Category Archives: Website Comments

Contact Us comments from others

COMMENTS: David Webber – West Virginia – Beware of Road Damage!

David Webber’s  Initial Comment began Sept 25 2014 with new items added as received…

Sept 25 2014

To SFS:   These wind developers use every trick in the book. In WV they even rolled out a fake professor to testify at a hearing on wildlife impacts.

Their goal is to break ground and start construction – nothing can stop them at that point.

I have the photos of the construction damage; they ignore rules on running heavy equipment on roads. See what happens to the road surface when the heavy equipment transporters and more run across them. Webber-Road Damage WV Turbines 01

And of course – in this case – the turbines are shipped from Spain – so much for global warming benefits – all that carbon footprint!

Hope this is helpful.  (rest of photos are on this website under WIND NEWS USA – West Virginia)

…………….then later in October David wrote:

Somerset has no idea of the hell coming their way. And these farmers are naive and being duped. I strongly recommend a visit to Keyser WV – to see what these contraptions mean. Also notice in the Mt Storm development – cost $300M – $180M was a loan provided by Venezuela – who is making all the money from the project.  Since WV is very Republican it is extremely ironic that this US government funding is subsidizing a socialist country! Finding out who is underwriting the Somerset project, what the loan terms are, absolutely critical. Next the turbines. Where are they being made, Canada, or Spain? Last but not least – the construction project is going to wreck your road network as happened at Mt Storm.  The WV State (yes!) then picked up the tab for resurfacing the entire 8 mile section that provides site access.

http://windpowertalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/nedpower-destroys-5-miles-of-state-road.html

So much for tax revenue. Hope this helps you push back against these useless contraptions.

………………………..Comment from Traci Schneider…

I still cannot believe that our county is even considering this….after everything they have heard and the noise that will be created not to mention the aesthetics of our beautiful county.  Very sad.

………..David’s Reply:

That’s not the way any of this works in the US.      Corporations trump people.    These committees are there to assist companies to do business, provide jobs and pay taxes creating revenues for the bureaucracy to survive.

You are the inconvenient problem that has to be overcome with your complaints and concerns.

Look at the recent Ohio river spill and the toxic lake blooms polluting tap water.  If companies thought there would be severe repercussions they would not do these things in the first place.

October 2, 2014          

Subject: RE: Ice throw and noise abatement – Story on WBOC Ch 16 News

From: Mark Simmons   To David Webber:         Here’s the link to the story:

http://www.wboc.com/story/26690737/turbine-noise-level-and-height-being-debated

Pretty much what was in the paper.  Might be a good place to add comments. Please do so.

From David to Mark Simmons:

That is insightful.  400′ does limit them to smaller turbines. For offshore they are now installing 650′ devices.  Basically the physics says the bigger the better in terms of wind use efficiency.

Interesting that they feel the 40 decibels is hard to comply with — that argues for larger setbacks of course.

David also says…

We did not get much love for the ice throw issue in WV case – they can put up plenty of counter points.

However noise abatement is self evident – there are plenty of YouTube videos showing what the noise of these devices is standing 100 feet and 300 feet from one. I would strongly recommend a field trip too. There is nothing like seeing one up close and personal for the first time.  These devices are massive industrial machines, not some cute toy in your cereal box.  The blade tip is travelling hundred plus miles an hour and the blade weighs 3 tons.  See the link below…

http://www.aweo.org/faq.html

Then imagine that it is a still night and you are down wind – so that noise gets carried.

This is not hard for people to grasp. Clearly you would not want your property that close.

………………..David on SFS E-Mail concerning the First Draft by P & Z……

Subject: RE: First Draft of Wind Ordinance produced 9-30-14 from Planning and Zoning

OK – those setback distances are laughably too small. Especially for residencies and county maintained roads.

Are they SERIOUSLY considering putting devices THAT CLOSE to existing homes and roads? Not to mention impacted wildlife.

I would say setback distances need to be at least triple their 1,000 feet – so 1,000 yards – and also no smaller offsets for state and county roads and property lines or residences.

