www.windaction.org | facts, analysis, exposure of wind energy's real impacts http://www.windaction.org/ facts, analysis, exposure of wind energy's real impacts en-us Windaction hourly 1 http://backend.userland.com/rss A towering debate http://www.windaction.org/articles/8116 Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:37:31 GMT The Jordanville Wind Project’s 68 proposed wind turbines, which would stand nearly 400 feet tall, could have a visual impact on southern Herkimer County and as far away as Cooperstown. A debate is emerging among residents about how the sight of the turbines would affect the beauty of the landscape, land values and tourism. Some think the impact will be small or nonexistent, while others believe there could be many downsides. People visit the Cooperstown area not just for the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, other museums and tourist attractions, but also for the scenic views, said Harry Levine of a citizens’ group called Advocates for Springfield. “I think we have to be very careful how we treat this background landscape because it could have a long-term effect on tourism,” Levine said. http://www.windaction.org/articles/8116 Wind Power- Will Nimbys Win? http://www.windaction.org/articles/6725 Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:20:13 GMT
Editor's Note: This article appeared in the October 2006 issue of Shattered Magazine. The pdf version is available via the link below. ]]> Nimby-ism (Notin My Back) is almost understandable when talking about a gas pipeline or an ugly McMansion. But when it comes to environmentally friendly, quiet and- some say- beautiful windmills, an astonishing number of people are saying "no". Melanie Wold asks, "Why? Is it all the dead seagulls?" Editor's Note: This article appeared in the October 2006 issue of Shattered Magazine. The pdf version is available via the link below. http://www.windaction.org/articles/6725 Wind turbine meeting packs board room http://www.windaction.org/articles/1246 Thu, 12 Jan 2006 13:40:02 GMT Ryszard Borys is an Illinois realtor who owns 200 acres that neighbors the Wallerman dairy operation. The Denmark native said he is very familiar with wind farm technology from that country. He shared Fries’ concern over lost land values and the negative impact for agri-tourism. “You have to make the choice between a wind farm or tourism and recreation,” Borys said. http://www.windaction.org/articles/1246 Going to court http://www.windaction.org/articles/849 Fri, 09 Dec 2005 14:36:30 GMT A group of Grant County landowners has filed a lawsuit seeking to block construction of a Mount Storm area wind-power project. http://www.windaction.org/articles/849 Wind not a stormy issue in Readsboro, Searsburg http://www.windaction.org/articles/414 Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:56:04 GMT The Readsboro and Searsburg Select Boards met in the Central School gym to discuss the financial benefits and strains that can be expected by a town hosting a wind farm. Robert Ide of the Vermont Department of Public Service attended, as did about 10 residents. Searsburg is now the home of the state's only existing commercial wind facility. There are 11 turbines producing about 6 megawatts of electricity. A 30- to 45-megawatt plant with 20 to 30 new turbines has been proposed for ridgelines spanning both Readsboro and Searsburg. ]]> READSBORO — Officials from the two towns most affected by a proposed wind facility met on Wednesday night to discuss the economic impacts of a 