WBUR

Why Mass. Lags On Patrick’s Wind Power Goal

A wind turbine is seen at Jiminy Peak Mountain Resort in Hancock, Mass., in late 2008. (Stephan Savoia/AP)

A wind turbine is seen at Jiminy Peak Mountain Resort in Hancock in late 2008. (Stephan Savoia/AP)

Five years ago, Gov. Deval Patrick set an ambitious goal: He declared that by 2020 the state should develop enough wind-generated electricity to power 800,000 homes. Patrick said a quarter of that wind power should come from turbines located on Massachusetts land.

But with half the time gone, we’re still far from reaching the governor’s goal for wind power.

After Delay, Hoosac’s Built

Dec. 3, 2012, was an overcast day in Berkshire County, but that didn’t dampen Patrick’s enthusiasm. He went to the rural northwest corner of Massachusetts to mark the near-completion of the Hoosac Wind Power Project, the largest in the state — 19 huge turbines built on two mountain ridges in the towns of Monroe and Florida.

“You don’t want them everywhere, but when you think about what they’re doing in terms of a clean, renewable and reliable source of electricity, it adds to the beauty,” Patrick said. “I think they’re quite elegant.”

But when it comes to wind power, beauty is in the eye — and ear — of the beholder. Opponents sued Hoosac, calling the 330-foot-tall turbines eyesores, loud and unhealthy. The lawsuits doubled the permitting time and the initial cost estimates.

After eight years of delay, the state’s highest court settled the matter. The $90 million Hoosac wind farm was built.

And Patrick was finally able to claim Massachusetts was on its way to meeting his ambitious wind energy goal.

“When I first took office, there were three wind turbines in the commonwealth and three megawatts of wind energy capacity installed, all throughout the state,” he said. “Since then, Massachusetts has experienced one of the fastest rates of wind energy development in the whole nation — more than 30-fold increase in our wind energy capacity. In fact, more this year alone than all previous years combined.”

But in the year since Patrick gave this speech, only one new wind turbine has been built in Massachusetts. And if the governor’s ambitious goal is to be met, we’ll need a dozen wind farms the size of Hoosac.

But Paul Copleman — a spokesman for Iberdrola Renewables, which owns Hoosac — says the Spanish company has no plans to build more wind farms in Massachusetts, even though under state law utilities are required to buy an increasing share of their electricity from clean, renewable sources like wind.

NStar buys all the electricity Hoosac produces. It’s enough to power 10,000 homes a year, saving 100 million pounds of carbon dioxide annually, compared to a fossil fuel plant.

“Our fuel is free,” Copleman said. “The wind is always free, so what that enables us to do is to deliver a fixed source of power for as long as the wind is blowing. So there are very few variable costs to the operation of the facility.”

Dozens Of ‘Dead Wind’ Projects

Hoosac’s 19 turbines make it by far the largest wind farm in the state. But if Virginia Irvine has her way, it’ll also be the last.

“To be honest I thought that wind was really great myself,” she said.

That was until Boston-based First Wind announced plans to build a 10-turbine wind farm on a mountaintop in Brimfield, in Irvine’s backyard.

“I moved here for the quiet, for the rural character, and to be able to go out my backdoor, put on my cross-country skis, and go into the woods,” she said at her home.

The steady breeze on West Mountain caught First Wind’s attention in 2010 — enough wind, it estimated, to power 15,000 homes.

The company studied the site, held meetings with residents, and designed plans to erect the 400-foot-tall turbines less than a mile from Irvine’s home. She fought back, and helped organize the group called No Brimfield Wind.

But it was profit, not protesters, that sealed First Wind’s fate in Brimfield. The company pulled the plug on the project when it discovered there wasn’t enough wind on the mountain to make it financially feasible.

“Oh yeah, we won,” Irvine said. “First Wind has not, you know, put in a project in Massachusetts. They only do big projects. They went up to Maine.”

And Irvine went on to co-found Wind Wise, a statewide organization to help others fight against land-based wind projects.

