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 theThe 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,
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 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.
Posts
135 comments:
We need a six-month moratorium on the development of wind turbines within the town to collect more information and inform the public. Look at these posts and the last meeting ,the same questions , facts and figures put out to the public in meters and megawatts. lets ask these questions at the Jan 4th meeting , Do you the public feel informed ? Do you feel the information in meters,megawatts,kilovolts,m/s using abbreviations like M and MW has shown you the general public what this is about? Why not miles per hour ,mph , or feet and inches . This only has led to figures that are suspect . The average Jill or Joe doesn't use the metric system why is Dartmouth ?
THIS IS THE PERMIT PROCESSS .....
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.
Well yesterday this town missed a Money Making day..WINDY!!! whoah. There is plenty of info the opponents are scrambling hand wringers...they could have done all this "research" and been involved in this process for YEARS! Now good intentioned, smart people who don't get paid a freakin dime from this town are getting blasted by ignorance. SAD commentary coming from people who live near a waste water plant, a stone and sand qaurry and the town's transfer station..COME ON! turbines are an issue?
Bill, that was a very thoughtful, fact-based analysis of the issues involved here. On behalf of a town that pays you nothing but still expects much, thank you. "Frank1" and his crowd are shameless in their use of faux science, rumor, and outright fabrication. In the end, "Frank1" and his handful of followers will not prevail because at least four members of the Select Board have some measure of common sense.
I urge everyone to find all the news articles they can about how far the debris fields are in all these wind turbine accidents keeping in mind our town is going to place a couple of the largest turbines in North America. Bring the info up at the Jan 4 meeting !
WIND TURBINE PARTS THROWN 1/4 OF MILE
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/03/12/officials-looking-for-answers-after-wind-turbine-collapse/
New York State’s Public Service Commission investigators are trying to figure out why a wind turbine collapsed last week in upstate Clinton County.
The Albany Times Union reports that Noble Environmental Power, which owns the 65-turbine Altona Wind Park, and turbine maker General Electric Co. found “wiring anomalies” prevented two turbines from shutting down as they are supposed to during a power outage. One tower collapsed in a fiery heap, starting a small fire on the ground. The other was damaged but remained standing. Debris was scattered as far as a quarter-mile away, the paper reported. WPTZ has video with images of the collapsed turbine.
There were no reported injuries. The incident is believed to be the first collapse of a turbine in New York. The PSC would like G.E. and Noble to share information from their investigation with the agency.
Hey Bill, Does frank1 get extra credit for repeating himself? Does frank1 get extra credit for repeating himself? Does frank1 get extra credit for repeating himself?
Bill
As it relates to being a selectman, haven't you noticed (understand) that some people will never except change. Obviously, you are not a politician. What are you doing on the select board? You offer sound, accurate reasoning when voting. Don't you understand, our town is not ready for people of your intellect. Some people may ask, as a selectman, why did you make a motion to go forward with the wind turbines? Because it is right for Dartmouth. The town will benefit in many ways, including monetarily. To many people, moving forward is dangerous. So many questions, what about this, what about that, what if all the questions have been offered and answered?
As it relates to wind turbines, you have offered accurate information, based on knowledgeable facts. The opponents will never change their position. How can they? I understand the NIMBY people, but the people from Smith Neck Road, Colonel Greens Estate, I'll never understand.
You don't look at the wind turbine opponents as not having legitimate complaints. As a matter of fact, you fully understand their concerns. As a educated select board leader, you demonstrate the true nature of the meaning (selectman.) Vote as it relates to the best interest of the town. You don't appear to have any fear of political repercussions, or the lost votes. You have earned my respect. As an elected official, you are a shinning example of what most people are looking for, honesty and integrity. Continue to bring this guiding head of yours, to a Dartmouth commitment, for wind turbines.
There was a movie where a tornado blew a windmill to smithereens and scattered debris for miles. Actually picked up a house too and dropped it on some old witch. It's true I saw it on TV.
I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto. These people are speaking in some strange language about meters and watts. Oh, why can't they speak in furlongs and horsepower? We need to find the Great Wizard of Oz, Toto.
If I only had a bra-a-ain ... No, wait ... That's not me.
Hey, how many flying monkeys are killed by windmills anyway?
Then this whole thing really is a total joke .
The residents need legal advice,form a group,take up a collection,get a website and stop the town from taking your rights through a special permit or bylaw passed by the rest of the town !
You need to wait til after the vote Monday night !
We need a six month moratorium on Frank1!!
Bill, Thanks for this post. It seems to have put lot of questions to rest.
I still have not heard 1 reasonable complaint against the wind turbines.
When the residents of Dartmouth voted for this wind turbine by-law I don't think this residential scenario was brought to their attention.The wind turbine law was never explained as we are going to place two of the largest wind turbines in North America in a residential neighborhood whose parcel is zoned “Single-Residence B”. The residents in town that did vote for this by-law/special permit have got to ask themselves if they were ever told of the massive size of the turbines .This will become a project the whole country is going to watch.
Here's a final 2009 response to the latest nonsense from frank1. First this is not in a residential area unless you live in the middle of the woods like a squirrel or owl or deer. From the way you save everything written on this subject, even non scientific studies, my guess is that you must be a squirrel. Second town meeting members knew exactly what they were voting on because Dr. DiPippo told them. (Sorry, frank1, maybe you couldn't watch the meeting because DCTV doesn't broadcast into your section of trees.) Third the "whole country" will give out a collective sigh when town meeting approves this project and the town actually builds it. No one will even notice unless you and your neighbor squirrels drop mass quantities of nuts from your favorite trees to try to catch their attention.
Dartmouth should review a draft version of the state's ocean management plan that was scheduled to be released Jan. 1. The Ocean Management Plan that was due out by the end of the year is now expected to be released after Monday , Jan 4 . Incidentally Jan 4 is the date the SB votes on the wind turbines .An area southwest of the Elizabeth Islands and Nomans Land appears appropriate for up to 170 wind turbines, according to the draft plan.
The Marine Renewable Energy Center at the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth was held in Hyannis ,October of 2009 for those interested in planning for projects and the policies that make them possible.
The Ocean Plan management area is principally located between 1/3 of a mile from shore to the state-federal waters boundary. Are any of these ocean turbines planned for the municipal corporate boundaries of the Town of Dartmouth ? Dartmouth has about 96 square miles within its corporate boundary on Buzzards Bay . Patriots Renewable had planned in the past for some ocean turbines off Mishaum Point ,Dartmouth .
What exactly is going on with the wind turbines near Dartmouth . There are so many changes it's hard to keep up ?
