When is it OK for an elected official to storm out of a meeting?
Ed Elswick (at right), before he stormed out of the meeting.
The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to create some limits on wind farms that want to set up operation in the county.
However, the “whoosh” sound many heard was not the wind, but Windsor Hills District Supervisor Ed Elswick, who stormed out of the meeting midway through discussion.
Katelyn Polantz of The Roanoke Times reports: “He had requested multiple times to make the policy guidelines stricter for wind developers and was shot down repeatedly by fellow board members.”
You can read Katelyn’s entire story here.
Set aside, for a moment, your views on whether wind farms are both a green and patriotic way to produce energy — or are an industrial blight on a rural landscape.
When is it OK for an elected official to storm out of a meeting?
Elswick’s not alone, of course. Roanoke Mayor David Bowers has made the news in the past for storming out of meetings when things weren’t going his way.
The behavior is, at least, bipartisan. Elswick is a former Republican who is now an independent; Bowers is a Democrat.
As voters, what do y’all think of this?
September 14, 2011 - 10:40 AM
It is never okay to storm out of a meeting. It shows immaturity and an inability to work with others. I sure hope Elswick’s constitents were watching so they know what kind of person they have represnting them.
It’s pathetic
ditto. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Of course it was OK for him to storm out. As he said, not one of the other members live in a rural area so they didn’t care about the limitations on these windmills. Its good thing to actually care enough about an issue to get angry about it. The others are just “rubber stamping”
When one’s community is being thrown under the bus, I think it’s perfectly understandable to show some passion.
If storming out was his way of voting and representing his constituents, then storm away. I assume if his constituents believe he did not do his job, they will take care of it come election time.
Though I share in Sup. Elswick’s frustration with the other 4/5ths of the Board, walking out on his sworn duty is unacceptable. He should apologize to his constituency.
When he/she wants to look like an immature baby? I heard him on the radio…he says he left because he kept getting voted down.
I think most of you would feel very differently if a liberal representative did that. Edward is right, he should be passionate and advocate for ALL of his constituents but he should be able to maintain his decorum and stay at the meeting.
Seriously Kristen? Nothing like having someone in government who does not believe in democracy!
His passion is justified. This decision is the most important one the BOS will ever make.A mountain will be desecrated – forever.
7.”When he/she wants to look like an immature baby?”
Didn’t Obama storm out of a meeting recently, maybe the debt ceiling issue? Guess he wanted to look like an “immature baby”
This situation points out the futility of “clean energy” and “green jobs”. You can tear down a mountain to get the coal but you better not be able to see a windmill.
When you are a product of a time that preceded the “dummying down” of our society. When scientific conclusions are based upon lay persons’ “consensus declarations”. These are the times when one MUST merely remove himself from such an alien atmosphere as a matter of self-preservation.
Mr. Elswick did not “STORM” out of the meeting (nor was it germaine for The Roanoke Times to document his smoking addiction), he QUIETLY, picked up his bag and excused himself as being ineffective.
I have NEVER been represented by anyone in any level of goverance that I am more proud of than Eddie Elswick, a brave and loyal fellow who was unafraid to serve as a “whistle-blower” for many years in one of the largest US Corporations.
C’mon Jack, ‘rubber stamping’? Have any proof of that?
C’mon Richard, ‘one’s commmunity being thrown under the bus’. How can you back up that statement?
It’s emotional statements like these, void of any fact, that make most of the anti-windmill crowd seem like a bunch of intellectual deficients.
I’m not completely sold on the windmill project, but I can at least look at the issue objectively. Looks like Elswick can’t get his emotions out of the way either. Glad not to have him representing my district.
Sorry Richard, had my own intellectual moment. Should be directed at Kenley.
If he wanted to defend his constituents he should have STAYED at the meeting. Thats how it works: issues come up and people vote – just cause your on the losing end does not mean you just get up and leave. As a in Ed’s district I would have prefered he stay and keep fighting, not go smoke a cigartete.
I will not be voting for him again.
It is always appropriate. Storming out like that is widely recognized as a way of communicating disgust. Ed Elswick has been fighting for rural Bent Mountain since this entire debacle started. Roanoke County is succumbing to the hand of Invenergy (represented by Maryellen Goodlatte). Follow the money trail, people. This is about energy credit trade offs. Cap and Trade fail has led to this. The cost of these windmills for Invenergy is nothing compared to what they will profit from when the bidding war starts.
Elswick is a canary in a coalmine. He has been sticking to his guns and I respect him and support him 100%.
It’s never wrong to storm out of a meeting for which you are paid to be present. Elswick should give back part of his salary for doing that.
Elswick is from Bent Mountain, but he represents an entire district which includes many more people than just Bent Mountain. He has NOT been representing the majority of his constituents. As a recent Roanoke College poll showed, most people in Elswick’s district support the development of wind energy. It is a small, loud, Tea Party-affiliated faction (including some pseudo-lefties who are willing to align themselves with strange bedfellows on this issue) that spouts already-debunked anti-wind-farm rhetoric whom Elswick has actually been representing. He was wrong on two counts: The first, storming out of the meeting, the second, storming out because he wasn’t able to impose his unpopular Tea Party ways on the majority of his constituents.
