Better Plan, Wisconsin

NEVER MIND THE PANORAMA - LISTEN TO THE TURBINES' NOISE

Western Morning News, www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk

October 29, 2011 

Imagine never being able to open your windows at night, no matter how hot the weather…

It’s a problem some North Devon residents now claim they face since the blades of 22 giant wind-turbines at Fullabrook began to turn.

Sue Pike’s bungalow is just 600 metres from one of the 110-metre turbines at the new wind-farm and she says: “It is dreadful – the main sound is like a huge great cement mixer going around – then you get the loud whoosh and also whistles and hums.

“Altogether we have counted four different noises coming from it,” she told the Western Morning News. “Back in the warmer weather when the turbines were being tested we couldn’t open the bedroom or lounge windows – fortunately we are double-glazed so that helps cut out the noise – but we were stewing indoors.”

Retired farmer Brian Pugsley has lived in the Putsford area close to the centre of the wind-farm all his 67 years and he says his thoughts on the development are “unprintable”.

“It’s affected everybody in a large area, but we’re in the middle of it – you’ve got the drone of the motor and also the blade and its whooshing sound.

“I don’t know how loud it was – but it just went on and on and was definitely worst when all 22 were going round,” said Mr Pugsley referring to the recent turbine tests.

“It’s not too bad indoors, but you can’t go in your garden,” he added. “I was born here – and some of the things I want to say now I’ve heard the noise wouldn’t be printable.”

After meetings with local residents ESB, the Irish-based owner of the wind-farm, has commissioned experts to undertake noise monitoring tests at some neighbouring properties.

The measurements recorded will be in addition to the formal tests which ESB must undertake as part of the conditions set out in its planning permission. But the company points out the research can only be undertaken when the wind farm is fully operational.

“ESB will continue to work closely with the local community – particularly our immediate neighbours and North Devon Council – to ensure we not only meet all conditions of the planning permission, but that we are able to discuss local concerns and take what measures we can to address issues,” commented a company spokesman.

Local MP Nick Harvey is so concerned over noise complaints that he recently added a special online survey to his official website.

“This was launched three weeks ago after Nick visited residents up at Putsford who have been complaining about noise problems, vibration, loss of TV reception, flicker etc, now that the farm is almost completely operational,” said Mr Harvey’s press officer, Anthony Tucker-Jones.

He added that North Devon Council’s Environmental Health Department was about to conduct site analysis at five locations in response to residents’ concerns.

The results of Mr Harvey’s online survey will be collated soon, but the site is still getting about two returns a day and his office says the response has been huge.

Local artist Christine Lovelock launched her own website (artistsagainstwindfarms. com) when plans for the development were first mooted: “The scale of this development was always going to be far too large,” she told the WMN. “Now the 22 turbines are all up I would say it’s worse than I ever thought it would be.”

She added: “A lot of local people are very upset by the noise, but a lot of them are afraid to speak out because they are worried that will immediately reduce the value of their properties.”

However, Sue Pike said she and her partner John were only too keen to voice their concerns…

“We reckoned our property had devalued by 20 per cent without the noise – we worked that out when they went ahead with the wind-farm,” she said. “But, with the noise, it’s going to be worse. And no one has ever talked about compensation. We feel we’re under siege.”

Bob Barfoot, chairman of the Campaign for Preservation of Rural England’s North Devon branch, helped fight against the wind-farm and he commented: “At the public inquiry it was very clear from the evidence that the wind-farm would have massive landscape and visual impacts and that turbine noise would be a real problem. The inspector overrode all of these concerns…

“But it was made clear at the public inquiry that the turbines would breach the accepted noise guidelines and now that the turbines are operating the local people are reporting problems, especially at night when it appears that the classic ‘swish and thump’ of ‘amplitude modulation’ is preventing some of them from sleeping with their bedroom windows open.

“The Fullabrook situation should be a lesson to us all,” added Mr Barfoot, who is now preparing to rejoin the fight against a proposed wind-farm at Batsworthy Cross, also in North Devon.

Developers of that scheme recently decided to appeal against a North Devon Council decision earlier this year to refuse permission for the wind-farm, and Mr Barfoot says: “I hope the inspector at the forthcoming public inquiry will dismiss the appeal and save the people in the Batsworthy Cross area from the same sad fate as those living close to the Fullabrook turbines.”

The newly completed Fullabrook wind-farm does find support in some areas… Barnstaple town councillor and Green Party candidate Ricky Knight says he’s been to the site to hear the “so-called” noise and was left mystified.

“I have thought long and hard as to what they (people protesting against the noise) are talking about. I stood in a friend’s garden near the turbines and essentially all we heard was the wind, birds and farm machinery. I was not able to discern any sound coming from the turbines.

“I am in receipt of criticisms (from people who don’t like the wind-farm) but I get far more support from people who simply register confusion about this subject,” added Mr Knight.

All eyes – and ears – will now be on Fullabrook on November 18 when the wind-farm is due to become fully operational.

ESB claims each turbine will have a three megawatt capacity and that collectively the 22 turbines will power 30,000 homes and help keep people warm. Ironically, local residents like Sue Pike and Brian Pugsley could be using some of that power in summer to run air-conditioning units.

NEXT STORY

MASSIVE BIRD KILL AT WEST VIRGINIA WIND FARM HIGHLIGHTS NATIONAL ISSUE

SOURCE American Bird Conservancy, www.abcbirds.org

October 18, 2011

WASHINGTON D.C. --With the deaths of nearly 500 birds at the Laurel Mountain wind facility earlier this month, three of the four wind farms operating in West Virginia have now experienced large bird fatality events, according to American Bird Conservancy (ABC), the nation’s leading bird conservation organization.

“Wind energy has the potential to be a green energy source, but the industry still needs to embrace simple, bird-smart principles that would dramatically reduce incidents across the country, such as those that have occurred in West Virginia,” said Kelly Fuller, ABC’s Wind Campaign Coordinator.

There were three critical circumstances that tragically aligned in each of the three West Virginia events to kill these birds. Each occurred during bird migration season, during low visibility weather conditions, and with the addition of a deadly triggering element – an artificial light source. Steady-burning lights have been shown to attract and disorient birds, particularly night-migrating songbirds that navigate by starlight, and especially during nights where visibility is low such as in fog or inclement weather. Circling birds collide with structures or each other, or drop to the ground from exhaustion.

