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!
Open Letter to the Citizens & Voters of the Town of Wellfleet from Selectman Beebe
On March 30, the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Wellfleet voted unanimously to suspend work on the proposed wind turbine project. It grieved me to make the decision and to have to disappoint so many people, especially those members of the Wellfleet Energy Committee (WEC) who gave literally years of their time, effort, and energy to this project. The vote has caused confusion and some controversy. I am writing to clarify why I chose to vote against the project, and why that evening and not at or after the Annual Town Meeting.
As a selectman I have been discussing the possibility of a wind project for Wellfleet for at least three years now. Like so many of you, I was very open to the possibility of a wind turbine for Wellfleet. I traveled across the country two years ago and saw turbine farms in Arizona. I did not stand at the base of one, nor did I hear one. In retrospect, I was probably 100 miles away, but I thought they were beautiful and decorative, and in no way marred the landscape. I was present when the MET tower was erected in the rear of the parking lot at White Crest Beach, and when we received the data from the met tower, and decided to move forward with a formal study. I voted in favor of all these steps, including the article at town meeting to authorize the board to spend money for the necessary studies. At each juncture, although very excited and hopeful, I realized that at any time in the process we could come across information that would be a deal breaker for the town. We were cautiously optimistic, and for me, it was all still conceptual.
Like all towns, we are facing many difficult decisions, quite a few of them are financial, even if they do not appear to be on the surface. Each year we face increasing challenges to balance the budget with the needs of citizens. We need to pay for our employees, keep our schools educating children, and continue to provide the town services that people rely on. Add to this mix that no one wants to pay more taxes, and many residents can not afford to. Paradoxically, as a town, we are conservation minded and really care about our land. We actively pursue placing more and more land into conservation and have worked to limit new building growth via zoning rules, both of which will continue to place more tax burden on existing property owners. In other words, it is all complicated, and never just about one thing. We are all struggling to find and keep a quality of life, and it is different for all of us. Our values are often not the same, and this leads to conflict, debate, and many tough decisions.
This winter I began to look more closely at the progress of the wind turbine project. Like most people, I had made assumptions regarding the siting and other issues, and the WEC had moved well beyond where I was. One of the changes was that the turbine could not be sited at White Crest (site 1) where the met tower was erected and the wind testing was done, so the WEC moved to the alternative site back into the forest of Wellfleet by the Sea (site 2) approximately 1/2 mile into the woods. Two other factors entered into the mix: the Board began to get more regular updates from the WEC (as they had new and important data and many time constraints and decisions to make) and there was a growing and active opposition to the project, raising concerns and demanding answers to questions. I read all of the studies that had been completed to date (available on the town’s website) in order to be more ready to respond. I started to do my research, ask questions, and discuss the project. I walked to the proposed site (site 2), from both directions, and started to take a look at both the east and west entry road proposals. I spent many hours trying to understand sound modeling data, and trying to understand the scale and measurements of the turbine. I admit that it was very difficult for me to wrap my brain around the scale of the turbine. I had envisioned something like what is at country gardens in Hyannis: what I perceive as a benign, beautiful, slim structure, propelled by the wind and soundlessly somehow converting wind to electricity, maybe with batteries. (It is a blonde wind vision). What I began to see and read and conceptualize, was very different. At first, it gave me pause, and I wanted to study more, but then I received two more updates from the WEC (3/23 & 3/30) and my growing concerns became solidified. My concerns centered around: the appropriateness of Site 2, the need to build major road access and what that would do to the land approaching from either east (White Crest) or west (Duck Pond Road), the financial projections and reliance on many assumptions, noise issues and the short distance between the turbine and residential homes, and insurance issues. I thought at the time, that any one of these could be deal-breaker issues for me in analyzing the benefits vs. risks of this project.
On 3/23, the Board received an update from the WEC which provided negative data regarding the financial projections, insurance concerns, and site access issues. The following week, the town would be signing a contract to engage consultants in what would be one of the longest and most expensive studies to date, the environmental/migratory bird study which would continue for 6 months, and would give us data on an entire nesting season. There was now a time element introduced, and a decision needed to be made.
