It has been months now since I last wrote to the Enterprise. Many of us are tired or bewildered by the wind turbine controversy. It is time for those against wind power to withdraw from the battle. But since they refuse, some facts need repeating, and some corrections need to be made.
The turbines would be nicely profitable, to the benefit of the entire town, if they were run continuously as intended.
Massachusetts DEP found a slight noise exceedance at just one home, when they measured at five sites. Even that was questionable, occurring late at night and at most for 10 seconds out of six months. There have been no “violations.”
Numerous studies have been made of possible health impacts. Claims of ill effects from wind turbines are unsubstantiated by mainstream science. Fossil fuels were found by researchers at Harvard School of Public Health to be responsible for hundreds of deaths per year.
Now that the decision has been made to continue running the wind turbines at the wastewater treatment plant, the anti-wind strategy appears be litigation, and also curtailing turbine use as much as possible then blaming the turbines for budget problems. Obviously the blame for these costs rests with the anti-wind people, and those who cooperate with them.
Falmouth is the key battleground where this is taking place.
MassCEC understands this, and announced last week that it is ready to help Falmouth.
The article “State Gives Falmouth $1.8M To Offset Cost of Turbines” had three important errors of fact that need to be corrected.
1) The title of the article creates the wrong impression. The money is not to offset turbine costs. It is to offset the lack of income created by bad decisions made by some current and former members of the board of selectmen.
2) At the board meeting of MassCEC it was clarified verbally that the $500,000 for the reserve fund will be provided in pieces, not a lump sum. MassCEC apparently recognizes a history of decision-making weakness in some selectmen who will fortunately be history after the election this May. We can hope their successors will be competent decision-makers who support generating clean renewable and sustainable energy in order to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels that pollute the air we breathe. However, were that weakness to continue and the board of selectmen continue to curtail the turbines voluntarily, the new funding would also be curtailed.
3) Near the end of the article, it states that the $1 million reserve was used for “maintenance.” Not so. Easily the majority of it was used to offset expenses resulting from voluntary curtailments voted by weak selectmen as well as involuntary ones, ordered by decision-makers ignoring facts.
From this we also learn that the coming election is extremely important. Electing the wrong selectmen will be very costly to the town in a number of ways. Electing the right selectmen will continue the small steps already taken in the right direction.