[ exact phrase in "" • ~10 sec • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]

LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Is wind farm designed to fail?  

Credit:  New Richmond News, www.newrichmond-news.com 16 March 2012 ~~

Jay Mundinger, spokesperson for Highland Wind Farm LLC said: “[It is] time for cooler heads, rational decision making and a complete understanding of the benefits of a project like this.“ “It is time to …rationally discuss the benefits of the Highland Wind Farm.”

I agree. Cooler heads … rationally discuss … let’s.

Mr. Mundinger says, “Leaving aside the larger social, environmental and health benefits…”

Mr. Mundinger is very focused on the “benefits.”

Why then is the Highland Wind Farm designed to fail in delivering these benefits.

Like Mr. Mundinger, I am going to dismiss the absurd concern by residents about wind turbines sited too close to people and their properties. My concern is about wind turbines sited too close to other wind turbines.

A car following a semi down the freeway can experience drafting or turbulent buffeting depending on the relation between the truck, car and the wind. While a turbine downwind from another turbine doesn’t experience “drafting,” it would experience a buffeting turbulence that would interfere with its ability to efficiently produce electricity. Conventional wisdom says that turbines should be sited seven rotor diameters from each other.

I’ll grant that turbines lined up in a row and perpendicular to the wind can be sited closer. But the wind from season to season varies in directionality and perpendicularity cannot be assured. In the case of the Highland Wind Farm, these turbines are not lined up in rows and zigzag throughout the township. These turbines should at a minimum follow the conventional wisdom of seven rotor diameters distance.

Less than half of the proposed Highland wind turbines are sited more than seven rotors distance from each other. Twenty percent of Highland’s proposed turbines are less than five rotor diameters distance from each other.

As I stated, the seven rotor distance is only conventional wisdom. Researchers at John Hopkins and researchers at the California Institute of Technology both suggest that the distance should be doubled. Only one turbine in Forest meets that standard.

Perhaps Emerging Energies can explain why they have designed a farm to fail in delivering promised benefits. Perhaps Mr. Mundinger can explain why he is unconcerned with losing the benefits promised by these turbines.

John Buckner

New Haven resident across the line from Forest

(In full disclosure: member of the New Haven Planning Commission)

Source:  New Richmond News, www.newrichmond-news.com 16 March 2012

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter