Wind turbine opponents soldier on

Curt Brown has this blog post at the Standard Times website about the possible consequences of the Attorney General's approval of the wind turbine bylaw. He quotes Attorney Beauregard as saying the opponents will continue to sue the town over the project. The Select Baord has not discussed future steps yet ...
... but will on Monday. See my earlier post as to what that may be. Click here to read on!

Wind turbine bylaw approved by Attorney General

The town has been informed by the Commonwealth's Attorney General that the municipal wind turbine bylaw passed at the June 2010 Town Meeting has been approved. The town had been waiting for this approval before proceeding and spending funds on the project. The Select Board will discuss next steps at our September 27th meeting.
Those steps may include contracting with a design firm to design the installation.
The discussion may take place in executive sessions until the terms of the contract are worked out or may take place in open session. That has not been resolved at this date.
Something that must be considered as the wind turbine project goes forward is how the entire project will be structured. I favor establishing an enterprise that would provide services to town departments (i.e. electrical energy). This enterprise would be responsible for the notes on the project and would have retained earnings to be used for routine maintenance and any unscheduled maintenance that might occur. Just to put some numbers to the idea, the following may be more or less but are in the ball park. For instance, let us say that the wind turbines are erected and the notes require a $900K payment on the borrowing used to pay for the installation. The routine maintenance yearly cost might be $150K. The turbines output could be worth $1.7 million. The Select Board has indicated that $500,000 be set aside from the net proceeds for the wind turbines to pay ...

... for any unscheduled maintenance and their eventual removal. At least 10% of the yearly net proceeds must be set aside for this purpose. In this example, that would be about $65,000 for the year. That leaves around $585K. That amount would be distributed among the town departments to reduce their electric bills.
That is how I would like to see the project financed and run. What do you think?
Click here to read on!

Mr Lynam thinks we're nuts

Finance Committee member Greg Lynam had this letter in the Standard Times. At the root of the letter is a vote by the Select Board to set a target for the Stabilization Fund at 7.5% of the annual town budget. Mr. Lynam would prefer 10%. The Stabilization Fund has a current balance of about $5 million or 7.3% of the FY2011 budget. The town also has reserves of about $2.4 million in retained Undesignated General Fund balance which is another 3.5% of the budget. The Select Board feels the reserves are adequate, Mr. Lynam does not.
I have disagreed with the goal of 10% of the budget as a goal for the Stabilization Fund for some time now. I believe that 10% of the tax levy or a little more than $4 million would be adequate. Of course, one can easily concoct a myriad of scenarios where any amount that one chooses is not adequate. As I see it, the goal is to have enough money to satisfy bond rating agencies that we can weather an unexpected expense or temporary reductions in revenue. I think that 10% of the levy is enough. Opinions vary.
I was somewhat disappointed in the tenor of Mr. Lynam's opinion. We have a genuine difference of opinion on what constitutes adequate reserves. That does not make us, the Select Board, foolhardy, spendthrifts, or crazy. Despite Mr. Lynam's assertions, I am not aware that any Select Board member wants to go on a wild spending spree or even disagrees that one time revenue, such has been used to bolster the Stabilization Fund, should be used to supplement departmental operating budgets. My particular disagreements with Mr. Lynam extend beyond the amount of the Stabilzation Fund balance. Mr. Lynam correctly states that we have managed to build our reserves by shaving down the operating reserves that had been normally budgeted to departments. Which means that the amount of free cash available to fund the Stab Fund or capital needs has been shrinking. I think that we have gotten in the habit of funding operational needs from the capital budget. I also believe this is poor public policy. If the police department needs 3-4 cars every year to continue their mission (I believe that they do, ...

