BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

More ~ on ~ Fenner

This statement is priceless!
An article by Robert Brauchle covering the recent Fenner wind turbine collapse quoted town supervisor Russell Cary. This is what Cary had to say on the matter.

The importance of the Town Board's discussion to regulate where the turbines can be placed didn't hit home until Sunday morning, when he saw the mangled tower laying in the field.

"We'd always said we wanted to learn about its impacts,"

Cary said.

If this statement weren’t so moronic it would be funny.

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Wind Watch: Safety oversight lacking at turbine collapse site

Wind Watch: Safety oversight lacking at turbine collapse site

Credit: By JENNIFER BOGDAN, Observer-Dispatch, www.uticaod.com 28 December 2009

FENNER — As officials continue to investigate what could have caused a 200-foot-tall wind turbine to collapse in Madison County, it was not at all clear Monday what agency, if any, is responsible for overseeing turbine safety issues at Fenner Wind Farm in this town northeast of Cazenovia.

State officials said the farm does not produce 80 megawatts of energy annually, and therefore, is not large enough to fall under their jurisdiction. Madison County officials also don’t believe they’re responsible for regulation and pointed to town officials for oversight.

However, officials in this rural town of about 1,600 residents said while they played a role in awarding permits for the project before it was completed in 2001, they thought that Enel North America, the company that operates the farm, was responsible for regulating the structures manufactured by General Electric.

“I think they’re pretty conscientious,” Fenner Supervisor Russell Cary said of Enel North America. “They don’t want this to happen again.”

The turbine, which weighed close to 190 tons, toppled over in a cornfield at about 4 a.m. Sunday, shutting down the wind farm’s 19 other turbines. No one was injured.

The collapse on Buyea Road in Fenner followed a power outage recorded at about 3:30 a.m., Enel North America spokesman Hank Sennott said. The cause remains under investigation by the company.

While it was the first time the company saw one of its turbines fall over, collapses of the structures are not unprecedented.

In March, another General Electric turbine split in half at the Noble Altona Windpark, northwest of Plattsburgh in Northern New York. That incident also followed a power outage.

Noble Environmental Power, the company operating the turbine, declared a wiring anomaly was to blame for the incident. General Electric wind turbines are equipped with a system that should shut them down when a loss of power occurs. Without the system working property, the turbine will spin faster than its design allows, the company said in a news release.

However, the collapse at Noble Altona Windpark remains under investigation by the state Public Service Commission because the operation produces enough energy to fall under that agency’s jurisdiction, said Anne Dalton, a spokesperson for the state commission.

“As I understand it, this one owned by Enel North America would be investigated locally,” Dalton said. “All I know is it’s not subject to our jurisdiction.”

The collapse that occurred in Altona on March 6 created a small fire and flung Fiberglass debris as far as 345 feet from the base of the turbine, the company said. No one was injured in the incident.
But Milissa Rocker, a spokesperson for General Electric, said the company’s windmills are safe. Just five of General Electric’s 13,000 turbines operating globally have collapsed since 2002 when General Electric took over the wind power operation from Enron, she said.

“It’s important to understand this is a very rare occurrence,” Rocker said. “This turbine is one of the most reliable in service.”

Despite the apparent resemblance between the incidents in Altona and Fenner, officials from both General Electric and Enel North America said there is no way to draw a parallel until an investigation is complete.

“What’s similar is that a turbine collapsed,” Rocker said. “That’s about as far as the similarities go right now.”

Wind turbines are an increasingly common part of the regional landscape, particularly along U.S. Route 20 and near Lowville.

There are no wind farms in Oneida or Herkimer counties, but three projects are pending in Herkimer County, according to data from New York Independent System Operator, a nonprofit organization that operates New York’s electrical grid. One plan for the Herkimer County town of Litchfield has raised the ire of residents near Sauquoit in Oneida County; they say turbines would mar the landscape and pose possible risks to home values and health.

Members of Save Sauquoit Valley Views — a group opposing the Litchfield windmills – said the Fenner tower collapse sparks concern over the Litchfield project.

“Despite the industry’s assurances, large turbines are intrinsically unsafe,” Liz Waszkiewicz said in a statement e-mailed on behalf of the organization. “Since the Fenner incident wasn’t related to high winds or other conditions that should have led to collapse, should a landowner take that chance?”

Sennot said the company does not believe strong winds or foul play were involved in the incident, but declined to discuss other possible causes until an investigation is complete, which likely won’t be until the end of January.

“Generally speaking, turbines are a far enough distance away that — should something like this happen — homes wouldn’t be hit,” Sennott said. The company is not concerned about additional turbines collapsing, he said.

The other 19 turbines at Fenner Wind Farm, which produces enough electricity to serve at least 10,000 homes, have been temporarily shut down as a safety precaution, he said.

I published this story in its entirety because it mentions the turbine collapse at Altona New York on March 6. This collapse caused a small fire and flung Fiberglass debris as far as 345 feet from the base of the turbine.

The spewing of Fiberglass debris is a health hazard.
The video (They’re not green episode 3) in my previous post covers this health issue. I urge you to watch this video.

Monday, December 28, 2009

Enel hires consultant to help probe Fenner turbine collapse

Enel hires consultant to help probe Fenner turbine collapse News from The Post-Standard -
By John Mariani / The Post-Standard
December 28, 2009,

Fenner, NY -- Enel North America has hired a forensic engineer to look into why a 187-ton turbine at the company’s Fenner Wind Farm fell over early Sunday.

The engineer is expected to be joined by a team being put together by General Electric Co., the turbine’s manufacturer, to look into the cause of the collapse, Enel spokesman Hank Sennott said.

Meanwhile, officials are working to stabilize pieces of the fallen giant so they don’t hurt investigators probing the wreckage, said Steve Pike, Fenner Wind Farm’s project manager.

 Continue reading via this link

Rethinking wind tower safety ~ By Perry White

Watertown Daily TimesRethinking wind tower safety
Another wind tower has collapsed, this one in the Madison County Wind Farm in the town of Fenner. The nine-year-old tower collapsed Saturday night, apparently when power was lost to the tower. This is the second such collapse in upstate New York this year; in March, a tower collapsed in Altona, Franklin County, when it, too, lost power. Clearly, this issue is one that needs further study and one that should be giving pause to towns in the north country that are rushing to get permissive laws on the books for commercial wind farm development.

These two collapses are far from the only ones, however. In Denmark in 2008, a tower collapsed when the braking system failed and the blades spun out of control, eventually shattering the nacelle and sending debris well beyond the collapse range of one and a half times the tower height. In Oldenburg, Germany, a tower collapsed in November 2006 when a rotor shattered, bringing the entire tower down; large chunks of blade debris landed more than 200 meters – 660 feet – from the tower.

 link to full article...

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Windmill falls at Fenner wind farm - NewsChannel 9 WSYR

Windmill falls at Fenner wind farm - NewsChannel 9 WSYR
Fenner, Madison County (WSYR-TV) – A turbine at the Fenner wind farm toppled, over yesterday, engineers are trying to figure out how it happened.

The tower, which is more than 300 feet long from the base to the tip of the blade, is located just off Buyea Road, and is one of 20 generating electricity.

"I was turning over in bed and it sounded like a big clap of thunder" said Jill Van Allen, who lives across the street. "I was waiting to see the lightning through my bedroom window (but didn't)".

Fenner Town Supervisor Russ Cary was notified by company officials at Enel North America, which owns the farm. He tells us Enel did not have any answers as to how it happened, but ads, the towers were built a distance away from homes for this very reason-that if they collapse, they won't do any harm.


