Article

Wind generation valid concept, but not for Cherry Valley

I have been an unabashed critic of large scale industrial development for Cherry Valley from the very beginning. The experience of working on two very sophisticated planning documents made me believe that the large footprint turbines bring to the town will do irreversible damage to Cherry Valley’s future.

In a recent letter, Barbara Perry works very hard to “Swift-Boat” leaders of the anti-wind movement with all sorts of insinuations about their truthfulness and motives. She apparently prefers the tactic of personal attack as opposed to engaging in a substantive discussion on the pros and cons of wind development.

Perry also asks readers to consider the agendas and motivation behind many of the letters that appear in the paper. Sounds like a very good idea. It would make many of us better critical thinkers.

In the name of full disclosure, I have been an unabashed critic of large scale industrial development for Cherry Valley from the very beginning.

The experience of working on two very sophisticated planning documents made me believe that the large footprint turbines bring to the town will do irreversible damage to Cherry Valley’s future.

I also believe that large scale wind plants, hundreds of miles from population centers, are embarrassingly inefficient. Distributed generation is a much more efficient model for wind. Each town would develop their own wind capacity with much lower energy costs for all the people in the town. Towns all over Cape Cod have wisely decided to harvest their... more [truncated due to possible copyright]  
In a recent letter, Barbara Perry works very hard to “Swift-Boat” leaders of the anti-wind movement with all sorts of insinuations about their truthfulness and motives. She apparently prefers the tactic of personal attack as opposed to engaging in a substantive discussion on the pros and cons of wind development.

Perry also asks readers to consider the agendas and motivation behind many of the letters that appear in the paper. Sounds like a very good idea. It would make many of us better critical thinkers.

In the name of full disclosure, I have been an unabashed critic of large scale industrial development for Cherry Valley from the very beginning.

The experience of working on two very sophisticated planning documents made me believe that the large footprint turbines bring to the town will do irreversible damage to Cherry Valley’s future.

I also believe that large scale wind plants, hundreds of miles from population centers, are embarrassingly inefficient. Distributed generation is a much more efficient model for wind. Each town would develop their own wind capacity with much lower energy costs for all the people in the town. Towns all over Cape Cod have wisely decided to harvest their own wind rather than enrich the bottom line of some large corporation.

Down state public officials are fond of reinforcing their environmental credentials by bragging about buying wind power from upstate. In a recent press release, the mayor of Ramapo boasted about his support of renewable energy – but not to worry, “turbines would not appear on local ridge tops.”

The state, by not enacting siting guidelines for wind, has made small rural communities particularly vulnerable to exploitation by powerful corporations. A number of towns have naively allowed wind developers to write town law and provide the consultants for SEQRA review. The wind industry and General Electric probably played a large role in developing such a flawed policy.

Tom Golisano has every reason to be concerned about a Pataki renewable energy policy that makes the Mohawk Highlands expendable from Cherry Valley to Buffalo.

Source: http://www.rsmercury.com/pa...

JAN 26 2006
https://www.windaction.org/posts/1086-wind-generation-valid-concept-but-not-for-cherry-valley
back to top