Search Results for: Negatives of solar

This page has information about Solar energy development — both industrial and residential. If you have questions about any of this, or have other material that should be included, or find any errors here, or would like to be on our email list, please email independent physicist John Droz. To keep current with what’s going on with related energy matters, please periodically check back here for updates.

Here is a quick Solar Primer… There are two general ways sunlight is converted into useful energy: passive and active. Passive refers to such actions as opening a window shade to let sunlight in to heat a room. Active uses mechanical devices to collect, store, convert, and distribute solar energy. This page will focus on Active conversions.

There are two main types of Active solar conversion: Photovoltaic and Thermal.

A Thermal system is based on directly using the heat generated by sunlight. In a home this heat can be used to warm water for residential use. In a larger utility scale operation (Concentrated Solar Power: CSP), solar heat is concentrated and collected and then can be used to drive a conventional steam generator — which produces electricity.

A Photovoltaic (PV) System directly converts sunlight into electricity using a process known as the photovoltaic effect. This is based on using a feature of materials known as semi-conductors. PV can be used from small applications (powering a calculator) to commercial electricity production.

Most of our discussion below relates to industrial solar, i.e. an Active conversion of sunlight into electricity (via PV or Thermal). The last section discusses some concerns of residential solar (which is typically on home roofs).

—> The Solar Plan of Action outlines what has been shown to be the most effective strategy for dealing with a proposed solar project. Please read it carefully and follow it closely. <—

[NC residents should check out our North Carolina Solar Page which includes proposed local model solar ordinances, as well as solar-related NC laws, proposed legislation, pertinent agencies, etc.]

 

Some Potential Solar Environmental Problems  —

GenX/PFAS chemicals leeching into groundwater is a major concern. Here are a few sample links:

What are PFAS and Why are they a Problem?

PFAS: What Are the Health Effects?

PFAS chemicals in drinking water pose serious public health threat

EPA confirms GenX-related compounds used in solar panels

“PFAS in the Environment” identifies Solar Panels as a source

FluoroCouncil acknowledged solar panels have these chemicals

Solar panels could be a source of GenX and other perflourinated contaminants

GenX concerns cloud possible expansion of solar facility

Researchers have evidence that PFAS could harm an animal’s immune system

VA Solar Facility is Turning a Local River Brown

Citizen’s Research: 14 Serious Ecological Impacts of Solar

Additional Toxic materials in solar panels

Hazardous Materials Used in Solar Production: a Primer

The disposal of toxic solar waste is another major environmental problem:

The high toxicity of solar waste

Harvard Study: The Dark Side of Solar Power

Solar assets are ‘chronically underperforming’ and modules degrading faster than expected

The dark side of ‘green energy’ and its threat to the nation’s environment

Solar Energy Development Environmental Considerations

Death by solar farms: 71 species of birds killed, ‘entire food chains’ disrupted

Solar Project Killing Birds Wholesale

Birds Torched by Solar Project Test

Solar Farm: 800 degree heat frying birds in mid air

Solar Property Value Impacts  —

Note: Compared to industrial wind energy, solar is a relatively newer technology, so there are fewer studies on all of its environmental and economic consequences to a host community. Here are some studies on a solar project’s impacts on nearby home values:

Study: Housing Values Decline within a Mile of Solar Arrays (2020)

Study: Solar Projects Drive Home Values Down (2020)

NC Appraisal of nearby homes after solar project (2013)

 

Other Solar Economic Realities  —

Solar is Our Worst Economic Option (Brookings)

An Examination of the Economics and Practicality of Grid Scale Solar Power

Solar costs are huge compared to natural gas

Solar is 16x more expensive than gas

Solar is Much More Expensive than Nuclear

US Solar: A Cesspool of Waste and Corruption

The Solar Swindle

Merkel Snubs Global Warming And Dumps The Solar Industry

The Industrial Infrastructure of Solar Devices

The Energy Return of Solar PV

Big Solar’s Dark Side

 

Solar Subsidies & Handouts  —

EIA Report: Subsidies Continue to Roll In For Solar
(See chart to the right…)

Big problem with solar in Japan, as musical chairs stops

Oregon DOJ launches investigations of tax credits for university solar projects

A Cloud Hangs over Solar Financing

Solar Performance  —

The Energy Return of Solar PV

Thermal Solar: Really Dumb

Solar Power Propaganda vs. the Real World

Why the Best Path to a Low-Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power

10 Big Problems With Solar Energy

How Sustainable is PV Solar?

The Myth of Solar (& Wind) Capacity

Large Scale Grid Integration of Solar – Many Problems, Few Solutions

California PV Solar Farms – A Bitter Harvest!

The Efficiency of Solar Photovoltaics

Estimating Global Solar PV Load Factors

U.S. Fracking Has ‘Cut Carbon More Than The Whole World’s Wind And Solar’

Critique of Brookings Report: Wind and Solar Technologies Fail 

Poor Performance of World’s Largest Solar Facility

Solar Panel Degradation

Thermal Solar Energy — Some Technologies Really Are Dumb

Four Solar Case Studies

Five Fatal Flaws of Solar Energy

Are There Problems with Solar?

$2.2 Billion Solar Plant Suddenly Needs More — Gas!

 

Issues with Rooftop Solar  —

Solar Power in the US — Lessons Learned

Solar Leases Sales Pitches: Overate the benefits

Solar PV Subsidies: Criticism Mounts

PV Solar: A Grid Cancer

Net Metering 101

Net Metering Info & Newsletter (Edison Electric Institute)

West Virginia Enacts Net Metering Bill

How State Solar Policies Hurt America’s Poor

Scams, Fraud Still Flourish in Solar

Rooftop Solar Leases Scaring Buyers When Homeowners Sell

This material is for those who understand energy basics, and want to become even more knowledgeable about these topics. Since there is so much material to cover, we’ve divided it into three categories, based on the topics that would be a part of a genuine scientific assessment: Technical, Economic, and Environmental.

Remember that this is just a small sampling of energy related financial articles!  If you can’t find the Economic information you’re interested in here, go to one of the sources listed on our Current News page and do a specific search in their archives for what you are looking for.

If you only have the time to review one financial document, then look at Wind Energy: Local Economics 101.

Brookings Report: Economically, Wind and Solar Are Our Worst Options

MIT Report: Comparing the Costs of Intermittent and Dispatchable Electricity Sources

The Levelized Cost of Existing Electricity Sources

The Unseen Costs of Wind-Generated Electricity

Industrial Wind Plants: Bad Economics, Bad Ecology

The High Cost of Wind and Solar

The Hidden Costs of Wind Energy

Why Wind Power Has Low Economic Value

The Full Cost of Wind and Solar are Simply Staggering

The True Cost of Electricity from Wind is Always Underestimated and its Value is Always Overestimated

The Economic Importance of Bats in Agriculture and US County dollar calculations

Making Sense of Levelized Energy Costs

The Levelized Costs of Electricity Generation

The Poverty of Renewables

True Cost of Energy — Wind

Electricity Costs: The Folly of Wind Energy

A few dozen reports about the inaccuracy of wind energy job claims by lobbyists

Wind Energy: the Case of Denmark

How AWEA’s Job Claims are Bogus

A superior article on decommissioning costs

The Economic and Social Costs of Electricity Production: Small Modular Reactors

Wind Energy Cost to Key Industries

Real Estate: a large collection of articles about wind’s negative effect on residential property value  

Agriculture: see how wind energy clashes with real farming.