On 3/30, the WEC presented a more positive presentation to the board, but even then, tossed the responsibility and liability for possible unanswerable questions squarely in our domain, where I admit, they belonged. While the citizens present heard only the positive presentation, we, as board members had two written updates prior to the meeting, so at that point, barring any new information, I was ready to make a decision.
These were and remain my concerns:
The issue of noise: A turbine is a rotary engine that extracts energy from airflow and converts it to electricity. Turbine engines create most of our electrical power, and also power everything from refrigerators to jet engines and even the powerful space shuttle. The process of energy conversion is not just the wind turning the blades as I thought, it is an engine that is converting wind to electricity, and it makes noise. At times, the noise can be a mechanical whooshing sound, and at other times much louder, anywhere from a refrigerator to an airplane engine.
The models available to predict sound and the standards available to regulate levels of sound, were inadequate in predicting what close neighbors would hear, and at what levels they would hear sound. I read the sound data presented by our consultants, but also did research on several models available for predicting sound from the turbines. The best one was a UMASS study which took into effect: groundcover, height of turbine, length of blades or “tip height”, and projected “adequate” distances. The truth is, turbines do make noise, and it is constant. It changes in different wind speeds and at different wind directions, but 24 hours per day, as long as the turbine is turning, there will be noise. The National Park Service Natural Program Sounds Group evaluated the sound study completed by our consultants, and NPS scientists found problems with the report, including that there was insufficient data, based on the fact that our study collected data in a single day. Their other concerns were: that the estimation of ambient noise in the area was too high, that the data was measured at inappropriate locations, and they believed they would need much more comprehensive information to perform a reasonable evaluation, including a minimum of 30 days worth of sound data. The WEC recommended that we study the sound issue more, but the turbine chosen is fairly new, and since wind direction, wind speed, and the characteristics of site are so variable, the truth is, we can’t really “know” what the neighbors will hear until after it is built and operating. From site 2, we have 38 homes ¼ mile away, and many more up to ½ mile away. At these distances it is likely that residences will be impacted by noise, and experience in other locations tells us that some will be truly negatively impacted. Shouldn’t we learn from other people’s mistakes? I would prefer to have at a site with a larger radius of no homes, at least ½ mile, so we could be more confident that residents would not be adversely affected. The WEC was very clear in the presentation of 3/30 that while they were confident that the project could meet the state standard, they could make no other assurances that the problems that have occurred in other communities would not happen here in Wellfleet. In fact, with our wind speeds and directions, the model suggested there would probably be the most noise in the summer months and up-wind of the turbine, the precise area where we have the most density of private residences. In my mind, this was a guarantee of problems.
Financial risk: Black & Veatch, the engineering consultant that did the feasibility study, judged this project to be not attractive for any private developer, which was the reason we initiated a municipal study. In order to make it financially feasible, lots of complex issues needed to be resolved and agreements honored by other government entities. The initial cost of the turbine would be 5.3 million dollars. All proforma budgets are based on certain assumptions and ours was no different. The wind turbine at Site 2 was expected to generate a revenue stream that was over four times the current wholesale rate of electricity. This was due to two sources (“net metering” and “renewable energy certificates”), both of which are supported by legislative subsidies and/or consumer surcharges. Our financial proforma assumed that these subsidies would be available in the future. The “net metering” subsidies are subject to an aggregate “cap” for all renewable energy projects statewide that is equal to 1% of peak electricity production. The WEC predicted that this “cap” would be reached in 2011 and would require a legislative decision to continue the subsidy by raising the cap to accommodate new electric producers, or the “race” was on to see who could erect a turbine the fastest in order to qualify for the better rates. The numbers in the proforma depended on meeting the goal of completion by 2011. Any project delays would have possible dire financial implications. Going in, we knew there was no definite assurance, but we explored anyway, in the hope that other information would assist us in calculating the risk.
The projections assumed two other facts that were variable: that the proposed turbine would have a “capacity factor” of 30%, and that the price that Wellfleet is paid for its new electricity would increase each year. (The price of electricity declined by about 50% between 2008 and 2009.) Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative for the town of Harwich estimated capacity for a wind turbine similar to Wellfleet’s at 24.3% and a wind turbine of almost identical height at Hull (Hull II) has a capacity factor of 24%. If a capacity factor of 25% was assumed and energy prices did not rise every year, then the project would have produced much less revenue than predicted. If the price of electricity fell, or we did not qualify for the net metering, or the capacity of the turbine was less than anticipated, or any combination occurred, annual financial losses would occur and the project would become a disaster for the town.