30-turbine development. The Readsboro and Searsburg Select Boards met in the Central School gym to discuss the financial benefits and strains that can be expected by a town hosting a wind farm. Robert Ide of the Vermont Department of Public Service attended, as did about 10 residents. Searsburg is now the home of the state's only existing commercial wind facility. There are 11 turbines producing about 6 megawatts of electricity. A 30- to 45-megawatt plant with 20 to 30 new turbines has been proposed for ridgelines spanning both Readsboro and Searsburg. http://www.windaction.org/articles/414 Throwing Caution to the Wind: the growing threat of Industrial Wind Energy Development in Pennsylvania to Wildlife, Habitat and Public Lands http://www.windaction.org/articles/5493 Sun, 01 Oct 2006 12:54:37 GMT This is a comprehensive, well documented and thoughtful presentation on a wide range of industrial wind issues by Dan Boone, Consulting Conservation Biologist, at the public meeting held by Save Our Allegheny Ridges in Bedford, PA on September 18, 2006 ]]> This is a comprehensive, well documented and thoughtful presentation on a wide range of industrial wind issues by Dan Boone, Consulting Conservation Biologist, at the public meeting held by Save Our Allegheny Ridges in Bedford, PA on September 18, 2006 http://www.windaction.org/articles/5493 Documentation Related to the Proposed Bald Hills Wind Farm, Victoria, Australia http://www.windaction.org/articles/1948 Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:06:44 GMT Compliments of Andrew Chapman, the attached pdf files contain extensive documentation particularly with respect to the impact of wind turbines on wildlife as part of an ongoing effort to prevent the construction of the Bald Hills Wind Farm, South Gippsland, Victoria. While it has been approved by the Victorian State Government the presence in the Bald Hills area of migratory species of national and international significance that are protected by treaties with Japan and China in the Bald Hills has placed the final decision in the hands of the Federal Government. This decision is pending. http://www.windaction.org/articles/1948 Wind Power Facility Siting Case Studies: Community Response http://www.windaction.org/articles/106 Wed, 01 Jun 2005 04:00:00 GMT BBC Research & Consulting's 2005 report for the National Wind Coordinating Committee that studies 9 wind plant sitings in an effort to identify circumstances that distinguish welcomed projects from projects that were not accepted by communities. http://www.windaction.org/articles/106 Beacon Hill Institute on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cape Wind Energy Project http://www.windaction.org/articles/924 Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:01:32 GMT 1. A systematic cost-benefit analysis – missing from the DEIS – shows that, with 90% confidence, the costs of the project outweigh the benefits by between $83 million and $333 million, with a mean measure of net cost of $209 million (equivalent to 2.0 cents/kWh produced). This breaks down as: a. Cost of 9.06 cents/kWh (close to the DEIS estimate of 9.00 cents) b. Benefit of 7.06 cents/kWh, of which the savings are: fuel (4.95), capital and operating costs, (0.98), improvements in public health (1.02) and greater energy independence (0.10). The project is of interest to a private developer only because of subsidies of 4.04 cents/kWh, via accelerated depreciation allowances, Massachusetts “green credits,” and a possible Federal Production Tax Credit.

