I thiink it's telling that you say solar power "has a leg up on turbines". You dismiss wind power because it's 32% effecient but solar is typically only 10-20% efficient. Plus, without sun tracking panels in the North, the angle of incidence reduces power generation even further. The only reasons solar is currently a better choice is that it is not limited to location aside from sun exposure, it is heavily subsidized, and the Chinese have driven down the cost by increasing worldwide supply.

capacity factor equates to 22% to 26% (of rated plate power) in a 6 knot wind speed at ~ 300 feet high (based on annual local wind rose data), Technology is from the 18th century. Bearing / transmission mounting approach mostly 2 point in line is problematic and accounts for about 1/3 failures and ~ 3 replacements in a 15 to 20 year life. Can't economically compete with natural gas energy. OBTW Significant human environmental & health issues including infra sound, flicker et al. USA standards sub par to European codified regulations! IWTG is today an economic failure in Europe! Solar tech today must see an efficiency increase of at least 100% and a cost reduction to compete in the game. The political cult of true believers is in the realm of magical thinking. The USA will be worlds largest energy export in ~ 5 years in spite of aka Obama & the DemRepub cabal.

Not to mention that utility providers such as National Grid are obligated to buy electricity generated by wind power at a higher rate than the same amount of electricity created by coal. This is what drives the cost of electricity up for all users as more wind power moves into an area.

Your measurement of "doing fine" by visual appearance is an interesting methodology for measuring the efficiency of the generators.....

This is the same kind of "scientific method" that proponents of this technology often employ to justify public funding and tax incentives.

Abby made an informed decision as their WTG selection and location. Hence it is in the sweet spot e.g. is approx a ~ give or take 600 KW unit where in contrast the Portsmouth HS IWTG is a plate power of ~ 1.5 mega Watts.or on an annual bases (if it was not failed) a 26% capacity factor. Big difference in the applied physical forces Vs. overall mechanical system employed for 600KW vs a larger 1.5 megawatts..Design approach, materials selection, mfg. quality, site location et al. To days' IWTG & Solar pv technologies Still not as attractive with the advancing energy boom gathering in the USA. We can become the worlds ;largess exporter and have the finical capacity to pay down the 50 years of progressive socialist debt to the FRS banking cabal! This in spite of the corporation of the usa that now occupies our constitutional republics central government. Yes, the energy pay to play back room deals must be starting up down in DC these days! Yes, we can experience disruptive energy markets and or disruptive technologies & finally bloated greedy and incompetent governments sometimes with a nefarious set of agendas, wanting a larger and larger taste of the action.

I know there were Tax incentives. If it keeps these businesses here I welcome it .

I disagree Joe. Consider this, if the viability or the company is dependent on my money, we know subsidies and taxbreaks never stop or the company threatens to leave or pull out of a project if they do.

Business should be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merit, (No Bailouts, no subsidies). Are there situations where a project may need to be subsidized? Yes But this is not one in my opinion.

Hodges Badge is a niche manufacturer and family run so there is no chance that they will move. The Abbey move? I'm not familiar with NorthEast Engineers.

Do you think a wind turbine would have kept MetLife here?

2nd post was in response to your. "what are the ecological impacts of continued drilling/fracking whatever? what are the ecological issues of burning these items?"

To have people keep saying we need to save the planet by wasting all this money on subsidizing this industry when the rest of the world is not doing it to any degree close to what the united States has put into it in curbing polution from our system of energy, make it an excersize in futility to me.

No the grants and subsidises have not stopped and are full blast, with many bills in fed and States to expand them at the cost to taxpayers.

I have no problem with you or private companies doing any of this. Have at it and I comend you for doing it on your own. But if you are getting rebates from power companies, state tax breaks, federal tax breaks etc. It is costing the taxpayers.

Have you ever looked at a telephone or electric bill and seen the extra fees for this stuff?

I also disagree with your assuption that it increases house value. Only if a person wants it like anything in a house. The housing market goes up or down in cycles due to the area it is in, jobs, schools, stores, quality of life etc.

I don't doubt you could get more if the buyer is looking for that, however the age of the system and maintence would also factor in to the price. Would you purchase a house with the solar panels are close to replacement cost, as that would be a lot more to add to cutting the price not increasing it.

Not to mention roofing materials that have only a 20, 25,and 30 year life span, and repair cost are enormous if there is a leak in the roof with these panels there. Yes maybe you have lucked out. But in new england anyway, the weather can be very damaging to anything. Not sure on insurance premiums with those on the roof either, I would think that is a lot. Not sure though ;-}

Think you may be missing my major point, which is the massive solar and wind farms are what are affecting my taxes, and budget cost with fees on my utility bills.

I do not like being forced to subsidize anything gas, coal, oil, solar, wind etc. I believe in free market and individual freedom.

I have looked at this for years and years (since the eary 70's). I still cannot see the viabilty of it ever replacing fossil fuels. Way to many varibles to me anyway ;-}

Considering we are talking about massive use of these technologies and not prive individuals, who also get tax money through incentives, whether bu the State, federal, or the Electric compnay, who give incentives paid for by grants given from the government. Your post is meaningless in that reguard.

If it cannot be domne with out those incentives or subsidies then it is not viable.

Your anology of trash and recycling is moot, since those are mandatory, by laws and regulations. Not to mention your burning issue is not applicable either as that also is regulated with scrubbers etc, that have proven to be enviromentaly safe and reduced the level of contanimants in the enviroment nationwide.

Again if it was viable alternatives, for companies to produce the vast amounts of energy needed, companies would have jumped on this long ago, in reseach and use. Problem was the studies proved it was not only not profitable. Companies depend on investors to expand and must make profit to provide investors with incentive to invest.

Where is the long term for this technology? Looking on the net, it sure does not seem to be working out that way for these companies that are doing it?

I would also add that, if this Country is the one who uses the most of fosil fuels in the world, (thar is debatable when you consider that the population of all of Europe is what it takes to equal are use and therefore the only way to compare it. You will find it is not true.

Also we are better at less population then the rest of the world combined. Since it is estimated that we use 25% of the fosil fuel to power this Country. If the other 75% do not do it like China, India, Russia,Middle East, and all of africa, etc. It is an excercize in futility and a waste of taxpayers money in this COuntry shoveling againt the tide as they say.

If that money should be going anywhere it should be to the current infastructure, repairing and replacing what is already in place.

your second post does not really make any sense.

first post: most of the grants and incentives for individuals have expired. it still makes sense. the chinese are the largest users and producers of solar panels in the world. Solyndra went out of business because the Chinese make a better product cheaper. For $30,000 you can install solar on your home and have power for life, only needing to replace the battery every 15 years. The average yearly heat+electric cost is around 3,000 per year. If you add the cost of switching from an oil or gas furnace to an electric one, you increase the total cost by about $5,000. So, 11 and 2/3 years to recoup the cost, 15 including financing. and you never have to pay for electricity again AND you house value increases by at least the cost of the solar system, probably more.

I agree Dan solar is competitive right now and can be rolled out onto a roof so installation is fairly simple.

There is a company that is now installing solar at no cost and they charge you for the electricity at a lower rate than the utility.

Downtown, there are companies that actually pay you! You sell the excess back to the power company and it offsets your costs and you get a check every month.

Dan post a link to that. Many people would be interested.

let me see if I can find it Downtown. It has been a while since I looked it up. I am a renter, it is not a viable option for me, sadly.

actually, only took a few seconds, here is one. I recommend doing full research before you buy, this is not something you want to jjump into unknowingly

http://solarpowerrocks.com/rhodeisland/

Dan D,
Let me start by saying, I am a big supporter of Green energy. That being said, your information is a little off. Chinese solar panels are not as good as others, far from it. Like most products from China, they are cheaper, but that's about it.

No solar company in the US will offer guarenteed production numbers on Chinese made equipment.

Battery life is nowhere near 15 years, the industry actually shows them being replaced every 7 years. Solar panels also degrade with age losing as much as 20% of their rated output.

And your payback numbers are not regionally adjusted, and appear to be based on tax subsidies that are no longer available.

Also, a $30,000 system would be in the 5 to 6 Kw range, which is not enough to supply the average sized house (using electric heat) and would never include batteries, you can add about $12K for them.

like I said, research it. Everyone I know who has added solar has been extremely happy with it, and most make money from it. Now much, but some. Which is better than paying, in my opinion.

Just remember.....ostrich wonders with their heads in the sand....anything that speaks of progress and a better more efficient way.....they do not comprehend and cannot see more than a few minutes in front of their noses. We would be still in buggies if it were up to them.

I could be mistaken, but that wind turbine in Portsmouth hasn't turned in over a year due to the fact that it has a blown transmission or similar problem that is too expensive to fix.

Can anyone validate this?

The Portsmouth turbine turned it's last, on or about 12 July 2012.

Understood John, I haven't seen that thing spinning for a while now.

Man, did the town get ripped on that install!

Quote: Last July, the town council learned repairing the wind turbine next to Portsmouth High School could cost the town anywhere from $200,000 to $1.5 million.

Looks like a gear box is faulty.

Geez, for that price, I would have thought they would have at least gotten a five year warranty?

When you figure in the cost to replace or fix this lemon, they may see a payback in the year 2195?

Who manufactured this thing?

Portsmouth wind turbine is down and will remain down. The cost associated in fixing that transmission is in excess of $400K. The costs of the bonds to purchase that device are becoming a serious problem for the town - an additional drain on the town's finances. The manufacturer has filed bankruptcy and has gone out of business so another source for these replacement parts will be needed.

Desperately needed?

yeah.....big oil....nuff said

Our European countries? They might beg to differ.

16,696,000 is the Netherlands population, we are at over 300 milion. so by your count we would need about 356,000 windmills to be equal in the population ratio of the Netherlands. Really think that is possible? Do you see the enviromentalist stopping "Cape Wind" or what has happened with Block Island plan?

December 2, 2012
To your Carbon Emmisions, consider this, (The total amounts to more than 2.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide released into the air every second.)

Last year, all the world's nations combined pumped nearly 38.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air .

United States and Germany were the only countries that reduced their carbon dioxide emissions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57556678/carbon-dioxide-emissions-rise-to-2.4-million-pounds-per-second.

Meanwhile another volcano blows its tops and there went the CO2 cuts in an instant along with particulara savings.

The problem with land based in New England it, the weather, unpidictablity of winds, to much they Stop, to little they stop. there are not many area's of land to meet guide lines, for it to be profitably for large wind farms.

Agree on the of shore, the area's around here are just to hard to maintain them ot how they will react to the vicuous wether we suffer from Nor' Easters every year. One hurricane could destroy and entire wind farm, so you run into the backup problem, no battery backup could pick up the slack until they were repaired or repalced. Same actually goes for land based.

This technology is just not there as a viable alternative for mass use in my opinion. Nopt to mention yet again the taxpayers subsidizing so the companies do not have to use their own money.

Henry the state study on wind only shows two or three good places for turbines, Little Compton shore line, a small portion of Ocean Cr in Newport and a bigger but still small area on the Narraganset shore.

And the North Sea is any less hostile?

Old Townie Europe does not get Hurricanes or storms anywhere near as powerfull as we do here on the east coast.

Actually after checking they have only had one so called huricane it was a cat 1 most they get are tropical storms which are the remnnants of our huricanes, from what I found.

Blizards are also very rare in the west coast of EU.

Jack,
You might want to do a little more reseach, the North Sea is notorious for it's violent storms.

Jack I have to agree the North sea is extremely hostile.

Oh I know the north sea is very violent with strorms. I do not deny that. My point is that the east coast of the US is subject to a lot worse than the North sea and does get them every year. None of these system have been through that as of yet, since Cape Wind is the first so far to maybe eventially be built.

Lets face it, hurricanes are very unpredictable as are our No' Easters especially in hte winter for nor' easters.

A computer model can never predict that, and what wrorries me is my tax money being used on a project that to me is no different then studio 38. Might work might not. Sorry to many varibles for me. For clarity I am against subsidizing any green energy, though I would consider it with safe guards of the tax money only.

Jack,
Historically, the North Sea has some of the most violent weather of any stretch of ocean in the world. By far eclipsing the occasional storm we get here.

Then again Old Townie, theirs are in a sea, and most with in 50 miles of land.

Our will be on the open Ocean, with nothing in the way of the Storms we get on the east coast year round off the water. Not to mention the average wind speed on the wind farms there is 24MPH over last 23 years. Don't know what ours is but I suspect it is a lot more than that. Would have to look up the cape wind study, I seem to remember the Block Island study was quite a bit more that that also.

http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/windspeeds.aspx

Not to mention the fact that it would be the company's first project, ever!

I do agree with Henry on the off shore wind farms. The costs of maintaining these windturbines off shore will be far greater than being on the mainland. Wind turbine technology is actually declining in Europe because of the headaches of maintaining them and limited life of the devices. Wind turbines will drive up cost of electricity rates. Deep Water Wind will prove to be a financial disaster in the long run.

Ok Steve,
And what do we do when the NG supply runs out in 30-60 years? And do you really think that the price of NG is going to stay this low? People like you are converting all over the place and that in turn raises demand. Remember what happens when demand goes up? I can tell you this much...the price does not go down.

By the way, most estimates show that the US currently holds about 6% of the worlds NG supply. So what dependency do you think we are reducing?

Well OT, stay with your 4 dollar a gallon oil then, and please show me the data where we run out of NG in 30 to 60 years please.

Thanks

Steve, read the hundreds of articles on the subject:
https://www.google.com/search?q=expected+exhastion+of+natural+gas+supplies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Ok, thanks, and it looks like oil will not last as long as NG right?

So, looks like I made the right decision..... Thanks for the clarification.

The world’s proven oil reserves of 1,383.2 billion barrels will last for only 46 years if oil production and consumption are to remain at current levels, according to BP Statistical Review of World Energy. The world’s natural gas reserves will also last for just 59 years if production is to continue at the 2010 rate.

http://topforeignstocks.com/2011/08/15/how-long-will-the-global-oil-and-natural-gas-reserves-last/

US oil production is rising and by 2017 we will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's top oil producer.

At the same time US oil consumption is dropping fast.

There is a 200 year supply of natural gas right now at current consumption & production rates. Producers are backing off because there is so much natural gas they can't store it all and there are only one or two LNG production facilities in the US so exporting it is a limited answer.

Everyone should switch to gas heat it's a lot more efficient and cheaper. As a country replacing gasoline powered trucks with natural gas powered trucks would really cut into oil consumption here. For trucks the break even point on conversion would be very short and have a huge effect on the market.

Thanks DownTown, my point exactly!

The response to Old Townie - we had that same arguement fed to us that the oil will run out in the near future. We had that line shoved in our faces in the 1970's! They are still pumping oil, and are using new technology to find even more of the stuff. Natural gas discovery is still happening and is abundent! Right now, natural gas is killing the green energy movement - it can't compete without a government subsidy!

They had to wire Block Island for cable tv because that turbine created bad interference for people watching tv.

DT: I don't know if the turbine actually "interfered" with TV signals....But it was a concern and NASA Did provide cable just in case.

John a huge turbine like that would definatly interfere with over the air television analog signals, the magnetic field they put out would make reception almost nil. Not sure on the over air digital, but I would think there would be some problem there also.

if everyone switched to solar on their houses, we would reduce energy consumption by 40% andexcess could be sold back to the power co, reducing it even more. This is a long way off, but it IS feasible, despite the fact that you do not believe in it from an economic standpoint. But, again, you have to look at the big and long term picture. the tech IS there.

Dan D@ I don't believe in it from a subsidized with taxpayers money standpoint.

Private indidviduals and ptivate companies with private investors, no problem at all.

Yeah TransCanada offered Rhode Island power generated from their wind farms in Maine or New Hampshire and the State turned them down in favor of DeepRipoff's pricing. TransCanada offered their power at 11 cents/kwh.

Private money that forces ratepayers to pay rates that high is also no good.

Just what every one needs...The Gov't telling us where we have to buy electric from!

I do not know what, "long term energy alternatives" are in the northeast nor how you build them that would be reliable. The infastructure is the main problem here no doubt. I wonder if all that money they get from the extra taxes and fees that the government and States add on to my bill were mandates for infastructure rather than renewables. If that money for the last few decades was mandated for infastucture repair where would we be on that now? I suspect in a heck of lot better state.

You mean this storm? http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/late-winter-snowstorm-batters-northwest-europe-130312.htm "About 80,000 homes in the north and northwest of France were without power, following snowfalls of up to 60 centimeters (24 inches)."

Aspir7n@ Have to disagree with you again lol.

That is simply not true, even in the Netherlands they lost power for the same reasons we did, downed lines from wind, tree's etc. You can google each country that was effected by the Storm and the storm was not as severe as ours was in anycase.

You have the newest infastructure and yuou still cannot prevent mother natures power.

Posted Dec 21, 2012

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/news/x1353224025/Storm-Power-outages-trees-down-road-closed

To add their storms do not last for 36 or more hours or even close to that like ours do with winds in excess of 50 miles per hour and gust to 70. Plus the fact our Storms we get the wind from one direct and then from the opposite direction which is what reeks the havoc so bad.

Thier storms go immeadiatly on land (breaking them up and lowering severity quickly)and travels east only. Ours stay over the water most times, skimming the coast with wind coming off the water first and then blow out to the water from the back end when it passes, same for hurricanes that do not make land fall, and even they create the same back and forth because eventially they get caught by the jet stream and sent to nothern europe where they are broke down to tropical depressions by the time they reach there.

New England does have the oldest grid and no doubt it has been negleted for some time. But lets face it, these massive off shore wind farms and solar farms on land have never been tested under actual conditions here.

For all we know one hurricane could wipe out cape wind in a matter of and hour. Then we have to go to the backup fosil fuel plants which for that reason can never be fully shut down. I winder how long it would take in that senario to repair the wind farm. Sub stations will allways be a problem as well as Battery backup.

serious jack? i think you got your geography mixed up. your post refers to Holland in Michigan.

Aspir7n, France is in Europe, right? 80,000 is more than "not a single power outage". Go easy on Jack, you have to admit that's kind of funny.

the holland Sentinel, which jack linked to, is from "Holland, Michigan"

:The Holland Sentinel | 54 W 8th Street Holland, MI 49423 :

Finally.

You hold forth on a topic in which you are an undisputed expert.
Now, to harness all that hot air for something useful...

I've worked in the offshore enviroment for many years; and I can tell you based on significant experience, what can go wrong, will go wrong. I just don't see the risk reward ratio for these offshore wind farms as being reasonable.

Well....it seems that whatever can go wrong with the traditional and really dirty energy supply functions.....well it has gone wrong and we are paying for it with our health and other slightly important factors. I find it hard to believe that the impact from dysfunctional green energy systems is any greater than temporary power outage and equipment loss. Acceptable loss comparable to poisoning our host planet.

After you get past the fact, that wind power costs more than twice as much, is much less reliable, and can't come close to metting our needs, it still isn't as green as you think it is. Check out some sites on the mining process for rare earth magnets (a vital component in windmills). Also find out where the largest deposits of rare earth magnets are. I think that you might be surprised at what you find.

Wow joe,
what a startling piece of information. So that's why off-shore won't work, because of the miles of transmission lines. I never would have thought of that since we don't have that problem on land. Oh wait. Yes we do. Since RI's power comes from out of state, they must have some magic way of eliminating the line resistance. Hahahahahaha

Ohm's law ;-} I= V/R

I see a plumbing job somewhere for you....

That about sums it up Mike. Nice Job.

So you do not mind the oil depletion writeoff and other giveaways to our archaic energy systens?

all the other turbines in the state work just fine. there are dozens of them.

you make some interesting assertions, you have proof of them, I am sure?

well, that is great! instead of running out in 60 years, we will run out in 70! awesome. at least my kids will have power their whole lives, even if my grandkids will not.

I just honored Mike by turning my air conditioneer up a couple of degrees. Life can get rough now and then. 73 degrees in here now! Getting humid!

The commercial wind industry prepares small towns with positive reports,news stories and dreams of the Yellow Brick Road. This usually happens prior to wind projects like the re-do that's about to happen in Portsmouth .

Did you know for 1/3 the cost of the original turbine the high school could have installed three wells for a geo-thermal program that would have produced as much as the curent turbine ? Geothermal doesn't need a 150 thousand dollar crane bill when it breaks down !

Geothermal can be done with all local contractors - You've got one or two people in town that have lost site of the renewable energy programs available and have gone "all in " on a gamble with taxpayer funds !

The residents of Portsmouth need to focus on why the Portsmouth EDC only looked at commercial wind and has never looked back - it's not economically feasable - keep banging your heads on the wall ? Why ?

I won't say its a (fad), some day it may7 be viable. However it should succeed or fail on its own merits and with private investment, whether Companies or individuals, with out subsidizes.

This Country needs to get out of the private sector, with these grants, and subsidizes that merely waste taxpayers monies. They are out of hand totally! I have wondered why people who push this green, do not scream about studies like, saving a minnow that cost a million acres of almond farms to shut down and the land reverted to unusable in CA a couple of years ago.

The solar power company that pulled out of a massive generator in NV, because of 400 turtles, that the animal rights people wouldn't even let be relocated.

Cape wind is held up (probably never will happen) by of all people Joe (green guy) Kennedy. Why, because it ruins his family view. Same is going on every where on the East Coast. Again the land does not exist to get the full potential of Solar farms in the northeast, not to mention larger more complex backup's because of the lack of available sun light unlike a desert of sunny south.

The pro green people never want to argue about the cost! Their answer to it is always the same. "If we do not do it now the world will end"! Every event that happens is now caused by Global Warming! In the 70's every event was caused by Global Cooling!

Why you would think only the US can Stop it if true, is beyond me. We live on an ever changing planet of nature.

I dont care about global warming, but somehow you all seem to think we have this never ending supply of fossil fuels. we do not. We cannot. It is ridiculous to think we do.

Dan D@ Didn't say we had a never ending supply.

Obviously we do not. But evolution of technology always finds a way. Just because you have this technology developing now, does not mean others will not come alone, that are much cheaper or more viable.

I think we should be spending a lot more time on the hydrogen power engines to run turbines. We do not seem to be doing that.

I have always been an advocate, that if we are going to require energy companies to add fees and taxes on our electric bill, it should be put into a single fund for reseach only of new technology, not be given to one technology like wind and solar. It makes no sense to ignore the fact that other more economical alternatives can be found.

I dislike it when people say there is no such thing as clean coal for instance. We have never put in the willpower to solve that. Nothing is impossible, it is just unknow until you find it possible.

To say well it is still a fossil fuel and we must stop burning it period is foolish. How do you know it cannot be solved and a way to collect the carbon particles and put them into space for instance. They do have mass correct? There for they can be stored in some way.

Why do we assume all this green tech is the answer and ignore the others. I think I know one reason. We can tax carbon output and dump more money into our pockets. That is what I see happening. Just how is taxing it solving it. It does not.

Nuclear power is one of the most efficient supplies there is. Yet we have not really tried to solve the waste other than burying it.

I always though the Moon project was a good one to dispose of it. But the outcry about it being sent there and the risk to great canceled that plan real quick. So quick in fact it never really got to the the drawing board.

I see this green energy of solar farms and wind farms being stopped all over the Country in the most reliable places they can be placed, by so called activist groups the want to save the planet one day, but not at the expence of animals, or insects etc.

These people think there is some Uptopis it seems. That does not exist. Do we have to try and have balance? Yes of course we do, but not at the expence some percieved Utopis that can never happen except in dreams and movies.

There is no will power in politicians because of loddyist and special interest. Only the taxpayers get screwed in the end and nothing gets done, so it remains status quo. That is the problem with all of this. No viable solutions only division and delays for self interest.

send carbon into space? or the moon? that is... foolish. And hydrogen, another limited supply, we need UNlimited energy, as we have with solar, wind, tidal, geothermal. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed at great expense. Sending it into space is a great idea, unless the rocket crashes and kills millions of people.

Dan D, We have been launching radioactive material and nuclear reactors into space since 1961. Russia has sent up about 30-40 reactors while we have sent up 1. We've sent up about 45 nuclear generators.

Come dan d, Hydrogen is limited lol.

We do have water and air on this planet you know.

So you ignore that we could find a way to safely shoot it out to space and protect it so that it would not be a hazard if it fell back due to a mafunction of the tranport?

Millions of people? Just how does that work? We have been sending tons and tons of things in to space since the 60's. You do know that nuclear waste does not explode right? Most things can be shot in such a way as to control it falling in the ocean at a point where it can be recovered. One way I read about long ago, was the the container carrying the waste can also have control rockets on it so that it could be controled desent should the carry vehicle have a problem.

We produce 3,000 tons of high-level waste each year. You telling me we can't put that on a track to the moon?

Consider this.

What types of propellants are used in the Shuttle? How much do they weigh?
A. At liftoff, an orbiter and External Tank carry 835,958 gallons of the principle liquid propellants: hydrogen, oxygen, hydrazine, monomethylhydrazine, and nitrogen tetroxide. The total weight is 1,607,185 pounds.

DO you still think we cannot figue a way to lauch, 3,000 tons a year of waste safely.

Opps forgot this part.

The Shuttle can also carry a 65,000 payload. Not to mention the private firm of SpaceX is fast approaching to commercial delivery with its own shuttle.

This is what we should be working on in my opinion. France get 80% of its power from Nuclear, no carbon emmisions at all. we have not built a Nuclear plant in decades and the new tech of them is asstounding. But because of enviromentalist we do not even advance this new tech into use. We should be looking at all things for energy and ways to improve them. But the green crowd just wants to scrape everything except their plans. Now that is short sighted and foolish in my opinion.

Jack,
The shuttle? What a great idea. How many of them exploded? Now imagine is you can, 1000 lbs of high level waste being spread out over the 100,000 sq miles that the last shuttle disaster covered. Yeah, sounds safe to me.

You might want to pay closer attention to how may rocket "mishaps" occur per year.

The EU is no success story by far either on Green energy. There have been massive problems with it in grid transmission and cost that have become unsustainable, Read up on Germany and what is happening now with their green plan. Spain had its back broken with it financialy and this Country cannot afford this rush to do something that is just not going to work instantly. This is all a political knee jerk reaction to screaming of the end of humankind. It will not be solved with that kind of thinking.

When ever technology has been rushed under the guise of we need it right now and dam the torpedo's, the people suffer for it. This is no different. Portsmouth is a perfect example in a nut shell and for larger nutshells there are examples all over the world of the problems with this tech in its affect on the peoples way of life due to fiscal problems.

For Germany read some of it here.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/problems-prompt-germany-to-rethink-energy-revolution-a-852815.html

did you miss the shuttle being mothballed? are you posting this from 1985?

Greece has the highest number of commercial wind turbines per person on the planet.They have almost 3000 megawatt turbines. They spent most of the nations capitol on commercial wind in the past ten years .The operation and maintenance issues are taking the country down the tubes. In addition they didn't build any standard plants as the population grew-now they need new power plants .

Bill,
First and foremost, Greece did not spend "most" of their nations capital on turbines, that is hyperbole at best. Greece has had wonderful success with their energy program, and you know it. You never answer real questions, you just spout the smae tired old drivel.

I asked you about the EU, and your answer is Greece? Stop lying, and get a clue.

"The operation and maintenance issues are taking the country down the tubes."
- Bill Carson NIMBY President, NE chapter

I do believe there are other significant problems plaguing Greek finances.

Here we go now Old Townie is going to start using the get a clue and name calling because you can't justify the Portsmouth EDC failure of Due Diligence buying a three million dollar piece of junk on sale at bargain prices !

Commercial wind is a bad deal worldwide -read the news

A Problem With Wind Power A little research, however, reveals that wind power does not in fact live up to the claims made by its advocates [see part I], that its impact on the environment and people's lives is far from benign [see part II], and that with such a poor record and prospect the money spent on it could be much more effectively directed [see part III]. Links to aid the reader's own research are provided throughout this paper as well as at the end [see Links; off-site links will automatically open to a new window or tab]. Click here for an abbreviated version of this paper. Click here for an even briefer version (a handy model for letters). This paper is also available as a 7-page typeset PDF file (156 KB) -- click here.

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

yes, but it has to be reprocessed first, at significant cost.

This is a few years away but its makes for good reading.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512321/safer-nuclear-power-at-half-the-price/

"Transatomic says it can split the difference, building a 500-megawatt power plant that achieves some of the cost savings associated with the smaller reactor designs. It estimates that it can build a plant based on such a reactor for $1.7 billion, roughly half the cost per megawatt of current plants."

"A conventional reactor produces about 20 metric tons of high-level waste a year, and that material needs to be stored for 100,000 years. The 500-megawatt Transatomic reactor will produce only four kilograms of such waste a year, along with 250 kilograms of waste that has to be stored for a few hundred years."

This is even further away here but again interesting reading.

http://www2.technologyreview.com/article/412188/tr10-traveling-wave-reactor/

1985, dan shuttle was retired last year. Not that it had to be either it was still a viable space vehicle. You don't care about the cost of green energy but you do about the cost of recyling spent fuel. You say I do not make sense lol. Come on now dan.

Sad part about that Downtown is that this Current adminstation 2012 money put forth for green energy was around $90 Billion if I remember right. It is a shamefull waste of money putting that much in to a single basket and leaving other projects to collect dust.

I didnt say I didnt care about the cost, but again plutonium is another "life cycle" fuel. wind and solar are unending resources. Reprocessing spent fuel is fine. Recycling is a good thing, but relying on that for our future? no, I think not. Costs not withstanding, we need to prepare for life without fossil or mineral based fuels. A few million for a wind turbine here and there and anywhere which there is wind is much different than the billions needed for a nuke plant which has significant waste and potential for harm. Irradiated water is a significant waste product, in case you did not know. I am in favor of using nuclear plants, but we MUST move towards renewables.

Glad you support Nuclear. However waste can be dealt with, it is a matter of actually going full bore on building them and reseaching to dispose of waste. ( I do not agree with Burying it long term anyway).

To the million here or there. Not true, the placement of wind farms are very tricky and it has to be very specific wind patterns. In mine any many others quest to stop the formation of EBEC, we found that the site in tiverton is not an ideal site after all and that there is very little room at all in RI.

Even the Cape Wind has studies that are not the greatest, do to location, maintence, and un predictability of weather. That is my point. This tecnology is not cut and dry. Well it appears to work well on the west coast it is totaly different evriroment here.

Same problems exist with solar here as massive amount of land is needed and infastucture upgardes are very costly here. I have a problem also with it all being touted as the fix all of energy, it is far from that. Fossil fuels will never be totally stopped, they are going to be needed for backups forever. Technogly of more efficient use and cleaner ways of using them are needed no doubt. But we cannot just quit using them.

Looking back the last couple centuries, I suspect better things will happen way before we run out of any fossil fuel. Look at tech today in electricity use in phones, applances etc. It can be done. Just all at once in everything, not a single green thing only.

The US will never even come close to relying on renewables to replace what we use today and adding electric cars to that equation makes it even more fantasy like.

To replace all the coal fired power plants in the US with wind about 320,000 very large turbines all in great wind areas such as offshore.

I can not see it being logical to throw fossil fuels under the bus in hopes that green will be perfect and solve everything, it will not. The advancement just in the last decade or so in clean use of fossil fuels and nuclear proves it should not just be dumped.

It also bears mentioning that the current research reactor does not yet break even,
either in energy output or cost/earnings. In fact, Bill Gates is urging Congress to invest in research - which is good Socialism.

Why is subsidizing a renewable energy source denigrated by the Yapparatzi, but
this unproven, unwieldy technology is touted as a good place for public funding?

Lobbying.

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/03/07/bill-gates-urges-government-to-spend-more-on-energy-rd/

Just to add, that kind of thinking is what stopped us building reactors when Russia plant which was well known to be a tinker toy compared to ours went south. Yet we let the special interest put fear into the people and let a perfectly good energy supply stop being made. I wonder where we would be now had we continued making plants like France did. Imagine the number of coal and oil fired plants that would have been replaced by now.

If we had done that and worked on the waste problem 40 years ago we would probably be self sufficent by now.

Under the current Rhode Island and Massachusetts Grid operators rules, the traditional power companies gas, coal, oil have to bid on power the day before they get paid; for example, 6 cents per kilowatt hour.

Under the current rules, the commercial wind turbine companies automatically get paid the day they produce the power for example, 18 cents per kWh because they can only produce power when the wind blows. The Grid operator has to take the renewable energy wind product first that day.

The traditional power company is glad to stand down when the commercial wind turbine company is producing power.

What the public needs to understand is that in Rhode Island , when the commercial wind company is getting paid the 18 cents, the traditional company that bid the previous day stands down and gets paid anyway.

Thus the cost to Rhode Island electric rate payers is the 18 cents plus the 6 cents the traditional company bid the previous day. The cost per kilowatt hour could cost up to four times normal bid costs.

Quick Question Bill Since I have wondered about that.

When the Grig Company steps down, they are then using less fuel for their turbines are they not? That cost is then even more profit for them since it is less fuel they buy for production, but yet they get a cutrate price from the windfarm. Is that correct?.

Not to mention Downtown, the EBEC is rearing is ugly head again very shortly.

http://www.hummelreport.org/2.21.2013.wind.html

Bill, 24+ cents/kwh was what was agreed upon for DeepWater by National Grid & the PUC (after the State forced them to accept it) plus $100 million for the undersea power cables plus the 3% for National Grid.

That 18 cent number you quote does not apply to DeepWater.

Why the State would go with that when TransCanada offered the State 11 cents/kwh for wind power is beyond me except that lots of brown envelopes packed with cash had to exchange hands.

I believe the 24 cents per kwh is for the small sample. The large sample (110+ turbines) would come in at a much reduced rate. The small sample is a test group to determine the feasibility in terms of system.

That's possible Mike but there is no guarantee of that. Since there is no actual operating offshore wind farm in the US to go on for pricing data it's a crap shoot.

Overseas a lot of the wind farms are owned by the Governments and don't need an operating profit.

Why didn't the State accept the TransCanada bid of 11 cents/kwh from their wind farm? There is no advantage to DeepWater for rate payers at all.

The PUC looked at this small test farm and voted it down because rate payers will pay $500 million more over 20 years. Then the State created a special law that said that in the case of DeepWater the PUC is not allowed to look at the financial side of it. This is on top of the 3% bribe to National Grid and the $100 million dollar under sea cables that rate payers will be swallowing through some mysterious fees.

I am not against renewable energy but it should not be forced upon rate payers either. Portsmouth is going to try and get the State to pay for their disaster. Why should we?

Appears to mostly a ponzi scheme with the taxpayers at the bottom of the barrel in my opinion.

Bill,
Portsmouth's legal bills and the hiring of a second lawyer have nothing to do with Wind. Except that this post by you is more hot air.

Naome, Commercial wind is a mortage on your childrens lifetime. You only need to look out the window and look at the broken down commercial wind turbine at the high school .It cost 3 million dollars and the taxpayers still owe 2.3 million dollars on it!

Now next Monday night the Portsmouth Town Council may give away the turbine and start all over .The residents of Portsmouth voted for special legislation to borrow money and buy a wind turbine -Senate Bill S 0260 Ammended 2007.

Now after a catastrophic failure the town is going to start all over again doing almost the same thing .The last contractor went bankrupt what is to prevent the next contractor to do the same thing ?

You need to look into the economic feasibilty of a commercial wind turbine . This whole project is one giant failed project and now the town will continue to throw taxpayer dollars down the drain . In the next twenty years the town can't make up the loss of the three million dollar turbine but wants to spend more ????

Someone looking a little further North would find the Portsmouth Abbey wind turbine happily churning out electrons, neatly offsetting the power consumed on the grounds. Theirs seems to work, just fine.

These things work. The problems with the Portsmouth turbine are well documented, mostly by detractors like Carson and Hagerty that will never admit that these are a meaningful step in the right direction. Detractors will seize on any setback as justification to scrap things that aren't "Like when I was a kid".

http://www.portsmouthabbey.org/page/2181

The Portsmouth Abby turbine is a small 660 kilowatt turbine and there is nothing wrong with this turbine it works great .The problem comes when you install turbines three times that size like the 1.5 megawatt turbine at Portsmouth High School.

These type turbines (1,5) and above are having major catastrophic gear box failures ,cause low frequency sickness,shadow flicker and ice throw .The megawatt turbines need 2500 foot setbacks from residential homes .

The smaller 660 KW turbines do work very well .

Yep can thank Obama's unemployment Jobs czar Emelt for that, since it was Emelt who made the deals with China for his Company GE. More realization of the scam this subsidize business has become.

The Sinovel 1.5 Megawatt Chinese turbine is actually a copy of the 2005 Furlander 1.5 Megawatt turbine . The Furlander 1.5 has the worst gear box failure of all commercial wind turbines. AAER of Canada copied the 2005 Furlander and went out of business because of gear box failures - It.s only a matter of 1 or 2 more years and the Chinese gear boxes will start to fail !

Bill I'm sure you are right but for the US manufacturers in renewable energy that are forced to close their doors that is no comfort.

It's the Walmart or Home Depot syndrome on a manufacturing level.

You're right Joe. I've read their are only about 300 people country wide who rig themselves from the top down to repair the blades. I've seen the same type of rigs on cell antennas that are on the sides of buildings. I've worked on some very high roofs, you get used to it but hanging on a rope four or five hundred feet in the air - nope.

The offshore wind turbines (some) can fold down for easier maintenance but much higher initial cost.

The new gear boxes are direct drive type transmissions. They have drawbacks as the transmission weight adds thousands of pounds to the narcel. The older gear driven turbines were sold to last tweny years . They only last 3 to 5 years.

This gear box problem has created a secondary industry repairing gear boxes .The special crane as much as 150 thousand per change out ,gear box 600 thousand and the bad gear box can cause blade failure - Three blades at 100 thousand each . Your looking at about a 1 milion repair bill every three to five years in megawatt turbines - the smaller 660 Killowatt and under don't have a large issue with gear box failure

Bill the Alstom gearboxes have a low failure rate as the article I posted states.

You don't like these things, we get it Don Quixote.

What you're describing is the pseudo-scientific "Wind Turbine Syndrome". Those suffering from this miraculously recover with cash stipends.

These things are coming, and poorer people will be the ones living next to them, thanks to the tireless efforts of you and Haggerty. You're not looking out for anyone's future - you're trying to keep them out of your backyard.

Spare us the hot air, please.

"... can't imagine if I had one doing that to my house. I would never be able to be outside." Like that ever happens.

NL you are so full it and have no clue about it. For someone who touts themselves as an expert on every link to pudits and lies. You sure did prove it again lol.

Ever wonder why Video games have warnings on Siezures, motion sickness, headaches, nausea etc. No that would be to many facts for you to understand.

Jack,
Can you cite one reviewable study to back up these "Turbine syndrome" claims? And please, I do mean one by a real researcher, not one of Bill Carson's pretend experts.

Well Old townies, I was talking about flicker problems or frame rate, that happens with eye and ear sync problems and causes motion sickness. That is well documented. As a Musicians I can assure you I can give you a headache, or even make you vomit with various sounds lol.

You can also look up a military study on trainers they use now for pilots that cause it I think it was 47% of the people they train. It is not that serious and you can take meds dor it and some can just wear ear plugs, chew gum etc. Its basicly sea sickness like. I am not kidding about watching that video it did give me a headache and nausea for a good hour after I watched it. Happen with 3D movies to me also and many other things like and EU PAL instead of NTSC which I word with often. lol

Old Townie@ Now to the "Turbine syndrome" thing. Don't know much about it, but I do know sound can cause lots of problems in people, especially low end and high end. This is why smoke detectors and those buzz alarms are so annoying.

Low freq, can rattle your bones. (think rap music driving by your house). Tinnitis which I also have is no picnic at times either, ask anyone with it. So I would say there is probably validity in this syndrum. Ever have a low or high hum in the house and you just can't locate it? Did many a job at business offices where that happened and was driving the workers nuts. Not easy to find during working hours so I would go in at 3am with decibel meters to locate it, (usally a printer or bad ground on speaker system).

This leads me to think there is something to Bills claims. After reading your reply I decided to see what I could find and well there is a lot of argument about it, it sure needs to be looked at. The problem seems to be in people in close to the turbines on the sound, Canada and AU, seem to have been doing a lot of reseach on it.

There are people in the US also looking at this in a serious way now. Seems there are area's of people selling homes because of it also. IF it was 1 or 2 people you could say it was in their head maybe or that they are rare exceptions. But it seems thats not the case. I will post things for you to look at. I have not reseach it all yet, but will when I get a chance probably.

Old Townie@ you can check this stuff out.

Wind Turbine Syndrome

by Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/are-wind-farms-a-health-risk-us-scientist-identifies-wind-turbine-syndrome-1766254.html

Dr. Alec Salt at the Washington University School of Medicine has demonstrated a role for the cochlea

1. WHO. Burden of disease from environmental noise. 2011. www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/136466/e94888.pdf.

2. Krogh C, Gillis L, Kouwen N, Aramini J. WindVOiCe, a self-reporting survey: adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance monitoring. Bull Sci Tech Soc 2011;31:334-9.

3. Phillips C. Properly interpreting the epidemiologic evidence about the health effects of industrial wind turbines on nearby residents. Bull Sci Tech Soc 2011;31:303-8.

4. Pedersen E, Persson Waye K. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise—a dose-response relationship. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116:3460-70.

5. Pedersen E, van den Berg F, Bakker R, Bouma J. Can road traffic mask sound from wind turbines? Response to wind turbine sound at different levels of road traffic sound. Energy Policy 2010;38:2520-7.

6. Bray W, James R. Dynamic measurements of wind turbine acoustic signals, employing sound quality engineering methods considering the time and frequency sensitivities of human perception. Proceedings of Noise-Con 2011, Portland, Oregon, 25-27 July 2011. Curran Associates, 2011.

7. Møller M, Pedersen C. Low frequency noise from large wind turbines. J Acoust Soc Am 2010;129:3727-44.

8. Salt A, Kaltenbach J. Infrasound from wind turbines could affect humans. Bull Sci Tech Soc 2011;31:296-303.

9. Van den Berg G, Pedersen E, Bouma J, Bakker R. Project WINDFARMperception. Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents. FP6-2005-Science-and-Society-20. Specific support action project no 044628, 2008. www.rug.nl/wewi/deWetenschapswinkels/natuurkunde/publicaties/WFp-final-1.pdf.

10. Pedersen E. Effects of wind turbine noise on humans. Proceedings of the Third International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Aalborg Denmark 17-19 June 2009. www.confweb.org/wtn2009/.

11. Nissenbaum M, Aramini J, Hanning C. Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines: a preliminary report. Proceedings of 10th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN), 2011, London, UK. Curran Associates, 2011.

12. Shepherd D, McBride D, Welch D, Dirks K, Hill E. Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health related quality of life. Noise Health 2011;13:333-9.

One other thought just came to mind Old Townie@ Recall the problems with High Power lines and the magnetic field and infra sound from them. Many a law suit was one by some people if I remember right.

Sound can be used to do some very dangerous things and our government along with many others have been devoloping tech for this for decades and decades.

If you ever had a kidney stone and I have where they used ultra sound to break it up you would understand the affects of sound better. I had bruises for a while after it, but thankfully it worked. Not something you want to go through (kidney stones that is LOL).

@ OT - " And please, I do mean one by a real researcher, not one of Bill Carson's pretend experts."

Note that The King of the Patch then proceeds to do just that...
Wind Turbine syndrome is to medicine as MMA Cage Fighting is to boxing.

One thing has been proven about the symptoms of "WTS" - cash stipends seem to cure symptoms with remarkable speed, and efficacy.

"One other thought just came to mind Old Townie@ Recall the problems with High Power lines and the magnetic field and infra sound from them. Many a law suit was one by some people if I remember right." You don't. Again.

This was debunked as pure quackery, in the last go round of the NIMBY wars.
My God, but you're gullible Jack.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emf.html

Gee NL@. Didn't read a thing I wrote huh, just saw my name as usual.

Never said WTS was definative, said there was probably something to it and it should be looked at.

Also talked about flicker problem which is a proven health problem with many things including wind turbines.

Well yo can dispute some of these things, the evidence proves other wise. If it was all just fake science then why does Germany and amost all contries follow German law and guidelines for set backs and rules on sound and flicker? They do it just for the heck of it, since NL@ know it all and says this does not need to be looked at because NL@ says so.

Guess you never support studies of any tech that may harm children if it may deter your green agenda. Wonder why alost every State has guidelines where high voltage lines cannot be near a school? Funny how every one of them site powerible voltage accidents and also EMF fields and possible cancer huh?

I know you didn't even bother to check, or you just can't read. All these doctors and PHD people are just plain lying right? Theres enough there for me to question it which I do. But NL@ say it is all hogwash because her greenie people say it is. Well many health organization and yes governments set rules for it. Yes even on turbines effects on people and animals, ,Birds, cows, pigs etc. But you ignore all that.

Bill can speak for Bill, I speak for myself. Don't like my opinion or links, don't read them! Not that you do anyway.

Jack,
Nina Pierpont is an absolute quack. Did you bother to read any of it before you posted?

As to your "infra sound"...It can not be generated by US power lines and this entire subject was debunked. US power operates at 60Hz, Infrasonic is around 17 Hz or lower if I recall correctly.

And, your really going to pull your sources from "WindWatch"? Did Bill Carson get you on the Koch Bros. payroll too?

This is histrionics, not argument.

You, and most of the other detractors are worried about property values.
Underneath the protestations, and cries that you're "looking out for the debts
handed to today's children" lies a simple, selfish worry about cashing out
your property and moving to Florida.

Spare us the crocodile tears, Bill. These things are coming and in greater numbers whether you want to look at them or not.

You're like so many forestalling any meaningful change - you oppose investing in anything that won't pay off in your diminishing lifetime.

My kids don't get to vote on paying your generation's medical bills, but you can spout agit-prop to shortchange their Energy independence. That's just Dandy.

That's a great idea....except that a sewer system to treat just the areas in the DEM complaint is somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70 million dollars. Now what irrelevant statement were you making?

Well old whatever you are, the windmill you love so much is pretty irrelevent, hasn't worked in how long? A down payment of 3 milliom dollars would have been a start, at least the basics of a system could be started on and built as we can afford it. We would be leaving a clearer bay for our children and their children, the system could last 100s of years if built right. As it stands now the Portsmouth wind turbine is a money pit.

Hey Lee,
I have a much better idea. How about the people with the bad septic systems in IP and PP &CFP, FIX them! It is not the towns problem, and it is not my problem. Why should I be on the hook? And if you bothered to read a little and actually paid attention you would know that 3 million won't even cover the engineering studies.

Ol whatever, you are on the hook for a stupid 3 million dollar windmill, should have inproved our sanitation instead of throwing the money away. The areas you said were the main causes of sewage leak is bogas, follow the stream that crosses Hedley St below Quaker hill and you'll find septic systems that have been leaking into the stream from at least the 70s.

Lee,
That is Bloody Run Brook, It runs from the springs on Escobar's farm across Headley, down behind Atria, then under 24 and Old West Main, through CA golf couse to the Bay. It passes by, what, 10? 12? houses? And your solution, to a problem the state says doesn't exist, is to spend 60M? And IP and PP don't polute? Are you clueless? Where have you been for the last 30 years?

The reason the west side of Portsmouth, (The Bay) is polluted, is due to overflow from Prov. and Fall River. Everytime we have significant rainfall, they dump sewage into the Bay. That is not to say the IP and PP don't contriubute, but that is the problem of individual homeowners. Not the town.
And BTW, all septic tanks must be removed in RI by Jan1, 2014.

Ol Townie@ Now I see. You only do partial reading to fit your fit your narative and then add words (And BTW, all septic tanks must be removed in RI by Jan1, 2014).

That is simply not true at all.

http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/water/permits/isds/pdfs/cessfaqs.pdf

There are 3 possible scenarios under which you are or will be required to replace your cesspool: 1 Your cesspool is failed (see definition below). This applies anywhere in the state and is required under current regulations 2 You have a cesspool that serves a non-residential facility or multifamily dwelling. This applies anywhere in the state and is required under current regulations; or 3 Your cesspool is located within one of the three areas described below: Within 200 feet of the inland edge of all shoreline features bordering tidal water areas (i.e., Coastal Resources Management Council’s jurisdiction); Within 200 feet of all public wells; and
Within 200 feet of a water body with an intake for a drinking water supply.

All cesspools within the 200 foot zones identified above will have to be inspected upon notice from DEM and no later than January 1, 2012

All cesspools within the 200 foot zones identified above that are found to be failed will need to be replaced within 1 year of discovery;

All cesspools within the 200 foot zones identified above that are found in already sewered areas will need to be hooked-up to the sewer no later than January 1, 2014; and All other cesspools within the 200 foot zones identified above will need to be replaced by January 1, 2014.

PS: took less than 30 seconds to find and read the actual regulation.

Hey Jack,
While I know I should bow to your "superior" research skills, You might want to re-read what Lee and I were discussing. Island Park, genius, where all the cesspools are in the 200 foot zone. So, I'll say it again. All cesspools must be replaced by Jan 1 2014. Just ask a resident.

gee old townie@ only if they fall into the 3 senario's listed in the law.

Funny I paste the actual law and you make your own up lol.

There are 3 possible scenarios under which you are or will be required to replace your cesspool: 1 Your cesspool is failed (see definition below). This applies anywhere in the state and is required under current regulations 2 You have a cesspool that serves a non-residential facility or multifamily dwelling. This applies anywhere in the state and is required under current regulations; or 3 Your cesspool is located within one of the three areas described below: Within 200 feet of the inland edge of all shoreline features bordering tidal water areas (i.e., Coastal Resources Management Council’s jurisdiction); Within 200 feet of all public wells; and
Within 200 feet of a water body with an intake for a drinking water supply.

All cesspools within the 200 foot zones identified above will have to be inspected upon notice from DEM and no later than January 1, 2012

Nice try.

Jack,
I'll type slowly, so you might get it this time. Island Park, which is in Portsmouth, is indeed an affected area. Every cesspool down there must be replaced. Still think your right? go ask the residents that got letters. Due to the tidal waterways, and the coastline, the entire area is in the 200ft zone. Now since your arrogance doesn't let you say, "sorry, I didn't know what I was talking about", try this on, just shut up unless you actually have something of relevant value to add.

Lets face it Old townie@

You just can't read regulations. It clearly states that it has to be a failed one if it is single family. Read the read read.

By the way, this has nothing do with wind power joke anyway. so I am done on your sewer lack of knowledge of regulations. Write a blog on sewage if your such an expert on s*it. lol

Natural gas actually works very well on demand. There are small natural gas plants in RI that only run on demand.

Coal does not do well on demand.

Why is it that the most vocal critics of any Patch topic don't live in the posting region?

"Bill Heller, a resident of Union Beach and a vocal opponent of the project, told the committee huge wind turbines such as the one proposed in his community absolutely depress property values."

Union Beach is in New Jersey. That's you, quoted above isn't it Bill.

This smokescreen is always the same - you're casting around for any reason not to have these built within your line of sight... NIMBY is a symptom of the cancer eating at American Civic values.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/11/0622/0124/

This video shows a home turned into a torture chamber. State and town officials are committing atrocities against civilians. http://kingstonjournal.com/only-kj-com-video-who-could-ever-imagine-this/

This video clip will some day show the events as a documentary. Massachusetts has a renewable energy goal of 2000 megawatts of renewable energy by the year 2020. This means as many as 3000 commercial land based wind turbines in Massachusetts.

The state in their zeal for renewable energy made scores and hundreds of residents sick from the poor siting of commercial wind turbines.

The planning, the preparatory measures and execution of Massachusetts Model By Laws to be used by local towns is well documented.

History shows us that those that have conducted and condoned human experiments in the past have always been brought to justice. The state and towns are committing crimes against its citizens.

Today the state and local government blame what has happened on the victims.

Watch this video : https://www.wind-watch.org/video-falmouth.php

Freedom from Unwarranted Experimentation

“Turbine torture” (Massachusetts)
Sep 29, 2010

“The garden that was a sanctuary to me for 30 years is now more like a torture chamber. When the turbine first went into operation in March 2010, and then through April, I tried to acclimate myself to live with this thing. . . . The noise these turbines make is unlike regular noise. It is not the loudness of the noise but a characteristic to it that gets in your head and becomes entrenched.
“At least two persons have thought of suicide while this issue drags on through the creep of political process.”
·
—Barry Funfar (9/28/10)

I am an abutter to what the Town of Falmouth, Massachusetts, calls their WIND 1—their first wind turbine, a 1.65MW Vestas 400 foot tall goliath. Since it went into operation in early 2010, quite a number of us abutters have suffered serious medical detriments and a gigantic loss of quality of our lives from the noise impact of this machine.

My own home is 1662 feet from the turbine, and the effects of the sound on me have caused:

anxiety stress nervousness sleep deprivation hypertension migraines dizziness blurred vision palpitations irritability anger upset stomach depression
These ailments are well documented by my medical providers.

http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2010/turbine-torture-massachusetts/

Okay, I get it.

You're not serious about this.
I can no longer give what you say the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3t0tcc/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBYjZG8O6qE
Windfall - Official Trailer
Directed by: Laura Israel

After wind turbines are proposed for installation in upstate New York, the community's excitement turns to suspicion over what the project entails. This eye-opening story exposes the dark side of wind energy development and the potential for financial scams.

Official Website: http://windfallthemovie.com/

These Companies are not agreeing with all this if there was nothing to it in my opinion and these governments are not doing it just for fun. They are doing it because they know there are cause and effects and by agreeing to them they limit their liabilty. Since when do you see a company decrease their bottom, because this is all hogwash and spend the extra time and money to avoid liabilty from something that does not exist? I know why, think the old its safe DDT, Agent orange, Geneticly modified crops pollination problems, sewage in the bay, etc. You can find a thoughsand examples of things supposidly safe and then proven unsafe later on after the damage has been done.

Why is it with green Agenda, it is clean as a whistle for health effects? I know why on that also. It is the damn the torpedo's mentality and get the money well you can, because evidence is starting to go against it in many area's of study in residential area's where it has not been before. Kinda like Coal, and oil out of smoke stacks that people never worried about before, that the greenies pounded in to cleaning up. But when it comes to their solution of energy, oh no we ignore all things that may be hazardous. Yea right that not hypocritical!!!!

Don't really care is you read it or not. It was an answer to a question asked. Not all answers or opinions can be a single pundit line. Just saying. lol

PS when did you become a blog "God" the Editors decide thankfully and not you or NL@.

So you post the spelling the same exact way and see a difference lol.

Now I guess i can say there are not 2 john's as you keep saying right? lol

Just saying.

Jack: I just double checked. I was wrong. You ARE the one and only Jack Baillargeron. I am one of at least two people posting on this forum with the name John. I'm the one who "used to be" a BIG Fan of the turbine...Until the "Engineers Report" came out. Perpetual RED numbers at the bottom of the balance sheet changed my mind .

John@ Maybe you Should change your name to (John Baillargeron) so you would be more unique lol. OOPS can't do that, Already have a brother named John and you are definatly not him, lol.

How about "I am John", "John Not the Babtist", "John Patch", "John John", "John Non-Turbine Guy" or "Sloop John B." lol ( Kidding lol)

Jack; I actually tried to register a New (more unique) name awhile ago. It was rejected by the program, which only allows ONE "Screen Name" per email address. I registered a comment to the forum but never got a response. McGee prolly has better things to do. lol

How about: "My Name Is SUE...How DO You Do..."

John, Just click on your name, at your profile, click on edit profile. Where it says your name, change it to what ever you want, (Sue is fine lol)

Then go to bottom click save and you are all done. Will not effect your past comments. You also can delete any comment you ever made from there also by clicking comments, pick the one you want to delete and it will take you to the particle you commented on. It will then have delete in the corner of all your post and you can delete them.

It is all on your present email so you do not need another account.

You could make it "John B" then you too can have antagonist follow you around everywhere lol.

Guess it worked there John ABS lol

Oh love that song By Cash! Havn't player it in years but use to get request for it a lot. Which was kinda funny considering we were a heavy metal band lol.

Jack , --Ditlev Engel , Chief Executive Officer of Vestas Corporation wrote a letter about the inability of the company to stop noise. Vestas knows they have a noise problem and today don't want workers within 1500 feet of working turbines.

The wind company executives are well aware of the dangers of their products

http://www.windaction.org/documents/33830

Letter from Vestas: Low-frequency noise and wind turbines
December 16, 2011 by Engel, Ditlev
Summary:
This important letter written by the CEO of Vestas Wind complains that proposed regulations in Denmark to address low-frequency noise will force larger setback distances. In his letter he admits: "Why it is that Vestas does not just make changes to the wind turbines so that they produce less noise? The simple answer is that at the moment it is not technically possible to do so ..."

Bill as you probably know from previous post I am not an advocate for or against wind power or solar for that matter. ( I am against taxpayer wasted money and unsafe tech). Like I said above to Townie, I had not really looked in to the sound part, but I did know well of flicker problems.

Thanks to townie which was probably not his intention obviously, I looked into it reading most those links on laws and regulation in the EU and AU testing etc.

That was enough to convince me that the industry and these government, health agencies either know there is a real problem or that it is down the road. Whether it is infra-sound (anything under 20hz) or any constant sound at any level it can cause problems. It is a method of torture used to this day after all.

I agree with you that this is a problem, to many people can be found on the internet all over complaining about, flicker, infra sound, and audible sound.

Show me a person who has a fan in his computer going bad that makes a constant hum and does not fix it because the sound does not bother him and I will show you a liar. lol

I looked at all the German laws on set backs and required shut down times to prevent flicker in residential homes. 8 hours per year is the max allowed, they have to shut them down during hours when flicker can happen. Sorry but that obviously means its more than an anoyance. So you are correct and these nay sayers are wrong plain and simple in my opinion.

I also read from various companies of the guidelines and rules etc for siting and such. Well these companies may say there is no definitive proof as of yet on certain ailments attributed to them, then why all the regs and concerns to make sure in case it does get proven.

I say because they allready know and our taking precations for law suits to say they took all safety measures.

They did not have this problem before in this Country because these large farms were not in residential area's, but now they are putting small farms in residential area's and there a farmers in Ohio and else where who are sorry they let them be put up. Lets face it the chance of putting these farms anywhere but on the open Ocean around here are slim to none.

The Ocean is a whole different argument. But these large residential things are obviously probmatic. Not to mention the scam on the portsmouth one to taxpayers.

Heck I would not have posted as much on this, if not for reading up on it. I was quite happy with preventing EBEC from forming an wasting my money, letting you and others more knowledgeable in the inner working do your thing.

Not saying much more as EBEC is rearing its head at the State house yet again with lies after lies. To you I say keep up the fight, I think you are correct on many of these issues with turbines. Good job.

Also agree with you William.

"Wind and Solar pv mandated deployment today is an ongoing economic terrorism that loots the utility rate payer, tax payer and the state & National treasury."

Tell that to my kids, while they're paying off your Medicare, sweating in the dark.

Here's the core issue - the Greediest Generation won't invest in our infrastructure.
You lot don't see the ROI paying out in your miserable, run-too-long lifetimes.

Some Patriots.

Naome-how about this rip-off :The wind industry has been getting a free lunch on our dime. Rhode Island has spent a total of 1 Billion dollars in stimulus funds since 2009 and Massachusetts 7 Billion. The entire country spent around 230 Billion.
http://www.recovery.gov/pages/textview.aspx?data=recipientHomeMap

The ARRA/stimulus funds were to put Americans to work and buy USA. General Electric is the only large US maker of commercial wind turbines. GE has their own rules for noise, shadow flicker and ice throw on its wind turbines. For example GE would not site a commercial wind turbine in Falmouth Massachusetts because of setbacks.

Our government handed out waivers so foreign made commercial wind turbines were installed in USA.Many of the turbines were installed with foreign workers

This is a standard waiver : http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-04-27/pdf/2010-9751.pdf

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ,FRL–9142–5
Notice of a Regional Project Waiver of Section 1605 (Buy American) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)

Wow, I thought Jack was somewhat long winded but this submission takes the proverbial air out the room.

JAT Somewhat, really somewhat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even I know thats not true lol!!!!!!!

How do I put this kindly?

William? You're an idiot.

That might be OK for the Fox News watching baggers, Joe but what about the majority of us?

MSNBC for BD . The koolaid express in easy to understand segments.

Might be because SA the whole Country is mostly desert you know.

Don't see transmission lines for electric being put over the atlantic ever.

The more electric they produce through other means the longer they can sell oil is obviously why they are doing that and natural gas in SA.

I do not think anyone posting here on the con side of wind is hiding their heads. They are looking at the fact we do not have these deserts or land to do what SA is doing. Nor is this tech proven long term viability, especially in the NE. Remember there are no off shore wind farms here so there is no way to know if it is a sure thing at all.

You may want to spend grandchildrens money on a large risk, most of us do not. Private business should be doing it not taxpayers. Best example locally of these things is Portsmouth turbine. What makes you think the Feds are any smarter than the Council at Portsmouth? Has the Fed not run everything into the ground and bankruptcy in recent history?

Read up on problems in the EU happening now, since they are facing problem now that they have been into it for a while. Neither solar or wind is a fix all, if it was private would have done it long ago. They did not because there is not profit in it with out free taxmoney.

All it has done so far is raise our electric bills a lot. Look at your electric bill and subtract all the fees and taxes. That is all going to green and not working out is it. Just saying

We do not make electrical power from oil.

Nice play on words. However "NOT finding enlightenment - stay within the 'box'. It's safe. Nothing more dangerous than a mind which is set and not open to ideas" Could have been said much easyer with "hide your heads" which is the same thing.

If the fact that you tout SA as somehow comparible to the US making wind power, then it is obvious you have not even read half the post on here about it.

The problem is we do not have the non residential space like SA, the best massive wind farms in the US happen to be, in the desert where for obvious reasons, the weather is pretty much a constant. Nothing enlightening about your post or thought on it at all.

You just tried to put forth a supposition that posters were somehow basing their opinion on moral or small minded thoughts. Far from it if read the post pro or con.

If you had looked in depth at the EU, then you would know that your SA point is a foolish example. To think that they could somehow make electricity with wind power to send out to the world is fantasy. It is not a comodity one could have shipped around the world obviously. So it is a pointless to try and include it in a debate on Local attempts to use taxpayer money for these Ocean farms or local land farms in residential areas. No comparison at all.

A gentleman does not insert themselves into a debate by first trying to insult people as to their intelligence and act like they are beaneath him.

No apology just an opinion on your post. ;-}

Way to win over another fan, Jack.

Must you chime in, on every topic?
It's not like you're accomplished at anything...

Give it a rest and let someone else have a say.
For once.

"Read the 1st Amendment at least since it is obvious you have no understanding of that or anything in the US or RI Constitution."

The government shall not make any law abridging free speech - that part?
Nowhere does it defend the right of self-proclaimed experts on every topic to ladle manure on with a trowel (62 entries on this topic, alone).

You're a pompous bore who hasn't got an original idea and goes to great lengths
to demonstrate this - nearly every day. You're the equivalent of a virus.

Don't presume to lecture on the Constitution, Jack - you're no more an expert on that topic than wind power, hamster farming or collecting action figures.

If you're going to knock the people providing positions that use science for support
and "ditto" the quacks with alchemy/God's divine will/an unprovable McGuffin then
you don't belong here - you belong in the Rant section of Craigslist.

You said your piece, days ago.
Did that stop you?

If only.

So it would seem, so it would seem lol.

That is damm scary and I hope people follow your advice on this. The huge monster in NK right now is bad enough, I would hate to see (or live by) hundreds of them across the state making the owners rich and the taxpayers paying the higher electric rates subsidizing these power plants.

The residents of any city or town in Rhode Island should vote out their Selectboard and their local state representatives if a commercial megawatt turbine gets installed in their town. Your state reps and Selectboard members know it's wrong. The key is that the large megawatt turbines can not be located residential property