| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Is wind farm designed to fail?
Credit: New Richmond News, www.newrichmond-news.com 16 March 2012 ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
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)
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
| Wind Watch relies entirely on User Funding |
 (via Paypal) |
 (via Stripe) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=20769 ]
