Save me some scrolling time.
Comments anyone?
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A political blog from Dartmouth, Massachusetts. I encourage debate of the issues facing our town on this blog.
Pages
Hitching Post Links
- Dartmouth Weekly Meeting schedule
- Dartmouth Meeting Agendas and Minutes
- Dartmouth Town Hall website
- DCTV Channel 18 schedule listing
- Dartmouth Schools website
- Dartmouth Finance committee
- Dartmouth Public Library website
- UMass Dartmouth events listing
- Fall River Herald News website
- New Bedford Standard Times website
- Eschaton
- Blue Mass Group
- Dartmouth Town Charter
- Dartmouth General Bylaws
- Dartmouth Personnel Bylaws
- Dartmouth Zoning Bylaws
- Mass General Laws
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(594)
-
▼
Dec
(35)
- Happy New Year!
- Is Coakley our Senator?
- One more time on wind turbines
- Comparison of US House and Senate Helath care refo...
- Here's a new thread for the wind turbine folks.
- A peaceful, happy, and blessed Christmas to all
- Meeting of Select Board will be at 7PM at the high...
- Wind turbine special permit
- Republicans oppose health care at the expense of t...
- Westport businesses going and getting green
- Select Board meeting tonight at high school
- Dylan and Baez 1976
- Tis the season to be ... generous
- Lincoln Park District and eminent domain
- Local campuses go green
- Governor Patrick seeks public input for FY2011 budget
- Town Charter and Bylaw review
- State Fiscal woes deepen
- Bristol DA hints at Attorney General run
- Wind turbine forum report
- UMass Law School approved by Trustees
- Fiscal Year 2011 shows shortfall in town budget
- Facts about wind turbines.
- Data shows wind turbines do not effect property va...
- Recent history of microbes in town wells
- H1N1 Clinic expands target groups
- Microbial comtaminate found in town well. Notice b...
- Town unveils new website
- Friday Dylan from 1983
- Governor backs UMass law school
- H1N1 Vaccination Clinics Scheduled
- Help send care packages to our servicemen
- Second wind
- Open Space and Recreation Plan presented at Commun...
- NPR Marketplace talks about net metering
-
▼
Dec
(35)
Posts
Recent Comments
Labels
- Budget (274)
- Public info (209)
- leadership (173)
- State politics (104)
- schools (96)
- You Tube music (92)
- National politics (77)
- Election (59)
- Commonwealth (56)
- Health care reform (55)
- Town Meeting (54)
- wind power (51)
- override (47)
- Bob Dylan (37)
- CPR (36)
- Capital projects (32)
- development (32)
- infrastructure (32)
- Executive Administrator search (31)
- police department (27)
- Curmudgeonly musings (24)
- town charter (23)
- Economy (21)
- E government (20)
- Library services (18)
- Municipal Partnership Act (18)
- FinComm (15)
- Technology (14)
- Dartmouth Hitching Post (12)
- Fun stuff (12)
- MOB file (12)
- UMass Dartmouth (12)
- Contracts (11)
- CPC (9)
- Budget Director search (7)
- SEMAP (7)
- Financial bailout (5)
- Akin house (4)
- Media (4)
- Reed Road 40R (4)
- COA (3)
- Gambling (3)
- Parks (3)
- collective bargaining (3)
- sheriff (3)
- AP grant (2)
- DPW (2)
- Government secrecy (2)
- bylaw review (2)
- Bullard Wellness Center (1)
- Flu (1)
- Tax classification (1)
- Voke suit (1)
- employee pay/bene (1)
- recycling (1)
110 comments:
Before I started reading the rantings and ravings on this blog, I had SOME respect for the anti-wind turbine crowd. No longer. They are now intentionally distorting the facts, relying on misinformation, and suggesting conspiracies. It's very said how low they've stooped.
it has specifically became a NIMBY project
The Dartmouth selectboard and town meeting members have a choice to make regarding the wind turbine project. The choice can be one of two things, they can choose to be a reactive governmental body or a pro-active body. A reactive government responds to preventable problems after they occur.
Pro-active governments respond and prevent problems from occurring all together.
Dartmouth leadership could choose a reactive solution in their decision and allow our town to contiue paying for soaring energy costs and force the residents of our town to foot the bill by either raising taxes or cutting more services. This has been the norm in numerous towns and cities across the Commonwealth and the country. We have a chance to reverse that trend.
The pro-active solution is obvious, build the turbines and prevent the raising of taxes or cutting of services due to sky rocketing energy costs. Dartmouth would begin reaping the rewards of it's investment within the first year of the turbines operation.
We will realize a net energy savings of 800,000 dollars immediately. This large savings could be used to reinvest into Dartmouth's capital improvements in the form of energy efficient windows,furnaces and insulation, thus compounding the original 800,000 dollars into more savings in heating and air conditioning. The savings would compound similar to compound interest on your 401(K) plans.
It would be in the best interest of the entire town of Dartmouth, that the selectboard and town meeting take a proactive approach and vote to move forward with the wind turbine project so that our future will be alittle more secure.
Lets hope the Select Board and the residents of Dartmouth read these posts ,go to the internet and research the side of the wind turbines that have never been presented to them before !
The University of Massachusetts conducted an ice throw study for the Town of Cohasset . You can Google it at: Umass ice throw study Cohasset
With all the Umass studies done where is the ice throw study for Dartmouth? The facts are not distorted they are just left out as is most negative information !
Do the politicians, elected officials and professional managers that run Dartmouth truly understand the implications of setbacks to commercial wind turbines?
Does the public comprehend the impact and magnitude of two of the largest wind turbines in North America ?
Are there real moral and ethical issues when confronted with setback and health issues that (we) can articulate and support with facts, data and research that will create increased risk to life and property if instituted, contrary to the demands of the politicians, elected officials and professional managers?
Chech this out Frank1 is right. I googled Umass ice throw study Cohasset and found a study done about ice throw done by Umass for Cohasset.
I went to Umass ice throw study Dartmouth - found no study
Did Dartmouth leave out the ice throw study ? If so I would think Dartmouth will have more ice this close to the Ocean .
Need some answers here !!!!!!After 5 years they are leaving out studies done for other towns and UMass is right here in town
Lets have no "I'll get back to you on this one"
Bill , Could you direct us to a pdf file or an url which best describes the research done by the AEC in the last five years about ice throw from two 100 meter commercial wind turbines at the Waste Water Treatment Plant ...
Let's nip this one in the bud...
Frank1 - I missed you at the public forums and the many other presentations. Why only post here? Is it so your questions cannott be answered by someone with the answers like all those present at the various presentations> Do you just like tothrow stuff ou on the blogs hoping something will stick?
Thankfully the SB in place now are smart enough to see through your chicken little scenarios.
Stand up and be counted or sit down and be quiet, you've had your chance to be heard.
Thank you Stone, Dias and Watson for not seconding Trimble's motion to move this project forward! The longer we can delay this thing, the more we can fight and divide the townspeople. Your divisiveness can only help our cause.
Why is Michaud again getting a pass for voting with Dias, Stone, and Watson? The claim is that Michaud cannot make or second motions. That is accurate. What stupifies me is why he isn't chastised with the majority for voting to delay.
I am for the wind turbines. Yet I know what the majority of the select board did was right.
what is the point of delaying this hearing any longer? You can find people on both sides who will swear that turbines cause this or that or they love them. Just stick to the scientific research and the facts, please!
So far, I vote for the the wind turbines. This open hearing is getting old already and should have been over last Monday, as Michaud said it would be. Can't any one make a decision!!
I wouldn't blame Dr. Dipipo if he quit this project. The way he has been treated is a disgrace. People that come to the open hearing were accusing him of all kinds of stuff. I feel sorry for him and he has worked so hard on this. Enough fear tactics and nasty behavior. Close this hearing and let's go to town meeting.
Fact is town meeting is not until the end of the month so the people that are piling on Dias, Stone, Watson are just poor sports since the 'divisiveness' will continue till town meeting at the very least. Transparent and pathetic.
When Trimble made the motion to take a vote, Stone, Dias and Watson, who were the only ones that could second his motion, just sat there with blank looks of incompetance on their faces. They looked just like Bush did as he sat for minutes while our nation was under terrorist attack. Pathetic!
I think that the SB has done a good job allowing everyone to speak and weighing all of the issues presented. This is a difficult decision that will obviously disappoint the immediate neighbors but if the town is going to continue to become more efficient then we need the turbines. You may no agree with what the SB does but at least everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) has had a chance to be heard.
The wind turbines site in Cohasset at Graham Waste site is a mirror image of the Dartmouth Waste Water treatment Plant . The Cohasset turbines had a twelve hundred foot setback in which Umass did a Umass ice throw study .
We need an explanation now about how an ice throw study was done in Cohasset by Umass yet no mention here in Dartmouth . The AEC had five years and all kinds of funding ! All the town associations with Umass professors ,engineering firms ,MTC ,RERL ,state agencies and is oooppppps forgot to do the ice throw study for a 100M wind turbine within 1200 feet of residential homes?
The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth is contemplating a large wind turbine . Has the ice throw study been left out of that one ?
The Cohasset Umass ice throw study could not guarantee ice typically around 2 to 2 1/2 pounds would not go as far as 1200 feet so the policy was to shut the turbines down in the event of ice weather . In other words ice could travel past twelve hundred feet weighing up to 2 1/2 pounds !
Remember that ferocious ice storm Dec. 11-12 ,2008 that left hundreds of thousands without power — some for two weeks. It could happen again anytime in New England .
The AEC needs to step up to the plate here and answer these questions sooner rather than later ! If the AEC can't respond to the ice question the residents need to get a responsible answer for the protection of their safety and property within the ice throw zone !
Icing of turbine blades occurs at temperatures below 0 degC (32 degF) when there is significant humidity in the air or during an ice storm. Ice forms on a wind turbine's blades in relatively thin sheets, just as it does on trees, utility poles, power lines, and communication towers during an ice storm. If a wind turbine operates in icing conditions, two potential scenarios can occur: 1) ice fragments from the rotor may be thrown off from the operating turbine due to aerodynamic and
centrifugal forces; or more commonly, 2) ice fragments may fall down from the turbine blades
when the machine is shut down or idling without power production. The level and type of risk
depends on the weather (especially the wind conditions), the instrumentation of the wind
turbine’s control system, and the strategy the control system utilizes during icing conditions.
Many modern wind turbines incorporate ice sensors that will keep the turbine from functioning
when ice has developed on the turbine. Some turbines automatically monitor the correlation of wind speed and power production to the machine’s power curve. Significant variation from this power curve suggests that the aerodynamics of the blade’s airfoils have been compromised due to icing. In these cases, the turbine is programmed to shut down.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), most commercial turbine manufacturers, and many academic laboratories use as a general guideline a paper produced by Bengt Tammelin et al. They suggested that, in a cold climate, the furthest distance that poses an ice risk is d = 1.5(D + H)
where D is the rotor diameter and H is the hub height. This rule-of-thumb estimate is generally
much larger than that suggested by Seifert et al. at the German Wind Energy Institute, which calculates an ice risk diameter of d = v((D/2)+H)/15) where D is the rotor diameter in meters, H is the hub height in meters, and v is the wind speed in m/s. Seifert et al. attempt to put the risk of ice in perspective of other societal risks by noting that, for a typical turbine in an icing climate, “If 15,000 persons pass the road close to the wind turbine per year there might be one accident in 300 years.” A common misconception of ice throw is the size of actual ice fragments. Although large ice fragments of up to 2 m can fall from an unmoving turbine (as with all other towers or large structures), ice fragments thrown from a moving turbine are generally in the range of 100 - 1000 grams, with the largest fragments having the approximate size and shape of a paperback book.
Using the above formulae, the ice throw risk area
d=(100+82)1.5=273m or 896ft.
Alternately assuming a wind speed of 20 m/s,
d=12((82/2)+100/15)=188m or 617 ft.
Dartmouth can expect one severe icing event every 2 years ccording to weather records.
The joke is the anonymous bloggers who want to be taken seriously. If you can't sign your name, you can't be taken seriously.
Here's an example. Frank1 has been posting for weeks. Anyone seen him?
Thanks for the info on ice throw Bill. You continue to prove that you are the leader on the SB regarding turbines. It is unfortunate that Michaud had to come to grips with the fact that three members of his committee were unprepared to take action last monday.
You would think Mrs. Dias would have come prepared with more information and ready to vote, as well. She has been on the AEC, so you would think she could offer some assurance and have some answers to help alleviate some of the residents' fears and concerns. She, after all, is representing these residents in the Chase Rd. area of the turbines, as well as the rest of the Dartmouth residents.
As an elected official (whose term ends in 2010) to have come ill prepared to discuss what she knows from attending AEC meetings is not quality representation by any means.
To Bill Trimble ;
Bill ,
These are your technical circumlocutions of ice throw from your point of view and only your point of view . The question is where is a study done by an engineering firm or the university that backs the comparison of the ice throw in Cohasett vs the ice throw in Dartmouth .Is there a significant risk of ice throw within the ice throw zone. Who in Dartmouth represents public safety ? To put it bluntly the lack of an ice throw or blade throw study of a 100 meter turbine in Dartmouth stops the show ! The members of the SB are going to make up their minds based on your assumptions and calculations of ice throw ? Why didn't the town have you do all the studies ?
You need a study for the Waste Water Treatment Plant for ice and blade throw with the recommendations from an engineering firm as they did in Cohasset !
These are the recommendations fro Cohasset ;
The Cohasett UMASS recommendations included: • Curtailing turbine operation during periods of icing, Manual start-up following icing situations after confirmation that ice has melted and Control of site access
The AEC has 9 days to come up with an ice and blade throw study using a 100 meter wind turbine at the Waste Water Treatment Plant with houses within what an engineering firm believes is the ice zone based on the topography .
