ENERGY SOLUTION OR LEGAL TROUBLE?

SOURCE: Hudson Star Observer

March 31 2011

"The controversial energy project in Forest has come under fire and may be stopped by a federal lawsuit which was filed by a citizens’ group in February."

A legal battle in northeastern St. Croix County highlights the difficult issues of wind-generated power. Talk to anyone and they will, in general terms, talk about wind power as a good, efficient and cheap energy source for the times — be it today or tomorrow.

Try finding a location to construct wind generators and suddenly you’ve got yourself a first-class controversy, complete with arguments among neighbors, recalls and lawsuits.

Such is the case in St. Croix County in the town of Forest.

The controversial energy project in Forest has come under fire and may be stopped by a federal lawsuit which was filed by a citizens’ group in February. That suit was also supported by action of a new town board that was elected through a successful recall election. The former board had approved the proposed wind energy project last summer.

A citizens’ lawsuit was filed in February. In March, the new town of Forest board voted to rescind a wind energy development agreement and other approvals that had been granted to a wind developer. The project, being proposed by a private developer named Emerging Energies, is in jeopardy.

The project in Forest called for 39 wind towers. Each tower stands about 500 feet tall.

Many landowners in the town had signed leases with the wind firm, but were prohibited from discussing the project. When the rest of the town’s residents got “wind” of the deals, the uprising began.

Now there are battles over setbacks, noise, quality of life, health, property value, safety and more. Emerging Energies, LLC, has also threat-ened the new town board with legal action.

A similar scenario developed in the eastern part of the state when a Chicago wind energy developer, Invenergy LLC, dropped its plan to build a large wind farm near Green Bay.

Opponents in the Green Bay area are expressing the same concerns and claim they will continue to work to prevent the “irresponsible development of industrial wind projects.”

State energy regulators are now trying to come up with a plan to help support wind projects. Regulators may be asked to go back to the drawing board to develop statewide rules governing wind power projects, under a bill to be considered this week.

The Legislature’s joint committee for review of administrative rules voted earlier this month to temporarily block a wind farm site rule developed by the state Public Service Commission.

Supporters of wind energy development say legal problems will stall development, leading to a loss of jobs tied to wind turbine construction as well as revenue for host property owners and local governments. There seems to be plenty of controversy over, among other things, setbacks for wind towers.

A property rights bill introduced by Gov. Scott Walker in January would restrict wind towers from being placed less than 1,800 feet from a property line. That bill had the apparent support of wind farm opponents and the Wisconsin Realtors Association.

In its most recent wind farm decision, the PSC ruled that 1,250-foot setbacks be required for We Energies’ Glacier Hills Wind Park, now under construction in Columbia County.

The bottom line is, when wind towers begin popping up in either populated areas, or rural countryside, there is likely to be plenty of opposition. A group of wind towers doesn’t do much for the scenic value of any topography.

Despite all the virtues of wind power, developing a power source to a degree where it would have a significant impact could be difficult when facing “not in my backyard” neighborhoods.

MIDWEST WIND SUSPENDS DEVELOPMENT WORK IN STATE

"Wind industry representatives said the PSC rule was restrictive because it set specific decibel limits for turbine noise and shadow flicker restrictions as well as setbacks."

Source: JSOnline.com

March 31, 2011

By Thomas Content

Midwest Wind Energy is suspending development of two wind farms in Wisconsin, the Illinois company said Wednesday.

The company developed the Butler Ridge wind farm in Dodge County and the Cedar Ridge project in Fond du Lac County, projects now owned and operated by other companies.

Midwest Wind said it was actively working on a 98-megawatt wind farm in Calumet County and another project for which a location had not yet been announced.

Midwest Wind cited development opportunities in other states at a time when Wisconsin policymakers are moving to restrict wind farm development.

"Most states are clearly open for renewable energy development and the economic development dollars and jobs that come with it,” said Stefan Noe, company president. “So long as there are states rolling out the welcome mat it doesn't make sense to devote significant dollars to a state that is creating unreasonable roadblocks for wind development."

