The specter of global warming and the political panic surrounding it has triggered a gold rush for renewable energy sources without an open discussion of the merits and drawbacks of each. In The Wind Farm Scam Dr Etherington argues that in the case of wind power the latter far outweigh the former. Wind turbines cannot generate enough energy to reduce global CO2 levels to a meaningful degree; what’s more wind power is by nature intermittent and cannot generate a steady output, necessitating back-up coal and gas power plants that significantly negate the saving of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to the inefficacy of wind power there are ecological drawbacks, including damage to habitats, wildlife and the far-from-insignificant aesthetic drawback of the assault upon natural beauty and the pristine landscape, which wind turbines entail. Dr Etherington argues that wind power has been, and is being, excessively financed at the cost of consumers who have not been consulted, nor informed that this effective subsidy is being paid from their bills to support an industry that cannot be cost efficient or, ultimately, favor the cause it purports to support."
I know one thing beyond a reasonable doubt, Great Bay wind will be on this post like a fly on sh$$. Just wait, I predict we will be bombarded with studies that dispute this post and we will be expected to believe them. Great Bay only believes studies that favor there point of view, no opposing studies or opinions matter to Great Bay, only theirs are true according to them. Frankly I would be embarrassed if I were them because everyone else cannot be wrong.
There are many scientists out there do not agree with global warming, explaining the cycle we've been experiencing has happened before and will happen again in 120 years or so. The enviromentalists pour millions of $$$ into politicians' campaigns to get their support to spend billions of taxpayers' $$$ to be spent toward their causes.
10:11 Would you mind stating when a proponent claimed only supporting literature was relevant? I think the exact opposite is true. On a recent thread the opposition continuously claimed that everything cited by proponents was incorrect, false or had been bought off by the wind industry. Then someone from the opposition actually cited some credible sources including one that indicated that energy prices decreased due to wind production. Then the opposition seemed to claim that all of their sources were more accurate except the parts of them that they didn't agree with. You mention not everyone else can be wrong and I think that is a great point. Navigant Research did a poll that found wind was viewed favorably by 72% of people. USA Today found 73% of people supported continuing the PTC. A University of Texas poll found that 89% of Americans wanted the federal government to focus on further developing renewable energy. Kansas is a huge state for wind energy and a poll there found 91% of Kansas voters support wind power. A March 2013 Gallup poll found that 71% of Americans supported wind energy production, 76% of Americans supported solar, 37% supported nuclear and 46% supported fossil fuels. A poll in Minnesota showed 84% supported increasing wind development. An Ohio statewide survey gave participants the choice of choosing a primary and secondary pick of preferred energy 25% chose wind as the first pick and 47% as the second, 31% chose solar as their first pick and 54% as the second, 16% chose coal as their first pick and 25% as the second, 10% chose nuclear as their first pick and 19% as the second. So in your opinion are the approximately 70+ percent of people that support wind energy wrong?
Wind farms shift wealth from middle class families through lower property values and higher utility costs and deposit the wealth in the coffers of the politically connected. Wind Farms operate under the guise of saving the environment, when in reality, they are destroying it.
Will somebody call Great Bay and tell them to get on here and refute everything that everyone has to say. We don't want to lose our next lease payment and all that free stuff we get from PG.
You are correct 11:25 and unfortunately our elected officials in Washington and some locally fall for that hoax. Money talks when it's put into the right hands.
PG spokesman will probably accuse Dr John Etherington of being a member of Safe for Somerset. It seems that anyone that doesn't agree with PG are automatically enrolled in SFS.
PG has discovered this thread, now we will all get accused of belonging to SAF and get swamped with studies that have nothing to do with Somerset county.
11:55 It seems kind of funny that you claim that when you apparently believe that anyone that supports the Great Bay project must be part of Pioneer. Hypocrisy?
Here's a quick list of four peer reviewed studies showing no loss in property value from wind development.
Atkinson-Palombo, C.; Hoen, B. (2014). Relationship between Wind Turbines and Residential Property Values in Massachusetts. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. This study provides siting process stakeholders with additional information from which to work. The report builds on Berkeley Lab’s previous studies published in 2009 and 2013 by amassing a much larger dataset of home sales near wind facilities sited in urban environments than had previously been collected.
Hinman, J.L. (2010). Wind Farm Proximity and Property Values: A Pooled Hedonic Regression Analysis of Property Values in Central Illinois. Illinois State University. The study examined whether proximity to the 240-turbine Twin Groves Wind Farm (Phases I and II) in Illinois impacted nearby residential property values and whether any impact on nearby property values changes over the different stages of wind farm development. This study used 3,851 residential property transactions.
Hoen, B.; Brown, J.P.; Jackson, T.; Wiser, R.; Thayer, M.; Cappers, P. (2013). A Spatial Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of Wind Energy Facilities on Surrounding Property Values in the United States. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. This report builds on a 2009 study that also investigated impacts on home values near wind facilities. The researchers analyzed more than 50,000 home sales near 67 wind facilities in 27 counties across nine states and did not find any statistically identifiable impacts of wind facilities to nearby home property values.
Hoen, B.; Wiser, R.H.; Cappers, P.; Thayer, M.; Sethi, G. (2009). The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The researchers collected data on almost 7,500 sales of single family homes within 10 miles of 24 wind facilities in nine states. Also let me point out 3 of these studies are done by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. This is one of the most respected research facilities in the world.
PG is being fought at every level and their chances of success are minimal at least. If there was one other place in the entire country that would welcome them they would certainly pack up and leave. That to me just shows how unpopular wind mill farms actually are. In business there is such a thing as cutting your losses. Continuing to throw good money after bad shows poor business management within PG.
11:25 You mention higher utility cost. One of the articles on the SFS website published in 2012 credited lower utility rates to wind energy development. Is SFS posting bad material or are you not being accurate?
12:15 You have continued to refer to me as PG. You did again in that post. Yet you whine and complain when referred to as SFS. Then you accuse me of twisting the truth when while you try to deny that you just referred to me as PG. Hypocrisy or Forrest Gump?
12:15 Actually on another thread on this blog a few days ago one of you did claim that the studies cited by the proponents were all funded by the wind industry. Are you backing off that claim now?
Nice to see an intelligent article from the anti wind crowd! He makes some good points but doesn't give the whole story. For instance he claims wind energy is intermittent and has to be backed up. Their is truth to that claim however all electrical generation has to be backed up, even nuclear, remember when Three Mile Island went down. If it had not been backed up the whole grid would have gone down. Wind Energy actually has an advantage in that each individual turbine is only 2 to 5 MW where a fossil fuel plant may be 500MW making wind much easier to cover. However he does have a point in that the wind energy provider cannot guarantee electricity at a certain time in the future. However the wind energy company can quote the power company a price 25 years from now because their is no fuel cost and maintenance is minimal. This something the fossil fuel provider cannot do. Think of it this way, if a car became available that was competitively priced and required no fuel and very little maintenance but could not be used say 5 days a month would it be worthwhile for you to buy it as a second car. Most people would say yes. This brings us to another point the author left out. Electricity is sold on the open market, when a power company bids on it they know how reliable it is and bid accordingly. Sure their are mandates in some states but not all. Wind is doing very well in many states with no mandate and usually the mandate is for renewable energy not specifically wind. Finally he talks about " damage to habitats, wildlife and the far-from-insignificant aesthetic drawback ". Okay lets look at the whole picture! We use a lot of electricity it's got to be generated somehow. If not from wind it's probably going to be from coal. The damage wind does to habitats, wildlife or aesthetics is insignificant to the damage coal does. Either in the mining or the power generation. If anyone doubts this they need to visit a strip mine. This is a popular tactic of the anti wind crowd, to compare wind to nothing. Every form of electrical generation has drawbacks and I would argue if you give a fair appraisal to all wind energy comes out looking very good!
If wind energy made sense, people would build windmills without government money. The fact that you and I need to give lots of tax money to somebody so that they can sell us power at an even higher price just goes to show how stupid some of these deals are.
It's very interesting that wind and solar seem to be very effective on a small scale. Put up your own personal windmill and throw some solar panels on your roof, and you can put a huge dent in your electric bill while diversifying your power sources (if it's rainy, you're less likely go generate solar but there's probably more wind available). Feed your excess power into the grid, and draw it back when you need it.
Utilities should focus less on buying large alternative energy sources, and find a way to be the better battery that stores excess production, and be better distributors of electrical load.
@ 2:09 Again you compare wind to nothing. Every form of electrical generation gets some form of Government assistance. Oh excuse me, that's not quite true, since the Production Tax Credit that was given to wind has expired wind energy is the only form of electrical generation that does NOT receive any kind of assistance. Also both the fossil fuel and the nuclear industries received far greater subsidies in their start up periods than wind energy. These subsidies, agree with them or not, are given to new industries to help them get started and build necessary infrastructure in a competitive way. Wind energy is a perfect example of these start up subsidies working as intended. Wind energy costs have dropped by about half in the last few years as manufacturing techniques and efficiency have improved. This has also led to the strong growth of turbine manufacturing in the U.S.
@12:12 Looks like a business expert such as yourself would do a little research before he posts. Wind Energy was the fastest growing form of electricity last year. Looks like some people must like it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/09/heres-how-much-faster-wind-and-solar-are-growing-than-fossil-fuels/
@11:52 Looks like another unsubstantiated accusation of corruption. If your going to accuse elected officials of being corrupt why not say exactly who you accuse and put your name on it? Just seems pretty cowardly and disrespectful to me! And answer this, if our elected officials are selling out why not to the highest bidder? The fossil fuel industry has far more money to buy politicians than the wind energy industry. It's not even close, the Koch brothers alone have more to spend than the whole renewable energy industry. So your accusations are not only rude, cowardly and disrespectful they also make no sense.
Much of the cost of wind is hidden thru government subsidies and the sale of Renewable Energy Credits. Just study the economics and politics of wind. The industry regulates itself for environment impact, accidents, and disclosure reporting. No wonder it is riddled with corruption.
Wind and solar produce at a fraction of their capacity rating. Even in the most wind places, wind produces at less than 30%. Wind turbines produces at less than 15% in Germany last year. Germany's electricity rates are high because they bet heavy on wind, that many hard working families have to choose between energy and food.
3:16 You say that Germany's electrical rates are high because of wind energy development but a simple search on Google shows that Germany's power prices skyrocketed because they cut out their nuclear energy program. Sounds like you were trying to make an emotional argument without researching it first. Also if wind was more expensive then why does it preform so well in Texas which deregulated? If what you said was even remotely true then wind energy would be finished in Texas once they deregulated.
3:07 Yes wind energy did receive about 42% of energy tax credits although now the PTC you refer to is expired, but you forgot to mention that although wind did receive a great portion of tax credits that wind is the fastest growing form of energy in the US. Sounds like the tax break was working. You also didn't mention that fossil fuels have been receiving tax breaks for a much longer period of time and have received much more cumulative. When talking about energy and taxpayer cost you should also bring up that the taxpayers obligations to nuclear do not end when energy production is shut down. Rather the taxpayers have to pay to store the highly radioactive material for several thousand years.
2:56 Global Warming is real because the people heating up our atmosphere are the ones using HARRP to heat it up. They are the same people who have made Billions advancing it.
Is that corruption or the over used cliche Tin Foil used by hacks who cannot tell you whether electricity is a wave or a particle?
Look up Lauren Moret and summarily dismiss her in your valiant stand of enabling crimes by lawyers. Bankers and liberal arts majors turned into icons out of political zeal.
Lauren makes an amazing disclosure and is a "Scientist" ranked in the top 10 most influential women who worked at Mt Livermore
She says they are using HAARP to spread Fukishima radiation all over the Western hemisphere to achieve Agenda 21 goals that do not include you in the equation either.
3:12 The Production Tax Credit you reference in your "government subsidies" comment is expired. Also the PTC wasn't a cost, it was a tax credit. You make no sense. If you buy a geothermal heat pump and file the tax credit the taxpayers are not paying you. When you file a tax deduction you are not ripping off the other taxpayers. Ron Paul said it best- "Of course, the government should neither inhibit nor subsidize any particular type of energy. While many people agree with that statement, there is much confusion over the difference between government subsidies and tax credits or deductions. The difference is night and day, yet so many times they are all lumped together as evil government handouts. A subsidy IS a government handout. It amounts to the government taking money from the people and giving it to a favored interest. It is the worst sort of market manipulation and it is something I can never support. This kind of government mischief is anathema to the Constitution and the principles of freedom and the free market. By contrast, with tax credits and deductions, industries, business, and individuals simply get to keep more of the money they have earned. Ideally, the tax code should not be used for social engineering, but, until we have true tax reform, I will always support tax credits and deductions that keep more dollars in the private sector where they are spent, saved, or invested. This means I will support tax credits and deductions for energy producers, farmers, homeschoolers, family child care expenditures, expenses of evacuees from disaster areas, and even adoption expenses. I’ve almost never met a tax cut, deduction, or credit I didn’t like. Any measure that keeps money in the private sector to spend, save or invest, rather than allowing the government to waste or misallocate is a win for the economy." Similarly you reference Renewable Energy Certificates. These are not part of the "cost." They are a tax break for operations that produce renewable energy. If you want to argue for a simpler tax code go for it. I would agree with you. Give all forms of energy the same tax break and then penalize for contaminant emissions. However to argue that a tax credit is part of the "cost" especially when the PTC is expired is pretty dishonest.
@3:07 and 3:12 You are comparing Government assistance to long established industries that should not be receiving any assistance to a new and growing industry. The subsidies being paid (now expired) to wind energy are still no where near what the fossil fuel industry got when it was getting started. The purpose of giving subsidies is to help a new industry get started as it develops technology, infrastructure and manufacturing techniques. What we are doing right now since the PTC has expired is subsidizing the old established industries and not helping the new upcoming industry. Furthermore there is a health cost with the fossil fuel industry. Ignoring that is another subsidy in itself. Burning coal releases huge amounts of carcinogens and heavy metals into the atmosphere. @3:16 You need to do a little research. Germany's electric costs are high because after the Fukushima disaster they shut down a lot of their nuclear reactors causing a severe shortage of electricity. Since then they have added wind energy and brought their prices back down. This is a popular piece of anti wind propaganda that can be easily refuted.
2:09 Let me rephrase your first comment for you a few times for you maybe you can see it point. "If nuclear energy made sense than people would build reactors without government money" "If coal energy made sense than people would do it without government money" "If hydroelectric made sense than people would build without government money" If solar made sense than people would build without government money" "If natural gas energy made sense than people would build without government money" A few points. All energy receives tax credits. If you do not support a form of energy because it receives tax credits than you better be prepared to live with the Amish. Secondly tax credits are not government money. If you file a tax deduction or tax credit the tax payers are not sending you a check in the mail, a criteria you met allowed you to keep more of YOUR money.
Your right PG Man, Germany got rid of nuclear and installed wind. Now Germans cannot pay their utility bills and most of their energy is now imported from other countries.
If any form of electrical generation is subsidized it is nuclear. They should have to pay the true cost of their liability including guarding their waste for 5000 years. Just look at Fukushima and think about Calvert Cliffs sitting just across the bay. We are told nuclear is safe and not to worry about natural disasters such as a tidal wave or hurricane but that is what they told the people of Japan. Then there is the issue of terrorism. Again we are told not to worry but look at this news article from Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2014/09/09/grapevine-nuclear-insecurity/
5:24 I know I'm right SFS man. Germany got rid of its principal source of energy without regard to replacing its capacity. SFS's comparison would be like getting rid of your whole house heat pump and replacing it with a single 100btu in-window air conditioner and then blaming the air conditioner company for your house being hot in August.
Since there seems to still be some debate about Germany here is an article from Forbes. Interesting to note is Forbes has never been a supporter of renewable energy. http://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2014/06/28/how-opposite-energy-policies-turned-the-fukushima-disaster-into-a-loss-for-japan-and-a-win-for-germany/
Why should anyone believe anything PG and/or their supporters (how do you like that phrase PG) have to say when they keep repeating that the PTC has expired. It's the play of words that they use to mislead the people. I looked up expire and it means "dead". As PG and their supporters very well know the PTC is not dead. It simple has not been renewed by congress but in all likelihood will be renewed very soon. You need really need to be more truthful in your statements PG and/or supporters.
Our PG guy failed to mention this study: Values in the Wind: A Hedonic Analysis of Wind Power Facilities. Seemed he cherry picked favorable articles...ha.. imagine that!
here's a quote from the study:
"The siting of wind facilities is extremely controversial. This paper uses data on 11,331 property transactions over nine years in northern New York State to explore the effects of new wind facilities on property values. We use a fixed-effects framework to control for omitted variables and endogeneity biases. We find that nearby wind facilities significantly reduce property values in two of the three counties studied. These results indicate that existing compensation to local homeowners/communities may not be sufficient to prevent a loss of property values. (JEL Q51, Q53)"
STFU PG guy. And I found lots more to blow your argument out of the ocean.
@7:08 Oh I am so glad you mentioned that study because it is a perfect example of how anti wind people work! Read the study it examines property transactions in three counties in NY from 2000 thru 2009. In one county the turbines went up in 04 I believe and showed no statistical change in property values. In the other two counties where a loss of property values was reported the turbines did not go up to 08. Surprise Surprise! The two counties showed a loss of property values at the same time the whole country suffered a real estate crash. Yes they used the real estate crash of 08 to blame wind turbines on a property value decline! It should also be noted the authors stated in the beginning of the study that they did not think it possible that turbines would not cause a property value decline. How's that for unbiased research? They did remove that quote but early copies have it.
6:48 You call it misleading to call the PTC expired? What would you call it? When a funding source or tax credit has an "elimination" date isn't that referred to as an "expiration" date? If it exceeds its "expiration" date without renewal then isn't that commonly called "expired." It has not been renewed. It might be or it might not be but currently it is inactive. Furthermore there are currently no funding bills introduced that would renew it. As of right now there is no PTC. If the Great Bay Wind Project is built under current law it will not qualify for the PTC. I looked on energy.gov and sure enough the PTC is referenced as "expired." So tell me 6:48 is it twisting the truth to call something officially labeled as "expired" expired? You also say the PTC will in all likelihood be renewed. Do you have a date when it will be renewed? Are you 100% sure it will be renewed? If not then I think your argument makes no sense. If something is officially label as expired let us simply call it expired. Also if you want to talk about twisting the truth, I noticed that yesterday on the SFS Facebook you put up an article about an eagle death. It was not a bald eagle it was a golden eagle. You know that species that there has been two confirmed sightings of in Somerset in the last decade? The species of eagle that is actually proven to be vulnerable to turbine strikes? So is SFS contending that there is a golden eagle population at risk in Somerset based on those two sightings in the last decade? Or was SFS just twisting the truth by using any eagle death to try to solicit an emotional responce?