Correction to my previous post: It’s never “OK” to storm out
@ crest 2: “The mountain will be desecrated–forever.” Oh really? As opposed to, for example, mountain top removal mining, which is how most electricity consumed in Bent Mountain is produced?
I read that the zoning over which Elswick lost his temper includes a very progressive requirement that if the wind turbines are no longer used at some point in the future, they must be removed, including even their footers and underground wiring, at the wind company’s expense. This is even guaranteed by requiring posting of a bond greater than the net cost of decommissioning, before the wind farm is approved. You can never return a removed mountain top or its surrounding area to its prior state, but you can recycle steel, copper and concrete, and replant trees, on a former wind farm site when (probably not “if”) some better electricity-producing technology is developed by future generations.
@ John – you have correctly pointed out that not all opposition to the ordinance which passed last night, and certainly not all opposition to the wind farm project this ordinance clears the way for, are “Tea Party-affiliated factions”.
If that was indeed your intention, I salute and thank you.
On this point I concede and reitterate – Sup. Elswick literally represented no one by walking out of the meeting, be they pro or con.
Elswick made his point and the other board members had already decided long ago what they were going to do and how they would vote. Time to vote people in office who do not believe in man made global warming. When the wind mills go up lets put a plaqe with the board members names on it under the wind mill on who votes for them so when the wind mills break down or burn up we can remember them. Elwick tried to do what is best for the Roanoke county and I commend him for doing whats right and making his position clear.
There are mountains all around Roanoke, many of them equally suited to a Wind Farm as those in consideration. These mountains could be used for a wind farm and neither attract much attention and be to far from any dwelling to have noise as a factor. Putting them on top of Poor Mountain, Bent Mountain, etc., is not acceptable. It, also, opens the door for other things in the future.
All one has to do is fly over the Roanoke Valley in a small plane and look at the various mountain sites which are suitable but which are hidden by mountains on both sides, but still high enough to have the units totally
situated to be driven by 100% of the wind coming along.
The situation simply wasn’t given enough consideration as to locations which would be acceptable to the majority of the people.
Eldon, I said the same thing in this post… http://mselenaeousrants.blogspot.com/2011/09/who-is-roanoke-county-protecting.html?spref=fb Elswick didn’t “storm” out. He blew out of there in disgust.
http://www.broadstarwindsystems.com/images/Virginia%20Average%20Wind%20Speed.jpg
The Board of Supervisors conducted exzhaustive hearings on this matter. They were given reams of information from Roanoke County Staff and from outside groups. They conducted a long public hearing on the matter just a few weeks ago. Opponents and proponents were given every oppoertunity to
speak their minds and to present credible evidence to support their positions. From all that, the Board then extrapolated from all the information they had been given a reasonable way forward to guide the county if any proposals for wind energy farms or applications for permits come before them. Supervisor Elswick had every opportunity to present his ideas and to come up with credible reasons to support his positions. The
fact that the rest of the Board unanimously disagreed with him does not justify his childish and petulant response. He has behaved very much like the kid on the playground who owns the football and takes his ball and goes home because the other kids won’t let him be the quaterback. There are far more people in his district than the few who live on Bent Mountain. They all deserved his presence and participation in this issue and on all matters that come before the board.
Tripp Godsey
So Elswick was just trying to do what was right for Roanoke County. Does that mean you are asserting that the other four members of the Board of Supervisors were not trying to do what was right for Roanoke County? Why are Elswick’s motives any more honest and sincere than the other four members who were unanimous iin their support for the ordinance? And your gratuitous comment about global warning means that the 98% of scientists
who subscribe to and believe the research about its existence are wrong and only you, the Tea Party and the other 2% of scientists are right.
What are your scientific credentials for makimng that assertion?
Doug Thompson– There is nothing in this ordinance that specifies a location, identifies any location as superior to others, or grants a permit to anybody to build a wind farm. That obviously comes next. If you and the opponents of the Poor Mountain location can come up with legitimate, non emotion based reasons for not locating there and for locating somewhere else that will be better or more efficient, you will have that opportunity.
Storming off in a fit of righteous indignation loses its punch when you only make it as far as the nearest reporter.
Dave – we recived documents from Roanoke County in a FOIA request that show Invenergy helped write the rules in the ordinace that was passed last night. The changes they voted on last night point by point were to loosen the restrictions which helps Invenergy and others who may come along. What Elswick wanted to see was a tightening of them to protect Roanoke County citizens and land owners. So Tripp is exactly right.
I would submit that the loosening they voted for last night was at the request of Invenergy because the way they had been written were to restrictive for the wind farm they plan on building on Poor Mt to be possible and these four pathetic representatives have some sort of personal interest in seeing Invenergy do their planned project.
