text:
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the current status of planning and regulation for wind energy in the United States, with an emphasis on the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, and then critique current efforts with an eye to where they might be improved. To accomplish this purpose, we reviewed guidelines intended to direct planning and regulation of wind-energy development as well as regulatory frameworks in use at varying geographic scales. To enhance our interpretation of wind-energy planning and regulation in the United States, we drew on the experiences of other countries with longer histories of wind-energy development and different traditions of land-use planning and development regulation. We focused on onshore wind energy, although many elements of planning and regulation that influence onshore wind-energy developments apply to offshore installations as well.
As with other human endeavors that engage both private and public resources, wind-energy development is influenced by an interconnected, but not necessarily well-integrated, suite of policy, planning, and regulatory tools. "Policy" can be broadly defined to encompass a variety of goals, tools, and practices—some codified through laws; some less formally specified. (For a discussion of traditional and new policy tools, see, e.g., NRC 2002.) Policies encompass, but are not limited to, planning and regulation. Policy tools related to wind energy, including national and regional goals, tax incentives, and subsidies, have been discussed in Chapter 2, so we concentrate on planning and regulation here. "Planning"—whether legally mandated or not—is a process that typically involves establishing goals; assessing resources and constraints, as well as likely future conditions; and
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
Planning for and Regulating Wind-Energy Development
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the current status of planning and regulation for wind energy in the United States, with an emphasis on the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, and then critique current efforts with an eye to where they might be improved. To accomplish this purpose, we reviewed guidelines intended to direct planning and regulation of wind-energy development as well as regulatory frameworks in use at varying geographic scales. To enhance our interpretation of wind-energy planning and regulation in the United States, we drew on the experiences of other countries with longer histories of wind-energy development and different traditions of land-use planning and development regulation. We focused on onshore wind energy, although many elements of planning and regulation that influence onshore wind-energy developments apply to offshore installations as well.
As with other human endeavors that engage both private and public resources, wind-energy development is influenced by an interconnected, but not necessarily well-integrated, suite of policy, planning, and regulatory tools. "Policy" can be broadly defined to encompass a variety of goals, tools, and practices—some codified through laws; some less formally specified. (For a discussion of traditional and new policy tools, see, e.g., NRC 2002.) Policies encompass, but are not limited to, planning and regulation. Policy tools related to wind energy, including national and regional goals, tax incentives, and subsidies, have been discussed in Chapter 2, so we concentrate on planning and regulation here. "Planning"—whether legally mandated or not—is a process that typically involves establishing goals; assessing resources and constraints, as well as likely future conditions; and
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
then developing and refining options. "Regulation," as understood within a legal framework, typically consists of methods and standards to implement laws. Regulation is created and carried out by public agencies charged with this responsibility by law. The scope of agency discretion in establishing and administering regulations depends largely upon whether the law is highly detailed or more general.
The chapter begins with a review of guidelines that have been developed to direct wind-energy planning and/or regulation. Some of these have been promulgated by governmental or non-governmental organizations concerned with limited aspects of wind energy, such as the guidelines for reducing wildlife impacts developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2003). Some are more comprehensive in scope, such as those developed by the National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC 2002). We also consider guidelines developed by states to direct wind-energy development toward areas judged most suitable and to assist local governments in carrying out their regulatory responsibilities with respect to wind energy. Then we review regulation of wind-energy development via federal laws, including development on federal lands, in situations where there is a federal nexus by reason of federal funding or permitting, and where there is no such nexus. Next we review regulation of wind-energy development at the state and local levels by concentrating on recurring themes: the locus of regulatory authority (state, local, or a combination thereof); the locus of review for environmental effects; information required for review; public participation in the review; and balancing positive and negative effects of wind-energy development. In these sections we also report on the interaction between planning and regulation, although that interaction is generally less well developed in the United States than in some of the other countries we examined. Then we critique what we have learned about regulation of wind energy by examining some of the tensions in regulation, for example between local and broader-level interests and between flexibility and predictability of regulatory processes. Finally, we present a set of recommendations for improving wind-energy planning and regulation in the United States.
In the United States and, notably, in other nations with considerable wind-energy experience, governmental and non-governmental organizations working at various geographic scales have adopted guidelines to help those developing wind-energy projects and those regulating wind-energy development to meet a mix of public and private interests in a complex, and often controversial, technical environment. Here we review U.S. guidelines for different jurisdictional levels (e.g., state, local), for different environ-
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
mental components (e.g., wildlife), and for the different purposes of guiding planning versus guiding regulatory review. We also draw on the experience of other countries where guidelines for wind-energy development have a longer history.
Some guidelines are for proactive planning of wind-energy development. "Planning" is an ambiguous term, however. Within the context of wind-energy development, it can refer to highly structured processes that carry considerable legal weight and result in identifying certain areas as suitable for wind turbines (as in the Denmark example below). Alternatively, it can refer to loosely structured processes that are largely advisory and result in criteria for evaluating the favorable and unfavorable attributes of prospective sites (as in the Berkshire example below). In addition, planning for wind-energy development may take a broad view of the incremental impacts of multiple wind-energy projects in a region, or it may take a narrow view and focus primarily on a single project. And, geographic scales for planning range from the national to the local level.
Other guidelines focus on regulation. They prescribe for regulatory authorities reviewing wind-energy developments what procedures should be followed, what kinds of information should be examined, and what criteria should be used to make permitting decisions. Many guidelines mingle the two functions of planning and project-specific regulatory review. In practice, planning guidelines that suggest where and how wind-energy development should be done may become criteria for regulatory permitting decisions if projects inconsistent with planning guidelines are rejected.
The United States is in the early stages of learning how to plan for and regulate wind energy. The experiences of other countries, where debates over wind energy have been going on for much longer, can be instructive for bringing U.S. frameworks to maturity. For example, Britain and Australia have dealt with controversies about wind-energy development by working with stakeholder groups, including opponents of wind energy, to develop "Best Practice Guidelines" (BWEA 1994; AusWEA 2002). BWEA (British Wind Energy Association) and AusWEA (Australian Wind Energy Association) were convinced that "they needed to become more transparent and more engaged with the public than any other industry" (Gipe 2003). In Ireland, the Minister of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government released an extensive "Planning Guidelines" document on wind energy in June 2006 (DEHLG 2006). This document advises local authorities on planning for wind energy in order to ensure consistency throughout the country in identifying suitable locations and in reviewing applications for wind-energy projects. Not only are these guidelines prescriptive—that is, they express procedures and approaches that should be taken—but they also are linked to other government policies.
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
A prescriptive national approach is less likely in the United States, where each state is governed by different laws and policies regarding the regulation of wind-energy projects, but the comprehensive approaches used in other countries could be adopted at the state level. The highly structured approach of Denmark, for example (see Box 5-1), could be informative for states wishing to develop integrated frameworks to plan for and regulate wind-energy development. We note, however, that Denmark is smaller and more homogeneous than many U.S. states, has a much stronger tradition of central planning of land use, and has many wind projects owned by local cooperatives, rather than private developers.
National Wind Coordinating Committee Guidelines
The NWCC was established in 1994 as a collaboration among representatives of wind equipment suppliers and developers, green power marketers, electric utilities, state utility commissions, federal agencies, and environmental organizations. Its permitting handbooks propose guidelines for how wind-energy developments should be reviewed. In 2002, the Siting Subcommittee of the NWCC revised its Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities: A Handbook, originally issued in 1998 (NWCC 2002). Intended for those involved in evaluating wind-energy projects, the handbook describes the five typical phases of permitting processes for energy facilities, including wind turbines and transmission facilities:
Pre-Application: This phase occurs before the permit application is filed, during which the developer meets with the permitting agency(ies) and others immediately affected, such as nearby landowners, and local agencies. This phase may be mandatory or voluntary, and it may involve public notice and/or public meetings.
Application review: This phase begins when the permit application is filed. Its activities, required documents, and public involvement requirements depend upon the application review process, as does its duration. In some cases, agencies may be required to reach a decision within a specified period.
Decision making: In this phase, the lead agency determines not only whether to allow the project but also whether to impose measures constraining the project's construction, operation, monitoring, and decommissioning. During this phase, public hearings are likely to be required.
Administrative appeals and judicial review: Appeals of permit decisions may be made to the decision maker, to the administrative review board, or to the courts.
Permit compliance: This phase extends through the project's life-
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
Planning for Wind-Energy Development in Denmark
Until the beginning of the 1990s, the approach in Denmark (like the U.S. approach today) was: "Find yourself a site, and then apply for permission to erect your wind turbine(s)" (DWEA 2004). This laissez-faire approach changed in the early 1990s, when Denmark's third energy plan—Energy 2000—was put forward. It included the goal of 1,500 MW of installed wind energy by 2005. In 1994, an executive order, the "Wind Turbine Circular," made cities responsible for planning for wind turbines, including looking for appropriate sites. In 1999, with a new Wind Turbine Circular, the planning responsibility was redirected to county (amt) authorities. These county-level efforts, and corresponding local efforts, target areas considered suitable for wind farms. The original goal of 1,500 MW nationally was met several years before the 2005 deadline.In 2002, the Danish government indicated that further onshore wind-energy development would not be encouraged but that offshore wind-energy development would be allowed. Denmark's success in installing so much wind-energy capacity has been attributed to numerous factors including (1) the relatively small size of wind projects (1-30 turbines), (2) cooperative ownership of many wind projects with direct benefits to local citizens, and (3) comprehensive planning and review in which localities directly participate (J. Lemming, RISØ, personal communication 2006; Nielsen 2002).
Regulatory Review Within a Planning Context
In Denmark, planning for land-based wind development is linked to the regulatory review process. The centerpiece of the review process is a mandatory environmental impact assessment (EIA) (if a project involves more than three wind turbines or wind turbines over 80 meters in height). The regional planning authority—typically, the county—is responsible for initiating the EIA and ensuring its quality. The EIA is a joint effort of the developer, the developer's consultants, and the county. The EIA must describe the project and establish that the site is appropriate from a wind resource standpoint.The site is further described, including working areas and roads to be used during construction. Alternative sites must be investigated, as well as the no-build alternative, and the developer must substantiate why the proposed site is preferred.
time. It may include monitoring, inspection, addressing local complaints during the project's operation, as well as following up on requirements for closure and decommissioning.