State Rep. John Quinn, D- Dartmouth took a stance against wind turbines off the shores of Dartmouth . The state representative is seeking the Democratic nomination for Sheriff of Bristol County. It should be interesting how this whole land and wind turbine fiasco turns out .
The Dartmouth turbines need clearance from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and from the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC). The locations were altered to accommodate wetlands and increased in height from a 80 Meter to 100 Meter Monopole. I understand it was necessary to re-file with both agencies.
The FAA notified the Town of Dartmouth they have found cause for hazard from the north turbine as originally sited.
Has the new filing with the new actual height and new location been approved by the FAA ?
Will the SB vote on application for the Special Permit with or without the FAA approval or has the town already received the new height approval ?
frank1 - this town meeting member paid attention to the zoning by-law when it was being put forth and voted for it knowing full well we were talking about large, commercial sized units. 80 or 100 meters does not matter to me. Trying to add another layer of obfuscation by now trying tocloud the zoning bylaw process won't work.
Got anything else?
The applications to both the MAC and FAA are for the wind turbines as they are currently sited, not as they were originally sited. The sites were moved to avoid interference with wetlands. Approval by the MAC is included in the special permit application. FAA approval for the south location is also included. The north turbine was not approved by the FAA. Dr. DiPippo stated at the forum on Dec 7th that FAA permit application asked for a height of 492 feet above the ground. The actual turbine will be 467 feet tall if it is on a 100m tower and has a rotor diameter of 82m. He said the FAA indicated that they could permit up to 477 ft. The permit for the north turbine has been resubmitted with the lower height.
The Select Board could vote to approve the permit with the condition that the FAA approval is received for the north turbine.
The town has no authority to regulate wind turbines offshore. Are you trying to conflate the Commonwealth Ocean plan with our bylaw? I think that's dishonest but that IS what you are doing, isn't it?. Dishonesty!
The draft ocean plan has been issued and is available for all to see.
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Ocean+%26+Coastal+Management&L2=Massachusetts+Ocean+Plan&sid=Eoeea&b=terminalcontent&f=eea_oceans_draft_mop&csid=Eoeea
The plan doesn't require any development of wind power, it just points out where the resources are that would support it. But you know that, don't you? You're just trying to scare people and to imply some conspiracy. To quote Buzz, You're a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity
Bill , This is quote from a letter written for the special permit by Dr. DiPippo. It clearly states that the turbine may need to be lowered to 85 meters which to me brings into question if both turbines would still be the same size including blade length . This is not about clouding any issues . This is about 5 years of work by the AEC with still many,many unanswered questions and misquotes in favor of only moving forward not knowing all the facts in order to vote for this permit .
Quote:
"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."
http://www.town.dartmouth.ma.us/Pages/DartmouthMA_BComm/AEC/ExecSummary.pdf
Hey everyone, let's not jump to conclusions about the gender of frank1. Frank1 could very well be that female nutjob who so rudely interrupted Bill Trimble at the last Select Board meeting.
Anonymous 154MP is clouding the issues, just like the rest of this pathetic bunch.
I think Dr. Pippo's statement that you have quoted is quite clear and I don't have anything to add. His comment contains a few words which I would like to point out to you. Bold emphasis mine
First,
"we anticipate that the new filing with the actual height will receive approval"
Second,
"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."
As I read the words, it is likely the approval will be received and if not, there is an already identified alternative. How does a possible need to reduce the height of one turbine materially change the project from a permitting standpoint in your view? The bylaw allows turbines of up to 100 meters. Am I missing your point?
Bill , A special permit is being filed for two turbines that we are not sure exactly how high they are going to be ,the permit lacks all the completed information from the FAA. The AEC has worked hard over the last five years to initiate a special permit to the town . Recently as of a few months ago the turbines were moved because of wetland/environmental issues again after five years of study . Prior to the repositioning of the two turbines shadow flicker affected around three hundred homes and now about 97 . Why not just vote for the permit and fill in all the information about the entire project later . There appears to be a rush to judgement as the plans have continued to change over the past few months and not yet complete.
Also of concern is the AEC used a judges decision in Germany to OK the amount of shadow flicker on residential homes in Dartmouth ! It's on page 15 of the special application in section O. last paragraph .
The simple fact is that any amount of shadow flicker is unacceptable ! There appears to be one thing being said at the town meetings and something quite different in the documentation .The documentation shows NO significant problem - The chairman told the newspaper he would shut them off ! This alone deserves an answer .
Which one do you believe the newspaper or the documentation in the special permit . Will they shut down the turbines if only one or two houses get shadow flicker ? I have my doubts !
Here is a quote from the newspaper:
"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""
This is from the special application permit:
"Given that the worst case envisioned (subject to the conditions and likely mitigation cited above) is a potential impact of some 20 hours per year (595 Chase Road) and given a judge’s ruling in Germany that an impact of more than 30 hours per year would be unacceptable worst case envisioned (subject to the conditions and likely mitigation cited above) is apotential impact of some 20 hours per year (595 Chase Road) and given a judge’s ruling inGermany that an impact of more than 30 hours per year would be unacceptable, we concludethat the shadow-flicker effect will not pose a significant problem.
http://www.town.dartmouth.ma.us/Pages/DartmouthMA_BComm/AEC/SPApp.pdf
To anon 5:09, If we listen to you, the project would have to be built before the permit is approved. You can't bid the project out until Town Meeting appropriates the money. Your problem with the
FAA isn't really a problem at all. Changing the location due to new found wetlands was just the jackass from conservation trying to make himself seem important.
Still not getting your concern.
There was no project 5 years ago, none three years ago. Obviously, a lot of information has been gathered since then. If the project parameters were not being changed as new information was received, I would be suspicious.
Five years ago, there was no wind turbine zoning bylaw, it was unknown if there was enough wind, where a good site was in town, what the utility would pay for electrical generation, and many, many other things.
As the process has moved along, more and more information was gathered. Not surprisingly, as a result of the new information, the number of homes affected by shadow flicker was narrowed down and the location to wetlands was surveyed and delineated.
Each step provided more information on what the project would be at the end. Most of the five years of work was done by unpaid citizens, working part time. It is a great credit to their hard work that the project is at this stage.
In the last year, an engineering company has done detailed work of modeling noise, shadow flicker, and other items including the FAA application.
Having gone from knowing nothing about even the possibility of wind turbines to having a detailed permit laying out all the criteria called for in the bylaw (which itself had to be written first) you think that a possible difference of 15 meters in the height of one tower is such a major change that it should halt all consideration.
I am not getting it.
The intellectual dishonesty by so many (or maybe just few) bloggers is amazing. 5:21 is a case in point. The studies in Germany establish a limit whereby flicker becomes an issue. Our turbines will produce less than those limits. Dr DiPippo has stated that studies notwishstanding the turbines will be shut down if flicker is an issue for a particular residence. He also stated that the very minimal amount of flicker will likely be even less given the computer analysis does not account for trees. And as noted elsewhere the turbines are in the middle of the woods.
Do you folks think the rest of us are sleeping?
Please elaborate your concern over shadow flicker. I hope that you realize that none is an impossible requirement. If some shadow flicker must be allowed, then at what level does it become unacceptable? What condition would you impose on the project regarding shadow flicker that would not preclude any wind turbine but would protect adjacent properties from excessive effects?
The speakers are telling the masses what they want to hear while the same speakers are putting something else in evidence!
More nonsense 7:19
All the public meetings are part of the public record.
You can do better than that, no?
STOP THE WIND TURBINES 2010
Folks , The Select Board was set up as the Special Permit Granting Authority for commercial wind turbines including an application process.
A. The special permit application is missing the location and the height of the north tower . The FAA has not approved the height or the location.
See page 5 -No site plan location foe the north tower .
B. Residents were told at a public meeting which was reported in the news that if one or two houses got shadow flicker the town would simply shut off the turbines in that time frame. The printed facts in the permit on page 15 section O. states based on a German judgement the shadow flicker will not affect the residents locations or homes .The permit makes no mention of shut down times due to shadow flicker or ice. The truth is what is in the special permit , not what is being told to the residents around the turbine site to appease them .
C. Safety issues .Many towns like Cohasset require setbacks of 1200 feet . The Town of Cohasset had an ice throw study done for the safety of the residents . The ice throw study is done for each location as ice along the coast is more apt to happen than inland.
The Atlantic Design Group: Presented Cohasset an ice throw probability study (UMASS Study on ice Throw) prepared by Renewable Energy Research Laboratory (RERL).
If the Select Board grants this permit Monday night they will be setting precedent. The next Jill or Joe Farmer that comes along can present a blank special permit application with a written letter that contains a promise they will fill in the blanks sometime in the future as the current application does. A decision by the SB on an incomplete application moves any liability to those SB members not the taxpayers of the town .
The SB should require an ice thrown review for the safety of the public while the town waits for a completed Special Permit Application
Sorry 7:51 not buying your logic on any of this. Answers to each of your most recent questions have been explained ad nauseum. Rational people see that and know desperation when they see it.
Build the turbines.
Yes anon 7:51, if Joe Farmer comes along and meets the town meeting approved zoning bylaws a they pertain to turbines Joe Farmer can build one. Let's hope there are several Joe Farmers with the wherewithal to be able to do just that.
D D D
Dumbing Down of Dartmouth
The wind turbine advocates,the dominant groups, in society are legitimized to the disadvantage of subordinate groups like the residents abutting the turbine project........
The advocates or dominant groups are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. Not the residents around a commercial wind turbine project.
The Town of Dartmouth has denied public outreach, education and advocacy concerning both negative and positive installation of commercial wind turbines . The towns educational program resembles a dumbing down process saying one thing at a meeting that contradicts written facts in a permit application !
Come on Dartmouth! Let's get this wind turbine started! It has been years and careful planning of many dedicated, intelligent people who want the best for Dartmouth.
Don't forget, you can't please all of the people all of the time. What is the best for the community as a whole? The wind project.
The largest example of a one sided educational process in Dartmouth is the town posting a letter written and printed in the local newspapers "Dartmouth Wind Turbine Project: Facts over Fears." This is a personal letter written by a private resident.
The town made a conscious decision not to post any other letters written to the newspaper in opposition to the project and there are many!
This letter is posted on the town website - No other negative letters were selected for posting.
http://www.town.dartmouth.ma.us/Pages/DartmouthMA_BComm/AEC/FactsOverFear.pdf
When this project was first made public, I remember thinking about the outrage it would create. Of course, the project makes financial sense. Of course, it needs to be on high ground in reasonable proximity to the ocean. Of course, it needs to be constructed on existing town property. Of course, there would be NIMBY's that would do almost anything to prevent it. Guess what NIMBY's? This project will happen. All you can do is delay it and cost the town more money to get it done. Which, of course, you will.
The town has taken one individual and placed them on a holier-than-thou pedestal that somehow raises them above everyone else.
The citizens have is right to hold the SB responsible for the safety of their lives and property . That's the why we have a permit process!
What happens when ONE of the turbines leaks and HUNDREDS of gallons of OIL contaminates THE ENTIRE TOWN'S Drinking water? Did we forget that these things are sitting on top of our water source? Let me guess Bill, you have well water.
The Town of Dartmouth ( all the residents) needs to look at the morale side of this issue . Money is the key issue . Our governments rights and laws are based in part on the Ten Commandments , the tenth is “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods. ...
The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause reads: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." As presently interpreted by the Court, that clause enables owners to receive compensation when government attaches unreasonable or disproportionate permit conditions on use.
This weekend when you worship ask yourself is this fair to all the residents of Dartmouth and could this be the the Trojan Horse
How about this? Let's erect a massive solar panel farm. We can deforest all the town land off Chase Road. Then we can see how close we can erect these panels to abutting properties to maximize energy generation. Will the lawyers and NIMBY's looking for a handout from the town be happy with that?
1. The best thing to do Monday night is agree the special permit application is not complete. Continue the hearing as any other applicant for lack of information. This is not about building a shed - This is a ten million dollar project!
2. Educate the residents of the town at the Monday meeting about the state laws regarding the setbacks to residential property under the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act which overrule local by-laws requiring larger setbacks from residential property.
3. Tell the AEC to come back with the FAA permits in hand, how high, where is the North turbine, a confirmed strobic flicker statement in the permit application that states how and when the turbines will be turned off during sunrise and sunset and how the town will address the ice throw study that has never been done. AKA how far will the ice go under the conditions along the coast in Dartmouth
Educate yourselves Google Dartmouth Wind Turbine or Wind Energy Siting Reform Act
The "neighbors" continue to spread false and misleading information. Today, "Anonymous 7:51 AM" made the following false statement: "Residents were told at a public meeting which was reported in the news that if one or two houses got shadow flicker the town would simply shut off the turbines in that time frame." Wrong. MANY houses will "get" shadow flicker, for brief periods of time, in the early morning and late evening. That's all in the reports. Try reading them. You can check when your house may "get" shadow flicker. The question is not whether residents may SEE shadow flicker. It's whether anyone will be ADVERSELY AFFECTED by it, medically. In a case where a causal link is shown and in that case alone, Dr. DiPippo has said the turbines would be shut off for the time when shadow flicker affects that house. I watched all of the Select Board hearings and the meeting at the high school before that. Please, stop lying.
