BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Bats & Wind Turbines don't mix


Beyond Billions: Threatened Bats are Worth Billions to Agriculture.
Title: Beyond Billions: Threatened Bats are Worth Billions to Agriculture
Description:
Insect-eating bats provide pest-control services that save the U.S. agriculture industry over $3 billion per year, according to a study released today in the journal Science. However, scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey, University of Pretoria in South Africa, University of Tennessee, and Boston University who contributed to the study warn that these valuable animals are at risk: Bat populations are declining due to fatalities associated with White-Nose Syndrome and wind turbines, which could lead to significant economic losses on U.S. farms. Paul Cryan, USGS scientist and an author of the report, discusses these findings.


 Link here to listen to audio

Sunday, May 29, 2011

ANTI-WIND GROUP IS PLAYING POLITICAL GAMES


SUNDAY, MAY 29, 2011

Recently I had the displeasure of attending a meeting that was
supposed to be for Cape Vincent's Republican Committee,
but instead the meeting was hijacked by the Cape's anti-wind group. Taking advice from their lawyers and not caring for our community's bigger concerns, the anti-wind group is once again playing games with our election process.

I'm sure the county and state Republican chairs wouldn't be keen on one township's Republican Party being hijacked by a special interest group. Cape's anti-wind people have so much contempt for the Cape community, they're banking on Cape voters blindly voting the Republican line, without checking who the candidates are.

Anti-wind group members Clifford Schneider and John Byrne, self-proclaimed experts on all wind matters, declared their candidacies for town board seats. For years these two have bullied and harassed the Republican chairs for not being yes men to the anti-wind group, like current town board member Urban Hirschey has obediently been. How many town meetings have started with Urban reading a written request recently received from Clifford, then at the same meeting Urban makes Clifford's request a resolution to be voted on? The rest of the board hasn't even read Clifford's letter, yet Urban expects the board to vote yes on Clifford's resolution that night.

Marty Mason has been a Republican his whole political life. Clifford has been a Republican for about five minutes, only because he lost his previous attempts to be elected as a candidate in other political parties.
Let's not forget the last town election when wind opponents got onto the Republican line by subverting the Cape chairs and duping the county election board. And then these wind opponents complained loudly when the Cape chairs wouldn't endorse them. Why should they endorse them considering they weaseled their way onto the ballot, instead of involving the chairs in an open, transparent fashion?

It's like how Urban keeps trying to spend our tax dollars on his pet projects with no input from the rest of the board. A survey is going around that didn't receive the entire board's authorization, but it's costing more than $10,000 of our tax dollars. Though all past county surveys have shown that 85 percent of county residents strongly support wind, Urban's anti-wind cronies keep telling him that Cape residents are gullible, and with all their anti-wind propaganda ads, manipulative mailers and tabloid blogs, their anti-wind agenda will slowly but surely catch on.

Harvey White

Cape Vincent

meeting hijacked by the Cape's anti-wind group.

SUNDAY, MAY 29, 2011

Recently I had the displeasure of attending a meeting that was supposed to be for Cape Vincent's Republican Committee, but instead the meeting was hijacked by the Cape's anti-wind group. Taking advice from their lawyers and not caring for our community's bigger concerns, the anti-wind group is once again playing games with our election process.

I'm sure the county and state Republican chairs wouldn't be keen on one township's Republican Party being hijacked by a special interest group. Cape's anti-wind people have so much contempt for the Cape community, they're banking on Cape voters blindly voting the Republican line, without checking who the candidates are.

Anti-wind group members Clifford Schneider and John Byrne, self-proclaimed experts on all wind matters, declared their candidacies for town board seats. For years these two have bullied and harassed the Republican chairs for not being yes men to the anti-wind group, like current town board member Urban Hirschey has obediently been. How many town meetings have started with Urban reading a written request recently received from Clifford, then at the same meeting Urban makes Clifford's request a resolution to be voted on? The rest of the board hasn't even read Clifford's letter, yet Urban expects the board to vote yes on Clifford's resolution that night.

Marty Mason has been a Republican his whole political life. Clifford has been a Republican for about five minutes, only because he lost his previous attempts to be elected as a candidate in other political parties.
Let's not forget the last town election when wind opponents got onto the Republican line by subverting the Cape chairs and duping the county election board. And then these wind opponents complained loudly when the Cape chairs wouldn't endorse them. Why should they endorse them considering they weaseled their way onto the ballot, instead of involving the chairs in an open, transparent fashion?

It's like how Urban keeps trying to spend our tax dollars on his pet projects with no input from the rest of the board. A survey is going around that didn't receive the entire board's authorization, but it's costing more than $10,000 of our tax dollars. Though all past county surveys have shown that 85 percent of county residents strongly support wind, Urban's anti-wind cronies keep telling him that Cape residents are gullible, and with all their anti-wind propaganda ads, manipulative mailers and tabloid blogs, their anti-wind agenda will slowly but surely catch on.

Harvey White

Cape Vincent
Letter to the TI Sun

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Marty Masons POWER LINE OPTIONS & RR ~ PROPERTY DEED ~


The rumor around town has always been that Smarty Marty Mason had inside info and that he swooped in on a slick deal, and bought a piece of railroad property destined to be the route of the power line for the proposed Wind Mill Developments .

Recently released info indicates that this may be the case.

Smarty Marty purchased the land in in 1998. The people at DANC have told me that the water line running from Cape to Chaumont was installed in 1996 . Apparently Marty had both opportunity and motive to purchase this piece of property.

Read about it here at this new web site CAPE VINCENT,NY HISTORY

MARTY MASON ~ OPTION FOR~ POWER LINE EASEMENT

TERM OF OPTION ~ APRIL 19/2005

DOCUMENT NOTORIZED ~ APRIL 14/2005

MASON DEED PG.1 RR PROPERTY

MASON DEED PG. 2 RR PROPERTY

MASON DEED PG.3 RR PROPERTY

MASON DEED Pg.4 RR PROPERTY

Marty Mason's POWER LINE OPTIONS & RR ~ PROPERTY DEED ~

The rumor around town has always been that Smarty Marty Mason had inside info and that he swooped in on a slick deal, and bought a piece of railroad property destined to be the route of the power line for the proposed Wind Mill Developments .

Recently released info indicates that this may be the case.

Smarty Marty purchased the land in in 1998. The people at DANC have told me that the water line running from Cape to Chaumont was installed in 1996 . Apparently Marty had both opportunity and motive to purchase this piece of property.

Read about it here at this new web site CAPE VINCENT,NY HISTORY

MARTY MASON ~ OPTION FOR~ POWER LINE EASEMENT

TERM OF OPTION ~ APRIL 19/2005







DOCUMENT NOTORIZED ~ APRIL 14/2005

MASON DEED PG.1 RR PROPERTY

MASON DEED PG. 2 RR PROPERTY

MASON DEED PG.3 RR PROPERTY

MASON DEED Pg.4 RR PROPERTY

Monday, May 16, 2011

Cape Vincent Wind History ~ 2006 ~ Leader Of The Pack ~


December 13, 2006:
With representatives of AES-Acciona and BP Alternative Energy present, the PB voted unanimously 5-0 to be lead agency in the state SEQR environmental review process for Acciona’s project site review.
Despite protests from some citizens, the site plan review process for wind farm development moved forward Wednesday night when two companies, AES Acciona Wind Power NY and BP Alternative Energy, came before Edsalls Planning Board. With representatives of AES-Acciona and BP Alternative Energy present .
Edsalls Planning Board voted unanimously 5-0 to be lead agency in the state SEQR environmental review process for Acciona’s project site review. Then the PB votes to make itself lead agency with sweeping power over the BP project as well in a 4-0 yes vote with one unidentified abstention. According to the Watertown Times article included in this post, Chairman Richard W. Edsall abstained from the vote concerning BP, because he has land in its proposed project area and had an agreement with Greenlight Energy, the company Mr. Hiza worked for before it was bought by BP.
Edsall and his Planning Board now have absolute critical control over the environmental review process, but never consider his conflicts of interest and prior recusals or the conflicts of two other PB members.
Later in the meeting the PB approves a met tower placement on the property of a brother of TB councilman Joe Wood and ZEO Alan Wood. This is a wind related issue yet the vote is 5-0 in favor with no abstentions this time which includes a yes vote by Karen Bourcy who is the sister to the individual getting the approval for the met tower. They recuse when they choose, there is no consistency to recusals or abstentions.


Dec. 20, 2006:
The NYDEC submits a letter to the PB and Edsall concerning the pending DEIS and the town as lead agency. They do not object to the town PB as lead agency. However, they may not been aware of the conflicts of interest since there is no mention of it in their letter, However if they were aware of the conflicts what would this say about the leadership of the DEC and their ethical standards? At this point no conflicted town officers had made any official disclosures as required by the town’s ethics code, written in 1970. As the public was not informed of the conflicts the DEC may have been in the dark about the ethical lapses of Edsalls Planning Board as well. They recommend that a public scoping be done so important studies get included, and the public and other involved agencies have input. The scoping was skipped over despite the request of the DEC who expresses concerns over wind farm impacts particularly in this area. In addition the letter outlines numerous areas of study the DEC thinks are important.
~~~~~~
Published on January 9, 2007,
Watertown Daily Times
CAPE ZBA SETS HEARING ON WIND POWER APPEAL
Town officials decided an appeal from a citizens ‘group concerning the legality of wind farm development could no longer be ignored Monday when the Zoning Board of Appeals set a public hearing to address the issue.
Previously at a Planning Board meeting, Edsall stated “These people have a right to go through the site plan process," he said. "In the end, if you feel the process has gone unfairly, you can do an Article 78 in State Supreme Court."
~~~~~~
January 11,2007
No resolution Rienbeck asks for permission to authorize BP escrow account

Meeting minutes---->

January 16, 2007:
The Watertown Daily Times (WDT) reports, “St. Lawrence Wind Power has skipped an optional phase in the state Environmental Quality Review process. AES Acciona Wind Power NY, the development company that is pursuing the potential St. Lawrence Wind Power farm, presented the Planning Board with a draft Environmental Review Statement, a 300 to 400 page document that outlines the studies the company will do to pursue development in the town's agricultural district. [In one of the first decisions as lead agency, PBC Edsall and the PB permit AES-Acciona to opt out of one of the optional requirements of SEQR. Again, a decision that Edsall makes without consideration or regard to his conflicts]. Perhaps Edsall was thinking only of his wind contracts, they are the driving force behind every decision that he makes.
~~~~~~WIND PLAN ARGUMENTS KEPT BRIEF
Published on January 19, 2007,
Watertown Daily Times
Attorneys from the Wind Power Ethics Group and AES Acciona Wind Power NY spent less than an hour presenting cases to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the St. Lawrence Wind Power project Monday.
The ethics group submitted an appeal in December of the Planning Board's decision to allow turbines in the agricultural district under site plan review. About 100 people attended the hearing, but few commented.
Judy Drabicki, a Dexter attorney is representing the ethics group .
~~~~~~January 26, 2007:
WDT reports, “The town Planning Board received a draft environmental impact statement from AES Acciona Wind Power New York for the St. Lawrence Wind Power project Jan. 10, but it will not be made available to the public until Feb. 1,
This is in violation of state Freedom of Information Law, according to the state Committee on Open Government.” This is a blatant move on Edsalls part to hinder the public’s ability to have any input on these wind projects. AES-Acciona also states in their DEIS they will comply with PB guidelines. In addition Edsall is quoted in the paper as allowing the DEIS to be taken home by the PB members to study, 2 others of which have family conflicts. This opens the door to the possibility of select members of their families or other lease holders viewing a document that has not been released to the public

Cape Vincent Wind HX ~ January 27, 2007 to July 21, 2007

Cape Vincent Wind
At the end of this post are links to my complete Wind History
from 2005 to January 26, 2007 ~

January 26, 2007:
WDT reports, “The town Planning Board received a draft environmental impact statement from AES Acciona Wind Power New York for the St. Lawrence Wind Power project Jan. 10, but it will not be made available to the public until Feb. 1,
Another move that is in violation of state Freedom of Information Law, according to the state Committee on Open Government.” This is another questionable decision by the PB and PBC Edsall. AES-Acciona also states in their DEIS they will comply with PB guidelines. In addition Edsall is quoted in the paper as allowing the DEIS to be taken home by the PB members to study, 2 others of which have family conflicts. This opens the door to the possibility of select members of their families or other lease holders viewing a document that has not been released to the public.