These five phases are included in the handbook as descriptions of what typically happens (given a great deal of variation among states), not as recommendations of what should happen. However, the authors of the handbook suggest eight principles that should be followed when structuring a permit review process:
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
The EIA must describe the landscape surrounding the site, with emphasis on anything that may be affected during the construction or operation phases of the project. Protected species of flora and fauna require special consideration, as do birds protected under international agreements. Any adverse effects on water reserves must be noted. If the project is to be located outside areas previously designated for wind farms, conflicts over the use of land (e.g., because of protected species, arable land, scenic resources) must be given special attention. The EIA also should assess the project's positive environmental impacts (e.g., reduced CO2,NOx, and SO2.
Standards have been set for evaluating impacts on the human environment. No turbine may be sited closer to the nearest residence than a distance of four times the height of the turbine.The EIA must address adverse noise and visual impacts, including cumulative impacts from multiple turbines within a radius of 1 to 2 km. The noise level from the wind turbine(s) must be estimated, using a protocol described in the Noise Declaration (a national-level regulation).The EIA must describe how far shadows from the turbines will reach at all times of year, and the layout of the turbines in relation to major landscape features must be described. Possible adverse effects on property values, tourism, and other commercial activities in the vicinity should be described.
Prior to preparation of the EIA and the planning documents, the project must be publicized for at least four weeks, with opportunities for private citizens and organizations to submit suggestions and comments.These submissions must be included when preparing the EIA. Following completion of the EIA and the planning documents (or their amendments), this material must be publicized for at least eight weeks, after which a public hearing is held where suggestions or objections are again gathered. Following the final decision on the project, anyone who has submitted objections to the project must receive a written answer to the objections.
When the EIA is completed, authorities at the county and local levels formulate amendments to their wind-energy plans, using the EIA as a common point of reference. During the subsequent public comment period, the state can veto the project (this is a national-level decision) but must substantiate why it is exercising its veto power. After public hearings, the plans are presented to county and local political bodies (the county council and the city council). The county council or city council may approve or reject the project.Construction begins only if the project has been approved (Ringkøbing Amt, Møller og Grønborg, and Carl Bro 2002).
Significant public involvement: Including early and meaningful information and opportunities for involvement.
An issue-oriented process: One which focuses the decision on issues that can be dealt with "in a factual and logical manner" (NWCC 2002, p. 16).
Clear decision criteria: As well as clear specification of factors that must be considered and minimum requirements that must be met.
Coordinated permitting process: Including both horizontal coordination among various agencies and vertical coordination between state and local decision makers.
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
Reasonable time frames: In part to provide the developer with known points for providing information, making changes, and receiving a decision.
Advance planning: In particular, early communication on the part of the developers and the permitting agencies.
Timely administrative and judicial review: Including addressing issues such as who has standing to initiate a review and time limits within which reviews must be initiated.
Active compliance monitoring: Including specifying reports that must be submitted and establishing site inspection timetables, non-compliance penalties, a complaint resolution process, etc.
Federal Government Guidelines
Concerns about the effects of wind-energy projects on bird and bat mortality, in combination with federal laws protecting some wildlife species, led the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to provide interim guidelines for evaluating wildlife impacts (technical aspects of which are reviewed in Chapter 3). We know of no other federal-level guidelines addressing the review of wind-energy projects on private land. However, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reviews all structures 200 feet or taller for compliance with aviation-safety guidelines. There have not been uniform standards until fairly recently (see Box 5-2). Both the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) provide guidance for the review of wind-energy projects on lands under their jurisdictions. These are described below under federal regulatory approaches to wind energy.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interim Guidelines
On May 13, 2003, the USFWS released "Interim Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines" (USFWS 2003). Adherence to the guidelines is voluntary, as the guidelines note:
. . . the wind industry is rapidly expanding into habitats and regions that have not been well studied. The Service therefore suggests a precautionary approach to site selection and development and will employ this approach in making recommendations and assessing impacts of windenergy developments. We encourage the wind-energy industry to follow these guidelines and, in cooperation with the Service, to conduct scientific research to provide additional information on the impacts of wind-energy development on wildlife. We further encourage the industry to look for opportunities to promote bird and other wildlife conservation when planning wind-energy facilities (e.g., voluntary habitat acquisition or conservation easements) (USFWS 2003, emphasis added).
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) Obstruction Lighting Guidelines
To determine lighting requirements, each site and obstruction is reviewed by the FAA for particular safety concerns, such as distance from nearby airports. Negative effects of required lighting on night-flying birds and bats, and sometimes also on people near wind-energy projects, have prompted revisions of initial lighting standards for wind turbines. A recent study conducted by the FAA Office of Aviation Research resulted in recommendations for obstruction lighting that considerably reduced earlier lighting guidelines (Patterson 2005). The following chart summarizes the former and current guidelines, though individual site requirements may vary. Source of current guidelines: FAA (2007).
Former FAA Guidelines
Current FAA Guidelines
Lights mounted on the nacelle of every turbine
Two flashing or pulsed light fixtures for night lighting
Two flashing white light fixtures during daytime
Flashing can be synchronous or random
Lights needed only to mark periphery (ends or edges) of project or cluster; with maximum lighting distance of a half-mile; highest turbines must also be lit.
Single red flashing or pulsing light fixture at night.
White strobe lights may be used but not in conjunction with red lights (one or the other)
Flashing must be synchronous (all at the same time)
No daytime lighting required as long as turbines are a white color (not gray).
Preferred light is a red flashing (L-864) with minimum light intensity of 2000 candelas.
Lights should be mounted above the nacelle height for visibility (hub may obscure)
Turbine locations should be noted on aviation maps.
The guidelines include recommendations regarding:
A two-step site evaluation protocol (first, identify and evaluate reference sites—i.e., high-quality wildlife areas; second, evaluate potential development sites to determine risk to wildlife and rank sites against each other using the highest-ranking reference site as a standard).
Site development (e.g., placement and configuration of turbines, development of infrastructure, planning for habitat restoration); and turbine design and operation (USFWS 2003).
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
The guidelines direct wind-energy development away from concentrations of birds and bats and toward fragmented or degraded habitat (rather than areas of intact and healthy wildlife habitat). The guidelines also address some desirable features of regulatory review processes, such as recommending multiyear, multiseason pre-construction studies of wildlife use at proposed project sites; multiyear, multiseason post-construction studies to monitor wind-project impacts; and involvement of independent wildlife agency specialists in development and implementation of pre- and post-construction studies. The guidelines were circulated to the public with a request for review and the Service recently announced the development of a Federal Advisory Committee Act-compliant collaborative effort to revise the guidelines based on public comment.
State and Regional Guidelines
Several states with wind resources have developed guidelines for siting and/or permitting wind-energy projects. This has been particularly true for states where review occurs at the local level, since the projects may be complex and very different from the kinds of projects most local governing bodies are used to addressing. The NWCC Guidelines (NWCC 2002) appear to have provided a useful template for states, with basic information that can be adapted to the particular needs and conditions of states that have wind potential. Below we describe a few of these to illustrate the types of provisions that state guidelines may include.
Kansas's wind-energy guidelines were adapted from the NWCC Guidelines and are intended to assist local communities in regulating land use for wind-energy projects. The guidelines recognize landscape features that are important in Kansas. Under "Land Use Guidelines," (KSREWG 2003, p. 3) native tallgrass prairie landscapes are singled out as having particular value, especially where they remain unfragmented. Cumulative impacts are noted because there is intense interest in wind-energy development in certain areas of the state. Kansas includes guidelines on "Socioeconomic, Public Service and Infrastructure," as well as on public interaction (KSREWG 2003, p. 6).
South Dakota also adapted NWCC permitting guidelines (SDGFP 2005). In sections concerning "natural and biological resources," South Dakota's guidelines call attention to areas of the state that have been identified as potential sites for wind-energy development, but are considered "unique/rare in South Dakota" (SDGFP 2005, p. 1). Developers are urged to use environmental experts to make an early evaluation of the biological setting and to communicate with agency, university, and environmental organizations. They are warned that "if a proposed turbine site has a large
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
potential for biological conflicts and an alternative site is eventually deemed appropriate, the time and expense of detailed wind resource evaluation work may be lost" (SDGFP 2005, p. 3). In sections on "visual resources," developers are told to inform stakeholders about what to expect from a wind-energy project, target areas already modified by human activities, and be prepared to make tradeoffs and coordinate planning across jurisdictions and with all stakeholders. Under "socioeconomic, public services, and infrastructure," developers are admonished not to take advantage of municipalities that lack zoning or permitting processes for wind-energy development.
Wisconsin's guidelines (WIDNR 2004) focus on natural resource issues with minimal guidance in other areas. The guidelines direct wind-energy development away from wildlife areas, migration corridors, current or proposed major state ecosystem acquisition and restoration projects, state and local parks and recreation areas, active landfills (because they attract birds), wetlands, wooded corridors, major tourist/scenic areas, and airports and landing strips clear zones. USFWS guidelines are cited as models for pre-construction studies, with two years of post-construction monitoring recommended for the first wind-energy projects in a particular area.
In contrast with guidelines focused exclusively on wildlife issues, some guidelines reflect a much more comprehensive approach. As illustrated in the accompanying box (Box 5-3), the wind-energy siting guidelines developed by the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission in Massachusetts are multifaceted and proactive, as is an assessment methodology prepared by the Appalachian Mountain Club for wind energy in the Berkshires (BRPC 2004; Publicover 2004).
Regulatory review processes could possibly use such a method to evaluate proposed wind-energy projects to see if they met a threshold for suitability. Similar procedures have been proposed for other states, such as Virginia, where Boone et al. (2005) proposed a land-classification database for use in screening out sites that are likely to be deemed unsuitable for wind-energy development, such as designated wilderness areas or concentrations of birds or bats.
Guidelines Directed Toward Local Regulation
In some cases, the guidelines that states have developed are intended to serve as models for local ordinances and local-level review processes. The "Michigan Siting Guidelines for Wind Energy Systems" (MIDLEG 2005) is a model zoning ordinance for local governments, although it notes that "the Energy Office, DLEG (Department of Labor and Economic Growth) has no authority to issue regulations related to siting wind energy systems"
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
Guidelines for Planning and Regulatory Review of Wind Energy in the Berkshires, Massachusetts
Perhaps as a result of interest in wind-energy project development in the Massachusetts Berkshire region, the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission developed "Wind Power Siting Guidelines" (BRPC 2004). Most of these guidelines refer to desired features of application and regulatory review procedures. For example, the guidelines direct that viewshed analyses should be done "with the most accurate elevation data available from the state using a GIS such as ArcGIS Spatial Analyst or 3D Analyst" (BRPC 2004, p.1) and that "important cultural locations, Shakespeare & Company, and Hancock Shaker Village should be located on the map to determine if they will be impacted by the visibility of the turbine development" (pp. 1-2).There are also safety guidelines, such as "Existing homes are not within potential safety impact areas from ice or blade throw or tower failure" (p. 2).