Dartmouth has no recommendations for ice throw and no engineering report .What else will we stumble over in the next few days ?
This is a friendly political blog . We need calm clear heads here . The SB members should only vote on the project . Lets have Alternate Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman Dr. Ronald DiPippo respond to the public at the Jan 4th meeting . The question is why did Umass do ice throw studies for other towns such as Cohasset but not for Dartmouth . Lets listen to the voice of reason .
Lets not let this take the town apart . Some people I understand will never be friends again.
People along Faunce Corner Road and Route 6 are far more likely to suffer from carbon monoxide poisoning from cars or being struck by cars or police cruisers than anyone on Chase Road are likely to be harmed by being being hit by falling ice. Ridiculous. Move on.
Michaud only voted to postpone because Stone, Dias and Watson were unprepared to make a decision or didn't have the courage to. What else can a chair do if three of his members screw up. You are trying to place blame on Michaud for the shortcomings of the other three. Picture Stone, Dias and Watson sitting there blankly, then picture Bush the morning of the 9/11 attacks. The similarity is striking!!!
Just too funny. Why the vendetta against some select board members. What a freakig joke you people are.
Ice throw?? When there is the danger of icing the turbines shut down-how stupid do you think we are???More studies? Stop wasting my money and get them built.
Thanks to Dr DiPippo and ALL the select board members for putting up with so much nonsense.
The Dartmouth Planning Board should engage consultants to review ice / blade throw for the wind turbine project .
The site plans regulated by these Rules & Procedures is derived from M.G.L., Chapter 44,
Section 53G. The ice/blade throw-/study should exist for public review. See special permits PB
5:42pm.Thanks for the comments-you're just the type of idiot Mr. Trimble alluded too in his closing remarks. And to boot, you're courageous enough to throw your allegations behind the guise of anonymity.
So, as we go back and forth on this issue, the fact of the matter is there will be wind turbines built. They will be built on public grounds and private grounds and all over. The people who are worried about property values ( and who's kidding who, that's what this is all about) will not be the only ones. In the near future, if we are smart enough to become more eco friendly, the turbines will be common.We need to wake up and think about the future.
Are any of you aware of the two massive parabolic cooling towers that are under construction at the Brayton Point power station in Somerset? Would you prefer to see more massive stations, or majestic turbines slowly rotating not damaging the enviroment?
And, to you Smith Neck rd snobs, we all know what your up to!!
There will be a reading tomorrow at the library for children by three of our select board members. The story is "My Pet Goat".
ICE/BLADE THROW - GENERAL SAFETY
A representative from the Planning Board should be at the Jan 4 meeting . What information / studies have there been for the general safety of the residents around these turbines . Who in town acts as the advocate for the safety and welfare of the general public under special permitting authority? The town after all is going into the power plant business .
Who is the Safety Officer in Dartmouth that the planning board would contact about the wind project ? Anyone
3.000 – The Review Process
3.100 Interdepartmental Review and Comment Period
3.101 Upon official submittal of a special permit application, Planning staff may send
copies of the plan to other departments for comment and review. Customary
reviewing departments are the Planning Department, Board of Health, Department
of Public Works, Building Commissioner, Conservation Commission, the Chief of
the appropriate Fire District, the Safety Officer, and any specialized reviews which
may require an outside consultant.
http://www.townofcohasset.org/planning/minutes/040809PLANNINGBOARDMEET.pdf
These are the minutes to the Cohasset Wind turbine meeting that refer to an AAER wind turbine going out of business and ice throw . I suggest everyone review them in regards to the Planning Board issues .
The Planning Board should review the" Slingshot Modelling of Ice Throw "at the Waste Water Treatment Plant
It is interesting for me to watch how SAFETY is being used against the town in order to control them. I am for the turbines but this is a refreshing role reversal. Isn't it usually government who uses safety as an excuse to oppress its citizens? Like the folks in the health department who once told me I had to drill my well one foot deeper and it was "for my own good." If the town doesn't like what is being done to them, they should look in the mirror because these folks "learned it from watching you."
People who own property/homes around the Chase Roar proposed wind turbine site are getting screwed by the town selection committee. If wind turbines were not there when these people bought their property, than the turbines shouldn't be built along or in that site location.
I'm all for wind turbines, but not at the expense of causing anxiety or any other form of mental instability to people who are upset or not in favor of the wind turbines on or near their property for what ever reason. Who do you select board people think you are? I don't know where any of the selectmen live, but I'll bet the farm, that it won't effect any one of them.
Dartmouth, in land area, is the fourth largest town in the commonwealth. You can't tell me that we can't find a more suitable location for these wind turbines. I'm no engineer, or a person with tremendous intellect, but I can understand why the Chase Road people who have property/homes near the proposed turbine location are pissed.
Stick the wind turbines on the top of the Crapo Hill landfill site. The land fill site will be capped at one hundred and twenty feet. Construct the wind turbines on top of that height and it will spin forever. This will act as a navigation beacon for all the trash pick up trucks from New Bedford.
You people along the proposed turbine location site, don't forget to pick up your getting screwed button, before entering the scheduled town meeting.
I live in Bliss Corner.
Manny,
They bought homes next to a sh*t plant...they can't be to concerned about property values. Their property value will go down more if the sh*t plant expands, never mind wind turbines.
I wonder if I built a wind turbine on MY property as an investment if that would INCREASE my home value when I sell my home. The next owner wouldnt have to worry about electric bills.
I live near the proposed site and I have no problems with it. The problems I have are with some of the lunatics that make progress so difficult for the town. I work for a business on Aquidneck Island and I have not heard a single complaint about safety from people who live near the 2 turbines in the area. Not 1 single complaint! In fact, a friend of mine is thrilled at the energy savings going on at the site at the high school. Maybe some of the lunatics should consult with officials in Portsmouth instead of spending time spreading lies and trying to terrorize people.
SORRY BUT THE RHODE ISLAND WIND TURBINES HAVE BANKRUPTCY CLAIMS AGAINST THEM :
PROVIDENCE — A company responsible for installing Portsmouth’s much-celebrated new wind turbine owes subcontractors nearly $250,000, according to lawsuits filed in Superior Court.
The largest creditor is Hallamore, the heavy equipment operator, which in June filed suit, seeking $201,363.
HB Welding of Pawtucket also has filed to secure $38,296 it says it is owed.
Both companies say they have not received any money from the defendants, AAER Wind Energy of Canada, AAER USA, and Wind Smart LLC.
So far, their monetary claims are uncontested in court documents.
A third creditor, Specialty Diving Services Inc., filed suit in March to obtain $28,747.50 it said it was owed. The case was settled for the full amount in late April.
Portsmouth could have some big problems if AAER goes bankrupt.
Where do you buy parts for a bankrupt wind turbine ?
