources located within the boundaries of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Since officials in West Virginia have no authority to dictate how HNWD operates in Virginia, it devolves to Virginia officials to insure that a national historic resource, located in West Virginia yet within the “viewshed” of HNWD, is properly considered and protected.

DHR further states that HNWD has “consistently, and, one must again assume, deliberately misrepresented DHR’s request for mitigation as a demand for payment of money to DHR. At best, this must be considered a gross misrepresentation of the facts. DHR has never demanded that any sum be paid to it directly for any mitigation measures nor has it ever suggested that such an action would constitute appropriate mitigation.”

The final paragraph in DHR’s response deserves a careful, deeply appreciative reading: “In fact, HNWD has gone so far as to say that any amount of money spent on mitigation measures that was not diverted from a previously committed amount would be unacceptable to the project’s finances. This statement must necessarily call into question the financial viability of the project as a whole. In this regard, of course, it must be noted that HNWD has expended substantial resources to resist meeting its consultation obligations under the Final Order. If resources are available to resist DHR, one wonders why those assets could not have been devoted to working with DHR towards a viable solution.”

One is tempted to believe that the Hearing Examiner wonders the same thing.

Perhaps we’ll find out tomorrow.

Posted in Camp Allegheny | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Camp Allegheny – Defining The Public Interest

Posted on December 22, 2009 by morgan

From Brightside Acres:

Defining The Public Interest

Monday December 21, 2009

On March 1, 2007, the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) Hearing Examiner submitted a Report to the Commissioners wherein he made the following finding: “Construction and operation of the proposed facility (Highland New Wind Development) will not be contrary to the public interest.” In their December 20, 2007 Final Order, the Commissioners concurred.

Commonly accepted definitions of “the public interest” include “the common well-being,” “the general welfare,” “the common good,” and “the interests of the community as a whole.”

Seeking clarity regarding not only the legal definition of “the public interest,” but also its practical meaning when applied to real-world circumstances, should be of utmost importance to the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) in their up-coming deliberations regarding Highland New Wind Development’s compliance with their Final Order.

One could argue that nothing more nor less than “the public interest” is essentially what’s on trial.

Very Important Questions

Will the SCC consider “the public interest” as somewhat more multi-dimensional than “the goal of advancement of competition and economic development in the Commonwealth”?

Will the SCC recognize that this broader view of “the public interest” has never been fully considered, much less fully protected in this particular compliance process?

Will the SCC acknowledge the fact that, perhaps unique to their experience in dealing with electric utilities, Highland New Wind has simply refused to abide by the conditions set forth in their Final Order?

Will the SCC do the right thing and withdraw their approval until such time as Highland New Wind proves compliance with those conditions? (Proof of compliance being defined as mitigatory action satisfactory to the consulting regulatory agencies named in their Final Order, such as the Department of Historic Resources, the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of the Interior, etc.)

Or, will the SCC define “the public interest” and their role in safeguarding it as narrowly as the law allows?

A Disfunctional Process

The SCC is not, essentially, an investigative or enforcement body. The SCC relies upon the quality of information presented by the utility seeking approval and the quality of evaluation provided by the consulting regulatory agencies charged with reviewing them. It would seem that the SCC is predisposed, both by influence of Virginia Code and past experience, to presume that all parties are acting in good faith.

For example, the December 2007 Final Order accepts the “validity” of the Conditional Use Permit issued by the Highland County Board of Supervisors in regards to “property values, tourism, viewshed, height restrictions, setbacks, lighting, color of structures, fencing, security measures, erosion and sediment control, signage, access roads, and decommissioning” eventhough such permit was issued without benefit of a site plan.

The Final Order lists six specific Department of Environmental Quality recommendations as “a requirement of our approval herein,” yet includes no provision for verifying that Highland New Wind has met them.

Read the Final OrderThe first recommendation, “Submit Final Site Plan to Reviewing Agencies” (page 8) wasn’t met until August, 2009.

The second recommendation, “Coordinate with DHR for guidance…” is the matter currently at trial.

And three of the four remaining recommendations (page 9) are under intense public scrutiny pending direct agency action (by the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Department of Interior, or the US Fish and Wildlife Service) to insure Highland New Wind’s compliance.