Tourism: a sample report how tourism can be severely affected.

Military: an overview of the multiple ways wind energy can adversely affect military installations.

Note: these are all in addition to the fact that every business will be adversely affected by the higher costs of electricity generated by wind energy.

 

This page has information about wind energy development in Carteret County, NC. If you have questions about any of this, or have other material that should be included, or find any errors here, or would like to be on our email list, please email John Droz.

Make sure to look at the rest of the WiseEnergy.org website (see menus above), as there are several hundred studies and reports about the negative economic and environmental consequences of industrial wind energy. Several videos worth watching are here. Also make sure to look at our page of North Carolina laws, studies, etc. as many of these directly apply to the Carteret situation.

If you’re interested in what’s going on with this project, please periodically check back for updates. More recent significant additions or modifications will be indicated in green.

Quickie overview: a developer (Torch Clean Energy: Houston) is proposing a renewable energy development called Mill Pond. This consists of fifty or so 500± foot tall industrial turbines, plus a small amount of solar. [This is what the developer has called “phase 1” so this is all about them getting their foot into the NC/Carteret door!] The developer is leasing almost all of this land from Weyerhaeuser Corporation. This 7000± acre mostly wooded tract is entirely in Carteret County, with 40%± in the Town of Newport, and 60%± in an unincorporated part of the county. The developer reportedly started checking out the area in 2012, and more officially began the process in the summer of 2013. Their plans became public knowledge in October of 2013.

A NC law (H484) was passed in 2013, which sets up the first statewide wind energy permitting process. The NC DENR (Department of Environmental and Natural Resources) is the lead agency, and Mill Pond will be the first wind development going through this process. Carteret County had the foresight to pass a Tall Structure Ordinance in 2008, but this needed updating. The Town of Newport started creating their own Tall Structure Ordinance once they heard about this proposed project.

The objectives of state, county and town representatives should be: 1) to allow development that is a net-benefit to the community, while 2) protecting citizens, the environment, local economies, and NC military bases from industrialization. Our position is that alternative energy sources should be encouraged — but none should be permitted on the public grid until a scientific assessment proves that they are a NET societal benefit. No such scientific assessment exists for wind or solar.  In fact the evidence from studies done by independent experts conclude that wind energy is a net economics and environmental loser. See below (and read through this website — esp EnergyPresentation.Info) for more details

On the evening of November 26th, 2013, I conducted a community forum on the Mill Pond project. Over 100 interested citizens (including several key legislators) attended the slide presentation and lengthy Q&A. Over 95% of the comments were opposing the project, with most focusing on the economics, the environmental impact and the adverse affect it will have on Cherry Point. On the morning of December 6th, 2013, a second community presentation was held, primarily for invited community leaders. It also went very well. To see a synopsis, please look at the latest version of the handout given at both events — which is a copy of some of the main slides. 

On January 31, 2014, the wind developer finally threw in the towel. They acknowledged that the citizen-protective Town and County ordinances (both in the final stages of being approved) made it prohibitive for them to go forward. They had hoped to be able to obtain waivers, but based on the response and interest of educated citizens, realized that this was no longer possible.

 

 

Economic Realities  —

This is all about making a killing (at the expense of taxpayers’, ratepayers’ and the environment), as the wind energy business is one of the most lucrative investments in the country. Wind profiteers make exceptional returns due to things like generous federal subsidies, state mandates, and extremely preferential treatment once they are on the electrical grid. The industry goes to great lengths to keep their profits a proprietary number, as they know their bargaining position would be seriously undermined if such information was made public — however, insiders have indicated that (on other wind projects) they expect to make an annual guaranteed net profit of some 25%! For this the initial phase of this project that works out to $50± million per year to the developer!

The only way the developer can make these huge profits on the backs of citizens, is to hope that:

a) they can cheaply buy off the community (e.g. with lightweight regulations, reduced property taxes, unguaranteed claims of a few jobs, etc.),

b) the community won’t pay attention to the whole economics picture (see below), and

c) the community won’t notice that there are zero societal net benefits for such a project.

 

What Are Some Other Pieces of the Economics Picture?

For starters, read what the NC Department of Commerce wrote about another proposed NC coastal wind project:

“Nearly all of the upfront investment will be with firms located outside NC” and “The employment impacts for a project with this much initial investment is small.”

Read studies about how industrial turbines decrease Tourism. A conservative (4% reduction) estimate of this effect is that the Carteret County  will lose $11± million of local tourism revenue a year and will lose 120± local tourism jobs a year! [Compare this to the puny 8 annual jobs speculated at by the developer, and even those are not guaranteed.]

Read this study by the world’s leading bat experts about the substantial economic costs of turbine related (and WNS) bat deaths.

These experts then calculated the cost of turbine bat deaths for each NC county. The mid-range projected agricultural loss for Carteret County due to industrial wind development (and WNS) is $2.6 million annually!

Read this collection of articles about why industrial wind development will have a negative effect on nearby residential property values. (This is why a Property Value Guarantee is necessary.)

Read this 2012 Study done by Seymour-Johnson AFB explaining why some coastal wind developments are a serious impediment to their mission of low-level flights.

A letter from the commander of Seymour-Johnson to Governor Perdue, about this threat

—> Following this report and letter, this conscientious base commander was reportedly disciplined by her DC superiors. DoD then made it very clear that local military personnel will NOT publicly speak out against wind energy. All projects are now submitted to DoD headquarters for “vetting.” The last figures we were told were that some 3000 had been submitted countrywide, and zero had been rejected. The bottom line is that Cherry Point military personnel are prohibited from speaking candidly about this project.

Read this excellent news story on the Mill Pond project and Cherry Point.

Several sample reports and articles about how turbines impact radar.

 

Some Emails & Reports of Interest —

11/03/13 – Letter to head of NC DENR that is an appeal for cooperation.

11/06/13 – Report on the initial (11/5/13) stakeholder meeting, with the developer, in Wilmington (NC). This was reportedly an informal meeting outside the procedure of H484.

11/13/13 – Some information about the effects of the Mill Pond project on Tourism and the Military.

11/14/13 – My letter about the Newport Town meeting (11/14/13) where their proposed wind ordinance was to be discussed.

11/17/13 – Report about the Newport Town meeting (11/14/13) where their wind ordinance was passed.

11/21/13 – Announcement of planned public discussion of the wind project (11/26/13).

11/27/13 – Report on the First Community Forum (11/26/13).

12/07/13 – Report on the Second Community Forum (12/6/13).

12/13/13 – Report on the Carteret County Commissioners special Mill Pond meeting (12/13/13)

12/19/13 – Report on the MAC LAC meeting about the Mill Pond project (12/19/13)

12/28/13 – Letter to Editor in response to Sierra Club letter

01/03/14 – Report on County Public Hearing (1/2/14).  A newspaper story about it.