The action came one week after Invenergy of Chicago canceled plans to develop a large wind farm near Green Bay, and one day after a legislative committee voted to introduce a bill sending wind siting rules back to the state Public Service Commission for more work.

Republican lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker have said the PSC rule allowed turbines to be built too close to nearby homes. Wind industry representatives said the PSC rule was restrictive because it set specific decibel limits for turbine noise and shadow flicker restrictions as well as setbacks.

A bill that passed in the Legislature two years ago called on the PSC to set up a uniform standard for wind projects across the state, to replace a patchwork of local rules and moratoriums that were in place with regard to wind projects.

Keith Reopelle, senior policy director at the environmental group Clean Wisconsin, said the new chair of the PSC, Phil Montgomery, was a co-sponsor and supporter of the bill that called on the PSC to set statewide standards. He said he hoped the agency would move quickly to develop a workable set of rules.

When the bill was introduced in 2009, Montgomery – then a state lawmaker from Brown County and ranking Republican on the Assembly energy and utilities committee - released a statement in support of a uniform state standard.

“Wind power is job-creating power,” Montgomery said in April 2009. “A fair and uniform state standard for siting wind developments will create an environment of investment in our state while moving us closer to our green energy goals.”

WIND TURBINE PLANT ON HOLD

Source: Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune

March 31, 2011

By Nathaniel Shuda

"I think we had to give them every opportunity to succeed," council member Lee Albrecht said. "You have this carrot dangling out there that there are 600 jobs on the horizon; I think you have to do whatever you can to have that carrot come to you."

INCREASE THE SETBACK FOR WIND TURBINES

"I served as vice chairman of the [Public Service Commission's] Wind Siting Council. The majority of that council had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the rules, resulting in guidelines that protected those interests instead of protecting Wisconsin residents.

I helped author a minority report to the commission, detailing how the majority’s guidelines failed to address the realities of the effects of large wind turbines on people living nearby."

SOURCE: The Telegraph Herald, www.thonline.com

March 6, 2011

by Doug Zweizig

Why would Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker propose to increase the setbacks between wind turbines and property lines to 1,800 feet? Because the newest industrial wind turbines in our state are 50 stories tall.

It’s hard enough to imagine living next to a structure that big. Now include spinning blades that weigh 18 tons with a span wider than a 747 and a tip speed of about 170 miles per hour, operating 24/7 just 1,250 feet from your door.

Imagine living with turbine noise that is twice as loud as the World Health Organization’s limit for healthful sleep. Imagine 700 feet of your land used by a wind company without your permission and without compensation. Imagine a loss of your property’s value as high as 40 percent.

The new Public Service Commission’s Wind Siting Rules, which would have made this situation a reality, were to go into effect March 1. However, the state Legislature’s Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules set aside the commission’s rules, allowing a reconsideration of the governor’s proposal.

I served as vice chairman of the commission’s Wind Siting Council. The majority of that
council had a direct financial interest in the outcome of the rules, resulting in guidelines that protected those interests instead of protecting Wisconsin residents. I helped author a minority report to the commission, detailing how the majority’s guidelines failed to address the realities of the effects of large wind turbines on people living nearby.

Wisconsin residents have been living with turbines of the 400- to 500-foot variety for only a few years, but the problems with Public Service Commission setbacks once thought to be adequate have become very clear.

Wind project residents from all over the state gave sworn testimony to the Public Service Commission and to our legislators, telling of turbine noise much louder than expected, of sleep deprivation and resulting deterioration of health, of headaches from shadow-flicker, of loss of TV and radio reception, of complaints to wind companies that are ignored, of communities torn apart, and of homes that simply will not sell.

The Public Service Commission rules would have allowed wind companies to put a turbine 440 feet from your property line and claim about 700 feet of your land for use as their safety zone. It’s still your property, but you couldn’t build a structure or plant trees there without the wind company’s permission.

All of these problems can be avoided with greater setbacks.

I agree with increasing the setback between a turbine and your property line to 1,800 feet. If a wind company wants to put a turbine closer, it absolutely can. The difference is it will need your permission to do it, and it may have to compensate you.

A greater setback from the property line ensures that a wind company can’t take your property for their use unless you want them to.