At the Laurel Mountain facility in the Allegheny Mountains, almost 500 birds were reportedly killed after lights were left on at an electrical substation associated with the wind project. The deaths are said to have occurred not from collisions with the wind turbines themselves, but from a combination of collisions with the substation and apparent exhaustion as birds caught in the light’s glare circled in mass confusion.

On the evening of September 24 this year at the Mount Storm facility in the Allegheny Mountains, 59 birds and two bats were killed. Thirty of the dead birds were found near a single wind turbine that was reported to have had internal lighting left on overnight. This incident stands in stark contrast to industry assertions that just two birds per year are killed on average by each turbine. Data from Altamont Pass, California wind farms – the most studied in the nation – suggest that over 2,000 Golden Eagles alone have been killed there.

On May 23, 2003 at the Mountaineer wind farm in the Allegheny Mountains, at least 33 birds were killed. Some of the deaths were attributed to collisions with wind turbines and some to collisions with a substation.

“The good news is that it shouldn’t be hard to make changes that will keep these sorts of unnecessary deaths from happening again, but it’s disturbing that they happened at all. It has long been known that many birds navigate by the stars at night, that they normally fly lower during bad weather conditions, and that artificial light can draw them off course and lead to fatal collision events. That’s why minimizing outdoor lighting at wind facilities is a well-known operating standard. And yet lights were left on at these sites resulting in these unfortunate deaths. This reinforces the need to have mandatory federal operational standards as opposed to the optional, voluntary guidelines that are currently under discussion,” Fuller said.

A fourth wind farm in West Virginia, the Beech Ridge Wind Energy Project in Greenbrier County, has not experienced large mortality events, likely because it is currently prohibited by a court order from operating during nighttime between April 1 and November 15.

“Some West Virginia conservation groups have suggested that other wind farms in the state should shut down their wind turbines at certain times and seasons to protect birds. Given the recurring bird-kill problems, that idea needs to be seriously considered, at least during migration season on nights where low visibility is predicted. A wind farm in Texas is doing just that, so it is possible.” said Fuller.

The video above shows wind turbine shadow flicker affecting homes in Fond du Lac County. Filmed by Invenergy wind project resident, Gerry Meyer

GET THE FACTS BEFORE MAKING SITING DECISIONS

By State Sen. Frank Lasee,

SOURCE Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

October 27 2011

How would you feel if you or your kids started feeling sick? What if you or your kids suddenly started having headaches, ear aches, nausea, dizziness or couldn’t sleep well anymore in your own home and you knew it wouldn’t ever go away?

This is happening right now in Wisconsin. Families who had happy, healthy lives found themselves suffering illnesses that started after wind turbines were built near their homes. Scientific evidence indicates that there are health impacts that are associated with large wind turbines, many as tall as 500 feet. A bill that I introduced requires new safety setback rules based on health studies.

We aren’t sure why wind turbines seem to cause illnesses. Is it electrical pollution, radio waves, sound waves that are too low to hear, vibrations, shadow-flicker or noise?

We know some adults and children who live near turbines feel nausea, headaches, dizziness, insomnia, ear aches, agitation, and other symptoms – and their illnesses clear up when they are away from home.

Two families whom I represent have moved out of their homes because of illnesses they felt after eight wind turbines were built nearby; others want to move but can’t afford to. A Fond du Lac family abandoned their $300,000 remodeled farm house because their 16-year-old daughter developed intestinal lesions and was hospitalized for them. After they moved away, she recovered. Others have said that deer and birds they feed in their backyards disappear when the turbines turn, and they return when the turbines stop.

This problem isn’t confined to Wisconsin. There are studies coming from other countries and states that report health issues for those who are too near large wind turbines. These new wind turbines are nearly 500 feet tall, taller than 40-story buildings, and nearly twice as tall as the state Capitol.

To be fair to people who live in rural areas where turbines are being built, we need to find out what is “too close” and what distance is acceptable for the health of adults, children and animals. Right now, we don’t know. Right now, it depends on whether you are pushing for or against wind turbines or have to live near them.

The purpose of my bill is to get the facts before others are harmed. It requires that a “peer reviewed” health study address these health effects and be used by the state Public Service Commission to establish a safe distance for wind turbine setback rules.

People should be secure in their homes; they shouldn’t be forced to move because they are being made ill by something built near them. In Wisconsin, we owe our citizens more than someone’s opinion on whether their home is safe -whether their children are safe.

Wind turbines are causing real hardship for real people. Some can’t afford to move to preserve their or their kids’ health. Could you? Our government has a duty to know the facts and protect our citizens regardless of whether we are “for” wind energy or “against” wind energy.

State Sen. Frank Lasee, of De Pere, represents Wisconsin’s 1st Senate District.

The video above was recorded by Larry Wunsch, a resident of the Invenergy wind project in Fond du Lac County. Wunsch is also a firefighter and a member of the Public Service Commission's wind siting council. His recommendations for setbacks and noise limits were shot down by other members of the council who had a direct or indirect financial interest in creating less restrictive siting guidelines.

NEXT STORY: FROM VERMONT

PROTESTERS AND BLASTERS CONTINUE LOWELL STANDOFF

by Chris Braithwaite, The Chronicle, 26 October 2011 ~~

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, the old question goes, does it make a sound?

Here’s a more timely variation on the question: If you hold a demonstration in one of the most inaccessible places in the Northeast Kingdom, have you demonstrated anything?

There was a certain brilliance in the idea, dreamed up by opponents of the industrial wind project on Lowell Mountain, of planting a campsite on the western edge of Doug and Shirley Nelson’s farm, too close to the wind project to permit safe blasting.

But there was also a weakness inherent in the plan. It’s so hard to get to the campsite that almost nobody knows what goes on up there.

There’s great drama in the idea of determined demonstrators standing up to the high explosives that, as this is being written, are reducing four miles of remote ridgeline to a nice, level, 34-foot-wide gravel road.

But drama demands an audience. Without one, even the most daring and determined resistance risks becoming an exercise in futility.

Some of the demonstrators who climbed the mile-long trail to their campsite on Wednesday morning, October 19, were prepared to go down the mountain in police custody.

The stage, it seemed, was finally set for the confrontation with authority they were braced for.

It had been set up the Friday before by the wind project’s developer, Green Mountain Power (GMP). The big utility had gone to court and quickly obtained a temporary restraining order against the Nelsons and their guests. It ordered them to be 1,000 feet from the property line for an hour before, and an hour after, high explosives were detonated near the farm.