05/12/16 – Cherry Point Joint Land Use Study (JLUS)

Note: unless otherwise noted, these emails went to those who signed up to be on a Newport wind energy email list (300+). That list includes Newport Council and Planning members, Carteret County Commissioners and Planners, several state representatives, federal representatives, several NC organization leaders, and interested citizens.

 

Some County & Town of Newport Documents —

Writing An Effective Wind Ordinance: 2013 (sent to all local representatives)

My 2008 submission to the County regarding their initial proposed Tall Structure Ordinance.

Carteret County’s Tall Structure Ordinance: 2008 (the passed version).

Real Science 

In our view, this is the over-riding issue regarding all energy and environmental matters.

Science is not a collection of facts, but rather a methodology to be used when attempting to solve technical problems (like energy and environmental matters). This methodology (known as the scientific process) is a comprehensive, independent, transparent, and empirical assessment of a claim or proposed solution (also called a hypothesis). [An example of a hypothesis is the assertion that wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2.]

Let’s clarify these four important terms a bit. Comprehensive means a technical, economic, and environmental assessment. Independent means that evaluating scientists have no economic or political stake in the outcome. Transparent means that all data is readily available for inspection. Empirical means that real-world data is used, not computer models. [Computer models are acceptable when there is insufficient empirical data, and when all model assumptions are published.]

Note that in the scientific methodology explained above, none of it has anything to do with polling experts as to their opinion. Consensus is not, and has never been, a part of the scientific process. In fact, many of the great scientists of history are remembered precisely because they broke from the scientific consensus of their time.

Skepticism is at the heart of scientific thinking. Although we should consider all hypotheses with an open mind, we should remain skeptical until there is legitimate scientific proof (through the methodology mentioned above) that said claim is true. A critical understanding is that those who put forward a hypothesis are responsible for proving it is correct — it is not the responsibility of others to prove it wrong, or to provide a “better” hypothesis.

Currently, most of our energy and environmental policies are NOT Science based. Instead these policies have essentially been written by lobbyists representing clients with economic or political agendas. The predictable result is that almost all of these policies cost taxpayers, businesses, etc. considerably more than originally promised — and accomplish significantly less than we were assured. Additionally, there are usually numerous “unintended consequences” of these lobbyist driven policies that make the net effects even worse.

Insisting on Science-based technical policies would guarantee better results. AWED’s hope is that the current economic hard times might be the motivation for changing the traditional way of writing technical policies. Our belief is that this change is essential if the U.S. wishes to remain a leader in affordable, cutting edge energy technology in the 21st century and beyond.

 

Wind Energy

Wind energy is a favorite alternative energy source for advocates of all things green — and we use wind energy as an example of what happens when we deviate from using real science: we end up with high-cost, low-benefit boondoggles. (Much the same could be said about solar.)

The main justification for wind energy by its promoters, is that it will substantially reduce the threat of climate change. Unfortunately this is a political science position, not one based on real Science. No scientific assessment has proven that wind energy saves a consequential amount of CO2 — or that it is a NET societal benefit to us. NET, of course, is the key word.

The obvious question is: why are governments investing so much in wind energy when there has never been a genuine scientific assessment of its merits — anywhere in the world? The reason is that our energy policies are written by lobbyists, and any true Science in the process is inadvertent.

So, after a policy has been in effect for 10+ years, we wonder why it has cost WAY more that we were told it would, why the results are WAY less than we were promised they would be, and why there are numerous other negative consequences that we were never told about…

None of this should be a surprise — in fact they are the expected results — when policies are written to benefit the interests of a few, rather than the public. All of these problematic results could have been minimized if our technical policies were based on real Science. It’s as simple as that.

We favor reducing the pollutants of fossil fuel power facilities (like coal), and of aggressively investigating other good options for producing electricity. Our main concern is that we should not be wasting time and money on illusionary solutions — like some of the alternatives being promoted by those with vested financial interests in them.

A critical fact to understand is that just because a power source is an alternative, or a renewable, does NOT automatically mean that it is better than any conventional or fossil fuel source!

In other words, energy alternatives/renewables should not be given a free pass on common sense scrutiny, and the use of scientific methodology, in objectively evaluating their merits. (Read the Obituary for Common Sense.)

Preventing problems is almost always much easier than solving them afterwards.  Not surprisingly, it’s no different when dealing with industrial wind energy. Let’s start with first things first: an effective Plan of Action to seriously consider.

[Note: I am not an attorney, so nothing on this website should be misconstrued as giving legal advice. My counsel has always been, and continues to be, to consult with a competent attorney prior to making any legal decisions.]

When writing a local “wind ordinance” there are two main routes to take: Regulate turbines, or Prohibit them. These options are explained here. The specifics for how to go the regulatory route (the most common choice) are spelled out here. [BTW, everything in the section below is incorporated on this these two documents.]

Assuming you go the regulatory route, a proper wind law is all about assuring PROTECTIONS for local citizens, businesses and the environment. In our view, the five most important elements to address properly in a local industrial wind ordinance are: 1) Property Value Guarantee, 2) Setbacks, 3) Acoustical Regulations, 4) Environmental, and 5) Decommissioning.

—> Read this thorough wind study by the citizens of Bethany, NY, which itemizes numerous other areas of concern.

Is there an ideal wind law that you can simply copy and edit for your locale? YES: the national Model Local Wind Law.

The Carteret County (NC) wind law covers all five key areas very well.

So don’t reinvent the wheel: build on how these and some other local communities have dealt with wind developments. Other good examples where citizens came up with reasonable ordinances include: Newport (NC: Article 9) wind law, Montville (Maine), Sumner (Maine), Sweetwater (Wyoming), Trempealeau County (Wisconsin), Madison (Idaho), and Jackson (Maine).

Articles about wind’s negative effect on residential property value, including our recommended Property Value Guarantee

Proposed Wind Turbine Siting Sound Limits (Kamperman & James)

A superior wind Noise Study by independent experts, followed by a one-page suggested ordinance.

A very detailed calculation of turbine decommissioning costs, done by a professional engineer.

Restoring Individual and Community Rights: Approval Process for Large Wind and Solar Projects

Potential Turbine Leaseholders

Making the decision about signing a lease to host industrial wind turbines on your land often sounds like a no-brainer. You will be paid $5000± per year per turbine for doing almost nothing, right?

Wrong. There are extraordinary implications to singing these leases, which have been called some of the most restrictive, one-sided contracts anywhere.

For starters take some time and CAREFULLY read through this overview of the situation. It is addressed to Farmers, but it applies to almost any landowner. 

We’ve put together a comprehensive list of over forty legal and financial concerns that any party considering a wind lease or easement should carefully consider.

Then look at this wonderful series of short videos, specifically on this topic: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Benefits Blown Away is a detailed look into another aspect that wind salespeople won’t be explaining.

A lawyer writes: Wind Law and Negotiations from a Landowner’s Perspective.

