"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have"
Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, October 23, 2008

New Ad - One of us? Really?


Anonymous said...

Why didn't this ad mentions windmills? Come on Dave tell the truth about wind.

Anonymous said...

Wind turbines continue to multiply the world over. But as they grow bigger and bigger, the number of dangerous accidents is climbing. How safe is wind energy?

It came without warning. A sudden gust of wind ripped the tip off of the rotor blade with a loud bang. The heavy, 10-meter (32 foot) fragment spun through the air, and crashed into a field some 200 meters away.

The wind turbine, which is 100 meters (328 feet) tall, broke apart in early November 2006 in the region of Oldenburg in northern Germany -- and the consequences of the event are only now becoming apparent. Startled by the accident, the local building authority ordered the examination of six other wind turbines of the same model.

Anonymous said...

has anybody else seen the video of a big windmill going out of control?? i saw a video of a windmill in denmark losing it breaking system in a strong storm.one of the blades shattered into a million pieces and the other two blades hit the tower.it shattered those blades and crushed the steel tower.the tower snapped at the joint in the tower and the top half of the windmill fell to the ground.when,the two blades hit the tower it also ripper apart the housing with the gearbox and ect in it.
the scary part is pieces went for a half a mile from where the windmill was.when,the windmill went out of control they evicted a 1/4 mile area around the tower and thought they would be safe.nobody got hurt but they very well could have.

Anonymous said...

The discussion on the proposed windmills on our coast seems to have ignored the serious potential of devastating damage that these structures could cause.

Although they "would be designed to withstand hurricane-force winds" it is doubtful that they could be engineered to be completely secure in a Category 3-4 or 5 hurricane or a tornado.

The blades of these turbines are designed to produce optimum benefits from the wind, which means to me that if they were detached in a hurricane or tornado, they would become lethal missiles that could slice through not only nearby homes, but would pose a grave danger to the nuclear power plant facilities as well.

It is difficult to believe that the nuclear regulatory authorities would allow such a clear and obvious potential hazard to be constructed next to a nuclear power plant.

In my opinion, aside from the misuse of public lands and the already documented common problems of noise and visual pollution, there is this one safety concern which appears to be a singular issue for St. Lucie County.

There is no other wind turbine facility anywhere else in the world situated on a hurricane-prone coastal area at a nuclear power plant.

And, although I would love to see a "green" solution to our energy needs, unless and until all the safety concerns are addressed, this plan should be stopped.

Anonymous said...

The capture and concentration of energy--in any form--is inherently dangerous. Wind energy exposes those who work with it to hazards similar to those in other industries. Of course, there are the hazards which, taken together, are unique to wind energy: high winds, heights, rotating machinery and the large spinning mass of the wind turbine rotor. Wind energy's hazards, like its appearance on the landscape, are readily apparent. Wind energy hides no latent killers; no black lung, for example. When wind kills, it does so directly, and with gruesome effect.

In this chapter, we'll first examine the record and glean what we can from fatal accidents with wind energy. Then we'll turn to the tools and practices necessary for working safely with the technology. Unpleasant as the accounts described may be, they emphasize the need to work safely--because your life quite literally depends upon it.

Death in the maw of a wind machine is nothing new. H.C. Harrison recounts in The Story of Sprowston Mill how his great-grandfather, Robert Robertson, was killed in 1842 after becoming entangled in the sack hoist on his English windmill. There are historical accounts of similar deadly accidents in France, and no doubt like tales can be found in other countries where wind energy has been used.

Since its rebirth in the 1970s, wind energy has directly or indirectly killed 20 people worldwide. The first was Tim McCartney, who fell to his death near Conrad, Montana in the mid 1970s while trying to salvage a 1930s-era windcharger. There are few details on McCartney's death other than that his broken body was found near the tower. News reports said simply that he fell during high winds. McCartney was followed a few years later by Terry Mehrkam, a pioneering Pennsylvania designer and manufacturer of wind turbines. Mehrkam was killed in late 1981 near Boulevard, California. Unfortunately, Mehrkam was not the last.

A short while later there was a spate of electrocutions. Pat Acker was killed while constructing the foundation for a wind turbine near Bushland, Texas and Jens Erik Madsen was electrocuted while servicing a wind turbine in Denmark. In 1983 Canadian Eric Wright rode an experimental Darrieus wind turbine to his death when it fell over during installation near Palm Springs, California.

1984 was a deadly year. Ugene Stallhut was driving a tractor as a tow vehicle when it flipped over and crushed him on a farm in Iowa. Then Art Gomez was killed while servicing a crane in California's San Gorgonio Pass. The same year J.A. Doucette was crushed to death while unloading a container of tubular towers in the Altamont Pass.

The simple medical description of John Donnelly's death found in the files of his company's insurer fails to describe the horror of his fate. Death by "multiple amputations" sanitizes a truly grisly accident in 1989, a nightmare witnessed by his coworker, who watched helplessly as Donnelley was drawn inexorably into the nacelle's slowly spinning machinery. What made Donnelley's accident even more terrifying for windsmiths everywhere was its cause: Donnelly's lanyard, a device designed to prevent falls, became entangled on the revolving main shaft and dragged him to his death.

