Maine Lawmakers Slated to Consider BEP Decision

Department of Environmental Protection Rule Ch. 375, Sec. 10 Amendment

Subsection I: Sound Level Standards for Wind Energy Developments

Since the dawn of grid-scale industrial wind energy production, there have been problems; not just here at home, but nationwide and abroad.  To date, every improperly sited wind project in Maine is a party to litigation or ongoing and serious complaints.

In the autumn of 2010, the Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power (CTFWP), in accordance with Maine Law, submitted almost twice the sufficient number of verified petitions to the Board of Environmental Protection to require Agency Rulemaking on the subject of noise from Wind Energy Developments.  DEP Noise Rules, last amended more than 20 years ago, were inadequate to protect Maine citizens from industrial wind turbines’ unique noises and vibrations.   In an attempt to protect Maine citizens’ health, property values and quality of life, CTFWP–in conjunction with Friends of Maine’s Mountains (FMM) –launched a determined effort calling for revised noise rules for grid scale wind facilities.

FMM submitted comprehensive draft amendments to the BEP, citing an urgent need to change existing Noise Rules to improve predictive modeling and protect against health risks associated with noise from industrial wind turbines.  In response to the citizens’ initiative, BEP held technical and public hearings in Augusta on July 7, 2011.

The claims made by CTFWP and FMM were supported by the testimony of several respected and experienced acoustics experts, including Rick James, Rob Rand and Stephen Ambrose.  These gentlemen have not relied on computer modeling to arrive at their findings.  They have done--and continue to do--extensive testing at wind turbine sites in Maine and across the country.  They have spent nights in affected homes, as well.  Added to their findings was the testimony of Dr. Michael Nissenbaum—another respected professional who has had first-hand experience with the impacts of wind turbine noises as he has treated sufferers right here in the state of Maine.  Following the testimony of these experts, scores of Maine citizens gave oral and/or written testimony about wind turbine noises and their impacts to health, property values and quality of life.  BEP found it incumbent upon them to support an amendment to the State’s current noise rules and had staff prepare a draft rule change.

 

On September 15^th, in spite of late-in-the-game and undue pressure from attorneys representing the corporate wind lobby, the Board of Environmental Protection voted to approve more restrictive sound standards for wind energy developments. The Board recognized the fact that Maine citizens are already suffering from the impacts of wind turbine noises and they voted to implement new parameters for Ch. 375, Section 10 rules which are more stringent than those previously in effect.

From the start, the Wind Lobby took no notice of the BEP’s directive to refrain from arguing the pros and cons of ‘wind’ during testimony.  They touted the jobs they have brought to Maine—ignoring the fact that those temporary jobs exist because of mandated federal, state and local tax-payer subsidies.  In addition, by wind developers’ own accounts we know that wind energy facilities will not create more than a handful of full-time, permanent technicians’ jobs, statewide.  Studies done in Europe show that each ‘renewable’ job created cost more than $1,000,000.00 in government subsidies, and resulted in the loss of 2.2 conventional jobs.  Denmark, with its high percentage of wind facilities, pays some of Europe’s highest energy tariffs—more than twice those in Britain–partially due to wind subsidies.  It is expected that the wind industry will cite those who are employed in the construction of wind facilities when they lobby the Legislature to vote against the BEP’s recommendations, but it ludicrous for the wind industry to use ‘jobs’ to justify the negative impacts brought about by their product.

The wind lobby also warned the BEP that if it ‘changed the rules’ mid-stream the ‘investors’ would go elsewhere.  Rather than discuss how to reduce the negative impacts of their product, the wind industry proceeded to lecture BEP about Maine’s economy.

BEP recognized that it was not the Board’s responsibility to worry about Maine’s financial circumstances or the wind lobby’s impact thereon—whether positive or negative.  Rather than being drawn into that debate, BEP considered the expert and public testimony and then voted to amend the noise rule standards.

During the last 3 years, many Maine communities have passed comprehensive and protective moratoria and wind energy ordinances.  Towns such as Jackson, Dixmont, Thorndike, Montville, Phillips, New Vineyard, Buckfield, Wilton, Stockton Springs, Sedgwick, Penobscot, Avon, Eddington, Unity, Eastbrook, Rumford, Prospect, Brooksville, Deer Isle, Temple, Frankfort and Caratunk have all recognized that grid-scale wind energy facilities are not benign and must be carefully considered during the zoning and siting process in order to protect the health, property values, and quality of life of Maine residents.

