Worried About Wind Turbines (New York, York: sales, go bankrupt, camp)

[JustSayNo]

Honey, between Fenner, Madison, and Cherry Valley, your surrounding area is saturated with the turbines already- I don't think your upstate hometown will be a direct target! YOu are lucky in that respect! But you are not far from Merideth, Stamford, Roxbury, Andes, and Bovina and I believe that the currently-targeted towns will lead the way for future targeted towns. The wind ordinance that Malone, NY enacted, and the battle in CV, gave us in Bovina, Andes, and Stamford the strength and guidence to voice our opinions and concerns, to stay on top of the local government to let them know how we feel and that we are carefully watching them.

So, I know you want to gather information, and who knows in the years to come they may come knocking at your door! I will be at both meetings this week (Bovina and Stamford) as they are big ones! I will let you know what the "conflict-of-interest" town boards in both towns decide!

[navinjohnson]

Ok I'm new here and it's getting to late for a long rambling post. So I will just copy and paste a portion of a letter to the editor that I sent recently To let you all know where I'm coming from.

Wind power doesn't make sense economically or ecologically. Wind power is ridiculously expensive and of very low relative value compared to reliable sources such as fossil, nuclear and hydro power. To claim that a watt generated from wind saves a watt generated from a fossil source is simplistic and naive. You can't just turn conventional power sources on and off while wind power constantly fluctuates, it's costly and damaging to do so, not to mention increased fuel usage and subsequent pollution. Often hydro generators, a green energy source and being the easiest to take off line are idled to allow wind energy to enter the grid.

Wind conditions in western New York and the northeast in general are not favorable for wind generation with no existing wind plants generating at even 30 percent of their rated capacity on an annualized basis. So why are we being besieged by wind power salesmen here in western New York? Are we an easy mark?

The billions of tax dollars being committed to support this unreliable, low value energy could be much better spent on conservation and pollution control measures.

That should get something started. Till later, navinj

Sorry, this should have been a new post, not a reply

[navinjohnson]

Written by Jon Boone of stopillwind.org.

A Brief Cost-Benefit Analysis of Industrial Windpower
Here's a cost-benefit analysis for a relatively small windplant with sixty-six 2.5 MW turbines for a combined rated capacity of 140 MWs. Each turbine will stand about 430 feet tall and will require around 15 acres of cleared land and infrastructure support. Spaced eight to a mile, the array would extend for over seven miles. With a generous capacity factor of 30 percent, this facility might contribute 42 MWs of electricity annually to the PJM grid, .000026 percent of the grid's annual production of 163,000 MWs—an amount that would be engulfed in the first minutes of our increasing demand for electricity (at two percent per year). If this power were generated by coal or nuclear, with capacity factors approaching 90 percent and with a predictable and constant stream of energy, it would service about 30,000 homes. However, because of the intermittent, unpredictable nature of wind, no homes would be powered by the wind industry. Given this limitation and the fact that industrial electricity must be consumed immediately, wind can generate only energy, not capacity, to the electricity grid.

Because of federal and state subsidies to the wind industry, corporate investors should expect:

$15 million annually from the sale of electricity, given state laws requiring utilities to purchase "green" energy at prices beyond competitive rates. The wind industry will likely charge utilities at least five cents per kW hour—twice the cost of coal. This cost will ultimately be borne by ratepayers.
Over $200 million leveraged over the ten year life of the wind industry's Congressional production tax credits, currently at 1.9 cents per kW hour. Since production tax credits will result in a deficit to the federal treasury, this loss will have to be made up by taxpayers.
Equity investors such as AES and Florida Power and Light will have access to wind's double declining capital depreciation schedule, paying off the capital costs totaling about $140 million in little more than five years. Altogether, publicly funded tax avoidance schemes reimburse wind developers as much as two-thirds of the capital costs of each wind turbine.
The wind company might employ three or four maintenance employees at a salary of about $18,500, with no additional benefits and no guarantee they would be county or state residents. Its contracts with property owners offer unsecured promises of a few thousand dollars per year. Its promises about adding millions of dollars annually to the local public treasury often spurious public relations gestures, since the company can afford to retain accountants with a sophisticated knowledge of energy tax law who will find ways to offset any perceived tax obligation, as has happened with windplants in West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Jon Boone Oakland, MD

[JustSayNo]

Hi Navin, thanks for joining this thread. I assume you live in an area that has, or is in danger of having, the mamoth beasts (couldn't help it, you all know how I feel)

I think stopillwind has the most info out there, I hve learned alot there. One thing, I copied and pasted an article and it was pulled for copywrite, so now I just use urls. I know more gets read copied, but I just want you to know-this will get pulled

Regardless, I can see that you are are suspicious of the turbines, the TRUE reason why we in small rural towns are being strong-armed, the moronic siting that these companies are pushing (ie in residential areas), the under-the-table hush money, the gag-orders signed by all lease holders,and frankly the fact that turbines are NOT the right answer to our fossil-fuel problem.

