These photos show one of the two turbines at the 100.5 MW Grand Ridge Energy wind facility in La Salle County, Illinois, about 80 miles southwest of Chicago, which experienced blade failures on July 23-24, 2010.
Each blade is about 130 feet long-- the equivalent height of a thirteen story building.
A spokeswoman for Invenergy Wind said in the event of high winds the turbines are designed to come to rest with one blade pointing down and parallel to the base of the tower.
According to Invenergy, the winds came so quickly that the safety mechanism did not have time to engage.
In the video below, Wisconsin wind siting Council members Ryan Schryver and Jennifer Heinzen make it clear they do not believe safety setbacks from wind turbine are warranted, saying "Safety is a relative term"
SECOND FEATURE:
Note from the BPWI Research Nerd:
Like other local groups who are asking hard questions about wind siting in our state, Better Plan, Wisconsin is an all volunteer independent citizens group that accepts no funding from outside sources. Yet Wisconsin groups such as ours are frequently characterized as "well-funded anti-wind organizations."
In an recent Wisconsin State Journal article, reference was made to "well-funded anti-wind organizations" in our state, a statement which is frequently made in Wisconsin media without attribution or support.
Better Plan has been trying to source the statement. A google search of "well-funded anti-wind organization" pointed us to a number of PR and consulting firms often hired by wind developers to build community acceptance of a project.
Barnaby Dinges, who was quoted in the Wisconsin State Journal article but not identified as a public relations consultant, runs an Illinois PR Firm called "The Dinges Gang." Invenergy has hired Dinges to help bring in the Ledge Wind Project in Brown County.
(Scroll down to the end of the post to read more about the Dinges Gang)
PR firms such as the Dinges Gang work hard to discredit local residents who have concerns by categorizing them as "a small but vocal minority" and 'well-funded NIMBYS'. They also employ techniques to turn neighbor against neighbor. The article below, by an employee of a Public Relations firm called "The Saint Group" details how this is done.
Turning anti-wind sentiment into permits requires organization, strategy and plain ol’ grassroots politics.
By Ben Kelahan, North American Windpower, July 2009
Community relations may be the road to reputation, but understanding practical local politics paves the way to permits. Opposition groups are sophisticated, organized and well funded. They have borrowed the highest-priced tactics from corporate public relations and masterfully use the Web to circulate misinformation about the impacts of wind farms.
Understanding how the opposition plans to stop your wind farm may be the first step toward planning for its approval. The truth is that planned wind developments run into local trouble every day. Let’s begin by examining some customary tactics used by the opposition.
Opportunistic opposition
Energy developers, particularly wind developers, expect to face opposition from individual landowners and other residents based on the typical siting concerns, such as shadow flicker, noise impacts and property value arguments, that pop up across the country. However, in some cases the opposition takes on some special interest from known characters. Thus, it also takes special care in managing their impact.
Local politicians are accustomed to the usual suspects showing up at public hearings and in letters to the editor of weekly papers on controversial development projects.
Now, wind companies are beginning to notice a pattern to the cast of opponents appearing before zoning hearing boards, road commissioners and alderman, who oppose wind farms using the locality’s zoning codes and planning restrictions as tools to defeat developments town to town.
In Illinois alone, developers such as Horizon Wind Energy, NextEra Energy Resources and Iberdrola Renewables have been the targets of vociferous anti-wind sentiment.
Turning to the Web
Need talking points for the public hearing tonight? Look no further than the growing number of Web sites that circulate their own “myth versus fact” sheets about wind farms and their impact on local communities. Many of these sites have organized talking points by issue, including public safety concerns, such as wind turbine syndrome, or counter-arguments to wind energy’s effectiveness, such as like intermittency.
There are plenty of anti-wind Web sites online. These sites provide a quick primer should you be motivated to oppose the local wind farm proposed down the road. Further they provide best practices borrowed from wind energy site fights from around the globe, complete with per sonal testimonials of those that have opposed wind turbines and won.
The effectiveness of these online anti-wind sites is not necessarily their basis, because impactful opposition doesn’t necessarily need sound science or experience to be effective with local politicians. All it takes is an emotional trigger on a critical local issue to start the flames of opposition to motivate a vocal minority.
If the anti-wind sentiment goes unchecked by a majority of people in the project area who make known their support based on equally passionate arguments that activate locals to take political action on you behalf, you could be in trouble come the day of the permit vote.
Democracy in action
Wind developers are keen on establishing strong relationships within their communities. Community meetings are a popular method of introducing your project to the most people at one time.
An efficient and productive use of time and resources, community meetings provide an educational one-stop shop for answering questions and informing the public about your plans. Although these meetings can allay the concerns of locals, perceptions can change if you let the opposition speak at the gatherings.
So, that raises the question: Why have these meetings if they are not required? Some developers, mindful of being new to the community, do so as a courtesy. But is it helpful?
“It’s one thing if an agency requires a public session – you have to do those,” says Robert Kahn, a 25-year veteran public relations consultant working in wind power, “But it’s rarely a good idea to volunteer to host your own,” he says. “Too often, a public meeting simply provides opponents a chance to identify one another and get better organized. There are much better ways to get the word out.”
When the format for a community forum plays to the positions of opponents, beware.
Here’s how it typically occurs: In an effort to demonstrate transparency and a willingness to consider resident concerns about a wind development plan, the developer begins with a 10-minute presentation of the proposed plan, with specific sound bites reviewing the merits of constructing the wind farm in town. Some of the positives include green jobs, tax revenue, road improvements and donations to local schools. All of those benefits accruing to the community sound wonderful.
After your presentation, undecided residents are satisfied, even though they know it’s in your financial best interest to say so. So even after hearing the pitch, they may not trust you. Then, the outspoken opposition speaks about public safety and health issues. For those attending the hearing, it is a question of taking sides.
If you are fortunate, the undecided members will leave undecided. However, those who have decided may be recruited to speak against you at the next hearing on your special-use permit.
At some point in the approval process, holding an open house allows local residents to see visual simulations, maps and descriptions of construction plans and schedules, along with displays of planned environmental mitigations. An open house is far more relaxed than a community meeting.
Thinking like your opponents may mean acting like them. Several wind power developers have encouraged local citizens to organize support groups around which to rally environmental and property rights activists, business interests and other pro-wind constituencies. Think of these groups as an anti-not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) antidote.
“There’s no substitute for supporters standing up and speaking out on behalf of proposed projects,” Kahn says. “They can say things which a developer, who has one hand tied behind his back, can’t.’
What you can do
However, until such counter-NIMBY organizations expand, developers must n-lake a concerted effort to outnumber the vocal minority and special interest groups that desire a political victory for their own constituencies and members. It can be done, starting with the following basic steps:
Research. Understand the political climate surrounding your project before you go public with your proposal. First, make a list of likely supporters and opponents. Then, do some research. Has this site been the subject of previous controversies? Some sites are considered too troublesome and will never succeed in obtaining change-of-use permits. Knowing the history of the site could impact your decision making.
Time and target your outreach. Never let the news media be the first to describe the impact of your wind project nor be considered the best source of facts about your plans for the site. Inform the politicians and neighbors before they read it in the press.
Persuade. Go door to door informing landowners and residents. Explain the proposal, and attempt to determine who will support it, who will stay neutral and who will oppose. Shortcuts, such as hosting public meetings, will not do the trick in inoculating public opinion over a wind power project.
Get started by scheduling small meetings with key constituencies and community leaders. “These are the people who shape local opinion,” says Kahn. “Their support will be indispensable in countering the opposition.”
Political process. You need to attack this as if you were a local politician running for office, which means identifying, recruiting and organizing. Organize supporters, and then get them to attend meetings, sign petitions and write letters to the editor. Above all, you need to demonstrate public support equal to or greater than that of your opponents.
Negotiate when possible. In some cases, you can offer mitigation, or negotiate in some other way to get opponents to drop their positions. In other cases, the opponents or their backers have an economic interest in defeating your project that will never be overcome by an attempt at compromise.
In those cases, you must marshal sufficient political support to overcome the opposition and be prepared to educate your supporters in the community about what you know about your opposition – where they come from and why you feel they’re involved. Let them be the judge.
Ben Kelahan is senior vice president, energy, at Vienna, Va.-based Saint Consulting Group, a community outreach consultancy.
WHO ARE YOU, BARNABY DINGES?
Now don't us tell a FIB!
Dinges, who calls Wisconsin an "Energy Slacker" lives in Illinois and is running for mayor of Evanston, a city located just north of Chicago on Lake Michigan.
He runs a Public Relations firm called "The Dinges Gang" and has been hired by wind developer giant, Invenergy, to smooth the way for the Ledge wind project in Brown County.
From "THE DINGES GANG" website:
"If your company, group or government agency is facing a challenging issue or project, call in The Dinges Gang."
Who else does the "Dinges Gang" represent?
- Abbott Laboratories
- Chicago Bears
- The Chicago Network
- CMGI
- Chicago Park District
- Draper and Kramer
- Illinois Department of Transportation
- Illinois Department of Public Aid
- Illinois Sports Facilities Authority
- Kraft Foods
- PLS Landscape Architects
Public Relations Team Projects for...
- ComEd
- DTE Energy
- Gateway 2000
- Ghirardelli Chocolate
- Illinois Casino Gaming Association
- Jim Beam
- Lernout & Hauspie Speech Recognition Products
- Monsanto
- Sears
- Starkist
- Trizec Hahn Properties
WHAT HAS THE DINGES GANG DONE FOR WISCONSIN?
From the DINGES GANG website:
ADVOCACY
Case Study: Forward Energy Windmill Farm
Generating Green Energy and Public Support
Invenergy developed plans to build Wisconsin’s largest wind farm, a 200-MW project within miles of the Horicon Marsh, a migratory destination for millions of birds and the area’s largest tourist attraction. The wind farm would provide enough power for 70,000 homes and help Wisconsin reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015.
The Challenge
In a classic case of NIMBY obstructionism, a local group used $50,000 in public funding to organize a group to oppose the project and encourage the Public Service Commission to vote against the project. The opposition group, Horicon Marsh System Advocates, created an opposition web site, and used its 300 members to write letters to regulators and media, and to attend public meetings to rail against the project. The opposition group claimed the wind farm would kill birds, destroy the area’s landscape, endanger local pilots, and harm local tourism.
The Plan
Partnering with local farmers who would host wind turbines on their land, The Dinges Gang educated the group to communicate with local officials and the media.
We placed “Wind Yes!” signs in front of their farmhouses. The group of supporters also included Wisconsin environmental groups and local labor and construction groups.
The Forward Energy team testified at public meetings and emailed letters of support to the Public Service Commission.
Supporters also wrote letters to and conducted interviews with media to underscore the broad benefits of the project (keeps farmers farming, provides $1-million annually in new local taxes for government, creates 250 construction jobs, etc.).
We also refuted each of the opposition’s arguments, showing them to be wild exaggerations and desperate attempts by a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) group to impede progress that will benefit the entire region.
Our Success
On July 8, 2005, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission voted to support the $250-million project, which will erect 133 wind turbines on the Niagara Escarpment, within two miles of the Horicon Marsh.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI NERD:
The "'NIMBY' advocacy group Dinges mentions here turned out to be right about wildlife impact.
Initial post construction mortality studies show the Forward project turbine related bat deaths are among the highest in north America at 41.5 bat kills per turbine per year, or over ten times the national average of 4 bat kills per turbine per year.
In a little more than two years, the Invenergy Forward project along side the Horicon Marsh is estimated to have killed over 7,000 bats. The bird kill rates for this project are also much higher than the national average
The current setback from the Horicon Marsh is two miles. Invenergy is pushing to site turbines in Phase Two of this project a mile from the marsh.