Blasting had proceeded on Monday and Tuesday, but at a safe distance that didn’t provoke any confrontation between GMP and the handful of demonstrators on hand.

But the mood was different Wednesday. GMP had called the Nelsons to say there would be blasting from 2 to 4 p.m.

On top of the mountain, the demonstrators got their first clear view of two big drill rigs, poking holes in the rock about 800 feet from the campsite.

With binoculars, they could watch workmen carry boxes of high explosive from a cubical white body mounted on tracks to the drill holes. Then they could watch as a large backhoe dragged massive mats of steel and rubber over the blast site, while other massive machines made a ponderous retreat.

All that clatter aside, the place was remarkably quiet. The demonstrators exchanged a bit of small talk, did a bit of planning, but didn’t talk much about their concern for Lowell Mountain, or their despair at what GMP was doing to it. Their presence in that high, steeply sloped forest said those things for them.

Nor did the demonstrators have anything to say to two GMP workers who passed within a few feet of them, putting yet more yellow warning signs on trees along the disputed line that separates the Nelson property from the project.

They numbered each sign with a marker, photographed it, and moved on out of sight to the north.

The four demonstrators who were prepared to be arrested gathered up their gear and tossed it into one of the tents. If necessary, it would be carried down the trail by the people who were there to support them.

Two more GMP workers approached the protesters as they moved as close as they could get to the blast site, just after 3 o’clock.

The one who wore a blue hard hat, Dave Coriell, is community outreach manager for Kingdom Community Wind, which is the name GMP gave to its project.

The one in the unpainted tin hat, John Stamatov, manages the construction project for GMP.

Mr. Coriell, who used to do public relations work for Governor Jim Douglas, looked a little out of his element. That wasn’t true of Mr. Stamatov, though he looked like he’d be more comfortable running a bulldozer than a video camera.

Mr. Coriell stopped within easy earshot of the protesters. Behind him, Mr. Stamatov started recording the proceedings on his camera.

“I’m going to have to ask people to please move back,” Mr. Coriell said. Nobody moved.

If the demonstrators didn’t move 1,000 feet down the mountain, Mr. Coriell continued, they would be in violation of the temporary restraining order.

Copies of the order were nailed to a scattering of nearby trees.

“I ask you to please move back,” Mr. Coriell said. “I’m not going to force you physically to move.” Nobody moved.

“If you’re not going to move, I’d ask you for your name or some identification,” Mr. Coriell said.

Nobody said anything.

“That’s a cute dog,” Mr. Coriell said of Koyo. A handsome yellow lab who’d carried a backpack up the mountain for his owners, Koyo was the only demonstrator who used his real name. If he was flattered, Koyo didn’t say so.

I identified myself to the GMP twosome, and said I planned to stick around and see what happened next.

“By standing there you’re risking serious injury or death,” Mr. Stamatov said.

Knowing that, I asked, was GMP still going to touch off the explosives?

“We’re hoping people move,” said Mr. Coriell.

They withdrew across the wide orange ribbon that divides the construction site from the forest.

But they came back a few minutes later. Stepping up to a tree, Mr. Coriell read the entire text of the restraining order aloud to the silent demonstrators, while Mr. Stamatov recorded the event.

The two withdrew again, but remained in the clearcut that GMP’s logging crew had created where the crane path will run along the top of the ridgeline. They were not significantly further from the blast site than the demonstrators.

Everybody waited. It became quiet, an ominous silence that settled as the last machines withdrew.

The demonstrators were there, of course, in the belief that their presence would stop the blasting.

They had been warned that they were standing in harm’s way, and they had every reason to believe it.

What Mr. Coriell hadn’t told them was that the contractor, Maine Drilling and Blasting, had carefully laid a much smaller charge than it hopes to use in the near future, and covered it with particular care with particularly large blasting mats.

At 3:26 the silence was broken by three loud horn blasts. According to the yellow signs on so many nearby trees, that signified five minutes until the explosion.

Two horns sounded four minutes later, the one-minute warning. Still nobody moved, nobody talked. One demonstrator, a young woman sitting legs crossed in a lotus position, closed her eyes.

The words “fire in the hole” carried through the silent forest from somebody’s radio and the explosives went off, sending a cloud of gray dust into the sky. There were no casualties.

The demonstrators had stood their ground, a they had pledged to do. And GMP had blown up another piece of Lowell Mountain, as it was so determined to do.

If there’s a moral victory to be claimed, it clearly goes to the protestors. But that may only serve as consolation, a year or so from now, as they contemplate the wind towers on Lowell Mountain.

NOTE: The World Health Organization has set 35 dbA as the decibel level for healthy sleep. Each increase of 10 decibels doubles the noise output.

From New York State

NOISE FROM HERKIMER CO. WIND TURBINES TO BE STUDIED AGAIN

By BRYON ACKERMAN,

Observer-Dispatch, www.uticaod.com

October 3, 2011

For the second time this year, a study will be conducted to address concerns about sound levels at the Hardscrabble Wind Farm.

After 37 turbines began operating on Jan. 31 in the Herkimer County towns of Fairfield and Norway, some residents started complaining about the turbines producing too much noise.

A study conducted earlier this year found that the noise level in some instances went above the 50-decibel level required in the permits for the turbines, Fairfield town Supervisor Richard Souza said.

Another, more extensive study will be conducted starting in late October or early November, Souza said.

“We’ll have a better idea of what the noise level is, and we’ll be able to sit down with the company and get it corrected,” he said.

The wind project developer Iberdrola Renewables paid for the first study to be conducted earlier this year at the request of town officials and landowners. The second study also will be paid for by the developer, town and company officials said.

A noise level of 50 decibels is often compared to the sound from a refrigerator motor running. The decibel level of a “normal conversation” is about 60 decibels, according to information provided by Iberdrola.

The first study showed noise levels reaching 60 to 65 decibels in some instances, and the permits restrict the decibel level from going above 50 – including the turbines and background noise combined, Souza said.

But the instances in the study when the noise levels were higher than 50 decibels were primarily when there were extreme wind speeds, Iberdrola spokesman Paul Copleman said. The sounds were largely due to other factors from the wind speed such as the rustling of leaves, he said.

“We didn’t consider that to be attributable to the wind farm,” he said.

That means the developers believe they’re not in violation of the wind ordinances, but the issue does warrant further studying, Copleman said.

Fairfield resident Jimmy Salamone, who lives near turbines on Davis Road in Fairfield, said the noise level has become an ongoing problem for many people in the area.

