Paul D. Schomer of Schomer & Associates Inc., was invited by the residents of Cape Vincent, NY to evaluate the pre-construction noise studies conducted Hessler and Associates. Dr. Schomer is chairman of the International Organization for Standardization working group on environmental noise and chairman of the American National Standards committee on noise, among other leadership roles in noise measurement. His findings contradict the studies done by Hessler Associates Inc. The executive summary of his report is reproduced on this page. His full report can be accessed by clicking on the link below.

Tom Hewson takes a very comprehensive look at the development issues associated with the proposed Baileyville Wind Farm in Illinois.

Wind energy, fed to the grid to save resources and reduce emissions, requires control power for balancing fluctuations; this causes fuel losses in thermal power stations and limits the degree of energy substitution. Facilities for energy storage are needed when greatly extending wind power use off-shore, at the same time generating secondary fuel for stationary and mobile applications.

After reviewing data collected during a groundbreaking research effort, the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC), a government-conservationindustry partnership, reported today substantial bat kills at two wind farms in the mid-Atlantic region between August 1 and September 13 of 2004. The report summarizes the first year’s research on potential causes and solutions. The research included the most detailed studies ever performed on bat fatality at wind sites and provides a foundation for further efforts aimed at better understanding why bats are being killed and how to minimize future fatalities.

This document, prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, provides a current review of bat mortality due to wind turbines. The executive summary is shown below. The full report can be accessed by selecting the link at the bottom of the page.

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.

ABSTRACT: Wind power is one of the fastest growing sectors of the energy industry. Recent studies have reported large numbers of migratory tree-roosting bats being killed at utility-scale wind power facilities, especially in the eastern United States. We used thermal infrared (TIR) cameras to assess the flight behavior of bats at wind turbines because this technology makes it possible to observe the nocturnal behavior of bats and birds independently of supplemental light sources. We conducted this study at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center in Tucker County, West Virginia, USA, where hundreds of migratory tree bats have been found injured or dead beneath wind turbines. We recorded nightly 9-hour sessions of TIR video of operating turbines from which we assessed altitude, direction, and types of flight maneuvers of bats, birds, and insects. We observed bats actively foraging near operating turbines, rather than simply passing through turbine sites. Our results indicate that bats 1) approached both rotating and nonrotating blades, 2) followed or were trapped in blade-tip vortices, 3) investigated the various parts of the turbine with repeated fly-bys, and 4) were struck directly by rotating blades. Blade rotational speed was a significant negative predictor of collisions with turbine blades, suggesting that bats may be at higher risk of fatality on nights with low wind speeds. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 72(1):123-132; 2008)

This letter, written by Tom Hewson, responds to a New York State resident who had inquired about the impact of industrial wind turbines on property values. The letter specifically critiques the REPP study. It provides as well an overview of other studies that existed as of Fall 2003.

"The issue simply comes down to nuisance and aesthetics. If the project creates a nuisance (noise, shadow flicker, TV/cell phone interference, radar interference), it can cause lower property values to adversely affected areas. People can simply apply their own personal evaluation criteria to determine the extent of the property change. What would it be worth to you? Generally, the bigger the nuisance, the larger the devaluation. Localities can minimize nuisances from wind projects by setting minimum setbacks, proper location siting and noise limits. My concern with the REPP study is that it doesn't try to examine the nuisance effect by selecting a large 5 mile area."