The interview on Whats Up NY23 is fascinating as the son of the head of the Jefferson County IDA parrots his dad's stinging rebuke of wind farms and the tax subsidies the IDA is trying to ladle on the Galloo Island project.
Jonathan Hirschey is son of Town of Cape Vincent Supervisor and IDA Chairman Urban Hirschey. The other day the senior Hirschey told the Jefferson Leadership Insititute that wind is an expensive, inefficient and intrusive energy source. Mr. Hirschey called PILOT tax abatements "Un-American."
Jonathan's doubles down on Big Wind in this interview.
The ironies are apparent.
Whats Up NY23?
11 comments:
A swipe is an attempt to try to hit with a swinging blow. A swipe does not require much thought. I would hardly call Mr. Hirschey's interview a swipe.
I have been talking to J. Hirschey for some time and his claim of actually looking at both sides of wind is very accurate.
I commend Jonathan for doing extensive research of all aspects of wind development and stepping forth with his intelligent decisions.
I also commend you Mr. Mayor for discovering a dangerous issue which has been boiling amongst citizens in the River and Lake Towns for many years without gaining much attention from the politicians.
I have to agree with RWiley on this one. J. Hirschey admits to being new to the study of wind and even admits that his findings are fresh but not without reading and thought. He is not swiping.
U. Hirschey is an expert on wind development having been involved on both sides of the wind issue for years. He also is one of the few who have listened carefully to both sides of the issue.
Lashing and swiping are your words.
My words would be "lending their expertise".
I too have spoken to Hirschey pere et fils, and I concur with Wiley. John says that he did his own research and made up his own mind, and then challenged his dad on the issues. The term "parrot" is somewhat derisive, as if John can't think for himself, but for all you know Mr Graham, John may have swayed Urban on this.
Gee Both Alexander's are in favor of wind power, one works for it, the other will benefit from it .
Geeze, ya can't even say swipe, or the Wiley will get upset. Don't worry, you Save the World from the Evils of Wind blowhards. Nothing will happen. We won't have windmills. We won't have nukes, coal, natural gas, we won't have anything but taxes, unemployment, and mass flight from the area. Yous gonna win, Mr Wiley, and all others who already have their future taken care of.
IF the Hircheys think wind is so ineffective than why did they make such a large financial investment to build a private wind tower to power their home?
It seems to me before someone were to make that sort of an investment, they would have done the research first and known that wind power was so "inexpensive and inefficient."
Or maybe, it is neither.
Anon 11:29,
Wind IS inefficient. The payback for the project was about 10 years! Also, the turbine broke down three times, and then the tower finally collapsed! He hasn't bothered to replace it...
Furthermore - there were other benefits to a personal turbine: He has a bank full of batteries that stores the power, so if the power goes out he still has electricity, which is an alternative to a generator. (Notice there is no feasible way to store the wind from the commercial wind projects - since there's no feasible economic way to do so)
Trying to compare one personal turbine to an industrial wind complex is like comparing Apples to Oranges. Actually, that is an understatement. It's like comparing a hang-glider to a Boeing 747. How many townspeople do you think could see the turbine? How many do you think could hear it? How many homes do you think it would de-value? I could go on and on about the differences, but if you didn't realize them, then perhaps others didn't think about it either, so I'm glad to clear it up in this forum.
Finally, he used his OWN money to pay for the project, so at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.
On the other hand, these commercial wind projects are cashing in on every citizens tax dollars (Stimulus $$ from the federal level and grants from the state), which is perhaps the biggest difference between the scenarios, and why everyone who pays taxes should object to one of the biggest scams in our generation.
I would be happy to answer any more questions, although I must say, based on your tone, it sounds like you've already made up your mind about the situation...
Jon Hirschey
Don't worry Jonboy. You and yours have won the fantasy and fashion award of the moment. We don't like wind, now. We hated all other types of energy in the past and now we have added wind to the list. Enjoy the fruits of your hysteria. Wind is baaad. We will have none of it here in the pristine North Country. No nukes, no oil, no gas, no nothin'. Now, no wind. I'm with ya, Jonny. I don't have any land either.
I'm not really worried, but thanks :-)
I think it's pretty clear that commercial wind energy isn't something we should be investing in to solve our energy issues, or reduce our carbon output. They're not green like everyone thinks they are. If you want to read about it, I suggest the following sites:
Energy Presentation
More facts by the same author...
Here's a recent case study, September 2009, on the study of wind in Denmark, who produces a lot of power with wind using some 5500 turbines or so...
Here are some videos explaining how "green" these projects are...
Please, show me some reasons why you think taxpayers should be supporting large-scale commercial wind energy. Or don't you believe in research?
Truly Yours,
Jonboy
yeah, I have great faith in politically motivated research. Twenty years ago people like you were warning us of a coming ice age. Now it's global warming. Smart people wanted nukes at one time, now they scare people as no one knows anything about them. We can't drill for oil or gas, but we can complain about carbon emissions. Problem is Jonboy, you're entire belief system is based on fashion. Along with politically controlled one sided junk science. You would be resistant to anything that was 1) anywhere near you or 2) didn't profit you personally. Congratulations on your win. You've spread more bs than the other side. For now.
It's amusing to me that you are to draw conclusions such as my "entire belief system is based on fashion," considering my research that shows the flaws in wind energy. I would rather see a nuclear power plant than 100,000 acres of wind turbines that can't be counted on to provide base-load energy requirements.
Your lack of research does nothing to support your argument and your tone has lowers this discourse to the schoolyard level.
If you want me to look at some of your research, I'd be happy to. Otherwise, this serves no purpose.
Post a Comment