Better Plan, Wisconsin

NOISE RESEARCH TO COMBAT WIND TURBINE SYNDROME

SOURCE: adelaide.edu.au

June 1, 2011

“Wind turbine noise is very directional. Someone living at the base might not have a problem but two kilometres away, it might be keeping them awake at night,”

“Wind turbine noise is controversial but there’s no doubt that there is noise and that it seems to be more annoying than other types of noise at the same level.

University of Adelaide acoustics researchers are investigating the causes of wind turbine noise with the aim of making them quieter and solving ‘wind turbine syndrome’.

They are also developing a computer model to predict the noise output from wind farms so they can accurately and quickly assess the effectiveness of potential noise-reducing designs and control methods.

Research leader Dr Con Doolan, of the University’s School of Mechanical Engineering, said the noise generated from wind turbines is ‘trailing edge or airfoil noise’, the same sort of noise generated at the edge of aircraft wings.

“We know generally what causes that noise – as the turbulent air flows over the sharp edge of the blade it radiates sound much more efficiently, so the noise can be heard at some distance,” said Dr Doolan.

“What we don’t yet understand, however, is exactly how that turbulence and blade edge, or boundary layer, interact and how that makes the noise louder.

“If we can understand this fundamental science, we can then look at ways of controlling the noise, through changing the shape of the rotor blades or using active control devices at the blade edges to disrupt the pattern of turbulence and so reduce the noise.”

Dr Doolan said further complicating factors came from the effects of multiple wind turbines together and the way the noise increases and decreases as the blades rotate – the blade ‘swish’. The model they are developing will look at the noise from the whole wind turbine and how multiple numbers of wind turbines together, as in a wind farm, generate noise.

“Wind turbine noise is very directional. Someone living at the base might not have a problem but two kilometres away, it might be keeping them awake at night,” he said.

“Likewise this broadband ‘hissing’ noise modulates up and down as the blades rotate and we think that’s what makes it so annoying,” he said.

“Wind turbine noise is controversial but there’s no doubt that there is noise and that it seems to be more annoying than other types of noise at the same level. Finding ways of controlling and reducing this noise will help us make the most of this very effective means of generating large amounts of electricity with next to zero carbon emissions.”

Something from the Wind Developer's point of view

IS WIND ENERGY THE NEW WEDGE ISSUE?

SOURCE: North American Windpower

By Jeff Siegel,

Almost as soon as the situation at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant became critical in March, Fox News reported that wind power had killed more Americans than nuclear energy. Meanwhile, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank, issued a study that said the state’s taxpayers would be $28 billion better off if Texas abandoned its pro-wind policies.

Wind, after being the darling of the media, business and state governments for much of its history, has suddenly found itself on the receiving end of negative publicity, questions about its value as an energy source and even calls for an end to wind development. The feel-good “green” story, according to the New York Times, “is now nearing extinction.”

Texas, Wisconsin and Minnesota, all considered wind-friendly states, have recently pursued policies that can be seen as anti-wind.

Some of this shift is due to the industry’s natural maturation process, according to David Lowman, an attorney who is co-chair of Hunton & Williams’ global renewable energy practice group in Washington, D.C.

Some of the backlash against wind also stems from the recession, which has not only hampered wind development but has made even previously wind-friendly regulators and legislators question its cost at a time when state and federal budgets are being slashed.

The pushback, says attorney Jim Tynion, who chairs Foley & Lardner’s energy industry team, is genuine and something that the industry needs to address.

The acrimony is being powered by a combination of small-government conservatives who see wind and other renewables as a waste of money and by others who consider wind a technology that will never be as effective as oil, coal or natural gas.

During a Texas ground-breaking ceremony for an oil and gas processing company, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told KSAT in San Antonio, “I understand that some people want to see green jobs; I think that’s great. We need all of the above when it comes to energy: wind, solar, biofuels and the like. But the fact of the matter is 85 percent of our fuel consumption comes from fossil fuels.”

Cornyn’s comments underscore the political realities that wind energy faces.

“The political landscape has changed,” Tynion says. “It’s easy to take potshots at something that isn’t part of the status quo, like wind. It has become an easy target.”

Certainly, not all has gone badly for wind. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimates that the U.S. wind power industry grew by 15% in 2010 and provided more than one-quarter of all new electric-generating capacity. Also, California, despite its fiscal problems, will require one-third of the state’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020.

But those are the bright spots. Some dark ones include the following:

• The Wisconsin State Legislature is considering a bill that would restrict the development of approximately $500 million worth of projects over the next two years. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Republican Gov. Scott Walker says wind costs too much and impedes on rural property rights. The legislature voted in March to suspend wind farm siting rules. The five-to-two vote tracked along party lines, with all five votes to suspend coming from Republican members;

• Texas comptroller, Republican Susan Combs, has decried wind as an expensive boondoggle that does not produce jobs. The state’s GOP-controlled legislature may limit the ability of local school districts to give tax abatements, which wind advocates in the state say will limit development in rural areas; and

• The 2012 extension of the production tax credit could be in jeopardy, given the budgetary concerns on Capitol Hill. Jon Chase, vice president of government relations for Vestas-American Wind Technology, told an AWEA finance and budget workshop in April, “All the credits out there are going to be looked at very closely. Everything is going to be on the table.”

“There are politicians who can make political hay by playing to that constituency,” says Tom Konrad, who manages several green energy stock portfolios and is editor of AltEnergyStocks.com.

As part of this political footwork, Konrad says rhetoric debunking climate change has increased markedly over the past several years, more or less in relation to how many Americans believe that climate change actually exists. If fewer Americans believe in climate change, fewer Americans will support wind and other renewables, he says.

This goes a long way toward explaining the difference in the current political and media attitude toward wind compared to just a couple of years ago. Also important, say wind industry analysts, has been the length and depth of the recession, both in how it has slowed development and made consumers more wary of higher energy prIces.

