The application seeks approval for a Special Permit for a wind turbine project consisting of two 1,650 kW wind turbines to be mounted on 100-meter (328 foot) towers on DPW land off 687 Chase Road in South Dartmouth.
Atlantic Design Engineers LLC (ADE) carried out a feasibility study that included, among other aspects, shadow-flicker, noise and simulated visualization. Earlier ADE performed an economic analysis in their prefeasibility report that showed positive returns to the town. Since then the economics have improved owing to the passage and interpretation of the Net Metering portion of the Green Communities act, and the awarding of $2 million in Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) to the town by the IRS. It is 99% certain that the project will return a net benefit of $376,000 in the first year of operation and a total of $19 million over the 20-year life of the project. The average expected returns (50% certainty) are $888,000 in the first year and $32 million over the project life.
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.
The noise generated and propagated by the two turbines is well below the allowable limit established by the Town Bylaw No. 34 in accordance with the Commonwealth standard of 10 dBA above ambient noise levels. The highest calculated increase in sound at one corner of the northwestern boundary of the DPW property is 2.5 dBA. Since all residences are located farther away, the increase in noise levels at all residences will be less than this. The limit of the human ear to detect changes in tonal sound levels ranges from 1-3 dBA depending on the frequency of the tone, but the turbines do not emit any pure tones. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the increase in noise caused by the turbines will be detectable by the human ear.
Since the turbines are tall, they will be visible from various vantage points in the vicinity. Moreover, most of the neighborhoods near the turbines are heavily wooded, the houses there are typically of one story and they are on relatively small lots. Therefore, not all residences will be able to see the turbines. Nevertheless, they will certainly be visible from many homes and from vehicles using the roads in the area. They will be visible from the waters off the SouthCoast and may become landmarks for sailors.
Particular attention has been given to the matter of wetlands near the turbines. During the precise siting process, ...
... a detailed assessment of wetlands was conducted by our Environmental Affairs Coordinator with the assistance of DPW personnel and a New England wetlands expert. All proposed work will conform to the Dartmouth Wetland Bylaw and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection standards. Prior to the start of work, the project will require an Order of Conditions from the Dartmouth Conservation Commission.
Owing to their height, the turbines need clearance from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and from the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC). The FAA approved the south turbine and the MAC approved both turbines in their original locations. However, the locations were altered to accommodate wetlands that were discovered after the filings. Thus it is necessary to re-file with both agencies.
Just prior to completion of the application for the Special Permit, the FAA notified us that they have found cause for hazard from the north turbine as originally sited. However, ADE had requested clearance for a 492-foot structure, whereas the proposed turbines would be only 462 feet tall. The FAA indicated that a 473-foot structure would have passed, so we anticipate that the new filing with the actual height will receive approval. Our economic sensitivity studies show that, even if the towers have to be lowered to 85 meters (413 feet total height), the project is still very highly worthwhile for the town. The first year and life-cycle returns would be $732,000 and $28,260,000, respectively, compared to the $888,000 and $32 million for 100-meter towers.
On behalf of the Alternative Energy Committee, I am happy to present this application for a Special Permit for a wind turbine project that promises extraordinary, predictable economic benefits, while delivering clean, renewable, sustainable electricity for the town for many years to come … all this while protecting the environment and the character of the town.
Submitted by:
Ronald DiPippo, Ph.D.
Chairman, Alternative Energy Committee
Monday, November 30, 2009
Executive Summary for Application for Special Permit for Dartmouth Wind Turbine Project
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
31 comments:
Question number 1 ------
Why was the following letter addressed and sent to the state on personal stationary and not sent as Town of Dartmouth business stationary ?
"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
http://www.env.state.ma.us/dpu/docs/electric/09-71/10509drthcom.pdf "
Question number 2-----
It appears that as many as 250 homes will see shadow flicker according to a S-T september story next and the turbines will be shut off if even two people complain :
"http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090902/PUB02/909020417
September 02, 2009 12:00 AM
"If it's a problem of flicker, we can just turn it off" two hours a day, Mr. Race suggested to concerned neighbors. Timers could be easily programmed to protect neighbors an hour or two per day, he said, and "I have no problem with that.
"Studies indicated up to 244 homes might be affected by shadow/flicker up to nine hours a year; eight residences might see 10-19 hours per year; and only one home would be potentially subject to 20-29 hours per year. The Pembroke, Longmeadow, and Meadowbrook neighborhoods are in the impact zone, along with a section of Russells Mills Road.
Chairman Dr. Ronald DiPippo felt the same way as Race. "I don't want to impose an impact on anybody living near this turbine; I've said that from the beginning," the chairman said. "If it's a problem for even one or two houses, we'll just shut the bloody thing off," the retired physicist told neighbors at the meeting Wednesday night""
Question number three---------
Did they notify the residents ? According to the news NO !
