Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIn Rural New York, Windmills Can Bring Whiff of Corruption
BURKE, N.Y. - Everywhere that Janet and Ken Tacy looked, the wind companies had been there first.
Dozens of people in their small town had already signed lease options that would allow wind towers on their properties. Two Burke Town Board members had signed private leases even as they negotiated with the companies to establish a zoning law to permit the towers. A third board member, the Tacys said, bragged about the commissions he would earn by selling concrete to build tower bases. And, the Tacys said, when they showed up at a Town Board meeting to complain, they were told to get lost.
"There were a couple of times when they told us to just shut up," recalled Mr. Tacy, sitting in his kitchen on a recent evening.
Lured by state subsidies and buoyed by high oil prices, the wind industry has arrived in force in upstate New York, promising to bring jobs, tax revenue and cutting-edge energy to the long-struggling region. But in town after town, some residents say, the companies have delivered something else: an epidemic of corruption and intimidation, as they rush to acquire enough land to make the wind farms a reality.
"It really is renewable energy gone wrong," said the Franklin County district attorney, Derek P. Champagne, who began a criminal inquiry into the Burke Town Board last spring and was quickly inundated with complaints from all over the state about the wind companies. Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo agreed this year to take over the investigation.
"It's a modern-day gold rush," Mr. Champagne said.
Mr. Cuomo is investigating whether wind companies improperly influenced local officials to get permission to build wind towers, as well as whether different companies colluded to divide up territory and avoid bidding against one another for the same land.
The industry appears to be shying away from trying to erect the wind farms in more affluent areas downstate, even where the wind is plentiful, like Long Island.
But in the small towns near the Canadian border, families and friendships have been riven by feuds over the lease options, which can be worth tens of thousands of dollars a year in towns where the median household income may hover around $30,000. Rumors circulate about neighbors who can suddenly afford new tractors or trucks. Opponents of the wind towers even say they have received threats; one local activist said that on two occasions, she had found her windshield bashed in.
"My sisters and brothers won't even talk to me anymore," said Mr. Tacy, who with his wife has become active in recent years in a network of people who oppose the wind companies. "They tear communities apart." Opponents of the farms say their scenic views are being marred by the hundreds of wind towers already in place, some of which stand nearly 400 feet tall. They also complain of the irritating hum of spinning turbines and what they say are wasteful public subsidies to wind companies.
But corruption is a major concern. In at least 12 counties, Mr. Champagne said, evidence has surfaced about possible conflicts of interest or improper influence.
In Prattsburgh, N.Y., a Finger Lakes community, the town supervisor cast the deciding vote allowing private land to be condemned to make way for a wind farm there, even after acknowledging that he had accepted real estate commissions on at least one land deal involving the farm's developer.
A town official in Bellmont, near Burke, took a job with a wind company after helping shepherd through a zoning law to permit and regulate the towers, according to local residents. And in Brandon, N.Y., nearby, the town supervisor told Mr. Champagne that after a meeting during which he proposed a moratorium on wind towers, he had been invited to pick up a gift from the back seat of a wind company representative's car.
When the supervisor, Michael R. Lawrence, looked inside, according to his complaint to Mr. Champagne, he saw two company polo shirts and a leather pouch that he suspected contained cash.
When Mr. Lawrence asked whether the pouch was part of the gift, the representative replied, "That's up to you," according to the complaint.
Last month, Mr. Cuomo subpoenaed two wind companies, Noble Environmental Power, based in Connecticut, and First Wind, based in Massachusetts, seeking a broad range of documents. Both companies say they are cooperating with the attorney general.
"We have no comment on specifics, but we want to be clear: Noble supports open and transparent development of wind projects in accordance with the highest ethical standards," said Walt Howard, Noble's chief executive.
The industry's interest in New York's North Country is driven by several factors. The area is mostly rural, with thousands of acres of farmland near existing energy transmission lines. Moreover, under a program begun in 2004, the state is entering into contracts to buy renewable energy credits, effectively subsidizing wind power until it can compete against power produced more cheaply from coal or natural gas.
Nine large-scale wind farms housing 451 towers, each with a turbine, are in operation in New York, with at least 840 more towers slated for construction, according to state officials. And in June, Iberdrola S.A., which is based in Spain and is one of the world's largest energy producers, announced its proposal to invest $2 billion to build hundreds more towers here.