If the agencies named do not take action to insure compliance with their own recommendations and thus the protection of “the public interest,” then the people are left no recourse but to take action to preserve our common inheritance.

In the case of Highland New Wind, the SCC approval process has been based on a presumption of good faith that has thus far been proven erroneous.

The SCC doesn’t seem particularly designed to handle such unpleasantness.

Thus the most important question of all: Will the SCC interpret the Virginia Code in such a way that it denies or confirms a multi-dimensional commitment to “the public interest?”

Will the SCC dare to address a problem like Highland New Wind? Or will the Commission deny such problems exist?

A legal definition of “the public interest” rests on their decision.

********

“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Posted in Camp Allegheny | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment” – Executive Summary

Posted on December 20, 2009 by morgan

Thanks to our friends at the excellent resource, Wind Concerns Ontario, for linking us to the Executive Summary of the new book, “Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment“, published by Dr. Nina Pierpont, MD, PHD.

Wind Concerns Ontario states they will “be distributed to medical professionals throughout Ontario.”  Let’s support them by doing the same in the States.

Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition of 41 Citizen’s Groups from across 27 Counties/Districts in Ontario.  Drop by and visit!

Please note:  The book is available at the Author’s web site: http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/

Quantity discounts apply

  • 1-7 books, $18 per book + shipping
  • 8-15 books, $17 per book + shipping
  • 16-23 books, $16 per book + shipping
  • 24 and above, $15 per book + shipping
Posted in Environment, Industrial Wind Health Issues | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Are Renewable Energy Credits a modern day snake oil?

Posted on December 20, 2009 by morgan

Letter to Editor at Cumberland (Maryland) Times-News awaiting publication – “Renewable Energy Credits” – Jon Boone

Letter begins:

Submitted December 14, 2009

An organization known as Clean Currents, run by Washington DC wind salesman Gary Skulnik, is selling snake oil to Marylanders in the form of Renewable Energy Credits—hoping that electricity consumers will purchase them in the expectation they will be saving the planet by allowing wind generation to reduce their consumption of carbon dioxide, a surfeit of which some think is precipitously warming the globe. The logic is that if a wind turbine spins in skittering ways that ultimately produces 1000 kWh of electricity (Maryland households use about 13,000 kWh of electricity annually), an REC is created, allowing those who purchase it, in this case the duped consumer, to believe he or she is offsetting “1350 pounds of CO2” that ostensibly is emitted by a coal unit not operating because it is displaced by the wind energy.

There is, however, no actual measurement that validates such a proposition.

Simply because a wind turbine spins does not mean it is saving any CO2. Or that it is even displacing fossil fuel. It could be displacing hydro–or even nuclear–which emit no carbon dioxide. More likely, it’s displacing natural gas units that produce half the CO2 coal does. Even if it does displace natural gas–or coal– the volatile wind energy must be followed and balanced by fossil-fired units that are themselves emitting CO2 in a highly inefficient manner; the consequent heat rate penalties produce a lot of CO2. The REC does not account for these emissions.

Clean Currents also states: “The more clean renewable energy from sources like wind power or solar, the less power generated from fossil fuels like coal or natural gas. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) represent the environmental attributes from 1000 kilowatt hours of clean energy!”

Unless Skulnik’s organization provides realtime chronological load dispatch analyses at 15-minute intervals showing how all the thermal variables perform in any wind integration scheme, it cannot substantiate its claims about how wind is offsetting carbon emissions in electricity production. The burden of proof is also on Clean Currents to demonstrate that less power is generated by fossil fuels specifically because of the presence of wind energy. Such proof does not exist. Skulnik’s RECs are the contemporary equivalent of the church indulgences once sold to hasten the exit of souls from Purgatory.

When salesmen, using tax laws and interstate commerce, cannot substantiate their claims for service, law enforcement should be compelled to prosecute for fraud.

Jon Boone, Oakland Maryland

Letter ends.

Jon Boone is an Environmentalist, Artist, Author, Documentary Producer, Former University Administrator and Formal Intervenor in Wind Installation Hearings.

Posted in Jon Boone, Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“Wind farms vs. property values” – join the discussion.

Posted on December 20, 2009 by morgan

An interesting interchange about the impact of industrial wind on property values courtesy of the Missouri Ruralist . Join in the discussion at the link!

