Climatide

Mr. Funfar says he can’t hear it inside his house. Mr. Cool “can’t spend much time in his West Falmouth yard”. Does anyone hear anything indoors? And NPR can’t record any sounds for their radio show..

Article doesn’t mention that Ms. Cool is a local realtor.
http://www.anniehartcool.com/
Any chance financial motives are disguised as health concerns..?

i live next wind one in falmouth it is awful I can here when I read my kids their bed time storey it pounds in the room is that a good thing.

As bad as Falmouth is, it will pale in comparision to North Kingstown, RI. Our elected officials have approved one 427′ unit within a neighborhood development with houses as close as 563′ and are still considering adding another with houses at 551′. They are quoted as saying “ I don’t think a 400 foot fall zone… It essentially rules out large turbines in the town period.” So we have a 267′ setback. I can’t wait for the ice to shower down on the new train platform, possibly even derail a high speed train, or take out kids building snowmen in their backyard. Due to his shortsightness, I guess the only good news is that with a much larger population experiencing all the health effects, nobody in the wind energy will want to work with the developer once RI is in the forefront of all the bad publicity.

I live within a half a mile of three 400 foot wind turbines in Vinalhaven, Maine. On days and nights when the turbines are turning at top speed, with all windows and doors closed,the noise THROBS through our house. There is nowhere you can go on our property to escape the noise. It is completely unreasonable to expect people to live under these conditions. It comes as no surprise to me that some people who have had turbines built too close to their homes have had to abandon them. Siting turbines too close to homes is a crime in the making.

This week’s natural disaster in Japan has become terrifyingly complicated by man’s use of nuclear devices to produce electricity. The coincidence of the Japanese nuclear catastrophe coming at the end of the WGBH/WCAI piece on wind should not be lost on the NPR audience. Despite the reports from the 12 people suffering from noise in Falmouth where an older stall-regulated turbine was installed, the overwhelming majority of people in the region living right next to more modern wind turbines (Hull, Portsmouth, Bourne) – and the majority of people in Falmouth itself- find wind to be a terrifically benign, welcome, and economic source of electrical power. Let us not lose sight of this greatest of facts about wind energy: wind turbines are safe and economic. To many of us the “threat” of wind is far preferable to the real threats we live with everyday due to our continued preference for fossil fuels & nuclear power, which bring mercury poisoning, asthma, oil spills, and nuclear meltdown.

This week’s natural disaster in Japan has become terrifyingly complicated by man’s use of nuclear devices to produce electricity. The coincidence of the Japanese nuclear catastrophe coming at the end of the WGBH/WCAI piece on wind should not be lost on the NPR audience. Despite the reports from the 12 people suffering from noise in Falmouth where an older stall-regulated turbine was installed, the overwhelming majority of people in the region living right next to more modern wind turbines (Hull, Portsmouth, Bourne) – and the majority of people in Falmouth itself- find wind to be a terrifically benign, welcome, and economic source of electrical power. Let us not lose sight of this greatest of facts about wind energy: wind turbines are safe and economic. To many of us the “threat” of wind is far preferable to the real threats we live with everyday due to our continued preference for fossil fuels & nuclear power, which bring mercury poisoning, asthma, oil spills, and nuclear meltdown.

how’s the fall zone for telephone/powerline poles? No one seems to interested in those rules being enforced.

“Siting turbines too close to homes is a crime in the making. ” So are large second vacation homes, vacant all winter while the owners of those homes get big bonuses on Wall Street and many more get foreclosure notices. How would you like some low income housing on your little island paradise. Take a Dudley.

Dear Dudley, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are referring to me as a Wall Street mogul with a large vacation home that is vacant all winter, think again. We are just regular people trying to have a normal and healthy life. I suggest you do the same.

Once again, we are rendered almost speechless by the depth of Ms. Argo’s compassion for her fellow man — which frankly seems to run an inch deep and a mile wide. But this latest comment seems to plumb a new depth when it comes to her habitual opportunism.

