Dear Editor:
As proud and fortunate owners of some the finest farmlands on the Eastern Shore, we as Kent County landowners, oppose the Apex Wind Turbine Project.
We support all efforts to halt this project & we thank all of the individuals who are donating time & money to “Keep Kent Scenic”.
Bayfair Farm
Canterbury Fields
Durham Point Farm
Black Horse Flag Farm
Fairlee Farms
Emory’s Landing Farm
Henckel Farm
JPM Farms
Kurhessen Farm
Morgnec Ventures
New Hope Farm
PP & MG Farm
Pondview Farms
Schnellenberg Farms
Shellman Farms
Swantown Farm
Turners Creek Farm
TCF Farm #2
TCF Farm #3
Watts Farm
Sincerely,
Joe Hickman, Owner
Francis J. Hickman Farm Management & Consultation
joe diamond says
Farmers,
Here is the Code of Maryland law. You have Freedom to Farm Laws to cover some of your operations but here is what the PUC may have to consider:
• COMAR 26.11.06.08 ― Nuisance – An installation or premises may
not be operated or maintained in such a manner that a nuisance or
air pollution is created. Nothing in this regulation relating to the
control of emissions may in any manner be construed as
authorizing or permitting the creation of, or maintenance of, a
nuisance or air pollution.
That might just do it for ya.
But ‘SCENIC”………what is it? You know some of your operations are not too pretty some of the time. Someone fill in the blanks about scenic and why landowners have to provide it. Or the other way…just what about those wind things is not as scenic as a grain elevator or the dust & crap that flies around during picking. Is manure piles with black plastic and tires scenic? What?
Why you doin this?
Joe
Joe Hickman says
Dear Mr. Diamond,
Thanks for the COMAR information. Not sure if PSC has to adhere to this, but I will certainly ask.
I do not feel landowners have to provide “scenic”. What is scenic? As I’ve heard about other topics, I know it when I see it.
Maybe a better title for opposition would be “Support the Current Kent County Land Use Ordinance”. That is the standard for all other structures, including grain tanks.
Landowners can disagree on definition of scenic, but the citizens of Kent County have developed standards under the Comp Plan that are reviewed & approved regularly.
The rain today may slow us down from getting rid of those pesky manure piles, but should hold down the dust.
Joe Hickman
joe diamond says
Hi Joe,
The manure piles can stay…composting cures many problems. Likewise the assumption has been that whatever farmers need to do is OK because people need to eat and farmers make that happen. So the dust will be OK too. I just saw the ambiguity in the scenic idea and needed to comment.
I think the bigger issue is that the Public Utility Commission has been given power to act because of the constant not-in-my-backyard (NIMB) that every person in every location suffers from. Rather than endure constant litigation the PUC has been given power to act pragmatically. In this case there is a State of MD law mandating more renewable energy. I see the number 35% of electric power used in MD is imported from elsewhere. The major source of electricity in MD is coal fired generators. So they may well ignore the NIMB and just act. (My opinion only)
And the County Land Use Ordinance has a problem. There are sections that seem to have the power going the wrong way. We, the governed, grant power to the state and federal government. They do not dictate down. The County Land Use ordinance seems to dictate that if you have land you will participate in agriculture in ways the Planning & Zoning specifies. They direct that land be kept in crop use because many farms with equipment are needed to keep equipment suppliers and maintenance companies around. A land owner who wants to grow grapes or put in a solar farm or operate a hydroponic grow operation with solar or wind power runs afoul of their printed statement of direction.
That reviewed and approved process you mentioned will get some exercise soon, I think.
The Keep Kent Scenic group reminds me of the anti bridge folks and the anti dump dredge spoils around here folks. One of their number is quoted: “If you are for wind turbines I’m not going to recognize you at today’s meeting.” They have their minds made up…no facts are going to confuse them. I’ll continue to watch as this unfolds.
Good luck,
Joe
Bob Ingersoll says
To both Joe’s; You both make good points but I have to take exception to the NIMBY argument that Joe Diamond makes in this case. I was on the Task Force that wrote the White Paper that the County Commissioners used to upgrade our zoning for renewable energy usages in Kent County. While I am a huge advocate for Wind (investor in two New England Wind Projects), solar (own 15kw of solar on our farm in Quaker Neck), geothermal (heat one of the houses on the farm with ground geothermal), I advocated for strict limits on wind turbines in Kent County because there is a distinct lack of wind resource on most of the county land. The requirement for a successful wind project is 8.6m/sec annual average at 50 meters elevation. The average for most of the county is in the range of 5.5 m/sec according to NOAH and other governmental and commercial sources. Also, the wind shadow from these massive turbines is huge, requiring much greater spacing than say on a bluff or mountain where winds are more reliable and directionally consistent for consistent electrical output. There is not enough space to place all those turbines in this county without crowding them together and having them still remain at an adequate distance from residences. The effects on humans are real, and wind turbines of this size do not belong near residences. If the Task force had been thinking about NIMBY, and they did, they would have denied any wind turbines in the county, and that is not the case. We advocated a scaled use of the technology, as we also advocated a scaled use of solar and other renewable sources. If you fly over the county you will see an amazing amount of solar projects, some small and some large. As we speak, the Town of Chestertown is in the process of adding 1.4MW of solar at the Waste water Treatment Plant, a very good use of renewables in this area.
So, the reason that a large commercial Wind project should not be placed in Kent County is not NIMBY, but its’ very probable chance of failing, giving yet another bad name to a resource that is absolutely necessary in our national energy portfolio
joe diamond says
Hi Bob,
Great minds go in the same circles! I did a little more research……….found an annual wind map @ 50 meters and found what you stated. In general terms the proposed area of the wind farm is rated as “poor to medium” on an annual basis; not much wind. Your description of the resultant technical limitations looks pretty accurate with the addition that the same wind maps indicated no major power trunk on Delmarva.
This does not mean the shrill crowd with the large letter signs and the not in my backyard mentality are doing anything important. They have missed the technical points you and others will eventually arrive at. The motivation of the herd is entirely self serving….they know the result they want and have turned to mass shouting to; Keep Kent County Scenic! Those with other opinions or input are asked not to attend the meetings. They are being led by the county commissioners and at least one state senator.
Finally, I had read your paper on renewable energy. So I was surprised when the P&Z Board dismissed a recent application for an industrial grade solar installation on a local farm near Quaker Neck. This in a county with a primitive (fixed alignment) solar array. They just slow danced the application to the door. One board member asked why the panels were blue…one commissioner asked if the array needed to be near power lines! The applicant company cut their losses moved on to install a 1000 acre tracking array in Accomac, VA This project is producing enough solar power to support 20,000 homes. ……………Kent County gets to stay scenic….use coal powered generators for light and heat……and debate threats from wind generators.
You and I agree. The word appropriate needs to guide this conversation. There there may be time for discussion of relative merits of various power sources. The discussion will take place while climate change scientists hold the position that right now is a good time to stop all fossil fuel use. We can only hope the NIMBY voice gets less weight than appropriate application presentations.
Hope more people read your paper,
Joe
Joanne Levesque says
Chiming in from Massachusetts and hoping you all pay close attention to the lessons learned in our state.
First off – the wind industry likes to make the focus of any discussion the “scenic” or “perception” argument which results in leaving the more important issues below the radar. I think it is wise to perhaps address the scenic /viewshed issues while noting there are far more important adverse impacts to disclose – study and prepare for.
At a recent EPA hearing Harvard’s Constitutional Law Professor Laurence Tribe made this comment: “Burning the Constitution should not become a part of our national energy policy” . I could not agree more – and from first hand experience the violations are numerous. Private property rights are currently being violated here in Ma as every wind project I have researched was permitted based on serious errors, omissions and mis-representation of facts. Every single one!
Pre-construction reports thrown together by wind industry consultants have proven – by way of post- construction testing and reporting – to have seriously understated the audible noise issues and have refused to address the Low Frequency Noise and Infra-sound Issues. You all are talking farms – I imagine animals are on these farms – in addition to families? Please note that the Massachusetts experiment has been a disaster for families who live too close to industrial wind turbine projects.
In fact, just this week – a study out of Falmouth, Ma – performed inside a resident’s home – has confirmed the presence of Infra-sound – an acoustic emission the increases with the size of the turbine’s rotor diameter. The wind industry has long refused to properly investigate or report on this acoustic energy emanating from industrial scale wind turbines. In fact, the Falmouth report fully supports the acoustic testing performed in Brown County Wisconsin which directly led to the Brown County Board of health declaring (in the fall of 2104) that wind turbines constitute a “Human Health Hazard”.
So, I suggest putting the talk of scenic concerns a bit further down on the list and focus on the serious and insidious health impacts that so many Massachusetts families are struggling to find relief from – once these monsters go up all efforts by state and local officials seem, to date at least, to be to protect the turbine operations and to subvert whereever they can the truth of just how bad the post construction realities are for communities who were sold on a myth –
Lastly, I must agree with the words I read recently – based on my first hand experience at 3 years worth of attending Board of Health meetings and Mass DEP meetings intended to deal with the cries for relief from families who live too close – and those words are:
“Industrial Scale Wind Power Plants = an inefficient system that leads to perverse outcomes.”
Perverse outcomes indeed! I have seen it first hand – and have read many reports that have now proven deeply flawed but were used to gain acceptance. Do your homework and protect your communities from harm! Best wishes – battling the wind spin is a daunting task – why? because so much of what is claimed is false.
Steve Payne says
It’s certainly reasonable to be concerned with viability but keep in mind that the efficiencies keep getting better and the costs keep getting lower. I think a company making a large investment like this probably knows what they’re doing.
Steve Payne says
The Energy Dept has a reort out on wind energy and they say the industry now has turbines especially designed for low wind speed locations. That,combined with other advances, has made wind energy even more beneficial.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/maps/wind-vision