Denmark’s State Owned Electric Company gives up Land based Wind Turbines!
Mass protests mean the energy firm will look offshore
State-owned energy firm Dong Energy has given up building more wind farms on Danish land, following protests from residents complaining about the noise the turbines make.
It had been Dong and the government’s plan that 500 large turbines be built on land over the coming 10 years, as part of a large-scale national energy plan. This plan has hit a serious stumbling block, though, due to many protests, and the firm has now given up building any more wind farms on land.
Anders Eldrup, the CEO of Dong Energy, told TV2 News: ‘It is very difficult to get the public’s acceptance if the turbines are built close to residential buildings, and therefore we are now looking at maritime options.'
The move has met resistance from parliament, where amongst others Anne Grete Holmgaard, the chairperson of the Parliamentary Environmental Committee, said, ‘It is rather unacceptable that Dong - which is our large, state-owned energy firm - says goodbye to an investment in wind on land, and that they are doing so after we have cleared the way for a test centre where new types of turbines can be tested.’
URGENT STOP The Wind Energy Siting Reform Act
URGENT!
The MA Speaker of the House wants a vote on the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act next week. This allows to override local decision on Wind Turbines!
Contact your representative now to oppose the Act, S.2260. Ask your representative to oppose the Act and to speak about it with his/her colleagues and the House leadership.
TAKE ACTION NOW --
To contact your representative, call the House switchboard (617) 722-2000, or find his/her direct-dial phone number and email address below.
To find the name of your representative, visit http://www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.php
Even if you are not a voter but pay taxes in MA, you have a right to be heard on this issue. HERE'S HOW TO BE MOST EFFECTIVE --
Call your representative's office and ask to speak with him/her; if unavailable, ask for a return call, leaving your phone number with the staffer, OR; Call your representative's office and speak with the staffer who answers, saying you strongly oppose S.2260, the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act, AND / OR; Email your representative with the subject line: I strongly oppose S.2260 Wind Energy Siting Reform Act (email is less effective than a conversation, but far better than doing nothing), AND; Copy your email to the Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo Robert.DeLeo@state.ma.us and Chairman of the House Ways & Means Charles Murphy Rep.CharlesMurphy@hwm.state.ma.us FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW, POST IT ON FACEBOOK, TWITTER - WE NEED AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE CONTACTING LEGISLATORS RIGHT AWAY!
TALKING POINTS ON S.2260 -- THE WIND ENERGY SITING REFORM ACT ENDS ALL LOCAL CONTROL OF WIND DEVELOPMENT Opposing the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act has nothing to do with your opinion about the benefits of wind power, it's about objecting to the state's brazen attempt to undermine Home Rule, gut environmental laws, and strip communities and citizens of their rights to appeal bad decisions of a state agency. NO COMMUNITY IS EXEMPT If the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act is adopted, we will be the only state in the nation that exempts the wind industry from compliance with local laws, state environmental laws, and the traditional rights of participation and appeal by communities and citizen groups. No other industry in MA - including the power plant industry - gets this triumvirate of special privileges. FAST-TRACK PERMITTING MEANS DEVELOPERS COULD BUILD ANYWHERE THEY CHOOSE IN YOUR TOWN The Act will shift authority for permitting wind projects, along with their associated transmission lines, roads, and other impacts, from town boards and state environmental agencies to an unelected state agency, the Energy Facilities Siting Board, which has a mission to permit power plants not protect the environment, and which has never turned down a power plant application. YOU AND YOUR TOWN WILL LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO YOUR DAY IN COURT The Act will allow the EFSB to disregard a community's zoning bylaw and to override its denial of a permit for a wind facility along with its associated infrastructure. The Act replaces environmental laws with "standards" that can be applied or waived at the discretion of the EFSB. This means a wind project that does not comply with the "standards" can still be approved under even lower thresholds, putting ecologically fragile areas and species at risk, and exposing neighbors to the negative health effects of noise and shadow strobing. THIS ACT SENDS THE WRONG MESSAGE ABOUT 'GREEN ENERGY' If the wind industry needs a pass from the environmental laws that everyone else must follow, how can it be considered environmentally friendly? Green energy projects should be able to meet all the state's environmental laws, thus setting an example for all other industries to follow. If the wind industry secures these special exemptions, every other industry will seek the same privileges, with the broad effect of gutting environmental laws that have been in force for decades. Since, under the Act, cost and necessity cannot be factors considered by the EFSB in its decisions to permit wind projects, marginal areas will be vulnerable to development without any brakes on bad projects by local boards and state environmental laws. ELECTRICITY COSTS AND JOB GROWTH WILL BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED The subsidies for these wind projects will be hugely expensive to ratepayers and taxpayers. We already have among the highest electricity rates in the country, and this Act will increase electricity prices through the higher cost of wind-generated electricity, subsidies, and new transmission lines - affecting homeowners and businesses alike. FOR MORE INFORMATION -- To read the text of the Act, visit http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02/st02260.htm
HERE'S THE CONTACT INFORMATION FOR YOUR REPRESENTATIVE --
Thank You!
Concern for birds
Although the turbine industry claims that turbines kill less than 1% of the bird population, the majority of these birds would comprise of the species related to birds of prey. And since prey creatures are usually only 10% of any animal population, this 1% claim suddenly becomes more of a concern. ...There's nothing wrong with green initiatives, but it's important to put wind turbines in locations that are logical for people, wildlife and the environment and not just because of a convenient power supply.
April 23, 2010 by Andres Hoag in The Lindsay Post
I read the article on the success the osprey is having here in the City of Kawartha Lakes and it certainly is a good news story.
But with the possible allocation of wind turbines throughout our municipality, I have real concern for the future of our birds of prey. It would be difficult for anyone to argue this area seems to be a hot spot for birds. I've counted 10 species of hawk, falcon and eagle including osprey and the bald eagle just off the top of my head and there could be possibly more.
Although the turbine industry claims that turbines kill less than 1% of the bird population, the majority of these birds would comprise of the species related to birds of prey. And since prey creatures are usually only 10% of any animal population, this 1% claim suddenly becomes more of a concern. We also have to hope that 1% is the truth and not a doctored number. Birds of prey are attracted to the up drafts the turbines produce and tend to circle the turbines until they get too close and get struck by one of the blades. A bald eagle has already been found dead in southern Ontario only 40 metres from a wind turbine.
I feel the City of Kawartha Lakes is part of a natural migration route and the wind turbines will have a significant toll on our birds of prey simply because of the numbers of prey birds that live in this area.
Once the turbines are up they will not be moved, so we need to ask ourselves if this is a logical place for them. In California which is also another part of the migratory route of birds of prey, 2,000 to 5,000 birds are killed each year.
According to a web site called the Heartland Institute, quote, "A study conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that Altamont Pass bird deaths are more prevalent than previously thought. According to the Jan. 30Oakland Tribune, previous studies conducted by wind farm operators had underestimated Altamont Pass bird kills by 25 to 300%. Moreover, new technologies designed to reduce the number of bird deaths will actually have the effect of increasing turbine bird kills.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory determined that new technology that would reduce the number of turbines by increasing the size of each tower's blades would kill more birds than the preexisting turbines. The larger turbines would increase the area of "swept" air and would have more lethal blades and components than their smaller cousins.
There's nothing wrong with green initiatives, but it's important to put wind turbines in locations that are logical for people, wildlife and the environment and not just because of a convenient power supply.
Remember, we're supposed to be making the world a better place, not a more dangerous one.
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:
U.S. General Victor E. Renuart testifies on radar interference from wind turbines
March 18, 2010 by General Victor E. Renuart, Jr. USAF Commander
Feeble wind farms fail to hit full power
THE first detailed study of Britain’s onshore wind farms suggests some treasured landscapes may have been blighted for only small gains in green energy.
The analysis reveals that more than 20 wind farms produce less than a fifth of their potential maximum power output.
One site, at Blyth Harbour in Northumberland, is thought to be the worst in Britain, operating at just 7.9% of its maximum capacity. Another at Chelker reservoir in North Yorkshire operates at only 8.7% of capacity.
Both are relatively small and old, but larger and newer sites fared badly, too, according to analyses of data released by Ofgem, the energy regulator, for 2008.
Siddick wind farm in Cumbria, now operated by Eon, achieved only 15.8% of capacity, the figures suggest. The two turbines at High Volts 2, Co Durham, the largest and most powerful wind farm in Britain when it was commissioned in 2004, achieved 18.7%.
Turbine efficiency is calculated by comparing theoretical maximum output with what the farms actually generate. The best achieve about 50% efficiency and the norm is 25%-30%.
Experts say the figures for individual wind farms have to be treated with caution as output can vary sharply because of factors such as breakdowns.
The revelation that so many wind farms are performing well below par, however, will reinforce the view of objectors who believe many turbines generate too little power to justify their visual impact.
Britain has 245 onshore wind farms. Although wind power is expensive, the industry has boomed because of the “renewable obligation” subsidy system, under which consumers pay roughly double the normal price for energy from wind.
The analyses were compiled by Allan Tubb, a former power engineer, on behalf of the Campaign to Limit Onshore Wind Development (CLOWD) and were based on data published by Ofgem showing the capacity and performance of Britain's renewable power generators. The original data can be found athttps://www.renewablesandchp.ofgem.gov.uk/
Michael Jefferson, professor of international business and sustainability at London Metropolitan Business School, who is also a former lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has cited the efficiency figures in peer-reviewed papers. He says the subsidy encourages the construction of wind farms.
“Too many developments are underperforming,” he said. “It’s because developers grossly exaggerate the potential. The subsidies make it viable for developers to put turbines on sites they would not touch if the money was not available.”
Nick Medic of Renewable UK, which represents the wind industry, said Britain’s ambitious targets for clean power meant the country needed “every bit of green energy it could generate”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7069938.ece
Winds of opposition build against Harwich turbines
Credit: By William F. Galvin, Cape Cod Chronicle, www.capecodchronicle.com March 18, 2010
HARWICH — The winds of defiance continue to howl from the neighborhoods that could be in the shadow of two proposed commercial wind turbines. Monday night, about a dozen residents continued their protest of town plans to lease land to Cape and Vineyard Electric Cooperative.
The rancor was fortified by news of two turbine failures in Nantucket and Marstons Mills. A broken blade was cast nearly 200 feet at Bartlett’s Ocean View Farm on Nantucket in late January.
Those incidents raised questions of safety to go along with concerns for noise and shadow flicker among residents of neighborhood in Headwaters and North Harwich.
“It’s a great concern of the board of health,” chairman Dr. Stanley Kocot told selectmen of the flying object.
Kocot was before selectmen to provide a report as requested by the board. He said the report is not ready and they would need more time. A preliminary report would be ready in the first week in April, he said. When pushed by selectmen, Kocot said they have read numerous articles citing noise impacts, but there are no physical effects on health from the turbines.
Town Administrator James Merriam said they have scheduled a community forum on wind turbines for Saturday, April 17 at 9:30 a.m. at the community center. He said experts will be available to answer questions.
There will certainly be questions. The residents in the area of the proposed wind turbines are concerned about the proximity of the structures to their homes and the potential for noise, flicker and property devaluation.
North Harwich resident Linda Solomon said she understands the town is hurting for money and the selectmen are looking at this as a moneymaker. But she cited the problems with two turbines in Vinalhaven, Maine that have caused 24 of 38 homeowners to complain. She asked if the town is ready to buy these homes if property values drop.
“I assume the board of selectmen did not do a proper investigation before jumping on the bandwagon,” Solomon said. “Or you don’t care about the 350 homeowners (within a half mile). If that’s the case, you don’t care about the people of Harwich and you have no right holding your jobs.”
Selectman Larry Ballantine said he’s read the reports on decibel levels and the real estate reports. He said you can read the data on both sides of the argument and he admitted selectmen do not have an easy decision. But he also said sound is measured differently by individuals. He said at last week’s turbine visit he could barely hear it at 800 feet, but admitted someone else might have another opinion.
“Harwich wants to put this in a residential area with way more homes than in any other case,” Solomon said.
Selectman Larry Cole challenged that, citing the turbine placed in Portsmouth, R.I., near 200 homes. He said there was one complaint about flicker. There were discussions about the two turbines working in Hull and differing views on the neighborhood acceptance there.
Selectmen have cited a real estate impact study that was conducted at University of California Berkeley to show property values do not drop in areas where wind turbines are located. The study examined 7,500 homes at 24 sites in nine states.
But Headwaters resident Maura Toma said she did her own research on that report and it shows less than 1 percent of the homes in the study are within a half mile of the turbines, and only 1.7 percent are within a mile. Some residents in the Headwaters area could be within a quarter of a mile of one proposed site.
“The reason I’m up here, I’m scared it will affect my property value, my quality of life,” said Alice Kuntz. The homeowner said she purchased her house just two months before the November town meeting vote to support leasing the land.
She cited concerns for flicker and its impact every 1.3 seconds for 600 hours a year as a Weston & Sampson Engineering study concluded could happen in close proximity to the turbines. She had someone flick the room lights off and on every 1.3 seconds to demonstrate her point.
Headwaters resident Rick Toma said he is speaking for a lot of people when he says the town could have done a better public relation job and in getting more people involved before the town meeting vote.
Toma said in doing more research he learned about the state of Vermont considering legislation to keep turbines one-and-a-quarter miles from homes. The French government is looking at a mile-and-a-half, and Minnesota is working toward a half mile.
“I would feel better if my neighbors and the town knew what the project was and then voted on it,” Toma said of the unknowns still remaining.
“If it doesn’t meet the planning board site plan special permit requirements, it doesn’t go anywhere,” Selectman Angelo LaMantia said. “Nobody’s issued a building permit; this is only one stage, part of the process.”
“That land has always been open space, good habitat for what’s left for all the critters on the Cape,” North Harwich resident Chris Norcross said. “You’re going to turn that land into Disneyland. The noise itself will disrupt animals there. The town has changed fast enough. How much more do you want to disfigure it?”
Wind farms’ effect on radar a clear concern
The U.S. military is growing increasingly concerned that proposed wind farms can disrupt or block radar designed to detect threats and protect America's skies, a problem that is stalling the alternative energy projects around the country. A top U.S. general told Congress on Thursday that federal agencies need to work better together on a formal vetting process for the wind projects.
March 21, 2010 by Lolita C. Baldor in Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The U.S. military is growing increasingly concerned that proposed wind farms can disrupt or block radar designed to detect threats and protect America's skies, a problem that is stalling the alternative energy projects around the country.
A top U.S. general told Congress on Thursday that federal agencies need to work better together on a formal vetting process for the wind projects to prevent them from being built where they will interfere with radar defenses.
Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, head of U.S. Northern Command, said a number of projects raise "real concerns" involving radar interference, and he suggested that requiring companies to conduct early checks during the approval process for such obstruction might be needed.
"We've heard concerns that wind turbines may interfere with radar and impact military training routes," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo. "While we must find new ways to meet our energy security needs, we must not compromise our national security."
While the radar interference issue isn't new, it has become a bigger problem as more wind projects move through the permit process. Industry leaders and the Energy Department have said that wind power could provide as much as 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030.
Last month, Pentagon officials raised the issue with Congress, saying they are devoting a lot of time and effort to the growing challenge of ensuring that energy projects don't conflict with military requirements.
"The current process for reviewing proposals and handling disputes is opaque, time-consuming and ad hoc," said Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment.
The Federal Aviation Administration reviews wind farm projects, looking at any interference with air navigation or radar systems. But while the FAA can flag problems during its review of a project, it can't force a change or prevent a wind farm from being approved if a change isn't made. Its recommendations, though, sometimes can affect a local zoning or other approval process.
Renuart and others say a more coordinated, interagency process is needed to better evaluate proposals.
It's difficult to say how many projects are tied up regarding the radar issue, but in a 2009 survey, industry executives said that more than a dozen had been stalled, according to Laurie Jodziewicz, manager of siting policy for the American Wind Energy Association.
Jodziewicz said that projects totaling 10,000 megawatts of wind power were built in the U.S. last year, while projects involving another 10,000 megawatts were stalled by the radar issue. Projects vary in size and can include any number of turbines, but one turbine can generate 1.5 to 3 megawatts of power in an hour at higher wind speeds.
The industry, Jodziewicz said, wants to work with federal agencies and officials are getting closer to finding a process that works. She conceded, though, that bringing everyone together can be a challenge.
Jodziewicz also said that, at times, the interference can be solved by upgrading the older radar systems, and that developers will work with the Defense Department to do those improvements.
In other cases the problem can be solved by shifting the configuration of the wind farm.
Renuart said the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which he also heads, is putting together a radar obstruction evaluation team to determine the impacts of proposed wind energy projects in close proximity to our radars.
The Pentagon released a report in 2006 detailing the concerns with the wind farms, and said the Defense Department is developing other ways to deal with the problem, including technology improvements to the radar systems.
http://www.amarillo.com/stories/032110/bus_biz7.sh...
Why Wellfleet will get Wind Turbine Syndrome
Wellfleet, Massachusetts. Nice town out on Cape Cod. Ever been there?
Me neither. But it’s gotta be nice. National Seashore. Outstanding bird-watching. (Being a big migratory corridor, zillions of shorebirds come through.) Plus there’s marshes and ponds. And loads of really interesting people. What’s not to like?
Coming soon is one colossal wind turbine. Then it won’t be so nice. At least for people living within 2 km (1.25 miles) of that thing’s acoustic shadow.
The plan is for a Vestas V90 1.8/2.0 MW.
Living Next Door to a Wind Farm Australia
This video is a bit long but shows in detail what living next a wind farm would be like.
What’s bad about wind power? More than just noise
Bangor Daily News
By Monique Aniel and Steve Thurston 3/6/2010
Recently Gov. John Baldacci scoffed at the Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power when we asked him to issue a moratorium on industrial wind power projects until adequate noise regulations are implemented. The Bangor Daily News backed Baldacci in an editorial titled “Wind Ban Wrong.” The Feb. 25 piece did acknowledge how right we are on several wind power issues, yet it still concluded that giving the state time would be wrong. We disagree with this, with the conclusion that noise is our primary consideration and with the common assumption that wind power’s supposed benefits outweigh its costs.
In characterizing us, the editorial asserts: “That opposition centers on one key concern — noise.” It also said: “At the heart of the debate is sound.” This is wrong.
While sound is obviously the central issue in our call for noise regulations and one of many wind power deficiencies, it is not the heart of our refusal to pawn away Maine’s landscape and mountain ridges for dubious compensation. There are negative impacts with any electric generating source. But those negatives must be weighed against positives.
If after careful examination of noise issues and after a public process to design and apply rules protecting the public, perhaps then low-frequency noise could be deemed an acceptable cost of creating electricity. Maybe then we could agree that we did all we could to responsibly regulate this health threat. But the state has not done such an analysis and it has not written rules. Meanwhile we are rolling out red carpet for the wind industry, using the unsubstantiated justification.
The people around the world describing their misery are not lying. The residents of Mars Hill, Freedom and Vinalhaven (many of whom wanted wind projects) are not fabricating stories. While the state writes and enforces thousands of rules on everything from livestock to insurance to education, it has declined to address an imminent threat barreling like a July thunderstorm into Maine’s mountains.
Some two dozen mammoth, sprawling wind energy projects are now prospecting sites in some of Maine’s most cherished places. The speculators’ urgency is heightened by the 2010 availability of gratuitous government handouts which make the projects temporarily viable.
Public protection should be no less urgent. We suggest starting with a review of the concerns expressed by leading physicians, including the World Health Organization and the Maine Medical Association.