... they run these cars hundreds of thousands of miles in a year) or the school department needs textbooks and technology to stay current, then those items should be accounted for in the operating budgets. Cars definitely meet the criteria to be capital items in most circumstances, but patrol cars are a special case in my opinion. I would like to see 3-4 cars included in the police budget every year. Textbooks and technology are a bit harder to make the case for capital spending, but the Finance Committee and administration have gone along with the designation in recent years. Here is the problem with that scenario. Let us say that for period of a few years, the town does not have the one time cash to fund these items, police cars and textbooks. That means the police department and schools will have to do without the cars and books. Even if town revenues recover, the town is now faced with buying even more cars or books than would normally be the case since we had to forgo that spending in prior years. Not a good situation. Yet Mr. Lynam is an enthusiastic proponent of capital spending for textbooks. I do not think that makes him foolhardy, irresponsible or ill informed. We just differ on the policy.
I will address a couple more of Mr. Lynam's points. Mr. Lynam has not been an advocate of the wind turbine project. Regardless of his concerns, wind turbines have been shown to be reliable sources of energy and hence, revenue. While it is possible that a wind turbine would cost the town, the evidence would suggest that they will be trouble free and generate revenue for many years. That has been the experience in Hull and Portsmouth and many other places.
Lastly, Mr. Lynam hopes that Town Meeting will rein in the "foolhardy" and "irresponsible" Select Board. Well, good luck with that. Having just seen that body spend a million dollars for barn restorations in town despite recommendations from the Finance Committee not to fund them, I do not have a lot of confidence in the fiscal restraint of Town Meeting.
Finally, let me say that Greg Lynam is a fabulous asset to the Finance Committee and the town. His diligence and insight have been invaluable over the years. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for the countless hours he has devoted to understanding and quantifying the town fiscal situation. Mr. Lynam has shared his insights with me and allowed me to have a better understanding of the how and why of town finances. I could not have done it myself without devoting a tremendous amount of time to the effort. Mr. Lynam had done that work for me and was willing to share his knowledge. I thank him for that. On this issue, we have a disagreement. C'est la vie, n'est pas? Click here to read on!

Can you spell IRONY?

While currently suing the town, claiming that the process for granting Special Permits for municipal wind turbines is flawed, Ms. Nesto now wants the process retained. This is a link to her letter to the editor in the Standard Times. Isn't it ironic,...
...don't you think?
Her assertion that there are many possible sites for wind turbines is just not correct.
The municipal wind turbine bylaw being proposed requires the installations to meet all the conditions of the commercial wind turbine bylaw. The residential and commercial wind turbine bylaws will remain unchanged.
No, really, what do you think? Tell us in comments. Click here to read on!

Fairhaven wind turbine project proposed

The Town of Fairhaven has announced plans to put two commercial sized wind turbines near their waste water treatment plant. Like the Dartmouth project, Fairhaven will take advantage of the new net metering rules that pay retail rates for excess generation. This project had been permitted by the Fairhaven planning board as a commercial venture but stalled on threatened lawsuits by opponents. The municipal use may be considered an as-of-right use, ...

... so no special permit is required according to the New Bedford Standard Times.
The Standard Times article on the project is at this link. The article says the turbines will be 1.65MW macines and stand 460 feet tall including the blade height. That would seem to indicate that they are similar to Vestas V82 machines with a 41 meter blade on 100 meter towers.
I was talking to my brother this weekend and he has noticed that they are putting in a wind farm of some 30 wind turbines on a mountaintop near Cresson, PA.
Perhaps as the machines become more commonplace, they will gain more acceptance.
What do you think? Tell us in comments,
Click here to read on!

Wind turbine permit appeal lawsuit

Some residents have filed a lawsuit appealing the special permit granted for two wind turbines in town. I have scanned the suit and uploaded it here. The suit seeks to have the grant of a special permit annulled. The crux of the suit seems to be that the Select Board cannot issue a permit in this case because they are the executive board of the town as well as the special permit granting authority. The arguments seem to be pretty scattershot to me, at one point claiming the Select Board ceded their authority to the Alternative Energy Committee ...

... and in another that the Select Board exceeded their authority by issuing the permit. Other claims include harm to the abutters, lack of proper notification, and that the bylaw set up a flawed process for approval.
You can read the suit yourself at this link
Click here to read on!

Special Town Meeting votes to fund wind turbine project

After hearing presentations from Dr. DiPippo of the Alternative Energy Committee, Ms. Jenkins from the Finance Committee (that committee voted unaimously in favor of the article), Dr. Friedman of the Finance Committee (who wrote a computer model for the turbine economics) and Mr. John Aylward. a resident who opposes the project, the Town Meeting voted to authorize borrowing of $9.5 million dollars to fund the wind turbine project, 182 in favor and 44 against. The authorization required a 2/3 majority of the Town Meeting and the article passed. There is a bit of confusion on the exact vote which the moderator has addressed in an email. Here is what he reports in the email to Town Clerk Lynn Medeiros,

Subject: Offical Vote Total on Article 1 - Wind Turbines
Hi Lynn ... Thanks your help again tonight. My records will reflect a 182-44 vote on Article 1, the wind turbine article. After the Town Meeting, I gave that count to WBSM and The Standard-Times. I'm sending that same information by e-mail to The Chronicle. If I announced it as 182-49, it's only because I couldn't read my own writing. Both tellers clearly counted 44 negative votes and my notes show that. I do know I announced 182 in favor and said that 226 had voted. Either way, the vote was far in excess of 2/3rds. In fact, it was about 80% in favor. In your records, it should be correct. Blame my poor eyesight.
Thanks Steven C. Sharek

In related news, some residents have filed a lawsuit, ...

... appealing the special permit and seeking to block the wind turbine project. The Town Counsel was notified of the suit by the Standard Times on Monday. The paper got the filing before the town. The town and Select Board were served yesterday. I will post the filing here on the blog when I have time to scan it. Ms. Sweet raised a question from the floor about how the town would proceed if Town Meeting authorized the borrowing for the turbines in light of the suit. Executive Administrator, Mr. Cressman replied that the town could borrow some funds to start design and procurement or could wait to see the result of the suit. My preference is to wait until the legal hurdles are cleared before proceeding further.
Click here to read on!

Wind turbine opponent presentation

This is a link to the presentation put together by local residents who opppose funding the wind turbine project.
Much of the information that in this presentation is inaccurate or misleading in my opinion. I will prepare a more complete rebuttal and present it here when I have time.

Just a few quick points. You can see accurate photo simulations of the wind turbines at this link. The one in the presentation is grossly exaggerated.
The damaged two bladed turbine shown in the UK was experimental and even that was repaired and run for some time.

At the time however, there was a lot of controversy about this huge and very expensive machine, put up when the UK had very little experience with wind turbines. The Danish programme meanwhile had been focussing on small three bladed machines, rated at 200-300kW, and in the event they proved to be world beaters, and have subsequently been scaled up to 1.5MW. That’s still half the size of the Orkney machine- which has been widely seen as something of a white elephant. It did no doubt provide some general technical information and experience- though it didn’t operate for long before a crack in the blades forced its retirement. It was subsequently bought privately, repaired, and run for a while to provide power locally. But now the end has finally come.
However, the Burgar Hill site itself remains home to three NEG Micon wind turbines, currently being tested under the high wind speeds found on Orkney. Installed last April, the first two are rated at 1.5 and 2.0 megawatts and have now been joined by a newly installed 1.3MW machine. The BWEA noted that ‘the demolished turbine still sets the record for the most powerful onshore machine in the UK, and also exceeds the first offshore turbines in the UK at Blyth Offshore, rated at 2.0MW each’.

From the same article,

A survey of ‘Public Attitudes towards Wind farms in Scotland’ carried out by System Three Social Research, focusing on people living near Scotlands first four windfarms found that the closer people lived to windfarms the more positive was their attitude to them- a result that has emerged regularly in opinion surveys around the UK. 67% found ‘something they liked’ about the Scottish wind farms, rising to 73% amongst those living closest. Moreover, 74% found ‘nothing they disliked’ rising to 80% for those nearest.
Overall it seems that peoples worries prior to construction were often unfounded- for example 40% of the 430 or so respondents in the Scottish survey said they thought that there would be problems, but in the event only 9% reported any problems. Specifically, beforehand, 12% thought noise would be a problem, but afterwards only 1% reported any disturbance. But the survey found that the development companies had not been effective at consultation, outreach and communication with residents: 42% still only heard of the projects via the local papers, only 7% had obtained their information from the developer or local authority.

Click here to read on!

Wind turbines popping up everywhere

The Fall River Herald News reports here that Tiverton is considering a wind turbine near Rt 24

I think that we will soon find wind turbines a common sight around the area.
Click here to read on!

Dueling op ed letters

Select Board Chair Joe Michaud had an op ed letter in the Standard Times where he rebutted an earlier letter from Canadian wind turbine opponent, William Palmer. Michaud noted that even using Mr. Palmer's data, the likelihood of a failure of a wind turbine is remote,

"Using the same probability factors that Palmer uses in opposition to his country's project, we could expect our two turbines to have a catastrophic event once every 323 years."

Mr. Palmer's letter can be found at this link. Mr. Palmer feels the Select Board did not properly assess the detriments to wind power installations. In fact, the Select Board was aware of comments that Mr. Palmer made to an Ontario wind farm application ...

