Second wind

Update on CIP Committee action after the jump
Barrett A Hurwitz has a letter in today's Standard Times about the Dartmouth wind turbine project. Mr. Hurwitz asks for a second opinion on the project engineering.
I find Mr. Hurwitz's argument for another engineering opinion unconvincing. The engineering of this project has been first rate. I am an engineer and have reviewed the submissions. I have been impressed with the thoroughness and conservative approach taken by Atlantic Design. Dr. Friedman of the Finance Committee and Dr. DiPippo of the Alternative Energy Committee are also highly trained engineers and they have not found any fault with the submissions. Engineering is not an art. It is the application of science to real world problems. Science and mathematics are used to reach conclusions which are not based on opinion but upon data and natural laws of physics and materials.
Mr. Hurwitz goes on to assert the engineers and the Alternative Energy Committee (AEC) are unconcerned about potential impacts upon residents. That is far from the truth. The turbine bylaw specifically requires that noise and flicker impacts be quantified in the permit application. That has been done. The noise from the installation is so low as to be negligible. Shadow flicker effects occur only briefly during the day when the sun is low on the horizon at dawn and dusk. The predicted effects for the Dartmouth project also do not take into account the masking effect of trees and other obstructions. The predicted effect is that which would occur on a barren landscape. The actual effects will be reduced by the forest that surrounds these sites. Additionally AEC members have repeatedly assured the public that adverse effects can and will be mitigated at individual residences.
Mr. Hurwitz, citing unnamed sources, claims that turbines should not be located within 3000 feet of residences. I can cite examples of many wind turbines located much closer than that. Mass Maritime and Portsmouth Abbey have a turbine ...

... in the middle of their campuses. Hull's wind turbine is next to their high school, as is the turbine in Portsmouth. There is a wind turbine standing adjacent to Route I93 entering Boston. All are within a few hundred feet of residences at most.
Mr. Hurwitz is correct that the standard installation for 1.65 wind turbines is atop an 80 meter tower. The 100 meter tower was selected based upon the location and wind data. The added height provides better wind and more capacity. Wind turbine manufacturers make towers much taller than 100 meters for larger machines. The taller towers are proven technology.
Mr. Hurwitz's final argument is one which has to be considered. Are wind turbines an unsightly blight upon the landscape? In this case, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think that the turbines are stately and majestic. Mr. Hurwitz does not.
But there are other factors to consider besides aesthetics, just as in the trimming of trees. In trimming trees, one must balance the need to have uninterrupted electric service and the pruning of trees to allow that. In the wind turbine case, we must weigh the benefits; lowered costs to the town for energy and production of clean renewable energy that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and our country's reliance on foreign and hostile energy producers against brief shadow flicker events and the feeling of some that the installation is unattractive.
I think that the shadow flicker can and will be mitigated. The aesthetics are a personal preference but there must be trade offs as in the case of phone poles, water and cell towers, highways, and other necessities of modern life.
UPDATE: The Capital Improvement Planning Committee has voted to recommend the funding of the wind turbine project