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.’
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
French Vote in Le Figaro 62% to Stop Building Wind Farms
In the French newspaper Le Figaro 62% of 21,460 people voted to stop the building of wind farms. As many of the negatives have been exposed across the world more and more countries are learning the many negatives out weigh the limited positivies.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/environnement/2010/03/26/01029-20100326QCMWWW00596-faut-il-arreter-de-construire-des-eoliennes-en-france-.php
Wind Turbines Cause More Pollution!
Wind energy is seen as a vital piece of the renewable-energy movement.
But it may be contributing to the pollution problem along the Front Range, according to a draft report sponsored by members of Colorado’s natural gas industry.
The report says that the greatly increased use of wind energy in the past few years may have raised pollution levels from coal and natural gas-fueled power plants owned by Xcel Energy Inc. That’s because the frequent change in output asked of power plants, in response to the availability of wind and solar power, adds to pollution, the report says.
If the report’s conclusions are true, then that challenges beliefs about the connection between renewable wind power and improved air quality.
But representatives of environmental groups and Xcel say they have doubts about its methods and are skeptical about its conclusions. The final report is expected to be completed within weeks.
“We have some questions,” said Roy Palmer, Xcel’s director of state government affairs.
“We think this study has some very serious flaws and doesn’t consider the overall air pollution and public health benefits on an annual or seasonal basis,” said Vickie Patton, the Boulder-based deputy general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund who works on clean-air programs for the advocacy group.
Conventional wisdom says the use of renewable resources, such as wind or solar, to generate electricity cuts pollution levels and improves air quality because they don’t use coal or natural gas to generate power. Fossil fuels have pollutants, such as mercury, sulphur dioxide (SOx), nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon dioxide (C02), that are released when the coal or natural gas is burned for heat, which generates the steam needed to turn a turbine and make electricity.
At the end of 2009, Colorado’s wind farms were capable of generating as much as 1,241 megawatts of renewable energy, up nearly 3,800 percent since 2000, according to Interwest Energy Alliance, a Conifer-based trade group for wind power companies in the Rocky Mountains.
But when there’s no wind or sun, conventional power plants that use coal or natural gas supply the energy grid.
In Colorado, the wind typically blows the best — for power-generating purposes — at night, when demand for power is low and has traditionally been met by coal-fired power plants. Through the years, the state has added much more wind power, made necessary due to state laws mandating Xcel get 20 percent of its power supply from renewable resources by 2020. Gov. Bill Ritter is scheduled to sign a bill March 22 that raises that goal to 30 percent by 2020.
But the new report concludes that emissions levels at some coal and natural-gas power plants have increased because they’re throttled up and down to accommodate the fickle nature of renewable energy — particularly the wind, according to the Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States (IPAMS), which paid for the report, and Evergreen’s Bentek Energy Inc., which prepared it.
The study found that power output by coal-fired power plants fluctuated as much as 20 percent hour to hour, said Porter Bennett, Bentek president.
The impact on emissions, according to the study, are higher levels ranging between 2 million or 3 million pounds of SOx and NOx, to as much as 10 million pounds of increased emissions, when a power plant is throttled up, Bennett said.
“It’s like running your car in fifth gear, and then slowing to five miles per hour and then trying to speed back up again,” said Marc Smith, executive director of IPAMS. “Coal plants are meant to run only in fifth gear.”
Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz said via email that the utility’s first choice is to throttle back natural gas-fueled power plants, which are better designed to handle quick changes in operations, when the wind picks up. But the utility sometimes is “forced” to cut back coal plants’ output also in response to wind energy — and when it does, Xcel tries to minimize the impact on the plant’s operations and emissions, he said.
The increased emissions stem from two main factors, according to IPAMS and Bentek:
• Inefficiencies occur as power plants are ramped up and down.
• Rapidly increasing plants’ power output — particularly big, coal-fired ones — throws off the operation of air-quality control equipment meant to capture emissions, Bennett said.
It’s like a sudden blast of air tearing a hole in a net. The net still works in some areas, but more emissions get through until the hole is repaired, he said.
It can take up to 20 hours to recalibrate the control equipment, Smith said.
A recent presentation about the draft report was attended by representatives of Xcel; Western Resource Advocates (WRA), a Boulder-based environmental advocacy group that focuses on power issues; and the Environmental Defense Fund, a national advocacy group based in New York City. All three said they plan to study the final report when it’s complete.
