TONY HAYWARD ~ describes himself in the video below ~ SHALLOW GENERALIST
definition~ someone who knows a lot about not very much but not a lot about much.
In the video below Tony Hayward says that we lost track of the fact that our primary purpose in life is to create value for our share holders, and claims that they had too many people trying to save the world ! I would say that Bp is on a new track of destroying the world.
Mission accomplished Tony!
What an Arrogant Bastard!
Just remember these are the kind of people that you are trusting with our future by allowing them into our community . Just look at Bp's history that speaks for itself , this company has only one goal, creating value for their share holders, this goal often results in disasters created solely for shareholder financial reward. Do you want to be the next news story ripped from the headlines? Below is a quote from the financial times Hayward is already minimizing the impact of Bp's killing of the Gulf of Mexico. Have you seen the destruction from this oil spill ?
Think about the Cape Vincent wind project, Bp is using the communities of Cape Vincent and Lyme as just another means of creating value for BP's share holders!
What will the health impacts be? What will the affect on property values be? The door is closing, soon we will not have a choice, and BP will make the choice for our future! Just as their record shows the other choices that they make , we will be the next on the list of financial disasters.
Tony Hayward, chief executive of BP, "I think the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to have been very, very modest,"
"Tony Hayward we had too many people that were Working to save the world"
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Supervisors ~ REINBECK & AUBERTINE wanted host agreements for wind farms
Watertown Daily Times Supervisors want host agreements for wind farms
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2008
Supervisors from towns with wind projects want to see host community agreements in their towns as a part of any tax breaks for wind power developers.
Lyme Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine, who was not able to attend Tuesday night's session, said he wants to do more research into the differences between the two approaches.
But, he said, "It seems that the towns are doing the majority of the work and taking the majority of the grief, so they should be getting the majority of the money."
By NANCY MADSEN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2008
Supervisors from towns with wind projects want to see host community agreements in their towns as a part of any tax breaks for wind power developers.
Lyme Supervisor Scott G. Aubertine, who was not able to attend Tuesday night's session, said he wants to do more research into the differences between the two approaches.
But, he said, "It seems that the towns are doing the majority of the work and taking the majority of the grief, so they should be getting the majority of the money."
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Clayton industrial wind project ~ HORSE ~ CREEK~
Clayton industrial wind project
Someone sent me this information about the Clayton industrial wind project.
This is a digital enhancement of the industrial wind farm proposed in Clayton NY showing the towers and residents homes.
The red triangles are homes and they are NOT all on this map.
The outer circles of the turbines are the just 1250 ft setbacks (local wind law rule).
The setbacks are NOT from adjacent resident’s property lines but from their homes. The Clayton project impacts not only Clayton residents it also impacts residents in Brownville, Lyme and Orleans along with two State wildlife preserves.
The wind district butts all of these townships.
There are only 26 residents in this wind district who will lease turbines just 26!!!
It is estimated that this project will impact over 2500 plus lives.
It has been PROVEN by acoustic engineers and Iberdola's (the developer) own noise analysis that all these residents will face excessive noise impacts during hours of sleep.
Many residents have 15 plus turbines surrounding their homes within a mile.
This is wrong.
World Health Organization says this is wrong.
The recommendations by our own NYS DEC on noise levels are ignored.
A wind committee consisting of both leasers and non leasers proves the setbacks are wrong. Clayton hired non biased acoustic engineers who proved these setbacks will harm all these residents. Health is a major concern but so is a property value.
Would you buy one of these homes?
To have or have NOT a wind farm is left in the hands of the Town councils.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
IS FENNER AN EXPERIMENT ~ IN MOTION?
FENNER TURBINE DOWN:
The largest Wind project east of the Mississippi .
Is Fenner just nothing more than experiment in motion?
Is Fenner nothing more than a test of wind pressure and wind torque?
The largest Wind project east of the Mississippi .
Is Fenner just nothing more than experiment in motion?
Is Fenner nothing more than a test of wind pressure and wind torque?
A pressure too great for the concrete base to sustain for a ten year period.
Did the developers of Fenner's wind turbine system, actually pre - determined the wind turbine reaction forces in conjunction with the wind pressure forces on the towers, and the turbine blades themselves to withstand the overturning moments developed, that are being resisted by the soil or rock material that is, part of the anchorage resisting system, as required by New York’s Construction codes? One issue with wind turbines is that they actually try to unscrew them selves from the ground, due to wind pressure forces. The anchorage systems and subsurfaces are critical factors in wind turbine design.
Design of Wind Turbine Foundation Slabs .pdf file
Did the developers of Fenner's wind turbine system, actually pre - determined the wind turbine reaction forces in conjunction with the wind pressure forces on the towers, and the turbine blades themselves to withstand the overturning moments developed, that are being resisted by the soil or rock material that is, part of the anchorage resisting system, as required by New York’s Construction codes? One issue with wind turbines is that they actually try to unscrew them selves from the ground, due to wind pressure forces. The anchorage systems and subsurfaces are critical factors in wind turbine design.
Design of Wind Turbine Foundation Slabs .pdf file
~~~~~
Madison County Courier
By Martha E. Conway
Last December, a GE 1.5 megawatt turbine at the Fenner wind facility in Fenner, New York collapsed. An official report explaining the root cause of the collapse is still pending but news this week shed light on the situation. According to the article, "concrete core samples from the foundations preliminarily showed inconsistent aging and degradation".
Hank Sennott, director of corporate affairs and communications for Enel North America told the Madison County Courier "I don't know of any turbine foundation failures, but we were the first, so there is nothing to go back and research. This project was the largest built east of the Mississippi when we constructed it 10 years ago. There's no history for us to look at."
More...
Safety Measures Implemented to Keep Public out of ‘Collapse Zone’
By Martha E. Conway
Last December, a GE 1.5 megawatt turbine at the Fenner wind facility in Fenner, New York collapsed. An official report explaining the root cause of the collapse is still pending but news this week shed light on the situation. According to the article, "concrete core samples from the foundations preliminarily showed inconsistent aging and degradation".
Hank Sennott, director of corporate affairs and communications for Enel North America told the Madison County Courier "I don't know of any turbine foundation failures, but we were the first, so there is nothing to go back and research. This project was the largest built east of the Mississippi when we constructed it 10 years ago. There's no history for us to look at."
More...
Safety Measures Implemented to Keep Public out of ‘Collapse Zone’
News Video ~
Findings in turbine collapse due next week - YNN, Your News Now
Sunday, May 2, 2010
HOW *TURBINES BECAME UTILITIES IN CAPE VINCENT
April, 2009
Preface
A friend sent me this; it is a good chronological progression of the events that unfolded in Cape Vincent.
These events ultimately led to the wind turbines being designated as utilities. This is the Truth and there is documentation to support it. Additionally the planning board and Town board in Cape Vincent are self serving liars, the planning board of Cape Vincent isn’t even following its own comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan is a means to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people in the community and give due consideration to the needs of the people in the region of which the community is a part.
K.M.
THE STORY OF HOW WIND TURBINES BECAME UTILITIES
THE BEGINNING
Nov. 8, 2006 Planning Board meeting:
Planning Board Chairman, Mr.Edsall and the planning board (PB) are asked the critical question that sparks the controversy.
“Is a wind farm an acceptable site plan review use in the agricultural district?”
Is this question asked by Acciona? The minutes aren’t clear.
The Planning board chairman, Mr. Edsall asks his board for a vote on the question. They vote 5-0 yes. (With 3 conflicted votes) Note that the question is NOT are wind turbines a utility.
That is where the confusion starts. The question is about a wind farm being a proper site plan review use. This is a very important point.
The Problem:
There is no discussion on why a wind farm is acceptable as a site plan use in the AG district by the PB. They give NO rational as to why it is allowed or under what category it might fall. There are 12 site plan review uses allowed in the AG district. A wind farm is not listed as a use. Utilities, light industrial, and commercial ARE listed uses, but the planning board never says which use a wind farm is. They just say it is acceptable and move on.
So they must have had some reason in their heads. They never clearly define why wind turbines are allowed and why.Did they think that they are a utility because that is what the wind company told them? And that was what SLW listed on their permit application?
There is also the problem that it is out of the jurisdiction of the PB to make this determination or answer this question.
NY Town Law does not give the PB the power to interpret zoning law.
That is for the Zoning Enforcement Officer Alan Wood, and if there is a question it goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So even though everyone blames WPEG, it is the planning board that screwed up 1st.
Dec 2006: VERY IMPORTANT
WPEG challenges the planning board’s decision before the CV Zoning Board of Appeal.
It is critical to understand that… WPEG did not challenge whether turbines are utilities. They only asked for a determination, that if a wind farm is an acceptable site plan review use, which use is it, because wind farms are not listed?
The problem starts here because
SLW AND THEIR LAWYERS SWEEP IN AND SAY…”OH OUR PROJECT IS OK IN THE AG DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS A UTILITY UNDER YOUR CURRENT ZONING AND UTILITIES DEFINITION”.
WPEG never said a word about utilities…it was SLW who defined turbines as utilities. Then WPEG challenged that as well, saying a wind farm is not a utility as defined by Cape Vincent’s zoning law. This is important…how did WPEG get blamed for turbines being utilities if they were fighting that turbines are not utilities…this makes no sense at all.
It is also very important to note that SLW’s application for a permit, and site plan review that was turned in to the town, also says their wind farm should be considered a utility.