So, I thank you for joining and for voicing your opinion and research. I find there is a lot of pro-wind chatter on the net, on youtube, etc. and there is not a lot of anti-wind participation on boards. There certainly are enough blogs on individual sites, but I think the more we discuss it on forums the more information gets out for individuals to make there own decision, insteed of reading a few propaganda pieces for the wind comapnies and hopping on the green train. It is so sad, because wind is so far from green it is frightening. Well, no, it is green...........MONEY that is. People don't get that these companies are NOT doing this for our future, our environment, our children. Theya re doing for themselves, their pocketbooks. People forget that Big OIL and coal will NEVER go away-their funding and lobbying RUNS Washington, they will ALWAYS remain the #1 player, they will never let their industry be phased out!

[Upstate Dave]

I've read all the posts and will keep my opinion of wind farms to myself.... but I can't help but wonder why it is considered so evil to make a profit. This is not an endorsement of under the table deals and such... just an observation that pervades these discussions that profit is bad. Our entire world society is based on a market economy, yet if anyone makes more profit than "judged" fair, the lables are attached and the attacks begin. Does anyone actually think that ALL oil companies, car manufacturers, electronics producers,,, makers of all the consumer goods made and purchased are all so absolute in their pursuit of profit that the good of the community is dismissed? The computers that we are using to access this forum are an extension of all the other machines and services that have come before... all of which were based on for-profit companies. These firms provided jobs and developed products we all use and want, yet are so easily judged poorly if they make more than their fair share. Most employees of these for-profit companies have managed to live decent lives and purchase their own share of the dream, and stuff to go along with that dream. Why should a power company invest in infrastructure to provide us with electricity (that we all want) if not to make a profit? Am I to believe these "big" (insert producer here) companies are all so very blind and un-enlightened? Maybe..... if our society really wants to bring down "big oil" & "big power".... consumers should stop consuming? Too simple? Is that what the majority want? Or is that what a minority want?

[navinjohnson]

Dave, the problem with profit in this case is that an unsubsidized wind turbine could never ,EVER ,make a profit in it's expected life time.The almost useless piddle of power they produce is pulling money out of every rate and tax payers pocket and handing it to wind developers and their investors. This money could be much better spent on true green initiatives, like conservation, increased mileage, cleaner burning of coal and gas ( oil isn't even part of this, contrary to what the wind salesmen want you to think). The Grid can only handle so much of this unstable energy source ( wind power) and the huge government giveaway's have created a mad rush to site these things and get in the queue. There should be state wide zoning laws regulating placement of these giant machines. Leaving it up the the board members of every Podunk in NY is just nuts. All they do is parrot the info the wind developers give them. 1000 foot set backs? Who in their right mind could possibly think this is acceptable.
Til later, Navin
PS. JustSayNo, I'll get back to you with details of my situation when I have more time to type.

[Its Not Easy Being Green]

I think everyone knows how I feel about turbines, and honestly I'm sick of repeating myself and my opinion (hence me not posting in about 2 weeks.. besides being busy with finals). But as Just likes to point out, I too like finding out the sources before I believe what I read. I read a few of the articles on stopillwind.org, and I'm not going to say if I agree or not, but I tried to research Jon Boone, and I found it hard to find anything about him...not to totally discredit anything he has said because he writes eloquently but I'm curious to know if anyone on the site knows what his background is and where he gets his information from.. i.e. if everything is 100% factual or if most is opinion. Again, I'm not saying he's just a joe shmoe who is just rambling off opinions but I was curious. If anyone knows anything about him I'd greatly appreciate it.

Enjoy your holidays (-<) <3 : )

[navinjohnson]

All I can tell you about the man is what he tells about himself in the essay
" The wayward wind" But after surfing the web for months I know there is an abundance of data out there to support what he says. I've read story's and reports from grid operators in europe, UK, Canada and the US and they all tell the same story. Wind power is not the answer to our problems. Granted, some locations are more suitable for wind generation than others ( off shore, the great plains), but NY state and the Northeast in general are not good locations for wind turbines, there just aren't enough sustained winds around here. The wind developers are here because our state energy policies are accomadating and transmission infrastructure is mostly in place already. Here is an interesting article out of Alberta.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/c...6-ef19c4fc32f5

[JustSayNo]

Good Morning Discussion-mates!
ItsNotEasy-hope your finals went well and you are headed home, or are home, for the holiday break! Thanks for coming back to the conversation, and for looking at stopillwind. I know you and I have "met in the middle" to agree that we have different opinions. And certainly I think this thread is slowly boiling down the facts and myths that we are all dealing with-which is a good thing!

