BP's Tatics in Cape Vincent Ny

Saturday, March 31, 2012

GOING GREEN


Recently the Bureau of Labor and statistics (BLS)released data on green jobs in America their report is, creative to say the least.

Here are a few highlights from a story written by _ David Kreutzer a research fellow in energy economics and climate change at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis.

The BLS Green Jobs report revealed that there are 33 times as many green jobs in the septic tank and portable toilet service as in solar electric utilities.

The largest green-job producers within manufacturing are steel mills. Over 50 percent of all jobs in steel mills are counted as green -- not because the steel goes to make green products, but because most of our steel is made from scrap steel.


 This comment by Anon sums things up nicely

So this is being green - "producing goods or providing services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources."

My cousin Vinnie runs a septic pump-out business. He drives what he calls his "stinking honey bucket."

Vinnie always used to tell people that his was a shi# job - really!

Now I can tell Vinnie he doesn't have to think his job is shi##y because now he's working in "renewables," green energy. He's a crap pusher no longer. Now his is into recycling, keeping our planet clean, and if he spreads his honey on your lawn, keeping the planet green!

Ain't it great to be able to disguise what you really do?

Read David Kreutzer's story in the Kennebec Journal

Link here to the BLS report

Great Lakes Wind Consortium Memorandum Of Understanding



Yesterday in a press release, the department of energy announced that the Obama Administration joined with the governors of Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania to announce the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will streamline the efficient and responsible development of offshore wind resources in the Great Lakes.
The memorandum of understanding is intended to streamline the process for developers to get approvals for wind turbine projects located on the waters of the Great Lakes.



"The Great Lakes have the potential to provide clean energy from offshore wind and related green jobs in upstate New York,” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said in a news release. “This MOU offers a responsible mechanism for enhanced and efficient collaboration among federal, state and local interests in evaluating processes and proposals for development of this resource."

The agreement states all sides are intent on promoting "expeditious, orderly and responsible review" of wind turbine applications for the Great Lakes. It calls for participants to come together to develop a report addressing "the regulatory challenges" involving wind turbine siting and to create a "regulatory roadmap" for wind development.

Any final agreements would not be binding or subject New York to any legal obligations, state officials said. Local governments would retain approval rights.
The agreement is similar to a wind promotion effort by the federal government and states along the Atlantic coast. The deal also was signed by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency and 9 other federal agencies.
Text from document
This MOU neither expands nor limits those powers and authorities vested in the Participants by applicable law or regulation, including preliminary and final action on leases, permits, licenses, or any other matter requiring official decision, and nothing in this MOU should be interpreted to preempt, abridge or supersede the rights of each State to manage the respective submerged lands within the boundaries of each State in accordance with the laws, directives and policies of each State. If a section or term of this MOU is inconsistent with the authority or legal responsibilities of the Participants, that section or term shall be invalid, but the remaining sections and terms of this MOU shall remain in full force and effect.

Nothing in this MOU may be construed to obligate the Participants to any current or future expenditure of resources.

States & Agencies participating in MOU

Great Lakes states: the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the States of Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and New York; and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) along with the following federal agencies: the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the U.S. Department of the Army (DA), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The agreement expires in five years


Link here Great Lakes Offshore Wind Energy Consortium~ Fact Sheet.
and the MOU can be read in full HERE

Sources:

Friday, March 30, 2012

Talking Action with Lisa Linowes of Industrial Wind Action – Sun, Apr 1, 2012 07:00PM

Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group, a national advocacy group focused on the impact/benefits analysis and policy issues associated with industrial wind energy development. She is an expert on the impacts of industrial-scale wind energy development on the natural environment, communities, and the regional grid systems

Lisa has presented and debated wind energy issues at numerous venues across the United States. She has appeared on CNN, NPR, and the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, as well as in the New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, and dozens of smaller newspapers across the nation.

Lisa served as a member of the New Hampshire State Wind Energy Facility Siting Guidelines Working Group to determine guidelines for the siting of land-based wind turbines. The committee was focused on minimizing and avoiding impacts of large-scale wind development on wildlife and sensitive habitat areas. Ms. Linowes has been an active participant in the ISO-New England’s Scenario Planning Process to determine regional energy requirements to meet growing demand in the region.

At the local level, Lisa Linowes has been an active member of planning boards and conservation commissions for over ten years, having reviewed hundreds of development plans including wind energy facilities, large subdivisions, office buildings, and shopping complexes. She was awarded a NH Coverts Cooperator for promoting wildlife habitats conservation and forest stewardship
Wind Wise Radio is a forum for the exchange of ideas and information about the role of wind energy in our attempt to help solve the problems of human created climate change.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
Please join us every Sunday Night, between 7 and 8pm, for an hour of live interviews with leading experts, discussion, exchange, rumour, tête-à-tête, and chat about industrial scale wind and the alternative energy juggernaut.

We encourage our audience to call in to the show to ask questions, comment and join in the discussion. The call-in number is (213) 943-3683.

Access Wind Wise Radio from the Wind Wise gadget on the right sidebar of this blog.


We encourage our audience to call in to the show to ask questions, comment and join in the discussion. The call-in number is (213) 943-3683.