WPEG didn’t write that on their application for them. The important thing is that even if WPEG didn’t challenge the PB decision these projects would have moved forward as utilities ANYHOW because that is what SLW put on their application. If nobody challenged it, it would have moved forward as a utility anyhow.
Now the other thing that is being lied about is they are saying WPEG is at fault for killing the 2006 wind law.
At the end of this post, I have included the minutes of an Aug 2006 meeting where [ Supervisor Reinbeck stated that on behalf of the board, he will request the planning board to adopt our proposed wind tower regulations as a guideline during their site plan review process]. So that is a lie too.
Also at the bottom of this post, is a letter from Richard Edsall: June 14, 2006. We propose that the town board abandon its efforts to amend the current zoning law.
Why does Reinbeck start a wind law committee, spend $20,000 on the law, and spend 5 months on it, when he knows he can’t pass it anyhow because of the conflicts of interest on his board? The answer is because he never wanted a wind law to begin with unless it was very weak and favored the wind company.
The wind law was finished in Jan…it is now almost May.
He is not going to pass a wind law because he and Edsall and the board and the lease holders do not want one.
No matter what they say, they want turbines as utilities so they can put as many of them in as possible and as close to the river and lake as possible!!!! THEY ARE LIARS!!!!
But to do this and create a public diversion they will blame WPEG for all the points above.
You have to have something for cover when you recklessly waste $20,000 of tax payer money.
Unsigned
Preface
A friend sent me this; it is a good chronological progression of the events that unfolded in Cape Vincent.
These events ultimately led to the wind turbines being designated as utilities. This is the Truth and there is documentation to support it. Additionally the planning board and Town board in Cape Vincent are self serving liars, the planning board of Cape Vincent isn’t even following its own comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan is a means to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people in the community and give due consideration to the needs of the people in the region of which the community is a part.
K.M.
THE STORY OF HOW WIND TURBINES BECAME UTILITIES
THE BEGINNING
Nov. 8, 2006 Planning Board meeting:
Planning Board Chairman, Mr.Edsall and the planning board (PB) are asked the critical question that sparks the controversy.
“Is a wind farm an acceptable site plan review use in the agricultural district?”
Is this question asked by Acciona? The minutes aren’t clear.
The Planning board chairman, Mr. Edsall asks his board for a vote on the question. They vote 5-0 yes. (With 3 conflicted votes) Note that the question is NOT are wind turbines a utility.
That is where the confusion starts. The question is about a wind farm being a proper site plan review use. This is a very important point.
The Problem:
There is no discussion on why a wind farm is acceptable as a site plan use in the AG district by the PB. They give NO rational as to why it is allowed or under what category it might fall. There are 12 site plan review uses allowed in the AG district. A wind farm is not listed as a use. Utilities, light industrial, and commercial ARE listed uses, but the planning board never says which use a wind farm is. They just say it is acceptable and move on.
So they must have had some reason in their heads. They never clearly define why wind turbines are allowed and why.Did they think that they are a utility because that is what the wind company told them? And that was what SLW listed on their permit application?
There is also the problem that it is out of the jurisdiction of the PB to make this determination or answer this question.
NY Town Law does not give the PB the power to interpret zoning law.
That is for the Zoning Enforcement Officer Alan Wood, and if there is a question it goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So even though everyone blames WPEG, it is the planning board that screwed up 1st.
Dec 2006: VERY IMPORTANT
WPEG challenges the planning board’s decision before the CV Zoning Board of Appeal.
It is critical to understand that… WPEG did not challenge whether turbines are utilities. They only asked for a determination, that if a wind farm is an acceptable site plan review use, which use is it, because wind farms are not listed?
The problem starts here because
SLW AND THEIR LAWYERS SWEEP IN AND SAY…”OH OUR PROJECT IS OK IN THE AG DISTRICT BECAUSE IT IS A UTILITY UNDER YOUR CURRENT ZONING AND UTILITIES DEFINITION”.
WPEG never said a word about utilities…it was SLW who defined turbines as utilities. Then WPEG challenged that as well, saying a wind farm is not a utility as defined by Cape Vincent’s zoning law. This is important…how did WPEG get blamed for turbines being utilities if they were fighting that turbines are not utilities…this makes no sense at all.
It is also very important to note that SLW’s application for a permit, and site plan review that was turned in to the town, also says their wind farm should be considered a utility.
WPEG didn’t write that on their application for them. The important thing is that even if WPEG didn’t challenge the PB decision these projects would have moved forward as utilities ANYHOW because that is what SLW put on their application. If nobody challenged it, it would have moved forward as a utility anyhow.
Now the other thing that is being lied about is they are saying WPEG is at fault for killing the 2006 wind law.