Whether or not some of these concerns may be warranted, says Tynion, the wind business should not discount the change in the political climate.

“Politicians and state regulators are withdrawing their support for wind across the board,” he says, citing the Wisconsin controversy as a prime example.

Walker’s proposed legislation would overturn a siting compromise three years in the making, says Tynion, adding that the compromise seemed to satisfy everyone involved: developers, rural landowners and regulators.

For its part, AWEA does not support the claim that wind energy is a wedge issue for either political party. “The fact is nine out of 10 voters Republicans, Democrats and Independents – want more wind power, as we found in a recent poll,” says Elizabeth Salerno, AWEXs director of data and analysis. “Specific to Republicans, AWEA found that 84 percent of Republicans believe increasing the amount of energy the nation gets from wind is a good idea.”

Has the backlash irreparably damaged wind? Has the momentum and goodwill built up over the past 20 years been lost? The answer is complicated and depends not only on what happens during the 2012 presidential and congressional elections, but on what the wind industry does over the next several years to regain lost momentum.

“There is still a great deal of support for wind and other renewables, both among Democrats and Republicans,” says Lowman. “And there are plenty of initiatives going on, especially on the East Coast. For example, Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell, a Republican, wants to build offshore wind.”

Education also remains key, say several analysts. Focusing on the longterm benefits of wind is important. If the green argument fails to work, there is always the economic one.

Lowman says there is reason to expect that renewable prices will continue to become more competitive with fossil fuels over the next decade.

Anne Mudge, an attorney at San Francisco-based Cox Castle & Nicholson, recommends that wind energy advocates should not let opponents dominate the discussion by focusing on the short term.

“Continue to demonstrate what is the truth – that there are economic benefits to wind, that it brings jobs, that it increases the property tax base and that it doesn’t take much in the way of government services,” she says.

In other words, do what wind has always done – but do it in an even more urgent way. Because, says Konrad, if the argument focuses on the short term, and if wind’s opponents can direct the discussion, “wind will remain a whipping horse.”

Click on the image above to hear a realtor talk about property values and wind turbines.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Ted Weissman is a wind developer for NextEra (formerly Florida Power & Light) who has been inquiring about putting up a met tower in the Town of Spring Valley (Rock County).

Better Plan has been told he is the same developer that signed up a number of landowners for the Glacier Hills project currently under construction in Columbia County and now owned by WeEnergies.

For those in the Spring Valley community who are interested in what kinds of terms might be in a wind lease from Ted Weissman on behalf of NextEra, a preview may be had by looking over the leases Weissman reportedly used to sign up Columbia county landowners. Download a copy of the wind lease by clicking here, or visit the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, and search docket #6630-CE-302

In upcoming days Better Plan will be taking a closer look at the wind lease that at least a few landowners in Columbia county now openly regret signing, why they regret signing it and where things stand with the project today.

Senate Bill 98, Changing Setback Limits and other Regulations Applicable to Wind Energy Systems. 

This bill imposes additional requirements on the PSC's rules governing local regulation of wind turbines.

The bill requires the restrictions under the rules to provide reasonable protection from any health effects associated with wind energy systems, including health effects from noise and shadow flicker.

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 distance requirements specified in the bill.

The bill's 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. 

Under the bill, the owner of a large wind energy system must design and construct the system so that the straight line distance from the vertical center line of any wind turbine tower of the system to the nearest point on the property line of the property on which the wind turbine tower is located is at least one-half mile. 

The bill allows a lesser distance if there is a written agreement between the owner of the large wind energy system and the owners of all property within one-half mile of the property on which the system is located.

The bill also requires that the straight line distance from the vertical center line of any wind turbine tower of the system to the nearest point on the permanent foundation of any building must be at least 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height of the wind turbine tower, unless the owners of the system and the building agree in writing to a lesser distance. 

In addition, the bill requires that the straight line distance from the vertical center line of any wind turbine tower of the system to the nearest point on any public road right-of-way or overhead communication or electric transmission or distribution line must be at least 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height of the wind turbine tower.  By Sen. Lasee (R-De Pere) Comment on this bill. 

FROM WASHINGTON DC

HOUSE REPUBLICANS PRESS FOR FASTER ACTION ON RENEWABLE ENERGY

READ THE ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com

June 1, 2011

By Jim Snyder,

Susan Reilly, chief executive officer of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., of Broomfield, Colorado, said Interior Department protection from wind turbines for golden eagles will “make financing projects more difficult.”

U.S. House Republicans, who have sought to expedite offshore oil- and gas-drilling permits, pressed the Obama administration to act faster on renewable energy projects.

Federal hurdles are slowing growth of solar and wind companies, industry executives said today at a House Natural Resources Committee hearing in Washington. The witnesses also advocated tax incentives and production mandates criticized by Republicans, who control the House.

“Bureaucratic delays, unnecessary lawsuits and burdensome environmental regulations” are hampering expansion of renewable energy, as they have for oil and gas producers, said Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, a Republican from Washington state.

Hastings’s panel has already passed legislation designed to expand oil and gas production offshore, including an accelerated approval process for drilling permits. The bills passed the House before being blocked in the Senate, where Democrats hold a majority.

Susan Reilly, chief executive officer of Renewable Energy Systems Americas Inc., of Broomfield, Colorado, said Interior Department protection from wind turbines for golden eagles will “make financing projects more difficult.”

The Obama administration proposed guidelines in February to help wind-energy developers identify sites that pose the least risks to birds and wildlife.

Collisions with wind turbines are a “major source of mortality” for golden eagles in regions of the U.S. West, according to a department fact sheet.
Developing Public Lands

Hastings asked witnesses if the Interior Department had an efficient and effective process for reviewing permits for developing public lands.