Blog post begins:

Wind Farms vs. Property Values
Posted on December 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM
While pictures of windmills make great bumper stickers, the prospect of having a horizon full of actual wind turbines pop up in front of your picture window might have you worried about property values. A new study says “Don’t be!”

The Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory just released a study showing proximity to wind energy facilities does not have a “pervasive or widespread adverse effect” on the property values of nearby homes.

The study, which LBNL says is the most comprehensive and data-rich analyses to date on the potential impact of U.S. wind projects on residential property values, looked at 7,500 home sales near wind farms. Researchers studied homes located within 10 miles of 24 existing wind farms in nine states; the closest home was 800 feet from a turbine.

Each home was visited to collect on-site material (as in, “Are wind turbines visible?”) Sales from 1996 to 2007 were analyzed over a period from the wind project’s announcement to well after its completion and full-scale operation.

Consultant Ben Hoen, who worked with LBNL on the project, said: “Neither the view of wind energy facilities nor the distance of the home to those facilities was found to have any consistent, measurable, and significant effect on the selling prices of nearby homes.

“No matter how we looked at the data, the same result kept coming back — no evidence of widespread impacts.”

That said, we’d like to hear from any of you who have had negative or positive effects from new wind installations in your area. Send your comments to: dcrummett@farmprogress.com.

Comments
Posted by d. crummett on December 17 at 9:06 AM
Dear Dan:

Thank you for your piece on the LBNL study that evaluates the impact of wind turbines on property values. My organization was one of the 20 or so reviewers of the study. You might be interested in the time line for the Hoen report.

In 2006, Ben Hoen completed a master thesis that looked at the impact of the Fenner NY wind turbines on surrounding properties values. His thesis can be found here: http://www.windaction.org/documents/3236 .

Within months of obtaining his masters, Hoen and Wiser teamed up, and since June 2007 Hoen has been broadcasting the results of this latest study even though no data or information on the study was available for others to read and challenge. In the two years leading up to the December 2 release, Hoen distributed his findings to largely friendly crowds and those more interested in the outcome of his study than the legitimacy of his methodology.

Our comments as submitted to Hoen can be read here: http://www.windaction.org/documents/24178 . We worked closely with an appraiser experienced in regression analysis and hedonics in developing our comments. Given the flaws in Hoen’s approach, we are confident that a qualified appraiser with experience in regression techniques and the problems of hedonic analysis will effectively counter Hoen’s conclusion. You may be interested to know that neither Hoen or the others who were part of his research team have any experience in real estate appraisals or the correct application of regression techniques for determining house value.

Lisa Linowes

executive director

www.windaction.org
Posted by d. crummett on December 16 at 3:41 PM
This from a Chicago-based real estate appraiser who has dealt with wind-energy installations and property values:

Dear Dan:.

I have pretty extensive experience in evaluating wind farms from a real estate value and land use (zoning standards) compatibility perspective, and am fairly well versed on many other issues. However, I do not claim to be an acoustic engineer, medical expert, bird expert, etc. On other real estate valuation cases, I have qualified as an expert witness and testified in court and zoning hearings in 20 states, about 200 times, in both state and federal courts over the last 20 years.

With wind farm matters, I have worked on behalf of neighboring home owners and some (non-participating) land owners on 8 projects thus far, and have consulted with concerned residents of perhaps a dozen other projects.  I have also testified at the zoning hearings on these (8) matters, and have reported my findings to the various County Board and ZBA representatives:  25% property value reductions in the “footprint” of the projects and up to about 1 mile out, in some cases.

Dr. Nina Pierpont is an M.D. who is heavily involved and experienced in evaluating medical issues.  Her recommendation is that turbines should be sited at least 2 miles (or is it 1.5 miles + ?) from the nearest dwelling.  This recommendation comports pretty well with property value impact avoidance as well.  Rick James is an acoustic engineer based in Michigan I have worked with, who is very well versed on noise issues and standards.

The LBNL study (see Figure ES-1) shows a 5% reduction in values within 1 mile of the projects, and that is based upon the LBNL report author’s statistical analysis of 128 sales in that particular distance zone. The author’s claim that is “statistically insignificant”, but admit to me that they believe there are some impacts…just not significant from a statistical analysis perspective (under the parameters they selected).  The report, however, leads the reader to a different conclusion.  My review takes exception with that disproportionate relevance, and I will forward that document to you shortly.