Furthermore, many people advocating man made global warming with “scientific credintials” have been exposed as liars and frauds in the last 18 months. Many others have gone public and risked their “scientific credintials” to expose the job-threatening peer pressure in that “98%” community aimed at forcing everyone to tout man-made global warming. It has become increasingly evident that there is something rotten going on there. To deny it dave, makes you are either closed minded or an accomplice to the fraud.
Finally, there is NO suitable location in Roanoke County for wind farms. We are not a desert or a vast plain with lots of open space to locate thise things in.
If you want wind power, buy your own and put it in your yard. That’s what I am doing. In fact, after doing all the research I have been involved in since this stuff started, I have come to the conclusion that wind power can work at the residential level. And I am now considering starting a business making small residential wind mills that actually work. I’m building the first one over the next few weeks and will be testing it starting in October. I have high hopes this coupled with some solar panels will get my home off the grid for good.
Watch out! I’m greener than the greens and dangerous to a green movement that is about nothing but making money from government grants on the backs of people who have been duped.
Duh WINNING!!!
Dave
I have no scientific credentials so I assert that you must since you asserted you are correct in your assertation. Liberals say anything thats sounds good but is not practical to society. I do not want my tax dollars paying for wind mills to satisfy someones feel good about clean energy that is not effecient and is an eye sore. You like it and I do not. My eyes are my credentials. You see it your way and I see it as a waste of tax dollars and distruction of our mountains.
Doug,
I’m very curious about your comment about how there are many other sites equally suited to wind farms. If that were true, why would the wind farm company pursure Poor Mountain instead? Is it possible that this for-profit company studied the wind and concluded that Poor Mountain is significantly better? After all, their profit is directly proportional to their turbines’ output. Maybe you know something we and they don’t. Please enlighten us.
Tripp Godsey, I do not want my tax dollars paying subsidies to big energy that is pocketing record profits as it fouls the earth, but that is how the cookie has crumbled anyway. What makes your demand on your tax dollars better than anyone else’s? My eyes are my credentials too. If we keep refusing alternatives then we need to stop whining about the price of oil and the mayhem needed to keep it coming. The bottom line is you cannot have it both ways. You cannot demonize the middle east areas and begrudge paying for their oil if you are going to fight most every effort at new, improved or more efficient energy because it might cost some tax dollars.
Why should the new energy sources have to go it alone when big oil and big gas still do not? I think we all know why.
No Trevor Ripchord, NOT winning at all!
It is totally normal for industry to write the rules in this nation, it is literally the status quo and has been for over a century. What do you think Lobbyists do? Why would we trust people not in an industry to write their standards? LOL, it is the good old Capitalism way.
What Elswick “wanted” is only relevant to the point that he is one of many. He tried, he failed and he got mad and looked like a petulant child. Be as proud of that as you like. Big of you to defend the childish Elswick and impugn the other “four pathetic representatives have some sort of personal interest in seeing Invenergy do their planned project”? Do you have any evidence of that whatsoever? No, I did not think so.
It is a bold faced distortion to say that “many people advocating man made global warming with “scientific credintials” have been exposed as liars and frauds in the last 18 months”. Lord knows that has been attempted but the reality is far from what you present. They have actually been vindicated time and time again. Yes, some well paid by big energy “others have gone public and risked their “scientific credintials” to dance to the tune of “skepticism” couched in TPR terms but the truth is that the vast and overwhelming majority of climate scientists and the majority of other scientists agree that mankind and our actions and activities are affecting the planet, the environment and the future. It is simply the truth. The ONLY argument is the extent, the time table and what can be done. You prove your “closed-mind” by spouting talking points that refute the truth. Being on the internet does not make something a fact.
Why anyone would trust you to decide that “there is NO suitable location in Roanoke County for wind farms” defies credibility. In fact, “a desert or a vast plain with lots of open space” is not a requirement at all.
Tripp said: “Time to vote people in office who do not believe in man made global warming.” Visionary! But this imaginative insight deserves to be taken further. For example, just think of the medical expense and suffering we could avoid by electing people who do not believe in disease.
Anti-wind folks such as Elswick could give you their ten strongest reasons to oppose the wind farm, and the only one of them that couldn’t be utterly demolished with data would be the one that is a matter of opinion: “We don’t want them built here because we don’t want to see them.” This is why Elswick and others behave like spoiled children. They get frustrated when confronted with facts because the facts are not on their side. For a more mature response to finding out you’re utterly wrong about wind power, google the esteeemed environmentalist Rupert Cutler’s editorial in this paper from a few weeks ago. He didn’t storm out of any meetings. He went from opposing to supporting the Poor Mt wind farm when he learned more about it.
