Falmouth Wind Turbine Option Analysis Process Meeting

The Falmouth Wind Turbine Option Analysis Process group is meeting tonight, here is a look at the agenda.

Draft Agenda:

6:30 p.m.  Welcome, Introductions and Review of the Agenda

6:40 p.m.  Presentation of WTOP Process and Recommendations

7:10 p.m.  Discussion of Recommendations with the Board of Selectmen

8:00 p.m.  Close

Falmouth Wind Turbine Option Analysis Process Meeting #26:

January 18th, 2013

6:30 – 8:00 p.m.

Falmouth Public Library, Herman Room

300 Main Street

Falmouth, Massachusetts 02540

Bill Carson January 18, 2013 at 01:43 PM
The health of the residents is paramount in the turbine noise process. The Town of Falmouth is at the last minute injecting new financial figures into 26 meetings. Where are the operation and maintenance costs of operating the Falmouth Wind 1 - Vestas V 82 My belief is this turbine is a political embarrassment and the local politicians don't want the operation and maintenance figures made public to Falmouth Town Meeting Members. Many turbines with a rating of 1.5 megawatts or higher only three years old are having catastrophic gear box failures in New England . Portsmouth High School in Rhode Island , Princeton Massachusetts and Otis ANG base Cape Cod. All installed in 2009 to 2010 . A gear box runs around 600 thousand , special crane 100 thousand and blade repairs every three years and again in another three years . Falmouth Wind 1 had an electric problem around Thanksgiving. What are the projected repair costs for a gear driven turbine in the next one year?
David Moriarty January 18, 2013 at 02:24 PM
Bill Carson January 18, 2013 at 03:13 PM
Falmouth Wind Turbine Study Health Impact Counter Points http://legis.wisconsin.gov/eupdates/sen01/Massachusetts%20Wind%20Turbine%20Health%20Impact%20Study%20Talking%20Points.pdf To the extent that these impacts can be ameliorated, it should be possible to take advantage of the indigenous wind energy resource more effectively.” This passage indicates the true purpose of the Massachusetts study—to create an expansion of the wind industry through a slanted interpretation of wind health study documents. o The Panel merely reviewed literature and public media sources and met only three times o Stated that sleep disruption is the most commonly reported complaint by people and discusses this primarily as a result of “unwanted sound” and audible, amplitudemodulated noise (“whooshing”) o Writes off most self-reported “annoyance” as a combination of sound, sight of the turbine, and attitude towards the wind project (ES-5) o Therefore, according to the Panel, because they “found” no negative health effects to humans as a result of their literature research, it must necessarily follow that there are positive health effects. Yet, these positive health effects are not the result of wind turbines being safe, but that the turbines’ “green” impact on the environment will result in a decrease of conventional sources of fuel. This endorsement of safety is an admission that the Panel failed to strictly adhere to the scope of their charge.
Bill Carson January 18, 2013 at 03:17 PM
Continued -  Expert “Independent” Panel Members: o Dr. James F. Manwell and Dora Anne Mills are extreme pro-wind advocates: o Manwell oversaw the first utility scale wind turbine and the largest wind turbine constructed in Massachusetts o Manwell has won several awards from American Wind Association and U.S. Department of Energy o Mills has provided public testimony and “op-ed” newspaper pieces supporting wind turbines while a member of the Commission and before the findings were released o Posted information on Maine’s CDC website as Maine’s public health director that wind turbines do not have negative health effects in 2009 o Page 2 of the study states that 5 of the panel members “did not have any direct experience with wind turbines.” While the other members had backgrounds in epidemiology, toxicology , neurology, and sleep medicine, they had no past direct experience with wind turbines  Massachusetts Study Cites Sources that Contain Information that Wind Turbines Cause Negative Health Effects: o The Panel used several articles by the same authors of other studies that Senator Lasee provided to the PSC o The Panel used several articles that Senator Lasee provided to the PSC that found that infrasound from wind turbines can have negative health effects, yet the Massachusetts panel comes to different conclusions than the study authors:
Bill Carson January 18, 2013 at 03:58 PM
Wind turbine whistle-blowers will soon expose wrongdoing. The commercial wind business is the most corrupt and corrupting industry in the world . Sound studies which include siting and feasibility studies are produced by a semi quasi state agency. In 2005 the studies included two types of sound . The 2005-2006 reports done by the MTC, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, states two different types of noise : A. Regulatory compliance and B. Human annoyance . During the 2005 to 2007 period off Cape local residents questioned what "Human annoyance" actually means .Today we know that sound has become to be know as low frequency or infra sound. The Falmouth siting and feasibility study made NO mention of (B. Human annoyance). The MTC was stuck with two politically embarrassing turbines they couldn't even sell at an auction . The MTC offered a deal to the Town of Falmouth which advanced as much as one million in Renewable Energy Certificates (REC)
mark cool January 18, 2013 at 04:21 PM
The “long & short” of the Report: Option 1 solves the under-examined negative health, safety and property value problems and gives precedence to an ethically healthy community Option 2 compromises all stakeholder group’s interests but one. That group’s platform was defined as any mitigation not constituting a municipal fiscal liability. Option 3 solves a stakeholder group’s demand for climate action goals, another stakeholder group’s condition that energy revenue be unimpeded, while expelling a portion of the community’s people from their homes and or leaving many in harms way. The last two options involve significant attention and detail to performing triage on energy and fiscal numbers tabulated for the report. The numbers and data points supportive of Option 1 went largely ignored (i. e. Mass Department of Public Health said they could not provide the resources necessary to satisfy the Falmouth Board Health’s urgent requests for assistance), mis-interpreted, or resident’s evidential impact proof was neglected. A good decision is based on knowledge and not numbers ~ Plato It'll be interesting to see if this tenant of truth ‘holds water’... in Falmouth!