Every day in the North Country during the warm months, trucks pulling giant flatbed trailers rumble down the highways, carrying tower sections and turbine blades. Some residents see the trucks not as a disturbance, but as an omen of jobs, money and cleaner air.
"I feel as a mother, as a grandmother, that the country needs it - not just here," said Susan Gerow, a Burke resident who has signed easements with Noble worth about $3,000 a year. Like others who have signed deals with the companies, Ms. Gerow and her family will also earn a portion of the revenue from the windmills if they are ever built.
The North Country is a chronically distressed region, and farming is increasingly a profitless enterprise here. The General Motors plant in Massena, for years a reliable source of good jobs, is closing in mid-2009. One of the few bright spots in the local economy in recent decades has been the construction of state prisons, of which there are now five in Franklin County alone.
"You're talking about a poor farming community out here," said Brent A. Trombly, a former town supervisor of Ellenburg, which approved a law to allow and establish regulations for the wind towers in 2003. "Our only natural resources are stone and wind."
For some farmers, he said, the wind leases were their last chance to hold onto land that had been in the family for generations. Supporters also say that the wind towers bring in badly needed tax revenue.
"We see this industry coming, we see the payments coming in," said William K. Wood, a former Burke Town Board member who also signed a lease option. The school board of Chateaugay, he pointed out, received $332,800 this year from Noble for payments in lieu of taxes, money that the district used to lower school taxes, upgrade its computers and provide a prekindergarten class for the first time.
The local debates over wind power are driven in a part by a vacuum at the state level. There is no state law governing where wind turbines can be built or how big they can be. That leaves it up to town officials, working part time and on advice from outside lawyers, some of whom may have conflicts of their own.
Two Franklin County towns, Brandon and Malone, have passed laws banning the wind turbines. But the issue remains unresolved in Burke, population 1,451, where two Town Board members recused themselves from the issue this year because they had leases with wind companies, leaving the board deadlocked.
At a meeting last month at Burke's Town Hall, opponents and supporters sat on opposite sides of the aisle, arms crossed. The mood, as it has often been at such meetings, was quietly bitter.
"I'd like to hear what people think," said Darrel Bushey, the town supervisor and a wind-tower opponent.
"We've listened to the people for two years," responded Timothy Crippen, who sits on the town's zoning board, which favors permitting the turbines. "It's time to make a move."
Some hands shot into the air from the audience, but were ignored.
"There is no decision you are going to make that is going to make everyone happy," said Craig Dumas, another zoning board member, almost pleading for action.
But the meeting soon broke up, still with no decision made.
"This is a problem for these communities," Mr. Dumas said as the room emptied. "There's a lot of emotion on both sides."
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
39 Comments so far
Show AllOk, windmills and birds.
If you live in or near a large city go out in the down town core at 3 or 4 AM and look at the dead birds that have run into a tall building since they think is is sunlight. Some cities have people who are paid to clean up the dead birds every morning so all the suits don't see them. Dead birds and windmills is oil trying to stop them.
Buckycat: "What choice do we have but to improve these processes as we develop large scale wind and solar farms to replace fossil fuels?"
Is that a rhetorical question? We are crazy to develop large scale anything. We don't need large scale. Large scale implies "out of control". "Large scale" means oversupply - which they want for a variety of reasons. They like to make work whether it's needed or not to churn as many bucks as possible, to boost the GDP, for geopolitical intimidation - remember the Cold War. Also the Pentagon gets extra taxes as more bucks are churned. Oversupply puts more slaves to work doing something unnecessary, to ensure they are not doing something subversive. They want the slaves dependent on them, so busywork is what they get. Oversupply is strategically utilized to cultivate overdemand, to addict the slaves to low priced production, so later prices may be raised to milk the slaves - remember the past 8 years milking by the petroleum cartel (price now falling for the election). When they overbuild the solar/wind farms they eliminate most of the pollution but leave mass addiction, enslavement, loss of economic/political independence, and massive overproduction/overconsumption. Instead of that we should have local small scale independent production of energy and everything else.
Of course this was a NYT article. How much have they made advertising for fossil fuel entities?