At the end of this post, I have included the minutes of an Aug 2006 meeting where [ Supervisor Reinbeck stated that on behalf of the board, he will request the planning board to adopt our proposed wind tower regulations as a guideline during their site plan review process]. So that is a lie too.
Also at the bottom of this post, is a letter from Richard Edsall: June 14, 2006. We propose that the town board abandon its efforts to amend the current zoning law.
Why does Reinbeck start a wind law committee, spend $20,000 on the law, and spend 5 months on it, when he knows he can’t pass it anyhow because of the conflicts of interest on his board? The answer is because he never wanted a wind law to begin with unless it was very weak and favored the wind company.
The wind law was finished in Jan…it is now almost May.
He is not going to pass a wind law because he and Edsall and the board and the lease holders do not want one.
No matter what they say, they want turbines as utilities so they can put as many of them in as possible and as close to the river and lake as possible!!!! THEY ARE LIARS!!!!
But to do this and create a public diversion they will blame WPEG for all the points above.
You have to have something for cover when you recklessly waste $20,000 of tax payer money.
Unsigned
Thursday, April 29, 2010
VISUAL AND SOUND IMPACTS FROM THE WOLFE ISLAND WIND
Presented at: Institutes for Journalism and Natural Resources ~ April 29,2010
Learning Expedition – Wolfe Island, Ontario
VISUAL AND SOUND IMPACTS FROM THE WOLFE ISLAND WIND
PROJECT ON RESIDENTS OF TIBBETTS POINT ROAD, CAPE
VINCENT, NY
PO Box 165
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
SUMMARY
This report outlines the acoustic and visual impacts of the Wolfe Island Wind Project on
residents 2 miles (3.2 km) across the St. Lawrence River along the Tibbetts Point Road, Cape
Vincent. Sound levels measured in January-February 2010, when the wind farm was operating,
were 3 to 4 dBA greater than background sound levels measured in 2008, prior to construction of
the wind farm. A mail-questionnaire was sent to 43 residents of the Tibbetts Point Road to assess
their reaction to noise and visual impacts from the Wolfe Island Wind Project. Twenty-seven
questionnaires were returned for a 63% response rate. Most respondents did not notice wind turbine
noise, but at times, 38% were annoyed by the wind turbine sound. For the level of sound increase
over background levels, respondents were more annoyed than New York DEC noise policy predicted.
Those respondents that heard the turbines described the noise as a low frequency/low pitched sound
that is louder on summer evenings when winds were weak or non-existent. This supports other
research linking annoyance with wind turbine noise and atmospheric stability.
Far more respondents (88%) were annoyed by the change in landscape view than with
noise. Ninety-two percent said these changes were for the worst and the blinking lights at night were
especially disturbing; some comparing them with a commercial airport. Policy makers should know
that visual and acoustic impacts for non-participating, waterfront residents are likely more negative
than they may have initially thought. Furthermore, current NYSDEC noise guidelines may not
adequately predict human response to wind turbine sound levels. (Note respondent comments in
Appendix A)
Commercial wind developers began offering lease agreements to land owners in
Cape Vincent beginning around 2004. Formal application for two commercial wind project
proposals were submitted to town authorities beginning in 2006. The initial projects
proposed nearly 250, four-hundred foot (122m) wind turbines, which would have covered
nearly the entire geographic footprint of the town. Opposition to these projects has been
1Retired Lake Ontario Unit Leader, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Clifford P. Schneider
widespread and has focused on visual and noise impacts, as well as potential conflicts of
interest for a number of town elected and appointed officials.
In 2009, operations began for the Wolfe Island Wind Project located directly across
the St. Lawrence River from Cape Vincent (Figure 1). The project includes 86, 2.3 MW
wind turbines for a rated capacity of nearly 200 MW. The wind project is located on the
western end of Wolfe Island and is closest, and has greatest visual impact, to Cape Vincent residents living along Tibbetts Point Road (Figure 1). The closest wind turbine is
approximately 1.9 (3.1 km) miles away.
Cape Vincent is a community that has been struggling to find a way to integrate the
proposed commercial electric power production complex into its rural landscape and
tourism-based local economy. To say it has not been easy is to understate the extent of the
problem. The Wolfe Island Wind Project probably did more to help Cape Vincent and
Jefferson County, NY residents understand the potential visual impacts than any of the
visual simulation reports that were submitted with the environmental impact statements for
the two project proposals in Cape Vincent. Although wind turbine noise impacts were
expected to be minimal to non-existent, a number of residents were able to hear the nearest
wind turbine nearly 1.9 miles (3.1 km) away.
Mr. Schneider Presented his report at: Institutes for Journalism and Natural Resources April 29,2010 Learning Expedition – Wolfe Island, Ontario.
