Preserve and protect our Seashore
Although there were many reasons to believe the Wellfleet wind turbine project was a terribly ill-conceived idea, it is gratifying to know that, at the end of the day, the town of Wellfleet — the developer of the project — just couldn't bring itself to sacrifice the incomparable natural beauty of the landscape or the pristine upland pine woods in the heart of the National Seashore.
The voters of Wellfleet, and the board of selectmen by unanimous vote, ultimately rejected a project from which they stood to profit, in order "to preserve the character of the Seashore." We applaud their decision.
We hope the management of the National Seashore will take heart from Wellfleet's example and reassess the paramount importance of its primary mission — to preserve the park in its natural, unimpaired condition for all future generations — relative to the other competing interests to which Superintendent George Price has repeatedly and steadfastly insisted that it must be "sensitive," including the interests of the abutting towns and the perceived interests of other organs of the federal government.
All national parks have a very clear mandate from Congress that intentionally includes categorical prohibitions against any encroachment on their core conservation mission: "no commercial or industrial use is permitted within the park." This mandate is fortified by hundreds of pages of detailed director's orders and almost 100 years of tradition.
In addition, with respect to land-based industrial wind turbines, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, responding to an order from the secretary of the Interior and in cooperation with a federal advisory committee especially appointed for that purpose, has spent over two years developing detailed policy prescriptions for "responsible development" of land-based industrial wind energy resources. It is abundantly clear from reading these guidelines that the fundamental concept underlying the recommendations of the wind turbine advisory committee is the urgency of avoiding inappropriate sites for wind energy development — such as fragile habitats, conservation areas and, by extension, national parks.
We hope Price can now finally appreciate that in his mission to safeguard the integrity of the National Seashore and to reject any form of intrusion compromising the core conservation mission of the park, he has the full backing of Congress; the Department of the Interior; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Wind Turbine Guidelines Federal Advisory Committee — whose members are drawn from the ranks of both prominent wind energy developers as well as every leading conservation group in the country; the board of selectmen and voters of Wellfleet; and, doubtless, the majority of both the local residents and the citizens of the United States.
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100407/OPINION/4070344
In other words, in considering any projects — including wind turbines — that are incompatible with the fulfillment of the park's mission and threaten the fundamental integrity of the park, the only sense of "balance" that must be applied is to reject them out of hand. The superintendent has Congress, the law, 100 years of tradition, the entire apparatus of the Department of the Interior and popular sentiment on his side. What authority does he lack?
As they consider any other current or future proposals to introduce industrial wind turbines within the National Seashore, we urge the superintendent and the advisory commission to use these tools, without apology, for the continued preservation of the park, and on behalf of all of the park users who place their faith in them and rely upon them to do their duty for the sake of "all future generations."
Eric Bibler of Weston, Conn., a longtime regular visitor to Wellfleet, is president of Save Our Seashore.
Cape Wind Environmental Assessment (EA)
Help out our friends at Save Our Sound!
Cape Wind Environmental Assessment (EA)
Comment Deadline: Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Dear Stakeholders,
Wednesday, April 7th is the deadline to submit public comments on the EA. The Environmental Assessment (EA) and its conclusion that a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required are flawed. Furthermore, Secretary Salazar should deny or relocate the proposed project to another site such as South of Tuckernuck Island, which has already been reviewed in detail by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) as an alternative to Cape Wind’s preferred site at Horseshoe Shoal in the middle of Nantucket Sound.
Comments can be submitted by clicking here.
Or you may email your comments and contact information to bpennick@saveoursound.org and we will forward them for you!
To read the Environmental Assessment in its entirety by clicking here.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. We will be following up with you by phone.
Thank you for your continued support!
Buffy
Buffy Pennick
Development Associate
Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound
4 Barnstable Road
Hyannis, MA 02601
508.775.9767
508.775.9725 (fax)
Key Talking Points (below and also attached):
Process issues
· The Environmental Assessment (EA) was rushed in order to facilitate an arbitrary deadline for political expediency that has nothing to do with complying with the law.
· The resulting document is of poor quality and provides an insufficient level of information.
· The EA is a biased document intended to produce a particular result – a Finding of No Significant Impact and ultimate approval of the project- rather than a thorough and complete evaluation of the impacts.
· 30 days is insufficient time to review this document particularly in light of the fact that there was no advance coordination with cooperating agencies, stakeholder organizations or the public.
Alternatives
· The range of alternatives in the EA is too narrow especially given new offshore wind projects that have been proposed in other states.
· The EA inappropriately dismisses the South of Tuckernuck Island (STI) alternative which has the support of the very same stakeholders that oppose the Horseshoe Shoal location and of local towns that can offer municipal financing that would more than offset any incremental costs of relocating to STI.
· The EA states that the Block Island alternative does not meet MMS’ screening criteria despite the fact that this location has already been supported by the state of Rhode Island as a feasible wind energy site by another developer.
Unresolved issues
· There are still many issues which remain unresolved, and it is premature for the Department of Interior (DOI) to make a decision without this key information.
· The cost of Cape Wind to ratepayers and taxpayers is unknown.
· The FAA still has not made its final hazard determination with respect to aviation safety.
· Despite acknowledgment of radar interference to marine navigation, the Coast Guard has yet to specify mitigation for these impacts
· The effect of developing the project on the New England transmission system and whether it is currently adequate to handle this project is ignored. The EA does not address these transmission requirements nor their costs and impacts.
· This missing information requires a supplemental EIS. Furthermore, Secretary Salazar should not make a final decision on Cape Wind until this basic information is known.
Project impacts
· The EA underestimates the many negative impacts of the project at Horseshoe Shoals to the environment, the local economy, public safety, tribal rights and historic preservation.
· Nantucket Sound has recently been ruled eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. It is sacred tribal land, and is surrounded by two National Historic Landmarks and hundreds of historic properties on its shores. MMS itself has acknowledged that the proposed project would pose adverse impacts to these resources. The Sound is a unique maritime and tribal resource that is worthy of protection and that should be off limits to development.
· The EA states that at the time of publication of the Final EIS, the FAA had not yet issued its final hazard determination and therefore there were no conclusive statements in the FEIS concerning adverse impacts to aviation safety. In fact, however, the FEIS entirely misrepresented the aviation safety issue. While FAA had acknowledged radar interference as an issue for safety to MMS, the FEIS stated that the impacts to aviation safety were negligible to minor.
Ocean zoning
· The Cape Wind decision should be put on hold until President Obama’s national ocean zoning plan is complete. This project is a perfect example of why ocean zoning is necessary. If it were in effect, this project would never have been proposed in this location.
· If Secretary Salazar is to honor commitments for national ocean zoning policy, he needs to defer further action on Cape Wind unless there is a consensus alternative.
Does the Wellfleet, MA Wind Turbines Risk the SECURITY of America?
Wind Turbines interfere with nearby radars...this is documented in many places. Various organizations have been attempting to mitigate the problems, but there are still problems. When Wellfleet applied to the FAA for a permit to erect Wind Turbines...it was granted but with the following statement:
Wellfleet's wind turbines would be located approximately 7.8 Miles from the North Truro Long Range Radar which is used by the FAA and shared with the military. By the above statement it appears we are sacrificing our safety to build Wind Turbines. Our civil government the FAA is DIRECTLY IGNORING AN AIR FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS with regards to the security of our country. This has to be investigated! Please ask your representative and news organization to investigate why FAA is ignore the country's safety!
This is the full FAA permit:
Letter to Superintendent Cape Cod National Seashore and Our Connection to the Natural World
Haven't you wondered how it is possible that some are so viscerally opposed to this project while others see no particular problem with erecting a 400 foot wind turbine within park boundaries? For us, it goes back to the ongoing debate presenterd in the Ken Burns' series on the National Parks - between those who say, "It's beautiful; leave it alone" and those who want to use the land, just a little - dam just this river, cut down just a few trees here, put up this one wind turbine there, using "just 2 or 3 percent of the area", to use Wellfleet Energy Commission Geof Karlson's rationale .
We noticed that the book, Last Child in the Woods, by Richard Louv is available at the Visitors Center bookstore; we hope you've read it. As you probably know, the book addresses the issue of the many children being brought up in our culture, with no connection to the natural world and the deleterious consequences that ensue from such an upbringing. We agree with the book's main thesis, and feel that what's happening to our children and grandchildren is only possible because their caregivers have already lost their connection to the natural world. In short, there is a significant component of human consciousness that has atrophied in many children and adults, making it possible to view the natural world solely in utilitarian terms.
We hope that you will not regard the above as an exercise in pop psych and sociology, for we offer it in all seriousness.
One issue that got away from us yesterday (like so many people, we think of our best lines later): you noted how unacceptable the use of South Wellfeleet by the Sea would be for acres and acres of photovoltaics; we certainly agree that such a use would be absurd. As you know, we also insist that use of that area for a 400 foot wind turbine is equally absurd. But there is a place in Wellfleet with acres and acres of space for photvoltaics; it's known as the rooftops of Wellfleet. We realize your direct concern is not with the financial decisions of Wellfleet, but couldn't a little more creativity be exercised on the part of Wellfleet, when it comes to spending 5.5 to 8 million dollars? Why is a four hundred foot wind turbine within the Seashore the only answer to our multiple environmental crises?
You mentioned the directives from President Obama, and Secretary Salazar as justification for what you regard as the NPS' complementary mission of enabling green energy projects within park boundaries. We voted for President Obama and probably will again, but we do not feel that we owe him absolute and uncritical allegiance. Politicians and their plans come and go. As much as anything in this country the National Parks (America's best idea) are "eternal" (loosely speaking) and ought not to be desecrated by the fall-out of unexamined political rhetoric and fast changing technologies.
Isn't it possible that even Barack Obama and Ken Salazar would profit from re-viewing Ken Burns series on the National Parks and reading Last Child in the Woods?
Who speaks up for the wild beauty of the Cape Cod National Seashore, if not the NPS itself?
We'll see you again. Thanks for listening.
Jim and Pat Rogers
Serious Savings Idea for Wellfleet
Currently Wellfleet is planning to clear an area in a Cape Cod National Seashore to save electricity and lower Energy usage with Wind Turbines at a minimum cost of $6 million and destruction in a National Park.
Here is a plan to save more money with no destruction of the Park for 5 % of the cost. THAT IS FIVE PERCENT OF THE COST!
The light bulb over our heads is the idea!
GE’s website Shows the savings from using CFL light blubs http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/products/pop_lighting_calc.htm
If you bought 20,000 CFL 100 watt lights bulbs at a cost of $15 each for the towns people and town buildings at a cost of $300,000.(this is $5,700,000 less than a turbine) you would get a yearly savings of $200,000(same as turbine) based on $.10 per kWh and 4 hours use per day. That is an absolute drop in the use of electricity(really good for the environment). These don't only work when the wind blows...they save electricity EVERY NIGHT 365 days of the year.