The commission also asked the state of Massachusetts to become involved in wind-energy development to provide "state-wide siting guidelines for the development of wind power facilities" (p. 3) and "financial assistance to municipalities with areas conducive to wind-energy development to develop adequate local land use regulations for wind energy facilities" (p. 4).The commission suggested that communities hosting wind-energy projects should require that applicants pay for consultants to assist the municipality in evaluating the possible and negative impacts of a proposed project and in establishing beneficial agreements for municipal revenue generation.
Also working in the Berkshires, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) developed "A Methodology for Assessing Conflicts Between Windpower Development and Other Land Uses" (Publicover 2004). This document considers various ecological and sociocultural characteristics that make sites appropriate or inappropriate for wind-energy projects, beyond engineering or economic considerations. Beginning with Geographic Information System (GIS) layers identifying wind sites of Class 4 and above, the AMC methodology overlaid known ecological, recreational, and scenic resources onto the wind map. Resource data were assigned "conflict ratings" that included importance of a resource (local, state, federal significance), proximity to the site, and size of the area.These data can be examined with different subjective weightings on ecological and social factors to see how they might affect an overall site suitability rating. A trial application of this method of analysis suggested that certain sites had far fewer conflicts than others, but the authors cautioned that many variables that could be important to siting decisions were not included in the study.
(MIDLEG 2005, p. 1). Pennsylvania also has produced a model zoning ordinance for local communities (Lycoming County 2005), discussed below in the analysis of state and local regulatory review. Both the Michigan and Pennsylvania models are very basic in their requirements, with little detail about information required or how it will be judged.
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
energy projects to make decisions that advance "the public good," as is required of many regulatory authorities. Having thresholds of positive or negative effects may make regulatory decisions easier to defend from criticism, but specification of such thresholds can inhibit regulators from weighing a complex suite of factors to make a combined index of how much a particular project advances the public good. Tools from multicriteria decision making (e.g., Hammond et al. 2002) can help structure this process by representing preferences for possible outcomes and weighting various decision criteria in numerical form. However, the assessment of those weights and preferences are expressions of value, raising the critical question of whose values should inform decisions about the public good. Some argue that citizens have authorized regulatory bodies, such as utilities commissions, to represent public values taken as a whole. Others argue that only through participatory processes, including negotiation of regulatory rules, or through overtly political processes, such as public forums, can the diverse values of different constituencies be expressed. Public involvement in areas affected by wind-energy proposals is one mechanism for eliciting that diversity of values, but the complex task of combining them into a single decision remains with the regulatory authority.
There are, similarly, pros and cons to more versus less formal review processes. On the formal end of the spectrum, quasi-judicial processes have such merits as producing written records of deliberations, prescribing who can speak in what capacities during hearings, providing opportunities to cross-examine expert witnesses and challenge evidence, and requiring authorities to respond to public comments to indicate how an issue has been addressed. These merits are, to some extent, offset by constraints on who may qualify to participate in hearings and what roles they can play. In addition, more formal processes, although providing a basis for appeal when parties question a decision, may solidify conflicting views and inhibit the more creative give-and-take that can sometimes help resolve contentious issues.
Assuring Long-Term Project-Permit Compliance
Post-construction monitoring for compliance with permit conditions is a critical part of the regulatory process. It is needed to ensure that projects are built according to approved plans and that required post-construction studies and mitigation measures are being carried out properly. Full access to project sites is needed for those charged with conducting studies or monitoring activities. Access has been problematic in the past. For example, access to the Mountaineer Project in West Virginia to conduct studies of bird and bat fatalities was discontinued by the project owner (E. Arnett, Bat Conservation International, personal communication 2005).
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
The application for the proposed Jack Mountain/Liberty Gap project was dismissed without prejudice (i.e., the application could be resubmitted) by the West Virginia Public Service Commission because the applicant refused to allow access to the property for hydrological studies (WVPSC 2006b). Well-defined processes for addressing post-construction monitoring and potential permit violations are needed at both local and state levels. Public confidence in facility compliance would be enhanced if site operators designated an accessible contact person who could respond to inquiries or complaints. In addition to monitoring for adverse environmental effects, including adverse socioeconomic effects, documenting the energy benefits of wind-energy facilities over the lifespan of the installation also is important. For this purpose, data on electricity generated, which must be reported monthly to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency for electricity-generating plants of 1 MW or greater, should be more easily accessible by the public than they currently are on the agency's web site. To ensure long-term compliance with monitoring, mitigation, and reporting requirements, commitments made by the initial site developer should be passed to subsequent operators of the site, including those responsible for maintaining, refurbishing, or re-powering during the project's lifetime, and decommissioning after its lifetime. To ensure transparency, state public-service commissions, with the corresponding state environmental or natural-resources offices, could evaluate pre- and post-construction monitoring as part of the permitting process.
Proactive Planning and Evaluation of Cumulative Effects
The positive and negative cumulative effects of wind-energy development across space and over time generally receive little attention in current regulatory-review processes, although developers have sometimes been asked to provide information about cumulative effects (e.g., Highland New Wind Development in Virginia [VADEQ 2006]). As the Vermont Commission on Wind Energy Regulatory Policy (2004) noted, broader review may facilitate better consideration of cumulative effects than strictly local review. In addition, wind turbines can be large in relation to natural landscape features, extending their effects (e.g., visual impact) beyond the boundaries of the municipality where the turbine itself is located. Broader review would capture effects that extend beyond local jurisdictions.
Consideration of cumulative effects would be facilitated by more proactive planning for wind-energy development at scales ranging from national to regional between or within states. Resistance to centralized planning and devotion to private-property rights and individual autonomy in the United States may rule out the type of integrated planning and regulation that northern European countries and Australia have pursued. Nevertheless,
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
there is room in the United States for better integration of these functions to the benefit of wind-energy developers and for protection of the public good. It is a waste of private and public resources when developers invest in projects that cannot be sited successfully. Planning at state and local levels works with regulatory review to direct wind-energy development to locations and site designs that minimize adverse effects. Clear planning documents set the stage for predictable and defensible review actions.
There often are thresholds for project or turbine size, below which regulatory scrutiny either is not required or is much reduced. If several small projects are installed in a small area, their effects could accumulate without the benefit of regulatory review. For example, several individual businesses or farms may install small turbines, on the order of 40 kW. Although a single turbine meeting relevant construction and zoning requirements might have little effect on local wildlife, aesthetics, and cultural resources, several of them might have significant effects, but they would not be regulated. This is a gap in current regulatory policy.
Improving the Quality of Review
Evaluating the merits and drawbacks of wind-energy proposals strains the resources of regulatory authorities in state utilities commissions and even more in local governments. Although experience is accumulating, wind energy still is new and unfamiliar. Local decision authorities are unlikely to learn by experience very rapidly because they see relatively few wind-energy proposals. Regulatory guidelines, both from nationwide efforts (e.g., NWCC 2002) and state-level efforts (e.g., KSREWG 2003; KSEC 2004), are one form of assistance to state and local decision makers. Many states, including California, Colorado, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, and states in the Great Lakes Region, have sponsored or established wind-energy working groups, bringing together stakeholders such as environmental groups, industry, academia, and state agencies to set goals and guidelines for wind-energy development. In some states, efforts such as Maryland's Wind Power Technical Advisory Group help fill technical gaps at the local level (MD Windpower TAG 2006). In Vermont, the state utilities board can hire independent experts at the expense of the developer to assist the state in its review (Vermont Commission on Wind Energy Regulatory Policy 2004). Similar assistance would be even more beneficial to local decision makers.
Part of the committee's charge was to develop an analytical framework for reviewing environmental and socioeconomic effects of wind-energy
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
proposals. Ideally, this framework would (1) detail not only the types of effects to be considered, but also how those effects are to be evaluated as desirable or undesirable and how positive and negative effects are to be weighed in an overall assessment of a particular proposal; (2) address wind-energy development across a range of spatial and temporal scales; (3) integrate technical information on wind-energy effects with expressions of relevant public values; and (4) enable comparisons of wind-energy projects with other forms of electricity production. We have stopped short of this ideal for several reasons.
Although in theory it seems sensible to weigh the comparative environmental performance of different electricity sources, in practice the generally piecemeal nature of U.S. policy making and regulation offers few opportunities for such comparisons. Energy policies (expressed through such means as tax credits and other financial incentives) usually are the result of considering particular energy sources by themselves rather than the result of weighing the advantages and disadvantages of different energy sources. Regulatory review of energy facilities almost always is a yes/no judgment on a single proposal (perhaps with modifications or conditions imposed), not a comparative judgment of the merits of different energy sources, sites, or facility designs. There is little planning that addresses particular mixes of energy sources, particular sites for wind-energy development, or particular designs for wind-energy facilities. Even if such planning were done, it would have limited impact on proposed wind-energy facilities and their approval, because proposals usually arise one at a time. The review of individual proposals usually is quite limited in scope, both temporally and spatially, with little opportunity for a full life-cycle analysis or for consideration of effects that accumulate across space and time.
In addition, the U.S. system, with its private ownership of most energy facilities and with its prevailing emphasis on markets as the best arbiters of balancing the costs and benefits of energy projects, offers few opportunities for thorough public deliberation on the full spectrum of positive and negative effects of a particular energy facility. At present, if a proposed project meets regulatory requirements (which generally do not include a comprehensive balancing of positive and negative effects), it usually must be approved. Setting regulatory thresholds (e.g., for noise, number of birds killed, visibility) implies that some tradeoffs among costs and benefits are addressed, but even if the tradeoffs are addressed, it usually is not in a transparent and comprehensive way. Instead, these implicit tradeoffs evolve more or less invisibly as projects are proposed, reviewed, modified, and implemented. Eventually, this evolution may result in changes to regulatory processes and standards, but even then, the weighing of tradeoffs does not necessarily become transparent.
There is, moreover, currently no social consensus on how the advan-
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