While most responded no, executives also praised the Obama administration for improving the procedures and focusing more attention on renewable energy.

They commended policies like a Treasury Department grant program for renewable developers set to expire later this year and an Obama plan to generate 80 percent of U.S. electricity from low-polluting sources by 2035.

The Interior Department is “picking up the pace” on offshore wind, said Jim Lanard, president of the Offshore Wind Development Coalition.

Reilly said clean-energy mandates and a predictable tax policy would promote investment.

From Ontario

HOME VALUES VS. WIND TURBINES

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca

June 1, 2011

by Travis Pedwell

McMurray tells Bayshore Broadcasting News it’s hard to put a value on house depreciation but says it can bring down a home’s value by 25 to 40 per cent.

He says the depreciation stays at 25 to 40 per cent as far as two miles away from the house.

McMurray adds if a home is in an area where people are looking for recreational or desirable residential property the house may not have any market value.

Wind Turbines are having a serious effect on house values in Grey County and would do the same in Huron County.

This from Grey County realtor Mike McMurray at the Community Forum on Wind Development in Goderich held on Monday.

McMurray tells Bayshore Broadcasting News it’s hard to put a value on house depreciation but says it can bring down a home’s value by 25 to 40 per cent.

He says the depreciation stays at 25 to 40 per cent as far as two miles away from the house.

McMurray adds if a home is in an area where people are looking for recreational or desirable residential property the house may not have any market value.

McMurray notes he sympathizes with those who have built homes and have had turbines placed in their backyards.

He tells us most people he deals with wish they had never got involved with turbines.

McMurray tells us there have been several cases when someone from Toronto wants to relocate and must look elsewhere because of potential wind development.

He says his experience shows wind development pits neighbour against neighbour.

McMurray notes among other things – the biggest concern he hears from potential buyers are the health effects.

He says nobody wants to look out at the turbines all day and have flashing lights come through the windows at night.

McMurray adds many potential buyers will stay away from areas of wind development.

He says he has encountered residents who don’t mind turbines but adds only farmers on marginal properties see them as a way of survival.

From Ontario

LIKE LIVING IN A MICROWAVE OVEN

READ THE WHOLE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Orangeville Citizen, www.citizen.on.ca

June 2, 2011

By WES KELLER

If the independent findings and conclusions of an electrical engineer are correct, Theresa Kidd and her family were living “inside a microwave oven environment” near the TransAlta transformer substation in Amaranth until forced out by ill health.

Because they had lived on their horse farm across from the Hydro One grid near 15 Sideroad and the 10th Line of Amaranth for more than a half dozen years with no adverse health effects prior to the installation of transformers but have experienced severe ill health since then, the Kidds blame the substation – and the electrical study would appear to confirm that as the cause.

However, the Ministry of Recreational Environment (MoE) hasn’t indicated an interest in anything other than noise-level compliance at the site, and Theresa says TransAlta has never www. sent its own electrical engineers to investigate the source of her family’s complaints.

Her electrical engineer is David Copping of Ripley, who says some industry and MoE officials have agreed with his findings – but only “off the record.”

Mr. Copping, who lives in the area of the Suncor wind farm, said in a telephone interview that the proximity of the turbines to his home has nothing to do with his opposition to the transmission of wind power.

In fact, the Ryerson-trained electrician at first poohpoohed the idea that electric contamination from wind farms could affect human health. He did, however, have an interest in examining the effects on dairy herds.

Someone talked him into examining a home near Ripley where the occupants had become ill. Since then, he says, he has examined more

200 homes of which there are now five vacant at Ripley, the two at the local substation, and one more near Kincardine, where Enbridge has a wind farm.

Mr. Copping’s reports are technical, and appear to be at least partially based on analyses of power quality and frequency, using specialized equipment.

His “microwave” conclusion is from a measurement of a 10 kiloHertz (Kz) frequency of electricity on a wire connected between the kitchen sink and an EKG patch on the floor of the Kidd home when the main power line to the house had been shut off.

That frequency is otherwise expressed as 10,000 cycles per second, but the frequency of “clean” electrical transmission would be 60 cycles per second, he says.

Where is the energy coming from when the power line to the house has been shut off? Mr. Colling said it could be “coming through the walls.”

“You have 10 kHz micro surges being introduced into your home, therefore it compares to living inside microwave oven environment. I hope this helps in understanding what has happened to your health,” he says in concluding note to the Kidds.

Ms. Kidd said she met TransAlta representative Jason Edworthy at Amaranth Council in January 2010 when the council urged him to speak with the affected residents (Kidds and Whitworths).

Then, in March, she described symptoms of headaches, vomiting and sleep deprivation among other things to Mr. Edworthy, as happening since February 2009 – forcing the family to vacate in April of that year.

“For the record, this was the second time we spoke with TransAlta – and the last,” she said.

“TransAlta has done absolutely nothing to investigate our concerns; they are fully aware of the health issues we have incurred due to their substation.”

She notes that acoustical barriers and landscaping around the substation were completed before TransAlta purchased Canadian Hydro in a hostile takeover, and those were done “to bring the noise levels into compliance.”

“Neither the Kidd nor Whitworth family health has been made a priority by TransAlta. This company’s response in addressing our concerns due to their electrical transformer substation was to give us three options: sell and move; stay and adapt; or take action against the company.

“These options were given to us in March 2010,” she said.

In addition to their physical health problems, the Kidds generally have lost their horse-training business as they have been forced to dispose of their herd, evidently because they can’t live there but also because of the electromagnetic effects on the animals.

FROM THE U.K.

WINDFARM WARS: FILMING THE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEBATE IN DEVON

READ THE ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: BBC TV

May 24, 2011

Jeremy Gibson

When I convinced the BBC to commission Windfarm Wars, call me naive, but I had no idea it would take seven years of my life to deliver. And doubtless most of the people we've followed with the camera over all those years didn't figure their lives would evolve this way either.

And, over that time, the whole question of how the country best provides for its burgeoning energy needs in a sustainable way has, quite simply, become more and more tortuous. Toxic even.

Windfarms divide opinion like few other topics. They are beautiful to some, eyesores to others.

 

They are free sustainable energy or expensively inefficient. They desecrate the landscape, or they protect its future existence.

For a filmmaker treading into this minefield, the antagonism between incoming developers and the local residents they seek to convince can be most difficult to negotiate.

Renewable Energy Systems, or RES, first put forward their plans for a windfarm in Devon in 2004.

It would be sited four-and-a-half miles from the northern edge of Dartmoor National Park, in the shallow valley of Den Brook.

I started as the film's executive producer, largely office-based, but with a director and small team on location.

But, seven years later, I had become the sole production member the budget could still afford to have on location, shooting on my own to see the story through - and the windfarm had still not been built

Early on, we were lucky enough to gain access to all sides of the Den Brook dispute, from developers RES, to landowners and protestors alike, and to the council and council planning committee.

As the story went on, and on, over the years, this access widened to include lawyers and barristers, expert witnesses, and the planning inspectors involved in public inquiries.

Maintaining everyone's commitment and involvement over the long years of the process demanded confidentiality and tact.

Each side had to trust that we would not tell the other things that only we knew.

Windfarm Wars was originally commissioned as a single film - an observational documentary. We would follow whatever happened, wherever developments took us.

By the time the commission fell into place and the director of the first film, Olly Lambert, arrived in Devon, RES had already held their introductory exhibitions, where they showed the residents of the nearby villages what the windfarm might look like and where it would be situated, and answered their interests and concerns.

Feelings for and against the windfarm were already running high.

It's difficult to gauge the true feelings of a whole community. One of the ways is to go by those who have bothered to write letters to the council.

When the closing date came, the council had 402 letters and 3,000 questionnaires in objection and 31 letters in support.

We roughly assembled the material as we went along but each time a viewing with the BBC had come due, it was apparent that a chapter may have finished - but the big story was still unresolved.

Luckily they had the vision to keep running with it. Eventually it became a four-part series. BBC channel controllers have come and gone while waiting for it to materialise.

At times, as long waits for the next part of the planning or legal process had to be endured, it was tempting to wrap up the project, but I wanted everyone involved in the whole process to know it was being documented very publicly, and that it would be seen through to the end.

 

And, as concerns about global warming, reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and the security of energy supplies became more and more acute over the years, the project gained in significance, and just had to be seen through.

What emerged is what I hope some people will see as a unique social record of how one of the nation's key dilemmas has unfolded in the early 21st century.

The four films unravel as a narrative story, and while viewers think they may know where they stand initially, a fair few may well change along the way.

Windfarm Wars will no doubt raise tempers, and for some of the many people who've taken part it will be difficult viewing - not least to see how we've all aged through the process.

Perhaps it will be difficult too, because all sides may need to confront and acknowledge mistakes, to review how they could have done things better.

For many, it's clearly been a journey that's taken courage, commitment and faith in the search for what each perceive to be the truth - the best way forward for the good of all. There may be regrets.

I hope, though, that the end product of the process of documentation has been usefully revealing and thought provoking, and that it will, in time, repay the commitment that many gave to the project. We'll see - soon enough.

Jeremy Gibson started as executive producer and also worked as series producer of Windfarm Wars.

From Ontario

WIND TURBINE NOISE ANNOYING 'FACT OF LIFE' PROVINCIAL LAWYER SAYS

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Postmedia News, www.ottawacitizen.com

May 27, 2011

By Lee Greenberg

A government lawyer fighting off a major challenge to wind energy in Ontario says the foremost health impact complained about by detractors is not a medical condition at all, but a “fact of life.”

Frederika Rotter cast aspersions on the term “annoyance,” which opponents describe as a critical health condition caused by giant wind turbines, which emit noise that, they say, causes a number of other physiological effects, including sleep disturbance, headache, irritability, problems with concentration and depression.

“Annoyance doesn’t equal ‘serious harm to human health,’ ” Rotter told an Environmental Review Tribunal panel Thursday. “You could be annoyed by your neighbour’s screaming. Everyone suffers from annoyance.”

Eric Gillespie, a lawyer for an antiwind group hoping to keep industrial wind farms out of the province, argued Thursday that the government didn’t adequately consider the adverse effects of wind turbines on human health.

The hearing is an attempt by Gillespie and the grassroots anti-wind organization he represents to appeal an eight-turbine wind farm run by Suncor Energy Services Inc. in southwestern Ontario known as Kent Breeze. The project in Chatham-Kent is to be the first under Ontario’s Green Energy Act, the 2009 legislation designed to encourage wind, solar and other renewable energy projects in the province.

The legislation is lauded by environmentalists but has stirred controversy in rural communities, which, under the new law, have lost the power to determine where the massive turbines will be placed.

While wind energy is generally supported from afar, it generates substantial opposition in host communities. The Green Energy Act was designed to combat that NIMBYism by centralizing the decision-making process.

A large group of angry rural residents joined together in response and funded the current case against Kent Breeze.

While Gillespie, the group’s lawyer, couldn’t pinpoint the cause of the health effects of turbines -saying it could be low-frequency noise, infrasound (not audible to humans) or even visual appearance -he compared the situation to a restaurant serving contaminated food.

The restaurant would be closed, he said, before health authorities determined whether it was “the tomatoes or the fish” that caused the food poisoning.

“We don’t wait,” he said. “We act.” Rotter accused Gillespie of building a spurious, scattergun case against turbines. “The bulk of his evidence is speculation and fearmongering,” she said.