To read the complete 27 page report link here
Learning Expedition – Wolfe Island, Ontario
VISUAL AND SOUND IMPACTS FROM THE WOLFE ISLAND WIND
PROJECT ON RESIDENTS OF TIBBETTS POINT ROAD, CAPE
VINCENT, NY
Clifford P.Schneider1
PO Box 165
Cape Vincent, NY 13618
SUMMARY
This report outlines the acoustic and visual impacts of the Wolfe Island Wind Project on
residents 2 miles (3.2 km) across the St. Lawrence River along the Tibbetts Point Road, Cape
Vincent. Sound levels measured in January-February 2010, when the wind farm was operating,
were 3 to 4 dBA greater than background sound levels measured in 2008, prior to construction of
the wind farm. A mail-questionnaire was sent to 43 residents of the Tibbetts Point Road to assess
their reaction to noise and visual impacts from the Wolfe Island Wind Project. Twenty-seven
questionnaires were returned for a 63% response rate. Most respondents did not notice wind turbine
noise, but at times, 38% were annoyed by the wind turbine sound. For the level of sound increase
over background levels, respondents were more annoyed than New York DEC noise policy predicted.
Those respondents that heard the turbines described the noise as a low frequency/low pitched sound
that is louder on summer evenings when winds were weak or non-existent. This supports other
research linking annoyance with wind turbine noise and atmospheric stability.
Far more respondents (88%) were annoyed by the change in landscape view than with
noise. Ninety-two percent said these changes were for the worst and the blinking lights at night were
especially disturbing; some comparing them with a commercial airport. Policy makers should know
that visual and acoustic impacts for non-participating, waterfront residents are likely more negative
than they may have initially thought. Furthermore, current NYSDEC noise guidelines may not
adequately predict human response to wind turbine sound levels. (Note respondent comments in
Appendix A)
Commercial wind developers began offering lease agreements to land owners in
Cape Vincent beginning around 2004. Formal application for two commercial wind project
proposals were submitted to town authorities beginning in 2006. The initial projects
proposed nearly 250, four-hundred foot (122m) wind turbines, which would have covered
nearly the entire geographic footprint of the town. Opposition to these projects has been
1Retired Lake Ontario Unit Leader, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Clifford P. Schneider
widespread and has focused on visual and noise impacts, as well as potential conflicts of
interest for a number of town elected and appointed officials.
In 2009, operations began for the Wolfe Island Wind Project located directly across
the St. Lawrence River from Cape Vincent (Figure 1). The project includes 86, 2.3 MW
wind turbines for a rated capacity of nearly 200 MW. The wind project is located on the
western end of Wolfe Island and is closest, and has greatest visual impact, to Cape Vincent residents living along Tibbetts Point Road (Figure 1). The closest wind turbine is
approximately 1.9 (3.1 km) miles away.
Cape Vincent is a community that has been struggling to find a way to integrate the
proposed commercial electric power production complex into its rural landscape and
tourism-based local economy. To say it has not been easy is to understate the extent of the
problem. The Wolfe Island Wind Project probably did more to help Cape Vincent and
Jefferson County, NY residents understand the potential visual impacts than any of the
visual simulation reports that were submitted with the environmental impact statements for
the two project proposals in Cape Vincent. Although wind turbine noise impacts were
expected to be minimal to non-existent, a number of residents were able to hear the nearest
wind turbine nearly 1.9 miles (3.1 km) away.
Mr. Schneider Presented his report at: Institutes for Journalism and Natural Resources April 29,2010 Learning Expedition – Wolfe Island, Ontario.
To read the complete 27 page report link here
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
New York State Apollo Alliance and the Albany Law School Environmental Law Society.
APOLLO ALLIANCE
"Climate, Jobs and Justice:
Copenhagen Report and Next Steps for Labor and the Environment At the forum, environment, labor and environmental justice leaders who took part in the Copenhagen meetings, as well as other experts, discussed next steps to a meaningful response to the climate crisis.
The event was co-sponsored by the Workforce Development Institute, Albany Law School's Government Law Center, New York State Apollo Alliance and the Albany Law School Environmental Law Society.
These Pod Casts are very dry; however, they are worth listening to. I have recently only begun to understand the scope of the alliances between business and government, and environmental organizations, how they together are shaping policy, this policy has a profound effect on our daily lives. The context of these podcasts will help bring to light the views of these people that are in key positions to change our future.
Keynote speakers were
Pete Grannis, Commissioner, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Sean Sweeney, Director, Cornell Global Labor Institute
Cecil Corbin-Mark, Deputy Director, WeAct for Environmental Justice
Additional speakers included:
Mark Watson, Program Manager, Environmental Research, NYSERDAJill Kubit, Assistant Director, Cornell Global Labor Institute
Jared Snyder, Assistant Commissioner for Air Resources, NYS Department of Environmental
Mark Bettinger, Director of Sierra Club's Federal and International Climate Campaign
Ed Murphy, Director, Workforce Development Institute
The event was co-sponsored by the Workforce Development Institute, Albany Law School's Government Law Center, New York State Apollo Alliance and the Albany Law School Environmental Law Society.
