To the Editor

A few questions and comments concerning wind turbines:

1) Are our Berkshire ridge-lines suitable for wind turbines? Everyone seems to assume, because wind developers are targeting our ridge-lines, that these are viable places for wind turbines. Let’s look at that. Anyone who has lived in the Berkshires knows how fickle our winds blow. Mostly they blow in the winter months when the demand for electricity is lowest, and hardly at all in the hot summer months when the demand for electricity is highest. But beyond that, we must look at the science. Wind is rated by classes: Class 1 the lowest, class 7 the highest. Each class is a multiple of the previous class. That means the efficiency of wind from one class to another, laid out in a graph, is not a straight line but rather a steep curve, increasing sharply as you approach the higher classes. Mr. Quinlan, the wind scientist from the University of Massachusetts, hinted at this in his remarks at the Wind Energy Reform Act forum in Pittsfield, MA on October, 19th. “A little increase in wind makes a big difference.” According to the Massachusetts Wind Resource map our Berkshire ridge-lines are generally rated from class 3 to class 4. In comparison, off-shore wind classes generally range from class 5 to class 7. With a barely marginal class 4 wind on our ridge-lines why are we considering a plan that is not wholly supported by science? Certainly, if we must use wind to generate electricity the logical thing is to put the turbines where there is wind. I understand the drawbacks of ocean sites but the increase in output is enormous. Do the math!  (Other countries use ocean sites.)

2) Is there a real need for more electrical generation? The spin on the urgency to build more generating facilities is simply astonishing. It reminds me of a story when I was a child: Chicken Little, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling.” The reality is some of the electricity now being generated in MA is not being used in MA. It is being piped to other states. And too, we waste a significant amount of the electricity we do generate, through poor transmission lines, inefficient lighting and home appliances, poor building structures and building codes, and lack of conservation. Shouldn’t we focus more on these very real and solvable issues before we promote a feel-good solution that in actuality will enable these inefficiencies to continue? Doesn’t it make sense to plug the holes before we add more generation? And, unlike wind turbines, wouldn’t a dedicated plan to plug those holes create much needed long term jobs in the process?

3) Is wind a good source of energy for commercial electricity?  Most people assume that commercial electricity is stored somewhere waiting to be used. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the energy source that is stored, not the electricity. Therein lies the crux. Think about that. Wind energy cannot be stored, nor can commercial electricity. Now consider this; electricity is bid-on and sold 24 hours before it is needed. Generation and distribution must be produced on demand; otherwise there are blackouts, brownouts, and huge fines. Obviously, wind is not available on demand. It is unpredictable, intermittent, and unreliable...(and nowhere in Massachusetts more so than on our Berkshire ridges).  And because of these drawbacks there must always be standby generation from other sources to compensate for interruptions and surges. These standby sources are usually selected from the most polluting because they are the cheapest. So, until there is a viable way to store the electricity wind turbines generate, wind is absolutely the most inefficient and inappropriate way to produce commercial electricity.

4) How big are these things, and do we really know their effects on wildlife? Studies of potential wind development onshore show up to 3386 industrial turbines throughout Massachusetts: 2474 on state land, 912 on private land. The turbines range from 380 feet to 500 feet from base to blade tip. Each single turbine location uses approximately 5 acres of land. And this has to be clear-cut and blasted of ledge to level for the base. Because of their height and location they must be lighted 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Now for comparison, Greylock tower is 93 feet tall...and certain times of the year is unlighted because of potential migrating bird and bat mortality. We can only imagine the effects of not one, but scores of these gigantic, whirling, flashing wind turbines, lined up along our Berkshire ridge-lines, attracting and destroying anything and everything that comes in their path. The picture is not pretty. To locate and service these huge turbines long and extremely wide roads must be built, often on steep slopes and across brooks holding the last specimens of native trout. Silting and erosion are very real problems.      

5) Can the wind industry be trusted? The wind industry has tricked its way into the proponents hearts and minds with untruths. They proclaim their turbines will produce multi-megawatts of much needed electricity, enough to supply the needs of thousands of homes, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help clean up the environment. The spin sounds great, and it is tempting to buy into it. But the spin is not the truth. In fact, getting useful information from the wind developers, such as output at different wind classes, annual useable electricity produced, and subsidies and costs associated with that production is next to impossible. Economics and real numbers are rarely discussed. Wind turbines on our Berkshire Hills are not about protecting the environment, local or global...or about reducing our dependence on foreign oil...or even about electricity. It is all about money. Lots of money. With the hundreds of millions of dollars in grants, tax incentives, and saleable renewable energy certificates (RECs) this will be the greatest transfer of wealth from the taxpayers and rate-payers of Massachusetts to the pockets of foreign developers in the history of this Commonwealth.

6) Is the trade-off to our quality of life worth it? Wind turbines on our Berkshire Hills will take up huge tracts of pristine land for very little energy produced.  “Keep Out” signs will be posted, many of them prohibiting us from our beloved hiking trails and wildlife viewing areas. We will face flickering strobe lights, and the whoosh, whoosh of revolving blades, day and night. All told, they will destroy our scenic views, despoil what defines our Berkshires as beautiful, diminish our quality of life, endanger the ecosystems of our most sensitive areas, kill migrating birds and bats, reduce property values, enable existing polluters to continue polluting, and distract from real solutions to our energy problems.

7) Is there a better way? With increased efficiency and reduced costs of solar energy on the horizon, new energy science in fuel cells, more awareness and conformity of conservation techniques, and green building mandates for all new structures, wind generated electricity will soon be reduced to just another big bad idea. Let’s hope sooner than later.

8) Closing thoughts: Before we leave a legacy of needless environmental ruination primarily for the gain of developer’s dollars let’s protect now what is priceless. What we need is not “wind energy siting reforms” that will inevitably allow industrial turbines on our precious ridges. What we need is an independent science initiative to determine best practices for energy conservation, energy efficiency, and realistic alternative energy sources. We need wisdom and patience, and not feel-good solutions influenced by “Chicken Little, and the sky is falling”.    

Respectfully yours,

J.T.
Adams, MA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~