“Analyzing system operations is very complex and isolating one specific activity, such as the impact of high wind events on coal operations, in comparison to the operation of the entire generation fleet in Colorado, is even more complex,” Stutz said.
Xcel’s emissions of NOx, and all emissions from Xcel’s fossil-fuel power plants, have dropped nearly 9,000 tons, or about 25 percent, since 2007 due to equipment upgrades that capture more emissions before they leave the plant, Stutz said.
Bennett agreed, but said the upgrades and overall drop in emissions mask increases at some of Xcel’s power plants.
John Nielsen, director of WRA’s energy program, said he thought there were two “serious flaws” in the draft study:
• The analysis didn’t include operations and emissions at power plants that supply power to Xcel, and its customers, in Colorado, but which aren’t owned by Xcel.
• Power plants might be ramped up and down due to a number of issues — such as maintenance at the individual plant or another plant, congestion on transmission lines or other reasons. Also, extrapolating the impact of a few windy days across an entire year could throw off conclusions, he said.
Information in the report came from utilities’ filings with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about the hourly emissions and operations of individual power plants.
It is time to end this lunacy
The announcement of plans for a £200million windfarm at Moy, near Inverness, was accompanied by the claim that it would provide power to 100,000 homes. This great lie is perpetuated every time a new wind development is reported. People need to understand what is actually being claimed, and this can be found in the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) publication Calculations for Wind Energy.
March 26, 2010 by Stuart Young in Press and Journal
The announcement of plans for a £200million windfarm at Moy, near Inverness, was accompanied by the claim that it would provide power to 100,000 homes.
This great lie is perpetuated every time a new wind development is reported. People need to understand what is actually being claimed, and this can be found in the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) publication Calculations for Wind Energy.
BWEA claims: "A typical turbine therefore produces enough electricity each year to meet the needs of 1,000 homes."
I have no argument with this statement. A 1.75MW turbine at 30% load factor will annually generate 4,599MWh, which is close enough to the 4,700kWh average annual consumption per home for me.
But does it actually meet the needs? The answer is no. To meet the needs, the power needs to be there when needed.
At 2am on March 19, the 1,588MW connected windpower metered by the National Grid was generating 1,355MW when nobody wanted it, and at the morning peak demand time of 8.35am on March 20, the same 1,588MW wind fleet could manage only 107MW.
The overnight excess generation wasn't used by households, and when it was needed at breakfast time, it just wasn't there. An average of 731MW was generated over the period, but it was needed at breakfast time, not over the period. This surplus generation formed part of the "electricity produced each year", but it didn't "meet the needs" of homes.
So what happened to that surplus wind-generated electricity? The wind conditions on March 22 provide a good example.
At midnight on March 21, the output from the metered windfarms was 305MW. This rose steadily to 1,024MW at 8.05am on the 22nd, then fell steadily to 456MW at midday.
It continued falling after midday, but let's just consider this 12-hour period.
As the wind output rose, National Grid was switching off output from coal-fired power stations and, as the wind output fell, the same power stations were being reconnected.
Note that coal output was switched off, not that the coal fire was doused. During that 12-hour period, almost the same amount of coal was burned as would have been if the power was being fed into the grid.
That coal was burned and no benefit whatsoever was derived from it. It was burned solely so that wind energy could be used.
It was an obscene waste of a valuable and rare resource. The wind-generated electricity the consumer was forced to buy - because the government says the National Grid must take wind energy when it is being generated - cost about three times the coal-generated power, and the cost of constraining off the coal plant was almost as much as the electricity would have been.
During this period, our electricity was about four times the cost of coal-generated power, and virtually no carbon emission was saved.
Then there is the other great lie. BWEA says: "Electricity from wind turbines replaces the output of coal and gas-fired power stations as these are the most flexible plant on the system."
Actually, this is not a lie, simply throw a switch and you stop the electricity being transmitted, and throw it again and electricity flows into the system once more. You can't get any more flexible than that.
The great lie is in the unspoken implication that just because you are using wind energy, carbon emissions are being reduced.
The coal stations can't be turned off. The wind is about to drop, but nobody knows when.
In the 12 hours from midday on March 22, wind generation went down from 456MW to 405MW, up to 554MW, then down to 381MW, up to 511MW, then down to 460MW, up to 679MW, and then down to 522MW at midnight, after which it fell to 322MW at 4.35am on March 23.