“esteeemed environmentalist Rupert Cutler’s”
Actually Cutler is a Michigan yankee who came down here, voted to tear down Victory Stadium and was too cowardly to run for reelection and answer for his vote. Then he was “appointed” through the back door once more on Council. Rupert doesn’t have any more history with those mountains than he did the stadium, so he really doesn’t care if their beauty is destroyed. Hardly an “esteemed environmentalist”, he is more of a busybody with too much time on his hands.
Bob I need to watch the AL GORE documentary again and then call UVA to get the response of their scientist if they should ever show proof of their studies. Why doesn’t UVA give the attorney general proof and access to their findings. Must have just looked at AL GORE doc and saw the cash cow was on its way. I like coal and natural gas it proven and effecient. Hug a tree then cut it down to clear the mountain tops for wind mills that are paid for by the tax payers.
John, you stated, “Anti-wind folks such as Elswick could give you their ten strongest reasons to oppose the wind farm, and the only one of them that couldn’t be utterly demolished with data…”
As Invenergy is anticipating 30% of capital costs associated with the manufacture and erection of the systems to be paid for with Federal subsidy and another 30% with Federal loan guarantees, it has long been my contention that they should have no problem providing the data you refer to as PROOF of there claims of benefit to society. Yet, in spite of repeated requests for the wind data they have collected “over 6 years” on Poor Mountain, they have continued to conceal that data, with exception to communications engineers, under “gag order”, studying potential signal interference.
You and several other posters here seem so sure of your opinions that you ridicule opposing information. It seems that you, too, must have conducted a scientific analysis of local wind data. Please share your data.
When introducing a new land use, it is the obligation of the Supervisors to confirm that it is a beneficial land use that is worthy of desecrating approx. 3/8 mile of virgin ridgeline per turbine. Neither Invenergy nor the Supervisors have documented in any scientific meaningful way that this is a good land use for Roanoke County.
Tripp,
I would have pegged you as a property rights kind of guy who would be in favor of letting people do what they will on private property. I also do not like my tax money going to subsidize big industry like wind farms, coal plants or oil production. However that is not a county issue. From the county perspective I don’t see a problem.
To all those concerned about subsidies, why not look closer to home. We taxpayers shell out close to $45 million annually to coal companies and utilities to subsidize the mining of coal in Virginia. Meanwhile mining employment continues to decline because huge machines do most of the work – blowing up moundtains.
Rupert Cutler has done more to save mountains in this region than any single person, and he has been a solid, hard working protector of the enviornment for over 60 years. His first job here was as director of Explore Park.
News flash: the Civil War is over. We lost.
Tripp Godsey
What I asserted was that 98% of all scientists who have examined the data
produced by th climate scientists agree that manmade global warning is real and detrimental to our environment. I did not asssert that I have scientific credentials. I prefer to believe the 98% and not the 2% who have mostly been funded by the big energy and chemical corporations to obfuscate the issue and plant doubts about the reality of the phenomenon.
Concerning man made global warming…if man drives global warming then what exactly did we do to cause the medieval warm period when temperatures were a lot higher then they are now? What did man do to end the medieval warm period?
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
The answer is nothing. As CERN announced recently, “Climate models will need to be substantially revised” and it all has to do with that big hot yellow thing in the sky.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/
Saying that carbon causes global warming is like saying a man runs everyday because he’s skinny. No he’s skinny because he runs everyday, not the other way around. Same thing with carbon. Carbon is merely an indicator that warming has occurred, not the cause itself.
Diana, on your last point…get ready for an argument.
John, nobody claims 100% of global warming is the result of man’s activities, only that man’s contribution to it is huge and is increasing it to ruinous levels. By the logic of your comment, one could say that cigarette smoking has no significant link to cancer, since cancer afflicted people long before cigarettes were invented.
Tripp, you lost your election by a landslide. I think that is a reflection of your extremist philosophy that is out of touch with most people.
Shrink away, my friend.
LOL I see that a global warming denier who happens to have the same name I do has posted at 12:40 PM and I wanted to clarify that this was a different “John.” I’m the one who last posted at 10:11 AM.
@ Eldon: Why on earth would a private enterprise divulge their competitive secrets to their competition? That just doesn’t make any sense at all. General Motors, for example, got federal bailing out, but you wouldn’t expect them to divulge the blueprints for their next generation of vehicles. That’s not rational thinking. Neither is the idea that Invenergy would choose to build a wind farm here unless it would be productive. They’re in business to make a profit, after all, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.
As I posted on another thread, we members of the public can make reasonable estimates of the retail value of electricity this wind farm will produce using the textbook formula for typical turbine performance, the blade length published in their FAA application, publicly-available wind tables, and our own electric bills. These 18 turbines will produce more than enough power for over 8,500 homes. That’s literally millions of dollars net reatil value of electricity each year, without continuous trainloads of coal. But, it’s still better to blow the top off the mountain in someone else’s backyard than to have turbines in ours, huh?
“His first job here was as director of Explore Park.”
Yes and it was and is a total failure..just like his work with the Water Authority that more than tripled our bills.
“News flash: the Civil War is over”
A yankee is still a yankee.