This is just one example of what money could buy in efficiency! Imagine having another $5,700,000 for other good ideas…talk about bang for the buck! Also no birds killed, not envirnoment ruined, no National Park disgraced, no people harmed with noise, no financial risk, no people in danger from falling industrial parts, no costly repairs, no ruining the legacy of Cape Cod National Seashore, no lawsuits!
Is the Wellfleet Energy Commission buying a turbine for the environment or just as a show piece?
Letter from Paul Sieloff to Dr Pierpont
The following is in response to letter below
March 12, 2010
Paul Sieloff, Town Administrator
300 Main
Wellfleet, MA 02667
Dear Mr. Sieloff,
I am told that the Town of Wellfleet is proposing to build an industrial-scale wind turbine as close as 2 km to people’s homes.
Permit me to speak plainly. This is a reckless and violent act. The evidence for turbines producing substantial low frequency noise and, worse, infrasound, is no longer in dispute. Second, the clinical evidence is unambiguous that low frequency noise and infrasound profoundly disturb the body’s organs of balance, motion, and position sense. Third, the case studies performed by me and other medical doctors have demonstrated unequivocally that people living within 2 km of turbines are made seriously ill, often to the point of abandoning their homes. Fourth, there is no doubt among otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists who have studied the evidence that wind turbine low frequency noise and infrasound are seriously disrupting the body’s vestibular organs, resulting in the constellation of illness I have called Wind Turbine Syndrome.
The cure for Wind Turbine Syndrome is simple: Move away from the turbines or shut them off. The prevention of Wind Turbine Syndrome is even simpler: Don’t build these low frequency/infrasound-generating machines within 2 km of people’s homes. Governments and corporations who violate this principle are guilty of gross clinical harm. Such governments and corporations should be taken before whatever level of court is necessary to stop this outrage.
These are strong words. They are carefully chosen. They are strong because governments and the wind industry stubbornly—I would now add, criminally—refuse to acknowledge that they are deliberately and aggressively harming people. This must stop. The evidence is overwhelming.
I repeat, this must stop.
Sincerely,
Nina Pierpont, MD (Johns Hopkins), PhD (Population Biology, Princeton)
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Former Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics,
College of Physicians & Surgeons,
Columbia University
Wind Turbines and National Parks – Cape Cod National Seashore
Amazing that the management of Cape Cod National Seashore is considering allowing industrial wind turbines in one of the quietest areas of CCNS when the National Park Service keep highlighting the importance of sounds.
Did you know that the NPS devoted an entire issue of its journal, Park Science, to the subject of managing the Soundscape in December 2009?!!!!!!!!
Also, did you know that an Act of Congress was passed mandating that the parks manage this resource?
Check out these links:
http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/
Why Protect Sound Resources?
Our ability to see is a powerful tool for experiencing our world, but sound adds a richness that sight alone cannot provide. In many cases, hearing is the only option for experiencing certain aspects of our environment. The symphony of natural sounds within our national parks is an important natural resource and a critical component of the ecological communities that parks seek to preserve. Understanding the role of sound and acoustics in a healthy ecosystem is critical to their effective management and protection.
The National Park Service Organic Act mandates the preservation and/or restoration of natural resources within parks, including the acoustical environment. Noise can impact the acoustical environment much like smog impacts the visual environment.
Acoustical Environment vs. Soundscape
The National Park Service works to protect and enhance park resources and visitor experiences, and as a result, the Natural Sounds Program differentiates between the physical sound sources and human perceptions of those sounds. The combination of physical sound resources, or acoustic resources, at a particular location comprise what is known as the acoustical environment. Acoustic resources include both natural sounds (wind, water, wildlife, vegetation) and cultural and historic sounds (battle reenactments, tribal ceremonies, quiet reverence). The human perception of the acoustical environment is referred to as the soundscape. Making this distinction between these terms will allow managers to create objectives for safeguarding both the acoustical environment and the visitor experience.
Powerful Videos from Ken Burns Series on National Parks
Here are some clips from Ken Burn documentary on National Parks
What National Parks Mean to Families
Where do we come from?
The National Parks America's Best Idea!
Saving Pristine Places
If you know of other interesting clips let me know and I will post them!
Go to PBS to view other videos or you can rent or buy the full series to appreciate the many people who gave us our wonderful park systeml.
We need to STOP those who wish to destroy our National Parks! Mr Price, Mr Karlson and the WEC try to reason away and justify no less than the destruction of a National Park! They wish to clear land in a National Park for an unnecessary industrial function for vanity and greed. We need to stop them!
New England Wind Turbines, March 2010
Cape Cod Today 03/13/10 · 1:31 pm :: posted by Dave Kent
A few days ago a friend of mine, Chris Polloni, told me that he's been developing a list of New England wind turbines. We thought that posting the list on this blog would be a good way to make this information available and to get people to contact us with updates. You'll find the list, which is a work in progress, below.