I can assure you, the impacts that the nearest people claim are real, and not just “NIMBY” extremists opposed to everything. I have spoken with residents who are experiencing the sleep deprivation and agitation from the vibro-acoustic effect of living near the turbines.  Industry, of course, minimizes all such complaints and claims there is no scientific proof.  Click the link at the top of the “primer” I emailed to you, and you will see reams of information and study results that pretty well confirm how disingenuous developer claims and dismissal of neighbors’ complaints really are.

I am not anti-wind energy, mind you.  I just firmly believe the rush to meet renewable energy goals is resulting in numerous mistakes, the price for which is being and will continue to be paid by existing residents who do not have the financial resources to fully investigate the issues, and have their rights and interests represented on a “level field” with the deep-pocket developers.  I am in business to make money too, but I pro-bono cut my normal rate in half for the citizens groups, in order to help level that very field.  My review of the LBNL report is not on behalf of any client, and the work was completed for no compensation.  For whatever its relevance, the LBNL study cost $500,000, per media reports.

Sincerely,

Michael S. McCann
McCann Appraisal, LLC
Chicago, Illinois

Blog post ends.

Posted in industrial wind vs. property value | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Industrial windplants in Western Maryland? Jon Boone says Garrett Countians “deserve far better.”

Posted on December 20, 2009 by morgan

With Mr. Boone’s permission, we post his letter to the Editor, which is currently awaiting publication at the Cumberland (Maryland) Times-News.

Letter begins:

Garrett’s commissioners were the LAST agency to oppose massive wind projects on public lands, well after Senator Edwards, the Chamber of Commerce, the county Board of Realtors, and both the Democratic and Republican committees. They did so begrudgingly. From the beginning, the commissioners sought to become business partners with a limited liability wind company, browbeating the Sanitary Commission to change its mind about permitting wind projects on county land (a move helped at the time by Denny Glotfelty, who served on the Commission). Indeed, when the original agreement with the Sanitary Commission was about to expire a few years ago, Ernie Gregg signed a longer-term extension. The public record shows that Fred Holliday chaired an economic development committee (that included developer Karen Myers) on wind and public lands. This committee stridently urged that wind projects be built on state lands.

The county commissioners unanimously supported all three limited liability wind projects targeting the county, including the new Synergics project along Roth Rock a few months ago, a project headed by a fundraiser for the state Democratic Party who worked, with wind lobbyist Cas Taylor, to pass a law “deregulating” the wind industry in the mountains of Maryland–but not along the Chesapeake Bay, the state’s richest wind area. This law predictably now subverts another law requiring the state through its Department of Natural Resources to protect endangered wildlife species, an issue rightly identified by the Republican.

Last year, the commissioners insisted that the county development plan include language about the importance of wind technology in the county, despite not having a clue about its performance as a source of energy. Not once in eight years of cheerleading for wind have they held a public inquiry about the impact of massive wind projects on health, safety, property values, viewshed protection, revenue potential, vulnerable wildlife, hunting, or energy effectiveness.

Their trollish support for this daffy, environmentally treacherous technology is a shameful commentary about how poorly led this beautiful county is. Both their pretentious words and harmful actions join with the Obama Administration as it attempts to make people believe, across many issues, that pigs can fly.

Garrett Countians know better—and deserve far better.

Jon Boone, Oakland, MD

Letter ends.

Jon Boone is an Environmentalist, Artist, Author, Documentary Producer, Former University Administrator and Formal Intervenor in Wind Installation Hearings.

Related posts:  “A Conversation with Jon Boone – Industrial Wind and the Environment” … “A Conversation with Jon Boone – Toward a Better Understanding of Industrial Wind Technology“

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, Jon Boone | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

“The Wind Farm Scam” by Dr. John Etherington – a review

Posted on December 19, 2009 by morgan

Thanks to Mr. Glenn Schleede for allowing us to post his review of “The Wind Farm Scam” by Dr. John Etherington, for the benefit of our readers.

