Information obtained from other communities that are similar in nature to Fairhaven must be looked at, as well as model state building codes regarding noise. In Mars Hill, Maine, residents who live 2,000 feet from the turbines cannot go outdoors. A number of proponents continue to downplay the noise issue by making comparisons with the Hull turbines. These turbines are located near areas that have a fairly high level of noise. To compare Hull with the Little Bay area is disingenuous. Wind turbine noise is perceived as more annoying than other noise sources. The noise from a wind turbine is constant and considered one of the most annoying.

On April 23, 2007, the Fairhaven Board of Selectmen passed a motion to vote on the two 400-foot industrial turbines on Little Bay in Fairhaven. My question is, why the rush? As with any project of this magnitude, let's do our homework first.

While some windmill projects are laudable - most notably Jiminy Peak's relatively small-scale operation in Hancock - the Berkshires do not need a plethora blighting our scenery and providing a negligible blip on the Grid. This state also is spending - or planning to spend - far too much money in subsidies for out-of-state and even out-of-country developers whose "energy credits" derived from windmill projects will not make even a small dent in this nation's reliance on oil and coal. Far too many of the proposed windmill projects in this region seem to be geared more toward pleasing the greenies and "let's pretend to make a difference crowd" than they are toward producing significant energy.

I was shocked at your editorial of March 5 titled "Let wind project breathe free." Your statement that the Hoosac Wind Project "will provide enough power to the grid to serve roughly 9,000 homes" is utterly ridiculous since it implies that the beneficiaries will be residential users. Somewhere between 60 and 80 percent of our electricity use is encumbered by business and industry. Furthermore, whatever electricity provided by the project does not go directly to residential users anyway. Wind power has never caused a fossil fuel or nuclear power plant to be shut down. Wind power is so unpredictable (and generation is much less in summer months when demand is high) that all those nasty polluting plants still have to continue to operate. You also write about with the "perils of global warming and of dependence on Middle Eastern countries for oil, wind energy is moving to the foreground" Windmills produce electricity, not effectively or efficiently, but that is all they produce. Less than 3 percent of U.S. electricity is produced by oil-fired plants. So given the paltry amount of unreliable electricity produced by wind farms, would we reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil? Of course not.

These are possible ruinous scenarios that could plunge Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket into economic ruin without fuel, food, medical supplies and tourist dollars able to reach the islands. The result of the relocation of millions of cubic yards of sand will foul the shipping channels leaving the deepest water in Nantucket Sound in and around the 130 Cape Wind Farm turbine foundations. The plot thickens. Cape Wind completes the project, sells the wind farm, pockets millions, moves on without any accountability for what they have left behind. The new owners may say at some point, “This is not working” and abandon the wind farm leaving behind 130 concrete foundations built to specifications that surpass the construction of the World War II observation towers that still dot the eastern shoreline. To date, no one has been able to remove one of these towers. Nantucket Sound will have 130 of these monoliths, a transformer platform with thousands of gallons of cooling oil and hundreds of miles of power cables dangling in several fathoms of water — Horseshoe Shoal is gone! If attempts were made to remove this industrial complex, the blasting concussions and nitrates in the water will kill all marine life in Nantucket Sound. Disaster is only a signature away.

To those who think that the installation of a wind plant, whether it be 4 turbines or 40, in what will become known as “formerly the beautiful seaside resort town of Eastham, Gateway to the Cape Cod National Seashore” will cut down on the carbon dioxide load, please think again. According to an investigation by the New York Times (12/28/06), wind power generates a big problem: it is unpredictable and often fails to blow when electricity is most needed, for example, on the hottest days when there is peak demand for air conditioning. According to Williams Bojorquez, director of system planning at the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, “power plants that run on coal or gas must be built along with every megawatt of wind capacity.” That is because, when the winds don’t blow, the grid must buy electricity from the next cheapest source of power, otherwise there would be rolling black-outs. Frank P. Prager, managing director of environmental policy at Xcel Energy, which serves eight states from North Dakota to Texas and states it is the nation’s largest retailer of wind energy, says that the higher the reliance on wind, the more an electricity transmission grid would need to keep conventional generators on stand-by - generally low-efficiency plants that run on natural gas or coal and can be started and stopped quickly. A study by Elfam, Denmark’s largest utilities company, in March, 2005, found that wind plants had not reduced the country’s carbon dioxide emission levels, because it has to be backed-up by conventional energy. A report by the Royal Academy of Engineers in Britain around the same time suggested that a conventional power station produces higher emissions when it is turned down to make room on the grid for wind-derived energy, and then ramps up when the wind power is insufficient.

Few are aware of the staggering profit by way of contracts payable to avian specialists in an industry borne from wind towers that kill birds. This service industry is referred to as "Adaptive Management," and/or "long-term environmental monitoring." Its value is $2 million to $3 million first year startup for a wind project, based on the value of Altamont, Calif., wind tower monitoring contracts. These contracts represent $1 million per year paid to the monitor during construction phase, and impose terms as Mass Audubon has in their "Challenge" press release: "We also propose adoption of an Adaptive Management Plan that includes a rigorous monitoring program beginning at the construction phase and continuing for at least three years post-construction." ..........Mass Audubon is in a position to profit by counting bird carcasses, "monitoring," while attempting to "solve" this problem; the industry term for this is "mitigation," if Cape Wind is permitted and construction begins.

Where are the facts and the data used to determine that constructing massive machines and flashing lights are what is best for our communities and economy? Sadly, the combination of the Savoy Wind project and the 20-turbine Hoosac Wind project will turn the summit of Mount Greylock (and the Greylock Glen) into an observation platform for a beautiful landscape trashed by visual pollution, with flashing lights that will never go out.

We have been asking for a set of state regulations and town by-laws to control the installation of residential and commercial turbines. There was a large fire on the North Shore a few weeks ago in a residential neighborhood in which the news and government agencies all asked how a commercial business could be located in a residential area. The lack of state regulations and town by-laws and enforcement usually lead to tragedy. The state of Massachusetts, along with cities and towns, has got to look at the control of land- based wind turbines.

Although the approach is too late for projects that have already begun a federal review process, a dozen New England congressmen and senators have asked for help from the Department of Energy in coordinating a regional approach to siting liquefied natural gas facilities. Reps. Tom Allen and Mike Michaud have both signed on to this request, which makes sense for future energy projects.

When the idea of the possibility of additional turbines on state land was introduced, there was a unified groan heard within the hall. Why is one project OK and the other unacceptable? Is this really about the environment or about money?

Five years ago, when developers applied for a federal permit to build the world’s largest offshore wind-energy project off the Cape Cod coast, a widely held presumption was that the project ought to go forward because wind power is inherently good and that Nantucket Sound was as good a place as any to begin the off-shore renewable energy movement. But the Cape Wind project hasn’t moved forward and remains mired in controversy as evidence piles up that its developers chose perhaps the worst location. So, instead of leading the renewable energy movement into the future, Cape Wind may be imperiling that very movement by ignoring legitimate and serious flaws in its project.

The Cape Wind project is proposed for an ecosystem and aviary corridor with documented endangered species, and that is under current and conflicting use as an essential fish habitat. “Clean, green, renewable” is not benign when it represents an industrial-scale wind facility comparable in scale to a land area the size of Manhattan Island proposed to be introduced into this ecosystem. The magnitude of the Cape Wind project, along with the fact that this is nascent technology, merits deep consideration. One consideration that must be evaluated is the objectivity of any agency involved in the permit review process. If, as example, Mass Audubon has a financial stake, for whatever reason, in the outcome of any inquiry, such as the process of accounting for any wildlife mortality that stems from a major power plant such as Cape Wind, then that is a prima facie reason to question the objectivity of the subsequent analysis. That Mass Audubon, or any of its members, would profit from a project it was reviewing, should clue any reasonable observer that the results might be tainted. Mass Audubon’s “preliminary approval” of Cape Wind is taken at face value: “no harm to birds.”

Ford Motor Co. didn’t increase the size of the Edsel. Coca-Cola didn’t repackage “new Coke” in larger bottles. A bad idea doesn’t get any better by making it bigger. But a group that wants to construct 130 giant wind turbines in Nantucket Sound off Cape Cod apparently doesn’t feel that way. Cape Wind Associates had proposed a bad plan, looking to build the nation’s first offshore “wind farm” in the pristine waters off the Cape. Now they are proposing that the monstrous windmills be made even taller - rising fully 440 feet above sea level when the blades are at their highest point. By way of a bit of perspective, the Statue of Liberty, from the ground to the top of her torch, stands at 305 feet.

Wind turbine companies and their corporate promoters are limited liability partnerships owned by oil and power companies. They are nothing but gigantic tax shelters, subsidized by our government, that only accidentally generate even a smidgen of electricity.

am empathetic to the concerns expressed by opponents of the Long Island wind farm brought to light by Mark Harrington in his contribution of September 22, 2006; ‘Wind farm reviewers: Comment period over.'
Editor's Note:Submitted to Newsday on 9/26/06.

I speak of the "Great Berkshire Wind Turbine Scam." The proponents of wind turbines on our Berkshire ridgelines assure us of their need. They proclaim these turbines will produce gobs of megawatts of much-needed electricity, enough to supply the needs of thousands of homes. They will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, clean our air, lower global warming, save our trees, and much more. All from a non-polluting energy source. What could be better? The proponents even go so far as to say wind turbines on our Berkshire ridgelines are tourist attractions and will improve the local economy. The reality is really something quite different.

In the State of Massachusetts we are in an enormous battle with a private developer who seeks to slip through a federal loop-hole in ocean management before any regulations are developed and take over 24 square miles of the Nantucket Sound for his industrial 130 turbine wind power plant which will be as large as the Island of Manhattan. This entire area was designated as a marine sanctuary by the State of Massachusetts to protect the marine ecology and endangered bird life there. Yet, because of a donut-sized hole of federal waters in the center of the Nantucket Sound, he might get his way. If he does, a precedent will be set and more and more industrial development will follow which might very well include drilling for oil and other destructive industry to the natural habitats and delicate ecology of the area.

Building a gigantic wind turbine in Brant Rock is at best a stupid idea and at worst a disaster.

The Cape Codder brought the leaders of Cape Wind and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound to the table Monday in a bid to start a substantive, meaningful dialogue on the potential merits and flaws of the proposed wind farm in Horseshoe Shoal.