Mill Pond = Mill Stone?

1,698 views

Published on

These were the slides given at pubic forums discussing a proposed local wind project: Mill Pond.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,698
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mill Pond = Mill Stone?

  1. 1. Mill Pond=Mill Stone? John Droz, jr. Physicist & Environmental Advocate Newport, North Carolina 11/26/13 [rev 12/16/13]
  2. 2. Make SURE to View This Presentation in the FULL SCREEN Mode! Click the “FULL” icon in the lower right hand corner.
  3. 3. NOTE: SlideShare has had some issues with translating presentations properly. Hopefully they are temporary. If some slides are hard to read, or are missing graphics, please download the PDF version, which is much better quality. (To do that click the “Save” button above the window: it’s only a 14± MB file.) (Otherwise, use your keyboard arrow keys to navigate. This will allow you to proceed at your own pace.)
  4. 4. Mill Pond = Mill Stone? This is a presentation given at a public forum meeting in Newport, NC November 26, 2013, to 100+ attendees. This is an overview discussion about various key aspects of a proposed nearby industrial wind project (Mill Pond). It also touches on the US electricity grid, and the electrical power source choices we have. This is a complicated matter, so I have tried to strike a balance between being too technical and too simplified. The more information about our electricity options, see EnergyPresentation.Info. The underlying message is that our energy decisions should be made on the basis of sound SCIENCE — not on what special-interest lobbyists say. Hopefully you have already been to my website: WiseEnergy.org which has hundreds of economic and environmental studies regarding industrial wind energy. WiseEnergy.org/Carteret-Wind is a page on that site that has other useful supporting information specifically about the Mill Pond project. My expectation is that after legislators get more informed — and do some Critical Thinking — that they will be in a much better position to execute informed cost-beneficial energy and environmental policies. In my live presentation there was commentary that accompanied each slide, and that is not included here. If there are questions about this material after you carefully go through this and the referenced links, I will be glad to personally respond to any emails you send me: “aaprjohn@northnet.org”. Please see References and Credits, my brief “resume,” the copyright notice, disclaimer, contact information: all at the end of EnergyPresentation.Info. [Note that I will indicate updates on the material by a revision date on the first slide.] If you like what you see, please pass it on to other open-minded people, plus your federal, state, and local representatives. — ENJOY! john droz, jr.
  5. 5. A Lot More About What You’ll See Tonight, is Online at: WiseEnergy.org/Carteret-wind
  6. 6. This is: “WiseEnergy.org/Carteret-wind”
  7. 7. The Soundbite: Wind Energy = High Cost, Low Benefits
  8. 8. — Food For Thought — What would you think if the government said: “We think that Windy’s fast food is healthy, so to encourage more people to eat it we will — 1 2 3 4 5 6 - Give W’s a 30% cash rebate of the cost of any store, and Pay W’s an extra 50¢ for every hamburg they sell, and Allow W’s to charge an inflated price for their food, and Give W’s preferential treatment over their competitors, and Ignore environmental or health regulations W’s violates, and Mandate that all citizens buy 10% of their meals at W’s.”
  9. 9. Using “back of the envelope” calculations it works out that the Mill Pond developers will be making a profit of something like: $50 Million a year!
  10. 10. Who Am I? Brief History Several Problems Some Solutions Questions & Answers
  11. 11. Part 1: Who Am I?
  12. 12. There are two things that are more difficult than making a public speech: climbing a wall which is leaning toward you, and kissing a girl who is leaning away from you. — Winston Churchill
  13. 13. My Three Hats Here: #1 - Physicist #2 - Economist #3 - Environmentalist
  14. 14. My basic position is that — 1) we do have environmental and energy issues, and 2) these matters should be solved scientifically.
  15. 15. It’s Lobbyists vs Science —and Science is Losing
  16. 16. What Is Critical Thinking? A thorough, open-minded, logical effort to examine a claim, in the light of applicable evidence. One of the key ingredients of true science — and critical thinking — is SKEPTICISM
  17. 17. Wait a minute — something feels wrong here! “Shut up, you moron! Do as you’ve been told. It’s for your own good!”
  18. 18. An intelligent, Science-based energy policy slogan: All of the Above All of the Sensible See much more at WiseEnergy.org
  19. 19. Written by a Utility Company CEO — available online.