Weather related risk. In the memo from the WEC dated 3/23, I learned that the proposed turbine is guaranteed to survive only up to 95 MPH winds, certainly a great wind speed, but one that we see here at least once each winter. I think it is likely that in the life of the turbine we will have wind far in excess of this. We are a coastal New England town that commonly deals with winter storms and high winds, and what about a hurricane? It seems likely that we may have periods of non-functioning, and possibly a collapse. The WEC actively investigated the current insurance market, and there is insurance for weather related issues up to a limit of $500,000. Replacing parts every once in awhile after a winter storm is possible, but will be expensive, replacing the whole turbine, even once in its 20 year life span, will make the project financially unfeasible. At the time of our 3/30 meeting, we had just sent the financial proforma out to an independent consultant for review, but the financial and insurance issues were racking up, with so many potential pitfalls. I had to ask myself what our current tolerance for financial risk was. Should we, the Board of Selectmen be prepared to support the project in light of the knowledge that incorporating more modest expectations for the performance of the turbine, coupled with real insurance issues, indicates a possibility of substantial losses to the Town of Wellfleet? It seemed like gambling to me, and truly, we cannot afford to gamble right now.
Site 2: The turbine itself grew in proportion from a small enterprise to an industrial size turbine with a "hub" of 264 feet (the size of the Pilgrim Monument) with blades at 420 feet long (a football field is 360 feet long). It does not arrive in pieces, but is brought in on huge trucks that need to have wide, flat roads on which to travel. It would have required major destruction to create the site and get the turbine in: including cutting and filling a 30 foot-wide, 1/2 mile long road, and building an immense concrete slab to support the structure. Site 2 is located in the forest 1/2 mile behind site 1. It is difficult to walk from site 1 to site 2 as there are no paths, but easy to go from Old County Road or Duck Pond Road through the forest to the site. From a few hundred yards past the new site, there, you can see the “east route” or clear through to the low brush near site 1. If you walk either route, you will clearly be able to see the kind of immense project that clearing and filling the land to make a road would be. This part of the woods has some of the most dramatic grade changes in Wellfleet. The road option (west) was a long run starting at the now narrow, dirt Duck Pond Road, crossing woodlots owned by the town, the housing authority development, the power line and thru the woods to the site. The road option (east) is from Ocean View Drive, across dramatic grades, into the forest and to the site. In the memo from the WEC dated 3/23, both options were discussed in detail, also citing that NHESP and MESA review may cause additional delays in the project due to environmental issues. In the report on 3/30, the WEC stated that a decision was made to use the east route (the original route) despite the grade changes. I agreed the east access was better, because I had grave concerns re: the Duck Pond access, but even with the east access, there is no doubt in my mind the site work would be very expensive and extremely intrusive to the area. It wouldn’t be just a quick fire road, it would completely change the landscape of an area we have successfully protected from development for over 50 years and that many residents and visitors use and cherish. This is the single largest parcel of conservation land the town has left, and resides in the heart of the National Seashore Park.
I had to weigh the benefits to the community that would balance this level of environmental destruction, aside from financial risk and resident dissatisfaction, and I didn’t see those benefits. I began to see the incalculable risks instead.
Ultimately, from the remarks of the other Selectmen as well as my own, I think we all decided that while we need to pursue forms of alternative energy for the town, Wellfleet really is not the place for a power plant, however benign it may be compared to other power plants. We would still be taking great financial risk and destroying a precious part of our rural environment to sell energy to the grid. I hope, as a community, we will aggressively pursue smaller, more beneficial alternative energy sources: hydropower (the new herring run tide gate, perhaps), solar panels (town buildings) and possibly smaller wind projects, but most importantly, energy conservation efforts, using less rather than creating more. We have not given up on alternative energy; we just need to do things more suited to our rural scale. The Vesta (maker of the turbine) tagline is, “a more efficient way to more power”, I would suggest that our motto should be,” a more efficient and environmentally friendly way to responsibly use our existing power.