The BDN says “state regulators need not call a timeout” because they can work on the issues. Yes, they can. But they won’t. The Citizens’ Task Force has civilly engaged the Legislature, regulators and the administration. But they all backhanded us because, as you correctly observe, “state government is so bullish on wind that it is turning a blind eye to problems.”
Maine has made a value assumption based on sentiment rather than a value judgment based on careful consideration of wind’s benefits and costs. This is how houses of cards are built.
The editorial referred to wind as “the next energy wave.” Waves rise and fall like fads. The wind industry has thus far exploited a disconnect between fact and perception. Hence it has ridden a wave of green idealism to gain a toehold. Alas, even the press can get caught on a wave, as shown in the editorial where the BDN tacitly accepts myths about wind replacing some oil and coal.
The Citizens’ Task Force has thoughtfully compared the positives — such as wind is free — and negatives — such as turbine noise syndrome — and we conclude that wind power is unnecessary, unreliable, unaffordable and unsustainable. Despite being temporarily fashionable, its negatives far outweigh its positives, especially in Maine.
Because we so value our environment, we might be more inclined to embrace industrial wind power if it made sense for Maine. If there were a shortage of electricity, if Maine weren’t already a leader in renewables, if wind actually did anything to reduce oil usage, if 1,800 mountain-marring turbines on 360 miles of blasted ridge could contribute more than 5 percent of the grid’s electric needs, and yes, if turbine noise did not cause harm, then maybe we’d think the benefits are worth the costs. Noise-induced illness is one of many costs that, in total, are too high.
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/138366.html
Tension still churns over proposed Wellfleet wind turbine
By Marilyn Miller Provincetown Banner Posted Mar 04, 2010 @ 12:17 PM
Voters won’t be asked to approve the proposed 400-foot wind turbine at the upcoming Annual Town Meeting. But the turbine issue is far from dead.
That was evident Tuesday when more than 125 people filled the senior center, many forced to stand along the walls as four speakers talked about the proposed Wellfleet turbine, in particular, and the turbines operated by the towns of Brewster, Harwich and Falmouth.
Geof Karlson, chair of the Wellfleet Energy Committee, tried to touch on a number of concerns, including financial and regulatory issues, and the potential of sound and the blades’ shadow flicker to affect people living near the turbine. He also touched on the objections of some to siting an industrial turbine on town-owned land within the Cape Cod National Seashore.
Town counsel Betsy Lane, he reported, opined that a turbine on town-owned land within the Seashore is an allowed municipal use.
“If the Seashore superintendent chose to challenge the issuance of a permit, such a challenge would be subject to dismissal by the court for lack of standing,” Karlson quoted from Lane’s opinion.
The Seashore itself, Karlson said, is considering putting up a turbine on its land in Truro.
Seashore Supt. George Price attended the meeting, held by the Wellfleet Community Forum, but did not speak.
Dennis O’Connell, an opponent of the turbine, said he and Jim Rogers, another critic of the project, visited the turbines at Vinalhaven, Maine, and Newburyport. “What I saw furthered my resolve that there are going to be negative impacts from this project,” O’Connell said. He challenged the selectmen to visit Vinalhaven “and then go to your proposed site in the heart of the Cape Cod National Seashore and see if that is what you want to do to this property.”
He spoke with people in Vinalhaven and Newburyport, he said. “Many were very supportive of the project when it was proposed, but now they are against it. These people have suffered,” he said. “They’ve seen a decline in the quality of life and they’ve been marginalized.”
Sound and flicker were issues with the turbines in both towns, he said.
Wellfleet is talking about a turbine that is 400 feet tall, he said, noting that is 3.2 times the size of the town’s water tower. “To me the water tower is benign, it doesn’t move, it doesn’t catch the eye,” he said. It casts a shadow a little bit, but it doesn’t do anything like a wind turbine does. It does not rip apart an unfragmented area.”
One of his major issues with the turbine, O’Connell said, is that it is a “heavily subsidized” industry. “When you start playing around with Mother Nature and Father Economics, then you are creating things that just don’t make sense. You are going to end up in trouble,” he said. “The subsidies involved in this project are huge. … This synthetic pricing has a habit of going away when people realize what is going on. You can see this as subsidies are disappearing in Hawaii, in Europe and California. And as all these are drying up, they are being left and they are a blight on the countryside.”
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.
Cape college fails to clear wind turbine hurdle
Following more than four hours of passionate debate and deliberation, the Old King's Highway Regional Historic District Commission voted 5-0 yesterday to uphold a denial of the college's plan to build a 243-foot-tall turbine on its West Barnstable campus.
"The height as you move away from it becomes more and more obvious, it becomes more and more imposing," George Jessop, Barnstable's representative to the commission, said prior to the vote, which was cast in a meeting room at the West Barnstable fire station packed with more than 50 people. "The size is key here."
Jessop, who could not vote because it was a decision by the Barnstable Old King's Highway Historic District Committee that the project's proponents appealed to the regional commission, said the size of the turbine was simply inappropriate for the area.
Several neighbors agreed, arguing the project would have a negative effect on their property values and quality of life.
"The turbine has no place in this historic district," said Mark Bonaiuto, who lives on Acorn Drive, less than a half mile from the turbine's proposed location. The noise from the turbine, he said, would be like "dripping water."
For Bonaiuto's wife, Marianne, the flicker from the spinning blades she experienced during a visit to the turbine at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy in Buzzards Bay was "disturbing," especially because of her tendency to develop migraine headaches.
"I'd love to see a turbine," just not in the style, scale and location of the college project, she said.
'What could be better?'
But for every person who objected to the turbine two rose to support it.
"We are losing youth on Cape Cod precisely because of that type of mind-set," said Sarah Cote of Sandwich, an executive assistant at the pro-wind energy group Clean Power Now.
As for setting a precedent by approving the turbine: "What could be better?" she said.
Other speakers questioned how communication and water towers are built in the district but a wind turbine is denied.
Attorney Bruce Gilmore, who represented the college and the state, argued the Barnstable historic district committee did not account for benefits the turbine would bring to the college and the community in energy savings, environmental protection and educational.
"I would say on its face that that is a fatal flaw," he said of overlooking the project's benefits. The historic district's enabling act specifically requires that energy benefits of a proposal be considered, he said.
The wind turbine would produce more than one million kilowatt hours of energy and save the college an estimated $170,000 annually, said Dixie Norris, vice president of administration and finance at the school.
The college uses about 4.6 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually and spent an average of $725,049 a year on electricity over the past four years, she said.
Norris said an estimated $50,000 of revenue each year from unused energy the turbine produced would have gone to a low-income energy conservation program.
The project would also provide a "living laboratory" for students learning about renewable energy, college president Kathleen Schatzberg said.
No one is benefiting from the turbine now. The windmill is sitting in pieces inside a hangar at Otis Air National Guard Base, where it has been since arriving from India last year.
The Barnstable historic district committee called a halt to the project in the fall because the college and state had neglected to seek the local panel's approval before moving forward.
The college, which is typically exempt from local zoning law, was unaware that it needed the historic district committee's approval, Gilmore said.
Little room to compromise
After receiving approval from the state, the college moved the project from one side of the campus to the other and reduced the turbine's height from 400 feet to 243 feet because of demands from the Federal Aviation Administration, he said.
The FAA's stance left the regional historic district committee and the college with little room to compromise, said the panel's chairman, Peter Lomenzo of Dennis. "What could we do?" he said after the regional commission found the Barnstable historic district committee had not acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its decision. Local historic district committees and alternative energy committees should get together in the future to work out issues like this before they get to this point, he said.
The college and state have 20 days after a written decision is filed with the Barnstable town clerk to appeal the ruling to Barnstable District Court, a move Schatzberg said she will try to push forward. "That would be a joint decision," she said, citing the state Division of Capital Asset Management's responsibility for the project.
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100303/NEWS/3030307/-1/NEWS11
Wellfleet Forum – Wellfleet Wind Turbine Program – 3/1/10
Wellfleet Forum – Wellfleet Wind Turbine Program – 3/1/10
Questions received by Dick Elkin for the forum meeting,
with Answers by Geof Karlson, Chair, Wellfleet Energy Committee
1. Has it been legally tested on a national level whether towns building industrial size energy equipment within the boundaries of a National Park is within the congressional guidelines regulating the National Park Service? It took an act of Congress, whose intent was clearly to protect the land within the CCNS against further development. How can a local community ignore a Congressional Act? If this turbine is built within the CCNS I am concerned about the precedent the Wellfleet turbine would set on a national level. I fear for our entire National Park system. Do the members of the WEC know for certain that what they are proposing is legal at a national level?
The proposed wind turbine facility is referred to by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as Community-Scale Wind. The Town has been advised by Town Counsel that the proposed creation of a community-scale wind facility on Town-owned land within the Cape Cod National Seashore (CCNS) is within the guidelines and regulations of the CCNS and qualifies, in the opinion of Counsel, as a valid municipal use. Additionally, we note that the facility contributes to renewable energy initiatives established by the state and federal executives, including initiatives by the President and the Secretary of the Interior to promote renewable energy production.
2. How does the town propose to pay for this wind turbine? How will that affect Wellfleet town taxes (now and into the future) and Massachusetts NSTAR customers (with the surcharge NSTAR will be allowed to attach to electric bills to pay for their participation in the net-metering program Wellfleet is counting on to make money from the turbine)? How much downtime are they projecting, and does this increase into the future as the equipment ages? For that matter, when would it be considered obsolete and what would the town’s responsibility be toward its removal (and is that figured into the financial projections?)?
The Town proposes to pay for the wind turbine construction through general obligation bonds. The current projected “pro forma” budget projects the project to be self-supporting by the end of the first year of production – this means that the revenue generated by the project would pay all principal and interest payments and other costs such as maintenance, insurance, and other expenses, and generate a net yearly revenue for the town.
How will that affect Wellfleet town taxes (now and into the future) and Massachusetts NSTAR customers (with the surcharge NSTAR will be allowed to attach to electric bills to pay for their participation in the net-metering program Wellfleet is counting on to make money from the turbine)?
