... Before Cape Wind can build turbines on the sound, it first must prove to skeptics -- and the state -- that, among other things, the 417-foot-tall towers won't harm birds.wind power, wind energy, wind farms, animal rights, environment, environmentalism
A scientific team hired by the developer is completing a six-week, $400,000 radar study of the sound to characterize just how many birds fly through this offshore location -- and, critically, at what heights.
For the second time, the developer is using sophisticated radar during springtime on Horseshoe Shoal itself. It's a time when winter songbirds arrive from the warmth of South America and hundreds of thousands of ducks also pass through.
... While the [Massachusetts Audubon Society] has offered preliminary support for the project ... Jack Clarke, director of public policy and government relations for Massachusetts Audubon, says there are still some gaps in bird data on the sound.
In particular, they want to know more about the nighttime patterns of long-tailed ducks on the sound; the trends of endangered terns and threatened plovers; and just how many songbirds are flying through the area and where they are passing.
... Cape Wind has already conducted three radar studies to follow bird patterns.
But critics have complained that results from two of the studies were questionable since they were collected at remote, land-based sites.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for instance, has urged three years of radar study before a conclusion can be drawn. ...
June 15, 2006
Cape Wind to study birds
Lest anyone has believed the developer's song that the studies have already been done concerning birds in Nantucket Sound, this article from the June 5 Cape Cod Times serves as a reminder that they've barely begun.
June 12, 2006
Wind power is foolish choice
To the editor, Berkshire (Mass.) Eagle [published June 14]:
Philip Knowles says that no one is proposing lining our hills with industrial wind turbines (letter, June 12). But then he says that wind can supply 10-20 percent of our electricity. The larger figure would require more than 220,000 1.5-megawatt turbines and 26,000 square miles. As demand continues to grow, it would require yet more. But since wind turbines generate at or above their average rate only a third of the time, and their output varies from minute to minute, it would not enable the reduction of other sources. Large-scale wind is a foolish and destructive path to follow.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
Philip Knowles says that no one is proposing lining our hills with industrial wind turbines (letter, June 12). But then he says that wind can supply 10-20 percent of our electricity. The larger figure would require more than 220,000 1.5-megawatt turbines and 26,000 square miles. As demand continues to grow, it would require yet more. But since wind turbines generate at or above their average rate only a third of the time, and their output varies from minute to minute, it would not enable the reduction of other sources. Large-scale wind is a foolish and destructive path to follow.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
No benefits from wind power
To the editor, Village Soup Citizen (Waldo County, Me.):
The Citizen Editorial Board of Freedom is mistaken in describing wind power as inexpensive ("The power of Freedom," guest column, June 12). Taxpayers pay about two-thirds of the $1.5-2 million it costs per installed megawatt. Ratepayers pay for the additional transmission infrastructure necessary as well as the consequences of integrating such an intermittent and variable source.
They are also mistaken in touting the "environmental and energy security advantages." Each installed megawatt generates at an average of only 250-300 kilowatts, and it does so at or above that rate only a third of the time. Its minute-to-minute variability means that all other power sources must be kept going to balance the wind-generated power.
Thus there are no significant energy or environmental benefits.
With no real benefits to speak of, the substantial negative impacts of the giant machines are therefore inexcusable.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
The Citizen Editorial Board of Freedom is mistaken in describing wind power as inexpensive ("The power of Freedom," guest column, June 12). Taxpayers pay about two-thirds of the $1.5-2 million it costs per installed megawatt. Ratepayers pay for the additional transmission infrastructure necessary as well as the consequences of integrating such an intermittent and variable source.
They are also mistaken in touting the "environmental and energy security advantages." Each installed megawatt generates at an average of only 250-300 kilowatts, and it does so at or above that rate only a third of the time. Its minute-to-minute variability means that all other power sources must be kept going to balance the wind-generated power.
Thus there are no significant energy or environmental benefits.
With no real benefits to speak of, the substantial negative impacts of the giant machines are therefore inexcusable.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
Wind power saves nothing
To the editor, Kennebec (Me.) Journal (published June 18):
The June 12 editorial ("We need wind power to fight global warming") is unconvincing. To argue for allowing "the loss of a beautiful view, the potential damage to wildlife species and the industrialization of a largely untouched landscape," it says that not doing so would cause even greater destruction.
In other words, we must destroy the environment to save it.
Missing from that harsh logic, however, is any evidence that industrial wind power can indeed "stem global warming's progress." With 20% of its electricity supposedly coming from wind, Denmark's greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. That country has not reduced its use of other fuels despite a landscape saturated with wind turbines.
In other words, wind power destroys the environment. Period. It saves nothing.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
The June 12 editorial ("We need wind power to fight global warming") is unconvincing. To argue for allowing "the loss of a beautiful view, the potential damage to wildlife species and the industrialization of a largely untouched landscape," it says that not doing so would cause even greater destruction.
In other words, we must destroy the environment to save it.