RE: Buckycat August 18th, 2008 2:57 pm
"What choice do we have but to improve these processes as we develop large scale wind and solar farms to replace fossil fuels?"
Thanks, Buckycat, the logical conclusion.
With the choice of a few birds killed, or thousands of people from a 'nukalar' mishap, which do reasonable people choose. It's a no-brainer, folks...fuck the birds (or the few stupid ones unaware of where they are flying...can't dodge huge blades of a windmill, likely dinner for a predator bird anyway, so the threatened fauna argument is pretty bogus, wouldn't sensible responsible persons agree?) I'm not being insensitive to the concerns of Audobon members, just 'humanitarian' (root, human). How many 'humans' does a coal fueled power plant kill (with many others living 'challenged' autistic lives), or a nuclear power plant have the potential to lead to short tragic painful death? Like buckycat said, "What choice do we have...?" (coalmine canary die anyway regardless, right?)
Or would you rather look from your front door and see 'brown clouds' like they used to see in LA (presently do in Beijing) before people woke up to the threat of auto emmissions. "Drill, drill, drill" is only the mantra for continued centralized control by energy supplies/providers. Why shouldn't an individual receive a tax credit, abatement, or subsidy/grant for improving national security, erecting a windmill/solar farm, preventing a serious balance of trade deficit from purchasing foreign oil (eventually ANY oil for that matter).
Let's break it down. About $700 BILLION 'each year' goes to purchase of foreign oil. Do you realize that's over $230 per month for every US citizen (man, woman, child, about $8 per day each)? And that's not even including the billions extra paid to fossil fuel & nuclear 'centralized' power sources/providers, squeezing/manipulating us while recording obscene profits in a period of social, financial, military, & environmental crisis. or decades of subsidies for these 'status quo' power industries.
Hey! If the Republicans want to privatize everything, fine! Let's start with windmills in suitable yards & solar panels on private exteriors first. Down to the individual, having their own power source, is as 'privatized' as it gets.
It's our tax money, let's spend it usefully instead of wastefully. Mortgages on windmills/solar farms, done from co-ops of community owners/investors, seems a very possible vehicle. Excess production can be placed on the grid (rebate or payment/trade), or stored in compressed air for turbine powered power production later. Massive amounts of compressed air can be stored in underground caverns (including used up oil wells, possibly abandoned coal/mineral mines. Cars run on it, too. (air, or electric)
Mr Hollow Point. I very much support your having a windmill right now, even if the process is not currently perfect. We need alternate energy immediately by hook or by crook, and unfortunately a lot of the time only crooks are available.
In fact, I was saying that it is a shame that the New York Times chooses to tilt at windmills while there are other gigantic corruption scandals it does not cover.
I still think that the transparent contract is something we will need in the future. But who am I?
jclientelle:
The please take the time to read my posting on the missile story.
I own a farm and want a windmill on my property today.
How is Chairman Crump going to pick your pocket at his Chump Pump if americon citizens transition to micro energy production in their own backyards and roof tops? That's so un-freemarketron that it's almost un-americon!
Common Dreams has just posted an article by George Monbiot on missile defense systems that illustrates my points better than I could ever do.
J4zonian - Thanks for the reminder about the need to do things democratically. Your point about the upcoming issues of food and water is well taken.
How do we bring democratic process to Albany or Washington? I believe it will take a long time. We are in bad shape. Meanwhile almost every week we see some big expensive stupid wasteful useless project being floated for the benefit of contracts for politically connected. Schools, roads, transportation are the victims, not to speak of war. Frequently the "work" on these contracts seems to go on and on with no result.
I am bemused that an article about corruption targets wind energy. The New York Times is generally not very incisive about corruption. For instance a recent article about the subway elevators and escalators (which have a very high rate of failure) mentions the lack of training of the workers, but nothing about the suppliers and contractors and how they keep delivering the same poor service decade after decade.
I believe we need a law that requires more transparency with contracts that affect the common good, especially where taxpayer funds are involved. It should be posted on the web with a good index. Basic information would include:
1. A summary of the RFP.
2. A description of the bidding process.
3. A listing of the sponsors
4. A listing of the applicants, including descriptions of previous experience with them
5. An explanation of who got the contract and why and who did not get the contract and why.
6. The terms regarding fulfillment of the contract to specifications, on time and within budget.
Any lawyer could probably make up a better list than mine. Maybe this type of information is available somewhere, but I have trouble finding it.