There are many complaints about this turbine project:
The restraining order, in effect, also bars the town from paying Wind Smart any money on an existing five-year maintenance contract for the windmill, according to D'Andrea. Meanwhile, Hallamore's lawyers also are seeking the money in the reserve fund, as well as payments on the five-year maintenance contract, valued at $142,363 in court documents.
Apples and oranges.
"I have not heard a single complaint about safety from people who live near the 2 turbines in the area. Not 1 single complaint!"
Is answered by, "THE RHODE ISLAND WIND TURBINES HAVE BANKRUPTCY CLAIMS AGAINST THEM"
The latter is not even half true, the Portsmouth Abbey turbine has no claims and AAER has not filed for bankruptcy.
Even so, the comment was about safety claims, the answer is about contractors.
Mr. Crosby, Portsmouth asst town planner. said the town has been very satisfied with AAER, of Canada, which manufactured the nacelle and hub (the most important pieces which house the mechanical parts), and oversaw construction, and will perform the operation and maintenance of the turbine. AAER monitors the turbine from Canada, and has hired local technicians to perform any repairs or maintenance.
“They have bent over backwards” to make the turbine run smoothly in these first few months, a time when tweaking is often needed on these complex machines, Mr. Crosby said. Most of the time, an AAER employee knows of a problem before Mr. Crosby does. “They’ve been very responsive. I’ll call up there and ask, Hey, what’s going on here, and they already have an answer for me.”
The Portsmouth wind turbine is already making money for the town. Details at this link, http://www.eastbayri.com/detail/132998.html#codeword
The Jan 4 meeting needs to show how mitigation of the shadow flicker on the residential properties around the site ill work ! If trees do not mitigate the issue and the turbines are not turned off causing shadow flicker what them ?
Noise, shadow flicker, and blade glint must not be trivialized. Noise will affect all living too close, especially at night when winds at ground level are typically quieter than winds aloft. Without ground-level ambient noise, turbine noise is louder at night than during the day. Shadow flicker and blade glint will also affect all living too close. Since this occurs only during the day, our community of people is particularly at risk, some of whom are elderly and whose health may be least able to withstand the experience.
Bill Trimble , My understanding is that the Town of Dartmouth has no risk analysis of ice throw or blade failure . This has been done at other town sites but appears for the time being to be left out . I understand the Planning Board could ask for the analysis but this is only "could ask" . Do you feel that you as the Selectman can guarantee the 500 or so residents around this site freedom from property damage and personal injury .
If you feel that this project is that safe will you stand up at the Jan 4th meeting and tell the public that you will pay any property damage and personal injury out of your own pocket and make a statement to the Standard Times and have the statement placed in the newspaper ?
Maybe I'm too idealistic, but if it were me presenting such a project to the public, I would be sure to have dotted all my "i's" and crossed all my "t's."
I would have anticipated all the questions residents near the site would have, as well as those any resident might have (essentially, think like a lay-person coming into this project with no technical or engineering background.) You cover all bases, at least in my opinion. If residents still have questions, and studies could still be done that have not been done or presented, then how is this project to be voted on by the Select Board and, more importantly, accepted as safe, by residents near it, without creating mistrust, fear, and anger?
We Dartmouth residents should not be solely taking the word of those with a stake in the project's completion, IF there are still other studies and information to be gleaned. Why hasn't Mrs. Dias, for example, been able to furnish the Select Board members and through them, the residents, with some of the information the Chase Rd. abutters are seeking?
She is a member of the AEC. Why has she not shared information she must know? Did she or any of the other members of the AEC, the "non-experts," as it were, have any concerns that could/should have been raised? Did none of the "experts" not consider the questions that residents may have, and come prepared to present answers to them before they were even asked? They should have thought like a resident abutter, rather than just like engineers. It is not merely enough to have all the technical information as an expert and present it to the public. Consideration of residents' concerns must be addressed, and, as seen, these concerns have little to do with the technicalities of the turbines. They are concerns of safety, health, and property valuation. You instill confidence and gain acceptance by coming prepared and reaching the level of need of the regular citizen.
In this instance, all the technical knowledge and information presented by the experts will not alleviate any of the concerns of the turbines' abutters, if the common, ordinary issues that concern and perhaps even frighten these residents are not addressed.
The linked document here is a review of the state of science as it applies to wind turbine noise and vibration. It specifically addresses the Pierpont "wind turbine syndrome" and other issues. I am sure that those who have decided that they do not want wind turbines and are closed to objective evidence will dismiss this paper. I provide it for others to consider who may be unsure.
A commenter has asked for a guarantee that the turbines will not cause property damage or injury. I decline to give any guarantees. There are some risks that people in the vicinity of this installation could suffer property damage or injury. That risk is very small and, in fact, much smaller than other risks which we assume as part of our modern life every day. However, it is not zero.
Same for noise. There is a small risk that some in the vicinity will find the noise annoying. The literature seems to indicate that this is more a function of their feeling about wind turbines than the actual noise levels produced. Still the noise is not zero, so some may be annoyed.
Shadow flicker is a transitory event occurring briefly during a day for a period of a few weeks in a year. There is evidence that a strobe like phenomenon can cause problems for persons with specific medical conditions. Should someone with a medical condition be affected the wind turbine can be programmed to stop for that brief time. No evidence has been presented that it is generally harmful.
As with many of the conveniences of modern life and as a consequence of living with others, there is a trade off between benefits and detriments. As a society, we make those choices all the time. That is the decision that the Select Board has to make now in the case of these wind turbines.
Anonymous, will you and the other 50 who oppose this project stand up at the Jan 4th meeting and tell the public that you'll pay additional taxes out of your own pockets in the amount of savings that the town give up and make a statement to the Standard Times and have the statement placed in the newspaper ?
We had interesting news today. that has a direct effect on anyone who lives in community considering turbines within 1000 feet of their homes. One of the turbines at the wind facility in Fenner, NY collapsed this morning. See the story here: http://www.windaction.org/news/24817 and images of the collapse at these links:
http://www.windaction.org/pictures/24818
http://www.windaction.org/pictures/24819
The tower stands 329 feet tall, only a little taller than the turbine erected in Newburyport, MA.
I couldn't help but read the quote from Bill Trimble :
"commenter has asked for a guarantee that the turbines will not cause property damage or injury. I decline to give any guarantees. There are some risks that people in the vicinity of this installation could suffer property damage or injury. That risk is very small and, in fact, much smaller than other risks which we assume as part of our modern life every day. However, it is not zero."
Lets read todays news about the most recent failure and this explains it all : Turbine Crash Today !! New York http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/officials_hope_to_learn_why_wi.html
Officials investigating why 187 ton windmill collapsed in Fenner
By John Mariani / The Post-Standard
December 27, 2009, 12:50PM
"Sennott said he believes this is the only one of Enel's 260 turbines in the United States and Canada to fall. He estimated the replacement cost at $2 million to $3 million.
Bob Stinson, a resident of South Road near Fenner, said it sounded like "a sonic boom" when the windmill toppled.