tages and disadvantages of wind-energy projects should be traded off or whose value systems should prevail in making such judgments. Instead, these decisions usually take place through a combination of citizen participation, political advocacy, and regulatory decision making. As discussed earlier in this chapter, both predictable but also more rigid regulatory-review procedures, and less predictable but also more flexible procedures, have their advantages. In addition, maintaining the flexibility to tailor the intensity of regulatory review to the complexity and controversy associated with particular wind-energy proposals makes more efficient use of society's resources than a "one size fits all" process that does not provide opportunities for exceptions.
For all of these reasons, we focus our efforts on incrementally improving the way wind-energy decisions are made today. We offer an evaluation guide that aids vertical coordination of regulatory review by various levels of government and helps to ensure that regulatory reviews are well grounded procedurally and evaluate the many facets of the human and non-human environment that may be affected by wind-energy development.
Coordinating Levels of Governmental Responsibility
To assist those responsible for planning and regulating wind-energy development and to facilitate the coordination of their work, we suggest using a two-dimensional matrix of jurisdictional levels and areas of responsibility. Jurisdictional levels range in scale from international (occasionally) and national to regional, state, and local. Areas of responsibility include formulation and execution of policy, planning, and public relations; legal and regulatory activities; and impact evaluation. In Figure 5-1, these two dimensions are displayed as a matrix.
The details of how this matrix is filled out will vary from state to state, and to a lesser extent, from project to project. Nonetheless, using the matrix and considering each of its cells will help to ensure that important elements of governmental responsibilities have not been overlooked and that review efforts are well coordinated across geographic areas and jurisdictional levels. Once the respective responsibilities of the various jurisdictions are clearly identified and articulated, a checklist of questions like those in Box 5-4 below can serve as a template for evaluation.
Evaluation Guide
The evaluation guide presented here represents a step toward a realistic, workable framework for reviewing proposed and evaluating existing wind-energy projects. If this guide is followed and adequately documented, the results will provide a basis not only for evaluating an individual wind-
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
FIGURE 5-1 Matrix for organizing review of wind-energy projects
energy project, but also for comparing two or more proposed projects and for undertaking an assessment of cumulative effects of existing and proposed facilities. In addition, following this guide may facilitate rational documentation of the most important areas for research.
The guide first addresses procedural considerations—policy, planning, and public relations—and relevant laws and regulations. It then addresses the main potential effects of wind-energy facilities, organizing them into six categories drawn from Chapters 3 and 4: (1) impacts on the environment, (2) impacts on human health and well-being, (3) aesthetic impacts, (4) cultural impacts, (5) economic and fiscal impacts, and (6) electromagnetic interference. A seventh cross-cutting category concerning cumulative impacts is added. All these potential effects should be considered also in light of the benefits of any proposed project, including environmental benefits. The guide (Box 5-4) is presented as sets of questions to aid evaluation at various jurisdictional levels.
The committee concludes that a country as large and as geographically diverse as the United States, and as wedded to political plurality and private enterprise, is unlikely to plan for wind energy at a national scale in the same way as some other countries are doing. Nevertheless, national-level energy policies (implemented through mechanisms such as incentives, subsidies, research agendas, and federal regulations and guidelines) to enhance the benefits of wind energy while minimizing negative impacts would help in planning and regulating wind-energy development at smaller scales. Uncertainty about what policy tools will be in force hampers proactive planning for wind development. More specific conclusions and recommendations follow.
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
Guide for Evaluating Wind-Energy Projects
Policy, Planning, and Public Relations
Are the relevant energy policies and planning processes clearly defined at all jurisdictional levels, and are they coordinated and aligned among federal, state, and local levels? Are national-level energy policies available and being used? Are well-reasoned planning documents available to make regulatory-review actions predictable and defensible?
Have mechanisms been established to provide necessary information to interested and affected parties, and to seek meaningful input from them as wind-energy projects are planned and implemented? Are developers required to provide early notification of their intent to develop wind energy?
Are procedures—including policies and regulations—in place for evaluating the impacts of wind-energy projects that cross jurisdictional boundaries, especially for those that involve more than one state?
Is guidance available to developers, regulators, and the public about what kinds of information are needed for review, what degrees of adverse and beneficial effects of proposed wind-energy developments should be considered critical in evaluating a proposed project, and how competing costs and benefits of a proposed project should be weighed with regard to that proposal only, or by comparison with likely alternatives? Are there mechanisms in place through which interested parties can obtain the pertinent available information?
Are regional planning documents available that provide guidance on the quality of wind resources, capacity of transmission options, potential markets, major areas of concern, and tradeoffs that should be considered?
Legal and Regulatory Considerations
Are wind-energy guidelines and regulations issued by different federal agencies compatible, are those guidelines and regulations aligned with other federal regulating rules and regulations, and do the guidelines and regulations follow acceptable scientific principles when establishing data requirements?
Does the review process include steps that explicitly address the cumulative impacts of wind-energy projects over space and time; that is, by reviewing each new project in the context of other existing and planned projects in the region?
Evaluation of Impacts
Are the biological, aesthetic, cultural, and socioeconomic attributes of the region sufficiently well known to allow an accurate assessment of the environmental impacts of the wind-energy project, and to distinguish among the potential sites considered during the site-selection process? Are there species, habitats, recreational areas, or cultural sites of special interest or concern that will be affected by the project? How will this descriptive information be collected, who will judge its quality and reliability, and how will the information be shared with stakeholders? Are there key gaps in the needed information that should be addressed with further research before a project is approved or to guide the operation of an approved project?
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
Environmental Impacts
What environmental mitigation measures will be taken and how will their effectiveness be measured? Are there any legal requirements for such measures (e.g., habitat conservation plans)? Are any listed species at risk from the proposed facility?
How and by whom will the environmental impacts be evaluated once the project is in operation? If these evaluations indicate needed changes in the operation of the facility, how will such a decision be made and how will their implementation be assured?
What pre-siting studies for site selection and pre-construction studies for impact assessment and mitigation planning are required?
What post-construction studies, with appropriate controls, are required to evaluate impacts, modify mitigation if needed, and improve future planning?
Impacts on Human Health and Well-Being
Have pre-construction noise surveys been conducted to determine the background noise levels? Will technical assessments of the operational noise levels be conducted? Is there an established process to resolve complaints from the operation of the turbines?
Is there a process in place to address complaints of shadow flicker and does the operator use the best software programs to minimize any flicker?
Aesthetic Impacts
Has the project planning involved professional assessment of potential visual impacts, using established techniques such as those recommended by the U.S. Forest Service or U.S. Bureau of Land Management?
How have the public and the locally affected inhabitants been involved in evaluating the potential aesthetic and visual impacts?
Cultural Impacts
Has there been expert consideration of the possible impacts of the project on recreational opportunities and on historical, sacred, and archeological sites?
Economic and Fiscal Impacts
Have the direct economic impacts of the project been accurately evaluated, including the types and pay scales of the jobs produced during the construction and operational phases, the taxes that will be produced, and costs to the public?
Has there been a careful explication of the indirect economic costs and benefits, including opportunity costs and the distribution of monetary and non-monetary benefits and costs?
Are the guarantees and mitigation measures designed to fit the project and address the interests of the community members and the local jurisdictions?
Electromagnetic Interference
Has the developer assessed the possibility of radio, television, and radar interference?
Cumulative Effects
How will cumulative effects be assessed, and what will be included in that assessment (i.e., the effects only of other wind-energy installations, or of all other electricity generators, or of all other anthropogenic impacts on the area)? Have the spatial and temporal scales of the cumulative-effects assessment been specified?
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
Because wind energy is new to many state and local governments, the quality of decisions to permit wind-energy developments is uneven in many respects.
Guidance on planning for wind energy and on data requirements and on procedures for reviewing wind-energy proposals should be developed. In addition, technical assistance with gathering and interpreting information needed for decision making should be provided. This guidance and technical assistance, conducted at appropriate jurisdictional levels, could be developed by working groups composed of wind-energy developers, non-governmental organizations with diverse views of wind-energy development, and local, state, and federal government agencies.
There is little anticipatory planning for wind-energy projects, and it is not clear whether mechanisms currently exist that could incorporate such planning in regulatory decisions even if such planning occurred.
Regulatory reviews of individual wind-energy projects should be preceded by coordinated, anticipatory planning whenever possible. Such planning for wind-energy development coordinated with regulatory review of wind-energy proposals would benefit developers, regulators, and the public because it would prompt developers to focus proposals on locations and site designs most likely to be successful. This planning could be implemented at scales ranging from state and regional levels to local levels. Anticipatory planning for wind-energy development also would help researchers target their efforts where they will be most informative for future wind-development decisions.
Choosing the level of regulatory authority for reviewing wind-energy proposals carries corresponding implications for how the following issues are addressed:
Cumulative effects of wind-energy development.
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
Balancing negative and positive environmental and socioeconomic impacts of wind energy.
Incorporating public opinions into the review process.
In choosing the levels of regulatory review of wind-energy projects, agencies should review the implication of those choices to all three issues listed above. Decisions about the level of regulatory review should include procedures for ameliorating the disadvantages of a particular choice (e.g., enhancing opportunities for local participation in state-level reviews).
Well-specified, formal procedures for regulatory review enhance predictability, consistency, and accountability for all parties to wind-energy development. However, flexibility and informality also have advantages, such as matching the time and effort expended on review to the complexity and controversy associated with a particular proposal; tailoring decision criteria to the ecological and social contexts of a particular proposal; and fostering creative interactions among developers, regulators, and the public to find solutions to wind-energy dilemmas.
When consideration is given to formalizing review procedures and specifying thresholds for decision criteria, this consideration should include attention to ways of retaining the advantages of more flexible procedures.
Using an evaluation guide to organize regulatory review processes— such as the guide we have provided here—can help achieve comprehensive and consistent regulation, coordinated across jurisdictional levels and across types of effects.
Regulatory agencies should adopt and routinely use an evaluation guide in their reviews of wind-energy projects. The guide should be available to developers and the public.
OCR for page 180
Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects
The environmental benefits of wind energy, mainly reductions in atmospheric pollutants, are enjoyed at wide spatial scales, while the environmental costs, mainly aesthetic impacts and ecological impacts such as increased mortality of birds and bats, occur at much smaller spatial scales. There are similar, if less dramatic, disparities in the scales of occurrence of economic and other societal benefits and costs. The disparities in scale, while not unique to wind energy, complicate the evaluation of tradeoffs.
Representatives of federal, state, and local governments should work with wind-energy developers, non-governmental organizations, and other interest groups and experts to develop guidelines for addressing tradeoffs between benefits and costs of wind-energy generation of electricity that occur at widely different scales, including life-cycle effects.