I only scanned after the first several comments, and several people made points with which I agree, but here's the one I failed to see: This article reads like propaganda on behalf of the drill-firsters. An attempt to create some kind of parity between the environmental damage and heavy handed corporate behavior to take the aura of social good away from the wind industry. Several comments above made the points on behalf of the wind industry that I would make; but we also need to be alert to the NY Times fulfilling its usual propaganda mission.
"towns" in New York are just like n New England where every bit of land in the state is incorporated into "towns" and they are the lowest levels of government in those states."
Exactly correct.
"these wind turbines shouldn't be in populated areas"
Wrong! These turbines should be sited as close to the end users as possible to reduce to loss from transmission lines. And if people complain about the turbines aesthetics, show them the local coal fired plant that's poisoning their kids, show them the local gas fired incinerator that's dumping tons of carbon into the air and ask them if that's better.
Every tall building in every city should be installing turbines on their roofs as well as electric collectors. There are designs that are bird-friendly and non-directional so they take advantage of changing wind direction and updrafts.
As well as the efficiency issue, near-siting of many smaller systems provides stability in the grid and lessens the power of a single large producer over the market.
Building a giant project out in pristine natural setting far from the people that will actually use the energy is a bad idea, but it's the model that big business can wrap it's head (and claws) around and the NIMBY impulse among "environmentalists" plays right into their game.
We have a few wind farms here in the UK, and because our weather is so damn good (hysterical laughter), they should be turning most of the time. At the moment, we are in Summer, at least I think it is Summer, because we have had mostly rain, with some flooding and winds which have been bordering on gale force. So, when we went out last weekend, down towards the coast, we could see a large gathering of these monstrous wind turbines in the distance. Trouble is, there was something wrong. Trees, bushes and people were struggling against quite a strong "breeze", but not the wind turbines, they were stationary. I have talked to a few people since, and the rumour is, that the wrong gears were fitted, they are not corrosion resistant, so being near the sea, they cannot fight against the salt. The result is, that they seize up. Now, I would like to see more natural energy exploited, but only if it is done properly and in sympathy with the surroundings. Oh, I almost forgot - as long as it works!
the only reason AMERICAN GOV is against alternative is they can't control it.
If a country put up solar, wind and wave power units AMERICA can't control the sun, wind or currents in a ocean or river. If that country needs oil for heat etc then America calls the shots or is trying to as the whole Georgia thing last week was about.
That is how I view America
The only way we will see some kind of peace in this world is get off oil.
1 3MW wind turbine (30% effective) for every 4500 acres (with that spread, there is always a place where the wind blows 30% of the time). That is approximately what the US will need to build in order to produce somewhere close to the order of 50% of its electricity production in wind energy. Down to the nitty gritty problem. At the Federal level, there is still a lot of leverage wielded by big oil, big nuclear interests etc. At the local level, people are not as influenced by the big crooks. Corruption at all levels needs to be dealt with. For wind energy, setting up guidelines and institutions that encourage not only their building, but also add to their geographical spread would probably help. The way I see it, if you put up ten turbines in a deserted area, you have just freed up 45,000 acres where wind turbines don't need to be. And by the way, every time I read about the suffering birds, I just get disappointed with an article, the whole bird thing should be a non-issue by now (more birds die in windows, we aren't living in tepees because of it). I think the next step in turbine technology evolution should be the clear, plexi-glass versions, (when that happens, I will feel sorry for the birds, but not until then, at least the Kennedy's will let them get built off of Nantucket as well, since they won't see them).
I think its so funny to read about progressives complaining about alternative energy being implemented.
thanks to Lorax for the common sense.
If we as a society are going to go with wind, then areas that have favourable conditions are going to become no-man's land. With hydro electricity (which is basically solar energy) we dam up waterfalls, redirect rivers, create lakes etc..
I have seen some bad CD articles lately but this one is Rock Bottom!
The brothers and sisters of Mr. Tacy won't talk to him? Some random person claims their windshield was broken. Gasp!
Two towns get laws passed against wind turbines, and this is somehow good?
Blocked views, whirring noises and some bird losses don't compare to fossil fuel pollution.