All of these swings required juggling coal power stations on and off to keep the grid balanced, and all the switches were costly.
Not one ounce of carbon emission was saved.
It is time to end this lunacy.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1661...
Start by challenging the claim "Enough power for X thousands of homes".
Follow on by exposing the deceitful disingenuity of "Electricity from wind turbines replaces the output of coal and gas-fired power stations".
Film examines drawbacks of wind turbines
Wind energy farms may sound environmentally friendly. Nettie Pena's documentary film "They're Not Green" aims to show that they're anything but. The one-hour film was shown last Saturday night at the Yucca Valley Community Center in an event hosted by the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy and the Homestead Valley Community Council.
March 23, 2010 by Kris Reilly in The Leader
YUCCA VALLEY • Wind energy farms may sound environmentally friendly. Nettie Pena's documentary film "They're Not Green" aims to show that they're anything but.
The one-hour film was shown last Saturday night at the Yucca Valley Community Center in an event hosted by the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy and the Homestead Valley Community Council.
The issue is relevant to Lucerne Valley, as 28 wind turbines are planned for the mountains northwest of town.
The film shows interviews with people who live near wind farms, and they say their negative consequences go far beyond the effects on views and property values.
One man who lived near a turbine that caught fire said that firefighters can do little or nothing when the turbines burn because they are so tall. He said he inhaled so much toxic smoke from the burning fiberglass that his coughing resulted in hernia surgery. He also said the company that owned the turbines refused to pay his medical bills.
Other residents spoke of the strobe effect that the windmills create inside their houses as they intermittently block sunlight during the day as well as the flashing red lights that go off during the night.
A scientist interviewed in the film said thousands of birds are killed each year by windmills, and many other problems were examined. Furthermore, the film asserts that the amount of energy provided by these turbines is relatively minuscule.
Pena, who has worked as an assistant film editor at NBC News and Paramount Studios, has been making documentary films since attending UCLA as a graduate student. The destruction of the 1992 Los Angeles riots inspired here to try to improve society, and she became an inner-city math teacher.
Pena said she moved from Los Angeles to Palm Springs three years ago and the windmills "were right in my face." She took her camera to a city council meeting where citizens protested new wind farm developments, and thus "They're Not Green" was born.
Pena spoke after the screening, as did Jim Harvey of the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy. Both of them are supportive of rooftop solar energy, which does not destroy desert environments and can help people lower their energy costs.
Harvey spoke about AB 811, a state law that makes it easier for homeowners to get low-interest loans for rooftop solar installation. The funding for this program comes from municipal bonds sold by local governments, Harvey said. He's hopeful San Bernardino County will enact an AB 811 program.
Pena said she would like to eventually show "They're Not Green" in Lucerne Valley. Visit web.me.com/thrnotgreen to view portions of the film.
http://www.lucernevalleyleader.com/node/396
DID YOU KNOW?
72% of visitors say that one of the most important reasons for preserving national parks is to provide opportunities to experience natural peace and the sounds of nature.
Why does the National Park Service management follow it own finding when it comes to wind energy development in Cape Cod National Seashore.
See what the National Park Service writes about the importance of sound will they protect Cape Cod?
http://www.nature.nps.gov/naturalsounds/
Contact George_Price@nps.gov to make your feelings know!
The increasing energy development is resulting in greater noise impacts on park acoustical environments (soundscapes). Noise-related impacts on park acoustical environments may affect visitor experience, wildlife habitat, migration routes, and reproduction.
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.
Why Wellfleet will get Wind Turbine Syndrome
Wellfleet, Massachusetts. Nice town out on Cape Cod. Ever been there?
Me neither. But it’s gotta be nice. National Seashore. Outstanding bird-watching. (Being a big migratory corridor, zillions of shorebirds come through.) Plus there’s marshes and ponds. And loads of really interesting people. What’s not to like?
Coming soon is one colossal wind turbine. Then it won’t be so nice. At least for people living within 2 km (1.25 miles) of that thing’s acoustic shadow.
The plan is for a Vestas V90 1.8/2.0 MW.
Wellfleet Energy Committee Informational Session April 10, 2010
The Town of Wellfleet Energy Committee
Informational Session
Wellfleet Wind Turbine Project
Wellfleet Senior Center - Council on Aging
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Starting at 9:00 am
Morning and Afternoon Sessions, with:
Peter Guldberg, Acoustic Engineer
Mary Knipe, UMASS Wind Energy Center
and other guests to be announced.
Please e-mail your questions in advance to:
WellfleetWind@capecodbay.org
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.
Wellfleet Council’s legal opinion to build wind turbine
Wind Turbine O&M costs to spiral in coming years
This is especially important for inexperienced operators like Wellfleet who have no idea how to maintain a wind turbine.
March 5, 2010
As turbines emerge from their warranty phase, wind farm operators face the stark reality that operation and maintenance costs will embark on a steep, upward trajectory, before leveling off over the next five years. What strategies can be deployed to mitigate these costs?
By Rikki Stancich in Paris
Currently, roughly 79 percent of operational turbines are still under warranty. For the 21 percent of operators on the other side of the comfort zone, an incisive O&M strategy could be the deciding factor between success and failure.
According to new research, operating and maintenance costs could be up to three-times higher than originally projected, particularly in the case of the multi-MW class of turbines coming online.
These higher-than-anticipated costs are the result of several factors. Chief among these is that the recent wind energy boom stretched the capacity of the existing supply chain. With manufacturers forced to rely on new - and often inexperienced - component suppliers, quality suffered heavily.
In addition, unexpected stresses placed upon today’s multi-MW machines have led to failures in gearboxes, generators, and blades. Consequently, components such as gearboxes, initially designed with a 20-year lifespan, are failing prematurely - in as few as 6-8 years.
“The increasing size of rotors and towers is placing unforeseen stresses on equipment not anticipated by existing design standards,” explains Peter Asmus, president of Pathfinder Communications and lead author of the latest Wind Energy Operations & Maintenance report.
According to the report, these problems may have peaked insofar as manufacturers have re-designed components and now rely more on in-house components rather than “off-the-shelf” components.
Another key factor resulting in early turbine failure is sub-optimal turbine positioning. Often, in order to maximize power production, multi-MW machines have been clustered in too-close proximity.
Positioning the turbines too close together creates tip turbulence, which magnifies loads on down-wind turbines. According to the report, the end result of this interference is increased wear-and-tear on the rotating parts of a wind turbine, boosting O&M costs and exposure.
Supply chain uncertainty
But component failure is only half the story. The real costs kick in when operators need to source and install replacement components.
Take gearboxes for example, which currently account for a large majority of turbine failures. The cost of component replacement, crane hire, post-installation testing and operational losses, can quickly add up to around US$500,000 per turbine.
To mitigate these costs, Asmus stresses that a preventative maintenance regime is crucial for curbing O&M costs. He points out that in this area, European operators have an advantage over their U.S. counterparts.
Europe’s premium power prices (achieved via feed-in tariffs) provide operators with a margin to invest in costly condition monitoring and performance systems, such as vibration, thermal and oil and debris sensors.
In addition, a broader O&M service experience pool and the proximity of wind farms to O&M support infrastructure in Europe has enabled European operators to deploy preventative maintenance strategies. Subsequently, European operators face lower overall lower maintenance costs than U.S. operators.
U.S. operators are further penalized by the fact that currently, many components must be shipped from Europe, creating costly delays in repairs. While the U.S. government recently introduced measures to stimulate domestic supply, such as the Manufacturing Tax Credit, suppliers complain that several factors are creating barriers to entry.
A lack of standardization means that new components suppliers trying to break into the market are met with distrust. Unless standards, processes and procedures are introduced, it is unlikely that this problem will be resolved, suggests the report.
With the imminent emergence of many turbines from the warranty phase, many suppliers are viewing the aftermarket as potentially lucrative. As such, establishing industry standards and benchmarks would result in a more responsive supply chain.
O&M data elusive
On the flip side, operators – particularly those in the US – should be investing more in preventative maintenance strategies. But when it comes to forward planning, operators are facing a major hurdle in terms of a lack of relevant data.
Given the higher-than-expected failure rate of many turbine components, original equipment manufacturers are holding component failure data close to their chests to curb the risk of litigation and a negative public backlash.
And with the majority of turbines still under warranty, many operators simply do not have access to their own data sets.
Meanwhile, publicly available data sets are in short supply and where they do exist, have often proven to be a poor fit, given that wind energy projects vary widely depending on terrain and wind regimes.
“This is an industry in transition, operating within an incredible vacuum of knowledge about O&M costs,” says Asmus.
Despite the problems, the report authors note that the problems facing the wind industry are typical of all industries as they scale up rapidly.
