Sam Hopkins initial email to CWW

[Cohocton Wind Watch - Interactive Community]

Dear Cohocton Wind Watch,

While I appreciate your concern over the building of windmills in the
area, I have to question your motives. A few points to be considered:
1. Wind will never run out. (oil will) 2. Change is good. We all need
change in our lives at some point, it can be hard to deal with but it
has to happen some time.
3. Future generations will thank us for thinking of them when they see
the investment in a basically infinite supply of power. Yes maintenance
could possibly cost in the future, but what is that cost compared to
being with out electricity in the near future? 4. Have you ever
traveled to California? They have wind farms there that stretch as far
as the eye can see, it's not ugly it's very beautiful. If you don't
like looking at them then don't. 5. Birds are smarter than to get
close to a large fan like blade moving rather slowly at the slowest of
wind speeds and sorta fast at higher speeds, but they aren't invisible.
6. Remember that wind is what is moving the blades of a windmill, they
aren't self-propelled. 7. Windmill technology has been around for
centuries.

Please stop and take a moment to think about these points. I'd rather
like to think that you will be an activist in areas of environmental
concern that are more useful in the future, such as agricultural run-off
into streams, and factories blatantly dumping toxic waste.

Thank you for your time,

Sam Hopkins
Sam H.

[Cohocton Wind Watch - Interactive Community]

CWW members are invited to reply to Sam Hopkins

Send in or post your own replies to Mr. Hopkins.

CWW - Interactive Community

[Cohocton Wind Watch - Interactive Community]

Sam Hopkins,

First, wind increases strain on grid everywhere it's placed, simply because of the intermittency of wind. NO oil is displaced by wind because so little oil is used to generate electricity. Every time one of the lies of the wind industry is revealed, they come up with a new lie; and they use your tax dollars and government bullying to perpetuate those lies.

Tom Tanton [[e-mail]]

[Cohocton Wind Watch - Interactive Community]

Sam Hopkins,
I am so sorry that you can't see the woods for the trees. You are just another poor duped taxpayer. These so called wind farms are the biggest scam since Enron collapsed. Who do you think are behind this bonanza ? Ex Enron personnel, of course. The very ones that escaped prosecution. Wind farms have been in Europe for the past twenty years. They don't work. They are too expensive compared to other power generating plants. They are not Green Power as you seem to believe. Wind turbines use electricity 24/7 for heating, cooling, computers, etc. Where do you think this electricity comes from ?

The next turbine, I don't think so. It comes from a power plants. This is green ? The only thing green is our taxpayer dollars from our wallets to the foreign investor coffers. If our Federal and State governments would stop the energy tax credits and subsidies they would'nt be here. That's where the money is, not in any electricity they may produce.
Why do you think the Europeans are selling them here ? They found out too late thet they were flushing money down the toilet.

They do not provide electricity when it is needed in the hot summer months. How many air conditioners are turned on right now in NYC ? If and when they produce any electricity and it can't be put into the grid, it is grounded. We as taxpayers have to pay for any KW's produced whether it goes into the grid or into the ground. This is Green Energy ? Not one fossil fuel, hydro, or nucular power plant has been decomissioned because of all the wind turbines erected. You say they save foreign oil ? Where do you think our oil is used in this country ? 95 % of it is used in vehicles for gasoline, diesel fuel, and home heating. You say future generations will thank us for wind turbines. I don't think so. I feel sorry for the younger generations that will be saddeled with debt for the rest of their lives with nothing in return.

I have a brother who lives in Darmstadt, Germany for the past thirty years. He tell me they are very noisy and a visual pollution. The people that live near them are sueing the wind companies for noise, visual pollution damages. Their electric bills are out of sight. I hope they win. Have you ever heard of the Darmstadt Manifesto ? I would suggest that you Google it and find out the real truth about industrial wind turbines. Can one hundred scientists be wrong and the
wind companies be right ?

Our property taxes in the Town of Cohocton have doubled, our electric bills are out of sight, and our property values have decreased all because of our Great Wind Farm Project thanks to our wonderful town government and a foreign entity called UPC. If you are so enthralled with wind turbines in California, I will personally give you $100 for a one way ticket out here.

Charles Kota, Cohocton, N.Y.

[Cohocton Wind Watch - Interactive Community]

Charles Kota,

Maybe I'm wrong. If they are such a problem why did these landowners let the construction crews come on to their property, isn't this a rural area? I do think that it's possible to have wind powered homes, but from the amount of replies about the larger ones, I may be starting to change my mind. (about the industrial size turbines) Wouldn't smaller less expensive turbines work for each individual home? I'm not enthralled by the sight of turbines in California, and I don't want to live there either. (too many earthquakes)

I'm learning a lot from these replies, and will gladly do more research. If I can see some solid evidence of $$$$ going overseas, I may change my mind. Words in an email don't cut it, neither do newspaper articles on a website. I asked another one of the CWW proponents for a copy of one of these contracts that people are being made to sign. I'm really curious. Most people don't sign things before reading them. Sad. I promise to do more research.