... through a submittal to the public hearing on the permit. You'll note that Mr. Michaud knew the data from Palmer's comment even though it was not included in his op ed letter. The Ontario authorities rejected Mr. Palmer's assessment in the Ontario installation. Mr. Palmer has been advanced as an expert by opponents of the Dartmouth wind project. While a professional engineer, Mr. Palmer's area of expertise is nuclear power, not wind power.
You can read the Ontario comments from Palmer here I will accept Mr. Palmer's calculation regarding the frequency of wind turbine failures. However, his analysis of the likelihood of failure in multiple turbines is flawed. The events are independent. That is an important distinction. Multiple installations do not increase the likelihood of an individual turbine failure. Palmer takes the low probablility of an individual failure (1 in 775 years) and divides it by the number of turbines. That is not statistically valid.
Here is an example. If the probability of a tire blowout for one tire is 1 in 100,000 miles, then what is the probability for your car? By his reckoning it is 100,000 miles divided by 4 since you have four tires or 1 every 25,000 miles. If you have two cars, by his method, the likelihood is 100,000 divided by 8 or 12,500 miles. Do you see the error? The probability remains 1 in 100,000 miles for each tire. It is not lessened by the number of tires. That is because the events in question are independent. Another example would be two fair coins, Fair meaning an equal chance of heads or tails. You flip one and get heads, what is the probability of getting heads when the second coin is flipped? It is 1 in 2. The same as the first coin. The events are independent.
Click here to read on!

Finance Committee recommends funding for wind turbines.

Last night, the Finance Committee gave a thumbs up to the wind turbine project bonding in their recommendation to the Special Town Meeting on January 26th. Finance Committee member, Mr. Walker , reports

"the finance committe voted unanimously to recommend the turbine article to town meeting based on favorable economics and overall environmental benefits."

In other news on the project, the town has received word that the FAA will not allow the 100 meter height ...

... at the north tower site. The maximum allowed height according to the FAA will have to be 86 meters at the hub or a high accuracy survey meeting 2C standards would be needed to permit an 89.5 meter height.
The ALternative Energy Committee has this report regarding the impact on the finances of the project. ·

The two turbines, if built on 328-foot towers, will conservatively produce 8,016,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity annually, more than enough to cover the 5,429,000 kilowatt-hours used by the DPW. Moreover, they will supply about 49% of the entire electricity demand of all Town public buildings. Using 295-foot towers, they will produce 7,472,000 kilowatt-hours. Turbines will be built as tall as allowed by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission.

Click here to read on!

Wind Turbine Special Permit

I have uploaded the wind turbine Special Permit findings here. This is NOT an official copy. Go to the Select Board office to get an official copy if you need one.

Nothing else here.
Click here to read on!

Select Board approves special permit for wind turbines

The Select Board voted unanimously last night to approve a special permit for the construction of two wind turbines on town land off Chase Road. Information on the project can be found here on the town website. I will post the entire findings and conditions to this blog ...

... when I receive the final wording from the Town Counsel.
Click here to read on!

One more time on wind turbines

Let me start out by answering some of the queries that seem to be recurring in the comments. I will address noise, shadow flicker, blade and ice throw, real estate values, and the proposed location.

NOISE
The noise created by the wind turbines has been modeled and a study of ambient background noise was conducted. The standard set in our bylaw and by Massachusetts General Law is 310 CMR 7.10. That sets an absolute limit of 10 dB over ambient noise. The results of the study are that the increase is 2-3 dB over ambient. That is 3 to 5 times below the standard. The results of that study can be found here. While I am on the subject of noise, let me address the concerns of those who think it will affect their health. There are no peer reviewed studies that have found adverse health effects due to wind turbine sound, infrasound, or vibration. Click here for an expert panel review. UMass Amherst's Renewable Energy Research Lab has this paper on wind turbine sound.

SHADOW FLICKER
Shadow flicker is a term used to describe the shadow of the turning turbine blades as it fall on the ground. Because there are no homes close by the proposed turbines, the phenomenon is limited to times of day when the sun is low on the horizon, just after dawn and just before dusk. Only then are the shadows long enough to reach homes. The executive summary for the wind turbine permit says,

" Shadow-flicker has the potential to affect about 94 residences in total, but 75 of these would be for nine hours or less per year. Eighteen residences might receive between 10-19 hours per year, and only one residence might see slightly over 20 hours per year. These values are biased on the high side because the analysis does not account for screening of houses by trees, shrubs or other structures."