The current financial projection shows that Wellfleet taxpayers will have to pay a maximum of about $325,000 to fund the procurement and construction of the project, at which point the facility would be producing enough revenue to cover all expenses and return a net positive income to the town each year. Here is the projected “cumulative” revenue for the town. Negative amounts (in red) represent taxpayer funds paid out; positive amounts represent positive revenue accruing to the town. The following shows both yearly net revenue and cumulative net revenue (in 2010 dollars) for the project:
| Wellfleet Wind Turbine – from Pro Forma Revenue Projections of 3/1/10 | ||
| Year | Net Revenue
(2010 dollars) |
Cumulative Net Revenue
(2010 dollars) |
| 1 | -$119,250 | -$119,250 (construction – interest only in this year) |
| 2 | -$204,477 | -$323,727 (1/2 yr construction, 1/2 yr production) |
| 3 | $214,542 | -$109,185 (full year of production, and so on) |
| 4 | $168,055 | $58,869 |
| 5 | $179,788 | $238,657 |
| 6 | $201,806 | $440,463 |
| 7 | $212,633 | $653,096 |
| 8 | $233,316 | $886,411 |
| 9 | $243,292 | $1,129,703 |
| 10 | $262,712 | $1,392,415 |
| 11 | $271,889 | $1,664,304 |
| 12 | $293,962 | $1,958,266 |
| 13 | $311,260 | $2,269,525 (payback – year 11.5 of production) |
| 14 | $327,915 | $2,597,440 |
| 15 | $343,946 | $2,941,386 |
| 16 | $359,373 | $3,300,758 (last year of payment on 15 year bond) |
| 17 | $615,743 | $3,916,501 |
| 18 | $613,936 | $4,530,437 |
| 19 | $612,158 | $5,142,595 |
| 20 | $610,409 | $5,753,004 |
| 21 | $608,688 | $6,361,692 |
| 22 | $606,994 | $6,968,686 (total projected revenue, 2010 dollars, 20.5 years of production) |
Above: Based on Vestas v90 turbine; 4,740,000 kWh/year production; $5.3 million project cost, 15-year bond @ 4.5%, 2.2% inflation, constant electricity rates in 2010 dollars, bond payments based on data supplied by Cape Cod 5.
With respect to the surcharge that will be charged customers to subsidize net-metered facilities: NSTAR, in a response dated 11/5/09 to a request from the Attorney General’s office, estimated that the impact on customer’s bills if its entire eligible net-metering capacity were supplied by wind facilities of the type proposed for Wellfleet, would be 1/10 of 1 percent per year (for example, for a customer using $1,500 of electricity per year, the surcharge would be $1.50 per year). This charge would apply to all customers in NSTAR’s service area, and would be added to the customer’s bill each January.
Does the WEC financial projection take into account downtime for maintenance and operating failures, such as what the Falmouth wind turbine is currently experiencing? Does the WEC financial projection take into account downtime for maintenance and operating failures, such as what the Falmouth wind turbine is currently experiencing? How much downtime are they projecting, and does this increase into the future as the equipment ages?
Wellfleet’s projections are based on so-called “p90” estimated rates of annual production. This is a rate of production that has a 90% probability of being exceeded in any year. The “raw” rates are also adjusted by a factor of approximately 12% to account for downtime and other variability and unknowns. As of this date, the Falmouth turbine has not been “commissioned” – any delay in production is a construction issue, not a production issue. The adjustments to the expected production percentages are industry-standard and are expected to be sufficient to reflect production over time. The maintenance allocation is increased at a rate (2.7%) greater than the general rate of inflation (2.2%) to reflect additional maintenance expense in later years.
For that matter, when would it be considered obsolete and what would the town’s responsibility be toward its removal (and is that figured into the financial projections?)?
The wind turbine is expected to have a minimum of 20.5 year lifespan of production. It is expected that the scrap value of the metal in the turbine is sufficient to cover the cost of decommissioning (turbine removal). The current revenue projections do not include a decommissioning cost.
3. It appears that numerous people in other states and countries are calling for a minimum setback of 2km or 1 mile due to noise. It appears that even though noise studies are performed before the building of large wind turbines; that the current noise standards subject many people to sleepless nights and what they describe as “torture” of a pulsating noise. Most large turbines to date in this country are miles from anyone. What makes the supporters of this project confident that using the same sound models that they won’t be subjecting their fellow citizens to “torture”?
There have been wind generating facilities constructed that through inadequate zoning or other design issues have resulted in sound levels that have created annoyance. There are at least three attributes of a wind facility that must be considered when comparing the experience at one facility with what might be experienced at another: (1) the number of turbines in the facility, (2) the distance to the closest residences, and (3) the topography – are there mountains and valleys?
For example, the experience of Vinalhaven Island, Maine has been used locally as an example of what will or could be the experience of the proposed Wellfleet project. However, the facilities are not comparable: Vinalhaven has three turbines, the Wellfleet proposal has a single turbine. According to a recent newspaper article (The “Waterfront”, February-March, 2010) the requirements for the Vinalhaven project were:
Sound from the wind turbines is not to exceed 55 decibels between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. and 45 decibels between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. beyond the boundary of the wind-power property, according to the project's state Department of Environmental Protection permit.
According to the Maine CDC (http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/boh/wind-turbines-neuro-acoustical.shtml), Maine regulations for non-commercial/non-industrial areas have two categories of sound restriction: (i) for areas where ambient sounds are 45 dBA or less daytime or 35 dBA or less nighttime, the limits are 45 dBA daytime and 35 dBA or less nighttime, otherwise (ii) the limits are 60dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime. The limits set for Vinalhaven seem to be 5dBA less than the least restrictive, but 10 dBA greater than the most restrictive. This zoning is apparently unsuited to the actual rural nature of Vinalhaven, according to Mr. Peter Guldberg, the Town’s acoustic consultant, who will be available at an informational meeting in Wellfleet scheduled for April 10, 2010 to explain in more depth the sound issues at Vinalhaven and other problematic developments.
For any acoustic impact to be discernable, residences generally must be downwind of the turbine. Since the predominant wind is from the west, northwest, or southwest in Wellfleet, sound will seldom be an issue for residences to the west of the turbine. In fact, the times when wind direction is from the east are generally during storms, when there will be high ambient sound and the additional turbine sound will be indistinguishable.
The acoustic study describes the circumstances under which sound could be heard during the most likely time – i.e., at “cut-in” wind speed:
The Project will be audible at certain times in the residential areas next to the project area. The “swishing” sound characteristic of a wind turbine will be audible outdoors when these three conditions all occur: 1) the residential area is downwind of the wind turbine, 2) ambient sound levels are low (usually late at night with calm surface winds), and 3) wind speeds at the hub height of the turbine are high enough for wind turbine operation. Project sounds will not be audible inside any residence.
The resulting ambient and combined sound levels and increase, from the study, are given below:
The Town is in the process of obtaining an acoustic analysis for the Vestas V90 turbine, which is the replacement model for the V82, which is being phased out. It is expected that the V90 acoustic impact is similar to that of the V82.
4. I understand that Mr. Sexton and Mr. Karlson will be taking a "fact-finding trip" to Vinalhaven, ME. Will they be meeting with the Wylies and the Lindgrens, area residents who had been in favor of the wind turbines before they were commissioned who since then have unfortunately discovered that their lives have been negatively impacted by the machines . . . or will they be avoid speaking with any people who don't share their enthusiasm for wind turbines?
See the discussion, above, concerning Vinalhaven. Clearly, the zoning requirements and the design of the three-turbine GE facility at Vinalhaven were not based on a realistic appraisal of the ambient sound regime in that area. The sound levels generated created by the three-turbine facility in Vinalhaven are significantly greater than those in Wellfleet and clearly there are residences much closer to the turbines there than would be the case for the closest residences to the turbine in Wellfleet. The acoustic impact of the three-turbine facility in Vinalhaven is in no way comparable to that of the Wellfleet proposal and should not be used as indication of the effect of the Wellfleet proposal. For more information, and discussion, please attend the April 10, 2010 information meeting in Wellfleet.
5. Mr. Karlson, I realize that at this time you are only considering one turbine, yet all studies and contracts for connections with NStar are for three turbines.
The statement in the question above that “…all studies and contracts for connections with NStar are for three turbines” is incorrect. The Black & Veatch feasibility study of August, 2008 examined both a single-turbine facility and a three-turbine facility, because the physical size of the Town-owned parcel would support at maximum up to three turbines. The Energy Committee, after considering all factors, including financial, environmental, regulatory, visual, acoustic, and shadow flicker, recommended to the Board of Selectmen that the investigation phase be continued for a single-turbine facility. The funding article approved at the October, 2009 Special Town Meeting is specifically for a single-turbine facility. The Interconnection Application submitted to NSTAR on 12/1/09, which includes the detailed electrical characteristics of the unit, is for a single-turbine facility. The engineering consultancy contract awarded to Weston & Sampson Corporation is for a single-turbine facility. The surveying work undertaken by Slade Associates under the subcontract to Weston & Sampson has been for a single-turbine facility. The currently pending avian and wildlife study request for proposals is for a single-turbine site and associated access.
One or three turbines, either choice sounds like industrial development for commercial purposes of a land that has been set aside by an act of the U.S. Congress for conservation and preservation for future generations. Commercial and industrial are defined by the nature of the activity, not who does that activity.
It is my sense that it is the consensus of the Energy Committee that this proposal contributes to the long-term viability of the Outer Cape and embodies the type of change that is necessary for the preservation and flourishing of human civilization into the future. The type and scale of this project, referred to as a municipal Community-Scale Wind Facility in Massachusetts, contributes to State and Federal initiatives to move the nation towards a sustainable future and conforms to renewable energy initiatives recently sanctioned by executive orders from the President and the Secretary of the Interior. The Wellfleet town counsel has advised the Town that, in counsel’s opinion, the proposal represents a valid municipal use, and I believe it is the feeling of the Energy Committee that the scale of this project is appropriate for the Town to pursue as a valid municipal use.
If one turbine is built, what is to prevent human greed from trying for three turbines?
The Town Meeting format and requirement for two-thirds votes to pursue projects like this serve as a validation point for the reasonableness of taking on such additional projects in the future. I believe the chances of attempting to build more than one turbine on the White Crest/Wellfleet-by-the-Sea parcel in the future would be slim – it is certainly not something I would support, because I believe the scale, and setbacks possible for a single turbine, are appropriate for the Town of Wellfleet. No one can predict the course that those that those who follow us will pursue – but I do have faith in the ultimate maturity and prudence of the Wellfleet voting public.
6. Why is the Wellfleet Energy Committee pursuing industrial size wind turbines within the national park when there are numerous other forms of renewable energy -- geothermal, solar thermal and photovoltaic -- that are benign?
A single turbine that is between 1 and 2 megawatts is referred to as Community-Scale Wind in Massachusetts. The Town of Wellfleet, of which the Wellfleet Energy Committee (WEC) is a volunteer advisory board, has and will continue to pursue all feasible forms of renewable energy. For example, recently the Town was awarded $145,000 of ARRA “stimulus” for the installation of photovoltaic panels on the Fire Station. Last year, WEC personnel assisted in the Library photovoltaic project and in the preliminary analysis of photovoltaics for the Senior Center. We expect further projects will be examined into the future, including options for energy conservation and efficiency improvements in town buildings through possible conversions to geothermal heating systems and solar thermal hot water, especially where grants are available.
The wind turbine project is especially appropriate for Wellfleet to undertake for a variety of reasons: (1) Wellfleet has one of the best land-based wind resources in Massachusetts, (2) recent regulatory changes have facilitated and encouraged municipal development of this type of facility, and (3) the project is projected to generate significant revenue for the Town that could be used, in part, to fund continuing energy efficiency projects within the Town during a period of difficult fiscal constraint.
As recently as the February 22nd episode of CBS's "60 Minutes" there was a report on the "Bloom Energy Box" which is being hailed as "the future of American energy." It's "footprint" is about the size of a parking space that would be placed outside of buildings and can produce enough energy for 100 homes.
The WEC is interested in investigating all feasible forms of renewable energy production on behalf of the Town.
Instead the Energy Committee seems hell bent on pursuing a 400-foot (or now 425-foot) wind turbine despite the fact that there are numerous instances of these machines negatively impacting residents living within a mile of their site, not to mention their affect on wildlife, including the killing of birds flying into their blades.
The wind turbine project is a project of the voters of Wellfleet – twice in 2009, voters at Town Meeting approved by over 2/3 vote articles relating to community-scale wind turbines – first the municipal wind turbine zoning bylaw in April, 2009, and then the funding article in October, 2009. Those articles had the unanimous support of the Board of Selectmen. The WEC is continuing with its support of this community-sanctioned project in accord with the “charge” of the Committee, and strictly as an advisory body to the Town Administration and Board of Selectmen.
In terms of the negative impact of wind turbines on nearby residents, refer to the discussion of Vinalhaven above, and of “flicker shadow” impact later in this document. The voters have found this project worthy of future work. In terms of potential impact on avian species, an extensive avian and wildlife study is scheduled to begin in April, 2010. It is now understood that deaths of birds from impacts with turbines of the type proposed are minimal (certainly less than the effects of household cats and impacts with windows). The Town looks forward to the results of the upcoming environmental, avian, and wildlife assessment.
Worst yet is the Energy Committee's total disregard for how such a project would divide the community of Wellfleet. George Zebrowski
Wellfleet attracts strong individuals with strong opinions who often express their opinions with strength and passion. The WEC does not see this as undesirable – certainly a project of this scope must be completely and closely examined in all its aspects, and openly and thoroughly debated, and the current discussion, in that light, is salutary. The Committee believes, however, that the discussion can be especially furthered by (1) adhering to generally accepted accounting principles when discussing financial aspects, and (2) refraining from comparing this proposal to facilities with dissimilar, incomparable characteristics in terms of maximum and expected sound levels, numbers of turbines, closeness to residences, special topological features, etc. The Committee remembers issues from the past, such as the placement of cell phone towers and even the opinions of some concerning the new water tower, that have engendered forceful dialog. The WEC has confidence in maturity of the voters and in their commitment to the democratic process that must be the basis for the community’s decision-making.
7a. The proposed site lies deep within a national park -- the Cape Cod National Seashore - whose stated core mission is “the preservation of the natural landscape in its original condition for all future generations.”
The proposed site is about 1/2 mile from the boundary of the CCNS – where a major utility easement carries high-voltage power lines to and from the Gross Hill Substation. The area is bisected by numerous dirt roads, and riding and walking paths.
7b. Every major conservation organization – Mass Audubon, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the NRDC and the National Park Service – state unequivocally that installation of wind turbines within or abutting such conservation areas and sensitive habitats – including national parks - should be prohibited.
The organizations cited are valuable national organizations that have performed and continue to perform valuable action to promote a sustainable future for the planet and the living species that inhabit it. However, broad-brush policy positions do not necessarily take into account the special status of the CCNS as a national park that was set down in the midst of a number of existing municipalities. That historical fact, and the historical multi-use character of Wellfleet-by-the-Sea, create special circumstances and considerations concerning the development of land not in the ownership of the Seashore, but residing within its boundaries. For example, there are numerous private residences in the area, some of which are even used for commercial (rental) purposes, and which occupy the viewscapes of the Lecount Hollow and Whitecrest Beach areas. Mr. George Price, Superintendant of the CCNS, has himself pointed out the special relationship of the Seashore with the Towns and the necessity of examining each municipal development proposal on its own merits. Mr. Price has also noted the importance of green / renewable energy initiatives in relation to policy and planning for private, municipal, and federal land use within the Seashore.
Additionally, Mr. Dick Elkin has communicated the following: “Both Mass Audubon and the Nature Conservancy have responded to me disagreeing with Eric Bibler’s characterization of their position. “ Mass Audubon has issued a statement that reads, in part, “It is premature for Mass Audubon to take a position on this project until the wildlife and avian assessment is completed.”
7c. The proposed site is considered to be valuable “unfragmented habitat” in an area that has been officially designated by Mass Audubon as an Important Bird Area because of its location on a major bird migration route that is protected by international treaties.
In fact, the area is traversed by numerous dirt paths, tracks, and driving roads, leading 1/2 mile to the west to the NSTAR power lines, from whence ATVs and dirt bikes often proceed into the CCNS. Within 1/2 mile to the east are found paved parking lots and roads and numerous private residences along with accompanying human impacts such as traffic, noise, ground water septic contamination, and night lights.
Possible impacts on migratory species, if any, are planned to be examined in considerable detail during the coming migration season. It is hoped that mitigation measures, if recommended, will be well within the scope of the project.
7d. The area surrounding the wind turbine site, on both Town owned land and within the Seashore, is honeycombed with wooded trails that are currently used by recreational hikers, mountain bikers, horseback riders and other park users who value the peaceful stillness of the natural setting.
These facts were noted above in commenting on the “unfragmented habitat” question. The proposed use, in fact less than 3% of the total area of the Town-owned parcel, does not threaten the use of the vast majority of the parcel for recreation or species habitat. And, as you note, the parcel is abutted by literally thousands of acres of Seashore land that provides vast areas of habitat and recreational opportunity.
7e. The proposed 400 foot wind turbine – 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty -- lies within a half mile of Ocean View Drive, which has been officially designated by the Town of Wellfleet as a “Scenic Drive,” where it will dominate and dramatically alter the scenic landscape in an area where the tallest trees are only 20 to 30 feet high.
The turbine “hub” is about 263 feet tall, somewhat shorter than the Pilgrim Monument. The designation of a road as “scenic drive” actually relates only to the changes that are allowed on the road itself – it makes no implication about the nature of development that might be appropriate 1/2 mile distant. Here is the actual substantive language from Chapter 40, Section 15C of the General Laws of Massachusetts:
“After a road has been designated as a scenic road any repair, maintenance, reconstruction, or paving work done with respect thereto shall not involve or include the cutting or removal of trees, or the tearing down or destruction of stone walls, or portions thereof, except with the prior written consent of the planning board, . . .”
With the availability of the photosimulations, it becomes apparent that even from the closest and clearest view of the proposed turbine – from the back (western edge) of White Crest Beach parking lot (2560’ from the turbine) – the turbine would not “dominate” or “loom over” the landscape. Here is that simulation:
From a point north on Ocean View Drive, looking south, 3700’ feet (almost 3/4 mile) from the turbine:
From many points, including South Wellfleet General Store, Route 6 at Cove Road, and other points to the west, the turbine will be completely obscured and will be less visible than the new water tower. From a point parallel to the closest residence to the turbine to the west (on Priscilla Road) the turbine itself is obscured almost entirely by pine trees, as shown by the “wire figure” here:
The turbine would not be visible from the Atlantic beaches. For example, the photo below from Lecount Hollow beach looking west shows the position of the turbine as a wireframe against the dune:
7f. According to the wind turbine manufacturer’s brochure, the proposed model will emit noise of over 100 decibels at its 262 foot hub height under normal operation – comparable to the sound from a jet --, which will be easily perceived by nearby residents – virtually all of the time, 24 hours a day – under normal operating conditions; furthermore, numerous studies have shown that such chronic noise has an extremely adverse impact upon wildlife.
See the discussion of sound in the answer to question 3, above. What is most important is the attenuation of sound over the distance from the turbine nacelle to the closest residence, almost 1/2 mile away. By the time the sound reaches the closest residences, it has attenuated to an extremely low level and its contribution to the decibel level at those residences is minor.
In terms of the impact of the turbine sound on wildlife, it is hoped that the use of this small part of the large Town-owned parcel for an environmentally beneficial goal can be viewed in light of the 97% of the parcel that remains untouched and of the hundreds of acres of adjoining untouched habitat. It is our hope that any acoustic impact on local wildlife can be mitigated by the availability of extensive adjoining habitat.
7g. The wind turbine will create a dramatic strobe effect – or “flicker effect” – over a vast area during the best light of the day, in morning and evening, when the sun is low in the sky.
A shadow flicker analysis of the proposed facility was completed by the UMASS Wind Energy Center on 4/2/09. The following paragraph appears on page 3 of the report:
This report considers flicker at distances of up to about 1500 meters from the proposed wind site. However, at distances greater than approximately one kilometer (0.6 miles) [1000 meters], light is sufficiently dispersed by particles in the air that the blades no longer produce distinct shadows. Consequently the rotor of a wind turbine will not cause shadow flicker, and beyond this distance shadow flicker is normally negligible.
Based on the above, then, if residences are about 1000 meters or farther away, flicker is not an issue even if a residence is in the calculated path of the shadow. UMASS performed calculations for 18 locations around the original three turbine sites. Of these 18 locations, only three were less than 1000 meters from turbine site #2. One of those three is west of the turbine site and is shown as 980 meters from the site. Pine trees to the east of this area would likely shield the location from direct sunlight (additional photo simulations are planned for this area to determine if the turbine will be visible).
Discounting the residences west of the turbine (near 1000 meters away and shielded by pine trees), leaves one area subject to shadow flicker of about 28 residences along Ocean View Drive extending from the White Crest Beach parking lot south about 0.45 mile. These are residences in the areas of sample locations #3 and #4. It is likely that flicker shadow impact for residences within range will be mitigated by existing trees located to the west of many residences. Here is what the report says about flicker from Turbine #2:
While Turbine 2 is would likely impact a greater number of houses than Turbine 1, the annual expected values of flicker duration do not exceed four hours at any site (the maximum value of 3 hours and 54 minutes corresponds to receptor 4). Most of the houses that would be affected by this turbine are located in Wellfleet by the Sea. Few of these would likely experience more than two hours of flicker per year.
Additionally, the seasonal graph of flicker for Turbine #2 shows that there is only a period of approximately two weeks in the beginning of September where there is significant flicker from this turbine during the “high use” calendar period for this area. Based on the above information, it is apparent that shadow flicker is minimal and is likely already mitigated by trees for many of the residences potentially affected. The major part of the impact is concentrated during parts of the year when most of the residences are likely to be unoccupied.
7h. The current proposal from the WEC contains no provision whatsoever for costs associated with abandonment and removal if the adverse effects prove to be more extreme than currently projected.
The Vestas V90 turbine, as an example, has capability for special configurations that can be programmed depending on the time of day, wind speed, season of the year, and even direction of the wind. These capabilities can be used to mitigate, if necessary, possible impacts, as follows:
i) Acoustic impacts. As described above, acoustic impact is even a theoretical issue during times of low wind speed, usually occurring in the evening. Also, the impact is only heard when you are downwind of the turbine. If necessary, during the summer months and the evening hours and when the wind is coming from the west or northwest, the “cut-in” wind speed could be set at a higher level so that the turbine does not operate at very low wind speed during those times.
ii) Flicker impacts. As described above, flicker impacts that would occur during periods when residences in the area are heavily occupied are limited to two weeks early in September. If horticultural mitigation is not already in place or is not able to be installed, the turbine could be idled (“parked”) for the few minutes in which the flicker shadow was a potential.
iii) Bat and bird migration mortality. It is expected that the environmental assessment will identify any migratory issues and mitigation measures. One mitigation measure that has been demonstrated to be successful for migrating bats is to raise the “cut-in” wind speed during periods when bat migration activity is the greatest. These are generally periods (1) at the dark of the moon in the evening when (2) there is low wind speed for (3) late September through early October. If, indeed, the avian study shows that migrating bats are prevalent in the area, the turbine could be configured for a higher wind speed cut-in during bat migration periods.
Since the repayment of the borrowing for the turbine is from the revenue produced by it, the decommissioning of the turbine prior to the payback of the loan would result in a loss to the town. Currently, the payback period for the V90 is projected at about 11.5 years of production. After that time, the turbine could be decommissioned probably without expense as the value of the turbine for scrap is generally considered sufficient to cover the cost of decommissioning, or the income from a few more months of production after payback would be sufficient to cover the costs of decommissioning.
7i. If the location of the wind turbine is “inappropriate” according to the all of these criteria put forth by so many thoughtful and responsible conservation organizations; if the wind turbine itself is so grossly out of scale and out of character with the surrounding landscape; if the noise and the flicker effect will create a predictable, and maybe even intolerable nuisance for nearby residents and for those who love the unspoiled beauty of the woods; if the wind turbine will drive off wildlife and kill birds and bats; and if the Town makes no commitment – and no financial provision – to dismantle the giant industrial tower if the whole project turns out to be a terrible mistake, as the zoning bylaw requires; why does the proposal not fail every single provision of stipulated in the Wind Turbine Bylaws?
See answers to individual assertions, above. A single community-scale wind turbine appears to be a skillful synthesis of multiple worthy priorities and concerns among a diversity of Wellfleet voters and appears to be appropriate in scale, environmental benefit, financial prudence and ecological benefit.
8a. Is the land value zero? After the WEC constructs a wind turbine “using less than 2% of the land” will the rest of it be salable?
Since it is Town-owned land, although an assessed value may have been assigned, the property does not generate tax revenue. Certainly, if the Town has any plans (or is even able) to sell the property, the Energy Committee would not proceed with investigation of the establishment of a wind turbine generator. The Energy Committee expects that the Town Administration and/or the Board of Selectmen would advise the Committee of any such plans at the earliest possible time.
8b. Land Value / Initial Permitting and Studies – Not Included in Costs? Your “Pro Forma Budget” neglects to assign any value to the land which the Town will contribute to the wind turbine project. As I’m sure that you can appreciate, once the proposed wind turbine, or turbines, are erected, the land will no longer be available for other use. It is illogical, therefore, not to consider the land value as part of the overall project cost.
The use of less than 3% of the parcel for a wind turbine would not preclude other use of rest of the property – for example, the remainder could be used as it has been used for forty years and longer – as natural habitat. In the last forty years, the Town has had zero revenue from the land, and (presumably) zero expenses, giving a net cash flow and income of zero for the entire parcel, regardless of its current assessed valuation. If a wind turbine is installed, both expenses and revenue would increase. The difference would not be zero, but rather revenue would exceed expenses by a projected $6,968,000 in 2010 dollars over the 20.5 year productive life of the facility. That approximate $7 million thus earned could be used for a variety of useful projects for the town, including but not limited to additional energy conservation measures and funding of additional renewable energy production facilities as may be appropriate for municipal energy needs, or for reduction of what would otherwise be tax increases.
8c. According to the report supplied to me by Ms. Nancy Vail, Wellfleet Tax Assessor, the current assessed value of the land that you identify for use on this project is $2,568,600 (see attached).
In your Pro Forma, you project the cost of the project (excluding land) to be $5.3 million – a 10% increase over the projected cost last three months ago at the Special Town Meeting. When the land value is added into this figure, the total projected cost of the project is, in fact, $7.9 million.
If the value of the land is actually $2.6 million, then the Town has been foregoing tax income of approximately $15,600 per year (at $6 per $1000 valuation tax rate) for forty years – or about $624,000. The Committee’s current pro forma based on the V90 shows cumulative net revenue of some $653,000 by the end of the sixth year of production – thereby recouping the many years of lost tax revenue. The fact that 95% of the property would remain available for recreation and natural habitat adds to the reasonableness of this synthesis of financial common sense, habitat preservation, and action towards a sustainable energy economy. The use of this property for a wind turbine facility is clearly more advantageous over the life of the project than (i) selling the property (assuming it could be sold) and then (ii) taxing the sold property. The estimated value of selling and taxing (in 2010 dollars) is $2.6 million plus $15,600 per year for 22 years, or a total of about $3,000,000. This is only about 42% of the projected revenue ($7 million) of the proposed wind turbine. This financial accounting does not include the added benefits of the reduction of green house gases and pollutants represented by the energy so produced.
8d. It is unclear whether your “Pro Forma Budget” includes the $290,000 expense for permitting and further studies which was authorized on 26 October 2009 and which you are currently spending. If this figure must be added to the prior estimates, the total cost of your project for the installation of one wind turbine rises to $8.2 million.
The current estimated cost of $5.3 million includes the $290,000 allocated from October, 2009. Estimated net revenue is $6,968,686 in 2010 dollars for 20.5 years of production, giving average yearly revenue of $339,936. The graph below shows the cumulative revenue by year, starting with the first year of construction.
9. Why is it that the Energy Committee does not discuss matters of the upmost importance at their meetings? Instead important decisions are made outside of the meetings such as the recent matter of declaring that V-82 windmill is obsolete and a newer, bigger V-90 is required which was not even mentioned at a Energy Committee meeting less than 2 weeks ago? This is only the latest example of the lack of transparency and I am questioning why this is an ongoing problem even when Massachusetts Public Record Law requests are made, very little if any information is provided ?
Mr. Sexton of the Energy Committee had been acting as liaison on behalf of the Committee with Vestas and had had a telephone meeting scheduled with the Vestas representative for 2/17/10, which was rescheduled by the Vestas representative to Friday, 2/19/10. Sexton was to be out of town on that date so Karlson made the phone call. The Vestas representative provided information that confirmed that the v90 model, the follow-on to the v82, would provide superior price performance to the v82, and provided other proprietary engineering information. The representative confirmed that the maximum tip height of the v90 is 125 meters (410.15 feet). Karlson communicated to the Town Administration that the replacement turbine available from Vestas conformed to the 125 meter form factor. The Town Administration (Mr. Peterson) advised Karlson that a variance for new construction is not routinely awarded, and that a zoning bylaw amendment enabling 125 meter wind turbines was advisable. Given the typical 90 day waiting period for Attorney General approval of zoning bylaw changes, it became apparent that it was important that a zoning bylaw amendment be put forth, if found reasonable by the Board of Selectmen, for the Spring town meeting, rather than the Fall, in order to maintain the original schedule based on the exigencies of the net metering regime. Hence, in order to present the option of a zoning bylaw change at the 2/23/10 Selectmen’s meeting to accommodate the 125 meter height, it was necessary for Mr. Peterson to place such an amendment on the agenda for the Selectmen.
