.

Turbine Recommendations on Hold

It will be a little longer before selectmen hear options developed by a turbine group working towards a compromise. New data has sent the group back to the drawing board.

The Falmouth Wind Turbine Options Analysis Process group was scheduled to present two options aimed at reducing turbine complaints to selectmen Tuesday night. The group postponed that meeting after receiving word that some numbers were calculated with faulty methodology, according to the Cape Cod Times.

The new numbers could show that Wind One produces more power than experts thought, making it even more valuable to the town.

The group plans to meet at Falmouth Public Library Tuesday night at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the new data.

mark cool January 15, 2013 at 12:05 PM
New power numbers, transforming financial numbers only add another shameful layer of pseudo municipal benefit. Ignored to date, in terms of actual data being assembled from state sponsored consultant numbers/tabulations & inputs, which (rightfully) are very specific to Falmouth's turbine power output, budget, and climate action targets - is no specificity on Falmouth resident's health? Why hasn't the group agreed to a number to use as the amount of the resident's pain and suffering allowable, and why hasn't the group been given a chance to see projected health implications of that number? OOPs.. - I forgot that there's been no comprehensive health study conducted in Falmouth. If Selectman Flynn's concern is to be realized (a reply made concerning her impression of the delay), "it's more important for them to get it right", then more focus on the health of her constituents is necessary. First Lady Michelle Obama professes - the most valued asset to a community, is the healthy citizen - Isn't it time Falmouth leadership follows that lead? ‎Clearly the town, even members of the Board of Health, has been primarily focused on the economic impacts to the town. There hasn't been enough concern regarding the health-related impacts. The REPORT, and it's review has become a dollars-and-cents discussion. A mistake will remain a mistake, whether it cost $1 or 10 million, until someone decides of fix it.
David Moriarty January 15, 2013 at 03:03 PM
There is no financial or political solution to this problem. This is a well orcaustrated plan that has been in the works for over a decade . This is no accident people your government is doing this to every man woman and child intentionally. I was at a meeting in Kingston last night . I must say it was very painful to listen to a Mother trying to defend the health of her unborn child that is being intentionally tourtored AND HEALTH COMPRIMIZED by the TOWN OF KINGSTONS BOARD OF HEALTH . May God protect that poor innocent soul . I WONDER WHY THE MEDICAL PROFESSION IS TURNING A BLIND EYE TO ALL OF THIS AND THE CLERGY TOO WAKE UP. Listen up good people of the commonwealth it is your responsibility to stop this you are failing all of us .
David Kent January 16, 2013 at 12:11 AM
I will address the only thing that is relevant in this situation: The new numbers and the delay. That is, I will not use this as an opportunity to expand the conversation wildly beyond the delay as Mr. Moriarty has done. And I will not bring in issues unrelated to the delay, like the lack of a health study, as Mark has done (even if that IS a valid point outside of the issue of the delay). Personally, I’m not high on any method that relies significantly upon estimates of revenue, budget impact, etc. I don’t know what price we can put on peoples’ suffering and I think people are suffering However, it appears that the Options Analysis Process HAS always incorporated numbers. So, if it’s going to incorporate numbers is should incorporate correct numbers. That is, some extra time SHOULD be taken to get the numbers right. This delay is tiny, tiny potatoes. And this should be a very short, uninteresting thread IF we stay focused on the issue of this article: The delay.
Blowin Smoke January 16, 2013 at 02:41 AM
David - another relevant (and seemingly forgotten) issue is: what problem are we trying to solve? It's strangely hard to answer that. The problem used to be loud noise. Then it was subtle noise. Now Mr. Cool writes in his blog, on 1/10/13 " The Falmouth WT problem is not a noise problem". The problem used to be sleep disturbance, but the turbines haven't run at night since May 2012. So what really is the problem? Does anyone know?
mark cool January 16, 2013 at 11:39 AM