Citizens request that the 125^th Legislature show their confidence in the People of Maine and in the members of the Board of Environmental Protection and vote to uphold the BEP’s noise rule amendments.

Merry Christmas, from Your Friendly Neighborhood Wind Developer

From snowmobile clubs to fire departments to historical societies, and from fuel assistance funds to youth programs to libraries; the wind industry in Maine has a long history of spreading its money around the communities wherein it hopes to build grid-scale industrial wind facilities.

The latest example of a wind corporation’s ‘largesse’ here in Maine can be found in the River Valley.  Patriot Renewables (PR) is the owner of controversial wind projects at Beaver Ridge in Freedom and Spruce Mountain in Woodstock.  This same developer is hoping to build additional wind turbine developments in area communities, including Dixfield and Carthage.  So it came as no surprise to read in the 12/21/2011 edition of the Sun Journal that Tom Carroll, PR’s project coordinator, was handing out hefty checks to local organizations. 

http://www.sunjournal.com/news/business/2011/12/21/eleven-circles-receives-10000-patriot-renewables-l/1130779

Still, I was stunned by the blatant nature of the largest contribution made last week.  Eleven Circles, a youth action group, is no doubt a worthy recipient for a $10,000.00 donation.  But the impartiality of Maine’s town governments and town officials is crucial as we watch communities struggle to remain cohesive through the process of writing ordinances and considering the development applications submitted by large and wealthy corporations.  Should we not have serious questions when Patriot Renewables ‘supports’ a business owned by the daughter-in-law of a Dixfield town selectman? 

Other area recipients of Patriot Renewables’ bounty were Ludden Library, the Webb River Snowmobile club, the Poodunk Snowmobile Club and the Carthage fuel assistance fund.

Corporations like to call this ‘being a good neighbor’.  Patriot Renewables said they were looking to ‘help to fill a void in the area’.

Let’s not kid ourselves.  First Wind, Patriot Renewables, Trans-Canada, Iberdrola and other wind developers looking to build facilities aren’t passing around tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars because they care about our youth, or our poor, or our winter recreation enthusiasts.  They target communities which will be deciding whether or not to approve their development permits.  The people of Dixfield and Carthage are being ‘romanced’, just as the citizens of Mars Hill, Danforth, Stratton, Woodstock and Lincoln were.  If Dixfield and Carthage had already passed ordinances restricting the placement of industrial wind developments, the odds are that deserving non-profits in the area would not have been the beneficiaries of those much-needed donations.

A bribe is a bribe.  Towns such as Dixfield and Carthage should design and institute ordinances that take into account the health, property values and quality of life of their citizens.  Then they will see how quickly a wind developer decides that there are other towns which need a ‘good neighbor’ or have ‘voids’ to be filled.   

The Holiday Voice of Vestas

I have a good sense of humor.  Some people say I have a GREAT one.

But this video didn't make me smile.

Ice throw from turbines is a very serious issue.  At least--it is to those who live or work or recreate in the vicinity of wind turbines.

I suppose I should lighten up, hmmm?

Merry Christmas.
Kaz
*************************
Painting by Alice Barnett

Expert Voices from Maine Confirm Adverse Health Affects from Industrial Wind Turbines

Two leading accoustics experts from Maine believe they have confirmed the link to adverse health affects from improperly sited wind turbines. 

Stephen E. Ambrose, INCE (Brd. Cert.) and Robert W. Rand, INCE Member have just released a detailed and comprehensive report to the public.  I encourage you to read it. 

I know these gentlemen personally and have found them to be very professional and independent.  They are not affiliated with any pro- or anti-wind groups.  From "Day One" I have been impressed with their knowledge, commitment, integrity and compassion.

My esteem grows daily.

Please don't miss this amazing opportunity to learn the science behind what victims of wind turbines' unique noises have been saying, feeling and living with for years.  Check out the above link and read "The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study--Adverse Health Effects Produced By Large Industrial Wind Turbines Confirmed" You can download the whole report from the website, or email me at roomtomove@tds.net and I'll send it straight away.

The wondering and the waiting are over.  This may be the 'proof positive' that we've been looking for--that industrial wind turbines can--and have been--adversely impacting our fellow citizens.  

Spread the news.  What a Christmas gift these gentlemen and their benefactor have given to mankind.  The authors welcome and encourage you to share their study far and wide.  Knowledge is power.  Let's use our power to make things right for the victims who've lived with the effects of industrial wind turbine noises, and to prevent others from suffering the same fate.

