The Springwater Preservation Committee

Springwater Preservation Committee

In response to “Wind Power Talks Aren’t a Breeze” April 24, 2005
From a Rochester business owner, a native, and a former resident, currently living in Lansing, NY. My family has owned land in Springwater adjacent to the proposed Wind farm since 1952.)

Apparently you left after the first hour of a three hour meeting and did not hear the full presentation by the Springwater Preservation Committee or the question and answer period that followed. I think you would have reported differently on the following points if you had stayed.

“PPM is still looking at the locations of the Springwater turbines. The company has discovered that some cabins and homes are closer than anticipated to turbine sites. "I would expect some changes," he said, adding that the goal is at least a 1,250-foot setback from a property.”

PPM Atlantic Renewable is seeking a 1250-foot setback from dwellings, not property lines. Recommendations for setback referenced on websites world-wide vary from 400 yards (1200 feet) to 1.5 km (nearly a mile).

“All of the electricity generated by the wind farm would be used in Livingston County or through a substation in Wayland, Steuben County.”

This is totally untrue and is a myth wind proponents use to make the local people "feel good." Although the electricity generated by the wind farm would enter the power grid at the Wayland substation, it would be used throughout upstate New York and beyond, wherever the load exists. There is no way to determine where the electricity is actually "used." Gannet News reported on April 19 that "There is a surplus of power north and west of Poughkeepsie, bottlenecks in the transmission system block much of the extra power from getting downstate" where worsening shortages exist. Also, when the wind blows and wind generated electricity enters the grid, it frequently means that a natural gas power plant goes on "spinning reserve." This means that it still burns gas and makes steam to keep the turbine heated, but the generator is disconnected from the turbine and the energy simply goes up the smokestack along with the pollution.

“The combined annual payment in lieu of taxes to the town, county and school district would be $115,000.”

The property taxes, if the wind farm were taxed at normal assessment rates, are estimated to be at least ten times greater. The PILOT program is simply a "bribe" to the local taxing authorities to not exercise their right to tax property improvements.

“Under a neighborhood agreement, all neighbors within 3,000 feet of a turbine would receive some payment, worked out individually, to compensate for the visual impact.”

If the project is approved, neighbors will still have to live with the windmills even if they cannot "work out" a compensation agreement with the company. Also, the company acknowledges only "visual impact" in spite of the fact that there is much direct and anecdotal evidence regarding other impacts, such as light flicker, noise, traffic, loss of property value, environmental damage, and destruction of natural and scenic lands.

“Studies have shown that the impact of wind farms on birds ‘is quite minor’ — two or three birds killed annually per tower. There isn't a large-scale impact on migratory birds, he said, because they fly higher than the turbine blades reach.”

There is not good data either for or against the bird argument. No "studies" were cited. It appears that bat kill may be a more significant concern. Many conservation agencies are urging more study of migration paths and gathering of objective data regarding both bird and bat kills by windmills.

“The noise level of the turbines never exceeds 50 decibels. Thirty to 40 decibels is described as "very quiet”

This is possibly the most contentious of the "impact" issues. The promises that the newer generators are quiet are only promises; historically, windmills have been quite noisy. There is no data on the noise as these newer generators operate for several years and wear and tear sets in. Aside from mechanical noise, it is known is that the pulsing "foosh-foosh" of the wind passing the blades and the tower, although relatively quiet (45 to 60 decibels at 1500 feet), is a rhythmic noise that is difficult for most people to ignore. It is very different from the "white noise" of a city or an expressway, or even crickets and tree peepers, that you can learn to tune out. It is a particularly difficult issue in a quiet country setting like Springwater, and applying simple decibel ratings is meaningless. A motorcycle on a road ¼ mile away is also "very quiet" by decibel meter standards. But if one went by every second for hours on end, I expect that you, too, would experience sleep and stress problems, and you would not easily "get over it."

Your closing statement that "Wind is expected to be the largest generator" in New York's renewable energy goals is very puzzling and I would like to know the source of that assertion. The information I have seen on wind power websites, both pro and con, indicate that wind power will never be more than a few percentage points of our electrical generation capacity (it is currently less than 1% nationwide).

Finally, there is no mention in your article that the proposed wind farm in Springwater is very small, even by industrial wind power standards, and is negligible in terms of regional (let alone state and national) energy issues. The main advantages of the wind farm appear to be positive public relations for energy interests and extremely generous short term profits (at taxpayer expense) for the developers.

It will be a shame to see the industrialization of the non-renewable natural and scenic area that is Springwater for such petty reasons if this project is approved.

Return to the Home Page