A better energy idea: deal with Hydro-Quebec
RALPH SURETTE
Sat. Jan 9 - 4:46 AM
LIKE YOU, I was taken aback earlier by the news that a deal had been struck whereby Hydro-Quebec would more or less take over NB Power. What did it mean, especially for Nova Scotia? Having thought it over, I’ve found the hidden message: If the deal goes through, offering Quebec’s ample hydro power right next door, take it.
We’d be fools not to. It would be a marvellous thing that would save us a great deal of trouble. Depending on the amount, it would allow us to slow down on the option of "big wind and biomass" that we have chosen to deliver 25 per cent of our power by 2015, that’s getting more troublesome all the time and that may not work even under the most optimistic scenario.
When the news hit about Hydro-Quebec, the first reaction — including my own — was one of suspicion at the motives of this bureaucratic behemoth. There was even a brief rumour that it was going to try to buy out Nova Scotia Power as well.
When opposition arose in New Brunswick, the worst seemed confirmed: A few days after Christmas, Quebec’s energy minister, Nathalie Normandeau, said it was a done deal and that was that. A day later, however, both she and Premier Jean Charest rushed to state that the deal was still being negotiated. Hydro-Quebec was being flexible.
It’s been noted many times in the past that it’s unfortunate for the Canadian federation that the benefits of Quebec’s power are all flowing into the U.S. and little or none east and west, the result mainly of French-English suspicions. It might be useful, on the constitutional as well as on the energy level, for the Nova Scotia government to make its approach now to see what there is to be had in the event that New Brunswick and Hydro-Quebec do come to terms.
Instead of seeing Hydro-Quebec as a bogeyman, a wise course would be to open negotiations in view of what benefit there might be for us. P.E.I. jumped on the opportunity immediately, and U.S. states buy what is essentially premium, non-polluting power at favourable rates. Why not us?
What this would allow us to do, at the very least, is turn big biomass into moderate biomass and reconsider the increasingly dubious benefits of mega-windpower. With big biomass, it’s not clear at all, everything considered, that it’s better than burning coal as far as the environment and its ecology are concerned. The primary benefit is jobs. It would be useful if we were upfront about that.
As for wind, worldwide it’s a gold rush with no one asking whether there’s any gold (and with very few jobs, except for where they manufacture the turbines). I’ll get back to that in a later column.
Meanwhile, the way I understand the fuzzy thinking regarding wind, and tidal power as well, is that we’ll produce vast amounts of it, keeping only what we can, because it’s intermittent, and we’ll wheel the surplus to the U.S. This reminds me of the 1970s and ’80s, when we were going to be an energy superpower, thanks to coal, nuclear and tidal power, and drive the stuff to the U.S. through New Brunswick — not having bothered to ask New Brunswick.
We still haven’t asked. And that province is neither interested nor enthusiastic about someone else running a power line through, especially if the New Brunswick government has to take political flak from environmentalists or anyone else. It would be within its rights to charge whatever the traffic will bear for such a line.
Further, if we’re talking about a power line to carry on-and-off power, these are less profitable than those humming with full-time power. Will it pay? And, finally, do we know if there’s a market in the U.S. for interruptible power? Or are we, once again, entertaining fantasies?
Finally, we’re suspicious of Hydro-Quebec because of the ongoing tiff with Newfoundland and Labrador, and we tend to side with Newfoundland. Yet a Lower Churchill hydro project would take some 15 years to deliver, even if it started now. This is an issue for another day. Meanwhile, Newfoundland, with its oil, will soon be in better shape than us. Plus, it did make one deal not long ago to wheel some power through Quebec. So let’s not keep our shorts in a knot over than one.
The Dalhousie group under David Wheeler reviewing Nova Scotia’s energy policy put out a preliminary report during the holidays. One of its cogent observations is that we know nothing for sure about the energy future and, above all, policy must remain flexible. Grabbing at this opportunity, if it’s available, would be a good start.
( rsurette@herald.ca)
Ralph Surette is a veteran freelance journalist living in Yarmouth County.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Banks Can Influence Projects
Read how this project is being moved away so it won't have impact on human health, fishing, farming or tourism
Nordea Backs Away From Gunns’ Pulp Mill
The Wilderness Society (Tasmania) Inc
AVAAZ.org
Joint Media Release
7 January 2010
Responds to Avaaz Campaign to Protect Forests
For the first time, Nordea bank announced today that it would not finance the Gunns’ pulp mill in Australia if its widely publicised environmental impacts were not curbed.
The announcement, made by Nordea via Twitter, came in response to a two-day blitz of public pressure. The campaign kicked off with an action from global campaign network Avaaz.org, and triggered engagement from thousands of Scandinavian citizens including many Nordea customers and shareholders.
“Avaaz.org members across Scandinavia have sent over five thousand emails and Twitter messages to Nordea in just the last two days to protect vital forests in Australia,” said Avaaz Executive Director Ricken Patel. “Many were customers threatening to take their business elsewhere if Nordea financed a pulp mill that will destroy some of the most important forests in the world.”
Nordea Communication Director Rune K. Sjøhelle responded to Avaaz's public Twitter petition today with the announcement that Nordea “would not finance a project in the form presented in the media so far.” (See full text below and at http://act.ly/1kz).
However, campaigners are working to ensure that Nordea lays out clear and strong environmental standards to use in evaluating whether to finance the mill.
“Until last week, Nordea was one of the only banks in the world that hadn’t ruled out financing the project in its current form,” said Paul Oosting, pulp mill campaigner for The Wilderness Society.
"Now Nordea must make clear the specific standards by which they would evaluate the project," said Mr. Oosting.
In response to public outcry, more than 15 leading banks around the world- including all those in Australia- have publicly declined to finance the mill. One Scandinavian company, Södra, has said that it would only consider the project given specific safeguards. Campaigners say that Nordea's safeguards must be at least as strong as Södra's and include moving the proposed mill to a more suitable site where it won't impact human health and local fishing, farming and tourism
"Gunns Ltd must not be permitted to shop around for a financier with the lowest environmental standards," said Mr. Oosting. "Nordea should join Södra and insist that any pulp mill development be totally chlorine free, Forest Stewardship Council certified, fully assessed to community standards, draw 100% on existing plantations rather than native forests and be situated in a different location.
"It's clear that Nordea is listening to its customers," said Mr. Patel. "Now it's time for Nordea to do the right thing and earn its customers' applause."
The campaign illustrates the growing reach of global civil society groups to shape the actions of international corporations.
"This campaign started with Australian Avaaz members asking Scandinavian members to take action," Mr. Patel noted. "With new high powered global citizens' movements like Avaaz, corporations and banks will face responsibility everywhere for what they do anywhere."
Full statement from Nordea:
Nordea has not made any decision or commitment to finance the project in Tasmania.
When customers approach us regarding new projects, we obviously consider whether it is possible to provide financing for the project according to our policies and procedures. Social and environmental impacts are always included in our evaluation of new projects, and we do not finance projects in conflict with international norms.
We cannot comment on potential customer relationships. However, we would not finance a project in the form presented in the media so far.
As part of our Corporate Social Responsibility, Nordea is a signatory to the UN Global Compact, the UNEP FI, the Equator Principles, and supports the OECD Guidelines for multinational enterprises.
Rune Kibsgaard Sjøhelle
Head of External Communications
Nordea Bank
Nordea Backs Away From Gunns’ Pulp Mill
The Wilderness Society (Tasmania) Inc
AVAAZ.org
Joint Media Release
7 January 2010
Responds to Avaaz Campaign to Protect Forests
For the first time, Nordea bank announced today that it would not finance the Gunns’ pulp mill in Australia if its widely publicised environmental impacts were not curbed.
The announcement, made by Nordea via Twitter, came in response to a two-day blitz of public pressure. The campaign kicked off with an action from global campaign network Avaaz.org, and triggered engagement from thousands of Scandinavian citizens including many Nordea customers and shareholders.
“Avaaz.org members across Scandinavia have sent over five thousand emails and Twitter messages to Nordea in just the last two days to protect vital forests in Australia,” said Avaaz Executive Director Ricken Patel. “Many were customers threatening to take their business elsewhere if Nordea financed a pulp mill that will destroy some of the most important forests in the world.”
Nordea Communication Director Rune K. Sjøhelle responded to Avaaz's public Twitter petition today with the announcement that Nordea “would not finance a project in the form presented in the media so far.” (See full text below and at http://act.ly/1kz).
However, campaigners are working to ensure that Nordea lays out clear and strong environmental standards to use in evaluating whether to finance the mill.
“Until last week, Nordea was one of the only banks in the world that hadn’t ruled out financing the project in its current form,” said Paul Oosting, pulp mill campaigner for The Wilderness Society.
"Now Nordea must make clear the specific standards by which they would evaluate the project," said Mr. Oosting.
In response to public outcry, more than 15 leading banks around the world- including all those in Australia- have publicly declined to finance the mill. One Scandinavian company, Södra, has said that it would only consider the project given specific safeguards. Campaigners say that Nordea's safeguards must be at least as strong as Södra's and include moving the proposed mill to a more suitable site where it won't impact human health and local fishing, farming and tourism
"Gunns Ltd must not be permitted to shop around for a financier with the lowest environmental standards," said Mr. Oosting. "Nordea should join Södra and insist that any pulp mill development be totally chlorine free, Forest Stewardship Council certified, fully assessed to community standards, draw 100% on existing plantations rather than native forests and be situated in a different location.
"It's clear that Nordea is listening to its customers," said Mr. Patel. "Now it's time for Nordea to do the right thing and earn its customers' applause."
The campaign illustrates the growing reach of global civil society groups to shape the actions of international corporations.
"This campaign started with Australian Avaaz members asking Scandinavian members to take action," Mr. Patel noted. "With new high powered global citizens' movements like Avaaz, corporations and banks will face responsibility everywhere for what they do anywhere."
Full statement from Nordea:
Nordea has not made any decision or commitment to finance the project in Tasmania.
When customers approach us regarding new projects, we obviously consider whether it is possible to provide financing for the project according to our policies and procedures. Social and environmental impacts are always included in our evaluation of new projects, and we do not finance projects in conflict with international norms.
We cannot comment on potential customer relationships. However, we would not finance a project in the form presented in the media so far.
As part of our Corporate Social Responsibility, Nordea is a signatory to the UN Global Compact, the UNEP FI, the Equator Principles, and supports the OECD Guidelines for multinational enterprises.
Rune Kibsgaard Sjøhelle
Head of External Communications
Nordea Bank
From The Vanguard
Hope remains on saving ferry
by Michael Gorman/The Vanguard
Article online since January 9th 2010, 7:00
Hope remains on saving ferry
Work towards finding some kind of solution to the region ferry woes is continuing.
During a special Yarmouth Town council meeting on Dec. 29, topics were discussed ranging from writing a letter to the prime minister, passing a resolution that would garner support for the service from the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities and whether or not it is an appropriate time to begin soliciting proposals for new ferry services.
What was clear during the meeting was that there are a number of questions that remain unanswered and time is of the essence with regards to getting answers and possibly salvaging some kind of ferry service for the 2010 season.
The region was stunned when Bay Ferries Ltd. announced on Dec. 18 that they were cancelling The Cat’s upcoming season due to a number of financial difficulties highlighted by the province’s decision not to grant a request for a $6-million subsidy.
Despite outcry from around the province and a meeting with delegates from Yarmouth, Premier Darrell Dexter resolved to hold his position that The Cat is an unsustainable service and will not receive one more dollar from the province.
Bay Ferries still has an exclusive lease on the ferry terminal in Yarmouth, something that wouldn’t be appealing to a new operator. And while there is word that several operators have contacted town officials to express interest in bringing a ferry service to the area, council decided they must first have a clear understanding of the situation with the terminal.
Yarmouth Mayor Phil Mooney said The Cat needs to be preserved long enough to get a monohulled service in place to take over, something he suggested could be ready as soon as November of this year or by January of 2011.
“That’s what everybody seems to want,” he said. “We’re about more than just tourists, (we also need) cargo and we’ve got to get our goods and services down to the United States.”
Much of what the town does next hinges on what the ACOA-funded transportation study will contain. The premier said two weeks ago that he would ask for the study, which was due in March, to be fast tracked. Mooney, who sits on the committee working on the study, said he believes the study can be ready by the end of this month.
Based on the options laid out in the study, the mayor said council would have a much better idea of what they need to do next.
Hope remains on saving ferry
by Michael Gorman/The Vanguard
Article online since January 9th 2010, 7:00
Hope remains on saving ferry
Work towards finding some kind of solution to the region ferry woes is continuing.
During a special Yarmouth Town council meeting on Dec. 29, topics were discussed ranging from writing a letter to the prime minister, passing a resolution that would garner support for the service from the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities and whether or not it is an appropriate time to begin soliciting proposals for new ferry services.
What was clear during the meeting was that there are a number of questions that remain unanswered and time is of the essence with regards to getting answers and possibly salvaging some kind of ferry service for the 2010 season.
The region was stunned when Bay Ferries Ltd. announced on Dec. 18 that they were cancelling The Cat’s upcoming season due to a number of financial difficulties highlighted by the province’s decision not to grant a request for a $6-million subsidy.
Despite outcry from around the province and a meeting with delegates from Yarmouth, Premier Darrell Dexter resolved to hold his position that The Cat is an unsustainable service and will not receive one more dollar from the province.
Bay Ferries still has an exclusive lease on the ferry terminal in Yarmouth, something that wouldn’t be appealing to a new operator. And while there is word that several operators have contacted town officials to express interest in bringing a ferry service to the area, council decided they must first have a clear understanding of the situation with the terminal.
Yarmouth Mayor Phil Mooney said The Cat needs to be preserved long enough to get a monohulled service in place to take over, something he suggested could be ready as soon as November of this year or by January of 2011.
“That’s what everybody seems to want,” he said. “We’re about more than just tourists, (we also need) cargo and we’ve got to get our goods and services down to the United States.”
Much of what the town does next hinges on what the ACOA-funded transportation study will contain. The premier said two weeks ago that he would ask for the study, which was due in March, to be fast tracked. Mooney, who sits on the committee working on the study, said he believes the study can be ready by the end of this month.
Based on the options laid out in the study, the mayor said council would have a much better idea of what they need to do next.
Labels:
Yarmouth Cat Ferry Nova Scotia
Friday, January 8, 2010
New wind turbine technology
...but EU going for offshore renewable energy
New wind turbine technology out of Denmark can “see” the wind before it arrives and aim itself accordingly.
The wind turbine technology, called wind LIDAR and designed by Risø DTU researchers, has a laser-based anemometer built into the spinner. With this upgrade, a wind turbine can identify when gusts of wind are coming and can also predict the direction of the wind.
As a result, energy production can be maximized and wind turbines can live longer. Reminds me of that old saying, “work smart, not hard.” Of course, has to make you think of Avatar as well (if you’ve seen it).
Lars Fuglsang, Global Research Director of LM Glasfiber, says, “The LIDAR system can be used to increase blade reliability by making the blades cope better with the irregularities of the wind. Subsequently it is possible to produce larger blades. This increases energy production, and power from wind energy becomes more competitive.”
With wind energy being perhaps the fastest-growing type of energy in the US, this is a hopeful new development.
Related Stories:
1) Europe Unites to Invest $40 Billion in Huge Off-Shore Renewable Energy Super-Grid
2) WePower Holds Popular Training Class for Small Wind Turbine Dealers
3) How to Calculate Cost Per Kilowatt-hour of a Small Wind Power Install
4) Mass Megawatts Could Bring More Efficient Wind Power to Ski Resorts
From cleantechnica.com
New wind turbine technology out of Denmark can “see” the wind before it arrives and aim itself accordingly.
The wind turbine technology, called wind LIDAR and designed by Risø DTU researchers, has a laser-based anemometer built into the spinner. With this upgrade, a wind turbine can identify when gusts of wind are coming and can also predict the direction of the wind.
As a result, energy production can be maximized and wind turbines can live longer. Reminds me of that old saying, “work smart, not hard.” Of course, has to make you think of Avatar as well (if you’ve seen it).
Lars Fuglsang, Global Research Director of LM Glasfiber, says, “The LIDAR system can be used to increase blade reliability by making the blades cope better with the irregularities of the wind. Subsequently it is possible to produce larger blades. This increases energy production, and power from wind energy becomes more competitive.”
With wind energy being perhaps the fastest-growing type of energy in the US, this is a hopeful new development.
Related Stories:
1) Europe Unites to Invest $40 Billion in Huge Off-Shore Renewable Energy Super-Grid
2) WePower Holds Popular Training Class for Small Wind Turbine Dealers
3) How to Calculate Cost Per Kilowatt-hour of a Small Wind Power Install
4) Mass Megawatts Could Bring More Efficient Wind Power to Ski Resorts
From cleantechnica.com
Energy Bills to Rise
From mailonline
Energy bills will rise to fund £75bn 'dash for wind power' as Britain tries to hit climate targets
By Anny Shaw
Last updated at 11:13 PM on 08th January 2010
Comments (52) Add to My Stories
Energy bills will rise to pay for a £75billion plan to build 6,400 giant wind turbines around the coast.
The scheme would see the equivalent of two windmills - each one rising 500ft above the sea - going up every day between now and 2020, making it one of the biggest engineering projects in recent history.
The 'dash for wind' is being fuelled by climate change targets set by Europe. By 2020, Britain must generate 15 per cent of all energy used on fuel, transport and electricity from 'renewable' sources.
The Government says the new farms, which will be paid for by gas and electricity consumers in higher fuel bills over the next decade, will generate up to a quarter of Britain's energy needs, enough electricity for every home in the country.
But critics warned that the plans were unrealistic, deeply flawed and would leave the UK dangerously dependent on wind to keep the lights burning.
Energy bills will rise to fund £75bn 'dash for wind power' as Britain tries to hit climate targets
By Anny Shaw
Last updated at 11:13 PM on 08th January 2010
Comments (52) Add to My Stories
Energy bills will rise to pay for a £75billion plan to build 6,400 giant wind turbines around the coast.
The scheme would see the equivalent of two windmills - each one rising 500ft above the sea - going up every day between now and 2020, making it one of the biggest engineering projects in recent history.
The 'dash for wind' is being fuelled by climate change targets set by Europe. By 2020, Britain must generate 15 per cent of all energy used on fuel, transport and electricity from 'renewable' sources.
The Government says the new farms, which will be paid for by gas and electricity consumers in higher fuel bills over the next decade, will generate up to a quarter of Britain's energy needs, enough electricity for every home in the country.
But critics warned that the plans were unrealistic, deeply flawed and would leave the UK dangerously dependent on wind to keep the lights burning.
Defence Minister Questions Power Deal
From the CBC news
Defence Minister Peter MacKay, the senior cabinet minister for Atlantic Canada, is questioning the wisdom of the New Brunswick-Quebec power deal.
MacKay told CBC News on Friday that the deal is a "short-term fix" for the region's green energy needs.
"I think a larger view of that would tell us perhaps there are better alternatives to what the Quebec-New Brunswick deal has put forward," MacKay said in Halifax.
"Of course, the government of New Brunswick, in pursuing this, I believe still [has] a lot of consultation, a lot of information to share, and a little bit of explaining to do. So, I'm keeping my powder dry as far as my personal views on this. I think we could use, in my opinion, a broader examination of green energy sources for Atlantic Canada."
On Oct. 29, Quebec and New Brunswick announced they had reached a proposed deal that would see Hydro-Québec buy the majority of NB Power's assets for $4.8 billion.
"Taxpayers and ratepayers are the big winners today," New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham said on the day of the announcement. "NB Power's $4.8-billion debt will no longer be a risk for our future generations.
Premiers want written guarantee
Since then, Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter and Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams have argued that Quebec could block the transmission of competing sources of electricity to the United States.
Both premiers have demanded a written guarantee that New Brunswick will allow power from other Atlantic provinces to flow into markets in New England.
MacKay did not refer directly to their objections but he pointed out that the region is developing its own sources of renewable energy, including Fundy tidal power and the proposed Lower Churchill Project in Labrador.
“There are many, many sources of green energy that could be bundled, put in an energy grid for the benefit of our people, our province, and arguably for export to the eastern seaboard of the United States," he said.
“I think a larger view of that would tell us that perhaps there are better alternatives to what the Quebec-New Brunswick deal has put forward. But, in short, we need more information about that, we need a more inclusive discussion and I think Atlantic Canada’s interest would be better served with that type of discussion.”
Graham said Friday that he has been assured by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that Ottawa was staying out of the issue.
Harper joined Graham at a ceremony in St. Stephen, inaugurating a new border crossing between Maine and New Brunswick.
Not Ottawa's business, Graham says
"In my discussions with him, Prime Minister Harper was very clear that the energy sector is the responsibility of the provincial government," Graham said. "When the final deal is brought forward you are going to see opportunities for all of the Atlantic provinces to benefit."
The NB Power deal is scheduled to be finalized in March.
In December, a junior federal cabinet minister said Ottawa is closely watching the debate on the sale of NB Power to Hydro-Québec.
But Keith Ashfield, the minister of state responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, said he wasn't sure whether the federal government has the ability to intervene.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay, the senior cabinet minister for Atlantic Canada, is questioning the wisdom of the New Brunswick-Quebec power deal.
MacKay told CBC News on Friday that the deal is a "short-term fix" for the region's green energy needs.
"I think a larger view of that would tell us perhaps there are better alternatives to what the Quebec-New Brunswick deal has put forward," MacKay said in Halifax.
"Of course, the government of New Brunswick, in pursuing this, I believe still [has] a lot of consultation, a lot of information to share, and a little bit of explaining to do. So, I'm keeping my powder dry as far as my personal views on this. I think we could use, in my opinion, a broader examination of green energy sources for Atlantic Canada."
On Oct. 29, Quebec and New Brunswick announced they had reached a proposed deal that would see Hydro-Québec buy the majority of NB Power's assets for $4.8 billion.
"Taxpayers and ratepayers are the big winners today," New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham said on the day of the announcement. "NB Power's $4.8-billion debt will no longer be a risk for our future generations.
Premiers want written guarantee
Since then, Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter and Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams have argued that Quebec could block the transmission of competing sources of electricity to the United States.
Both premiers have demanded a written guarantee that New Brunswick will allow power from other Atlantic provinces to flow into markets in New England.
MacKay did not refer directly to their objections but he pointed out that the region is developing its own sources of renewable energy, including Fundy tidal power and the proposed Lower Churchill Project in Labrador.
“There are many, many sources of green energy that could be bundled, put in an energy grid for the benefit of our people, our province, and arguably for export to the eastern seaboard of the United States," he said.
“I think a larger view of that would tell us that perhaps there are better alternatives to what the Quebec-New Brunswick deal has put forward. But, in short, we need more information about that, we need a more inclusive discussion and I think Atlantic Canada’s interest would be better served with that type of discussion.”
Graham said Friday that he has been assured by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that Ottawa was staying out of the issue.
Harper joined Graham at a ceremony in St. Stephen, inaugurating a new border crossing between Maine and New Brunswick.
Not Ottawa's business, Graham says
"In my discussions with him, Prime Minister Harper was very clear that the energy sector is the responsibility of the provincial government," Graham said. "When the final deal is brought forward you are going to see opportunities for all of the Atlantic provinces to benefit."
The NB Power deal is scheduled to be finalized in March.
In December, a junior federal cabinet minister said Ottawa is closely watching the debate on the sale of NB Power to Hydro-Québec.
But Keith Ashfield, the minister of state responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, said he wasn't sure whether the federal government has the ability to intervene.
Turbine Interferes with Aviation
By Curt Brown
cbrown@s-t.com
January 08, 2010 12:00 AM
DARTMOUTH — The Federal Aviation Administration has ruled that one of two wind turbines proposed for town-owned land off Chase Road is a hazard to air traffic and must be lowered.
The FAA's review found that the height of the north turbine — which measures 462 feet from the tip of the blade to the ground — "exceeds obstruction standards and/or would have an adverse physical or electromagnetic interference" upon air traffic. The north turbine would be located 5½ miles south of the New Bedford Regional Airport.
The FAA recommends lowering the height to 417 feet.
However, the FAA suggests the town could hire an engineering firm to do ground elevations and, if the findings meet with their satisfaction, they would allow a height of 428 feet.
Dr. Ronald DiPippo, chairman of the town's Alternative Energy Committee, said the height of the pole to the hub would have to be reduced to 293 feet from 328 feet to achieve a maximum height of 428 feet, or to 282 feet for a maximum height of 417 feet.
The ruling only applies to the north turbine. The town's application for the south turbine is pending with the FAA.
Select Board Chairman Joseph L. Michaud said the town will conduct a site survey and attempt to win FAA approval for a height of 428 feet.
Michaud said he is confident the FAA will approve the south turbine at a height of 462 feet because it would be located farther from the airport than the north turbine.
The ruling, which is expected to reduce the project's economic benefits because the stronger winds are at higher elevations, was greeted with some disappointment but also acceptance.
"I can certainly live with 428 (feet). The economics are still certainly excellent," DiPippo said. "One hundred or 90 (meters) is a small difference. The project is still stupendous."
"I'm disappointed, but they made a decision for safety reasons," said Select Board member Lara H. Stone. "What are you going to do? They are doing their job."
"I'm not surprised. We figured there would be some adjustments to the project," Michaud said. "It's not a major adjustment and it should be more favorable with the people who have concerns about the height."
DiPippo said the savings to the town on electricity would be $510,000 in the first year if the FAA allows two turbines with 293-foot hubs. He said the benefit would have been about $100,000 higher with 328-foot hubs.
David Costa, one of a group of neighbors who are opposed to the project, was pleased with the news, saying he prefers smaller turbines.
However, he said his main concern was the location of the turbines and he believes there should be a larger buffer zone between the structures and homes.
The FAA's ruling does not change the location of the turbines.
The announcement of the FAA's decision comes on the heels of the unanimous approval Monday night by the Select Board of a special permit for two 100-meter (328-foot hub) turbines.
Town officials said they will not have to refile the permit application, explaining the motion to approve the turbines was for any height up to a maximum approved by the FAA.
Michaud and Stone said the FAA's decision will also not affect the Select Board's decision to seek borrowing authority at a special Town Meeting on Jan. 26 to finance the purchase of the turbines. They said they will proceed with the town's request for Town Meeting approval to borrow the money for the turbines.
cbrown@s-t.com
January 08, 2010 12:00 AM
DARTMOUTH — The Federal Aviation Administration has ruled that one of two wind turbines proposed for town-owned land off Chase Road is a hazard to air traffic and must be lowered.
The FAA's review found that the height of the north turbine — which measures 462 feet from the tip of the blade to the ground — "exceeds obstruction standards and/or would have an adverse physical or electromagnetic interference" upon air traffic. The north turbine would be located 5½ miles south of the New Bedford Regional Airport.
The FAA recommends lowering the height to 417 feet.
However, the FAA suggests the town could hire an engineering firm to do ground elevations and, if the findings meet with their satisfaction, they would allow a height of 428 feet.
Dr. Ronald DiPippo, chairman of the town's Alternative Energy Committee, said the height of the pole to the hub would have to be reduced to 293 feet from 328 feet to achieve a maximum height of 428 feet, or to 282 feet for a maximum height of 417 feet.
The ruling only applies to the north turbine. The town's application for the south turbine is pending with the FAA.
Select Board Chairman Joseph L. Michaud said the town will conduct a site survey and attempt to win FAA approval for a height of 428 feet.
Michaud said he is confident the FAA will approve the south turbine at a height of 462 feet because it would be located farther from the airport than the north turbine.
The ruling, which is expected to reduce the project's economic benefits because the stronger winds are at higher elevations, was greeted with some disappointment but also acceptance.
"I can certainly live with 428 (feet). The economics are still certainly excellent," DiPippo said. "One hundred or 90 (meters) is a small difference. The project is still stupendous."
"I'm disappointed, but they made a decision for safety reasons," said Select Board member Lara H. Stone. "What are you going to do? They are doing their job."
"I'm not surprised. We figured there would be some adjustments to the project," Michaud said. "It's not a major adjustment and it should be more favorable with the people who have concerns about the height."
DiPippo said the savings to the town on electricity would be $510,000 in the first year if the FAA allows two turbines with 293-foot hubs. He said the benefit would have been about $100,000 higher with 328-foot hubs.
David Costa, one of a group of neighbors who are opposed to the project, was pleased with the news, saying he prefers smaller turbines.
However, he said his main concern was the location of the turbines and he believes there should be a larger buffer zone between the structures and homes.
The FAA's ruling does not change the location of the turbines.
The announcement of the FAA's decision comes on the heels of the unanimous approval Monday night by the Select Board of a special permit for two 100-meter (328-foot hub) turbines.
Town officials said they will not have to refile the permit application, explaining the motion to approve the turbines was for any height up to a maximum approved by the FAA.
Michaud and Stone said the FAA's decision will also not affect the Select Board's decision to seek borrowing authority at a special Town Meeting on Jan. 26 to finance the purchase of the turbines. They said they will proceed with the town's request for Town Meeting approval to borrow the money for the turbines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
