Big Wind Becoming a Big Political Issue in NY-23

One of the biggest local issues people seem to be following is the PILOT in Jefferson County. Today we have the chance to get a broader sense from a private citizen named Jonathan Hirschey from Cape Vincent who has done some research into some of the issues associated with "Big Wind." And he brings forth some very compelling arguments against its expansion into Northern New York.

Mr. Hirschy also makes the claim that a majority of Cape Vincent town board had contracts with the wind developers when his father ran for Town Supervisor, and that those board members stood to gain financially from the expansion of Big Wind. This interview begs the question as to whether small town politicians and Big Wind are colluding in an effort to sell out our jobs, federal tax dollars and our environment for some personal financial gain. As political races in NY-23 build steam it will be interesting to see which candidates side with or against Big Wind. This is developing into a major local issue that candidates will eventually need to take a clear position on (don't count on the Watertown Times to keep them honest). To see why all the politicians are so quiet and why ordinary citizens are so outspoken, read on!

Buggs Buddy Question: Thank you for your time Jonathan. I am interested to know what are some of the most important things you have learned about wind development since the debate came to the eastern shores of Lake Ontario?

Jonathan Hirschey Response: Sure, I started researching wind energy after my father ran for office of Town Supervisor to address blatant conflicts on the Town Board. Otherwise, I hesitate to admit, I may not have given this the time and energy I otherwise would have. Thank God I did.

The most important thing I have learned is that wind energy is grossly misunderstood by the general population and that most people, like I was, are under the false assumption that it will lower our energy costs, our taxes, and significantly reduce greenhouse gases - it will not do any of these. I have learned that wind energy is not a good source of renewable energy - actually, considering the expansive amount of land you have to use, which is a finite resource - it shouldn't qualify as renewable at all. I have learned that people who thought that pursing wind energy is a good idea, didn't know all the facts, and, as I was, were very surprised when they heard them. I have learned wind energy is a very complex subject (I struggle even with a master's degree) and the developers rely on this to deceive the general public. I have learned that wind energy is a way for foreign companies like British Petroleum (UK) and Acciona (Spain) to tap into our Federal Stimulus dollars. There are plenty of subsidies in Great Britain too, but it should be of interest that they are still pulling out of those markets because our subsidies make the US market even more lucrative. I have learned that wind energy is about money, not pursuing a renewable resource. I have learned a single turbine would not be standing if it were not for the enormous economic subsidies our government has made available - probably because they are misinformed, just like I was. I have learned not a single turbine would have been erected without huge subsidies because economically, it does not make sense.

I have learned that, contrary to popular belief, producing power with wind will not decrease our dependence on foreign oil. I have learned that a major pretext developers are using to push wind energy is to say it will reduce our carbon emissions - it won't. I have learned that if humans were eliminated from the earth, there would only be a 0.28% reduction in greenhouse gases, since most of the greenhouse gases are naturally occurring anyway. And what part of that 0.28% do you think building turbines will have an effect on? A very small part. I have learned that the promises made by the wind developers in terms of the jobs they will create and the prosperity they will bring are empty promises. They don't create the jobs, and the efficiency is less than they claim it to be.

I have learned that the Maple Ridge developer in Lewis County, Flat Rock, is suing the municipalities to get their money back because they lost their Empire Zone status. The same law firm that is suing Lowville to get their money back is representing the wind developer for Galloo Island. They lost empire status because they didn't really create jobs, like they said they would. Instead they lost their status because Flat Rock "claimed it created jobs when it actually just transferred employees from one entity to the other." I have learned that building hundreds of turbines it is not environmentally responsible and changes the surroundings for generations. I have learned that wind energy just doesn't produce that much power, relatively speaking. One nuclear plant can produce about 1500 megawatts with a capacity value of almost 100 percent. This is extremely important because you need "base-load" power. We will always need to rely on traditional power plants other than wind, since the wind doesn't blow all the time. The capacity of wind factories started out at 8% but is probably less. All I have said so far pertains to land-based wind turbine installations, in general, such as places like Maple Ridge in Lewis County. This does not account for any additional sacrifices, such as the visual pollution or any of the numerous health problems that they create for people living near them. When you add the opportunity costs of what Jefferson County will lose in terms of tax-base from property devaluation, tourism and sport-fishing revenues, I am flabbergasted we are even considering such a course of action. And as staggering as the costs for land based turbines are, water based turbines are twice as expensive! So if it didn't make sense before, it definitely doesn't make sense in the water. Who do you think is paying for this nonsense? We are. I have learned there are numerous adverse health effects associated with turbines, but haven't had a chance to read all about them yet.

I have learned that on April 8th, 2008, Governor Paterson made a speech opposing the Broadwater energy project in Long Island Sound because of all the same concerns that people opposing wind projects on or near the water have here. He said, “One of my goals as Governor is to protect Long Island Sound, by preserving it as a valuable estuary, an economic engine for the region, and a key component to making Long Island’s quality of life one of the best in the country,” said Governor Paterson. “Broadwater does not pass that test. Shame on us if we can’t develop a responsible energy policy without sacrificing one of our greatest natural and economic resources.” How does that differ from Lake Ontario?? Shame on us is right.

I have learned that your views on wind energy should have nothing to do with being a Republican or Democrat or whether you are wealthy or poor. I have learned enough to know for certain that we should not be rushing into building industrial wind turbine complexes in Jefferson County any time soon - if ever.

BB: Some activits who oppose the PILOT say other local citizens who are also opposed to wind development are scared to speak up, that people are fearful of being targeted by elected town officials. Do you think there is any truth to that? Do you believe town officials are vindictive or that they have a real financial stake in the wind project? And have most of your inquiries been answered by local officials, regulators and developers who have an interest in seeing the project move forward on Galloo Island?

JH: I don't think local citizens are scared to speak up. I think that local citizens are just unfamiliar with how poor wind is as a "renewable" energy, or perhaps that they don't realize what is at stake, or they just don't care. I wasn't very motivated to learn about it until my father ran for public office in Cape Vincent so why would anyone else be? My father ran for Cape Vincent Town Supervisor because a majority of the town board had contracts with the wind developers and stood to gain financially, which most people would classify as a blatant conflict of interest. If you had asked me, before my research, if I thought Maple Ridge in Lowville was a good idea, I would have said, "Of course...," because of how uninformed I was. However, wind energy just doesn't make sense, no matter how you slice it. The state is just trying to meet some arbitrary Renewable Portfolio Standard and foreign wind companies are trying to cash in on our tax dollars (stimulus money).

I think it's incredible that almost all the major politicians, such as Darrel Aubertine, whose home town is Cape Vincent, and who, in June 2006 wrote a letter encouraging the conflicted board members to vote on the issue, have remained silent on the most controversial issue I have ever been a part of. I don't think any of the major politicians have taken a position on the issue. I mean, I know you're supposed to ride the fence, but come on.

BB: Will you be working to replace any legislator that supports the PILOT or other measures that would allow for expanded wind power development? What is your next plan of action in dealing with the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency?

JH: I don't have any leadership role in an organization fighting the PILOT, but as a constituent, I don't think there is any excuse for a politician to be ignorant of these facts I found time to learn or make a decision that is so irresponsible to the citizens of Jefferson County.

Who is Breaking all that Wind in Jefferson County?

The circus is officially coming to town. We aren't talking about the race for NY-23, or last night's season premier of the Bachelor where ladies put their tata's out to play with Bachelor Jake's heartstrings, and no, we aren't referring to the Buffalo Bills lousy .375 winning percentage this year either.

We are talking about tonight's BIG SHOWDOWN with the Jefferson County Legislature. To find out more about the proposed PILOT and the aggressive tactics being employed to develop wind energy projects we invited Bert Bowers, Co-Chair of the Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and the Thousand Islands, to give us his perspective on things. Bert's team, has been farting all over -- doing everything they can to break wind and put a stop to what they believe is an unfair and unsustainable proposal to develop wind farms on the eastern shores of Lake Ontario. The debate tonight, it seems, goes well beyond some ramshakel island you can find heading south off I-81 from Watertown. It is about something much, much bigger than you or I, or this awesome blog.

This is really a debate about the proper role of county government, unelected bureacurats making decisions that directly affect our everyday lives, our property rights and values, our tax structures as well as basic transparency in government. On nights like these where rumor has it the people are coming out en masse to defend their property, their environment and their way of life, you just have to wonder why Congressman Bill Owens and no other Republican candidate for Congress has made an effort to reach out to this team of people that make up this formidible citizen lobbying group making headlines across NY-23, www.preservethegoldencrescent.com. And so we begin!

Buggs Buddy Question: Bert, thanks for taking the time to address this fascinating topic which has so much relevance to our politics and our way of life in NY-23. Can you please tell us what the most important thing you have learned about wind development since the debate came to the eastern shores of Lake Ontario?

Bert Bowers, Co-Chair of The Coalition for the Preservation of the Golden Crescent and the Thousand Islands, Response: Wind power has not, in this case or in general, been proven to reduce overall use of fossil fuels or reduction of greenhouse gases. Wind developers claim that WTG installations are "clean and green," but do not supply any analyses to demonstrate that wind power actually reduces the use of fossil fuels or the emission of greenhouse gases. The poor efficiency of wind power is not a result of deficiencies in the design of the turbines, but is simply a result of the natural variability in the wind's velocity. We are asked to accept that all of the environmental problems created by the construction and operation of this proposed facility are acceptable or are in some way mitigated in order for the development to proceed.

We are asked to accept all of these negative effects based on the unsupported assumption that the electricity produced by the turbines will enable utility companies to significantly reduce their use of fossil fuels and the consequent emission of greenhouse gases.

This assumption that the WTG fulfill their intended purpose is questionable because of the extreme variability of the wind. The operation of the WTG effectively magnifies the variability of wind, as the kinetic energy in wind is a function of the cube of the wind speed. Thus a doubling of wind speed will cause the WTG to produce eight times the energy or conversely if the wind speed drops by half, the electricity will be merely one-eighth.

The only types of existing generators capable of accommodating the extreme variability of the wind are hydro-power and simple gas turbine powered generators. These are the generators that will need to be used to “fill-in” the approximately 70 % of the WTG rated capacity that is not produced by the wind turbines due to the natural variability and unpredictability of wind.

Obviously, to the extent that hydro-power is used to balance the variability of the wind, there will be no reduction in fuel usage or emissions as we will simply be substituting one form of non-polluting power for another.

If the balancing is done with simple gas turbines, it will require them to be operated in a very inefficient manner. This mode of operation is similar to a car being operated in a manner that includes sudden stops and jackrabbit starts. The fuel economy will be poor and a high ratio of unburned hydrocarbons will be emitted. There are a number of available studies that indicate that the provision of more efficient, combined-cycle gas turbines alone would be more efficient and reduce both the emissions and investment than the case of simple gas turbines combined with WTG installations. All we see from the wind energy proponents are the meaningless slogans they promote such as “Clean, Green and Free.”

Buggs Buddy: Has Congressman Bill Owens or any of the potential NY-23 Republican challengers met with your group to learn about your issues and concerns?

Bert Bowers: No, but the Coalition is barely two months old.

Buggs Buddy: Many people, when they think of wind energy, automatically think “green.” They think that “green is good” and that since wind is renewable it must be good for the environment and that it therefore must be good for the residents of Jefferson County. Some critics might say that the people in Henderson just don’t want the wind turbines because they are flat-out ugly and might devalue private property, not because they are harmful for the environment. Can you give us a sense of how you respond to your critics when they bring up these issues, or the fact that proponents say they are getting a real deal with federal support?

Bert Bowers: I don't favor turbines because they cannot and will not save us from using fossil fuels to generate electricity (See answer to your first question above). They create an impression among the public that we are taking action to solve our problems, but we are simply handing out government money to groups of investors who qualify by building wind turbine facilities. Most of the stimulus funds handed out for wind turbine development have gone to European companies. The only "green" is the money we give away to wind turbine developers.

Buggs Buddy: Some activists who oppose the PILOT say other local citizens who are also opposed to wind development are scared to speak up, that people are fearful of being targeted by elected town officials. Do you think there is any truth to that? Do you believe town officials are vindictive or that they have a real financial stake in the wind project? And have most of your inquiries been answered by local officials, regulators and developers who have an interest in seeing the project move forward on Galloo Island?

Bert Bowers: No. I have been speaking out against the wind developers for the past three years. I think it is more a case of people not being aware of what is going on or being uninformed or misinformed. There are a number of Town Officials and County/State Officials who are clearly conflicted on this issue.

Buggs Buddy: Do you think wind developers are deliberately targeting poor rural areas? Do you think there is any legitimate place for wind developers to go in New York State? Would you feel differently about the project if the subsidies were going to local manufacturers of the turbines?

Bert Bowers: Yes, they are targeting poor, rural areas. No, I do not believe there is a place anywhere in NYS for wind development -- it is clearly a hoax. I would hope that NY manufacturers would steer clear of manufacturing these useless machines.

Buggs Buddy: Will you be working to replace any legislator that supports the PILOT or other measures that would allow for expanded wind power development? What is your next plan of action in dealing with the Jefferson County Industrial Development Agency?

Bert Bowers: Yes, I will oppose any official who works in favor of the wind developers. I am on record as opposing the very idea of a PILOT for a development that, in the Golden Crescent/Thousand Islands area will cause a net loss in employment by chasing away the tourist/vacationer community who are one of the principal supports of our local economy.

Buggs Buddy: Bert, thanks for your time and your answers to our questions. We will be following the issue and how the Jefferson County Legislature votes on the PILOT. We hope to stay in touch and continue the dialogue with you and your team. Best of luck to you!