Link here to Industrial wind Action Group

Great Lakes Offshore Wind Power ~ Ice Follies

According to the Kansas City Star offshore wind development in the Great lakes is on the table again. The Obama administration and five states have reached an agreement to speed up( Ramrod ) approval of offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes, which have been delayed by public opposition and cost concerns (Offshore wind development is twice as costly as land based development)
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania .
have signed on to the wind fast track
~~~
This effort may not be a breeze
The Great lakes are unique
Recently in the field of wind energy there have been reports of issues with cold temperatures.
Extreme weather conditions can compromise the structural integrity of wind turbines.
This was brought to light not long ago with a recent report of a Wind turbine in Cheyenne Wyoming, the turbine was subject to extreme cold temperatures and crumpled like a leaf, apparently when the temperatures get too cold, a lot of flexibility within a turbine is lost and it becomes brittle.


During the winter, “Lake Erie is subject to partial or sometimes complete ice cover due to its shallowness,” notes researcher James S. Dingman. “During a normal year, about 95% of the lake becomes ice covered with maximum ice cover occurring in late February.” The ice cover on Lake Erie is frequently broken up and blown about during the winter, and serious ice problems occur in the Eastern Basin [toward Buffalo and Western New York] due to the prevailing southwest wind.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Daily Lake and River Ice Cover Averages:
Plots of Lake Ontario Ice Cover link -->here<-- Offshore wind development in the Great Lakes. After learning about New York’s quest for wind developers, for Great Lakes Offshore Wind projects, my first thought was would a normal offshore wind turbine withstand the ice conditions of the Great Lakes? I called a close friend with over 30 years experience measuring the pressures and uplift of ice in Lake Huron. He told me that the turbines will be subject to severe damage caused by ice pressures depending upon thickness. If the ice gets 24” thick, which it can, the horizontal pressure can be a minimum 35,000 lbs per foot of width. He told me that they have actually measured forces up to 60,000 lbs per foot based on Kerr- Nevel biharmonic differential equation describing a homogenous thin elastic plate on a nelastic foundation. This can be verified by Leonard Zabilansky at CRREL in Hanover, New Hampshire (Cold Regions Research Engineering Laboratory). This is only a brief covering of the complexity of Ice and Ice forces. Shortly after this conversation I found this report (New York’s offshore wind energy development potential in the Great Lakes Feasibility Study) prepared by AWS Truewind LLC in behalf of the NYSERDA I have pulled excerpts from the report and added a few comments of my own to view the complete 173 page report link--> here<--. Although technically feasible offshore wind development would be a costly undertaking not only from a construction standpoint but the issue of maintenance due to icing and foul weather conditions would be a major problem. The feasibility study suggests possibly the use of Coast Guard ice breakers to ferry people out to turbines for this, or helicopters. The United States Coast Guard is a federal agency, a branch of the military under the department of Homeland Security, with a clearly defined mission and is not a hired utility service at the beck and call of private enterprise for ferrying maintenance workers to and from turbine sites. Helicopters may not even be an option under foul weather conditions. Severe weather conditions including rough seas and pressure from ice would require the development of specialized techniques and infrastructure to make such a project feasible. Whether a project would be financially feasible is another issue. The feasibility study points out that special vessels exist worldwide for wind project installation; their availability in the Great lakes may be limited by jurisdictional concerns (i.e. the Jones act) as well as by passage way size through the St Lawrence Seaway and the Welland Canal. The Feasibility study is suggesting the possibly of the construction of one or more vessels specifically suited for offshore wind instillation on the Great Lakes. This is a never ending money pit. Technical problems: fresh water ice is harder than salt water ice so the turbine structures that are currently in use today for offshore applications even in cold climates are unsuitable for Great Lakes use. A complete new structural design would be required to withstand the ice load. Early experiences in Europe have shown that the turbines may be accessed by boat 80% of the time. This is due to variable weather conditions and sea states. As a result, turbine maintenance needs may take longer to address. The installed cost of an offshore wind plant can be twice as expensive as an equivalent onshore plant. Factors affecting offshore costs include the project’s water depth, distance from shore, geologic conditions, and the complexity of the installation procedure, which varies from site to site. Balance –of- plant costs (foundations, electrical systems, etc) are much more expensive offshore than onshore and acquiring financing is typically more difficult to obtain due to the higher perceived investment risk and limited experience in the U.S. Fresh water wind turbine access is more likely to be limited by lake ice conditions than rough sea states, with possible site access by boat reaching as low as 65% of the calendar year. Offshore wind turbine availability may be lower than onshore projects due to limited maintenance experience in the U.S. for offshore turbines and the harsh offshore operating environment, but little operational data is publicly available to quantify the significance of this parameter Another issue that is a problem for Great lakes off shore wind development how quickly the lakes freeze and the thickness of the ice. Temperatures below freezing can lead to ice accumulation on turbine blades and other components during inclement weather, which can temporarily reduce turbine output. Extremely low temperatures can cause a turbine to shut down to protect system components, resulting in loss of production. Ice combined with the severe weather conditions present structural issues never before addressed by the wind industry. Due to the lack of experience in freshwater offshore wind development the actual impact from ice is unknown. This whole endeavor could be nothing more than a monumental folly at taxpayers’ expense. This feasibility study points out that offshore wind costs twice as much as traditional wind. However, this is not even a traditional offshore wind project in that offshore wind development has never been undertaken in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes area has its own unique marine weather environment. Managing the problems presented by the differences in fresh water ice structure alone will add additional costs to these projects. Coupled with the issues of dealing with the lack of special vessels for wind project installation these added expenses are seemingly endless and these costs will be passed on to the consumer either in the form of tax subsidies or in higher electricity rates.