These values are known because a shadow flicker analysis has been done and can be seen here. It shows the duration, time of day, and time of year that shadow flicker may occur at residences around the turbines. Notice that shadow flicker might occur, however, no shadow flicker will occur unless the wind is blowing and the sun is shining during those times. Certain medical conditions can be aggravated by shadow flicker, however there is no general public health danger from the shadows.

TURBINE COLLAPSE, BLADE THROW, AND ICE THROW.
The commercial wind turbine bylaw sets requirements for safety setbacks of wind turbines. The condition requiring the largest setback is stated as,

"In order to ensure public safety and to protect the
interests of neighboring property owners, a setback shall be required from the nearest property line to the center of the base of the tower equal to two (2)times the hub height of the WECF (Wind Energy Conversion Facility)."

The bylaw incorporates the safety setbacks for turbine collapse, blade throw, and ice throw. Some have asked for a guarantee there is no public safety risk. As with many of the necessities of modern life, wind turbines do constitute some risk. Our bylaw is written to minimize that risk by placing the public well away from the area that would be affected by turbine collapse and at a distance where the probability of damage or injury from blades or ice is very remote. In an earlier post, I referenced these studies,

The comments by Palmer to a Canadian wind plant permit, http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Storage/52/4743_C-8-2_Att_17.pdf, calculated the probability of a catastrophic failure of a wind turbine based upon historical operating data at .00129 failures per year of operation or in other words , one failure in every 775 years of operation. A study by Larwood, Permitting Setbacks for Wind Turbines in California and the Blade Throw Hazard, shows (table 8) that a 2 times setback is sufficient to protect from a blade throw at up to 150% of rated speed. Throws of blade fragments and ice could possibly reach greater distances but the low probability of such accidents along with the low probability of the fragment or ice striking a populated area and the reduced consequence due to the smaller mass results in a hazard that is orders of magnitude less than some which are commonly accepted as part of modern life such as airline flight or driving an auto.

Modern life involves accepting some risks ...

... in order to enjoy the benefits. One cannot deny that buildings and bridges collapse, trains derail, airlines crash, homes burn from faulty electrical appliances and circuits, cars collide, furnaces sometimes leak deadly gases, nuclear plants fail, cars, factories, and fossil fuel power plants poison the air and water. We accept all these risks because they are familiar and we know that we benefit from transportation, electricity and other modern conveniences. Given the setback required in the bylaw, the risk of injury or damage from a wind turbine is on the same level as that of being struck by lightning.

REAL ESTATE VALUES
There is no basis to believe that siting wind turbines in Dartmouth will decrease real estate values. This study by Berkeley National Laboratory found no decrease in property values.
The National Association of Realtors say here that,

"Although research remains scant, wind farms appear to have a minimal or at most transitory impact on real estate. This field guide explores the current state of the industry, examines real estate-related research, provides wind maps and regulations to give an indication of where future projects might unfold, and gives resources for further study."

This paper found,

"no measurable affect on property values on 280 arms-length single family home transactions around an upstate New York windfarm."

This report concluded,

"Lincoln Township in western Wisconsin undertook a study of local windfarms to gage their impact on the community. Excerpts of this report are often cited by wind farm opponents to bolster their case. However, the actual report states "the siting of the windmills has not had any significant negative impact on property values near them."

To date, evidence presented that values are affected have been loss of one sale of a home in Fairhaven and the belief by some that values will be affected.

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION
Why was the proposed site chosen?
The land is owned by the town and is used as a watershed for much of the town's water supply. While being used as a watershed, there are few auxiliary uses allowed for this land. Wind turbine siting is one such use.
The sites are adjacent to some of the largest users of electricity by the town, the waste water treatment plant and the drinking water filtration plant. New net metering rules adopted by the state public utility department require that municipal wind turbines must be connected to the grid behind the meter of a municipal load, such as the waste water treatment plant.
The area is densely wooded and large. The woods reduce sound and shadow effects on neighbors. It is large enough to allow the required setbacks.
Some have noted that other areas of the town may have a better wind regime. I think that is correct. However, upon inspection, each has problems as well. Some may know that a study for a wind turbine near Round Hill was done. The setback requirement of our bylaw has proven to be difficult to meet at that site. A permit application has not been submitted yet. There are lands near Old Fall River Road that could have good wind for turbines, but they are in the flight path of the New Bedford airport approaches.
The capped landfill in Dartmouth could be used, but that would require extensive permitting from the DEP.
In short, the proposed sites are large enough to allow for the setbacks, cannot be put to other use, remote enough to help minimize the impact of sound and shadow, and nearby the electrical loads that they will help to serve.