  20. 20. Part 2: a) Some NC Energy History
  21. 21. — A Story of Biblical Proportions — In the Beginning, there were: Self-serving Lobbyists Setting State Policies
  22. 22. And the Lobbyists Begot: Senate Bill 3
  23. 23. And Senate Bill 3 Mandated: Various %’s of renewable energy by certain dates
  24. 24. And Senate Bill 3’s Justifications:
  25. 25. And Senate Bill 3’s Justifications were: False Testaments (written by lobbyists)
  26. 26. And Senate Bill 3’s Consequences were: Most of this pestilence will be wind energy. 100% of this will be inflicted on the coast.
  27. 27. NC Utilities have other options for redemption: 1) buy out-of-state renewable energy 2) buy RECs
  28. 28. Prophets spoke out against this evil: H298 (Affordable Energy Act) was introduced in early 2013
  29. 29. The special interest lobbyists were angered: They condemned and vilified H298
  30. 30. Other voices were raised against this corruption: H484 (Wind Permitting Rules) was introduced in early 2013
  31. 31. The special interest lobbyists were incensed: They saw to it that H484 was diluted
  32. 32. (Here is where we are today.) The special interest lobbyists are celebrating these victories! But among citizens there was weeping and a gnashing of teeth.
  33. 33. (Here is where we hope to be soon…) Finally the subjects had had enough: They cast out the lobbyists, — and their enablers — from the kingdom.
  34. 34. (Here is where we hope to be soon…) There was rejoicing throughout the land: Inhabitants reclaimed their rightful ownership of their property, their health & safety, their environment, and their military brethren.
  35. 35. (Here is where we hope to be soon…) Citizen-oriented leaders were installed, and: Peace and Prosperity followed.
  36. 36. Amen!
  37. 37. Part 2: b) Some Marketing History
  38. 38. The basic objective of any con.
  39. 39. How were snake oil salesmen able to take advantage of good people? 1 - By telling them what they wanted to hear, and 2 - By counting on the fact that few people take the time to properly check things out!
  40. 40. We look back and say how could these people be so gullible? But is it any different today?
  41. 41. Yes — It’s Worse!
  42. 42. There is no penalty for making unscientific claims.
  43. 43. chutz·pah noun ˈhu̇t-spə, ˈḵut-, -(ˌ)spä ̇ Shameless Audacity Example of CHUTZPAH------------------- “Houston-based company, Torch Renewable Energy LLC, expects its proposed wind and solar energy facility to bring lots of benefits to both Newport and Carteret County, without any negative impacts.” — CNT 11/15/13
  44. 44. So we’ve come full circle.
  45. 45. The solution to almost any con is simple: 1 - don’t believe everything you hear from sales people, and 2 - thoroughly check things out!
  46. 46. Part 3: Several Problems — a) Quick Background
  47. 47. Twelve Turbines in a Rural Community © john droz, jr.
  48. 48. Wind Power Fails to Deliver the Goods By this I mean that: 1) wind energy is not a technically sound solution to provide us power, or to meaningfully reduce global warming, and 2) wind energy is not an economically viable source of energy on its own, and 3) wind energy is not environmentally responsible.
  49. 49. Science is a PROCESS that Works Like This: When a new idea is proposed as a potential solution to a problem, it is up to the advocates to PROVE its efficacy (not the other way around).
  50. 50. The Process involves a: 1) 2) 3) 4) comprehensive, objective, transparent, and empirical based analysis. In the case of Wind Energy, this has never been done!
  51. 51. Sound Scientific Solutions — a comprehensive assessment that covers ALL important concerns: TECHNICAL (e.g. reliability, dispatchability, transmission, other Grid limitations) ECONOMIC (e.g. taxpayer cost, ratepayer costs, agricultural impact, property values, net jobs, etc.) ENVIRONMENTAL (e.g. CO2 savings, noise, flicker, birds & bats, other health effects, raw material extraction and processing, etc.)
  52. 52. Part 3: Some Problems — b) A Teensie Technical Tidbit
  53. 53. There is NO SUCH THING as wind energy by itself!