"I felt it. It shook the house. It woke me up," Stinson said. "
I am still waiting to hear of any problems with the Portsmouth turbines. Oh, I guess there are none, as they work just fine. Your argument is so baseless. Just more terrorist tactics.
Where were these opponenets for the last three years? Now they have problems because the turbines will be near them? Too damn bad. Maybe people will actually pay attention to things in town and get involved to help move it forward.
What have the excuses been for not participating earlier? I'm too busy, I mind my own business, I was'nt interested in town affairs etc., well in a democracy part of the deal is taking responsibility to get involved and not simply react when you know you will be affected.
Build the turbines.
You build these two and you'll more next to your house! You need to take a ride to New York and look at how much damage happens when these fall down .
Saftey First - Not your money
Just wanted to say hello all. This is my first post.
I hope to learn a ton here.
Check This wind turbine accident nearby in New York '''
Todays Headline -- Turbine Like Dartmouth
http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/Turbine-falls-at-Fenner-wind-farm/Rbs42QIY8EyvGn-inmnl5g.cspx
Windmill falls at Fenner wind farm 12-27-09
Windmill falls at Fenner wind farm
Turbine falls at Fenner wind farm 12-27-09
A more than 200 foot turbine wind tower collapsed early Sunday morning at the Fenner Wind Farm in Fenner, Madison County. (Ryan Petersen, Photo from Ryan Petersen)
Fenner, Madison County (WSYR-TV) – A turbine at the Fenner wind farm has toppled, and engineers are on the scene trying to figure out how it happened.
The tower, which is more than 300 feet long from the base to the tip of the blade, is located just off Buyea Road, and is one of 20 generating electricity.
"I was turning over in bed and it sounded like a big clap of thunder" said Jill Van Allen, who lives across the street. "I was waiting to see the lightning through my bedroom window (but didn't)".
Fenner Town Supervisor Russ Cary was notified by company officials at Enel North America, which owns the farm. He tells us Enel did not have any answers as to how it happened, but adds, the towers were built a distance away from homes for this very reason-that if they collapse, they won't do any harm.
Let's see if I can follow the bouncing ball. First, the neighbors complained about "wind turbine syndrome", an idea that is preposterous and was laughed at. Then it was shadow flicker and excessive noise, concerns that were already addressed in the town studies. Then they spent days obsessing about property values, an idea that had no factual foundation and which gained no public traction. Today, it's "ice throw" from wind mills that will e located in the middle of the woods, next to a town owned treatment plant. What's next?
I would like to get some comments on a quote from one of the Dartmouth Selectmen yesterday:
" There are some risks that people in the vicinity of this installation could suffer property damage or injury. That risk is very small and, in fact, much smaller than other risks which we assume as part of our modern life every day. However, it is not zero."
We all know there was another wind turbine collapse yesterday in Fenner, Madison County New York . The type of turbine is smaller than that of Dartmouth . New York has had many commercial wind turbine accidents . This accident was in a corn field ! What happens in a residential environment ? The Select Board and all the residents need to put on the" thinking caps " or you'll all be wearing the ones with the pointed top !
The accidents do happen .
What exactly is the risk of personnel and property damage to the residents around the Waste Water Treatment Plant ..Where is the ice thrown / blade throw risk assessment ?
I think the chance of an accident, airplane warning lights,noise,ice throw ,strobic lights ,long term maintenance,two bonds one for two million the other seven million ,fire and/or emergency issues all together equal a no brainier- These do not belong near Dartmouth residents
Some idiot from Nigeria tried to blow up a plane on Christmas eve. Planes have crashed in the past. Let's ban all air travel.
There was a wind turbine accident a Fenner NY .
There was an accident at Altona NY just before this .
We need some risk assesment of these turbines inside residential neighborhoods!
There is plenty of documentation that the Town of Dartmouth is putting money issues over the lives and liberty of those around the plant /
STOP THE TURBINES- WAKE UP
The town is "putting money over lives and liberty", huh? Come on, frank 1, you must be able to do better than that! How trite. This is the most carefully planned project in the town's history. Sorry you don't like the location.
So tell me how a 100 meter turbine, were it to topple over, is going to harm a structure or resident twice that distance away? Are we expecting someone to come and launch the thing?
Please folks get a grip. You bought houses near undeveloped town land, a sewerage treatment plant, a landfill, a gravel site and you don't want a turbine?
Time to build 'em.
LIBERTY!!!! are you kidding? What about liberty from OIL PRODUCING COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN and other countries that wish to harm us.
The setback requirement of two times the hub height is more than adequate to protect residents from the type of accident which occurred this weekend. The 2 times the hub height requirement is the safety setback required by the bylaw. The safety setback incorporates the distance of concern for ice or blade throw. In towns without a wind turbine zoning bylaw, the safety distance must be figured out as part of the permitting process. Our bylaw already codifies that distance, 2 times the hub height.
A wind turbine with a blade diameter of 82 meters and an hub height of 100 meters is 141 meters or 463 feet tall. The setback requirement is 200 meters or 656 feet. The nearest residence is even further away at 890 ft or 271 meters. The nearest approach to Chase Road is 664 feet or 202 meters.
Despite what has been said here, the sites for these turbines are in the middle of a wooded area well away from homes.
This is a map of the area http://www.town.dartmouth.ma.us/Pages/DartmouthMA_BComm/AEC/Plans.pdf
I have not heard 1 single reasonable complaint against the wind turbines. Can someone provide with a valid reason why they should not be put up?
c'mon Bill - these opponents are not math challenged. They just hope the rest of us are. Either that or they have been watching too many Hulk movies where the Hulk picks up entire buildings and hurls them through the air.
You're right about the woods too.
Do you really think the residents of Dartmouth don't get the picture ?
I hope they build the two turbines . I've saved over one hundred and fifty posts from this web site . If any thing goes wrong with these two turbines in the next three years it will make a great movie . You have the greedy townspeople being sucked into the purchase of 10 million dollars worth of commercial wind turbines to give everybody in town some kind of free tax deal, one group of people around the site losing their homes to the greedy people who think they should sacrifice their homes but not the homes on Round Hill where they should be built.
You have the environmentally friendly selectman that thinks he and he alone is the wind turbine expert . We could call this wind turbine movie the Destruction of Dartmouth by Greed . The town already has a great cast of characters !~
KEY WORD: FENNER WIND ACCIDENT
KEY WORD: ALTONA WIND ACCIDENT
Why not Round Hill? See how far that would go!
Aren't there other shoreline sites they could be put on and that would still benefit Dartmouth? Mishaum, Salters, Ricketson . . . .
Seriously, and just out of curiosity, could someone from the AEC, perhaps Dr. DiPippo, answer these questions for me.
Is the best location for a wind turbine, in general, along the coastline or even in the water itself?
If so, were any shoreline sites considered?
Could the turbines have been placed on the Crapo Hill landfill?