If you know of any turbines that we've missed, if you can provide additional information on particular turbines, or if you have any suggestions for how to improve the list please contact Chris at cpolloni@aol.com or post it here. We're especially interested in including school-based and private turbines.
c
Enjoy!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New England Wind Turbines, March 2010 (as of 3/31/2010)
- Number of turbines: 124
- Total Capacity (KW/MW): 150,835/150.8
| Output (KW) | Hgt | Manufacturer/ | Date | Const. | |||
| Turbine | # | Turbine | Site | (ft) | Model | Install | Cost |
| Lempster, NH | 12 | 2,000 | 24,000 | Gameser G87 | 2008 | ||
| Hull 2 | 1 | 1,800 | 1,800 | VESTAS V180 | 2006 | 3,000,000 | |
| Falmouth Waste Water | 1 | 1,650 | 1,650 | 396 | VESTAS | 2009 | |
| Vinalhaven, Maine | 3 | 1,500 | 4,500 | VESTAS V90 | 2009 | ||
| Princeton MLP | 2 | 1,500 | 3,000 | 215 | Fuhrlaender | 2009 | 7,300,000 |
| Mass Military (AFCEE) | 1 | 1,500 | 1,500 | 400 | 2009 | ||
| Jiminy Peak - Hancock | 1 | 1,500 | 1,500 | 253 | Zephyr | 2007 | 4,000,000 |
| Mars Hill, Maine | 28 | 1,500 | 42,000 | 389 | GE | 2006 | 85,000,000 |
| Stetson, Maine | 38 | 1,500 | 57,000 | GE | 2009 | ||
| Portsmouth RI | 1 | 1,500 | 1,500 | 213 | AAER | 2009 | 2,918,000 |
| MMA | 1 | 655 | 655 | 242 | VESTAS V47 | 2006 | 1,300,000 |
| Hull 1 | 1 | 655 | 655 | VESTAS V47 | 2001 | ||
| Portsmouth Abbey RI | 1 | 655 | 655 | 164 | VESTAS V47 | 2006 | |
| Holy Name - Worcester | 1 | 550 | 550 | 262 | VESTAS | 2008 | 1,500,000 |
| William Stone - Otis | 1 | 550 | 550 | 252 | VESTAS | 2009 | 1,700,000 |
| MWRA- Deer Island | 2 | 550 | 1,200 | 190 | 2009 | 4,000,000 | |
| Mark Richey - Newburyport | 1 | 550 | 550 | Elecon | 2009 | ||
| Forbes Park - Chelsea | 1 | 550 | 550 | 259 | Enertech E48 | 2008 | |
| Searsburg VT | 11 | 500 | 5,500 | 198 | 1997 | ||
| Bartletts Farm Nantucket | 1 | 250 | 250 | 100 | Wind Energy Solutions | 2009 | 1,000,000 |
| WHRC | 1 | 100 | 100 | 121 | Northwind 100 | 2009 | |
| Nature's C'room - Charlton | 1 | 100 | 100 | 2009 | |||
| IBEW rt 3 Dorchester | 1 | 100 | 100 | Fuhrlander 100 | 2005 | ||
| Hyannis Country Gardens | 1 | 100 | 100 | 121 | Northwind 100 | 2008 | |
| City of Medford | 1 | 100 | 100 | 131 | Northwind 100 | 2009 | |
| Bolton Valley Ski - VT | 1 | 100 | 100 | Northwind 100 | 2009 | ||
| Heritage Aviation VT | 1 | 100 | 100 | Northwind 100 | 2009 | ||
| Mtn View Grand Resort, NH | 1 | 100 | 100 | Northwind 100 | 2009 | ||
| NE Tech Center, RI | 1 | 100 | 100 | Northwind 100 | 2009 | ||
| Phoenix Press , CT | 1 | 100 | 100 | Northwind 100 | 2009 | ||
| Peck's Boatyard | 1 | 15 | 15 | 100 | Scotland | 2009 | |
| Rawley/Zweig Fay Road | 1 | 10 | 10 | 132 | Aircon 10 | 2008 | |
| Peter Soule, Brewster | 1 | 10 | 10 | Aircon 10 | |||
| Falmouth Academy | 1 | 10 | 10 | 70,000 | |||
| Coonamessett Farm | 1 | 10 | 10 | Aircon 10 |
Letter to Mr Sieloff from Wind Turbine Expert Dr. Nina Pierpont
March 12, 2010
Paul Sieloff, Town Administrator
300 Main
Wellfleet, MA 02667
Dear Mr. Sieloff,
I am told that the Town of Wellfleet is proposing to build an industrial-scale wind turbine as close as 2 km to people’s homes.
Permit me to speak plainly. This is a reckless and violent act. The evidence for turbines producing substantial low frequency noise and, worse, infrasound, is no longer in dispute. Second, the clinical evidence is unambiguous that low frequency noise and infrasound profoundly disturb the body’s organs of balance, motion, and position sense. Third, the case studies performed by me and other medical doctors have demonstrated unequivocally that people living within 2 km of turbines are made seriously ill, often to the point of abandoning their homes. Fourth, there is no doubt among otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists who have studied the evidence that wind turbine low frequency noise and infrasound are seriously disrupting the body’s vestibular organs, resulting in the constellation of illness I have called Wind Turbine Syndrome.
The cure for Wind Turbine Syndrome is simple: Move away from the turbines or shut them off. The prevention of Wind Turbine Syndrome is even simpler: Don’t build these low frequency/infrasound-generating machines within 2 km of people’s homes. Governments and corporations who violate this principle are guilty of gross clinical harm. Such governments and corporations should be taken before whatever level of court is necessary to stop this outrage.
These are strong words. They are carefully chosen. They are strong because governments and the wind industry stubbornly—I would now add, criminally—refuse to acknowledge that they are deliberately and aggressively harming people. This must stop. The evidence is overwhelming.
I repeat, this must stop.