“Even with the unexpected increases in O&M costs, most projects in Europe still pencil out,” he adds.
Initiatives are currently underway in the US and Europe to ensure that more robust data is available in the future. In the US, the National Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) launched a voluntary data collection programme on January 1, 2010 known as 'GADS'.
The GADS programme will likely evolve into a mandatory program in coming years, but for the time being, many operators are restricted to using limited, in-house data sets.
Despite looming O&M issues the wind industry remains optimistic about the future of wind technology, according to the report. Asmus suggests that the key lies in preemptive maintenance and the introduction of industry standards.
“The industry needs to shift from reactive to preventative maintenance and bring its supply chain up to a higher standard,” he concludes.
To respond to this article, please write the editor:
Rikki Stancich: rstancich@gmail.com
http://social.windenergyupdate.com/industry-insight/turbine-om-costs-spiral-coming-years
Camp Edwards Get a 389 Ft Wind Turbine
CAMP EDWARDS — Rose Forbes, the woman who spearheaded a wind turbine project for the Air Force, said recently it made little sense for the base to clean up groundwater using energy that fouled the air through fossil-fuel emissions.
Yesterday, federal, state, local and military officials gathered to celebrate her vision.
More than 200 people huddled under a tent at the base of the 389-foot turbine as the wind whipped outside. They were invited to celebrate the completion of the $4.6 million, 1.5-megawatt turbine and a milestone in the massive cleanup of pollution at the Massachusetts Military Reservation.
"The Air Force can now say all environmental cleanup decisions and remedies are now in place," said Doug Karson, a spokesman for the Air Force Center of Engineering and the Environment and yesterday's master of ceremonies.
The last two decisions on how to treat two chemical spills were signed within the past few weeks, Karson said.
"Today is the culmination of a long and, at times, arduous saga," U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., said. There were times when it was difficult to see the "end of the cleanup tunnel," he said.
The end is still several decades away, but the wind turbine is expected to make the effort less expensive.
The Air Force expects its turbine to generate 30 percent of the electricity needed to operate the water treatment plants on the base, a savings of about $600,000.
It is located outside one of the nine treatment systems that pump and treat 15 million gallons of water polluted by training and weapons testing on the Upper Cape base.
Several speakers, including Ira Leighton, acting regional administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, noted the role community activists played in holding the military accountable for pollution.
The community was angry and distrustful of the military, Delahunt said.
They and other speakers pointed out that the wind turbine represents the change that's taken place at the base over the past three decades.
"This one turbine represents just the beginning of (Massachusetts Military Reservation's) energy independence," Maj. Gen. Joseph Carter, adjutant general of the Massachusetts National Guard, said.
The Guard has filed plans to add as many as 17 wind turbines on the 22,000-acre base and is working with the Federal Aviation Administration to make sure they won't interfere with the base airfield.
"We will not only have the greenest cleanup," Delahunt said, "but we are setting this base up to be the first energy-independent military installation in the United States."
With all the parts finally in place, the Air Force is eager to take its new wind turbine for a spin but has to finalize some agreements with NStar and finish some electrical work before flipping the switch, Forbes said.
That could happen any day, she said.
The turbine stands as a testament to the state's commitment to alternative-energy sources and to eliminating roadblocks to getting them built, Ian Bowles, secretary of the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, said.
"It's a symbol of clean energy," he said.
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091103/NEWS/911030317
Health Impacts FROM TURBINES Industry Spin vs. Fact By Teddi Lovko, MD
Wood fueled biomass energy worse for carbon dioxide emissions than fossil fuels
I have included the following press release to show that the State of Massachusetts is putting in place other harmful directives with regards to energy policy. The state funded Massachusetts Technology Collaborative is the "brains" behind placing a wind turbines in a NATIONAL PARK and cutting down STATE FORESTS to burn, while giving towns and companies money to wreak this destructions. We are strong believers in the environment and are confounded to understand MA's Renewable Energy Policy of siting Wind Turbines in pristine protected forest and clearing state forest for BIOMASS. We need to speak up and tell our governments to FIRST DO NO HARM when it comes to protecting the environment. GET INFORMED! These things are really happening. State and National lands are being destroyed while your tax and utility money are going to greed people who are feeding on your good intentions!