  54. 54. Wind Energy MUST HAVE a fast-responding, augmenting source of power available 24/7/365. NO other conventional source of electricity has this requirement!
  55. 55. For a variety of technical and economic reasons, this fast-responding, augmenting source of power is usually gas.
  56. 56. So, ALL statements about the consequences of this wind project (calculations of cost, impact on air quality, etc.) MUST address the WIND + GAS Package.
  57. 57. The developer’s Presentation does NOT do this — which is a serious misrepresentation.
  58. 58. Another technical issue with Wind Energy “Integrating the variable capacity of wind energy undermines the timetested, science driven technology plan required of all utilities. And that just isn’t right.”
  59. 59. An even more disturbing assessment from a utility executive. When National Grid’s CEO was challenged about integrating wind energy, he said: “Families would have to get used to only using power when it was available, rather than constantly.”
  60. 60. The Developer’s omission of these (and other) technical realities is a misrepresentation of the situation.
  61. 61. Part 3: Several Problems — c)Eying Environmental Effects
  62. 62. Some citizens say that they support similar wind projects because they are “Green.”
  63. 63. Is Wind Energy Really Green? Let’s take a quick look at just one part of a turbine...
  64. 64. Many Wind Turbines use 2000± Pounds of Rare Earth Elements per rated MW. So what?
  65. 65. The processing of Rare Earth Elements involves dozens of steps, of caustic chemical baths, or blast furnace separations. Each of these results in a waste stream of severely polluted air, water, and residue.
  66. 66. Read for Yourself...
  67. 67. The processing of the Rare Earth Elements, for just one 100 MW wind project will... 1) destroy 20,000± square meters of vegetation, 2) create 1,200,000± pounds of CO2, 3) generate 6,000,000± cubic meters of highly toxic air pollution, 4) poison 29,000,000± gallons of wastewater, 5) produce 600,000,000± pounds of contaminated tailing sands, & 6) result in 280,000± pounds of radioactive waste.
  68. 68. Yes, that’s right: processing the REEs used by just one 100 MW wind project’s turbines result in 280,000± pounds of radioactive waste!
  69. 69. Remember, the REE environmental impact is just ONE component of these turbines. There are other adverse environmental consequences as well.
  70. 70. LIKE THIS
  71. 71. November 23, 2013
  72. 72. Health Effects of Low Frequency Noise Can Cause Death
  73. 73. So, is Wind Energy Really Green? An objective look says NO!
  74. 74. After carefully looking into just this ONE turbine component, reconsider the following marketing claims: 1 - Is Wind Energy really “renewable”? 2 - Is Wind Energy really “sustainable”? 3 - Does Wind Energy really give us energy “independence”? The inescapable answer is NO!
  75. 75. As time goes on, more environmentalists are speaking out — “Industrial wind projects don’t work. They produce a trickle of electricity at a vast cost to the consumer. They desecrate the landscape and make people’s lives a misery. And they don’t even cut carbon emissions. They are literally a waste of space…” Struan Stevenson: Chairman of the European Parliament’s Climate Change, Biodiversity & Sustainable Development Intergroup (11/11/11)
  76. 76. Part 3: Several Problems — d) Economics Explained
  77. 77. What Wind Energy Is Really All About
  78. 78. E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G about the economics here is problematic!
  79. 79. Does wind energy provide economical electricity ? NO, not compared to conventional sources. Look at the real economics from three perspectives — a) Total Costs = higher than conventional sources. b) Ratepayer Costs = higher than conventional sources. c) Taxpayer Subsidies = higher than all conventional sources, combined!