Sincerely,
Nina Pierpont, MD (Johns Hopkins), PhD (Population Biology, Princeton)
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Former Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics,
College of Physicians & Surgeons,
Columbia University
Wind turbines: ‘Eco-friendly’ – but not to eagles
Telegraph By Christopher Booker Published: 6:51PM GMT 13 Mar 2010
In all my scores of items over the years on why the obsession with wind turbines will be seen as one of the major follies of our age, there is one issue I haven’t touched on. The main practical objection to turbines, of course, is that they are useless, producing derisory amounts of electricity at colossal cost. (Yet the Government wants us to spend £100 billion on building thousands more of them which, even were it technically possible, would do virtually nothing to fill the fast-looming 40 per cent gap in our electricity supply.)
A feature of these supposedly environment-friendly machines that I haven’t mentioned, however, is their devastating effect on wildlife, notably on large birds of prey, such as eagles and red kites. Particularly disturbing is the extent to which the disaster has been downplayed by professional bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Britain and the Audubon Society in the US, which should be at the forefront of exposing this outrage, but which have often been drawn into a conflict of interest by the large sums of money they derive from the wind industry itself.
There is plenty of evidence for the worldwide scale of this tragedy. The world’s largest and most carefully monitored wind farm, Altamont Pass in California, is estimated to have killed between 2,000 and 3,000 golden eagles alone in the past 20 years. Since turbines were erected on the isle of Smola, off Norway, home to an important population of white-tailed sea eagles, destruction is so great that last year only one chick survived. Thanks to wind farms in Tasmania, a unique sub-species of wedge-tailed eagles faces extinction. And here in Britain, plans to build eight wind farms on the Hebridean islands, among Scotland’s largest concentration of golden eagles, now pose a major threat to the species’ survival in the UK.
The real problem is that birds of prey and wind developers are both drawn, for similar reasons, to the same sites – hills and ridges where the wind provides lift for soaring birds and heavily subsidised profits for developers. Eagles may thus be drawn from hundreds of square miles to particular wind farms. And, as can be seen from the YouTube video of a vulture circling above a turbine in Crete (Google “Fatal accident with vulture on windmill”), the vortices created by blade tips revolving at up to 200mph can destabilise such large birds, plunging them into a fatal collision.
This ecological disaster has been abundantly documented and publicised, not least in Europe by Save The Eagles International, run by Mark Duchamp, a retired French businessman living in Alicante. Spain has one of the three highest concentrations of turbines in Europe and, according to the Spanish Ornithological Society (see Mr Duchamp’s Iberica 2000 website), they may be killing up to a million birds a year. But he focuses his campaign on what he sees as the disturbing failure to protect birds by the bodies whose job it is to do so, from the RSPB to the European Commission.
In the US, the local branch of the Audubon Society withdrew its opposition to a giant wind farm off Cape Cod after a substantial sum of money was promised for ornithologists to monitor its effects on bird life. In Britain, the RSPB claims to keep a critical eye on those effects, but nevertheless urges a major expansion of wind farms, on the grounds that “climate change is the most significant threat to biodiversity on the planet”. The RSPB receives £10 from the wind-farm builder Scottish & Southern Energy for every customer signing up for electricity under its “RSPB Energy” scheme. Ornithologists also derive a good income from developers for providing impact assessments for planning applications or for monitoring existing wind farms for bird collisions.
Various official bodies, such as Scottish National Heritage (SNH), are responsible in law for protecting bird populations. One particular scheme that sparked a long and fierce controversy – and was mildly opposed by the RSPB – was a wind farm now under construction at Edinbane on the Isle of Skye, on hills known to attract young golden eagles and sea eagles. A first run of the SNH “collision model” showed that, over 25 years, this was likely to kill 137 golden eagles, nearly 10 times the permissible conservation limit of 15. But when SNH revised a key parameter, the “avoidance rate”, from 95 per cent to 98 per cent, and the developer removed nine turbines from its plan, the result was that predicted eagle deaths fell to exactly 15, allowing the scheme to go ahead.
Details of what Mr Duchamp calls “the scandal of the Edinbane wind farm” are included in a complaint he has lodged with the European Commission (also available on his Iberica 2000 website), asking Brussels to be much more rigorous in enforcing its own environmental legislation, such as the Birds and Habitats Directives, which are widely disregarded by national authorities. The Commission did order the Scottish Executive to veto a 178-turbine wind farm on the Hebridean island of Lewis (for once, strongly opposed by the RSPB) because its devastating effect on eagles and other protected birds would breach its directives. But many similarly damaging schemes on Lewis and elsewhere are still being driven forward as part of Edinburgh’s mad dream that 40 per cent of Scotland’s electricity should come from wind and other renewable sources within 10 years.
Large birds of prey are far from being the only victims of wind farms, and the thousands of miles of power lines needed to connect them to the grid. A study cited by Birdlife International shows that, each year, power lines can be responsible for up to 800 bird kills per mile. Vast numbers of other birds are killed by turbines each year, as are countless thousands of bats, which also seem to be drawn to wind farms, and which recent studies have shown die with their lungs distended by air pressure from the blades.
For the rest of us, it is a criminal offence to kill bats and golden eagles. But it seems that all those under the spell of the infatuation with windpower and global warming can claim exemption from the law. In return for ludicrously small amounts of very expensive electricity, wildlife must pay the price for their dreams.
School wind turbine collapses
A wind turbine collapsed just yards away from stunned students as it was being set up on a school field yesterday.
The playing field at Fakenham High School, Norfolk, was evacuated after the 40ft turbine fell, crushing the bonnet of a contractor's van.
The £28,000 renewable energy source was being assembled by Lincolnshire-based firm Gladwood BCS.
It was supposed to have been the crowning glory for the school's eco-drive which earlier this week was recognised with a Green Flag education award.
Yesterday headteacher Richard Moore described the incident as 'a bit of an embarrassment'.
The Health and Safety Executive has asked him to provide a full report on the accident.
He said: 'I am sure that when we get to the bottom of what went wrong we will get another one put up.
'There were staff on duty, but not in the immediate vicinity, and fortunately the children were not gathered around watching what was happening.'
He added: 'A group of footballers on the field told me they heard a noise and when they turned round it was falling.
'There was no sudden gust of wind and the conditions we had were exactly what you would want if you were putting up a wind turbine.'
Contract Award for Camp Edwards/Mass Military Reservation Cape Cod
September 26, 2007 Contract for $4.6 million for a 389 ft 1.5 MW Fuhrländer wind turbine at MMR in Cape Cod
MASSACHUSETTS Military Reservation, Cape Cod, Mass.-
Officials from the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE) announced today that a contract has been awarded to Environmental Chemical Corporation (ECC) to construct a 1,500 kilowatt wind turbine at the MMR. Once constructed, the turbine will significantly reduce the energy costs of powering eight AFCEE groundwater treatment systems on the MMR.
“This is a big step in saving taxpayer money as well as reducing air emissions from power plants that produce electricity for our cleanup systems,” stated Rose Forbes, AFCEE Project Manager for the wind turbine. “We expect the turbine to provide a reduction of almost 30% of our electrical needs,” she added. Electrical costs in FY2007 were $2.2 million.
Founded in 1985, ECC is a privately held business with experience in environmental remediation, operation and maintenance, and construction services. Since 2000, ECC has conducted source area and groundwater cleanup as well as monitoring well decommissioning services for AFCEE. ECC Corporate Headquarters are located in Burlingame, CA.
The contract with ECC was for $4.6 million and it is anticipated that all design and site preparation work will be done in Fiscal Year 2008 that ends on September 30, 2008. The turbine should be operational in 2009. The extended timeline is due to a lengthy lead time to procure a turbine.
The specifications call for a Fuhrländer 1500 with an output of 1,500 kilowatts. The height from the ground to the center of the blade hub will be 80 meters (262 feet). The height from the ground to the top of the blade in the 12 o’clock position will be 118.5 meters (389 feet). All required approvals have been received. The turbine will be located in the southwest corner of the base adjacent to the Landfill-1 treatment plant.
A 30-day public comment period was held on the “MMR Wind Turbine Project Environmental Assessment, March 2007” from March 19 to April 17, 2007. A public presentation was given on April 11, 2007 at the Bourne Best Western. The final Environmental Assessment will soon be available at the main library in Bourne and on AFCEE’s website at www.mmr.org. The Environmental Assessment states a finding of no significant impact.
For more information, please contact Mr. Douglas Karson, AFCEE/MMR Community Involvement Lead, at (508) 968-4678, extension 2; Fax (508) 968-4673; or E-mail doug.karson@brooks.af.mil.
Harwich Resident Learns about Wind Turbine and Doesn’t Like IT
I went rogue last night at the Board of Selectman's Meeting! Below is what I said during the public comment section early on. At around 10:30 they got to the agenda item about the wind turbines.
If you're interested, the meeting is on channel 18 at 7:00 tonight. I'm at the beginning and not again until around 10:15.
See you Thursday night.
Terry Hayden
My name is Terry Hayden and I live at 2 Headwaters Dr., at least according to where 0 Headwaters Dr. is located.
At the Harwich special town meeting of Nov. 12, voters supported an article authorizing selectmen to enter into an agreement with Cape and Vineyard Electric Cooperative to install two 400-foot turbines on town-owned land. These are 145 ft taller than the Pilgrim Monument (252 feet) in Provincetown.
Shame on me for not doing my homework before the special town meeting. The one turbine location was advertised as “Zero Headwaters Dr”. I incorrectly assumed that the property was at the beginning of Headwaters Dr. My house is about 1,000 feet from one of the two 400-foot turbines so for me this literally is a NIMBY issue. I have been living in my home and paying real estate taxes for 29 years. My home is one of 500 homes located within 3000 feet of these turbines.
I truly want to believe that none of you knew that there were 500 homes within 3,000 feet of these turbines. I KNOW that the majority of these homeowners still do not realize that their homes will be that close to these 400 foot turbines.
The Headwaters neighborhood is the largest panhandle development in the country. A panhandle development means that there is only one way in and one way out. Have you looked at the extra safety concerns this brings?
I believe that there are serious health issues to be considered. There will be noise. There will be flicker. Some people’s sleep will be disturbed by the noise and others will suffer migraines from the flicker. I look forward to hearing the Board of Health’s recommendation.
Everyone’s property value will be affected. What is the total property value of those 500 homes now? What will the figure become when these turbines are up and running?
While the town’s committees have been working for 8 years to get wind turbines erected it has only been within the last year that these sites have been considered.
I feel that I as a registered voter/taxpaying neighbor and you as elected officials have not been treated honestly and respectfully by the utilities and energy committee. They have told you as selectmen and us as neighbors that they planned a public communication effort that would include discussion with residents in the Headwaters area. This has not happened. I gave the committee all of my contact information as requested at their meeting that I attended and have not heard a thing from them.
We were promised a visit to a similar size working turbine and the surrounding area back in December and that has not materialized.
We were told in January that there would be a public informational meeting hopefully within 30 days with written notification going out to neighbors within 3,000 feet. It has since been discovered that there are 500 homeowners to notify. We now understand that a meeting of that type probably will not be scheduled until April.
The committee and the CVEC present more studies to more boards that are like comparing apples to oranges. There have been no studies published that have 500 homes within 3,000 feet of 400 foot turbines. Why do you think that is? I think it’s because we would be the first!
Do you really want to take that kind of chance? 500 homes within 3,000 feet.
I look forward to hearing the benchmarks and schedule for the wind tower approval that is on tonight’s agenda.
Thank you very much for your time and hopefully consideration.
Letter about Wind Turbine to Massachusetts Audubon in Wellfleet
To: RPrescott@massaudubon.org
Sent: Mon, Feb 22, 2010 12:03 pm
Subject: Wind turbines Dear Mr. Prescott: My name is George Zebrowski. My wife, Marsha, and I live in the Berkshires and have a vacation home/future retirement home off of Ocean View Drive in South Wellfleet. My wife's parents began building a house there in the early 1950s and moved there around 1956; at the time they were one of only two families to live on the back shore year-round. So obviously we've been following the plans to erect a 400-foot-wind turbine down the street within the Cape Cod National Seashore. What I simply cannot understand is why an organization such as the Massachusetts Audubon Society has not taken a strong stand AGAINST siting an industrial-size wind turbine within a National Park. What possible outcomes of additional studies might convince you that this is a good idea? First of all nothing in the founding legislation of the CCNS in any way suggests that such a project would be acceptable. I'm absolutely amazed that park superintendent George Price favors such a proposal (even going so far as to claim that executive orders encourage development of alternative energy within national parks, when in fact the executive orders he refers to actually suggest installing low-flush toilets or solar panels or adding insulation to park headquarters, visitor centers or bath houses is encouraged). Previously built wind turbines in other areas of the country have been shown to have negative impacts on the environment. As you're obviously aware, the CCNS lies within the biggest migratory bird route on the East Coast. Have you really and truly not read about birds being killed by wind turbines in areas that don't even lie within migratory routes? Several weeks ago my wife and I viewed a segment on the television program Chronicle that described the volunteer work being done at the Audubon. With my retirement coming in 2012 (or sooner), we concurred that once we're retired on the Cape what a great activity that would be to take part in. But when officials of your organization can't take a stand on something that is so counter to conservation efforts we have to wonder if our future volunteer efforts should be directed elsewhere. Please let me hear back from you on what could possibly come out of additional studies that would make you think this is a project the Massachusetts Audubon Society should support.
Sincerely,
George Zebrowski
Citizens’ task force calls for wind power moratorium
AUGUSTA — For Ethan Hall, who lives 3,500 feet from a wind turbine on Vinalhaven, being subjected to the turbine's sound is like listening to a drippy faucet -- "torture."
"I wouldn't be here if it was easy to get used to," Hall said at a Feb. 19 press conference at the Statehouse Hall of Flags. "The sound is different from anything I have ever heard. It is an intense pulsing. It is impossible to block or mask this noise."
Hall wasn't the only person voicing his opinion at the press conference held by the Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power -- a coalition of citizens advocating responsible, science based, economically and environmentally sound approaches to Maine’s energy policy -- that is calling for a statewide moratorium on wind power.
Doctors, lawyers and other citizens affected by the noise from the turbines spoke in an attempt to mandate better noise regulations before Maine goes any further with installing wind turbines around the state.
Explaining that the noise of the turbine in his back yard is very noticeable and not like a background hum, such as a refrigerator makes, Hall said he can't read, work, or get good rest in his own home. In fact, there was nowhere on his property where he can escape the din. He also said state noise regulations are "outdated."
To make a point to those in attendance, a recording of a wind turbine was turned on during task force member Steve Thurston's opening remarks at the press conference. Later, when TV news crews tried to conduct interviews with the speakers, the recording was turned on again, forcing the news crews to ask that the noise be turned off so they could finish the interviews.
According to some, turbine noise doesn't just bother humans. Jonathan Carter, director of Forest Ecology Network, spoke about the effect on animals. He said the turbines could have a profound negative impact, causing predatory problems, affecting reproductive success, and creating other issues.
"They are going to damage the wildlife of Maine," said Carter. "We need a moratorium until we can get it right."
Several media members asked Thurston at the end of the press conference if he thought Gov. John Baldacci would ever change his mind for this cause. Thurston replied that he could not speak for the governor.
Another man in attendance suggested that they play the turbine noise outside the Blaine House.
However, as distressing as the turbine noise is to Hall, he was able to concede that there was hope for solutions that would make the turbines quieter in the future. And he acknowledged that the large wind farms are "where there aren't any people."
"It’s a matter of new technology," Hall diplomatically said. "Maybe it isn't quite right yet."
Proposed Wind Turbine Wellfleet MA
To Barbara Gray, Chair and The Wellfleet Planning Board:
That tone is the democratic process
Geof Karlson's Jan. 20 My View ("Ugly tone besets Wellfleet project) appears to conflate criticism of the Wellfleet Energy Commision, of which he is the new chairman, with an attack on the will of Wellfleet voters and the democratic process.
In a more libelous version of his op-ed that appeared in The Provincetown Banner and The Cape Codder, Mr. Karlson "beseeched the leadership of SOS to direct their sympathizers to refrain from lawlessness," a reference to the recent unfortunate survey stake pulling at the proposed wind turbine site.