| Wood fueled biomass energy worse for carbon dioxide emissions than fossil fuels
Massachusetts Forest Watch released a report today (www.maforests.org/MFWCarb.pdf) stating that contrary to the belief that wood fueled biomass burning would help lower carbon dioxide emissions, it would instead dramatically increase them. According to the group, wood fueled biomass burning is typically touted as a carbon neutral fuel by biomass proponents, but the key assumption about carbon neutrality is unsubstantiated and impossible when using existing forests as fuel. In the report, wood fueled biomass power plants are shown to be worse than all fossil fuel power plants, including coal, for carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy produced. Calculations provided show wood fueled biomass power plants emit about 50% more CO2 per MWh than existing coal plants, 150% more than existing natural gas plants and 330% more than new power plants. Forest Watch spokesperson Chris Matera said, “It really is crazy. Hundreds of millions of dollars in public so-called “green” energy subsidies are being wasted on dirty wood biomass burning of forests instead of going to genuinely clean energy sources such as solar, geothermal, appropriate wind and hydro and importantly conservation and efficiency. At a time when budgets are being slashed, we are throwing away scarce taxpayer money on a caveman technology that will worsen our problems, not help solve them.” Last Wednesday, a hearing was held in Boston by the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy on House Bill 4458 that would create into law the citizen’s referendum that recently collected over 78,000 certified signatures, which is enough to put the measure on the ballot in November. The ballot measure would put a limit on carbon dioxide emissions in order for renewable energy sources to be eligible to receive taxpayer subsidies and other benefits and would effectively ban taxpayer subsidies from being directed toward wood fueled biomass plants since their carbon dioxide emissions are so high. "We find that people are willing to support truly clean energy but do not want to pay extra on their electricity bills and tax bills to build these dirty biomass incinerators," said Jana Chicoine of the Concerned Citizens of Russell, "Everyone knows that the proposed biomass incinerators would add to air pollution and make carbon emissions worse, yet the Patrick administration is still forcing us to pay for it. It's a tragic situation, but we have a chance to fix it in the legislature over the next couple of weeks." Meg Sheehan, chair of the Stop Spewing Carbon ballot question committee commenting about the hearing added, “last week the Massachusetts legislature received un-rebutted testimony from medical professionals that particulate emissions from wood burning biomass plants increase human mortality. A broad coalition of medical and citizen groups are urging our elected officials to support House Bill 4458 to address this public health threat. Action is needed now," she added. |
Maine: Myths, opinions, and facts
WindAction Editorial (Posted February 23, 2010)
This week, Angus King, former Maine Governor turned wind developer, set out to correct the record on what he termed 'myths' about wind power now circulating. His opinion piece, while devoid of any substantive proof other than his say so and a link to his project's web site, in fact, was teeming with his own myths and half-truths that deserve clarification.
King first takes issue with Jonathan Carter of Forest Ecology Network and Carter's description of mountaintop wind operations resulting in "the building of thousands of miles of additional power lines and roads [and]...the clear cutting of more than 50,000 acres of carbon-sequestering forestlands. Literally the tops of the mountains are blown-up in order to establish a bedrock base for the massive concrete pads needed to support 400-to-500-foot turbines."
King quibbles over the petty claiming dirt and rock on the mountain top are not actually removed from the mountain but merely "moved from one place to another in building the gravel access road and foundations." Perhaps the Governor missed the photos taken at the TransCanada wind site atop Kibby Mountain in Maine, where 50-60 foot ledge cuts into the side the of the mountain were required to construct roads stable enough to handle the weight and width of the turbine components. Or the more infamous photo of the Mars Hill wind site, also in Maine, showing just how much the mountaintop was blown off to make way for the towers. We believe that most people would agree with Jonathan Carter.
The next 'myth' King takes on is that of noise. He claims "our" law, presumably Maine's law, is "pretty restrictive" but that "several of the early wind projects in Maine got waivers from the noise limits and there are neighbors who are hearing them and are pretty upset." King would do well to check his facts. Only one wind project, Mars Hill Wind, was granted a variance that would permit the project to operate at 50 db(A) as opposed to the required 45 db(A). Nonetheless, his statement is not relevant to the project sites in Vinalhaven and Freedom, Maine -- both of which are experiencing severe noise issues. Nor does it apply to the Stetson wind facility, approved by Maine's Land Use Regulatory Commission, which follows different standards altogether for noise.
He goes on to say that "our" experience shows that setback distances of around half a mile are adequate for addressing noise problems. Since King has never operated a wind facility we're not sure whose experience he's relying on, but he may wish to speak with Ethan Hall of Vinalhaven. Hall, who lives 3,500 feet from three industrial towers, recently explained that the noise penetrates his home where he is unable to read, work, or get good rest.