The $5,000 dollar deposit for road consultants time is also derisory. What does that buy – 2 people for a week? This hamstrings any actual review of road needs and use. $50,000 seems a better number.

The penalties for non-compliance seem light. $1,000 per day – if they are facing a $5M bill to repair roads is a cost they may decide to just eat instead!  Better to tie the penalty to the amount – so minimum of $1,000 and up to 1% of total cost involved.

Each turbine will need those strobe lights. Do not underestimate the effect of this lighting. It will be visible for miles at night and impact night sky scenes and vistas.

Also – may be a good idea to have them publicly release their SCADA reports on the actual energy generation annually. These are produced 24×7 by the turbines and log the wind, performance and outages. That way public will see precisely how these machines are delivering.

Further point – funding sources. You want them to disclose who the backers are and financiers. Otherwise people may be very surprised who is benefiting from the profits.

Another point of interest is the ramp up, ramp down electrical equipment to cover over to the turbines, and then back off again – as the wind fluctuates. Its not like a on/off switch – they need to install that to connect themselves to the grid. Make sure they are covering that cost – and then who is controlling the process of bringing them online on a daily basis – the local power company needs that control.

……………………………….from Ryan Taylor to SFS Members about David’s remarks:

David makes some excellent points here!  Sadly, after watching this ordinance develop through the P&Z meetings, it has become painfully clear to me that our county representatives have zero interest in protecting the citizens of our county.  Much of the discussion was for show.  For example, the P&Z members said they were concerned about noise, but then made no move at all to actually make effective setbacks.

The second thing that really concerns me about this is how the ordinance was developed.  We have been told that we cannot comment unless specifically called upon.  Yet Paul Harris has freely interjected throughout and has in fact helped to steer their conversations.  A couple of us spoke up about this during the meetings (I even sent Gary Pusey and email regarding this), but it hasn’t seemed to matter.  I think an important point we need to make is that this makes the ordinance invalid.  If the P&Z have violated their own rules, and allowed the developer to influence the ordinance, then it is an invalid ordinance.

Just another point regarding David’s suggestion of setbacks.

German turbine manufacturer Retexo recommends a 2 km setback (6600′)  See link below:

http://www.retexo.de/english/wind/seite5a.htm

 Likewise, Paul Harris has said many times that we should rely on physics to determine safe setbacks for ice throws.  Well, here they are in this link to a document  from a physicist at Rutgers University.  He calculated a 1,700′ ice throw distance and specifically points out where the wind developers use flawed numbers to obtain lower setback distances!

END — TB Continued as more comments arrive from David Webber…. 11/30/2014  EJM

WEBSITE COMMENT: From Joanne Levesque, Massachusetts

From:   Joanne Levesque, Massachusetts                 Nov 6, 2014

Comment:

Hi there… I have been advocating for residents here in Massachusetts that have been adversely impacted by operational wind turbines that were sited “too close” to their homes/properties. You have on your site some strobe effect (aka shadow flicker) videos from Kingston, Massachusetts that provide a sense of the “nuisance conditions” created by the strobing impacts. I would like you also to know that the acoustic (noise) impacts have proven far more damaging given that the noise is continual year-round, where as the strobe effect of the shadow flicker lasts for approximately 8 weeks in the fall and then again in the spring.

Perhaps your group would benefit from understanding the noise issue timeline in Kingston – from the neighbors’ complaints which began upon operation back in May of 2012, to the stonewalling by state and local officials as to the acoustic testing process, to the hiring of a wind industry acoustical consultant who used their professional skills to NOT document the worst case noise conditions, to the all important release of “preliminary results” (no final report has yet been issued in spite of the data being collected in Dec Jan Feb and March of 2014).

They have delayed delayed delayed public release of the data they collected under conditions that do not produce the worst noise conditions … meaning when the turbine was producing full, or near to full, power.

This is the industry trick you see … investigate complaints by limiting test protocols to NOT collect the evidence that will prove the noise impacts to be far greater than ever predicted in the pre-construction reports (also compiled of course by wind industry consultants).

These acoustical reports for projects here in Massachusetts have proven over and over again to have been riddled with errors, omissions and misrepresentation of facts and therefore have understated community noise impacts! What you may be interested in are the preliminary results that were released that prove that the Independence Wind Turbine, a 2MW – 402.5 in height, with the closest homes at 600 ft and complaints ranging at much further distances (audible noise tested only… NO LFN (low frequency noise) or infrasound testing) – has proven via testing to, on one test event, produce noise levels 15dB(A) above the background ambient (L90).  This increase is using the slow meter method. Had the consultant used the fast meter which better evaluates the impulsive nature of the noise emitted by the turbine, the increase likely would have been several dB(A)s higher from what I am told. The pre-construction report for the Independence wind turbine –  the report the approval was based on – stated that the highest increase in sound would be no more than 7dB(A) above the ambient background defined as the L90.  The single test event released so far proves that the reality is at least 15dB(A) increase!

As a result of this single test result, the turbine, by order of the Board of Health has an “Abatement Order” that requires a shut down in certain conditions that were evident during the test event. This of course is not at all sufficient and the proof of that was this past weekend’s weather – a strong several day long ENE NE wind/storm which was never tested. So therefore since no proof of excessive noise was documented, the challenged town officials – who have at every move protected where they could the turbine operations for fear of the developer taking legal action against the town – have stonewalled doing the right thing for the residents who continue to suffer from the excessive and invasive noise impacts.

So much to tell since May of 2012 – not much of it good. Local officials were snookered with false assurances of “no harm” and now find themselves in a legal vice…state officials have been working at the behest of our current governor and it is his wind platform that ignorantly pushed through an aggressive agenda without knowing or caring of the impacts to residents of this state who live to close to these projects.

Suffice it to say in Massachusetts, there are at least 21 communities with residents in distress – residents who have had their private property rights trampled on as a result of a careless renewable agenda driven mostly by greed, not a desire to improve the lives of Massachusetts citizens. The residents I have advocated for in Kingston live approximately 980′ from this 2MW turbine – WAY TOO CLOSE – and watching them beg for over 2 years for relief, has been the most frustrating experience of my life.

The conditions are obvious to anyone, but the legal ramifications once these monsters are placed so negligently close to human habitation is a crime in my view and surely the notion that “some must sacrifice” for the greater good is in direct violation of the laws we have on the books:  Nuisance Laws, Trespass Laws and constitutionally protected Private Property rights continue to be violated.

In addition,  the needed testing and investigation for the insidious LFN and infra-sound impacts has been ignored by state agencies typically very protective of human health and well-being which only compounds the problems the neighbors are experiencing. If you need any backup from the Massachusetts experience – proven facts via acoustical testing in Kingston, Falmouth, Fairhaven or elsewhere do let me know.

Of course the most exciting news comes out of Brown County, Wisconsin as a result of the testing performed inside homes for LFN and infra-sound – those efforts have been rejected here in Massachusetts by our corrupt administration and their enablers.

Best wishes – and any developer that tells you there is no sound basis for concerns is outright denying the evidence that is slowly being collected elsewhere.
Joanne Levesque,  Massachusetts

COMMENTS from the Safe For Somerset Website

Comment: From a Concerned Resident of Somerset Co Who Opposes These Turbines:

I’m surprised NO ONE has brought the guns to bear on the fact the ‘good ole boy’ system has without compunction eliminated a woman who has put her life into the process to STOP the travesty of the sullying of the pristine condition of the skyline of Somerset Co. I’m referring to Tammy Truitt. Because she had become such a strong opponent they took the opportunity to smear her name and eject her from an office that at any other time they would have to beg for members to serve. Now, I’m taking this minute to let you guys know that Commissoner Charles Fisher has a horse in the upcoming election. He is 100% FOR the turbines and his son-in-law (Ronnie Howard) is running for Sheriff against Rick Taylor. Fisher is one of the factors in Tammy NOT being re-appointed to the Planning and Zoning board. He acts behind the scenes and dissavows having any part in it. This is a lie and the Safe for Somerset group should be against Howard for Sheriff to show Fisher how the mob politics in the County can backfire. Continue reading