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090929/NEWS/909290344
September 29, 2009 12:00 AM
"Homeowners in the area of the Chase Road site said they are concerned about noise, a flicker effect caused by the blades of the turbines, their sleep being disturbed and a possible drop in valuations of their homes.
David Costa and Jeanne Nesto, who both live on Chase Road, and others also claimed they were never notified about the project.
Costa said opponents do not want the towers located close to people's homes. He said he lives 880 feet away from the site of the south tower.
"There are hundreds of homes who see both of them," Nesto said.
She said they managed to collect 80 signatures on a petition in just 3½ weeks. "The horrible thing when we went house to house was that no one knew about them."'"
Bottom line ;
Dartmouth has evidently arrived at a point in its legal culture where no negative consequences seem to exist to sell wind energy—the stuff dreams are made of. But industrial wind is a bunco scheme of enormous consequence. And people who value intellectual honesty should not quietly be fleeced by such mendacity, even from their government.
Will we soon see the meeing canceled again and changed again to a new date as to confuse the public !
It appears that the letter heading starts with : Ronald DiPippo, Ph.D.
RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSULTANT --GEOTHERMAL& WIND SPECIALIST
October 2, 2009
The letter ends with : Ronald DiPippo, Ph.D.
Chairman, Dartmouth Alternative Energy Committee
The question should be can someone act as a renewable energy consultant and be chairman of the Dartmouth Energy Committee as stated in the letter at the same time ? Who does the consultant represent ? There should be an explanation for the letter .
The DPU had a hearing and accepted comments from the public. Anyone from the public. Dr. DiPippo submitted a comment. That is why the DPU has the comment period to allow comment. So what is your point?
Go Tom Kirby! File for your turbine.
The truth is that a few down at Round Hill are worried that he will and so you oppose all wind projects in the town. You want the whole truth out then let's hear about where you live. I think you live down at Round Hill and can't possibly see or hear these turbines.
To: Bill Trimble
Dr DiPippo sent a letter to the DPU on his own stationary with his job in private life as a renewable energy consultant.
Dr. DiPippo signed the same letter,Chairman of the Dartmouth AEC .
You know the problem and so does everyone else !
Wind turbines are the way to go, bring on the wind. Blow baby blow. So the turbines set off some type of flicker, wow.
I was sitting in my tree stand, waiting for a deer to show, when a fellow hunter came along to tell me the wind and rain, made too much noise, causing the deer to stay put. Dam it, how can I stop the rain from falling. I would love to hear the flicker from a wind turbine then the sound of too much rain falling on dead leaves. Maybe, if the town had an airplane to drop some water softener in the clouds, the rain wouldn't make noise??
If you think this sounds stupid, just read some of the anti turbine people speak of turbine flickering. What say you?
These turbines will threaten vulnerable species while mocking endangered species protections. They will cause noise and shadow flicker . They will devalue properties in the area as much as 50%, if they could sell at all. . Out-of-region workers would perform most of the temporary construction jobs and only one or two permanent jobs would result, at low wages. There would be little value added revenue. Claims about local tax revenues are typically unsubstantiated and unsecured.
Whatever the town gains from the turbines the real estate will drop around the two sites equally . What a great trade off !
You have offered no evidence of endangered species being affected or of property values being lowered. Then you state that there is no revenue. That claim is absolutely false. The town will save tens of millions on electrical costs over the life of the turbines. That analysis comes from the Finance Committee and the consultant hired to do a feasibility study.
The noise claim is absolutely false. The maximum noise generated is at the lower limit of audible sound, around 3 decibels.
What claims have been made about tax revenue? I know of none. This is typical of the straw man arguments that have been made. Cite some basis for your claims. Has a wind turbine installation ever been denied due to endangered species impact? Where and what species? Has a wind turbine installation lowered property values? Where and how much?
Wind turbines are quiet and produce electric. Electric that will be used to run our town. If you want noise, listen to a Harley motorcycles, will loud pipes.
So you think a couple of commercial wind turbines the size of the Statue of Liberty are going to increase property values?
"As one concerned resident has pointed out, even the height of the hubs is taller than the Statue of Liberty, pedestal included."
Why would Cape Wind pay the state of Massachusetts $750,000 for mitigation for the destruction of birds?
The Town of Dartmouth at some time down the road has to think about the real possibility of a class action case against the town in regards to the taking of property rights of 400 plus residents.
The only positive thing out of this project is that it may show the rest of the state how not to site commercial wind turbines within hundreds of feet of residential homes . This will probably be the first and last installation in Massachusetts this close to residential homes .Let it serve as an example nationwide what happened in Dartmouth .