Although this setback does not completely mitigate the very real health concerns associated with living too close to wind turbines, it gives us increased protection from turbine noise and shadow flicker and it protects our property. Most importantly, it gives us some choice.

If we can find a way to site turbines where they do no harm, everyone will be happy.

Zweizig retired as professor emeritus from the University of Wisconsin, where he taught in the School of Library and Information Studies. He is a member of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission’s Wind Siting Council. Zweizig lives outside Evansville, Wis., and has served for five years on the Plan Commission of Union (Rock County) Township when it developed an ordinance for the siting of large wind turbines. His e-mail address is dougzweizig@hotmail.com.

 

EXCERPTS FROM DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT REGARDING SOCIAL AN ECONOMIC IMPACT OF RURAL WIND FARMS

SOURCES :The social and economic impact of rural wind farms

AND windturbinesyndrome.com

The first day the turbines started operating closest to our home, my wife started feeling ear and head pressure. Similar to flying in an aeroplane, she said. About six months after, I started feeling similar effects.

As the weeks went on it has gotten worse and worse.

We now suffer headaches, chest pains, a feeling of heart palpitations, and continuous lack of sleep. Every night we can’t sleep.  We go to sleep, then wake and just never settle into a good night sleep.

Stephen Stepnell

I am a third generation farmer on our Waubra farm.  We farm 4200 acres of high quality farming land, and are currently running 16,000 to 20,000 sheep, 500 acres of crop and 100 acres or irrigated land included.

From the first day we were asked to have wind turbines on our farm, we were very concerned about the impacts of a wind farm in our community. We declined to have 4 wind turbines on our land.

The closest wind turbine is 900 metres from our house, and we have 5 wind turbines within 1500 metres from our family home, where I live with my wife Samantha and three children, Jacob, Courtney and Joshua. There are about another 6 wind turbines within 2000 metres of our land, at another location on our farm. We can see nearly all the wind turbines from most areas of our farm.

The first day the turbines started operating closest to our home, my wife started feeling ear and head pressure. Similar to flying in an aeroplane, she said. About six months after, I started feeling similar effects.

As the weeks went on it has gotten worse and worse.

We now suffer headaches, chest pains, a feeling of heart palpitations, and continuous lack of sleep. Every night we can’t sleep.  We go to sleep, then wake and just never settle into a good night sleep.

I have never seen my wife of 18 years look so tired, stressed and unhealthy. This is a huge concern. My children are also more tired and emotional. We have no other illness or medical conditions that could cause us to feel like this.  We have not changed anything in our lifestyle since we started feeling like this.

We have had talks with the operator of the Waubra wind farm, Acciona Energy, telling them of our concerns of our health effects of living too close to the wind turbines and the effects of the asset values of our land.

Acciona Energy replied that we don’t have any evidence the wind turbines affect our health.  We have large concerns about the lack of any evidence wind turbines don’t affect our health. We have lived near wind turbines for about 14 months and are feeling the worse in regards to our health and the depressed feelings we get from the visual effects of wind turbines day and night, as they have aviation lights at night.

The noise they create and the inaudible noise that I know affects our lives. And the effects in changes to bird life, such as our decreased number of brolgas breeding in our area. The total loss of bats we used to hear nearly every night, and so on.

We have now gone to the desperate measure of moving out of our family home on our farm and into Ballarat, which is 45 kilometres drive away. We will travel daily to our farm. This is a large financial outlay. Our house on the farm is only 10 years old and will remain empty, as we could not rent our house farm employees due to wind turbines being too close and therefore having health effects on them.

In conclusion, we have massive concerns about the health effects of living and working too close to the wind turbines. We are members of the Lexton Land Care group, we have planted thousands and thousands of trees, fenced off creeks and are all for the environment and green energy such as wind power or solar or whatever it takes to help our environment, but to watch myself and family suffer from health effects from living too close to wind turbines is a very big concern.

There has to be a compromise.

Carl Stepnell

Letter from wife Samantha Stepnell:

The day the furniture removals came (4/11/10) was an extremely sad day for my family and me.  To pack up our belongings and leave our family home we built. We brought our three kids home from hospital and we were going to live there forever. But we have been forced to move away because of the Acciona wind farm.