The bottom line is that there is no free lunch!  Wind salespeople are only soliciting landowners for the developer’s benefit. Keep in mind that there are ZERO net societal benefits for wind energy. Don’t be manipulated into making a decision you may regret for the rest of your life.

Legal Recourse

Taking legal action is generally advised to be a last step. This document is an outline of the best legal options to fight corruption and incompetence. (Remember that we are not attorneys so always consult with a lawyer for legal advice.) Below is a tiny sample of the hundreds of court cases and legal decisions concerning wind energy:

See this good (searchable) list of wind energy related lawsuits

Fox Island (Maine) files a 1983 Federal lawsuit [if done right this is a very powerful option]

Wisconsin citizens filed a 1983 Federal lawsuit against their town (and won)

Here is a blank form to file a pro-se 1983 action (It would be advisable to consult with an attorney)

Consumer Class Action Alleges NextEra Energy’s Wind Turbines Near Residential Communities are a ‘Nuisance’ (2019)

Ruling that citizens failed to prove that a wind project was a health nuisance (2016)

Judge (2015) rules that a wind project needs a federal environmental assessment.

The Nevada Supreme Court (2013) determines that a turbine is a nuisance, devaluates property, etc.

The “Law of Nuisance” (may be applicable against wind developers).

Also see this about wind energy Nuisance suits.

Maryland Judge Denies Wind Energy Project Permit [& gives good reasons]

Indiana citizens sue county over inadequate wind ordinance (2018) [See story.]

NY Residents Sue Turbine Leaseholders

Falmouth Wind Turbines and RICO Act

Developer mandated to buy out property owners, due to health complaints (2018)

Michigan Citizens Sue Wind Developer over Health Issues

NY citizens filed a Sherman Anti-trust claim against wind developers

Suggested possibility: a qui tam version of the Lincoln Law

Lawsuit (2105) claims county violated wind opponents’ due process

Farmer sues for livestock killed, property devaluation, and health effects

An important court case that rules that wind is not baseload power

A NY town’s law restricting turbines is upheld in court

Here is an argument to file a lawsuit based on violations of the Geneva Convention.

Indiana Supreme Court says Town can determine turbine setbacks

A proposed code of ethics for industrial wind developers

Big Wind SLAPPs Critic (see this excellent video news story)

Constitutional Barriers to Renewable Energy in the US

Court ruling called a game changer for renewable power  

FAA blocks a wind project for a NY town

Constitutionality of Renewable Energy Mandates in Question

A site to report government or wind energy malfeasance

A Barrage of Lawsuits Shuts Down Science Whistleblower Site. [Although the site was primarily about problems with medical science, the exact same issues are going on in the energy and environmental areas.]

Professional Journalists Code of Ethics

This material is for those who understand energy basics, and want to become even more knowledgeable about these topics. Since there is so much material to cover, we’ve divided it into three categories, based on the topics that would be a part of a genuine scientific assessment: Technical, Economic and Environmental.

Remember that this is just a small sampling of energy related environmental articles! If you can’t find the Environmental information you’re interested in here, go to one of the sources listed on our Current News page and do a specific search in their archives for what you are looking for. [Note: for simplicity sake we are including human health impacts under the Environmental category.]

 

Human Impact

A sample of the numerous studies done about the adverse health effects from industrial wind turbines

A collection of numerous peer-reviewed studies on the health effects due to industrial wind turbines

Multiple Peer-Reviewed Reports about the adverse impact wind turbine noise has on human health

Brown County (Wisc) Health Board rules that wind energy is a health hazard

The official position of Poland’s National Institute of Public Health on industrial wind turbines

Low Frequency Noise and Industrial Wind Turbines

An exceptional critique of the Massachusetts “health” report, by an MIT PhD

Sleep duration predicts cardiovascular outcomes (a Peer Reviewed study)

Adverse Health Effects of Wind Turbines (Peer Reviewed)

A superior collection of turbine health related reports

A worthwhile site about turbine noise and health issues

Wind Turbine Noise and Human Perception: superior

Are Wind Projects Too Close to Communities? (Peer Reviewed)

A Cooperative Measurement Survey and Analysis of Infrasound

In China, the true cost of the “clean & green” wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale

Wind Energy: A Review of Human Health & Safety Concerns

Ontario Health Unit Hears Results of Turbine Study

Health Experiments on People without their Consent

Scientific Evidence of Turbine Infrasound

Wind Turbine infrasound is a unique environmental noise

Review of Noise Studies and Related Material

Health Effects of Infrasound can Cause Death

Seismic Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines

Concerns of crop dusters regarding wind turbines

Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data (please report accidents, etc. to these people)

A world map of reported incidents caused by wind turbines (please report accidents, etc. to these people)

 

Environmental Overviews

The shocking environmental cost of renewable energy     

Wind Farms Gone Wild

A fine piece about environmental hypocrisy

Nature Defeated

Ecological Effects of Wind Energy Development

The Wrong Way To Get to Green

Big Wind and Avian Mortality

Bats Killed In Large Numbers

30 Million Birds Annually Killed by Wind Turbines

Renewable Energy: The Vision and a Dose of Reality

Five Environmental Myths About Green Energy

Environmental Groups Endorse “None of the Above” Energy

Wind projects’ negative impact on the local weather: for up to 15 miles away!

Evaluation of Wind Power Avoided Emissions Benefits

Wind Integration Incremental Emissions: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5

 

Wildlife and Domestic Animal “Takings”

Wind Turbines Are Killing Our Birds 

John Muir Trust and Wind Turbines

Trampling on people, environment, science and ethics

The hypocrisy of The Endangered Species Act

Big Wind and Avian Mortality: Part 1 & Part 2

Expert says Turbine Bird Deaths may be Underreported

German wind turbines kill over 200,000 bats a year

Do Wind Turbines Harm Animals?

Wind Energy = Animal Deaths and Deformities?

Modern Wind Turbines Generate Dangerously “Dirty” Electricity

Study: The Effects of Turbines on Wildlife, Livestock, and Domestic Animals (¶ 5)

Study: Infrasound Effects on Land Based Animals and Freshwater Creatures

This page has information about a proposed wind energy development for Tyrrell County (in Northeastern North Carolina). If you have questions about any of this, or have other material that should be included, or find any errors here, or would like to be on our email list, please email John Droz.

Make sure to look at the rest of this WiseEnergy.org website (see menus above), as there are several hundred studies and reports about the negative economic, environmental and technical consequences of industrial wind energy. Several videos worth watching are here.

Make sure to look at our page of some North Carolina laws, proposed legislation, pertinent agencies, etc. as many of these directly apply to this proposed development. To keep current with what’s going on with this project, please periodically check back here for updates. More recent significant additions or modifications will be indicated in green.

Quickie overview: a wind energy developer is reportedly considering an industrial wind energy development that so far has not been named. [Iberdrola, a rumored source, denies that this is them.] According to reputable sources this may consist of 75 or so 600± foot tall industrial turbines — which would be the tallest turbines in the US. The developer is leasing almost all of the land (a 10,000± acre mostly wooded tract) from Weyerhaeuser Corporation.