“I think that is a reflection of your extremist philosophy that is out of touch with most people”
I think the government loving lefties on this blog and throughout the country are the “extremists” Godseys point of view is more in line with the common folk than the left is..Thats why over 60 Dems were dumped last election and continue to be dumped even now.
“Godseys point of view is more in line with the common folk than the left is”
Really Jack? Then explain how he lost.
Mr. Godsey, you would have done well to have left us with some doubt. Your loss comes clearer with every post. Bullet dodged.
Jack, your computer jockey antics have a lot of gall maligning actual worker, volunteer and activist, Mr. Cutler.
“Really Jack? Then explain how he lost.”
Lack of funds,advertisement, and a virtually unknown candidate versus a well known one. Now, explain why the Dems lost over 60 seats and continue to lose.
swvaboy – Tripp and his tea party are all about property rights. But, the Invenergy project isn’t PRIVATE is it? It is funded with our money as dolled out by the federal government, isn’t it? That changes it’s nature entirely. Additionally, the rules that were put into place to accomodate wind farms infringe on the rights of the surrounding property owners. This issue is not as simple as your quip to Tripp suggests.
BRING IT ON boy
Jack, you are the most cynical, negative person I have seen on any of these blogs. You are constantly attacking folks and must simply be an unhappy person. I feel very sorry for you and hope you find something in life to make you see that not all is bad. Maybe a hobby? Maybe a vacation…. something. You seem miserable in life.
sandi – lets look at your assertions “It is totally normal for industry to write the rules in this nation, it is literally the status quo and has been for over a century.” Correct, and it is wrong. In this case especially so. It isn’t a panel of industry insiders giving information to Roanoke County. It was the actual business entity that is planning to operate under the new rules writing the rules they want to work under themselves.
“Big of you to defend the childish Elswick and impugn the other “four pathetic representatives have some sort of personal interest in seeing Invenergy do their planned project”?” I am not defending Elswick. I am defending what he was trying to do. Which was have the regulations ammended to protect all of us not ammend them to facilitate the needs of Invenergy – which is what was done.
“It is a bold faced distortion to say that “many people advocating man made global warming with “scientific credintials” have been exposed as liars and frauds in the last 18 months”.” That would be true if we hadn’t been able to read the outed emails of the IPCC scientists exposing their fraud ourselves. Try reading them yourself.
“In fact, “a desert or a vast plain with lots of open space” is not a requirement at all.” It should absolutely be a requirement. They are not suitable anywhere near people’s homes. It doesn’t take a scientist to listen to people who live near them and understand they have no place being near us.
“the truth is that the vast and overwhelming majority of climate scientists and the majority of other scientists agree that mankind and our actions and activities are affecting the planet, the environment and the future. It is simply the truth.” What is true is that these scientists assert this crap, not that the crap is true. The fact that they agree doesn’t PROVE their findings it merely makes it more likely it will be ACCEPTED. TRUE and ACCEPTED are not the same thing. If you think it is, then you are forgetting that scientists overwhelmingly asserted the earth was flat at one time. It was never flat.
My personal home windmill kicks your Industrial Wind Farm’s ass all around the schoolyard.
STILL WINNING!
# 45 I did win Roanoke and Roanoke county.
# 49 Bullet dodged not yet. You still get to deal with Dave Nutter. Edwards needs to go. Dems are loosing their rational thought. Hugh wind mills on our mountains is just a start as long as they are paid for by the tax payer. I do not see much concern for the property owners in this matter as the neighbor loses land value and every land owner with a view will now have to look at these wind mills.
Trevor: Invenergy is a private company, and they will apparently be funding most or all of the cost of building this wind farm with their own money. They will probably get a reduction in their corporate income tax of approximately two cents for every kilowatt-hour they produce, but of course this is simply a reduction in how much they will pay Uncle Sam in taxes once they get their private enterprise running vs. receiving money doled out from Uncle Sam.
Your point about infringing on the rights of surrounding property owners seems vague…are you talking about not having the right to view a viewshed without windmills? If so, do you really think they have a right to that viewshed when what they are looking at is basically somebody else’s private property? Do you have the right to tell your neighbors what colors they can paint their houses? Is it a violation of your rights if they choose colors which some people like and you dislike? Surely you’re not going to resort to recycling debunked theories about Wind Turbine Psychosis or decreased property values…
Trevor, the windfarm was approved. I’m not at all clear what you think you’ve won.
@54
If you live in Roanoke City, run for Council.
Trevor Ripchord, woulda, coulda, shoulda to the max! Things are what they are and the milk is spilled and spoiled. If you think the GOP is going to let you or anyone else change things take a look at what has happened to Obama. You do not mess with industry and the word is out, frankly I do not believe you all want to. This is all a tail you are riding to get control again. AS IF, industry subsidies bother Republicans? Again, who are you trying to kid?
Same question for you Mr. Godsey? Who are you kidding? Do you seriously think you speak for the average citizen in this nation? Maybe this area to a greater degree (plenty of Jack McGuire’s in this area), but I find your positions extreme and your allegiance to the people tearing this country apart because they lost power is frightening. As far as I can tell, Mr. Nutter is a reasonable and intelligent man who will not act precipitously and I pray, not dance to the TPR tune!
Thank you John, you are sorely needed on these blogs, please stay. Although there does seem to be two of you (and diametrically opposed at that).
I am shocked that the tea party folks are including things like view shed as part of property rights. I guess they are no different then the Bush administration, government control is viewed as a good thing so long as the conservatives are running it.
@ Kristen No particular project was approved. They just wrote the regs for anyone who proposes a project. Seems to be a lot of confusion on that point, including perhaps by the supervisor from Windsor Hills. Glad he does not represent me.
@ swvaboy – you’ve (twice) raised a good point that needs clarity. RTP Pres. Tarbutton had this to say (to an unknown RT reporter) regarding the seemingly backward stance on private property rights versus regulatory concessions.
“Having a 400-foot tall wind turbine on top of me is likely to have an impact on me,” he said. “While I don’t like regulations from the government, this is one issue where the government can establish protections for something that could be potentially dangerous.”
In other words, do as you please on your land, but make sure your actions are not infringing on your neighbors rights. It’s a fairly libertarian stance, and has confused some people. As I see it, the private property angle of this issue is only peripheral to the overall opposition, perticularly from a Tea Party standpoint.
For example – During the 1970′s all the rage was solar power. Private companies thrived on federal subsidies for the new energy source. When the subsidies dried up, so went the solar energy industry. It’s not that there was anything particularly wrong with solar power… It simply was not a self-sustaining industry, it’s survival was dependent on the subsidy. Wind power is destined for the same end, and for the same reason. Ask yourself, if it were profitable, why isn’t AEP building them, and if it isn’t profitable, why on earth should we?
Don’t worry about storming out. Wait for the N. Eastern to storm in and wind power will be mountain history like bootlegger and the origin of Nascar.
OK Kaye, correction noted. Sorry for misspeaking.
Edward of Huncote, I can understand setting limitations to protect surrounding land owners but it is impossible for me to believe a true libertarian would be fighting to block wind farms at the county level. The county shouldn’t care where the money is coming to build them so long as they protect themselves from any potential problems. If you want to fight federal spending do it on the federal level.
Sandi – We speak for all people, even if they cant recognize it. We speak for the Constitution beacuse followed properly, it protects all of us.
Kristen – No windfarm was approved. Just a set of rules a windfarm would have to follow if one were approved to be built. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Edward: Have you noticed a trend in your electricity bill over the past ten years? Which direction has that trend pointed, upward or downward? Have you looked at the rate you are charged per kilowatt-hour? Which direction do you expect that trend to go over the next ten years?
I expect that unless you live an off-the-grid lifestyle, you have been paying a rate that has increased by far more than two cents per kilowatt-hour, and there is no end in sight.
The reason I bring this up is because the federal Production Tax Credit for wind power is only about two cents per kilowatt-hour. If, as you (incorrectly, in my opinion) state, wind power is not being widely adopted because it’s not cost-effective, and the only way it can be profitable is with the tax credits, then all it takes is another increase of a mere two cents per kilowatt-hour in your bill. At that point, wind would become equal to other sources, and any increase over two cents would mean wind costs less.
But this is not why wind is not already more widely used. Wind actually is being implemented nationally at a very fast rate–faster than nuclear, even. One reason we don’t already have wind farms in Virginia while many other states do is partly because we’re simply a conservative state. Without getting into endless debates about whether that’s right or wrong, suffice it to say as a matter of fact, not as a judgment, that we’re collectively slow to change…unlike, for example, California, where trends (good or bad) often originate and show up here years later. Another reason which also relates to that conservative tendency is that wind traditionally hasn’t been cost-competitive with coal, especially when one doesn’t account for the hidden costs of coal, so Virginia has shunned wind on a direct cost basis. With recent developments in wind turbines (for example, advanced controllers rotate and optimize the pitch of the blades to extract more energy from lower-speed winds than was possible just 15 years ago) the cost of producing electricity from wind has gone down dramatically at the same time that other methods have gone up dramatically. At some point in the very near future, those lines are likely to cross. We might actually be there already but, just as a recession occurs before it can be quantifiably made offical, we might not quite be able to determine it. Even if we’re not there quite yet, the closeness of that crossing explains why wind farms are suddenly an issue in Virginia even though they weren’t just 15 years ago. The sooner we develop wind in Virginia, the better off we’ll all be.
Edward I do not believe we have any clue that Wind will be “destined” to fail and even in success (wild success in many cases) the oil, gas and other energy producers STILL have government subsidies and supports, so it is extremely hypocritical to deny the same to new energy products and services (even if they have a potential to fail), especially while screaming about energy costs, the middle east or ruined coast lines. How else do we dig out of this hole? Why expect people to “go it alone” when Exxon doesn’t even now? Fair?
As to property rights. Determining what is “dangerous” and what is a view shed issue is not that hard to do. Yes, your neighbor should be allowed to do as they like with their property until they start a hippie commune, a Wind farm, a pig farm, or a brewery and then folks tend to change their minds and the same is true for government regulations and interference. Stay out of my gun holster, big mouth rantings and breed mare’s life and pursuit of happiness but be all up in the bedroom of same sex couples and pregnant women. Hypocrisy? One man’s trash… but it certainly is suspicious.
As far as private property rights go, anti-wind people have been spreading misinformation which grossly exaggerates effects of wind farms on nearby property. For example, someone posted on a local anti-wind website that wind turbines make so much noise that they cause significant health effects six miles away! One visit to a modern, commercial wind far makes it evident (if it’s not already) that this is ridiculous. They’re not loud. As far as the visual effects of having a 440-foot wind farm near you goes, chances are that most of the few people living nearby won’t even be able to see these turbines. With the rolling terrain and tall trees which typify Bent Mountain, you probably won’t be able to see them unless you’re far away, such as down in the valley, and if you’re far away they’ll automatically look much smaller. This is part of why studies show that property values near wind farms are not harmed by wind farms. Despite all the anti-wind hype, they really aren’t intrusive.
“This is part of why studies show that property values near wind farms are not harmed by wind farms”
Are you really trying to say that a beautiful vista to be covered by numerous windmills will not effect the value of adjoining properties with similar views? Get real.
I’m not clear how anyone has “property rights” on land they don’t own. Again, there is no constitutional “right” to a view – if you like your view so much, buy it.
Why on earth would AEP feel any motivation to change their business model – at all. They have a monopoly currently and can raise rates at will with no investment on their end. Counting on a monopoly to pursue new investment or R&D into more efficient environmentally -friendly energy production models is silly. They simply don’t need to.
I keep reading from people that don’t “believe” in climate change. It’s not belief, or convictions that’s important here. It’s reality.
@ John – of course I’ve noticed my power bill going up, along with everything else, but I don’t accept the notion that it’s the result of a lack of wind power or other sources of “green” or “renewable” energy. Nor do I believe the rates charged by my purveyor will decrease if wind power is established in the area. Also, keeping in mind, I don’t think *any* energy source should be federally subsidized, I would rather pay for what I use without my government manipulating that figure. In short, if the soon-to-be- proposed windfarm is not 100% privately funded, then I am 101% against it.
From another angle, I have less of a concern with the aesthetic drawbacks of windmills, though if I had to be honest, I don’t really want to see industrial-sized turbines on the mountain behind my house either. I moved out here partly to get away from that type of vista. I might be swayed from that position if I really believed it were necessary on some level. For instance, heating my house takes obviously takes priority over the view from the south window.
Quite frankly, John, I would love to live “off-the-grid” by using wind or solar power. I simply can’t afford to buy or install the necessary components to make it feasible, and neither can anyone else of average means. As much as I’d like to, the fact is I could cut lots of firewood and pay many years worth of power bills with what it would cost to do that.
Though you made a good (and respectful) argument, which I appreciate, I remain unconvinced.
“The county shouldn’t care where the money is coming to build them so long as they protect themselves from any potential problems. If you want to fight federal spending do it on the federal level.”
I’m sorry, swvaboy… I simply disagree with every art of that statement. Getting people to understand – County, City, State, and ultimately the Federal government to care where the money comes from is the whole reason I keep doing this.
Trevor Ripchord, unless you are trying to tell us you are God, then NO, you do not remotely “speak for all people” and you most assuredly do not speak for me and most of the people I know.
To my knowledge we have not elected any arbiters to speak for the Constitution name Trevor Ripchord. Your idea of “followed properly” and what the Constitution actually means can obviously be a matter of opinion. And no, it never has, never will and never can “protects all of us”. Action and reaction is real. “Do you have any idea what you are talking about?”
It would have been OK if he had resigned then stormed out.
Edward, you are a day late and a dollar short on the idea of “I don’t think *any* energy source should be federally subsidized“. Since the die has been cast, it is only rational and fair that alternative energy sources be given the chance, support and funding that Big Oil, Big Gas and Big Coal have already been given.
I do not know where the idea came from that property values and viewsheds need to be protected against progress, innovation or energy needs. But I disagree.
Let’s just get this over with and kill OUR local Blue Ridge viewshed so we can curtail mountain top removal elsewhere. We must give individual rights a back seat to communitarianism and the collective. We will all feel a lot less guilty!
As we do our part to use less and less mountain top removed coal in Appalachia we can free up coal supply so other countries can buy even more coal (Supply and demand thing)! We should feel better knowing this increase in coal export to countries, like China, means we will have less mercury falling on us and more on China! Recently China is doing gangbusters with green energy. But, while they are doing so they continue to build a lot more coal fired plants and are expecting to increase the use of coal for many years to come.
I also recently discovered the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to wind energy since wind energy is renewable. We can use as much wind energy as we want because it renews itself. The sum total of all wind energy extraction in the world, as it increases in leaps and bounds, will have no affect on global warming or weather dynamics. My understanding used to go something like this: Wind energy is extracted from the atmosphere by wind turbines. That wind energy could have been used for natural purposes, like taking its small part in powering weather systems, aiding in convecting/transfering latent and sensible heat from hot areas of the earth, etc. Instead, that converted energy is used for man-made uses. Energy = work + heat. Man-made uses extract the ‘work’ from the equation and give heat back to the atmosphere. Bottom line: We are tampering with a natural convective process by converting part of it for our use (work). The butterfly effect comes into play where one wind turbine plays its part in affecting natural convection. Thousands and thousands of giant wind turbines around the globe could affect weather dynamics. I’m not sure what I was thinking back in the day but I have caught up with the times and now know wind energy is renewable.
1. A casual visit in unknown weather conditions, air density, speed, direction and topography is a very weak basis to establish an opinion on; particularly when one is pitting such opinions with people who live with them at far greater than 500 feet 24/7 in all conditions.
2. The $ cost of wind generated energy FAR higher than the cost of coal generated energy. The subsidies for: coal – 44c/MWH, gas – 25c/MWH, hydro – 67c/MWH, nuclear – $1.59/MWH, while wind – $23.37/ MWH (US EIA 2008). That, without considering the rate increases continually granted to providers to meet for RPS (renewable portfolio standards set in by 31 states – thanks to industry lobbyists).
Further, as a good friend recently posted: “The “Grid” IS the problem. We have to constantly feed it to have it available, which is wastefully inefficient. … Why do the taxpayers have to subsidize “Big Energy”? Why are our taxes not being spent to implement small-scale wind, geothermal, solar, and other home-based energy generation and energy efficiency measures?”
Why not discuss energy efficiency and generation in a manner that truly will encourage frugality and reduce demands on the grid that delivers all forms of electricity at a 10% to 20% inherent transmission and distribution loss? In Virginia, a Dillon Rule state, the Commonwealth has put enabling legislation in place to accommodate PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) programs in our localities. Initially funding such programs would be far more productive toward meeting goals of “sustainability” than by putting Billions of Dollars of PUBLIC equity into the hands of globally-based, including Chicago, profiteers.
Mountaintop removal is more violent desecration of our Appalachian landscape, but it is not anywhere near as pervasive as the desecration proposed by the wind industry. The answer is in reducing our reliance on mass-produced electricity
John, you asked, “Why on earth would a private enterprise divulge their competitive secrets to their competition?”
How is local wind data on land, that has already been leased, classified as a competitive secret? The ONLY reason we are left with is: Their production claims are not borne out by the data they have collected. Further, data manipulation is to easy to debunk.
Could it be that YOU have a direct vested interest in this industry?
Eldon, I have no “vested interest” in anything beyond the truth and viable alternative energy. The company that pays for the research has the right to keep it private. Did you see the scout for wind farms in Floyd in yesterday’s newspaper. This is a competitive industry.
Eldon – you obviously don’t know Sandi – her, having a vested interest in the wind industry? (spewing coffee across the room as I laugh hysterically)……
And Eldon, you obviously do not know Dublin Dawg, in his zeal to insult, he often misses the point. I know you asked that question of John, I just volunteered the point because it seems to be a bone of contention.
The only thing Sandi is interested in investing in is Krispy Kreme donuts.
I understand Sandi, but when the “company” receives taxpayer subsidies to cover over 60% of its initial capital outlay to construct the project, it’s claimed return should be publicy justified. And remember, we’re only talking about taxpayer support at the contruction level. Additional subsidies, grants, and taxpayer money is being directed to the “wind industry on an operational level.
I hear you Eldon and I do not disagree that much more info should be public and available for us “investors”. Anything not truly “proprietary” (and business is cut-throat) should be disclosed. No doubt the more we know the less we would like a whole lot of what goes on with our tax dollars.
A mechanical engineering student once fell asleep in his thermodynamics class after an all night study session. While his head was laying in a pool of drool he was having a dream about an industrial wind turbine farm so theoretically massive that it constantly extracted all of the earth’s available wind energy into usable electricity. The wind didn’t die off completely because the sun continued to heat the earth and produce convection and a percentage of the electricity produced also put off heat which also contributed a bit to convection. The Earth’s temperature increased dramatically. Weather chaos also escalated shortly after the farm was installed. These higher temps and weather chaos leveled off at their newly established higher levels over a period of time as these dramatically lowered convection levels came into equilibrium with the constant level of wind energy extraction. Weather was dramatically modified as it appeared a severe case of global warming was occurring. He suddenly woke up and clicked his heals three times while repeating “wind turbines do not contribute to global warming” while reading the 2nd law of thermodynamics on the white board in front of him.