Link -->here<-- to read US ARMY CORPS of ENGINEERS ~ Engineering and Design ~ Ice Engineering









FAA ~ RESTRICTIONS

Obama & 5 States To Ramrod Great Lakes wind farms

BY JOHN FLESHERAP
Environmental Writer

TRAVERSE CITY, MICH. -- The Obama administration and five states have reached an agreement to speed up approval of offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes, which have been delayed by cost concerns and public opposition.
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania .
have reached an agreement to speed up approval of offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes, which have been delayed by cost concerns and public opposition.




Read more here:

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Nina Pierpont's letter to Mike Crawley

President International Power Canada

Mike Crawley, President
International Power Canada Inc.
105 Commerce Valley Drive West, Suite 410
Markham, Ontario L3T 7W3 Canada

May 7,2010

Dear Mr. Crawley,

I am writing on behalf of XX, Harrow, Ontario. Mrs. X informs me that her home has nine (9) 1.65 MW V2 Vestas wind turbines within 2 km of her home. Three of these are within 1 km. Indeed, all 24 turbines (for this project) are within 5 km.
Mrs. X tells me that she and her neighbor are motion sensitive (see below). She likewise tells me that 3 of the neighbors suffer from migraine disorder. Mrs. X’s son has a history of ear infections. A second cousin, living 1 km away, has documented tinnitus. Two children in the neighborhood have autism-both living within 1 km of the turbines. One young man (27 years old) living within 2 km of the turbines has epileptic seizures.

Mrs. X and her husband are over 50 years of age (see below), and her in-laws (living immediately across the road) are over 80 years old.

With this as background, permit me to speak plainly. To build these turbines next to these people is a reckless and violent act.

The evidence for turbines producing substantial low frequency noise and, worse, infrasound, is no longer in dispute. I quote from one of numerous studies demonstrating this: “Wind turbines and wind farms generate strong infrasonic noise which is characterized by their blade passing harmonics (monochromatic signals)” (Ceranna et al., p. 23). In this instance, the authors are referring to a single 200 kW Vestas V47 at 200 meters-a peashooter compared to the turbines adjacent to Mrs. X’s home.’

Second, the clinical evidence is unambiguous that low frequency noise and infrasound profoundly disturb the body’s organs of balance, motion, and position sense (called “vestibular organs”).2

Third, the case studies performed by me and other medical scientists have demonstrated unequivocally that many people (especially 50 years old and older) living within 2 km of turbines are made seriously ill, often to the point of abandoning their homes.3

Fourth, there is no doubt among otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists who have studied the evidence that wind turbine low frequency noise and infrasound seriously disrupt the body’s vestibular organs, resulting in the constellation of illnesses I have called Wind Turbine

The cure for Wind Turbine Syndrome is simple: Move away from the turbines or shut them off. The prevention of Wind Turbine Syndrome is even simpler: Don’t build these low frequency/infrasound-generating machines within 2 km of people’s homes.

Governments and corporations who violate this principle are guilty of gross clinical harm. Such governments and corporations should be taken before whatever level of court is necessary to stop this outrage.

These are strong words. They are carefully chosen. They are strong because governments and the wind industry stubbornly-l would now add, criminally-refuse to acknowledge that they are deliberately and aggressively harming people. This must stop. The evidence is overwhelming.

Some weeks ago I was contacted by the editor of a leading peer-reviewed American clinical journal to write a special article on Wind Turbine Syndrome. The journal is published both online and in hard copy and aimed primarily at audiologists, otolaryngologists, and neuro-otologists.

I accepted the invitation. The article will be peer-reviewed before publication and should appear online in the next few months. Following that, it will be published in the hard copy edition of the journal. This means, of course, that my research and my findings are being accepted by the clinical medical community. Wind developers may not take this research seriously-but medical experts are.

So is the international community of otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists. My research was presented in March 2010 in a paper at the annual meeting of the Meniere’s Society, in Austria. It was widely praised. The presenter was Professor Alec Salt, PhD, internationally acclaimed neuro-physiologist specializing in inner ear diseases, from the Department of Otolaryngology at the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.

I have interrupted my writing the above journal article to compose this letter to you. The handwriting is on the wall for wind developers and their wholly inadequate setbacks. Legal proceedings have begun in several states and nations. You would be unwise to proceed with installation of these turbines if you are planning on setbacks less than 2 km.

I repeat, <2 km setbacks must stop.

Nina Pierpont, MD (Johns Hopkins), PhD (Population Biology, Princeton)
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Former Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics,
College of Physicians & Surgeons,
Columbia University
cc Valerie M Garry, Attorney at Law

Friday, March 23, 2012

The Power of Energy


The Power Of Energy ~
by John 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

Webcast of Article 10 Siting Board

At 2:00 PM today there will be a webcast of the Siting Board discussing Art 10March 23, 2012 -
New York State Board on Electric Generation
Siting and the Environment

Please Note:
Meeting Will Be Broadcast on the Internet


Albany, NY—03/16/12—The New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Siting Board) will meet on Friday, March 23, 2012, beginning at 2:00 p.m., in the Public Service Commission’s Board Room, 19th floor, 3 Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York.

The meeting will be broadcast live on the Internet. The Internet broadcast can be viewed by accessing
http://nydps.onlinevideoservice.com/Current/Event.aspx

This webcast will be available for viewing within two business days after the meeting. By accessing an archived copy of the webcast on the Department of Public Service’s Web site.
Link here to video

http://nydps.onlinevideoservice.com/
~~~
The Agenda for the March 23, 1012 meeting includes the following item:
Case 12-F-0036 In the Matter of Rules and Regulations of the Public
Service Commission, contained in 16 NYCRR,
Chapter X, Certification of Major Electric Generating
Facilities to:
(A) Consider pursuant to the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (SEQRA) whether the action of adopting regulations to implement Article 10 of the Public Service
Law would likely have a significant adverse environmental
Impact warranting the preparation of an environmental impact
statement; and
(B) Consider whether to propose regulations to implement Article 10
of the Public Service Law and seek public comment on the
proposed regulations pursuant to the State Administrative
Procedure Act (SAPA).

Link here to read Documents Scheduled for Discussion at Session

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Noisemakers, Users $ Takers

At Tuesdays, zoning law committee meeting there was some discussion about where to measure noise.
Should noise be measured from a dwelling or from the property line?

At Thursdays,zoning committee meeting Clif Schneider reported that he had consulted with several acoustical engineers that supported taking noise measurements from the property line.
After a brief discussion, the committee came to a consensus that sound should be measured from the property line.
The core issue for taking the measurements from the property line involves the “taking of one’s property.” Measuring noise from a dwelling restricts the use of one’s property and is tantamount to expropriation “the taking of one’s property.”

Additionally, this may be a violation of the Fifth Amendment as well. Most of the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to state governments through the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As a result, all states must provide protection against deprivation of due process, and government taking of private property without just compensation.

It could be reasonably argued that if the decision to measure noise from a residence were written into the local law, then the Town government would be the culpable party in the taking of the property. irrespective of source from which the noise is generated.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

WIND TURBINE NOISE POLUTION

The following letter was published by Dr. Pierpont in the Massachusetts newspaper, South Coast Today, responding to a letter written by a Fairhaven, MA, resident named Donald Mulcare, titled "Pierpont's wind syndrome study isn't applicable to Fairhaven" (2/23/12).


February, 2012 by Nina Pierpont M.D.
In response to Mr. Donald Mulcare's letter in this paper on February 23, we need data to support his assertions that (a) there are 15 southern New England communities with active industrial wind turbines, (b) in 14 of these communities there are no health effects or complaints due to the turbines, and (c) Sinovel turbines are somehow different with regard to noise and infrasound generation than the five brands of turbine described in my study or used elsewhere, including New England.



Link to Mr. Mulcare's letter

Website link
to Dr. Pierponts letter

Monday, March 19, 2012

United Technologies Dumping Clipper Windpower

Things look glum for the wind industry since the Corporate Welfare Production Tax Credit failed to pass!

United Technologies Unloads Clipper Windpower


United Technologies, the industrial conglomerate based in Hartford, CT, is putting Clipper Windpower on the chopping block.

Less than two years after picking up Clipper for $112 million in late 2010, UTC claims the Carpinteria, CA-based wind turbine manufacturer does not fit within UTC’s future focus on the aerospace and building industries, according to comments made by a UTC representative.

Clipper, which has about 600 employees, makes one of the largest wind turbines in the United States – the 2.5-megawatt (MW) Liberty wind power turbine.

More from Forbes

Saturday, March 17, 2012

DANC ~ Cape Vincent ~ Eminent Domain

Recently there has been a controversy over an audit of the water districts in Cape Vincent. There was some confusion regarding the (DANC) Development Authority of the North Country’s water usage allocation to the town of Cape Vincent, but reportedly that issue has been cleared up.
Link here to read story.

