Does Acciona Energia and British Petroleum perceive Cape Vincent as a third world town?

That question was suggested by a comment to one of my recent posts. After all, Acciona Energia and British Petroluem have so little regard for our community that they have proposed industrial wind projects which will have some of the shortest turbine set back distances in the world. And they are doing it by getting unsuspecting natives to sign agreements that sacrifice their home values and lifestyles in exchange for what, in the scheme of massive subsidies, amounts to pennies.

Regarding the turbine set back issue, the proposed Cape Vincent turbine distances are sub- standard.

A recent MasterResource report by Tony Fleming addresses the wind ordinance debate in this article:

Wind Ordinance Debate: The 1,000-foot Set-Back Standard (Are environmentalists underregulating themselves?)

by Tony Fleming

January 23, 2012

Editor Note: Environmentalists like regulation except when it comes to ‘green’ energy. This post asks: what is the growing acceptance of  the thousand-foot voluntary ordinance based on?

In Indiana and elsewhere, many counties are falling all over themselves to adopt the so-called “1,000-foot voluntary industry setback” between large wind turbines and residences.1 In some states, it has become part of “model” wind ordinances created by wind developers and energy agencies.

This buffer zone (who said these structures were environmental?) is starkly smaller than those mandated in several countries widely touted by industry proponents as wind “success” stories. In Denmark, for example, the setback is four times total turbine height (or about 2,000 feet for a large turbine), along with a built-in mechanism for compensating abutters for property-value losses.

In Holland, it is 1 km (3,280 ft). Germany’s noise-based setback ranges up to a full mile (1.6 km).

Dozens of jurisdictions scattered around the U.S. and Canada have also adopted larger setbacks, often in the ½- to 2-mile range from abutting residences. All of these larger setbacks are in line with what is recommended by many independent scientific bodies, medical authorities, and acoustical engineers.2

With so many localities adopting the much smaller 1,000-foot distance as a de facto setback, however—seemingly with little public discussion—a reasonable person would expect to find reams of scientific and legal information to back it up.

Conclusion: Are Renewable Energy Advocates Underregulating Themselves?

I can think of one explanation: the production tax credit, the primary Federal incentive to the wind industry, which has existed for decades, and whose value as a tax-avoidance vehicle is exquisitely dependent on producing the maximum number of kWh from any given wind project. It is not hard to imagine the structure of this tax-avoidance vehicle creating an intense need in this heavily subsidy-dependent industry to maximize the density of turbines in a given wind project, a goal that is greatly impeded by more protective setback regulations.

And, it is clearly much easier to achieve this goal when the developer can begin the local siting discussion with a lax setback requirement as the baseline. Along with terms like “voluntary industry setback,” this helps create the illusion for local officials and the public that 1,000 feet is an authoritative, widely accepted standard that is protective of the community, when in fact, there is little hard evidence standing behind it.

You can read the entire report at this link.