Our family home is about 800 m to 900 m from five turbines that are closely clustered together. Our farm is surrounded by turbines. My bedroom is the closest room to the four turbines.

The health impact from living so close to the wind turbines began the day they began operation near our home are:

• Chronic sleep deprivation from repeated disturbance during the night from the noise the turbines make.
  • When the noise of the turbines wakes me up, I find it very difficult to go back to sleep. This can happen a number of times a night. When I wake in the morning, I feel as if I have had no sleep at all. I also feel very tired all the time and have no energy and very lethargic.
  • Prior to the turbines being built, I was able to sleep peacefully with our window open (in the summer) and wake up feeling like I have had a great sleep, and ready for the day ahead.

• Feeling of uneasiness
• Suffer from pressure in my ears and head. Some days the noise is that bad, the pressure is unbearable.

The only way I can explain how I feel, it is like being in a plane with that pressure in the cabin from flying. Except it does not go away.

Our farm is 4200 acres and it is our business.  My husband and I work on the farm, so we are frequently outside. The noise from the turbines in certain conditions is unbearable and makes our workplace very hard to put up with.  I find it very upsetting and stressful.

I feel very depressed and some days I could just curl up and cry.

All these symptoms—headaches, ear pressure and sleep disruption—have occurred only since the turbines began operation, and they occur only when the turbines are operating.

I feel the longer I am around the wind turbines, it is affecting my health even more. I feel it is taking me longer to get over the health problems I am suffering from.

For example, my family and I just returned from a week’s holiday. I slept all night and when I woke up, I felt like I had a good night sleep. I woke up from my night’s sleep with lots of energy. This is the way I should feel all the time. There was no pressure in my ears and head. I felt like I was back to my old self.

The day I returned from holidays, I began to feel all the symptoms that I have explained, above.  They had returned.

We had no choice but to leave our family home we built nine years ago on our farm. We have moved into Ballarat, and we travel out to the farm to work each day. (Ballarat is 45 kilometres away from Waubra.)

The day the furniture removals came (4/11/10) was an extremely sad day for my family and me.  To pack up our belongings and leave our family home we built. We brought our three kids home from hospital and we were going to live there forever. But we have been forced to move away because of the Acciona wind farm. We thought that we would grow old together in our home on the farm and watch our children grow up and move on with their lives.

No, that is not the case, we have been forced out of our home.

We have nothing against wind farms. I am all for the environment.  We plant thousands of trees for our farm each year. The planning of a wind farm has to be in a better location and not so close to residential areas. Buying a home in Ballarat put huge financial pressure on us, but we had no choice but to leave. Our health is number one and it was really suffering.

The first night we slept in our new home was the first time we have had a full night sleep in 18 months.

I am fine when I am away from the turbines, although, as soon as I return to the farm, the symptoms return. I find it very difficult to enjoy a day’s work on the farm because of the health effects caused by wind turbines.

If you care for the health and well-being of my family and me, could you please take the matter of the health effects from living so close to the Waubra wind turbines very seriously?

You are more than welcome to come and experience what it is like to be so close to the wind turbines, as no letter will ever express exactly what we are feeling. There are no words to describe these feelings and how the turbines are effecting our health.

Thank you for your time, and please take this letter seriously.

Yours sincerely,

Samantha Stepnell

From the Stepnell family doctor:

These turbines have been in operation for the last fourteen months, as I understand, and Carl and Samantha acknowledge they have been aware of a constant sound while the turbines are in operation since this period of time.

However, in the last six months the Stepnells have had increasing problems, including increased feeling of pressure in their head and ears, a feeling of uneasiness and frequent waking at night. This has led to increased lethargy and inevitably a lowered mood.

Acciona Energy

30 September 2010

Dear Sir,

re: Carl and Samantha Stepnell

I saw this couple on 29 September 2010 regarding health problems related to wind turbines which are located nearby in Waubra. They have a 4500 acre farm on which they run sheep and grow grain.

The farm is surrounded by wind turbines, but the ones that they feel are contributing to their current symptoms relate to five turbines, located within 900 metres of their home.