After the Altona collapse WPTZ Plattsburgh reported that The New York State Public Service Commission launched an investigation into the Noble Wind Farm "accident" in Altona and will make its own determination on the cause of the collapse.
Public Service Commission spokeswoman Anne Dalton said it is unclear how long the investigation will take, but added it is the first time the commission has investigated a turbine collapse.
Noble Environmental Power issued a statement in late March blaming the March 6 turbine collapse on a “wiring anomaly” that was exacerbated by a power outage at the wind farm.

With the instillation of more wind turbines around New York State the Public Service Commission may become seasoned professionals at investigating turbine collapse caused by “wiring anomalies”

Thursday, December 24, 2009

*DEC accepts Galloo Island FEIS!

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has accepted the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Hounsfield Wind Farm proposed for Galloo Island, Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County.

forwarded message:
From: "Stephen Tomasik"
Date: December 23, 2009 3:22:48 PM EST
Subject: Hounsfield Wind Farm - Notice of Completion of FEIS

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has accepted the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Hounsfield Wind Farm proposed for Galloo Island, Town of Hounsfield, Jefferson County. A copy of this notice and the attached location map are included with this email. You are receiving this email notice because you have made comments on this project or have otherwise expressed interest in being placed on the distribution list for DEC notices regarding this project, and have provided an email address for use by DEC in communicating agency notices. Please note that a separate notice will NOT be sent to you via regular mail. The notice was published in today's Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB), which can be accessed at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20091223_not6.html To view the entire FEIS, go to the Upstate NY Power Corp. link at: http://upstatenypower.com/feis.html

Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or comments.

Stephen Tomasik
Project Manager
Energy Projects and Management
Division of Environmental Permits
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway - 4th Floor
Albany, New York 12233-1750
PH: (518) 486-9955
FAX: (518) 402-9168

Friday, December 11, 2009

Corruption grows ~ where ever wind power blows!

Judge halts town vote on wind energy deal democratandchronicle.com Democrat and Chronicle

judge has temporarily barred a Steuben County Town Board from voting to settle a lawsuit by a wind power developer after concerns were raised that lame-duck board members wanted to strike a last-minute deal with the company.

The order by state Supreme Court Justice Stephen Lindley, signed Monday, short-circuited a special board meeting Monday night at which a majority of the Prattsburgh Town Board may have been prepared to settle the lawsuit.
prepared to settle the lawsuit.
The order was sought by two other board members who are not in favor of the wind project as currently proposed.


Monday, December 7, 2009

Watertown Daily Times | Disillusioned in Cape by town elections results

Watertown Daily Times | Disillusioned in Cape by town elections results

To the people of the town of Cape Vincent: Many of you probably feel disillusioned or even devastated by the results of the town elections. You may even feel victimized by certain "new" voters. But don't be too upset. You'll still be allowed to stock their favorite beer on local store shelves. You'll still be allowed to maintain the local highways, public buildings and local businesses while they enjoy their wine and cheese parties. You'll still be allowed to fight their fires.

And when they are sick or injured and call 911, you can still respond in the ambulance that your incoming supervisor doesn't know you have. Oh, and those of you who live in the village, don't worry about him changing the look of Broadway. He doesn't know that he won't also be the mayor of the village. And yes, it will still be called Cape Vincent, not Carthage.

I would like to express my great appreciation to Tom Rienbeck for his many years of unwavering dedication to the town of Cape Vincent. He has done an amazing job and accomplished so many positive things for Cape Vincent and its neighbors. My hope is that he won't be out of the supervisor's office for very long.

Julia Gosier

By aviary Sat., Dec. 05 at 8:23 am
Sorry, Julia, but with all due respect, this election was about honesty, transparency, respect and willingness to listen to one's constituants. While Mr. Reinbeck may have done many wonderful things for this town, the wind issue brought out the worst in him and others on the board. This pattern is being followed in communities all over the North Country. Town Boards cannot decided what's best for their towns. They need to listen to the people they represent with respect and an open mind. Sorry...that just didn't happen in CV.

By julia Fri., Dec. 04 at 8:23 pm
from Julia,
Some people apparently missed the main point of my letter. Yes, I am very much in favor of industrial wind in the town of Lyme, in the farmland areas of the town, not the waterfront areas. We desparately need the help it would bring to a financially strapped community. I also believe it is a sound environmental move. But the point I was making is that the incoming supervisor of Cape Vincent truly does not know enough about the town of Cape Vincent and its local government to govern it well. This election was of course about wind power or at least about power.I'm afraid the ability to govern well was lost in the "cause:.

By aviary Thu., Dec. 03 at 11:37 am
WDT you must have had a typo in that link somewhere. I have recopied it here:
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/07/10/parcel-o wners-act-against-lyme/
By Pater Thu., Dec. 03 at 8:37 am
North Country,

Please, please -- make your substantive and logical arguments for wind power in Cape Vincent. Line 'em up and we will look at them. We can happily discuss those as long as you don't bring George Bush into the discussion or talk about "wine and cheese" parties vs those with a preference for beer -- or what a good guy Tom Rienbeck is. And let's leave out other irrelavancies such as Dick Cheny and national health care policy and the war in Afghanistan -- oh, and let's leave Sarah Palin out of the converstaion too. This is not about an amalgum of liberal vs. conservative hot points. It is about wind turbines in Cape Vincent.
If you wish to have a larger conversation about public policy in a more general way -- then say so. I will bow out of that one.
By WDT-Reader Wed., Dec. 02 at 8:04 pm
This explains it a little better...

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/07/10/parcel-o wners-act-against-lyme/

So I guess you're just a little bitter... understandable I suppose... sorry?
By WDT-Reader Wed., Dec. 02 at 7:56 pm
So what is your position on industrial wind development anyway, Julia?

http://www.townoflyme.com/Board%20Minutes/2008/Jul y%209.pdf
By WDT-Reader Wed., Dec. 02 at 7:34 pm
North Country,
"I can't help but notice that whenever anyon in favor of wind power makes a point that is difficult to refute..." What are the merits of wind power that are "difficult to refute" and who has made them? I have yet to see any of those types of comments that have not been torn to shreds. There is no question. Anyone who does the research can not dispute that the negative costs far outweight any benefit. All you have to do is go through this presentation http://www.energypresentation.info and you'll see for yourself. On the contrary though, anyone who has tried to tout the benefits, hasn't offered any proof based in science. If I'm wrong, please correct me. We have a wonderful forum right here with which to debate the subject. Sadly, most of the 'pro-wind' arguments have been rooted in emotion, and lately have included this crap about rich/poor, seasonal/year-round, etc. I am definitely not rich, but have no problem seeing the flaws of wind energy, the conflicts of those who support it for no scientific reason and ultimately why Tom Rienbeck was ousted from office.
By north country Wed., Dec. 02 at 5:47 pm
Pater: this thread is also about logic and argumentation, or at least it should be. I still haven't made up my mind about wind power. However, I can't help but notice that whenever anyone in favor of wind power makes a point that is difficult to refute, you guys try to dismiss it on grounds that avoid the issue -- like accusing anyone who mentions money of "class warfare."

It's exactly what conservatives tried to do for 8 years under Bush: if a liberal made an observation that reflected poorly on the President, they were called unAmerican -- because it's much easier to call them a name than to refute their point.