Not long after Donnelly's accident near Palm Springs, Dutch homeowner Dirk Hozeman was killed in a like manner. Against professional advice, he climbed to the nacelle of his Polenko turbine in a vain attempt to stop the runaway rotor from destroying itself in a violent winter storm. Tragically, the turbine had been inoperative for two years and had just recently been returned to service. After squeezing into the small nacelle, Hozeman, like Donnelly, became snagged on a turning shaft. Rescue crews retrieved his body the next day, after the wind subsided.

Also in 1989 two men were killed in a single accident on the Danish island of Lolland. Three men were suspended from a crane in a basket when the rotor they were servicing unexpectedly began to move. Two, Leif Thomsen and Kai Vadstrup, were thrown to the ground. The third man dangled from his lanyard 30 meters (100 feet) above ground until rescued. Then in 1991, Thomas Swan, a crane operator, was electrocuted near Tehachapi when the boom on his crane snared a 66,000-volt power line.

Richard Zawlocki fell to his death in 1992 while descending a tower near Palm Springs.

Robert Skarski died in 1993 while installing a small wind turbine at his Illinois home. He was killed when the tower he was on buckled and fell to the ground.

Mark (Eddie) Ketterling was nearly cut in half by a chunk of ice knocked off the interior of a tubular tower in Minnesota in 1994.

Then the series of deadly accidents continued in 1997. Crane operator Randy Crumrine was crushed when his crane collapsed in Sibley, Iowa. Ivan Srrensen fell to his death near Lemvig on Denmark's Jutland peninsula while removing a wind turbine from its tower. And Bernhard Saxen was crushed inside the nacelle of a wind turbine when it flew off the top of its tower at the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Koog test center in Germany.

In a bizarre year 2000 accident, a young parachutist crashed into a wind turbine on the German island of Fehrmarn.

Falling from the tower is the single most apparent occupational hazard of working with wind energy. Industry practice and what some would argue to be common sense suggest that McCartney, Mehrkam, and Zawlocki all made the same fatal mistake: they did not use any form of fall protection. . . (For more on this topic see Wind Power: Renewable Energy for Home, Farm, and Business.)

Anonymous said...

A group of Fort Kent residents is proposing a moratorium on industrial wind turbines within town limits until local officials can develop ordinances governing the enormous structures.

The group has gathered roughly 220 signatures on a petition seeking a 180-day moratorium on construction of commercial wind power facilities as well as processing of any applications. The petition would allow the Town Council to extend the moratorium or cancel it once Fort Kent’s zoning and land-use ordinances have been amended to address wind power facilities.

The petition is a response to a Texas-based company, Horizon Wind, which has been negotiating lease agreements with landowners in the Fort Kent area and in other parts of Aroostook County.

Horizon has yet to file an application with state or local authorities, but company officials have said they hope to build as many as 400 wind turbines in Aroostook. Using today’s technology, 400 turbines could generate enough electricity to power one-third of Maine’s homes on a hot summer day, although wind turbines rarely function at maximum capacity.

But the prospect of hundreds of 400-foot-tall wind turbines dotting the farm fields and forests of Aroostook County has generated considerable concern among some residents.

Members of the group Citizens for Responsible Wind Development plan to present the petition to Fort Kent officials today. The petition demands a special town referendum on the proposal, although the Town Council could impose a moratorium without voter action, group members said.

“Most of the people who signed the petition want this [development] done right or not at all,” Dr. Michael Nissenbaum said.

Horizon Wind, which operates locally under the name Aroostook Wind, has been quietly developing plans for large wind energy facilities in The County for several years. Company officials are aggressively negotiating with landowners willing to have a turbine, transmission line or other infrastructure on their property.

Company representatives have declined to disclose publicly how much landowners would be compensated. Annual payments apparently range from a few thousand dollars for roads or lines to several times that for each turbine, according to numerous sources.

Dave Soucy, a Fort Kent lawyer and one of the organizers of the petition drive, said industrial wind turbines have the potential to permanently alter the “quality of place” that makes Fort Kent special. While Soucy is increasingly convinced the massive turbines are inappropriate for the ridgelines and river valleys surrounding Fort Kent, he said it is important for people to make up their own minds.

“Given the size of the proposal and the effect it will have on the community, it’s not too early to get started” on that conversation, Soucy said. “Now, how we choose to deal with it remains to be seen.”

The petition states that Fort Kent’s land use laws are inadequate to deal with industrial wind power developments and that the town has a duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents.

“Suitable sites and methods for wind power development need to be reviewed and identified,” the petition states. “Failure to carefully review and plan for wind power development will reduce options available to the town and may result in devaluation, blight, issues that affect public health and welfare, and environmental degradation.”

Justin Dawe, project manager for Horizon Wind, said Friday that he is aware of the proposal but added that the company does not typically get involved in local politics.