King's third myth argues that Maine's wind power law was not pushed through the legislature by wind proponents as claimed by some. What he doesn't bother to tell his readers is that the "Expedited Permit" wind law was declared an emergency bill from the governor and it passed through the legislature in 15 days with very little scrutiny. And that State Representative Jon Hinck, co-chairman of Maine's utilities and energy committee, who was responsible for giving the bill the emergency designation, is married to Juliet Browne, an attorney who represents wind interests in the State and who sat on the Governor's Wind Task Force. This week, Hinck asked the Maine Ethics Commission for an advisory opinion on whether he has a conflict of interest when considering wind legislation. A little late, but at least he's asking.
Finally, King scoffs at the idea that wind turbines can make you sick. He makes vague reference to "independent analyses" including Maine's own Dr. Dora Mills and the Maine Center for Disease Control in claiming turbines can annoy people but nothing more.
In December, Windaction.org reported on the Industry's misuse of the term 'annoyance' in claiming that noise impacts are of no consequence.
Equally significant is the e-mail paper trail -- one that King is well aware of -- which begins February 10, 2009 after Dr. Albert Aniel of Rumford, Maine forwarded an open letter from the Rumford Hospital Medical staff, together with links to articles, to Dr. Mills asking for her support for a moratorium on new permits for wind turbine projects until further research could be done on possible health effects of wind turbines.
As detailed in the e-mails, Dr. Mills looked to Maine's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner David Littell, and others at DEP involved in reviewing wind turbine projects, for assistance in refuting the health concerns of Dr. Aniel.
King then closes with some misrepresentations of his own.
In a subsection of his essay entitled "A Dangerous Dependence" he claims that Maine is "dangerously dependent upon fossil fuels " citing 55 percent of its electricity coming from oil and gas with 100 percent imported "often from people who don't like us." But what he doesn't tell you is that Maine's net electricity generation is among the lowest in the United States with a large percentage of its energy exported to other states in the region. As with most of New England, natural gas -- imported mostly from friendly Canada --accounts for around 40 percent of generation. And renewable sources, mainly wood and hydroelectric, account for almost half of Maine's net electricity generation. In fact, nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources make up a larger share of net electricity generation in Maine than in any other State.
Maine is hardly the poster-state for dirty electricty!
Governor King is certainly welcome to respond to statements by those in his State who are raising concerns about wind, and of course he is entitled to his own opinion. But apparently, he also believes he's entitled to his own facts.
http://www.windaction.org/faqs/25780
URGENT Cape Cod Commission Planning Meeting to determine rules for near shore waters
Wind energy planning district hearings
- Feb 23 6 p.m. Assembly of Delegates Chamber, Barnstable District Courthouse, Barnstable
- Feb 24 6 p.m. Bourne High School library
- Feb 25 6 p.m. Provincetown High School library
EASTHAM — Even in the chilly world of winter on the Outer Cape, talk of offshore wind turbines can generate some heat.
"I just don't think that wind energy is economically feasible for people of Cape Cod," Mary Allen Bradley of East Orleans said during a hearing yesterday at Eastham Town Hall on a proposed wind energy planning district for Cape waters.
The true cost of energy from wind should be examined more closely before any projects are approved, Bradley said.
"I find that to be just outrageous, as a ratepayer and a taxpayer at the federal and the state level," she said of subsidies and premiums that wind energy needs to compete with fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas.
The hearing was the second of five being held by the Cape Cod Commission on the designation of a so-called Capewide District of Critical Planning Concern, or DCPC, for renewable-energy projects such as wind turbines. The designated area would begin about 1,500 feet out from mean high water and extend to three miles offshore, covering 521,552 acres of open water.
A DCPC protects designated areas from specific types of development. There have been nine such planning districts established in seven Cape towns since 1990.
Martha's Vineyard, which is also moving forward with plans to establish a wind energy planning district, has 26 of the protected planning areas for various resources and uses, including four that are islandwide.
Full range of views
The Cape Cod Ocean Sanctuary off the Cape Cod National Seashore is already protected under the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan, which was finalized at the end of last year. The state plan leaves areas in the waters around Cape Cod open to the possibility of as many as 24 community-sponsored wind turbines but gives authority to the Cape Cod Commission and the Martha's Vineyard Commission to determine the appropriate scale of the projects and the rules developers must follow in each agency's jurisdiction.