You may not realize it, but you anti-wind guys do the same thing all the time. Someone challenges you, and you accuse them of a culture crime. It's a shortcut to real thinking and subverts productive discussion.
By Pater Wed., Dec. 02 at 1:44 pm

Could not agree with you more. North Country makes points that have nothing to do with wind power. But we can't ignore the efforts of so many, such as Julia, Nelson, North Country, and Tom Rienbeck himself, to distract and confuse the issue by turning it into a conflict between haves and have nots, year rounder vs. seasonal residents, etc.
Some potential lease income for some is now threatened, so they lash out on some misplaced emotional level.
By aviary Wed., Dec. 02 at 9:41 am
Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding what this debate really has to do with wind power. No matter what wine you drink, what income you enjoy or whom you invite to your parties, science is science is science. They do not work properly, do not help our community with electricity, they are inefficient and expensive, and they cause more harm to the environment than they purport to alleviate. Keep your class wars and your snobbish judgements of other people just because they have...or don't have...money OUT of the fray. Everyone continues to lose sight of the science and grab onto the emotional implications. Keep the passion, but use it where it belongs!
By Pater Wed., Dec. 02 at 8:19 am
North Country,

Come on. This comment thread is about Julia's (and Nelson's) clear message that wind opponent's are disregardful of the needs of the broader community and only care about their own "part-time" interests.

When Julia presents this as a conflict between the "wine and cheese" crowd vs. the local "beer" regular folk, she is using a tired old class warfare cliche. Your comment clearly asked if my reference to Julia's points as class warfare was valid. Julia's comments were a flat out and unmistakable class warfare sales pitch.
Your other follow-up statements were just a collection of assertions (not much different than Nelson's) that the rich are at odds with the poor and opposed to health care reform, etc. Explain that. That may be obvious to you but not to me. And in any case, you jump to the conclusion that my refutation of Julia's letter was my use of class warfare against her. How? Julia could be a millionaire for all I know. Don't know the lady. But she is the one who invoked the image of the financial/social divide and never explained how that divide is pertinent to the issue of wind power in Cape Vincent or the outcome of the election in Cape Vincent. Nobody has yet explained how the less well off in Cape Vincent will be less well off as a result of Tom Rienbeck's defeat in the election. Yet that assertion has been repeatedly thrown out there as if it was plain to see! In fact, that assertion is nothing more than a cheap appeal to gut level base instincts and envy based resentments. Don't indulge in them.
By north country Wed., Dec. 02 at 7:38 am
Pater: the second half of your letter is a classic straw man fallacy, attributing to me a position that I never stated (and, for the record, do not hold), and then arguing against that position as if you are debating me. A clever tactic, but ultimately meaningless.

Don't believe me? Re-read your post. From the words "Careful who you call rich ..." the post becomes pure fiction, refuting claims made by no one, least of all me.

Still don't believe me? Re-read my initial post. I think you will find that you invented an argument, and then debated it.
By Pater Tue., Dec. 01 at 9:13 pm
North Country,

Why is it "class warfare" when we ask tough questions about the rich," you asked.

Statements by some seem to want paint this as a battle between the Tibbetts Point high rollers on one end of the scale and destitute sharecroppers on the other. That wealth divide in Cape Vincent does not exist. We are not talking about the Hamptons on the North Shore of Long Island here. Careful who you call rich and not so rich. Do you regard the wind leaseholders as "poor'" ? Is Darrell Aubertine poor? The net worth of many of the leaseholders is greater than many of the waterfront cottage owners. All class warfare is false warfare -- no matter which direction it flows. To resist industrial scale wind developemnt is not class warfare against anyone. If you want to make the case that it is, you are going to have to explain that.
By north country Tue., Dec. 01 at 8:57 pm
Why is it "class warfare" when we ask tough questions about the rich, but NOT class warfare when we ask tough questions about the poor?

I haven't heard a single person opposed to health care reform being accused of "class warfare," even though a common theme in their opposition is that "poor people want something for nothing."

The rich get everything for free: the avoid paying taxes, hide their money off shore, defer their salaries to avoid payroll tax, reward poor performance with big bonuses ... under Bush they not only got BIG tax beaks, but even got a $100,000 tax rebate if they bought themselves a new Hummer (that's not a joke, they really did).

Why is pointing this out "class warfare"? But criticizing the poor is ... just defending the American way?
By Caper Tue., Dec. 01 at 4:12 pm
Julia and Nelson,
Shame on you! You failed to mention just how filth rich these seasonal people are. They often have parties for 70 - 100 people at a time. They drink bottles of Far Niente 1999. (They wouldn't dream to drink NY wines...) The routinely munch on caviar and laugh gleefully while watching those people from Cpae Vincent mow their estate. Then, they sit down to a feast of Beef Wellington. After a night of wonderous festivities, the guests drive away in their BMW's, Lexus' and Mercedes. All is good for those rich seasonal people. Why do those people think they can come up here and vote for town officials? I say, "To hell with that idea of idea of taxation with representation." That's OK for the rest of the US but not for us Capers. Oh, I'm sorry Julia, you're not a Caper after all. But, you're sticking your nose our business. And you don't even own land in Cape Vincent. Hmmmm.
By Pater Tue., Dec. 01 at 2:40 pm
Gee wiz, Julia:

Trying your best to keep that old class warfare flame going aren't you. It won't work because that's not what any of this is about, as much as you might want it to be. When things don't go your way, you look for a boogyman to blame -- the "rich people."

And Nelson, you could have written speeches for the leaders in Beijing about thirty years ago. But heck -- even they don't talk about the evils of private enterprize anymore the way you do . Your rhetoric might still have a certain appeal in North Korea.
By Ed Tue., Dec. 01 at 2:10 pm
Nelson, since you interviewed the owner extensively, did you happen to ask him if he had any real estate investment advice for you? Did you ask about his educational background; how long he stayed in school, whether he had control of his job choices, if the Fla condo was a distressed sale, if any of his "rich" style was a result of marrying into money? If not, your comment isn't really helpful. And $250,000 doesn't buy very much these days, this place sounds like a bargain. If any landowners are going to make anywhere near that kind of money, I will be very surprised, but not as surprised as they will be when their new assessment after the exemptions run out show a pop of about $3 million per turbine.
By Cape Fear Tue., Dec. 01 at 10:43 am
Did you ask him how much his taxes were? Did you ask him if he had to pay those taxes year round even though he lived there part of the year? Did you ask him if he voted in Cape Vincent or Florida? You know he can vote at one of his homes, but not both.
Did you ask him if the people in Town mowed his lawn for free? Or, were they like the many in Cape Vincent who see the summer people as a source of income. I know of several whose income depend on their excellent lawn and landscape services. And, several of the beautiful homes on that road, Nelson, were built by a local contractor. I bet he would love to build many more. But, with the appearance of wind towers, he won't. And the ones he did build are going to lose 30% or more of their value.
What is your point, here, Nelson? That you agree that insulting the major portion of the tax base is a good thing for the community? Or, that having parties is bad. Or that you want seasonal people to just go away and take their economic support of our community with them.
Nelson, today, that same piece of property is paying more in local taxes than the wind company friendly Town Board is asking of the foreign wind developers for each of it's multi-million dollar wind turbines. Don't you think a multi-million dollar wind tower should pay more in taxes than a person's home, Nelson. Especially since, with wind, every single home in Cape Vincent is going to lose much of its value and have little chance of ever being sold.
Comment removed by author.
Comment removed by author.
By nelson Tue., Dec. 01 at 9:38 am
I decided not to make any more comments, but just one more. You are so patronizing talking to other concerned adults as if you are the "Oracle of Reason." Sometime ago, I was out on the Tibbetts Point road. I saw a sign in front of one of the summer homes. I decided to stop and take a tour, it was one of those beautiful summer evenings. I rang the bell, a rather well dressed well mannered gentleman came to the door. I said I was interested in his home and he said come on in. I came in and he showed me from one end to the other.

As I recall, at both ends there was a significant area for sitting and relaxing. He said, "I can have guests staying and I do not even know they are here, plenty of room." I asked, if I were here I would want to entertain. He said," My wife and I had 70 people in last night for a party and had plenty of room. I figure, "I could entertain a 100 without being crowded.

Then, I asked him about the land around the house, how do you take care of it, He said, "no problem" the lawn is 5 acres, but there is a riding lawn mower, and I have workers coming out from Cape Vincent, "they take care of it."

Then, I asked, "what about swimming in the river." He said, I don't swim in the river." He took me out to the rear of the home and showed me a cabana and a large "in ground pool." The whole property sat on 500 feet of waterfront.

Finally, I asked, "Is it warm in winter,?" He replied, "I would not know, I have a high rise condo in Ft. Lauderdale for the winter."

Now, the finale, how much? He replied 250,000 dollars, not a lot of money,
but, 25 years ago when I took a look it was a bundle and a half.

Now, that is money, would that guy have had a poor working couple out for his parties? They come out to take care of the place for him. Would he have wanted wind turbines? So some poor working guy might want a share of the "good life?'. I think not.
By Jefferson'sLeaningLeft Tue., Dec. 01 at 7:25 am
Mr. Rienbeck lost the election because he lost the support of old friends who saw him taking the Town of Cape Vincent in the wrong direction.

He allowed wind contract holders to serve on the Board knowing that there were ethical problems. The Attorney General advised against them and even the wind company recognized them, but Mr. Rienbeck and the Board ignored the conflicts and even flaunted the ethical problems. The Town Board was corrupt in favor of the wind developers and Mr. Rienbeck allowed it. Like and old friend said, if you don't know what corruption is, ask your grand mother.

He attempted to violate the open meetings law by having a person arrested for using a camera at Town meetings. Only our astute county official prevented the arrest which would have launched expensive lawsuits against the Town.

He stated that he wanted to be fair to the wind companies and ignored the wishes of over 800 taxpayers who requested a moratorium to allow time to properly review important decisions. As it turns out, it appears that the Town was not asking enough from the wind companies to make up for the fact that land values in Cape Vincent will plummet and further growth in Town Valuation will cease. Everyone will lose, even the contract holders who will find they are not getting the best deals. Their land values, too, will plummet and their property will be near impossible to sell in the future. The wind companies need to come up with huge sums of money to cover the loss of all taxpayers in the Town of Cape Vincent. Remember, Julia, only a very small portion of the taxpayers are collecting a few bucks from this deal.

Tom Rienbeck proved that he should not be a Town official when he insulted 65% of the tax base by calling them rich and selfish. The tax money from the people who you despise allows employees to be paid and the Town to operate.COMMENT
You must be logged in to post.

Friday, December 4, 2009

CAPE VINCENT The Story of How Wind Turbines Became Utilities

DEC 4, 2009

A friend sent me this; it is a good chronological progression of the events that unfolded in Cape Vincent.
These events ultimately led to the wind turbines being designated as utilities. This is the Truth and there is documentation to support it. Additionally the planning board and Town board in Cape Vincent are self serving liars, the planning board of Cape Vincent isn’t even following its own comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan is a means to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people in the community and give due consideration to the needs of the people in the region of which the community is a part.


Nov. 8, 2006 Planning Board meeting:

Planning Board Chairman, Mr.Edsall

and the planning board (PB) are asked the critical question that sparks the controversy.

“Is a wind farm an acceptable site plan review use in the agricultural district?”

Is this question asked by Acciona? The minutes aren’t clear.
The Planning board chairman, Mr. Edsall asks his board for a vote on the question. They vote 5-0 yes. (With 3 conflicted votes) Note that the question is NOT are wind turbines a utility.
That is where the confusion starts. The question is about a wind farm being a proper site plan review use. This is a very important point.

The Problem:

There is no discussion on why a wind farm is acceptable as a site plan use in the AG district by the PB. They give NO rational as to why it is allowed or under what category it might fall. There are 12 site plan review uses allowed in the AG district. A wind farm is not listed as a use. Utilities, light industrial, and commercial ARE listed uses, but the planning board never says which use a wind farm is. They just say it is acceptable and move on.

So they must have had some reason in their heads. They never clearly define why wind turbines are allowed and why. Did they think that they are a utility because that is what the wind company told them? And that was what SLW listed on their permit application?

There is also the problem that it is out of the jurisdiction of the PB to make this determination or answer this question.
NY Town Law does not give the PB the power to interpret zoning law.
That is for the Zoning Enforcement Officer Alan Wood, and if there is a question it goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So even though everyone blames WPEG, it is the planning board that screwed up 1st.


WPEG challenges the planning board’s decision before the CV Zoning Board of Appeal.

It is critical to understand that… WPEG did not challenge whether turbines are utilities. They only asked for a determination, that if a wind farm is an acceptable site plan review use, which use is it, because wind farms are not listed?

The problem starts here because


WPEG never said a word about utilities…it was SLW who defined turbines as utilities. Then WPEG challenged that as well, saying a wind farm is not a utility as defined by Cape Vincent’s zoning law. This is important…how did WPEG get blamed for turbines being utilities if they were fighting that turbines are not utilities…this makes no sense at all.

It is also very important to note that SLW’s application for a permit, and site plan review that was turned in to the town, also says their wind farm should be considered a utility.

WPEG didn’t write that on their application for them. The important thing is that even if WPEG didn’t challenge the PB decision these projects would have moved forward as utilities ANYHOW because that is what SLW put on their application. If nobody challenged it, it would have moved forward as a utility anyhow.

Now the other thing that is being lied about is they are saying WPEG is at fault for killing the 2006 wind law.

At the end of this post, I have included the minutes of an Aug 2006 meeting where [ Supervisor Reinbeck stated that on behalf of the board, he will request the planning board to adopt our proposed wind tower regulations as a guideline during their site plan review process]. So that is a lie too.
Also at the bottom of this post, is a letter from Richard Edsall: June 14, 2006. We propose that the town board abandon its efforts to amend the current zoning law.

Why does Reinbeck start a wind law committee, spend $20,000 on the law, and spend 5 months on it, when he knows he can’t pass it anyhow because of the conflicts of interest on his board? The answer is because he never wanted a wind law to begin with unless it was very weak and favored the wind company.

The wind law was finished in Jan…it is now almost May.
He is not going to pass a wind law because he and Edsall and the board and the lease holders do not want one.

No matter what they say, they want turbines as utilities so they can put as many of them in as possible and as close to the river and lake as possible!!!! THEY ARE LIARS!!!!
But to do this and create a public diversion they will blame WPEG for all the points above.

You have to have something for cover when you recklessly waste $20,000 of tax payer money.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009



Great Lakes Offshore Wind Project

Not long ago I posed the question.

Where in the world is Darrel Aubertine?
Darrel Aubertine was elected to represent the people of the 48th district. this comprises Jefferson, Oswego, and parts of St. Lawrence Counties.
Citizens in each of these counties are struggling with an endless list of issues concerning wind development. Important issues such as corruption, conflicts of interest, transmission lines ,pilot payments ,eminent domain , property values, and many more…

Valley News on line
article by Carol Thompson 02-23-2008

Wind farm woes continue for Oswego County residents
In regard to Galoo Island Wind.
A proposed wind farm in Jefferson County has Oswego County residents upset because they could be forced into giving up property rights so that power lines can run from one county to the other.
No one from Oswego County government was made aware of the proposal, drawing the ire of Oswego County Legislature Chairman Barry Leemann. He took the opportunity to criticize area Assemblyman Darrel Aubertine, who is running for the 48th District Senate seat in Tuesday’s special election, for failing to contact county government with information about the proposed project.