“The noise is really bad on Davis Road – very hard to live with,” Salamone said. “It’s way too loud, and it gets louder at night for some reason.”

But Salamone thinks that instead of conducting another study, something should be done to address the noise levels found in the other study earlier this year, he said.

Donald Dixon, 75, who has two wind turbines on his property at Route 170 in Fairfield, said he doesn’t believe a noise study is necessary.

“To be honest with you, I don’t even notice them,” Dixon said.

Dixon believes the people complaining about noise are the same people who complained before the turbines were put up and that they just want to continue with their complaints, he said.

Souza said he has dealt with “quite a few” complaints scattered throughout the town. It should take about three weeks to complete the study once it begins, he said. The angle and speed of the turbine blades could potentially be altered in response to the results if necessary, he said.

The first study looked at three sites in Fairfield and one in Norway, Souza said. The new study will review five sites in Fairfield and one in Norway, while also looking into more details about the time of the day and factors in the noise levels, he said.

WIND CONTRACT BINDS REGRETFUL FARMLAND OWNER

By Sue McGinn, 

SOURCE: www.saukvalley.com

September 9, 2011

When you sign a 20- to 30-year contract to have a wind turbine on your property, you may be signing away many rights you’re unaware of. A confidentiality agreement in the contract may mean legal action can be taken against you if you complain publicly. A Fond du Lac, Wis., farmer signed away his rights.

These are excerpts from a full-page ad in the Chilton (Wis.) Times-Journal, Oct. 25, 2007, as told to Don Bangart, who wrote the following on behalf of the farmer.

“As I view this year’s crops, my eyes feast on a most bountiful supply of corn and soybeans. And then my eyes focus again on the trenches and road scars leading to the turbine foundations. What have I done?”

In 2003, the energy company made first contact with a $2,000 “incentive.” In 2004 or 2005, he signed a $4,000 turbine contract allowing them to lease his land for their needs. The lease favored the company, but he didn’t realize it.

He watched them tear 22-foot-wide roads into his fields. Later, a 4-foot-deep-by-2-foot wide trench was started diagonally across his field, eventually making what was one large field into four smaller, irregularly shaped plots. The company placed roads and trenches where they would benefit it most, not the landowner. Costly tiling installed to improve drainage was cut into pieces.

The farmers were told to stay away from the work sites. Once, when he approached a crew putting in lines where they promised they would not go, a representative told him he could not be there.

There are now huge divisions between old friends and, yes, relatives. He and others tried to get out of the contracts, but they were binding.

[He] said, “Please do not do what I have done.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM WISCONSIN FARMERS WHO REGRET SIGNING ON WITH WIND COMPANIES

From Australia

ILL WIND BLOWING ACROSS THE SOUTHWEST

By Alexandra Weaver

SOURCE: The Standard, www.standard.net.au 

September 9, 2011

“When you have people that could feel that they’re locked in, that their whole entity is signed up — their house and their business — they may feel that they don’t have places to go, and they may feel that they can’t speak out because they’re in these agreements".

Turbines appear a few kilometres from Glenthompson, rising among paddocks stocked with fat lambs.

These modern windmills are a new feature of the local landscape.

On a day when grey, rain-filled clouds sweep through the area their white blades look particularly bright, each one’s rhythmic spinning commanding attention.

Late last month AGL began commissioning its 32-turbine Oaklands Hill wind farm, a project capable of producing 63 megawatts of power each year. Just four days later, Adrian and Helen Lyon began to notice a change.

The Lyons are wool producers whose home is about 1670 metres from one of the development’s turbines.

Both have reported a feeling of sustained pressure in their ears, a sensation that has disturbed their sleep.

The couple believe the problem is worst when the wind is blowing from the north, and say it disappears when the wind direction changes or they leave the 430-hectare property.

Mr Lyon said his initial worry when plans for the wind farm were unveiled in 2006 was the audible noise it could produce, adding that inaudible low-frequency noise had since become an equal concern.

“To me, and I’m pretty sure it will be for most people, if you expose yourself (to turbines) for quite some time and then go away, you will notice there is a difference,” he said.

“Exactly what we’re experiencing now, you don’t appreciate it, even after visiting Waubra.”

There are 15 turbines within about three kilometres of the Lyons’ home, though none on their land. They were invited to host generators but were concerned that doing so would restrict the number of trees they could plant.

The pair have not approached their GP to discuss the ear pressure complaint but are looking for a rental home within 50 kilometres of Glenthompson so Mr Lyon can continue running the farm.

“We’ve tried to seek answers and clarifications because if we’re being affected, other people are as well,” Mrs Lyon said.

“Some people may think that we’re just being whingers (but) we have a genuine concern for our own health and for the wellbeing that’s associated with wind farms.

“When you have people that could feel that they’re locked in, that their whole entity is signed up — their house and their business — they may feel that they don’t have places to go, and they may feel that they can’t speak out because they’re in these agreements.

“We’re an example of our home and our livelihood being affected, and impacts have begun.

“We are fortunate that we are able to speak out.”

The Waubra Foundation was formed last year to foster independent research into the health consequences of wind farms.

The organisation’s medical director, Sarah Laurie, said those living near turbines were increasingly dealing with a raft of complaints.

“I think there’s two reasons for that: one is that turbines are being placed closer to more homes, and the other issue is that the turbines are getting bigger,” she said.

“I believe, and so do other people working in the field, that it’s predominantly the low-frequency noise that’s impacting adversely on people’s health.”

Some argue it is anxiety over turbines that leads nearby residents to experience problems such as sleep deprivation, nausea, depression and headaches, a theory Dr Laurie disputes.

“My experience is that people hope — they desperately hope — that they’re going to not be affected,” she said.

“Nobody wants to have to leave their home.

“For some people (symptoms) start the minute the turbines go on, and it depends on the individual susceptibility, but it also depends on wind direction and it depends on topography.

“Anxiety is not the primary thing that’s driving this, because people are very clear that it only happens with certain wind directions.”

Dr Laurie said she routinely met residents who could identify wind direction and whether turbines were running without looking outside, such was the variation in their physical state.

Last month Planning Minister Matthew Guy approved amendment VC82, which included key parts of the Coalition’s pre-election wind farm policy.

Perhaps the most significant of these was a two-kilometre buffer between turbines and homes that will apply unless the developer receives written consent from the property owner.

The amendment also introduced no-go areas for wind farms in areas including land along the Great Ocean Road, and prevents projects being built within five kilometres of regional cities such as Warrnambool, Hamilton and Portland.