Do you REALLY believe they're going to shut down the money printing machines...er, the wind turbines because of flicker? REALLY? Watch the youtube videos on flicker and tell me that wouldn't bother the hell out of you.
If the Town of Dartmouth allows this incomplete special permit Monday night it will be the equivalent to coloring in the pages of a comic book with crayons ! We don't have an FAA approval for the north turbine , no notations for shut off periods in the special permit application for shadow flicker or ice throw.
The chairman of the AEC will look like Homer Jay Simpson and the SB will look like Johnny Quest , Senor Cardgage, Bender including Stewie and Brian Griffin if this gets passed .
The cart full of money is being put well before safety and permitting .
Couldn't let this go by ---
Jonny Quest had a random friend with grey hair named Race -get it ?
The permit application fails section 34.200 Definitions, 34.302 Site Control and 34.303 Height.
Special attention needs to be paid to the documentation in the special application permit in regard to a "German Judge" or "German Judgment " that refers to strobic flicker.
The notation in the tagline at the bottom of the form does not refer to a judgment date or type of court in Germany.
In addition when was the last time any documentation was accepted through a permitting process in Dartmouth that refers to a foreign government ........was this a joke put in the permit to see what they could get away with filing a permit?
once again, BUILD THE TURBINES NOW.
frank1 - the public has been informed of this project for years. That you were not paying attention and now want to delay the project for 6 months so the town can 'inform the public' is simply crazy. Maybe you'll pay more attention going forward but dont hold me hostage to your laziness.
p.s - I missed you at the public hearings thought you might have attended one or both of them. Maybe you did'nt know they were being held.
See things like DUE PROCESS in this town do not mean anything. So what a couple of items are fuzzy on the application. For example when the FinCOM makes a Does Not Recommend to TM for a street acceptance because the residents have not met the requirements on their application, the SB publically trumps FinCom at TM on a emotional and political appeal to TM to go ahead an approve the article anyway because those residents are tax-payers like the rest of us and they were confident the requirements would be taken care of, even though our By=Laws state otherwise. What we have here is a majority form of governement that are influenced by a few folks in town who apply situational ethics for their actions and decisions to advance their agendas. Things to make you go hhmmmm.
PS: I'm for thr turbines - I'm just commenting on process...
GRADE THIS PROJECT D -
D is for the DUMBING DOWN OF DARTMOUTH CITIZENS -LACK OF DUE PROCESS - FAILURE TO REPRESENT
Section 34- Commercial Wind Turbine By-Law of the Town of Dartmouth
The Special Permit Application has two dates Sept 8 ,2009 and an update Nov 20,2009
Letter on town web site; " Dartmouth Wind Turbine Project : Facts over Fears"
In addition a letter dated November 30 ,2009 " Letter of Transmittal and Executive Summary "
The application and both these letters do not equate to what's being told to the public . There is no FAA approval that includes a position and height location ,the application lacks specifics if at all how strobic lights will be mitigated at sunrise and sunset or an ice throw study .The application used a bizarre statement on page 15 section O that references a judge's ruling in Germany about strobic flicker .
The AEC needs to bring all this material to the meeting Monday night and explain not what is in the application but explain after all these years what is missing from the application . Explain why the town posted a letter written by the chairman of the AEC as a private citizen to the local news media on its Webster but no opposing letters written and published in the same paper . Explain why a "Letter of Transmittal and Executive Summary" had to be attached to the permit application in which the permit application makes no notation as to the additional letter .
IS THE MEETING AT THE HIGH SCHOOL ?
NOTHING IN THE NEWSPAPER ?
Once more your comments are full of obfuscation. There's been a public hearing that was continued and then continued again until Monday, Jan 4th. What're you talking about no due process. That is the process, a public hearing. Having no valid evidence that this permit shouldn't be approved, you're trying to muddy the water. Bring some facts to the table and maybe you'll get listened to.
Dartmouth and communities across the country are increasingly considering wind power to provide municipal needs .Dartmouth lacks the expertise to evaluate these proposals without outside paid consultants. The volunteer consultant will try most all of the wrong ways before he find-the right ones and fails to copy programs from other communities that work more often than people think. A poorly prepared planning application is much more likely to fail, as larger turbine projects are subject to much more scrutiny.
I have nothing but admiration for the chairman and members of the AEC as we all do . My feeling is the town should have hired paid consultants from the gitgo . Paid consultants have a relationship with statutory agencies. Professional paid consultants briefs would have developed the project to the point where enough information was available to go to tender. At this stage, the consultant prepares the tender documents for sending to the SB
The person who wrote about "takings" by governmental bodies either never went to law school or slept through the class on Constitutional Law. There are many Supreme Court cases on the subject. Before you go spouting off, trying to SOUND LIKE A HOT SHOT, you might actually read them.
The person who wrote about concerns over "due process" is an OPPONENT of the project, not a SUPPORTER. He or she is just using "due process" as a shield to hide behind. It's just another phony argument. He or she also has no idea what the two words "due process" mean.
Thank you Bill for your detailed explanation. For the first time I have truly felt that your blog has been used to help the public understand an important issue facing the Town.
I hope to be present Monday evening as you vote and hope that you and all SB members vote in favor.
Thank you for your service.
Let's see...hmmm.
Falmouth has a brand new wind turbine at their WWT plant. Plymouth, Fairhaven, Scituate, Bourne, and Cohasset are all considering wind turbines at their WWT plants.
This proposal was developed with the help of UMass Renewable Energy Research Lab. The chairman of the Alternative Energy Committee is a distinguished professor of engineering and a renewable energy consultant, the chairman of the Finance Committee at the time of the evaluation is a distinguished professor of engineering and finally a professional engineering firm has done an exhaustive feasibility study and then prepared a permit application. Who should I believe all of them or an anonymous comment to an obscure blog?
THE TRUTH ABOUT DARTMOUTH'S INDUSTRIAL WIND ENERGY: The Town's proposal for two 400 ft industrial wind turbines located @ the DPW property will fracture our rural seaside community's unity for ever. For those within the daily visual and audible characteristics of these turbines,there is a moumental disheartment with the Town's Alternative Energy Committee (AEC)and Selectman Mr Trimble's myopic view. The Town should not impose upon us a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences in health, safety, general welfare,etc that these turbines have brought forth when located in populated residences. What make matters worse is the there are no Enviromental Protection Agency, National Institute for Health, Center for Disease Control, or National Fish and Wildlife legislation or regulations that will provide recourse to the resident should or when consequences necessitate help. One only needs to spend time reading community experiences such as Vinalhaven's current noise issues with their turbines. This is one of many cases where the calculations thru "modeling" used by the engineers ,including Dartmouth's calculation do not/may not bear true to the actual noise. Many other cases like this exist yet Mr Trimble is ready to place two of the largest turbines in the U.S.,within a picturesqed, historical, rural populated area,and with MINIMUM OPERATIONAL SAFETY DISTANCES of any similiar turbine sites in the U.S.( 600ft from a resident and 800 ft from Chase Road). Speaking for many of the Town residences, we are not against wind energy or other "green efforts" to benefit our Town. What we are against though,and will continue to act upon, is the Town's decision to hastily decide upon mammoth turbines, with minimal history of operation in the U.S and placing them in a location that has a paramount opportunity to create issues with personel health, safety,and general welfare.