Irvine says she’s not against wind farms, that they’re great in Texas and Iowa, but not Massachusetts, which ranks 35th in potential land-based wind — most along the coastline.

“It doesn’t fit,” she said. “We’re the fifth most-densely populated state in the country. And wind turbines generate very little electricity. It takes a thousand wind turbines to equal the Pilgrim nuclear plant.”

There are 44 wind projects currently operating in Massachusetts. They generate less than 0.6 percent of the state’s electricity needs and just a fifth of the terrestrial wind energy goal set by Patrick. By Irvine’s calculations, there are 49 wind projects that never got off the ground; she calls them dead wind. And 13 projects are in limbo, or still in the permitting process.

INTERACTIVE MAP: NOTES: Locations are approximate; only includes projects greater than 100 kilowatts. SOURCE: Virginia Irvine, co-founder of Wind Wise Massachusetts, a grassroots anti-wind organization; the state would not confirm these map items.

Irvine says today, there are more dead wind projects than operating ones in Massachusetts.

“You just don’t get that much bang for your buck with wind turbines,” she said.

Catherine Finneran disagrees with that. She’s a senior director with the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, which oversees the state wind industry and site studies.

“The fact that we have so many projects that are up and running successfully lends to the fact that we have the resources and the technology is viable here,” she said.

But Finneran offers no guarantee the governor’s 2020 goal for wind energy will be met.

“We do have projects in the pipeline,” she said. “Whether or not those will move forward and how many and what capacity that will be is really an unknown, so I think it’s hard to say at this point whether we’ll meet that.”

Today’s wind turbines are not your quaint, Dutch picture postcard models. They’re high-tech, complex industrial machines, with thousands of parts, weighing hundreds of tons, costing millions of dollars. A lot can go wrong.

Finneran acknowledges the many challenges of the emerging wind industry.

“There are going to be hiccups,” she said. “So these small number of projects have encountered things like compliance issues, larger real estate development financing concerns, some technical issues, so it’s really all over the board and not one single issue.”

Problems And Permitting

The town of Princeton had high hopes when it installed two turbines in 2010.

When the wind is blowing hard, at 24 miles an hour, the turbines are designed to provide about 60 percent of the town’s electricity at a fixed cost.

Princeton borrowed $7 million, expecting the wind turbines would pay for themselves in a few years.

“The idea looked perfect,” said Brian Allen, general manager of Princeton’s Municipal Light Department. “We had a perfect location. We had plenty of wind. This should be a no-brainer.”

Instead, it was a major headache. First, the price of electricity generated from natural gas plummeted, so Princeton couldn’t find buyers for its more expensive wind energy. Then one of the turbine gearboxes suffered a catastrophic $800,000 failure. The town sued, but the company that built them went bankrupt.

Today Princeton has the second-highest electricity rates in the state.

“Yeah, if it could go wrong, it went wrong,” Allen said. “So I’m not anti-wind. I hate to say this: Don’t do it the way we did it.”

Minuteman Wind, the wind project slated for the town of Savoy, is the largest wind project on the drawing boards in Massachusetts. It was supposed to take three years. It’s been 10.

“We thought it was a slam dunk,” said Steve Wiseman, a Minuteman Wind partner, “and we’re still working on it.”

And Minuteman is still in limbo. It has most of the state approvals it needs, and local support. What it lacks is a customer for its wind-generated electricity.

“Without a long-term contract you can’t get financing and without financing you can’t build the project,” Wiseman said.

Recently, Massachusetts utilities signed the largest long-term contracts for wind energy in the state’s history. But Minuteman didn’t get a single contract. Instead, the winning bids came from wind farms in New Hampshire and Maine.

Massachusetts wind advocates say the premium for state-generated wind power is a small price to pay to cut greenhouse gases. They charge the reason they’re not competitive is because the state’s turbine permitting process is too costly.

“There’s a joke in fact about permitting here in Massachusetts,” began George Bachrach, head of the Environmental League of Massachusetts. “In other states [you have] permitting that’s quick, but uncertain. Others have a permitting process that’s long, but certain. We’re unique: We’re long and uncertain, so you don’t know where you stand forever. If we’re going to get this industry off the ground we need a more predictable, quicker permitting process.”