“I am not pleased that Mr. Aubertine did not find it necessary to contact us in regard to this project,” Leemann said.
Darrel Aubertine said through a spokesperson that the local residents deserve a role in the consideration of the placement of the transmission lines.
“Darrel strongly supports wind farms and other forms of alternative energies, but also feels very strongly that local residents deserve a role in the consideration as to where the placement of transmission lines, etc. should be,” Aubertine campaign staff member Travis Proulx said Wednesday.
“He believes that his role as a public official, regardless of where he is serving, should be to help the local residents take an active role in such discussions so that local issues and concerns are heard loud and clear.”

The only thing heard loud and clear is Darrel Aubertines silence
When it comes to helping his constituents with wind energy issues Darrel has vanished, however it appears he is very busy these days planning New York’s Wind future, and it seems as though the decision making does not involve any of the taxpaying constituents.
However Mr. Aubertine has been known to get involved in local wind energy issues in Cape Vincent, for personal gain one such example is when he advised the conflicted town board to vote on wind issues.

Carol Thompson 10-29-2008

In a letter dated June 15, 2006, Aubertine wrote to the Cape Vincent Town Board that he did not perceive it to be a conflict-of-interest for board members to vote on a contract in which they, or their family members, had evident financial interest. They are said to have had a contract with a wind-turbine company that intended to place turbines in the Town of Cape Vincent, Aubertine’s hometown.

The town-board vote was in regard to the location of wind turbines. Aubertine wrote that the two board members should be allowed to vote on the issue because they are not the only property owners standing to gain.

Here is a copy of the letter Darrel Aubertine wrote to the Town board

In your biography it states that you view Central and Northern New York as New Yorks "Energy Backyard" Is this why you have not been around to help your constituents with wind energy issues?
Have You Gone From Milking Cows To Milking Wind?apparently one persons "ENERGY DUMPING GROUND" IS "ANTHER'S ENERGY BACK YARD"This is Acciona's Turbine Setback map on it Turbines #40,41,47,48 are listed as Darrel Aubertines Turbines...

"The proposed windfarm does not include any turbines on the waterfront ,which is a critical issue for Margert and me". WHERE IN THE WORLD IS DARREL AUBERTINE?


Friday, November 27, 2009


Mr. Richard Edsall May 29, 2009
Town of Cape Vincent Planning Board Chairman
P.O. Box 680
Cape Vincent, NY 13618

Dear Sir:

I have a comment about St. Lawrence wind’s SDEIS regarding the report on the Indiana bat.
Jefferson County is home to the northernmost colony of Indiana brown bats, a federally listed endangered species, that are undergoing a serious population decline. There are hibernacula in Glen Park, New York approximately 20 miles from Cape Vincent. The Indiana brown bat typically moves between 12 and 40 miles to roost locations. SLW’S Indiana bat study reports that Cape Vincent provides summer colony habitat, roosting and foraging areas for the Indiana Brown bat and also it documented that there is a maternity roost location in this same area. This is significant because Indiana bats have strong fidelity to summer colony areas, roosts and foraging habitat (USFWS1999). Radio telemetry studies in NY have shown this to be true for maternity roost locations as well where the Indiana bat forms maternity colonies of 20 to 100 members.
I am concerned that the Cape Vincent Indiana bat studies are insufficient. The length of time may not be sufficient to determine bat presence because weather conditions change from year to year and this could very well affect bat activity. The Cape Vincent test was conducted in July/August of 2007 but the report is not clear as to how many days were spent in the field and under what conditions.
I also noticed that the report on Indiana Bat Roost Trees and Emergence Counts on bats captured outside Cape Vincent, New York sampling by Sanders Environmental Inc. has a date of July & August, 2007. Upon going over the report prepared for the Horse creek wind farm in neighboring Clayton, New York, I noticed they reported in their study that they trapped their first Indiana bat on June 02, (although a gap in netting activities indicates that bats could have been present in late May) and the last radio telemetry location occurred on August 09. After July 31, capture rates significantly decreased. Depending on when the Cape Vincent studies were done this may have had an effect on the results also.
Sanders Environmental did not do thermal imaging or use acoustical radar. The Indiana brown bat is difficult to distinguish from the little brown bat therefore additional mist net surveys need to be conducted during the spring and the fall migration to understand the project area number and diversity of bats passing through the project area. These are extraordinary times and they call for extraordinary measures. We have an endangered species mysteriously dying off by the thousands. The Indiana bats have been affected by white nose syndrome, the mysterious ailment that has killed thousands of these bats. White nose syndrome has been identified among Indiana bats wintering in Glen Park. The issue of the white nose syndrome, and the fact that the Indiana bat is already an endangered species requires that we must move with great caution since this could become a critical issue for the Indiana bat’s survival.
St. Lawrence Wind Power has the potential to significantly impact the future survival of the Indiana bat because the fragmentation of habitat can have a negative effect bat on an already dwindling bat population.

Within 3/4 of a mile from the shores of Cape Vincent there already is an operational 86 turbine wind power plant on Wolfe Island, Canada. In Clayton, NY, Horse Creek wind farm is proposing to erect 62 turbines and another 77 turbine project is planned for Galoo Island. BP’s Cape Vincent wind project indicates their number is up to 140 Plus, slated for the area and SLW lists 53 turbines. That is the potential for a total of ~ 86 + 62 + 77 + 140 + 53 = 418 turbines. This means that potentially if all these projects come to fruition there would be 418 wind turbines within a 25 mile radius of the Indiana bat hibernacula in Glen Park, New York. Henderson, New York is also entertaining the idea of a wind farm and if the project that is developed it would only further increase the potential damaging effect on the bat population.
Already diminished in numbers, we are then going to assault this creature by fragmenting its habitat and destroying its foraging ground. Without a more extensive detailed study in Cape Vincent there is no way of knowing how many Indiana bats are actually in the area. In the case of such a sensitive issue studies should be done by an independent company, not one who depends on their lively hood from the wind companies. Another issue to consider is pressure changes that the spinning blades have on the lungs of the bats once the turbines become operational. This will also increase the mortality rate of an already endangered species and could become a critical issue in the future survival of the bat population especially considering the cumulative effects.
Lastly, were the transmission lines routes also included as part of the area being tested? St Lawrence Wind will be irreversibly committing resources to this project, resources that will cause the destruction of habitat, foraging areas and possibly causing irrevocable damage to this federally protected species. Not only do I think that the bat studies are inadequate but I think, that due to the plight of the Indiana bat and the sensitive nature of the area, the project should not be in Cape Vincent.

cc: Timothy Sullivan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
Bill Gordon (DEC Region 6)

Monday, November 23, 2009


Cape Vincent Wind power is a hot topic. I literally have people coming to this blog from across the globe.Everyone has an opinion these days on wind power in Cape Vincent ,and the surrounding areas.