  80. 80. Financial Comparison “a” Total Costs (Capital + Operation + Fuel + Transmission)
  81. 81. Power Sources Total Costs Capital Operation Fuel Transmission Coal w CSS Onshore Wind {Wind costs do NOT take into account any costs: for backup generation, OR for extra transmission lines needed, OR for other ancillary requirements, OR for decommissioning.} Nuclear Geothermal Gas w CCS EIA — Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2016 Offshore Wind
  82. 82. Financial Comparison “b” Utility Ratepayer Costs
  83. 83. More real world evidence from NC utility experts, about the real cost of wind energy: onshore = 2-3 times more offshore = 4-5 times more
  84. 84. 40 35 What’s the Correlation with Higher Wind Energy Usage and Residential Electricity Rates? Bad Renewables % (2007 Data) ¢/KWH Denmark 30 Germany 25 20 Spain 15 US 10 5 Canada
  85. 85. Financial Comparison “c” Taxpayer Costs
  86. 86. Annual Federal TAXPAYER Subsidies $4,981 M of Electrical Energy Sources: Totals 2010 US Energy Information Administration Subsidy Report: July 2011 [Direct + Tax + R&D +Electricity Support] Note that the total 2010 subsidies for wind energy exceed the totals for all the other conventional sources COMBINED! $1,189 M Coal $2,234 M Nuclear $654 M Nat Gas $215 M Hydro $4,981 M Wind
  87. 87. Some Annual Federal Subsidies $52.43 of Electrical Energy Sources: per MWH 2010 US Energy Information Administration Subsidy Report: July 2011 [Direct + Tax + R&D +Electricity Support] $0.64 Coal $2.78 Nuclear $0.63 Nat Gas $0.84 Hydro $52.43 Wind
  88. 88. In ADDITION to the generous Federal subsidies, many states offer financial incentives for wind power, like: 1. Personal Tax Incentives 2. Corporate Tax Incentives 3. Sales Tax Incentives 4. Property Tax Incentives 5. Rebates 6. Grants 7. Loans 8. Industry Support 9. Bonds, and 10. Production Incentives. On top of these financial incentives, state and local governments have established rules, regulations and policies (like RPS), with the purpose of encouraging or mandating the development and increased sale and consumption of energy from renewable sources.
  89. 89. Some utilities are now starting to speak out. Here is a statewide ad run by Idaho Power: “In the simplest of terms, special interest groups and wind developers are asking you to pay more for a less reliable product. And that just isn’t right.”
  90. 90. President & COO of Duke’s US Electric business, says: “It doesn’t matter how clean it is, if it’s not affordable or reliable.”
  91. 91. But what about local economics?
  92. 92. To begin with, all “enticements” are with your own money! Remember What Your Dad Said: There’s No Free Lunch!
  93. 93. To ACCURATELY know local economics, we need to get valid answers to three questions:
  94. 94. Question #1: Exactly how much of the developer’s job and economic claims are guaranteed? Answer: None.
  95. 95. Question #2: Specifically how much of the guaranteed jobs and economic benefits will go to North Carolina citizens? Answer: We have no idea. Most initial jobs will be to imported specialists.
  96. 96. Question #3: What are the NET jobs and economic benefits to North Carolina? Answer: There will be job and economic losses. See next slides!
  97. 97. Local Job Impact
  98. 98. Here is a comprehensive study about how wind development affects Tourism...
  99. 99. Here are the study’s conclusions about how wind development affects Tourism...
  100. 100. Here are the latest Carteret County Tourism Jobs data... 2930 jobs x 4% = 120± jobs lost /year Over the 20± year life of the wind project: = 2400 job years lost (just related to tourism, in Carteret County)
  101. 101. Some Carteret County Annual Job Impact Due To Mill Pond This does NOT include additional job losses due to: — the higher cost of electricity, — military impacts due to mission disruptions, etc.
  102. 102. Local Economic Consequences
  103. 103. Here are the latest Carteret County Tourism Income data... $282 million x 4% = $11+ million lost / year. Over the 20± year life of the wind project: = $225± million lost (just related to tourism, in Carteret County)
  104. 104. Here is a government study about one financial impact from wind development...
  105. 105. Here are their conclusions of the crop loss due to killed bats to Carteret County...
  106. 106. The bat costs do not take into account other consequences of losing bats — like more human health problems due to an increase of mosquitoes...
  107. 107. Carteret County Annual Economic Impact Due To Mill Pond This does NOT include additional financial losses due to: — Tax reductions from nearby property devaluations, — Health effects from turbines, — Health effects from insect proliferation, — Higher cost of electricity, etc. = a $266± million loss over the 20 yr project life!
