John Droz, Jr. sends this new item
In October of 2013, a major wind project was targeted for coastal North Carolina. I decided to use this as a test case for AWED’s model wind ordinance.
The results were excellent from the get-go.
For example, with no money and no organization behind this, we were able to:
— setup an informative website,
— get the media to oppose the project,
— get the majority of local citizens to oppose the project,
— get several major local organizations (e.g. Chamber of Commerce) to oppose the project,
— get essentially all our local and state legislators to oppose the project.
— get the two involved communities to draft comprehensive ordinances.
etc.
Note that none of this was easy, as there were numerous substantial obstacles to overcome. For example the Sierra Club conducted a major statewide campaign to support the wind project, and to discredit me and our efforts.
Despite the challenges we persisted.
This coordinated effort was too much for the developer, and last night they officially threw in the towel. (Here is a newspaper article.)… It took just 3± months of a focused campaign to win.
This came about because of two fundamental reasons:
1 – the developer realized that the involved communities would impose quality protections for citizens, businesses, the environment and the military, and
2 – the developer saw that there was very strong community (and thus legislative) support for those protections.
The protections (and the words for them), are spelled out in AWED’s model wind ordinance:
— 1 mile setbacks to property lines,
— 35 dBA turbine sound limits, at property lines, 24/7,
— a simple but powerful Property Value Guarantee,
— community controlled environmental tests,
— proper decommissioning funds and conditions, and
— an escrow account to pay for town expenses, maintained at $50k for the life of the project.
Probably the greatest frustration in my 35± years of environmental/energy work, is that when faced with such intrusions, that almost every community worldwide seems to basically try to reinvent the wheel.
I’m passing this on to you because I hope you can profit from our experiences. This was a community victory, and a superior example of what can be done elsewhere, when citizens work together in a constructive, productive way.
Consider this final thought: NC passed an RPS in 2007 mandating renewable (wind) energy. A half dozen major wind projects have been proposed since then. We have aggressively fought each of these, using AWED methodology — with no money. As of today there is not a single industrial wind turbine in the entire state.
Draw your own conclusions. See MUCH more at WiseEnergy.org.
regards,
John Droz, jr.
Physicist & Environmental Advocate
Morehead City, NC
And, wind turbines – in every power grid installation worldwide to date –
lowersraises my taxes and raises electrical costs and raises grid maintenance costs and raises conventional maintenance and support costs and makes the gridmoreless reliable but ALWAYS increases the government payments to democrats and their socialist-environmental-industrial complex supporters (GE, Enron, BP, Duke Power, Perot, Siemens, WWF, Greenpeace, etc.)This might add oil to your windfarm file
“interesting addition to this. the enviromentalist nuts who praise the windmills. who are now exempt from killing bald eagles.
we had a truck come in and make a rush delivery for us. rest of his truck was mobil 1 55 gallon drums of oil. i ask. “whats that for” driver says “them springfield windmills”
he makes a delievery every other week. the motors medium is oil. and because of the massive weight its needs to be replaced often. i had no idea they used that much oil.
so windmills use oil and kill bald eagles. W**. and now they gripe about the amtrak. holy peets. morons ”
(FYI Mobil 1 is a synthetic oil)
From comments at http://www.redpowermagazine.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=84772
Steve from Rockwood says at February 1, 2014 at 10:31 am
Environmentalism is good. Caring for the natural world is the duty of all those who can do so. The abuse of the term by people who use the environment to push their own agenda is the problem. The children are worth caring for. But you know when someone say “Please, think of the children” that they are not on the level.
Activism is good. Taking action to make things better is the duty of all who can help. The lack of humility by those activists who cannot believe they may be in error are the problem. They become zealots and bigots.
So Environmental Advocates are not necessarily your opponent. Judge the individual not the generality.
Fake energy savings. All a money scam from you to thee. Then bankruptcy and run.
Mr. John Droz –
Congratulations on a great victory against one of the most perverse, irrational, destructive entities on the planet. Together, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace are the two must destructive NGOs on Earth. Here’s to more victories over them!
“Renewable energy” (other than hydroelectric, which the greens don’t count as renewable), besides being an unmitigated environmental disaster, is little more than a mechanism for transferring wealth from low- and middle-income electric ratepayers to billionaire investors in uneconomic projects – in short, from poorer to richer. It’s also been amply demonstrated that because of the need for spinning reserve (i.e., generation running but not feeding power into the grid) and quick-start generating facilities (burning several times as much fuel to produce the same output of electricity), having wind and solar power results in burning considerably more fossil fuels (and burning them dirtier) than if there were no wind or solar.
Isn’t there something wrong here? More emissions? More, not less, pollution? Higher costs to the people least able to afford them? This is social justice? Puh-LEEZ!!
Michael D says:
February 1, 2014 at 10:41 am
Hmm, somebody please explain: are we against wind power on principle, or just poorly-located wind power?
There is no “we”. This is not a groupthink session.
and:
“The US Interstate Highway system was paid for by tax dollars, but has paid for itself through indirect benefits. So I have some openness to tax-funded infrastructure.”
Surely net benefit, indirect or direct, is what counts? You need roads. You do not need wind turbines.
Well done! 🙂
Horrible. What right someone has to stop another person to start a project?
This is totalitarian mindset. The fact that is against the totalitarians of Sierra club doesn’t change the case.
Wow, 37dBA at the property lines? That’s less than a typical library and almost ambient rural. Congrats.
Alan Watt:
“So if the state can’t pretend to meet this requirement with windfarms, what other scheme will they embrace instead?”
1- the RPS also allows RECS.
2- our hope is to fix the RPS. H298 was introduced last year, and something comparable will hopefully be proposed this year
A lot more information is available at our website: WiseEnergy.org.
Berényi Péter:
— 35 dBA turbine sound limits, at property lines, 24/7
“Sounds good, but insufficient.”
Our challenge it to get the maximum protection that is legally defensible. In addition to that we also have the challenge to come up with a test that is practical and affordable. A TALL order!
The best study we found is “Noise: Windfarms”: <>. It concludes that 35 dBA is an excellent proxy limit for infrasounds.
There is much more at WiseEnergy.org.
Michael D says:
February 1, 2014 at 11:06 am
Matthew W: The US Interstate Highway system was paid for by tax dollars, but has paid for itself through indirect benefits. So I have some openness to tax-funded infrastructure.
============================================================
Big difference
We need roads.
We don’t need overpriced, intermittent, inefficient electricity.
Congratulations and thank you for your efforts.
“Matthew W: The US Interstate Highway system was paid for by tax dollars, but has paid for itself through indirect benefits. So I have some openness to tax-funded infrastructure.”
Actually it was built ONLY with user fees, not general taxes:
“Revenue from the Federal gas and other motor-vehicle user taxes was credited to the Highway Trust Fund to pay the Federal share of Interstate and all other Federal-aid highway projects. In this way, the Act guaranteed construction of all segments on a “pay-as-you-go” basis, thus satisfying one of President Eisenhower’s primary requirements, namely that the program be self-financing without contributing to the Federal budget deficit.”
see: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm#interstate_funding
Sorry, my link in my prior comment did not get published.
The “Noise:Windfarms” is at “tinyurl.com/qxcr8s7”.
Mod says wind power is great!! You must live on a different world then the rest of us where wind power is an ecological disaster and a waste of money and resources.
MSimon, do you really think wind lowers your energy cost and adds anything to the network? The truth is quite the opposite, you are dreaming.
AlexS says:
February 1, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Horrible. What right someone has to stop another person to start a project?
This is totalitarian mindset. The fact that is against the totalitarians of Sierra club doesn’t change the case.
Look up your tort law my friend. It depends on whose ox is gored. Or is likely to be gored. BTW the tort law most well known to the founders came from English Common Law and the Talmud. The phrase “Whose ox was gored” is Talmudic.
There is no perfect set of rules though.
Davidg says:
February 1, 2014 at 4:32 pm
MSimon, do you really think wind lowers your energy cost and adds anything to the network? The truth is quite the opposite, you are dreaming.
I’m a power engineer (occasionally). I agree with you. You might like this:
Stop The Smart Grid
jim karock says:
February 1, 2014 at 3:03 pm
“Matthew W: The US Interstate Highway system was paid for by tax dollars, but has paid for itself through indirect benefits. So I have some openness to tax-funded infrastructure.
======================================================
This quote is being incorrectly atributted to me.
I did not say that.
peter says:
February 1, 2014 at 8:15 am
“If you live anywhere near the ocean or a lake you likely have a constant decibel level higher than this from the action of the waves on the shore.”
– – –
There is probably a lot of difference between sound generated at ground level and sound generated several stories above ground level.
As a citizen of North Carolina, A GREAT BIG THANK YOU!
AlexS says:
February 1, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Horrible. What right someone has to stop another person to start a project?
This is totalitarian mindset. The fact that is against the totalitarians of Sierra club doesn’t change the case.
————————————
It does for me.
cn
AlexS says:
February 1, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Horrible. What right someone has to stop another person to start a project?
This is totalitarian mindset. The fact that is against the totalitarians of Sierra club doesn’t change the case.
So you are in full agreement that “The science is settled” is also a totalitarian mindset?
More followup by me on infrasound and low frequency sound from wind turbines:
After some effort, I have yet to directly access the supposed Van den Berg 2006 article mentioned in http://oto2.wustl.edu/cochlea/wt4.html, which is linked in an above comment by Berényi Péter. I would appreciate a link to it.
Meanwhile, I have done some research on my own. The low frequency and infrasound issue is worse than I thought, but does not appear to me as bad as the wustl.edu link says. One reason is that it is common for sound travelling hundreds of meters or more to not follow the inverse square law, but a mere inverse law, when there is a temperature inversion at levels from several tens of meters to a few hundred of meters overhead.
Most of the research results I did find indicate that the main negative effect of wind turbine infrasound hitting the human body, when at a level where it becomes detectable, is an audible train of pulses or a sensible feeling of pulsating pressure felt by the eardrums. For most people, staying below 85 dB on the G-weighting curve causes infrasound to have no perceptible effect.
A cite of mine: http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/JASMAN12963727_1.pdf
One indirect effect mentioned is infrasound and low frequency sound causing rattling of parts of a home. Much of the time, it is easy to fix rattles.
I propose as reasonable limits at property lines for noise from wind turbines, all of these:
A-weighted: 35 dB. More is allowed when environmental conditions are so noisy that that the wind turbines do not boost the total by more than 1 dB. The border here is environment minus the turbines 41 dB, total 42 dB. And, I would want the worst frequently-repeatable .2 second to apply.
C-weighted: I propose a limit of 55 dB, or adding no more than 1 dB to the total, whichever happens last. The borderline is 61 dB being boosted to 62 dB. And, I would want the worst frequently repeatable .1 second measurement period to apply.
G-weighted: I propose a limit of 78 dB, or adding no more than 1 dB to the total, whichever happens last. The borderline is 84 dB from the environment being boosted to 85 dB. And, I would want the worst frequently repeatable .1 second measurement to apply.
Unweighted: I propose a limit of 88 dB of all sound and infrasound, from .01 Hz to 20 KHz, or adding no more than 1 dB to the total. And, I want the worst frequently-repeatable .1 second to apply. The borderline here is the environment being boosted from 94 to 95 dB.
==============
Besides reasonable sound regulations, I have an issue with the slow growth of the technology that is being implemented on wind farms. Will they need subsidies to compete 20 years from now?