Sam Hopkins

[Cohocton Wind Watch - Interactive Community]

James Hall,

I shouldn't let this keep me up at night, but it has. The letter I wrote to the editor *was* published in last night's edition of The Evening Tribune, I was happy. It is meant to be a generally pro-wind letter. Ill-conceived or not, corrupt or not it doesn't matter. The wind-mills are being built regardless. The points I made can apply to any wind project. They are common-sense things that most people agree with, I've spoken to several area residents and most are pro-wind. Here's something to consider, whether the money comes from foreign companies, or from the kindest of philanthropists, it's still taking strain from our already burdened east-coast grid. It's saving oil no matter how you look at it. Energy investment of any kind is welcome. Perhaps the foreign LLC's have the right idea. These foreign companies are taking your land without compensation? Do you have lawyers? Maybe you should be negotiating with them to use the space for solar panels to supplement the wind. Or perhaps to grow soy for ethanol. If the power is being sent to NYC so be it. If it is being sent somewhere else so be it. As to how loud they are, and reduction of property values plant some trees around your houses, this will block some of the noise. As to concerns of pollution caused by construction and erosion, grass grows back even if not planted. Yes, there are other forms of alternative energy. How many small windmills do you think it would take to power a town the size of Cohocton? How many the size of the ones being built? Are the costs comparable? Will these projects pay for themselves in the future? How many solar panels? How about their cost-effectiveness? This region is known for how cloudy it is. Geo-thermal? Want to ante up some money to drill some geothermal wells? How cost effective are they? Where will the money come from? Steuben County? Most likely not. This is a rural county and depressed as it is, gas prices are making it worse. All of these alternative forms of energy will still take up space, and will probably still need setbacks. Ask the companies for proper compensation, other wind companies have contributed in other states. :-)

Sam Hopkins

[Cohocton Wind Watch - Interactive Community]

Sam Hopkins,

Read the CWW byline: Citizens, Residents and Neighbors concerned about ill-conceived wind turbine projects in the Town of Cohocton and adjacent townships in Western New York.

Cohocton Wind Watch introduced a C-Bed model for a small project. The UPC Project and town officials have entered into an unholy allianace. At the cire is a culture of corruption.

As to your points, you are dead wrong as to the FACTS. Why not support other forms of alternative energy and forget about industrial wind, and look to small wind generation unites that wouldl do more for individuals. Cohocton has never proved there is enough wind in our area.

You ask me to think about your points. I have, and they fail because they fall short of the reality of the foreign schme to defraud taxpayers.

James Hall

[Samuel Hopkins]

Hello everyone. Let me introduce myself by attempting to clarify my position on wind power. A few of the points in the above letter have been intelligently rebutted by members of this group. These are: Numbers 3, 5, and 6. I am still of the position that wind is a basically infinite supply of power waiting to be taken advantage of. Change is a good thing. This was sort of replied to in one of the emails below. Change is good when it makes sense. The California windfarms were built a few years ago, as they start to age, I'm sure more of them will break down. There is a certain symmetry to them though. All of the blades turning. Perhaps not beautiful, but amazing nevertheless. Yes, California has brownouts. Wind isn't exactly the most reliable of things for energy, I concede this point also. As to birds being struck by the moving blades, I still have to question how smart these birds are. Especially when the turbines are as spread out as they will be in Cohocton. The occasional bird carcass will just feed scavengers. Get your shotguns out. ;)

There are *many* different alternative energy sources out there, and new ones being developed. What I would like to propose is that we consider a combination of industrial wind with either geothermal, solar, and hydro. New York state has a plentiful supply of hydro, Niagara Falls. Some of the electricity I use comes from there now, and it is inexpensive.
Let's face it, the Cohocton wind turbines are already being built. Sad but true, I have talked to some of my European friends and they say the same thing about turbines, they are built on taxpayer's $$$$$$$$$ and don't work as well as the majority of us (the exceptions being this group and other activist groups around the world) have been brainwashed to think.

When I wrote this letter, I didn't know as much as I do now, and I thank you for ALL of your replies, they have been very educational. This was sort of the point of my letter. I wanted to know more, and if I am convinced enough, I will send another letter to the editor stating my new position. I have promised below to do more research, and to read, read, read, as Katherine Bush has recommended.

