@Bill Carson

Please stop copying and pasting your old arguments, they're difficult to follow the first time. And you're not even a stakeholder.

Your repetition is jeopardizing your credibility

Beware of what your not being told and what's left out of public discussion and why they went to "executive session". Any wind turbine contractor today wants to put up a much larger wind turbine . A 3 megawatt turbine twice the size of the current turbine and 60 feet higher with larger blades is not out of the question. The larger the turbine the more shadow flicker ,noise, ice throw and danger to the town water tank .

Repairing the turbine at a million dollars could happen again in another three years . The turbine is a poor design .It's a 1.5 Megawatt turbine built on the specifications of a 1.65 Furlander wind turbine with blades that are 7 feet to long. No contractor in the world would repair this turbine it's too far gone.

The taxpayers have to look down the road for what the legal expenses are for the town for shadow flicker,noise illnesses ,ice throw and property devaluations .The public is much more aware of commercial wind turbines and residential property rights ,
http://www.windaction.org/news/37519

Cape Cod community considers taking down wind turbines after illness, noise

Hey Bill,

If you want to bolster your arguement, then don't post information from "quack" Doctors.
http://checksandbalancesproject.org/2011/06/10/nina-pierpont/

Cape Cod community considers taking down wind turbines after illness, noise”
—Molly Line, FoxNews.com (2/26/13)

Two wind turbines towering above the Cape Cod community of Falmouth, Mass., were intended to produce green energy and savings — but they’ve created angst and division, and may now be removed at a high cost as neighbors complain of noise and illness.

“It gets to be jet-engine loud,” said Falmouth resident Neil Andersen. He and his wife Betsy live just a quarter mile from one of the turbines. They say the impact on their health has been devastating. They’re suffering headaches, dizziness and sleep deprivation and often seek to escape the property where they’ve lived for more than 20 years.

“Every time the blade has a downward motion it gives off a tremendous energy, gives off a pulse,” said Andersen. “And that pulse, it gets into your tubular organs, chest cavity, mimics a heartbeat, gives you headaches. It’s extremely disturbing and it gets to the point where you have to leave.”

http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2013/wind-turbines-coming-down-timber-falmouth-ma/?var=cna

I guess you missed the part about the town wide referendum which voted in favor of the turbine, right?

The Portsmouth Town Council did NOT approve the turbine project. The town voters DID.

Correct OT. Facts are crazy like that John.

The people voted on the information the Portsmouth Town Council gave them had the council presented an accurate picture to the people this referendum would not have passed.

Robert E,
Do you always base your votes on one source of information? Try looking up the definition of "Low Information Voter". I am pretty sure you will a picture of yourself.

Hey Bill,
Still on the Koch Brothers payroll?????

That's pretty funny Bill,
6 months ago you were on this site telling us how Portsmouth should have bought a Direct Drive turbine. Now your telling us that they are an "experiment". Can you make up your mind already? Call the Koch Bros. and see what they want you to say.

Albert,
I can see that you know how to write, my question is this: Do you know how to read?

You might want to take a look at the independent consultants report on the Turbine failure before you start calling someone an idiot.

And you Bill are nothing more than a mouthpiece for a Koch funded anti-wind website.

You consistently post innuendo, lies, half-truths, and in many cases, self-fabricated "facts". You use of Dr. Nina Pierpont's "research" as a warning although it has been resoundly discredited by every major scientific body in the world.

I think it's time you got some new sources Bill, yours are at best, frayed.

Did the town vote on it or not?

I'm pretty sure Jim Seveney was not standing next to me when I cast my vote.

I am also sure that anyone who considers themselves a voter should at the very least, explore the issues before casting a vote.

Ok Old Townie, the town voted, lets admit it is a mistake and move on. It is a piece of junk and a money pit.

Check out the Channel 6 news tonight big story about noise testing in Fairhaven

Massachusetts
FAIRHAVEN WIND TURBINES A POWER PLAY A MARK CURTIS INVESTIGATION TONIGHT ON ABC6 NEWS AT ELEVEN 2/27/2013

http://www.abc6.com/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ilYwTklA24

The Town of Portsmouth never voted for this wind turbine! The PEDC Sustainable Energy Subcommittee mailed out a wind power survey to gather the opinions of citizens. The problem is they were mailed to a number of "specific residents" and a few random samples of residents.

