Impact on People or Colorado
McEvoy Ranch spent nearly three years winning county approvals and installing a windmill that should generate enough power to run the olive ranch off Petaluma-Point Reyes Road.
To win approval from the county Planning Commission, the McEvoys had to move the windmill away from the road and reduce its height by more than half to minimize its visual impact.
I'd like to recommend some light reading for long winter nights to residents of Randolph and Barbour counties, especially those folks along Harrison Avenue on the west side of Elkins. Download the AES Laurel Mountain Wind Project application from the Public Service Commission and pick a chapter. You might have to wait for this 1,381-page document. And the PSC has made it nearly impossible to download its three 10.4, 67.3 and 110MB-sized volumes on a dial-up connection, which the majority of effected residents have. The chapter I read last evening deals with shadow flicker ...I recommend that private landowners along the eight-mile route of the proposed project go the PSC Web site and do a little reading. They also might want to let the PSC know their feelings.
Tonight I'm going to tackle the chapter on bats.
Gengrowth wind turbines are to be situated in a great monotonous line along the historic Talbot Trail, through Palmyra, Morpeth, and stretching out along the shores of Lake Erie. It is hard to imagine that in 2008, precious land bordering beautiful natural beaches and cliffs of Lake Erie will be dotted with giant wind turbines sweeping the countryside.
This is only one of many lines and grids that will weave through, connect, and wind around heritage and cultural landmarks while fencing in small towns and fencing out the natural beauty of rural Chatham-Kent. ...Like Quixote, one cannot help but feel an unsettling and disturbing ill wind brewing. ...Hopefully, there are a few Don Quixotes left. It is important and necessary to fight against the smiling giants of profit and opportunity whose false promises of economic benefits are, in this opinion, full of hot air and come at a great expense. It is time to demand that both the provincial and municipal governments preserve the heritage, and unique cultural and natural assets of Chatham-Kent. It is time to "tilt at windmills."
I sent away for a list of property assessment reductions from MPAC for Wolfe Island Township (home to the province's second largest wind farm). This list, provided through the Freedom of Information Act, clearly shows all the assessment reductions since that wind farm became operational in 2009.
The list shows 78 significant assessment reductions since 2008 totalling $3 million. The six largest reductions were over $100 000 each
This series of letters appearing in the Wisconsin State Journal provide important insights into how Wisconsin residents feel wind energy facilities in their communities and the State's efforts to assume authority over all siting of wind farms.
To drive through the Minnesota countryside is to drive through contradiction. Those vast rolling fields -- are they busy engines of production for the agriculture industry? Or are they places of natural beauty, serenity and tranquility?
It's harder nowadays to have it both ways. The rapid advance of wind farming, for example, has transformed the rural landscape.
US Wind Force has been planning this development since at least as early as 2004. Why is it that when a developer starts planning, the county cannot make any changes to local zoning regulations for fear of lawsuit? ...The county commission has the right (and the duty) to make changes to ordinances, when necessary, to protect the well-being of the citizens of Allegany County, regardless of who is planning what project.
The wind filling the sails of alternative energy might slacken if regulators fail to address the concerns of wind farm neighbors. The new industry, which is supposed to be one of the jewels in the renewable energy crown, will lose its appeal rapidly if the rush to build wind farms blows out traditional rural living values.
The signs should concern the industry and regulatory agencies.
The neighbors of the proposed wind turbine project in Freedom are asking the voters of Freedom to reinstate the Commercial Review Ordinance at the June referendum, retroactive to the date of the repeal.
This is the only way to put some reasonable standards in force.
When the town voted to repeal the ordinance last year, we were told the Planning Board would write a new one. That has not happened. ...Consequently, we have no protection from noise, ice throw, strobe effect, no safety setbacks, no standards of any type.
These 400-foot turbines will be located only 350 feet from our property lines. We don't even have a fall zone, much less the safety setbacks recommended by turbine manufacturers.