Missing from that harsh logic, however, is any evidence that industrial wind power can indeed "stem global warming's progress." With 20% of its electricity supposedly coming from wind, Denmark's greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. That country has not reduced its use of other fuels despite a landscape saturated with wind turbines.
In other words, wind power destroys the environment. Period. It saves nothing.
wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism
June 10, 2006
Incomplete wind energy info at Vt. Guardian
To the editor, Vermont Guardian:
The sidebar accompanying the article "Wind developer pulls up stakes, state issues new regs" contains some inaccuracies and is incomplete in its list of proposals.
First, the current Searsburg facility generates only around 11,000 MWh per year, not the 14,000 claimed. This information is readily available in GMP's annual reports. The difference should also call into question the projections claimed for the many proposed projects around the state. [For more information, see "The Poor Record of the Searsburg, Vermont, Wind Plant."]
In February, Enxco (a subsidiary of Électricité de France) sold the development rights to expand the Searsburg facility into Readsboro to PPM Energy, a subsidiary of Scottish Power. This apparently includes the expansion within Searsburg.
The Glebe Mountain project from Catamount Energy (which is owned by Diamond Castle Holdings and Marubeni Energy International of Japan) was to entail not 27 turbines but 19, each of them with a rated capacity of 2.5 MW and a total height of 420 feet.
The proposal from UPC (a subsidiary of UPC Group, Italy) in Sheffield and Sutton would have a maximum capacity of not 45 but 52 MW, with 2-MW 399-ft machines.
Other projects not listed, besides the 6 MW starter facility in East Haven which was mentioned in the article, include further development (possibly around 50 MW) along the ridges from East Haven to Brighton (EMDC), around 50 MW on a ridge in Windham (UPC), and around 20 MW on Georgia Mountain in Milton (which Enxco may be behind). Through Vermont Environmental Research Associates, Enxco has been advertising for yet more "high-elevation woodland" on which to construct power plants. [For more details of regional projects, see "Large wind projects in Vermont and vicinity."]
The negative impact of these projects would be significant. The energy benefit, on the other hand, because of their variability and intermittency, would be nil.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
The sidebar accompanying the article "Wind developer pulls up stakes, state issues new regs" contains some inaccuracies and is incomplete in its list of proposals.
First, the current Searsburg facility generates only around 11,000 MWh per year, not the 14,000 claimed. This information is readily available in GMP's annual reports. The difference should also call into question the projections claimed for the many proposed projects around the state. [For more information, see "The Poor Record of the Searsburg, Vermont, Wind Plant."]
In February, Enxco (a subsidiary of Électricité de France) sold the development rights to expand the Searsburg facility into Readsboro to PPM Energy, a subsidiary of Scottish Power. This apparently includes the expansion within Searsburg.
The Glebe Mountain project from Catamount Energy (which is owned by Diamond Castle Holdings and Marubeni Energy International of Japan) was to entail not 27 turbines but 19, each of them with a rated capacity of 2.5 MW and a total height of 420 feet.
The proposal from UPC (a subsidiary of UPC Group, Italy) in Sheffield and Sutton would have a maximum capacity of not 45 but 52 MW, with 2-MW 399-ft machines.
Other projects not listed, besides the 6 MW starter facility in East Haven which was mentioned in the article, include further development (possibly around 50 MW) along the ridges from East Haven to Brighton (EMDC), around 50 MW on a ridge in Windham (UPC), and around 20 MW on Georgia Mountain in Milton (which Enxco may be behind). Through Vermont Environmental Research Associates, Enxco has been advertising for yet more "high-elevation woodland" on which to construct power plants. [For more details of regional projects, see "Large wind projects in Vermont and vicinity."]
The negative impact of these projects would be significant. The energy benefit, on the other hand, because of their variability and intermittency, would be nil.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Vermont
June 8, 2006
June 7, 2006
Model large wind energy ordinance
A model ordinance for small wind, from Malone, New York, has been previously presented. The Malone definition of small wind energy systems is more realistic than the one reproduced here. Malone limits small wind systems to 10 kW and to tower heights of 65 feet on parcels of 1-5 acres and 100 feet on parcels over 5 acres. The Malone ordinance also requires 1500-ft setbacks for large wind energy systems if they are forced through despite the ordinance's outright ban. (Manitowoc also produced an ordinance for small wind, but it is highly restrictive because of efforts by wind company representatives on the drafting committee to sabotage the whole law-making effort.)
The Manitowoc County ordinance, which became effect May 1, is notable for its strict limitation of noise to 5 dB(A) above the ambient level at any point on neighboring property. Here are excerpts.
Large Wind Energy System Ordinance
"Large wind system" means a wind tower and turbine that has a nameplate capacity of more than 100 kilowatts or a total height of more than 170 feet, or both.
24.06. Standards
(1) Location. (a) A large wind system may only be located in areas that are zoned A3-Agriculture or PA-Prime Agricultural. (b) A wind tower may not be located within one-quarter mile of any area that is zoned C1-Conservancy or NA-Natural Area or within one-quarter mile of any state or county forest, hunting area, lake access, natural area, or park.
(2) Set Backs. The wind tower in a large wind system and each wind tower in a wind farm system must be set back:
(a) at least 1.1 times the total height of the large wind system from the property line of a participating property.
(b) at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a nonparticipating property unless the owner of the nonparticipating property grants an easement for a lesser setback. The easement must be recorded with the Register of Deeds and may not provide for a setback that is less than 1.1 times the total height of the large wind system.
(c) at least 1.1 times the total height of the large wind system or 500 feet, whichever is greater, from any public road or power line right-of-way.
(10) Lighting. A wind tower and turbine may not be artificially lighted unless such lighting is required by the Federal Aviation Administration. If lighting is required, the lighting must comply with FAA minimum requirements and, whenever possible, be at the lowest intensity allowed, avoid the use of strobe or other intermittent white lights, and use steady red lights. If more than one lighting alternative is available, the alternative that causes the least visual disturbance must be used.
(12) Appearance, Color, and Finish. The exterior surface of any visible components of a wind energy system must be a nonreflective, neutral color. Wind towers and turbines in a wind farm system that are located within one mile of each other must be of uniform design, including tower type, color, number of blades, and direction of blade rotation.
(13) Signs. No wind turbine, tower, building, or other structure associated with a wind energy system may be used to advertise or promote any product or service. No word or graphic representation, other than appropriate warning signs and owner or landowner identification, may be placed on a wind turbine, tower, building, or other structure associated with a wind energy system so as to be visible from any public road.
(14) Noise. The noise generated by the operation of a large wind energy system may not exceed the ambient noise level by more than 5 dB(A) as measured at any point on property adjacent to the parcel on which the large wind energy system is located. The noise level generated by the operation of a large wind energy system will be determined during the investigation of a noise complaint by comparing the sound level measured when the wind generator blades are rotating to the sound level measured when the wind generator blades are stopped.
(15) Flicker or Shadow Flicker. The owner of a large wind system must take such reasonable steps as are necessary to prevent, mitigate, and eliminate shadow flicker on any occupied structure on a nonparticipating property.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
The Manitowoc County ordinance, which became effect May 1, is notable for its strict limitation of noise to 5 dB(A) above the ambient level at any point on neighboring property. Here are excerpts.
"Large wind system" means a wind tower and turbine that has a nameplate capacity of more than 100 kilowatts or a total height of more than 170 feet, or both.
24.06. Standards
(1) Location. (a) A large wind system may only be located in areas that are zoned A3-Agriculture or PA-Prime Agricultural. (b) A wind tower may not be located within one-quarter mile of any area that is zoned C1-Conservancy or NA-Natural Area or within one-quarter mile of any state or county forest, hunting area, lake access, natural area, or park.
(2) Set Backs. The wind tower in a large wind system and each wind tower in a wind farm system must be set back:
(a) at least 1.1 times the total height of the large wind system from the property line of a participating property.
(b) at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a nonparticipating property unless the owner of the nonparticipating property grants an easement for a lesser setback. The easement must be recorded with the Register of Deeds and may not provide for a setback that is less than 1.1 times the total height of the large wind system.
(c) at least 1.1 times the total height of the large wind system or 500 feet, whichever is greater, from any public road or power line right-of-way.
(10) Lighting. A wind tower and turbine may not be artificially lighted unless such lighting is required by the Federal Aviation Administration. If lighting is required, the lighting must comply with FAA minimum requirements and, whenever possible, be at the lowest intensity allowed, avoid the use of strobe or other intermittent white lights, and use steady red lights. If more than one lighting alternative is available, the alternative that causes the least visual disturbance must be used.
(12) Appearance, Color, and Finish. The exterior surface of any visible components of a wind energy system must be a nonreflective, neutral color. Wind towers and turbines in a wind farm system that are located within one mile of each other must be of uniform design, including tower type, color, number of blades, and direction of blade rotation.
(13) Signs. No wind turbine, tower, building, or other structure associated with a wind energy system may be used to advertise or promote any product or service. No word or graphic representation, other than appropriate warning signs and owner or landowner identification, may be placed on a wind turbine, tower, building, or other structure associated with a wind energy system so as to be visible from any public road.
(14) Noise. The noise generated by the operation of a large wind energy system may not exceed the ambient noise level by more than 5 dB(A) as measured at any point on property adjacent to the parcel on which the large wind energy system is located. The noise level generated by the operation of a large wind energy system will be determined during the investigation of a noise complaint by comparing the sound level measured when the wind generator blades are rotating to the sound level measured when the wind generator blades are stopped.
(15) Flicker or Shadow Flicker. The owner of a large wind system must take such reasonable steps as are necessary to prevent, mitigate, and eliminate shadow flicker on any occupied structure on a nonparticipating property.
wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, animal rights
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)