February 13, 2007

Ethics Group, DEC decry acceptance of unfinished report
by Kelly Vadney in Watertown Daily Times
Link to article here
The Wind Power Ethics Group and the state Department of Environmental Conservation say the town Planning Board should not have accepted a draft environmental impact statement for the St. Lawrence Wind Farm.
Judy Drabicki, a Dexter attorney representing the ethics group, a citizens' organization that has opposed wind farm development, said the developer has not sufficiently identified impacts because studies listed as part of the review have not been completed, including those for wetlands.
A DEIS is a document that is part of the State Environmental Quality Review process. Its purpose is to identify and study any adverse effects a development may have on the environment. A project can be turned down if adverse effects cannot be mitigated.
Todd R. Hopper a developer from AES Acciona Wind Power NY, which proposed the St. Lawrence Wind Farm, said the goal is to complete the studies by 2008.

Date: 02/23/2007

Lyme wants Brakes on Wind farm Project
By Kelly Vadney
Watertown Daily Times
Date: 02/23/2007
Link to article hereBased on comments at a Thursday wind power meeting, Lyme residents are keeping an open mind about a proposed wind farm, but they would like to slow the process down and have their own say.

“My perspective is, things are moving too fast and we need to slow down,” Councilman Warren A. Johnson said. “I think my fellow councilmen agree with that.”

03/14/2007
Lyme May Want Own Study of Wind farm

by Kelly Vadney
Watertown Daily Times

Link to article here
The immediate future of BP Alternative Energy’s proposed Cape Vincent Wind Farm may hinge on what transpires at the Lyme Town Council’s meeting today.

The issue is whether Cape Vincent will supervise the entire environmental review for the proposed 210-megawatt wind farm project, which crosses town lines, or if the Lyme Town Council will opt for a separate environmental review for the portion in Lyme. That could slow development of the wind farm.

The Cape Vincent Planning Board declared itself lead agency for the State Environmental Quality Review for the entire project in January. Since then, some members of the Lyme Town Council have said Lyme should be lead agency for the Lyme portion.

31 March 2007

Cape Vincent NY ~ WPEG~ files suit ~ Wind Turbines as Utilities
Watertown Daily Times

Link to Article hereCAPE VINCENT — A citizens group opposed to a proposed wind farm here has mounted a legal challenge to the town’s determination that the project qualifies as a utility under zoning law.

Wind Power Ethics Group filed an Article 78 petition Wednesday in state Supreme Court against the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals and St. Lawrence Windpower LLC, the developer of the proposed 97-turbine project.
The ZBA determined Feb. 28 that the project was a utility within the meaning of the town’s zoning law and is therefore a permitted site plan use in the town’s agricultural/residential zoning district.

04/01/2007

Wind farm meeting Moved Due to Croud
By Kelly Vadney
Publication: Watertown Daily Times
(Watertown, NY)

Link to article hereThe town of Lyme’s debate on a wind power moratorium Saturday drew enough residents to be moved, physically.

When the crowd formed a line outside the municipal building’s meeting room, the Town Council relocated the session less than a mile down the road, to the fire hall. There, about 80 people listened to arguments for and against a moratorium on wind farm development. A moratorium would put development on hold while the council adopts zoning for turbines.

04/07/2007

WPEG ~ Wind Lawsuit Claims zoning law change required for utilities designation of wind turbines
By Kelly Vadney
Watertown Daily Times (Watertown, NY

Link to article hereThe town of Cape Vincent sees proposed wind turbines just like a water treatment plant or electrical substation, utilities allowed under its existing zoning laws. But an opposition group contends that dozens of 400-foot-high turbines spread over hundreds of acres aren’t utilities, and has filed a lawsuit to force the town to create new zoning controls.

A judge will decide who’s right, and that ruling may send the town back to square one in the planning process for turbine development. If the ruling is made in favor of the town, the planning process will continue with the possibility of turbines being placed in the municipality’s river and lakefront districts, on waterfront property near Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.

Apr. 11, 2007

Cape Vincent Local Development Corp. sends out survey asking about wind farm.
Byline: Kelly Vadney
Article from:Watertown Daily Times (Watertown, NY) Article date:
Link to Article hereLDC Sends out Survey

It's easy to ruffle feathers in Cape Vincent.

Just follow the Cape Vincent Local Development Corp.'s footsteps and send out 2,000 surveys that ask questions about wind turbines.

L. Sam DeLong, chairwoman of the LDC, said the surveys were designed to solicit information for the drafting of a downtown master plan.

"It was decided the Local Development Corp. would send out a survey to get the pulse of the community as to what they wanted," she said. "When you're developing a master plan, you need to know your limits."

04/27/2007

Antitrust complaint against the wind industry.

Watertown Daily Times

Link to Article here

T. Urling and Mabel Walker of Watertown and Cape Vincent are among 20 north country residents named in a 94-person antitrust complaint against the wind industry.

The complaint — submitted Wednesday via e-mail to the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust division — alleges that a number of foreign and domestic companies “have conspired to eliminate competition in the newly emerging wind energy industry.” It claims that, through alliances and cross-ownership, the alleged “international cartel” is avoiding competition for potential wind farm sites, reducing benefits to landowners and municipalities, and that “virtually all of the earnings are funneled abroad to the foreign owners and investors.”


June 13, 2007

The NY Dept. of Public Service’s sends a very pointed letter to the PB and Edsall about the inadequacy of St. Lawrence Wind Power’s DEIS. Comments include the fact the PB as lead agency basically ignored the requests of the NYDPS to do an adequate job on numerous areas of concern provided previously by the NYDPS. They tell the PB they should start the process over, and get qualified help to do these studies correctly. They indicate this study should never have been accepted by Edsall and the planning board. It is proof by a major involved NY agency of the rushed nature of the town and its planning board. As with the NYDEC the DPS had no way of knowing of the conflicts of interest of three PB members now acting as lead agency because there were still no official conflict disclosures by conflicted town officers.

06/19/2007

Save The River ,TILT Call For A Chomprehensive Wind Farm Review

By Kelly Vadney
Publication: Watertown Daily Times (Watertown, NY)
Link to Article hereTwo nonprofit environmental organizations have teamed up to call for a comprehensive review of proposed wind farms in Jefferson County.
Save the River and the Thousand Islands Land Trust submitted identical comments concerning the proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm, Cape Vincent, and the Horse Creek Wind Farm, Clayton.
“The impacts and benefits of wind-energy installations are not constrained by political boundaries,” the organizations wrote. “The Jefferson County Legislature and Jefferson County Planning Department should be involved in coordinating these projects on a countywide basis.”

06/24/2007

CAPE RESIDENTS SAY WIND FARM PLAN DOESN"T HONOR SETBACKS
By Kelly Vadney
Watertown Daily Times

Link to Article here
CAPE VINCENT — St. Lawrence Wind Farm has proposed turbine locations short of a 1,000-foot setback the company pledged to honor, mapping some industrial windmills closer to properties that are not participating in its project.

Former town Councilman Clifford P. Schneider wrote the town Planning Board about the locations, saying he found 30 proposed turbine sites that are closer than 1,000 feet to nonparticipating parcels.

6/27 /2007

Towns Seeking Wind Zoning Advice

By Kelly Vadney
Watertown Daily Times

Link to Article here
With industrial wind farm developments on the horizon in the north county, town supervisors are reaching out to Jefferson County government for help.

The Jefferson County Town Supervisors Association has asked the county planning office to present examples of zoning laws for turbines at an upcoming meeting, said County Planning Director Donald R. Canfield. While the county cannot implement zoning for municipalities, it can offer advice if called upon.


June 27, 2007:
At a meeting of the Planning Board, Planning Board Chairman Edsall calls AES- Acciona officials to step forward and states, “Even though you are not legally required to abide by our guidelines, you will won’t you? They both responded, “yes.” They just agreed to 5dba and turbines are not utilities! This would kill the wind project! Edsall then requires them to address a number of issues that were deficient in the initial DEIS submitted by AES- Acciona

06/28/2007.

Cape Vincent Lists its Requirements For Wind Turbines

By Kelly Vadney
Publication: Watertown Daily Times (Watertown, NY)

Link to Article hereCAPE VINCENT — The Town Planning Board on Wednesday gave the St. Lawrence Wind Farm several hoops to jump through before completing the environmental review for its proposed project.
The wind farm, proposed by AES Acciona Wind Power NY, would bring up to 96 turbines to the town. A second project, Cape Vincent Wind Farm, proposed by BP Alternative Energy, would bring 60 to 80 turbines to the interior of Cape Vincent and 30 to 60 to the neighboring town of Lyme. BP’s project is not yet in the environmental review stage.
Planning Board Chairman Richard J. Edsall said he drafted the requirements he handed down to St. Lawrence Wind Farm Developers Todd R. Hopper and Shawn A. Briggs.

21 July 2007
St. Lawrence Wind Farm~needs approval from the PSC in the form of a certificate of necessity
By Kelly Vadney
Watertown Daily Times