  108. 108. Carteret County Mill Pond Impact Net Annual Job Loss = 110± Net Annual Economic Loss = $13± Million
  109. 109. Net Economic Assessment
  110. 110. Part 3: Several Problems — e) Military Interference
  111. 111. NC Energy Policy and the NC MILITARY: on a Collision Course
  112. 112. 1: # ue ss I y on ti ar uc li t i tr M bs lO ca si hy P
  113. 113. 1: # ue ss I y on ti ar uc li t i tr M bs lO ca si hy P
  114. 114. 2: # ue ss I ry ce ita en il er M rf te In ar ad R
  115. 115. 2: # ue ss I ry ce ita en il er M rf te In ar ad R
  116. 116. 2: # ue ss I ry ce ita en il er M rf te In ar ad R
  117. 117. 2: # ue ss I ry ce ita en il er M rf te In ar ad R “A wind facility will create areas where we can not reliably observe or control military/civilian air traffic.”
  118. 118. There are other military issues with industrial wind turbines that the general public will not be aware of — for example: 3: # ue ss I ry ce a li t en i er M rf te In isc M
  119. 119. Some Facts about NC Military & Wind Energy 1 - The DC DOD Clearinghouse has assumed all authority for approving wind installations. 2 - Because of this political directive, ALL NC military personnel have been commanded to stand down regarding any NC wind projects. 3 - Internal figures we have seen are that DOD has been submitted some 4000 applications, and zero have been rejected.
  120. 120. Our Best Solution to Protect NC Military Bases 1 - Realize that due to the current DC political policies being propagated, active military can not publicize the issues resulting from any particular proposed industrial wind project (e.g. Mill Pond). 2 - Retired military should step up to be the voice for active personnel. 3 - A worthwhile set of human health standards and environmental rules provides more NC military protection than the current DOD process. Combining retired military, with proper environmental rules and health standards will provide the optimum defense of NC bases.
  121. 121. Part 3: Several Problems — f) A Visual Perspective
  122. 122. 5 4 3 1 2
  123. 123. From Across Newport River
  124. 124. From Across Newport River
  125. 125. From Across Newport River
  126. 126. Crystal Coast Plaza Highway 70
  127. 127. Crystal Coast Plaza Highway 70
  128. 128. Crystal Coast Plaza Highway 70
  129. 129. Newport Flea Market (Highway 70)
  130. 130. Newport Flea Market (Highway 70)
  131. 131. Newport Flea Market (Highway 70)
  132. 132. Babe Ruth Baseball Field
  133. 133. Babe Ruth Baseball Field
  134. 134. Babe Ruth Baseball Field
  135. 135. Mill Creek Rd Home
  136. 136. Mill Creek Rd Home
  137. 137. Mill Creek Rd Home
  138. 138. So a More Objective Assessment of Industrial Wind Energy Concludes that: Technically — it’s a net loser Environmentally — it’s a net loser Economics — it’s a net loser Employment — it’s a net loser Militarily — it’s a net loser
  139. 139. Part 4: Some Solutions
  140. 140. What is our Objective? To Have The Strictest Law? - No To Regulate Wind Energy Out? - No
  141. 141. Our Objective is to provide optimum protections for Citizens, the Environment, and the Military
  142. 142. What are some Areas of Concern? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Aesthetic / Quality of Life Impact Backup Power Issues Construction Disruption Seismic Effects Electronic & Electromagnetic Interference Fire Risk & Fire Department Needs Ground Water Impact Hazards to Aviation High Wind Failure & Other Breakdowns Ice Throw Lighting Lightning Protection — continued —
  143. 143. What are some Areas of Concern? 13. Monitoring 14. Noise, Including Infrasonic 15. Road Upkeep & Repair 16. Security (Vandalism / Terrorism) 17. Shadow & Flicker Effects 18. Siting & Placement Issues 19. Storm Water Runoff, Erosion & Sedimentation 20. Stray Voltage (aka Ground Current) 21. Military Mission Impact 22. Wildlife Effects 23. Decommissioning 24. Independent Oversight — continued —
  144. 144. What are some Areas of Concern? 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Landowner Contract Control Legal Views from the state capital Potential Lawsuits Wind Rights Setbacks Zoning Agricultural Impact Effect on Property Values Employment Issues Lack of Competition Loss of Property Use Operating Permits — continued —
  145. 145. What are the Most Important Matters to Properly Address? 1 - Property Value Guarantee 2 - Setbacks 3 - Acoustical Limit and Conditions 4 - Environmental 5 - Decommissioning ----------------------------------------------------An Escrow Account is also recommended
  146. 146. Why Protect Properties from Value Loss? 1 - A person’s home is typically their most valuable asset 2 - Legally this is called an “Involuntary Taking” 3 - Dozens of studies by independent experts have concluded that there will be a loss —as much as 40% 4 - Wind industry shills dispute that by issuing rigged reports 5 - If the wind industry is right, it will cost them nothing to provide this protection.
