Friends of Glebe Mountain

FGM's views on issues related to industrial wind technology will appear here periodically.

FGM's launch editorial - Don't Be Bamboozled, Be Informed - identified the issues.

FGM's second editorial - Wind Energy's Zero Capacity Value - debunks wind proponents' claims that industrial wind energy should be "part of the energy mix."

FGM's third editorial - Industrial Wind Plants' Adverse Impact on Residential Property Values - discredits wind developers' claims that turbine noise and/or view impairment don't adversely impact the value of residential properties.

P.S.

Please scroll down this page to access earlier editorials.

Coming Soon...

Wind turbine's adverse impact on the value of residential properties is the first "collateral damage" issue addressed by FGM. Future editorials will address other "collateral damage" issues, e.g. the impact of industrial wind plants on:

• Environmentally fragile ridgelines
• Vermont's tourist industry
• The quality of life of residents

 ... etc.  Stay tuned!

November 18, 2010

Against The Wind

Big Wind Is Not the Answer; Pursue Alternatives Instead was the overriding message directed at the Legislature and the in-coming Shumlin Administration and delivered yesterday in Montpelier by over 8 Vermont citizen groups opposed to the development of industrial scale wind projects in Vermont.  Annette Smith, Executive Director of Vermonters for Clean Environment, hosted the one-hour press briefing. Her introductory remarks to a packed conference room were pointed and poignant: 

         We are gathered today to sound the alarm bells – nothing less than the future of    Vermont is at stake. The proposed ridgeline wind projects will irreparably harm our natural resources and habitats, make hundreds of Vermonters sick, and leave scars that will never heal – all for little if any benefit to Vermont or the environment. There is a better way, and now is the time to change course.

This is not new news to those of you acquainted with Dan Foty’s expert commentaries on the limitations of renewable energy – including wind - that appear frequently on Vermont Tiger. What is new is the elevation of opposition to industrial scale wind in Vermont from dispersed, local community groups to an organized, statewide initiative.

The challenge ahead should not be underestimated. Heretofore, only Governor Douglas among the Montpelier crowd has been an outspoken opponent of industrial scale wind. Legislators, as a general rule, fall into one of three categories – (1) those who support uncritically any and all so-called “green” initiatives, (2) those who are in VPIRG’s pocket or (3) those who recognize wind energy’s fundamental flaws but lack the political courage to be seen on the wrong side of an issue labeled as green.

 
VCE’s initiative yesterday – along with the participation and support of Vermonters from threatened communities throughout the state – was an important step towards debunking on a statewide level the purported benefits for Vermont of industrial scale wind.  Those of us who have been outspoken opponents of large-scale wind at the local level no longer feel so lonely. 

Note: The above first appeared as a posting on Vermonttiger.com on November 18, 2010.

 July 26, 2010

Industrial Wind Plants’ Adverse Impact on Residential Property Values

If you believe industrial wind developers’ assertions that industrial scale wind plants don’t adversely impact the value of residential properties then count yourself among the bamboozled.

Commonsense and empirical documentary evidence suggest otherwise.  The noise generated by industrial scale wind turbines and/or their impairment of a view shed adversely impact residential property values with the magnitude of the devaluation largely a function of properties’ distance from, and view of, the turbines.

Having reviewed relevant literature, FGM recommends two recent documents prepared by professional real estate appraisers that focus on the adverse impact of industrial scale turbines on residential properties within 2 miles of an industrial wind plant and that arrive at essentially the same conclusion - residential property owners can expect an average decline in value of 25% with properties in close proximity to turbines experiencing declines of as much as 40%.

These documents are:

1. Impact of Wind Turbines on Market Value of Texas Rural Land, authored by the Gardner Appraisal Group and presented on February 13, 2009 to the South Texas Plains Agriculture Wind & Wildlife Conference.
   
   This document is a slide presentation that provides an excellent and readily digestible overview of the variables that determine property values and that supports its conclusions with empirical, market based evidence.                                                                                         
2. The sworn affidavit dated June 8,2010 of Michael McCann of McCann Appraisal, LLC submitted to elected officials of Adams County, Illinois.                                                                                                                                                                             This document is a relatively lengthy treatise and requires heavier lifting but is well worth a thorough read.  In addition to measuring empirically the impact of noise and view impairment on residential property values based on properties’ distances from an industrial wind plant, McCann provides an excellent overview of current literature and anecdotal evidence relating to the “noise” issue.

On the other side of the debate, the research generally leaned on by wind developers to support their claims that property values are not affected are two documents sponsored by the US Department of Energy and conducted by avowed proponents of renewable energy.   The objectivity and methodology of  these reports have been discredited.   For your perusal these two suspect reports are listed here with their accompanying critiques.