David Moriarty January 18, 2013 at 04:38 PM
This needs to be exposed for what it truly is. The town meeting members did'nt do their homework and got hustled by the Selectmen ...who wore hoodwinked by the CEC.
mark cool January 18, 2013 at 07:12 PM
Someone once said ~ "When one bases his life on principle, 99 percent of his decisions are already made" I wonder whether this applies to politics? Or maybe..Falmouth is simply the potential 1% exception?
Bill Carson January 18, 2013 at 09:40 PM
Please find attached the $400,000.00 final report of the Wind Turbines Options Analysis Process. The full appendices will soon be available online at www.cbuilding.org/falmouthwind .
David Kent January 18, 2013 at 10:53 PM
Bill, Very few people would define the number "3" to mean "many". And you should add, when you make this point, that none of the turbines that are experiencing gearbox problems are Vestas turbines: The manufacturer of the Falmouth turbines. I know you have a theory that the Vestas turbines use the same gearbox that has failed in Princeton and Portsmouth but, as far as I know, you haven't provided anything tangible to back that up. Overall, more circumspection seems in order here.
mark cool January 21, 2013 at 02:57 PM
Boards of health in Bourne, Falmouth, Scituate, Fairhaven and Kingston (to name only a few) are being pressed for relief from residents. The impetus for the escalation of health concern is born from inadequacies of zoning regulations recommended by wind energy promoters. These promoters "hoodwink" communities into believing that 'big wind projects are the NEW "Goose that lays Golden Eggs". The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center authored a state supported Wind Turbine Model Bylaw (regulatory tool) for municipalities considering wind energy projects. This is heralded as the State standard, yet more and more local boards of health are finding themselves in a quandary. This "rotten egg" then becomes an unfortunate Political issue. In Falmouth, this health issue has no business being addressed by any board other than Health! Health concerns of residents fall squarely under the jurisdiction of the a board of health. The level of acceptable health afforded is not measured by, nor should be subject to, municipal budget or climate action impacts. Falmouth needs to recognize the wind turbine options process as only a distracting 'side show' in the State's three ring circus (DEP,DPH,Beacon Hill corner office). The problem requires the solution to be dealt with, head on - where it belongs, under the "Big Tent".. under the jurisdiction of Falmouth's Board of Health.
Bill Carson January 21, 2013 at 03:12 PM
The Chief Executive Officer of Vestas says this about low frequency noise : "At this point you may have asked yourself why it is that Vestas does not just make changes to the wind turbines so that they produce less noise? The simple answer is that at the moment it is not technically possible to do so, and it requires time and resources because presently we are at the forefront of what is technically possible for our large wind turbines, and they are the most efficient of all." https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/letter-from-vestas-worried-about-regulation-of-low-frequency-noise/ At what point do the residents of Fairhaven ,Falmouth ,Scituate and Kingston join together in class action litigation ? (Let a jury decide the noise issues )You could have the attorneys that represent each group become the class representatives. The first thing would be to get class action certification through the Massachusetts court system. My belief is there are many more people who won't come forward about the low frequency/ infra sound noise until some kind of court action occurs . After you've done everything you can to help yourself the court system and jury trial is the way to go .
David Moriarty January 21, 2013 at 03:47 PM
Finnally the real issues at hand are coming out . " BOY AN I TIERED OF TRYING TO EDUCATE ELECTED OFFICIALS , CITIZENS, TAXPAYERS AND RATEPAYERS ON THIS ISSUE . " Now look folks, what Falmouth needs is some love and financial help from the Governor. It's time too put this matter into perspective for everyone . For one we tried the some old technology that had failed decades ago in Boone N. C PLEASE LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF. If you google windturbine experiment Boone N.C you can see for yourself the failed experiment . Same exact results we are experincing in Falmouth MA. 2013 . Why the current administation has'nt anyone smart enough on staff to look into these matters is beyound my scope of reason . I repeat the again . Please lookinto this it is quite inlightening . NASA spent 20 million dollars on the same experiment back in the late 70's. Why must we keep waisting are money on old technology? They ended up taking the turbines down and now the tower is holding up a watertank at The University of Texas A & M. Maybe the Town can rent the towers to a cell phone carrier after the turbines are takin down ? I don't know, but one thing is perfectely clear to me it is time to put this unfortunite mistake to bed . So please Governor Patrick , PLEASE help the TOWN OF FALMOUTH restore our community back to pre turbine conditions and bring the Town back in complience with the Massachusetts Constitution . Remember this is a health issue .
Bill Carson January 21, 2013 at 05:11 PM
Did you ever wonder how the State of Massachusetts came up with a model bylaw for towns to site land based commercial megawatt turbines ? First they knew that the residential property owners inhabited all the high wind resource locations along the coast of Massachusetts. Europeans had been using a formula where 40 acres of vacant land is used for a single turbine. Looking at the coastline of Massachusetts they needed to get hundreds of commercial wind turbines sited in neighborhoods. Massachusetts had a goal of 2000 megawatts of renewable energy by the year 2020. Each commercial turbine is around 1 or 2 megawatts . The state needed hundreds of turbines to quickly get that goal. The setback requirements of 600 feet or 1 and 1/2 half the height of the turbine was based on the ability to get hundreds of commercial wind turbines in residential areas as the residential property already took up coastal wind resource locations . A class action litigation class with class action certification would show how over a period of time the state passed legislation,created semi quasi state agencies in the name of renewable energy to take residential property rights from citizens


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something