MASSACHUSETTS CLASS ACTION LITIGATION
The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a wind power electric generating facility with wind turbines in close proximity to residential property could constitute a nuisance. The Supreme Court ruled in July of 2009 that a Cape Cod couple from Bourne could not construct a wind turbine in a residential local because it will cause the following ,
"an adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood."
Residents can file a suit to permanently enjoin the construction and operation of the facility alleging a private nuisance because they would be negatively impacted by noise from the turbines, the eyesore created by the flicker or strobe effect of the light off of the turbine blades, potential danger from broken blades, ice throws and collapsing towers, and because the turbines will cause a reduction in their property values.
The Dartmouth residents can argue that the wind turbines (1) would create noise; (2) would create an unsightly “flicker” or “strobe” effect; (3) would pose a significant danger from broken blades, ice throws, and collapsing towers; (4) and would diminish the value of nearby property.
The Town of Dartmouth has not considered costly litigation in its plans . The 400 folks who own homes around the sites should know their rights !
Bill,
Sorry to change the subject but I would like to let people know that there is a new "Open Space and Recreation Plan" posted on the town website. It is quite a lengthy document(at least 133 pages). A small section of it was presented to us at the CPC meeting tonight and to be honest with you, I think there is some material there that needs to be discussed before implementation.
For example: "OBJECTIVE--Protect existing scenic roads, views, and sites. ACTION:--Develop regulations to protect scenic landscapes within the town (example, scenic vista protection bylaw). Provide grants or low interest loans for restoration of stonewalls and other significant structures on scenic roads."
Lack of public education through half truths.
People have caught on to the fact that the economic statistics produced by our government and its various agencies have no basis in reality, and that most of the so-called economists, shills, pundits and moronic talking heads on the fane-stream media are almost always wrong because being right means a trip to the unemployment lines, which are growing ever larger by the minute.
At a later date those individuals violating the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by misleading consumers, making false and misleading representations in promoting the sale of wind turbines will be brought to justice.
The one thing that no one has addressed is the enviroment. we have to change the way we think and the way we do things.If this means some will have a visual impact and others may have a slight increase in ambient noice, then so be it. We are killing our selves and our children with green house gasses. For those of you who don't believe in global warming I have no answer for you.
Will one, two or three turbines make a differance, the answer is yes, a very slight differance, but a differance none the less.
We have to start some where, and yes let the rest of the country watch Dartmouth, watch us lead the way to a better future for our children and their children.
Stop worring about property values and the unknown and do something that is right.
The beneficiaries of the Dartmouth wind turbine project will be the citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. The residents around this project need legal protection and representation!
How do come to that conclusion when the whole town will benefit by producing their own green power for our own services. This will not only help with the total cost of the power needed for those services, but it will also help in forcasting long term budgets since we will be able to predict what our electricity bills will be.
The Dartmouth wind turbine project is a classic case of backwards math . Anyone with a Ph.D could work the formula . An example ; The residents question the validity of the study, but because of the project's timetable,they work the math backwards and come up with fuzzy data to substantiate the choice .
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091203/OPINION/912030347/-1/NEWS
YOUR VIEW: Get second opinion on Dartmouth Wind
"Curiously, the Chronicle newspaper Nov. 18 quoted the CEO of this engineering firm telling the town of Westport that its experience with the town of Dartmouth's project is the closest wind turbine in their pipeline — a project that, of course, hasn't been built. Curious.
According to the chairman of the AEC, as originally posted on the town's own Web site, these wind turbines would adversely affect 367 homes. Assuming that half of the homes house two adults with no children and half house two adults with two children, there might be roughly 1,100 people affected by whatever decision the town makes.
A more recent revision to the original estimate now suggests that only 94 homes will be affected, meaning only about 282 people may be affected. The sites for the turbines changed because of wetlands issues, calling for relocation.
Curious that the AEC and the engineers were unconcerned originally about the other 273 homes being affected by flicker! If not for the wetlands, apparently the AEC and the engineers were satisfied to adversely affect 1,100 Dartmouth citizens. The economics ruled the day."
CHECK WHAT RON DIPIPPO SAID A FEW YEARS AGO TO THE S-T.SOUNDS LIKE A TALE OF TWO CITIES , WE KNOW WHO THE ARISTOCRATS ARE .THE PEASANTS LIVE AROUND THE TURBINES!
." "We're looking now at bylaws covering land-based commercial-size wind turbines with ratings over 10 kW," Di Pippo continued. The bylaws have defined the town's select board as the special permit granting authority (SPGA) and established a technical research group, composed of engineers, members of the energy commission and other town boards, to review applications and make recommendations to the SPGA. The town is addressing residents' concerns for safety and the possibilities of wind farms. "Looking at area requirements, though, it's not likely that Dartmouth has enough land for a wind farm," he said, adding that the bylaw does outline several provisions including regulations on noise, flicker effects, wetlands, land clearing, rare species, lighting, appearance, safety and maintenance, an escrow fund to cover cost of removal by town, and transfer of ownership. The planning board has given already given the bylaw unanimous approval, with a finance committee vote scheduled for late September and a town meeting vote scheduled in October.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071004/PUB01/710040361
There is no difference between what Dr. DiPippo said two years ago and today. The proposed wind turbine project has been subjected to all the requirements that he cites. It has been reviewed, meets all the requirements of the bylaw, and been approved by the technical review group.
Dr. DiPippo was talking about a wind FARM. A wind FARM would be a whole series of wind turbines, maybe dozens. He wasn't talking about TWO turbines located in the middle of the woods!
from wikipedia:
A wind farm is a group of wind turbines in the same location used for production of electric power....
Dartmouth will have TWO turbines thus making it a group...not that this has any relevance...but I thought the argument against "wind Farms" was alittle over the edge.
Dartmouth will have a SMALL wind farm...not a large one.
Does everyone realize wikipedia is not a source that should be referenced?
Go to wikipedia and you can freely add anything to a topic.
Group = two?
what is a group then...three or more...come on people YOUR GRASPING at straws.
The commercial wind proponents in these wind studies takes the form of man’s reaction to a world apparently without meaning or man as a puppet controlled or menaced by an invisible outside force. Though the study and plans are applied to a wide range of variables, some of the proponent blogs on this post coincide as: broad comedy, often similar to Vaudeville, mixed with algebraic terms .The Dartmouth residents appear to be caught in hopeless environmental situations forced to install two turbines on top of residential homes to save the planet.The political dialogue is full of clichés, wordplay, and nonsense; plots that are cyclical and absurdly expansive.
Or simply put some of the residents have to take the setbacks of the wind turbines for the greater good of the town.
AKA General Fund
having no other argument, you engage in a straw man argument. Setting the hypothesis as hopeless environmental mess, you dismiss even that without bringing forward any reason.
Siting a 100 meter wind turbine in town requires 31 acres of uninhabited land around the tower to comply with our bylaw. The proposed installations meet that criiteria yet you characterize them as on top of residences. How much land do you think is needed? Is there nay location that you would find suitable? My guess is there is not.
Headaches, dizziness, sleep disturbances, nausea, irritability, rapid heart rate, problems with concentration and memory, ringing in the ears; it may be “Wind Turbine Syndrome.”
As wind turbine crop up in populated areas, health concerns are growing, and the Internet abounds with the latest news from anti-wind turbine citizen groups.
The SouthCoast lacks setbacks of 1320 feet to residential property, a safe distance. The state, cities and towns are well aware of the density of the population along the coast where the good winds are located. Its cost prohibitive to purchase residential home sites to gain the correct and safe setbacks thus the push for local town by-laws to imply safe siting. Safe setbacks in Massachusetts will only happen after the destruction of property or life. There is nowhere in the United States with a population density like that proposed in the Dartmouth wind turbine plan. This is a first !
You may want to review how Dartmouth actually missed the correct wind speeds of 6.7 MS and had to use sonar and extrapolate figures to get the correct wind speeds. A second look of the whole project by an outside engineering firm is warranted before the town makes a multimillion dollar mistake! Safety First!
S-T news story today Achusenet
" I can almost guarantee that within five minutes the person trying to do anything in this room will not be in the best of moods, to say the least. This is what it will be like to be in a home affected by flicker.
Go online to YouTube.com and search for "wind turbine flicker." There are videos depicting entire houses being affected by flicker, where the occupants abandoned the home because they could not deal with the annoyance that was a constant flashing of light on their entire home, and they could not get anyone to even consider buying their homes.
Is flicker the equivalent of a strobe light? Not quite. A strobe light will flash 10 to 12 times per second, compared to the one time per second of the wind turbine flicker. At strobe light frequency, seizures are possible in epileptics.
There is a doctor who is researching "wind turbine syndrome." The theory is that regular exposure to wind turbines can cause many adverse health effects. The Web site is www.windturbinesyndrome.com. "
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091206/OPINION/912060317
"So is the town of Dartmouth working from the "acceptable casualty" model that big businesses and the military seem to love to use? For all Dartmouth residents' sake, I sincerely hope not.
Just so that the readers are aware, this is not a case of NIMBY (not in my backyard). I am not even a Dartmouth resident. I am just warning the residents who may be affected by this turbine project not to take this lightly."
Massachusetts Democrats believe that public officials should be held to the highest standards of integrity and accountability.They believe that government should be open and inclusive. They know that restoring the public's trust in government is critically important .The Dartmouth wind project needs a bipartisan effort to investigate the merits of the wind study and engineering plans !
Post a Comment