We provide the text of Mr. Schleede’s review for your convenience below, but recommend you proceed to MasterResource, a comprehensive and informative blog dedicated to analysis and commentary about energy markets and public policy, as they also published Mr. Schleede’s review but with additional information about the book.  Please make your way to MasterResource via this link:  “”The Wind Farm Scam” by John Etherington (the UK environmental civil war builds)”

Review begins:

Ladies & Gentlemen:

It may be a bit too late to obtain copies of the new 198-page book by British ecologist, Dr. John Etherington, “The Wind Farm Scam,” as Christmas gifts for your friends, but it’s well worth getting (and giving) copies of the book as soon as you can secure them.

Stacey (UK) is the publisher.  It’s available in the US via the Internet from Amazon for $14.00, Books-A-Million for $16.15 and Borders for $17.95.  (Barnes & Noble apparently haven’t awakened yet.)  The ISBN is 9781905299836.  It took about 10 days to get the book from Amazon but that time probably will shorten as knowledge of the book gets around and orders flow in.

The book should be required reading for every high school, college, and university student — especially in those institutions offering energy and environmental programs.

While written in the UK, most of the facts about “wind farms” are applicable worldwide.  It explains wind energy and its limitations and environmental insults in easily understood terms  It explains why wind will never provide a significant, reliable source of electricity.

As in the US, “wind farms” are being built in the UK primarily because of government fiat and huge government-forced subsidies, not because of their true environmental, economic or energy benefits.  Apparently the tax breaks and subsidies in the US are even more attractive than those in the UK since two major oil companies, BP and Shell, have pulled out of UK “renewable” energy programs with the intent of focusing their attention (and renewable rent seeking) on the US and Canada.

Personally, I found Dr. Etherington’s well research and clear-headed discussion of wind energy a very welcome relief from the wind energy madness now underway in the US.  For example:

a.  Decisions by the wizards of the US Department of Treasury and Department of Energy to give hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to firms (mostly foreign) for “wind farms,” allegedly to promote job creation and economic activity — even though many of the “wind farms” had already been built!!!  (These wizards also continue to ignore the fact that a huge share of “wind farm” capital investment dollars for turbines, towers and blades — flow to other countries.)

b.  Continued promotion by the US DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE-EERE) and the National Renewable Energy “Laboratory” (NREL) of a fundamentally flawed economic model that allegedly identifies the Job and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) of “wind farms” — thus misleading local government officials and citizens who are called on to accept the massive, low energy producing, environmentally disruptive facilities.

c.  Extraordinary expansion of tax breaks (PTC, ITC, 5-Yr.-200% DB accelerated depreciation, bonus depreciation)  and subsidies (direct cash grants in lieu of PTC; more money for DOE-EERE and NREL wind energy “R&D” and propaganda) for “wind farms” as a part of “stimulus” bills enacted during the past year — all at the expense of US taxpayers and our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will be saddled with the massive, rapidly growing national debt resulting from irresponsible actions by Congress and the last and current Administrations.

d.  The DOE sponsored “study” that purports to show that 20% of US electricity requirements could be supplied by wind energy by 2030 — a clear demonstration that most any outrageous, preconceived notion can be “proven” if one makes the “right” assumptions and ignores reality.

e.  The recent release of a fundamentally flawed DOE-Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) “study” that defies common sense and real life experience by using large amounts of poorly selected, inapplicable, and inadequate data — hidden behind seemingly sophisticated statistical techniques — in an attempt to support a preposterous claim that “wind farms” do not adversely affect the property values of the people who find themselves living in the shadows of the massive, noisy structures.  (The LBNL report has numerous “sound bites” that will undoubtedly be used by aggressive “wind farm” developers to confuse local government officials and ordinary citizens who will never have the time to find their way through the report.)

End review.

Posted in Glenn Schleede | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Wind, Backup Power and Emissions – an excellent debate.

Posted on December 19, 2009 by morgan

Thanks to Jon Boone for directing us to this commentary from a few months back at the Energy Pulse web site.

The post by Mr. Michael Goggin, Electric Industry Analyst, American Wind Energy Association, is followed by an exceptionally lively and very informative debate.  It is an excellent read providing views of very knowledgeable individuals.

You will find the entire article and following comments at this link:  “Wind, Backup Power and Emissions”

It is well worth your time.

