More Oakfield Wind Photos

Comment

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on July 9, 2015 at 12:23pm

As these turbine blades either spin or not, even the tower structures themselves, scientific air turbulence models show the redirection of airflow in vortex patterns that present an effect which can extend for miles.

This will effectively change the ability of trees to grow or remain strong, even causing some close by destruction of existing trees. The natural airflow is the like exercise for trees, while removing the weakest of trees and dead branches from healthy trees that become burdensome. Snow and rain location deposits will also shift, presenting growth variations and destructions in a different way than prescribed by nature. A 20 year period, if that is the end, will present a long lasting effect on the ability of nature to regrow a once forested area. Not to mention the permanent damage done by the displacement of hillsides or other mineral resources that created the forest. The remains of surfaces that pool water preventing a natural runoff in a timely manner to the land below.

There are many small streams spanning the distance between the eastern terminus of the Bingham project to its end overlooking Bingham. Many flow into the Kingsbury stream in that short portion of the project. Many more are of the same caliber, Class A water, feeder streams which spawn fish and nurture young wildlife. Given a change in conditions, these as the forest, may become damaged irreparably or never return before even more destruction is bestowed upon the land, deemed unproductive and useless.

Data already exists in some states that proves these turbines of all sizes have caused a degradation of the once natural existence of the landscape, causing depletions of various plants and wildlife. This data is just starting to come to light from various authoritative sources, and reveals that which was feared to be true, although not exactly the way predicted. Some seems to be worse, none seems to be for the better. I have only come across one such article, but that was a sub link of a page that was lost through redirection from the source page. 

Comment by Kathy Sherman on July 5, 2015 at 12:51pm

Thanks Brad for clarification- As always distance would be good and real versus presented for the project. where I am coming from, in part, is a Falmouth (MA) Enterprise photo published very recently that finally shows how the wind coming from some directions will be coming over a forested moraine to hit the turbine near the top of the blades, not 'laminar flow' across the rotor. Previous photos including for Deepwater and Falmouth love the view from above or they like a view from ground that emphasizes near, ugly ground (dirty snow, crooked phone poles, weedy veg near rusted guard rail, stony beach) in a way no eye would see. I am not in advertising so some of the tricks escape, but not most of them.

I ask because I think Oakfield and Bingham deserve a few ad pages in MA papers where even the contracts approved a year ago March did not get much press. Unfortunately, contrary to assertions of pro-wind, we do not have any well-funded group to do so, but we can try other ways.
And we can ask whether the 'competitive suppliers' such as little old ConEd bear the burden of meeting the MA aggressive and bold mandates or just the distribution companies. If the distribution companies are all ratepayers paying under hidden charges for transmission/distribution? I would prefer that argument is that this is plain wrong but economics are more compelling to more people. Folks may be relieved that costs went down for next six months on supply, but they will go back up and at all times average distribution/transmission exceeds supply no matter your 'choice' for supply.

Again thanks for photo doc and facts on consequences of state policies.

Comment by Brad Blake on July 5, 2015 at 10:45am

Kathy, these are real photos of what is happening now, not simulations.  The simulations are one of the lies the wind thieves get away with consistently when they present their proposals.

Comment by Kathy Sherman on July 5, 2015 at 6:15am

sorry, property rather than 'properly'. the proportions just are not the same- it is not a small rotor above the free wind. it is huge rotor above a pretty short tower. that is one thing that I mean about extremely poor engineering.
It all sxcks.

Comment by Kathy Sherman on July 5, 2015 at 6:06am

When I see these photos (simulations still?) it is not just the shame of a Massachusetts ratepayer or the proximity to properly, it is that it is terrible engineering if wind crosses that forest.

Maine Citizens has done stellar expose about many things- It is time to address the engineering failures, not just of ARRA for a turbine that was not innovative- Effect of forest, proportion cut off by woods, angle coming over ridge - all deviation from 'ideal' sound or electricity generation. Let us keep it together!