Over the past five years three bills designed to streamline the wind turbine permitting process have been introduced in the Legislature. All failed.

The Massachusetts wind industry has had its legal trials, technical tribulations and triumphs. But time is running out for Patrick’s ambitious goal for land-based turbines.

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on wbur.org.
  • Mark J Cool

    This article and the subsequent comments provide evidence that there exists a campaign to promote health and well-being for the greater good at the expense of the health and well-being of a few. The twenty-first century renewable energy perspective argues that this is OK. Historic hindsight tells us that principles and morals eventually win out over economic considerations. And the cost argument in relation to Climate Change seems hollow, morally bankrupt and untenable in comparison. The misleading arguments of cost and profit will continue to be used to sabotage constitutional justice and rights protection. Giving a stronger constitution among the peoples of Massachusetts reminiscent of earlier days of tea and taxation.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      The fossil fuel industry makes record profits at the expense of everybody in the entire world. Those health problems – including deaths caused by fossil fuels – are proven.

      Wind turbine syndrome is made up, and there are no known effects from wind turbines.

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wind_Turbine_Syndrome

      “Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS) is an alleged condition suffered by people living close to wind turbines. It was invented by Dr. Nina Pierpont in 2009 as propaganda against what a handful of anti-wind energy advocates refer to as “Big Wind.”[1] It has zero evidence supporting it, and its main proponents are people who don’t want tall metal structures visible from their house.”

      “The symptoms of WTS are claimed to be “internal pulsation, quivering,
      nervousness, fear, a compulsion to flee, chest tightness and tachycardia
      — increased heart rate.”[2] It’s notable that these symptoms are more closely associated with hypochondria[wp] than anything else.[3]”

      “From what can be deduced, the evidence presented by Pierpont is a series
      of case studies — and a small number at that, being only a series of 38
      people, only 23 of whom were spoken to directly and at that only over
      the phone. 15 of the 38 were family members who Dr. Pierpont was told
      about by one of the 23 direct contacts. The 23 people self-selected by
      responding to an ad run in the area of wind turbines asking people who
      attributed their ailments to wind turbines to contact Dr. Pierpont.[6]“

      • Mark J Cool

        As I stated ~ The misleading arguments will continue to be used (fossil fuel industry makes record profits – Wind turbine syndrome is made up).
        Thanks Mr. Blanchard

      • Marie_Jane123

        Marie Jane says:

        Neil you say, “The fossil fuel industry makes record profits at the expense of everybody in the entire world.”

        Neil, I will pay good money for good service every day. Fossil fuels have proven their worth on many levels in many ways. Not so with industrial wind. Until something is able to replace fossil, in
        service-kind, and based on what fossil fuel and nuclear have given this country, I will continue to favor it/them over industrial wind turbines which has proven to be dependent and unworthy. Industrial wind turbines are a huge (forgive me) cash cow, offering no positive results, no positive return other than for the investing few and the supportive few.

        Neil, you refer to deaths: “Those health problems – including deaths caused by fossil fuels – are proven.”

        Neil, is death your benchmark?

        Neil I have proven victims of the industrial wind turbine. Industrial wind turbines have ruined lives, destroyed communities, made people to walk from their most prized possession, their home, because they were unable to live or function in them.

        You turn your back on life and the living and the opportunity to make those lives better by investigating and understanding a national problem with a specific cause.

        But, everything is really cool if someone dies. You can then say it is not working, we have proven deaths so, it must be done away with as you are so willing to do with fossil.

        If the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine; where will you/we be?

        What are you not hearing Neil? What are you not trying to understand better? And, why?

        XXX

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Fossil fuels will go away. They are finite. Renewable energy will be here as long as the sun exists – about another 5 Billion years. The sun rises every day. The wind will always be blowing, and waves, and tides, and small scale hydro can be depended on.

          Wind is very dependable, and with large wind farms, the output is quite steady and predictable.

          Did you see the videos I posted links to? The turbines are very quiet, and they are barely audible above the wind. People walking away from their homes because of that is just silly.

          • Marie_Jane123

            Marie Jane says:

            Neil, forgive me, get a life, buy a bridge. You have been greenwashed and are beyond cure.

            Yes, people, real, live people gave up their homes, their loved homes.

            What does it take to make that occur?

            Think! Please think!

            Just silly is so unbecoming!

            No need to reply. No further response.

            XXX

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Those turbines are virtually silent – barely audible above the background. Just like the turbines in Hull, MA that people have been living with for years.

            Passing trucks and flocks of birds are louder. There is no mechanism by which wind turbines can harm anyone’s health. The wind itself is louder than the turbines.

          • Guy

            Is that the Hull under the flight line for Logan and surrounded by water?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            The larger Hull 2 turbine is not close to the ocean, and it is not under the flight paths to Logan, either.

      • Guy

        sorry buddy the oil industry is loving this renewable fraud…they make a killing on it. Electric companies love driving up the cost The way to lower CO2 output is to lower demand through available conservation and efficiency projects which are 10 Times more cost effective. The problem is there is no gravy for the cronies! For the cost of wind turbine or solar you can insult, replace appliances, super high efficiency lighting, geo-thermal, etc….. for a fraction of the cost. Require no degradation of land, no killing of wildlife, they operate 100% of the time unlike wind and solar which operate about 30% of the time! So which is it…smart & cheap or expensive and wasteful and require 100% backup of fossil fuel? You are aware that after spending in excess of 100 billion dollars on solar and wind Germany emits more CO2 than the year before? Or that one of the major Green’s there who headed the largest renewable company declared wind energy a failure currently and quit his job?

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          Conservation is great. But fossil fuels are terrible in the long run. Renewables are the only the only energy source that will last as long as the earth and sun do.

          You might want to learn about how renewables can cover all of our energy needs – many times over, actually. Please, don’t insult my intelligence (or reveal your ignorance) about how Germany and Spain, and Norway, and Costa Rica, and the UK, and many other places – like Iowa are using more and more renewable energy all the time. They are doing it more quickly than they had hoped, actually.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
    • Mark J Cool

      These two links are appreciated but stray far from the wind energy subject of the article. Yet, the crucial remaining question to citizens of Massachusetts will be whether we adopt the wider vision of ensuring health and property right protection to ALL (no matter the energy source proximity) or the selective short sightedness of slave-master environmentalist & capitalists who block vision with the spectre of costs and the lure of profit.

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        “Slave-master”? Hyperbolic, much?

  • Marie_Jane123

    Marie Jane says:

    There is not “scientific consensus”. I give you a leaning toward “global warming”, but not consensus.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      It is a strong consensus. All the data point to anthropogenic climate change. The only parts that are less certain are the specific tipping points for the strongest feedbacks; like melting tundra, albedo reduction, clathrate melting, and when the ocean begins to release carbon dioxide that it has been absorbing.

      By most accounts, we have another 0.8C baked in already, and we must avoid going higher than 2C to keep from getting into a runaway warming …

      That would be catastrophic.

      • Marie_Jane123

        Marie Jane says:

        I sense your urgency.

        Is there speculation about date specific?

        I think more catastrophic is the impact of the industrial wind turbine on human quality of life.

        I think more catastrophic is plunging into a non solution which the industrial wind turbine is. It is ill conceived and destructive.

        XXX

  • iVan

    Neil, I commend you for doing what you are doing and if all did what you do we would be in a better place in carbon reduction however dig into the politics of renewable energy and wind in particular and you will se that we are mere pawns in a political shell game.

  • NortheasternEE

    The experiment with renewables has failed. The generous subsidies and mandates have served their purpose. We now know the following about renewable energy systems:

    They are not environmentally friendly.

    They do not reduce greenhouse gases.

    In addition to being very expensive, they are an add-on to our system for providing eclectic power.

    They are a net job loser.

    The annoyance and ill effects caused by wind turbines is for nothing in return.

    Large numbers of birds and bats are dying for nothing.

    They cannot and will not replace coal.

    Even if they do, the coal they replace will go to China to create worse world pollution.

    Solar panels replace CO2 absorbing trees and vegetation.

    You cannot trade the health of wind turbine abutters for those affected by coal.

    The high cost will not decrease in time

    The money wasted on renewables can better be spent researching for real alternatives.

    Nations around the world are cutting or eliminating subsidies. It’s time for us to do the same. Wind and Solar have failed to deliver on their promise, and all indications are they never will.

    • I Fish

      “They do not reduce greenhouse gases.”

      Repeating this erroneous claim again? Here is a study that quantifies the reduction in GHG in a real world example:

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131016100114.htm

      • NortheasternEE

        I noticed that your Spanish source doesn’t quite quantify the carbon avoidance, but claims it is significant. At least it gets away from the often claim that each MWh of wind save a MWh of carbon. It does identify that we need grid scale storage to make it all work.
        Here is what a guy in the know had to say:
        Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.”

        http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/2009/04/wind-powerless.html

        Some grids can save a little. Others emit more. The bottom line is that the claims of carbon avoidance are unreal!

        • I Fish

          Seriously? That’s the best you can do vs. a peer reviewed study?

          The quote you reference was debunked in 2010 as Flemming Nissen had not been head of ELSAM for years when he said that nor was ELSAM even still in existence.

          You don’t like the Spanish study? How about this one from Argonne National Lab for the State of Illinois:

          http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es2038432

          Wind power does indeed reduce carbon emissions.

          • NortheasternEE

            We can trade studies all day, but the fact remains that wind power was sold on the basis that every MWh of wind will save the equivalent of a MWh from fossil fuel. This model fails to consider the interdependence between fossil fuel and wind. The fluctuations of wind reduce the efficiency of supporting fossil fuel power generation. The studies I found use actual production data, from grids with significant wind penetration, that compare the increased CO2 emissions per MWh, when wind forces fossil fuel power to operate at less than maximum efficiency, to the CO2 emissions when there is no wind.

            What they find is that when natural gas is forced into that role, little to no CO2 is avoided. When the grid runs out of gas capacity to idle, in very strong winds, and coal is forced to reduce power, the CO2 emissions go on the increase accelerating the march to Global Warming.

            You can believe your modeled studies done with rose colored glasses and always end by projecting yet to be perfected assumptions, such as grid scale energy storage availability, but I choose to live in the real world where we must face the fact that in the absence of affordable grid scale energy storage wind and solar are expensive add-ons that have failed to perform and may never perform.

            From an engineering perspective it is simple. Wind is not a power source. Wind is a variable and intermittent energy source, that needs the firming capacity of energy storage (a giant non existing battery) to perform as a power source to replace fossil fuel generation on the grid.

  • Paul Shaw

    They asked the people who lived out side the prison camps after World War II why they did nothing to stop it ? They replied they didn’t know what was going on. The next question was didn’t you notice millions of your neighbors missing ?
    Folks, People who live around these megawatt turbines have described the noise as torture . For the last 4 years people have called these people liars and thieves with made up stories.
    Massachusetts has thousands of certified noise complaints. The state of Massachusetts has an “agenda” of 2000 megawatts of renewable energy by the year 2020. It’s always the “agenda “

  • ytreggah

    An Open Letter Opposing the Australian Medical Association Fairhaven
    Massachusetts USA

    http://windwisefairhaven.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/an-open-letter-opposing-the-australian-medical-association/

  • Guy

    could it be that the backers of the projects tell too many lies? The claim of 20 years of free energy turns into 5-8 years before major failures. Or that they don’t make noise where across the world people fight tooth and nail and abandon their homes from the 24 industrial noise when the liars place them too close to homes. Or that they will only kill 1 or 2 birds when studies should wind turbine killing at least 25 bats for every turbine in Penn. or that NJ & DE see 80 birds and bats killed by eash turbine each year or that wind turbine are the number 1 killer of Golden Eagles in California. And then the money….the multitude of tax credits, set asides, kickbacks to enrich the backers and their sponsors…make them expensive, they destroy good land requiring roads, cleaning, maintain and more equipment. Remember a wind turbine with a capacity factor of 20% needs to have a reliable power source 80% of the time…and you have to pay for both power plants…but only use one at a time. Wasteful! The money would be much more effectively spent on efficiency and conservation…but then I guess Patrick’s cornies would get their unjust rewards!!! This is about taking your money….nothing more! The switch from fuel oil or coal to natural gas saves a multiple more of CO2 than wind and solar energy! Enjoying you record cold global warming. Wonder what their scammers next prediction will be…or do they just claim every weather event. Tired of the lying!!!

  • Marie_Jane123

    “Those turbines are virtually silent – barely audible above the background. Just like the turbines in Hull, MA that people have been living with for years.”

    Really??

    Found the above comment somewhere within. Someone from Hull? I truly doubt it….

    Suggestion: Town of Hull………Light Board Minutes………check it out.

    Research.

    Think.

    Reread “Guy” (truth).

    Stop the industrial wind turbine agenda.

    Marie Jane

  • iVan

    I borrowed a snowmobile yesterday and went up to the wind turbines behind Tenney in Groton NH and was able to get up and close. Besides the hawk kills (red tails are migrating north) the noise is similar to living near an airport so whoever is claiming that these things are quiet should take a trip and listen at 1mile, 1/2 mile and closer and decide whether you could live with this noise 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

  • ytreggah

    The loudest noise from commercial wind turbines come from where you are in respect to the turbine. If you stand looking at the blade coming down towards you and the tip of the downward side is pointing at you this is the loudest point. The wind industry will not tell people where the loudest location is.
    The loudest point ,where the downward side of the blade is pointing is called the area of random assault. As the wind changes the blades move around causing the loudest noise to move from neighborhood to neighborhood. If the wind stays in one direction for a long period of time at night your neighborhood would be the victims. This is also called the rope effect of the blades. If you jump rope you’ll notice the change of air pressure as the rope goes by your ears but now multiple that effect using three 7 ton blades from a wind turbine

  • mfairneny

    DEP and State Officials,
    March 24, 2014

    It has been over one year since the
    Hoosac Wind project has been up and running. As you know, we are a very small,
    rural community, sparsely populated, with maybe 40-50 homes within ear shot of
    this noisy neighbor (Hoosac Wind Project).

    We don’t have 1-2 IWT’s slamming us
    each and every day…..but 19…340ft 1.5 GE Industrial Wind Turbines
    overpowering the peace and quiet we once enjoyed. Many of us moved here for
    just this reason (my family included) to enjoy the serenity of this once
    peaceful world…..You have allowed ….this whole scenario to be altered and
    not for the better. My wife reminds me almost every day that our days are
    numbered here after 30 years because her ears are ringing constantly whenever
    she is at home.

    After countless complaints and
    concerns from many neighbors to DEP, our town officials, state officials,
    visits to my home from Gail Cariddi, Ben Downing, Dave Howland, Mike
    Gorski….as well as one on one meeting with the Governor and his energy
    secretary Rick Sullivan at the opening ceremony for this project who assured me
    proper sound testing would be done….the only thing that has transpired was a
    totally bogus sound test done by Research Systems Group (Iberdrola’s
    cronies)……who completely manipulated testing protocol….from hand picked
    testing sites ( not properties we know to mostly affected)….to placing
    monitors where they felt would be less impactful (ie…behind trees and in
    forested areas)…..choosing times when sound impacts would be at a minimum
    (very few testing times done at night)…..unattended testing done in a way
    that when they didn’t like what the data said….they said the equipment failed
    or ran out of battery power….and never even considering Low Frequency or
    Infra sound…and in such a small time frame…..all testing done within a 3
    week period??

    I ask …..WHY ? ….why are they
    allowed to do this….RUN THEIR OWN SHOW ? The Data shows that the turbines
    were not running at even close to maximum power output….this also would
    minimize audible sound output….Again, this is obviously “the fox watching
    the hen house” scenario and we are the trash being cast aside for benefit
    of the “Greater Good”…..

    I find this reality completely
    UNACCEPTABLE and I’m asking for YOU to DO something about IT.

    From the very beginning of this
    nightmare (we were told that we would never see or hear this project) Iberdrola
    told us that they had done Ambient Sound testing….only to find out that it
    was a “modeled” study…..I think this winter has been a true tale of
    how skewed “modeling” can be to the reality of a situation….and
    even if a true baseline sound level was determined, these sound testing
    companies still have methodology to insure that the results they want to gather
    will be achieved…”slow metering”….vs. “fast
    monitoring”….or altering the initial background sound along with the
    other methods I’ve seen first hand, previously mentioned.

    Also, the ambiguity of “what
    exactly does exceedance mean…..to me an exceedance is an
    exceedance…SIMPLE….even if for only 1 second of one day….. since WHEN DOES
    EXCEEDANCE MEAN…..for any time frame or duration…This is ludicrous !!
    ….and another manipulation by EVERYONE INVOLVED to make light of a situation
    that has negatively affected the health and well-being of hundreds (now) and
    probably thousands of Mass. residences in the future for a FLAWED ENERGY PLAN
    driven by our governor and the MONEY behind an industry that has never had to
    prove anything…..especially “DOING NO HARM” to us ….to the people
    who are unlucky enough and FORCED to live under this annoyance day after day…

    I and the residents up here in the
    Berkshires are asking for help…..asking for THIS STATE to uphold its’ own
    guidelines for noise and sound compliance including testing for ILFN, to insure
    proper testing be done by companies not hired by the developers and put
    procedures in place to insure compliance to be upheld every second of every day
    365 days a year…..ISN”T THIS WHAT COMPLIANCE REALLY MEANS….??? Please
    HELP !

    Sincerely,

    Michael Fairneny

  • Marie_Jane123

    Marie Jane says:

    The industrial wind turbine agenda must be stopped. The PTC (Production Tax Credit) must not be extended. Let your concerns be heard. Do adamantly oppose.

    The PTC is the key to stopping this agenda or enabling it to continue. Make your statement and throw away the key!

    If you are able to do so, please write the Senate Finance Committee. Contact information is below.

    The Senate Finance Committee will be considering a tax extender bill next week and it’s widely expected that the Wind PTC will be included. This article from today provides a good sense of where things stand – http://www.governorswindenergycoalition.org/?p=8362

    HELP IN FIGHTING THIS LATEST ROUND IN THE SENATE.

    Please contact the Senators on the Senate Finance Committee and let them know you are adamantly opposed to extending the wind PTC FOR THE 9th TIME. Below is the list of Senators and the email addresses for their Chiefs of Staff (CoS) and Legislative Directors (LD).

    Make your message short, polite but firm. Tell them you’re fed up with wasting money on an energy resource that is raising energy costs, harming the economics of reliable generators, driving the need for billions in new, and otherwise unneeded transmission, dividing communities and permanently impairing our most sensitive natural areas. Bottom line: The Wind PTC is toxic and no politician should get near it.

    COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP

    Chairman
    Ron Wyden (D-OR)
    CoS: Jeff_Michels@Wyden.senate.gov

    Ranking Member
    Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)
    CoS: Michael_Kennedy@hatch.senate.gov
    LD: Jay_Khosla@hatch.senate.gov

    DEMOCRATS

    John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV)
    CoS: James_Reid@Rockefeller.senate.gov
    LD: Mark_Libell@Rockefeller.senate.gov

    Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)
    CoS: Mike_lynch@Schumer.senate.gov
    LD: Megan_Taira@Schumer.senate.gov

    Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
    CoS: Bill_Sweeney@Stabenow.senate.gov
    LD: Matt_VanKuiken@Stabenow.senate.gov

    Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
    CoS: Jamie_Fleet@Cantwell.senate.gov
    LD: Pete_Modaff@Cantwell.senate.gov

