New 45 Minute Wind Video from Harmed Citizens in Massachusetts

Comment

Comment by Kathy Sherman on September 2, 2013 at 3:05pm

It is a bit different in MA in that the Towns were all sold on having turbines on public land (ditto PV) and in many cases have a private developer/operator whose project is financed by long-term PPAs contracted with the Town for a rate that is only slightly below current rate, but is stable against the cost inflation and volatility presumed to be in our future due to transmission upgrades, RPS and other mandates. A ratepayer fundrd agency even advances loans on REC futures for private developers' design and construct costs, and they ard still eligible for all the federal incentives. So the majority in a Town like Fairhaven or Falmouth think that they are saving money in property taxes, but in MA taxes never go down. Falmouth voters rejected taking their turbines down because it would cost too much (the ARRA loan isn't going to be forgiven, nor is the loan for construction). The daytime only operation loses money. But it is money, and "economic development", not GHGI or CO2 offsets that drives the fiasco, and fewer and fewer of the targetted communities are going for it. The home of the Ambrose & Rand McPherson study may still be available if we want a place for the "decision-makers" to experience the worst of industrial wind acoustic pollution. My chief concern is that coal plants are being shut down in the region by the economics of cheap natural gas, when not by legislation, and there is a big push to close nukes (like VT Yankee recently). So we aren't going to be like Ontario with a large nuclear capacity for base load, and maybe the future cost of electricity should be less worrisome than that there simply won't be any. Up in Maine, how much of the GHG emissions are from transport and what kind of vehicle do the Mills family drive?

Comment by Jim Lutz on September 2, 2013 at 8:55am

While the video shows people around the turbines having their lives completely disrupted, the real tragedy of the story is that these huge disrupters, the turbines, do little or nothing to reduce CO2 or really even produce power when and where it is needed.  They are a complete waste of money and destroy the surroundings of not just communities, but of great scenic wilderness like we have in Maine.  My belief is that any of the members of the PUC or DEP that vote against the citizen's will and vote to put these things up, should have one put up in their neighborhood.  That would stop the madness.

Comment by Kathy Sherman on September 1, 2013 at 7:28pm

This is just one of now many Massachusetts communities where setbacks from Denmark (four times total height, non-negotiable) and ten times rotor diameter (to minimize flicker, but also introducing a modicum of protection against noise) were knowingly ignored. The lessons learned from Vinalhaven were not that in locations with high wind shear exceedances above the high nighttime limits Maine allowed before the Citizen's petition are likely, or that noise modelling should use maximally reflective frozen ground, allow for modelling uncertainty and sound power uncertainty. No, the lessons learned were that that it is inordinately difficult (and/or expensive) to separate ambient noise from operating noise without the operator cooperating in a transparent manner (if then) and from Shirley WI to Vinalhaven ME developer operators are simply refusing to do so. Would any other energy business get away with this??
Thanks for posting the link. Fairhaven has done a great job in trying to gain back political control from those who conspired to bring about this fiasco over the course of more than a decade. However, as noted the BOH has allowed 24/7 operation again. In Falmouth, the voters decided against turbine removal.