text:
From: | "Peter A. Takes" <firstname.lastname@example.com> (by way of Marvin Hanna) |
To: | firstname.lastname@example.com |
Reply-To: | |
Content-Type: | text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
I am looking for a veterinary histology lab that does contractual work. Presently the primary samples would be vasculature. Please contact me directly if your lab provides this service and we can discuss to a greater extent. Thanks. Peter -- Peter A. Takes, Ph.D., RAC Director, Clinical & Regulatory Affairs STEREOTAXIS, Inc. Ph. 1-314-615-6964; Pager 1-314-841-9351 email@example.com

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Hobbyking Q-bot is a rebranded Hisky FF120 which is what I am flying. I should have said in the description.
Dodge City, Kansas
Joined Oct 2003
1,091 Posts
Caution; my qbot flew away
Apparently I am the first person in the U.S. to get a Q-Bot and I've made several postings. Overall, it seemed like a great pylon racing quad. I've flown it about 10 times in the backyard. It is a beaufitul Saturday after about a week of snow, so I bound my q-bot and went to the backyard. Everything seemed ok, the light went to solid color and each of the props did their little dance. The nano-second that I touched the throttle, it shot straight up af full speed, just like a rocket. I tried dropping the throttle to no help. At about 200 feet, it started drifting west with the 3 mph wind. I lost sight of it as it flew over my house. BYE BYE QBOT!. I will email Hobby King to see what they might do. I ordered two of them and have not even taken the tape off the box of my second one.! Swilson50 Stan in Dodge City |
Back to serious: It seems to have no fail safe like the good old Xieda 9958.. what a bummer.... -mike- |
Canada, BC, Surrey
Joined Oct 2012
100 Posts
Hope this doesnt happen to all of them.
It does sound similar to flypoppas radio problem with his module & dx6i. Again, the V922 heli can bind to this module badly so there are some strange issues with it. I need to use futaba channel order & when I bind the V922 heli with the green light on, the servos & motor get huge lag. Most of the time the throttle turns into an on/off switch & the motor doesnt always stop spinning when i put the throttle down, it feels like a massive loss in radio resolution with only intermittent signals getting through. Binding in walkera mode (no light) then switching back to futaba after solves the issue for me, the servos & motors on the heli behave normally, once its bound for the first time I can keep it on futaba mode with no problems. I had a lot of trouble binding the FF120 quad back to the module with the green light on after binding it to the v922 tx. I tried walkera mode & it finally bound to the module. So my V2 module defiantly has issues when binding or bound in futaba mode & not in walkera mode |
Well, although I always write my phone number on my fixed wing aircraft (and once got one back that way), I have never bothered to on my micro craft - until now!
I am starting to give mine up as a bad job. I have tried another slot on my DX6i, but still get the same response. I will not fly it out doors as it would do what the Swilson50 one did. Indoors I have weighed it down so it cannot take off.
I have tried reversing the stick positions but there is no difference. I have also found that at times it will not fire up on all 4 motors. One or two do not spin. It is not the same motors every time. I now wonder if I have a duff one. |
Latest blog entry: Quantum Nova with #18 keyfob test...
I just checked my Hisky ff120 by throttling up the motors then turning off the tx with them still running. The motors instantly lost power, turning the tx back on had it working instantly with no reboot or rebind so it should not try to fly home like the 9958 & I presume when it browns out it will fall like a stone & regain control when the signal returns.
I ordered a Q-Bot over a month ago and still waiting like most everyone.
I just did a live chat with HobbyKing, to see if they had any updates or knew when the next batch might get shipped. This was their response" "we dont have a definite time for that" |
Got a friend to get some video of the quad today at the park, its the second time I have taken it out.
I don't really have any experience flying quads in open space as the v202 does not work at the park & I have only flown it indoors. Its pretty windy, the forecast was 8-16mph & it handles the wind well.
Dodge City, Kansas
Joined Oct 2003
1,091 Posts
I found out why my qbot flew away
unfortunately, I have not found my Qbot. Since I ordered two, I opened the box for the second one and decided to do some testing. I initially flew the Qbot with my Spektrum Dx7. In order to bind, I had to put the throttle trim all the way down. (I think the instructions say this also.) I decided that I wanted to use my Spektrum Dx6i, so I made all of the same settings on it...including throttle trim down. When I went to bind the second Qbot with my Dx6i, it went through the binding process including the dancing props, then it went to full throttle!. THIS TIME, I had placed my finger on top of the Qbot....just in case... While I held it down....trying not to remove a finger, I started moving the throttle stick. I found that it went to NO THROTTLE at MID STICK!. I have it set up as an aircraft...not a helicopter with a V throttle for 3-d..... SO.... BE VERY CAUTIOUS WHEN YOU BIND.....I flew my second one in the park behind the house, and it performed great. It's a real pylon racer. I have found that it is very difficult to do a flip and then flip the gear switch back IMMEDIATELY, because any cyclic input after a flip...and you get a second flip...So, I've found if I do a flip and immediately do a reverse flip, I have time to flip the gear switch back..... Swilson50 Stan in Dodge City |
Dodge City, Kansas
Joined Oct 2003
1,091 Posts
Good idea, I will try it
That's a good idea to have a spring loaded switch. I will try it on my Spektrum Dx6i and my Dx7.
Swilson50 Stan in Dodge City Just to change the subject, I just had a fantastic flight with one of my V202's. They're not as fast as the Qbot, but they sure are smooth and predictable. Nithtime flips with the lights are awesome. |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | |||||
Category | Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Product | BNF Spectrum/JR DSM2-DMSS compatible REDCON HiBiRD Mini 120mm Quadcopter | richos | Mini Multirotors | 37 | Oct 25, 2014 05:20 AM |
Sold | $60 Shipped -- FlySky CT-6B Tx and Six 6-Channel Rx's (Compatible with 9X) | Cobra68 | Aircraft - General - Radio Equipment (FS/W) | 2 | Feb 09, 2013 11:00 AM |
Sold | Hobby King 2.4 ghz Spektrum compatible Receiver = $18 shipped | shawn595 | Aircraft - General - Radio Equipment (FS/W) | 3 | Aug 07, 2010 02:35 PM |