Perhaps these questions have no particular merit to anyone but me, but, I am interested in the answers.
The location is not an issue....It's right where the turbines should be. The waste water treatment plant located near a stone and gravel quarry and the town's transfer station. Are these residents who either bought or built near this site for real about safety? WAKE UP PEOPLE !!!
PS: Are there any residents in these areas 100% onboard to build them at this site? I'd like to hear from them if so...
Visual Impact of Wind Turbines,Public Safety Due to Turbine Collapse and “Ice Throw”,Impact on Wildlife, Especially Bird Strikes,Amount of Noise from Turbines,Impact on Property Values,Irritation From FAA Warning Lights,Irritation Due to Sunlight Flicker,Damage Caused by Access Roads,Long Distance Ground Vibrations. These are all concerns to the abutters to the Waste Water Treatment Plant ,.
The proposed wind turbine site is located near residential homes and the Waste Water treatment plant , which experiences frequent vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Therefore, who will conclude that icing may pose a potential risk to vehicles and people, and should be actively managed during icing events.
The Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, University of Massachusetts at Amherst does provide Risk Assessment studies for ice throw/blade throw . The people that are going to vote on this have to address the public to respond to why NO risk assessment has been done ! The AEC claims through a public record that five years they crossed their t's and dotted their e's but a risk assessment study that has been done by other towns was left out of the Dartmouth study .
The risk assessment study should have been done for the public and the Planning Board . No reasonable response has been given here for why the risk assessment was not done after five years. This leaves one to assume the worst !
Frank1, you can assume the worst. I will move forward and say BUILD THE TURBINES
I agree with Frank lets get the tests for the ice done. We should also be told how much all this stuff adds up to in the American weight system and how tall and long are all these parts. Why are they all marked in the metric system? This adds confusion to the whole debate. I found this last paragraph that I copied and pasted to this note. The question is a blade could weigh 12,000 pounds? How far will that go at thirty miles an hour from 300 feet in the air?
Rotor-Blade Separation
The separation of the rotor and blades is a past cause of wind tower failure. In this
scenario the bolts and attachment system of the rotor to the blades is breached due to a
variety of causes. Bolt loads may be exceeded due to excessive icing (winter loads),
fatigue/fracture stress, and overspeed (discussed in 2.3). The end result is the blade
separates from the tower rotor and flies off at excessive velocity. A typical blade weighs
a minimum of 12,200 pounds (6 tons), and flying at 30 mph can cause serious damage.
A tractor trailer weighs 80,000 to 100,000 pounds and often travels in excess of 65 MPH. They rarely fly very far despite their weight and speed. They do cause damage, kill and maim people on a daily basis. Should they be banned from our town?
For the Turbine Hand Wringers....I would be more concerned Health Risks Linked to Capped Landfills
If you have a choice, it’s probably best to locate your home at least two miles from a landfill.
Studies have shown possible increased risks of certain types of cancer, including bladder, brain and leukemia, among people who live near active and capped landfills like we have in Dartmouth. A study by researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine also found that living near a transfer station could expose residents to chemicals that can reduce immune system function and lead to an increased risk of infections. Living near waste sites also had increased rates of hospitalization for asthma.
Carpenter said the extent to which toxic landfill contaminants suppress the immune system has been “underestimated.”
Ideally, we would all live in pristine environments, free from pollution of all kinds. Realistically, it may be worthwhile to avoid living near landfills, if you have a choice. If you don’t, try to stay more than two miles away.
And these people are worried about what again??? 0h yeah Turbines...Get a grip people PLEASE
9:52 PM A tractor trailer (60,000 lbs)at 55 mph takes over 300 feet to stop or about the distance of a football field - Thats with the brakes on on an asphalt road.
You can look this up anywhere and every truck driver is aware of the braking distances -it's part of the CDL driving exam.
The trailer truck is a good example of how far heavy items can go - so lets get back to how far a 12,000 pound blade can travel from 300 feet up traveling at 30 mph.
You can find property appraisal experts and engineers that both agree and disagree that industrial wind turbines have no business being located next to residential neighborhoods, citing noise, sun shadow flicker, and a negative impact on home values. The town hired its engineers,who is the third party advocate for us the people living around the turbines- we have no representation.
Please all the savings I have is in my home . Do we have to beg for help
anon 12/28 6:05
Try and pay attention your questions were answered twice at the public forums.
This letter written to the state from Ron DiPippo,Ph.D. He lists himself as a Renewable Energy Consultant . Is he both the Chairman of the Dartmouth Alternative Energy Committee and if he is ,who is he a renewable energy consultant for exactly ? Who has paid him in the past for consulting work ?
http://www.env.state.ma.us/dpu/docs/electric/09-71/10509drthcom.pdf
Ronald DiPippo, Ph.D.
RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSULTANT --GEOTHERMAL& WIND SPECIALIST
October 2, 2009
Shaela McNulty Collins Hearing Officer Department of Public Utilities One South Station Boston, MA 02110
shaela.collins@state.ma.us dpu.efiling@state.ma.us
Re. DPU 09-71, 09-72, 09-73, 09-74 – Net Metering Tariff Comments from Town of Dartmouth Alternative Energy Committee
If we are to make real strides toward achieving the Governor's and the ISO region’s renewable energy capacity goals, the Tariff needs to set the highest reasonable Rate Class for community wind and other eligible projects. Otherwise, we risk that most if not all of these projects will not be financially feasible, will be unable to get financing, and will never be built.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. B
Ronald DiPippo, Ph.D. Chairman, Dartmouth Alternative Energy Committee
Members of the Dartmouth Alternative Energy Committee: Edward F. Iacaponi, Ex-Officio; Nathalie Dias, Kevern Joyce, Arthur Larrivee, Paul Lopes, Raymond Medeiros, Roger Race, Saul Raposo and Joseph Sousa
Cc/ Mark D. Marini, Secretary, Department of Public Utilities, One South Station, Boston, Massachusetts, 02110 (Original + 2 copies, mailed)
John K. Habib, Esq., Keegan Werlin, LLP, 265 Franklin Street, Boston, MA, 02110-3113 (one copy, mailed)
P.O. Box 80144 . South Dartmouth, MA 02748-0144Telephone: 508-996-6576 (home & office) . E-Mail: rondipippo@comcast.netWeb Page - http://www.umassd.edu/engineering/mne/people/faculty/dipippo.cfm
I would have to Dr. Dipippo is qualified to be a consultant. He has a PHD in mechanical engineering.
I'm getting tired of these conspiracy theories. You should be ashamed of yourself for casting dispersions on people who are working to benefit the town and are getting nothing, NOTHING in return. Then you have the gall to attack their character and motives. To quote a great Massachusetts lawyer, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
ahh, when all else fails attack the messenger. this time the messenger is a volunteer who has worked tirelessly on behalf of our town.
Thank you Dr DiPippo, you, unlike all the gutless wonders here, had the backbone to actually work for what you believe in and not hide behind anonymous blog posts.