The Copenhagen podcasts are no longer available. They have been removed from the internet.
Copenhagen1
Copenhagen2
"Climate, Jobs and Justice:
Copenhagen Report and Next Steps for Labor and the Environment At the forum, environment, labor and environmental justice leaders who took part in the Copenhagen meetings, as well as other experts, discussed next steps to a meaningful response to the climate crisis.
The event was co-sponsored by the Workforce Development Institute, Albany Law School's Government Law Center, New York State Apollo Alliance and the Albany Law School Environmental Law Society.
These Pod Casts are very dry; however, they are worth listening to. I have recently only begun to understand the scope of the alliances between business and government, and environmental organizations, how they together are shaping policy, this policy has a profound effect on our daily lives. The context of these podcasts will help bring to light the views of these people that are in key positions to change our future.
Keynote speakers were
Pete Grannis, Commissioner, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Sean Sweeney, Director, Cornell Global Labor Institute
Cecil Corbin-Mark, Deputy Director, WeAct for Environmental Justice
Additional speakers included:
Mark Watson, Program Manager, Environmental Research, NYSERDAJill Kubit, Assistant Director, Cornell Global Labor Institute
Jared Snyder, Assistant Commissioner for Air Resources, NYS Department of Environmental
Mark Bettinger, Director of Sierra Club's Federal and International Climate Campaign
Ed Murphy, Director, Workforce Development Institute
The event was co-sponsored by the Workforce Development Institute, Albany Law School's Government Law Center, New York State Apollo Alliance and the Albany Law School Environmental Law Society.
The Copenhagen podcasts are no longer available. They have been removed from the internet.
Copenhagen1
Copenhagen2
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Towers, towers everywhere ~ WDT ~ Editorial
Towers, towers everywhere
SUNDAY, APRIL 18, 2010
The news last week that the Ontario Power Authority has awarded a contract for a 300-megawatt wind farm in the shallow Lake Ontario waters west of Wolfe Island further complicates the work of Cape Vincent and Clayton and Lyme municipal governments that are already struggling to determine how to treat commercial wind proposals in their towns.
Wind Stream Wolfe Island Shoals Inc. is owned by the same developers who built the Wolfe Island wind farm. That 86-windmill farm could be dwarfed by the new proposal; a 300-megawatt farm using generators of 1.6- to 2-megawatt capacity could add between 150 and 187 new towers to a Thousand Islands landscape that is already pretty full when you look north.
Link here to the Watertown Times to read the full letter
Towers, towers everywhere
SUNDAY, APRIL 18, 2010
The news last week that the Ontario Power Authority has awarded a contract for a 300-megawatt wind farm in the shallow Lake Ontario waters west of Wolfe Island further complicates the work of Cape Vincent and Clayton and Lyme municipal governments that are already struggling to determine how to treat commercial wind proposals in their towns.
Wind Stream Wolfe Island Shoals Inc. is owned by the same developers who built the Wolfe Island wind farm. That 86-windmill farm could be dwarfed by the new proposal; a 300-megawatt farm using generators of 1.6- to 2-megawatt capacity could add between 150 and 187 new towers to a Thousand Islands landscape that is already pretty full when you look north.
Link here to the Watertown Times to read the full letter
Towers, towers everywhere
Friday, April 16, 2010
Department of Energy - Secretary Chu Announces New Partnerships Under the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas
Department of Energy - Secretary Chu Announces New Partnerships Under the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas
April 15, 2010
Secretary Chu Announces New Partnerships Under the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas
Initiatives will help develop clean energy resources and strengthen energy security
WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Energy today announced a series of partnerships and other initiatives to address clean energy and energy security in the Western Hemisphere as part of the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas (ECPA). Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced new projects focused on clean energy cooperation, technical assistance and financing, renewable energy, and electricity infrastructure and earthquake preparedness.
“Dozens of countries from across the Americas have come together today to promote clean energy future for our Hemisphere,” said Secretary Chu. “By expanding our cooperation and collaboration on key energy and climate issues, we will lay a foundation for broad-based economic growth while helping to protect our environment.”
Energy ministers and delegations from 32 countries gathered at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) in Washington, DC on Thursday for the start of the two-day Energy and Climate Ministerial of the Americas. Energy officials joined with more than 200 businesses and non-governmental organizations to advance initiatives under ECPA that will help countries across the Hemisphere develop and deploy clean energy technologies and achieve low carbon economic growth.