These turbines have been in operation for the last fourteen months, as I understand, and Carl and Samantha acknowledge they have been aware of a constant sound while the turbines are in operation since this period of time.

However, in the last six months the Stepnells have had increasing problems, including increased feeling of pressure in their head and ears, a feeling of uneasiness and frequent waking at night. This has led to increased lethargy and inevitably a lowered mood.

Last May, Carl and Samantha noticed when the turbines were not in operation for two weeks that their symptoms significantly improved, but worsened again when the turbines came back online.

Carl and Samantha have also noticed that they have significantly less problems when away on holidays.

Samantha Stepnell notices that her symptoms are more persistent and severe as she spends more time in the house closest to these five turbines. Her husband, Carl, is also constantly affected but is able to move around the farm doing his usual work and therefore, at times, is further away from the turbines.

Their three children spend most of the day away from the farm, and, as such, have minimal symptoms.

The couple has not had a past history of these symptoms, nor has there been a past history of depression, stress or anxiety. They feel that they can accept the visual impact of the turbines and the red flashing lights at night, but it is the noise from the turbines that is causing their symptoms.

I also confirm that I have one other patient who lives at Waubra on a 10-acre farm, who is distraught with exactly the same symptoms as the Stepnells.

I believe from the circumstantial evidence that there is a strong correlation between their symptoms and the operation of the wind turbines nearby.

I hope therefore that you can take this into consideration in your discussions with Carl and Samantha Stepnell to try and come to an outcome that will resolve these symptoms.

Yours sincerely

Scott Taylor, M.B., B.S.

Source: OUR LIFE WITH DEKALB WIND TURBINES: the latest from a family struggling to live with turbines sited too close to their home

icing conditions again

we just called the nextera hotline to report that the noise level is high (~55 dba) from the turbines. there is icing conditions out right now and the sound is at a 6 [loudest]. we can hear it from the inside of our home. we hear the repetitive aggressive chopping sound and low droning (rumbling sound).

it sounds as if a highway is just outside our front door. it is disturbing and we feel a heavy air pressure around us. nextera energy says that the sound is virtually undetectable. well, it is detectable. here is a video [ABOVE] just taken from our back porch door tonight. of course the video camera can't give you the heavy air pressure feeling, but you can get a glimpse of the sound. Source

Next Feature:

WHY DID THE COUNTY OF TIPPICANOE AGREE TO RAISE TURBINE NOISE LIMITS WELL ABOVE THOSE RECOMMENDED BY THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION LIMITS FOR HEALTHFUL SLEEP?

“It was to accommodate the wind turbine people,”

County Commissioner John Knochel

SOURCE: Many upset with turbine decibel limit: wlfi.com

 CLICK on image above to see why Tippicanoe County residents are so upset about wind company Invenergy's victory in pushing up wind turbine noise limits. Why 2 of the 3 commissioners voted to protect the wind developers interests over the interests of the residents they represent is unknown.

WIND INDUSTRY WANTS SAFETY LAW CHANGED; GROUP SAYS IT IS TOO COSTLY TO ALTER EXISTING TOWERS

SOURCE: The Argus Leader, www.argusleader.com

By Cody Winchester

A state law designed to protect low-flying aircraft from air hazards could inadvertently hinder efforts to expand South Dakota’s wind industry, a wind-energy advocate said Monday.

“This will severely hurt wind development in South Dakota,” said Steve Wegman, director of the South Dakota Wind Energy Association.

At issue is a year-old statute that requires anemometer towers – known as met towers – to be striped in alternating colors, and to have sleeves and visibility balls mounted on their guy wires. There also are new requirements for perimeter fencing.

The law is meant to protect low-altitude aircraft, mainly crop dusters and helicopter pilots.

The problem with the law, Wegman said, is that existing towers weren’t grandfathered in. As a result, developers who own met towers are being required to take them down and retrofit them, which can cost $5,000 or more – a prohibitively expensive proposition for many.

“Towers are going to come down. They’re not going to go back up,” Wegman said.

Met towers range from 30 to 100 meters tall. They’re used to measure wind speeds before building new projects. They first started popping up in South Dakota in the early 1990s, and the 200 or so that now dot the state are crucial to future development, Wegman said.

“Without good data – collecting data takes anywhere between five to nine years – you can’t get financing,” he said.

Another problem with the law is that visibility balls add weight and collect ice, making tower failures more likely. That possibility has led some met tower manufacturers to stop providing warranties for products that require visibility balls, he said.

Rod Bowar, president of Kennebec Telephone Co., which installs met towers, said he understands the need for the rules but worries it could keep the smaller players out of the wind business.

“And I don’t think that’s probably healthy, long term,” he said.

Add it all up, Wegman said, and it’s one more reason to develop wind projects elsewhere.

But pilots and aviation regulators say the marking rules are necessary to keep pilots safe.

“We think they’re a good thing,” said Bruce Lindholm, program manager for the South Dakota Office of Aeronautics. “They’re helpful for aviation safety.”

John Barney, president of the South Dakota Pilots Association, said his organization isn’t opposed to the towers, but making them more visible “is just common sense.”

“We have lobbied the FAA about making it mandatory that these towers are marked or lit in a way that would not pose a hazard,” he said. “Unfortunately, up to the present, anything under 200 feet in altitude doesn’t fall under current regulations.”

He’s optimistic the FAA will change its policy, pointing to the case of a crop sprayer in California who was killed last month when he clipped a met tower and his plane went down. This is why grandfathering in existing towers simply won’t do, Barney said.

“Quite frankly, those are the towers that are going to kill somebody,” he said.

At the national level, the Federal Aviation Administration has opened a docket to examine the issue.

“When you have a crop duster out there flying in the fields, making steep descents and abrupt turns, seeing one of these pop up out of the middle of nowhere can be a challenge,” FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory said. “We’re very concerned about them,” she added.

Lobbyists for the state wind industry, meanwhile, are pushing House Bill 1128, which would grandfather in existing towers. The original bill was defeated, but lawmakers stripped out the language and created a new bill – a process known as hog housing. The new version passed out of committee Thursday.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Just a month ago...

Pilot might not have seen met tower before fatal Delta crash

SOURCE Contra Costa Times

January 19, 2011

 By Robert Salonga

OAKLEY -- A crop duster pilot killed last week may not have seen the weather tower that his plane clipped, causing him to crash on a remote island in the Delta, according to a preliminary report by the National Transportation Safety Board.

Stephen Allen, 58, died in the crash reported about 11 a.m. Jan. 10 on Webb Tract Island, located about two miles north of Bethel Island. Allen was a resident of Courtland, a town about 20 miles south of Sacramento. Continue reading.....

FILE UNDER OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD BE TOO COSTLY TO THE WIND INDUSTRY TO CONSIDER:

Protecting birds...

WIND INDUSTRY GROUP OPPOSES FEDERAL GUIDELINES TO PROTECT BIRDS

The American Wind Energy Association Industry said it will oppose plans by a federal agency to adopt voluntary regulations on wind developers to protect birds and other wildlife.

AWEA said in a release that more than 34,000 MW of potential wind power development, $68 billion in investment and 27,000 jobs are at risk due to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policies on golden eagles.

Read entire article: www.pennenergy.com

 

Allowing moratoriums to give local government time to create ordinances....

HEARING HELD ON WIND TOWERS

Source: countytimes.com

"Christopher Phelps, the executive director of environmental advocacy group Environment Connecticut, said the moratorium would send the wrong message to companies like BNE. Along with the Connecticut Fund for the Environment and Environment Northeast, who also spoke at the hearing last Thursday, Mr. Phelps said that his group was opposed to the moratorium.

“One of the core reasons we oppose a moratorium is it would send a chilling message to the wind industry, that Connecticut is not open for business,” he said.

Increasing setbacks to protect property rights....

"It's a death sentence.

This has everything to do with eliminating wind power. That's why the proposal is so high.

It's a hit job."

- Michael Vickerman on increasing setbacks to 1800 feet from property lines

Vickerman is a registered lobbyist for RENEW Wisconsin: "Our modus operandi is to identify barriers to renewable energy development, and come up with strategies for overcoming those problems, whether they be low buyback rates, permitting challenges, or regulatory roadblocks."

RENEW'S clients include whose clients include Alliant Energy, ATC, We Energies, MG&E, North American Hydro, WPPI, Invenergy, Emerging Energies, Michels and many wind developers with projects pending in our state. [SOURCE]

 

 

Adopting the World Health Organizations recommendation of 40dbA as top noise limit for healthy sleep...

COUNTY SIGNS OFF ON NOISIER TURBINES:

Accompanied by his two young children, Tippecanoe County resident Robert Brooks issued an emotional plea to the commissioners to protect his family from loud nuisance noise that he worries will disrupt their sleep. After the commissioners voted, Brooks asked them, “How can I sell my house right now? … I don’t know why the ordinance had to change. You’ve given (the developers) a free ticket.”

During the debate at the commissioners meeting, the majority of those in attendance spoke against the changes. As it is now amended, the ordinance allows for large wind turbines to generate an average sound output of 50 decibels per hour.

"....Greg Leuchtmann, development manager for Invenergy’s project, said Monday that the changes to the county’s ordinance are balancing protections for residents with the needs of the developers. (It’s about) what will allow a development and what will cancel a development,” he said.

 READ ENTIRE ARTICLE: Journal and Courier, www.jconline.com

More....

MANY UPSET BY TURBINE DECIBEL LIMIT

“My question is, why has this one company so much allowance to come back and ask for changes to a regulation?” Sarah Tyler asked the commissioners.

Commissioner John Knochel voted against the change in decibels.

“It was to accommodate the wind turbine people,” he said.

Invenergy representative Greg Leuchtmann spoke to the commissioners during the meeting.

“We are trying to get to something that is very objective and measurable that will protect residents as well as allow for this project to happen,” he said.

The commissioners got a sound consultant firm’s opinion on the county’s noise amendments.

“Feedback we got from the consultant was mainly negative on the amendments that were being proposed,” Knochel explained. “In other words, he thought they were a little too high.”

 READ ENTIRE ARTICLE:WLFI, www.wlfi.com

Dems host wind energy discussion

SOURCE: Herald Times Reporter

 MANITOWOC — The Manitowoc County Democratic Party is hosting a public forum on Wind Energy in Wisconsin as part of its regular monthly meeting from 7 to 9 p.m. Tuesday at the Manitowoc Senior Center. The public is invited.   

 Jenney Heinzen of the Lakeshore Technical College's Wind Energy Technology program and former state Rep. Jim Soletski, former chairman of the Assembly's Energy and Utilities Committee, will be on hand to present information and lead the discussion.

Wind energy has been a controversial topic in this county, now made even more so by policy changes proposed by Gov. Scott Walker.

"If Gov. Walker has his way, the development of a wind energy industry in Wisconsin, and all the jobs that could come with it, may be brought to an abrupt halt," said Kerry Trask, chairman of the local party.

KANSAS JOBS FROM WIND INDUSTRY WON'T COME EASY

Another disappointment has been the pay for many of the wind industry jobs that do stay in the United States.

Wages around $16 an hour were expected by some when the Siemens plant opened in Hutchinson. But that was averaging the plant's $11- to $20-an-hour wages, and Siemens won't say how many of the jobs pay the $11 starting wage.

That wage would give a family of five an income at the federal poverty level.

Some of the manufacturers have offered wages as low as $9 an hour, and employment levels have at times been volatile. A blade manufacturer in Newton, Iowa, laid off hundreds of employees last year because of poor sales before eventually hiring most of them back by the end of the year.

About five years into recruiting wind energy manufacturers, Iowa can point to about 1,600 people employed by them in a state of 1.6 million employed.

"Don't be changing your college curriculums to prepare for it," said Swenson, the Iowa State economist.

SOURCE: Kansas City Star

February 20, 2011

BY STEVE EVERLY

The state's big bet on wind power has attracted a few hundred jobs so far. But even that success shows the huge challenge Kansas faces.

To turn a few hundred jobs into thousands, Kansas has to win big manufacturing projects and attract the companies that supply them, too. And that means beating out China and other foreign competitors who rule those markets.