Sincerely,
Jacqui Wildes Beebe
Wellfleet Selectman
Preserve and protect our Seashore
Although there were many reasons to believe the Wellfleet wind turbine project was a terribly ill-conceived idea, it is gratifying to know that, at the end of the day, the town of Wellfleet — the developer of the project — just couldn't bring itself to sacrifice the incomparable natural beauty of the landscape or the pristine upland pine woods in the heart of the National Seashore.
The voters of Wellfleet, and the board of selectmen by unanimous vote, ultimately rejected a project from which they stood to profit, in order "to preserve the character of the Seashore." We applaud their decision.
We hope the management of the National Seashore will take heart from Wellfleet's example and reassess the paramount importance of its primary mission — to preserve the park in its natural, unimpaired condition for all future generations — relative to the other competing interests to which Superintendent George Price has repeatedly and steadfastly insisted that it must be "sensitive," including the interests of the abutting towns and the perceived interests of other organs of the federal government.
All national parks have a very clear mandate from Congress that intentionally includes categorical prohibitions against any encroachment on their core conservation mission: "no commercial or industrial use is permitted within the park." This mandate is fortified by hundreds of pages of detailed director's orders and almost 100 years of tradition.
In addition, with respect to land-based industrial wind turbines, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, responding to an order from the secretary of the Interior and in cooperation with a federal advisory committee especially appointed for that purpose, has spent over two years developing detailed policy prescriptions for "responsible development" of land-based industrial wind energy resources. It is abundantly clear from reading these guidelines that the fundamental concept underlying the recommendations of the wind turbine advisory committee is the urgency of avoiding inappropriate sites for wind energy development — such as fragile habitats, conservation areas and, by extension, national parks.
We hope Price can now finally appreciate that in his mission to safeguard the integrity of the National Seashore and to reject any form of intrusion compromising the core conservation mission of the park, he has the full backing of Congress; the Department of the Interior; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Wind Turbine Guidelines Federal Advisory Committee — whose members are drawn from the ranks of both prominent wind energy developers as well as every leading conservation group in the country; the board of selectmen and voters of Wellfleet; and, doubtless, the majority of both the local residents and the citizens of the United States.
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100407/OPINION/4070344
In other words, in considering any projects — including wind turbines — that are incompatible with the fulfillment of the park's mission and threaten the fundamental integrity of the park, the only sense of "balance" that must be applied is to reject them out of hand. The superintendent has Congress, the law, 100 years of tradition, the entire apparatus of the Department of the Interior and popular sentiment on his side. What authority does he lack?
As they consider any other current or future proposals to introduce industrial wind turbines within the National Seashore, we urge the superintendent and the advisory commission to use these tools, without apology, for the continued preservation of the park, and on behalf of all of the park users who place their faith in them and rely upon them to do their duty for the sake of "all future generations."
Eric Bibler of Weston, Conn., a longtime regular visitor to Wellfleet, is president of Save Our Seashore.
Will Lessons be Learned about National Parks and Wind Turbines? OP-ED SaveOurSeaShore
March 31, 2010
Dear Mr. Price, and Members of the CCNS Advisory Commission,
Although there were many reasons to believe that the Wellfleet Wind Turbine Project was a terribly ill-conceived idea, it is gratifying to know that, at the end of the day, the Town of Wellfleet – the developer of the project – just couldn’t bring itself to sacrifice the incomparable natural beauty of the landscape or the pristine upland pine woods in the heart of the National Seashore. The voters of Wellfleet, and the Board of Selectmen by unanimous vote, ultimately rejected a project from which they stood to profit in order “to preserve the character of the Seashore.” We applaud their decision.
We hope that the management of the National Seashore will take heart from Wellfleet’s example and reassess the paramount importance of its primary mission – to preserve the park in its natural, unimpaired condition for all future generations – relative to the other competing interests to which Superintendent Price has repeatedly and steadfastly insisted that it must be “sensitive,” including the interests of the abutting towns and the perceived interests of other organs of the federal government.
All national parks have a very clear mandate from Congress that intentionally includes categorical prohibitions against any encroachment on their core conservation mission: “no commercial or industrial use is permitted within the park.” This mandate is fortified by hundreds of pages of detailed Director’s Orders and almost one hundred years of tradition.