“I think (the two-kilometre setback) will help — there’s no doubt that (with) close proximity people’s symptoms are bad,” Dr Laurie said.

“We well know that the symptoms actually extend way beyond the two-kilometre mark.

“Low-frequency noise travels much further than the higher frequencies and it’s more penetrating, so as the turbines get higher and increase their power-generating capacity, what we’re going to see is people impacted over a greater distance.”

The Waubra Foundation has called for a 10-kilometre setback between turbines and homes, a figure that represents the furthest point at which residents near wind farms have reported problems.

It is also keen to see independent, peer-reviewed research on wind farms’ health effects completed in Australia as a matter of urgency.

The Lyons are adamant that those with an interest or stake in wind energy should visit their farm to gauge potential problems for themselves.

“(We want) to get people here when there is an acute problem, so that they know that there’s a problem.

“It’s no good doing tests if those tests aren’t covering what the problem is,” Mr Lyon said.

“I think we’ve got to try and get people here whether it’s in the house or down in the paddock. I haven’t worked out which one will affect people quicker.”

An AGL spokeswoman said pre-commissioning of turbines at Oaklands Hill began on August 19 and was slowly ramped up, with all generators available for commissioning on the evening of August 28.

“The commissioning process ensures that the turbines are operating within their design criteria and in accordance with the permit requirements,” she said.

“It involves testing of the turbines under normal operational conditions, assessing noise levels, electricity generation, testing of electrical and control components, reliability testing.”

The wind farm’s 32 turbines are expected to come online at some stage during the first quarter of next year.

The AGL spokeswoman said the company took all issues associated with its projects seriously and was investigating concerns about noise levels raised by the Lyons.

“The couple involved have been contacted directly by an AGL representative and a written acknowledgment of the complaint has also been provided,” she told The Standard yesterday.

“Post-construction noise compliance monitoring has already been planned and is scheduled to be commenced before the end of September 2011.

“The Department of Planning and Community Development and Southern Grampians Shire Council (have been) advised accordingly.”

NEXT STORY

From Ontario

LIFE 'DEVASTATED' BY WIND TURBINES

By DENIS LANGLOIS

Source: Owen Sound Sun Times

September 9, 2011

After months of sleepless nights, symptoms began to pile up — nausea, "horrendous" migraines, pressure in her ears and head, vertigo and general malaise.

Norma Schmidt says at first she welcomed the idea of wind turbines being erected near her rural home in southern Bruce County.

"I thought that this was good for the environment. I believed what the Liberal government told us," she said in an interview.

But shortly after the gigantic blades began to spin, in November 2008, Schmidt said she began tossing and turning at night and struggled to sleep.

After months of sleepless nights, symptoms began to pile up — nausea, "horrendous" migraines, pressure in her ears and head, vertigo and general malaise.

"The symptoms became so pervasive over months that I couldn't ignore them any longer," she said.

"Eventually I became extremely ill and was diagnosed with having wind turbine syndrome."

Acting on the advice of doctors and specialists, Schmidt said she and her husband Ron purchased a home in Miller Lake to get away from the 115-turbine Enbridge wind farm.

The decision to move was a difficult one, she said.

The couple has lived on their 13-acre property near Underwood for 32 years and raised three children there. It was the first home Schmidt owned after moving to Canada from Ireland.

"All my memories and life work is there. I can't grow those 6,000 trees again. I can't bring back the memories of my kids again. I can't transplant those 32 years of my life into some other environment."

On top of having to move, Schmidt said she became so ill while living among turbines that she is now unable to work as a registered nurse.

"My life is devastated because of it."

The feisty 55-year-old has become a vocal opponent of the province's Green Energy Act and has vowed to do whatever it takes to prevent the Liberal party from forming a government for a third consecutive time on Oct. 6.

On Wednesday, she staged an anti-wind protest in front of Huron-Bruce Liberal MPP Carol Mitchell's constituency office, after a brief meeting with the provincial cabinet minister. Schmidt said the police were called on her.

Later in the day, Schmidt joined about 70 anti-turbine protesters outside Meaford Hall for a rally to coincide with a fundraiser for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound Liberal candidate Kevin Eccles. Provincial Environment Minister John Wilkinson was expected to attend the event, but cancelled due to a scheduling conflict.

Schmidt was front and centre at the rally.

Using a megaphone, she led the crowd in chants like "Hey hey, ho ho, Dalton McGuinty's got to go," "Where's John Wilkinson," and "The winds of change are coming."

She held a large white sign that read "What about our health?"

She said her goal is to put a human face on the suffering caused by industrial wind turbines. She is calling on the province to halt new wind farm projects until an independent epidemiological health study is completed.

The Liberal government says Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health has conducted a review of existing scientific evidence on the possible health impacts of wind turbines and concluded "that while some people living near wind turbines report symptoms like dizziness, headaches and sleep disturbance, the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.

"The review also stated that the sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing impairment or other direct health effects."

Schmidt said the Liberal government is "denying" the health impacts of turbines and "ignoring" the people who are suffering.

"People just aren't going to sit back and take it anymore," she said.

She told Eccles, after he refused to commit to supporting a moratorium on turbines, that his Liberal government will lose the election because of its stance on the wind issue.

"We're going to have your government so low, so low, so low, you're not going to get elected. It's as simple as that," she said.

From the U.S.

TEXAS WIND ENERGY FAILS AGAIN

Source: National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com

August 29, 2011

Robert Bryce

Wednesday brought yet another unspeakably hot day to Texas and, alas, it was yet another day when wind energy failed the state’s consumers.

Indeed, as record heat and drought continue to hammer the Lone Star State, the inanity of the state’s multi-billion-dollar spending spree on wind energy becomes ever more apparent. On Wednesday afternoon, ERCOT, the state’s grid operator, declared a power emergency as some of the state’s generation units began to falter under the soaring demand for electricity. Electricity demand hit 66,552 megawatts, about 1,700 megawatts shy of the record set on August 3.

As I wrote in these pages earlier this month, Texas has 10,135 megawatts of installed wind-generation capacity, which is nearly three times as much as any other state. And yet, on Wednesday, all of the state’s wind turbines mustered just 880 megawatts of power when electricity was needed the most. Put another way, even though wind turbines account for about 10 percent of Texas’s 103,000 megawatts of summer electricity-generation capacity, wind energy was able to provide just 1.3 percent of the juice the state needed on Wednesday afternoon to keep the lights on and the air conditioners humming.

None of this should be surprising. For years, ERCOT has counted just 8.7 percent of the state’s installed wind-generation capacity as “dependable capacity at peak.” What happened on Wednesday? Just 880 megawatts out of 10,135 megawatts of wind capacity — 8.68 percent — was actually moving electrons when consumers needed those electrons the most.

Apologists for the wind industry point to a single day in February, when, during a record cold snap, the state’s wind turbines were able to produce electricity when the grid was being stressed. Fine. On one day, wind generators produced more than expected. But the wind industry’s lobbyists want consumers to ignore this sun-bleached truth: Texas has far more super-hot days than it does frigid ones. Indeed, here in Austin, where I live, we’ve already had 70 days this summer with temperatures over 100 degrees, and there’s still no relief in sight. And on nearly every one of those hot days, ERCOT’s wind capacity has been AWOL. Each afternoon, as the temperature — and electricity demand — soars, the wind dies down:

This summer’s high demand for electricity has caught ERCOT off guard. In June, the grid operator projected that Texas’s electricity demand would not set any new records this summer. But demand is already exceeding levels that ERCOT didn’t expect to see until 2014. Over the past few weeks, as demand has strained the Texas grid, electricity prices have risen as high as $3,000 per megawatt-hour on the wholesale market, and large industrial users have been forced to curtail consumption in order to avoid blackouts.

And yet — and yet — the state is spending billions on projects that focus on wind energy rather than on conventional generation capacity. As Kate Galbraith of the Texas Tribune reported recently, the Texas Public Utility Commission is preparing the state’s ratepayers for higher prices. Consumers will soon be paying for new transmission lines that are being built solely so that the subsidy-dependent wind-energy profiteers can move electricity from their distant wind projects to consumers in urban areas.

Galbraith reports that “the cost of building thousands of miles of transmission lines to carry wind power across Texas is now estimated at $6.79 billion, a 38 percent increase from the initial projection three years ago.” What will that mean for the state’s ratepayers? Higher electricity bills. Before the end of the year, the companies building the transmission lines are expected to begin applying for “rate recovery.” The result, writes Galbraith, will be charges that “could amount to $4 to $5 per month on Texas electric bills, for years.”

Imagine what the state’s grid might look like if Texas, which produces about 30 percent of America’s gas, had spent its money on natural-gas-fired electricity instead of wind. The latest data from the Energy Information Administration shows that wind-generated electricity costs about 50 percent more than that produced by natural-gas-fired generators. Thus, not only would Texas consumers be saving money on their electric bills, the state government would be earning more royalties from gas produced and consumed in the state.

Further, consider what might be happening had the state kept the $6.79 billion it’s now spending on wind-energy transmission lines and instead allocated it to new natural-gas-fired generators. The latest data from the Energy Information Administration show that building a megawatt of new wind capacity costs $2.43 million — that’s up by 21 percent over the year-earlier costs — while a new megawatt of gas-fired capacity costs a bit less than $1 million, a drop of 3 percent from year-earlier estimates.

Under that scenario, Texas could have built 6,900 megawatts of new gas-fired capacity for what the state is now spending on wind-related transmission lines alone. Even if we assume the new gas-fired units were operating at just 50 percent of their design capacity, those generators would still be capable of providing far more reliable juice to the grid than what is being derived from the state’s wind turbines during times of peak demand.

Unfortunately, none of those scenarios have played out. Instead, Texas ratepayers are being forced to pay billions for wind-generation and transmission capacity that is proving to be ultra-expensive and redundant at a time when the state’s thirst for electricity is breaking records.

A final point: Keep in mind that the Lone Star wind boondoggle is not the result of Democratic rule. Environmentalists have never gained much purchase at the Texas capitol. In fact, the state hasn’t had a Democrat in statewide office since Bob Bullock retired as lieutenant governor, and Garry Mauro retired from the General Land Office, back in 1999. That same year, Gov. George W. Bush signed legislation that created a renewable-energy mandate in the state.

What about Rick Perry, a politico who frequently invokes his support for the free market? In 2005, he signed a mandate requiring the state to have at least 6,000 megawatts of renewable capacity by 2015. Perry’s support has been so strong that a wind-energy lobbyist recently told the New York Times that the governor, who’s now a leading contender for the White House, has “been a stalwart in defense of wind energy in this state, no question about it.”

And during his last election campaign, Sen. John Cornyn, one of the Senate’s most conservative members, ran TV ads showing pretty pictures of — what else? — wind turbines.

NEXT STORY:

THE NEW POLICE SIREN: YOU'LL FEEL IT COMING

SOURCE: The New York Times

February 25, 2011

By Ariel Kaminer

Joe Bader tried setting the two tones of his invention four notes apart on the musical scale, but the result sounded like music, not a siren. Same thing when he played around with a five-note interval. But when he set the two tones apart by two octaves and gave the siren a test run outside the Florida Highway Patrol headquarters in Tallahassee, the effect was so attention-grabbing that people came streaming out of the building to see what the strange sound, with its unfamiliar vibrations, could possibly be.

Which was precisely what Mr. Bader, a vice president at the security firm Federal Signal Corporation, was going for: a siren that would make people sit up and take notice — even people accustomed to hearing sirens all the time. Even people wearing ear buds or talking on the phone. Even people insulated from street noise by a layer of glass and steel. Even New Yorkers.

Rumblers, as Mr. Bader called his invention, achieve their striking effect with a low-frequency tone, in the range of 180 to 360 hertz (between the 33rd and the 46th key on a standard piano keyboard), which penetrates hard surfaces like car doors and windows better than a high tone does. When it is paired with the wail of a standard siren, the effect is hard to ignore — like the combination of a bagpipe’s high chanter and low drone, or perhaps like a train whistle and the caboose that moves that whistle through space.

Following the lead of some other municipalities, the New York Police Department gave the devices two limited test runs beginning in 2007. It liked what it heard, with the result that a Rumbler will be coming soon to a police car near you — perhaps one speeding right at you in a high-speed chase through traffic- and pedestrian-clogged streets. And eventually to about 5,000 of the department’s more than 8,000 vehicles.

Some New Yorkers have already raised concerns that the Rumbler’s low-frequency vibration could be injurious to their health. The Police Department insists that there is nothing to worry about and invited me to experience the effect for myself. But when Officer Joe Gallagher, a department spokesman, considered the fact that I am in what used to be known as “a family way,” he suggested that I not actually ride in a Rumbler-equipped squad car. “I don’t want you sitting in the back and going into childbirth,” he said. “I’m not handy with that.”

I’m not so handy with it either, so I rode in Officer Gallagher’s car while Officers Jeff Donato and Matthew Powlett of the 10th Precinct drove ahead of us, Rumbling as they went.

We zoomed up the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive on what appeared to be the only day in recent history that it was free of traffic. When at last we did encounter at least a few other cars, the officers in the front car flipped on the Rumbler, switching among its sound effects: the wail, the yelp, the hi-lo, the fast stutter.

The Rumbler is no louder than a standard siren. In fact, it’s quieter — 10 decibels lower, which translates to only half the volume. But because low-frequency sound waves penetrate cars better than those at a higher pitch, drivers experience the Rumbler as much louder than a standard siren. That’s good news for pedestrians who might prefer not to be deafened, though not necessarily for the officers in Rumbler-equipped cars. To spare the officers’ ears, the device cuts off after eight seconds.

But the officers who demonstrated it for me said they had used it in repeated intervals for longer durations. And though Federal Signal describes the Rumbler as an “intersection-clearing device,” the officers also recounted using it while zipping up long stretches of highway. “It’s like the Red Sea parting,” Capt. Christopher Ikone said.

Low-frequency sound can have physical effects, like making you feel queasy. Enough, in fact, to be of interest to some weapons manufacturers, but their experiments take place at much lower frequencies and much higher amplification than the Rumbler employs. In fact, despite the siren’s name, the rumbling effect is subtle — far less than what you experience when an Escalade rolls up beside you at a stop light, tinted windows lowered, custom speakers blaring and thunder bass thumping. Hearing a Rumbler while standing on the street, I felt a slight tingle under my ribs; in Officer Gallagher’s car, I felt a gentle reverberation on the seat.

I can faithfully report that the Police Department’s newest and soon-to-be-ubiquitous emergency alert signal does not cause eyeglasses to sprout hairline cracks that branch out across the lens and hang there for one long moment before the entire thing shatters with a delicate “plink,” as in some Bugs Bunny cartoon. Nor does it reprogram the rhythm of your heartbeat, the way a loud song on the radio can make you completely forget what you’d been humming when you heard it. Nor does it induce premature labor in pregnant women. It may, however, have caused an innocent citizen heart palpitations.

As we zoomed back down the F.D.R. Drive, dual-tone sirens blaring so we could see the other cars scatter, the driver of a Toyota RAV4 apparently thought he was being singled out and pulled to a complete halt — in the left lane of the highway. That’s an unwise thing to do in any case; an extremely unwise thing to do when you’ve got a police cruiser right behind you.

If the driver did sustain any coronary distress from the incident, help was nearby: a Fire Department ambulance was driving just a bit farther south. As we passed, its siren let out a few warning bleats. But they were the old variety: one tone, no tingling. Compared with the basso profundo confidence of a Rumbler, it sounded like a jealous whine.

From Australia

WIND FARM NO-GO ZONES TO BE ESTABLISHED

SOURCE:ABC  www.abc.net.au

August 29, 2011

By Anthony Stewart

The State Government is set to introduce new planning rules that will restrict where wind farms can be constructed.

Sweeping changes to the rules governing the construction of wind farms in Victoria will be gazetted today.

The Planning Minister, Matthew Guy, has amended local government planning schemes and state planning provisions that will deliver on a Coalition election promise to create wind farm no-go zones.

Wind farms will be prohibited in areas including along the Great Ocean Road, Mornington Peninsula, Macedon and Yarra Ranges and Wilsons Promontory.

The Government has formalised the set-back policy that stops the construction of wind turbines within two kilometres of houses, without the consent of the owner of the home.

The amendment also blocks the construction of wind turbines within five kilometres of major regional centres, a change that had not previously been flagged by the State Government.

Russell Marsh from the Clean Energy Council says the two kilometre setback policy will result in billions of dollars in lost investment

“The two kilometre setback the Government was talking about would reduce investment in wind energy in Victoria by 50 and 70 per cent,” he said.

“We were forecasting over $3 billion in investment will disappear from Victoria because of the two kilometre setback policy.”

The State Opposition’s planning spokesman, Brian Tee, says the Government has changed planning rules by stealth.

He says the Planning Minister should have introduced legislation if he wanted to block wind farm development.

“He absolutely should have brought this to the Parliament because this is going to have serious consequences,” he said.

“He hasn’t got the balance right and the cost is going to be paid by the environment.”

SECOND STORY:

SOURCE: The Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com

August 28,2011

By Darryl Fears,

Six birds found dead recently in Southern California’s Tehachapi Mountains were majestic golden eagles. But some bird watchers say that in an area where dozens of wind turbines slice the air they were also sitting ducks.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is investigating to determine what killed the big raptors, and declined to divulge the conditions of the remains. But the likely cause of death is no mystery to wildlife biologists who say they were probably clipped by the blades of some of the 80 wind turbines at the three-year-old Pine Tree Wind Farm Project, operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

As the Obama administration pushes to develop enough wind power to provide 20 percent of America’s energy by 2030, some bird advocates worry that the grim discovery of the eagles this month will be a far more common occurrence.

Windmills kill nearly half a million birds a year, according to a Fish and Wildlife estimate. The American Bird Conservancy projected that the number could more than double in 20 years if the administration realizes its goal for wind power.

The American Wind Energy Association, which represents the industry, disputes the conservancy’s projection, and also the current Fish and Wildlife count, saying the current bird kill is about 150,000 annually.

Over nearly 30 years, none of the nation’s 500 wind farms, where 35,000 wind turbines operate mostly on private land, have been prosecuted for killing birds, although long-standing laws protect eagles and a host of migrating birds.

If the ongoing investigation by the Fish and Wildlife Service’s law enforcement division results in a prosecution at Pine Tree, it will be a first. The conservancy wants stronger regulations and penalties for the wind industry, but the government has so far responded only with voluntary guidelines.

“It’s ridiculous. It’s voluntary,” said Robert Johns, a spokesman for the conservancy. “If you had voluntary guidelines for taxes, would you pay them?”

The government should provide more oversight and force operators of wind turbines to select sites where birds don’t often fly or hunt, the conservancy says. It also wants the wind industry to upgrade to energy-efficient turbines with blades that spin slower.

The lack of hard rules has caused some at the conservancy to speculate that federal authorities have decided that the killing of birds — including bald and golden eagles — is a price they are willing to pay to lower the nation’s carbon footprint with cleaner wind energy.

But federal officials, other wildlife groups and a wind-farm industry representative said the conservancy’s views are extreme. Wind farms currently kill far fewer birds than the estimated 100 million that fly into glass buildings, or up to 500 million killed yearly by cats. Power lines kill an estimated 10 million, and nearly 11 million are hit by automobiles, according to studies.

“The reality is that everything we do as human beings has an impact on the natural environment,” said John Anderson, director of siting policy for the wind-energy association.

 Next Story

WIND POWER IS DYING

SOURCE: frontpagemag.com

August 28, 2011

By Tait Trussell,

While the U.S. is dumping billions of dollars into wind farms and onshore and offshore wind turbines, this energy source is being cast aside as a failure elsewhere in the world.

Some 410 federations and associations from 21 European countries, for example, have united against deployment of wind farms charging it is “degrading the quality of life.”

The European Platform Against Wind farms (EPAW) is demanding “a moratorium suspending all wind farm projects and a “complete assessment of the economic, social, and environmental impacts of wind farms in Europe.” The EPAW said it objects to industrial wind farms which “are spreading in a disorderly manner across Europe” under pressure from “financial and ideological lobby groups,” that are “degrading the quality of life living in their vicinity, affecting the health of many, devaluing people’s property and severely harming wildlife.” A petition for a moratorium has been sent to the European Commission and Parliament, said EPAW chairman J.L Butre.

France, earlier his year ran into opposition to its plan to build 3,000 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind turbines by 2020. That year is the target date the European Union set for providing 20 percent of its energy through renewable sources. An organization called the Sustainable Environment Association, opposes wind power, saying the subsidies will “not create a single job in France.”

In Canada, Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) has launched a province-wide drive against wind power. It said Aug. 8 it wants to ensure that the next government is clear that “there is broad based community support for a moratorium…and stringent environmental protection of natural areas from industrial wind development.” WCO claimed, “The Wind industry is planning a high powered campaign to shut down support” for the WCO’s aims. “Our goal is to store the petition until the next legislative session gets underway in the fall…”

The Netherlands has approximately 2,000 onshore and offshore wind turbines. But even though Holland is synonymous with windmills, the installed capacity of wind turbines in the Netherlands at large has been stagnant for the past three years, according to an article in February in the Energy Collective. It was 2237 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2011. That was said to be about 3.37 percent of total annual electricity production. The principal reason for the stagnant onshore capacity “is the Dutch people’s opposition to the wind turbines.” They are up to 400 feet in height.

The Dutch national wind capacity factor is a dismal 0.186. The German wind capacity factor “is even more dismal at 0.167,” the article said.

Expanding wind power to meet the European Union’s 20 percent renewables target by 2020 meant adding at least another thousand 3 MW, 450-foot wind turbines to the Dutch landscape “at a cost of about $6 billion.” Not surprisingly, the Dutch people found that to be far too costly—“an intrusion into their lives and an unacceptable return on their investment, especially when considering the small quantity of CO2 reduction per invested dollar.”

An added 3,000 MW of offshore turbines also was rejected. The capital cost was figured at $10 to $12 billion. The cost was judged to be too much and the wind energy produced too little. “The energy would have to be sold at very high prices to make the project feasible.” The article added, “The proposed Cape Wind project in Massachusetts is a perfect example of such a project.” Environmental Lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in July wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal blasting the project off Cape Cod as “a rip-off.” Recently, the Netherlands became the first country to abandon the European Union target of producing 20 percent of its domestic power from renewables by 2020.

In Denmark, the Danes became aware that the poor economics of their heavily-subsidized wind energy is a major reason for the nation’s high residential electric rates. Opposition to the gigantic onshore turbines was so great that the state-owned utility finally announced last year that it would abandon plans for any new onshore wind facilities.

The Energy Collective article also reported that a CEPOS (Center for Political Studies) study found that 90 percent of wind energy sector jobs were transferred from other technology industries and that only 10 percent of the wind industry jobs were newly created jobs. As a result, the study said, Danish GDP is $270 million lower than it would have been without wind industry subsidies.

The Australian government, like the U.S., has placed a major emphasis on deploying renewable sources of energy, especially wind energy. As in the U.S., Australia set a target of 20 percent of its energy to come from renewal sources by 2020. The government provides generous subsidies and tax breaks to wind energy developers. But medical studies on farmer families living within 5 miles of wind farms found health problems ranging from sleep deprivation to nausea. Similar health effects have been discovered in other locations, including in the U.S.

Because wind blows only intermittently, Britain has determined that it will have to construct an additional 17 natural gas-powered plants as back-ups to wind to keep the lights on by 2020. These plants will cost 10 billion pounds, according to a posting by the Institute for Energy Research. One analyst was quoted as saying, “Government’s obsession with wind turbines is one of the greatest blunders of our time.”

Onshore wind power today costs about $0.13 per kWh. That’s nowhere near either the objective of the U.S. Department of Energy or the cost of competing power sources. The wind turbines jutting into the sky all across the country exist only because of the massive federal subsidies. Is this considered a failure by Obama officials? No way. Obama’s 2012 budget proposal increases renewables spending by 33 percent.

Wind farms in Texas that will cost $400 million over the next two years produce, incredibly, an average of only one job for every $1.6 million of capital investment. So the state’s comptroller general figured, according to a December 20, 2010 story in the Austin American-Statesman.

As long ago as 1973, then-President Nixon called for “Project Independence” in reaction to the OPEC oil embargo. The project was to achieve energy independence through development of alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar and geothermal power. So, there’s nothing new about renewable energy.

The Obama 2012 budget asks for $8 billion for “clean” energy, mainly wind power subsidies. As recently as Feb. 7, the secretaries of Energy and Interior announced plans to launch dozens of offshore turbines miles out at sea, while admitting the expense would be unknown. Despite generous subsidies, wind power is expected to provide no more than 8 percent of electric power in the U.S. by 2030.

The American Wind Industry Energy Association, the wind lobby group, said the top five states for wind energy were Texas, Iowa, California, Minnesota, and Washington. It said the second quarter of 2011 saw over 1,033 megawatts of capacity installed. It also maintained that wind is second only to natural gas and U.S. wind power represents more than 20 percent of the world’s wind power.

Over the next half century, say, it’s possible some new technologies will revolutionize energy. But, if so, they surely will come from the private sector — not government.