Mill Pond = Mill Stone?

Mill Pond=Mill Stone?
John Droz, jr.
Physicist & Environmental Advocate
Newport, North Carolina
11/26/13 [rev 12/16/13]

Make SURE to View This Presentation
in the FULL SCREEN Mode!
Click the “FULL” icon
in the lower right hand corner.

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.)

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.

A Lot More About What
You’ll See Tonight,
is Online at:
WiseEnergy.org/Carteret-wind

This is: “WiseEnergy.org/Carteret-wind”

The Soundbite:
Wind Energy = High Cost, Low Benefits

— 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.”

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!

Who Am I?
Brief History
Several Problems
Some Solutions
Questions & Answers

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

My Three Hats Here:
#1 - Physicist
#2 - Economist
#3 - Environmentalist

My basic position is that —
1) we do have environmental and energy issues, and
2) these matters should be solved scientifically.

It’s Lobbyists vs Science
—and Science is Losing

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

Wait a minute
— something
feels wrong
here!

“Shut up, you moron! Do as you’ve been told.
It’s for your own good!”

An intelligent, Science-based energy policy slogan:

All of the Above
All of the Sensible
See much more at

WiseEnergy.org

Written by a Utility
Company CEO —
available online.

Part 2:
a) Some NC Energy History

— A Story of Biblical Proportions —
In the Beginning, there were:

Self-serving Lobbyists
Setting State Policies

And the Lobbyists Begot:

Senate Bill 3

And Senate Bill 3 Mandated:

Various %’s of renewable energy
by certain dates

And Senate Bill 3’s Justifications:

And Senate Bill 3’s Justifications were:

False Testaments
(written by lobbyists)

And Senate Bill 3’s Consequences were:

Most of this pestilence will be wind energy.
100% of this will be inflicted on the coast.

NC Utilities have other options for redemption:

1) buy out-of-state renewable energy
2) buy RECs

Prophets spoke out against this evil:

H298 (Affordable Energy Act)
was introduced in early 2013

The special interest lobbyists were angered:

They condemned and vilified H298

Other voices were raised against this corruption:

H484 (Wind Permitting Rules)
was introduced in early 2013

The special interest lobbyists were incensed:

They saw to it that H484 was diluted

(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.

(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.


There was rejoicing throughout the land:

Inhabitants reclaimed their rightful
ownership of their property,
their health & safety,
their environment,
and their military brethren.


Citizen-oriented leaders were installed, and:

Peace and Prosperity followed.

Part 2:
b) Some Marketing History

The basic
objective
of any con.

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!

We look back and say
how could these people be so gullible?

But is it any different today?

There is
no penalty
for making
unscientific
claims.

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

The solution to almost any con is simple:

1 - don’t believe everything you
hear from sales people, and
2 - thoroughly check things out!

Part 3:
Several Problems —
a) Quick Background

Twelve Turbines in a Rural Community

© john droz, jr.

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.

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).

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!

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.)

Part 3:
Some Problems —
b) A Teensie Technical Tidbit

There is NO SUCH THING
as wind energy by itself!

Wind Energy MUST HAVE
a fast-responding, augmenting
source of power available 24/7/365.
NO other conventional source of
electricity has this requirement!

For a variety of
technical and economic reasons,
this fast-responding, augmenting
source of power is usually gas.

So, ALL statements about the
consequences of this wind project
(calculations of cost,
impact on air quality, etc.)
MUST address the
WIND + GAS Package.

The developer’s Presentation
does NOT do this —
which is a serious misrepresentation.

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.”

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.”

The Developer’s omission
of these (and other) technical realities
is a misrepresentation of the situation.

Part 3:
c)Eying Environmental Effects

Some citizens say that they support
similar wind projects because they are “Green.”

Is Wind Energy Really Green?
Let’s take a quick look at
just one part of a turbine...

Many Wind
Turbines use
2000± Pounds
of Rare Earth
Elements
per rated MW.
So what?

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.

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.

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!

Remember, the REE
environmental impact
is just ONE component
of these turbines.
There are other
adverse environmental
consequences as well.

