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
@M Simon: your link “http://classicalvalues.com” yield a “403 forbidden” message.
A true activist hero who understands that victory only comes with the consent of the community, through argument not money and when working in the interests of the community.
Well done on everything you have done: you have not opposed any technology per se, you have applied a rigorous set of principles to determine whether its application is sensible, acceptable or just.
One simply wished that governments, be they village or town councils, City Mayoral offices, State legislatures or Central government would use similarly rigorous criteria when spending tax dollars.
Fantastic news and a great idea. Big Green thinks years of imposing their terrible ideas on us means they control us.
Morehead City is a neighboring town to many in my family. You have helped a lot of people.
Thank you for leading such an effective effort to end another money grab by Big Green and their faux environmentalism.
For AlexS,
Thank you for assisting in my project siting decision.
My project involves an after hours nightclub which will now be next to your house.
It is a venue that offers outdoor rock and pop music, especially in the hours after most clubs close.
Additionally, the parking will sometimes overflow onto your street. Sorry about your occasionally blocked driveway.
And trash cleanup, well, you know that is a big expense so I am sure you will understand.
I thank you in advance for not opposing my project. I am sure we will be great neighbors.
Sincerely,
hunter
While “sustainability lobby” is the one pushing wind projects, very few of those projects are economically sustainable without government subsidy. Putting aside the ecological burden that taking money out of efficient hands and putting them in inefficient hands imposes, the economic truth is that eventually government will become exhausted or somehow unable to continue the subsidy. When that happens these projects will instantly be candidates for decommissioning. If the funds (or at least assets) have not been set aside for that purpose, will the eco-lobby have come full circle, in that their legacy will a landscape littered the the skeletons of motionless and broken wind turbines? If so, it would be ironic because one of the social forces that gave rise to the eco lobby in the first place was the horrible damage that the coal industry caused when they didn’t need to reclaim abandoned open pit mining operations.
I view this effort as a logical, and apparently legal, means to ensure that wherever a wind project is undertaken its cost will include all of the external costs such as potential discomfort to neighbors (excessive sound/vibrations), potential damage to property values, potential legal fees to the community, and potential clean up costs when the project is eventually abandoned (as most will be when we come to our senses and stop both the subsidies and the mandates for wind power.)
A developer should be required to consider all these external costs when deciding to build, and the best way to do so is to require him to either mitigate them by design changes or pay for them up front with something like the suggested escrow account. As evidenced in this “case study,” once the external costs are included even the massive subsidies are not enough to justify some projects. (And, at that, addressing only 5 of the 40+ potential costs was sufficient to make the project undesirable from the developer’s point of view.)
I would note that this is not the same as the typical NIMBY reaction with people waving signs, packing legislative meetings, issuing threats, etc. This appears to be a valid effort to ensure that the external costs are considered up front and compensated by the project, rather than being born by the taxpayers, either immediately when values and living conditions deteriorate, or eventually when decommissioning is required.
Would that all environmentalists behaved similarly. If they did, they’d find that most of us would actually be on the same side, looking for sensible ways to mitigate potential damages of new developments.
I am cautious about some claims, such as:
– bird deaths: are they documented, or just projections ignoring that birds don’t fly in strong winds? (How much economic penalty from stopping the blades in mild winds when birds would be flying?)
– noise: complaints I am aware of, which may well not be all, are the periodic sounds made as the blades pass the tower. How much can those be mitigated by spacing blades and tower further apart? (Costs more in tower structure – greater bending and hub support cantilever structure.) Good point about low frequency effect, the human body has a resonant frequency circa 3-5 Hz IIRC.
Mathew D, the fallacies in “indirect benefits” include:
– how benefits are calculated (everyone claims to be the engine-of-the-economy or such, most economic analyses are not “all in”, not integrated)
– winners and losers at government direction (the railways lost from Interstates, tire companies won), rather than individual choice in the marketplace
– the assumption that the collective has to force something, which is based on a negative view of humans
– the immorality of manipulation, which is what you support.
I urge you to think about your view of humans.
Due to ????
I guess a ‘bag of water’ has a resonant frequency involving a kind of fundamental-mode ‘wave action’ (literally: waves transiting a medium, meeting an impedance mismatch at the far end, and reflecting back, repeatedly, from one of a body to the other) with a fundamental resonant frequency in the single-digit Hz range …
Sure would like to see a cite on that though.
.