The Development Authority of the North country’s Western Jefferson Regional Water Line A 22-mile, $5 million pipeline project serving six town districts and four villages between Cape Vincent and the Village of Glen Park.
This line is installed in the former railroad corridor, and DANC has easements from all of the affected property owners. In the beginning, DANC had difficulties obtaining the necessary easements . Consequently, they were prepared to use eminent domain.
~~~~~~~

This Watertown Times article gives details of the story
August 2, 1996
LAND OWNERS BEING HEARD EMINENT DOMAIN OPPOSED
Author: Roger G. Smith Times Staff Writer

While the agency handling the regional water line is trying to avoid using eminent domain, several Jefferson County legislators adamantly opposed to taking property are probing landowner disputes.
Several legislators want to be sure some Cape Vincent property owners that the Development Authority of the North Country is trying to appease are being treated right.
"They do feel it's being pushed on them," said Legislator Darrel J. Aubertine, D-Cape Vincent, whose neighbor is among those involved. "I wouldn't want to shove this down anybody's throat."  

He and Legislator Jennie M. Adsit, R-Watertown, are among several who hate the idea of eminent domain - where government can take or use private property for public benefit - and might oppose a procedural vote Tuesday in response.

At least two more legislators are against granting the change, though there still doesn't appear to be enough opposition brewing to defeat it. The project to bring badly needed water to Chaumont, Dexter and Brownville could be stalled if the issue drags.

"I don't really want to stop the project," Mrs. Adsit said. "I want to satisfy myself. We are interested in what they (landowners) have to say."

But DANC feels the same way about eminent domain.

"We simply want to avoid that as a matter of policy," said Robert S. Juravich, DANC's executive director. "We're working very hard to accommodate all concerns."
DANC needs county Legislature approval so it can change the list of properties the Cape Vincent-to-Glen Park waterline will pass through. Changing the property list would allow an alternate route that it hopes will please a few people living on Cape Vincent's Branche Road.
"If we can keep these people happy by doing that, we should do that," said Legislature Chairman Paul J. Warneck, R-Hounsfield.

Even if the Legislature denied the procedural change, DANC could use the land if it wanted to because the former Board of Supervisors gave it that power last year. The vote was based on DANC's judicious use of it when building the regional landfill in Rodman.
Mrs. Adsit and Legislator Neil F. Parks, R-Rutland, plan to speak with residents before approving the procedure change. Mr. Aubertine already has and said the situation can be resolved without force.

He is helping to mediate the dispute so eminent domain is never broached, echoing what Mrs. Adsit said she also wants. Mr. Aubertine said he would object to DANC's request if residents aren't taken care of.

"It's crazy to go that far," he said, because the property owners have reasonable concerns about access and construction methods and should not have their land taken until they're satisfied.
While Mrs. Adsit voted to let the new list go to a vote on the Legislature floor, she might withdraw her support if the landowners can make their case to her. Mr. Parks doesn't see himself approving anything to do with eminent domain.

Legislator James D. St. Croix, D-Watertown, also is so opposed to eminent domain that he would vote against anything to do with it. That includes the risk of holding up the project, which broke ground in June. DANC should find any way besides taking land to satisfy property owners, he said.

 Purchased from the archives of the  Watertown Daily Times

Friday, March 16, 2012

STATE SITING BOARD ~ AGENDA OF FRIDAY, MARCH 23, Meeting

This meeting will be webcast

GARRY A. BROWN
Chair



JACLYN A. BRILLING
Secretary
KENNETH ADAMS
JOSEPH MARTENS
FRANCIS J. MURRAY, JR.
NIRAV SHAH, M.D.
Members


Further Details: James Denn
James.Denn@dps.ny.gov 518.474.7080
https://twitter.com/#!/NYSSitingBoard
12022/12-F-0036/AGENDA

STATE SITING BOARD LISTS AGENDA OF FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 2012

Please Note:
Meeting Will Be Broadcast on the Internet
-Videocasting to Public Service Commission’s NYC Offices Also Available-




Albany, NY—03/16/12—The New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Siting Board) will meet on Friday, March 23, 2012, beginning at 2:00 p.m., in the Public Service Commission’s Board Room, 19th floor, 3 Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York.

Individuals in New York City wishing to view the Commission’s meeting may do so in the Board Room on the 4th floor of the Commission’s offices at 90 Church Street, New York City. The videocasting will be for viewing and listening purposes only. Pursuant to procedures established by the building management, anyone planning to observe the meeting in the New York City Board Room must notify Jan Goorsky at 212-417-2378, 48 hours in advance of the meeting, and must be prepared to show valid photo identification upon arrival at 90 Church Street.
In addition to the video broadcasting of the meeting in the Commission’s New York City offices, the meeting will be broadcast live on the Internet. The Internet broadcast can be viewed by accessing http://nydps.onlinevideoservice.com./

The viewing quality of the a live webcast can be adversely affected by various factors including, but not limited to, Internet bandwidth limitations, Internet network congestion, and the configurations and settings on a computer used to view the webcast. If you experience problems viewing a live webcast, you may view it at a later time by accessing an archived copy of the webcast. Archives are available on the Department of Public Service’s Web site within two business days after the meeting.

Persons with disabilities who require a sign language interpreter or other special accommodations should call the Department of Public Service’s Human Resources Management office at 518-474-2500. Copies of notices or other material relating to pending Siting Board actions may be obtained by calling the Department’s Operations Section at 518-474-2500 or by visiting the Siting Board’s http://www.blogger.com/www.dps.ny.gov/sitingboard Web site.

The Agenda for the March 23, 1012 meeting includes the following item:

Case 12-F-0036

In the Matter of Rules and Regulations of the Public
Service Commission, contained in 16 NYCRR,
Chapter X, Certification of Major Electric Generating
Facilities to:

(A) Consider pursuant to the State Environmental Quality
Review Act (SEQRA) whether the action of adopting
regulations to implement Article 10 of the Public Service
Law would likely have a significant adverse environmental
Impact warranting the preparation of an environmental impact
statement; and

(B) Consider whether to propose regulations to implement Article 10
of the Public Service Law and seek public comment on the
proposed regulations pursuant to the State Administrative
Procedure Act (SAPA).

-30-


Link here to read Documents Scheduled for Discussion at Session

Thursday, March 15, 2012

BLOODY FRACKING UNBELIEVABLE!

The New York State Assembly is including an independent health impact study of Hydraulic Fracturing for natural gas in its budget proposal.

The Assembly bill would set aside $100,000 for a study by a school of public health within the state university system following a model recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Because New York States development of the Marcellus Shale has been on hold since 2008, the study would require looking into research from states' that have experiences with Fracking;
Additionally, the study will look at health related economic impacts as well, E.g. insurers, employers and the health care system; and a long-term plan for monitoring and mitigating health impacts.

"This study will go a long way to answer the many questions New Yorkers have about what Fracking would mean for their health if this goes forward," Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, who proposed the study,

A spokesperson for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NDRC) , A group that is in support of this Assembly bill, noted there are numerous reports of health complaints among people who live near natural gas drilling and Fracking operations. Those health issues include eye irritation, dizziness, nasal and throat irritation, respiratory symptoms, nausea, fatigue, headaches, anxiety and other ailments.

"New York State has to date failed to take a hard look at the health impacts of Fracking," said Katherine Nadeau of NRDC. "By calling for an independent study of fracking's health impacts, the Assembly is leading the charge to provide state leaders with the science necessary to make informed decisions."[1]

When is New York State going to take a hard look at the impacts of Industrial Wind turbines ?

An independent study conducted by Dr.Nina Pierpont revealed that many people living within 2 km (1.25 miles) of these spinning giants get sick. So sick that they often abandon (as in, lock the door and leave) their homes. In a book by Dr. Nina Pierpont she explains how turbine infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN) create the seemingly incongruous constellation of symptoms she has christened Wind Turbine Syndrome. (Incongruous only to the non-clinician who does not understand Mother Nature's organs of balance, motion, and position sense. [2]

There have been “studies” completed to dispel the notion of Wind Turbine Syndrome.
The state of Massachusetts commissioned a panel of experts to conduct a “study” on wind turbines and their potential health impacts. However, this "study" was merely a review of existing data. Their “research” did not involve conducting any actual studies in Massachusetts or anywhere else. Consequently, they found no data that indicated that land-based wind turbines Caused harm [3]

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) & The Canadian Wind Association (CANWEA) commissioned the same type of bogus study comprised of a scientific advisory panel to evaluate a compilation of selected data; in order to craft a document that would reassure the public that exposure to wind turbine sound does not pose a risk to human health. Their review of scientific literature on wind turbine sound and human health concluded that there is no direct link between the sound of wind turbines and human physical health.
They reported that to date, no peer-reviewed articles demonstrate a direct causal link between people living in proximity to modern wind turbines, the noise they emit and resulting physiological health effects.[4]

When I read the AWEA White paper the authors seemed to be saying that what was making the complaints about adverse health effects unscientific was the fact that there were no scientific studies to support the data. However, scientifically supported data would be a prerequisite to justify a scientific study. [5]

The Massachusetts study and the AWEA/Canwea "studies" are tired reviews of old data.
~~~
Additionally, May of 2011, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued the Federal Government to protect NY residents from Hydrofracking,
Schneiderman: Feds Have an Obligation to Protect Public Health & Safety – We Will Force Them to Do So.[6]