  147. 147. What About Setbacks? 1 - One mile is recommended by independent experts 2 - Distance would be from turbine to property line 3 - This provides a series of health benefits, e.g.: a) from turbine fires, b) from ice and mechanical breakage throws, c) from flicker, d) from noise, etc. 4 - Numerous studies and other laws concur with this...
  148. 148. Some Locations, Sources, and/or Reports that have (are recommending, or are considering) 1± Mile (1500± m) Setbacks from Wind Turbines 1. 10,000 m exclusion zone recommended by this Scottish report 2. 10,000 m called for by a prominent physician (with many references) 3. 5,000 m (3.1 miles). This study concluded “wind turbines must not be sited less than 5 km from all habitation, because of the risks produced by infrasound.” 4. 3,219 m (2 miles) to a rural home – Umatilla County, Oregon 5. 3,219 m (2 miles) from a residential development - Riverside, California 6. 3,000 m for turbines greater than 150 meters – Wiltshire, UK 7. 2,414 m from property lines – Catarunk, Maine 8. 2,414 m from property lines – Moscow, Maine 9. 2,253 m (1.4 miles) Wind farms should not be less than 1.4 miles from people’s homes (UK) planning minister GWEI Tel 10. 2,253 m from “a residential property” Lincolnshire, UK QLS Tel 11. 2,100 m for 3MW recommended in Denmark 12. 2,010 m (1.25 miles) recommended by this European Human Rights study — continued —
  149. 149. Some Locations, Sources, and/or Reports that have (are recommending, or are considering) 1± Mile (1500± m) Setbacks from Wind Turbines 13. 2,010 m new rules would require setbacks of 1.25 miles to non-participating property lines – Woodstock, Maine 14. 2,000 m from the nearest residence – Haut-Richelieu, Quebec 15. 2,000 m from a home a in the Haut-Saint-Laurent, in the Montérégie, Quebec 16. 2,000 m to habitations, and 5,000 m from 21 named agglomerations – Victorian Government, Australia 17. 2,000 m – Queensland, Australia 18. 2,000 m restriction: Cambridgeshire, UK 19. 2,000 m to 2.5km (1.6 miles): examining increasing the recommended distance between wind farms and the nearest town or village: Scotland 20. 2,000 m away from housing in Scotland under plans to be unveiled by the Conservatives today (2013) 21. 2,000 turbine setback bill debated by British House of Lords 22. 2,000 m from existing homes proposed in New South Wales, Australia 23. 1,950 m (13 times the turbine height) - Montville Maine 24. 1,950 m (13 times the turbine height) - Buckfield Maine — continued —
  150. 150. Some Locations, Sources, and/or Reports that have (are recommending, or are considering) 1± Mile (1500± m) Setbacks from Wind Turbines 25. 1900 m was the distance that this scientific study found that residents still “expressed annoyance.” 26. 1,770 m Fayette County PA 27. 1,609 m (1 mile) from inhabited structures Trempealeau County, Wisconsin 28. 1,609 m from non-participating property lines – Frankfort Maine 29. 1,609 m buffer zone to homes – Hillsdale County, Michigan 30. 1,609 m (1 to 1.5 mile) – UK Noise Association 31. 1,500 m in an environment characterized by a 35 DB ambient noise level Germany 32. 1,500 m for a 150 m turbine (10x height) – The isle of Anglesey in the UK 33. 1,500 m for a 150 m turbine (10x H) from rural residences – Ellis County, Kansas 34. 1,500 m Acoustical Ecology Institute Special Report on Wind Energy Noise Impacts 35. 1,500 m recommended by French National Academy of Medicine 36. 1,500 m recommended by State Heath Director – North Carolina 37. 1,500 m recommended in Wales – depending on topography and ambient noise 38. 1,500 m recommended in England by Dr Hanning WCO TBN For links see WiseEnergy.org/Carteret-Wind
  151. 151. What About Acoustics? 1 - Turbines generate two types of Sounds: a) those that can be heard, and b) those that can not be heard (infrasound) 2 - The audible is more annoying, esp 5dBA > ambient 3 - Infrasound is the more dangerous: a) this is the position of the WHO b) the military uses infrasound as a weapon 4 - It’s hard to accurately measure infrasound, so 35 dBA is recommended as a simple, inexpensive proxy 5 - Numerous independent experts concur with this