Link to Article hereCAPE VINCENT — If the St. Lawrence Wind Farm wants to satisfy the state Public Service Commission, it should rewind six months and start its environ­mental review over.
For the wind farm to build its 96 proposed turbines, it needs approval from the PSC in the form of a certificate of necessity, spokeswoman Anne P. Dalton said.
The commission’s comments on the review say the town Plan­ning Board accepted a draft en­vironmental impact statement that is incomplete and “does not address any topic in sufficient detail.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~1~ Wind HX~ Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave
Time covered [August 2005 to Spring of 2006 Aubertine]
2~ Wind HX~ Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave
Time covered [June 15, 2006 to Feb 2008 Aubertine]
~~~~~~
3~ Wind HX~ Cape Vincent's Planning Board Chairman Edsall Works Tirelessly To Ensure His Green Future.
Time covered [2002 to April,7 2006]

3~A~ Supplimental Wind HX~ You Don't Need to be a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows
Time Covered [August 4, 2005 to August 29, 2005 Rienbeck caucus circus]

4~ Wind HX~ Cape Vincent Wind saga ~ Continues Soring Of 2006
Time covered [April 21, 2006 to May 14, 2006]

5~ Wind HX~ Cape Vincent~ Wind History Continues~ Zoning Twilight Zone.
Time Covered [April,2006 to June 14, 2006]
5A~ Supplimental Wind HX~If You Hang Out With Pigs You Might Begin to Smell Like One
Time Covered [June 14, 2006 to February 28, 2007]

6~ Wind HX~ Pelo Road a Waterline to Nowhere
or a Waterline to Acciona's cement Batch-Plant?
Time Covered [September 24, 2003 to July 16 2006]

7~ Wind HX~ Cape Vincent Wind HX ~ Musical Recusal
Time covered [ December 13 2006 ~ PB & Lead agency vote]

8 Wind HX ~ SLW & BP Escrow Account Details
Time covered [December 19 2006 to June 4, 2010]January 26, 2007:

9 Wind HX ~ Cape Vincent Wind History Leader of the Pack
Time Covered [December 13, 2006 to January 26,2007]

Saturday, May 14, 2011

The Power of Energy


The Power Of Energy ~
by John DrozJohn Droz, jr.
Physicist & Environmental Activist

For many years now we have heard reports about how the quantity and quality of science being taught to students in the US has been on the decline. To most people this news is on a par with reports of tornadoes: “It’s too bad” and/or “There’s nothing I can do about it” and/or “Life will go on” and/or “It doesn’t really affect me personally.” Next news story.

Unfortunately, the science decline has converged with another major scourge of our time: grade inflation. The net affect of the product of these two problems is that the relative scientific knowledge of our society is in serious decline. If you have any question about the validity of this, simply ask any of your friends to explain what the “scientific method” is. (Hint: failure to follow these established norms is a hallmark of pseudoscience.)
The lack of such core understandings is a profound failing of our education system, and
has lead to our current populous being, by and large, technically challenged And the “it doesn’t affect me personally” assumption is totally false, as our country is now being driven by science-deprived journalists and politicians. Major decisions about your economic well-being, and your quality of life, are being made by well-intentioned (we’ll optimistically assume that), but ill-informed people.

Science is not a static field. While scientific methodology has remained constant, at any time in the last few thousand years there has been a prevalent paradigm (shared set of assumptions) which was used in determining what was scientifically legitimate, and what was not. A layperson’s view would be that a paradigm explains the world to us, and helps us to predict its behavior. One of the interesting and challengingaspects of our times is that we are now going through a phenomenally profound change in our scientific paradigm.
Technology advances are one of several forces propelling this revolution.More computing power exists today in one Apple iMac than did in the entire world around 1960! This undeniably gives us new capability (e.g. for predicting weather).

But what gets lost in the excitement of possibilities are other equally compelling facts, like the extraordinary impact that the personal biases that one computer programmer can have on our whole society.

Other negativeconsequences are that children have become more technically proficient, but are signifiantly less creative. In addition, so much of their free time is technologically oriented that their appreciation of nature often suffers. Further, students so used to “answers” being instantly available, are gradually losing their ability to do critical thinking. And writing?

IMO, FWIW, this situation has become FUBAR. And this is not W00T. SCNR. But maybe I went too fast there. Imbedded in the prior paragraph is the most fundamental problem of our time: the lack of critical thinking. What exactly is that? “Whereas society commonly promotes values laden with superficial, immediate ‘benefits,’ critical thinking cultivates substance and true intellectual discipline. It entails rigorous self-reflection and open-mindedness — the keys to significant changes. Critical thinking requires the cultivation of core intellectual virtues such as intellectual humility, perseverance, integrity, and responsibility.

Nothing of real value comes easily.”A rich intellectual environment — alive with curious and determined citizens — is possible only with critical thinking at the foundation of the evaluation process. Paraphrasing a quote from an Ann Rice book: ”Very few really seek knowledge in this world.

On the contrary, they try to justify their entrenched, unscientific opinions, by selectively wringing from the unknown, answers to console themselves. To really ask for the Truth is to open the door to the whirlwind — which may annihilate the questioner.”

This, in my opinion, is the core explanation for the dogged support of such non-solutions to our energy crisis (like wind power) by otherwise well-intentioned environmentalists.

The energy issue has become the poster child of what is a scientific wasteland. Everywhere one looks there is information being paraded by the media and political entities as fact,whereas it is really nonsense, or from our perspective here, non-science It’s challenging to know where to begin an analysis of this issue, but let’s just start with the fact that most people confuse “Energy” with “Power.” Every student should have been taught that “Energy” is “the ability to do work”, whereas “Power” is “the rate at which energy is consumed.” In everyday experience, home electrical “Power” is measured in terms of KWs

(KiloWatts = 1000 Watts = ten 100 Watt light bulbs)..

Lost already? Join the crowd.
An analogy might be that Energy is your 60 gallon tank of hot water.
Power is the water flow (e.g. from your shower, let’s say 1 GPM). That energy will supply 1 hour of that power. In a related way “energy generation” is often used interchangeably with “power generation.”
However, there is actually no such thing as “energy generation,” because energy can not be created (due to the first law of thermodynamics — a science thingamajig).
Electrical utility companies are more accurately businesses that convert one type of energy into another (e.g. heat energy into electrical energy). No energy is generated or created. Let’s briefly look at some of the other messages that are being fed to the unscientific public by the unscientific media. For instance: are we running out of sources of energy? No. Since energy is never “lost” that is impossible. Are we running out of sources of energy to convert? No, the energy resources in the US are essentially infinite. Will changing to another source for electricity (like wind power) meaningfully help the US reduce its dependence on foreign oil? No. The fact is that only about 1% of the electricity generated in the US comes from oil. Putting this in perspective, the United States EXPORTS significantly more oil than the amount it uses for electricity generation. Is Global Warming a scientifically resolved matter? No. There is some very convincing evidence (and scientists) that indicate that there is such a thing as Global Warming.