In addition, with respect to land based industrial wind turbines, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, responding to an Order from the Secretary of the Interior and in cooperation with a Federal Advisory Committee specially appointed for that purpose, has spent over two years developing detailed policy prescriptions for “responsible development” of land-based industrial wind energy resources. I think that you will agree, when you read these Guidelines, that the fundamental concept underlying the final recommendations of the Federal Advisory Committee is the urgency of avoiding inappropriate sites for wind energy development – such as fragile habitats, conservation areas and, by extension, national parks.
It is our hope that the Superintendent will appreciate that he now has the full backing of Congress; the Department of the Interior; the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; the Federal Advisory Committee – whose members are drawn from the ranks of both prominent wind energy developers as well as every leading conservation group in the country; the Board of Selectmen and the voters of Wellfleet; and, doubtless, the majority of both the local residents and the citizens of the United States; to safeguard the integrity of the National Seashore and to reject any form of intrusion which compromises the core conservation mission of the park.
In other words, the only sense of “balance” that must be applied to the consideration of any projects – including wind turbines -- which are incompatible with the fulfillment of the park’s mission, and which threaten the fundamental integrity of the park, is to reject them out of hand. You have Congress, the law, one hundred years of tradition, the entire apparatus of the Department of the Interior and popular sentiment on your side. What authority do you lack?
We urge the Superintendent and the Advisory Commission to use these tools, without apology, for the benefit and preservation of the National Seashore and on behalf of all of the park users who place their faith in you, and who rely upon you to do your duty.
Sincerely,
Eric Bibler
President
Save Our Seashore
WE STOPPED THE WIND TURBINES IN WELLFLEET, MA
WE STOPPED THE WIND TURBINE!!!! March 30, 2010
The Wellfleet Board of Selectmen wisely voted 5-0 to spend no more money to develop a wind farm.
Thanks to everyone that helped out!
Once you take the time to understand the issues, no other honest judgement could be made!
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
Cape Wind: State official says it would harm the area
State historical preservation officer Brona Simon spoke out against the Cape Wind turbine project proposed for Nantucket Sound during a hearing in Barnstable on Monday. She noted that the project is 24 to 25 square miles. "You can see the concern we have with the adverse effects of the proposal," she said. "The visual element will alter the setting outside the character of the historic properties."
March 24, 2010 in The Patriot Ledger
BARNSTABLE - State historical preservation officer Brona Simon spoke out against the Cape Wind turbine project proposed for Nantucket Sound during a hearing in Barnstable on Monday.
She noted that the project, which would include 130 giant wind turbines, is 24 to 25 square miles.
"You can see the concern we have with the adverse effects of the proposal," she said. "The visual element will alter the setting outside the character of the historic properties."
Simon, head of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, noted that since the sound isn't yet listed as a National Historic Landmark, the National Park Service determined the effects would be indirect, but she noted the sound was important to both the Wampanoag tribes and European settlers.
"In addition, there are underwater cultural resources likely to be imperiled by construction," she said. "(It is an area) likely to have been utilized by native American ancestors."
Simon said alternative sites have been suggested - such as south of Martha's Vineyard.
"In the years since (2001), deep-water wind technology has made considerable progress," she said.
The federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation held Monday's meeting in Barnstable to collect comments about the effects of the wind farm.
That agency will send the comments to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar before April 14, and he'll determine whether the Minerals Management Service will issue the project a permit for development in federal waters.
"Cape Wind has been sensitive to historic and cultural concerns through nine years of this process," Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers told the panel. "The only impacts to historic properties identified there previously are visual. The impacts are minimal only, and the National Park Service has determined Cape Wind has no direct adverse historical impact."
http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x126578903/C...
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?”
Scots wind farm shut over safety fears after 150ft turbine blade falls off
This wind farm has been open less than one year!
EUROPE'S largest wind farm ground to a halt after a 150ft blade snapped off one of the turbines.
All 140 of the giant machines were immediately shut down at the £300million development near Glasgow until they could be inspected.
Engineers at Whitelee wind farm, which is run by ScottishPower Renewables, were trying to work out why the blade came crashing down.
They are looking into whether lightning could have struck the turbine or if it was caused by a mechanical problem.
It sheared off and hit the ground in the early hours of Friday morning in blustery conditions.
Automatic systems alerted operators in the control room to the damage and they immediately closed down the unit.