The above are some answers to the most frequent questions that I have seen. I'm sure that one of the criticisms will be that I only listen to people who are involved in the wind turbine field. I do lend more credence to people who have expertise. I don't go to the plumber for a toothache or the dentist to fix my car. While plumbers may have opinions on dentistry and dentists on auto repair, I think you will get better results if the person has specific training or expertise in the problem at hand.
Click here to read on!

Here's a new thread for the wind turbine folks.

Save me some scrolling time.

Comments anyone?
Click here to read on!

Wind turbine special permit

The Select Board was set up as the Special Permit Granting Authority for commercial sized wind turbines by a zoning bylaw, section 34, adopted by the Town Meeting. A super majority of the Select Board, 4 out of 5, must vote to approve an application in order to issue a permit. The application can be found at this link.
The Alternative Energy Committee has been studying ways to provide clean renewable energy for the town since 2005. They have conducted tests that show there was a sufficient wind resource on the DPW lands in the Paskmansett Valley to justify the installation of commercial size wind turbines.
The Alternative Energy Committee held numerous public meetings and gave presentations at Town Meeting and at Select Board meetings. The Town Meeting has funded studies to determine if the proposed facilities could be placed on the sites. The results of those studies show that the sites are suitable and turbines can be installed within the parameters set by the bylaw.
At the same time, the Finance Committee has assessed the financial impact of the cost of buying and installing the turbines and the likely benefit in reduced energy costs and payments for excess generation. They have held many public meetings where the wind turbines project was presented and the financial impact to the town was discussed. The Finance Committee concluded the turbines would save the town many millions of dollars over their service life.
In the past few months, the town has begun the process of permitting the wind turbines. As part of the process, some residents, who are not in favor of the installation of the machines, have raised some issues against the project. Noise, shadow flicker from turning blades, danger to residents from parts or ice flying off the turbines, hazard to wildlife, especially birds and bats, and reduced property values are the main reasons given for opposing wind turbines.
The noise generated by the installation is not zero. The noise report for the wind turbine project can be found at this link. There will be some increase in noise but that increase is small, on the order of 2-3 DbA. That increase is near the limit of perceptibility by the human ear and well below the 10DbA limit for noise impact set out by Massachusetts noise regulation, 310 CMR 7.10. The Select Board has been given some reports that contain anecdotal accounts of persons who claim to have suffered adverse health effects from noise caused by wind turbines. One report, included by reference, is by E. Pederson, Human response to wind turbine noise - perception, annoyance and moderating factors found that self reported health effects did not correlate to the sound power level (SPL) of the exposure, ...

... but did correlate with displeasure over the look of the wind turbines. This and other studies have not found a causal relationship between the reported health effects and exposure to the wind turbine sound. Infrasound is another health area that opponents to wind power have raised. No evidence of any scientific study that supports that the claim of infrasound effects has been provided.
Shadow flicker is a event that occurs when the shadow of the rotating wind turbine blades falls upon the ground. The application for permit addresses these shadow flicker events and finds that the exposure to this phenomenon is low for residences in the area. The maximum calculated shadow flicker exposure for a year at any residence is just over 20 hours. All others are well below that duration. These shadow flicker events will only occur for short durations on a given day in the early morning or late evening when the sun is low on the horizon. The shadow flicker model does not account for screening by the wooded areas around the turbines which will lessen exposure to residents. I am satisfied that the effects of shadow flicker have been mitigated by the turbine site placement to the extent that is possible. No evidence has been presented that shadow flicker will harm residents.
There is a possibility that the turbines, the turbine blades or fragments of blades, or ice formed on the blades will become detached and be thrown to the ground. This debris could pose a hazard to residents. The required setbacks for the turbines as set by the bylaw is 2 times the turbine hub height.
The comments by Palmer to a Canadian wind plant permit, http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Storage/52/4743_C-8-2_Att_17.pdf, calculated the probability of a catastrophic failure of a wind turbine based upon historical operating data at .00129 failures per year of operation or in other words , one failure in every 775 years of operation. A study by Larwood, Permitting Setbacks for Wind Turbines in California and the Blade Throw Hazard, shows (table 8) that a 2 times setback is sufficient to protect from a blade throw at up to 150% of rated speed. Throws of blade fragments and ice could possibly reach greater distances but the low probability of such accidents along with the low probability of the fragment or ice striking a populated area and the reduced consequence due to the smaller mass results in a hazard that is orders of magnitude less than some which are commonly accepted as part of modern life such as airline flight or driving an auto.
Studies have shown that hazards to wildlife species are low and within the range of the impact of other man made hazards. No evidence has been given to conclude a protected species would be affeceted.
Some opponents have posited a reduction on home property values as a result of proximity to wind turbines. A study was presented from Berkeley National Laboratory which did not find a reduction in home values due to wind farm proximity. The assessor from the Town of Hull did not find a reduction near their two wind turbines. Other than anecdotal evidence that purchase offers were withdrawn in Fairhaven, no evidence was presented that property values would suffer.
Our home, Earth, is straining under the impact of a remarkably successful species, humans. Our current use of the earth's resources is not sustainable, perhaps even in the short term, as the land, air and water that we need for survival are being polluted and changed by the activities of the billions of people on the planet. Renewable energy sources, such as wind, can help to reduce that impact and can lead to a more sustainable way of life for our world and our children.
One of the natural resources that modern life relies on and that is in in short supply is oil. Our nation relies upon foreign sources for that oil. Many of the oil producing countries have interests which are hostile or, at best, diverge from American self interests. Reducing our dependence on these foreign nations is in the best interests of our country. Wind power and other technologies reduce the need for importation of foreign resources and strengthen our country.
The Town of Dartmouth has long prided itself on having low property taxes and a good public school system. A combination of limits on the increase in property tax, changes in school funding formulas, and other factors outside of the town's control have made it increasingly difficult to maintain traditional town services without raising property taxes or cutting those services. The savings from generating our own power from wind turbines and from selling the excess generation can help to reduce the strain on the town budget. The town recently projected a shortfall of over $800,000 for the 2011 fiscal year. Steps will have to be taken to eliminate that shortfall. Budgets will be cut. Police, teachers, highway workers, and other staff may be laid off. The town cannot spend more than it earns, that is the law. Projections for the wind turbine project are that chances are even that it will generate more than $800,000 in savings and revenue for the town. Even in the most conservative projects are for a benefit of $more than $600,000. Wind turbines, owned by the people of Dartmouth, will provide financial benefits to the people and help to keep taxes low and all our town services intact.
Dartmouth can harvest a resource that is readily available, while preserving our planet, strengthening our nation, and maintaining the community values of our town. For these reasons, I will vote to approve the special permit for wind turbines on the DPW lands.
Click here to read on!

Westport businesses going and getting green

Grant Welker has an article in today's Herald Tribune about Westport businesses that have embraced alternative energy, wind and solar, in order to be more environmentally conscious and save money. According to the article, Whaling City Transit "has been getting monthly checks for around $20, Neves, the president and co-owner, said. That’s after enough energy is produced that the company often has no energy bill at all."
Westport's Alternative Energy Committee is also looking ...

... at sites for wind turbines, according to the article,

While the commercial sector and many residents have turned to the sun or wind for energy, the town Alternative Energy Committee, which proposed the Town Hall turbine, has again begun looking for locations. It is considering the transfer station, land behind the fire station under construction on Hixbridge Road and potential parcels near the shore.
But the committee isn’t looking to build a 120-foot turbine as it did two years ago. Now it's considering something about twice as high with the capacity to provide 100 times or more energy.

The Town of Falmouth recently completed erection of two commercial size wind turbines, one at their waste water plant and another on the Massachusetts Military Reservation.
Click here to read on!

Local campuses go green

Grant Welker had this article in the Fall River Herald News about the installation of 420 solar panels on roofs at Bristol Community College (BCC). The solar installation is part of a $500,000 program to cut energy usage at the campus. The solar panels are expected to generate 100 KW and add to the 10 KW produced by 50 panels that were installed previously. The low energy production from the installation points to a problem with solar power installations. The sun's energy per square foot on the earth's surface is low (on average about 164 watts per square meter) and the efficiency of the panels at capturing that energy is also low (around 30% efficient at best nowadays). So the most energy that we can collect on average is 50 watts per square meter. DURING DAYLIGHT HOURS! At our latitiude about 8 hours per day at this time of year. That yields a total of 400 watts per square meter per day.
To equal the peak output of the proposed Dartmouth wind turbine installation with solar panels, ...

... you would need to install 13,860 solar panels of the type that BCC used.
Mr. Welker had this article a couple of weeks ago about UMass Dartmouth's effort to reduce their energy consumption. The campus is considering solar panels and perhaps a wind turbine but most of the savings, as at BCC,comes from consuming less.
This points the way to how all of us can cut our energy use, lower the thermostat, use energy efficient lighting, disconnect small loads like computers, and other electronics when not in use. The average European home uses 30% less energy than they did 20 years ago and they are getting lower all the time. The US is still headed in the opposite direction.
Click here to read on!

Wind turbine forum report

The Standard Times article about the forum can be found here.
I think that the information presented was helpful to residents in understanding the impact and benefits of the wind turbines. You can download the presentation here
One particularly interesting question came from the Fire Chief. He asked what provisions are made for getting someone down from the top of the 100 meter (328ft)tower and would the fire department receive any special training needed. I did a little investigation this morning and found that there are ladderways with intermediate platforms within the towers for access. These ladderways are equipped with fall protection devices. In addition, there is a rescue and descent device stowed in the top nacelle by some turbine manufacturers which allows descent outside of the tower. I think that the town should make these devices a requirement in the request for proposal when issued.
Several of those in attendance expressed concern about health effects and decreased property values. Jeanne Nesto of Chase Road was worried about "wind turbine syndrome" and others about property values. I have posted my thoughts on those subjects here.
I spoke with Ms. Nesto and others after the forum and invited them to send me information about health effects and property values. I am open to valid concerns and want to weigh all the information. What I asked for were reports that applied science and statistics to show that there are deleterious effects. Reports, such as that by Dr. Pierpoint, do not constitute a scientific or statistical approach. What I want to see are reports that apply the scientific method of data collection, analysis and conclusion to reach verifiable results. Statements of belief are not persuasive to me.
As an example, there are millions who believe that flying saucers exist. Some claim to have seen them, others to have met them. Despite many books, reports and websites claiming their belief in otherworldly visitors, I have yet to see any conclusive verifiable proof. I don't believe that they exist and require proof that they do.
Another example is the belief ...

... that vaccinations cause a variety of ailments including autism. Many believe this to be true. There are long lists of websites that promote that belief. However rigorous scientific investigation has not found a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism. So what to believe? Should I not vaccinate and expose my child to known diseases which can definitely harm them or vaccinate even though many hold the unproven belief that it can cause autism? I would choose the vaccination because that is where objective science tells me the correct course lies.
I think that these examples show what I am asking for. If you have evidence that I should consider about wind turbines, please let me know in comments or by email.
Click here to read on!

Facts about wind turbines.

The University of Massachusetts Renewable Energy Research Lab weighs in with this letter on Dr. Pierpoint's claims saying,

At the University of Massachusetts, we presented a white paper on the subject: (http://www.ceere.org/rerl/publications/whitepapers/Wind_Turbine_Acoustic_Noise_Rev2006.pdf) with its latest revision in 2006. Similar conclusions have been presented by a well-respected consulting firm in New York State- AWS Truewind. In no case do these reports support the conclusions of Dr. Pierpont or others holding similar views. We also note that this subject is a topic most used by wind turbine opponents, and that not all the information found on the Internet is reliable.

This letter from Massachusetts Maritime Academy states that there have been no complaints of noise from their wind turbine which is within 522 feet of the nearest residence in 18 months of operation. (more after the jump)

Hull's second wind turbine is much closer to residents than proposed in Dartmouth and is not shielded by trees. Below is an actual photo of that turbine.
Watch these videos of what the nearby residents have to say in Hull
Bernadette White 1
Bernadette White 2
Beth Parker
Hardly a nightmarish tale. In fact, Hull residents like their wind turbines and are proud of them. Here is a link to a children's book about Millie, the Hull wind turbine. The Hull Assessor says in this memo that Millie has not hurt property values.
This report from the Union of Concerned Scientists says,

“A national study of more than 25,000 real estate sales near wind farms across the country found no evidence of a negative impact on property values, and in some cases it even showed a positive effect. In the coastal community of Hull, MA, property sales near Hull Wind One since it began operating in January 2002 show increases in property value consistent with the rest of the town, according to local realtors. A long-standing real estate firm serving Hull and the neighboring towns of Cohasset and Hingham highlights Hull Wind One in its sales materials, touting the far-sighted thinking that the use of wind power represents, the stable electricity rates it provides, and the overwhelming town support for a second turbine, which was erected in 2006”

Once again I am sure that this information will not sway those who have already decided that these turbines are not suitable for our town. However if you have an open mind, I think all the above deserves consideration.
Click here to read on!