You guys aren't even making Exxon Mobil work at it a little bit. You're just giving it away.
I thrill to the sight of a windmill, and the hypocrite point of Texas is well-taken.
Wind generators kill 70,000 birds a year in the US. Cars and plate glass kill 154.5 million a year. So wind generators (and the new ones are slower-turning and kill even fewer) thus kill .004% of the birds that cars and windows do.* Certainly we should do everything we can to make that lower; birds are already in enough trouble. But speed limits, bird warning stickers (really!) and driving less would do far more, at far less cost. Let's be rational about the choices we make. Or even better, rationally emotional, since the emotional part of us is actually the best part (think love, compassion, connection, joy, healthy, mature, well-directed anger…)
But process is, if not everything, at least the main thing, because whatever is arrived at through a tainted process, especially a coercive process, is doomed to sabotage any larger goals of democracy or health. What is arrived at through a fair and healthy process involving healthy, connected free people is virtually certain to be a good product.
We are, however, traumatized as a society and a species and as individuals, and among other things that makes us blind to slow 'threats' and hyper-aware of moving ones. What we're used to is thus invisible. Education and the slow gentle bringing of awareness is required, not name-calling, conflict, coercion, threats and intimidation, and denigration.
Bravo, bren! (Or brava!) While I disagree with nimby and aesthetic objections, in moving to wind and solar we must make sure all views are not just heard but incorporated into the final product, and brought in by accommodation and education. At the same time, corruption has to be rooted out relentlessly, or we will solve our oil problems just to be in the same boat (so to speak)over water and food and other problems. Process, process, process. Yes, it takes time. So we better get going.
Decentralized, non-corporate, household energy production (conservation, solar, wind, conservation, methane, conservation…) are the best answers, I think, but they must be arrived at through fair, democratic means. Now, how to get to those, that's another question entirely…
* ^ Lomborg, Bjørn (2001). The Skeptical Environmentalist. New York City: Cambridge University Press.
A lot of these people need to live in West Virginia or eastern Kentucky among the strip mines and mountaintop removal and valley fill. The others need to live for two years downstream from a hydroelectric dam in earthquake country.
The first comment from Jesusofjonesburo was telling:
"The approved business model should have been designed around the individual landowner and not the power distributors."
We have lived so long in a society of corporations, we can't think outside the box and imagine a decentralized power grid.
THe news from MIT recently about collecting energy from solar and wind, and storing it as hydrogen and oxygen, indicates hope that HOMEOWNERS could have power collection and conversion on their own property, and the grid could be used to share power when the wind isn't blowing in a certain place, or on a cloudy day.
In other words, we don't necessarily need large wind, or coal-burning, or nuclear plants supplying the majority of our power.
The more that individual homeowners can generate their own power, and the more that local groups and public utilities can take ownership of larger wind or solar farms, the less we have to sent money out of state (or out of country) to oil, coal, nuclear or corporate wind interests.
This could result in HUGE boosts to local economies.
Instead, we're still thinking in terms of large corporate structures, as if we're all sick patients who have had out blood sucked by leaches, and who contemplate the prospect of rising from the bed, only to imagine some other blood-sucking process.
If there's going to be corporate involvement, have them make small wind turbines, solar water heaters and photovoltaic cells, or solar hydro-turbines. Fine. But we have to think beyond our current model for "power company."
I want to second what Honest John said. Our stupid species won't be happy until we have overpopulated and consumed the planet to death. We are just arguing over specifics, with the most aggressive, nastiest among us trying their best to hog as much of the trough as they can get, whatever the venue, whatever the result.
I wonder if there was a grab for all of the grants ,earmarked on the mortgage bailout bill, that was really a reverse mortgage for homeowners, who will not owe the banks but instead owe the government?
More indentured slavitude presented as "gov. help.?"
out my way they are putting 60 such towers up. It will put enough energy into the grid to support a city of about 100,000 people. The place they are putting them in on an island that sticks out into Lake Ontario.
We are talking about New York State. Is there corruption? On every project.
It would be wonderful if wind energy were built according to a rational public plan that fairly divided the costs and benefits and left the power in the hands of the people, so to speak. But at least it's a good project, urgently needed and we are not being asked to float a bond issue.