I wish the "anonymous" person - obviously a "Bill Trimble Cheerleader" would use his REAL name.
Most of the concerns are about:
Fires/Explosions
Interferance with NOAA Radars
Enviornmental Impacts - inculding possibilty of damage to aquifer and water
Lightening Strikes
Reliability of Turbines (which are still considered prototypes by manufactures)
Oil leakes that could seep into nearby wells.
Other sites were NOT PRESENTED to the public.
Please......In my opinion BILL TRIMBLE is an insult to any judiciary process. He doesn't care if he's re-elcted or not - he'll have plenty of "monoply money"
All we are asking is to put all and any safety/liability into our contract with this company.
If you really believe these turebines will ONLY HAVE A POSTIVE impact...well then...shame on you!
They can't even provide PROOF that the tuebines actually generate the amount of electricity they claim. That's why they SHOVED the 100 meter on us!
How can you sell the excess electricity when there is none? And, the times that we fall short WHO gets firat dibs? Does the Town of Dartmouth? I highly doubt it!!!!!!
We ALL want alternate energy! But mostly we want RESPONSIBLE setback parameters and we want it OVER A SEWARGE TREATMENT PLANT!!!!!
If you have the decency to visit this link, you will see first-hand what will happen here - Dartmouth WILL BE THE 100 METER TURBINE PRECEDENT ALRIGHT!!!
http://saveourseashore.org/?page_id=309
Yes.. I have typos! and I meant to say WE DONT WANT THE TURBINES OVER A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY.
DUE PROCESS - The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be FAIR. The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person's basic rights to 'life, liberty or property, without due process of law.'
If you are at a public forum in which public comments,questions or concerns are being presented, as asked to do by the Select Board, in order to help them with their decision making. How can a Board member present a speech and clearly state he is ALREADY giving his approval on this project? The information and further facts brought forward by the pubic that night are pretty much null and void right?? How is that Fair?
REMEBER - every time these turbine are shut down...
Repairs
Maitenance
Storms
Fires
Ice Accumulation
is DOWNTIME - aka NOT MAKING MONEY time.
Another factor the AEC will not comment on!!!!! Or provide statiscts from other WORKING turbines!!
Anne Marie,
You demand proof, but give none yourself.
You have these turbines in a residential neighborhood and a rural setting all at once. Which is it? Rural like on a main road of the town next to an active gravel pit? Or rural like the middle of the woods on the town well land and far away from the homes?
Interference with radar? What are you talking about NOAA for? Weather radar, are you kidding me?
Possible environmental impacts? Like what? It used to be a gravel pit.
Prototypes? Complete nonsense! There are thousands just like these!
You don't even know what you're talking about. The turbines will be owned by the town. The town gets all the electricity! No dibs, all the electricity!
Over a waste treatment plant? It's a quarter of a mile away for pete's sake!
You want proof! Here's what Portsmouth RI's wind turbine did the last 2 months.
November 2009
+ Production - 365,600 kWh
+ 120% of estimated
+ 100% availability
+ Longest Continuous Production - 102+ hrs (6 PM Nov 26 to midnite Nov 30)
December 2009 - A Month of Records
* Dec 11- 24 hr production record - 34,619 kWh
* Dec 20 - New 24 hr production record - 35,546, kWh
* Dec - Five of the top 10 production days since startup
Just admit it, you don't like the way they look! That's if you can even see them through the trees.
Here's the economic breakdown for all the proponents who believe an economic "windfall" is about to hit the town of Dartmouth.
IF the windmills make $1 MILLION per year, that's a 1.3% increase over fiscal year 2010 budget of $75 million.
All the trouble, all the risk, all the potential hazards to EVERYONE's drinking water for 1.3%
An increase in your property tax of $8.33 per month gives the same 1.3% increase. Is clean water worth 28 cents a day?
JAN 4 MEETING
The residents around the wind turbines sites bought their property in a “Single-Residence B” zoned property location. The residential zoning allows the use of property without creating a nuisance to abutting properties, provide for certain non-residential uses which are compatible with the residential setting and preserves the rural character of the town.
The Town of Dartmouth has changed the zoning by way of special permit in this residential setting with a decision to place two turbines larger than the Statue of Liberty . The SB and the AEC have even said that these two land based wind turbines are so large that lost boats at sea will be able to use them as navigation tools ! This is being done to so call financially help the town . The residents within one quarter of a mile will get just compensation .
The SB needs to seek legal counsel other than just town council .A ten million dollar wind turbine project and the loss of real estate value on a possibility of around 500 residential homes adds up to a lot of dough.
Frank1...who are you anyways???
This is hilarious. The town has a waste water treatment plant on the proposed site. How does that affect property values? If you haven't figured it out yet, this is all about more "pigs feeding at the trough". Get ready taxpayers!
Proponents of any project are always eager to see their "baby" realized. Unless the Select Board wants to just pass or approve anything, we are coming out from the choke hold of "business as usual" that an awful lot of people in town were complaining about. There really should be no complaints if members of the Select Board agree that they need more time to study information presented to them.
Maybe IF there are further studies that should have been done or done in more detail, perhaps that should have been the responsibility of those on the AEC? I said, "IF."
I don't know, but apparently the abutters of the turbines feel that more information is needed.