[Cohocton Wind Watch - Interactive Community]

Dear Mr. Hopkins,

Your neighbor Jim Hall suggested I write to you to "set you straight," and I hope you're not offended but I'm taking this opportunity to tell you how and why I became skeptical of pro-wind opinions, and I hope you'll hear me out.

I am an environmental attorney in rural western New York and I limit my practice to public interest cases. For that reason I don't work for corporations.

I few years ago a group opposed to a wind farm in the county to the north asked me get involved in their cause. I met with them but I didn't buy it. I could not overcome my feeling that wind power has got to be good and, while I think generally NIMBY groups are driven by reasonable concerns, I couldn't find enough reason in this one. I said no thank you, I would not get involved.

Last year a good friend of mine in another neighboring county contacted me about a wind farm proposal in his town. I knew he was very emotionally attached to his land and the peace and quiet it provides. I went up there to meet with his group and learned the town board had already made up their mind and were boosting the project.

My friend teaches college and has a Ph.D, so I knew he wasn't stupid. He had learned a lot about the project, a 67-turbine wind plant, connected to another 67-turbine plant recently approved in the neighboring town, where 400-foot high 1.5 MW turbines were being installed. One or two would be placed on a ridge right above his house, about 1,000 feet away. He showed me that he would likely experience at least 50 decibels of noise all night when they were running, and the existing noise level is about 30 decibels during the daytime, less at night. He showed me health studies and standards that address symptoms some (not all) people develop over time when exposed for long periods to noise levels like that. I've since learned that city noise ordinances commonly limit maximum allowed noise from projects to 50 decibels at a residential property line. He did not want to live in an urban noise environment.

But several of his neighbors had signed easement agreements with the wind developer for about $2,000, with a promise to get about $2,000 annually for each turbine that goes up on their land. My friend would have not just two on the ridge above his house, but several all around.

In fact, a 67-turbine wind farm requires 5 or 10 thousand acres of land. Each turbine requires excavation, roads, a massive concrete anchor. There isn't any screening their visual and noise impacts because they spin high above the trees. But the dirty secret is that for all the adverse impacts, they don't really produce much electricity. This is what really shocked me.

The operator of the state electricity grid in New York is NYISO, which assigns a capacity credit to each power source. Nuclear gets a credit of close 100% of its rated capacity, coal-burning plants get 80% to 100%, but wind gets 10%. According to NYISO its the least reliable source of energy on average. That means over the course of a year, NYISO expects to rely on a 60-turbine wind farm with 1.5 MW rated turbines (or 90 MW of electricity) to produce only 9 MW. Nuclear and coal-burning plants generally produce at a rate of 300 MW. When you start to work out the numbers the result is shocking: to generate as much as one conventional power plant, you'd need over 30 wind plants! That's 150,000 to 300,000 acres of land.

Many people think they look nice. Some, like Governor Spitzer, who are especially keen on anything that's modern, look at industrial wind turbines and all they can see is progress. But I think it's a sham. Congress is fighting right now over whether to extend the Production Tax Credit to wind and some other renewable energy sources. This tax subsidy provides 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for wind, the largest share of a host of subsidies without which the industry would die. The Union of Concerned Scientists (which is promoting wind) has a chart showing how wind plant installations track the availability of this credit: when the credit is lost, few wind plants go up. The reality is they make more money from the tax breaks and subsidies than they do selling electricity.

In New York wind plants don't really sell electricity. Under current law, NYSIO must pay each wind plant that comes on line the "avoided cost" amount, the amount it would cost NYSIO on the wholesale market. Wind plants therefore face no competition. By law, they get paid the going rate.

Its gets worse. When wind plants generate electricity, NYISO has to ask other power generators to reduce their power generation rate to balance the grid, so we don't get surges in some areas and brownouts in others. But when a coal-burning plant runs at less than full capacity, it actually generates more air pollutants per unit of power. Coal power plants run most cleanly when they're at full capacity. So wind has this perverse result that it actually increases greenhouse gases among its less modern cousins.

It's even worse. Because wind is intermittent (that's why NYISO gives it a 10% capacity credit), we can never rely on wind to displace a single conventional power plant. We need all the reliable, dirty plants (except maybe nuclear, but we haven't figured out what to do with the waste) running in the background so the lights go on anytime we hit the switch. That's what Europe learned: in 25 years of aggressive use of wind, European countries have not dispensed with a single conventional power plant.

But the Europeans are also ahead of us on another side of the issue: they've started banning land installations of wind power plants because of all the complaints about noise. Today they only promote off-shore wind.

That's why European wind energy investors have come here: we don't yet get it, and we have (they think) lots of vacant land. Really what we have (at least in New York) is unsophisticated rural town boards placed in the unenviable position of being the primary regulator for a new industry. There are no comprehensive state regulations that govern these projects. Towns must make the determination whether the impacts outweigh the benefits. Rural towns are easy prey because they're all strapped for cash and generally don't see a major project to which they can say no. More often than not, town board members know people who have already signed easements with the wind developer and think any money that comes to town is good money. They're unlikely to vote against their friends' wallets.