WTOP report - SECTION - THE NEED FOR ACTION *Second sentence - "Since operation of Wind 1 began in March 2010, and Wind 2 began in February 2012, a number of the turbines’ neighbors have expressed serious concerns about the negative impacts of the turbines on their health, well-being, property values, and safety." These would be the problems (targets for action). Two others are associated (i.e.Town fiscal health impact & town’s commitment to reduce consumption of fossil fuel-produced energy impact), and only became problems as a result of the first However, the two subsequent problems cannot minimize the level of importance, attention or impede the necessary path toward achieving solutions to the targeted principal problems (restoring acceptable health and living condition to those residents that first brought forward their problems to town authorities).
mark cool January 16, 2013 at 12:21 PM
focusing on the issue of this article: The delay. The delay's purpose is to hopefully include more accurate wind production numbers that will determine revenue (and possibly climate) numbers more accurately. The impetus for this was to give a more palatable spreadsheet in terms of the the tremendous budget constraint the project is projected to cause while mitigating neighbors problems. The premise for altering the actual power output data (limited) of Wind 1 was to hypothesize "better levels" using more robust actual power output data from the Webb/Notus turbine. The rational being that Webb is only 3400 ft from the town turbines and is likely experiencing the same wind condition... therefore Webb's numbers can yield reasonably reliable energy production projections for Wind 1/2. There's a problem with this however. It's not an Apple to Apple comparison. Wind industry engineers want to know when 2 or more turburbines are build near one another, how far away from the first the next should be to regain optimum wind capacity for best Energy Production. They examine downstream wake decay distances in detail for this reason. The latest information from Vestas is that the effect of turbine wake may take as many as 16 rotor diameters for the airstream to recover back to the initial free air-flow. Wind 1 (closest) is 12.5 rotor diameters from Webb. 4.7 rotor diameters separate Wind 1 & 2.
mark cool January 16, 2013 at 12:28 PM
The questionable low power output numbers by the town turbines, as compared to the Webb turbine is a function of the ability to regain optimum wind capacity. The closer the turbines (Wind 1/2) the experience will be a negative effect on production output. The original numbers (limited actual data points from Wind 1/2) would, arguably, provide the more accurate numbers projections.
Bill Carson January 16, 2013 at 01:25 PM
The state of Wisconsin read the Massachusetts wind study for Falmouth. Wisconsin wrote a memo about the qualifications and the method used the wind study . The results are shocking and should be made public to all the residents of Falmouth. Check out the URL below : http://legis.wisconsin.gov/eupdates/sen01/Massachusetts%20Wind%20Turbine%20Health%20Impact%20Study%20Talking%20Points.pdf
Bill Carson January 16, 2013 at 01:48 PM
On July 18, 2012 Massachusetts Wind Working group had a meeting.The Massachusetts Wind Working Group (MWWG) provides a forum for wind energy stakeholders to promote smart and successful wind energy development in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Consensus Building Institute (CBI) delivered a 19 page document at this meeting about the ongoing ,WTOP, Wind Turbine Option Analysis Process. On pages 9 and forward in the document includes the Falmouth Wind Process. These meetings are open to the public. My question is were the residents of Falmouth aware of the meeting and did they attend the meeting to include their documents at the meeting ? The Falmouth CBI info : http://www.umass.edu/windenergy/downloads/mwwg/20120718/WTWG_CBI_v2.pptx The entire meeting : http://www.umass.edu/windenergy/wantaturbine.MAWindWorkingGroup.previous.php
Bill Carson January 16, 2013 at 02:54 PM
To David Kent ,The first issue is safety and health of "all" the citizens. Second is the finances . The Town of Falmouth is only looking at the first three years of operation of their turbine. They need to take into consideration the real failure rate of older gear driven wind turbines like the Vestas V 82 . Operation and maintenance over five years at Portsmouth High School in Rhode Island , Princeton ,Massachusetts and a 2009 turbine installed at Otis ANG base all have catastrophic gear box damage . All three years old . The Falmouth Town Meeting Members have to be made aware that the turbines don't last twenty years . These type of turbines fail around 3 to 5 years. The gear box failures are so bad it has become a secondary industry to installing the initial wind turbine and has to be done again every three to five years after the first replacement. The Board of Selectpeople need to get up to speed on the operation and maintenance issues or they will soon look like they are the ones who were taken in by the bunco scheme - Did you ever wonder why the MTC had so much trouble selling these machines ?

Boards

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