"Any possible wind development in and around Fort Kent is years away and we will certainly take any local wind ordinances into consideration when we are thinking about attractive places for new wind power projects."

Horizon plans to build the wind facilities in stages, with the first project slated for areas west of Bridgewater. That project is expected to involve more than 100 turbines.

Dawe said Horizon plans to file permit applications with state regulators for the company's first project near Number 9 Mountain in early 2009.

A moratorium on wind power facility also has been proposed for the nearby town of Wallagrass.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Dave Renzi, our next senator and Scott Gray from Jefferson County for taking a stand against illegal windmill development, illegal wind contracts and corrupt town development boards in collusion with developers. Long overdue.

Anonymous said...

It takes about 800 1,000-megawatt power plants or their equivalent to run the country on a daily basis. To be conservative, let's say 700 1,000-megawatt plants. Power demand in the United States goes up possibly a little more than 2.5% each year, but again, to be conservative, let's say 2%. This means we must build 14 1,000-megawatt power plants every year just to keep up. Kohler would have us build 7,000 2-megawatt windmills instead, blissfully ignoring the fact that the 14 1,000-megawatt thermal or nuclear power plants still would have to be built to fill the considerable gap left by non-operating windmills when the wind doesn't blow.
April 7, 2008 by Jim Greenwood in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
With 49 years as a power engineer to my credit, going from engineer apprentice to manager of the power supply for two-thirds of rural Illinois, my blood curdles when I read rabid pro-windmill articles such as the one that appeared on the March 31 Perspectives page ("Should wind be our future?"). It appears writer Dan Kohler doesn't understand simple arithmetic, let alone the power situation in Wisconsin. Or, heaven forbid, that of the United States or the world.
It takes about 800 1,000-megawatt power plants or their equivalent to run the country on a daily basis. To be conservative, let's say 700 1,000-megawatt plants. Power demand in the United States goes up possibly a little more than 2.5% each year, but again, to be conservative, let's say 2%.

This means we must build 14 1,000-megawatt power plants every year just to keep up. Kohler would have us build 7,000 2-megawatt windmills instead, blissfully ignoring the fact that the 14 1,000-megawatt thermal or nuclear power plants still would have to be built to fill the considerable gap left by non-operating windmills when the wind doesn't blow.

Customers would have to pay for two very expensive power plants to serve one block of power. None of this would in any way reduce the present carbon dioxide output, even if the windmills could run 100% of the time. Do we then build an additional 350,000 2-megawatt windmills to do this?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for finally bringing this to the public.

Vote Renzi No Wind

Anonymous said...

Lets get back to the point. When there is something in it for Aubertine, you can't count on him for integrity in his thought process.

Anonymous said...

Lets get back to the point. When there is something in it for Aubertine, you can't count on him for integrity in his thought proce

Yes ! And for the other wind crooks. Dave Renzi will bring this to the front. I agree.

Anonymous said...

Aubertine, you can't count on him for integrity in his thought process.
He is a wind dick about to be exposed. Thanks to Dave.

Anonymous said...

Lets get back to the point.

Yes. David is a good smart and honest lawyer. We need his expertise to uncover this general ethics problem with wind companies, darrel, the rest of the landowners and the town boards. Darrel is ineffective and stupid and will let wind happen because he will get rich on it. No Aubertine No wind Daavid and good sense.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Wind is not nonsense. It is the most important issue facing our district and Renzi is taking it on. Stopping the corruption of these contracts and this ignorant buffoon's leadership and influence with the local planning boards is a must.
David Renzi has exposed them and it is about time.

Yes to Renzi No to Wind Thanks Dave. And thanks PIV.

Anonymous said...

I have it from good source that teachers did not endorse Darrel because he is a crook. They did not endorse Renzi because he is divulging all the wind crooks and teachers love wind. Go REnzi.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:58...I have it from a good source that you are a douche bag and don't know what you're talking about. Teachers didn't endorce either candidate because they both favor the tax cap. The mentality of some in this area is mind boggling. Why would we say no to something that, eventually, might help to save our planet? You all sound like a buch of ignorant hicks living under the Republican rock that has been in place for way too long! Vote Aubertine!!!

Anonymous said...

is that you al gore ????????

Anonymous said...

I was at a public presentation of the final locations of the towers for the Accionia project in the town of Cape Vincent. Yes the Senator's land only has one wind tower but there is 65 or so more with corrupt contracts all around him. It seems to be a Democratic tree hugger problem. The point is that Dave Renzi is the first to bring this corruption to light.
This problem is spreading already.
Elect Dave Renzi for Wind Ethics.

Anonymous said...

you guys are so negative its sad no wonder people stop paying attention

Anonymous said...

Darrel Aubertine -- with the worst legislative record in the entire state Senate, according to NYPIRG -- negative ratings from conservationists, and the NRA, is attacking Dave Renzi for trying to fix NY's child abuse laws in the wake of the Erin Maxwell tragedy.

Is Darrel Pathetic? Or just getting desperate? Would love to see those results from Darrel's recently completed poll.

Go Dave Renzi!

Live Blogging