|
North Texas Wind Resistance Alliance Promoting the Truth about Wind Energy
|
|
|
What does it harm? |
|
|
It squanders our capital on a false promise
|
|
|
Let’s start with the squandering of our precious investment capital on a feel-good, phony solution to our energy and environmental problems. We are presently building more than 2,000 1.5 MW turbines per year, at a capital cost of more than $4 billion annually. Add more than $1 billion per year in subsidies and you’re talking massive mal-investment, all ultimately taken from taxpayers and utility ratepayers. For what? To make some mega-corporations richer and our citizens poorer? It produces very little electricity, at times when we don't need it, and adds virtually nothing to our generating capacity. ERCOT reported to the Texas Legislature in 2005 that due to wind's intermittency, and the historical performance of wind turbines in Texas, only 2% of nameplate generator capacity should be considered as "available resource". That's right, only 2% !! See the bottom of page 7 and the top of page 8 in the ERCOT Report . Meanwhile, the environmental problems associated with conventional power plants remain, unaddressed. There are efficient, sustainable, and environmentally friendly alternatives to wind energy. This money could be used to clean-up our existing coal plants with new scrubbers and filters to remove pollution and greenhouse gases. The U.S. has 750 years of coal reserves and is developing the technology to scrub out pollution. We can also build clean nuclear power plants, using new and safer technology. Nuclear plants supply 85% of the power in France, are currently targeted for 40% in Japan, operate at 90% of capacity (vs. the 16% mentioned for wind), and, like coal, have a lower cost per kilowatt-hour. We could also improve the efficiency of air conditioners, lights, and industrial equipment, and promote conservation.
|
|
|
It destroys the landscape
|
|
|
These projects were originally intended for high-wind areas, in mountain passes and on the relatively barren expanses of the Great Plains. In Texas they were placed in the Panhandle, and in far-west Texas in Upton and Pecos Counties, where there is very little scenery to destroy and very few people to offend. But they have now built so many turbines there, there is no longer any high-voltage transmission capacity to connect them to. To keep the pace of construction going, and the subsidies flowing, they are moving into more scenic areas to exploit pockets of transmission capacity. The result is disastrous destruction of the environment, spoiling our less-altered, more natural areas. In scenic south Taylor County near Abilene, outraged ranchers and landowners have filed a lawsuit seeking damages. In scenic parts of Cooke County near the Red River, another suit has been filed seeking an injunction against the proposed Wolf Ridge project. The Barton Chapel Phase 1 project has now been announced and made public in Jack County. Where will this end? There are no regulations in Texas pertaining to industrial wind development. No permits, no hearings, no impact studies, no set-backs, nothing. In this lawless, unplanned, deregulated free-for-all, wind development in Texas is out of control. We are now experiencing the Great Texas Wind Rush, as developers scramble to lock-in the 10-year Production Tax Credit subsidy before it expires at the end of 2007. As of July 31, 2006, after six years of explosive development, there were approximately 2,400 MW of wind power (equivalent to 1,600 1.5MW turbines) in the state of Texas, surpassing California, and giving Texas the dubious distinction of leading the United States. An additional 2,944 MW (1,963 1.5MW turbines) of new projects have been publicly announced and included in the ERCOT “Public” interconnection request list, more than doubling what we now have. Staggeringly, another 13,578 MW (9,052 1.5MW turbines) are in projects being kept "Confidential-Non Public" by ERCOT. See the ERCOT System Planning Report, and remember that the reported numbers are going up every month. Based on interconnection requests received by ERCOT through August 31, 2006, we will be going from the equivalent of 1,600 turbines presently, to 12,615 turbines. With no transmission capacity available in west Texas, and years required to build more, where do you think they are going to go, and why do you think these projects are being kept "Confidential - Non-Public"? With a spacing of 52 acres per turbine, 12,615 turbines will require 655,980 acres or 1,025 square miles. As west Texas has no transmission capacity, and the Panhandle and deep east Texas are not in ERCOT, we can assume that most of the new turbines are targeted for the north central, central, and coastal portions of our state. The mind boggles. 1,025 square miles of Texas landscape, an area the size of the state of Rhode Island, completely covered by industrial wind turbines, in service to a corporate tax-avoidance scam. Texas is not alone. These projects are destroying our precious landscape in Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Tennessee - all through the Appalachians, and across the United States. Residents have so-far been powerless to stop it. At least one law-maker is truthful, and opposed to it. Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, in an address to Congress in May 2005 had this to say: “At a time when America needs large amounts of low-cost reliable power, wind produces puny amounts of high-cost unreliable power.. Clearly there are more sensible ways to provide clean energy than spending $3.7 billion of taxpayers’ money to destroy the American landscape. . . Wholesale destruction of the American landscape is not an incidental concern. The Great American Outdoors is an essential part of the American character." See the full text of Senator Alexander's remarks on the introduction of his Environmentally Responsible Wind Power Act of 2005. Let's find a way to support him.