text:
Be a part of the community.It's free, join today!
Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
Hey ladies!
have you got any experience on buying from Gotic Lolita on Ebay?
My sister just received her order and she has been yelling all the day.
i mean is it that bad always or was it just her luck. :D


text:
Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.
BBVA vs. ETF Alternatives
Company Description
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA is an international financial group. It offers retail banking, asset management, private banking and wholesale banking.


text:
There are 5 houses of 5 different colours. One person of a different nationality lives in each house. The 5 persons drink a certain beverage, smoke a certain brand of cigarette and have a certain pet. None has the same animal, smokes the same brand or drinks the same beverage.
Hints : 1.The Englishman lives in the red house. 2.The Sweedish person has a dog. 3. The Danish person drinks tea. 4.The green house is to the left of the white house 5. The person in the green house drinks coffee. 6.The person who smokes Players, raises birds. 7.The person in the yellow house smokes Export A. 8.The man living in the house in the middle drinks milk. 9.The Norwegian lives in the first house. 10.The man who smokes Dumaurier lives beside the one who has cats. 11.The man who has horses lives beside the one who smokes Export A. 12.The man who smokes Rothmans drinks beer. 13.The German smokes Cigarello 14.The Norwegian lives next to the blue house. 15.The man who smokes Dumaurier has a neighbour who drinks water.
Question : Who has a fish?
Your answer, please.


text:
As Polls Slip, Democrats Hit Campaign Trail Hard
As Polls Slip, Democrats Hit Campaign Trail Hard
30379 results for 'News'. Showing results 24625 - 24642
As Polls Slip, Democrats Hit Campaign Trail Hard
Ten States File Brief Against Same-Sex Marriage
Shoeshine Boys Find Confidence in Christ
The Good Coup? Honduras One Year Later
Popular French 700 Club Broadcast Across Europe
Texas School Board Adopts Resolution Limiting Islam
Judge Orders Lesbian Reinstated to Air Force
Bishop Long: 'I'll Fight like David Battled Goliath'
Sickle Cell Trait: Testing Before It's Too Late
Bishop Eddie Long to Address Sex Abuse Claims
Lawmakers Spotlight N.Korea Sex Trafficking
Road Deaths Spur Crack Down on Distracted Driving
Author: Palin's Faith Essential to Political Path
Pastors to Challenge IRS on 'Pulpit Freedom Sunday'
Disabled Preacher Searching for a Service Dog
U.S. Basketball Players Bring Goodwill to Israel
Bolivian Students Changed by Outreach Event
Pelosi: Tax Cut Vote Possible Before Elections


text:
Inviting you to the #1 member owned group on CafeMom for Moms with girls ages 9-19: Tween to Teen Girls - http://www.cafemom.com/group/112031
Hi! Welcome to CafeMom! Please join us in The Lounge group. It's a really great place to get started here and meet other moms like you. I hope to see you there! http://www.cafemom.com/group/lounge
Most Liked Posts
Already Joined? LOG IN
© 2015 CMI Marketing, Inc. All rights reserved.


text:
Bouncing off Trees
Joined: May 2006
Location: Meeeechigan
Oddometer: 1,124
CT90 swingarm wobble
Have a 67 CT90 Ive been fixing up riding around town.
One problem I have with it is the swingarm pivot in the chassis is wore out. I can grab the swingarm and wiggle it side to side quite a bit. At first I thought it was the bushings in the swingarm itself and bought new ones. Nope. Not the problem at all. So now I have spare bushings. What it turns out it is is the tube that runs thru the frame that the swingarm bolt runs thru. Its majorly wopped out. There is no bearings or bushings in there. It only has an id of like 3/8" or so. No room for anything else in there. So I was just wondering if anyone else has come across this and how it was fixed. This swingarm pivot tube in the frame sticks out each side of the frame an inch or so (guessing) what I planned on doing is making new bushings on the lathe that are tight(er) on the swingarm bolt. Then grind/cut off both sides of that tube flush with the frame and slide on my new bushings and bolt it all together. Then with it all aligned again Ill tack weld the bushings in place to the frame, disassemble and final weld them on. Should work. Cant be any worse than it is now. Ideas/suggestions? |
Gnarly Adventurer
Joined: Jul 2011
Location: central coast of California
Oddometer: 499
Ive never had that issue with any of my ct's nor have I even had a reason to pull the swing arm on one. You might try posting the same question over here: http://hondatrailcts.yuku.com/
I'd offer you the frame off my untitled parts bike but the title issues and shipping from Ca would be more of a hassle than what you already have on your plate. |
Share |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |


text:
Editors' Note: The "Download Now" link directs you to the iTunes App Store, where you must continue the download process. You must have iTunes installed in order to open the link, and you must have an active iTunes account to download the application. This download may not be available in some countries.
Editors' Review
+YouMail's visual voice mail service adroitly blends voice message management in the cloud with an on-phone in-box for hands-on filing. After authorizing YouMail to handle your voice mails, you'll be able to view those messages in any order from the app's in-box. Contrast this to the traditional method of calling an access number, inputting your PIN, and listening to your messages in chronological order.
After a disappointingly rudimentary initial offering, YouMail has boned up on the navigation and activities that users can do online. It now has push notification for new messages, the ability to delete messages, and a new activities ribbon that lets you play, file, reply to, and forward messages. Also to its credit, YouMail for iPhone retains its flagship ability to personalize greetings to all or individual callers. You can record a new message from the phone and upload it into your master list of greetings. Being able to upload your phone contacts into your personal YouMail database so that YouMail can correctly recognize and identify callers is the time-saving icing on the cake.
The app makes upgrading to the premium voice-to-text transcription feature available from YouMail messages.
YouMail's service continues to works well. We recommend it to those looking for flexibility in how they listen to messages, but especially to business professionals or socialites who receive a steady stream of incoming messages.
Publisher's Description
+Check your YouMail voicemail directly from your iPhone, not just from your computer or e-mail account. YouMail lets you see, play, read, manage, and easily share YouMail voicemail , right from your iPhone. You can even use your iPhone to record, change, and manage your greetings.
What's new in this version:
Version 1.6 includes support for iPod Touch, re-arranged settings, and optimized application startup.


text:
Episode of the Week: 2x11 "Contagion"
View Single Post
May 4 2013, 03:27 PM
Re: Episode of the Week: 2x11 "Contagion"
jimbotron wrote:
Ah, writers' strikes. Responsible for four missing TNG episodes, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and reality shows.
Unions, yaaaaaaay.
The 2007/2008 strike caused the CBS show "Cane" to fizzle and caused Nestor Carbonell to come back to "Lost", where he belonged.
On the downside, it also led to "Pushing Daisies" never quite finding it's audience, and both "Heroes" and "Sarah Connor Chronicles" dropping some storylines altogether.
If "Enterprise" had gone seven seasons, like it should've, the strike would've occurred during the seventh season. I always wondered how they would've dealt with it; coming back with some episodes later, or just ending the season early and coming back with another season, as many other shows did.
You can't really blame reality shows on the strike. They were around long before that. I think they're probably the offspring of "Survivor", which itself was a product of the game show craze that happened in the wake of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?". Much as I loathe them all (Millionaire only because they aired it FOUR NIGHTS A WEEK), we probably wouldn't have had "Lost" without "Survivor".
View Public Profile
Send a private message to t_smitts
Find More Posts by t_smitts