All 420 blades in the wind farm were being examined following the accident.
Last night, more than 50 turbines were expected to have been inspected and safely returned to operation.
The process is expected to be completed by Friday.
Whitelee wind farm's visitor centre, which is managed by Glasgow Science Centre and had been due to reopen after the winter break yesterday, stayed shut.
German company Siemens, who supplied the turbines, are also understood to be investigating.
The 360ft turbines are so massive that engineers have been able to climb inside them to try to detect the problem.
Over the weekend, the site at Eaglesham Moor, 13 miles from Glasgow city centre, was cordoned off to keep visitors away. Raymond Toms, 45, a teacher from East Kilbride, spotted the broken turbine as he cycled past on Sunday.
He said: "I was out for a bike ride and I saw one of the massive blades had broken clean off. It was quite unnerving really.
"You can walk right up to these things normally and touch them.
"The public have access to the network of pathways nearby.
"I have grave concerns over the safety of the public, who can walk right up to the turbines.
"It's worrying that if one of these could fall off then perhaps another one could.
"It's made me think about going too close, that's for sure. It's just lucky this took place at night, when nobody was around."
Keith Anderson, managing director of ScottishPower Renewables, said: "This type of incident is exceptionally rare and highly unusual.
"However, the safety of our people and the public is our first priority.
"While the investigation into the cause of the incident is ongoing, our engineers continue to conduct an internal and external examination of all turbine blades at the wind farm".
A spokesman for the firm added: "Investigations are ongoing, and a number of possibilities including mechanical failure and lightning strike are being considered.
"Operators in the 24-hour control room immediately closed the turbine down.
"This is a highly unusual situation. I've not heard of this kind of incident happening in 30 years."
GREEN ENERGY BLUEPRINT
Whitelee was officially switched on in May 2009 by First Minister Alex Salmond.
Each turbine at Whitelee, which started producing electricity in January 2008, stands 360ft high.
The wind farm has 140 turbines that can generate 322 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 180,000 homes.
ScottishPower Renewables have been given permission to add 36 turbines to the site, allowing the wind farm to power 250,000 homes and create up to 300 jobs.
Last week, it was revealed that community groups in East Renfrewshire are to benefit from a fund set up from the development of Whitelee.
The fund will deliver about £140,000 a year for the next 25 years to the area's council for local groups.
Meeting on Monday(3/22) Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission at 1:00 PM
Hello Everyone,This is a friendly reminder that there is a meeting on Monday (3/22) of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission at 1:00 PM at the Marconi Park Headquarters in the meeting room.
If you can attend and plan to speak for 2 minutes concerning your opposition to the 400FT industrial wind turbine proposed by the town of Wellfleet in the National Park, it would be helpful.
Also, please look at the meetings list on the Town of Wellfleet meetings calendar list for the week.
http://www.wellfleetma.org/Public_Documents/WellfleetMA_Calendar/?formid=158
Important meetings to attend
Tues. 7 pm - Board of Selectmen
Wed. 1 pm - Energy Committee meeting
Wed. 7 pm - Board of Health
If you could plan to attend it is helpful. If you speak it is helpful.
Reminder, please let people know the petition is at Farrell's Market in South Wellfleet.
NATIONAL SEASHORE MUST BE PRESERVED
GUEST COMMENTARY – CAPE CODDER – FRIDAY, MARCH 19
NATIONAL SEASHORE MUST BE PRESERVED
There have been several statements recently relating to the Town of Wellfleet’s proposal to install a huge industrial wind turbine within the National Seashore shich are worthy of correction or comment. Here are two:
1. Town of Wellfleet to NPS: None of Your Business.
At a recent meeting of theWellfleet Forum, both Mr. Dale Donovan, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, and Mr. Karlson referenced – and even quoted – a legal opinion provided by Wellfleet’s Town Counsel asserting that the Town of Wellfleet can do whatever it pleases on Town land within the Seashore – anything – because the Town was there before the Seashore. According to these gentlemen, even if the NPS opposed Wellfleet’s ambitions, they would be wasting their time because “they have no legal standing.”