Merry Christmas.

Kaz 

Iberdrola's Many Costly Voices

Iberdrola Renewables–a subsidiary of Iberdrola Group and the owner of CMPC–is poised to become a major player in the industrial wind energy plan for Maine.  But before Maine embraces this foreign company and the product it’s selling, there are some crucial questions which must be answered.

Wind energy is expensive in many ways—both to tax-payers and to rate-payers.  Our neighbors in North Carolina are discovering the same thing.

This excerpt is from the December 15^th edition of the Charlotte Observer:

“The developer of the largest wind farm ever proposed in North Carolina says the project has stalled because no utility wants to buy the power the project would produce.

“Iberdrola Renewables, having put more than three years into a 31-square-mile wind farm near the coast, this week began notifying property owners and public officials…that the project is on hold indefinitely. If built, the Desert Wind Energy Project… would have ranked among the largest wind farms in the country.

“… the Spanish company has been unable to find a buyer for the power output of Desert Wind.”

No purchaser for wind power?  Is this due to the price wind will cost?  Or are there other disadvantages to wind power which makes it undesirable?

In trying to protect its investments and promote its agenda, the wind lobby has been vociferous about the jobs “wind” is bringing to our state.  Thus far, experienced local construction companies like Reed & Reed and Cianbro have been contracted to build the developers’ wind facilities.  However, the November 28^th issue of Renewable Energy Magazine reported that another Iberdrola subsidiary, Iberdrola Engineering and Construction, is moving into the wind facility construction business in the United States.  Iberdrola has been awarded two construction contracts for wind developments in the region—in Groton, NH and Hoosac, MA.  That begs the question: If Iberdrola is successful in getting permits for wind facilities in Maine will they import their own crews to build them?

Another lamentable detail:  When CMP customers write checks for our monthly electric bills, we’re sending them to a processing center in New Jersey.  We’re not mailing them to Augusta as we did for decades–back when CMPC was a Maine company, instead of a Spanish one.  Why is it that Iberdrola out-sources this traditional source of employment for Mainers?

Add to that; the fact that CMP intends to lay off dozens of employees once it has completed installing smart meters across the state, and one has to ask:

Is this foreign company looking out for the best interests of Maine’s citizens?

   

Voices that Snap, Crackle and Pop

Maine is the most forested state of the contiguous forty-eight.  And Maine has an aggressive wind energy plan.  But what is the plan to protect our forests, homes, livelihoods and lives from turbine-originated fires?  These mountaintop industrial facilities will present many serious problems for firefighters and the Maine Forest Service.  I would like to see the strategy our state has in place for protecting Maine from this new hazard.

Add caption

North American Clean Energy

Taming Turbine Fires Before They Start: It’s when, not if…

By Scott Starr

According to reports, the cost of a fire that damages or destroys a wind turbine can be as much as $2 million. Property damage to the turbine, and nearby areas, from fires reported in the past decade ranged between $750,000 and $6 million.

Aside from the imminent hazards of a burning turbine, there is also the risk of sparks, embers, or debris falling to the ground and setting off a wildfire due to the remote location of many wind farms. Even if a turbine is not fully burned or damaged, or a potential fire doesn’t spread to the surrounding countryside, costs can be considerable. This was shown during a recent fire at a wind farm in California, which resulted in the loss of just one converter cabinet. Cost for replacement: $243,000, including parts and downtime.

Although the financial loss and costs of a fire might be the primary concern of any wind farm operator, pressures are building up from environmental groups and the concerned public in general. Turbine fires—and, particularly those that spread—should be a significant concern, affecting the planning stages of any project. To this avail, permitting might be more drawn-out, costly, and time-consuming process. Turbine manufacturers and wind farm operators are now, more than ever, becoming acutely aware of the costs, safety, and the environmental arguments in favor of effective fire detection and suppression. But what are the fire risks associated with wind turbines?

Technical equipment and combustible material are concentrated in the nacelle and, once a fire starts in a turbine, it can be fuelled by up to 200 gallons of hydraulic fluid and lubricants. The nacelle itself is constructed from highly flammable resin and glass fiber, and internal insulation can become contaminated by oil deposits, adding to the overall fuel load.