The events described above occurred between meetings of the Energy Committee, and hence were not able to be discussed by the Committee prior to the decisions taken by the Town Administration. The Energy Committee is expected to take up these matters as soon as the article is referred to them by the Selectmen.
10. The studies that have been done to date are based on a certain size turbine. Will these studies be performed again, if the size of the turbine is increased?
Yes. Note that according to Massachusetts Chapter 30B procurement regulations, a specific model cannot be specified except under special circumstances. However, minimum and maximum performance criteria, etc., can be specified.
11. The noise study appears to have been performed during a short period of a day or two using a single wind direction. Noise studies for other wind turbine installation are done over many seasons with varying wind, atmospheric and environmental conditions (foliage, frozen ground, etc). The met tower showed a prevailing wind from the SW whereas the noise study was using only a NE wind which conveniently introduced a substantial amount of surf noise to mask the normal low ambient noise. Why wouldn’t these factors give a misleading result? We know of so many cases where noise is a substantial issue, why was the wind study so limited? Was it just to get a good result with little care for the people who will be impacted?
It is the Energy Committee’s understanding that Mr. Guldberg of Tech Environmental performed the test according to the requirements established with their contract with the Mass Technology Collaborative, with whom the contract was made, and according to generally accepted acoustic engineering practice. Mr. Guldberg of Tech Environmental will be attending the informational meeting scheduled for April 10, 2010 and will be able to provide more information at that point. It would appear the benign results of the acoustic study are primarily the result of the long distance (almost 1/2 mile) between the proposed turbine site and the closest residences.
12. " Geoff Karlson, Wellfleet Energy Committee, will give an introduction to the project, covering location, visual simulations, noise/flicker studies, ownership model, anticipated costs/savings/payback, schedule, and possible later expansion to three turbines." My understanding from attending many WEC meetings is that only ONE turbine is under discussion. Please explain the apparent inconsistency.
The description of the Wellfleet Forum program was developed without consultation with the Energy Committee. The Energy Committee is not currently considering any option that includes more than one turbine at the White Crest / Wellfleet-by-the-Sea property and has no plans to do so in the future. My personal opinion is that a single turbine, sited according to the proposal at Turbine Site #2, is an appropriate community-scale wind facility for that area.
13. Does Mr. Karlson have any concern for the fracturing of the Wellfleet community, as expressed in Gooz Draz's resignation letter from the WEC? Please comment.
I understand and respect Mr. Draz’s opinions. However, I am hopeful that the discussion concerning the wind turbine proposal can continue in a spirit of mature debate and that all of the parties will embrace the democratic decision-making processes in place. A spirited and detailed discussion of all aspects of the proposal is valuable and should be encouraged.
14. Does Mr. Karlson recognize that the WEC's proposal to erect a turbine with its acoustic and flicker, will create both a Private and Public Nuisance? And that the Town of Wellfleet will (should the turbine be erected) very likely be subject to property owner lawsuits for this nuisance?
It is my personal opinion that acoustic and shadow flicker will be of minimal significance and impact, if any.
15. Will the owners of property directly affected by the "nuisance" this installation will surely create be compensated by the Town of Wellfleet?
Based on the engineering studies I have seen relating to this specific facility, it is my personal opinion that there will be no nuisance – that acoustic and shadow flicker impacts will be of minimal significance.
16. If some residents homes are deemed uninhabitable by the courts or an independent party will the Town buy these properties at the fair market price prior to the installation?
It would appear the answer to this question would require the expertise of an attorney .
17. If owners of homes that presently rent them and are unable to rent them after the construction of the towers begins will the town compensate the owners for the lost rental income?
This would be a question that would need to be addressed by the Selectmen. There might be difficulty in identifying the exact cause of a change in economic circumstance – which could arise because of a number of causes, some or all of which might not be related to the construction of a turbine. Again, an issue such as this would probably require the involvement of an experienced attorney.
18. The National Seashore Park in Wellfleet is a summer destination for many families and visitors who are beachgoers, hikers, hang gliders, fishing enthusiasts, bike riders, surfers, and others who find inspiration in its natural beauty. Some are looking for peace and quiet solitude. Has the Town of Wellfleet considered the impact in that a 400 ft Wind Turbine would have on the local tourist industry?
Any answer would be conjectural, however we have found there to be a widespread belief that the presence of a wind turbine would be a net positive for the tourist industry, because, in the opinion of many, (1) it would not create a nuisance in terms of acoustic impact or shadow flicker, (2) it would not be visible from any of the Atlantic beaches, (3) many consider a modern community-scale wind turbine to be esthetically pleasing, and (4) it would represent a laudable step taken by a forward-looking community to address the serious and pressing energy and climatic issues facing the nation and the world. Many believe such a turbine would engender appreciation among the many summer visitors and enhance the reputation of Wellfleet as a desirable vacation destination.
19. The GE Company has a document that warns their windmill users and operators that there is a risk from ice throw from windmills:
"General Electric Energy recommends a setback distance from any hiking trails of approximately 180 meters (600 feet) to avoid any potential ice throw danger."
Will the Town do anything to warn hikers/bikers/hunters, etc. that enter this 26 acres of land to this danger? Will a fence be required now that a road will lead folks right to the windmill?
It would be prudent to post signs at the gate on the road and near the wind turbine. The Energy Committee would discourage use of the trails within 600 feet of the facility during icy weather. The exact extent of fencing is to be determined.
20. Should the turbine be erected, will there be a property assurance clause included in local legislation? This would insure that no resident has to sell his house at less than a pre-turbine price. The town would pick up any difference. What's to lose for the WEC or the town, since the WEC claims that property values will not be impacted by the turbine?
This would be an item to bring up with your Selectmen. It would seem difficult, especially given the recent volatility in the housing market, to determine the exact cause of a price decline (or rise). Again, for questions such as this, the assistance of legal counsel would be helpful.
The Brewing Tempest Over Wind Power
People living near turbines increasingly report sleep deprivation, headaches and vertigo. The wind lobby says there's no proof.
Imagine this scenario: The oil and gas industry launches an aggressive global drilling program with a new type of well. Thousands of these new wells, once operational, emit a noxious odor so offensive that many of the people living within a mile of them are kept awake at night. Some are even forced to move out of their homes. It's easy to predict the reaction: denunciations of the industry, countless lawsuits, and congressional investigations.
Now substitute wind for oil and gas and consider the noise complaints being lodged against wind projects around the world.
The Obama administration has made the increased use of wind power to generate electricity a top priority. In 2009 alone, U.S. wind generation capacity increased by 39%. But more wind power means more giant turbines closer to more people. And if current trends continue, that spells trouble.
In 2007, a phalanx of wind turbines were built around Charlie Porter's property in rural northern Missouri. Soon, Mr. Porter began to have trouble sleeping. So did his wife and daughter. The noise, he told me, made sleeping almost impossible. "We tried everything—earplugs, leaving the TV station on all night." Nothing worked. Late last year he moved his family off their 20-acre farm.
Mr. Porter's story is no isolated event. Rural residents in Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and England have been complaining about the noise from wind turbines, particularly about sleep deprivation. Dozens of news stories—most of them published in rural newspapers—have documented the problem.
I've spoken to nine other people in New York, Wisconsin, Ontario, New Zealand, Nova Scotia and England who live, or lived, near wind turbines. All complained of the noise, with sleep deprivation being the most common complaint. For example, Janet Warren, who raises sheep near Makara, New Zealand, told me via email that the turbines near her home emit "continuous noise and vibration," which disturb her sleep and are causing "loss of concentration, irritability, and short-term memory effects."
Complaints about sleep disruption—as well as the deleterious health effects caused by the pulsing, low-frequency noise emitted by the giant turbines—are a central element of an emerging citizen backlash against the booming global wind industry.
Lawsuits that focus on noise pollution are now pending in Maine, Pennsylvania and New Zealand. In New Zealand, more than 750 complaints have been lodged against a large wind project near Makara since it began operating last April. The European Platform Against Windfarms lists 388 groups in 20 European countries. Canada has more than two dozen antiwind groups. In the U.S. there are about 100 such groups, and state legislators in Vermont recently introduced a bill that will require wind turbines be located no closer than 1.25 miles from any residence.
In theory, big wind projects should only be built in desolate areas. But the reality is that many turbines are being installed close to homes. Wind developers put a turbine within 550 meters of Mr. Porter's house. Hal Graham, a retired office manager in Cohocton, N.Y., complains about the noise pollution caused by a turbine 300 meters from his home. Tony Moyer, a plumbing superintendent in Eden, Wis., grumbles about the noise generated by three turbines built within 425 meters of his house.
Doctors and acoustics experts from the U.S. to Australia report a raft of symptoms that they blame on wind turbine noise, including sleep disturbance, headaches and vertigo. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., has studied 36 people affected by wind turbine noise since 2004 at her own expense. The people she interviewed were widely dispersed; they lived in the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland and Italy. She found that the collection of symptoms she calls "wind turbine syndrome" disappeared as soon as people moved out of their noise-affected homes and into new locations at least five miles from any turbines.
Across the border, Ontario-based orthopedic surgeon Dr. Robert McMurtry has been researching wind turbine noise for the past 18 months. Dr. McMurtry, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, counts more than 100 people in Ontario he believes are experiencing adverse effects from turbine noise. "It has compromised their health," he says.
The wind lobby has publicly rejected these claims. In December, the American Wind Energy Association in conjunction with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, issued a report titled "Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Review Panel." It declared: "There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects." It also suggested that some of the symptoms being attributed to wind turbine noise were likely psychosomatic and asserted that the vibrations from the turbines are "too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans."