But there are some very qualified scientists (with good evidence) that suggest just the opposite. More importantly, statements often appearing in the media like “the majority of scientists” believe in Global Warming, are meaningless.

First of all, no legitimate survey has ever been done, and secondly ,science is not about the number of people who advocate a position.

A good example of the latter is that up until a very few years ago essentially 100% of physicians and professional health organizations (world wide) believed that it was scientific fact that ulcers were primarily caused by stress and excess acidity.

Two contrarian Australian scientists proved them ALL to be wrong. [An interesting sidelight to this story is that thirteen years after this scientific proof was formally released, a CDC study showed that 75% of ulcer patients were still getting the wrong treatment. Change is resisted.]

There are three basic positions to take about Global Warming:

1) you believe that it is true,

2) you believe that it is false, or

3) you believe that the jury is still out.

What is indisputable is that the most unscientific thing you can say is:

“The debate is over Aren’t “renewable” sources of energy a good thing?

Yes, because ALL sources of energy are “renewable” (replaceable by new growth) — just at different rates.Please reflect for a moment on this scientific fact: all sources of energy are renewable. Then what sense do such edicts as “Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)” make? Absolutely none.They set artificial time periods, autocratic limits, and arbitrarily favor some selected businesses that have gained political support.In a word they are unscientific.

Wind power is in, hydroelectric is out. Solar power is in, nuclear power is out.

Geothermal, one of the best “renewables,” has been all but ignored.

There is essentially NO scientific rationale for these distinctions. It’s all about politics, the money, and the lobbyists.
But aren’t these political favorites “cleaner” and “greener”?

No. Firstly because “cleaner” and “greener” are subjective, non-scientific terms, and the people who are making up this terminology are businesses that stand to profit from their implementation. When you hear “clean” and “green” think Madison Ave marketing.

Intentional vagueness is part of a time-tested propaganda tactic designed to elicit cooperation.

These clever folks are taking advantage of Joe Citizen’s scientific limitations and trying to manipulate him into thinking he is supporting a good thing. The reality is that he is lining someone’s pockets. Secondly, even using the definitions made-up by the businesses that are profiting from this political clout (that “clean and green” means that less emissions, like CO2, are made) there are “non-renewables” that are just as clean and green. As an example, in some state RPS edicts, hydroelectric power (zero CO2 emissions) is not acceptable as a new “renewable.” Why? Because a political group (some environmentalists) doesn’t like some of hydroelectric’s environmental impacts — yet they say nothing about wind power’s.

Again, we have a result based on politics and influence, not science.
Nuclear is another example.Its total CO2 emissions are less than wind power, primarily because wind’s infrastructure has five to ten times the amount of concrete and steel, yet wind power is marketed as a “clean and green” replacement of nuclear. [And it has been calculated that for wind power to roughly produce the power of one 1000 MW nuclear facility, it would take some TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND acres of land...

Another perspective is that if wind power was to provide the electricity needed by New York City, the entire state of Connecticut would have to be completely covered with turbines — and that assumes favorable wind conditions 24/7, which won’t ever happen.] But scare mongers (mostly non-scientists) have so far successfully overly concerned the public about the downsides of nuclear power. If we were better educated, we wouldn’t be so vulnerable to misinformation, and would see the situation in a more realistic perspective. The scientific fact is that ALL sources of power have serious downsides. We should be spending our time and efforts on fixing (or improving) those power sources that have the greatest real capacity to provide dependable (e.g. Base Load, etc.) power, rather than wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on those that have the strongest lobby. In other words (again) it should be about the science of this issue, not who stands to profit from it.

Still another absurdity of our times is what is known as “Carbon Trading”. Aggressively marketed as being a legitimate part of reducing emission pollutants, it is quite the opposite. The layman’s definition of Carbon Trading is that a polluting utility company is allowed to continue to pollute if they buy someone else’s good actions or “credits But don’t they have to “pay” for this? Not really. As with most of these arrangements, the onsumer will be the one who really has to pay, not the business. And of course we all are impacted (have to “pay”) by the environmental harm done by these continued emissions.

But didn’t a version of this idea work for acid rain? Possibly, but... firstly, there were other factors involved with acid rain reduction so it is hard to assign exactly which did what. Secondly, this is a technically different issue in many ways — e.g. it is an easy task to
measure acidity changes in selected lakes, but it is a considerably more complex matter to measure CO2 variations. Thirdly, this is a much more substantial problem than harming lakes, so we need to be sure that it will work.
Interestingly this whimsical plan is being supported by the same people who say that “the fate of the planet is at stake.” What sense does it make to allow extinction of Homo sapiens just because a few dollars are expended?

Fourthly, the people setting up this arbitrary system have an unscientific agenda: they
want to promote certain politically favored businesses (like wind power). They do this by
assigning a fictitiously high “credit” to wind power, thereby encouraging investment in it.
Then owners of coal utilities (who have real pollution) buy these monopoly money credits to get out of jail, which allows them to keep polluting — all with the government’s blessing.
Because wind power credits are not realistic in the first place (since they are usually based on false premises like wind power generates CO2-free electricity, or that it replaces coal power nearly 1:1), very little benefit is done to the environment. All you have to know is that taking advantage of such boondoggles was a key part of Enron’s recipe for success.

Since one bad idea often begets another, Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) are still another silly attempt to profit off of consumer’s scientific ignorance and their desire to do good.Is all this sound public policy?
Another way to look at energy is that it is a force multiplier that helps us do more than we could do if we used less of it. This applies whether heating your home, pumping water, creating a manufactured item, operating your computer, or whatever other function itperforms.
Using it wisely is important from efficiency, economic and environmental
standpoints. Since its use always entails tradeoffs, we need to keep these in mind.
However, making all energy more expensive, or mandating carte blanche reductions of
energy use as an objective (without comprehensive and objective consideration of costs and benefits), does not make sense from a societal perspective, and will be seriously detrimental to all of us.

All these ineffective and counterproductive ideas can be traced back to promotions by
profiteers, coupled with misguided support by scientifically sparse souls.

