It has come to our attention that state Senators Alesi, Flanagan, Morahan, Padavan, Ruth, Seward, and Young have reintroduced the proposed 18-month moratorium on industrial wind development. The number of the bill is S4608. We applaud this decision.

There are many factors that must be considered prior to allowing an industrial wind turbine facility in a town.

We have spent the past seven months researching the viability of an industrial wind farm proposal in our town, Brandon, by Noble Environmental Power.

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a Class 3 or greater wind resource is necessary to be deemed a suitable wind resource for the development of industrial wind energy. Class 2 is marginal and Class 1 is unsuitable. The classes are based on 50-meter wind power density.

According to data provided by AWS Truewind LLC, Brandon falls within a Class 1 wind resource at 50-meter wind power density. There are very small areas within Brandon that, based on data provided by AWS Truewind, fall into a very low-end Class 2 category. There are no areas within Brandon that can be proved to be a Class 3 wind resource at 50-mters wind power density. Not even remotely close to Class 3.

Based on our research of the AWS Truewind data for the Town of Burke, there are no areas within Burke that can be classified as Class 3 wind, either.

The 196 1.65 MW wind turbines at the Maple Ridge/Flat Rock wind turbine facility (Tug Hill plateau, N.Y.) were calculated to be running at 16.2 percent efficiency for the month of September 2007. The efficiency of the project, while producing electricity, is 20.05 percent. If the zero production figures are added in, the efficiency drops to 16.2 percent. These figures were calculated by John (Jack) Sullivan, Malone Town Councilman. (Mr. Sullivan, incidentally, has a master's degree in physics from Cornell University.)

According to data provided by AWS Truewind, the area of the Maple Ridge/Flat Rock industrial wind turbine facility falls within a Class 3 wind resource. There are areas on Tug Hill that are close to or marginally qualify as Class 4 wind.

What kind of electrical production can we anticipate will come from an industrial wind turbine facility that is Class 1, and barely Class 2?

The following is a scenario put together by GE Energy Consulting for the Phase 2 System Evaluation to the New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA). (There are no industrial wind turbines on, or offshore, Long Island at present.) In its report, turbine manufacturer GE states: "The technical analysis for this study focused on a wind generation scenario that included a total of 3,300 MW of wind generation in 33 locations throughout New York state. Most of the wind sites are located upstate, but there is one large offshore facility near Long Island. The results show that the effective capacities, UCSP, of the inland wind sites in New York are about 10 percent of their rated capacities, even though their energy capacity factors are on the order of 30 percent. The offshore wind generation site near Long Island exhibits both annual and peak period effective capacities on the order of 40 percent -- nearly equal to their energy capacity factors."

We have asked that NYS legislators take a careful look at the industrial wind turbine scam that has flooded that northern portion of the state. Based on the wind variability evidence, it is obvious that any wind company maneuvering to develop here is merely attempting to collect subsidies and tax breaks. The production of electricity appears to be meaningless to them. The only people that will benefit are the wind companies and the easement sellers. They obviously don't care about a non-viable wind resource.

We have also asked state legislators that any proposed industrial wind turbine facility be required to have a provable wind resource of no less than a Class 4 wind resource for development. It must be verified by the U.S. Department of Energy before any application can be submitted to any municipality in NYS.

Dan Boyd, Noble Project Development engineer, tried to discredit our wind viability research at the last Brandon public hearing. He should have substantiated his objection instead of skirting the facts with diversionary rhetoric.

In the Feb 4, 2008 edition of the Malone Telegram, Sharon Goyea stated, "Eighty to 85 percent of Brandon residents want wind ..." At the last Brandon public hearing the pro-wind group presented a petition that they said had 207 signatures. As of 2007, Brandon's census stood at 530 people, which includes all the children under 18 years of age. (Children under 19 represent roughly 25 percent of the populations: 132 children.)

We are assuming that there was no foul play in collecting these 207 pro-wind signatures. We are like-wise assuming that not one of those pro-wind signatures was influenced in any way, shape or form by easement monies already paid or potentially to be paid: 207 is 39 percent of 530 (total population) -- 207 is 52 percent of 398 (adults).

So, where did the 80 to 85 percent come from? Or is this another case of inflaming public emotions with unsubstantiated and grossly inflated pro-wind data?

The useless destruction of Upstate New York has begun. You can help prevent further destruction.