Our position is that alternative energy sources should be encouraged — but none should be permitted on the public grid until a scientific assessment proves that they are a NET societal benefit. No such scientific assessment exists for wind energy!  In fact the evidence from studies done by independent experts conclude that wind energy is a net economics and environmental loser.  See below (and read through this website — esp EnergyPresentation.Info) for more details.

The objectives of our elected representatives should be: 1) to encourage development that is a net-benefit to the community, while 2) protecting citizens, the environment, local economies, and military bases from industrialization. The bottom line is that protecting the health, safety and welfare of the community must be the top priority — not promoting the economic interests of some out-of-state investor.

A NC law (H484) was passed in 2013, which sets up the first statewide wind energy permitting process. The NC DENR (Department of Environmental and Natural Resources) is the lead agency, and Timbermill may be the first wind development going through this process. As explained on our NC Wind Energy Information page, H484 is a very weak law, that provides only minimal protections.

As such, NC communities are left on their own to deal with industrial wind energy. Tyrrell County had the foresight to pass a basic wind ordinances in 2009, but it needs revising. As a point of reference, Carteret County (NC) had a major wind project proposed there in 2013. After several public meetings, and considerable research, the Carteret County Commissioners unanimously passed a protections-oriented Tall Structures Ordinance in 2014. Tyrrell County should benefit from Carteret County’s experience.

Tyrrell County citizens were urged to attend the Education Event (movie + Q&A) held in Edenton, on November 22, 2014. For those unable to make it, the Windfall film is available on Netflix (as a DVD). Our hope is that after they have a better understanding of industrial wind energy realities, that Tyrrell County will soon upgrade their wind ordinance to provide the basic protections needed for local citizens, businesses and the environment.

Note: How huge is 600 feet?

Economic Realities  —

Wind promoters usually present these projects as a “found money opportunity.” However, the typical reality is that the developer makes tens of millions in profit, while the local community has a net economic loss.

In other words, these projects are usually all about making a killing (at the expense of taxpayers, ratepayers and the environment), as the wind energy business is one of the most lucrative investments in the country. Wind profiteers make exceptional returns due to things like generous federal subsidies, state mandates, and extremely preferential treatment once they are on the electrical grid. The industry goes to great lengths to keep their profits a proprietary number, as they know their bargaining position would be seriously undermined if such information was made public — however, insiders have indicated that (on other wind projects) they expect to make an annual guaranteed net profit of up to 25%!  If that holds true on this project, that works out to $40± million per year to the developer!

The only way the developer can make these huge profits on the backs of citizens, is to hope that:

a) they can cheaply buy off the community (e.g. with lightweight regulations, reduced property taxes [PILOT agreement], unguaranteed claims of a few jobs, etc.),

b) the community won’t pay attention to the whole economics picture (see below), and

c) the community won’t notice that there are zero societal net benefits for such a project.

What About Farmers and Hunters?

This project has been marketed as a boon for some local farmers. Making the decision about signing a lease to host industrial wind turbines often sounds like a no-brainer. Farmers will be paid $5000+ per year per turbine for doing almost nothing, right?

Wrong. There are extraordinary implications to signing these leases, which have been called some of the most restrictive, one-sided contracts anywhere.

For starters CAREFULLY read through this overview of the situation. We’ve put together a comprehensive list of over forty legal and financial concerns that any potential leaseholder should thoroughly consider.

The Community will also lose income from hunters, as industrial wind development is incompatible with hunting.

What Are Some Other Pieces of the Economics Picture?

For starters, read what the NC Department of Commerce wrote about another nearby NC coastal wind project:

“Nearly all of the upfront investment will be with firms located outside NC” and “The employment impacts for a project with this much initial investment is small.”

Read studies about how industrial turbines decrease Tourism. A conservative (4% reduction) estimate of this effect is that Tyrrell County will lose $150,000± of local tourism revenue a year!

Read this study by the world’s leading bat experts about the substantial economic costs of turbine related (& WNS) bat deaths.

These experts then calculated the cost of turbine bat deaths for each NC county. The mid-range projected agricultural loss for Tyrrell County due to industrial wind development (and WNS) is $3.7± million annually!

Adding those two figures up, and then crediting the county with a generous $900k/year of property tax income:

There is a net annual loss of $3.0± million! 

If this is a twenty year project that means there will be a total net loss of $60± million!

And there are even MORE Economics costs!

Read this collection of articles about why industrial wind development will have a negative effect on nearby residential property values. (This is why a Property Value Guarantee is necessary.)

Plus there is the cost to local and state consumers and businesses due to the higher cost of wind energy electricity.

Plus there is the cost due to the adverse health effects directly caused by industrial turbines.

Plus there is the cost due to the health consequences caused by a proliferation of insects (due to many bats being killed).

Plus there is the “shocking environmental cost” of wind energy.

The US Fish & Wildlife Service made up a special NC map showing where there is a high risk of environmental damage from industrial wind projects. Note that Tyrrell County has a significant amount of such sensitive lands.

The Military Impact —

North Carolina has a long history of being a military friendly state. In addition to us doing more than our share to protect the country, economically this means tens of Billions of dollars to the NC economy.

Many of NC’s important bases are located on (or operate in) the coastal region. Due to wind speeds (and the Ridge law) ALL of the wind development that will happen in NC, will also be in these same coastal regions — which sets up some major conflicts. As an example, the proposed Mill Pond project was a direct threat to the operation of Cherry Point MCAS in Havelock. (This was because the wind project was located on its runway approach, and that it would interfere with their radar operation.)

Another important base that could be severely impacted by coastal wind development, is Seymour-Johnson AFB. One of the main missions of S-J is to train pilots to fly at low altitudes (e.g. to avoid enemy radar). 600± foot structures in their flight paths present an extremely high risk for loss of life accidents. Their 2012 Report was a superior explanation of the severity of the problem. The S-J operations map below shows how any Tyrrell wind project will cause an immediate and significant threat to S-J to conduct its mission. (Here is a newspaper story where S-J officials are expressing their concerns about wind development with several coastal NC counties, including Tyrrell.)

Two responses often heard as “solutions” to this serious problem: 1) the federal DoD Wind Energy Clearinghouse, and 2) NC’s Wind Permitting law, H484. Unfortunately neither offers our military any meaningful or guaranteed protections when it comes to industrial wind energy. Here’s an overview of the serious situation with our military, which explains why neither of these two “solutions” have substance.

At this point, until H484 is properly fixed, the only protection that our NC military bases have, is for local communities to pass an effective protection-oriented wind ordinance. We are hopeful that Tyrrell County will upgrade their existing wind law to that level.

Some Misc Documents of Interest —

7/16/2012 – Letter from Seymour-Johnson base commander to Governor Perdue, expressing grave concerns about the proposed Tyrrell (and Pantego) wind project.

11/23/13 – Letter to the Editor published in the Chowan Harold about a similar nearby wind project.

11/24/13 – Comments Against Proposed Text Amendment for a nearby county’s similar wind law.

1/15/14 – Letter to the Editor published in the Chowan Harold about a similar nearby wind project.