The reason the information in them should be highly valued is that they have been submitted, reviewed and accepted by an academic journal ...It further requires the authors to disclose any financial support or conflict of interest. This is important because information funded by the wind industry has an innate tendency to suppress dangerous safety information because it will lower demand for their product. If wind turbines are perceived to be dangerous, it will be harder to sell them to towns like Fairhaven.
"All the clause says is that the developer is to ‘give highest priority to increase the distance.' So long as the developer says ‘well, we tried, but this is the best we can do' there is no way to move forward on an enforcement action because the developer has satisfied all that the clause requires. Simply speaking, the clause the governor added sounds good, but means virtually nothing."
But there are many unanswered questions on these projects.
First off, the government doesn't have any regulations pertaining to offshore wind projects.
It begs the question: why has the government approved a project for which it admits regulations must be created. This creates an unfair process.
The Santa Fe New Mexican reports that an off-the-grid community is resisting the development of a wind farm just west of Taos, NM. Residents are concerned about health risks from low-frequency vibrations, flashing strobe lights, annoying shadows, turbines killing birds and bats, and landscape blight. However, a larger issue is at hand. ...Many residents in the Cielito Lindo subdivision of Taos, where homes rely primarily on solar energy, have vocalized their objections.
Colorado is widely recognized for its wind-power capabilities, but even there, wind power is inconsistent and undependable. Studies by Bentek Energy, which examined energy deployment in Texas and Colorado, found that emissions of pollutants actually increase with RES because wind requires backup generation by fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas.
Yesterday thousands of Ontario residents were poised to demonstrate at Queen's Park to show their concerns about the Green Energy Act and about the potential for the installation of Industrial wind turbines to have a negative effect on people's health.
The BRSA is trying to force the turbine down the throats of the communities it serves and has irresponsibly spent more than $2 million on the project.
By not first acquiring the additional land and ensuring that all permits were completed, it has put the ratepayers it serves at risk.
My partner and I purchased a very nice home and moved to New Denmark in order to enjoy the peace, tranquility and supposed friendliness of this beautiful area. ...Our dreams are now seriously threatened by a project that will benefit only a few, contribute nothing whatsoever to a reduction in our electricity bills, will absolutely not make any significant contribution to the environment and will forever change our quality of life.
I was APPALLED to recently read in The Hartford Courant an exposé of the wind farms planned for the Berkshires, including one in Savoy. To quote the Green Berkshires Web site: "Wind turbines produce very little energy but a lot of tax breaks, grants, subsidies and price supports for the developers, at tremendous expense to taxpayers and electricity ratepayers."
Add to that the destruction of the environment involved (20 acres cleared for each turbine, for starters) and it is clear these projects are ill-advised. ...I will clearly NOT be retiring to Savoy. My property will remain undeveloped and continue to net the town a whopping $112 per year in taxes. And I will find someplace else to spend my generous state of Connecticut pension. I find it unlikely that this will be the only revenue loss the region sustains as a result of these projects.
We shouldn't dynamite our mountain ridgelines to build a tool that can't achieve our carbon reduction objective. We shouldn't build power plants in the Kingdom when the demand is in Chittenden County. We shouldn't ignore the clear-cutting of hundreds of acres of trees that are our best carbon vacuum cleaners. We shouldn't allow runoff from miles of mountaintop roads and dozens of massive concrete base pads akin to any Wal-Mart parking lot. We shouldn't use a tool that kills off wildlife. How can anyone possibly justify such a tool receiving a permit to take endangered species?
Certainly, local farmers are entitled to earn a reasonable living. On the other hand, the rest of us are entitled to a quality of life and enjoyment of property. The underlying issue is that a small group of people formed met in secret to unilaterally decide that what is best for their own financial gain is best for the community.
Her entreaty to "talk to the neighbours" is even more risible. The fact that this has been planned for two years and that the public is only now learning the detail and extent of this proposal is a case in point. To quote an old saying: "the fix is in".