text:
I read a lot about the classical twin paradox recently. What confuses me is that some authors claim that it can be resolved within SRT, others say that you need GRT. Now, what is true (and why)?
To understand this paradox it's best to forget about everything you know (even from SR) because all of that just causes confusion and start with just a few simple concepts. First of them is that the space-time carries a metric that tells you how to measure distance and time. In the case of SR this metric is extremely simple and it's possible to introduce simple $x$, $t$ coordinates (I'll work in 1+1 and $c = 1$) in which space-time interval looks like this $$ ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2$$ Let's see how this works on this simple doodle I put together The vertical direction is time-like and the horizontal is space-like. E.g. the blue line has "length" $ds_1^2 = -20^2 = -400$ in the square units of the picture (note the minus sign that corresponds to time-like direction) and each of the red lines has length zero (they represent the trajectories of light). The length of the green line is $ds_2^2 = -20^2 + 10^2 = -300$. To compute proper times along those trajectories you can use $d\tau^2 = -ds^2$. We can see that the trip will take the green twin shorter proper time than the blue twin. In other words, green twin will be younger. More generally, any kind of curved path you might imagine between top and bottom will take shorter time than the blue path. This is because time-like geodesics (which are just upward pointing straight lines in Minkowski space) between two points maximize the proper time. Essentially this can be seen to arise because any deviation from the straight line will induce unnecessary space-like contributions to the space-time interval. You can see that there was no paradox because we treated the problem as what is really was: computation of proper-time of the general trajectories. Note that this is the only way to approach this kind of problems in GR. In SR that are other approaches because of its homogeneity and flatness and if done carefully, lead to the same results. It's just that people often aren't careful enough and that is what leads to paradoxes. So in my opinion, it's useful to take the lesson from GR here and forget about all those ad-hoc SR calculations. Just to give you a taste what a SR calculation might look like: because of globally nice coordinates, people are tempted to describe also distant phenomena (which doesn't really make sense, physics is always only local). So the blue twin might decide to compute the age of the green twin. This will work nicely because it is in the inertial frame of reference, so it'll arrive at the same result we did. But the green twin will come to strange conclusions. Both straight lines of its trajectory will work just fine and if it weren't for the turn, the blue twin would need to be younger from the green twin's viewpoint too. So the green twin has to conclude that the fact that blue twin was in a strong gravitational field (which is equivalent to the acceleration that makes green twin turn) makes it older. This gives a mathematically correct result (if computed carefully), but of course, physically it's a complete nonsense. You just can't expect that your local acceleration has any effect on a distant observer. The point that has to be taken here (and that GR makes clear only too well) is that you should never try to talk about distant objects. |
The "paradox" in the twin paradox is that a naive view of the problem would suggest that the situation ought to be perfectly symmetric: each twin should believe that he or she is really at rest, while the other twin is the one who moves off at high speed then returns. This is incorrect, though, because one of the two necessarily accelerates, which provides a means of distinguishing between the two frames of reference. You can understand the difference in times entirely from within special relativity, with no need to invoke general relativity. You can easily Google up a dozen different explanations of how it works, but the best I've seen is probably the one in Tatsu Takeuchi's An Illustrated Guide to Relativity. Sadly, being illustrated and not online, it's a bit beyond my ability to reproduce here, but it's worth a look. The problem that needs to be resolved is that both twins should see the other's clock running slow during the trip, but somehow, the moving twin has to end up seeing less time pass than the Earthbound twin. The resolution is, very roughly, that in the moving frame of the twin on the return trip, the departure point is much farther in the past, so the trip has been going on for a longer time. An observer who has always been in that frame (say the captain of the interstellar transport the twin is hitching a ride on) would say that the Earth clock has always been slow, but it's been going for far longer than the twin's internal clock would suggest. The details are somewhat subtle, though, which is why there are dozens of semi-contradictory explanations available via Google. It's important to note, though, that it is not the case that the acceleration causes the difference between the clocks (in which case you might actually need GR to work it out). It's the transitions between frames of reference that leads to the difference, not the acceleration itself, and you can get a twin-paradox-like difference between clocks even when both twins undergo exactly the same acceleration, as shown in this American Journal of Physics paper. |
The problem is the symmetry break caused by the traveling twin when he changes his direction. This break makes the two twins distinguishable from each other. Before the traveling one changes his direction, both think of their partner to be the younger one (because the time in your own system is always the fastest possible time). So IMHO this paradox has not much to do with general relativity - special relativity can of course not describe accelerated movements, but what really matters is that the twin reverses, not how he accelerates and so on. |
Its easy to resolve from the person on earth - he took the doppler effect out of the equation during his observations of the space ship and observed that the clock on the rocket ship was running slow, and confirmed this when the ship arrived back in port, by comparing the two clocks. The observation according to the traveller is somewhat of a mystery. The traveller looks back at earth, removes the doppler effects and apparently views the earth time running slowly. Without taking his eye of the two clocks, at some point the doppler effect removed time on earth must speed up and overtake that of the travellers clock. When does this happen? - isn't this in contradiction to what we are taught is observed? |
The question is: what do you mean by "classical"? To me the Classical Twin Paradox is what Einstein called the Clock Paradox, i.e. the version without any accelerations. And this paradox has never been resolved. If there are no accelerations involved in the situation, than the whole paradox results only from the simple equation for time dilatation: $$ \Delta t' = \frac {\Delta t} {\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} $$ As we can see, there is just constant $v$ there, and yet one of the clocks must be time-dilated. If someone says that space-travel requires acceleration of a spaceship, they are absolutely right. The thing is that any time-dilatation due to acceleration is only on top of dilatation due to constant $v$. We can imagine simply that both twins go on a space trip in different spaceships and travel in opposite directions. In such case we can easily assume that they both undergo exactly the same accelerations which effectively "cancel" each other out. And yet we still have the paradox resulting from time dilatation between inertial frames. The above equation still holds. Therefore, we need to answer the question: Which of the twins is younger and why? As you can see, introducing accelerations only masks the real paradox, and not solves it. And perhaps that's why nobody solves the paradox with real numbers. Because if you make actual calculations, you will immediately see that you need to add time-dilatation due to acceleration to time-dilatation due to constant $v$. Which leaves the other one still unresolved. In order to illustrate the classical paradox best, we can formulate it in two ways: 1) If one of the twins actually becomes older due to difference in constant $v$, than the axiom of Special Relativity that there are no preferred (inertial) reference frames is falsified. Because this means the reference frame with slower clock is moving with respect to the other in absolute terms. Therefore movement is absolute. Someone can reply to this that I don't understand SR which allows us to revert the whole situation, i.e. switch the moving and the stationary frames. Sure, but then we have paradox 2): 2) If we claim that clock A is slower than clock B, and also that clock B is slower than clock A, than Special Relativity cannot be proved to be true. For in such case both clocks are late with respect to each other, which boils down to no real time-dilatation at all. If there is a difference measured, however, then we are back to paradox 1), i.e. one of the frames is clearly preferred, and therefore we proved absolute movement exists. To sum up. There is no solution to the classical (strictly inertial) Twin Paradox. And also, any accelerations do not solve the paradox either - they only mask it. EDIT: Professor Chad Orzel in his answer gave this paper as a source claiming that dilatation in SR (without accelerations) can be proved. That's simply astonishing, as anybody can see that this paper is based on a trick whereby the parents of the traveling twins stay on Earth and see there is some distance between them equal $γx_0$. However: 1) length calculations in SR are made from the two reference frames, and not from a 3rd one, 2) if twins travel in opposite directions (as in my thought experiment above) you can always claim the other twin is younger, and - most importantly - 3) this paper shows dilatation based on velocity $v$, and yet there is no velocity difference between the twins - they travel in two rockets in the same direction, having been accelerated in exactly the same way. The velocity $v$ is measured from their parents frame, i.e. Earth, and the author even admits that saying that effective velocity between the twins is null. Now how come a paper claiming SR time dilatation between reference frames stationary wrt. each other (and not accelerated) has been accepted for publication?!?! And how come it has been presented here as source by a professor?! (And if vonjd didn't find this free paper, we might think that some smart guy proved the unprovable. And if I paid for it, I would be simply coned.) NOTiCE: Any comments concerning this line of reasoning are more than welcome. |
protected by Qmechanic♦ Apr 20 '13 at 16:21
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
[ Arts Index | SF Metropolitan | MetroActive Central | Archives ]
Grand Showcase
Grand, North Beach's best-kept secret, is a showcase for owners Keri White and Pedro Olmo's designs, as well as other local designers
By Jenny Shears
San Francisco's North Beach may be renowned for many things, like its Beat history, Italian cuisine, literary cafes, bookstores and bars, but not many people know about its clothing boutiques. Hidden on one of North Beach's less-traveled streets is Grand, a clothing store befitting its name and well worth a visit despite the area's obstacle course of tourists and beckoning maître-d's.
Grand opened three years ago, financed by a group of five friends and then business partners. Last year, husband-and-wife design team Keri White and Pedro Olmo bought the other three out and became sole proprietors. From the beginning, Grand has promoted and sold designs by local talent, including its own line of clothing.
"We had a hard time getting our stuff into stores and really wanted to have an outlet for our gear," British-born White says. "That's why Grand has and always will be a showcase for ourselves and other local designers."
The store's KPP line (Keri & Pedro Productions) hangs in the spare, open space with other locals such as Penelope Starr, Wyt, Sunhee Moon, Carol Tsang T-shirts, Naomi accessories and Ubiquity CDs.
Despite the general preference for name clothing from established fashion centers such as New York or Los Angeles, and because of the high quality in both cut and execution of Grand's suppliers, the regional scope has becomes a draw rather than deterrent.
"When we started the shop three years ago, most of the companies were, like ourselves, really new. They've matured with us and are all doing better and better," White explains.
White and Olmo's involvement in the local scene is not just relegated to cutting and sewing, though. The pair also teamed up with neighboring store Fife to host local music/fashion events. Their most regular happening is "Retail," when the two keep their doors open until midnight on Friday and Saturday nights. "We get a totally different crowd at night, so it's our advantage to be open," White says. With or without DJs, the evening events follow the spirit of North Beach's lively weekend nights.
Check out Grand's fall line.
[ San Francisco | MetroActive Central | Archives ]
Copyright © Metro Publishing Inc. Maintained by Boulevards New Media.
Design Duo: The husband-and-wife design team Keri White and Pedro Olmo of Grand keep the store's doors open until midnight on Friday and Saturday nights with neighbor Fife to host local music/fashion events.
Grand, 1535 Grant Ave.; 415/951-0131.
From the October 5-18, 1998 issue of the Metropolitan.
Foreclosures - Real Estate Investing
San Jose.com Real Estate