5/30/14 – Letter to the head of the Northeast Commission (now Northeast Alliance) asking why they would be promoting a nearby project that is a net economics loser to the community. [No answer has been received.]

6/11/14 – Letter to the Editor published in the Chowan Harold about a similar nearby wind project.

10/1/14 – Letter to the Editor published in the Chowan Harold about a similar nearby wind project.

Some Tyrrell County Wind Law Information —

Ordinance Bullet Points (on outline of the basics that need to be included in a local protections-oriented wind law).

Writing An Effective Wind Ordinance (more details on the Bullet Points).

Tyrrell County’s Wind Energy Facilities Ordinance.

Here are my comments and recommended changes to the latest (2017) version of the Tyrrell County wind ordinance.

This page has information about a proposed wind energy development that straddles Chowan and Perquimans Counties (in Northeastern North Carolina). If you have questions about any of this, or have other material that should be included, or find any errors here, or would like to be on our email list, please email John Droz.

Make sure to look at the rest of this WiseEnergy.org website (see menus above), as there are several hundred studies and reports about the negative economic, environmental and technical consequences of industrial wind energy. Several videos worth watching are here.

Make sure to look at our page of some North Carolina laws, proposed legislation, pertinent agencies, etc. as many of these directly apply to this proposed development. To keep current with what’s going on with this project, please periodically check back here for updates. More recent significant additions or modifications (other than dated documents) will be indicated in green.

Quickie overview: a Virginia developer (Apex Energy) is proposing an industrial wind energy development called Timbermill. This may consist of 150 or so 600± foot tall industrial turbines — which would be the tallest turbines in the US. The developer is leasing almost all of the land (a 15,000± acre mostly wooded tract) from Weyerhaeuser Corporation. Here is a map of the project.

Our position is that alternative energy sources should be encouraged — but none should be permitted on the public grid until a scientific assessment proves that they are a NET societal benefit. No such scientific assessment exists for wind energy!  In fact the evidence from studies done by independent experts conclude that wind energy is a net economics and environmental loser.  See below (and read through this website — esp EnergyPresentation.Info) for more details.

The objectives of our elected representatives should be: 1) to encourage development that is a net-benefit to the community, while 2) protecting citizens, the environment, local economies, and military bases from industrialization. The bottom line is that protecting the health, safety and welfare of the community must be the top priority — not promoting the economic interests of some out-of-state investor.

A NC law (H484) was passed in 2013, which sets up the first statewide wind energy permitting process. The NC DENR (Department of Environmental and Natural Resources) is the lead agency, and Timbermill may be the first wind development going through this process. As explained on our NC Wind Energy Information page, H484 is a very weak law, that provides only minimal protections.

As such, NC communities are left on their own to deal with industrial wind energy. Both Chowan County and Perquimans County had the foresight to pass similar wind ordinances in 2009, but both need updating. As a point of reference, Carteret County (NC) had a major wind project proposed there in 2013. After several public meetings, and considerable research, the Carteret County Commissioners unanimously passed a protections-oriented Tall Structures Ordinance in 2014. Chowan County and Perquimans County could do much worse than follow Carteret County’s example.

Note: How huge is 600 feet?

 

Special Event  —

On November 22nd, 2014,  Chowan County citizens sponsored a free wind energy education get-together. The location was the First Presbyterian Church meeting room (Edenton, NC). The award winning, feature-length movie, Windfall, was shown. This movie was a Grand Prize Winner at the New York City Independent Film festival. It also received favorible reviews from renowned movie critic Roger Ebert, the New York Times (a “Critics Pick”), and the Wall Street Journal — among many others. For those unable to make that meeting, the film is available on Netflix.

Following the film, there was a Q&A, hosted by environmentalist and energy expert John Droz. John is an independent physicist who lives in Morehead City, who has donating his time and expertise for free. He led the successful education campaign in Carteret County for the wind project recently proposed there (also on Weyerhaeuser land). This event was open to the public. For any questions about that meeting, please contact the organizer, Peter Lolkema, at (252) 482-9956.

Our hope is that after they have a better understanding of industrial wind energy realities, that both Chowan and Perquimans Counties will follow Carteret County’s example (see above) and soon upgrade their wind laws to provide the basic protections needed for local citizens, businesses and the environment.

Economic Realities  —

The Timbermill wind project will likely result in an annual net $12 million loss — as well as an annual net reduction in employment of some 30 jobs. Please read the following carefully to see how this all comes about…

Wind promoters usually present these projects as a “found money opportunity.” However, the typical reality is that the developer makes tens of millions in profit, while the local community has a net economic loss.

In other words, these are usually all about making a killing (at the expense of taxpayers, ratepayers and the environment), as the wind energy business is one of the most lucrative investments in the country. Wind profiteers make exceptional returns due to things like generous federal subsidies, state mandates, and extremely preferential treatment once they are on the electrical grid.

The industry goes to great lengths to keep their profits a proprietary number, as they know their bargaining position would be seriously undermined if such information was made public — however, insiders have indicated that (on other wind projects) they expect to make an annual guaranteed net profit of up to 25%!  If that holds true on this project, that works out to $75± million per year to the developer!

The only way the developer can make these huge profits on the backs of citizens, is to hope that:

a) they can cheaply buy off the community (e.g. with lightweight regulations, reduced property taxes [e.g. a PILOT agreement], unguaranteed claims of a few jobs, etc.),

b) the community won’t pay attention to the whole economics picture (see below), and

c) the community won’t notice that there are zero societal net benefits for such a project.

d) property leaseholders won’t give adequate consideration to the terms and conditions in their 40± page contracts.

What About Farmers and Hunters?

The developers claim that this project will be a boon for some local farmers. Making the decision about signing a lease to host industrial wind turbines often sounds like a no-brainer — as landowners may get paid $10,000+ per year per turbine for doing almost nothing, right?

Wrong. There are extraordinary implications to signing these leases (actually easements), which knowledgeable attorneys have called some of the most restrictive, one-sided contracts anywhere in the country.

For starters CAREFULLY read through this overview of the situation. We’ve also put together a comprehensive list of over forty legal and financial concerns that any potential leaseholder should thoroughly consider.

Additionally, please read this presentation that was recently given in NY. It was an analysis of the Apex contract that landowners there were given — and there are likely many similarities with what would happen in NC.

The Community will also lose income from hunters, as industrial wind development is incompatible with hunting.

What Are Some Other Pieces of the Economics Picture?

1) For starters, read how the NC Department of Commerce cautioned about being fooled by high construction cost figures being bandied about by wind promoters. They wrote this about another nearby NC coastal wind project:

“Nearly all of the upfront investment will be with firms located outside NC” and “The employment impacts for a project with this much initial investment is small.”

2) Read studies about how industrial turbines decrease Tourism. Note that a 2016 NC study concluded that as many as 80% of tourists would not return to an area with a wind project!

To be conservative, we will reduce the 80% loss figure to only 20%. The impact of this amount is that the Chowan/Perquimans area will lose $5.8± million of local tourism revenue a year! 

3) Read this study by the world’s leading bat experts about the substantial economic costs of turbine related (and WNS) bat deaths.