Despite a turnout of fewer than a dozen people, many of the viewpoints argued by those for and against offshore wind turbines during the debate that has raged for nine years over the proposed Nantucket Sound wind farm were represented.
The planning district would not affect Cape Wind's plan for offshore turbines, as the site envisioned is in federal waters.
If nothing is done, climate change could have devastating impacts, especially for a place like Cape Cod, said Eastham Selectman David Schropfer.
"If anyplace is vulnerable to rising sea levels it is certainly this peninsula," he said. He noted that the high point of land in Eastham is between 16 and 18 feet above sea level, and a parking lot near his home has lost more than half of its parking spaces to the sea over the years.
He also told the Cape Cod Commission representatives that on a recent trip to Alaska he took his wife to see a glacier he had last visited about 15 years earlier.
"It was 100 miles away," from where it had been during his previous visit, he said.
Still, the need for renewable energy must be balanced by its impacts on tourism and the local economy, he said.
"How do we protect this area and how do we use it at the same time?" he asked.
Scaring off developers
Susan Kadar, a former Cape Cod Commission representative from Truro, outlined three reasons she opposes the planning district.
She said it appears the county is wresting power from municipalities over projects off their coast rather than delivering more control to local towns, as county officials have argued. The Cape Cod Commission also seems to be encroaching on towns' control over their "community character," she said.
Finally, Kadar argued, the involvement of the Cape Cod Commission could scare off wind-energy developers who do not want to go through the expense and process of appearing before the agency.
"There are occasions where businesses say, 'I would rather not'" appear before the commission, she said.
For others in the audience the hearing was a chance to learn more about the proposal.
Regulatory authorities need to catch up to changes in what is now possible, Dennis Clark of Truro said after the hearing.
"It's a lot better to have the regulations in place than no regs," he said.
The commission is scheduled to make a recommendation March 11 to the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates on whether to designate the planning district. The assembly then has 60 days to decide whether to move forward.
If the district is designated, the towns and the Cape Cod Commission would have one year to adopt regulations for the district.
For more information go to www.capecodcommission.org
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100223/NEWS/2230308/-1/NEWS01
WELLFLEET OFFICE HOURS WITH REPRESENTATIVE PEAKE
State Representative Sarah K. Peake has scheduled office hours in the Town of
Wellfleet, on Friday, March 5, 2010 2:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m
Please stop by to meet with Rep Sarah Peake to discuss issues that are important to you.
If these office hours aren’t convenient, Sarah is also always available to meet with people
anywhere in the District by appointment. Please call Dottie Smith at 617.722.2090 if you
would like to schedule a specific time for an appointment.
The scheduled office hours are: 2:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
.
Wellfleet Council on Aging/Senior Center
Long Pond Room
715 Old King’s Highway
Wellfleet, MA 02667
Representative Peake is making a series of stops, to hold office hours up and down the Cape, over the next week. A copy of her entire schedule appears below. Conceivably, you can try to catch her in Wellfleet, in Orleans, in P'Town, in Harwich, or points in between, at your convenience.
OFFICE HOURS WITH REPRESENTATIVE PEAKE
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2010
HARWICH
Hours: 10:00 a.m. – Noon
Harwich Town Hall
Library Room
732 Main Street
Harwich, MA 02645
MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2010
CHATHAM
Hours: 10:00 a.m. – Noon
Chatham Town Hall
Conference Room A
549 Main Street
Chatham, MA 02633
ORLEANS
Hours: 2:30 p.m. – 4;30 p.m.
Orleans Town Hall
Nauset Meeting Room
19 School House Road
Orleans, Ma 02653
FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 2010
EASTHAM
Hours: 10:00 a.m. – Noon
Eastham Town Hall
Selectmen’s Meeting Room
2500 State Highway
Eastham, Ma 02642
WELLFLEET
Hours: 2:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Wellfleet council on Aging/Senior Center
Long Pond Room
715 Old King’s Highway
Wellfleet, MA 02667
MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2010
PROVINCETOWN
Hours: 10:00 a.m. - Noon
Provincetown Council on Aging
Room 10 (Downstairs)
26 Alden Street
Provincetown, MA 02657
TRURO
Hours: 2:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Truro Town Hall
Selectmen’s Meeting Room (Upstairs)
24 Town Hall Road
Truro, MA 02666