_Jim, I believe hyperphysics discusses some of the effects of infrasound on the human body. I cannot load the page right now, but the lower frequencies penetrate the body cavity where the vitals are. It is the same principle you see at work when a car playing wub wub base
goes by, and it easily penetrates the walls. About 20% of people tested feel general anxiety when exposed to infrasound. Power lines also have a little hum to them, but are delivering tremendous amounts of power to distant users affordably. No such benefit comes from wind turbines, and infrasound is powerful in the natural world. I believe that it is why animals can sense impending earthquakes or eruptions.
A lot of fish use infrasound to communicate. And earth worms are also very sensitive to lower notes, as Darwin found out. Or maybe he was a lousy piano player.
In fact I am stunned to see people opposing power lines. True they have some radio interference for homes sited right by them, if you like AM/FM, but a single CFL does that inside your home! Last I checked no volatilized mercury is used in a power line.
Been following John for years. He shows deep (well-justified) contempt for wind power. Solar ain’t high on his admiration roster, either.
Donald L. Klipstein says:
February 1, 2014 at 10:56 pm
Interesting, I don’t think I’ve seen that.
This has a number of good references.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses
On wind shear, nice images:
http://docs.wind-watch.org/wind-shear-turbine-noise-propagation.pdf
Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines, Alec N. Salt and Timothy E. Hullar (WUSTL)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2923251/
http://www.kselected.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/The_inaudible_noise_of_Wind_Turbines-infrasound.pdf
I think some of the references to dbA should be dbC or flat in this presentation. The original is in German:
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/ceranna-et-al-inaudible-noise-wind-turbines-infrasound/
This is a basic intro, but does have references to people who have abandoned their homes to get away from turbine noise and flicker.
https://www.wind-watch.org/docviewer.php?doc=WTSguide.pdf
Rod Everson: You have phrased it very well — better than I could have. Thank you.
Gail Combs (or others): send me “aaprjohn@northnet.org” your email and I’ll put you on my distribution list.
Zeke says:
February 2, 2014 at 7:26 pm
> In fact I am stunned to see people opposing power lines.
I’m not. There are people who want to live in cities and think rural life is too limited and sterile, there are people who live in very rural areas because they appreciate wildlife and the majesty of the nighttime sky. I own property on Mount Cardigan. From our yurt we can see no streetlights. Higher up we could, and there is some sky glow from Concord, 40 miles away. Nice spot.
What does surprise me in New Hampshire is that the effort to stop Northern Pass, a project to bring a 1,200 MW DC line down from Hydro-Quebec, is:
1) getting a lot more opposition than a similar line 20 years ago that reaches down to Westford MA.
2) getting a lot more opposition than some proposed wind projects.
Northern Pass is criticised for:
1) Towers taller than typical high tension towers.
I’ve heard something like 140′ towers. Some wind projects proposed in NH will have 500′ base to blade tip heights and are tall enough to require aircraft warning lights.
2) Noise issues from corona discharge, especially in damp weather.
This is audible only within a few hundred feet. It’s low volume and high enough frequency to attenutate in the air. Wind turbine’s infrasound is over 100 db and attenuates very little. People have abandoned homes due to it and some sighthing guidelines recommend constuction at least 1-2 km from residences.
3) Unsightly scar in the powerline corridor, especially where the line crosses ridges.
Wind turbines are placed along ridges and have huge visibility, even in some “viewsheds” where the ridge is blocked by nearby terrain but blades reach above it.
Those 500′ tall turbines have a capacity of about 3 MW. With the capacity factor taken into account, they’ll produce less than 1 MW. If they did produce that whole 1 MW, then it would take 1,200 turbines on average to equal the power carried by the Northern Pass line. With a typical spacing of 1000′ between turbines, that would use a lot of the high performance ridgeline in the state.
Others have commented on Michael D’s question of whether “WE” are for or against wind power? I have to say there is no WE in these comment blocks. YOU need to decide what you’re for and against, Michael. I don’t want any part in being a crutch for the solution to some ethical dilemma you might have.
Commercial scale electrical generation by wind has many challenges. You need to educate yourself on those, and stop being persuaded by greenie nonsense that promises some future utopia powered by free wind. Wind power is NOT free. If you take the time to look closely, I think you will also find that it’s not even cheap.
glenncz says:
February 1, 2014 at 11:22 am
It’s all in the math. What do you want your county to have? 1 nuclear plant (good for six counties where I live) or 6,000 wind turbines which will become rusted hulks in 20 years? 1 nat gas plant or 2,000 turbines?
glenn, the point is you still cannot replace that 1 nuclear plant with 6000 wind turbines, or the 1 nat gas plant with 2000 turbines.
to replace the 1 nat gas plant you need 2000 turbines and 1 nat gas plant.
to replace the 1 nuclear plant you need 6000 turbines and 3 nat gas plants.
just saying