Members of Save our Seashore, among other concerned individuals, have raised many valid questions about the proposed wind turbine in Wellfleet. No commission or board in Wellfleet, or any town, is beyond public scrutiny, even if that public consists partly of nonresident taxpayers. Approximately 60 percent of the taxpayers in Wellfleet are nonresidents, who by definition do not vote in that town. Are the legitimate concerns of abutters to the proposed installation, resident and nonresident taxpayers alike, to be dismissed with accusations of maligning the will of the town and the democratic process?
Among Save our Seashore's concerns are: radical change to the landscape; financial viability of the project; noise; safety; the effect on property values for nearby residents; adverse impacts on wildlife and unfragmented habitat; and implications for all users of the National Seashore. The Wellfleet Energy Commission, Wellfleet Board of Selectmen and other town officials must more fully investigate these concerns with the understanding that the town of Wellfleet has a responsibility to all the aforementioned constituencies. The questions of Save our Seashore and others warrant detailed answers before Wellfleet proceeds with this project and spends any taxpayer (resident and nonresident) money on permitting and other related expenses.
Mass Audubon recently abandoned its plan to install a 200-foot wind turbine at the Wellfleet Bay Wildlife Sanctuary (the same town!) — half the size of the wind turbine proposed by Wellfleet — because of grave concerns about noise (for neighbors, employees and members), risks to resident wildlife and migratory birds, and potential disruption to valuable habitat. Does Mass Audubon's extensive review and decision to reject a project half the size of the town's reflect the machinations of an irresponsible minority, or a principled decision based upon a thorough and unbiased review?
Mr. Karlson correctly applauds the citizenry of Wellfleet for their profound concern for the environment and, in particular, for maintaining the beauty of their town. Residents and nonresidents of Wellfleet, as thoughtful and caring citizens, are committed to contributing in helpful ways to solutions to the complex problems of global warming and energy independence.
One might argue, however, (as do members of Save our Seashore) over the appropriateness of siting a 400-foot industrial wind turbine on town land within the Seashore. What's the upside? Wellfleet gets a symbol of the new, green economy and a break on its utility bills, an expense the electric company will pass on to other towns. And the downside? One of the most beautiful panoramas in the Cape Cod National Seashore is gone forever and one of the three largest Capewide unfragmented forests with attendant wildlife is severely disturbed.
As Wellfleet voters become better informed on the positive and negative ramifications of the turbine project, resident and nonresident members of Save our Seashore are hopeful that resident voters will defeat the proposed turbine project at a future town meeting.
The democratic process at so many levels is a messy and difficult one. Feelings are bruised on both sides when the hard work of a committee is held up to scrutiny and criticized and, on the other side, when something very beautiful that has been in the hearts of people for so long is threatened. Geof Karlson seems to feel that hard-hitting criticism of the Wellfleet Energy Commission equals disloyalty to the town of Wellfleet and the democratic process. I would suggest that dissent and criticism is, in large measure, the democratic process.
James F. Rogers of Save our Seashore lives in Sandwich and is also a nonresident Wellfleet taxpayer.
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100209/OPINION/2090338/-1/NEWSMAP
Letter to National Park Service to STOP Industrial Wind Turbine in a National Park
Dear National Park Service,
I am worried about the development of a onshore 400 ft tall wind turbine in Wellfleet, MA within the boundaries of Cape Cod National Seashore. This development is for the potential financial benefit or loss for the town of Wellfleet. It would result in a negative experience for anyone who would hike, hunt or ride in this previously undeveloped area. This is in stark disregard of the founding legislation of the Cape Cod National Seashore and go directly against the legal obligations highlighted in the National Parks founding legislation. I have copied a couple of key paragraphs from the National Academy of Sciences' Robbins Report which set about to clarify the National Park Service's obligations. It clearly articulates the obligations of the management of our National Parks. Would you be kind enough to inform me how an industrial wind turbine for the financial benefit of the town that results in a negative experience of park visitors, the destruction of the natural setting and causing harm to wildlife will live up to those OBLIGATIONS! This project would result in no benefit for the park, the wildlife, the visitors or the people of the United States.
Abstract of the Robbins Report
The report submitted to the Secretary describes how the Committee conducted its study and surveys the development of the national parks idea, which originated in the United States and has reached its fullest expression there. It calls attention to the responsibilities and obligations which stem from the worldwide recognition and appreciation of the leadership of the United States in this area...
...The objectives or purposes of the National Park Service are discussed in the light of the origin of the national parks and the various Acts of Congress which deal with them. The conclusion is reached that the Service should strive first to preserve and conserve the national parks with due consideration for the enjoyment by their owners, the people of the United States, of the aesthetic, spiritual, inspirational, educational, and scientific values which are inherent in natural wonders and nature's creatures. The Service should be concerned with the preservation of nature in the national parks, the maintenance of natural conditions, and the avoidance of artificiality, with such provisions for the accommodation of visitors as will neither destroy nor deteriorate the natural features, which should be preserved for the enjoyment of future visitors who may come to the parks....
....The report points out that the National Park Service has the responsibility of administering the national parks in accordance with the purposes for which they are or may be set aside by specific Acts of Congress and emphasizes that knowledge about the parks and their problems is needed to discharge this responsibility. Such knowledge comes from research, especially research in natural history...
Sincerely
Barry Doyle
Wind Turbine Noise Explained
From: