WHAT'S BLACK AND WHITE AND YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE?

Sorry. I signed a wind lease. I can't discuss it.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Better Plan has been collecting copies of wind leases for the last few years and has yet to find one that didn't contain a confidentiality agreement ---also known as a 'gag order'

Landowners who share wind leases are taking a clear risk, but more are coming forward anyway. One farmer who shared his contract said, "I don't care anymore. I just don't want this to happen to anyone else."

The section below is copied from a wind lease contract that came our way. The landowner who signed it agreed to allow noise, vibration, shadow flicker and any other disruption the turbines might cause to take place on his property. If he has problems with these things he can't talk about it because the gag order requires that he:

Not to talk about the contents of lease to anyone. 

Not to talk about the construction or operation of the turbines.

Not not speak to reporters or anyone in the media or issue statements or press releases unless the wind company gives the landowner their written permission.

The landowner also had to agree that the gag order would still apply long after the turbines are gone. This line says it all: "This section shall survive the termination of expiration of this lease"  It means this gag order is forever.

The landowner can talk to his lawyer or accountant and certain others about the contract but only after they agree to a gag order too. 

 STRAIGHT FROM THE CONTRACT:

Confidentiality

(Landowner) shall maintain in strictest confidence, for the sole benefit of (wind developer) all information pertaining to the terms and conditions of this lease, including, without limitation, the construction and power production of the wind farm.

Without first obtaining written permission from the (wind developer), (the landowner) shall not issue any statements or press releases or respond to any inquires from news media regarding such matters.

(Landowner) shall maintain the strictest confidence, for the sole benefit of the (wind developer) all information pertaining to the terms and conditions of this lease, including, without limitation, the financial terms hereof.

This section shall survive the termination of expiration of this lease.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit sharing or disclosing information with any party's (lawyer) accountants or current or prospective investors, purchases, lenders or as required by law, provided that the party sharing or disclosing such information requires the recipient to maintain the confidentiality of such disclosed information

FROM THE DEVELOPERS POINT OF VIEW

Wind Energy Update: Wind Farm O&M - Best Practice On Cost Containment Elusive

The constantly evolving wind turbine market means that new components must continually be demonstrated, with little assurance of their availability five years down the track in the event of component failure.

Posted on: Monday, 23 May 2011

SOURCE: "Wind Energy Update" VIA PR WEB

When it comes to turning a profit throughout the lifecycle of a wind farm, just a one percent improvement in operations and maintenance can make a huge difference to the bottom line, according to the latest Wind Energy Update Operations & Maintenance Report 2011.

(PRWEB) May 23, 2011

When it comes to turning a profit throughout the lifecycle of a wind farm, just a one percent improvement in operations and maintenance can make a huge difference to the bottom line, according to the latest Wind Energy Update Operations & Maintenance Report 2011. [Click here to download report]

The challenge, however, is how to achieve that one percent improvement in the face of operations and maintenance (O&M) costs that are double or even triple initial projections.

O&M costs under-estimated

On the basis of an exhaustive industry survey, the latest report finds that wind farm return on investment is around -21 percent. This underperformance is attributable to over-estimation of power production and underestimation of O&M costs say the report’s authors.

In the early days, the industry had costed out O&M at roughly 0.5c/kw over a turbine’s 20-year life. But as newer models and their respective components continued to flood the market, this has turned out to be far from the reality.

The report highlights that wind O&M costs can now be expected to increase on average 253 percent over the 20-year life of the various wind machines.

“Given that every wind turbine comprises an average of 8000 components, it is not surprising that higher-than-expected rates of component failure continue to plague the industry,” say the report's authors.

Understanding the root cause

The constantly evolving wind turbine market means that new components must continually be demonstrated, with little assurance of their availability five years down the track in the event of component failure.

Of even greater concern is that, if not properly addressed early on, component failures can persist through new product generations. It is therefore vital, despite pressure from competitors to continuously push the boundaries on nameplate capacities, that both the onshore and offshore industries adopt a backwards compatibility approach when evolving each model.

A thorough understanding of failure trends can also provide a basis for the best O&M practices for a given system, say the reports authors.

Sketching a component failure timeline, the authors characterise earliest wind turbine designs (1987-91) by their gearbox failures, while wind turbines built between 1994-99 are characterized by electronic power failures.

Turbines manufactured between 2000-2004, again exhibit problems with generators and gearboxes. More recent models are plagued with issues linked to retrofits.

Aftermarket potential

But there is a silver lining. Some component suppliers to the OEM wind turbine market view the aftermarket as a new, long-term opportunity.

“Advances in turbine design may make certain parts obsolete, but with a typical projected turbine life of 20 years or more, the aftermarket will provide ongoing spares demand for these suppliers for some time to come”, says the report.

The report also notes that in the long-run, as the wind industry matures and begins to validate the success of condition and performance monitoring systems, as direct drive turbines replace gear-box driven turbines, and as the industry begins to collaborate on O&M, reductions in long-term O&M costs are the most likely scenario.

DOWNLOAD Wind Energy Update Operations & Maintenance Report 2011.



Glenmore town board approves turbines: fox11online.com

GLENMORE TOWN BOARD APPROVES TURBINES

SOURCE: FOX11

MARCH 17, 2011

GREEN BAY - Emotions continue to run hot over a wind turbine project in Brown County. The Glenmore town board tonight voted to allow CG Power Solutions to build seven turbines in the community.

The vote happened without public comment.

When the meeting was adjourned soon after the vote, many of those attending shouted down the board members. Law enforcement officers watched the crowd as the board members left.

Tonight's meeting and vote came on the heels of another heated meeting last week. At that time, the board originally approved the permit for the project, but when the crowd became angry then, the board abruptly ended the meeting.

It later reconvened and voted to delay the permit for two months. Then, the turbine company challenged that second vote, saying it violated state open meeting law.

We were not able to speak with board members following tonight's meeting.

Opponents to the plan say they have a number of concerns, including health issues.

Next story

AIRING WIND FARM FEARS

By Erin Somerville, Central Western Daily, www.centralwesterndaily.com.au 18 March 2011

They may look harmless, but the increasing amount of wind turbines freckling hills and skylines around the central west may be doing more harm than good.

Insomnia, nausea and headaches are just some of the health complaints slowly being brought to the surface by people living near wind farms.

Dr Sarah Laurie,who has done extensive research into the health effects of wind turbines in rural communities, spoke to residents around Blayney on Wednesday night about her findings.

Residents and land holders were particularly interested as they face a proposed $200 million wind farm being built in the Flyers Creek area across 16 properties.

“I am not anti-wind, but there’s a problem,” Dr Laurie said. “You can’t ignore the fact that people are getting sick.”

The sudden and unexplained common symptoms presented by those living up to 10 kilometres away from wind farms include nausea, headaches, sleep deprivation, tinnitus, panic attacks and high blood pressure.

Children are also presenting unusual symptoms including waking with night terrors and sudden bed wetting, despite having gone years without wetting the bed.

Residents report they can only solve these problems by leaving the area.

Dr Laurie said that medical practitioners, wind turbine companies, and the government can no longer ignore the evidence linking wind farms with negative health affects.

She believes infrasound waves that are inaudible to humans are responsible for the health problems.

“There’s a stimulation of the nervous system, and I think this is from the infrasound,” she said.

“[People] can’t really protect their homes from it because they are very penetrative.”

Although infrasound waves occur naturally, Dr Laurie believes it’s the pulsating nature of the sound waves as the blade passes the tower that is mainly responsible for the health problems.

The Senate has launched an inquiry on rural wind farms and their health effects.

Over 1000 submissions have been made so far.

Dr Laurie is hoping the inquiry will prompt the government to investigate the issue so it is better understood and preventative strategies can be taken in the future.

“It is acoustic pollution,” she said.

There are no regulations stating how far a wind farm can be from a residence.

Infigen Energy, the company behind the proposed Flyers Creek wind farm, did not provide the Central Western Daily with a comment.

Next story

BOARD OF HEALTH PRESSED TO STUDY EFFECTS OF TURBINES

SOURCE Falmouth Enterprise, (via National Wind Watch)

15 March 2011

By ELISE R. HUGUS,

Falmouth Board of Health will request that health impacts from the town’s wind turbines be studied by the state Department of Public Health, and that a complaint log based on science be established online for residents to report adverse effects from the turbines.

In a meeting last night, the board heard a presentation from Ambleside Road resident J. Malcolm Donald on health effects from a 28-turbine wind farm in Mars Hill, Maine. The controlled study, conducted by Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum, found that a large percentage of residents living within 1,100 meters of the turbines experienced symptoms, compared with residents who lived three miles away. According to Mr. Donald, the study found that 77 percent of abutters to the wind farm experienced feelings of anger, and over 50 percent felt feelings of stress, hopelessness, and depression. Over 80 percent reported sleep disturbances, compared with 4 percent in the control group, he said, and 41 percent of abutters experienced headaches.

The study, which was completed in March 2009, has yet to be published in a creditable journal—and, as several board members pointed out, has yet to stand up to the rigors of the scientific method, which include peer review and replication.

Board member John B. Waterbury, a biologist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said he had carefully read the study and other documents sent by Mr. Donald over the weekend. “As a scientist, I look and see there isn’t much peer-reviewed literature. Then there are people who are clearly impacted by this thing in a number of ways,” he said. Fellow board member George R. Heufelder said he was not convinced that the physiological symptoms listed in the study are connected to the turbines. “I can’t dismiss your irritation and angst, but my analysis says, show me the facts. It takes someone to do a good, controlled study,” he said. Mr. Donald cited the “precautionary principle,” a legal term that allows policy makers to make decisions that are not based on scientific evidence. “You don’t really need to know why something is happening. If we know it’s happening, we need to take preventive mesures to stop it from happening,” he said. Board member Jared V. Goldstone pointed out that although the principle has been adopted in the European Union, it is not law in the United States. “The legal underpinnings of [Dr. Nissenbaum’s study] just aren’t there. Right now it’s a political issue,” he said.

Mr. Donald also read verbatim a Climatide blog post written, coincidentally, by Dr. Goldstone’s wife, Heather M. Goldstone, a WCAI reporter with a doctorate in ocean science and a background in toxicology. As part of the radio station’s series on “the Falmouth Experience” with turbines, she drew parallels between the debate over the health effects of wind turbine energy and toxic chemical pollutants.

Several residents of Blacksmith Shop Road, where the town-owned turbines are located, spoke about the health and quality-of-life impacts they started experiencing after the fi rst turbine was erected last spring.

John J. Ford, who said he lives 2,745 feet from the Notus Clean Energy turbine at Falmouth Technology Park and 3,740 feet from Wind 1 at the wastewater treatment facility, said he is currently trying to soundproof his bedroom in order to sleep at night. With an elevated heart rate and blood pressure, he said his experiences are similar to those in the Nissenbaum study. “My neighbors and myself would be enthralled, if the board of health took a more active role in this,” Mr. Ford said.

Colin P. Murphy, also of Blacksmith Shop Road, said that he has felt all the effects listed in the study “at some point or other.” He invited board members to spend time in the neighborhood for a full 24-hour period in various wind conditions to feel the effects for themselves. station’s series on “the Falmouth . [sic]

Mark J. Cool, a resident of Fire Tower Road, asked the board to take a proactive approach by approaching state authorities for help and working with other town committees to address the residents grievances. “At the very least, acknowledge that something is going on in our neighborhood. It’s an enormous problem for everybody,” he said.

Chairman Gail A. Harkness said it was clear that residents are affected, but the turbines are related to the town’s finances, over which the board of health does not have jurisdiction. Mr. Murphy said that money should not be a concern for the board of health. “Aren’t I worth more than $178,000? I think I’m worth more than that,” he shouted, referring to the town’s estimate of how much money will be saved through wind energy each year.

Mr. Donald said that those savings should be enough to fund a study.

“Why can’t the board take some milk from those ‘cash cows’ to fund an epidemiological study?” he asked.

Dr. Harkness, an epidemiologist by training, suggested approaching the schools of public health at Harvard or Boston University to do a controlled study. “One residential study does not give you the truth. Repeated findings do not lead to a cause-effect scenario,” she said.

Mr. Cool asked board members whether they had seen the noise complaint log, which Falmouth Wastewater Superintendent Gerald C. Potamis explained is being kept by a private consultant. Dr. Goldstone said that could be helpful, especially if the log featured “controlled vocabulary” that could be used as scientific data for the sometimes subjective complaints.

Several residents said they had not heard of the log, and had been sending their complaints directly to selectmen or the town manager. Dr. Waterbury suggested posting the log, along with wind turbine data, on the town website so that it would be easily accessible.

Board members questioned whether pending litigation between a group of residents and the town would affect the online log, but they said they would explore the idea, along with the possibility of getting state health authorities to conduct a study in the affected neighborhoods.

The board will follow up on these action items at its next meeting on March 28.

Next story

PLANNERS APPROVE TWO MILE SETBACK

SOURCE East Oregonian, www.eastoregonian.com

March 16, 2011

By Clinton Reeder,

The Umatilla County Planning Committee has voted unanimously to send a proposed two-mile setback of wind towers from rural homes and from city urban growth boundaries to the Umatilla County Commissioners for approval.

This guarantees both the cities and the rural homeowners the right to say “no” to wind towers encroaching upon their properties against their will. If they say “no,” then no tower can be built closer than two miles from a home, nor will a wind tower be built closer than two miles from a city’s urban growth boundary.

[rest of article available here]

Next story

FLICKER OF HOPE FOR WIND TURBINE VICTIMS

SOURCE: The Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk

March 17, 2011

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent,

The misery of shadow flicker, which blights the lives of people living near some wind turbines, could soon be over.

The flickering is caused when rotating turbine blades periodically cast shadows through openings, such as windows.

A report commissioned by the Department for Energy and Climate Change recommended that turbines should be built no closer than 10 rotor diameters from the nearest home.

This means that if the blade had an 80metre (262ft) diameter, it should be at least 800 metres, or half a mile away.

Shadow flicker is worse when the sun is low in the sky in winter, when the wind can also be strong.

Studies cited in the report said that, over the long term, it could cause “a significant nuisance”.

It was also a risk for a small number of people with epilepsy.

Although the report concluded that flicker was not a “significant health risk”, protesters insist the issue can cause headaches and stress–related problems.

Lynn Harlock, who lives almost half a mile from Redtile wind farm in Cambridgeshire, said she was “sick to death” of flicker.

“You cannot sit in any rooms when the sun is setting at certain times of year,” she said.

“It is like flashing strobe lighting. It is quite upsetting not being able to sit in your own home.

“People think you are barmy. They think you are after compensation. But all we want is our home back.”

The report recommended that homes and offices within 500 meters, or a third of a mile, of a turbine should not suffer flicker for more than 30 minutes a day or 30 hours a year.

Developers applying for planning permission where there could be a flicker should put in place measures to stop significant nuisance, it added.

In many cases, problems could be solved by shutting a turbine down for short periods of the year, changing the position slightly or planting vegetation and trees.

The Coalition wants to build up to 6,000 wind turbines onshore over the next 10 years.

Charles Hendry, minister for energy and climate change, welcomed the report. He said new planning laws would ensure turbines were sited where there was plenty of wind rather than near residential areas where they might cause protests. Planning guidance would stick to the “10 diameter rule”.

Lee Moroney, a wind energy expert with the Renewable Energy Foundation, said the rules were not strong enough and wind turbines should not be built within a mile of residential areas.

Birds are not so eagle–eyed after all, according to a study that found that some species crash into wind turbines and power lines because they do not look where they are going.

Professor Graham Martin at the University of Birmingham said large birds of prey and sea birds were particularly vulnerable to crashing into man–made structures. In a study published in the journal Ibis, he suggested the reason was because birds had evolved to look for movement either side and potential prey on the ground rather than straight ahead.

He suggested that wind farms or other structures should have decoys on the ground to try to distract birds, or emit sound to alert them to the danger.

Is Governor Scott Walker picking a fight with the state’s wind energy industry? It may be shaping up that way. The governor wants a second look at the process for placing wind turbines in Wisconsin, citing the concerns of adjoining property owners and businesses. Walker said this week that such concerns “had not been addressed.” The current Public Service Commission rules were finalized in September of 2010, after a nearly year long public process that began with the passage of enabling legislation which drew bipartisan support. “We thought it was more important to address that through the legislative and executive branches,” Walker said.

“The legislature was engaged in this issue for more than two years,” said Keith Reopelle with Wisconsin Environment. “They passed a bill, which like most complex pieces of legislation left the details up to a state agency which actually has expertise in that area.” Reopelle noted that the Public Service Commission held a lengthy series of public hearings in order to develop the rules.

Walker, who emphasized jobs creation during the campaign for governor, and who has called a special legislative session on jobs and the economy, said the intent in changing the setback rules for wind turbines is not to cost the state more jobs. “Certainly, we don’t want to do things that have an economic impact. By the same token, I think for adjoining property owners there’s some serious concerns out there, and we’re trying to balance the two,” the governor said.

Wisconsin Environment’s Reopelle said that changing those rules would “bring to a screeching halt” up to ten projects around the state. And he noted, there jobs at stake, as manufacturers in communities around the state are now producing components for wind turbines.

AUDIO: Bob Hague reports (:60)

READ ALL ABOUT IT! HOT OFF THE PRESS:

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD WALKER'S NEW WIND SITING BILL

WHAT DOES IT SAY?

Under current law, (ACT 40) the Public Service Commission (PSC), with the advice of the wind siting council, must promulgate rules specifying the restrictions that a city, village, town, or county may impose on the installation or use of a “wind energy system,” which is defined as equipment and associated facilities that convert andthen store or transfer wind energy into usable forms of energy.

The restrictions must satisfy certain conditions, including preserving or protecting the public health or safety and not significantly increasing the cost of a wind energy system or significantly decreasing its efficiency.

In addition, the subject matter of the rules must include setback requirements and decommissioning, and may include any of the following:

visual appearance

lighting

electrical connections to the power grid

maximum audible sound levels

shadow flicker

proper means of measuring noise

interference with radio, telephone, or television signals

or other matters.

Current law prohibits a city, village, town, or county from placing a restriction on the installation or use of a wind energy system that is more restrictive than the PSC’s rules.

This bill imposes additional requirements on the PSC’s rules.

The bill requires that, if a PSC rule involves a person who is affected by a wind energy system, including a rule that requires written notice, the rule must ensure that such a person includes an “affected owner,” which the bill defines as the owner of property located within one−half mile of property on which a wind energy system is installed or proposed to be installed.

In addition, the rules must allow an affected owner who has entered into an agreement with an owner or operator of a wind energy system regarding the installation or use of the wind energy system to terminate the agreement upon giving written notice of the termination no later than 10 working days after entering into the agreement.

Also, the rules must require any individual who negotiates an agreement with an affected owner on behalf of an owner or operator regarding an interest in real estate related to the installation or use of a wind energy system to make a written disclosure that the individual is licensed as a real estate broker or is exempt from such licensure.

The rules must also require inclusion of the written disclosure as an addendum to such an agreement.

Additionally, the rules must require an owner or operator to provide a copy of a brochure prepared by the PSC to an affected owner prior to entering into an agreement with the affected owner regarding the installation or use of the wind energy system.

The brochure must describe wind energy systems, requirements under state law applicable to wind energy systems, including any provisions of the PSC’s rules that allow for waiver of any such requirements, and the possible impacts of wind energy systems on property owners, including affected owners.

In addition, the bill eliminates the requirement for the PSC to promulgate rules regarding setback requirements, and requires instead that the owners of certain wind energy systems comply with setback requirements specified in the bill.

The bill’s setback requirements apply to the owner of a “large wind energy system,” which the bill defines as a wind energy system that has a total installed nameplate capacity of more than 300 kilowatts and that consists of individual wind turbines that have an installed nameplate capacity of more than 100 kilowatts.

The bill defines the owner of a large wind energy system as any of the following:

1) a person with a direct ownership interest in such a system, regardless of whether the person was involved
in acquiring the necessary rights, permits, and approvals or otherwise planning for the construction and operation of the system; or

2) a person acting as a developer of a large wind energy system by acquiring the necessary rights, permits, and approvals for or by planning for the construction and operation of the system, regardless of whether the person will own or operate the system.

The foregoing definition is similar to a definition in rules promulgated by the PSC.

Under the bill, the owner of a large wind energy system must design and construct the Under the bill, the owner of a large wind energy system must design and construct the system so that the setback distance is at least 1,800 feet.

However, the bill allows for a setback distance of less than 1,800 feet if the owners of all of the
following agree in writing:

1) properties adjoining the property on which the large wind energy system is located; and

2) properties separated only by a right−of−way from the property on which the large wind energy system is located.

The bill also specifies that setback distance must be measured as a straight line from the vertical center line of the wind turbine tower of the large wind energy system to the nearest point on the property line of the property on which the large wind energy system is located.

This requirement is similar to a requirement in rules promulgated by the PSC.

Current law requires the wind siting council to submit a report to the legislature every five years that describes the following:

1) peer−reviewed scientific research regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems; and

2) state and national regulatory developments regarding the siting of wind energy systems. The report must also include any recommendations for legislation.

The bill requires the wind siting council to study the impacts of wind energy systems on property values and to include the results of its study in the report.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE NEW WIND SITING BILL

SUPPORT SENATE BILL 9: WALKER'S WIND SITING REFORM

Better Plan encourages you to take a moment right now to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for including these more protective requirements in this bill and to also contact your senator and representative to encourage them to support it.

 CONTACT Governor Scott Walker govgeneral@wisconsin.gov
115 East Capitol
Madison WI 53702
(608) 266-1212 

CONTACT Legislators  

Who Are My Legislators?  To find out, CLICK HERE

Senate | Members | E-Mail Directory

Assembly | Members | E-Mail Directory

SAMPLE LETTER TO A SENATOR FROM A RESIDENT OF ROCK COUNTY

 Dear Senator Cullen,

I’m writing to ask you to support Senate Bill 9, concerning wind siting issues in our state.

Five Towns in Rock County lawfully passed wind siting ordinances which were overturned by Act 40 — legislation which stripped local government of the power to regulate wind energy systems in their communities.

Other towns in your district were also considering wind ordinances before Act 40 took away that right.

Rock County Towns with lawfully adopted ordinances include

Town of Janesville,

Town of Center,
Town of Spring Valley

Town of Magnolia

Town of Union

The ordinances were a product of over a years worth of work and expense. All four towns would like to see their ordinances restored, all of them call for a health and safety setback of 2640 feet from homes unless a homeowner agrees to have a turbine closer and also a more protective turbine noise limit than that provided by the state.

Although Governor Walker’s bill doesn’t address these health and safety issues directly, his bill does help to protect property rights and certainly provides greater setback protection than the PSC’s wind-developer-friendly guidelines.

This bill is also clear about allowing individual homeowners the choice to have turbines closer to their property line if they wish to enter into an agreement with the developer.

The jobs that wind farms will bring to Wisconsin are for the most part short-term construction jobs which are frequently done by construction workers called in from out of state. After the turbines are up, the jobs that remain are few.

Many Wisconsin residents now living in wind projects desperately want to move away because of turbines sited too close to their residences, but cannot sell their homes because few buyers want to live so close to turbines that are 40 to 50 stories tall.

Current PSC setbacks are just too close to homes. Wind project residents sleep is disrupted because of nighttime turbine noise. TV, radio and cell phone reception has been disrupted by the turbines as well.

Although not perfect, Governor Walker’s bill is an important step toward protecting Wisconsin residents by requiring more responsible siting guidelines. I urge you to support it.

To see how close the turbines are to homes in PSC approved wind projects in Wisconsin, please watch this very short video. It contains photos of Wisconsin homes in wind projects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRb-MWfQYTk

This one, shot in Fond du Lac County by a wind project resident clearly shows why living with wind turbine shadow flicker is such a nightmare for so many families.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbIe0iUtelQ&feature=related

This one shows more Wisconsin homes in PSC approved wind projects. It was flimed last spring

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=memQDODSL7Q

Thank You,

Lynda Barry

Town of Spring Valley

Second Feature

SIGN VANDALISM RAISES CONCERNS

SOURCE: www.greenbaypressgazette.com

January 20, 2011

By Carl Johnson

Last February, some residents in the area of the proposed industrial wind facility in southern Brown County began posting signs expressing concerns for the potential impacts the project would have on their health, environment and property rights and values.

Individuals displaying signs have conformed to town ordinances. Now, signs in the towns of Holland, Morrison and Glenmore are being vandalized, raising objection to a more serious level.

Someone in the community is willing to violate private property laws to intimidate neighbors and limit their freedom of speech.

Did the signers of turbine contracts have any concern for what effects their actions would potentially have on the lives of their neighbors?

Do they now feel any responsibility for the backlash of community reaction?

At a Holland town meeting last summer, a contract signer who demanded removal of signs with “contentious messages,” sadly put the issue into perspective declaring, “Last year those people were my friends.”

Of the many messages expressed on the placards posted by Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, one prophetically states, “Wind energy projects destroy communities.” The acts of vandalism are ample proof of that.

Carl Johnson
Greenleaf

SORRY WE MISSED THE PARTY: Drinking with the PSC

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: For those of you who have been following the wind siting rules issue in our state, Deborah Erwin (pictured below) of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission will be a familiar name to you. The photo was taken at the August "WIND POWER HAPPY HOUR" event at the Capitol Brewery.

SOURCE: Breezesandbeverages.blogspot.com

Friday, September 3, 2010

Great Attendnce for the August Wind Power Happy Hour at Capital Brewery

Photo: Deborah Erwin from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and Mike Ross from American Superconductor at Capital Brewery in Middleton, Wisconsin.

In what turned out to be one of our most well attended events of the year, more than 60 people attended the August Wind Power Happy Hour to sample some of Capital Brewery's finest offerings, sit in the Bier Garten on one of the nicest days of the summer, and to hear from a couple of great presenters.

Mike Ross, Sr. Engineer for American Superconductor in Middleton, Wisconsin was the company spotlight for this meeting. He provided an overview of three key aspects of AMSC's products: Windtec technology, superconducting cables, and the SeaTitan--a 10 MW wind turbine being developed for off shore purposes. Mike also shared that AMSC recently acquired an ownership stake in Blade Dynamics, a designer and manufacturer of advanced wind turbine blades based on proprietary materials and structural technologies.

Deborah Erwin is the Docket Manager for the Public Service Commission and the Wind Siting Council that has been developing rules for wind farms under 100 MW in Wisconsin. Its been a tough job, but she reported they are almost ready to be sent to the Legislature for approval. Click here to see a current copy of the proposed Wind Siting rules and the press release issued by the PSC on their completion of their efforts.

Special thanks to Capital Brewery for their hospitality, and for letting us use the Bier Stube for our event.

FIRST FEATURE:

THE ALLURE OF TECHNO-GLAMOR

Source: Wall Street Journal

November 20, 2010

By Virgina Postrel

[Please note: photos added by Better Plan]

When Robert J. Samuelson published a Newsweek column last month arguing that high-speed rail is "a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause," he cited cost figures and potential ridership to demonstrate that even the rosiest scenarios wouldn't justify the investment.

He made a good, rational case—only to have it completely undermined by the evocative photograph the magazine chose to accompany the article.

The picture showed a sleek train bursting through blurred lines of track and scenery, the embodiment of elegant, effortless speed. It was the kind of image that creates longing, the kind of image a bunch of numbers cannot refute. It was beautiful, manipulative and deeply glamorous.

The same is true of photos of wind turbines adorning ads for everything from Aveda's beauty products to MIT's Sloan School of Management. These graceful forms have succeeded the rocket ships and atomic symbols of the 1950s to become the new icons of the technological future. If the island of Wuhu, where games for the Wii console play out, can run on wind power, why can't the real world?

Policy wonks assume the current rage for wind farms and high-speed rail has something to do with efficiently reducing carbon emissions. So they debate load mismatches and ridership figures. These are worthy discussions and address real questions.

But they miss the emotional point.

To their most ardent advocates, and increasingly to the public at large, these technologies aren't just about generating electricity or getting from one city to another. They are symbols of an ideal world, longing disguised as problem solving. You can't counter glamour with statistics.

Glamour always contains an element of illusion. (The word originally meant a literal magic spell.) By obscuring some details and heightening others, it offers an escape from the compromises, flaws and distractions of real life. It shows no bills on the kitchen counter, no blisters under the high heels, no pimples on the movie star's face.

In those glamour shots, wind power seems clean, free and infinitely abundant. Turbines spin silently and sometimes appear barely taller than a child. The wind blows constantly and in exactly the right amount—never so much that it piles up unwanted power and never so little that it requires backup supply. The sky is unfailingly photogenic, a backdrop of either puffy clouds or a brilliant sunset; the landscape is both empty and beautiful; and there are no transmission lines anywhere.

The image of a speeding train, meanwhile, invites you to imagine taking it when and where you want, with no waiting, no crowds and no expensive tickets. Like the turbines, high-speed trains exemplify autonomy and grace, sliding along effortlessly, with no visible source of fuel. To a stressed-out public, they promise an escape from traffic jams—and, at least until the first terrorism scare, from the hassles, intrusion and delays of airport security.

For all its deceptiveness and mystery, glamour reveals emotional truths. What today's green techno-glamour demonstrates, first and foremost, is that its audience has no inclination to give up the benefits of modernity and return to the pre-industrial state idealized by radical greens. Neither the Unabomber nor Henry David Thoreau would go for wind farms and high-speed rail. To the contrary, these iconic new machines cater to what Al Gore denounced in "Earth in the Balance" as "the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." They promise that a green future will be just as pleasant as today, only cleaner and more elegant.

For at least some technophiles, in fact, the trains and windmills are goods in and of themselves, with climate change providing a reason to force the development and adoption of cool new machines that wouldn't otherwise catch on. These technologies also restore the idea of progress as big, visible engineering projects—an alternative to the decentralized, hidden ingenuity of computer code.

They evoke the old World's Fair sense of hope and wonder, a feeling President Barack Obama draws on when he endorses high-speed rail subsidies as "building for the future." They are the latest incarnation of flying cars and electricity too cheap to meter.

The problems come, of course, in the things glamour omits, including all those annoyingly practical concerns the policy wonks insist on debating. Neither trains nor wind farms are as effortlessly liberating as their photos suggest. Neither really offers an escape from the world of compromises and constraints. The same is true, of course, of evening gowns, dream kitchens and tropical vacations. But at least the people who enjoy that sort of glamour pay their own way.

—Virginia Postrel is the author of "The Future and Its Enemies" and "The Substance of Style." She is writing a book on glamour.

SECOND FEATURE:

TURBINES IN GARDEN'S FUTURE

SOURCE: The Daily Press, www.dailypress.net

November 22 2010

By Ashley Hoholik

What does the contract say about the wind developer's rights over your land?

“…[Wind developer] shall have a non-exclusive easement over and across said property for audio, visual, view, light, noise, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, electrical, and radio frequency interference, and any other effects attributable to [wind developer's] operations.”

The lease further stipulates: “[Property owner] waives any claim with regard to any such interference or effects.”

GARDEN – A landscape dotted with wind turbines is in the Garden Peninsula’s future, thanks to a downstate sustainable energy firm. Heritage Sustainable Energy, of Traverse City, Mich., has already signed leases with a number of area residents, but not everyone is welcoming the company.

After nearly two years of various wind studies conducted in the Garden area, some by Heritage, few residents were surprised when a company began to seriously pursue unused parcels of land.

Heritage, which is best known for its nearly 2,000-acre Stoney Corners Wind Farm Project near Cadillac, Mich., plans to site leased areas and assess the land’s potential in housing one of their nearly 400-foot wind turbines.

According to Heritage Project Manager Rick Wilson, the company is excited about the Garden Township Wind Energy Project and has already leased approximately 10,000 acres throughout the Garden Peninsula, including Garden and Fairbanks Township.

“The size of this wind project is moderate; about 13 wind turbines will be placed on agricultural land between south Garden to north of Garden,” Wilson said.

“We’ve been doing energy analysis in the area for about three years and have three meteorological towers already out there.”

Wilson said the turbines will be used to produce energy that will then be sold into the transmission grid and passed on to larger Michigan utility companies.

“We’ve done the preliminary studies, done the pre-planning work, and now we are in the pre-development stages,” he explained. “We’re working toward developing this project and are hoping to begin installation of the wind turbines by the end of 2011 or early 2012.”

According to a Heritage 10-year lease provided to a Garden resident, anyone leasing their land to Heritage will be paid $15 per net surface acre. If the company decides to actually build on the leased land, a one-time $10,000 fee will be paid to the lessee. The lease also notes that Heritage has the option to continue the lease beyond the 10-year period by paying an extension payment of $30 per net surface acre. For this reason, the lease is “considered to be continuous.”

While some residents were quick to jump on board with Heritage’s project, whether it was for the financial perks, to support alternative energy or a combination of the two, others are not as willing.

Cliff and Rosemary Stollings of Garden were approached by Heritage, but decided against leasing their land. Their concerns are rooted in the fact that, currently, Delta County has no zoning ordinance for wind energy. This would give too much leeway to Heritage, said Cliff, and offers no governance on the distance a wind turbine needs to be away from a residence.

The Heritage lease stipulates that a wind turbine will have to be at least 400 feet away from a residence. Conversely, the Stollings claim that, in researching wind energy, it is now generally recommended that wind turbines be at least a mile to a mile and a half away from a residence.

While there is conflicting research regarding a wind turbine’s proximity and subsequent impact on wildlife and human health, the Stollings’ factored the potential negative impact in their decision.

A portion of the lease addresses some of these possible impacts, but not in the way that the Stollings would have liked:

“…Lessee shall have a non-exclusive easement over and across said property for audio, visual, view, light, noise, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, electrical, and radio frequency interference, and any any other effects attributable to Lessee’s operations.” The lease further stipulates: “Lessor waives any claim with regard to any such interference or effects.”

Garden Township Supervisor Morgan Tatrow said that Heritage has been visiting the area frequently, working with the township and attending a county joint governmental meeting, various Garden township meetings, and even school board meetings.

“Heritage has already obtained lease permits from private property owners, and their plans right now are to obtain the permits for access roads leading to their wind turbine locations,” explained Tatrow. “We, the township, are talking with our legal people because there are currently no ordinances regarding wind towers.” In the meantime, Heritage will continue work on the project as residents from both sides voice their support or concern.

“It’s an excellent project and an economic opportunity for Delta County and Garden Township,” said Wilson. “It is going to mean around $5 million worth of investment in the local community during the construction process and the estimated personal property tax revenue is between $30,000 to $40,000 per turbine, per year.”

THIRD FEATURE

On Electric Cars---

Adding an electric vehicle or two to a neighborhood can be like adding another house, and it can stress the equipment that services those houses. "We're talking about doubling the load of a conventional home," says Karl Rabago, who leads Austin Energy's electric vehicle-readiness program. "It's big."

Opportunity has power industry scrambling

Benefits: Big cuts in fuel costs, greenhouse gas emissions

SOURCE: Portland Press Herald

November 22, 2010

By JONATHAN FAHEY The Associated Press

The first mass-market electric cars go on sale next month, and the nation's electric utilities couldn't be more thrilled -- or worried.

Plugged into a socket, an electric car can draw as much power as a small house.

The surge in demand could knock out power to a home, or even a neighborhood. That has utilities in parts of California, Texas and North Carolina scrambling to upgrade transformers and other equipment in neighborhoods where the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt are expected to be in high demand.

Not since air conditioning spread across the country in the 1950s and 1960s has the power industry faced such a growth opportunity.

Last year, Americans spent $325 billion on gasoline, and utilities would love even a small piece of that market.

The main obstacles to wide-scale use of electric cars are high cost and limited range, at least until a network of charging stations is built. But utility executives fret that difficulties keeping the lights on for the first crop of buyers -- and their neighbors -- could slow the growth of this new niche.

"You never get a second chance to make a first impression," says Mike Rowand, who is in charge of electric vehicle planning at Duke Energy.

Auto executives say it's inevitable that utilities will experience some difficulties early on. "We are all going to be a lot smarter two years from now," says Mark Perry, director of product planning for Nissan North America.

Electric cars run on big batteries that are charged by plugging into a standard wall socket or a more powerful charging station.

A combined 30,000 Nissan Leafs and Chevrolet Volts are expected to be sold over the next year. Over the next two years, Ford, Toyota and every other major automaker also plan to offer electric cars.

Governments are promoting the technology as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil, cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.

Congress is offering electric car buyers a $7,500 tax credit and some states and cities provide additional subsidies that can total $8,000. The Leaf sells for $33,000, the Volt for $41,000.

Electric cars produce no emissions, but the electricity they are charged with is made mostly from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, which do. Still, electric cars produce two-thirds fewer greenhouse gas emissions, on average, than a similarly sized car that runs on gasoline, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Driving 10,000 miles on electricity will use about 2,500 kilowatt-hours, or 20 percent more than the average annual consumption of U.S. homes. At an average utility rate of 11 cents per kilowatt-hour, that's $275 for a year of fuel, equivalent to about 70 cents per gallon of gasoline.

"Electric vehicles have the potential to completely transform our business," says David Owens, executive vice president of the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group.

Nationwide, utilities have enough power plants and equipment to power hundreds of thousands of electric cars. Problems could crop up long before that many are sold, though, because of a phenomenon carmakers and utilities call "clustering."

Electric vehicle clusters are expected in neighborhoods where:

• Generous subsidies are offered by states and localities.

• Weather is mild, because batteries tend to perform better in warmer climates.

• High-income and environmentally conscious commuters live.

So while states like North Dakota and Montana may see very few electric cars, California cities like Santa Monica, Santa Barbara and Monrovia could see several vehicles on a block.

SoCal Edison expects to be charging 100,000 cars by 2015. California has set a goal of 1 million electric vehicles by 2020.

Progress Energy is expecting electric car clusters to form in Raleigh, Cary and Asheville, N.C. and around Orlando and Tampa, Fla. Duke Energy is expecting the same in Charlotte and Indianapolis.

Adding an electric vehicle or two to a neighborhood can be like adding another house, and it can stress the equipment that services those houses. "We're talking about doubling the load of a conventional home," says Karl Rabago, who leads Austin Energy's electric vehicle-readiness program. "It's big."

CLICK HERE TO VIEW astonishing video of what is being called "the drunken windmill". What happens when a blade falls off an industrial scale wind turbine but it keeps on turning?

To get an idea of the scale of this turbine, note the height of the tree line.

Below:

Video from a public meeting in the rural Ontario towns of Fergus and Belwood where residents confront wind developers and hired PR people about a proposed project.

In the past, developers held open public meetings where they addressed the public directly. Now the approach is to hold an 'open house' --- no direct statements to the residents, but rather developers and hired PR people answer questions from residents one on one.

 THIRD FEATURE:

LANDOWNERS: EDUCATION IS THE KEY TO WIND POWER BENEFITS

SOURCE: Kearney Hub, www.kearneyhub.com

November 13, 2010

By LORI POTTER

KEARNEY — There’s a steep learning curve for landowners interested in attracting wind power projects, landowner group leaders said at this week’s Nebraska Wind Power 2010 Conference in Kearney.

“You’re gonna have to have persistence to go on,” said David Vavra of the Saline County Wind Association.

Landowners from six Saline County precincts joined his group. Vavra said developers are interested in contiguous properties, so significant numbers of participants are need to support a project.

An early question for group members was: “Do we want to look at these windmills the rest of our lives and our children’s lives?”

“That can be seriously tying up your property for a long time,” Vavra said.

The most important missions are to protect landowners from unscrupulous developers and make sure that everyone understands that wind energy benefits come with issues such as construction of access roads and the work required to negotiate equitable land leases.

“You can have one developer come in and hit all the high spots. That’s checkerboarding,” Vavra explained. Or two each can tie up enough easements to prevent either from developing a project, leaving things at a standstill.

“So you go en masse, rather than getting picked off one at a time, even though that’s counterintuitive for developers,” he said, telling landowners not to believe developers who say they won’t talk to organizations.

Vavra emphasized the need to raise the money necessary to hire an attorney specializing in wind projects. “This is too important,” he said. “You’re dealing with multimillion dollar companies. They’re like a 747, and you’re like a mosquito.”

Groups should get their own wind quality data and not depend only on developers’ studies, he added.

Jim Young and other members of the Banner County Wind Energy Association organized with the knowledge of what has happed during the past 50 years of oil development in the southern Panhandle. “Some people got taken advantage of,” he said. “We wanted to form an association so we didn’t have problems like what Dave (Vavra) was talking about.”

The Banner County group has involved landowners, the county board and Panhandle Resource Conservation and Development. Leaders talked to landowners in areas where wind projects have been developed.

Initially, letters were sent to county residents and landowner meetings were scheduled at the school gym. Eventually, the Banner County group formed a limited liability corporation.

“As Sen. Nelson said, ‘You need to hit this like a full-court press,’” Young said, adding that nothing gets done if everyone is bickering. “You’ve gotta respect what everybody else is saying and work together.”

There can be hundreds of questions to answer just in the fine print of a wind contract. Vavra said the issues include insurance, liability, decommissionings or defaults, crop or other damage, payment allocations, taxes, effects on Conservation Reserve Program contracts, and audit rights.

“If you don’t know (the answers), you’re gonna get taken,” Young said.

Nebraska Farmers Union Public Affairs Director Graham Christensen said one of the first wind project contracts he saw when he started with NFU was for one payment of $1,000 for a 55-year-lease. “That is totally unacceptable,” he said.

Lincoln attorney Andy Pollock of the Nebraska Energy Export Association said, “There are different cultures in every county … so you really need to explore that as a local organization. What’s right for you?”

That means finding the right developer and determining the necessary lease terms. “You’re in the driver’s seat,” Pollock said. “You have options. …. Developers want to be here.”

It also means choosing a way to fund the local group.

Young said Banner County used $100 one-time dues. Vavra said Saline County started with a $50 minimum plus 50 cents per acre with a promise to pay back any contributor who never gets any money from a wind project or related development.

Pollock cautioned landowners that public power districts control the transportation and sale of wind energy in Nebraska.

“Don’t get any notion in your head that you can go and sell (electricity) to the ethanol plant down the road,” he said. “That’s public power’s job.”

Vavra said local leaders must put the group’s needs ahead of any personal interests. “If you’re looking at dollars, this is not a get-rich-quick scheme … this is long term,” he said.