Recently at the Galloo Island public hearing H. Douglas Barclay a former state Senator and U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador
Made one comment in particular that I found interesting, the comment is as follows. Oswego County has become a dumping ground for power generation downstate.
I found this quote in sharp contrast with something I found in Darrel Aubertines biography.
Darrel Aubertine's Biography
In May 2009, Senator Darrel Aubertine was chosen to also lead the Senate Energy & Telecommunications Committee, another key area of interest for Central and Northern New York, which the Senator refers to as New York’s “Energy Backyard." The region is home to many power generating facilities, including two nuclear facilities in Oswego County and the Moses-Saunders Hydropower Dam in Massena. As a member of the Assembly, he served more than five years on the energy committee and in his role as chair of the Senate Committee, has worked to create and preserve jobs, lower energy costs and encourage development of renewable energy sources.At who's expense Darrel?
Apparently one persons "DUMPING GROUND" is anothers "ENERGY BACKYARD"

Sunday, November 22, 2009


All Jefferson County Residents
There will be a County Board of Legislators meeting Tuesday, November 24 at 195 Arsenal St, Watertown, NY 5:00 pm. They will be talking about PILOT agreements.
click link to read post on Jefferson's Leaning Left

Inside the IDA on the Galloo Island PILOT

A highly-anticipated Board of Legislators meeting tonight will focus on the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for the proposed Galloo Island Wind Farm.

I’ll convince them this turkey is a great product!

Look! You guys just pass the laws forcing them to subsidize construction and then to force them to buy the product. I’ll convince them this turkey is a great product! « Allegheny Treasures


Firstwinds Letter To Obama

November 6, 2009 — morgan
Sound incredible? … well!

From the Boston Herald, via National Wind Watch: “Wind law could benefit company“

Read carefully for the tangled web of politicians and developers and politician/developers and developer/politicians and money money money!

Sorta makes me queasy!

The entire post follows:

Despite significant opposition in Western Massachusetts, state environmental affairs secretary Ian Bowles is pushing hard to get a controversial wind-turbine law passed before the legislative session ends on Nov. 18.

The bill could benefit a wind-energy firm, recently relocated to Boston, whose chief executive helped co-author the proposed law and whose financial backers have close ties to the Obama administration.
With the bill before the Legislature’s joint committee on telecommunications, utilites and energy, Bowles met this week with House Speaker Robert DeLeo in an effort to move it along.

“The secretary is very supportive of this bill and anxious to see it move,” Bowles’ spokesman Robert Keough told the Herald.

The Wind Energy Siting Reform Act aims to streamline the permitting process for commercial wind turbine developers. Supporters say its passage will make it much easier for wind-energy firms to operate here, while critics say it will strip communities of their rights. “Massachusetts is a state of independent communities,” said Eleanor Tillinghast, who lives in the Berkshires, where the turbines will most likely be erected. “If this bill is passed, it will undermine towns’ abilities to develop in the ways they think are most appropriate.”

Keough disagreed, saying the bill has been revised to better protect local interests.

Still, the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission maintains its opposition to the proposal, while some environmental groups say it hasn’t been properly vetted.

On Beacon Hill, the bill is seen by some as the next step in Gov. Deval Patrick’s broad plan to position clean energy as the state’s next economic development engine.

Now, the bill’s critics are wondering if a controversial wind-energy firm with ties to the White House may be poised to benefit.

First Wind Energy Holdings, LLC, which runs five wind farms and has many more in development, just relocated to Boston.

Its chief executive, Paul Gaynor, sat on the state commission that wrote the bill, and its main investors are Chicago private-equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners and the New York hedge fund D.E. Shaw.

Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff, has in the past called executives at Madison Dearborn supporters and friends. Lawrence Summers, director of Obama’s National Economic Council, made more than $5 million as a D.E. Shaw managing director.

Obama’s decision to give the firm $115 million in stimulus funds outraged people in New York, where the attorney general has investigated First Wind for corruption.
A First Wind spokesman said the company has no immediate plan to build in Massachusetts.

Keough said if the bill passes, that could change. “They’ve shown little interest in (Massachusetts) so far, because the permitting process is so uncertain and perilous,” he said.

By Christine McConville

Boston Herald


6 November 2009 the Boston Herald has archived the article but a transcript can be read at the following link National Wind Watch

Thursday, November 19, 2009



As I mentioned in a previous post, I had been sent an email by a sharp reader, pointing out that the wind law as it was written, failed to provide any protection for the Lake and River districts.

Was this an error of omission or was this intentional?
WDT article 11/19/09
CAPE VINCENT Wind Hearing probably canceled — The town Planning Board asked the Town Council not to hold a public hearing next week on a proposed wind development zoning ordinance, citing missing information.
Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck said later that the missing section would strictly exclude wind turbines from the river and lake districts.

Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck said later that the missing section would strictly exclude wind turbines from the river and lake districts.


Was Rienbeck hoping no one would notice that his wind law leaves the River, and the Lake District Wide open for wind development?
Look over the Setback section of the new proposed wind law, e.g., Page 8 section no. 9. on this. In section 9C setbacks of 1,000 ft plus 1.5X turbine height from centerline of 12E going from village to Clayton town line would prohibit commercial turbines in the riverfront district. In section 9D, however, it would prohibit turbines 1,000 ft from either side of 12E to the Lyme town line, but would not prohibit turbines in the lakefront district. Section 9E doesn't help either. This section covers the Ag/Res district south of Mud Bay along the lake, but again, no protections afforded the lakefront district.



Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Galloo Island PILOT talks are reined in

Watertown Daily Times Galloo Island PILOT talks are reined in


Jefferson County's Board of Legislators slowed down its consideration of the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement for the proposed Galloo Island Wind Farm.

The board's Planning and Development Committee, which met Tuesday night, recessed to 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to hold its discussion then...

Tuesday, November 17, 2009


There is a notice in the Cape Vincent Post Office about a special Town Planning Board meeting Wednesday, Nov. 18 (tomorrow) at the Cape Vincent Town Office Building.



Mr. Hirschey erased a 42 vote deficit at the polls by picking up 62 more votes than Mr. Rienbeck in absentees, 144-82. Mr. Hirschey's final tally was 634 votes, with Mr. Rienbeck receiving 614 votes.


I was sent an interesting email yesterday in regards to Rienbeck’s Wind law revisions ~

Look over the Setback section of the new proposed wind law, e.g., Page 8 section no. 9. on this. In section 9C setbacks of 1,000 ft plus 1.5X turbine height from centerline of 12E going from village to Clayton town line would prohibit commercial turbines in the riverfront district. In section 9D, however, it would prohibit turbines 1,000 ft from either side of 12E to the Lyme town line, but would not prohibit turbines in the lakefront district. Section 9E doesn't help either. This section covers the Ag/Res district south of Mud Bay along the lake, but again, no protections afforded the lakefront district.

This email also refreshed my memory of an incident, at the now infamous board meeting where Rienbeck called the Cops.
At this meeting someone reported to Tom Rienbeck,that a wind representative admitted that they had approached people in the Lake District about putting wind turbines on their land.This person then asked Tom Rienbeck if this was his reasoning behind the moratorium on wind development in the river and Lake District.
Rienbeck seemed sort of surprised at the revelation of people in the Lake District being approached.
He seemed to reply no, but he was sort of vague, perhaps he was surprised that people in the general public knew.
As I read the wind law I do not see any protection for the Lake District.~~~


Monday, November 16, 2009


Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.Abraham Lincoln

I have one question for TOM RIENBECK our current town supervisor about the impending industrial wind Plant in Cape Vincent.
~ WHY ~Cape Vincents Wind Law needs to be Edited Because
Tom Rienbeck has a problem with the "language" in the wind law.