1. Renewable Energy Policy Project (REEP), May 2003  
   
   Critique:  Jon Boone’s critique on pages 24-29 of his 2005 testimony before the Maryland Public Service Commission also provides useful historical perspective on property related information.                                                                                                                                                           
   
2. Berkeley National Laboratory, December 2009                                                                                                                                                                Critique:  Albert Wilson, a principal of A.R. Wilson LLC, Woodland Park, Colorado

The growing empirical and anecdotal evidence along with simple commonsense clearly support the premise that the values of residential properties are adversely impacted by industrial scale wind turbines.  The prospective decline in value is largely a function of distance from the industrial wind plant with those within the “footprint” or in close proximity suffering the greatest depreciation.  While the aforementioned research focuses on residential properties within 2 miles of wind turbines, owners of properties beyond two miles are vulnerable as well only less so, particularly to the extent that their view shed is impaired.

Targeted communities are well advised not to accept any claim made by wind developers at face value.  Their spin – replete with half-truths and worse - panders to one’s fears and hopes and rarely, if ever, stands up to empirical evidence.

 July 15, 2010

Wind Energy’s Zero Capacity Value

Let’s begin with two pithy quotes that refute proponents’ claims that industrial wind should be “part of the energy mix”. Please read carefully as a quiz follows.

“You really don’t count on wind energy as capacity. It is different from other technologies because it can’t be dispatched.”
Christine Real de Azua, American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) spokesperson

"No one should believe that a highly fluctuating, unresponsive source of energy, which provides no capacity value, can replace highly responsive, steady sources of power that do provide capacity value.”
Environmentalist Jon Boone

Per policies developed and enforced by the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) all electric power grids must have sufficient generating capacity to match aggregate production and consumption instantaneously, continuously and reliably. This means that the grid must routinely have generating sources of power that -

(1) meet base load demand (the minimum amount of electric power delivered or required over a given period at a constant rate),

(2) meet peak demand (the highest hourly load within a given period-day, month, season or year) as well as

(3) provide the requisite operating flexibility to respond to everything in between, including contingencies.

Grid managers, consequently, focus intently on each energy source’s capacity value, i.e. the amount of power an energy source can reliably be expected to provide on demand, particularly during periods of peak demand.

Wind – an intermittent, uncontrollable and largely unpredictable (except in the very short term) energy source - is an inherently unreliable power source and, thus, has no capacity value.  

One way, courtesy of Jon Boone, to grasp the critical importance of reliability is to think of the grid as a large pyramid of diverse energy sources that provide the power required by a modern society, i.e. power produced from the steady, reliable and controllable flow of energy when needed.

The base of the pyramid - the "base load"--consists primarily of power from large, slow ramping energy sources such as nuclear and large coal plants as well as large hydro and natural gas facilities that may be ramped up or back at a faster pace. Grid managers can depend upon this reservoir of reliable energy to respond to the bulk of expected demand for power.

The second level atop the base of the pyramid is comprised of spinning reserves. i.e., energy sources that provide standby power which can be called upon quickly to add to or subtract from the total grid supply as it (1) responds to peak load demands and (2) engages the ebb and flow of demand over the course of a day. Typically these power sources come from reliable generators like small coal, natural gas, oil, and hydro.

The third layer atop the spinning reserves consists of power generators that typically aren't running but can rather quickly be called into service to meet peak demand load or help cover greater than usual fluctuations in demand. These typically are older, smaller coal/gas/oil generators.

And, at the top of the pyramid, is what transpires during peak demand, often lasting no more than an hour or so a day and, from a seasonal perspective, often occurring on the hottest and/or coldest days of the year. Here, “peaking” generators are brought on line to meet demand no matter what the weather is doing.

Typically, to ensure power is reliably available in the case of emergencies, a grid maintains a generating reserve with high capacity value of 10-20% above anticipated demand.  On occasion, in dire circumstances, some grids import power from or export power to other grids to keep the larger grid system secure. However, at all times throughout the various demand cycles, demand fluctuations are balanced as people and businesses turn their power on and off.

Where does wind energy fit in this pyramid of supply?

Well, a grid operator will count the rated capacity of an industrial wind plant as a component of the grid’s installed capacity.  However, wind’s variableness fits nowhere nicely into any demand cycle and, therefore, nowhere nicely within the pyramid.  As wind is neither dependable nor dispatchable, it can’t be counted on for baseload mid or peak load purposes. In fact, when available (particularly in quantity), wind flux destabilizes the match between supply and demand – from the supply side. Grid operators put up with demand side flux because having the ability to use electricity on demand has been demonstrably important to our economic productivity and our general well-being. However, no rationale grid operator would tolerate a supply side flux unless forced to by ill-conceived public policies.

This is why noted energy expert Tom Hewson has said that industrial wind plants provide only energy, not dispatchable capacity in the form of power supply to a grid. It is also the reason Hewson has said that wind energy cannot be used to meet future, permanent increases in the demand for power. Modern society requires energy sources that supply, reliably, steady and controllable power and wind energy doesn’t.  Meeting the future growth in demand for power will require not only more reliable energy sources but also, as importantly, increased capacity.