Upstate Dave-thanks for joining. Honestly, Navin answered your question quite well, but being long-winded I would like to add to it. Profit is not the evil ingredient here, living in a capitalist country we all look to make a profit. It is HOW you make your profit that is troubling. Lots of big business makes profits by taking advantage of someone else-welcome to the human race, and America. Some work hard and honestly make money, some don't do much and make lots of money. I dislike any person or company that unethically takes advantage of others to make themselves richer, no matter what industry. The difference with the wind turbine development is I have the ability this time to stand up and say "hey, what the heck is going on here?"

We all know that all energy is subsidized by the government-they all have their hands in the cookie jar. Heck Wall Street and Washington (money and power) are both highly controlled and minipulated by a select few (relative to entire population). I know that, I don't accept it, I can't stop it, but I can choose NOT to support it. Now the turbines is a relatively new "cool topic" in the US and I have an opportunity to participate in the "debate."

Navin went into the subsidy issue so I will not repeat. That leaves a few other issues: Is wind the right solution?; where should the turbines be placed; what is the TRUE reason behind the turbine phenomenon?; and what happens to the turbines when they are no longer the in thing and a new technology comes along?

The information behind all these questions troubles me greatly, plus I live in one of the podunks where turbines are looking to be built. My town's government is in NO WAY equiped to handle a decision like this. We have board members or family memebers who have signed leases, we have 700+ taxpayers in 42 square miles, we are mostly farmers and second-homeowners. The Board allowed themselves to be manipulated by watershed issues years ago, much to the dismay of residents, and it looks like they are floundering the same way with this issue. Profit is not the problem, profit at the demise and expense of hardworking, taxpaying citizens is the problem in my mind. The companies come in and whitewash the problems and offer a few hundred thousand dollars (often more than the annual budget) and make statements like "you must not care about the environment, you must not care about our future, you must be a NIMBY (now a dirty word) if you don't let us cut down a few tress and erect 410 ft. towers and tranmissions lines in the backyards of your citizens"

[JustSayNo]

Look at what happened in Cherry Valley. Reunion has been busting their ass to get the turbines up. They have continually raised the ante as the town board became less and less brainwashable. As a wind ordinance was being written-by the town NOT by Reunion (which is part of the bribe, the companies offer to write the town ordinances at their expense, but of course the ordinance is all FOR turbines and not for residents) Reunion kept throwing more promises to the town. Their final offer to push the development through was to pay some of the electricity cost for the town thinking that there was NO WAY the residents would refuse that. Well, CV wised up enough to see through the promises and propaganda and they enacted an ordinance which ALLOWS turbines but only with TWO critical siting rules. Rules which I think are still generous. The Turbines can not be sited closer than 2000 ft from a structure, or 1200 ft from a lot line, and the turbines CAN NOT make noise over 6 dbls. over ambient. Not so hard right? certainly protects it's residents form just SOME of the problems. Reunion says they can't do that, that CV blew the deal. Why can't Reunion do it? Are the turbines louder than they claim them to be? Why do they want to put them closer than 2000 ft to a home, church school? As Navin said, it is just unacceptable to put these huge things next to homes and occupied structures. Find another place.

Another issue that makes me skeptical-the gag-orders that lease holders sign. Why do the companies make you sign (to get your turbine money) a gag-order which state you can never say anything negative about the turbine, the turbine company, and any work involved in the project on your land? If these things were as quiet, and safe, and environmentally sound and green as they companies claim, why enact gag-orders? They obviously know there ARE problems, noise, health effects, and they want to ensure they get the next turbine and the next and the next up without anyone saying anything other than "Oh they are great, I have money to pay my taxes now, I am contributing to the "greening" of the world. I love the turbines" They all say the same thing, it is becoming obvious it is scripted.

And the decommissioning and "problems" with the turbines, my last sceptical issue. We have been told that if a turbines goes on fire, which they do sometimes, that it is the town's and landowner's problem. Now what town in upstate NY has the equipment to battle a fire 410 ft from the gound? This ain't NYC, we have 1 or 2 trucks for the whole town, with no structure taller than 3 stories. How could we possibly put a fire out? We can't, so the fire burns, and maybe sparks the woods and pastures and burns and burns. Ever been around in dry season? yikes the whole **** town could go as the turbine company sits back and waits for the insurance money to erect a replacement tower! And, decommissioning the turbines when the project is done and a newer better thing is around. It is unclear how the turbine companies have planned financially to have the hundreds of thousands of dollars per turbine that it will cost to take it down. We are talking a 30-year project, so who is to say what company will actually own the turbines at the end of the project. These projects are bought and sold like loans, they change hands as one company sells them to another. There have been no guarantees that money is locked away to be used to take the towers down. Without the money, the turbines will stand until they fall on there own.

OK, I could write seven more chapters (lol) but I will stop here as I hope some of these points are enough to continue the discussion.