    Bill Nelson (D-FL)
    CoS: Pete_Mitchell@Nelson.senate.gov
    LD: Susie_Perez-Quinn@Nelson.senate.gov

    Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
    CoS: Danny_OBrien@Menendez.senate.gov
    LD: Tim_DelMonico@Menendez.senate.gov

    Thomas R. Carper (D-DE)
    CoS: Jim_Reilly@Carper.senate.gov
    LD: Bill_Ghent@Carper.senate.gov

    Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)
    CoS: Chris_Lynch@Cardin.senate.gov
    LD: Priscilla_Ross@Cardin.senate.gov

    Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
    CoS: Mark_Powden@Brown.senate.gov
    LD: Jeremy_Hekhuis@Brown.senate.gov

    Michael F. Bennet (D-CO)
    CoS: Jonathan_Davidson@Bennet.senate.gov
    LD: Brian_Appel@Bennet.senate.gov

    Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA)
    CoS: Jim_Brown@Casey.senate.gov
    LD: Richard_Spiegelman@Casey.senate.gov

    Mark R. Warner (D-VA)
    CoS: Luke_Albee@Warner.senate.gov

    REPUBLICANS

    Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
    CoS: Jill_Kozeny@Grassley.senate.gov
    LD: Colin_Davis@Grassley.senate.gov

    Mike Crapo (R-ID)
    CoS: Susan_Wheeler@Crapo.senate.gov
    LD: Ken_Flanz@Crapo.senate.gov

    Pat Roberts (R-KS)
    CoS: Jackie_Cottrell@Roberts.senate.gov
    LD: Amber_Sechrist@Roberts.senate.gov

    Michael B. Enzi (R-WY)
    CoS: Flip_McConnaughey@Enzi.senate.gov
    LD: Tara_Shaw@Enzi.senate.gov

    John Cornyn (R-TX)
    CoS: Beth_Jafari@Cornyn.senate.gov
    LD: Jerr_Rosenbaum@Cornyn.senate.gov

    John Thune (R-SD)
    CoS: Summer_Mersinger@Thune.senate.gov
    LD: Brendon_Plack@Thune.senate.gov

    Richard Burr (R-NC)
    CoS:Chris_Joyner@Burr.senate.gov
    LD: Natasha_Hickman@Burr.senate.gov

    Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
    CoS: Joan_Kirchner@Isakson.senate.gov
    LD: Jay_Sulzmann@Isakson.senate.gov

    Rob Portman (R-OH)
    CoS: Jonathan_Davidson@Portman.senate.gov
    LD: Pam_Thiessen@Portman.senate.gov

    Patrick J. Toomey (R-PA)
    CoS: Christopher_Gahan@Toomey.senate.gov
    LD: Dan_Brandt@Toomey.senate.gov

    • I Fish

      Thanks for this. I’m going to immediately contact these senators and strongly encourage them to vote to extend the wind power Production Tax Credits. Renewable energy should be on at least the same footing as the fossil fuel industry that has received various credits and favorable tax treatments for 100 years+

      • Marie_Jane123

        Marie Jane says:

        Fossil deserved every “bonus” received. It has done the job it was hired to do for every one of those 100+ plus years. Take away all of the tax inducements and fossil will function.

        Not so wind. Industrial wind turbines have not been able to prove their worth since 1992 when first “subsidized”. It cannot do the job, it is totally unable to stand on its own regardless of how much money it receives. A very poor investment on any level. It will never be on the same footing.

        xxx

  • ytreggah

    Massachusetts needs an investigative story on the placement of commercial wind turbines. Look into the loss of health and constitutional rights of the citizens living around the wind turbines. Stop the Massachusetts liberal bias of news reporting and tell the public you can’t take others property with no compensation

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
  • NortheasternEE

    The Enron George W, Bush connection:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G08bIB2Y9Cg

  • Guy

    Sadly these projects never honestly admit when the turbine fails from lightning, mechanical failure, etc. The sounds studies are a study in dishonesty. They operate at 30% of stated capacity… The only thing they do…is raise your electric rate and kill birds and bats, and ruin nature.

Most Popular