Yet the report also noted that in "the area of wind turbine health effects, no case-control or cohort studies have been conducted as of this date." True enough—but it means there are no studies to prove or disprove the case. It also says that "a small number of sensitive people" may be "stressed" by wind turbine noise and suffer sleep deprivation. But who gets to define "sensitive" and "small number"? And if turbine noise and sleep disturbance aren't problems, then why are people in so many different locations complaining in almost identical ways? Such questions are only going to be pressed with more urgency in the future.
By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. According to the Department of Energy, meeting that goal will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, an eightfold increase over current levels. Installing tens of thousands of new turbines inevitably means they'll be located closer to populated areas.
The health effects of low-frequency noise on humans are not well understood. The noise in question often occurs at, or below, decibel levels that are commonly considered a public nuisance. And detecting low-frequency noise requires sophisticated acoustic gear. For all of these reasons, this issue should be investigated. If policy makers are serious about considering all of the impacts of "green" energy, then an impartial, international study of the effects of wind turbine noise should be undertaken without delay.
Maine: Myths, opinions, and facts
WindAction Editorial (Posted February 23, 2010)
This week, Angus King, former Maine Governor turned wind developer, set out to correct the record on what he termed 'myths' about wind power now circulating. His opinion piece, while devoid of any substantive proof other than his say so and a link to his project's web site, in fact, was teeming with his own myths and half-truths that deserve clarification.
King first takes issue with Jonathan Carter of Forest Ecology Network and Carter's description of mountaintop wind operations resulting in "the building of thousands of miles of additional power lines and roads [and]...the clear cutting of more than 50,000 acres of carbon-sequestering forestlands. Literally the tops of the mountains are blown-up in order to establish a bedrock base for the massive concrete pads needed to support 400-to-500-foot turbines."
King quibbles over the petty claiming dirt and rock on the mountain top are not actually removed from the mountain but merely "moved from one place to another in building the gravel access road and foundations." Perhaps the Governor missed the photos taken at the TransCanada wind site atop Kibby Mountain in Maine, where 50-60 foot ledge cuts into the side the of the mountain were required to construct roads stable enough to handle the weight and width of the turbine components. Or the more infamous photo of the Mars Hill wind site, also in Maine, showing just how much the mountaintop was blown off to make way for the towers. We believe that most people would agree with Jonathan Carter.
The next 'myth' King takes on is that of noise. He claims "our" law, presumably Maine's law, is "pretty restrictive" but that "several of the early wind projects in Maine got waivers from the noise limits and there are neighbors who are hearing them and are pretty upset." King would do well to check his facts. Only one wind project, Mars Hill Wind, was granted a variance that would permit the project to operate at 50 db(A) as opposed to the required 45 db(A). Nonetheless, his statement is not relevant to the project sites in Vinalhaven and Freedom, Maine -- both of which are experiencing severe noise issues. Nor does it apply to the Stetson wind facility, approved by Maine's Land Use Regulatory Commission, which follows different standards altogether for noise.
He goes on to say that "our" experience shows that setback distances of around half a mile are adequate for addressing noise problems. Since King has never operated a wind facility we're not sure whose experience he's relying on, but he may wish to speak with Ethan Hall of Vinalhaven. Hall, who lives 3,500 feet from three industrial towers, recently explained that the noise penetrates his home where he is unable to read, work, or get good rest.
King's third myth argues that Maine's wind power law was not pushed through the legislature by wind proponents as claimed by some. What he doesn't bother to tell his readers is that the "Expedited Permit" wind law was declared an emergency bill from the governor and it passed through the legislature in 15 days with very little scrutiny. And that State Representative Jon Hinck, co-chairman of Maine's utilities and energy committee, who was responsible for giving the bill the emergency designation, is married to Juliet Browne, an attorney who represents wind interests in the State and who sat on the Governor's Wind Task Force. This week, Hinck asked the Maine Ethics Commission for an advisory opinion on whether he has a conflict of interest when considering wind legislation. A little late, but at least he's asking.
Finally, King scoffs at the idea that wind turbines can make you sick. He makes vague reference to "independent analyses" including Maine's own Dr. Dora Mills and the Maine Center for Disease Control in claiming turbines can annoy people but nothing more.
In December, Windaction.org reported on the Industry's misuse of the term 'annoyance' in claiming that noise impacts are of no consequence.
Equally significant is the e-mail paper trail -- one that King is well aware of -- which begins February 10, 2009 after Dr. Albert Aniel of Rumford, Maine forwarded an open letter from the Rumford Hospital Medical staff, together with links to articles, to Dr. Mills asking for her support for a moratorium on new permits for wind turbine projects until further research could be done on possible health effects of wind turbines.
As detailed in the e-mails, Dr. Mills looked to Maine's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner David Littell, and others at DEP involved in reviewing wind turbine projects, for assistance in refuting the health concerns of Dr. Aniel.
King then closes with some misrepresentations of his own.
In a subsection of his essay entitled "A Dangerous Dependence" he claims that Maine is "dangerously dependent upon fossil fuels " citing 55 percent of its electricity coming from oil and gas with 100 percent imported "often from people who don't like us." But what he doesn't tell you is that Maine's net electricity generation is among the lowest in the United States with a large percentage of its energy exported to other states in the region. As with most of New England, natural gas -- imported mostly from friendly Canada --accounts for around 40 percent of generation. And renewable sources, mainly wood and hydroelectric, account for almost half of Maine's net electricity generation. In fact, nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources make up a larger share of net electricity generation in Maine than in any other State.
Maine is hardly the poster-state for dirty electricty!
Governor King is certainly welcome to respond to statements by those in his State who are raising concerns about wind, and of course he is entitled to his own opinion. But apparently, he also believes he's entitled to his own facts.
http://www.windaction.org/faqs/25780
URGENT Cape Cod Commission Planning Meeting to determine rules for near shore waters
Wind energy planning district hearings
- Feb 23 6 p.m. Assembly of Delegates Chamber, Barnstable District Courthouse, Barnstable
- Feb 24 6 p.m. Bourne High School library
- Feb 25 6 p.m. Provincetown High School library
EASTHAM — Even in the chilly world of winter on the Outer Cape, talk of offshore wind turbines can generate some heat.
"I just don't think that wind energy is economically feasible for people of Cape Cod," Mary Allen Bradley of East Orleans said during a hearing yesterday at Eastham Town Hall on a proposed wind energy planning district for Cape waters.
The true cost of energy from wind should be examined more closely before any projects are approved, Bradley said.
"I find that to be just outrageous, as a ratepayer and a taxpayer at the federal and the state level," she said of subsidies and premiums that wind energy needs to compete with fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas.
The hearing was the second of five being held by the Cape Cod Commission on the designation of a so-called Capewide District of Critical Planning Concern, or DCPC, for renewable-energy projects such as wind turbines. The designated area would begin about 1,500 feet out from mean high water and extend to three miles offshore, covering 521,552 acres of open water.
A DCPC protects designated areas from specific types of development. There have been nine such planning districts established in seven Cape towns since 1990.
Martha's Vineyard, which is also moving forward with plans to establish a wind energy planning district, has 26 of the protected planning areas for various resources and uses, including four that are islandwide.
Full range of views
The Cape Cod Ocean Sanctuary off the Cape Cod National Seashore is already protected under the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, which was finalized at the end of last year. The state plan leaves areas in the waters around Cape Cod open to the possibility of as many as 24 community-sponsored wind turbines but gives authority to the Cape Cod Commission and the Martha's Vineyard Commission to determine the appropriate scale of the projects and the rules developers must follow in each agency's jurisdiction.
Despite a turnout of fewer than a dozen people, many of the viewpoints argued by those for and against offshore wind turbines during the debate that has raged for nine years over the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm were represented.
The planning district would not affect Cape Wind's plan for offshore turbines, as the site envisioned is in federal waters.
If nothing is done, climate change could have devastating impacts, especially for a place like Cape Cod, said Eastham Selectman David Schropfer.
"If anyplace is vulnerable to rising sea levels it is certainly this peninsula," he said. He noted that the high point of land in Eastham is between 16 and 18 feet above sea level, and a parking lot near his home has lost more than half of its parking spaces to the sea over the years.
He also told the Cape Cod Commission representatives that on a recent trip to Alaska he took his wife to see a glacier he had last visited about 15 years earlier.
"It was 100 miles away," from where it had been during his previous visit, he said.
Still, the need for renewable energy must be balanced by its impacts on tourism and the local economy, he said.
"How do we protect this area and how do we use it at the same time?" he asked.
Scaring off developers
Susan Kadar, a former Cape Cod Commission representative from Truro, outlined three reasons she opposes the planning district.
She said it appears the county is wresting power from municipalities over projects off their coast rather than delivering more control to local towns, as county officials have argued. The Cape Cod Commission also seems to be encroaching on towns' control over their "community character," she said.
Finally, Kadar argued, the involvement of the Cape Cod Commission could scare off wind-energy developers who do not want to go through the expense and process of appearing before the agency.
"There are occasions where businesses say, 'I would rather not'" appear before the commission, she said.
For others in the audience the hearing was a chance to learn more about the proposal.
Regulatory authorities need to catch up to changes in what is now possible, Dennis Clark of Truro said after the hearing.
"It's a lot better to have the regulations in place than no regs," he said.
The commission is scheduled to make a recommendation March 11 to the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates on whether to designate the planning district. The assembly then has 60 days to decide whether to move forward.
If the district is designated, the towns and the Cape Cod Commission would have one year to adopt regulations for the district.
For more information go to www.capecodcommission.org
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100223/NEWS/2230308/-1/NEWS01
Office Hours with Rep. Sarah Peake
State Rep. Sarah K. Peake (4th Barnstable District) will hold office hours at Harwich Town Hall on Friday, Feb. 26. No appointment is necessary.
Please let her know how you feel about wind turbines closer than 1 miles to houses?
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."