Others think, when they drive through the 200-turbine wind farm on the Tug Hill Plateau, they are in the midst of an industrial experiment or an Orson Wells movie. (To get the 200-ton crane into each site required six feet of gravel bedding for each access road; when they were done they dug that up, replaced it with one foot, and used the bedding to repair the local roads they'd destroyed; the developer left and the whole project takes two or three minimum-wage maintenance workers to keep going.) The people who live there mostly don't like it. There and the two communities where I have clients fighting wind projects have become divided and fractured, with a small number getting paid nicely while everyone else feels the impacts without compensation. Neighbors against neighbors, people call their old friends wind huggers or sell-outs. Might as well live in the city.

It's a lot more complicated than even I can say here. And I haven't said anything about the traditional environmental impacts on drainage patterns, roads, wildlife habitat, birds and bats. But I have attached a detailed analysis of the economics of wind power which good people around the country helped me with. Feel free to pass it around.

And here's a link to the brief I just wrote for my friend. You'll get the most from the section on "factual background," as it's a story that's a lot like what's going on all around New York. The behavior of the developer and the town board in this story is reprehensible. I hope that's not how people are behaving in your town.

My best,

Gary Abraham

--
Gary A. Abraham, Esq.
170 No. Second St.
Allegany, New York 14706
[phone]
http://www.garyabraham.com

[Cohocton Wind Watch - Interactive Community]

Mr. Hopkins,

Some thoughts on your correspondence with Mr Hall.

The further one walks into the tangled forest that is wind energy the more one finds evidence of deception and greed.
You seem to have a lot of questions. Here's a few more...

How many of the meetings between the public and town/ develpment/wind/ board of ed meetings have you been to?
When you listen closely to what is being said do you consider the content, tone and intention?
Do you feel that all elements of the discussion are transparent and open or do you feel like me, perplexed by the behaviors and attitudes of those given the public trust and the immense responsibility that this portends.

While in attending a meeting of the Steuben County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) in which they were to vote on PILOT plans for Prattsburgh and Cohocton, armed guards arrived at the doorway. Would you find this odd or comforting? Now there is question worth answering.

Have courage to look through what you believe and into what is true.

It's a big world out there.

Jim Barbour

[Cohocton Wind Watch - Interactive Community]

Open letter to Mr. Hopkins:

Allow me to respond to the points you made recently regarding wind turbines.

1. Wind will never run out. (oil will)>

Yes, we'll run out of oil. But that is irrelevant in any discussion regarding the generation of electricity. Just the mention of it shows you've put little effort into understanding the topic. Our oil consumption is largely in transportation.

In America very little electricity is generated by burning oil. I think the figure amounts to about 3%. Most of the oil used is poor quality and of no use for anything else. If you wish to help reduce our dependency upon oil start planning your shopping wisely to minimize time on the road. Buy a fuel efficient auto or a motorcycle.

Avoid the mythical savings with ethanol fuel blends. They're a farce dwarfed only be the size of wind turbines. Corn is perhaps the worst possible choice for ethanol production. In the growing and transporting of the corn fuel is expended. The alcohol manufacturing process is fuel consuming. Diverting it from food to fuel drives up the price of food. Using it in cars not intended to burn it will damage engine seals. It has less energy per gallon than gasoline. Your fuel mileage will suffer.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2008/2008-01-25-insbro.asp

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/corn-ethanol-biofuel-or-...

http://www.fuel-testers.com/ethanol_engine_precautions.html

Consider walking or bicycling too.

What you should mention running out are the fossil fuels that are actually used in the majority of our generating facilities. Particularly coal and gas.

They'll run out and we'll find that our ever increasing hunger for electricity will only be met by using nuclear power.

What little power we can hope to squeeze from the wind will be dwarfed by our increase in consumption.

Eventually nuclear will be our only hope. Why not admit this now and not blot our landscape with thousands upon thousands of wind turbines that won't really contribute to any solution?

I DO walk and ride bike. I also USE fluorescent lights in as many fixtures as possible. The main problem with ethanol is that we are using the WRONG type of crop to produce it. What about the miles and miles of abandoned farmland here in New York and other depressed East Coast states? Shouldn't we be using them for ethanol production, our economy would probably pick up then.

2. Change is good. We all need change in our lives at some point, it can be hard to deal with but it has to happen some time.>

Yes, change is good. Turn off the lights when you leave the room for a change. Insist that your place of employment not run all the office lights while the place is closed for a change. Consider fluorescent lighting as a substitute for incandescent lighting for a change. Be mindful of the mercury in those fluorescent lights though. We need to work on recycling that for a change.

Yes. I do use them.

Insist that elected officials not jet around the country when teleconferences would suffice. How many tons of carbon do you think the current crop of presidential hopefuls have dumped into the atmosphere? This is at high altitudes where it has more impact than surface dumping. Read up on that along with the rest of this stuff that you clearly don't understand.

Buy a smaller car. Oooops, I already mentioned that.

That is my prerogative. Good idea though.

3. Future generations will thank us for thinking of them when they see the investment in a basically infinite supply of power. Yes maintenance could possibly cost in the future, but what is that cost compared to being with out electricity in the near future?>

You left off intermittent from your description. That is the largest flaw associated with wind. Not noise, not property value loss, not view shed loss, not the killing of birds and bats, none of that. Although I don't want to discredit those components as they are all very important.

The intermittency of wind is its biggest failing. It must have back up power supply. Otherwise the power fluctuations will create problems for the grid. If that back up is nuclear or hydro then why not just use them all the time? If that back up is fossil fuel generated power IT CANNOT SIMPLY BE TURNED OFF. THIS IS A POINT THAT YOU AND YOUR ILK REFUSE TO SEE OR UNDERSTAND. IF YOU CANNOT TURN THE COAL FIRED PLANTS OFF THEY ARE STILL BELCHING OUT POLLUTION. THE TURBINES SPIN AND PRODUCE ELECTRICITY WHILE THE FOSSIL FUEL FIRED PLANTS BURN FUEL TO SUPER HEAT WATER TO SPIN MASSIVE STEAM TURBINES THAT DRIVE MASSIVE GENERATORS. THIS ENTIRE PROCESS HAS TO BE UP AND RUNNING BEFORE THE WIND DIES AND THE TURBINES STOP TURNING. WHEN DO THE TURBINES STOP TURNING? WHEN THE WIND STOPS BLOWING ADEQUATELY TO TURN THEM. WHEN DOES THE WIND STOP BLOWING? WHEN IT BLOODY WELL FEELS LIKE IT. SO THE FOSSIL FUEL FIRED PLANT YOU ARE TRYING TO TURN OFF IS STILL SPINNING AWAY.

Maybe you should read the points I've posted on the CWW forum about this. I've already acknowledged that wind isn't the most reliable and put forth a solution.

If this concept is still above your head go out and purchase a portable generator driven by a gasoline engine. Fire it up but don't plug anythng in. There you have it, a mini-fossil fuel plant sitting there burning fuel but not actively supplying electricity to anything.

ALL OF THIS RAMPING UP AND DOWN OF FOSSIL FUEL FIRED PLANTS REDUCES EFFICIENCY. Think of going from point A to point B in your car. If you hold steady at 60 mph you will consume less fuel than you will if you average 60 mph by constantly accelerating and declerating from 50 to 70 and back to 50 mph.

I know this. Maybe you should be sending emails to the power company executives, instead of wasting energy writing to someone who has no power in this respect.

4. Have you ever traveled to California? They have wind farms there that stretch as far as the eye can see, it's not ugly it's very beautiful. If you don't like looking at them then don't. >

Okay, you like them. Have a small one erected on your property. Use it to supplement your electricity. You can even set up a bank of batteries to store electricity in while you're not using it if you'd rather do that than sell it to the utility in your area. Bear in mind the battery pack to store electricity for a conventional wind plant would be quite massive and impractical before you even think about that as a solution to intermittency.

Good idea, they can be supplemented with solar panels and kinetic energy.

Don't be so bold as to insist that I have to let some greedy developer build them uncomfortably close to my home where I'll be subjected to an endless reminder of the pitiful waste of space, time, and effort that they really are. I used to think they were a good idea. Then I took the time to learn about reality. I don't like them. I went to the ones in Tucker County West Virginia. They're imposing noisy structures.

5. Birds are smarter than to get close to a large fan like blade moving rather slowly at the slowest of wind speeds and sorta fast at higher speeds, but they aren't invisible.>

You really don't understand these things at all do you? Blade tips reach speeds approaching 200 mph. From a distance they look slow. If you know how to, calculate the blade tip speed of a 120 foot long blade turning at 20 rpm.

Birds haven't evolved with wind turbines so they aren't "smart" enough to avoid them. In fact many die from strikes. In particular migratory birds and birds of prey. Look up Altamont while you're enjoying California turbines. They've slaughtered a lot of birds of prey.

http://actionnetwork.org/BIODIVERSITY/notice-description.tcl?newsle...

NO REALLY, these are stupid birds if they CAN'T see a 120 ft blade.

Then there are bats. Don't be fooled by wind shill bat experts telling you they are no threat to feeding bats. They aren't a threat to feeding bats. Feeding bats fly well below the turbine blades. They use sonar to navigate while feeding. Unfortunately when they migrate they don't use sonar and they fly well into blade heights. And they die. By the thousands. Look into bat kills at Mountaineer. http://www.wvmcre.org/neg_imapcts/turbineskillbats.htm

Bats aren't at all like birds in their reproductive behavior. It takes them much longer to recover from dents made in their population. The effects of one wind generation facility will make a notable dent. The combined effects of thousands of turbines placed in groupings in the mountains of the eastern US will wipe species from the face of the earth. Think of the resulting blooms in insect populations and the zoonotic diseases they carry. Zoonotic diseases are those that affect humans as well as animals.

http://www.batcon.org/home/index.asp?idPage=55&idSubPage=32

http://www.batcon.org/home/index.asp?idPage=91&idSubPage=62

Ok, set up bat repellent ultra-sonic devices near them. Hmmmmmmm???

6. Remember that wind is what is moving the blades of a windmill, they aren't self-propelled.>

Why you felt a need to make this point is beyond me. Stunning. I'll respond anyway.

Remember that wind doesn't blow with any predictability. If it is too fast the blades have to be locked down to avoid damage. If it is too slow the blades won't turn unless electricity is run through the generator to keep them turning. A generator and an electric motor are one and the same design. Spin it by some outside means and get electricity. Run electricity to it and it spins. They really do run current through them to keep them moving as this allows them to function at lower wind speeds due to the fact it takes higher wind speeds to get them started. That electricity has to come from somewhere. Where do you think it comes from?

I know how generators work. I know how wind turbines work too. So you are telling me that these things are HUGE fans?

7. Windmill technology has been around for centuries.>

Yes, it has and it has been stagnant. Only recently has it been used to attempt to generate electricity on a large scale. This has caused problems in Europe. It has provided no benefit in terms of reducing carbon emissions anywhere. I have yet to see any evidence that it has. It can't for reasons I stated above.

Power grids are complex and massive machines. Wind generating facilities place a strain upon them that results in the need for thousands of miles of new transmission lines just to allow for all the shunting of loads back and forth. More damage to the environment. Those transmission lines don't just sprout out of the ground.

They are used to pump water. And still used in many places.

Please stop and take a moment to think about these points. I'd rather like to think that you will be an activist in areas of environmental concern that are more useful in the future, such as agricultural run-off into streams, and factories blatantly dumping toxic waste.

Thank you for your time, Sam Hopkins

We ARE actively focusing on facilities that can and do adversely affect the environment. The construction process alone has the potential to destroy springs and cave systems. The siting of them fragments forests. Run off is generated that threatens to flood areas. One wind plant may be insignificant. But any quantity of them to actually contribute to our power demand will have cumulative effects that need to be looked into prior to proceeding ahead full steam.

I really think you need to read my replies on the CWW forums. Erosion can be prevented by simply planting grass. Leachate can be treated. There are regulations for this.

Please stop and take the time to actually learn about the subject before you form an opinion.

Thank you for your time,

Jimmy Tragle D.V.M.

[Cohocton Wind Watch - Interactive Community]

Dear Mr. Hopkins,

I apologize if you feel attacked. I do understand why you'd feel that way from my wording. I do find it somewhat difficult to maintain diplomacy at times. This is due to what I've been experiencing for the last two or three years due to the threat of having a wind faclity constructed immediately uphill from property I own.

My intent was to retire to this property to live off the land for as long as I am able. The push for wind power is quite premature over here. It is horribly deficient for what it claims to do. Set back rules are sadly absent. I located a European company that is involved in developing wind plants. That company makes recommendations for a 2 km set back (about 1.2 miles or so) yet my retirement home will be located much closer to about 20 of the proposed turbines.

I set about to learn about these things. I've heard much about wind turbine syndrome and learned a lot about wind behavior to find out that the noise generation is worse while people are trying to sleep due to atmospheric conditions that prevail during those hours. I then took a trip to the Tucker County location and found out that the rumors were true. It is a racket that permeates your body in a tactile fashion, not just in an auditory fashion.

However, I think you've stretched things a bit referring to this as an ad hominem attack. This implies I've attacked your factual claims with non-factual arguments. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Your first point ties oil consumption to electrical generation. This is a false premise as I've pointed out that we use little oil to generate electricity. I agree with your general premise that the fuel will eventually run out. It will definitely run out. Unfortunately in the process of running out of it we humans will exact a nasty toll upon the environment in digging it up. Sadly no effort to change our electrical generation will stop this as the coal is readily marketed all over the globe. China being a major potential customer.

I then went on to assault ethanol as an alternative fuel and provided links supporting this. More factual information. Sadly, and again, we'll not see to what we should be doing. Our president has given the US automakers until 2020 to get fuel economy to where we should be demanding it be right now. Instead we get the E10/E85 diversion so we can drive about in gas guzzling behemoths guilt free. We'll pay for this mistake in high food prices and no net gain against carbon output. I am quite mechanically inclined and understand the ramifications of alcohol in older vehicles as well as all motorcycles and, until more recent manufacturing changes, boats. Marine engine manufacturers have finally caught up with automotive engine technology for safe guarding seals from alcohol destruction.

Yes, you are correct about using other crops. Actually hemp and switchgrass are two excellent choices. Hemp is illegal mainly for political reasons rather than logical ones. There's a whole 'nother argument there. Regardless, the amount of savings that we'll get from using ethanol doesn't, in my opinion, justify the effort. Forcing manufacturers to produce more fuel efficient cars would provide much more fuel savings. I am hesitant to jump on the hybrid car bandwagon too. Those batteries exact a heavy environmental price. My wife's 4 cyl 5 speed Solara is just as fuel efficient as the Camry hybrid. Color me confused. I live peacefully in the knowledge that the disasters of nickel and cadmium mining contributed very little to the construction of her car. She gets 34 mpg city. I get infinity mpg on my walk to work!

Point 2 (yikes, all this and I've only just made it to point 2) - it appears you and I are in agreement here. I do worry about the mercury in fluorescent lighting. Currently there appears to be not one bit of effort to recycle. I am also quite annoyed with the waste in cities. If you've ever flown a red-eye flight you can see the waste in light pollution from large cities. I have to wonder how many tons of coal are wasted in one night in NYC alone.

Point 3 - I haven't actually been to the website. I got wind (pun intended) of your comment via e-mail requesting a response. Which I did as you can see.

Point 4 - I'm not entirely certain what direction you're going here but I assume it to be small scale operations. That is precisely where wind turbines do work. Personal consumption. Actually I think solar is a better choice as it is much more predictable for obvious reasons. Overcast days don't fully eliminate it. Unfortunately this is costly to individuals like us. I have my suspicions that these things aren't receiving attention at the federal level that they should due to lobbying for things like wind power in order to shift money (the only thing green about large scale wind plants) into the hands of those in need of it the least. This is all the brain child of Enron. Follow the paper trail. We're just so many schmucks out here and in need of separation of the church of federal reserve notes and state.



Point 5 - here you are potentially in over your head arguing with me. I am a veterinarian with a great deal of experience treating wild life, particularly birds of prey. They don't see things quite the way we do. They slam into fencing while dive bombing mice along fence lines. Their eyes don't pick up on things like wires from the great distances that they see the movement of prey. You'd think that would let them spot a huge turbine blade. But it doesn't. That is no measure of intelligence. The phenomena is known as motion blur. Those blades are really moving quite fast even though they appear to be moving slow from a distance. As I mentioned, tip speeds reach 200 mph at peak rpm. The swept area of the rotors exceeds an acre! They simply do not see them coming. Add to that is that many of the strikes occur at night. This is an absolute for bats. We simply cannot expect animals to view man made structures the way we do.

Your idea of bat repellant is being worked on. To date nothing has succeeded. Ultrasonic isn't going to cut it. Fish around with the bat links I provided and you'll see they've yet to crack this. Also of note is that FPL the owner of the facility they set out to study in 2004 has backed out and won't let them on site to further their work. Once the high mortality rates came up it was off limits. Sad way to be cooperative don't you think?

I also mentioned that it isn't just blade strikes that pose a threat. We've got numerous bat caves in the area that are important in hibernation and breeding. The blasting out of foundations and the construction of transmission lines have a great potential to destroy or alter these to such an extent that they're lossed as far as the bats are concerned. I've never seen a mosquito on the farm believe it or not. That will quite well change should these things get through in the numbers the developers wish.

Point 6 - "So you are telling me that these things are HUGE fans?" No, I am telling you there is parasitic load with wind turbines. In addition to being able to power the turbine via the generator used as a motor there are many other parasitic load sources. Unfortunately the turbines are metered for consumption so one can only make an educated guess about this. Still it subtracts from claims don't you think?

It has been predicted from a report sponsored by the German government and all involved industry that Germany's nameplate capacity for wind will reach 48 GW by 2020. Unfortunately this will only equate to 2 GW of stable fossil fuel. Less than 4.2% of nameplate! How that looks appealing to anyone is beyond me.

The same report discusses Denmark. You may have heard that Denmark boasts a large wind generation of about 20%. The truth is that this amounts to 20% of power generated, not consumed in Denmark. In 2004 Denmark exported 80% of the power it generated to Norway. Norway generates 98.5% of its electricity with hydro. This resulted in a carbon savings of nil.

November 4, 2006 Europe experienced a massive black out. Wind generation was given major credit for this.



Point 7 - I know they're used to pump water. They're useful for work that doesn't need to be locked into a schedule, like generating electricity for a grid.

As for your comments regarding CWW I'll have to give them a gander. Oh JOY! While composing this letter I tried to find the discussion you've mentioned. All I have to say is dial up is horrible. Can you provide a link please?

As for your comment regarding erosion, that isn't the full basis for my concern. Clearing the quantity of forest to install them creates a water runoff problem. One 50 turbine plant isn't of the greatest concern. That 50 turbine plant would cover some 6.4 miles of ridge top for a swath at least 800 feet wide. Then there are associated access roads and transmission lines. Once we reach a saturation level to create grid disturbances that cause the things seen in Europe we'll see we need to introduce thousands of miles of new transmission lines to handle the loads created by shunting things around to make up for drop outs of power when wind dies and transporting it when produced in excess. There is a mismatching of availability of wind generation and demand for power. Peak production occurs at night in the fall and spring. Peak demand occurs during hot summer days.

Anyway, back to runoff concerns. The cumulative effect of hundreds of wind facilities located in the eastern US mountains will create massive runoff of water that would ordinarily be absorbed by the forests that will be destroyed in the process of building the sites. Planting grass may prevent erosion but the water will still flow down hill rather than getting drawn into the ground where it supplies springs. Incidently, my farm in West Virginia relies completely upon springs for water. We have concerns about losing them due to foundation construction. The developers have had rather slap dash approach to quelling our concerns.

When all of that water comes crashing down it picks up particulate matter on its way to the mountain streams where it will eventually and quite rapidly settle. These streams will swell and run on into larger and larger streams until they flood out the Potomac River. The suspended sediments will cloud the water and destroy fish. This has a cascade effect into the local economy that relies on fishing, hiking, and other outdoor recreation. It isn't just about erosion.

I knew none of this 3 years ago. I thought wind turbines were a good thing. Since then I've lost countless hours of sleep. I've read thousands of pages pro and con on the subject and related topics. I've spent thousands of dollars on my retirement property (don't be fooled by the fact that I'm a vet - we tend to not be the best paid of the medical fields - I'm doing well enough but the thought of being driven off the farm is a bit annoying). I've also spent a fair bit of money hiring experts and contributing to legal funds on these matters.

I caution you on taking the information put forth by the developers about wind turbines. I've seen them in action first hand and it is quite sad how good they are at squelching the truth in court. The consultant that they use for bird impacts always concludes no harm will come. He admitted in court that he'd never advised against a site for any of his clients. Is it unreasonable to think that a bird expert would find fault on occasion for the siting of these facilities? After all, great pains have been made to indicate that impacts such as these are taken into account in siting facilities.

Their bat experts gave conflicting testimony. Thankfully the PSC took note. One of them lied about his credentials. He had students aid him on setting up some of his work. High school students. He admitted to this in another hearing in another state but denied it in ours.

Our sound expert got demoted from expert witness even though, according to definition later found, he was. His sound analysis takes various atmospheric conditions that I alluded to earlier into account. Their don't. They even attempt to claim that ambient sound levels in quiet country hills are 50 dB when they're accurately measured at below 25 dB.



I hope my comments here have been less insulting.

Respectfully,

Jimmy Tragle D.V.M.

[Constance Estevez]

Hello Sam,


First of all, I DO live in California, and do NOT enjoy the sight of the wind turbines. One minute, I am enjoying the beautiful and natural environment of S. California (or, what's LEFT of it) and the next minute, these HUGE turbines are coming at me like the storm troopers in a STAR WARS film. It puts a damper on a person's good mood. They are repulsive. Secondly, IF they DID actually bring ENOUGH wind power to actually MAKE a positive difference, hey, we would adjust to it......but they DO NOT. THIRD : Birds are dying AND people are dying. How is that, you ask? It's like this, Sir, and read this VERY carefully. EVERYTIME someone with some cash behind them steps in, rules change and voices are not heard. When people protest the wind/industrial complex/money-making/green terrorist MACHINE, THIS happens: UPC, their lapdog attorneys, and others of their ilk, attack them through the force of the wallet and aggression. These actions hurt these protesters both mentally AND physically, by hurting their health, livelihood, and peace of mind. Do the math.

By the way, I am witnessing indoctrination techniques at the local colleges. The McSlogans and McAds and McArticles are, if nothing else, quite entertaining..............but nobody ever has the REAL data handy. Get them while they are young, huh?


Constance Estevez, Los Angeles, CA