When will Eric Schneiderman intervene on the behalf of residents of New York State concerning the health effects caused by Industrial Wind energy production? Wind energy production is not a benign process; it may be called green but it is not. There are human consequences when turbines are improperly sited.

If AG Schneiderman and green groups supporting Industrial Wind , truly cared about the health and welfare of the citizens of New York State, they would have seen to it that an epidemiological study evaluating the effects of wind turbines and human health was done.


[1]
Tribe live Special Report
[2]
Wind Turbine Syndrome

[3]
Massachussetts Department of Environmental protection
[4]
AWEA BLOG

[5]
AWEA /CANWEA White paper
[6]
YNN Syracuse , Oswego, Auburn

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Gang Green

Opposes plan to Derail Gravy Train

In a letter to Sheldon Silver speaker of the Assembly and Dean Skelos Majority leader of the NYS Senate , the NY State Gang Green coalition voiced their opposition to the proposal in the Assembly budget (under A.9055-C Part N) to take $200 million dollars of clean energy program money and divert it to non-energy programs.

Cuts to dirty Green energy are long overdue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Letter

March 13, 2012
Hon. Sheldon Silver
Speaker of the Assembly
New York State Assembly
Albany, New York 12248
Hon. Dean Skelos
Majority Leader
New York State Senate
Albany, New York 12247


Dear Speaker Silver and Majority Leader Skelos:
We commend the Legislature for its long support of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. However, we must express our deep concern about the appropriation of any funds administered by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)for New York’s successful energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. We strongly oppose the proposal in the Assembly budget to take $200 million dollars of clean energy program money and divert it to non-energy programs. We respectfully urge you not to include any reallocation of Renewable Portfolio Standard, System Benefits Charge, Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard, or Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative auction funds in the final budget.

Your efforts have helped advance many effective energy policies that have promoted energy efficiency, the use of renewable energy technology, and improvements to our state’s air quality. We are happy to work with you on furthering our joint interests in these areas, but we firmly believe that any reduction in the state’s clean energy funds will undermine the programs’ goals
and be a detriment to the growth of New York’s clean energy economy. It also is our
understanding that much of these funds have already been “allocated” to fulfill contract obligations that cannot be abrogated.

Reallocating the funds for NYSERDA’s existing clean energy programs threatens to destabilize them, risking the loss of economic development opportunities and protection from volatile fossil fuel prices, as well as improvements to public health and the environment. New York’s energy efficiency and renewable energy programs are delivering significant economic, environmental and consumer benefits to New Yorkers and have been well administered by NYSERDA.

We urge you to take no action that could potentially jeopardize these programs. The current funding mechanisms for New York’s energy efficiency and renewable energy programs provide for stable and predictable long-term funding – a critical factor for these types of programs to be successful. This stability allows companies to invest in New York with confidence in the state’s commitment, and also allows NYSERDA to enter into the long-term contracts that are so often necessary to attract clean energy investments.

We urge you to not to include this language in the final budget and instead ensure that the existing stable, long-term and predictable funding mechanisms remain in place for New York’s energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. Doing so will avoid destabilizing these important clean energy initiatives at this crucial time when they are needed more than ever.

Thank you for your consideration and support of the clean energy industry.

Groups endorsing this letter

Alliance for Clean Energy New York , Adirondack Council , Adirondack Solar,
American Lung Association in New York , Audubon New York ,
AWS Truepower ,CEC Energy , Citizens Campaign for the Environment ,
Citizens' Environmental Coalition, Environment New York,
Environmental Advocates of New York, ETM Solar Works,
GreenLogic Energy ,Hudson River Sloop Clearwater ,
Hudson Valley Clean Energy , Natural Resources Defense Council, NYC Environmental Justice Alliance , New York Public Interest Research Group, Pace Energy & Climate Center, Ridgeline Energy,
Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter ,Sustainable Energy Developments , Vote Solar

Link here to read original Gang Green Coalition letter

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

NOTICE of MEETING

NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

NEW YORK STATE BOARD ON ELECTRIC
GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

CASE 12-F-0036 – In the Matter of Rules and Regulations of the
Public Service Commission, contained in 16
NYCRR, Chapter X, Certification of Major
Electric Generating Facilities.

NOTICE OF MEETING
(Issued March 13, 2012)

TAKE NOTICE that a meeting of the New York State Board
on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (Siting Board)
will take place on Friday, March 23, 2012, beginning at
2:00 P.M., in the Public Service Commission’s Board Room,
19th Floor, 3 Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York. All members
of the public are invited to attend.

The purpose of the meeting is to consider initiating
the rulemaking process for draft regulations to implement
Article 10 of the Public Service Law, enacted in Chapter 388 of
the Laws of 2011. Article 10 empowers the Siting Board to issue
Certificates of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need
authorizing the construction and operation of major electric
generating facilities. Another purpose of the meeting will be
to consider making a Determination of Significance pursuant to
the State Environmental Quality Review Act regarding such
rulemaking action. Questions may be addressed to Hon. Jaclyn A.
Brilling, Secretary to the Siting Board, secretary@dps.ny.gov or
(518) 474-6530.

The meeting will also be videocast to the New York
City Offices of the Public Service Commission located at
90 Church Street. Anyone wishing to attend the New York City
videocast must notify Jan Goorsky 48 hours in advance of the
meeting at (212) 417-2378, and must be prepared to show valid
photo identification upon arrival at 90 Church Street.
CASE 12-F-0036

Disabled persons requiring special accommodations
should contact the Department of Public Service’s Human Resource
Management Office at (518) 474-2520 as soon as possible to make
such accommodations. TDD users may request a sign language
interpreter by placing a call through the New York Relay Service
at 711.

The meeting will also be Webcast and members of the
public may view the meeting by accessing the link at
http://nydps.onlinevideoservice.com

(SIGNED)
JACLYN A. BRILLING
Secretary

Stabenow Amendment to Extend Production Tax Credit Fails

This just in...


2:50pm The Senate began a roll call vote on Stabenow amendment #1812, as modified (Energy Tax Extenders) Not Agreed To: 49-49

(Senators Schumer and Gillibrand from New York State voted yes.)

3:09pm The Senate began a roll call vote on DeMint amendment #1589 (repeal energy tax credits); Not Agreed To: 26-72

Link here for more info

Many thanks to everyone that called or sent emails to our Senators.

Today is a great day

D.C. ~Protest Takes on Bird Killing Wind Turbines

Washington, D.C. - A mock wind turbine was erected Monday, March 12 at noontime in Washington, D.C.'s Freedom Plaza to highlight the threat that wind, a celebrated alternative energy source, poses to the American bird community.
Monday's event is part of The National Center for Public Policy Research's "Occupy Occupy D.C." events at Freedom Plaza. The National Center obtained a five-week permit from the U.S. Park Service that forces the Occupy D.C. encampment to share the park between February 12 and March 15.
"At some point the slaughter of birds and bats by taxpayer-subsidized wind turbines is going to trigger serious legal action," added National Center Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen, Ph.D. "If the full force of the Migratory Bird Treaty and the Endangered Species Act were brought to bear on these unsightly killing machines, investors would turn their backs on this artificial industry in a heartbeat."
National Center For Policy Research Press release~
Occupy Occupy D.C. Wind Turbine Memorializes Dead Birds, Despoiled Land
~~~
The weekly standard reported that
the target of Monday's protest are environmentalists who believe wind energy is a viable substitute to other forms of energy, such as coal or nuclear energy.

Recently, Nuclear power has been gaining ground as a viable alternative, capable of efficiently satisfying energy needs around the globe. a document leaked to The Guardian emphasizes that the UK government wants Nuclear power to be given parity with renewables in Europe, this would significantly boost atomic energy in Britain and downgrade investment in renewable generation.

Wind Welfare

T.Boon Pickens ~ Picken our Pockets

We have learned that T. Boone Pickens has used the five day delay in the vote on the Pickens Payoff Plan to twist a lot of Republican arms in the Senate. The beneficiaries of the established subsidies that would benefit from their extension have also been pulling out all the stops for the Stabenow amendment. Thus we are now in danger of losing the votes on the Menendez-Burr amendment #1782 and the Stabenow amendment #1812. Please do whatever you can to make the case against energy subsidies and for free markets. Votes are scheduled for Tuesday afternoon.
Some of the Senators who need education on the Menendez-Burr amendment are:
Cochran
Isakson
Chambliss
Hoeven
Grassley
Murkowski
Heller
Graham
Boozman
Pryor
Crapo
Risch
Murkowski
~~~
Below is a DRAFT Letter to the Senate on Energy Subsidy Amendments,
please use any of the language that may be useful.
Dear Senator,
The Senate is scheduled to finish voting on amendments to the highway bill, S. 1813, on Tuesday. We are writing to urge you to:
· Vote Yes on #1589 (DeMint) to end all special-interest tax preferences for renewable energy, conventional energy, and alternative fuel vehicles;
· Vote No on amendment #1812 (Stabenow) to extend tax credits for wind, solar power, a variety of biofuels, coal, oil and gas, energy efficient buildings and appliances, and plug-in electric vehicles; and,
· Vote No on amendment #1782 (Burr/Menendez) to create massive new tax preferences for natural gas vehicles, fueling stations, and motor fuel.
The American people are fed up with corporate welfare. They view the Solyndra debacle as an object lesson in the folly of government trying to pick energy-market winners. Above all, they want Congress to put the nation’s fiscal house in order.
How you vote on the aforementioned amendments will determine whether or not you are serious about curbing political influence in energy markets, ending crony capitalism, and halting the nation’s slide towards bankruptcy.
The wind energy production tax credit (PTC) is a wealth transfer from States that do not establish renewable electricity mandates to States that do. The PTC props up these Soviet-style production quotas by masking their full cost from ratepayers. Congress should pull the plug on this deception: Vote No on amendment #1812, and let the PTC expire.
Amendment #1782, which proposes tax credits up to $64,000 for purchases of natural gas-fueled 18-wheelers, could add billions of dollars to the national debt. With natural gas industry profits soaring and prices at historic lows, there is no justification for Congress to rig the market in favor of natural gas producers, purchasers of natural gas vehicles, or investors in natural gas infrastructure.
The best energy policy is one under which consumers decide winners and losers and politicians can’t stick taxpayers with the bill when an energy company fails. The DeMint amendment (#1589) would eliminate tax favoritism in the energy sector. Equally important, it would not raise the overall tax burden, because it would use the savings from rescinded tax credits to lower general tax rates.