Clearly, this assertion takes direct aim at the bedrock provision contained in the enabling legislation for the National Seashore – and for ALL national parks – prohibiting “commercial or industrial use” of land within the park. This categorical prohibition against such use, which is embedded within the Act of Congress that created the Seashore, applies to all land within the boundaries of the park and not merely to “government property”:or to “property owned by the national park.
Mr. George Price, Superintendent of the National Seashore, who was in the audience then came forward at the end of the meeting to flatly contradict this assertion and even cited the Blasch case as proof that the NPS does indeed have legal standing to defend its rights.
So who is right? Since this is a matter of fundamental importance, it would be extremely helpful to all interested parties – including park users and the Town of Wellfleet -- if the National Park Service would issue a response to the Town of Wellfleet elaborating on whether or not Congress intended the park service to have control over the use of land within the Seashore and if park users can expect any relief or assistance from the NPS or from Superintendent Price in resisting such a desecration of this beloved national park.
2. “Preservation of the Natural and Cultural Landscape in Its Original Condition”
Recently, Ms. Helen Miranda Wilson repeated a statement that she had made to the CCNS Advisory Commission to the effect that she believes that colossal industrial wind turbines are beautiful objects which would grace the landscape of the park. As many know, the Seashore has conducted an exercise they call “view shed analysis” in the company of a handful of wind turbine proponents (primarily members of the respective Energy Committees of the towns that abut the Seashore) in an attempt to determine the least objectionable sites to install the massive structures. Some members of CCNS management have asserted that the perceived effect of industrial wind turbines upon the visual landscape is “inherently subjective.”
Mr. Karlson has duly picked up on this theme, insisting that any opinion of the appropriateness – or inappropriateness – of installing wind turbines within the National Seashore is a matter of “mere personal preference.” In fact, at the Wellfleet Forum, Mr. Karlson displayed a pronounced proclivity for dismissing almost any concern about the numerous adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines as “matters of personal preference,” with the obvious intention of de-legitimizing any such criticism.
In fact, those who have decried the intrusion of one or more massive 410 foot industrial structures into the scenic landscape are NOT objecting as a “matter of personal preference” but are insisting upon adherence to the Congressional mandate that created the Seashore, which specifically provides that “in order that the seashore shall be permanently preserved in its present state, no development ….shall be undertaken therein which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna or the physiographic conditions now prevailing.”
This as an objective, rather than a subjective, criterion and any discussion of “personal preference” or “aesthetic beauty” completely misses the point. The Seashore is a national park – not a sculpture garden – and it was created expressly for the purpose of preserving the landscape “in its original condition for the enjoyment of future generations”, despite the personal preferences of Mr. Karlson, Ms. Wilson or anyone else.
Eric S. Bibler
Save Our Seashore
Wellfleet, MA
Study of Wind Turbines effect on Real Estate Values
This is a study of the impact that wind turbines have on residential property value. The wind turbines that are the focus of this study are the larger turbines being approximately 389ft tall and producing 1.0+ megawatts each.
Study of Wind Turbines effect on Real Estate Values
Wind Turbine Current Location on Wind Map
The first Wellfleet wind turbine of possibly many is currently planned for one of the least wind stops in Wellfleet, in the National Seashore. This is due to conflicting issues such as noise, danger and the rights to park owned land and a hesitance to place the wind turbine in the harbor. Hence the Wellfleet Energy Committee plans to spend a large amount of town money to place the noisy wind turbine in one of the least windy spots in Wellfleet. Most likely it will never meet the goals and be a costly adventure in Wind Energy by completely inexperienced wind idealists playing with being wind energy operator. Once the warranty is over, who is responsible for the costs of equipment and experts? Already 20 year turbines are breaking down after 6-8 years forcing costly replacements. People near wind farms repeatedly observe turbine ideal for months waiting for experts and parts or mechanical work ongoing.
The first turbine will be more than a 1/2 mile from the area where their meteorological tower was placed. The tower was broken much of the time and sited near the edge of a bluff acting as a wind block when the wind was from the east. The validity of the wind data from the Met tower is quiet impaired. What a tragic waste of resources in a misguided effort at conservation while ruining perfectly good park land.
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.”
Windfarm Noise Indisputable – Must see video
This video is from the UK, but you need to see the interviews with regular people talking about their experiences and how local office are dealing with issues they may not understand and making promises they have no way of knowing will turnout out true.
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.
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