These experts then calculated the cost of turbine bat deaths for each NC county. The mid-range projected agricultural loss for Chowan and Perquimans Counties due to industrial wind development (and WNS) is $8.5± million annually!

We add these figures up, and then credit the counties with a generous $2.1 million/year of property tax income year of combined property tax and lease income. The result is that:

There is a net annual economic loss of $12± million! 

If this is a twenty year project that means there will be a total net loss of $240± million!

However there are several MORE local economic liabilities to still add in!

For example, the developer claims (but does not guarantee) that the Timbermill project will result in 10 jobs. However, using only the very conservative 20% figure again, there will be 40± jobs lost in just the tourism sector. In other words:

—> an annual net employment loss of 30± jobs! 

Read this collection of articles about why industrial wind development will have a negative effect on nearby residential property values. For example, in the small town of Henderson (NY), a 2016 Study concluded that they could lose $40± million in property values due to the proposed nearby wind project (This is why a Property Value Guarantee is necessary.)

Plus there is the cost to local and state consumers and businesses due to the higher cost of wind energy electricity.

Plus there is the cost due to the adverse health effects directly caused by industrial turbines.

Plus there is the cost due to the health consequences caused by a proliferation of insects (due to many bats being killed).

Plus there is the “shocking environmental cost” of wind energy.

Plus there is the likelihood of groundwater contamination.

The referenced studies are simply examples. Please see the Menus above for many more studies. It also may be relevant that citizens near another Apex wind project have sued the developer for “creating a nuisance that will cause unreasonable inconvenience, interference, annoyance, adverse health effects, and loss of use and value of each Plaintiff’s property.”

Some Misc Documents of Interest —

10/22/13 – Meeting of the Chowan County Planners where they had a presentation from Apex.

11/19/13 – Meeting of the Chowan County Planners where they had another presentation from Apex.

11/23/13 – Letter to the Editor published in the Chowan Harold.

11/24/13 – Comments Against Proposed Text Amendment to Chowan County Zoning Ordinance.

12/2/13 – Meeting of the Chowan County Commissioners where they changed their wind law to 600 feet.

1/15/14 – Letter to the Editor published in the Chowan Harold.

5/30/14 – Letter to the head of the Northeast Commission (now Northeast Alliance) asking why they would be promoting a project that is a net economics loser to the community. [No answer has been received.]

6/11/14 – Letter to the Editor published in the Chowan Harold.

[Note a similar letter to the Perquimans Weekly was declined as “I was not a county resident.”]

Some Chowan and Perquimans County Wind Law Information —

Ordinance Bullet Points (on outline of the basics that need to be included in a local protections-oriented wind law).

Writing An Effective Wind Ordinance (more details on the Bullet Points).

Chowan County’s Tall Structure Ordinance [revised 2013: to increase allowable turbine heights to 600 feet].

Regarding the Virginia ROTHR facility impact, our understanding is that the military (although they have not publicized this) acknowledged that this critical national security surveillance could be degraded by 15%± by the Desert Wind project.  Due to wind energy promotion being a political priority, the Navy was directed to accept this deterioration of their operational performance. Citizens should be aware of the fact that our military mission (and national security) is now considered less important than renewable energy promotion…

 

Nuclear produces more clean electricity than all other sources combined

Duke Energy CEO: No power technology can replace or do the job of nuclear energy today

The Case for Terrestrial Energy

An insightful FAQ on nuclear power

Wind and Solar Are Distractions — Nuclear is the Answer

Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future

Nuclear Plant Digitalization Infographic

Next Generation Nuclear Power

The World Supply of Uranium

Do We Have Enough Uranium to Go Nuclear?

The World’s First Floating Nuclear Facility

A Plan to Power the World with Thorium

Global nuclear power to reach 536GW by 2030

Renewable and Nuclear Heresies

 

Environmentalists and Nuclear:    

Scientists and experts object to anti-nuclear bias in UN climate report

Environmental group finally acknowledges the net benefits of nuclear

If We’re Going To Save The Planet, We’ve Got To Use The Nuclear Option

Nuclear Energy and Climate Change – A Controversial Science Discussion

Climate Change Benefits and Energy Supply Benefits of Nuclear Power Stations

Dr. James Hansen concludes that nuclear power is a net benefit to us

 

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) — The Future of Nuclear:  

Small Modular Reactors hold significant potential

Advanced Small Modular Reactors

SMRs – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.

TVA Unveils Major New Nuclear Program, First SMR

Small Modular Reactors advance in the nuclear world

 

What about radiation and security?  

Nuclear Radiation is Not a Big Deal

Study: Radiation Hormesis – The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Report: Reassessing Radiation Safety

This report puts nuclear power risks in proper perspective

If Nuclear Power Is So Safe, Why Are We So Afraid Of It?

Fraudulent science behind radiation regulations

MIT – Making nuclear energy safer and more affordable

Nuclear Security

The energy in nuclear waste could power the U.S. for 100 years

 

For some additional information see these organizations:  

Environmentalists for Nuclear — USA

Generation Atomic

US Nuclear Energy Foundation

The Thorium SMR Foundation

The Thorium Network

American Nuclear Society

Nuclear Energy Institute

World Nuclear Association

 

Some sample interesting nuclear companies:

TerraPower

Transatomic Power

ThorCon

Battelle

09/17/16 – Attorney Dennis Vacco’s Op-Ed re Local Law 5 (Watertown Daily Times).

09/20/16 – State Agency Holds Wind Energy Meeting at JCC (Watertown Daily Times).

10/15/16 – Clayton and Wind Developer Settle Moratorium Lawsuit (Watertown Daily Times).

11/08/16 – JCIDA Says They Will Not Conflict with County’s PILOT Position (Watertown Daily Times).

11/12/16 – Orleans Board Claims Wind Project is Outside of Overlay District (Watertown Daily Times).

12/9/16 – Supervisors Attempt to Unite Towns Against Article 10 (Watertown Daily Times).

01/16/17 – Local Wind Opponents Encourage Stricter Regulations in Orleans (Watertown Daily Times).

01/27/17 – Save The River Calls for TI Wind Review (Watertown Daily Times).

02/12/17 – Orleans Board Reviews Three Wind Law Proposals (Watertown Daily Times).

03/29/17 – DANC JLUS Meeting (Watertown Daily Times).

04/25/17 – Clayton Pushes Zoning and Scenic Designation (Watertown Daily Times).

04/27/17 – County Approves Clayton Zoning Amendment (Watertown Daily Times).

04/28/17 – Clayton Delays Action on  Zoning and Scenic Designation (Watertown Daily Times).

05/16/17 – Clayton Repeals Wind Laws and Substitutes a Height Limit (Watertown Daily Times).

05/29/17 – Albany’s Wind Energy Scheme Blows Neighborhoods Down (Watertown Daily Times).

05/30/17 – Clayton Tables SASS Matter — For Now (Watertown Daily Times).

08/27/17 – Grid Cannot Accommodate Proposed Horse Creek Wind Project (Watertown Daily Times).

08/29/17 – Editorial: Wind Projects Represent a Threat to North Country Economy (Watertown Daily Times).