text:
Black Fist 1974 aka Bogard Action Martial Arts
Direct download link (.avi file). Can't watch this? Download the DivX Plus Web Player for Windows or for Mac! Not working? Troubleshoot!
Added October 6, 2010Video Info
By: | boriloco |
Category: | Films and Movies |
Length: | 94:10 |
Resolution: | 320 x 240 |
Filesize: | 505 MB |
Language: | English |
Viewed: | 294 times |
To make money, a Los Angeles street-fighter goes to work for gangsters.
If this video has any content that goes against our terms and condition, for example, has explicit adult content, please enter the reason and we will review it shortly.
Please note that if you would like a video removed on copyright grounds, you must provide proof that you are a representative of the copyright holder. In this case, it may be easier to contact us directly.
boriloco has disabled commenting on Black Fist 1974 aka Bogard Action Martial Arts.


text:
Street Address:
16 East 29th Street
Anderson, IN 46016-5201
Mailing Address:
16 E 29th St
Anderson, IN 46016-5201
Next Door to Lee's Famous Recipe Fried Chicken
Phone: (765) 640-8888
Residential: (765) 374-3945
Toll Free: (877) 484-2754
Fax: (765) 644-2527
Office Hours:
Mon-Fri 9:00am to 5:00pm
Saturday 9:00am to 12:00pm
Other Hours by Appointment
My background and achievements
- Anderson College, B.A. 1986
- State Farm Agent since 1993
- Second Generation State Farm Agent
- Member of Local Church
- South Madison Community School Board Member
- Member of National Federation of Independent Business
Meet the team
- Heather Gaskill-Prophet - Multiple Line Representative
- Eric Prophet
- Marjorie McCord - Office Representative
- Joshua Gaskill - Multiple Line Representative
Our mission is to help people manage the risks of everyday life, recover from the unexpected and realize their dreams.
Driving Directions
Email Me
Do you have a policy or an account with State Farm?
Please contact this agent for a quote.


text:
You're seeing this message because you're using an older version of Internet Explorer that is unsupported on our website. Please use these links to upgrade to a modern web browser that fully supports our website and protects your computer from security risks.
FSU's Delta Zeta Sorority Recognized with 15 Awards at Regional Conference
FSU's Delta Zeta chapter took home awards in the areas of "Membership," "Academic" and "Special" awards. The group won three membership awards for reaching the total number it needed for recruitment, for reaching a goal of 100 percent participation in outside campus organizations and for having 100 percent initiation of new members in fall 2006. Delta Zeta was also recognized with academic awards for the following: having new member grade point averages of 3.0 and over; having the highest new member averages for fall 2006; having chapter averages of 3.0 and over; having the highest chapter average for both spring and fall 2006; and excellence in academics.
The group also received special awards for excellence in philanthropy (the FSU chapter raised $350 per member in fund-raising efforts, and each member has contributed 35 hours for philanthropy events), excellence in "I Have a Choice" programming, "Pan-Hellenic Excellence" and excellence in alumnae relations. Additionally, Jamie Winters, the on-campus adviser and college chapter director for Delta Zeta at FSU, won "Outstanding College Chapter Director."
Finally, in a moment of absolute triumph, the Delta Zetas of FSU also won the most prestigious award, "Pride of the Region," as the most outstanding chapter in the region in its exemplification of high standards for Delta Zeta National Sorority.
For further information on this release, contact:
Office of News and Media Services
Frostburg State University
101 Braddock Road
Frostburg, MD 21532-2303
Telephone: 301-687-3171
Fax: 301-687-7589
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
Frostburg State University
Frostburg State University, 101 Braddock Road, Frostburg, MD 21532-2303.
Emergency Info
Feedback | Privacy | Copyright
Media & Publications | Student Consumer Info.
Copyright © 2015


text:
ProMotion Supplement for Cats and Small Dogs (Canada)
This page contains information on ProMotion Supplement for Cats and Small Dogs for veterinary use.The information provided typically includes the following:
- ProMotion Supplement for Cats and Small Dogs Indications
- Warnings and cautions for ProMotion Supplement for Cats and Small Dogs
- Direction and dosage information for ProMotion Supplement for Cats and Small Dogs
ProMotion Supplement for Cats and Small Dogs
This treatment applies to the following species:
Guaranteed Analysis |
Each Capsule Contains: |
Crude Protein (min.) |
17.55% |
Crude Fat (min.) |
1.51% |
Crude Fibre (max.) |
8.71% |
Moisture (max.) |
1.91% |
Manganese (min.) |
6 mg |
Zinc (min.) |
2 mg |
Ascorbic Acid (min.) |
15 mg |
Cysteine (min.) |
15 mg |
Bioflavanol (min.) |
10 mg |
Hydrolyzed Collagen (min.) |
240 mg |
Chitosan (min.) |
420 mg |
Chitosan, gelatin by-products (source of hydrolyzed collagen), pork liver meal, pork flavouring, ascorbic acid (source of vitamin C), cysteine, grape seed meal (source of bioflavanol), manganese amino acid chelate and zinc amino acid chelate.
Recommended Usage
Maintenance Usage:
.5 - 5.5 kg |
1 tablet per day |
5.5 - 11.25 kg |
2 tablets per day |
Initial Usage: Double the maintenance dosage for the first five (5) days
Tablets may be crumbled and mixed with pet's food to help with administration of supplement. As this product is a nutritional supplement significant response may not be noticeable for up to 3-4 weeks. Response depends on each animal.
Use for intermittent or supplemental feeding only.
Keep container in dry place. Keep out of reach of children.
Do not use if safety seal is broken.
60 tablet bottles.
Manufactured in U.S.A. by: Animal Health Options, Golden, Colorado
Distributed in Canada by: Champion Animal Health, 828 Centre Street North, Whitby, Ontario L1N 4V1
NAC No.: 12380300
Telephone: | 905-430-9791 | |
Customer Service: | 800-456-5758 | |
Fax: | 905-430-9792 | |
Website: | www.championalstoe.com | |
Email: | email@example.com |
Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the ProMotion Supplement for Cats and Small Dogs information published above. However, it remains the responsibility of the readers to familiarize themselves with the product information contained on the Canadian product label or package insert. |
Copyright © 2015 North American Compendiums. Updated: 2014-12-03


text:
AM Alert: Obama's popularity dives to record low in California
President Barack Obama's approval ratings have fallen to a record low in California, with nearly as many voters now disapproving of the job Obama is doing as approving.
Only 45 percent of California voters hold a favorable view of Obama's job performance, according to a new Field Poll released today, down five percentage points from June and dropping below 50 percent for the first time since late 2011. Disapproval climbed to 43 percent.
The latest decline is driven by dissastisfaction from Obama's own base; support among California Democrats dropped eight percentage points to 68 percent over the last three months.
That could spell trouble for Democrats in downticket races this November. If Obama's sinking popularity in California suppresses Democratic turnout and drives Republicans to the polls, it could help the national GOP's efforts to win several hotly contested congressional seats in the state and hamper the California Democratic Party's goal of maintaining its two-thirds supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature.
Alexei Koseff has more on the political implications of Obama's approval ratings in today's newspaper. Here are the statistical tabulations prepared exclusively for Capitol Alert, and the publicly released results of the poll.
VIDEO: Low projected turnout for the November election is an opportunity for California Republicans to pick up congressional and legislative seats, Dan Walters says.
ON THE HORIZON: I hope you all recovered from your legislative hangovers during the long holiday weekend, because the arrival of September means election season is upon us. In just two months, we'll know whether Gov. Jerry Brown wins an historic fourth term, whether Republicans will once again be shut out from statewide office, and whether legislative Democrats can hang on to their supermajorities. The Bee's Capitol Bureau will be bringing you coverage of all the major statewide races, as well local Senate, Assembly and congressional campaigns. Our Capitol Alert Insider Edition app, available for download in iTunes and Google Play stores for mobile and tablet devices, also has a new campaign finance tool with daily updates on contribution filings and independent expenditures.
Join the Discussion
Merced Sun-Star is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.


text:
Web Community Resources
Once your slider asset has been created, you'll want to keep it updated regularly by adding new slides. The accompanying video shows how to change the images in your slider.
How do I add an image slider?
What size should my slider images be?
How do I upload an image?
How do I optimize an image for the web?