Health Effects of Low Frequency Noise Can Cause Death

So, is Wind Energy
Really Green?
An objective look
says NO!

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!

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)

Part 3:
d) Economics Explained

What Wind Energy Is Really All About

E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G
about the economics here
is problematic!

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!

Financial Comparison “a”
Total Costs
(Capital + Operation
+ Fuel + Transmission)

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

Financial Comparison “b”
Utility Ratepayer Costs

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

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

Financial Comparison “c”
Taxpayer Costs

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

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

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.

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.”

President & COO of Duke’s US Electric business, says:

“It doesn’t matter how clean it is,
if it’s not affordable or reliable.”

But what about local economics?

To begin with,
all “enticements” are with your own money!

Remember What Your Dad Said:

There’s No Free Lunch!

To ACCURATELY know local economics,
we need to get valid answers to three questions:

Question #1:
Exactly how much of the developer’s job and economic claims are guaranteed?

Answer:

None.

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.

Question #3:
What are the NET jobs and economic benefits to North Carolina?

Answer: There will be job and economic losses. See next slides!

Here is a comprehensive study about how wind development affects Tourism...

Here are the study’s conclusions about how wind development affects Tourism...

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)

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.

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)

Here is a government study about one financial impact from wind development...

Here are their conclusions of the crop loss due to killed bats to Carteret County...

The bat costs do
not take into
account other
consequences of
losing bats —
like more human
health problems
due to an increase
of mosquitoes...

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!

Carteret County Mill Pond Impact

Net Annual Job Loss = 110±
Net Annual Economic Loss = $13± Million

Part 3:
e) Military Interference

NC Energy Policy
and the
NC MILITARY:

on a
Collision
Course

1:
#
ue
ss
I
y
on
ti
ar
uc
li t
i
tr
M
bs
lO
ca
si
hy
P

2:
#
ue
ss
I
ry
ce
ita
en
il
er
M
rf
te
In
ar
ad
R

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.”

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

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.

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.

Part 3:
f) A Visual Perspective

Crystal Coast Plaza
Highway 70

Newport Flea Market
(Highway 70)

So a More Objective Assessment
of Industrial Wind Energy Concludes that:
Technically
— it’s a net loser
Environmentally — it’s a net loser
Economics
Employment
Militarily

What is our Objective?
To Have The Strictest Law? - No
To Regulate Wind Energy Out? - No

Our Objective is to provide
optimum protections for Citizens,
the Environment, and the Military

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 —

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 —

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 —

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

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.

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...

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 —

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 —

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

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

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;

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.

Current Carteret & Newport Limit (45)

Recommended Limit (35)

5 dBA
Increase

Why
35
dBA?

Recommended Limit (35)

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).

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

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

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

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.

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!

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.

This is the point where we are now.
Making the wrong choice will cost us for 20+ years.

The Wind Project Developer has ONE Objective:
to squeeze the State, County & Town
for EVERYTHING they can get out of them.

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.”

The salesmen
promised us that
the trip will be
pleasant and
successful.
Any animals
along the way
will be our friend!

Of course there
were no
guarantees.
Once we go down
this path, we are
on our own.

THANK YOU
for Giving This Matter
Some Critical Thought!

Email Me Any Questions You Have
(aaprjohn@northnet.org)!

Following the Presentation there was a lengthy Q&A.
The following slides were prepared for that discussion.

To Get a Better Understanding
of the Energy Situation, see:
EnergyPresentation.info

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.

— Senate Bill 3 Mandate —
Year REPS Requirement
2012
3%
of 2011 North Carolina retail sales
2015
6%
2018 10%
2021+ 12.5% of 2020 North Carolina retail sales

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.

Some studies since
2007 that have
concluded that an
RPS is a bad idea

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

[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.]

[Note: these are the standards that DENR should
be using when interpreting and enforcing H484.
There is nothing about promoting any business.]

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

Consider This...

Wind is 13 times the cost of Nuclear!

A prime justification
for promoting wind energy,
is JOBS.
So Carefully Consider the Following...

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.

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

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???

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?

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)

Mill Pond = Mill Stone?

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Mill Pond = Mill Stone?

Recently uploaded

Mill Pond = Mill Stone?