Sometimes decisions are delayed to allow members to gather additional information and to fully answer questions they may have. It happens all the time and prevents a rush to judgment. The SB has been taking in all of the information, both written and oral, considering same and doing a bit of due diligence on our own part. This is what we are supposed to do. It is far better to have members reach an informed decision than to have a member vote in favor, against or abstain due to lack of information. This is a major step and investment for the community and I would think that townspeople would appreciate that fact that we are taking our time to become fully versed in the pro's and con's of this significant project.
To 8:03.
Would you then repeat the answers.
To try and answer one of the few legitimate questions posted here, wind turbines on land are considered much safer than those installed offshore. Particularly if installed in deep water. In Germany (until recently the country with the most wind turbine installations in the world), deep water installations have raised serious questions about the amount of engineering required to withstand the potential damage that could occur in a major storm. Land installations have faired well in general. Although there have been a few failures that were traced to poor design and QC issues in manufacturing. The vast majority of the wind turbines installed in Germany have more than justified their costs and have proved remarkably durable and safe.
To 10:18, Since you use the term we when referring to the SB, I assume you are a member of the board. Your post is nothing more than a defense of political grandstanding. My guess is that you are Watson, the one who always sounds good but never says anything of substance. You have obviously trained yourself to sound good on the surface without letting on to what your actual opinions are. You are going to have to vote on this eventually and I'll bet the farm that you vote yes. I wish you would grow a set and show some actual leadership for a change.
So any consultant or engineer from Umass is to be treated as some type of Idyllic God . Did Chairman Dr DiPippo Ph.D. ever request the University of Massachusetts at Amherst to provide a Risk Assessment study for ice throw/blade throw ? He is also a wind turbine consultant who should be well aware these questions need answers . The size of the turbine was changed from a 80 meter pole to a 100 meter pole at the last minute at the end of a five year period! There are members of the AEC who did not agree on the increased size at the last minute . \
We need an outside third party opinion !
Not as a god but with the same respect that you'd want to be afforded. One could use innuendo to accuse the opponents of nefarious activities but that's not happening. Please treat the proponents the same way. Stop implying that they're being less than forthright or have some hidden agenda. It isn't true.
The same concerns that are being raised here are raised everywhere else that a wind turbine is installed. Nonetheless, the US installed more wind power this year than any other nation. Have you asked yourself honestly, why is it that the opponents lose? Perhaps they don't have a compelling case.
In comments above, Bill Trimble said, "The 2 times the hub height requirement is the safety setback required by the bylaw. The safety setback incorporates the distance of concern for ice or blade throw."
No study needed. Already taken care of.
Ahhh, Watson, Master of the Sound Bite.
to anon 10:18:
Nooffense intended but no, I do not care to repeat the answer. Dr. DiPippo and the others present at the meetings answered the question much better than I could. Look up the DCTV schedule and watch the hearings- yes all six hours of them like I did.
I did this so I could be an informed Town Meeting member so when this issue comes before us at Town Meeting I will be prepared to cast my vote. That vote will be yes for the turbines.
Perhaps this whole episode will be a lesson learned for those townspeople that simple pay no attention wahtsoever to the goings on in their town. Democracy comes burdened with responsibility.
10;49 If they didn't have some hidden agenda they would stop trying to put these turbines in a blue collar location in town and put them at Round Hill . The residents at Round Hill have too much money and can fight the town. The town picked an area of town which they can beat up on a bunch of SAPS ..Us
Also the consultant or chairman of the AEC , however, is not a neutral, independent expert. The Town of Dartmouth should hire an independent consultant to review the process . The consultant should not have any relationship with UMass or the Town of Dartmouth -
There are way too many individuals from UMass involved in the process. Like everyone!
As an observation, it appears that anytime an individual is a stakeholder in a project, there is a sense of urgency that the Select Board, in particular, act upon the project immediately, if not sooner. This is nothing new.
However, with respect to the turbines, IF there is still information or studies that should have been prepared or given to the Select Board and the public (health, safety, ice, etc.) as is claimed, then the rush for approval/passage is premature on the part of those involved.
Common sense, to me, would dictate to those presenting these projects that residents would have legitimate questions and concerns that should be addressed by those involved in the project before they even become the issue that some have become.
Dr. DiPippo, however, has every right to be frustrated by those residents in the turbines' area who state ignorance of the turbines' proposed construction in their neighborhoods. This project was no secret.
I may have missed something. Perhaps there have been sufficient studies already done and presented on the issues brought up by the Chase Rd. and area residents, but it does not sound like it. Apparently the majority of the Select Board doesn't think so, either. Some posters think too much time has elapsed and a decision should already have been made.
IF there is further information that could/should be obtained, I would think it is the obligation of the Select Board to try and obtain it. Otherwise, perhaps those involved in the project should have provided it, as it sounds as they did not provide sufficient information for these residents, at any rate. And granted, not everyone of these residents will be satisfied by what any studies conclude, if any will be satisfied or put at ease at all. But they still are entitled to have them done and be given the results.
Perhaps everyone should consider that the Board is not acting spontaneously and is taking into account the needs/requests of the residents, however frustrating that may be to those who have already made their conclusions. It crossed my mind that this does not appear to be the "business as usual" Board that some have characterized previous boards as being. On the one hand, we should be thankful they are taking that extra time to make an informed, educated decision, despite what some may think of the individual Board members
themselves.
But, I also wonder: there were several members on the AEC. Could they not be individually tasked with obtaining information on these various issues that the abutters have raised? Perhaps they were, but apparently what information was provided to the residents was not sufficient in their minds. It might have had some value to the residents if other members of the AEC spoke to the audience with respect to their findings on the issues that were brought up. It seems to me, at least, that is how committees should work: each individual has a task to perform and he/she reports his or her findings to the entire Board for review/acceptance as part of the project's information and documentation. Mrs. Dias, for one, should have been able to assist with some answers, I would think. But I am a layperson, and all the above are just my opinion and thoughts, and perhaps some of what I would have considered doable and of value might not be feasible anyway.
Blah,blah,blah. As Trimble, the true SB leader has already stated, nobody is going to change their mind at this point. Not even the three "My Pet Goat" SB members. All three of these "deer in the headlights" board members are going to vote yes on this. Stop being political grandstanding cowards and just do it already.
Somebody has to sacrifice for the good of the town ,it may as well be the ones around the plant ! I live downtown as long as the town makes a few bucks what do the rest of us care . Lets get on with this ! Lets vote now
The 100m poles weren't brought up til a few months ago !
These were going to be 80 M turbines for five years . Then in the blink of a eye they changed them to 100 m
This wasn't the plan to have the largest turbines in North America in the middle of five hundred houses!
to anon 1:48 - it was thoroughly explained at the last meeting why the decision was made to go the 100m route vs the 80m route. It was also stated, by Trimble and maybe a few others, that there would still be complaints had the decision gone the way of 80m. The 80m meter units are now more readily availbe - they were not not so long ago and the 100m units provide a higher payback mor quickly and at a higher perentage of assurance.
All of this was calmly and thoroughly discussed at length. Feigning ingonorance or alluding to some sinister plot or saying they should be at Round HIll is all a smoke screen that any intelligent person can se through readily.
I meant to write '100m turbines were not readily available not so long ago' pardon the typo.
Anybody heard anything about the residents going to lawyers or a defense fund ?
Probably find out after Jan 4 if not now ?
To 10:46-- i can see why you think it was a member of the board. Wrong guess on Watson though- he was at Sunrise Bakery this morning and not likely to have been able to type a message on this blog....
I agree he sounds political at times, but boy you really don't like him huh?
Dartmouth has many assets but many choose to live here due to the natural beauty of our land and seascapes. It is unquestionably our town’s most valuable treasure. The giant fans, if erected, will enter into Dartmouth's canvas and dramatically reduce the value of this asset for as long as they stand. What will our town’s reputation become as a place to live if these structures are erected? No one really knows because there’s never been a town in New England willing to sell its soul to allow even one turbine this high on the horizon to be erected. I predict that towns throughout our region will say they can’t believe the two monstrosities they’ve allowed to go up in Dartmouth.
The turbines will make Dartmouth a less desirable place to live. If you don’t believe this then ask yourself a simple question. If you had a choice to buy a home very close to New England’s largest wind turbines or away from them where would you chose?
These structures will completely change the image and character of Dartmouth. They will reduce our property values and increase the tax liability for all our home and business owners. Our town budgets will come under additional strain, which will lead to reductions in services and staffing levels.
Dartmouth residents should also understand the economic impact that these turbines will have on the values of our real estate. Of course, houses that are closest to the turbines will experience the largest decrease in value but every home in Dartmouth will be negatively affected by these dominating structures. I have spoken to an attorney specializing in tax abatement litigation and he believes the turbines will result in property value reductions throughout our town. We'll be trading the value of our homes for the turbines !
nonsense anon 3:01
Turbines have been and continue to be erected in beautiful towns across the country - some as beautiful as ...gasp... Dartmouth and no such cries of sudden loss of identity and value have been raised. Why not? Because it is more fear mongering rubbish from the NIMBY folks.
anon 3:09 - don't get out much huh?
To 3:01, Actually, I like Watson, just not as a SB member. All sound bites, no substance. I like Dias too, but not as a SB member. Stone has shown me the most out of the three but on the turbine issue, you can throw her into the same barrel. They will all vote in favor of this and they should buck up and show some real leadership like Trimble did.
How many people actually blog on this thing. My guess is less than 10. Just looks like a lot with all the anonymous posts.
One of things we found when we were out talking to our neighbors recently was that nobody knew the scale of this thing .Noise and flashing lights from the turbine towers will impair Dartmouth residents’ quality of life, night and day. We should plan to present a petition to the selectmen !
Not only is it highly visually intrusive, but there are serious concerns about the disruptions that this would cause to the residents of Dartmouth. The turbine is less than 1200 feet away from residential properties and, particularly at night, the low frequency noise generated would cause significant suffering for residents.
Flashing lights? you mean like a working lighthouse that is right at eye level. or how about a radio tower with 3 or 4 flashing lights, or cell towers. People would complain about CELL RECEPTION but they wouldnt want A cell tower near them. NIMBY!!!!
Noise, a constant woosh, woosh, amazing, almost like the sound of the ocean pounding the shore line that I hear when I star gaze at night. Truly a tranquil sound, hopefully the rest of the residents will soon be able to enjoy this.
Yes a petition. That ought to do it.
Did'nt realize how tall the turbines were? Please, having ones head in the sand is no excuse to stop a worthwhile project like this one.
Repetition of specious objections gets... well repetitive.
We shooting for three pages?
The residents of Dartmouth should understand how the permit process works .The select board members should not be bullied by other select board members . Any select person can abstain , vote no or yes or give a reason like, the wind speed profiles were derived from SODAR measurements and may not be accurate as they contain extrapolated figures that no one is sure of or the parcel is zoned “Single-Residence B”. In addition the lack of a presentation on ice throw , a study which could have been done over the last five years prepared by the Renewable Energy Research Laboratory or simply there may be a better place in town to place the turbines. The other option is they just don't like the plan as it affects to many residential properties and is not fair to single out one area of town for possible loss of property values .
landfill.The timeline for the project includes publishing the Request for Proposals (RFP) early in2010, opening the bids and selecting the winning bid in the second quarter 2010, arrangingfinancing and doing site preparation in the second quarter 2010, installing the turbines in thefourth quarter 2010, and starting commercial operation at the start of 2011, in time to capturethe windiest season of the year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 33
Special Permit ApplicationAlternative Energy Committee33TABLE 7. Net monetary benefit from two 1.65 MW wind turbines at the DPW site.YearP99P50V=5.56 m/s6.56 m/s1$370,803$880,5642$403,632$926,6473$437,447$974,1134$472,275$1,023,0035$508,148$1,073,3596$545,098$1,125,2267$583,156$1,178,6508$622,356$1,233,6769$662,732$1,290,35210$704,319$1,348,72911$747,153$1,408,85812$791,273$1,470,79013$836,716$1,534,58014$883,523$1,600,28415$931,734$1,667,95916$1,773,214 $2,529,48717$1,824,361 $2,601,28418$1,877,043 $2,675,23419$1,931,304 $2,751,40320$1,987,194 $2,829,857TOTALS $18,893,482 $32,124,053T.Present an estimate of the cost to remove the WECF after periods of 10, 15 and 20 years.ADE has advised that decommissioning costs are also offset by salvage value, with the resultthat the net cost may be a wash. Depending on the market value for steel, copper, and evenconcrete (which can be recycled), the Town may even receive a net payment. Based on sixprojects, ADE estimates that the average cost to dismantle a turbine in 2009 dollars is about$89,000; the average salvage value is about $80,000. Thus a net cost comes to $9,000. However,the net cost ranges over a wide spectrum depending on the local conditions. The removal ofthe foundation can be expensive - $25-30,000, and is not included in the previous figures. Itshould be borne in mind that after a 20-year operating life, it may be worthwhile to refurbishthe turbines with new blading, gear boxes and generators to take advantage of new technologyand the existing infrastructure. Since the projected value of scrap metal and concrete issubject to great uncertainty, it is not possible to extrapolate from 2009 values to values thatwill prevail in 2020, 2025 or 2040, but the relative scale of salvage versus removal costs willlikely remain roughly as they are today.
I've read on the internet that under certain conditions, when the blades of the windmills go really, really fast, they in turn produce mini-tornadoes.
I've heard that these are white tornados, and the people living closest can simply open a window or screen door and the whole house is instantly cleaned! This only happens when they go really, really, really fast and most often during a full moon in October.
Mr. Clean
If that's true then why have'nt we been told about this aspect of the turbines?
Post a Comment