|
|
|
It devalues our property
|
|
|
Common sense, on the other hand, would tell you that 400-foot tall wind turbines on or adjacent to your property are going to discourage real estate buyers. What are the facts? Wind turbines are now mammoth industrial machines, taller than the Statue of Liberty, and taller than a 35-story office building. Imagine 100 Statues of Liberty, with their arms in constant motion, spread out over 5,000 acres. The picture above was taken at Weatherford, OK, a farming area not noted for its scenery. The turbine is quite a distance away from the house. What if this were a scenic area. Could you sell your property at all? What about surrounding landowners? Rural property value reflects an alternative use value. Without trying to list them all, in increasing order of price, these might be low-production agricultural use, recreational-hunting use, or scenic-and-quiet-retirement-home use. These categories command vastly different prices, and obviously are impacted differently by wind turbines. Initially our state's industrial wind projects were placed in far west Texas, in Upton and Pecos Counties, where wonderful, hard working people hold and work the land in huge tracts (20,000+ acres). This land rarely sells, has little-to-no scenic value, and is priced for low-production agricultural use at around $250 per acre. In this area of low population, sparse rainfall, and depleting aquifers, a vast majority of residents desperately want the wind turbine income, and place no value on the landscape. Property values, reflecting only very low agricultural productivity, would appear to be unaffected by wind turbines if you based a study on this area. Developers then moved east into Nolan and Taylor Counties where land is a little more scenic, has recreational-hunting value, and is priced around $850 per acre. Here also it appears that a majority, with low-production agricultural land, want the turbines and value the wind turbine income over the landscape. A minority, however, with scenic home-site property, place a higher value on the landscape and their quality of life, and are suing the wind project developer (FPL) and the Lessors for damages. Attractive property adjacent to the wind project, with scenic home-site attributes, appears to have declined in value. An established Abilene, TX realtor stated that he had an attractive 300 acre listing next to the wind project, for which he could get no offers - an area where previously “any land with a deer on it” had been selling. Having exhausted the high-voltage transmission capacity in west Texas, the developers are now moving into less compatible areas closer to D/FW, where the wooded rolling hills and quiet rural character of the Cross Timbers have attracted relocating and retiring urban residents. This area was originally low-production agricultural use, primarily cattle grazing, with low value. It then became recreational-hunting property and value increased to about $1,000 per acre. But over the past five years it has become high-value second-home/ retirement-home property. With reasonable proximity to an urban area, the sought-after landscape and its rural character have resulted in current prices of $3,000 to $5,000 per acre for farm-sized tracts (160+ acres), and $7,000 to $10,000 per acre for smaller tracts and lots. Income from wind turbines is considered insignificant when weighed against the destruction the turbines would cause. These people came here to escape that kind of human-dominated industrial environment, and have paid for the privilege. Animosity and resistance to the wind projects is high, and a majority of residents are in opposition. Wind developers are viewed as corporate terrorists. Here there is property value, attributable to the unspoiled landscape, that can be destroyed by wind turbines.In documented cases in Berlin, PA, a scenic area, two landowners driven from their homes by noise and nuisance issues, filed suit against the owner of the Somerset Wind Farm, a small 6-turbine project. In settling the lawsuit, the energy company purchased their homes for the pre-wind-development appraised value and subsequently sold them to others. The first property was purchased for a pre-development value of $101,049, and subsequently sold by the energy company for $20,000, a discount of 80%! The second property was purchased for a pre-development value of $104,447 and subsequently sold by the energy company for $65,000, a discount of 38%! A serious question raised in both these cases is were the properties saleable at all, since they had to be sold to parties related to the energy company - one to a family that had leased land for the turbines, and the other to an employee of the energy company. The buyers were required by the energy company in the deeds to waive any future complaints about noise, view restrictions, and other nuisances - issues the energy company claims do not exist.
|
|
|
It stops in-migration and hurts the local economy
|
|
|
The economy of the Cross Timbers is in transition from an agriculture base to a second-home, retirement-home base, and is vulnerable if you destroy its scenic value and rural character. As relocation slows and fewer new homes are built, our small, local communities will suffer. Relocating residents now patronize our local hospitals, doctors, dentists, grocery stores, restaurants, home builders, lumber yards, air conditioning contractors, electricians, plumbers, dozers, septic installers, roofers, metal building builders, fence builders, water-well drillers, farm and garden stores, feed stores, hardware stores, antique stores, banks, etc. A wind turbine buys nothing in our local economy.
|
|
|
It may have serious health effects
|
|
|
1. Sleep problems, due to noise or sensations of pulsation or pressure, making it difficult to go to sleep and causing frequent awakening. 2. Headaches, which are increased in both frequency and duration. 3. Dizziness, unsteadiness, and nausea. 4. Exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability, and depression. 5. Problems with concentration and learning. 6. Tinnitus, a ringing in the ears. Dr. Pierpont also reports that Vibroacoustic Disease (VAD) results from long term exposure to low-frequency noise, below the range of hearing, and is characterized by fibrous thickening in the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems, and seizures and cognitive changes in the brain. Air pressure (sound) waves, resonating inside the chest and skull, set up vibrations to which the body responds by reinforcing its softer tissues with extra collagen, causing thickening of the pericardium (membrane surrounding the heart) and cardiac valves, fibrosis of the lungs, and the proliferation of glial (supporting) cells in the brain. This condition was first studied in pilots, flight attendants, and aviation technicians, but is found in other industrial and community settings. Medical researchers have found that the low-frequency noise intensities in the vicinity of wind turbines are in the range which can cause VAD, particularly with prolonged in-home and overnight exposures. See the VAD discussion beginning on page 12 of Dr. Pierpont's excellent, comprehensive Review of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement before the New York Independent System Operator. Dr. Pierpont recently conducted a clinical telephone interview with Daniel and Carolyn d'Entremont, who with their six children have experienced debilitating health effects and been forced from their home in Pubnico Point, Nova Scotia, by a 17-turbine industrial wind project. To listen to this lengthy interview (52 minutes), click on this Pierpont - d'Entremont Link (Windows Media Player). For a related television report, see Channel 13, WHAM, Rochester, NY. Dr. Pierpont strongly recommends that wind turbines be set back at least one and one-half (1- ½) miles from any home, any school, hospital, or similar institution, in order to protect people from the adverse health effects of wind turbines. In the absence of state requirements, no wind developers are presently following this advice. Dr. Pierpont’s papers are available at her website, www.ninapierpont.com , under “publishing/ wind energy”, and in the Research section of this website. Information on her important new book is available at www.windturbinesyndrome.com .
|
|
|
It kills birds and bats and fragments wildlife habitat
|
|
|
Studies
indicate that wind turbines kill large numbers of birds and bats, fragment
wildlife habitat, generate audible noise and inaudible low-frequency
vibration, produce a strobe effect, throw ice, and become obsolete when
the tax subsidies are withdrawn. In a six-week study of bat deaths in the summer of 2004 at the Mountaineer, WV (44 turbines) and Meyersdale, PA (20 turbines) wind projects, university and scientific researchers documented alarming kill-rates at both facilities. The study was funded in part by FPL Energy, the operator of the facilities. At Mountaineer the research team calculated that as many as 1,980 bats had been killed in just six weeks, with as many as 660 at the smaller Meyersdale site. These high kill-rates appear to be typical of other sites, and could threaten entire species, as temperate-zone bats have only one or two, slow-developing offspring per year. After presentation of the study results and recommendations for further research, officials of FPL Energy abruptly withdrew their cooperation and support, and denied the scientific team further access to any FPL sites throughout the country. See the BCI report.
|
|
|
This site contains important information in Adobe© PDF format. To download a free copy of Adobe© Reader, click on this link:
|
|
The wind industry says
these projects have no effect on property values. In fact they claim
you will benefit from tourists wanting to come and gawk at them.
They further claim to have studies to back that up.
A number of health issues have been raised
by Dr. Nina
Pierpont, a respected doctor in Malone, NY (MD from Johns Hopkins
University School of Medicine, 1991; PhD in Population Biology from
Princeton, 1985; BA in Biology from Yale, 1977; and a Fellow of the
American Academy of Pediatrics). Dr. Pierpont testified before the