  152. 152. Ashe County NC (2007) § 163.21 (G) says: The noise of a large wind energy system shall not exceed five (5) dBA above the existing average noise level on adjacent properties;
  153. 153. The Military Aspect of Infrasound: ”Experiments by the US military indicate that infrasound can have profound psychological and physical effects on humans. Humans exposed to various frequencies of infrasound have reported disorientation, nausea, fear, panic, sorrow, loss of bowels, drowsiness, visual hallucinations, chills, high blood pressure, increased blood flow, internal respiratory problems, and even organ damage. It is a matter of history that there has been research into sonic weapons.” The World Health Organization says: The Health effects due to low frequency components in noise are estimated to be more severe than for community noise in general.
  154. 154. Current Carteret & Newport Limit (45) Recommended Limit (35) 5 dBA Increase
  155. 155. Why 35 dBA? Recommended Limit (35)
  156. 156. Citizen/Environment/Military Protection Rating * In each of these cases the County or Town law is given credit for what is specified in the state law, which is underlying. Newport’s Escrow is Pending. The scale for each item is that a 10 equals optimum protections. An Optimum Law would have a rating of 100% (with a Total score of 70).
  157. 157. Why Isn’t the State Law Better? 1 - There were no energy experts in the creation team 2 - Wind lobbyists then heavily influenced the law 3 - Belief by some that wind energy is a net good thing 4 - Objective was to pass something vs a quality law 5 - Up to DENR to adhere to their mission statement
  158. 158. Why Isn’t the County Law Better? 1 - We’ve learned a lot since the law was written in 2008 2 - County wasn’t given very much advance notice 3 - Belief by some that wind energy is a net good thing 4 - Some concern about a developer lawsuit
  159. 159. Why Isn’t the Town Law Better? 1 - The Town wasn’t given very much advance notice 2 - They first thought that the H484 would be adequate 3 - They copied some of the outdated County law 4 - Some concern about a developer lawsuit
  160. 160. What About a Lawsuit? 1 - Should fear of a lawsuit intimidate legislators so that they abandon or dilute protections for: — citizens’ health, safety, and economic welfare? — existing businesses’ economic well-being? — the community’s environment? — the mission of nearby military bases? 2 - If lawsuit avoidance is a primary concern, they should be aware that citizens have powerful legal options to sue their representatives for not acting responsibly.
  161. 161. The Big Picture 1 - The objective of a Tall Structure Ordinance is NOT to exclude industrial wind energy — rather it is to provide optimum protections for local citizens, local businesses, the environment, and the military. 2 - Industrial wind energy has no legal entitlement to make a profit at the expense of harming our citizens, our economy, our environment, or our military. 3 - If an industrial wind energy business can not operate in our community without consequentially harming our citizens, our economy, our environment, or our military — then they should not be given a permit to operate!
  162. 162. Plan of Action 1 - Encourage Carteret commissioners (e.g. at their Dec. caucus) to make the good protections in their law, better. 2 - Encourage Newport representatives (e.g. at the 1/9/14 public hearing) to improve their good law’s protections. 3 - Contact NCUC (prior to Dec 23), asking that they follow their statutory requirements in reviewing Mill Pond. (Note: speaking in person is better than writing.) 4 - Contact the NCUC Public Staff to aggressively do their job as consumer advocates before the NCUC. 5 - Encourage DENR to abide by their Mission Statement. 6 - Fix SB3 & H484 in the next NC legislative session.
  163. 163. This is the point where we are now. Making the wrong choice will cost us for 20+ years.