2. The DEIS conclusion of “no adverse impacts to tourism and recreation” is not supported by the data. a. The only tourism study considered in the DEIS, from Scotland, used a biased sample and does not report the most relevant results (i.e. how many would be deterred, or attracted, by the windmills). b. A Beacon Hill Institute survey of 497 randomly-selected tourists, undertaken in the relevant Cape Cod towns in summer of 2003, found that 5% would visit the Cape less, and 1% would visit more if the windmills were built. Using spending information, and an estimate of the number attracted to the Cape, the BHI study found a net loss in spending on the Cape of at least $57 million annually.

3. The DEIS conclusion that the project would not adversely affect property values is based on a flawed study, ignores other research, and is untenable. a. The DEIS discussion relies primarily on a study by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (whose goal is to “accelerate the use of renewable energy”) in 2003. Its conclusion that wind farms elsewhere in the United States did not harm property values relies on the use of an inappropriate counterfactual, and is largely based on much smaller projects. b. Even if wind farms are associated with higher property values, this is likely attributable to increased tax payments and royalties to local communities and owners – which makes them not comparable to the Cape Wind case (no royalties, minor local tax payments).

4. The DEIS estimates of the value of health improvements are greatly exaggerated (at $53 million annually). Our own estimates show health improvements of $7 million, and even this may be overstated. a. The DEIS assumes that the Cape Wind project would offset the dirtiest power plants in Massachusetts. This is incorrect, and it would be more appropriate to use the marginal emissions numbers from ISO-New England, which show avoided emissions that are one fifth as high for NOx and one seventh as high for SO2. b. The DEIS uses outdated emissions data (from 2000 rather than 2002). c. Even the $7 million may overstate the health benefits. BHI assumed that all of the output of the Cape Wind project would offset fossil fuel generation and its associated air pollution. However, it has been argued, convincingly, that the caps imposed by law and regulation on SO2 emissions would continue to be binding, and so the wind farm output would not lead to a reduction in SO2 emissions overall. ]]> The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University has studied the Cape Wind proposal in considerable detail, and offers the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Reference file no. NAE-2004-338- 1. A systematic cost-benefit analysis – missing from the DEIS – shows that, with 90% confidence, the costs of the project outweigh the benefits by between $83 million and $333 million, with a mean measure of net cost of $209 million (equivalent to 2.0 cents/kWh produced). This breaks down as: a. Cost of 9.06 cents/kWh (close to the DEIS estimate of 9.00 cents) b. Benefit of 7.06 cents/kWh, of which the savings are: fuel (4.95), capital and operating costs, (0.98), improvements in public health (1.02) and greater energy independence (0.10). The project is of interest to a private developer only because of subsidies of 4.04 cents/kWh, via accelerated depreciation allowances, Massachusetts “green credits,” and a possible Federal Production Tax Credit. 2. The DEIS conclusion of “no adverse impacts to tourism and recreation” is not supported by the data. a. The only tourism study considered in the DEIS, from Scotland, used a biased sample and does not report the most relevant results (i.e. how many would be deterred, or attracted, by the windmills). b. A Beacon Hill Institute survey of 497 randomly-selected tourists, undertaken in the relevant Cape Cod towns in summer of 2003, found that 5% would visit the Cape less, and 1% would visit more if the windmills were built. Using spending information, and an estimate of the number attracted to the Cape, the BHI study found a net loss in spending on the Cape of at least $57 million annually. 3. The DEIS conclusion that the project would not adversely affect property values is based on a flawed study, ignores other research, and is untenable. a. The DEIS discussion relies primarily on a study by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (whose goal is to “accelerate the use of renewable energy”) in 2003. Its conclusion that wind farms elsewhere in the United States did not harm property values relies on the use of an inappropriate counterfactual, and is largely based on much smaller projects. b. Even if wind farms are associated with higher property values, this is likely attributable to increased tax payments and royalties to local communities and owners – which makes them not comparable to the Cape Wind case (no royalties, minor local tax payments). 4. The DEIS estimates of the value of health improvements are greatly exaggerated (at $53 million annually). Our own estimates show health improvements of $7 million, and even this may be overstated. a. The DEIS assumes that the Cape Wind project would offset the dirtiest power plants in Massachusetts. This is incorrect, and it would be more appropriate to use the marginal emissions numbers from ISO-New England, which show avoided emissions that are one fifth as high for NOx and one seventh as high for SO2. b. The DEIS uses outdated emissions data (from 2000 rather than 2002). c. Even the $7 million may overstate the health benefits. BHI assumed that all of the output of the Cape Wind project would offset fossil fuel generation and its associated air pollution. However, it has been argued, convincingly, that the caps imposed by law and regulation on SO2 emissions would continue to be binding, and so the wind farm output would not lead to a reduction in SO2 emissions overall. http://www.windaction.org/articles/924 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cape Wind Energy Project http://www.windaction.org/articles/304 Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:31:37 GMT 1. A systematic cost-benefit analysis – missing from the DEIS – shows that, with 90% confidence, the costs of the project outweigh the benefits by between $83 million and $333 million, with a mean measure of net cost of $209 million (equivalent to 2.0 cents/kWh produced).

2. The DEIS conclusion of “no adverse impacts to tourism and recreation” is not supported by the data.

3. The DEIS conclusion that the project would not adversely affect property values is based on a flawed study, ignores other research, and is untenable.

4. The DEIS estimates of the value of health improvements are greatly exaggerated (at $53 million annually). Our own estimates show health improvements of $7 million, and even this may be overstated.

]]> The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University has studied the Cape Wind proposal in considerable detail, and offers the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Reference file no. NAE-2004-338-1: 1. A systematic cost-benefit analysis – missing from the DEIS – shows that, with 90% confidence, the costs of the project outweigh the benefits by between $83 million and $333 million, with a mean measure of net cost of $209 million (equivalent to 2.0 cents/kWh produced). 2. The DEIS conclusion of “no adverse impacts to tourism and recreation” is not supported by the data. 3. The DEIS conclusion that the project would not adversely affect property values is based on a flawed study, ignores other research, and is untenable. 4. The DEIS estimates of the value of health improvements are greatly exaggerated (at $53 million annually). Our own estimates show health improvements of $7 million, and even this may be overstated. http://www.windaction.org/articles/304 An Economic Analysis of a Wind Farm in Nantucket Sound http://www.windaction.org/articles/87 Sat, 15 May 2004 16:31:08 GMT Written by Douglas Giuffre, Jonathan Haughton, David Tuerck and John Barrett, this report analyses in economic terms the costs and benefits of a proposed 130 turbine wind plant in Nantucket Sound. It concludes that the economic costs substantially exceed the associated economic gains. This is a follow-up study to one published by Beacon Hill in October 2003 entitled "Blowing in the Wind: Offshore Wind and the Cape Cod Economy" http://www.windaction.org/articles/87 "Wind turbines don't make good neighbors" http://www.windaction.org/articles/80 Fri, 14 May 2004 12:53:52 GMT Researched and written by Eleanor Tillinghast of Green Berkshires Inc. this is a comprehensive study of the probable impact of industrial wind plants on the rural character, quality-of-life and economy of the Berkshires in western Massachusetts. Specific issues addressed include visual aesthetics, tourism, property values, public roads and public safety. http://www.windaction.org/articles/80 Londonderry Resident Analyses Beacon Hill's Reports re. Glebe Mountain Environs http://www.windaction.org/articles/659 Sat, 01 May 2004 04:00:00 GMT I have reviewed Beacon Hill’s two reports, i.e. 'Free But Costly: An Economic Analysis of A Wind Farm in Nantucket Sound" (March 2004) and ‘Blowing in the Wind' (October 2003) which focused primarily on tourism and property values. The complete reports are available from www.beaconhill.org. The following consists of two parts. Part I addresses some key findings as well as some thoughts on methodology. Part II focuses on what may or may not be applicable to Glebe. http://www.windaction.org/articles/659 Blowing in the Wind: Offshore Wind and the Cape Cod Economy http://www.windaction.org/articles/86 Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:09:40 GMT Written by Jonathan Haughton, Douglas Giuffre and John Barrett, this report addresses the prospective impact on the Cape Cod economy of 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound. The study includes the responses of tourists and residents to the aesthetics of the proposed project as well as the result of a survey among tourists on the degree to which the project would influence their desire to visit the area. The authors conclude that 'caution' is in order. A follow-up study entitled "Free but Costly" An Economic Analysis of a Wind Farm in Nantucket Sound" was published in March 2004. http://www.windaction.org/articles/86 The Case Against Windfarms http://www.windaction.org/articles/103 Sat, 01 Jan 2000 05:00:00 GMT Written in 2000 by the Country Guardian, the UK's leading 'action group', this report addresses comprehensively wind issues in the UK. As one of the first papers of its kind, it is generally viewed as a 'classic' and 'required reading' for those interested in becoming thoroughly familiar with the diverse impacts of industrial wind. http://www.windaction.org/articles/103 From a Maine region that stopped the turbines http://www.windaction.org/articles/9851 Thu, 31 May 2007 12:08:19 GMT As a tourist who visits the area, I notice what is transparent to most locals, and for me the skyline of Fairhaven is priceless. If the citizens of Fairhaven allow the wind power project to be built at the current proposed location, I believe you will be making a terrible mistake. The town may gain some money in taxes and offset some electrical energy costs, but it will not offset the loss in green space and, more importantly, the beauty of Fairhaven's historic charm. http://www.windaction.org/articles/9851 Cape Wind and tabloid journalism http://www.windaction.org/articles/9840 Thu, 31 May 2007 11:19:43 GMT In the Williams/Whitcomb world of tabloid journalism, there is no room for thoughtful discussion, for weighing costs against benefits, for understanding that self-interest is at work on both sides of the issue or for any kind of honest discussion. Such thoughts would get in the way of the facile thinking and cynical blather that fills their book and that is now commonplace on TV, radio and the Internet. Do you find yourself bored now that Don Imus and Rosie O'Donnell are off the air? Does the Internet no longer meet your need for trash talk? Then read this book. You won't learn anything substantive from it, but it'll be great entertainment. http://www.windaction.org/articles/9840 Comments on wind from Hardscrabble Mountain http://www.windaction.org/articles/1121 Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:17:33 GMT If we allow these wind turbines to come it is very possible that the economic health of Vermont as we know it today will be irreversibly damaged. Vermont will no longer be known as the last bastion of rugged beauty in the United States. http://www.windaction.org/articles/1121 UPC Wind's claims disputed http://www.windaction.org/articles/529 Sat, 26 Nov 2005 12:56:11 GMT ]]> There are no definitive, objective studies of effects of wind energy projects on property values; however, real estate agents recognize and agree that properties with significant natural views have premium value and intrusions on these views erode value. Read all the references to "beautiful view" in real estate ads. People care greatly about view and buy accordingly. http://www.windaction.org/articles/529