The most common cause of a turbine fire is a lightning strike—a risk that is heightened by the installation of taller and taller wind turbines. Turbines are now being built that are up to 320 feet high. They’re frequently sited in exposed and high-altitude locations. Globally, there are around 16 million lightning storms and approximately 1.4 billion lightning flashes every year. However, only 25% of these are cloud-to-ground (the remainder are either cloud-to-cloud or intra-cloud); yet, this still equates to the US being hit by between 15 million and 20 million ground strikes a year, according to the Colorado-based National Lightning Safety Institute.

The consequences can be judged from the following example. Recently, a wind turbine caught fire as a result of a lightning strike. Burning parts of the rotor blade, which had been struck, fell and caused a secondary fire in the nacelle—all at a cost of $200,000 and 150 days lost operation.

Mechanical failure or electrical malfunction can also trigger a fire as capacitors, transformers, generators, electrical controls, transmission equipment, and SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) systems all have the potential to catch fire. This risk is amplified when there are loose or broken electrical connections, or there is an overloading of electrical circuits. Braking systems pose a particularly high risk of fire. Overheating can cause hot fragments of the disc brake material to break off, rupturing hydraulic hoses, and resulting in the highly combustible hydraulic fluid being expelled under pressure and coming into contact with the hot disk brake fragments. Hydraulic pumps and connections can also fail, allowing the fluid to erupt into flames when it comes into contact with a hot surface.

A case in point was a fire where a slip-ring fan of a double-fed induction generator broke. Sparks were generated by the rotating fan impeller, which set the filter cabinet’s filter pad alight. The fire then spread to the hood installation, causing $800,000 worth of damage.

With the fire risk becoming greater as more turbines come into operation, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has added wind turbine and outbuilding fire protection standards to NFPA 850 (“Recommended Practice for Fire Protection for Electric Generating Plants and High Voltage Direct Current Converter Stations;” 2010 Edition). This provides fire protection recommendations for the safety of construction and operating personnel, physical integrity of plant components, and the continuity of plant operations. The revised 2010 edition includes detailed recommendations relating to wind turbine generating facilities.

Wind farms are usually built in isolated locations with restricted access, placing them beyond the prospect of immediate attention by the fire service. Even when emergency services are able to respond quickly, few have the equipment capable of firefighting at the height of modern wind turbines. The solution is an effective fire detection and suppression system. Such a system should be intrinsically safe, not require any external power that can fail or put the system out of operation, and it needs to be able to stop a fire precisely where it breaks out before it can do irreparable damage to the turbine or spread elsewhere. It also needs to be purpose-designed to contend with the vibration, dust, debris, airflow through the nacelle, and the extreme temperature variations. An effective system also has to be capable of providing 24/7 unsupervised wind farm protection.

Wind farm fires do happen, and many in the industry suspect that they occur far more frequently than statistics suggest. This is because a significant number of turbine fires go unreported due to their remote location. Emergency services are not always involved and there are no regulatory requirements to report related fire incidents. Hardly surprising, many insurers are becoming increasingly concerned, and the opinion of many can been summed-up by the following statement: “Fire. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.” Better safe than sorry.

Scott Starr is the director of marketing at Scottsdale, Arizona-based Firetrace International.

A Voice Mesmerized by Carnage

The other day I was recounting an experience I’d had to my friend Alan, who is a pilot.  I told him how I’d been blessed with the opportunity to watch a gaggle of immature Canada geese as they received their “flight training”.

For several minutes I was able to watch the flock as they occupied airspace over Williams’ Oakhurst Dairy Farm in North Anson.  The adult geese flew low over the corn fields and the adjacent Kennebec River, where the flock had spent their summer.  Those in the lead positions would form up the classic “V”, and the juveniles would flap and honk and generally appear disorganized until—suddenly—they seemed to “get it” and they’d fall into line.  After a few moments of flight in "formation"; those in the lead would veer off and break ranks—circling back around over familiar ground. 

Immediately the geese in the lead would reform the “V”—now going in the opposite direction—and the goslings would disperse and complain and again appear muddled and confused.  But what soon became apparent was that this flock was a family.  The grown-ups were teaching the young 'uns exactly how they were going to participate in the autumn migration to southern climes… and how they were going to do it safely.

Watching this ‘rite of passage’ was enthralling, humbling and uplifting.

And perhaps that’s why this story (found on the Wind Turbine Syndrome website) was so disturbing.

Please read it.

And then—please forward it to every wildlife biologist and ornithologist and bird enthusiast you know. 

Please.

And thank you.