Posted in Open Questions | Tagged , | Leave a comment

CanWEA/AWEA white paper on wind turbine health impact challenged.

Posted on December 19, 2009 by morgan

From our friends at Wind Concerns Ontario, commentary on the industrial wind funded study into health concerns of turbine noise.

Article begins:

Response to CanWEA/AWEA Study

Co-authored by Dr. Robert McMurtry & Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum

Studies commissioned by Wind Energy Associations containing paid for results should not be considered independent. No original research was conducted, based on review of the literature a clean bill of health has been awarded. It is a low order of scientific evidence. It has not been peer reviewed.

The evidence may also be of questionable veracity since the recent revelations of evidence of the altering of scientific papers by Hayes McKenzie(UK). Just this week it has been reported that these very noise issues were suppressed in the UK to enable wind turbines to be placed closer to human habitation.

The most egregious finding was the absence of any need for further study. This conclusion is opposite from that decided by the Government of Japan who has recently announced the launch a 4-year epidemiological study into their “Wind Turbine Disease”.

The Maine Medical Association passed a motion asking their government for health studies as well. In France a recent court ruling ordered that wind turbines should be shut down at night in one area.

The weakness of the CanWEA/AWEA white paper is that it admits there may be annoyance -but then goes on to say that annoyance is not a pathological entity.  Here, they are wrong, because if annoyance leads to sleep disturbance (and it does) then sleep disturbance leads to a whole range of health issues.

“Annoyance is the measured outcome of a community’s response to survey questions on various environmental and other factors, such as noise exposure. Although annoyance in individuals is sometimes measured in the laboratory, field evaluations of community annoyance are most useful for predicting the consequences of planned actions involving highways, airports, road traffic, railroads, or other noise sources. Factors directly affecting annoyance from noise include interference with communication and sleep disturbance, which have been discussed in earlier sections. Other less direct effects are disruption of one’s peace of mind, the enjoyment of one’s property, and the enjoyment of solitude……This represents a degradation of health in accordance with the WHO’s definition of health, meaning total physical and mental well-being, as well as the absence of disease”  ~ Dr. Alice H. Suter, 1991, “Noise and Its Effects”
http://www.nonoise.org/library/suter/suter.htm#annoyance

Furthermore, if ‘annoyance’ leads to psychiatric complaints, those in turn are significant. Substitute disturbance or distress for the word annoyance, and things look different.

Were people/victims interviewed regarding their health complaints?  What literature was studied?

In this study it was stated by Dr. Robert McCunney that the existing peer-reviewed literature generally examined exposure to sounds from homes or residential areas that are about one kilometer or further away from wind turbines. That is a substantially greater distance than 550 meters as set out by the Ontario Government.

What does ‘directly make people sick’ mean?  The presence of industrial wind turbines is having a direct effect on peoples’ health, well-being and quality of life. The symptoms reported are consistent around the world from Japan to New York State to Australia to France to Ontario.

What is the frame of reference in using the word ‘minority’ which is referenced?  Is this a minority within 1000ft., 2000ft. or 10,000ft.?

What minority of people around the globe suffering annoyance, chronic sleep disturbance (and all its negative health effects), and loss of happiness/quality of life is acceptable – 5%, 30%, 49.9%?

Competing claims remain: Hundreds of people, documented internationally, genuinely suffer from adverse health effects from the close proximity of wind turbines while the wind industry denies the problems are related.

One side wants an independent 3rd party epidemiological study done the other side does not.

Robert Y. McMurtry MD Ontario, Canada
Michael A. Nissenbaum MD Maine, USA

Article ends.

Related link:  “AWEA noise study – what you won’t “hear” in the industry funded report.“

Posted in Environment, Industrial Wind Health Issues | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Denmark’s massive 20 year industrial wind effort brings no reduction in CO2 emission.

Posted on December 19, 2009 by morgan

A few weeks ago we posted an excellent and revealing Wall Street Journal commentary from Robert Bryce, linked here for your convenience: “Will industrial wind replace fossil fuel? Just do the math!”

Now, Mr. Bryce writes “Denmark is “energy smart”? Think again.” (Courtesy of National Wind Watch)

Article begins:

Promoters of “green” energy love Denmark.

