The Castine 1/8th-scale Turbine study This study is just another study in a long line of wind energy research performances. This so called test turbine, at 20 kW is claimed to be a 1/8th-scale wind turbine.
Here is reality. In every wind turbine impact study, the number one concern is the rotor sweep because this is what is killing bird and bat species. This pip-squeak test turbine, having a hub height of about 41 feet from the waterline and a rotor diameter of about 32 feet (blades about 4.8 meters long) is not even close to being 1/8 scale turbine, A 6mw turbine with a 150-meter diameter rotor, has a square ft rotor sweep 225 times greater and calculated in cubic meters, a 6mw turbine has about 1150 times the bird killing sweep of the 1/8 scale test 20w test turbine. If all turbines in America were just 20kw, very few if any eagles would be killed by wind energy and the Interior Department would not have to hide the thousands eagle carcasses being secretly shipped to the Denver Eagle Repository.
I also could not help but notice that the UMaine used Web camera surveillance of the turbine. If the industry had done this with their post operational mortality studies, the public would know that over 20 million birds each year are being killed by wind energy. But this web cam stunt is also not what it seems because recording images every 15-30 seconds leaves gaps and golden opportunities to filter the truth from the data. All web recording should have been continuous
In this US Department of Energy Office report ………”SUPPLEMENT ANALYSIS 2 FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MAINE’S DEEPWATER OFFSHORE FLOATING WIND TURBINE TESTING AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT” this statement was made:
“4.0 Conclusions and Determination…………..These findings are not true and for the reasons stated above, new credible research is needed
The potential impacts associated with the modified Proposed Action were evaluated and found to be similar to those identified for the Proposed Action in DOE/EA-1792-S1. DOE has therefore determined that the modified Proposed Action would not constitute a substantial change in actions and would not present any new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the previously analyzed action or impacts, within the meaning of 40 CFR 1502.9(c) and 10 CFR
This is a false statement and my comments prove that there are very significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns. NEW research around Monhegan Island absolutely needs to be conducted by credible experts.
(a) DOE shall prepare a supplemental EIS if there are substantial changes to the proposal or significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns, as discussed in 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1).
I also noticed this important information given below from the SUPPLEMENT ANALYSIS 2. I found it to be very disturbing, substandard and completely unreliable. It should not be accepted as being credible. In the table shown there are an incredible number of unidentified species listed as being potentially threatened, endangered or of special concern. Accepting this uncertainty would be a disgrace.
These boat surveys need to be dismissed because of the uncertainty given by the observers. New surveys desperately need to be conducted by real experts familiar with these species. I can’t imagine seeing 10 hawks in the field and not knowing the species.
As I have shown in these comments, the avian and bat studies conducted for the Aqua Ventus wind project are misleading, inaccurate and most of all, they do not comply with scientific standards. They are therefore not in compliance with NEPA (42 U.S. Code 4321, et seq.) and DOE’s NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.330) and procedures, the purpose of this SA is to examine the potential environmental impacts.