The bottom line is that our energy issues can be solved if proposed solutions are put
through time-tested scientific methodology examinations. Such independent analyses
would objectively determine whether the new ideas (like industrial wind power) are
technically sound, financially viable on their own, and environmentally friendly.
We depart from this proven path at our extreme peril.

John Droz, jr.

Physicist & Environmental Activist
Brantingham Lake, NY
7/21/08; revised 2/16/09

EDSALL'S ~ HEE ~ HAW ~ WIND LAW ~ 2006


Early August 2006

Edsall began expressing public opinions that a wind law may not be necessary because turbines can be designated utilities under the current zoning law. The current zoning law has no provisions or codes for wind energy development and is completely inadequate to address this type of industrial development. The actions of Cape Vincent municipal officials are contrary to normal accepted practice at the time, since other towns around CV and New York facing wind development declared wind moratoriums and developed specific wind zoning amendments
August 28, 2006:

Because the cost of environmental studies exceeded expectations, Supervisor Rienbeck resolved to “discontinue the process of amending the Town of Cape Vincent Zoning Law to regulate wind towers.” The motion did not carry, but the zoning process is essentially dead.(Link here)
Rienbeck further states, “I will request the Planning Board adopt our proposed wind tower regulations as a guideline during their site plan review process.” This conformed to PBC Edsall’s June 14,2006 request(link here) but is at odds with recommendations by others, including the Town’s attorney, to adopt a wind law. At or about this time Supervisor Rienbeck stopped soliciting advice from the Town’s attorney (Mark Gebo) and began following the advice of an Albany attorney in the office of the New York Association of Towns. Rienbeck, when asked in the media
what happens if a wind law is not passed, comments that the town will call turbines
utilities under the current zoning, and they can be placed anywhere in town as a result. It should also be noted that the town had sufficient money to do the studies, and could have even charged the developers for the studies. (The developer refuses pay for the studies)


The minutes reflect that Edsall requested the planning board adopt the old 2006 law as guidelines to regulate wind development in Cape vincent. And Edsall adopted them....
With all the bungling and the “HE HAW Politics” that are going on in Cape Vincent could it get any more ridiculous?
What does the old law (guideline) say?
Turbines are not utilities, and 5dba at the property line!
These moronic idiots just adopted what they tried to kill!
Read the law here page one clearly states that wind power facilities shall not be considered utilities.





Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Letter from a reformed supporter of wind power

May 8, 2011


To the Editor:
Cumberland Times-News The Cumberland Times-News Sun May 08, 2011, 08:05 PM EDT

— There’s been a lot of discussion lately about wind powered electrical generation plants being constructed on formerly forested ridges in Maryland and West Virginia.

As a former supporter of wind power, I decided to make an unofficial, private citizen’s study of the subject. Since August 2010, I’ve visited hundreds of wind farms in twenty states observing siting, noise and operating practices.

Among the many conclusions I’ve drawn is that wind turbines are a silly and inefficient means of generating electricity which rarely meet the claims made to promote them. The claim stated most often is the large number of homes that will be powered by a wind energy plant. This might be possible if the wind blew at a high and constant speed all the time.

Fortunately for us and unfortunately for the wind promoters it does not. A second claim made on behalf of wind turbines is that their useful life is 20 years or more. Observation of turbines in the 20 states I’ve visited shows that wind turbines begin to break down early in their operation and that the average four or five year old wind farm will have 5 percent or more of its turbines standing still.

Last month, I flew over the two brand new wind facilities on Backbone Mountain in Maryland. One at Roth Rock, a German Nordex, and two Clipper turbines were not turning.

Last week I was in Utah at Edison Mission’s wind powered generating facility in Spanish Fork. Locally, Edison Mission has recently received the blessing from the West Virginia Public Service Commission and the Mineral County commissioners to construct a wind farm on the mountain that frames the city of Keyser.

Spanish Fork, Utah, where the Edison Mission wind facility is located, was touted in 2008 as having the “richest source of wind in Utah.” Only nine turbines were built there in a suburban environment.

It is worth noting that a half days drive away is the Milford, Utah, Wind Corridor with over 100 wind turbines. It began in 2009 and was still erecting towers last week. So much for the hyperbole of “richest source” in Spanish Fork.

I visited Spanish Fork two consecutive days and on each day, one of the nine turbines was not turning, two or three were turning too slowly to produce electricity and the rest were turning a little faster, but not at full capacity.

The Spanish Fork facility is not on open ground like Milford Wind Corridor (most western and mid-western wind farms are) nor is it on a ridge line. Edison Mission has placed their nine Suzlon wind turbines, from India, in a valley at the mouth of a canyon, below towering mountains on foundations that are 60 or 70 feet lower than the Spanish Fork housing development they face.

According to Utah Valley news reports, the electricity generated here will not be used in Spanish Fork because the cost of the electricity generated by the wind is greater than what the city would pay from traditional sources.

When the project was constructed, in 2008, Spanish Fork’s Nebo School District was promised $1.267 million for the first 20 years of wind farm operation and $3.682 million for every 20-year phase thereafter.

I don’t know whether the wind farm has met those obligations, but I know that this year the Nebo School District found it necessary to furlough its teachers and cut days from the school year because of budget shortfalls.

Edison Mission does contribute to the Spanish Fork economy through an annual kite festival celebrating the wind in Spanish Fork.

John Terry

Montrose, W.Va.

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Hessler's UN sound practices

Because there were concerns early on among local citizens that the developers noise report was misleading, the Wind Power Ethics Group (WPEG) contracted Schomer and associates to conduct an independent background sound survey of Cape Vincent.

Dr.Schomer is chair of the International Organization for Standardization working group on environmental noise and chair of the American National Standards committee on noise. Dr.Schomer found that Hessler's study for the Cape Vincent Wind Power Facilities appears to have selected the noisiest sites, the noisiest time of year, and the noisiest positions at each measurement site.
Collectively, these choices resulted in a substantial overestimate of the a-weighted ambient sound level, 45-50 db.


Consequently, Dr.Schomer’s report had the potential to cause big problems for Acciona, and British Petroleum if it were not discredited.


Previously the Town of Cape Vincent had commissioned Cavanaugh Tocci and Associates to analyze the noise study by the wind developers. The Cavanaugh Tocci report was critical of the current flawed sound study as well ; and subsequently the report was suppressed.This was discovered recently with the release of FOILED documents pertaining to Cape Vincent’s sound study.


Edsall announced at the planning board meeting of March 11, 2010 that St. Lawrence Wind power has arranged to have Hessler and associates give a presentation, to outline their methodologies for assessing sound and impacts.