  164. 164. The Wind Project Developer has ONE Objective: to squeeze the State, County & Town for EVERYTHING they can get out of them.
  165. 165. We can chose the path thru the dark green forest. After all, the marketeers assured us that it would be an easy shortcut to get some “found money.”
  166. 166. The salesmen promised us that the trip will be pleasant and successful. Any animals along the way will be our friend!
  167. 167. Of course there were no guarantees. Once we go down this path, we are on our own.
  168. 168. Don’t Take The Bait
  169. 169. THANK YOU for Giving This Matter Some Critical Thought!
  170. 170. Email Me Any Questions You Have (aaprjohn@northnet.org)!
  171. 171. Following the Presentation there was a lengthy Q&A. The following slides were prepared for that discussion.
  172. 172. To Get a Better Understanding of the Energy Situation, see: EnergyPresentation.info
  173. 173. Some Misconceptions about Wind Energy 1 - Wind energy is less expensive than conventional electricity sources 2 - Wind energy gets less subsidies than conventional electricity source 3 - Wind energy will be cost competitive in the near future 4 - Wind energy is environmentally benign 5 - Wind energy will consequentially reduce CO2 6 - Wind energy will meaningfully help us reduce coal use Each of these beliefs is provably FALSE. For more info see EnergyPresentation.info & WiseEnergy.org.
  174. 174. — Senate Bill 3 Mandate — Year REPS Requirement 2012 3% of 2011 North Carolina retail sales 2015 6% of 2014 North Carolina retail sales 2018 10% of 2017 North Carolina retail sales 2021+ 12.5% of 2020 North Carolina retail sales
  175. 175. This wind industry report shows that 99.9% (!) of NC acreage has unsuitable winds. Mill Pond Minimum Wind Speeds Needed [Compare this to Kansas (10.5%), Nebraska (8.4%), Texas (44.5%)…] The only targeted places will be on the NC coast.
  176. 176. Some studies since 2007 that have concluded that an RPS is a bad idea
  177. 177. If the Objective is to get rid of Fossil Fuels, Let’s Mandate that 12.5% of all NC vehicles Revert to Being Horse Drawn by 2021
  178. 178. [Note: when making a submission to the NCUC, a key point to be made is how well they are following their statutory obligations when reviewing any proposed wind project.]
  179. 179. [Note: these are the standards that DENR should be using when interpreting and enforcing H484. There is nothing about promoting any business.]
  180. 180. Worldwide Contribution to CO2 Reductions Since 1973 100 [For those who believe that Global Warming is our most pressing matter, the evidence says that using Nuclear Power is our best option.] 75 50 25 Renewables Generation Transmission Nuclear Power 0
  181. 181. Consider This... Wind is 13 times the cost of Nuclear!
  182. 182. A prime justification for promoting wind energy, is JOBS. So Carefully Consider the Following...
  183. 183. Wind Jobs Fact #1 No Jobs (or economic development) claim has any merit unless it accurately considers the NET impact. There is zero evidence in the developer has burdened themselves with this obligation.
  184. 184. Wind Jobs Fact #2 There is nothing — no program, no hobby, no vice, no crime — that does not create jobs. For example, tsunamis, computer viruses and robbing convenience store clerks all create jobs. So since that claim applies to all it is an argument in favor of none. Instead of providing evidence of the merits of an enterprise, a jobs claim is a de facto admission that one has a specious case. — energy attorney Chris Horner
  185. 185. Wind Jobs Fact #3 The US has lost most of its jobs to other countries primarily due to economics: low cost labor. Our businesses have one major economic benefit left to counter more job loss: low cost electricity. Why would we voluntarily give this up by reverting to more expensive electricity sources???
  186. 186. Are there other resulting benefits or liabilities from such a project? Yes, there are other substantial liabilities. For example, the many millions of dollars being given to this developer (e.g. through tax credits): a) increase our country’s indebtedness, and b) is mostly money borrowed from China. Are either of these in our interest to support?
  187. 187. North Carolina can be a National Leader in: 1) Eighteenth century ideas like horse transportation and wind energy (buggy whip manufacturing, blacksmith and windmill jobs) OR 2) State-of-the art, Scientifically Sound energy solutions (like geothermal energy or Small Modular Reactors)

×