Tom Rienbeck has a problem with the "language" in the wind law, and wants to change the way this law is written because it prohibits wind development in Cape Vincent. Mr. Rienbeck said they do not want to prohibit wind development in Cape Vincent they want to regulate it. When Tom Rienbeck was asked who participated in this decision he admitted that the developer was involved in this decision.
Bottom line if you use the ambient winter noise level it is too quiet in Cape Vincent to allow turbines. So come hell or high water we must have those turbines. Apparently the developer carries more weight than the citizens of Cape Vincent.

Tom Rienbeck has had problems with the "language" in other laws as well.

I remember a quote by Tom Rienbeck in a local news paper, to the effect that if you were reelected to a position Mr. Rienbeck thought that all your conflicts would no longer matter.

What! would they magically disappear?

Do laws suddenly change if your actions get validation of a vote?

If this were true than Cape Vincent would have its own laws, separate from those of New York State. WELL! There you have it in a nut shell don’t you.

The basic problem with the leadership in Cape Vincent, or shall I say the lack of leader ship is that they make their own rules, and reelection means freedom to convolute and manipulate the law for personal gain .
Our town government has the because I can mentality, or because I said so rational . Several planning board videos clearly show this attitude.This is only one example.

Tom Rienbeck is either a pawn in this whole wind fiasco or a willing participant with a definite lack of moral character.

However, a certain planning board member that shall remain nameless has played a prominent role in this wind drama, and I would not hesitate to characterize this individual as a sociopath.
In the you tube video below you can hear Tom Rienbeck, and the town board rationalize away The Attorney General’s code of conduct. This is a prime example of how they operate.

who does Thomas K. Rienbeck work for, the people of Cape Vincent or the wind companies?

Back to the wind law ~

WaterTown daily Times
By Nancy Madsen
Mr. Rienbeck said the town has spent about $15,000 working on the wind zoning ordinance so far. A committee completed a five-month review of a proposed zoning ordinance in January. Mr. Rienbeck said he thought members of Wind Power Ethics Group had supported many of the changes.

"I heard comments by opponents of wind power and they were somewhat happy with what we put together," he said.



Tom Rienbeck seems to be serving as a representative for the wind developers.

The Water Town Times article below clearly indicates that things weren’t always that way.

What has changed Mr. Rienbeck?(WDT article,8/04/2005)
By M.B. Pell
Times Staff Writer
CAPE VINCENT -- Rumors that a company wants to develop a wind farm in the town of Cape Vincent have prompted town officials to start draft zoning regulations that would prevent such construction.
The Town Council will hold a meeting at 7 tonight at Recreation Park, James Street, to gather public comment on the proposed zoning changes.Supervisor Thomas K. Reinbeck said he has heard that an unidentified firm wants to build the turbines off of Favret Road, near the town transfer site.
"People might stand up and say 'we all want them' or they may say 'no, we don't want them the supervisor said. "I don't know,I think there are more downsides than upsides. " Mr. Reinbeck said he is concerned that the large turbines will detract from the town's bucolic splendor, will make too much noise and could throw large chunks of ice during the winter.
The danger presented by flying ice is debatable, but some experts say that for flying ice to cause personal injury or property damage, it would require a set of circumstances that could be achieved only in a lab.
The public reaction could be as varied as the supervisor suggested, as some Favret Road residents already have said they are not concerned about a wind farm development.
"It doesn't bother me" said Brian R. Knapp. "We already have cell towers and they're an eyesore, but you get used to them."
The Jefferson County Planning Department has been working with the town to develop zoning codes to prevent construction of a wind farm. "Very generally, it's an issue of tower's height, view-shed and compatibility with other uses; that's where you start," said Bruce A. Armstrong, county planning director. "What it comes down to is what fits the community's land-use philosophy."


Mr. Armstrong said the county has suggested limiting the height of towers in specific areas as one approach to preventing wind turbine development
.In June 2003, Assemblyman Darrel J. Aubertine, D-Cape Vincent, said that a company had approached him about installing 11 wind-powered generators on his property and the properties belonging to three of his neighbors. Each turbine would be capable of generating 11.5 megawatts of power.
William R. Evans, executive director of Old Bird, an Ithaca-based nonprofit group that studies night migration of birds, said in 2003 that the town of Cape Vincent is a poor location for a wind farm because it would present a threat to many species of migratory birds.
Mr. Evans, who also has worked for the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, said north-south ridge lines and valleys, such as the St. Lawrence River Valley, "channel the birds into areas, concentrating their populations," thereby increasing the chances that large bird populations will run into the turbines.
Furthermore, he said, birds do not like to fly over large bodies of water, but instead fly along coast lines.
The ornithologist said the north-south direction of the river valley and the fact that the river's shoreline meets the coastline of Lake Ontario combine to make the St. Lawrence flyway an important migratory path for a variety of raptors, including bald eagles, and a plethora of songbirds, such as orioles.
He said for these birds, especially night-migrating songbirds, which can't see the wind towers, the generators would act as a giant Cuisinart.
That is not to say he opposed wind farms.
Mr. Evans said that from an environmental standpoint, wind generators provide a safe energy source. He encourages companies to continue installing the wind farms, but only in responsibly selected locations.
"There are plenty of good places to put wind generators, but until a study determining the effect of a wind farm on bird populations in the St. Lawrence flyway is conducted, Cape Vincent should not be considered one of them."

Sunday, November 15, 2009



CAPE VINCENT — There will be no wind turbines in the riverfront and lakefront districts.

Town Supervisor Thomas K. Rienbeck began the wind law committee's meeting on Thursday afternoon by clearing up some mistakes and misconceptions about the draft amendment to the zoning law.
"No one was ever interested in it being in anywhere but the agricultural-residential district," he said.
To that end, the committee agreed to add a setback from the riverfront and lakefront district boundaries of one and a half times the height of the turbine. The district boundaries are 1,000 feet south of the centerline of 12E.
 . More...

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Would you stop eating Beef to save the planet?

Would you stop eating beef  to save the planet? SciGuy Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Would you stop eating meat to save the planet?

I am not saying people should give up meat. What I am saying is I am sick and tired of people telling me that we have to have wind turbines in Cape Vincent, or anywhere else for that matter, to “save the planet”. Wind turbines destroy wild life, wetlands and habitat WIND TURBINES ARE NOT “GREEN.” Wind turbines are destroying our earth in the name of green, simply to feed a profit motivated goal. If people are so interested in shoving turbines down our throats, because they are concerned about co2 gasses and the preservation of our earth, I suggest that they ~ give up beef. And for those of you whom I am sure will send me nasty comments don’t bother, I do help in a small way. I do not eat beef.

K.Muschell~~~~Would you stop eating meat to save the planet? SciGuy Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

A science blog with Eric Berger
The conclusions of a new report released by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization are rather sobering. Among them:

Eat meat, destroy the Earth?

• Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock.

• Livestock generate 18 percent more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent than transportation.

• Livestock account for 9 percent of CO2 derived from human-related activities, but considerably larger portions of much more potent greenhouse gases: 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, and 37 percent of all human-induced methane.

• In Latin America some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.

• Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all terrestrial animal biomass.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Open Letter to All Ontarians « Wind Concerns Ontario

Open Letter to All Ontarians « Wind Concerns Ontario

No one asked for this. Nobody looked to have their life and homes exposed in the news, trying to explain how the most promising form of renewable energy was causing such destruction of their family.

Sleep deprivation, headaches, migraines, heart palpitations, tinnitus, pressure in the ears, sores that won’t heal, dangerously high blood pressure and the list goes on. This was not the plan that any of these quiet and unassuming rural families had in mind, but this is what they got. And countless months later it continues.