April 14, 2010 Hessler gave his two-hour rebuttal to Dr.Schomers evaluation of his work.

Video of Hessler attempting to discredit Dr.Schomer ~



Schomer and Associates sent this letter Dated April 23, 2010 to Cape Vincent Town Supervisor,
in response to Hesslers UN- sound presentation,

Mr. Urban Hirschey – Supervisor
Town of Cape Vincent
1964 NYS Rte 12E
Cape Vincent, NY 13618

Dear Supervisor Hirschey:

This letter is my response to Mr. David Hessler's April 14, 2010 presentation to the Cape Vincent
Planning Board regarding my report, “Background sound measurements and analysis in the vicinity of
Cape Vincent, New York.”
Mr. Hessler continues to ignore important facts. Specifically, he:

1. Mixes winter and summer wind speed versus ambient sound level together as if the same
processes governed both seasons,
2. Continues to reject Site 4 data because they are “too quiet.”

Consider winter. Mr. Hessler examines the ambient when the wind at 10 m is thought to be about 7 m/s and shows (Hessler’s BP winter study Figure 2.5.5) that about 80 % of the ambient data are louder than 37 dB with few data that are greatly quieter.1 This indicates that in winter when the winds (at 10 m) are about 7 m/s that the wind turbine can produce up to 43 dB at an affected property and be in compliance with the New York State guideline. But that is all it shows. It cannot necessarily be extrapolated to other wind speeds, and it definitely cannot be extrapolated to summer. Consider Figure 2.5.5 at 4 m/s. Here, about 80 % of the ambient data exceed 20 dB. So in winter, when the wind is 4 m/s, the turbine noise at an affected property must be less than 26 dB in order to comply with NYSDEC policy of 6 dB above background sound levels. Nowhere is this shown to be the case.

In summer, Hessler uses the winter ambient noise versus wind speed relation to predict the summer ambient even though, as Cavanaugh-Tocci has correctly noted, the summer data exhibit virtually no correlation between ambient sound level and wind speed. And, indeed, there is none. The summer data are dominated by insect noise, a high frequency noise that cannot and does not mask the lowfrequency wind-turbine noise. Even more importantly, regularly and frequently, especially at night, the relation between wind speed and altitude cited by Hessler breaks down completely. It is simply wrong. This is not some idle theory; it is a well known and
well documented fact, and Hessler acknowledges this phenomena in his presentation (see quote below). What actually happens is that the wind is strong at hub height but it is calm near the ground (10 m). So the wind turbine can easily operate and make 1 Rightfully, Mr. Hessler chooses a wind speed and corresponding ambient sound level such that about 80% if the time the ambient is greater than 37 dB and 20% of the time it is quieter. This can be thought of as protecting 80% of the population or protecting 80% of the time, or some combination of these two. The important point is that the protection should be at least at the 80 to 90% level—not at 50%. noise while at the same time there is no masking wind noise at ground level.

How often does this condition occur? At the InterNoise2009 conference last August, the one Hessler mentions in his presentation, I chaired a session in which a paper was presented that contained factual data showing that this condition, strong winds at hub height and zero winds at 10 m, occurs almost every other night during the warmer weather months at Cape Vincent—almost every other night.

How loud is it? As Hessler stated during the recent hearing:

“Now turbine sound level varies with wind and weather conditions and time of day, no question about that. In particular, at night, wind tends to blow up above while calmer near the ground; the curvature of the shear profile is pretty slanted, so the top of the blades are in high wind and the bottom of the blades are in lower wind. That causes them to make a kind of churning noise, most often it happens at night. So, levels are going to vary, some time it's going to be completely naudible and other times temporarily rather loud, it's just the way wind turbines are.”

“Rather loud” means louder than predicted; louder than the “permitted” 43 dB(A). How much louder? The wind turbine manufacturers do not measure it—perhaps 5 to 10 dB.

What is the bottom line? During warm-weather months, almost every other night, the ambient, as we and Hessler both measured, will be about 25 dB(A). At the same time the wind turbine can be producing on the order of 50 dB. Rather than the permitted 6 dB increase, the true increase will be about 25 dB, and this huge increase may occur almost every other night.

People will be very unhappy—and rightfully so.

Paul Schomer, Ph.D., P.E.

Member, Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering








Link here to read Schomers complete evaluation of Hesslers sound study for in Cape Vincent


    Dr. Shomers original letter to Supervisor Hirschey.




      link here for video of Edsall's announcement that Hessler is coming.
      here to view video of Edsall telling citizen that they canot bend the boards ear.

      Monday, May 2, 2011

      BP Energy to build a new substation in Lyme

      National Grid is in the process of negotiating, with BP Energy to build a new substation in Lyme the project has a direct interaction with the St. Lawrence Wind Project .
      BP Alternative Energy NA, Inc. (“Developer”) is constructing a 210 MW wind generation farm consisting of one hundred forty (140) GE 1.5 MW wind turbines which will be interconnected in two phases. Phase I will comprise 95 turbines (142.5 MW) and Phase II will include the remaining 45 turbines (62.4 MW). The output from each turbine will be stepped up to 34.5 kV through individual pad mount 690V/34.5kV, 1.75 MVA transformers. The 140 units will be distributed over 13 radial 34.5-kV feeder lines which will be brought to two separate collection stations, approximately 2 miles apart, one for each phase.


      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Is Phase II something new?

      Phase II; talks about an additional 45 turbines? Where did this come from? Where are the plans? Where will phase II be located? Does Lyme know about this?
      Has the size of BP's project changed? Are they using an old description of the project in this application,but have included GE 1.5 MW turbines? Are the 45 phase II turbines something new that is quietly being planned for?
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Link here to read the ~ APPLICATION BY NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION
      TO INSTALL A 115kV GENERATOR ATTACHMENT FACILITY
      AND PERFORM MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES WORK TO ACCOMMODATE THE
      CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAPE VINCENT WIND FARM GENERATION FACILITIES ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



      Is this the site of the New Rockledge substation?
      march 3, 2011 the Watertown Daily Times reported that St. Lawrence Wind Farm's developer plans to construct a new electrical substation, called Rockledge, in Lyme and then turn it over to National Grid, a utility spokeswoman said. link here
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Is this project a shared project between Acciona & BP? This would make Edsall conflicted with both Acciona & BP



      As reported in the watertown Daily Times May 19, 2010 Acciona buys land for transmission lines~
      CHAUMONT -- Acciona Wind Energy USA, the developer of the proposed 53-turbine St. Lawrence Wind Farm in Cape Vincent, purchased 102 acres of farmland along Old Town Springs Road and Cheever Road from H. George VanAlstyne, Chaumont, for $180,000, according to property transactions recorded May 10 at the Jefferson County clerk's office.
      Acciona wants to run a 9-mile, 115-kilovolt transmission line that would connect the wind farm's substation on Swamp Road, Cape Vincent, to a National Grid substation on County Route 179 in Lyme.





      Source :The Watertown Daily Times
      link here