On Earth Day, President Barack Obama pointed out that the northern European country now “produces almost 20 percent” of its electricity with wind turbines. Last year, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman visited Copenhagen, where he marveled at the Danes, declaring, “Oh, if only we could be as energy smart as Denmark!” Given that world leaders are now meeting in Copenhagen to discuss drastic cuts in global carbon dioxide emissions, it’s worth separating the hype about Denmark from the reality.

Here’s the reality: When it comes to carbon dioxide emissions, coal consumption, or energy prices, the Danes have no reason to brag.

First, carbon dioxide emissions. Denmark’s embrace of wind power has repeatedly been lauded as a model for other countries. But according to data from the International Energy Agency, Denmark’s overall carbon emissions have remained relatively unchanged over the past two decades. In 1990, Denmark emitted a total of 50.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. In 2007, the country’s emissions totaled 50.6 million tons, a reduction of just 0.1 percent.

Indeed, while journalists and politicos are hyping Denmark’s wind sector, the Danes themselves are not claiming that wind power cuts carbon dioxide emissions. Earlier this year, Energinet.dk, the operator of Denmark’s electricity and natural gas grids, published a report showing that in 2007, carbon dioxide levels from electricity generation totaled about 23 million tons, about the same level as they were back in 1990, before the country began its frenzied construction of wind turbines. The grid operator also made it clear that variations in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from Denmark’s electricity generation sector varied from year to year due to changes in the amount of hydropower that the Danes import from Norway and Sweden.

Meanwhile, despite lavish government subsidies for wind power, coal use has remained remarkably stable. In 1999, Denmark’s daily coal consumption was the equivalent of about 94,400 barrels of oil per day. By 2007, despite a 136 percent increase in the amount of electricity produced from wind power, Denmark’s coal consumption was exactly the same as it was back in 1999. In fact, Denmark’s coal consumption in 2007 was only about 4 percent lower than it was back in 1981. And while coal use dropped slightly over that period, natural gas consumption went from zero to over 400 million cubic feet per day.

As for energy prices, the Danes undoubtedly provide a model for those who believe that exorbitant energy taxes help control consumption. In 2008, Danish residential electricity customers were paying $0.38 per kilowatt-hour—or nearly four times as much as their counterparts in the United States. And Danish motorists are getting mugged. In late 2008, Danish drivers were paying $1.54 per liter for gasoline, while drivers in the UK were paying $1.44 and U.S. motorists were paying $0.56. Only a handful of countries have more expensive fuel than Denmark, a list that includes Italy, Norway, Turkey, and Germany.

The huge taxes on electricity and motor fuel appear to be robbing the Danes of their desire for procreation. In 2008, Denmark had a population of 5.5 million and its population growth rate was barely above zero. Indeed, Denmark has one of the slowest-growing populations in Europe. Between 1998 and 2008, the country’s population grew by just 200,000 people. During that same time period, the United States added about 34 million people, raising America’s population to about 304 million.

To be fair, the average Dane uses far less energy than the average American. Denmark’s per-capita energy use is about 3.85 tons of oil equivalent per year, while the U.S. average is about 7.74 tons.

And while that reduced consumption may be laudable, the reality is that even amid all the praise for Denmark’s energy programs, the United States is doing as well as—and in some cases, better than—Denmark in reducing carbon dioxide emissions and per-capita energy use. Between 1999 and 2006, the carbon intensity (the amount of carbon emitted per unit of GDP) of the U.S. economy decreased by nearly 13 percent—or about 2 percent better than the reduction seen in Denmark over that time period. Looking at a longer time frame—1980 through 2006—America’s carbon intensity declined by 43.7 percent while Denmark managed a 47 percent decrease. Furthermore, between 1980 and 2006, per-capita energy use in the United States declined by 2.5 percent, nearly matching the 4.2 percent decline seen in Denmark.

Thus, over the past three decades or so, the United States—even in the absence of exorbitant energy taxes, cap-and-trade schemes, or mandatory investments in renewable energy sources—has done just as well as Denmark. Perhaps we need a new definition for what qualifies as “energy smart.”

By Robert Bryce

Robert Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His next book, Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future, will be published in April.

US News & World Report

www.usnews.com

17 December 2009

Article ends.

Related

Posted in Danish Wind Energy, Wind v Coal, Windpower Industry False Claims | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment