LETTER: Is wind farm designed to fail?Jay Mundinger, spokesperson for Highland Wind Farm LLC said: “[It is] time for cooler heads, rational decision making and a complete understanding of the benefits of a project like this.“
To the Editor:
Jay Mundinger, spokesperson for Highland Wind Farm LLC said: “[It is] time for cooler heads, rational decision making and a complete understanding of the benefits of a project like this.“ “It is time to …rationally discuss the benefits of the Highland Wind Farm.”
I agree. Cooler heads … rationally discuss … let’s.
Mr. Mundinger says, “Leaving aside the larger social, environmental and health benefits…”
Mr. Mundinger is very focused on the “benefits.”
Why then is the Highland Wind Farm designed to fail in delivering these benefits.
Like Mr. Mundinger, I am going to dismiss the absurd concern by residents about wind turbines sited too close to people and their properties. My concern is about wind turbines sited too close to other wind turbines.
A car following a semi down the freeway can experience drafting or turbulent buffeting depending on the relation between the truck, car and the wind. While a turbine downwind from another turbine doesn’t experience “drafting,” it would experience a buffeting turbulence that would interfere with its ability to efficiently produce electricity. Conventional wisdom says that turbines should be sited seven rotor diameters from each other.
I’ll grant that turbines lined up in a row and perpendicular to the wind can be sited closer. But the wind from season to season varies in directionality and perpendicularity cannot be assured. In the case of the Highland Wind Farm, these turbines are not lined up in rows and zigzag throughout the township. These turbines should at a minimum follow the conventional wisdom of seven rotor diameters distance.
Less than half of the proposed Highland wind turbines are sited more than seven rotors distance from each other. Twenty percent of Highland’s proposed turbines are less than five rotor diameters distance from each other.
As I stated, the seven rotor distance is only conventional wisdom. Researchers at John Hopkins and researchers at the California Institute of Technology both suggest that the distance should be doubled. Only one turbine in Forest meets that standard.
Perhaps Emerging Energies can explain why they have designed a farm to fail in delivering promised benefits. Perhaps Mr. Mundinger can explain why he is unconcerned with losing the benefits promised by these turbines.
New Haven resident across the line from Forest
(In full disclosure: member of the New Haven Planning Commission)