Boss Tweed was very corrupt but at least he built some beautiful buildings and spread some cash around to the poor Irish, which is the main reason the patricians hated him.
slackbatter (6.26) You could be correct. My point was that these wind turbines shouldn't be in populated areas. If there are down sides to turbines, the ones putting up with them should be getting a check. Farmers especially.
I'm so glad that the New York Times is starting to pay attention to corrupt government and corporate officials. I assume the reason we never hear about corrupt oil company execs is because they're all squeaky clean?
Hey NYT-- be fair or STFU.
Now, CD, why exactly do you think this is newsworthy?
If the NYT really wanted to do a thorough job on this article, they really would have had a much easier time. Simply entitle the piece "Rights of Poor Still Trampled by Wants of Rich" and then just point out how this corporate energy grab (complete with subsidies, strong-arming of local gov't, bribery, and absentee control) differs little from every other corporate energy grab in history.
At least in this case, however, the landscape isn't being blown up, scraped up, or poisoned with radioactive waste...
This is also another case of people whose communities have been destroyed selling whatever they can to try to hang on to what they have left. Isn't that the American Dream?
It seems to me that the issue is only partly about wind turbines/wind farms and what are the facts about turbine noise--and other points. IF the consultation process had been a good one, it's likely that people would have agreed a) we need an alternative energy source; b) wind is 'way more preferable than nuclear power, coal or offshore drilling. Clearly that didn't happen.
If I were at a meeting where, as in Burke, someone said : "I'd like to hear what people think," said Darrel Bushey, the town supervisor and a wind-tower opponent. And someone else said:"We've listened to the people for two years," responded Timothy Crippen, who sits on the town's zoning board, which favors permitting the turbines. "It's time to make a move." And then when the people want to speak and hands shoot into the air from the audience, but are ignored, the town is essentially destroyed.
If you're serious about making changes in a town that has existed in a particular way for many years, you have to be prepared to listen to the people for more than two years, if that's what it takes to get general agreement.
In this situation, if REAL consultation doesn't occur, a few people will make money and a town's heart stands to be destroyed. That will happen even without corruption.
This is high irony, indeed. The environment is destroyed to save the environment, and livability is destroyed to preserve a lifestyle of consumption. It is fascinating to see the extent of the destruction and depradation people will put up with to keep buying crap.
zaz says-
Towns?? Why in small, reasonably dense areas of population? There should be rural, county, and large farms availible. Putting wind turbines in "towns" indicates corruption.
I think (not totally sure) "towns" in New York are just like n New England where every bit of land in the state is incorporated into "towns" and they are the lowest levels of government in those states. So "towns" would include all the rural area of the state and counties are made up of several towns. In other words it has a very specific definition in some states and is not just another name for a population center too small to be a city. Please correct me if i'm wrong in this case.
Ya know, I was going to say its the County Boards that are just evil. The corporations are just playing this game the way anything that goes before these county boards gets played.
You don't think these county commissioners were saints who'd never been bribed to approve a zoning change before this, do ya? That they were suddenly corrupted by 'the wind companies'? Yeah, right.
I'd bet every project in that town has to use that county commissioners concrete to get approval. Probably been that way for a long time.
Corruption is bad, but coal-burning power plants are worse. Only one of these things can directly result in the extinction of the human race.
The human race is on the edge of disaster from climate change that will affect our children and and their children. We require a rapid re-tooling of industry away from Nuclear and fossil fuels or this generation will be responsible for the end of the human civilization and the promise of a different kind of humanity.
Yes there is corruption and it is centered in the greed oriented existence that the humanity has displayed during its development. It comes from the policy makers who are no better than the corporations who take their money for re-election.
The renewable technology wave is upon us, it is a must! But it also a must that national standards for wind turbine production be thought about researched and enacted. A federal law in the the people's interest determining, what where and how renewables be planned.
Rather than allowing the "market" to control the very lives of people and their future. It brought the world the Exxon Valdez disaster and peacetime nuclear energy with Three Mile Island and a dying polluted world. It is time that a thoughtful approach to the remaining future and ways to get us out of this mess be given to the right people to think about.
Towns?? Why in small, reasonably dense areas of population? There should be rural, county, and large farms availible. Putting wind turbines in "towns" indicates corruption.
Energy doesn't come by magic. Something is required to harness the energy be it wind, hydro-electric, nuclear, solar, etc. Some environmentalists would like it to come "magically" through Harry Potter's wand but that just isn't the case.
I have been to Twentynine Palms, CA. There's wind farms along SR62. I have been directly underneath them. The noise from the turbines isn't that bad. It certainly wouldn't bother you if you were inside a house more than 100' away from the tower. The fact that "people are complaining of turbine noise" is nothing but BS exaggeration.
The wind towers MUST exist to harness the wind energy. There will have to be fan blades or some other type of device to enable the turbine to spin. I would rather see endless fields of windmills than smoke belching power plants.
As far as "intimidation" goes, I would say that the people of the town who are being paid to lease their land are the ones breaking windshields. It is highly unlikely that any power company, even the oil companies, would resort to petty vandalism.
People like Darrel Bushey are holdouts for the magicians. They don't want smokestacks, they don't want nuclear plants, they don't want windmills, they don't want solar arrays. Perhaps they dream of some sort of magical power that will enable lights to simply "come on by themselves". Wow that would be neat. WAKE UP! Wind towers are sweet. They are the first steps to harnassing renewables and kicking the dinosaur off our backs. We have to take these steps folks. You have to give a little to take a lot.
Yes, Texas 3:06 pm...
The Warm Green Fuzzies Rule. I get them also from bicycles, gardens instead of lawns, and non-sweatshop clothing as well as solar and wind. I'd also welcome a wind turbine in my yard.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
"Birdwatching" man standing beside gas-guzzling truck bemoaning the sight of windmills.
How much damage does that truck and the highways it drives on contribute to a healthy bird population? More birds are killed on highways than by windmills.
These windmills turn very slowly and generate little to no noise. Most of the noise is in construction. I would welcome one of these in my backyard... sorta like how I get warm fuzzies when I see solar panels on the roofs in my neighborhood.
Well... I don't live near a wind farm so I don't have first-hand experience of the problems upstate New Yorkers are facing with corruption, noise, money, and spoiled views. But I DO live downstate in NY, well within the "Peak Fatality Zone" of Indian Point 'nucular' power plant. Been working to stop the relicensing. You want corruption? We're up to our necks in it, as well as the leaks and toxicity of the place. If and when something goes wrong, I may be among the lucky who die quickly. Those further out, in the "Peak Injury Zone" will no doubt experience a much longer and more painful demise.
So it sounds terrible for those affected negatively by wind farms, but I can't help but think it's a better solution than more nukes or more coal or more drilling. Does anyone want an oil refinery going up in their town? I bet not. One lesson here is that states need to get their rules set up before developers get there first and take over. Maybe it's already too late everywhere, and it's easier said than done. But perhaps upstate NY is our laboratory and this process can be improved. What choice do we have but to improve these processes as we develop large scale wind and solar farms to replace fossil fuels?
What can we say? Corporations are just evil.
This article provides a good example of what happens when input into public decision-making is restricted. The approved business model should have been designed around the individual landowner and not the power distributors.
Let's hope that Cuomo investigates these developments aggressively. Using public office for private gain is another behavior sanctioned (although not invented) by Reagan.
One thought that scares me - and I'm certain that some corporate reptiles are working on it - is the likelihood that corporations will use the SCOTUS' recent redefinition of public domain to simply take whatever land they want. They've already proven to themselves that buying local politicians is not a hurdle.
jj
if your crystal-ball future includes electricity\jobs\property ownership\mining\industrialization\manufacturing\waste, then renewables like wind are a logical argument...to make any future plans in light of current political\military bonding\activity and the ever-escalating molecular environmental changes gets a bit wacky...my crystal ball may not be realistic, but it would show an abandonment of electricity and ownership, and a return to tribal watershed-centric living...as I look down the road and reluctantly throw humans and electricity both into the mix together, I keep coming back to HAARP and tasers and microwaves directed at and used upon each other...even the least negative visions involve huge dumps full of discarded electronic (and toxic) devices, ever-replaced by more manufacturing so people can watch and listen and drive and continue to ignore their physical bodies, or their physical home planet...what, exactly, is this electricity needed for? Heating homes? Refrigerating food?
Powering toys? Are there alternatives?