The government lawyer said many of the anti-wind group’s “experts” were in fact advocates.

They include Dr. Robert Mc-Murtry, a notable orthopedic surgeon and former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario who became interested in turbines when an installation was proposed near his residence in Prince Edward County.

Rotter said McMurtry and two other physicians relied upon by Gillespie were members of local wind opposition groups as well as an international group that opposes wind turbines.

The research the doctors conducted was not in their field of expertise and was based on “biased and selective evidence,” she said.

“It was done to prove a thesis they already had in pursuit of making their case.”

Gillespie concluded his submissions by stating the Chatham-Kent wind farm, if allowed to go ahead, “will cause serious harm to human health.”

Rotter disagreed, playing down the impact the turbines will have on its neighbours.

“Noise is noise,” she said. “We all live with it. It’s not harmful at the volumes that will be generated at Kent Breeze. Whether you’re annoyed by it is another story.”

The panel will decide on the case by July 18.

From Maine

WIND POWER NOISE DISPUTE ON TRANQUIL MAINE ISLAND INTENSIFIES

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: HUFFINGTON POST

May 24, 2011

By Tom Zeller Jr.

While thousands of wind power enthusiasts and industry representatives gather in Anaheim Calif. for Windpower 2011, the American Wind Power Association's popular annual conference and exhibition, some 3,300 miles due east, wind power is tearing a tiny island community asunder.

In the latest turn, an attorney representing several homeowners living closest to a three-turbine wind installation on the tiny island of Vinalhaven in Maine's Penobscot Bay filed a formal complaint with the Maine Public Utilities Commission on Monday.

The complaint charges that the Fox Island Electric Cooperative, the local utility, and Fox Island Wind, the developer of the wind installation which is owned by the utility, have engaged in repeated harassment of the homeowners, who have argued since shortly after the turbines came online in late 2009 that the machines have been in violation of state noise ordinances. That assertion was subsequently supported by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

The developer has repeatedly disputed those findings, and the majority of the island's residents support the wind farm, which is seen as a source of eco-pride and sensible thrift, ostensibly saving the island from the need to import pricier power from the mainland.

But Monday's complaint states that the residents nearest the turbines have legitimate concerns that have long gone unheeded, despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue through negotiation, and that instead the local utility has recently upped the rhetorical ante by placing two separate "inserts" inside all islanders' utility bills. The inserts claim that legal expenses associated with the neighbors' noise complaints were costing the cooperative hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that as a result, a 5 percent increase in utility rates was needed.

The announcement caused the neighbors, perhaps not surprisingly, to suffer "retribution, harassment and hostility" from fellow Vinalhaven residents who are not within earshot of the turbines, according to the complaint. The utility's tactic also amounted to what the complaint called "intimidation and an abuse of the powers of a utility."

Vinalhaven became a flashpoint last year for a small but persistent backlash against industrial wind power, as residents living nearest the spinning behemoths became vocal about their experiences.

Like nearly all residents of the island, they supported the idea of a wind farm at first. Yet the Fox Island Wind Neighbors, as the loosely knit group of a dozen or so residents dubbed themselves, said they soon began to worry about the noise, being within a one-mile radius of the project site.

Representatives of Fox Island Wind assured them the noise would be minimal. But as Art Lindgren, one of the neighbors, told this reporter last year, their worst fears were confirmed once the turbines were switched on.

“In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,” he said. “Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.”

Lindgren's lament has been echoed in jurisdictions across the land, as an increasing number of communities come to weigh the innumerable collective benefits of wind power -- clean, non-toxic, no emissions, climate-friendly, water-friendly, renewable, sustainable -- against some of the downsides experienced by those living nearby.

Indeed, proximate residents around the country have cited everything from the throbbing, low-frequency drone to mind-numbing strobe effects as the rising or setting sun slices through the spinning blades:

Others have gone so far as to describe something called "wind turbine syndrome," arising from turbine-generated low-frequency noise and "infrasound," and causing all manner of symptoms -- from headache and dizziness to ear pressure, nausea, visual blurring, racing heartbeat, and panic episodes -- though the science on these claims is still thin.

And there are still lingering and long-standing concerns over hazards presented by turbines to migrating birds and bats.

At Vinalhaven, for example, a 28-month study conducted by ornithologist Richard Podolsky, who was hired by Fox Island Wind, the project's developer, recently declared the turbines' impacts on local eagle and osprey populations to be negligible.

But in March, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent a letter to attorneys representing the Fox Island Wind project, lambasting those conclusions. The letter questioned the study's methodologies for studying eagle, bat and bird collision assessment and mortality, suggesting that they needed to be more rigorous and better-defined and described.

The wildlife regulators asked that new studies be conducted before a permit necessary to allow the project to proceed -- despite the potential for incidental harm to bald and golden eagle species in the area -- is issued. Both are protected by federal legislation.

Meanwhile, the complaint filed on Monday asks the Maine Public Utility Commission to sanction the Vinalhaven utility and Fox Island Wind for the utility bill inserts, and urges them to prevent any similar communications with ratepayers in the future.

It also asks that the state commission prevent the island utility from attempting to raise rates to cover expenses from its dispute with the affected homeowners going forward -- characterizing such expenses as "the product of mismanagement, and reckless conduct."

Queries sent to officials at Fox Island Wind and the Vinalhaven electric cooperative were not immediately returned Tuesday morning. This report will be updated if they respond.

From New York State

HEALTH CONCERNS RISE FOR PROPOSED WIND FARM 

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: The Daily News Online

May 20, 2011

By Sally Ross

Horizon, sponsor of the proposed Alabama Ledge Wind Farm, held an open meeting on March 17 at the Alabama Town Hall to respond to environmental concerns raised by the impact of industrial wind turbines. Surprisingly, their collective effect upon local residents’ health was unexplored. Therefore, this overview will attempt to summarize a recent inquiry into the impact of wind turbines upon persons and animals.

Preston G. Ribnick and Lilli-Ann Green, from Wellfleet (Cape Cod), Mass., own a medical consulting agency, advising hospitals and clinics throughout the United States. They have spent almost a year trying to understand the complexities of wind energy. Two foci of their attention have been the wind farms in Falmouth, Mass., and Vinalhaven, Maine. Early this year, Ribnick and Green were the guests of Sarah Laurie, M.D., of Waubra, Australia. Dr. Laurie and her medical colleagues have been compiling files on dozens of persons whose health has been seriously compromised by the Waubra Wind Farm. Ribnick and Green interviewed a sample of the patients.

Waubra, 100 kilometers (62 miles) from Melbourne, is primarily an agricultural community of growers who raise livestock — cattle, poultry and sheep — as well as a variety of crops. It isn’t uncommon for farms to have been in families for two or more generations, and like much of Australia, drought conditions have prevailed for nearly a decade. Wind turbines seemed like a godsend; a stable source of rental income to accompany the precarious economy.

The Waubra Wind Farm is an installation of 128 turbines in as many miles; one turbine to one mile. After the industrial wind turbine complex was up and running in 2009, dozens of previously healthy persons reported serious health issues with themselves and their animals. Here are some common complaints. They are not age-specific. They occur in children as well as in mature adults.

People — dangerously high rates in blood pressure, racing heartbeats, stroke, heart attack, sleep disturbance, involuntary neurological “upper lip quiver,” ringing in ears, inability to concentrate, severe headache, eye pain, and dizziness.

Animals — chickens laying eggs without shells, nearly one-half of the lambs expiring shortly after birth, disoriented sheep, dogs as well as birds displaying extremely agitated and abnormal behavior, and the virtual disappearance of bats.

Conditions inside of homes were worse than those outside, because houses vibrated. As a result, some people have left hearth and home and now consider themselves to be “industrial refugees.” How far away were these physiological complaints reported? Up to 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) distance from the wind turbine installations. By inference, these data should raise our local concern for those residents in Genesee, and nearby counties, who live well beyond the proposed sites for turbine installations in the town of Alabama.

The results of Ribnick, Green and Laurie’s work is widely available. A hard copy of the article upon which this summary [can be downloaded by CLICKING HERE]. Anyone opting for an electronic link, as well as additional scientific information, place contact me.

Sally Ross, Ph.D., lives in Oakfield. Write her via e-mail at srladygrail@gmail.com.

From Malone, Wisconsin

LIFE IN A WIND FARM

Thank you for the information about wind farms. We live in one and life has changed.  Quite frankly, it has been somewhat of a nightmare. We have to deal with bad tv reception, flicker and loud swoshing noises at times. We could have been part of this project as they approached us about using our land but we declined because we didn't feel educated enough. They went up anyway.

From Massachusetts

FALMOUTH DREAMS TURNED NIGHTMARE

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Cape Cod Times, www.capecodonline.com

May 24, 2011

By ELIZABETH ANDERSEN

"The 7½-ton, 135-foot-long blades of the turbine slice through the air every second, creating a sound pressure that feels like the pounding of a bass instrument coming through the walls day and night. Just try to imagine that sound always there in your yard and in every room in your house, with no opportunity to turn it off. You go insane!"

"What we have so painfully learned this year is that there has been no place to go for help. Not our town hall, nor state representatives; not the police, not the DEP, nor the Department of Public Health. What is happening wasn’t supposed to happen. So we wait and suffer while it is “figured out.”

My husband and I met in 1976 and bonded over a shared love of nature. We have long considered ourselves conservationists, not only because our wonderful Depression-era parents taught us to use things up and wear them out, but because we learned our lesson from the oil embargo of the ’70s.

This awareness of the Earth’s declining natural resources led my husband, some 30 years ago, to start one of the first alternative energy construction companies on the Cape. And when we built our home on Blacksmith Shop Road 20 years ago, we designed it to be an energy-efficient system in itself. We also recycle, compost, drive small cars, use fluorescent bulbs, turn off lights when not in use, unplug appliances using phantom electricity, keep our heat down to 60 degrees in the winter and repurpose many things that would otherwise be thrown away.

Yet we, and our neighbors, have been criticized and made to feel guilty for complaining about ill health effects directly related to the size and proximity of utility-size wind turbines to our homes.

My husband and I were aware that the town Falmouth had been exploring the use of turbines for years, and we thought this was a good idea. However, when two turbines, already turned down by two other towns, became available, Falmouth officials chose to ignore the Falmouth windmill bylaw already on the books and erected two 400-foot mechanical machines, one 1,320 feet directly north of our home.

We, and our neighbors, were intentionally shut out of a special permitting process so that we would not hold up financing or construction in any way. Consequently, we have been living a nightmare ever since the turbine went online last year.

The 7½-ton, 135-foot-long blades of the turbine slice through the air every second, creating a sound pressure that feels like the pounding of a bass instrument coming through the walls day and night. Just try to imagine that sound always there in your yard and in every room in your house, with no opportunity to turn it off. You go insane!

At first we naively thought our Falmouth administrators would be concerned for us when informed of our health problems. Since April 2010, we and our neighbors have continually called, written, emailed or spoken in person to our town officials and begged them for some relief. The response we got for one year: no response. We contacted our building commissioner, zoning board of appeals, selectmen, and especially our board of health: no response.

Unfortunately for us, town administrators, in their haste to be “green,” did not research the negative impacts of utility-scale turbines near residential areas, and were taken by surprise by all of our complaints. Because the town of Falmouth owns the turbine, the administrators, again, chose to shut us out. We finally were forced to go to court just to get them to acknowledge us.

We wish we could list all the details of the cruel indifference we have been subjected to for a year, but the log we keep is pages too long. It was not until my husband and I were so exhausted from the ill treatment of turbine and town that we had to be civilly disobedient at a town meeting to plead for some relief. The Falmouth selectmen finally helped by way of a temporary shutoff when wind speeds reach 23 mph.

What we have so painfully learned this year is that there has been no place to go for help. Not our town hall, nor state representatives; not the police, not the DEP, nor the Department of Public Health. What is happening wasn’t supposed to happen. So we wait and suffer while it is “figured out.”

My husband and I still wholeheartedly embrace the movement toward alternative energy, but, once again, both the Massachusetts government and our town government put the cart before the horse and did not do all they could have done to protect the people. And from the looks of things going on in other towns, it is going to be up to the townspeople to fight for responsible turbine siting, to protect the health of their fellow man.

Elizabeth Andersen lives in Falmouth.

THIS FROM MICHIGAN:

WIND DEVELOPERS BEHAVING BADLY, CHAPTER 723: How to buy a 76 year land lease from a 73 year old man for just $150.00

"Some of the lease agreements Balance 4 Earth has signed with residents allow the company to operate for up to 70 years on a property, with an initial six year period to be followed by a 30 year period and two 20-year extensions, at the company’s discretion[...]

Bernard Keiser, 73, of Bliss Township, said he signed the lease agreement with Balance 4 Earth to help join his 15 acre lot with a 79-acre lot owned by his brother, who is in a nursing home. Bernard signed the lease agreement for $150."

READ THE ENTIRE STORY HERE: WIND ENERGY: STILL STORMY DEBATE IN EMMET COUNTY

FROM ONTARIO:

THE GREAT DIVIDE OVER WIND POWER; WHERE WINDS BLOW, STORMS FOLLOW

READ THE ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen, www.ottawacitizen.com

May 21, 2011

By Don Butler

“The noise is, at times, huge.” Sometimes it sounds like a pulsing jet engine. At other times, it’s a constant rumble, like an endless freight train passing. Neighbours tell her it’s like living near an airport.

“The range of noise is unbelievable, and it’s all so completely different from what you’re used to that you just stop whatever you’re doing,” Elmes says. “I used to love my neighbourhood. I don’t anymore.”

When Monica Elmes and her husband Neil bought their 35-hectare farm near Ridgetown in southwestern Ontario 15 years ago, the rural peace and serenity was the main attraction. “It was like heaven,” she says.

They put their hearts and souls into renovating the old farmhouse. “We did that thinking we’d never have to consider leaving.”

But that was before a 100-megawatt wind farm began operating next door in December. Forty-four turbines, each more than 400 feet tall, now surround her paradisical farm on three sides. The nearest is about 1.5 kilometres from her house.

“It sucks,” says Elmes. “The noise is, at times, huge.” Sometimes it sounds like a pulsing jet engine. At other times, it’s a constant rumble, like an endless freight train passing. Neighbours tell her it’s like living near an airport.

“The range of noise is unbelievable, and it’s all so completely different from what you’re used to that you just stop whatever you’re doing,” Elmes says. “I used to love my neighbourhood. I don’t anymore.”

Elmes is not alone. Fertilized by generous subsidies in the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act, industrial wind turbines are sprouting like dandelions across the province’s rural landscape, finding willing hosts in farmers and other property owners eager to earn some money by leasing their land.

There are 914 turbines provincewide, theoretically capable of generating up to 1,636 megawatts of electricity.

The province already has signed contracts with wind companies that will roughly double that number. And it has received applications for a further 3,000 or so turbines, with an installed capacity of 6,672 megawatts, according to the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

Within the foreseeable future, in short, close to 5,000 wind turbines could blanket rural Ontario.

Urban residents, who largely regard wind power as an unbridled virtue, might cheer that news. But in rural areas, the turbine invasion has generated anger, alarm and corrosive social division, pitting those who welcome wind power as an economic boon against those horrified by what they view as a threat to their health, wealth and enjoyment of life.

“There are families in Ontario who no longer speak to each other because of this issue,” says John Laforet, head of Wind Concerns Ontario, a coalition of 57 mostly rural anti-wind groups whose website has attracted nearly 1.5 million views. “It’s perceived that some are prepared to destroy the community in exchange for a few thousand dollars.”

“It’s terrible,” moans Wayne Fitzgerald, mayor of the rural municipality of Grey Highlands, where a wind developer is poised to start construction on an 11-turbine project. “We’re torn on council, we’re torn in the community. The people who are opposed to it are very, very vocal. They feel quite strongly.”

The issue will have a “profound impact” on the outcome of this October’s provincial election, predicts Laforet, whose group is actively preparing to organize against the governing Liberals.

“It’s going to be a real problem for the Liberals because we can mobilize in somewhere between 24 and 26 Liberal ridings in rural areas,” he says. “I’m quite confident that wind-concerns groups can move the bar enough in enough ridings to defeat the government.”

Wind turbines were a lively issue in last fall’s municipal election in pastoral Prince Edward County near Belleville, where a nine-turbine project along a major path for migratory birds is close to proceeding and numerous others are in various stages of development.

Voters responded by electing Peter Mertens, who campaigned against wind development, as mayor. They also transformed what had been a pro-wind council into one that passed a motion in January calling for a moratorium on wind development. About 80 municipalities have passed similar resolutions.

“It became an extremely divisive issue, and it has probably gotten worse, if anything,” Mertens says. Urbanites who fled to the county to enjoy its scenic beauty have found themselves at odds with longtime farm residents who see the turbines as a way to generate needed cash.

Most wind farms are in central or southwestern Ontario. There are 162 turbines in Bruce County alone, with nearly 480 more proposed. Chatham-Kent has 203 turbines, with about 430 more in the works.

Wolfe Island, across the harbour from Kingston, is home to the only wind project in Eastern Ontario. Operating for two years with 86 turbines, it’s the second-largest in Canada. But Kemptville-based Prowind Canada has proposed smaller projects near North Gower, Spencerville, Carleton Place and Winchester.

Opponents have mobilized. The North Gower Wind Action group, formed to fight a proposed eight-to-10-turbine project near the village, has about 300 supporters. “These are industrial structures,” says Jane Wilson, the group’s chair. “They’re not little windmills. These ones are about 190 metres tall. That’s twice the height of the Peace Tower.”

For opponents, the sheer scale of the turbines is only part of it. There are also concerns about their impact on health and property values.

Opponents say studies have found that those living adjacent to turbines have lost between 20 and 40 per cent of their property value. In some cases, properties have become virtually unsellable.

When prospective buyers come to Prince Edward County — a mecca for former urbanites seeking a bucolic alternative —the first thing they ask real-estate agents is whether a property is near an area that may get turbines, says Mertens. If so, they aren’t interested.

Mertens had an e-mail recently from a property owner who’s been trying to sell a lot near one of the proposed projects for two years, without success. “He told me he’s walking away from the lot now. He no longer wants to pay taxes on it.”

Energy consultant Tom Adams, a critic of the Green Energy Act, spoke at a conference last month organized by an anti-wind group in Meaford, near Georgian Bay. Astonishingly, more than 250 people showed up on a sunny spring Saturday to hear Adams and other speakers.

“It was a huge eye-opener for me,” Adams says. “They are so pissed off about this. We’re talking about something really deep here — the protection of people’s land value. People get emotional about that subject.”

A tax assessment hearing now under way could help provide some clarity on the issue. Gail and Edward Kenney are arguing that the 28 turbines they can see from their home on Wolfe Island have devalued their property.

While they can’t always hear the turbines, when the wind is blowing the right way, “it completely fills the atmosphere,” says Gail Kenney. “This is not like the noise of anything I know.” The turbines pollute the night sky, she says, with red lights that flash every three seconds.

The island’s natural heritage has taken a beating as well, Kenney says. The once-abundant deer she used to enjoy seeing have fled. The short-eared owl, a species of special concern in Canada, has all but disappeared from the island’s west end.

Most health concerns are related to the noise the turbines make — particularly “infrasound,” a low-frequency vibration below the normal range of human hearing. Some who live near turbines report disrupted sleep, headaches, nausea, tinnitus and dizziness.

That said, the health impact of turbines has yet to be conclusively demonstrated. In a May 2010 report, Ontario’s chief medical officer of health, Dr. Arlene King, found that scientific evidence to date “does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.”

But Dr. Hazel Lynn, medical officer of health for the Grey Bruce Health Unit, reached a different conclusion in a report in January. It’s clear, she found, that many people have been “dramatically impacted by the noise and proximity of wind farms. To dismiss all these people as eccentric, unusual or hyper-sensitive social outliers does a disservice to constructive public discourse.”

Not all people exposed to wind turbines suffer physical symptoms, Lynn said in an interview. But a certain percentage do. “That’s pretty consistent across the world. It’s the same complaints everywhere. And that’s really rare unless there’s some real reason for it.”

More research is required, says Lynn. But that’s hampered by non-disclosure agreements imposed on leaseholders by wind companies, including clauses that forbid them from talking about problems.

“To me, it’s already suspicious before you start,” she says.

Coupled with the Green Energy Act’s removal of local authority over the siting and approval of turbines, this cone of silence has created “a huge sense of social injustice” in rural Ontario, says Laforet. But the Green Energy Act’s cost and ineffectiveness means urbanites are paying a high price, too, he says.

“We see it as a battle all Ontarians are in, because we all lose. We all have to pay more for this power we don’t need. But in rural Ontario, they lose so much more. They lose their way of life, they lose their property values and, in some cases, they lose their health.”

Elmes says she feels “huge despair” at what’s happening. But this month’s announcement that Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives would scrap the lucrative feed-in tariff (FIT) program for wind power projects if elected this fall gives her hope that things could change.

“That’s about the only thing keeping me going. We all just want our healthy, peaceful lives back.”

THE REALITY OF WIND POWER

One of the inherent limitations of wind power is its unreliability. It produces electricity only when the wind blows. And how much it produces depends on how much oomph nature provides at any given time.

Ontario has wind power with an installed capacity of 1,636 megawatts, an amount expected to rise to 2,200 megawatts by early next year.

But in fact, it produces far less than that. Friday morning between 8 and 9 a.m., for example, wind was generating just 31 megawatts of electricity. Between 11 a.m. and noon on Wednesday, when winds were blowing more lustily, it was cranking out 669 megawatts.

In a recent study, Aegent Energy Advisors evaluated wind data for 2009 and 2010 from the Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which measures the output of wind turbines connected to the high voltage distribution grid.

It found that the average “capacity factor” over that time was 27.8 per cent, meaning that for every 1,000 megawatts of installed wind capacity, the average annual output would be 278 megawatts. But that doesn’t account for wind’s variability. That same 1,000 megawatts would produce no electricity at all at if there’s no wind, or as much as 949 megawatts in a stiff gale.

By comparison, nuclear power has an average capacity factor of about 90 per cent. Last year, nuclear reactors produced the equivalent of a continuous, around-the-clock output of 9,452 megawatts.

To replace that nuclear output with wind power, Ontario would require 34,000 megawatts of installed wind capacity, Aegent calculated. The turbines needed for that, it said, would consume 14,200 square kilometres of land -equivalent to a band 14 kilometres wide and 1,000 kilometres long.

Ontario would also need 10,000 megawatts of natural gas generation as a backup for periods when wind power was producing little or nothing, Aegent said.