April 15, 2010
Secretary Chu Announces New Partnerships Under the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas
Initiatives will help develop clean energy resources and strengthen energy security
WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Energy today announced a series of partnerships and other initiatives to address clean energy and energy security in the Western Hemisphere as part of the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas (ECPA). Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced new projects focused on clean energy cooperation, technical assistance and financing, renewable energy, and electricity infrastructure and earthquake preparedness.
“Dozens of countries from across the Americas have come together today to promote clean energy future for our Hemisphere,” said Secretary Chu. “By expanding our cooperation and collaboration on key energy and climate issues, we will lay a foundation for broad-based economic growth while helping to protect our environment.”
Energy ministers and delegations from 32 countries gathered at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) in Washington, DC on Thursday for the start of the two-day Energy and Climate Ministerial of the Americas. Energy officials joined with more than 200 businesses and non-governmental organizations to advance initiatives under ECPA that will help countries across the Hemisphere develop and deploy clean energy technologies and achieve low carbon economic growth.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Property values blowing in the wind
By Nancy Madsen Watertown Daily Times, N.Y.
Publication: Watertown Daily Times (New York)
Date: Wednesday, April 7 2010
Apr. 7--Sales records show that Cape Vincent has had a steeper decline in residential property sales than its neighbors and real estate professionals are starting to blame proposed wind power developments.
"People do not want to buy near windmills," said Amanda J. Miller, owner of Lake Ontario Realty, Dexter, who specializes in waterfront property sales. "They avoid purchasing in towns like Cape Vincent."
Link here to original WDT story
Publication: Watertown Daily Times (New York)
Date: Wednesday, April 7 2010
Apr. 7--Sales records show that Cape Vincent has had a steeper decline in residential property sales than its neighbors and real estate professionals are starting to blame proposed wind power developments.
"People do not want to buy near windmills," said Amanda J. Miller, owner of Lake Ontario Realty, Dexter, who specializes in waterfront property sales. "They avoid purchasing in towns like Cape Vincent."
Link here to original WDT story
Sunday, April 4, 2010
New York Invests in Green-Collar Jobs : Apollo Alliance
New York Invests in Green-Collar Jobs : Apollo Alliance
Gov. David Paterson signed the Green Jobs/Green New York Act of 2009 into law. The product of active collaboration between a wide range of stakeholders,
Green Jobs/Green New York sets a goal of retrofitting a million homes across the state, and establishes a revolving loan fund, administered by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), to cover up-front costs of residential and commercial energy efficiency improvements. The bill encourages NYSERDA and the Public Service Commission to establish a mechanism to allow loan repayment over a number of years through an added charge on homeowners’ utility bills, but since it does not specifically mandate “on-bill recovery,” this will be the subject of additional legislation. The loan fund will be supported by an initial $112 million in proceeds from a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) auction. An additional $2-4 million in auction proceeds will go toward job training in weatherization.
The bill is the product of two years of work by a coalition of multiple stakeholders, led by the Center for Working families (CWF) and the WFP, with active engagement by the Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA), the New York Apollo Alliance, and many others. The coalition worked in cooperation with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who authored the bill and carried it through unanimous passage in the Assembly.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Fenner ~ Videos ~ General Electric ~ Turbines
The Fenner Wind Farm, Madison County, Upstate New York
After turbine collapse
General Electric Co., Was the turbine’s manufacturer.
December 10, 2007
Apparently breakdowns are not uncommon at Fenner.
A blade on one of the Fenner (NY) wind turbines bent in November '07 .This video also reports that, this is not the first time that a blade has failed on a turbine at Fenner Wind Farm.
Interview at Fenner Wind Farm in N.Y.Scott Griffin a local resident who lives in Fenner, talks about why he is supportive of the Fenner Wind Farm.
December 19, 2008
Wind Turbine Collapses Near Weatherford OK
General Electric Co., Was the turbine’s manufacturer.
After turbine collapse
General Electric Co., Was the turbine’s manufacturer.
December 10, 2007
Apparently breakdowns are not uncommon at Fenner.
A blade on one of the Fenner (NY) wind turbines bent in November '07 .This video also reports that, this is not the first time that a blade has failed on a turbine at Fenner Wind Farm.
Interview at Fenner Wind Farm in N.Y.Scott Griffin a local resident who lives in Fenner, talks about why he is supportive of the Fenner Wind Farm.
December 19, 2008
Wind Turbine Collapses Near Weatherford OK
General Electric Co., Was the turbine’s manufacturer.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
RADAR ISSUES BACK ON HORIZON
Wind Farm Plans Stir up Storm Over Military Radar - ABC News
FEDERAL WIND SITING ~ information center ~pdf file
~~~
Military tests conducted between2002 and 2005 by the U. S. Air force and the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense found that wind turbines located within the line of sight of military radar can adversely affect its ability to track aircraft and other aerial objects.
These findings virtually stopped the development of wind energy facilities across the country.
The FAA halted work on about a dozen land-based wind farm projects that were within the line of sight of any military radar. The Sierra Club sued the Pentagon in June for failing to complete the report within the mandated time period. In an attempt to force the release of the Department of Defense Report two Democratic Senators from Illinois, Richard (Dick) Durbin and Barack Obama, blocked a Senate vote on a Defense Department nominee Robert L. Wilkie and they announced that they would block the nomination of Andrew Steinberg to be Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs until the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a conclusive determination as to whether the operation of wind farms under construction in the Midwest will interfere with radar systems.
~~~
Without this certainty, potential investors will fear that their resources could be lost.
~~~~
The Sierra club published a post on their website stating that the DOD released their report in response to their lawsuit. Claiming that the result of the DOD's report was "vindication of the Club's position , that windmill construction should move forward". We now seem to be back where we started with the radar issue back on the horizon. This is a matter of public safety not an issue that needs to be expedited by political arm twisting or by court room theatrical maneuvers by wind lobbyists.
This is the press release from Senator Durbin's website ~ click here ~ to view actual page
This is the press release from Senator Durbin's website ~ click here ~ to view actual page
This is the press release from Senator Durbin's website ~ click here ~ to read report
FEDERAL WIND SITING ~ information center ~pdf file~~~
Military tests conducted between2002 and 2005 by the U. S. Air force and the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense found that wind turbines located within the line of sight of military radar can adversely affect its ability to track aircraft and other aerial objects.
These findings virtually stopped the development of wind energy facilities across the country.
The FAA halted work on about a dozen land-based wind farm projects that were within the line of sight of any military radar. The Sierra Club sued the Pentagon in June for failing to complete the report within the mandated time period. In an attempt to force the release of the Department of Defense Report two Democratic Senators from Illinois, Richard (Dick) Durbin and Barack Obama, blocked a Senate vote on a Defense Department nominee Robert L. Wilkie and they announced that they would block the nomination of Andrew Steinberg to be Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs until the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a conclusive determination as to whether the operation of wind farms under construction in the Midwest will interfere with radar systems.
~~~
Without this certainty, potential investors will fear that their resources could be lost.
~~~~
The Sierra club published a post on their website stating that the DOD released their report in response to their lawsuit. Claiming that the result of the DOD's report was "vindication of the Club's position , that windmill construction should move forward". We now seem to be back where we started with the radar issue back on the horizon. This is a matter of public safety not an issue that needs to be expedited by political arm twisting or by court room theatrical maneuvers by wind lobbyists.
This is the press release from Senator Durbin's website ~ click here ~ to view actual page
This is the press release from Senator Durbin's website ~ click here ~ to view actual page
This is the press release from Senator Durbin's website ~ click here ~ to read report
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Orangeville wind lawsuit detailed
The Daily News Online - Batavia, NY Lawsuit makes conflict-of-interest allegations
By Matt Surtel
Thursday, February 11, 2010
(Related story: Orangeville wind Lawsuit detailed)
~~~
This is all too familiar!
Orangeville wind lawsuit detailed
A group opposing the proposed Stony Creek Wind Farm alleges ethics and other violations by the town board. Clear Skies Over Orangeville is seeking to invalidate the town's 2009 zoning amendments which set the rules for wind turbine development. The group is also asking the court to order the Town Board to comply with State Environmental Quality Review procedural mandates.
February 10, 2010 by Matt Surtel in The Daily News
ORANGEVILLE -- A group opposing the proposed Stony Creek Wind Farm alleges ethics and other violations by the town board.
Clear Skies Over Orangeville is seeking to invalidate the town's 2009 zoning amendments which set the rules for wind turbine development.
The group is also asking the court to order the Town Board to comply with State Environmental Quality Review procedural mandates.
Web link: http://www.thedailynewsonline.com/articles/2010/02...
By Matt Surtel
Thursday, February 11, 2010
(Related story: Orangeville wind Lawsuit detailed)
~~~
This is all too familiar!
Orangeville wind lawsuit detailed
A group opposing the proposed Stony Creek Wind Farm alleges ethics and other violations by the town board. Clear Skies Over Orangeville is seeking to invalidate the town's 2009 zoning amendments which set the rules for wind turbine development. The group is also asking the court to order the Town Board to comply with State Environmental Quality Review procedural mandates.
February 10, 2010 by Matt Surtel in The Daily News
ORANGEVILLE -- A group opposing the proposed Stony Creek Wind Farm alleges ethics and other violations by the town board.
Clear Skies Over Orangeville is seeking to invalidate the town's 2009 zoning amendments which set the rules for wind turbine development.
The group is also asking the court to order the Town Board to comply with State Environmental Quality Review procedural mandates.
Web link: http://www.thedailynewsonline.com/articles/2010/02...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)