7:08 Isn't that the study that was done in the middle of the recession? You take a study done in the middle of the recession and cite it as proof of property value loss and then have the nerve to accuse others of cherry picking? I am afraid you will need to blow a little harder to knock our argument out of the ocean. But props for trying.
The property value study Pioneer uses ignores the properties that are unmarketable and does not recognize the properties bought out by the wind facility under gag order.
VT has lowered property values that were over 3700' from a 4 turbine facility. The turbines were only 440' tall and one property owner lost more than $50,0000. The reason given for devaluation was noise and blight.
You seriously are going to cite a case of a single (1) house having its value lowered and then accuse other of cherry picking information?? Also you state "values" (plural) when the case cited by SFS was a single (1) house. Talk about being misleading.
@8:12 Not true if you look at the Mass. Study done by Berkeley (On the PG resources page) you will see they also examine frequency of home sales and found it was not affected. This was done to address the claim from anti wind groups that homes did not sell near turbines thus skewing results. @8:14 You need to quit getting your information from wind watch. This refers to an assessment change on ONE house that was owned by long time anti wind activists. My personal opinion the county did it to shut them up. Again this was an assessment change, related but not the same as a property value. Their neighbors didn't get it even those closer to the turbines.
What is happening in Somerset is very troubling and amounts to the largest taking of private property in recent history. All people should be watching this very closely, because the only way for MD to reach its 20% by 2022 renewable mandate is to litter the state with turbines and solar panels. This will change our pastoral environment to an industrial zone that no longer can serve as habitat to the multitude of waterfowl and shorebirds that it currently supports. This is also a warning that your backyard is next.
On the topic of being misleading 8:12. If you had READ the studies posted, which you probably did not you would find both house values and house sale frequency were examined. Neither were found with a negative deviation. If the house sale rate is not affected then your theory that "The property value study Pioneer uses ignores the properties that are unmarketable and does not recognize the properties bought out by the wind facility under gag order" is completely false.
I, personally, would never buy a house in a mile radius of a windmill unless it was on my property and I could shut it off, 1/4 mile of a chicken house, 3/4 if downwind of prevailing wind, 1/4 mile from a major freeway without a noise barrier, and never within a 50 mile radius of Ray Wallace.
Pig farms = chicken houses, so now Ray knows how he rates!
@ 8:31 You obviously have been very misinformed. Absolutely no one is having their property taken from them to have a turbine installed. Everyone of the proposed cites is on ground voluntarily leased to GB by the landowners. No one is forced to either give up their land or lease their land. Also if you look at a map of the proposed cites you will see all of them are well away from the water. This was done just to protect waterfowl and shorebirds. Also modern turbines have blades mounted much higher off the ground and their blades turn much slower. Both these changes greatly reduce bird kills.
love how this PG loser keeps reciting data by Berkeley as if it's beyond reproach. Guess what, it ain't. Ben Hoen is not all that. Isn't he highly compensated by the government, Obamas government???
suffice it to say, here's a link to just one tidbit. http://docs.wind-watch.org/McCann-Setbacks-property-values.pdf
The PJM grid operator which is the grid we get our electricity from did a study that found using renewables would save Maryland 302 million in meeting EPA requirements. http://aweablog.org/blog/post/largest-us-grid-operator-finds-wind-energy-saves-consumers-money-under-epas-clean-power-plan
The VT case was not a single house but included multiple properties being devalued. The decrease in property values ranged from 8-18%. This project includes only 4 turbines on a mountain ridge where population density is sparse. IN contrast, there are over 400 structures within 1 mile of PHASE 1 of the GREAT BAY WIND Project so multiple the $50,000 devaluation by 400 and see how much devaluation you get.
The Pioneer Green supporter posting here has a wind lease and it already receiving compensation from Pioneer Green. His household is collecting thousands of dollars while his neighbors pay the price.
The Massachusetts study is a study of a study. It states over and over that more studies need to be done to protect the so-called prestigious scientist from liable.
@8:59 Let me get this straight. You claim the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory which just happens to be one of the most respected research institutions in the world, can't be trusted because it does research for the DOE but then you cite testimony from a real estate appraiser paid for by anti wind activists as proof! Your link cannot even be considered a study it's just a appraiser's paid opinion!
9:20 The Massachusetts study you reference is what's called a Literature Review. The panel that wrote it was charged with reviewing all peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed data and formulating conclusions based on all literature available. Most studies state that more data is needed as results are rarely absolute. Here are their credentials.
Jeffrey M. Ellenbogen, MD; MMSc Assistant Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School Division Chief, Sleep Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital Sheryl Grace, PhD; MS Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Boston University Wendy J Heiger-Bernays, PhD Associate Professor of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health Chair, Lexington Board of Health James F. Manwell, PhD Mechanical Engineering; MS Electrical & Computer Engineering; BA Biophysics Professor and Director of the Wind Energy Center, Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering University of Massachusetts, Amherst Dora Anne Mills, MD, MPH, FAAP State Health Officer, Maine 1996–2011 Vice President for Clinical Affairs, University of New England Kimberly A. Sullivan, PhD Research Assistant Professor of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health Marc G. Weisskopf, ScD Epidemiology; PhD Neuroscience Associate Professor of Environmental Health and Epidemiology Department of Environmental Health & Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health Facilitative Support provided by Susan L. Santos, PhD, FOCUS GROUP Risk Communication and Environmental Management Consultants
8:59 Berkeley labs is very well renown and credible organization. Very few people would dispute this. Did you actually read that link that you posted? For one think is is basically an opinion testimony. It was not peer reviewed or published. Secondly it even cites wikipedia as a source. Generally in my experience anyone that cites wikipedia as a source should be ignored. You are offering this to refute numerous peer reviewed articles? That you are going to openly question the credibility of Berkeley Labs while using sources that cite wikipedia to me speaks volumes about your credibility. At least SFS has expanded there horizons from Youtube videos to wikipedia.
@10:33 The GB turbines will be owned by a electricity provider and connected directly to the grid so no they will not power homes directly. Some landowners live near turbine cites some don't. Two interesting points. Dr. George who is SFS health expert was in the GB program and wanted as many turbines as he could get near his home. It was only after he was rejected because of an easement did he suddenly discover supposed health issues with turbines. On the other hand Dr. May rents a home only 700' from a turbine site. His home will be closer than anyone else in the county. He is a research scientist at UMES and has worked as a pathologist at John Hopkins. He has testified in favor of the GB project without any kind of compensation.
@9:12 Please read the link provided by SFS.http://www.safeforsomerset.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/WEBSITE-2015-02-02-VT-PROP-Property-Devaluation-due-to-Turbine-Noise.pdf. I assume you trust a link provided by SFS. It indeed shows a assessment change on ONE house! If you then goggle the home owners name you will see they are long time anti wind activists. Also sound tests were conducted which showed basically the same noise levels as normal background noise. My opinion they gave the whiners a 12% assessment drop to shut them up.
@ 9:20 I think we have a misunderstanding. The Mass. study referred to directly above is property values study done by Berkeley Lab not the Health study done by Mass. Departments of Health and Environment.
Dr. Randy George has done his homework. He knows large scale wind installations are detrimental to human health and that industrializing a residential zone lowers property values. Dr. George has never been interested in hosting turbines on his property and posting such is a lie.
Berkeley Lab was founded in 1931 by Ernest Orlando Lawrence, a UC Berkeley physicist who won the 1939 Nobel Prize in physics. Here is some info from them.In the world of science, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) is synonymous with “excellence.” Thirteen Nobel prizes are associated with Berkeley Lab. Seventy Lab scientists are members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), one of the highest honors for a scientist in the United States. Thirteen of our scientists have won the National Medal of Science, our nation’s highest award for lifetime achievement in fields of scientific research. Eighteen of our engineers have been elected to the National Academy of Engineering, and three of our scientists have been elected into the Institute of Medicine. In addition, Berkeley Lab has trained thousands of university science and engineering students who are advancing technological innovations across the nation and around the world.
Getting back to the original article I have two points. One the book is 6 years old and there have been huge changes in the wind industry in the last 6 years and it is based largely on the UK which has very different policies on Green Energy than the US. I believe they have laws that force power companies to buy from wind farms where our electricity is sold on the open market.
8:32 I believe the Berkeley Lab was started in the 1930's. I do not think there was much of a movement about switching to renewable's. Your opinion is that the Berkeley Lab cannot be trusted by you will gladly believe an opinion piece from a single real estate appraiser who uses wikipedia as a source? Also you need to do your homework on SFS's Dr. George. He was interested in a wind lease. Then when he found out that the Ag easement on his property kept him out of the project he suddenly had an epiphany that turbines were health hazards. Seems his testimony is somewhat unreliable.
I find it hard to believe that PG really believes that it will ever be able to obtain all the necessary permits in order to build their wind farm. If there was just one other place in the USA where they could build this monstrosity they would pack up and leave. PG has no real ties to Somerset so it really makes no sense for them to be so persistent except for the fact they have no where else to go.
10:10 You don't consider millions invested in permits, planning and leases not to mention all the supporters to be a tie to Somerset? Actually according to their website they are currently developing other projects so once again your rhetoric seems false.
@10:10 SFS continually brings up the question of why did PG choose Somerset. This has been answered over and over again but not on this thread so I will give a few reasons. We are located near the bay which supplies a steady supply of good wind from the thermal differences between land and water, due to our overloaded line from Indian River we have a shortage of available electricity and high prices, we have no endangered bats, the county is largely rural with large tracts of land allowing them to provide ample setbacks and the land is relatively inexpensive. PG can provide you with several more reasons so contact them if you need more.
Here are more reasons, Pioneer was wooed by our EDC director Danny Thompson. I guess the main selling point was how "poor" we are because that is all Pioneer Green and our officials talk about. This completely ignores how rich we are in natural resources that will be destroyed by a wind plant.
That's funny, because Pioneer has been forced out of Alabama, New Hampshire, California, and Pennsylvania because their projects would not safely fit. It seems our officials have less concern for our safety than the officials in these other places. Somerset is also in the Atlantic Flyway with a continuous stream of nonresident species passing through. The resident bald eagles forage between the Pocomoke River and the Little Annemessex which is exactly where the turbine will be. This is obviously a poorly planned project.
I would love to know what PG was promised in advance in order to spend a large amount of money before they were given final approval to build anything. I can only imagine that the EDC and county commissioners assured PG that getting all the necessary permits would be no problem. EDC, commissioners, and PG all only care about one thing and that was the money. They never ever expected the citizens to actually stand up and speak out about this horrible monstrosity.PG can say they made good business decisions but I would like to ask them if they could roll back time would they have spent the money before they got the permission to build (not just take someones word that you will get the permits you need (period).
11:18 You say Pioneer has been forced out of California? Then how are they still developing 2 projects in California? Also while Pioneer is apparently at the moment not developing anything in Pennsylvania there are several wind projects already developed in Pennsylvania. You also state bald eagles are a concern. All scientific data indicates that any bald eagles losses will be sustainable. I would be glad to cite several articles for you, but I suspect you already know that the bald eagle population is not at risk from this project. I would be you also know that less there has been less than 10 bald eagle deaths recorded attributable to wind turbines.
11:12 So is SFS contending that there is a golden eagle population at risk in Somerset? I also just checked ebird which is a site the SFS facebook page has used as a source. There are still only 2 sightings in Somerset listed in the last 2 decades.
12:33 How would the EDC or the commissioners be able to give any assurances on a Federal permit? Also I am pretty sure Pioneer expects fringe groups to pop up wherever a project is sited. I do not recall ever hearing of Pioneer bragging about making great business decisions but apparently you fail to understand the business. For the permitting you need to be able to prove access to land. In fact if you check out the FAA permitting you have to give exact locations. Your theory that a company can just apply for permits and then later fill in the blanks on the permits is incredibly laughable. How would you ever get permission to build without being able to document what you intent to build?
12:41 There are golden eagles that fly through Somerset County every year, but don't nest there. They are tracked yearly. Pioneer Greed can not get a permit to kill any.
New Report out from the DOE http://energy.gov/articles/energy-department-releases-new-wind-report-examines-future-industry In 2013, an estimated total of more than 50,000 American jobs were supported by wind investments. The report projects that wind could support more than 600,000 jobs by 2050 in industries such as construction, engineering, transportation, manufacturing, operations, maintenance, and supporting services.
The report also highlights the public health and environmental benefits of wind today and into the future. As a clean energy source, wind power could displace more than 12.3 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, equating to a global economic value of $400 billion. Additionally, growth in the wind sector could lower the cumulative electric sector expenditures by $149 billion by 2050.
9:04 I don't know who you are, but the term "serial liar" applies. Dr. George bought the property in 2008 and immediately protected it with an agricultural easement which prevents all development,including chicken houses, wind turbines and solar panels. This is public information.
@11:10 I suspect many of the nearly 30% living below the poverty line in Somerset would happily trade just a little of that natural beauty for some economic opportunity in the county. Like what a 200 million dollar investment would bring. It is very hard to feed a hungry child natural beauty. Many more would like to see what almost 3 million a year in annual tax revenue could do for this county.
@2:32 There we go with the reading comprehension problem again. Go back and read 9:04 again slowly! It clearly states Dr. George was rejected from the project because of an ag easement. Now who is the serial liar? In most states turbines are allowed with ag easements and at first it was not thought to be a problem. At that time Dr. George wanted all the turbines he could get on his property. The commission that oversees the easements rejected allowing the turbines so GB then rejected Dr. George who only then decided turbines were a health problem. Since then the state legislature passed a bill allowing turbines on land with ag easements but Southern Maryland got the three lower counties excluded. It's very possible that after the MIT study is released that exclusion will be lifted at which time Dr. George may support wind energy again. BTW an easement does not prevent him from building poultry houses.
2:26 Once again there have been two confirmed sightings of golden eagles reported to Ebird (which SFS has cited) in the last decade. If you look up the species on Audubon (https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/golden-eagle) you will see that this area is listed as "winter uncommon." Once again your emotional take on the Take Permit is inaccurate. According to CFR Part 50 10, 13 and 22 the permit authorizes the incidental "take" of "eagles" it is not species specific. It should also be noted that both the bald eagle and the golden eagle are now classified as species of "least concern." Another interesting tidbit, according to ebird the last confirmed sighting of a golden eagle in Somerset County was in 2011 and it was in Princess Anne.
4:13 Please go to the comment at 2:55 and read it slowly and carefully. Wind development was allowed as of 2014 on land protected by ag easements EXCEPT in the three lower counties. Refer to Maryland SB259 if you need further clarification.
What is it with these SFS people! We all make honest mistakes and occasionally read or write something wrong but this is ridiculous. Take your time and read a post before you comment back! Don't be in such a hurry to disagree or in your case accuse others of lying that you can't actually read the post. I guess it would be way too much to ask that you stop and think about what you just read before commenting back.
Killing 600 bald eagles and thousands of other species over the life of the project is fine with Pioneer Green because the population will not become extinct. Okay, we got it.
The DOE report does not acknowledge the loss of jobs due to higher electricity rates. I am surprised even you, Pioneer man, think this biased report would fool us.
Because PG is desperate for anything to make SFS look bad 5:01. It's really very childish and not something a reputable company would ever do. Can anyone imagine Walmart or even the landfill company that wanted to come here getting on a blog site and trying to make the locals look like they are stupid. It really boggles the mind, I would not trust PG at all to do business in the county. It's a small company anyway and could go bankrupt and then the county would be stuck with a bunck of worthless windmills.
@4:53 I refer you to the first study cited by SFS again SFS on the last thread that stated people in the study enjoyed LOWER electric prices And INCREASED tax revenue due to wind energy."Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health" Is's bad enough you won't read any study cited by GB supporters but it does look like you could read a study cited by SFS. So DOE reports are considered biased? So you only trust what you read on wind watch right? @5:33 Ask him to make a public statement to that effect.
@5:01 and 6:21 No one from PG has been on this thread so does that make you habitual liars? The supporters come on here to correct misinformation. Go back through these two threads and you will see a pattern, SFS or the opposition make a false statement and it is corrected by supporters usually with some reference. The fact that the opposition ends up looking very stupid is not something we count on but a very worthwhile reward nonetheless. One more correction the proposed ordinance requires the GB project to be bonded so the county cannot be stuck with any wind turbines. There's my reward again!
@4:50 So we make our electricity here in Somerset and a few birds get killed our we buy our electricity from the coal plant at Indian River and more birds are killed. Either from the burning of the coal, mining of the coal or the transmission of the electricity. If your concerned about birds, wildlife or the environment and use electricity either you support the Great Bay project or your a hypocrite.
No form of energy generation is free from impact and wind power is no exception. However, studies have shown wind energy’s impacts to be the lowest, as it emits no air or water pollution, requires no mining or drilling for fuel, uses no water in the generation of electricity, and creates no hazardous or radioactive waste requiring permanent storage, and yet is held to the highest environmental standards.
Eagle fatalities only occur at a very small number of facilities across the country, and a significant mortality rate at individual sites is even rarer—primarily in Altamont Pass, California, siting of early wind farms developed long before the interaction between eagles and turbines was understood.
As shorter, more numerous, faster-rotating old turbines at those few sites are replaced through the process of repowering with taller, less numerous, slower-rotating modern turbines, and are sited based on more experience, eagle fatalities are being reduced by an estimated 50%.
Even today, the data shows collision with turbines at modern wind farms is responsible for less than two percent of all reported human-caused eagle fatalities, with vastly greater amounts attributed to power lines, vehicle strikes, lead poisoning, drowning in livestock watering tanks, illegal shootings, etc.
4:50 Every thing you do has an ecological cost. All available research suggests bird deaths will be under 1% and be sustainable. If you cannot accept the concept of sustainable loss then feel free to become Amish.
4:53 That is because economics tells us that additional sources of energy do not equate to higher energy costs. Apparently you have fooled yourself if you honestly think additional sources of energy mean higher energy cost.
5:33 The only lie there is continuing to deny that Dr. George was ready to sign a lease until he found out his ag easement kept him out of the project. It is actually pretty common knowledge in the community. He didn't exactly keep his enthusiasm over the money he was going to get from the turbines a secret.
6:21 I sincerely doubt anyone from PG is on here. Furthermore you display your full hypocrisy when you throw a digital temper tantrum over being labeled SFS and then readily accuse every proponent of being PG. Then you display just how desperate you are to try to create some semblance of credibility by trashing a company that came to the county by making some crazy accusation that they have hired people to run a blog. No one is making you look stupid, you are doing that of your own free will.
There are no bird carcusas from coal. It is amazing that you are vilifying coal, when wind relies on coal. We only have to look to Germany for proof, because it is now building coal plants because relying on wind has been a total failure.
600 bald eagles deaths is not a few. I wonder how many thousands of turkey vultures, blue herons, geese, tundra swans, ducks, sea gulls, passerines, waterfowl, egrets, hawks, owls, and bats will be killed in addition to the 600 bald eagles.
6:21 You talk about childishness and then you display it by insisting that everyone is lying and every proponent on here must be from Pioneer. You have been informed numerous times by myself and others that PG is not on here, and yet you continue to insist that everyone is lying. Where is your evidence of the lie? This blog is anonymous and yes it is possible that someone is lying and could be from PG. I cant tell you with 100% certainty that whoever else is on here isn't PG. But I also cannot tell you that the fossil fuel industry hasn't sent someone one here to try to discredit Pioneer. The only evidence I could offer to discredit the idea that someone from the fossil fuel industry is on here is if someone from that industry was paid to be on here they would probably make a better argument than you guys.
9:34 But you have no evidence that there will be 600 bald eagle deaths. You took the number the USFWS is going to grant Great Bay for their take permit and have tried to use that as some sort of evidence that 600 eagles will be killed. However by federal law the permits must be for a greater amount than the actual take. The Journal of Raptor Research found that from 1997 to to 2012 85 bald and golden eagles have been found dead from being struck by wind turbines. There is additional research data to dispel the myth of mass raptor kills. Langston and Pullan (2003) indicated less than .01% of all bird kills can be attributed to wind turbines. Lucas et al (2005) failed to find any species of bird that would suffer a mortality rate of greater than 5%. Karlsson (1983), Byrne (1983) and Winkelman (1985) all recorded very low mortality rates at wind farms. Barrios and Rodriguez (2004) studied two wind farms in high traffic migratory areas over seas. One of the wind farms studied did have elevated mortality of two species of birds. However at the other farm studied mortality was almost 0%. It should be noted the two species of birds that were found to have elevated moralities at one wind farm are not native to the US (Griffon vulture and common kestrel). There simply is no data to substantiate the wild claim of mass raptor fatalities but there is plenty of data to debunk it. Can you provide any peer reviewed research indicating wind turbines will kill greater than 1% of the bird population?
@9:32 Yes let's please look at Germany! You must have missed this earlier post as there has been nothing posted to refute it. Since there seems to still be some debate about Germany here is an article from Forbes. Interesting to note is Forbes has never been a supporter of renewable energy. http://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2014/06/28/how-opposite-energy-policies-turned-the-fukushima-disaster-into-a-loss-for-japan-and-a-win-for-germany/
Since some posters still can't grasp the fact that all electrical generation harms wildlife and wind actually does less harm than the types of generation it replaces here is a study that hopefully will clarify things. "COMPARISON OF REPORTED EFFECTS AND RISKS
TO VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE FROM SIX ELECTRICITY GENERATION TYPES
IN THE NEW YORK/NEW ENGLAND REGION" This is their conclusion. " Overall, non-renewable electricity generation sources, such as coal and oil, pose higher risks to wildlife than renewable electricity generation sources, such as hydro and wind."
" Expanding wind power instead of fossil fuels also avoids the wildlife and human health impacts of oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and burning fossil fuels." Audubon Society
"A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortality from Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions" "Because much attention has been given to the issue of raptor/wind power interaction, we also developed separate fatality estimates for raptors. Estimates of raptor fatalities per turbine per year from individual studies through 2001 (Erickson et al. 2001) ranged from 0 at the Vansycle, Oregon; Searsburg, Vermont; Ponnequin, Colorado; Somerset County, Pennsylvania; and Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, Phase II and Phase III sites, to 0.10 per turbine per year at the Altamont, California site (C. Thelander, pers. comm.)." A good study but it should be noted that the Altamont Pass wind farm in California is considered an example of what not to do in siting wind farms and it only averages 1 eagle per 10 turbines per year. Somerset County Pennsylvania would be a good comparison for the GB project and it averages 0 eagle deaths per turbine per year. So again SFS what do you consider acceptable risk for your electricity? Does an average of 0 Eagle deaths seem reasonable?
All you posters claiming Dr. George did not want to sign a lease with Great Bay and did not want turbines at his home please answer one question. Did Dr. George tell you that?
Sorry PG cheerleader, the information you are relying on is tainted by wind money. Wind will destroy Somerset's one-of-a-kind ecosystem. The eastern shore is an irreplaceable habitat; destroying it makes no sense. The 600 bald eagle kills came from Sara Nystrom of USFWS.
It is a real shame that people who are being paid to twist facts can post on this site. Wind is dirty business that has done an excellent job hiding its damaging consequences. Fortunately for us, communities who have been forced to endure these consequences are speaking out. There are more than 2000 groups worldwide that oppose wind because of its damaging side effects.
Pioneer Green says property values will not decrease, but refuse to allow Glen Ains or Pat Carson to consider it. Yet property value guarantees are being written into new wind ordinances in other jurisdictions. If Pioneer Green was telling the truth, they would not object to this clause in the ordinance.
1:17 If the USFWS service was predicting 600 eagle kills the take permits would have to be for a higher number as per federal law. You are either very mistaken or very dishonest. Please see above for a variety of literature on birds and turbines all of which indicates less than a 1% kill rate.
Dear SFS Cheerleader, let me reference you to a study recently done in Australia just released by Simon Chapman, the Professor of Public Health at the University of Sydney,it suggests only a tiny proportion of people living near turbines do actually complain and, when they do, the complaints coincide with campaigning from anti-wind groups.
Chapman looked at health complaints made by residents living within 5 kilometres of all 49 wind farms operating in Australia between 1993 and 2012. After reviewing media reports, public inquiries and complaints to wind companies themselves, Chapman found evidence of only 120 individuals having actually complained - representing about 1 in 272 people living near wind farms.
But significantly, Chapman found that 81 of those 120 residents were living beside just five wind farms “which have been heavily targeted by anti wind farm groups”. What's more, some 82 per cent of all the complaints had occured since 2009 when Chapman says anti-wind farm groups began to push the health scare as part of their opposition to turbines.
Some 31 of the 49 wind farms studied had never been subjected to a complaint either about noise or health.
“The 31 farms with no histories of complaints, and which today have some 21,530 residents within 5km of their turbines have operated for a cumulative total of 256 years,” says Chapman's report. In Chapman's research, he says that anxiety among residents increases as media reports spread the stories of health concerns and as researchers start investigating.
1:17 I am still waiting on your information about the catastrophic habitat loss. Your information about eagle kills is false. It seems SFS cannot get anything right. The USFWS has indicated they would issue take permits for 20 eagles per year as per CFR 50 part 22. As I think you know the permits must be for a greater amount then the actual take. In other words you are either lying or seriously misinformed. There is nothing to suggest that over the course of the Great Bay Project there will be 600 eagles killed. However there is a great deal of information available to discredit your theory. The Journal of Applied Ecology and the Journal of Raptor Research both have published good articles that indicated less than a 1% kill rate of local raptors. The Journal of Raptor Research found that between 1997 and 2012 85 eagles were found killed by wind turbines and most of these were golden eagles. Do you really think the Great Bay Wind Project will kill more eagles in 5 years than every other wind farm in America did in 15? Langston and Pullan (2003) indicated less than .01% of all bird kills can be attributed to wind turbines. Lucas et al (2005) failed to find any species of bird that would suffer a mortality rate of greater than 5%. Karlsson (1983), Byrne (1983) and Winkelman (1985) all recorded very low mortality rates at wind farms. Barrios and Rodriguez (2004) studied two wind farms in high traffic migratory areas over seas. One of the wind farms studied did have elevated mortality of two species of birds. However at the other farm studied mortality was almost 0%. It should be noted the two species of birds that were found to have elevated moralities at one wind farm are not native to the US (Griffon vulture and common kestrel).
1:28 How did Pioneer "refuse to allow" anyone to consider any idea? The zoning board was free to consider any idea. I believe it was Ains that pointed out that he would not consider a property value guarantee as all it amounts to is a business liability. Think beyond the rhetoric if you are able 1:28. You are going to try to get businesses into the area while telling them that if local property values go down for any reason they may be blamed and dragged to court to cover the difference? After the property crash in the last decade who in their right mind would go into a community where they are expected to guarantee property values will not go down. It has been proven that turbines do not hurt property values but no company can guarantee than in the future any areas property will not lose value, there are too many variables there. Also I must ask. Would you support a requirement that agricultural business issue property value guarantees before they assume usage of any tract of land?
The 20 annual bald eagle kills was stated at the USFWS meeting January 15, 2014. Over 100 people witnessed this. These 600 eagle death will not make the species extinct but it will decimate the species in the Somerset County region. USFWS has recommended a No Build for the Great Bay Wind project and so has the United States Navy because it will harm our National Defense. These are undisputed facts and are documented. USFWS cannot stop a project and up until the Great Bay Wind project, the Navy could not either. The opposition to this project is unprecedented and to state otherwise is a LIE.
7:22 According to your own people your numbers are as low as 200. This is hardly unprecedented. To call 200 people some sort of unprecedented moment is either delusion or dishonesty. As stated before by Federal Law the take permits must be for a greater number than the anticipated kill. Therefore if the USFWS anticipated 30 kills per year the permits would have to be for a greater number. This is a Federal Law, it is not disputable. So once again you are either mistaken or lying. Even if your information was correct you have no evidence that a maximum loss of 30 eagles per year is not sustainable. Once again a peer reviewed publishing found that there were less then 10 confirmed bald eagle kills by wind turbines over 15 years. The Navy was ready to sign off on an agreement with Great Bay until Hoyer and Mikulski pressured the DoD to voice an objection. This objection is not a recommendation for a "No Build" as you inaccurately put it. The DoD report says they will not consider any mitigation until the MIT-LL study is done in December. Get your information straight.
8:12 The USFWS is willing to issue permits. As per Federal Law the USFWS may only issue permits that are "consistent with the goal of stable or increasing breeding populations." That is a quote from the USFWS 2009 notice on the take permits. In other words the USFWS can not issue any permits that might endanger the local breeding population. The USFWS is within the rights conferred to them by CFR 50 part 22 to deny take permits to any project that would endanger the local breeding population, this would make any subsequent eagle death illegal and subject to persecution and would effectively kill the project as no one would then finance it. As previously stated the USFWS is willing to issue permits and has even indicated what the take permits will be. The DoD has stated that they would not engage in further negotiations until the MIT-LL study is complete. At this time their objection should be resolved. The Navy it should be noted already expressed willingness to enter into an agreement with Pioneer until Hoyer and Mikulski got involved and pressured the DoD into objecting. If anything you have said is true then neither department will issue permits. As the USFWS is ready to issue permits you are obviously incorrect there. Time will tell if the DoD will lift their objection so the FAA can issue permits.
Much of the cost of wind is hidden thru government subsidies and the sale of renewable credits to polluters so they can continue to pollute. That is why our electricity will only increase by 20% instead of the true cost which would be 100%.
Study after study(Bentek, Univ. of TX) shows wind does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions because of its reliance on other sources for 100% back up. The wind industry does not recognize the wasted CO2 emission from the back up power. Turbines create a massive amount of toxic waste because the 170+feet blades are made of composites that are not recyclable. The blades also do not degrade over time making storage/disposal a huge problem.
This debate is not healthy,nor does it accomplish a thing.Even if 1000 people commented no one is listening,or at least no one who matters.Just a lot of folks at complete odds with each other.
The professors claiming that wind does not lower property values remind me of professors who claim raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour won't close businesses.
8:56 You call fiberglass, carbon fiber and PVC toxic waste? Yes they have to be disposed of but this is common stuff in your house and car. Do you live in a solid wood colonial house and drive a horse and buggy?
A new report published by the US Department of Energy seeks to develop a new “Wind Vision,” which aims to document the contributions wind has made to date, and the continuing and growing contributions it can make to the country’s national energy portfolio. http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/13/us-envisions-new-era-wind-power/?utm_source=Wind+News&utm_campaign=7ddee3275b-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_79fed14422-7ddee3275b-332046725
The US Energy Information Administration has released numbers which show that wind and natural gas will make up the majority of new 2015 capacity additions, amidst 20 GW of new utility-scale generating capacity.
The additions will be dominated by wind, which is expected to add 9.8 GW of utility-scale capacity, and natural gas, with 6.3 GW. Solar will add another 2.2 GW, which all-told will account for 91% of total additions for 2015.
Conversely, nearly 16 GW of generating capacity is expected to retire in 2015, of which 81%, or 12.8 GW, is coal-fired.
8:56 The US is using more and more power. This means more generation is needed. Given the choice between more carcinogen spewing fossil fuel plants and nuclear plants most people chose wind. Furthermore there really isn't a choice. This administration will not allow more coal plants and the Japan incident ensured there will be no more nuclear plants for a while so the options to generate more electricity are limited.
Let's think about this for a moment.... PG claimed extensively in the other post that people oppose the project, because they are jealous, elitists, want to keep the county in poverty, and are anti-business. If so, why aren't these same people opposing the new carboxylic acid plant that will generate 60 new jobs in the county? The answer is that business won't harm wildlife, neighbors, or cost the federal taxpayers a big chunk of money. There is a reason that people like Dr. Etherington write books about wind farms and there is a reason why wind farms are opposed all around the county. Wind farms generate a host of problems with a few individuals profiting at the expense of there neighbors.
11:52 Wind farms are opposed all over the country? Fact Check please. Navigant Research did a poll that found wind was viewed favorably by 72% of people. USA Today found 73% of people supported continuing the PTC. A University of Texas poll found that 89% of Americans wanted the federal government to focus on further developing renewable energy. Kansas is a huge state for wind energy and a poll there found 91% of Kansas voters support wind power. A March 2013 Gallup poll found that 71% of Americans supported wind energy production, 76% of Americans supported solar, 37% supported nuclear and 46% supported fossil fuels. A poll in Minnesota showed 84% supported increasing wind development. An Ohio statewide survey gave participants the choice of choosing a primary and secondary pick of preferred energy 25% chose wind as the first pick and 47% as the second, 31% chose solar as their first pick and 54% as the second, 16% chose coal as their first pick and 25% as the second, 10% chose nuclear as their first pick and 19% as the second. Yes there are fringe groups all over the place that decide to believe the myths you tell of wildlife devastation and health effects. I guess many of these people also cannot do the research to figure out that tax credits are available to all forms of energy. Some of them probably do not turn on the news enough to realize the PTC is expired. A few of them might not be able to realize that this project is completely investor funded. However these people as evidenced by the poll are a minority. As far as you being anti business you prove that for yourself every time you state that new businesses should have to be subject to a referendum.
11:52 I am sorry I misread your statement and on the screen of a tablet I thought you said country not county. My apologies. The same information applies as far as popularity of wind however I must remark at how you take your 200 person group and make it seem like some sort of majority network. As all of your propaganda points have been addressed with sources let me just hit your last sentence. You claim that wind development would generate a "host" of problems while only benefiting a few. As your "host" of problems gets debunked with peer reviewed information as fast as you can dream them up I see no credibility there. As far as benefits the Jacobs France institute claims 2.9 million in county revenues and over 1 million in economic growth. That does not seem like a benefit to just a few.
It is all about croney capitalism. Wind and solar produce little or no useable power. They just redistribute money from taxpayers and power users to rich politically connected people like Bowman and the Solyndra financers.
Soon our present lame duck administration will be gone, and maybe we can have an practical energy policy.
Thousands of people in the county are opposed to this. Jerry Boston even admitted it, when he said the majority of his constituents are opposed to the Great Bay Wind Energy Center. The more people learn about wind the more they dislike it.
1:47 Take a minute and get your facts right before you posted. Jerry said the majority of the letters he was getting were in opposition. Not quite the same thing. Thousands are opposed? Then why are your claimed numbers on your petition dropping? In Sept. SFS claimed to have over a thousand signatures, at the propaganda conference it was claimed as few as 200. Where are the thousands? Online your petition shows 143. At your propaganda forum everyone I heard from said there was about 150, and many of left in disgust over how one sided it was so there was not 150 supporters there. Your claim of thousands of opposition just does not pan out especially in light of SFS's tenancy to overstate their claims.
12:57 How are the taxpayers involved? Even the PTC that you falsely claimed was some sort of taxpayer funding of the project is expired. Solyndra was government funded. The Great Bay Project is completely investor funded so I am not sure what correlation you are trying to make there. If there is no usable power than no one would bid to buy it and there would be no project. However Pioneer has spent a lot to develop the project so there must be someone willing to buy power.
1:13 I am not in on the oppositions current whims. Why they continue to spread false information about one business but not another is beyond me. My best guess is they are just nuts and not consistent. But anyone that claims that new businesses should be put to a referendum is anti-business.
12:57 You are making no sense. "Rich politically connected?" Solyndra survived on government funding. Pioneer is privately funded. They do accept tax credits like pretty much every other business in existence, but they do not receive government funding. Also if your claims were accurate and Bowman was so politically connected why wasn't the PTC extended? You have claimed that somehow Pioneer is surviving on government money but all they have done is accepted tax credits that are now expired. You claim Bowman is politically connected and using government influence to drive his company but the PTC is expired. Do you just come up with this stuff without really thinking or do you avoid watching the news? I agree we should have a practical energy policy. Give everyone the same MW in tax credits and then fine for carcinogen emissions and force nuclear to pay the entire cost for the permanent storage of the radioactive waste. This wouldn't suit you however as wind, solar and hydroelectric would still then be very competitive.
Attempts are being made to extend the PTC or make it include already started projects.
Buyers do not buy "green" power voluntarily. Like Obamacare there are mandates. Some Maryland State Legislators want to increase the mandated share of "renewable energy" from 20 to 40%.
12:57, I agree with you entirely. I just hope Obama doesn't sign another unconstitutional executive order cancelling the 2016 elections and remain in power forever. I really don't think anyone in Washington has the ba$$s to do anything about it if he did. King Obama!
It is so obvious that this project is a way for Obama to get money to his good buddy that helped him get elected who just happens to own a wind company. The argument is not about electric generation at all, we should be focused on government corruption and the waste of tax payers dollars.
I believe PG stated in a earlier comment that Milkulski and Hoyer broke the law by putting pressure on the DOD to stop this project. My question is if that is true is PG doing anything to have those two criminals prosecuted, if not why not? Is Washington completely out of control and can do anything without consequences?
2:19 you don't seem to realize that PG is not just any business. I agree 99% of bossiness should not be put to referendum but when a company wants to come in and change the way of life for the entire county I think people should have a say in that. No matter what PG says, others have different opinions and ideas and a referendum should not automatically be ruled out. Why would any business want to come into a county when they know they are not welcomed? In this case a referendum seems appropriate.
2:14 Did it ever occur to you that maybe people don't want to sign a petition? I haven't signed the petition and I do not have signs in my yard saying I'm against the project but that doesn't mean that I am not. I do not even "belong to Safe."Like 1:47 said, the more people learn about wind the more they dislike. That would be me.
I went to the forum because I wanted information and I knew that it was put on by Safe. If Pioneer Green had a forum, I would have gone to that also because I was looking for information. But they chose not to have a forum. Don't be mad at Safe because they actually reached out to the community like Pioneer should have done. Anyway, an agenda for Safe's forum was published and distributed in the mail ahead of time, so the people you talked to who "left in disgust over how one sided it was" knew before they went what they were going to. Even the billboard announced what the event was about, so your comment doesn't hold water. I'm sorry this event upset you, you should have come. It never hurts to see two sides of the story.
Before I conclude, I should mention that you are part of why I am now writing letters to the Commissioners expressing my displeasure with the idea of this project. You are seething with desperation and that alarms me. Put that together with Pioneer Green's statements at public meetings that if they can't have X on their terms then the project is dead tell me something about this project is very, very wrong. The wind energy center isn't about doing God's work and being a steward of the environment. This is all about making money and that is just wrong and sinful.
4:26 So based on your opinion that the wind project would change your way of life a business should be put to referendum? That makes a lot of sense. Any person or group can come forward and say that the scientific consensus is wrong and that a business would change their way of life and then the business should be put to referendum? Sorry your making less sense and sound just as anti-business.
4:11 If your claims were at all true then why wouldn't the president order the DoD to retract their objection. If anything you said was in the least accurate then Pioneer would have all federal permits in hand.
2:32 Once again check your information before you post. While Maryland does have a green energy mandate there is no mandate to buy power from Great Bay. If Great Bay cost more than the going rate of power then no one would buy it. Also not all states have Green energy Mandates. Kansas has no mandate and wind energy thrives so your theory that green energy only succeeds because somehow people are forced to buy it is very incorrect. Also what bill is currently in debate in D.C. to extend the PTC??
Claiming that the Great Bay Wind project is privately funded is the biggest whopper yet. The US and MD governments load wind facilities and developers up with huge incentives such as the cash grant, which refunds the investors back 30%. There is also the PTC which provides 2.3 cents for each kw produced even if it is dumped, MD also pays the facility per kw produced, and then the renewable credits are sold to polluters. Ratepayers fill the gap for the higher cost of energy. Wind powers intermittency weakens the grid. For example if the wind is blowing at 15mph the power produced is weaker than if it blows at 30 mph. The grid has to constantly balance supply with demand which results in an inefficient system because 2 sources of power are required with wind, one of which is wasted. But even so, the ratepayers are charged for both sources.
On the components, you forgot the toxic rare earth minerals. Maybe you should look up the sludge lakes they have in China where they mine this stuff. The poor Chinese people who live near these toxic dumps are sick with diseases from their exposure.
4:26 What is your case that Pioneer should not feel welcome. Aside from the couple hundred petition signers for SFS, many people welcome new business to the area. I am a bit confused on your criteria for a referendum. So if a fringe group bands together and insists that the business would "change their way of life" the elected officials should disregard science and declare a referendum? At the end of the day there is something you may not be familiar with called property rights. It is my right to do what I will with my land, same as you. Now those rights end when my usage would interfere with yours but then you must prove that somehow my exercise of my rights interferes with yours. There are a few people in SFS that have tried to make a case that somehow wind turbines interfere with property rights, but for the most part the opposition just demands the project be shut down on their say so. Wind turbines are generally zoned into agricultural/residential areas, the same as ours. All the claims made by SFS on property values, local approval and wildlife effects are easily refuted with peer reviewed research. So to argue that somehow the turbines would infringe on your rights and therefore be justified in being put to a referendum you first must be able to prove your case that your rights would be interfered with. SFS has been unable to do this in the two times Pioneer has been sent to the zoning board.
4:50 I am not "hurt" by the propaganda forum at all. Having a one-sided forum to publicly broadcast nonsense is well within the oppositions rights. I just felt from what I heard that a little more honesty could have been included in what was being said. I think that is what made people leave. Many people read into the science ahead of time and when they arrive to hear someone declaring wind turbines cause seizures, wind turbines tank property values, wind turbines will decimate the eagle population all in contrary to a wide body of scientific literature I think some people got disgusted. When they saw SFS fly a plane overhead at 690ft 1000ft away despite that Great Bay was proposing turbines over 100ft shorter and the current proposed ordinance had much larger setbacks I think many people felt the rhetoric was overpowering any factual information available. I am also a bit perturbed about your comment that Pioneer didn't reach out to the county. Pioneer has tried to work to develop educational opportunities for local schools. The Great Bay Project has also had someone available that made it a point to not only answer all of my questions but to back up their claims with peer reviewed information. Quite a bit different than SFS. Even at the public hearing there were at least three people who spoke who had no affiliation with Pioneer. How many businesses have people with no affiliated speaking for them at public hearings in Somerset County? Despite what you claim I am not seething with desperation. I am a tad upset over a group that tells obvious lies, cannot bother to cite sources most of the time, publishes inaccuracies such as their phase one map, slanders and makes false accusations of corruption tearing this county apart and then claiming some sort of moral high ground. You talk about what is wrong and sinful. Making money is not wrong. Being a good businessman or woman is not wrong. Providing for ones family is not wrong. But the false accusations of corruption that SFS has put forward are wrong. The twisting of the truth such as what SFS has claimed will happen to birds and property values is wrong. I applaud you for not joining SFS. However you imply accusations of evil towards a company that has thus far operated in good faith while turning a blind eye to the slander and accusation's SFS has made. I do not think that turning a blind eye to all that SFS has done is God's work.
6:02 All electric generation turbines require rare earth metals. Currently every form of electrical generation involves turbines except one, solar. Are you against every form of energy except solar now?
5:58 Firstly there is no PTC right now it is expired. What cash-grant are you talking about? There is no cash grant available for utility scale wind and solar. If you continue to state that there is then provide a link to the RFP or funding budget line. All grants are documented so if you are not lying then this should be easy. I have never heard of Maryland paying the facility so provide proof of this also as I think you are outright lying again. The renewable credits you refer to are tax credits, EVERY business files tax credits and deductions. Are you saying that no business receiving a tax write off is privately funded? You talk about whoppers but your whole paragraph from claiming the PTC is active to claiming some cash-grant that no one has heard of to claiming renewable credits are anything but a tax credit is a false.
For some reason we are supposed to believe the Jacobs France Istitute claim of 2.9 million in county revenues and over 1 million in economic growth. Studies show what their sponsors want to show.
This was nothing but a piece of propaganda bought by Pioneer Greed. Nowhere do they mention the loss in tax revenues due to the undeniable loss of property taxes or the loss of the relatively pristine environment that people live here for. If they were once prestigous, they lost all claim by selling out for a few bucks on this project.
PG is wants to sell everyone down the river for money for their rich Texas investors.
6:40 Pioneer has tried to work to develop educational opportunities for local schools . HOW MANY STUDENTS OWN THEIR HOMES AND PAY TAXES? I'm glad I have no children subject to that BS
Where can I get a sign for my yard? How about a sticker from safe for somerset for my childs bookbag . I've seen one w/ a big x on the turbine . LOVED IT
6:51 Scroll up and read several peer reviewed paper documenting no loss in property values. If you wish to dispute them then offer something more than you word, such as credible sources. The Jacobs France Institute is a very well known and respected program. They do not "sell" results as you claims or their prestige would disappear. They were paid to do a study. They did the study. They published their results. I am amazed that you would actually claim that we disregard all scientific and mathematical studies to follow your word. I am even more amazed that people actually do just that disregard all credible sources to blindly follow SFS.
The PTC does not run out until December 31, 2016. Just the right amount of time for Pioneer Green to industrialize our county with turbines and solar panels.
Unsubstantiated? At a P&Z meeting, the board indicated that the latests revenue estimates were half what the Jacob France study suggested. Proponent Kevin Anderson stated that no one knew how the tax revenue would be calculated and actually expressed frustration over this. Paul Harris admitted the value may be half the original projection, but said the numbers didn't matter. Yet, PG guy keeps on throwing around 2.9 million dollar number from the original projection. Which is it?
Probably the best advice to void your lease with Pioneer Green is to file a false advertising. The leaseholders in TX are filing suit to terminate their leases on these grounds. Everywhere there is wind, there are legal troubles. Many of these guys have gone out of business. I am hearing rumors that is what is happening with the Crisfield Turbine.
Your peer reviewed documents are flawed because they do not recognize property's that are no longer marketable because of their proximity to wind. If you look closely at the Hoen study that Pioneer Green uses, you will see that properties within 2 miles indeed do lose value. The Hoen study tried to mask it by incorporated thousands of properties that were no where near wind facilities.
@7:01 You are absolutely right! The reason people blindly believe easily dis-proven rhetoric is because they are blinded by jealousy and envy! They would rather Somerset continue in poverty than see their neighbors receive what they perceive as a windfall!
@4:50 It's very interesting that you claim to know God's work. Could you cite any scripture references to back up your claim or do you claim to be a Prophet of God? Their are many references in the Bible to people making wise investment and working to better their life. Abraham the father of the Jewish people was one of the richest men in the world at that time. Jesus himself used parables referencing wise investment. I find it a sign of desperation of the opponents when after claiming negative health effects, massive bird kills, declining property values, higher electric prices and Germany's economic problems and having all these arguments refuted with cited references that now they claim wind energy is not the work of God.
6:53 I am disgusted. One of the poorest counties in the nation. Many of our students cannot afford to go to college so elect not to or ramp up huge financial debt while going and you are going to criticize a business for trying to help. Even if you fully disagree with the business, even if you are anti-business, even if you cannot stand the thought of a business coming in to Somerset you should still respect them for trying to help our students. That you would speak negatively on their attempt to help Somerset's youth speaks volumes as to the type of person you are. While you speak so negatively on Pioneer for trying to do something for Somerset's youth let me inquire as to how many internships and scholarships you have provided for Somerset's next generation? 4:50 You criticize a company for trying to make a profit, a group of people trying to provide for their families, and yet I do not see any comments from you on this. The company you proclaim is evil for trying to make a profit (as all businesses do) but you are silent as other opposition members bad mouth the company for trying to do something good for the education system. You talk of God's work when your words are so hypocritical.
Once extravagant, renewable power plans go cheap http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20150305-once-extravagant-renewable-power-plans-go-cheap.ece
8:50 you can not see the forest for the trees. Do you really think PG cares anything at all about kids. Helping the children is a play right out of the democrat party playbook. It is so obvious why they are doing that that it is embarrassing.
@8:11 Well I guess we have to refute this anti wind lie again! As has already been pointed out several times if you READ the Berkeley study done in Mass. It not only looked at property values but also frequency of property sales at close distances to turbines. It found turbines had NO effect on either. This was a very large (122000 property transactions) very well done study. The Berkeley Lab is one of the most respected research institutions in the world. You simply cannot find more reliable or better research on this issue anywhere. If you think you can please cite it!
Thanks 8:07, it's good to know that others are trying to get out of a bad deal. I'm sure this will require a lawyer but it might be worth it in the long run.
6:50 you really have a way with words. You always tell half truths. Why would you say there are no ptc "right now". Why not tell the whole truth and say something like the ptc has not yet been renewed by congress but it most likely will be. You make it easy for people not to trust you when you never tell the whole truth. You are obviously an over educated individual without any common sense.
9:21 I do not think I can judge anyone's motives only their actions. I do know that a company was trying to do a great think for local youth. I also know that you have attacked them for trying to do a great thing. Do you criticize every company that tries to do good things for the community or just the ones you do not like?
8:50 you are pathetic. Helping the children is nothing but a PR stunt from PG. Trying to convince people that you are something that you are not. Let's see how long you help them when your project dies. Keep throwing your money away if you want to, we like your money we just don't like windmills.
How exactly is this project going to benefit anyone in this county living at poverty level incomes? How exactly does this project benefit ANYONE other than the lease holders willing to sell out the county to line their pockets? Half the people on the lease agreements would stick their nose in the air at the "poor people" they claim will benefit from from this whole deal." Someone commented that our areas natural beauty will not feed all the "starving children"...That is bullcrap because the schools give ALL students two free meals a day,there is even a program in the summer to feed kids when school is out AND more than one church or organization has food banks so stop trying to use " the poor starving children" fantasy to justify the sheer greed and inside deals.I hope the DOD NEVER lets this happen.I am sick of reading all the back and forth.The lease holders aren't doing dick to help poor people in this county,they prey on them and keep them poor.Its just Feudal county run by a select few families who look out for their own.
8:50 I think the students in this county need to talk to some of the children living near the Shirley wind project. The land leasers should also be included . Let them hear how the INDUSTRIAL turbines have negatively affected their health and quality of life .
@6:40 and 8:50--4 years- 4 million dollars I think pioneer should have TRIED when Dr. Miles was still here- not so sure that would fly now. Perhaps they need some-one other than all those lawyers on board. The retired school teacher on the zoning board that is worried about her retirement being paid may be available. She could spin how great the one at chs is.
Where ever wind is proposed there is massive opposition, which is worldwide. Your polls do not represent hard-working Americans who understand wind energy is not feasible nor reliable and it increases electricity costs while lowering property values.
The mandate forces utilities to purchase renewables. Please Stop lying. States such as OH, WV, and NM are rolling back their renewable mandates because it forces higher utility rates on those who can least afford it.
Leo Lawson said the turbine at Crisfield High school generates one cent per day electricity. It cost $26,000. I wonder if the school system is teaching production and economics to the students. Pat Carson is a planning and zoning commissioner, voted to risk health and public safety so this project could move forward. She is the "science teacher" who had it installed.
I have to chuckle when I read this thread. We have those villifying business for making a profit (I thought that was what businesses did?), unsubstantiated comments about declining property values and increased energy costs, that those who have decided that wind energy could be beneficial to Somerset are nothing but greedy people who don't "give a dick" about the children in the county and a comment about a planning board member being concerned about her retirement being paid. You guys are so petty and desperate you make me laugh. Let me ask each of you - when was the last time you went to a public school and volunteered? When was the last time you talked to those teachers in the public schools who are dealing with 25 kids in a classroom trying to teach them while fulfilling the mandates that come from the government on education? When was the last time you talked to a child about how to break the cycle of poverty? And how do you plan to pay for the retirement costs (btw, those costs are the annual estimates of the CURRENT employees' cost to retire in the future, not the retirees currently being paid) that are being passed to the county with no revenue source? How do you plan to build a new vocational school or maintain the current buildings, including the County Office complex? How do you plan to attract and retain GOOD employees to work for the school system and the government. It is very easy to be against something, but harder to take the reality that many of us deal with daily and try to find a way to make it all work. If you look at the County's budget, you will see line after line of principal and interest payments - shall we try to borrow our way to prosperity? How do you think that is working for the country? At some point you have to stop being against and be willing to welcome industry and try to find compromise. You people aren't willing to have anything less than nothing, and don't think anyone should strive for more than nothing which is why the County is struggling.
I know one thing beyond a reasonable doubt, Great Bay wind will be on this post like a fly on sh$$. Just wait, I predict we will be bombarded with studies that dispute this post and we will be expected to believe them. Great Bay only believes studies that favor there point of view, no opposing studies or opinions matter to Great Bay, only theirs are true according to them. Frankly I would be embarrassed if I were them because everyone else cannot be wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent read that delves into the reasons why investing in wind energy is wasteful and destructive to the local environment.
ReplyDeleteThere are many scientists out there do not agree with global warming, explaining the cycle we've been experiencing has happened before and will happen again in 120 years or so.
ReplyDeleteThe enviromentalists pour millions of $$$ into politicians' campaigns to get their support to spend billions of taxpayers' $$$ to be spent toward their causes.
The rich want to stay on top so every few years they invent something like this to make sure the multitudes of taxpaying citizens stay poor.
ReplyDelete10:11 Would you mind stating when a proponent claimed only supporting literature was relevant? I think the exact opposite is true. On a recent thread the opposition continuously claimed that everything cited by proponents was incorrect, false or had been bought off by the wind industry. Then someone from the opposition actually cited some credible sources including one that indicated that energy prices decreased due to wind production. Then the opposition seemed to claim that all of their sources were more accurate except the parts of them that they didn't agree with. You mention not everyone else can be wrong and I think that is a great point. Navigant Research did a poll that found wind was viewed favorably by 72% of people. USA Today found 73% of people supported continuing the PTC. A University of Texas poll found that 89% of Americans wanted the federal government to focus on further developing renewable energy. Kansas is a huge state for wind energy and a poll there found 91% of Kansas voters support wind power. A March 2013 Gallup poll found that 71% of Americans supported wind energy production, 76% of Americans supported solar, 37% supported nuclear and 46% supported fossil fuels. A poll in Minnesota showed 84% supported increasing wind development. An Ohio statewide survey gave participants the choice of choosing a primary and secondary pick of preferred energy 25% chose wind as the first pick and 47% as the second, 31% chose solar as their first pick and 54% as the second, 16% chose coal as their first pick and 25% as the second, 10% chose nuclear as their first pick and 19% as the second. So in your opinion are the approximately 70+ percent of people that support wind energy wrong?
ReplyDeleteWind farms shift wealth from middle class families through lower property values and higher utility costs and deposit the wealth in the coffers of the politically connected. Wind Farms operate under the guise of saving the environment, when in reality, they are destroying it.
ReplyDeleteFinally a "breath of common sense". Truth-what a concept.
ReplyDeleteWill somebody call Great Bay and tell them to get on here and refute everything that everyone has to say. We don't want to lose our next lease payment and all that free stuff we get from PG.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct 11:25 and unfortunately our elected officials in Washington and some locally fall for that hoax. Money talks when it's put into the right hands.
ReplyDeletePG spokesman will probably accuse Dr John Etherington of being a member of Safe for Somerset. It seems that anyone that doesn't agree with PG are automatically enrolled in SFS.
ReplyDeletePG has discovered this thread, now we will all get accused of belonging to SAF and get swamped with studies that have nothing to do with Somerset county.
ReplyDelete11:55 It seems kind of funny that you claim that when you apparently believe that anyone that supports the Great Bay project must be part of Pioneer. Hypocrisy?
ReplyDeleteHere's a quick list of four peer reviewed studies showing no loss in property value from wind development.
ReplyDeleteAtkinson-Palombo, C.; Hoen, B. (2014). Relationship between Wind Turbines and Residential Property Values in Massachusetts. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
This study provides siting process stakeholders with additional information from which to work. The report builds on Berkeley Lab’s previous studies published in 2009 and 2013 by amassing a much larger dataset of home sales near wind facilities sited in urban environments than had previously been collected.
Hinman, J.L. (2010). Wind Farm Proximity and Property Values: A Pooled Hedonic Regression Analysis of Property Values in Central Illinois. Illinois State University.
The study examined whether proximity to the 240-turbine Twin Groves Wind Farm (Phases I and II) in Illinois impacted nearby residential property values and whether any impact on nearby property values changes over the different stages of wind farm development. This study used 3,851 residential property transactions.
Hoen, B.; Brown, J.P.; Jackson, T.; Wiser, R.; Thayer, M.; Cappers, P. (2013). A Spatial Hedonic Analysis of the Effects of Wind Energy Facilities on Surrounding Property Values in the United States. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
This report builds on a 2009 study that also investigated impacts on home values near wind facilities. The researchers analyzed more than 50,000 home sales near 67 wind facilities in 27 counties across nine states and did not find any statistically identifiable impacts of wind facilities to nearby home property values.
Hoen, B.; Wiser, R.H.; Cappers, P.; Thayer, M.; Sethi, G. (2009). The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
The researchers collected data on almost 7,500 sales of single family homes within 10 miles of 24 wind facilities in nine states. Also let me point out 3 of these studies are done by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. This is one of the most respected research facilities in the world.
PG is being fought at every level and their chances of success are minimal at least. If there was one other place in the entire country that would welcome them they would certainly pack up and leave. That to me just shows how unpopular wind mill farms actually are. In business there is such a thing as cutting your losses. Continuing to throw good money after bad shows poor business management within PG.
ReplyDeleteNo one has ever said that the studies you provide are part of PG. Get your facts straight. You are twisting the truth again PG.
ReplyDelete11:25 You mention higher utility cost. One of the articles on the SFS website published in 2012 credited lower utility rates to wind energy development. Is SFS posting bad material or are you not being accurate?
ReplyDelete12:15 You have continued to refer to me as PG. You did again in that post. Yet you whine and complain when referred to as SFS. Then you accuse me of twisting the truth when while you try to deny that you just referred to me as PG. Hypocrisy or Forrest Gump?
ReplyDelete12:15 Actually on another thread on this blog a few days ago one of you did claim that the studies cited by the proponents were all funded by the wind industry. Are you backing off that claim now?
ReplyDeleteNice to see an intelligent article from the anti wind crowd! He makes some good points but doesn't give the whole story. For instance he claims wind energy is intermittent and has to be backed up. Their is truth to that claim however all electrical generation has to be backed up, even nuclear, remember when Three Mile Island went down. If it had not been backed up the whole grid would have gone down. Wind Energy actually has an advantage in that each individual turbine is only 2 to 5 MW where a fossil fuel plant may be 500MW making wind much easier to cover. However he does have a point in that the wind energy provider cannot guarantee electricity at a certain time in the future. However the wind energy company can quote the power company a price 25 years from now because their is no fuel cost and maintenance is minimal. This something the fossil fuel provider cannot do. Think of it this way, if a car became available that was competitively priced and required no fuel and very little maintenance but could not be used say 5 days a month would it be worthwhile for you to buy it as a second car. Most people would say yes. This brings us to another point the author left out. Electricity is sold on the open market, when a power company bids on it they know how reliable it is and bid accordingly. Sure their are mandates in some states but not all. Wind is doing very well in many states with no mandate and usually the mandate is for renewable energy not specifically wind. Finally he talks about " damage to habitats, wildlife and the far-from-insignificant aesthetic drawback ". Okay lets look at the whole picture! We use a lot of electricity it's got to be generated somehow. If not from wind it's probably going to be from coal. The damage wind does to habitats, wildlife or aesthetics is insignificant to the damage coal does. Either in the mining or the power generation. If anyone doubts this they need to visit a strip mine. This is a popular tactic of the anti wind crowd, to compare wind to nothing. Every form of electrical generation has drawbacks and I would argue if you give a fair appraisal to all wind energy comes out looking very good!
ReplyDeleteIf wind energy made sense, people would build windmills without government money. The fact that you and I need to give lots of tax money to somebody so that they can sell us power at an even higher price just goes to show how stupid some of these deals are.
ReplyDeleteIt's very interesting that wind and solar seem to be very effective on a small scale. Put up your own personal windmill and throw some solar panels on your roof, and you can put a huge dent in your electric bill while diversifying your power sources (if it's rainy, you're less likely go generate solar but there's probably more wind available). Feed your excess power into the grid, and draw it back when you need it.
Utilities should focus less on buying large alternative energy sources, and find a way to be the better battery that stores excess production, and be better distributors of electrical load.
@ 2:09 Again you compare wind to nothing. Every form of electrical generation gets some form of Government assistance. Oh excuse me, that's not quite true, since the Production Tax Credit that was given to wind has expired wind energy is the only form of electrical generation that does NOT receive any kind of assistance. Also both the fossil fuel and the nuclear industries received far greater subsidies in their start up periods than wind energy. These subsidies, agree with them or not, are given to new industries to help them get started and build necessary infrastructure in a competitive way. Wind energy is a perfect example of these start up subsidies working as intended. Wind energy costs have dropped by about half in the last few years as manufacturing techniques and efficiency have improved. This has also led to the strong growth of turbine manufacturing in the U.S.
ReplyDelete@12:12 Looks like a business expert such as yourself would do a little research before he posts. Wind Energy was the fastest growing form of electricity last year. Looks like some people must like it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/09/heres-how-much-faster-wind-and-solar-are-growing-than-fossil-fuels/
ReplyDelete@11:52 Looks like another unsubstantiated accusation of corruption. If your going to accuse elected officials of being corrupt why not say exactly who you accuse and put your name on it? Just seems pretty cowardly and disrespectful to me! And answer this, if our elected officials are selling out why not to the highest bidder? The fossil fuel industry has far more money to buy politicians than the wind energy industry. It's not even close, the Koch brothers alone have more to spend than the whole renewable energy industry. So your accusations are not only rude, cowardly and disrespectful they also make no sense.
ReplyDeleteOther forms of energy do receive subsidies but wind receives 42% of the subsides and produces less than 4% of the energy.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the cost of wind is hidden thru government subsidies and the sale of Renewable Energy Credits. Just study the economics and politics of wind. The industry regulates itself for environment impact, accidents, and disclosure reporting. No wonder it is riddled with corruption.
ReplyDeleteWind and solar produce at a fraction of their capacity rating. Even in the most wind places, wind produces at less than 30%. Wind turbines produces at less than 15% in Germany last year. Germany's electricity rates are high because they bet heavy on wind, that many hard working families have to choose between energy and food.
ReplyDelete3:16 You say that Germany's electrical rates are high because of wind energy development but a simple search on Google shows that Germany's power prices skyrocketed because they cut out their nuclear energy program. Sounds like you were trying to make an emotional argument without researching it first. Also if wind was more expensive then why does it preform so well in Texas which deregulated? If what you said was even remotely true then wind energy would be finished in Texas once they deregulated.
ReplyDelete3:07 Yes wind energy did receive about 42% of energy tax credits although now the PTC you refer to is expired, but you forgot to mention that although wind did receive a great portion of tax credits that wind is the fastest growing form of energy in the US. Sounds like the tax break was working. You also didn't mention that fossil fuels have been receiving tax breaks for a much longer period of time and have received much more cumulative. When talking about energy and taxpayer cost you should also bring up that the taxpayers obligations to nuclear do not end when energy production is shut down. Rather the taxpayers have to pay to store the highly radioactive material for several thousand years.
ReplyDelete2:56
ReplyDeleteGlobal Warming is real because the people heating up our atmosphere are the ones using HARRP to heat it up. They are the same people who have made Billions advancing it.
Is that corruption or the over used cliche Tin Foil used by hacks who cannot tell you whether electricity is a wave or a particle?
Look up Lauren Moret and summarily dismiss her in your valiant stand of enabling crimes by lawyers. Bankers and liberal arts majors turned into icons out of political zeal.
Lauren makes an amazing disclosure and is a "Scientist" ranked in the top 10 most influential women who worked at Mt Livermore
She says they are using HAARP to spread Fukishima radiation all over the Western hemisphere to achieve Agenda 21 goals that do not include you in the equation either.
3:12 The Production Tax Credit you reference in your "government subsidies" comment is expired. Also the PTC wasn't a cost, it was a tax credit. You make no sense. If you buy a geothermal heat pump and file the tax credit the taxpayers are not paying you. When you file a tax deduction you are not ripping off the other taxpayers. Ron Paul said it best- "Of course, the government should neither inhibit nor subsidize any particular type of energy. While many people agree with that statement, there is much confusion over the difference between government subsidies and tax credits or deductions. The difference is night and day, yet so many times they are all lumped together as evil government handouts. A subsidy IS a government handout. It amounts to the government taking money from the people and giving it to a favored interest. It is the worst sort of market manipulation and it is something I can never support. This kind of government mischief is anathema to the Constitution and the principles of freedom and the free market. By contrast, with tax credits and deductions, industries, business, and individuals simply get to keep more of the money they have earned. Ideally, the tax code should not be used for social engineering, but, until we have true tax reform, I will always support tax credits and deductions that keep more dollars in the private sector where they are spent, saved, or invested. This means I will support tax credits and deductions for energy producers, farmers, homeschoolers, family child care expenditures, expenses of evacuees from disaster areas, and even adoption expenses. I’ve almost never met a tax cut, deduction, or credit I didn’t like. Any measure that keeps money in the private sector to spend, save or invest, rather than allowing the government to waste or misallocate is a win for the economy." Similarly you reference Renewable Energy Certificates. These are not part of the "cost." They are a tax break for operations that produce renewable energy. If you want to argue for a simpler tax code go for it. I would agree with you. Give all forms of energy the same tax break and then penalize for contaminant emissions. However to argue that a tax credit is part of the "cost" especially when the PTC is expired is pretty dishonest.
ReplyDelete@3:07 and 3:12 You are comparing Government assistance to long established industries that should not be receiving any assistance to a new and growing industry. The subsidies being paid (now expired) to wind energy are still no where near what the fossil fuel industry got when it was getting started. The purpose of giving subsidies is to help a new industry get started as it develops technology, infrastructure and manufacturing techniques. What we are doing right now since the PTC has expired is subsidizing the old established industries and not helping the new upcoming industry. Furthermore there is a health cost with the fossil fuel industry. Ignoring that is another subsidy in itself. Burning coal releases huge amounts of carcinogens and heavy metals into the atmosphere. @3:16 You need to do a little research. Germany's electric costs are high because after the Fukushima disaster they shut down a lot of their nuclear reactors causing a severe shortage of electricity. Since then they have added wind energy and brought their prices back down. This is a popular piece of anti wind propaganda that can be easily refuted.
ReplyDelete2:09 Let me rephrase your first comment for you a few times for you maybe you can see it point. "If nuclear energy made sense than people would build reactors without government money" "If coal energy made sense than people would do it without government money" "If hydroelectric made sense than people would build without government money" If solar made sense than people would build without government money" "If natural gas energy made sense than people would build without government money" A few points. All energy receives tax credits. If you do not support a form of energy because it receives tax credits than you better be prepared to live with the Amish. Secondly tax credits are not government money. If you file a tax deduction or tax credit the tax payers are not sending you a check in the mail, a criteria you met allowed you to keep more of YOUR money.
ReplyDeleteYour right PG Man, Germany got rid of nuclear and installed wind. Now Germans cannot pay their utility bills and most of their energy is now imported from other countries.
ReplyDeleteIf any form of electrical generation is subsidized it is nuclear. They should have to pay the true cost of their liability including guarding their waste for 5000 years. Just look at Fukushima and think about Calvert Cliffs sitting just across the bay. We are told nuclear is safe and not to worry about natural disasters such as a tidal wave or hurricane but that is what they told the people of Japan. Then there is the issue of terrorism. Again we are told not to worry but look at this news article from Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2014/09/09/grapevine-nuclear-insecurity/
ReplyDelete5:24 I know I'm right SFS man. Germany got rid of its principal source of energy without regard to replacing its capacity. SFS's comparison would be like getting rid of your whole house heat pump and replacing it with a single 100btu in-window air conditioner and then blaming the air conditioner company for your house being hot in August.
ReplyDeleteSomewhere in the above comments I smell a strong odor of Scott Tawes!
ReplyDeleteDaily Times is big supporter of the wind power scam -- wants to continue the tax credit subsidy.
ReplyDeleteHey Somerset County citizens you better wake up.
ReplyDeleteSince there seems to still be some debate about Germany here is an article from Forbes. Interesting to note is Forbes has never been a supporter of renewable energy. http://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2014/06/28/how-opposite-energy-policies-turned-the-fukushima-disaster-into-a-loss-for-japan-and-a-win-for-germany/
ReplyDeleteWhy should anyone believe anything PG and/or their supporters (how do you like that phrase PG) have to say when they keep repeating that the PTC has expired. It's the play of words that they use to mislead the people. I looked up expire and it means "dead". As PG and their supporters very well know the PTC is not dead. It simple has not been renewed by congress but in all likelihood will be renewed very soon. You need really need to be more truthful in your statements PG and/or supporters.
ReplyDeleteOur PG guy failed to mention this study: Values in the Wind: A Hedonic Analysis of Wind Power Facilities. Seemed he cherry picked favorable articles...ha.. imagine that!
ReplyDeletehere's a quote from the study:
"The siting of wind facilities is extremely controversial. This paper uses data on 11,331 property transactions over nine years in northern New York State to explore the effects of new wind facilities on property values. We use a fixed-effects framework to control for omitted variables and endogeneity biases. We find that nearby wind facilities significantly reduce property values in two of the three counties studied. These results indicate that existing compensation to local homeowners/communities may not be sufficient to prevent a loss of property values. (JEL Q51, Q53)"
STFU PG guy. And I found lots more to blow your argument out of the ocean.
@ 6:48 Really????? The PTC has expired but supporters of wind energy are being dishonest for calling it dead? Whatever!
ReplyDelete@7:08 Oh I am so glad you mentioned that study because it is a perfect example of how anti wind people work! Read the study it examines property transactions in three counties in NY from 2000 thru 2009. In one county the turbines went up in 04 I believe and showed no statistical change in property values. In the other two counties where a loss of property values was reported the turbines did not go up to 08. Surprise Surprise! The two counties showed a loss of property values at the same time the whole country suffered a real estate crash. Yes they used the real estate crash of 08 to blame wind turbines on a property value decline! It should also be noted the authors stated in the beginning of the study that they did not think it possible that turbines would not cause a property value decline. How's that for unbiased research? They did remove that quote but early copies have it.
ReplyDelete6:48 You call it misleading to call the PTC expired? What would you call it? When a funding source or tax credit has an "elimination" date isn't that referred to as an "expiration" date? If it exceeds its "expiration" date without renewal then isn't that commonly called "expired." It has not been renewed. It might be or it might not be but currently it is inactive. Furthermore there are currently no funding bills introduced that would renew it. As of right now there is no PTC. If the Great Bay Wind Project is built under current law it will not qualify for the PTC. I looked on energy.gov and sure enough the PTC is referenced as "expired." So tell me 6:48 is it twisting the truth to call something officially labeled as "expired" expired? You also say the PTC will in all likelihood be renewed. Do you have a date when it will be renewed? Are you 100% sure it will be renewed? If not then I think your argument makes no sense. If something is officially label as expired let us simply call it expired. Also if you want to talk about twisting the truth, I noticed that yesterday on the SFS Facebook you put up an article about an eagle death. It was not a bald eagle it was a golden eagle. You know that species that there has been two confirmed sightings of in Somerset in the last decade? The species of eagle that is actually proven to be vulnerable to turbine strikes? So is SFS contending that there is a golden eagle population at risk in Somerset based on those two sightings in the last decade? Or was SFS just twisting the truth by using any eagle death to try to solicit an emotional responce?
ReplyDelete7:08 Isn't that the study that was done in the middle of the recession? You take a study done in the middle of the recession and cite it as proof of property value loss and then have the nerve to accuse others of cherry picking? I am afraid you will need to blow a little harder to knock our argument out of the ocean. But props for trying.
ReplyDeleteSome Property Values Studies that show a positive impact Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre (2007) Sterzinger, Beck and Kostiuk (2003) Bobechko and Bourne (2006) Studies that show no statistical change Hoen,Wiser, Cappers, Thayer and Sethi (2009) Braunholtz and McWhannell (2003) Grover (2002) Theron (2010) Poletti (2009) Bond (2008) Sims,Dent,and Oskrochi (2008) Lloyd,Jr (2007) Poletti (2007) Goldman and Goldman (2006) Hoen (2006) Loyd,Jr (2006) Poletti (2005) Beck (2004) Jerabek (2001) Robertson Bell Associates (1998) Robertson Bell Associates (1997) Atkinson-Palombo, C.; Hoen, B. (2014)Hinman, J.L. (2010) Hoen, B.; Brown, J.P.; Jackson, T.; Wiser, R.; Thayer, M.; Cappers, P. (2013)
ReplyDeleteThe property value study Pioneer uses ignores the properties that are unmarketable and does not recognize the properties bought out by the wind facility under gag order.
ReplyDeleteVT has lowered property values that were over 3700' from a 4 turbine facility. The turbines were only 440' tall and one property owner lost more than $50,0000. The reason given for devaluation was noise and blight.
ReplyDelete8:14 Would you be referring to this piece of misinformation?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.safeforsomerset.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/WEBSITE-2015-02-02-VT-PROP-Property-Devaluation-due-to-Turbine-Noise.pdf
You seriously are going to cite a case of a single (1) house having its value lowered and then accuse other of cherry picking information?? Also you state "values" (plural) when the case cited by SFS was a single (1) house. Talk about being misleading.
@8:12 Not true if you look at the Mass. Study done by Berkeley (On the PG resources page) you will see they also examine frequency of home sales and found it was not affected. This was done to address the claim from anti wind groups that homes did not sell near turbines thus skewing results. @8:14 You need to quit getting your information from wind watch. This refers to an assessment change on ONE house that was owned by long time anti wind activists. My personal opinion the county did it to shut them up. Again this was an assessment change, related but not the same as a property value. Their neighbors didn't get it even those closer to the turbines.
ReplyDeleteWhat is happening in Somerset is very troubling and amounts to the largest taking of private property in recent history. All people should be watching this very closely, because the only way for MD to reach its 20% by 2022 renewable mandate is to litter the state with turbines and solar panels. This will change our pastoral environment to an industrial zone that no longer can serve as habitat to the multitude of waterfowl and shorebirds that it currently supports. This is also a warning that your backyard is next.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of being misleading 8:12. If you had READ the studies posted, which you probably did not you would find both house values and house sale frequency were examined. Neither were found with a negative deviation. If the house sale rate is not affected then your theory that "The property value study Pioneer uses ignores the properties that are unmarketable and does not recognize the properties bought out by the wind facility under gag order" is completely false.
ReplyDeleteI, personally, would never buy a house in a mile radius of a windmill unless it was on my property and I could shut it off, 1/4 mile of a chicken house, 3/4 if downwind of prevailing wind, 1/4 mile from a major freeway without a noise barrier, and never within a 50 mile radius of Ray Wallace.
ReplyDeletePig farms = chicken houses, so now Ray knows how he rates!
@ 8:31 You obviously have been very misinformed. Absolutely no one is having their property taken from them to have a turbine installed. Everyone of the proposed cites is on ground voluntarily leased to GB by the landowners. No one is forced to either give up their land or lease their land. Also if you look at a map of the proposed cites you will see all of them are well away from the water. This was done just to protect waterfowl and shorebirds. Also modern turbines have blades mounted much higher off the ground and their blades turn much slower. Both these changes greatly reduce bird kills.
ReplyDeletelove how this PG loser keeps reciting data by Berkeley as if it's beyond reproach. Guess what, it ain't. Ben Hoen is not all that. Isn't he highly compensated by the government, Obamas government???
ReplyDeletesuffice it to say, here's a link to just one tidbit. http://docs.wind-watch.org/McCann-Setbacks-property-values.pdf
The PJM grid operator which is the grid we get our electricity from did a study that found using renewables would save Maryland 302 million in meeting EPA requirements. http://aweablog.org/blog/post/largest-us-grid-operator-finds-wind-energy-saves-consumers-money-under-epas-clean-power-plan
ReplyDeleteThe VT case was not a single house but included multiple properties being devalued. The decrease in property values ranged from 8-18%. This project includes only 4 turbines on a mountain ridge where population density is sparse. IN contrast, there are over 400 structures within 1 mile of PHASE 1 of the GREAT BAY WIND Project so multiple the $50,000 devaluation by 400 and see how much devaluation you get.
ReplyDeleteThe Pioneer Green supporter posting here has a wind lease and it already receiving compensation from Pioneer Green. His household is collecting thousands of dollars while his neighbors pay the price.
ReplyDeleteIt should be illegal to post bullshit. Too bad Pioneer Green has nothing to lose like the property owners in Somerset that have every thing at stake.
ReplyDeleteThe Massachusetts study is a study of a study. It states over and over that more studies need to be done to protect the so-called prestigious scientist from liable.
ReplyDelete9:17,right on!Do the windmill owners live next to windmills?Does a windmill run their home?
ReplyDelete@8:59 Let me get this straight. You claim the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory which just happens to be one of the most respected research institutions in the world, can't be trusted because it does research for the DOE but then you cite testimony from a real estate appraiser paid for by anti wind activists as proof! Your link cannot even be considered a study it's just a appraiser's paid opinion!
ReplyDelete9:20 The Massachusetts study you reference is what's called a Literature Review. The panel that wrote it was charged with reviewing all peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed data and formulating conclusions based on all literature available. Most studies state that more data is needed as results are rarely absolute. Here are their credentials.
ReplyDeleteJeffrey M. Ellenbogen, MD; MMSc
Assistant Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School
Division Chief, Sleep Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital
Sheryl Grace, PhD; MS Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Boston University
Wendy J Heiger-Bernays, PhD
Associate Professor of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Health,
Boston University School of Public Health
Chair, Lexington Board of Health
James F. Manwell, PhD Mechanical Engineering;
MS Electrical & Computer Engineering; BA Biophysics
Professor and Director of the Wind Energy Center, Department of Mechanical & Industrial
Engineering University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Dora Anne Mills, MD, MPH, FAAP
State Health Officer, Maine 1996–2011
Vice President for Clinical Affairs, University of New England
Kimberly A. Sullivan, PhD
Research Assistant Professor of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Health,
Boston University School of Public Health
Marc G. Weisskopf, ScD Epidemiology; PhD Neuroscience
Associate Professor of Environmental Health and Epidemiology
Department of Environmental Health & Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health
Facilitative Support provided by Susan L. Santos, PhD, FOCUS GROUP Risk
Communication and Environmental Management Consultants
8:59 A quick search would reveal that most researchers receive some federal funding.
ReplyDelete8:59 Berkeley labs is very well renown and credible organization. Very few people would dispute this. Did you actually read that link that you posted? For one think is is basically an opinion testimony. It was not peer reviewed or published. Secondly it even cites wikipedia as a source. Generally in my experience anyone that cites wikipedia as a source should be ignored. You are offering this to refute numerous peer reviewed articles? That you are going to openly question the credibility of Berkeley Labs while using sources that cite wikipedia to me speaks volumes about your credibility. At least SFS has expanded there horizons from Youtube videos to wikipedia.
ReplyDelete9:12 The only information I have seen posted about VT was that case of a single house. If there is more would you mind posting it?
ReplyDelete@10:33 The GB turbines will be owned by a electricity provider and connected directly to the grid so no they will not power homes directly. Some landowners live near turbine cites some don't. Two interesting points. Dr. George who is SFS health expert was in the GB program and wanted as many turbines as he could get near his home. It was only after he was rejected because of an easement did he suddenly discover supposed health issues with turbines. On the other hand Dr. May rents a home only 700' from a turbine site. His home will be closer than anyone else in the county. He is a research scientist at UMES and has worked as a pathologist at John Hopkins. He has testified in favor of the GB project without any kind of compensation.
ReplyDelete@9:12 Please read the link provided by SFS.http://www.safeforsomerset.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/WEBSITE-2015-02-02-VT-PROP-Property-Devaluation-due-to-Turbine-Noise.pdf. I assume you trust a link provided by SFS. It indeed shows a assessment change on ONE house! If you then goggle the home owners name you will see they are long time anti wind activists. Also sound tests were conducted which showed basically the same noise levels as normal background noise. My opinion they gave the whiners a 12% assessment drop to shut them up.
ReplyDelete@ 9:20 I think we have a misunderstanding. The Mass. study referred to directly above is property values study done by Berkeley Lab not the Health study done by Mass. Departments of Health and Environment.
ReplyDeleteAll useless comments that won't change a thing.
ReplyDeleteThe Berkeley Lab was created for the purpose of promoting renewable. Any data from them is biased toward renewables.
ReplyDeleteDr. Randy George has done his homework. He knows large scale wind installations are detrimental to human health and that industrializing a residential zone lowers property values. Dr. George has never been interested in hosting turbines on his property and posting such is a lie.
ReplyDeleteBerkeley Lab was founded in 1931 by Ernest Orlando Lawrence, a UC Berkeley physicist who won the 1939 Nobel Prize in physics. Here is some info from them.In the world of science, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) is synonymous with “excellence.” Thirteen Nobel prizes are associated with Berkeley Lab. Seventy Lab scientists are members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), one of the highest honors for a scientist in the United States. Thirteen of our scientists have won the National Medal of Science, our nation’s highest award for lifetime achievement in fields of scientific research. Eighteen of our engineers have been elected to the National Academy of Engineering, and three of our scientists have been elected into the Institute of Medicine. In addition, Berkeley Lab has trained thousands of university science and engineering students who are advancing technological innovations across the nation and around the world.
ReplyDeleteDr. George was indeed interested in the Great Bay project and wanted as many turbines as he could get on the farm where he lives!
ReplyDeleteGetting back to the original article I have two points. One the book is 6 years old and there have been huge changes in the wind industry in the last 6 years and it is based largely on the UK which has very different policies on Green Energy than the US. I believe they have laws that force power companies to buy from wind farms where our electricity is sold on the open market.
ReplyDelete8:32 I believe the Berkeley Lab was started in the 1930's. I do not think there was much of a movement about switching to renewable's. Your opinion is that the Berkeley Lab cannot be trusted by you will gladly believe an opinion piece from a single real estate appraiser who uses wikipedia as a source? Also you need to do your homework on SFS's Dr. George. He was interested in a wind lease. Then when he found out that the Ag easement on his property kept him out of the project he suddenly had an epiphany that turbines were health hazards. Seems his testimony is somewhat unreliable.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe that PG really believes that it will ever be able to obtain all the necessary permits in order to build their wind farm. If there was just one other place in the USA where they could build this monstrosity they would pack up and leave. PG has no real ties to Somerset so it really makes no sense for them to be so persistent except for the fact they have no where else to go.
ReplyDelete10:10 You don't consider millions invested in permits, planning and leases not to mention all the supporters to be a tie to Somerset? Actually according to their website they are currently developing other projects so once again your rhetoric seems false.
ReplyDelete@10:10 SFS continually brings up the question of why did PG choose Somerset. This has been answered over and over again but not on this thread so I will give a few reasons. We are located near the bay which supplies a steady supply of good wind from the thermal differences between land and water, due to our overloaded line from Indian River we have a shortage of available electricity and high prices, we have no endangered bats, the county is largely rural with large tracts of land allowing them to provide ample setbacks and the land is relatively inexpensive. PG can provide you with several more reasons so contact them if you need more.
ReplyDeleteHere are more reasons, Pioneer was wooed by our EDC director Danny Thompson. I guess the main selling point was how "poor" we are because that is all Pioneer Green and our officials talk about. This completely ignores how rich we are in natural resources that will be destroyed by a wind plant.
ReplyDeleteGolden eagles are being tracked on Maryland and Virginia's eastern shore today.
ReplyDeleteThat's funny, because Pioneer has been forced out of Alabama, New Hampshire, California, and Pennsylvania because their projects would not safely fit. It seems our officials have less concern for our safety than the officials in these other places. Somerset is also in the Atlantic Flyway with a continuous stream of nonresident species passing through. The resident bald eagles forage between the Pocomoke River and the Little Annemessex which is exactly where the turbine will be. This is obviously a poorly planned project.
ReplyDeleteI would love to know what PG was promised in advance in order to spend a large amount of money before they were given final approval to build anything. I can only imagine that the EDC and county commissioners assured PG that getting all the necessary permits would be no problem. EDC, commissioners, and PG all only care about one thing and that was the money. They never ever expected the citizens to actually stand up and speak out about this horrible monstrosity.PG can say they made good business decisions but I would like to ask them if they could roll back time would they have spent the money before they got the permission to build (not just take someones word that you will get the permits you need (period).
ReplyDelete11:18 You say Pioneer has been forced out of California? Then how are they still developing 2 projects in California? Also while Pioneer is apparently at the moment not developing anything in Pennsylvania there are several wind projects already developed in Pennsylvania. You also state bald eagles are a concern. All scientific data indicates that any bald eagles losses will be sustainable. I would be glad to cite several articles for you, but I suspect you already know that the bald eagle population is not at risk from this project. I would be you also know that less there has been less than 10 bald eagle deaths recorded attributable to wind turbines.
ReplyDelete11:12 So is SFS contending that there is a golden eagle population at risk in Somerset? I also just checked ebird which is a site the SFS facebook page has used as a source. There are still only 2 sightings in Somerset listed in the last 2 decades.
ReplyDelete12:33 How would the EDC or the commissioners be able to give any assurances on a Federal permit? Also I am pretty sure Pioneer expects fringe groups to pop up wherever a project is sited. I do not recall ever hearing of Pioneer bragging about making great business decisions but apparently you fail to understand the business. For the permitting you need to be able to prove access to land. In fact if you check out the FAA permitting you have to give exact locations. Your theory that a company can just apply for permits and then later fill in the blanks on the permits is incredibly laughable. How would you ever get permission to build without being able to document what you intent to build?
ReplyDelete12:41 There are golden eagles that fly through Somerset County every year, but don't nest there. They are tracked yearly. Pioneer Greed can not get a permit to kill any.
ReplyDeleteNew Report out from the DOE http://energy.gov/articles/energy-department-releases-new-wind-report-examines-future-industry In 2013, an estimated total of more than 50,000 American jobs were supported by wind investments. The report projects that wind could support more than 600,000 jobs by 2050 in industries such as construction, engineering, transportation, manufacturing, operations, maintenance, and supporting services.
ReplyDeleteThe report also highlights the public health and environmental benefits of wind today and into the future. As a clean energy source, wind power could displace more than 12.3 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, equating to a global economic value of $400 billion. Additionally, growth in the wind sector could lower the cumulative electric sector expenditures by $149 billion by 2050.
9:04 I don't know who you are, but the term "serial liar" applies. Dr. George bought the property in 2008 and immediately protected it with an agricultural easement which prevents all development,including chicken houses, wind turbines and solar panels. This is public information.
ReplyDelete@11:10 I suspect many of the nearly 30% living below the poverty line in Somerset would happily trade just a little of that natural beauty for some economic opportunity in the county. Like what a 200 million dollar investment would bring. It is very hard to feed a hungry child natural beauty. Many more would like to see what almost 3 million a year in annual tax revenue could do for this county.
ReplyDelete@2:32 There we go with the reading comprehension problem again. Go back and read 9:04 again slowly! It clearly states Dr. George was rejected from the project because of an ag easement. Now who is the serial liar? In most states turbines are allowed with ag easements and at first it was not thought to be a problem. At that time Dr. George wanted all the turbines he could get on his property. The commission that oversees the easements rejected allowing the turbines so GB then rejected Dr. George who only then decided turbines were a health problem. Since then the state legislature passed a bill allowing turbines on land with ag easements but Southern Maryland got the three lower counties excluded. It's very possible that after the MIT study is released that exclusion will be lifted at which time Dr. George may support wind energy again. BTW an easement does not prevent him from building poultry houses.
ReplyDeleteAgricultural easements do not deter wind development. Look it up.
ReplyDelete2:26 Once again there have been two confirmed sightings of golden eagles reported to Ebird (which SFS has cited) in the last decade. If you look up the species on Audubon (https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/golden-eagle) you will see that this area is listed as "winter uncommon." Once again your emotional take on the Take Permit is inaccurate. According to CFR Part 50 10, 13 and 22 the permit authorizes the incidental "take" of "eagles" it is not species specific. It should also be noted that both the bald eagle and the golden eagle are now classified as species of "least concern." Another interesting tidbit, according to ebird the last confirmed sighting of a golden eagle in Somerset County was in 2011 and it was in Princess Anne.
ReplyDelete4:13 Please go to the comment at 2:55 and read it slowly and carefully. Wind development was allowed as of 2014 on land protected by ag easements EXCEPT in the three lower counties. Refer to Maryland SB259 if you need further clarification.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it with these SFS people! We all make honest mistakes and occasionally read or write something wrong but this is ridiculous. Take your time and read a post before you comment back! Don't be in such a hurry to disagree or in your case accuse others of lying that you can't actually read the post. I guess it would be way too much to ask that you stop and think about what you just read before commenting back.
ReplyDeleteKilling 600 bald eagles and thousands of other species over the life of the project is fine with Pioneer Green because the population will not become extinct. Okay, we got it.
ReplyDeleteThe DOE report does not acknowledge the loss of jobs due to higher electricity rates. I am surprised even you, Pioneer man, think this biased report would fool us.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you identify commenters as SFS when they are anonymous? It proves you are a habitual liar that says anything to hoodwink readers.
ReplyDelete2:55 Can't stop lying can you. Dr. George never wanted turbines, especially on his property. Quit making stuff up.
ReplyDeleteBecause PG is desperate for anything to make SFS look bad 5:01. It's really very childish and not something a reputable company would ever do. Can anyone imagine Walmart or even the landfill company that wanted to come here getting on a blog site and trying to make the locals look like they are stupid. It really boggles the mind, I would not trust PG at all to do business in the county. It's a small company anyway and could go bankrupt and then the county would be stuck with a bunck of worthless windmills.
ReplyDelete@4:53 I refer you to the first study cited by SFS again SFS on the last thread that stated people in the study enjoyed LOWER electric prices And INCREASED tax revenue due to wind energy."Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health" Is's bad enough you won't read any study cited by GB supporters but it does look like you could read a study cited by SFS. So DOE reports are considered biased? So you only trust what you read on wind watch right? @5:33 Ask him to make a public statement to that effect.
ReplyDelete@5:01 and 6:21 No one from PG has been on this thread so does that make you habitual liars? The supporters come on here to correct misinformation. Go back through these two threads and you will see a pattern, SFS or the opposition make a false statement and it is corrected by supporters usually with some reference. The fact that the opposition ends up looking very stupid is not something we count on but a very worthwhile reward nonetheless. One more correction the proposed ordinance requires the GB project to be bonded so the county cannot be stuck with any wind turbines. There's my reward again!
ReplyDelete@4:50 So we make our electricity here in Somerset and a few birds get killed our we buy our electricity from the coal plant at Indian River and more birds are killed. Either from the burning of the coal, mining of the coal or the transmission of the electricity. If your concerned about birds, wildlife or the environment and use electricity either you support the Great Bay project or your a hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteNo form of energy generation is free from impact and wind power is no exception. However, studies have shown wind energy’s impacts to be the lowest, as it emits no air or water pollution, requires no mining or drilling for fuel, uses no water in the generation of electricity, and creates no hazardous or radioactive waste requiring permanent storage, and yet is held to the highest environmental standards.
ReplyDeleteEagle fatalities only occur at a very small number of facilities across the country, and a significant mortality rate at individual sites is even rarer—primarily in Altamont Pass, California, siting of early wind farms developed long before the interaction between eagles and turbines was understood.
As shorter, more numerous, faster-rotating old turbines at those few sites are replaced through the process of repowering with taller, less numerous, slower-rotating modern turbines, and are sited based on more experience, eagle fatalities are being reduced by an estimated 50%.
Even today, the data shows collision with turbines at modern wind farms is responsible for less than two percent of all reported human-caused eagle fatalities, with vastly greater amounts attributed to power lines, vehicle strikes, lead poisoning, drowning in livestock watering tanks, illegal shootings, etc.
4:50 Every thing you do has an ecological cost. All available research suggests bird deaths will be under 1% and be sustainable. If you cannot accept the concept of sustainable loss then feel free to become Amish.
ReplyDelete4:53 That is because economics tells us that additional sources of energy do not equate to higher energy costs. Apparently you have fooled yourself if you honestly think additional sources of energy mean higher energy cost.
ReplyDelete5:01 You continue to label every proponent as PG. Does that prove that you are a habitual liar or a complete hypocrite?
ReplyDelete5:33 The only lie there is continuing to deny that Dr. George was ready to sign a lease until he found out his ag easement kept him out of the project. It is actually pretty common knowledge in the community. He didn't exactly keep his enthusiasm over the money he was going to get from the turbines a secret.
ReplyDelete6:21 I sincerely doubt anyone from PG is on here. Furthermore you display your full hypocrisy when you throw a digital temper tantrum over being labeled SFS and then readily accuse every proponent of being PG. Then you display just how desperate you are to try to create some semblance of credibility by trashing a company that came to the county by making some crazy accusation that they have hired people to run a blog. No one is making you look stupid, you are doing that of your own free will.
ReplyDeleteThere are no bird carcusas from coal. It is amazing that you are vilifying coal, when wind relies on coal. We only have to look to Germany for proof, because it is now building coal plants because relying on wind has been a total failure.
ReplyDelete600 bald eagles deaths is not a few. I wonder how many thousands of turkey vultures, blue herons, geese, tundra swans, ducks, sea gulls, passerines, waterfowl, egrets, hawks, owls, and bats will be killed in addition to the 600 bald eagles.
ReplyDelete6:21 You talk about childishness and then you display it by insisting that everyone is lying and every proponent on here must be from Pioneer. You have been informed numerous times by myself and others that PG is not on here, and yet you continue to insist that everyone is lying. Where is your evidence of the lie? This blog is anonymous and yes it is possible that someone is lying and could be from PG. I cant tell you with 100% certainty that whoever else is on here isn't PG. But I also cannot tell you that the fossil fuel industry hasn't sent someone one here to try to discredit Pioneer. The only evidence I could offer to discredit the idea that someone from the fossil fuel industry is on here is if someone from that industry was paid to be on here they would probably make a better argument than you guys.
ReplyDelete9:34 But you have no evidence that there will be 600 bald eagle deaths. You took the number the USFWS is going to grant Great Bay for their take permit and have tried to use that as some sort of evidence that 600 eagles will be killed. However by federal law the permits must be for a greater amount than the actual take. The Journal of Raptor Research found that from 1997 to to 2012 85 bald and golden eagles have been found dead from being struck by wind turbines. There is additional research data to dispel the myth of mass raptor kills. Langston and Pullan (2003) indicated less than .01% of all bird kills can be attributed to wind turbines. Lucas et al (2005) failed to find any species of bird that would suffer a mortality rate of greater than 5%. Karlsson (1983), Byrne (1983) and Winkelman (1985) all recorded very low mortality rates at wind farms. Barrios and Rodriguez (2004) studied two wind farms in high traffic migratory areas over seas. One of the wind farms studied did have elevated mortality of two species of birds. However at the other farm studied mortality was almost 0%. It should be noted the two species of birds that were found to have elevated moralities at one wind farm are not native to the US (Griffon vulture and common kestrel). There simply is no data to substantiate the wild claim of mass raptor fatalities but there is plenty of data to debunk it. Can you provide any peer reviewed research indicating wind turbines will kill greater than 1% of the bird population?
ReplyDelete@9:32 Yes let's please look at Germany! You must have missed this earlier post as there has been nothing posted to refute it. Since there seems to still be some debate about Germany here is an article from Forbes. Interesting to note is Forbes has never been a supporter of renewable energy. http://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylovins/2014/06/28/how-opposite-energy-policies-turned-the-fukushima-disaster-into-a-loss-for-japan-and-a-win-for-germany/
ReplyDeleteSince some posters still can't grasp the fact that all electrical generation harms wildlife and wind actually does less harm than the types of generation it replaces here is a study that hopefully will clarify things. "COMPARISON OF REPORTED EFFECTS AND RISKS
ReplyDeleteTO VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE FROM SIX ELECTRICITY GENERATION TYPES
IN THE NEW YORK/NEW ENGLAND REGION" This is their conclusion. " Overall, non-renewable
electricity generation sources, such as coal and oil, pose higher risks to wildlife than renewable electricity
generation sources, such as hydro and wind."
" Expanding wind power instead of fossil fuels also avoids the wildlife and human health impacts of oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and burning fossil fuels." Audubon Society
ReplyDelete"A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortality from
ReplyDeleteAnthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions" "Because much attention has been given to the issue of
raptor/wind power interaction, we also developed separate
fatality estimates for raptors. Estimates of raptor
fatalities per turbine per year from individual studies
through 2001 (Erickson et al. 2001) ranged from 0 at
the Vansycle, Oregon; Searsburg, Vermont; Ponnequin,
Colorado; Somerset County, Pennsylvania; and
Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota, Phase II and Phase III sites,
to 0.10 per turbine per year at the Altamont, California
site (C. Thelander, pers. comm.)." A good study but it should be noted that the Altamont Pass wind farm in California is considered an example of what not to do in siting wind farms and it only averages 1 eagle per 10 turbines per year. Somerset County Pennsylvania would be a good comparison for the GB project and it averages 0 eagle deaths per turbine per year. So again SFS what do you consider acceptable risk for your electricity? Does an average of 0 Eagle deaths seem reasonable?
All you posters claiming Dr. George did not want to sign a lease with Great Bay and did not want turbines at his home please answer one question. Did Dr. George tell you that?
ReplyDeleteSorry PG cheerleader, the information you are relying on is tainted by wind money. Wind will destroy Somerset's one-of-a-kind ecosystem. The eastern shore is an irreplaceable habitat; destroying it makes no sense. The 600 bald eagle kills came from Sara Nystrom of USFWS.
ReplyDeleteIt is a real shame that people who are being paid to twist facts can post on this site. Wind is dirty business that has done an excellent job hiding its damaging consequences. Fortunately for us, communities who have been forced to endure these consequences are speaking out. There are more than 2000 groups worldwide that oppose wind because of its damaging side effects.
ReplyDeletePioneer Green says property values will not decrease, but refuse to allow Glen Ains or Pat Carson to consider it. Yet property value guarantees are being written into new wind ordinances in other jurisdictions. If Pioneer Green was telling the truth, they would not object to this clause in the ordinance.
ReplyDelete1:17 If the USFWS service was predicting 600 eagle kills the take permits would have to be for a higher number as per federal law. You are either very mistaken or very dishonest. Please see above for a variety of literature on birds and turbines all of which indicates less than a 1% kill rate.
ReplyDeleteDear SFS Cheerleader, let me reference you to a study recently done in Australia just released by Simon Chapman, the Professor of Public Health at the University of Sydney,it suggests only a tiny proportion of people living near turbines do actually complain and, when they do, the complaints coincide with campaigning from anti-wind groups.
ReplyDeleteChapman looked at health complaints made by residents living within 5 kilometres of all 49 wind farms operating in Australia between 1993 and 2012. After reviewing media reports, public inquiries and complaints to wind companies themselves, Chapman found evidence of only 120 individuals having actually complained - representing about 1 in 272 people living near wind farms.
But significantly, Chapman found that 81 of those 120 residents were living beside just five wind farms “which have been heavily targeted by anti wind farm groups”. What's more, some 82 per cent of all the complaints had occured since 2009 when Chapman says anti-wind farm groups began to push the health scare as part of their opposition to turbines.
Some 31 of the 49 wind farms studied had never been subjected to a complaint either about noise or health.
“The 31 farms with no histories of complaints, and which today have some 21,530 residents within 5km of their turbines have operated for a cumulative total of 256 years,” says Chapman's report. In Chapman's research, he says that anxiety among residents increases as media reports spread the stories of health concerns and as researchers start investigating.
1:17 I am still waiting on your information about the catastrophic habitat loss. Your information about eagle kills is false. It seems SFS cannot get anything right. The USFWS has indicated they would issue take permits for 20 eagles per year as per CFR 50 part 22. As I think you know the permits must be for a greater amount then the actual take. In other words you are either lying or seriously misinformed. There is nothing to suggest that over the course of the Great Bay Project there will be 600 eagles killed. However there is a great deal of information available to discredit your theory. The Journal of Applied Ecology and the Journal of Raptor Research both have published good articles that indicated less than a 1% kill rate of local raptors. The Journal of Raptor Research found that between 1997 and 2012 85 eagles were found killed by wind turbines and most of these were golden eagles. Do you really think the Great Bay Wind Project will kill more eagles in 5 years than every other wind farm in America did in 15? Langston and Pullan (2003) indicated less than .01% of all bird kills can be attributed to wind turbines. Lucas et al (2005) failed to find any species of bird that would suffer a mortality rate of greater than 5%. Karlsson (1983), Byrne (1983) and Winkelman (1985) all recorded very low mortality rates at wind farms. Barrios and Rodriguez (2004) studied two wind farms in high traffic migratory areas over seas. One of the wind farms studied did have elevated mortality of two species of birds. However at the other farm studied mortality was almost 0%. It should be noted the two species of birds that were found to have elevated moralities at one wind farm are not native to the US (Griffon vulture and common kestrel).
ReplyDelete1:28 How did Pioneer "refuse to allow" anyone to consider any idea? The zoning board was free to consider any idea. I believe it was Ains that pointed out that he would not consider a property value guarantee as all it amounts to is a business liability. Think beyond the rhetoric if you are able 1:28. You are going to try to get businesses into the area while telling them that if local property values go down for any reason they may be blamed and dragged to court to cover the difference? After the property crash in the last decade who in their right mind would go into a community where they are expected to guarantee property values will not go down. It has been proven that turbines do not hurt property values but no company can guarantee than in the future any areas property will not lose value, there are too many variables there. Also I must ask. Would you support a requirement that agricultural business issue property value guarantees before they assume usage of any tract of land?
ReplyDeleteThe 20 annual bald eagle kills was stated at the USFWS meeting January 15, 2014. Over 100 people witnessed this. These 600 eagle death will not make the species extinct but it will decimate the species in the Somerset County region. USFWS has recommended a No Build for the Great Bay Wind project and so has the United States Navy because it will harm our National Defense. These are undisputed facts and are documented. USFWS cannot stop a project and up until the Great Bay Wind project, the Navy could not either. The opposition to this project is unprecedented and to state otherwise is a LIE.
ReplyDelete7:22 According to your own people your numbers are as low as 200. This is hardly unprecedented. To call 200 people some sort of unprecedented moment is either delusion or dishonesty. As stated before by Federal Law the take permits must be for a greater number than the anticipated kill. Therefore if the USFWS anticipated 30 kills per year the permits would have to be for a greater number. This is a Federal Law, it is not disputable. So once again you are either mistaken or lying. Even if your information was correct you have no evidence that a maximum loss of 30 eagles per year is not sustainable. Once again a peer reviewed publishing found that there were less then 10 confirmed bald eagle kills by wind turbines over 15 years. The Navy was ready to sign off on an agreement with Great Bay until Hoyer and Mikulski pressured the DoD to voice an objection. This objection is not a recommendation for a "No Build" as you inaccurately put it. The DoD report says they will not consider any mitigation until the MIT-LL study is done in December. Get your information straight.
ReplyDeleteTHE FWS RECOMMENDATION IS NO BUILD FOR THIS PROJECT. THE DOD HAS STATED IT WILL HARM NATIONAL DEFENSE.
ReplyDeleteFACTS DO NOT LIE.
8:12 The USFWS is willing to issue permits. As per Federal Law the USFWS may only issue permits that are "consistent with the goal of stable or increasing breeding populations." That is a quote from the USFWS 2009 notice on the take permits. In other words the USFWS can not issue any permits that might endanger the local breeding population. The USFWS is within the rights conferred to them by CFR 50 part 22 to deny take permits to any project that would endanger the local breeding population, this would make any subsequent eagle death illegal and subject to persecution and would effectively kill the project as no one would then finance it. As previously stated the USFWS is willing to issue permits and has even indicated what the take permits will be. The DoD has stated that they would not engage in further negotiations until the MIT-LL study is complete. At this time their objection should be resolved. The Navy it should be noted already expressed willingness to enter into an agreement with Pioneer until Hoyer and Mikulski got involved and pressured the DoD into objecting. If anything you have said is true then neither department will issue permits. As the USFWS is ready to issue permits you are obviously incorrect there. Time will tell if the DoD will lift their objection so the FAA can issue permits.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the cost of wind is hidden thru government subsidies and the sale of renewable credits to polluters so they can continue to pollute. That is why our electricity will only increase by 20% instead of the true cost which would be 100%.
ReplyDeleteStudy after study(Bentek, Univ. of TX) shows wind does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions because of its reliance on other sources for 100% back up. The wind industry does not recognize the wasted CO2 emission from the back up power. Turbines create a massive amount of toxic waste because the 170+feet blades are made of composites that are not recyclable. The blades also do not degrade over time making storage/disposal a huge problem.
ReplyDeleteThis debate is not healthy,nor does it accomplish a thing.Even if 1000 people commented no one is listening,or at least no one who matters.Just a lot of folks at complete odds with each other.
ReplyDeleteThe professors claiming that wind does not lower property values remind me of professors who claim raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour won't close businesses.
ReplyDelete8:56 You call fiberglass, carbon fiber and PVC toxic waste? Yes they have to be disposed of but this is common stuff in your house and car. Do you live in a solid wood colonial house and drive a horse and buggy?
ReplyDeleteA new report published by the US Department of Energy seeks to develop a new “Wind Vision,” which aims to document the contributions wind has made to date, and the continuing and growing contributions it can make to the country’s national energy portfolio. http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/13/us-envisions-new-era-wind-power/?utm_source=Wind+News&utm_campaign=7ddee3275b-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_79fed14422-7ddee3275b-332046725
ReplyDeleteThe US Energy Information Administration has released numbers which show that wind and natural gas will make up the majority of new 2015 capacity additions, amidst 20 GW of new utility-scale generating capacity.
ReplyDeleteThe additions will be dominated by wind, which is expected to add 9.8 GW of utility-scale capacity, and natural gas, with 6.3 GW. Solar will add another 2.2 GW, which all-told will account for 91% of total additions for 2015.
Conversely, nearly 16 GW of generating capacity is expected to retire in 2015, of which 81%, or 12.8 GW, is coal-fired.
8:56 The US is using more and more power. This means more generation is needed. Given the choice between more carcinogen spewing fossil fuel plants and nuclear plants most people chose wind. Furthermore there really isn't a choice. This administration will not allow more coal plants and the Japan incident ensured there will be no more nuclear plants for a while so the options to generate more electricity are limited.
ReplyDeleteLet's think about this for a moment.... PG claimed extensively in the other post that people oppose the project, because they are jealous, elitists, want to keep the county in poverty, and are anti-business. If so, why aren't these same people opposing the new carboxylic acid plant that will generate 60 new jobs in the county? The answer is that business won't harm wildlife, neighbors, or cost the federal taxpayers a big chunk of money. There is a reason that people like Dr. Etherington write books about wind farms and there is a reason why wind farms are opposed all around the county. Wind farms generate a host of problems with a few individuals profiting at the expense of there neighbors.
ReplyDelete11:52 Wind farms are opposed all over the country? Fact Check please. Navigant Research did a poll that found wind was viewed favorably by 72% of people. USA Today found 73% of people supported continuing the PTC. A University of Texas poll found that 89% of Americans wanted the federal government to focus on further developing renewable energy. Kansas is a huge state for wind energy and a poll there found 91% of Kansas voters support wind power. A March 2013 Gallup poll found that 71% of Americans supported wind energy production, 76% of Americans supported solar, 37% supported nuclear and 46% supported fossil fuels. A poll in Minnesota showed 84% supported increasing wind development. An Ohio statewide survey gave participants the choice of choosing a primary and secondary pick of preferred energy 25% chose wind as the first pick and 47% as the second, 31% chose solar as their first pick and 54% as the second, 16% chose coal as their first pick and 25% as the second, 10% chose nuclear as their first pick and 19% as the second. Yes there are fringe groups all over the place that decide to believe the myths you tell of wildlife devastation and health effects. I guess many of these people also cannot do the research to figure out that tax credits are available to all forms of energy. Some of them probably do not turn on the news enough to realize the PTC is expired. A few of them might not be able to realize that this project is completely investor funded. However these people as evidenced by the poll are a minority. As far as you being anti business you prove that for yourself every time you state that new businesses should have to be subject to a referendum.
ReplyDelete11:52 I am sorry I misread your statement and on the screen of a tablet I thought you said country not county. My apologies. The same information applies as far as popularity of wind however I must remark at how you take your 200 person group and make it seem like some sort of majority network. As all of your propaganda points have been addressed with sources let me just hit your last sentence. You claim that wind development would generate a "host" of problems while only benefiting a few. As your "host" of problems gets debunked with peer reviewed information as fast as you can dream them up I see no credibility there. As far as benefits the Jacobs France institute claims 2.9 million in county revenues and over 1 million in economic growth. That does not seem like a benefit to just a few.
ReplyDeleteIt is all about croney capitalism. Wind and solar produce little or no useable power. They just redistribute money from taxpayers and power users to rich politically connected people like Bowman and the Solyndra financers.
ReplyDeleteSoon our present lame duck administration will be gone, and maybe we can have an practical energy policy.
12:46, you didn't answer the question, if the opposition are so anti-business, why aren't they opposing the new carboxylic acid plant?
ReplyDeleteThousands of people in the county are opposed to this. Jerry Boston even admitted it, when he said the majority of his constituents are opposed to the Great Bay Wind Energy Center. The more people learn about wind the more they dislike it.
ReplyDelete1:47 Take a minute and get your facts right before you posted. Jerry said the majority of the letters he was getting were in opposition. Not quite the same thing. Thousands are opposed? Then why are your claimed numbers on your petition dropping? In Sept. SFS claimed to have over a thousand signatures, at the propaganda conference it was claimed as few as 200. Where are the thousands? Online your petition shows 143. At your propaganda forum everyone I heard from said there was about 150, and many of left in disgust over how one sided it was so there was not 150 supporters there. Your claim of thousands of opposition just does not pan out especially in light of SFS's tenancy to overstate their claims.
ReplyDelete12:57 How are the taxpayers involved? Even the PTC that you falsely claimed was some sort of taxpayer funding of the project is expired. Solyndra was government funded. The Great Bay Project is completely investor funded so I am not sure what correlation you are trying to make there. If there is no usable power than no one would bid to buy it and there would be no project. However Pioneer has spent a lot to develop the project so there must be someone willing to buy power.
ReplyDelete1:13 I am not in on the oppositions current whims. Why they continue to spread false information about one business but not another is beyond me. My best guess is they are just nuts and not consistent. But anyone that claims that new businesses should be put to a referendum is anti-business.
ReplyDelete12:57 You are making no sense. "Rich politically connected?" Solyndra survived on government funding. Pioneer is privately funded. They do accept tax credits like pretty much every other business in existence, but they do not receive government funding. Also if your claims were accurate and Bowman was so politically connected why wasn't the PTC extended? You have claimed that somehow Pioneer is surviving on government money but all they have done is accepted tax credits that are now expired. You claim Bowman is politically connected and using government influence to drive his company but the PTC is expired. Do you just come up with this stuff without really thinking or do you avoid watching the news? I agree we should have a practical energy policy. Give everyone the same MW in tax credits and then fine for carcinogen emissions and force nuclear to pay the entire cost for the permanent storage of the radioactive waste. This wouldn't suit you however as wind, solar and hydroelectric would still then be very competitive.
ReplyDeleteOr the new plant will actually be good for Somerset County, unlike the wind farm.
ReplyDeleteAttempts are being made to extend the PTC or make it include already started projects.
ReplyDeleteBuyers do not buy "green" power voluntarily. Like Obamacare there are mandates. Some Maryland State Legislators want to increase the mandated share of "renewable energy" from 20 to 40%.
12:57, I agree with you entirely. I just hope Obama doesn't sign another unconstitutional executive order cancelling the 2016 elections and remain in power forever. I really don't think anyone in Washington has the ba$$s to do anything about it if he did. King Obama!
ReplyDeleteIt is so obvious that this project is a way for Obama to get money to his good buddy that helped him get elected who just happens to own a wind company. The argument is not about electric generation at all, we should be focused on government corruption and the waste of tax payers dollars.
ReplyDeleteI believe PG stated in a earlier comment that Milkulski and Hoyer broke the law by putting pressure on the DOD to stop this project. My question is if that is true is PG doing anything to have those two criminals prosecuted, if not why not? Is Washington completely out of control and can do anything without consequences?
ReplyDeleteI'd still like to know how to break a GB contract. It may not be possible but some would like to bail out of this mess.
ReplyDelete2:19 you don't seem to realize that PG is not just any business. I agree 99% of bossiness should not be put to referendum but when a company wants to come in and change the way of life for the entire county I think people should have a say in that. No matter what PG says, others have different opinions and ideas and a referendum should not automatically be ruled out. Why would any business want to come into a county when they know they are not welcomed? In this case a referendum seems appropriate.
ReplyDelete2:14 Did it ever occur to you that maybe people don't want to sign a petition? I haven't signed the petition and I do not have signs in my yard saying I'm against the project but that doesn't mean that I am not. I do not even "belong to Safe."Like 1:47 said, the more people learn about wind the more they dislike. That would be me.
ReplyDeleteI went to the forum because I wanted information and I knew that it was put on by Safe. If Pioneer Green had a forum, I would have gone to that also because I was looking for information. But they chose not to have a forum. Don't be mad at Safe because they actually reached out to the community like Pioneer should have done. Anyway, an agenda for Safe's forum was published and distributed in the mail ahead of time, so the people you talked to who "left in disgust over how one sided it was" knew before they went what they were going to. Even the billboard announced what the event was about, so your comment doesn't hold water. I'm sorry this event upset you, you should have come. It never hurts to see two sides of the story.
Before I conclude, I should mention that you are part of why I am now writing letters to the Commissioners expressing my displeasure with the idea of this project. You are seething with desperation and that alarms me. Put that together with Pioneer Green's statements at public meetings that if they can't have X on their terms then the project is dead tell me something about this project is very, very wrong. The wind energy center isn't about doing God's work and being a steward of the environment. This is all about making money and that is just wrong and sinful.
4:26 So based on your opinion that the wind project would change your way of life a business should be put to referendum? That makes a lot of sense. Any person or group can come forward and say that the scientific consensus is wrong and that a business would change their way of life and then the business should be put to referendum? Sorry your making less sense and sound just as anti-business.
ReplyDelete4:11 If your claims were at all true then why wouldn't the president order the DoD to retract their objection. If anything you said was in the least accurate then Pioneer would have all federal permits in hand.
ReplyDelete2:32 Once again check your information before you post. While Maryland does have a green energy mandate there is no mandate to buy power from Great Bay. If Great Bay cost more than the going rate of power then no one would buy it. Also not all states have Green energy Mandates. Kansas has no mandate and wind energy thrives so your theory that green energy only succeeds because somehow people are forced to buy it is very incorrect. Also what bill is currently in debate in D.C. to extend the PTC??
ReplyDelete2:27 I personally think 2.9 million in county revenues and over 1 million in economic increase would be great for the county.
ReplyDeleteClaiming that the Great Bay Wind project is privately funded is the biggest whopper yet. The US and MD governments load wind facilities and developers up with huge incentives such as the cash grant, which refunds the investors back 30%. There is also the PTC which provides 2.3 cents for each kw produced even if it is dumped, MD also pays the facility per kw produced, and then the renewable credits are sold to polluters. Ratepayers fill the gap for the higher cost of energy. Wind powers intermittency weakens the grid. For example if the wind is blowing at 15mph the power produced is weaker than if it blows at 30 mph. The grid has to constantly balance supply with demand which results in an inefficient system because 2 sources of power are required with wind, one of which is wasted. But even so, the ratepayers are charged for both sources.
ReplyDelete4:50 great post.
ReplyDeleteOn the components, you forgot the toxic rare earth minerals. Maybe you should look up the sludge lakes they have in China where they mine this stuff. The poor Chinese people who live near these toxic dumps are sick with diseases from their exposure.
ReplyDeleteThe fifty-some year old #3 man at FWS is sleeping with a 29 year old wind developer. No Joke. The FWS lawyer's name is Black.
ReplyDeleteSound familiar?
4:26 What is your case that Pioneer should not feel welcome. Aside from the couple hundred petition signers for SFS, many people welcome new business to the area. I am a bit confused on your criteria for a referendum. So if a fringe group bands together and insists that the business would "change their way of life" the elected officials should disregard science and declare a referendum? At the end of the day there is something you may not be familiar with called property rights. It is my right to do what I will with my land, same as you. Now those rights end when my usage would interfere with yours but then you must prove that somehow my exercise of my rights interferes with yours. There are a few people in SFS that have tried to make a case that somehow wind turbines interfere with property rights, but for the most part the opposition just demands the project be shut down on their say so. Wind turbines are generally zoned into agricultural/residential areas, the same as ours. All the claims made by SFS on property values, local approval and wildlife effects are easily refuted with peer reviewed research. So to argue that somehow the turbines would infringe on your rights and therefore be justified in being put to a referendum you first must be able to prove your case that your rights would be interfered with. SFS has been unable to do this in the two times Pioneer has been sent to the zoning board.
ReplyDelete4:50 I am not "hurt" by the propaganda forum at all. Having a one-sided forum to publicly broadcast nonsense is well within the oppositions rights. I just felt from what I heard that a little more honesty could have been included in what was being said. I think that is what made people leave. Many people read into the science ahead of time and when they arrive to hear someone declaring wind turbines cause seizures, wind turbines tank property values, wind turbines will decimate the eagle population all in contrary to a wide body of scientific literature I think some people got disgusted. When they saw SFS fly a plane overhead at 690ft 1000ft away despite that Great Bay was proposing turbines over 100ft shorter and the current proposed ordinance had much larger setbacks I think many people felt the rhetoric was overpowering any factual information available. I am also a bit perturbed about your comment that Pioneer didn't reach out to the county. Pioneer has tried to work to develop educational opportunities for local schools. The Great Bay Project has also had someone available that made it a point to not only answer all of my questions but to back up their claims with peer reviewed information. Quite a bit different than SFS. Even at the public hearing there were at least three people who spoke who had no affiliation with Pioneer. How many businesses have people with no affiliated speaking for them at public hearings in Somerset County? Despite what you claim I am not seething with desperation. I am a tad upset over a group that tells obvious lies, cannot bother to cite sources most of the time, publishes inaccuracies such as their phase one map, slanders and makes false accusations of corruption tearing this county apart and then claiming some sort of moral high ground. You talk about what is wrong and sinful. Making money is not wrong. Being a good businessman or woman is not wrong. Providing for ones family is not wrong. But the false accusations of corruption that SFS has put forward are wrong. The twisting of the truth such as what SFS has claimed will happen to birds and property values is wrong. I applaud you for not joining SFS. However you imply accusations of evil towards a company that has thus far operated in good faith while turning a blind eye to the slander and accusation's SFS has made. I do not think that turning a blind eye to all that SFS has done is God's work.
ReplyDelete6:02 All electric generation turbines require rare earth metals. Currently every form of electrical generation involves turbines except one, solar. Are you against every form of energy except solar now?
ReplyDelete5:58 Firstly there is no PTC right now it is expired. What cash-grant are you talking about? There is no cash grant available for utility scale wind and solar. If you continue to state that there is then provide a link to the RFP or funding budget line. All grants are documented so if you are not lying then this should be easy. I have never heard of Maryland paying the facility so provide proof of this also as I think you are outright lying again. The renewable credits you refer to are tax credits, EVERY business files tax credits and deductions. Are you saying that no business receiving a tax write off is privately funded? You talk about whoppers but your whole paragraph from claiming the PTC is active to claiming some cash-grant that no one has heard of to claiming renewable credits are anything but a tax credit is a false.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason we are supposed to believe the Jacobs France Istitute claim of 2.9 million in county revenues and over 1 million in economic growth. Studies show what their sponsors want to show.
ReplyDeleteThis was nothing but a piece of propaganda bought by Pioneer Greed. Nowhere do they mention the loss in tax revenues due to the undeniable loss of property taxes or the loss of the relatively pristine environment that people live here for. If they were once prestigous, they lost all claim by selling out for a few bucks on this project.
PG is wants to sell everyone down the river for money for their rich Texas investors.
6:04 Another unsubstantiated allegation of wrongdoing? You guys are getting a reputation for this.
ReplyDelete6:40 Pioneer has tried to work to develop educational opportunities for local schools . HOW MANY STUDENTS OWN THEIR HOMES AND PAY TAXES? I'm glad I have no children subject to that BS
ReplyDeleteWhere can I get a sign for my yard? How about a sticker from safe for somerset for my childs bookbag . I've seen one w/ a big x on the turbine . LOVED IT
ReplyDelete6:51 Scroll up and read several peer reviewed paper documenting no loss in property values. If you wish to dispute them then offer something more than you word, such as credible sources. The Jacobs France Institute is a very well known and respected program. They do not "sell" results as you claims or their prestige would disappear. They were paid to do a study. They did the study. They published their results. I am amazed that you would actually claim that we disregard all scientific and mathematical studies to follow your word. I am even more amazed that people actually do just that disregard all credible sources to blindly follow SFS.
ReplyDeleteThe PTC does not run out until December 31, 2016. Just the right amount of time for Pioneer Green to industrialize our county with turbines and solar panels.
ReplyDeleteUnsubstantiated? At a P&Z meeting, the board indicated that the latests revenue estimates were half what the Jacob France study suggested. Proponent Kevin Anderson stated that no one knew how the tax revenue would be calculated and actually expressed frustration over this. Paul Harris admitted the value may be half the original projection, but said the numbers didn't matter. Yet, PG guy keeps on throwing around 2.9 million dollar number from the original projection. Which is it?
ReplyDeleteProbably the best advice to void your lease with Pioneer Green is to file a false advertising. The leaseholders in TX are filing suit to terminate their leases on these grounds.
ReplyDeleteEverywhere there is wind, there are legal troubles. Many of these guys have gone out of business.
I am hearing rumors that is what is happening with the Crisfield Turbine.
6:53 You are criticizing a business for trying to be a good neighbor and do something for kids in the county? You are low.
ReplyDelete6:53 You are now against education because kids do not pay taxes? I'm glad you have no kids too.
ReplyDeleteYour peer reviewed documents are flawed because they do not recognize property's that are no longer marketable because of their proximity to wind. If you look closely at the Hoen study that Pioneer Green uses, you will see that properties within 2 miles indeed do lose value. The Hoen study tried to mask it by incorporated thousands of properties that were no where near wind facilities.
ReplyDelete@7:01 You are absolutely right! The reason people blindly believe easily dis-proven rhetoric is because they are blinded by jealousy and envy! They would rather Somerset continue in poverty than see their neighbors receive what they perceive as a windfall!
ReplyDelete@4:50 It's very interesting that you claim to know God's work. Could you cite any scripture references to back up your claim or do you claim to be a Prophet of God? Their are many references in the Bible to people making wise investment and working to better their life. Abraham the father of the Jewish people was one of the richest men in the world at that time. Jesus himself used parables referencing wise investment. I find it a sign of desperation of the opponents when after claiming negative health effects, massive bird kills, declining property values, higher electric prices and Germany's economic problems and having all these arguments refuted with cited references that now they claim wind energy is not the work of God.
ReplyDelete6:53 I am disgusted. One of the poorest counties in the nation. Many of our students cannot afford to go to college so elect not to or ramp up huge financial debt while going and you are going to criticize a business for trying to help. Even if you fully disagree with the business, even if you are anti-business, even if you cannot stand the thought of a business coming in to Somerset you should still respect them for trying to help our students. That you would speak negatively on their attempt to help Somerset's youth speaks volumes as to the type of person you are. While you speak so negatively on Pioneer for trying to do something for Somerset's youth let me inquire as to how many internships and scholarships you have provided for Somerset's next generation? 4:50 You criticize a company for trying to make a profit, a group of people trying to provide for their families, and yet I do not see any comments from you on this. The company you proclaim is evil for trying to make a profit (as all businesses do) but you are silent as other opposition members bad mouth the company for trying to do something good for the education system. You talk of God's work when your words are so hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteOnce extravagant, renewable power plans go cheap http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20150305-once-extravagant-renewable-power-plans-go-cheap.ece
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 4:50.
ReplyDelete6:14, do you not know the difference between "rights" and "way of life"?
ReplyDelete8:50 you can not see the forest for the trees. Do you really think PG cares anything at all about kids. Helping the children is a play right out of the democrat party playbook. It is so obvious why they are doing that that it is embarrassing.
ReplyDelete@8:11 Well I guess we have to refute this anti wind lie again! As has already been pointed out several times if you READ the Berkeley study done in Mass. It not only looked at property values but also frequency of property sales at close distances to turbines. It found turbines had NO effect on either. This was a very large (122000 property transactions) very well done study. The Berkeley Lab is one of the most respected research institutions in the world. You simply cannot find more reliable or better research on this issue anywhere. If you think you can please cite it!
ReplyDeleteThanks 8:07, it's good to know that others are trying to get out of a bad deal. I'm sure this will require a lawyer but it might be worth it in the long run.
ReplyDelete6:50 you really have a way with words. You always tell half truths. Why would you say there are no ptc "right now". Why not tell the whole truth and say something like the ptc has not yet been renewed by congress but it most likely will be. You make it easy for people not to trust you when you never tell the whole truth. You are obviously an over educated individual without any common sense.
ReplyDelete9:21 I do not think I can judge anyone's motives only their actions. I do know that a company was trying to do a great think for local youth. I also know that you have attacked them for trying to do a great thing. Do you criticize every company that tries to do good things for the community or just the ones you do not like?
ReplyDelete9:08 You do know rights are guaranteed right? If you have a problem with property rights you live in the wrong country.
ReplyDelete8:50 you are pathetic. Helping the children is nothing but a PR stunt from PG. Trying to convince people that you are something that you are not. Let's see how long you help them when your project dies. Keep throwing your money away if you want to, we like your money we just don't like windmills.
ReplyDeleteHow exactly is this project going to benefit anyone in this county living at poverty level incomes? How exactly does this project benefit ANYONE other than the lease holders willing to sell out the county to line their pockets? Half the people on the lease agreements would stick their nose in the air at the "poor people" they claim will benefit from from this whole deal." Someone commented that our areas natural beauty will not feed all the "starving children"...That is bullcrap because the schools give ALL students two free meals a day,there is even a program in the summer to feed kids when school is out AND more than one church or organization has food banks so stop trying to use " the poor starving children" fantasy to justify the sheer greed and inside deals.I hope the DOD NEVER lets this happen.I am sick of reading all the back and forth.The lease holders aren't doing dick to help poor people in this county,they prey on them and keep them poor.Its just Feudal county run by a select few families who look out for their own.
ReplyDelete8:50 I think the students in this county need to talk to some of the children living near the Shirley wind project. The land leasers should also be included . Let them hear how the INDUSTRIAL turbines have negatively affected their health and quality of life .
ReplyDelete@6:40 and 8:50--4 years- 4 million dollars I think pioneer should have TRIED when Dr. Miles was still here- not so sure that would fly now. Perhaps they need some-one other than all those lawyers on board. The retired school teacher on the zoning board that is worried about her retirement being paid may be available. She could spin how great the one at chs is.
ReplyDeleteWhats up w/ the Crisfield turbine. I guess I should ask why is it still down on the ground.
ReplyDeleteWhere ever wind is proposed there is massive opposition, which is worldwide. Your polls do not represent hard-working Americans who understand wind energy is not feasible nor reliable and it increases electricity costs while lowering property values.
ReplyDeleteThe mandate forces utilities to purchase renewables. Please Stop lying. States such as OH, WV, and NM are rolling back their renewable mandates because it forces higher utility rates on those who can least afford it.
ReplyDeleteLeo Lawson said the turbine at Crisfield High school generates one cent per day electricity. It cost $26,000. I wonder if the school system is teaching production and economics to the students. Pat Carson is a planning and zoning commissioner, voted to risk health and public safety so this project could move forward. She is the "science teacher" who had it installed.
ReplyDeleteI have to chuckle when I read this thread. We have those villifying business for making a profit (I thought that was what businesses did?), unsubstantiated comments about declining property values and increased energy costs, that those who have decided that wind energy could be beneficial to Somerset are nothing but greedy people who don't "give a dick" about the children in the county and a comment about a planning board member being concerned about her retirement being paid. You guys are so petty and desperate you make me laugh. Let me ask each of you - when was the last time you went to a public school and volunteered? When was the last time you talked to those teachers in the public schools who are dealing with 25 kids in a classroom trying to teach them while fulfilling the mandates that come from the government on education? When was the last time you talked to a child about how to break the cycle of poverty? And how do you plan to pay for the retirement costs (btw, those costs are the annual estimates of the CURRENT employees' cost to retire in the future, not the retirees currently being paid) that are being passed to the county with no revenue source? How do you plan to build a new vocational school or maintain the current buildings, including the County Office complex? How do you plan to attract and retain GOOD employees to work for the school system and the government. It is very easy to be against something, but harder to take the reality that many of us deal with daily and try to find a way to make it all work. If you look at the County's budget, you will see line after line of principal and interest payments - shall we try to borrow our way to prosperity? How do you think that is working for the country? At some point you have to stop being against and be willing to welcome industry and try to find compromise. You people aren't willing to have anything less than nothing, and don't think anyone should strive for more than nothing which is why the County is struggling.
ReplyDelete8:07 I know all about those GOOD NEIGHBOR = lease agreements= keep your mouth shut unless the energy co gives you written permission to talk. LOL
ReplyDelete