Mr. Chilsom responds in his Gaia way

Hello Colette:

If I were to believe some of the negative things you are saying about wind energy were true, I would agree with you.

The energy team of County Sustainability Group (CSG) of Prince Edward County have completed a position statement with regard to the wind energy debate. You can read it on our web at

It attempts to explain why hard working intelligent people from non energy related fields, may be particularly vulnerable to the message of NIMBY voices, their presentations, and the nonsense of most of their stories.  You will find links to many credible data sources that show a the stark contrast from data you may have read from local anti wind sources.

Please read the many links in the debunking section of WindTruth.
But if you see something incorrect in WindTruth, please let me know, we are always trying to improve

A letter to Mr. Chilsom from another wind warrior.
Mr Chilsom
The links you’ve asked “nimby’s” (people trying to preserve their natural surroundings, quality of life, and property values) to rely upon on your web site generally point to sponsored research, which almost NEVER holds up to scrutiny, regardless of the issue.  This is particularly true with industrial wind power development.  Since I am a seasoned nimby (fighting the big-wind folly and intrusion for almost 7 years) I can tell you that even if there really were potential emission savings (I don’t believe there are, given the hundreds of studies and reports that counter this assumption), it’s the daily, moment to moment impact on the lives of the people, the actual human beings, in the destructive path of wind power developers that fire my passion to keep fighting against this very non-green energy alternative. 
For instance:  Phil Bloomstein (who ended up within the boundaries of the Beaver Ridge Wind Farm in Maine) says, “Do we leave the house we built, the gardens we’ve planted, the place my children and their children love? Or, do we stay and learn to deal with the noise, worry about unknown health hazards, keep windows closed on summer nights, sleep with earplugs — whatever it takes to stay sane?” or Rene Taylor of Illinois who testified before the Town of Union, “While we retain the use of our property, much of the time we are no longer able to enjoy it. We do what we need to do outside and hurry back inside, confined to our house to avoid the constant sounds from the turbines and substation. Even inside our home, we often still hear and feel the turbines.”
Or Ann Wirtz of Byron, Wisconsin, who told a reporter, “Last night it was whining. It wasn’t just the whoosh whoosh whoosh or the roaring. It was a high pitched whine. And I don’t just hear them, I can feel them“, she said.  “When I first heard about the turbines I wasn’t  alarmed. People were saying how bad they could be, but I just didn’t believe them.”  Or Daniel d’Entremont of Nova Scotia, who packed up his family last year and abandoned his home of 20 years after unsuccessfully trying to sell it.  “We are devastated, we are broken because we have lost the home we built with our own hands and we have lost the land which has been in the family for generations.”  
And in a letter to the Ontario Premier, Barbara Ashbee of Canada writes, “We are suffering severe sleep deprivation and mental stress. The kicker is, our house is so vulnerable we could never sell it. I would not sell it to an unwary buyer. It would be totally unethical and so our biggest investment is now virtually worthless as it sits.”  Or Barbara Pac of Wethersfield, NY who wrote in 2003, “The turbines are the first thing I hear when I wake up and the last thing I hear before I go to sleep each night“, and Richard, her husband who says in a later video-interview, “I can’t sit in my yard anymore after a long day and just enjoy a beer. It’s hard.”  Or Rick Beyer of NY’s Tug Hill region, who reports, “I have to close the curtains because the reflection of the turning blades is like a continual moving mirror inside the house. My son can’t use his computer without closing two sets of heavy drapes.  The wind company told me they’d buy me some blinds if I wanted them.”
Then there’s Charlie Porter of King City, Missouri, who owns a 20 acre horse farm that’s now surrounded by turbines, some as close as 1200 feet.  After his family suffered with noise and flicker for months, they finally decided that moving was their only option.  He brought a law suit against the wind company responsible. “Its not like we’re trying to get rich or make $5 million”, he said.  “All we want is for the wind company to replace what they took from us — our peace and quiet and our property values.” 
Many more residents in WNY towns have been similarly suffering for the past year.  People in Sheldon and Cohocton have begun to speak out.  Even some who’ve leased and are  legally bound to silence – are speaking out instead.  One homeowner recently said in a letter to the editor,  “The road noise has quieted, and the workers are gone — just the spinning machines remain. The increased traffic over the summer was an annoyance, but now the ugly sticks are ruining my life. The light pollution in our night skies is horrible and the noise is driving me crazy.  It’s so annoying that it’s no longer enjoyable to spend time outside. I don’t even enjoy riding my horses anymore. The noise creates anxiety and stress, and the lights often catch my attention even when I’m focused on other tasks…”  Pastor Kathleen Danley of Fenner NY wrote in a 2006 editorial, “We were told that the turbines had been redesigned so as to be less noisy, but the grinding goes on 24 hours a day.  When at the house, I find that my nerves are constantly on edge. The wind farm has brought much traffic.  Drivers stop and gawk in the middle of the road. The project has pitted neighbor against neighbor.  Long friendships have struggled.  I find this to be very sad, and pray that others can find a better way through these issues without having such a huge impact on their lives.”” 
I feel quite confident basing my opinion on these real life people who are now suffering because of industrial wind power development, and I believe that groups like yours (well-meaning but misled – to the detriment of rural residents in Canada and the U.S. and indeed around the world) would do well to pay attention to the real-world experience that is occurring each day at the local level.  Please take a closer look at what you are endorsing.  People are finally starting to catch on.  Isn’t it time that you do, too??
Sue Sliwinski
Sardinia NY

4 responses to “Mr. Chilsom responds in his Gaia way

  1. ruralgrubby

    Don Chilsom also belongs to the Gaia Preservation Coalition

    One should note that the CSG group quotes James Lovelock. I find the irony striking that CSG makes reference to Gaia in the first paragraph of its “Comment on the nature of the NIMBYist position”. Perhaps they should be informed that the originator of the concept of Gaia, James Lovelock, has said, “Let us be proud to be Nimby’s, our backyard is countryside and that is the face of Gaia.” In his piece, Fascism in the Wind: ‘wind farms’ are just the product of a dangerous green ideology he has no kind words for people like Mr. Chisholm. In summation he says, “There is no such thing as renewable energy; it belongs as an idea with perpetual motion and other delusions but politicians and ideologues have become skilled at using enticing words to cover essentially rotten ideas.”

  2. ruralgrubby

    As the brilliant William Jevon wrote in 1865. “The first great requisite of motive power is that it shall be wholly at our command, to be exerted when, and where, and in what degree we desire. The wind, for instance, as a direct motive power, is wholly inapplicable to a system of machine labour, for during a calm season the whole business of the country would be thrown out of gear.”

    This is even truer today, given that modern society exists on a foundation built upon productivity that comes from reliable, controllable, interdependent high-powered machine systems. All conventional units that provide electricity must pass rigorous tests of reliability and performance; they must produce their rated capacities, or a desired fraction, as expected whenever asked–or be removed from the grid. Some are like refrigerators, doing heavy-duty long-term work; others are like our toasters or irons, not working all the time but responsive when called upon to do so. This ability to perform as expected on demand is known as a machine’s capacity value. Conventional power generators have a capacity value of 99.999%. Using them for 97% of our electricity, the country achieves high reliability and security at affordable cost. Wind provides no capacity value and can pass no test for reliability; one can never be sure how much energy it will produce for any future time. Generating units that don’t provide capacity value cannot be reasonably compared with those that do.

    Here’s a practical way to think about this concept. You don’t drive your car all the time, with the result that its capacity factor–the percentage of your car’s potential that you actually use–is probably 15-20%, if that. But when you do wish to drive it, the car works virtually all of the time, getting you from pillar to post in line with your own schedule. This is its capacity value. Ditto with your chain saw–or television, or any modern appliance we all take for granted because it works when we want it to work. Appliances that don’t do this are quickly discarded, although this wasn’t the case for much of our history (look at the early days of television or radio or even the automobile). Only in the last hundred years or so have we in the West come to rely on machines with this standard. In fact, it’s the basis of our modernity and it underlies contemporary systems of economic growth and wealth creation.

    Imagine that all gas pumps were wind “powered.” How sure would you be that the amount of gas you wanted would be there? How long might it take to fill your tank? How long would the lines be awaiting service? As you parse this situation, think of the loss in productivity that would result.

    Because it produces no capacity value, is inimical to demand cycles, provides only early nineteenth century power productivity, in the process making everything and everyone around it work harder, it cannot shutter any conventional plants or reduce meaningful levels of CO2. Massive wind technology will, however, damage much of what many knowledgeable environmentalists hold dear, not least intrusively increasing our footprint on the land in ways that will decrease other species and valuable habitat while furthering the cause of civil discord.

    Jon Boone
    503 East Alder Street
    Oakland, MD 21550

  3. To even acknowledge this wee man and his twisted view of humanity is to give him a place amongst caring and honest human beings. Ignore him and he, like his ill informed followers, like dust, will “blow away in the wind”!

  4. Pingback: Green policies offer fascinating case study in the difference between real PR and fake PR « Ruralgrubby’s Wind Watch

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s