The PEDC reported the results to the Town Council. Who picked the "specific residents" and who what and why did the PEDC select the "specific residents" ?

After this half baked process a vote was taken on a bond to buy the turbine based on the town having a revenue stream for twenty years ! The result a catastrophic failure !!!

http://www.portsmouthrienergy.com/windpower.htm

Well Lou,
I beg to differ. I have read all the research done by the PEDC, as well as all the information presented to the town council. They acted on the information that was available. Period. Prices did drop, and the turbine still made money. Look it up. As to the mechanical issue, read the consultants report. Do I think I was wrong with my vote? No. Not even remotely.

You want someone to complain about. Ok, about 63% of the town voted for the turbine. Blame all of us.

BTW Lou....You do know that Canario not Seveney was council president then right?

I too attended the meetings. I was there the night that Gary Gump, when pressed on warranty and repair costs, stated "the wind powers it. What can go wrong?" We now know exactly what can go wrong. And how much it can cost. This is a perfect example of how something can go very wrong if the cons of a project are not looked into as diligently as the pros.

The residents only get select affirmative information about the wind turbine. There has been no public out reach in the last six months. The town put out two Request for Proposals in August and December of 2012 for private wind turbine contractors. At least two major companies replied to those proposals. Isn't this what happened to first time ?

Posters say the town voted for the turbine.That's not the truth ! Here is how they got around the vote: The PEDC Sustainable Energy Subcommittee mailed out a wind power survey to gather the opinions of citizens. The problem is they were mailed to a number of "specific residents" and a few random samples of residents.
The PEDC reported the results to the Town Council. You have got to ask: Who picked the "specific residents" and who what and why did the PEDC select the "specific residents" ? Once the surveys were returned the PEDC presented the results of the survey to the Portsmouth Town Council to put the "wind turbine bond issue" out for a vote.

The only thing the voters ever voted on was the bond -never the wind turbine. This is how elections are conducted in third world nations. http://www.portsmouthrienergy.com/windpower.htm

The Bad news is you've been misled ! See page 19 of the Don Roberts Gear Box investigation. The amounts are in the red at the bottom of the page . If a new gear box was to last ten years the negative cost to run the turbine is $401,290.00 per year for ten years. If the new gear box lasts only three years the negative cost is $516,137.00 per year for three years. In other words the project can't even break even knowing that in another three to five years you'll have to replace all these parts again.
http://www.portsmouthri.com/documents/Turbine_Gearbox.pdf

The large tube or shaft that holds the turbine up actually can't be reused .It wears structurally like everything.
The parts including the blades can't go into a land fill .You and others in town have been totally misled about the method of taking down commercial wind turbines .
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/print-edition/2011/09/23/wind-power-companies-lack-strategies.html?page=all

I agree chop it up.1.)The best bet for the turbine is the “nuclear option" that was talked about at the meeting. Sell the turbine for junk and pay off the bond.

2.)A new turbine would be much larger than the existing 1.5 Megawatt turbine narcel. They don't make 1.5 Megawatt turbines any longer.

3.) The current turbine is poorly sited to residential homes,highway, power lines ,town water tank and the high school property.

4.) The best bet now is go door to door to all the residential homes within 2000 feet of the current turbine and form a citizens group as fast as you can. The public needs to be aware of the dangers of poor wind turbine siting

Lets do it!!!

I agree, the premise was good and noble, but we were sold a piece of junk and now most of the risks were realized and now we're left with a turbine statue.
The experts stated that after fixing/replacing the unit, it will never generate positive revenue., so it is fiscally irresponsible to invest any more money in this project.

I'm no longer interested in who voted for what, nor what decisions were made that got us to where we are today unless the TC decides to repair/replace. Then every taxpayer should have full access to the closed session minutes and there should be a public hearing at the HS gym.

Hey John,
Before you call someone a dummy, learn to spell "scrap".

Educate yourselves ! You have a wind turbine that is a total wreck just like an automobile. You lost 3 million on the turbine and you still owe 2.3 million on the turbine. Now the town administration wants to do one of two things :

A.) Spend up to 1.5 million repairing the turbine and it will break down again in another three to five years .

B.) Go into business with a private contractor that could go bankrupt just like the first wind turbine company ,hire an outside maintenance company just like the last time and buy a maintenance contract that costs three times the cost of the first one.

Where's the beef ? Ask the Town Planner and the Town Manager how do you make money on the turbine ? Let's put it this way every business has a "business plan" ! The town can't justify operating a commercial wind turbine .That's why they went into "executive session " .

Every day more evidence shows why Portsmouth's obsession with wind turbines is one of the greatest political blunders in Rhode Island.

The Town of Portsmouth is on its second colossal and very dangerous act of self-deception

Your being told the voters voted for the turbine .The method used to get the turbine was total back door tactics. Here is the game plan :
First- the PEDC put a survey to specific residents in town and a few sample people . The results come back to the PEDC and they take the survey results to the town council which they show the people in town want a commercial wind turbine -no vote was ever taken at this point !
Second : The Portsmouth Town Council votes for a commercial wind turbine if the voters vote for the bond to pay for the wind turbine. The PEDC and the town council at that time paint a rosey picture of the zero percent bond , renewable energy credits and how the town will become the Emerald City .

The voters only voted on the bond -never actually for the turbine ! Now you have a turbine too close to the water tank ,residential homes ,high school ,highway and power lines - On the PEDC website there are thanks to the people who they thanked to get the project done - they even had a semi quasi state agency from Massachusetts help them line up the method to get the turbine installed .

It's a fact that if Portsmouth had voted for the turbine project first before voting for a bond the project would never have happened . This was supposed to be a renewable energy project. The PEDC went head first into commercial wind .I don't know why they didn't just call it the Portsmouth Wind Turbine Project !

"It's a fact that if Portsmouth had voted for the turbine project first before voting for a bond the project would never have happened ."

Bill Carson - What facts do you have to prove that?

A major issue facing the town council today is how exactley was the turbine bond issue voted for .The voters never voted for major repairs to the wind turbine. You can't sweep this under the rug . There should have been an up or down vote on the turbine not just the financing .You see that through the PEDC survey the town got the consensus of the town but initially the town never voted for the turbine only a bond to build It :

The vote was for a wind turbine bond - never a vote to build a wind turbine. The PEDC only put out a survey

http://www.portsmouthrienergy.com/lawsregulations.htm

"Q-L-2 - Why do we need a referendum ballot for the turbine project?
A-L-2 - We really don’t need one. The Town has the authority borrow the money for the turbine construction without taking the measure to the ballot box. However, we thought that, even though not required, it would be prudent to get the consensus of the voters before moving on with project construction. This required a lot more work for the Town and the PEDC in that we needed to draft legislation and testify at hearings at the Statehouse to get the authority for a referendum that had funding attached."

Never A Vote For The Wind Turbine ONLY BONDING when did anyone ever actually vote for the turbine ? It's not the same thing ! :

http://www.portsmouthrienergy.com/refballot.htm

WIND POWER BALLOT REFERENDUM - Passes with 60% of the Vote on Nov 6

The voters of Portsmouth approved the referendum question that authorized the Town to obligate up to $3 Million to construct a wind turbine at either the High School and/or Middle School. The Town has secured $2.6 million in zero interest bonds to be used, specifically, for the wind project. The balance of the cost of the turbine (estimated to be $400K for a total $3 million project cost) will be using conventional bonds at market rate or lower cost funding via the State Renewable Energy Fund. We expect that the wind turbine will return over $200K each year when we are paying off the bond (about 12 years) and nearly $500K for the rest of the 20+ year expected life of the turbine.

You heard what they said at the Portsmouth Town Council meeting "This is the most complicated problem that they have ever faced " I think your looking at getting new legislation through the state before you can move forward with any part of this project at all .
TAMORI asked : "What facts do you have to prove that?" The bottom line is when the turbine broke down so didn't a method to repair it broke down because of the special legislation used to get around a responsible way to vote on the turbine .

The voters of Portsmouth voted per Rhode Island Senate Bill S0260 and House Bill H5217 for a bond to purchase a wind turbine and a wind turbine in a single vote. That vote today is still binding. SB S0260 and HB H5217 are the rules under state law that the voters of Portsmouth voted for the turbine .

The question the voters should be asking is how is the town council three years later able to give the turbine to a private contractor and/or how do you go forward fixing the turbine three years later spending a million dollars to repair it ?

The report the other night should have brought up these issues. Since last Oct 23 ,2012 there has been no public out reach over the initial vote ,bond and ownership of the turbine . On top of that there are major questions of who gets the renewable energy credits if the turbine is given to a private contractor .

They should have voted for the turbine first then voted for the bond (two votes) now the finiancial issues are a mess . There are two problems 1 the broken turbine and 2 the financial issues voting for two things at once .

The bottom line is the voting that took place for the turbine was designed for one thing and that was to get the turbine as fast as they could in part because the renewable energy credits are given out over time . Now why should Portsmouth get another set of renewable energy credits if they do more work on the turbine?

It's picture, not pitcher.

John , Sprecial legislation was enacted by the state in 2007 .The voters of Portsmouth voted for two items in one single vote : A wind turbine and up to a 3 million dollar bond.This is a package voted by the voters and special state legislation .How now can the town council and/or the town administrator change anything without going back to the voters or the general assembly ?
http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText07/SenateText07/S0260aa.pdf

2007 -- S 0260 AS AMENDED
=======
LC00753
=======
S T A T E O F R H O D E I S L A N D
IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
JANUARY SESSION, A.D. 2007
____________
A N A C T
AUTHORIZING THE TOWN OF PORTSMOUTH TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS AND/OR NOTES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,000,000 TO FINANCE
THE ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION OF A WIND TURBINE AT PORTSMOUTH
HIGH SCHOOL AND/OR A WIND TURBINE AT PORTSMOUTH MIDDLE SCHOOL
Introduced By: Senator C Levesque
Date Introduced: February 07, 2007
Referred To: Senate Housing & Municipal Government

Ok Thanks I will contact the leaders of the Rhode Island General Assembly to see what the legal status is of the legislation enacted in 2007 and the vote by the voters of Portsmouth to accept the package of a bond and a wind turbine in a single vote '

I probably won't get an answer until late Monday morning. The question is "should this wind turbine proposal given to the Portsmouth Town Council this week go back to the voters and/or the general assembly ?

Thanks good idea

The Town Council only cares about green energy not the green moss in your backyard from sewage .Portsmouth established a 20 year strategy for a commercial wind turbine and left the residents up to their necks in sewage. It's amazing how fast the State of Rhode Island passed legislation in 2007 for a wind turbine (Senate Bill S0260aa). Why not legislation for sewage ?

In 1987 the RI Dept. of Environmental Management (RIDEM) discovered pollution attributed to failing and inadequate septic systems in the TMDL area of Island Park and Portsmouth Park (including Valhalla).Now Portsmouth has a brand new broken commercial wind turbine and the same sewage issues as 1987 !

The cost of wind power in Portsmouth is no longer debatable.The wind turbine investment relied heavily on financial incentives. Today Portsmouth has a broken 3 million dollar wind turbine and a 2.3 million dollar unpaid bond.

Replacing all the light bulbs in municipal buildings with compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) 0r LED lamp light bulbs would have saved more money than that turbine.

Lee,
So you want to spend 60 million? Do you even know what you are talking about?

Yes Old Townie, I belive that our bay is worth that. What if we spent a couple of million on sewers close to the water and then a little while later spent a little more futher up the hill untill we have the whole town hooked up? If you really are who you spuot off to be you should be right with me on this. Old townie, I think you are not part of this town and are somewhere else, test question, what is "Melville 40 years ago"? Lee

I wonder where Old Townie is at, bet it is not in Portsmouth, RI. Same with Naomie.

Old townie, answer the question.

Well...

Sure, be happy to, it was the Defence refuelling station for the Atlantic Destroyer Fleet. Any more questions?

Call your Doctor, you need to have your meds adjusted.

Glem property could be sold here's why :
The March 11,2013 Portsmouth Town Council Meeting has an executive session for "disposition of publicly held property". Under it is says Glen Easement. Do you think they will sell the Glen property to retire the wind turbine bond debt of 2.3 million.

RIGL 42-46-5 (a) (5) Disposition of Publicly Held Property
http://www.portsmouthri.com/Old%20Site%20Files/towndocs/ag-03-11-2013.htm

Wow, the two of you are like "Rocket Scientists". What a great idea. Oh, wait. Except the Glen can't be sold because of the restrictions placed on it by town ordinance. Only by town wide referendum can more than 2 acres be sold. Nice try though, keep the propoganda going, it gets funnier every day.

Bill,
You should really have your reading comprehension checked. Do you know what the word "Easement" means? Try looking it up and share the definition with W.Horan.

Bill,
Are you clueless? Your on here posting your BS and you don't even know what is going on?
I can't help it if you don't pay attention. IF you lived in Portsmouth, you would probably know what this is all about. As a general rule, I don't feel the need to inform residents of another state about what our town is doing. So here is your one exception.
The AILT has offered the town 1Mil for a conservation easement, it is being negotiated, what occurred in executive session was an update on the negotiations. Got it? Pay attention, there is going to be a test later.

Bill,
that's the problem. You don't know, but that does not stop you from posting, does it?

Bill,
Why do you think you speak for the people of Portsmouth? You don't live here.
You really seem to hate Portsmouth, so, my suggestion to you is, "Worry about your own town and we will worry about ours".

The Portsmouth Economic Development Committee (PEDC) Sustainable Energy Initiative recommended buying a brand new 1.65 Megawatt turbine at one half the normal price from a brand new wind turbine company. After years of what was called "Due Diligence" the PEDC convinced the Town Council to float a bond and spend near 3 million dollars to buy the turbine from the bankrupt Canadian wind turbine company AAER.

Many large turbine manufacturers have their own safety setbacks
for ice throw, noise ,shadow flicker and blade throw.AAER had none!

The larger wind companies like Furlander,General Electric and Vestas would never have built a megawatt turbine next the Portsmouth Town Water Tank !

It appears from a review of all the documents on the PEDC website that the town in general was in a rush to buy a wind turbine. The only company that would give them a deal and site the turbine was AAER INC. a wind turbine manufacturer who on the Canadian high risk venture stock exchange TSX was issuing forward looking statements - AKA they were on the verge of bankruptcy while negotiating a contract for the Portsmouth wind turbine.

The town now looks for a private contractor to take over the poor location of the turbine within hundreds of feet of all kinds of legal isues which include power lines,town water tank,residents homes and high school ball field not to mention the highway next door with 40,000 cars going by each day !

Why setbacks to adequately reflect the 1,300-foot guideline advised by the megawatt turbine manufacturer ? Safety number one!

In the Mechanical Operating and Maintenance Manual for many modern megawatt turbines it says:“Do not stay within a radius of 400 m (1,300 ft.) from the turbine unless it is necessary.”

That 1,300 feet is more than three times the total height of the turbine – a significantly greater distance than the pre-existing ordinance set by many local cities and towns and is concerned with safety alone, not taking into consideration the noise, shadow flicker, or visual intrusion issues.

Many modern megawatt turbines manual is a proprietary document that gives general guidance Manufacturers have done site-specific review of Portsmouth and other cities and towns and found them to be an unacceptable location for the large turbines.

Most manufacturers today requires that turbines be situated no closer than 2,500 to an off-site residence, hotel or motel, hospital, day care center, sanitarium, nursing home, municipal building, school or educational building.

THE BOTTOM LINE: THE PORTSMOUTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND THE TOWN COUNCIL AT THAT TIME FAILED THE TAXPAYERS AND FAILED TO DO 'DUE DILIGENCE'

HOW DID HIS HAPPEN ?