Wind energy is therefore basically a sporadic, unreliable energy substitute, nothing more. Because large power generators like nuclear and coal cannot be economically turned on and off or even up and back without significant losses in efficiency, wind energy has not nor will it replace these energy sources. When the wind is blowing, it will most likely displace intermittently a bit of hydro or natural gas fuels. But hydro has no carbon emissions while natural gas has very little. So wind – an unreliable energy source - also has a modest, if any, impact on carbon emissions.

Sacrificing Vermont’s environmentally fragile and treasured ridgelines, significantly diluting Vermont’s appeal as a tourist destination and dramatically threatening the quality of life of Vermonters residing nearby industrial wind  plants is a ludicrous proposition for an energy source that has no capacity value.  Our ridgelines, tourist dependent economy and quality of life are the heart and soul of Vermont. And wind, as we know, simply comes and goes.



P.S. Having read the above, you are ready to take Jon Boone’s quiz:

* Why did the Dutch stop using windmills to grind grain and pump water to reclaim land from the sea--as soon as the steam engine was invented?
 
* Why are sailing vessels used almost entirely for recreation today, rather than for commercial purposes?
 
* Why aren't gliders providing a substantial percentage of commercial air transport?
 
* What is the difference between energy and power? What would be the likely consequence if all our gas pumps were wind "powered?" 
 
* What are the implications for wind technology given that any power generated is a function of the cube of the wind speed along a narrow range of wind velocities (a wind turbine doesn't begin work until wind speeds hit 9-mph and maxes out when the wind speeds hit around 34-mph)? Explain how a fluctuating source of energy could, by itself, “power” any city.
 
* Why has steady, controllable, precision power been the basis of modern life?

July 2, 2010 

Don’t be Bamboozled, Be Informed!

Unsupported by the facts and aided by complicit politicians and the mainstream media, the claims of wind energy proponents pander to the fears and hopes of a well-intentioned but uninformed public. Instead of producing credible evidence to substantiate their claims of industrial wind energy’s purported effectiveness and environmental benignity, wind energy proponents typically and simply attempt to demonize those demanding proof and civic safeguards as NIMBYs - i.e., selfish individuals more concerned with their own well-being than the well-being of the general public. 

The facts are merely inconvenient truths to proponents of wind technology, since they belie their claims that wind can contribute to energy independence, reduce carbon emissions, and be cost-effective.  The facts also show that large-scale wind technology is actually a harmful environmental presence-- threatening land conservation, wildlife and natural heritage views.  In addition to these adverse environmental impacts, industrial wind plants have enormous potential to reduce the quality of life of nearby residents and the value of nearby properties.

When the misleading claims of wind energy proponents are factually debunked, what’s left is a cause célèbre only for those with a massive financial and/or ideological stake in the technology—at the expense of rate and tax payers who receive no benefit in exchange.

To avoid being among the bamboozled, residents and property owners in Glebe’s environs must strive to be fully informed. FGM aims to help by providing FGM members and site visitors with the information, either on the site itself or with links to articles and other websites, that will enable them to better understand why large scale wind technology is an unwarranted and inappropriate development atop Glebe Mountain.

For starters, you will find here links to four sites that should get you well underway in becoming fully informed about industrial wind energy: (1) Industrial Wind Action Group (IWAG) based in New Hampshire, (2) environmentalist Jon Boone’s Stop Ill Wind, (3) Energize Vermont and (4)Londonderry based The Glebe Mountain Group (GMG).

IWAG’s site is very comprehensive, providing not only news and opinion items but also an extensive library of research documents and photographs.  Jon Boone’s site explicitly debunks the misleading claims of wind energy proponents and offers “quick facts,” “notable quotes” and a number of must read, pithy and insightful “sound bites” that strike at the core of the specious aura surrounding industrial wind energy.  Energize Vermont adocates for renewable energy solutions in harmony with the irreplaceable character of Vermont that contribute to Vermonters' well-being. GMG’s site – which will include updated information soon - provides helpful and relevant information on Glebe itself.

As you explore these sites you will note they link to one another and to many other sites as well. Those responsible for these sites are an intellectually honest, engaged and collegial bunch dedicated to disseminating the truth about industrial wind energy, thereby helping us to help one another.  Like FGM, these sites are 100% volunteer undertakings by individuals seeking better, more informed public policy—and the protection of the environment and fellow citizens.

The growing opposition to inappropriately sited industrial wind plants is a global phenomenon.  FGM urges you to become fully informed and engaged in this crusade. The more who learn the truth about industrial wind energy, the greater the odds that sanity will prevail.  It is noteworthy that sanity does prevail in the current Town Plans of Londonderry and Windham both of which prohibit large-scale wind technology atop Glebe. Let’s keep it that way by being informed and not being counted amongst the bamboozled.