It's a shame Mr. Trimble doesn't listen to himself. In his interview on Youtube he said it was important to listen to the town residents because the residents were smart and the reason why Dartmouth was the town it is. Funny, now he says that those same residents aren't worth listening to because they don't have expertise in the field. Well, Mr. Trimble also corrected his interviewer when he stated Mr. Trimble was a civil engineer. Mr. Trimble made sure to point out he was a structural engineer. Being a SE Mr. Trimble knows the importance of a proper risk assessment yet he keeps his mouth closed when the question comes up. He should demand it as he, as a SB member, is responsible for the safety of all the town's residents, not just some. The 100m turbines proposed in Dartmouth are too tall and too big for the area they want to put them in. Mr. Trimble likes to use Denmark as a model for wind power yet ignores the fact that their own setbacks for turbines are 4x the total height. In Dartmouth that would mean 467' x 4= 1868' from the nearest residence. Mr Trimble supports just 660' from residences. Denmark also acknowledges a loss in property value, will pay for the property evaluation, and then reimburse the property owner. Mr. Trimble says such property value loss doesn't exist. Europe has way more experience then the whole rest of the world but the AEC and Mr. Trimble feel they know more! The setbacks Mr. Trimble so adamantly supports are not acceptable anywhere where people are truly concerned with safety. Turbines do have catastrophic failures including total collapses, blade throws, and fires. It has been proven that blade debris has been thrown over 700m! Insurance companies that insure turbines have stated in their reports that owners of turbines can expect damage at least once in every four years of operation. This is damage and does not include maintenance or repairs. Catastrophic failures have been calculated to be between somewhere between one in one hundred to one in one thousand. One must remember that the are over 4000 commercial airline flights per day. That would mean from 4 to 400 crashes or critical emergencies per day. The FAA would never let this happen nor would they allow any aircraft to fly that had that frequency of failure. Still, Bill Trimble doesn't think there is much risk! In Mr. Trimble's closing speech where he voted to approve the turbines he stated the money saved on the electric bills would be used to better the quality of live for the residents. It would be used to pay for projects that can't get funded because the residents won't vote to overide prop. 2 1/2. So what this shows is MR. Trimble feels there are two classes of people in Dartmouth. He has no problem ruining the quality of live for some as long as he can get money to raise the quality of life for others. Also, he is using a project that goes to town meeting, instead of a public vote, to over ride Prop. 2 1/2 still making the residents pay the 10 million in taxes! Going back to Mr. Trimble's Youtube interview, I suspect the residents will listen as well to him as he has to them when he runs for re-election. I think the ill-educated residents are smarter than he thinks.
I love the posts about "dumbing down Dartmouth". The town was run for over 20 years out of a bar room and now the current SB is "dumbing it down"?
Just for the record, I am a mechanical engineer.
Post 8:16 pm is exactly what Stone Dias and Watson were hoping for when they failed to have the courage to second Trimble's motion at the last SB meeting. These three subsist on special interest and they don't like the fact that Trimble has no special interest except what is best for the town. They also fear the fact that he is just plain smarter than them. All three of these select board members will vote yes on this permit. Their lack of courage to take the vote is disgraceful. Keep up the good work Bill!
Lets roll dice and accept the special permit gambling the residents around the wind turbine won't sue for the lost rental values on their homes ?
The town is starting a business in which the Town of Dartmouth could in the future be engaged in unfair business practices under federal law ? ( town owned business taking property rights ) ?
When you play Black Jack the dealer will ask you for insurance . Will Dartmouth take the insurance or not ? Are you betting you know all the choices?
As a new business the first year the town does make money ! What do they spend it on ? The state in tough financial times cuts aid to the town the equivalent amount it's making on the turbines ?
Who has the answers to who what when and where will the money go and how will state and federal funds be handled ?
Does the SB know the answers ..... could the state cut funds ?
This is a simple RISK vs. REWARD. The risks to a few residents who live near the waste water treatment plant a stone quarry and the transfer station do not compare to the REWARD for the rest of the town. A bunch of cry baby hand wringers...the Turbines will ruin my view..OF WHAT I might ask. The blades may fling off or throw ice..really..we are worried about this stuff? If your against this project..your against Dartmouth. PERIOD
Google "wind turbine collapse" or "fire" on youtube for videos both in the US and Europe. Interesting to note that the distance from turbines to residences is considerably more than Dartmouth is proposing for its turbine locations.
There's interesting footage and commentary.
This Sunday please pray these monstrous eyesores don't ever befoul our residential neighborhoods .Remember we must work hand in hand to preserve what God has given us, to be greedy and to want to accomplish the goal of making a quick dollar at the expense of everyone and everything else is selfish.
Please be well aware of the negative side of these giant windmills before allowing them to be built in our neighborhoods.
September 6, 2007
Meeting with Dr. Ron DiPippo and Roger Grace from the Alternative Energy Committee to discuss the proposed Commericial Wind By-law
Dr. DiPippo explained that this by-law was for wind turbines of 1.5 megawatts or larger to be considered commercial sized. They would generally be dedicated to an on-site load or used to send power into the grid. This by-law deals with land based wind turbines versus offshore turbines. The Alternative Energy Committee is working on a by-law to specifically address offshore turbines.
There was a significant amount of discussion about the setbacks required, the size parcel needed for these turbines and possible sites around Town for these type of turbines. Ron DiPippo noted that there are not too many places in Town that a wind tower would be commercially viable. To be viable, the turbines need to be sited on a higher point or close to the water. The northern part of Town has the highest elevations, but not much in terms of load. The Town thinks the DPW site would be a viable site for the Town to develop for its own use.
Greg Lynam raised several issues dealing with the inspection of towers and assurances of safety. He pointed out that the by-law lacked clear language as to the Town entity responsible for inspecting the towers and insuring their safety. Ron DiPippo pointed out that the by-law called for a Technical Research Group that had discretion at all levels of an application process. Mr. Lynam said that no member of the group necessarily had the required knowledge to understand the safety issues related to tower specifications. Wording changes to the by-law were suggested by Mr. Lynam.
http://www.town.dartmouth.ma.us/Pages/DartmouthMA_FinanceMin/MeetingMinutes09-06-2007.pdf
Could these wind turbines bring aliens to our town? Just google
"UFO crash hits wind turbine" and you'll see what I mean. Have you ever seen the movie, Predator? Beware of wind turbines, aliens love them.
Bill, I could not find the estimate costs for removal of the wind turbine in the special permit application. Did I miss something? Should there at least be an estimate of the costs?
SECTION 34 – LAND-BASED COMMERCIAL WIND TURBINE BYLAW
Section 34.805 Application Filing Requirements
"The applicant shall submit a fully inclusive estimate of the costs associated with removal, prepared by a qualified engineer. The amount shall include a Cost of Living Adjustment for removals after 10, 15 and 20 years. The SPGA shall require the applicant to provide a form of surety (i.e., post a bond, letter of credit, establish an escrow account, or other) at the SPGA’s election at the time of construction to cover the costs of the removal in the event the town must remove the facility. The amount of such surety shall be equal to 150 percent of the anticipated cost of compliance with this section."
Yes lets pray today that God will intervene and stop the evil doers from erecting wind turbines and preserve what God has given us...a site where our town's waste water treatment plant is located. If you believe in God stuff I would argue he/she/it would all be for harnessing natural power so we DO PROTECT what you claim we would be destroying if these were built. Please keep religion out of this. You sound ignorant.
BILL, maybe you should charge a one dollar fee to post a comment on your site and donate the money to the town. All of Dartmouth's financial woes would be over!
There would be no posts :)
Evidently, we need a turbine at Bliss Corner. The entire Bliss Corner area has no power but low and behold, as soon as you get to Padanaram, the lights are on. I'll bet they got restored first.
The special permit application is only half filled out !
Five years of work to get to this place, and now there's a rush to push it through.
It's all about the money, folks!
Disturbing footage on you tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNxvkrgoPLo
Copy and Paste this your browser
Thank goodness I live in Padanaram. We have a special deal with the wind gods and the electric company. We never loose power beacuse we pay extra money to the wind gods to blow the wind around our beautiful village.
The town would never put them in Padanaram because that's where all the big money is!
Bill, do we have an ordinance like the one found for the town of Montville, ME?
It is a 60-page document that was a working draft as of August 2009. Of particular interest are pages 35-60.
It is very interesting reading and I would encourage anyone interested in the turbine project for Dartmouth to read it. I would specifically like to see the Select Board read it, if they haven't already done so.
Google Town of Montville Wind Turbine Generator Ordinance Working Draft.
umm anon 3:50 - we have a wind turbine bylaw in our own zoning code-debated at length and approved by Town Meeting some time ago. Perhaps you ought to read that one not draft bylaws in Maine.
I would not dismiss anon 7:52's concerns about these turbine attracting aliens and such. Low frequency sound such as those produced by turbines may in fact attract attention even if they cannot be heard by the normal human ear. Notice I said human ear.......
YouTube has many videos on wind turbines. There is one on shadow-flicker. Watching it for a matter of minutes or less was disturbing, without having to live with shadow-flicker in reality.
There is no escaping either the shadow-flicker or the noise. At least watching both on video enabled me to shut the computer off.
You won't believe it!!! The minute I logged onto this blog, there were flashing lights above our house. They hovered around the sat dish, then went staight up and away at an incredible speed. I think the low frequency attracted them. I'm going to buy one of the houses near the windmill and use it to sell E.T. souvenirs. This is a great business opportunity. E.T., PHONE HOME!!!!
Tomorrow night the SB should read the requirements in the by-law (34) for submitting a special permit application .
The SB should then read the application for the permit and ask where is all the missing information ?
This has to be done above board from the gitgo or attorneys will have a field day!!
Do it right the first time!!!
4:35, Dartmouth's eleven pages of the Section 33 bylaw on wind turbines and eleven pages of the Section 34 bylaw on wind turbines does not equate with the information provided by the 60-page working draft of the Montville Ordinance.
you've got to be crazy if you think the money is Padanaram...why not try the Tree Tops, Nonquitt, Salters, Mishaum and the Cow Yard areas of this town...
Stand back,,10:04 pm is gonna blow!!
you're right 9:55 - 22 pages could never compare to 60 pages.
Ronald DiPippo is chairman of the Dartmouth Alternative Energy.
Check out his attack on the Dartmouth residents in the s-t today -- Has he gone over the edge ?
The title : "YOUR VIEW: A small step forward"
He doesn't take any blame for not having the application filled out .It's the residents around the wind turbines fault .
REJECT THE INCOMPLETE APPLICATION ! THIS GUY FAILED THE TEST- RON YOU GET A GRADE D
D for DUMBING DOWN DARTMOUTH !
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100104/OPINION/1040321
Ronald DiPippo is chairman of the Dartmouth Alternative Energy Committee .Sadly, his "world is flat" view of the world is much more prevalent than anyone ever imagined ! ! !
I agree with Stone Dias and Watson that this should be delayed. Their fear of making decisions in the face of angry groups trying to intimidate them is playing right into our hands. If they just delay it one more week, I think we can get DePippo to crack and totally lose his composure in public.
It's to bad .I think he had a good idea . The Massachusetts Technology Colaborative , Renewable Energy Research Laboratory ,University of Massachusetts and Wind Turbine Commissions equal to 10% of the 9 1/2 millon dollar project and just greed got in front of everyone .
I don't think when the residents of Dartmouth voted for these wind turbines they ever thought they would get two turbines higher than the Statue of Liberty and could be seen from ten miles out to sea .
I predict that the permit for these wind turbines will be approved tonight. Then the NIMBYs will take it to court and drag the process out but eventually it will be built. The only ones who benefit from that are the attorneys.
FEAR is such a terrible thing! Look at the facts folks. Wind turbines are here to stay. In a few years they will be just like cell towers. Remember when no one wanted cell towers around! Now you hardly notice they're here. Clean energy is what we need and what MOST people want.
FEAR of the unknown. The more educated you are about wind turbines, the more you will realize how great they will be for our planet, our quality of life, and our pocket books!
When the North Dartmouth Mall was built, neighborhood groups were screaming about property values. When the Bristol County House of Correction was built, people were screaming about property values.
I can go on and on folks. This project should go forward. It is in the best interest of Dartmouth. Nat Dias has been on the AEC for years and she knows that this project has NOT been rushed.
Do your homework. Look at the facts.
Wind turbines are a win, win.
to 8:32 anon - please don't speak for me. As a Town Meeting member I voted for the turbine bylaw knowing full well what I was voting for. Unlike so many in town it seems, I paid attention and knew what was going on.
There will be NO civility on this issue Mr. Watson and Mr. Michaud. I give Mr. Watson a break on this because he is a novice and over his head. As for Mr. Michaud, where have you been for the last few decades? You should know better. Eventually, this will pass and it will get even uglier than it is now. As for Ms. Stone, you are way over your head on this. You are being eaten alive by the NIMBY's and crazies. Ms. Dias is still checking to see what the unions can get out of this. Typical Dartmouth.
From what I saw at both forums nobody was being 'eaten alive' as you put it and the discussions pro and con, unlike this blog, were very respectful with a couple exceptions.
I did not go to the first forum. I went to the second one and I agree with the posting about a lack of civility. Both Watson and Michaud commented on it and warned people about it. I heard several people speak and I felt they were way out of line. Worse, were some of the comments I heard from some of the people who did not get up and speak.
I hope Dartmouth SB will move this to town meeting on January 26th. Let the members vote on this project. We have heard enough. People living near the turbines have been very rude as far as I am concerned. I watched the meetings and found that they were short tempered and even yelling during the meetings. If you have an opinion, that's one thing. Let everyone have an opinion. Listen and be respectful! They were not.
I will personally sue this town if wind turbines go up, I will have the entire AEC in court. private citizens or not all AEC members are in on this monstrousity.
A setback of 2 times the height of the turbine to the HUB is not adequate in a residential area. Given that the blades extend hundreds of feet above the hub, it does not provide enough distance in case of a collapse and certainly not in the case of ice throw. Most turbine manufacturers recommend 1 mile and a half from the nearest residence. When the town by-law was passed it was modeled on one recommended by the State - greatly watered down by the wind development industry.
3:56 P.M.
Where is the standing........without standing, you have no suit. As for the wind turbines, they will pass town meeting. They shall be constructed. Ray Medeiros may not like the wind turbines but they will be blowing in the wind. Power for the D.P.W. And money for the town.
Ray Medeiros from the Alternative Energy Committee doesn't like wind turbines? That doesn't make any sense?
To anon 3:56pm
Sue the town and all your money will go to the lawyers. I remember when a neighborhood group hired a lawyer and sued the town when the mall was going to be built. They ended up losing a lot of money on legal fees and the rest is history. They were a good size group but couldn't afford all the lawyers fees in the end. Of course, if it will make you feel better...sue the town.
I hope the Select Board decides to vote on this tonight. No matter how many moratoriums we have, it will be the same. Some people will hate the wind turbines and some will think it is a good thing.
This was a well thought out project, not anything that was rushed. Nat Dias will attest to that. The AEC has been meeting for years.
I do think it may have made a difference if the town had sent out information to all residents as the project progressed, but that was not the case.
I can get you an attorney that will take a property case for 1/3 plus their cost >
No money up front
Will the three cowardly lions vote yes after all of their political grandstanding? The suspense is killing me. After all, I guaranteed that they would all vote yes. The chair is closing out sb comments and will soon be entertaining another motion to vote. Will it get a second this time? The suspense is killing me!!!!
Looks like the wind turbine project just got moved along and now goes to Town Meeting on January 26th.
Thank You all of those who worked so hard on this project!
Permit Granted. The suspense was killing me. I had no idea that all five members would vote yes. What a shocker.
Note to Watson: When attorneys have made it perfectly clear that they are looking for reasons to sue the town over an alternative energy project and they are present at a hearing for said project---DON'T HELP THEM!
Mr. Hurwitz was fabulous, he is going to make alot of money if he decides to represent the dissenters
The rule of thumb on this deal is if you have fifty people at a meeting each person represents at least ten people in the general public. This equates to 500 people that are willing to kick in for a defense fund.
An attorney could take on this case for a percentage of lost rental value of the homes surrounding the turbine - about 500 homes - at 1/3 the settlement this should attract some high grade attorneys .
This is a threat to the health and safety of the neighborhood and everyone in town knows it and wouldn't want this next to their homes!
See You in Court !!!!
It they are worried about lost home value WHY did they buy a house next to a SH*T PLANT
Perfect. Pay $250 an hour for a blood sucking attorney to represent you NIMBY's. The real cowards are those mumbling vile nonsense at the meeting and making threats here. Finally, progress made on this important issue for the entire town.
Bill, Could you explain the permit stipulation about a reserve fund for maintenance and operation of the turbines? All I got was $500k adjusting for inflation going forward. Is that for each turbine? Are there any other details?
The condition was that the town set aside 10% of the proceeds from the wind turbine generation into an escrow account until $500K has been accumulated. That account would be available for repairs or removal of the turbines at the end of their life. If used for repairs, the account would then be replenished from the generation account until $500K was reestablished. The amount would be adjusted for inflation over time. There is some question whether the DOR will allow such an escrow account so that was a condition for the condition. I suppose if not allowed by the DOR, the Town Meeting would have to appropriate the money to the account.
Since Town Meeting members have to vote on the bond authorization for the two turbines, those who are in opposition to the turbines should contact their precinct's town meeting members and let them know how they feel about the project. Town Meeting members should vote according to what their precinct wants, and the only way to do that is by contacting them. (Perhaps even contacting TM members outside of your precinct could help. Let as many people know of your concerns and let them help you. That is what you elected them for - - to represent you. Get your message out to them. Don't let your precinct members vote subjectively based on their own thoughts about wind turbines and their proximity to residences, because that likely could happen if they don't hear from you.)
Click on "Dartmouth Town Hall Website" on the left-hand side of Bill's blog. On the town's homepage, click on "departments"; click on "Town Clerk"; "Town Meeting"; and finally, "Town Meeting Member Listing."
The names and telephone numbers for each precinct's members' names are listed. Contact them.
Town Meeting votes on January 26th. Unless you are a Town Meeting member, you will not be allowed to speak at the meeting. Let your precinct representatives do that for you.
Actually the "NIMBY's" here are the proponents of the project. None of them seem to live in the immediate area. Proponents want this, just not in their back yard. They want it in the "little peoples" yard who live in the "armpit" of Dartmouth! Of course, the people of Chase and Russell's Mills road that do, don't even have the luxury of having sewerage that the turbines are going to be paying for. I have found the the proponents of this project make coarse and stupid comments about the people trying to protect their rights as citizens of this town. Remember, we are not going into your neighborhood, your home, and taking away what you've worked all your lives for! It is you, a proponent or this project, who is coming into ours, taking away from us. Yet you label us as the "bad guys" who are just trying to keep what we have. We all pay taxes just like you and we're not telling you what should be done to your property and well being. It seems you have no problem taking from us though!
Proponents of turbines located close to homes like to point out that no one has been killed by collapsing turbines or blade throws. But I would like to point out the word "yet". In the past the set backs, (like in Europe, the world leader on wind power) have in most cases been sufficient to prevent the likely hood of injury low. Now, the move is on, like here in Dartmouth, to put industrial turbines very close to homes. Dartmouth should be "proud" as others will likely follow suit. So like SB member Stone said: "Dartmouth can be on the forefront"
That forefront will be that eventually someone will die and hopefully it won't be here in Dartmouth. She can look at herself in the mirror and know that she helped contribute to the process that helped lead to that person's demise. If she is a mother lets hope it's not a child playing in a yard but any death is bad. Would she like someone in town explaining to her how her child got killed because the money the turbines are making is worth it!! I don't think she would accept that as a valid reason she lost her child. With the tower heights increasing, the force upon the blades has also. Because the blades at the bottom of the arc are in the slower speed air the upper blade as it enters the wind shear try to speed up the other two. This causes the upper blade to flex more and come under an extreme load compared to the other two blades. This is showing to lead to more premature failures with the taller 80 meter and up towers. This is physics and there is no need to debate. Ask the blade manufacturers as they themselves will agree. This is why the taller towers are still considered in the experimental stage. It's not the tower height but the blades. There is still problems with blades designed to work in a single speed air flow being subjected to two different air speeds.
Post a Comment