08/30/17 – Op-ed: Measures to Protect Against Wind Projects (Watertown Daily Times).

For more about wind energy financials, see our economics page.

 

Whales and Offshore Wind —

NOAA Lead Biologist’s Damning Document on Offshore Wind and Right Whales

Offshore Wind Turbines Blamed After Three Whales Die Off Suffolk

Environmentalists link whale beachings to offshore wind turbine sonar

Ten whale groups slam Atlantic Offshore Wind

Whales are Better than Wind Turbines

New NOAA map shows North Atlantic Right Whales in very same areas targeted for offshore wind development

Evidence says offshore wind development is killing lots of whales

Why Environmentalists May Make This Whale Species Extinct

Threat to Endangered Whales Gets LOUDER

Right Whales Endangered by Wrong Energy Policies!

Study: Impacts of Noise from Offshore Wind Project Construction and Installation on Large Whales

Study: Noise pollution spooks whales the way predators would

Study: Effects of Offshore Wind Projects on Marine Mammals and Fish (including whales)

Study: Effects of Offshore Wind Turbine Noise on Marine Mammals and Fish (including whales)

 

Some Fishing Industry Concerns with Offshore Wind —

Report: Wind Turbines and Offshore Energy Development

Report: NOAA and BOEM; Ignorance is Bliss

Report: Wind Turbine Generator Impacts on Marine Vessel Radar

Study: Warns of risks to navigation from offshore wind projects

Study: The Effects of Human-generated Sound on Fish

Study: Information gaps in understanding the effects of noise on fishes and invertebrates

Study: Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) on Fish and Invertebrates

Study: Evaluation of Potential EMF Effects on Fish Species of Commercial or Recreational Fishing

Study: The Interaction Between Resource Species and EMFs Associated with Offshore Wind Turbines

Study: Noise from Wind Turbine Pile Driving Disrupts the Structure and Dynamics of Fish Shoals

Study: Offshore Wind Projects – Ecological Effects of Noise and Habitat Alteration on Fish

Study: Zebrafish Behavioral Changes in Response to Sound Exposure

Study: Effects of Underwater Noise on Auditory Sensitivity of a Cyprinid Fish

Study: Recommended regional scale studies related to fisheries in New England offshore Wind Energy Areas

Fisheries science needs to catch up with offshore wind power

Offshore wind rush is irresponsible

Wind Rush

Fishermen’s Doubts Persist on Offshore Wind Project

US fishermen fear forests of offshore wind turbines

Fishermen Fear Damage From Wind Projects Along The Eastern Seaboard

Fishermen Give Cold Shoulder to Offshore Wind Developer

US Fishermen feel a chill from wind turbines

How fishermen could thwart Cuomo’s offshore wind master plan

Offshore Wind States: Beware

Fishermen worry that offshore turbines will damage their business

Ratepayers bankrolling offshore wind project opposed by LI fishing community

Responsible Offshore Development Association

 

Some Other Offshore Wind Environmental Realities —

Study: Impacts of offshore wind farm construction on Harbour Porpoise

Study: Offshore wind projects are projected to impact primary production and bottom water deoxygenation

Study: Anthropogenic Mixing in Seasonally Stratified Shelf Seas by Offshore Wind Farm Infrastructure

Study: Offshore Turbines Puts Rare Shorebirds at Risk

Study: Diving Seabird Populations Decline 94 Percent Near Offshore Wind Turbines

Study: Birds and offshore wind turbines: a hot topic in marine ecology

Study: Bird migration studies and potential collision risk with offshore wind turbines

Study: Ecological Research on Offshore Wind: International Exchange of Experiences

Study: Assessing Environmental Impacts of Offshore Wind Farms – Lessons Learned and Recommendations for the Future

Study: A Critical Evaluation of Offshore Wind Turbine Cumulative Impact Assessments

Study: Offshore renewable energy: ecological implications of generating electricity in the coastal zone

Study: Environmental and Ecological effects of Ocean Renewable Energy Development – A Current Synthesis

Study: Emissions from corrosion protection systems of offshore wind turbines: Evaluation of the potential impact on the marine environment

Studies: Dozens of additional studies about the ecosystem impacts of offshore wind turbines

Federal Agency Failing to Protect the Environment from Offshore Wind

Seabird Populations Plummet As Offshore Wind Projects Proliferate

Study tracking where bird migration paths could cross offshore wind zone

Offshore US East Coast Wind Development Threatens Endangered Bird

Offshore wind turbine construction could be putting seals’ hearing at risk

For more about wind energy eco-system impacts, see our environmental page.

 

Some Offshore Wind Military Concerns —

Report: Industrial Wind Energy Interference with the Military: an Overview

Pentagon Sounds Alarm Over Biden Plan for Offshore Wind Sites

South Carolina offshore turbines possible training threat to the military

Navy may torpedo offshore California wind project

US Navy Objects to Offshore Wind Turbines

US Navy Study: Wind Turbines Could Undermine Military Readiness

The Purpose of the Military is to Defend the Homeland, Not to Promote Wind Energy

Big Wind: Threat to Air Navigation, Military Assets

Sweden Denies Permit for $7.4B Offshore Wind Facility as it would Interfere with its Military

Some sample reports on wind energy radar interference. Note: These radar issues apply to fishing boats!

The message: it’s up to states to defend the military!

——————————————————————————————————————————–

Quickie Overview Regarding North Carolina (readers from other states can skip over this): 

The federal government, BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management) has been aggressively promoting offshore wind development for the US coastline, including NC.  This will consist of  industrial turbines over 600± foot tall — which would be the tallest turbines in the US.  [Note 1: How huge is 600 feet? Note 2: GE recently unveiled an 1200 foot turbine aimed at the offshore market.]

There have been multiple proposals for offshore wind development off the NC Coast. After some “reviews” BOEM “reduced” these to two large areas: near Wilmington, and near Kill Devil Hills. See this BOEM NC offshore wind history for more details.

A NC law (H484) was passed in 2013, which sets up the first statewide wind energy permitting process. The NCDEQ (formerly DENR) is the lead agency. As explained on our NC Wind Energy Information page, H484 is a very weak law, that provides only minimal protections — and will likely not apply to offshore wind projects located in federal waters. Partly due to that, the NCDEQ Secretary sent BOEM a 2015 letter spelling out the state’s official (and very reasonable) position on offshore wind energy: that turbines should be 24+ nautical miles from the shore. To their credit, the Village of Bald Head Island (BHI) passed a formal resolution in 2015, advocating the same protection. The BHI Homeowners Association also passed a resolution opposing offshore wind.

Make sure to also check out our page of some NC laws, proposed legislation, pertinent agencies, etc. as many of these directly apply to offshore wind energy. To keep current with what’s going on with this matter, please periodically check back here for updates.

BTW, a few years ago, two NC law scholars wrote a report on what NC (and other states) should do to be better prepared for offshore wind energy — and much of this has yet to be done. See “Wind over NC Waters — the State’s Preparedness to Address Offshore Wind Energy Projects.” There are some good general points about protecting our eco-systems, economic interests, etc.