Monday, March 12, 2012

Dangers from Living Too close to wind turbines may have been Underestimated

Windfarm fears raised by study
Credit: By Mark Mackay, The Courier & Advertiser, 12 March 2012 ~~

Scots communities living in the shadow of windfarms have been warned that the threat to their health may have been underestimated.
A new study has found that the effects of so-called “wind turbine syndrome” (WTS) can be far greater than that recorded by previous studies conducted within Europe.
The research at the University of Adelaide in Australia raises health concerns about mechanical noise from the turbines and aerodynamic noise from their blades.
It suggests that larger turbines create more low frequency noise, increasing the effects of WTS, which are said to include insomnia, headaches, nausea, stress, inability to concentrate and irritability, all of which researchers say can lead to poorer health and a reduced immunity to illness.

Will The Green Lobby

Admit The Ugly truth ?

Green lobby must admit the ugly truth about wind farms
Credit:
By Sunday Express reporter, www.express.co.uk

11 March 2012 ~~
The debate about whether wind power is efficient and effective has been going on for years and the wind farm campaigners have lost the argument.
Not only is this one of the most expensive and inefficient ways to produce power – in high winds they do not work at all – but they are also destroying our countryside, with once-beautiful scenery ruined by ugly developments.
Most people accept the debate’s outcome so it is worrying, to put it mildly, that the trade association Renewables Uk is hiring a band of “Swampies” to champion the wind farm cause.
In its attempt to go against the wishes of the vast majority this is nothing short of sinister. Eco-campaigners are often extremists incapable of listening to reason and have been known to be violent in pursuit of their cause. To hire a band of activists to fight proposals by democratically elected MPs to cut subsidies to wind farms is shaming. Do these Swampies realise they are being used?
The vested interests behind building more wind farms have nothing to do with preserving the environment and everything to do with harvesting massive profits. an unworthy group of capitalists are paying others to do their dirty work.
It is time for some common sense: wind power does not work and never will. It is time for the Government to bow to the inevitable and build more nuclear power stations. Why wait?

Lyme ~ Presentation

Progress of New

Wind law

Town of Lyme
March 14, 2012
Town board meeting this Wed @ 6:30 –

The Planning Board will be making a presentation to the board on the progress of the new wind law.


The town will also be looking for two new planning board members

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Family Flees from Turbine Trauma

Letter to the editor posted in the Cap Times
written by

Alyssa Ashley | Thursday, March 8, 2012

Dear Editor: On May 8, 2011, I left my home in Glenmore due to many health problems that are a result from the Shirley wind project built at the end of 2010. Inside my home, I was able to detect when the turbines were turning on and off by the uncharacteristic sensation in my ears. In early 2011, I started noticing extreme headaches, ear pain and sleep deprivation, all three things that had been either a rarity for me, or nonexistent. This caused me to struggle especially with my high school work. After staying away from my home for a week and a half, my symptoms started to subside. The longer I was away, the better I felt.

Due to these health issues, I spent all summer living in a camper with my family away from the turbines, only returning to the Shirley area when necessary. It would take me around three days after being in the area for my ears to drain and for pressure to release from my head. At the end of August, my family reluctantly purchased another small house away from the wind turbines, leaving us paying two mortgages. Through no fault of our own, this has put a financial burden on my family.

I have not been in the Shirley area since Nov. 19 and I do not experience headaches anymore and I can sleep soundly. My ears, however, are still sensitive to the cold and loud noises and they hurt with every cold I get. I wonder if this damage to my ears will ever go away.

The magnitude of this issue is of utmost importance to me and many other citizens living near the Shirley industrial wind turbines.

Alyssa Ashley

De Pere

Senate to consider Wind Welfare Credit Tuesday

Industry leaders say action is needed to stave off layoffs

Posted: Saturday, March 10, 2012 12:00 am

By PETE ROPER
Pueblo Chieftain

The much-sought-after federal tax credit to help Vestas and other wind-power manufacturers is headed for a Senate vote Tuesday.

The wind credit is just one item in an amendment being offered by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. It was among 30 that were supposed to be voted on Thursday but was finally postponed until the Senate resumes work Tuesday.
Colorado Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall, both Democrats, are part of a bipartisan group trying to get the wind power tax credit approved for at least another year. They wanted the Senate leadership to consider the wind credit as a separate, single-issue amendment to the wide-ranging transportation bill the Senate is working on.
That didn't happen.

For her part, Stabenow also had the wind power credit in an $11 billion package of business tax credits she is offering as a single amendment and the Senate leadership agreed to let that measure be offered. Among other things, her amendment includes a $1 per gallon bio-fuels tax credit, suspends some taxes on marginal oil and gas wells and extends credits for energy efficient home construction and the use of electric vehicles and motorcycles. More…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Corporate welfare programs have to stop.

The wind fat cats, lobby aggressively for tax breaks, loan guarantees and subsides while Americans are struggling to survive; we are approaching the point in this country where some people will not be able to afford to drive to work.

It is not the responsibility of the American taxpayers to continue to support a failing industry.

Subsidies, bailouts and corporate welfare programs are bankrupting our country .It’s time the bloated fat cats, like Vestas paid their own way.