Nobody wanted to get sick; nobody wanted to be forced to leave their home, the place they raised their children, the place they intended to live out their retirement. Not one of them asked for this. In almost all cases, these symptoms were non-existent before the start up of the wind farm.

And when it was discovered these wonderful, planet saving industrial machines were actually hurting them and their family, not one of them would anticipate there would be no help for them.

As they read in the papers how our government was running to help other citizens who found themselves in all manner of troubling circumstances through no fault of their own, there they sat, waiting, ignored and ridiculed for admitting they needed help against the giant industry that the government had hyper-promoted in their ambitious scheme to ’save the planet’.

Who are these people, the green supporters cry out? NIMBY’S! They’re trying to stop our efforts to help the world! NIMBY’S! They don’t like change! They don’t want them in their backyard! Sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, the vast majority welcomed wind farms as much as anyone. Some even boasted how proud they would be to participate at such close hand, to be able to help make a difference, to assist in providing clean, renewable energy.

But when the troubles started, the government looked the other way. When the troubles started, the government ran the other way, fingers in ears, la la la. There was no time for anyone or anything to stop this magnificent much needed multi-million, make that billion, dollar program and so they chose to ignore and abandon those who asked for help. They simply did not respond. As a matter of fact, some of the residents were subjected to blatant derision from their MPP. The people asked their local town council for help. They asked the Ministry of the Environment for help. They asked the Public Health Unit for help. They asked the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure for help. They even asked the Premier of Ontario directly for help. Nothing happened. No one responded. No sir, what they got from the Premier of Ontario was a loud and strong message that he was not going to let any NIMBY’s slow down his cause.

Thrown into the already brewing mess was the Green Energy Act. Sounding like a wonderful piece of legislation that would help this province and in turn, the country achieve the desired energy saving goals, it turned out to be a complete removal of rights for Ontarians; the complete dismantling of democracy in one piece of legislation. What most people didn’t know or pay attention to, was what the Premier and his two Ministers were trying to push through at lightning speed would affect everyone, not just the rural residents. And oh, how it does!

And so the letters flowed and the meetings started; ministry workshop meetings, presentations at the legislature’s standing committee hearings, public input at the local government held meetings, written submissions to the Green Energy Act Registry. Thousands of letters, documents and studies by a bevy of very astute and credible professional engineers, doctors, health professionals, lawyers, electrical engineers, professors, all manner of Ontarians with and without degrees, from all walks of life and, of course, the residents who were already being affected, already sick and getting sicker by the terribly close proximity of the wind turbines and electrical groundwork. All of these people at a grassroots level, taking no money for their time or for their obvious expense of preparing and printing papers and running around the province to government meetings and rural town hall meetings. All of these people doing the research that the government should have done before they started down this road, showing what a miserable failure simple lack of planning creates. All of these people trying to inform the government of the very serious issues with the wind farms.

Yet in the space of maybe 45 days or so, since the last submission date to the Green Energy Act Registry, designed for public input and reaping some 1300 submissions alone, this government said they had seen enough. They’d had enough time to look through all of the information submitted; the very complex engineering reports, noise studies, the reams of information on health effects, turbine failure, viability of wind as an energy source and the safe requirements for setbacks that would keep all citizens out of harms way. They repeatedly refused all requests by health professionals requesting the government slow down and conduct a proper independent health study to determine the health effects. They had also heard the victim statements, pleading with the government for help, to please listen to them, warning them to not put anymore people in the position that they found themselves in, through no fault of their own. It all fell on deaf ears.

There was no way that these Ministers were going to slow down. No matter how many people tried to warn them, they were not going to let anyone stop them in their plan to spread their wind turbines far and wide across every rural inch of the province and ringing the Great Lakes shorelines. No sir, they were going full speed ahead.

They took away the rights of all citizens of Ontario. All citizens, not just some. They overruled the professional planners who understand and know the ramifications of setbacks and public space planning so that they have no say in the municipality anymore. They overruled the town councils and Mayors who have no say in their own backyards anymore, the place they know much more intimately than any Minister, or developer. They overruled everyone and everything. No one has ever seen the likes or speed of a piece of legislation like this before.

They ignore all of the facts brought before them, ignore and abandon the over 100 known victims, some of whom spend their days in restaurants trying to escape the conditions, who sleep in their cars with winter coming, who are billeted in a single room in a motel with children and more on the way, paid for by the wind developer. People with children, the children not knowing or caring about politics or landscape sightlines, but who bang on their ears with their fists asking Mommy to stop the noise, and young children who now complain of headaches. People with a new need for prescription sleeping pills and people who have lost everything. They’ve lost their livestock, their horses, their income, their way of life and the right to live in their own house. Children have had to move away. They live with relatives; they live by the goodness and grace of understanding strangers who offer them a place to stay. But in even larger numbers than these, are the ones trying desperately to stay in their own home, where everything they have is in and around them. Over 100 and growing. And so, at the end of the day what does the government do? They announce the same inadequate setbacks that they had previously spouted way back at the beginning of the year. Nothing had changed. It appears their minds were made up a long time ago. What a waste of taxpayers money.

The whole industry is contaminated with non-disclosure contracts right from the start. When the landowners agree to host, after being assured of all the good things they are doing, they sign contracts. These are variously worded contracts that do not allow them to speak out about anything negative to do with the wind turbines and will entitle the developer to make any amount of noise, vibration or do what they need to on their land and the landowner may not complain. Some are embarrassed at being taken in by the salesmen. They had no idea it would be such an intrusion, but the money sounded sweet. I wonder how many other businesses there are that match the need for non-disclosure clauses being made with ordinary, everday citizens while receiving full government support. Why such secrecy if this is such a noble exercise?

Many landowners with multiple turbines don’t live on their property. These are some of the ones who will say there are no problems and argue strongly to push ahead. Some have rented out their farmhouses cheap. The renters sleep with oscillating fans going all night long by their heads to try to cut out the thumping sound of the wind turbines clearly heard in their bedrooms. Many wear earplugs but they don’t always work.

People ask, why aren’t more people speaking up, why don’t we hear more? Would you speak up knowing that if and when you needed to get out you wouldn’t be able to sell your house? Who would buy it? It’s not an easy position for any of them to be put in, nor do they want to jeopardize the hopes that the developer will help them, or the possible lashback by fervent green supporters in their community who are so careless with their words and judgment. Many are under contract and cannot speak. Some don’t have the courage or the life skills to know who to even contact. This is all new to them; it’s all new to everyone, even our leaders.

So what about Europe people ask? Aren’t they all happy with their wind farms over there? No, they’re not. In fact there are over 360 grass roots coalitions in 19 European countries in exactly the same position as our residents, pleading to be listened to. They are trying to work with their governments on greater setbacks to protect the residents. As industrial wind turbines get bigger and bigger (40 storeys), some countries leaders have listened and have changed their setbacks to 1.5 kms and further. They acknowledge the problems, and they obviously care about the consequences. The symptoms and problems are mirrored all over the world. Next door in the U.S, Australia, Japan…..

No one can believe our government would completely ignore residents like this, especially the residents themselves. Surely there must be something wrong with these people if the government isn’t listening or taking action. Nope, in fact there is nothing wrong with these residents. These are all good people; honest people, the backbone of this country. Something wrong you ask? Perhaps you should be looking to the provincial government and their brazen, no questions asked backing and protection of the wind industry.

$omething i$ very wrong indeed.

~B. Ashbee