When introducing a new land use, it is the obligation of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to confirm that it is a beneficial land use that is worthy of desecrating approx. 3/8 mile of virgin ridge line per turbine. Neither Invenergy nor the Supervisors have documented in any scientific meaningful way that this is a good land use for Roanoke County.
I believe this is a fundamental question that must be addressed when considering a land use that Roanoke County has never before considered. The worthiness of the proposed use must be thoroughly validated before even considering such details as setback, noise annoyance, communication disruption, view shed, environmental protection, ad infinitum.
Sound reasonable? County Attorney Paul Mahoney argued, no. On a couple of occasions, when I posed this question to our esteemed civil servant, he declared the question as being analogous to evaluating the quality of a hamburger at a fast food restaurant prior to granting a permit for the construction of such a restaurant in our County.
Tuesday evening, when our Board of Supervisors had become overwhelmed with concern for exstensive modifications to a proposed large scale wind ordinance, Mr. Mahoney, struggled to guide them toward a confusing "line by line" vote on modifications based upon fear that a potential applicant may attempt to seek permission to build such a use under an unrelated part of the existing ordinance. This expressed fear has prevailed for over two years and has intimidated both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors into a very flawed process to accomodate the wind industry.
Industrial wind farms have not proven in any way a justification to classify them as a utility use under the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County. Indeed, if that were the case, why wouldn't small scale residential turbines have been declared permissable by the same logic?
Our BOS have the opportunity to reverse their decision to one of common sense. Under pressure from The County Attorney and their confusion in effect jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. If they do they may be able to get their walk-out(I do not blame him) to come back and help them develop a common sense approach and continue research as he indicated. This is a big deal. I can assure everyone that The Roanoke Valley does not want to be know as The Industrial Wind Turbine City of The South. Rather Our Residents want The Roanoke Valley to be known as The Star City of The South, Home to the Bent Mountain Community, The Blue Ridge Mountains, The Appalachian Trail, Historical Explore Park and many more wonderful sites. For GOD SAKE, not industrial wind turbines that will destroy the forest, mountaintops and vistas.
ReplyDeleteI don't like to say this, Noah, but I must say that we MUST understand this particular issue with a strongly justified "spiritual fervor" that WIIL NOT back down to unsubstantiated spin for personal gain or excuses for not using energy frugally.
ReplyDeleteI sent this New York times article link with (video included with the article) to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisor's a few weeks prior to the Sept 13th vote to reduce the setback distance of Industrial wind turbines to only 1000 ft in the ordinance:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/business/energy-environment/06noise.html
Apparently it fell on deaf ears.
The article describes that, initially, folks were looking forward to having these industrial wind turbines go up approx 1/2 mile from their residences. Once the turbines were turned on they had a real wake up call with the noise levels the turbines put out. 1000 ft is more than 2.5 times less distance than 1/2 mile.
I repeatedly have heard local pro-wind folks state that they have visited nearby industrial wind turbine farms and don't think they are noisy. That does not seem to add up after I read this article and watched its video. There are many more real life experiences of folks who have had to live near these turbines that I have found as well, some which I shared with the Board prior to the Sept 13th meeting.
I understand the planning commission reviewed several existing wind turbine ordinances from around the country in making their decision. The question I have is how many of those ordinances from around the country are based on feedback from actively working industrial wind turbines installations? Have these ordinances been put to the test and found to be adequate? I seriously doubt the planning commission could answer that in the affirmative if they were asked.
Bill,,
ReplyDeleteI've visited a wind farm and I encourage you to do so. Your video is inaccurate--prrobably just another staged, anti-wind propaganda piece. These modern turbines make great neighbors! They also produce lots of clean electricity and help to reduce the number of mountains that get decapitated iin someone else's back yard.
These are actual letters from people who have lived near an operational wind farm for three years. Most were in favor of it....until it happened. Even the president of a company that built a wind farm in New York stated: "Wind farms do not make good neighbors." : Letters From Wind Farm Neighbors
ReplyDeletewww.savewesternny.org
Anonymous at Sept 17 7:27 am, If the US starts to use less coal this will open up the market making it even cheaper for other countries to buy our coal. So, they will buy more of it, stockpile it, whatever. The coal is still going to leave the ground at the same rate it is now. More of it will just start going to other countries like China, for example. The idea that wind energy will slow the extraction of coal from the mountains is a myth.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe the people in the article and video are part of a propaganda conspiracy, Anonymous? It was written by the New York Times which is a pretty liberal newspaper who you'd think would be defending anything wind energy related...
I've seen numerous videos and testimonials intended to persuade people to oppose wind power. That's why I visited a modern wind farm myself and learned that it was mostly disingenuous propaganda, with the exception of neighbors of much older turbines, why I understand produced more noise and less electricity. Technology is rarely stagnant, however, and you could put a modern turbine 500 feet from your home and the noise wouldn't bother you.
ReplyDeleteAs far as mountain top removal mining goes, the main reason it hasn't been outlawed in the U.S. is that it would drive up our electric rates. Now that wind power has developed to the point of being approximately equal in cost to coal (depending on how long you depreciate the greater up-front cost of wind turbines, what interest rate is paid on the financing, etc.) we could outlaw strip mining without so much resistance, and maybe put a few more miners to work in the process. Whether or not China would import at the same rate would depend on world coal markets.
Anonymous: I don't think the New York Times has any vested interest in persuading anyone to oppose wind power. I was actually surprised that the NY Times had an article at all about this topic. I don't think the victims in the story are suffering from mass hysteria or have an agenda. I think they are genuine victims of unintended consequences. They believed wind power was good. It is good......just not anywhere near where people live.
ReplyDeleteI actually like your rebuttal on outlawing strip mining of coal as you describe. However, I don't believe it could be outlawed because as long as there is a demand for coal it will be provided. Too much $ involved. As the US's demand falls, other countries will increase to fill the gap.
To the other anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe key phrase in your argument, is that you "visited a windfarm". You don't live next to one.
If you would look into the science of acoustics, you would start to understand that sound CHANGES in respect to many factors. You're visit is but a "snapshot", and not a very good way to judge anything pertaining to the character of the sound turbines emit.
Also, you may want to peruse California's document on the physical hazard of wind turbines. You will find that the setback the county prescribes is not even enough to protect citizens from blade throw, ice throw, tower collapse, etc.
There are many scientific organizations against siting these in the fashion that the county has chosen to. I don't see them as anti-wind.
In fact the only information I've personally seen (after researching for 2 Years), that is pro-wind, is information from AWEA, DOE, SIERRA CLUB, COOL CITIES,etc.. The DOE stuff, to me is not even close to being unbiased. They are in partnership with NREL, which is run by a non-profit whose goal is "to be a liason between private and public entities". Obviously, they have an alternate agenda. And the others, well that should be obvious.
@Anon(EZ talk, but no ID)9-18-11 4:47,
ReplyDelete1. A casual visit in unknown weather conditions, air density, speed, direction and topography is a very weak basis to establish an opinion on; particularly when one is pitting such opinions with people who live with them at far greater than 500 feet 24/7 in all conditions.
2. The $ cost of wind generated energy FAR higher than the cost of coal generated energy. The subsidies for: coal - 44c/MWH, gas - 25c/MWH, hydro - 67c/MWH, nuclear - $1.59/MWH, while wind - $23.37/ MWH (US EIA 2008). That, without considering the rate increases continually granted to providers to meet for RPS (renewable portfolio standards set in by 31 states – thanks to industry lobbyists).
Further, as a good friend recently posted: “The "Grid" IS the problem. We have to constantly feed it to have it available, which is wastefully inefficient. ... Why do the taxpayers have to subsidize "Big Energy"? Why are our taxes not being spent to implement small-scale wind, geothermal, solar, and other home-based energy generation and energy efficiency measures?”
Why not discuss energy efficiency and generation in a manner that truly will encourage frugality and reduce demands on the grid that delivers all forms of electricity at a 10% to 20% inherent transmission and distribution loss? In Virginia, a Dillon Rule state, the Commonwealth has put enabling legislation in place to accommodate PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) programs in our localities. Initially funding such programs would be far more productive toward meeting goals of “sustainability” than by putting Billions of Dollars of PUBLIC equity into the hands of globally-based, including Chicago, profiteers.
Mountaintop removal is more violent desecration of our Appalachian landscape, but it is not anywhere near as pervasive as the desecration proposed by the wind industry. The answer is in reducing our reliance on mass-produced electricity.
So, Anon, while I respect and even revere anonymity, I ask that you present your opinion when you can, at least, provide more basis for your claims. Or is just easier to be anonymous?
As has been already stated, visiting a wind farm and living underneath one are two very different things. The problem is, what do the people do if these turbines are put up and produce sounds way above the 60 dB level? When they are up, that's it. Much more research should be done by unbiased experts prior to making claims that these turbines are by any means quiet... and said research should’ve been completed by the county before that meeting.
ReplyDeleteI've done some research of my own, and the negative testimonials from those who live near wind farms (and farther than a mere 1000 ft) far outweigh any positives. In fact, I haven't yet come across a community who stated that these farms make "good neighbors". If anyone has links to those, I would sure love to see them!
One of the major questions here that the pro-wind people have yet to answer in any satisfactory way is, do the benefits of the proposed wind farm really outweigh the obvious drawbacks? I find it difficult to believe that those who are pro-wind are still clinging to these false hopes that wind turbines will replace coal, and that they make only a justifiable, some claim even negligable negative impact on the environment. What about capacity vs actuality? So far, the only data I’ve seen was done on the basis of wind blowing steady all day everyday. This is the capacity of the turbine, while the proposed capacity seems like a good amount of energy, the best placements of these farms usually only output an actual energy wattage of about 30% capacity of the turbine, on the really good days! Then there is the fact that any energy not used right away is lost…
Claiming that the overwhelming amount of resources, testimonials, etc on the harmful effects of wind farms are irrelevant or untrue seems irresponsible to me. Much more critical thinking needs to be demonstrated by the pro-wind side before I can change my opinion on these farms. Especially one that would further deface the already raped and pillaged Appalachians. Attempting to correct the devastation that coal mining causes with a sort of "lesser of two evils" devastation that doesn’t produce anywhere near the amount of energy we need doesn't seem like a good solution to me.
It would seem most prudent and environmentally sound to focus on developing technology to store and move wind-generated electricity so that these farms can be placed in areas with little to no population (human, animal, and other) and consistent-strong winds. SW Virginia is not such a place.
There are reasons these turbines are generally built in long stretches of fields with no large towns nearby. Poor Mountain is an intricate, rich, and vitally important part of our ecosystem and should not be sacrificed for dubious and unproved claims of energy production!