Yes, Ms. Argo, we are all deeply saddened and alarmed by the unfolding events in Japan. Perhaps we should all take a moment to appreciate the indescribable terror and suffering of the people there who have borne the brunt of this natural disaster, before hastening throw any more innocent victims, in Falmouth and elsewhere, under the Wind Turbine Express.

As always, there are significant factual errors in this latest pronouncement from the President of the Cape and Islands Wind (Dis)Information Network. Here are a few:

1. Ms. Argo states that “12 people” are “suffering from noise in Falmouth” – a number that she appears to have plucked from thin air to minimize the depth of the misery there. In fact, casual search of the Cape Cod Times reveals that there have been numerous articles referring to “dozens of residents” who complain of suffering and, in one instance, “50 residents” who have filed complaints. Additionally, the CCT notes that Mr. Christopher Senie represents “about a dozen families”, and, in another reference, “18 people” (i.e. adults) in Falmouth. Only one story references “about a dozen people” — in reference to the number of people who attended a particular meeting in Falmouth — but another article speaks of the disappointment of over “two dozen people” who sought relief from the ZBA when one lone member voted not to require a special permit due to an apparent misunderstanding of the ZBA’s authority.

2. Ms. Argo again trots out a well worn falsehood when she says that the Falmouth wind turbine employs an obsolete technology that is louder than newer models. As we all know by now, Ms. Argo places a VERY high value on “peer reviewed research.” It is a wonder then that she neglects to mention that independent acoustic researchers who “peer reviewed” CVEC’s noise study in Brewster found it deeply flawed to the point of being grossly misleading in significantly understating the potential harm there. MORE SPECIFICALLY, they examined CVEC’s claim that the proposed wind turbines in Brewster were “quieter” than the Falmouth wind turbine, and found this claim to be completely without merit. A pure fabrication. That’s what the “peer reveiwers” say about Ms. Argo’s novel theory — that it is totally unsupported by the facts.

3. Ms. Argo urges us “not (to) lose sight of the fact that wind turbines are safe and economic.” In fact, both of these statements are transparently false. She contradicts the first statement in her own prior narrative when she argues that “only a minority of people are affected.” She has also admitted that there is “a real problem in Falmouth” — but blamed this on that antique vintage of the machine (circa 2008). As for wind energy being “economic”, Ms. Argo surely knows better — because we have personally cited for her, in writing the following statistics. First, as Robert Bryce has noted, the subsidies alone for wind energy are 150% of the market price for natural gas (expressed in $ per BTU). Second, the revenue stream of the Brewster project derives from two sources: a) a “net metering” rate of reimbursement — created through legislation — that amounts to over 14 cents per KWh; and b) the sale of Renewable Energy Certificates which CVEC’s feasibility study estimates at 2.5 cents per KWh. By contrast, the wholesale rate of electricity is currently (which is set at the margin by the price of domestically produced natural gas — not OPEC oil, thank you) is LESS than 4 cents per KWh. So, in other words, the rate that consumers will pay for CVEC’s output — through direct surcharges to support net metering and REC’s — is FOUR times the market rate. That may be an “economic” deal for CVEC and for Brewster; but it can hardly be said to be “economic” for any other electricity consumers in the state of MA.

4. Most reprehensible by far is Ms. Argo’s latest riff on her shop worn — and thoroughly immoral — argument that “only a minority” of people are adversely affected by wind energy. In this iteration, Ms. Argo spins it by saying that “the overwhelming majority of people……find wind energy benign.” Which is another way of saying that those 50 plus residents in Falmouth whose health and whose lives have been grossly impaired — 18 of whom are so devastated that they’ve retained an attorney in a desperate attempt to achieve some relief — are expendable; a small price to pay; an unfortunate, but necessary, degree of “collateral damage” in pursuit of CVEC’s grand vision of turning Cape Cod into “the Saudi Arabia of wind.”

5. Finally — and it has to be said, the rank opportunism of implying that our choices are limited to either: a) sacrificing countless individual residents and prostrating the scenic landscape, the soundscape and the historic and rural character of Cape Cod in the service of a technology that accomplishes nothing useful, on the one hand; or b) building nuclear power plants in an earthquake fault zone just in time to have them leveled by the next epic natural disaster — one so great that it moved the island of Japan by eight feet — is unforgivably simplistic and callous.

At long last, Ms. Argo: Have you no shame?

Eric Bibler
Save Our Seashore

Ms. Argo:

“Terrifically benign” wind energy??? I think not.

“This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for Britain’s latest wind turbines… and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem…”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html#ixzz1GbbvHCGJ

Wind does not work. All wind turbines have moving parts and require lots of maintenance and sooner than later will break. Most of the electricity is wasted, as is the electricity from steam turbines at night. All steam turbines [coal, oil,etc] run 24 hours a day basically at full power wasting most of the electricity produced at night, there is a massive over production of electricity at night [most wasted] and a need for peak power production during the day. Wind turbines primarily produce an erratic wave of electric production, not useful in the required mass for a steady stream of power production and transmission. Wind turbines are noisy producing an adverse effect upon people and causing wildlife to flee the area. Wind turbines require MASSIVE TAX subsidies. The list just goes on and on how wrong wind turbines are.

Photovoltaics provide on site peak power production [6AM to about 10PM] when electricity is needed. There is no transmission cost. They have no moving parts, they require little maintenance. Photovoltaics can be placed just about any where roofs, parking lots along side the Autobahn etc, anywhere and no noise. They typically have between a 5 – 10 year payback period. Photovoltaics typically have a 25 year warranty to produce electricity. Photovoltaics are becoming cheaper and cheaper to produce. Europe is rapidly switching to photovoltaics from wind turbines, leaving the USA in the dust as a third world country, in terms of production and application. The European countries that have a production capacity [factories] of 1 Gigawatt production yearly + : Germany has 4 +, France 3, Spain 2, Italy1, Japan3 , USA less than – 1 Gigawatt, of production facilities. The list in favor of photovoltaic just goes on and on.
The main reason the government is in favor of wind turbines is the TAX revenue, you see it on your electric bill every month. With the electric rates tripling from the necessary subsidies from wind turbines the tax revenue will also triple.

I wonder why Liz Argo don’t present any FACTS and just keep repeating the same old lies? Is it because she is getting paid to lie to everyone? She is a paid shill for the Wind Industry plain and simple.
Her latest post is a new low for her with somehow comparing the Japanese Catastrophe to windmills on Cape Cod. Windmills can never, repeat never replace any present day electrical power plant. I would like her to name one power plant anywhere in the world that has been shut down because wind energy was able to take up the load.Another lie she keeps telling is that the Falmouth windmill installed in 2008-2009 is somehow older than the Hull, Portsmouth,and Bourne windmills.What year were these windmills installed? Another favorite lie is they are”safe and economical” . Compared to what? If they are so so safe and economical why have all the Towns on the Cape that were able to vote on them turned them down? Are all the voters stupid and CVEC and their hired hands the only smart people on the Cape?

WIND ENERGY DOES NOT PROVIDE CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY!!! The wind industry’s spin on turbines is that a turbine provides the power needed for x-number of homes. That would only occur if a turbine spins at top speed at a constant rate. This is called its “capacity.” In reality, wind turbines are only about 20% efficient, many are less. They only spin between about 8 and 35 mph. On the hottest days of summer at peak demand there’s no wind and they fail to provide power on the coldest days: http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/6310/Britains-Wind-Farms-are-No-Spin-Zones-When-Cold-Hits . They consume electricity from the grid for lighting, computer control, internal heating, etc. That’s because the grid provides reliable electric, unlike wind turbines. Gears only last from 3 – 7 years and need to be replaced at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars and even more environmental damage as the gears are trucked in. One in one thousand per year collapses and/or catches fire – and there’s about 600 liters of toxic oil in each. Also, after their lifespan of 20 years passes, who will decommission them and tear them down? And the biggest sin is that the world over, after many years, not one coal or gas plant has been decommissioned because of wind turbines. In fact, the more wind turbines are built, the more conventional plants remain fired up to supplement all those wind turbines when they’re not spinning or the wind is variable, which is always. And so WHY BUILD THEM AT ALL? The answer is that wind developers can profit from huge subsidies, many times the subsidy that solar gets. And since Massachusetts participates in RGGI: http://newjersey.watchdog.org/2010/07/28/cap-trade-scheme-is-clouded-in-secrecy , the state can rake in dollars from this cap and trade scheme among the 10 northern Atlantic States. But with half the states looking to get out of the deal, this will fall apart over the next few years. Wind turbines were developed by ENRON, and they are the biggest taxpayer rip off in my lifetime. And if wind turbines don’t kill property values, why does Denmark, home of Vestas, compensate homeowners as a matter of law? http://www.ens.dk/en-us/supply/renewable-energy/windpower/onshore-wind-power/loss-of-value-to-real-property/sider/forside.aspx

The American Wind Energy Association, their lobbyists and PR people are not going to let the Japan nuclear disaster go to waste. Their talking points that Japan proves the need for wind and that wind is the solution have been faxed out, and Liz Argo is leading the charge. The moment the earthquake hit the news I knew this would happen. Ms. Argo, wind is not the answer. And there are new technologies coming to market that may be the answer. Investing in wind is a waste of money, unless you want Massachusetts to be a banana republic as far as energy goes. You need to read this, “Don’t count on constant electricity under renewable energy, says UK electricity CEO:: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/03/05/lawrence-solomon-don’t-count-on-constant-electricity-under-renewable-energy-says-uk-electricity-ceo/
This is what we are in for with your insane drive for wind power.

I thank the writer for the real estate plug… and wonder how he/she thinks living near a loud, vibrating 400 foot turbine helps my business?… And in this day and age… why be anonymous? Can’t you stand behind your opinion? Again, I am Annie Hart Cool, and yes I am a successful realtor on Cape Cod and I would love to know how I would gain financially from living in hell under the blades of this turbine… would love to be enlightened!

Liz, this is ridiculous. You make the assumption that stall-regulated machines are no longer used. They are. And perhaps the majority of people in Falmouth like the turbines – if so, that’s because they don’t live near them!!! Geez Louise, you admitted yourself in just the last broadcast that the people in Falmouth who live near the turbines have a valid complaint:
“Meeting with those people quite honestly blew our minds,” Argo said. “We had expected that they would be kind of wacky. And we would be able to dismiss them. And none of us will dismiss their complaints now.”

And yet, here you write, dismissing them again. Not only are there dangers to people, but what about the wildlife? Bats’ lungs rupture from the pressure of turbines and birds flee the area because they can’t hear themselves and thus can’t find a mate. If people can’t live near them, why would an animal stay?

If a 7-ton turbine blade can’t take a couple of years in a cozy warehouse, why would we expect it to survive 15 years of New England weather? Outside, no less.

Fear-mongering is to be expected from someone who can’t win a debate any other way. We are looking out for our peace of mind and the sanctuary we expect to find at our homes and you bring up nuclear disaster caused by a tsunami caused by an earthquake on the other side of the world. Please, I’m begging you, STOP.

Anonymous: although the article above mentions Ms. Argo is a wind energy “consultant”, it likewise does not disclose that she has been paid to do “community outreach” by CVEC in connection with the Harwich wind project last year and the ongoing Brewster project. There’s nothing wrong with that per se, but if we’re going to demand full disclosure we should at least be consistent.

Incidentally, this information used to be available on the CVEC website, but they have apparently removed all mention of their 2011 meeting minutes and posted press releases in their place. That’s too bad, in my opinion, because it gives the impression that they don’t want anyone to know what’s going on behind the scenes.