"We need to temper our expectations on wind energy," said David Swenson, an Iowa State University economist known for deflating the ethanol industry's job claims. Now, he says, the same "environment of hype" is developing around wind power.

Hutchinson success

Kansas' biggest successes so far — and the reasons to be cautious — can be found in Hutchinson.

Over the past couple of decades, the town lost thousands of jobs and was disappointed in its efforts to lure new companies. But that luck changed in 2009 when Siemens Energy announced it would build a plant in Hutchinson.

The plant already has 130 employees and, when operating at full speed by 2012, is expected to have 400 workers.

The Siemens plant assembles parts that go into the nacelle of a wind turbine, which includes the generator, gearboxes, drive train and electronic controls. The RV-size nacelles each weigh 92 tons and measure 12 feet wide and 38 feet long.

When the Siemens plant opened in December, then-governor-elect Sam Brownback said: "I look forward to all the ways my home state of Kansas will take the lead on increasing national access to wind energy as we continue to grow the Kansas economy and create jobs."

The plant was a big victory for a strategy pushed by Brownback's predecessor, Gov. Mark Parkinson, that realized early on that manufacturing was the only place to find many green jobs.

Wind farms themselves, which now dot the state, don't provide much work.

In one study, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., figured that building a utility-scale wind farm with dozens of turbines created just 67 construction jobs. And the operation and maintenance of the wind farm would take only about a half-dozen people.

But the wind turbine manufacturers and their supply chain for such a wind farm would contribute more than 300 jobs, the energy lab estimated. And a well-located plant would have a good prospect of supplying more wind farms as they were built.

Kansas' place in the center of the country's prime wind energy territory was one of the reasons Siemens picked Hutchinson. The move quickly paid off when an Iowa utility recently placed a big order for 258 nacelles.

Attracting more jobs

But Hutchinson's hopes — and the state's — also ride on drawing the companies that will supply the Siemens plant and others like it in the state.

If that happens, how many jobs could be created?

Wichita State University's Center for Economic Development and Business Research says plant jobs like the one in Hutchinson will create at least twice as many additional jobs, from suppliers and others who benefit from the extra money rippling through the state's economy.

By that math, the Hutchinson plant at full capacity with 400 employees would create an additional 800 jobs.

Kansas also has persuaded a few other manufacturers to announce plans to open plants elsewhere in the state. Add those projects to the Hutchinson plant and the estimate grows to a total of 1,200 direct jobs and an additional 2,400 jobs from suppliers and others.

Not bad — but not huge in a state with a civilian labor force of 1.5 million and 102,600 unemployed job seekers at last count.

And it's not clear that even that number of jobs will emerge, especially in the supply chain for the main plants.

Draka, a Dutch cable supplier, is opening a plant in Hutchinson that will employ up to 20 people. But so far it is the only one to be announced, although the town hopes others will follow.

"We're still waiting for it to happen, but in a year or two if it doesn't, there will be disappointment," said Tom Arnhold, a Hutchinson lawyer.

Siemens isn't giving specifics on the origin of the parts being assembled at its Hutchinson plant.

But it wouldn't be unusual if the plant ended up assembling expensive parts made overseas. That's what a lot of U.S. wind energy plants do.

The clout of China and other lower-cost manufacturing countries in the wind market showed up in an analysis by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University. That group found that more than 80 percent of $1 billion in federal stimulus grants for wind projects went to foreign countries. One of the projects, a $1.5 billion wind farm in Texas, expected to collect $450 million in stimulus money — but used wind turbines made in China.

Another disappointment has been the pay for many of the wind industry jobs that do stay in the United States.

Wages around $16 an hour were expected by some when the Siemens plant opened in Hutchinson. But that was averaging the plant's $11- to $20-an-hour wages, and Siemens won't say how many of the jobs pay the $11 starting wage.

That wage would give a family of five an income at the federal poverty level.

What may be ahead

A glimpse of what's ahead for Kansas might be found in Iowa, which has been more aggressive than Kansas in building wind farms and attracting the manufacturing, including a wind turbine factory.

Some of the manufacturers have offered wages as low as $9 an hour, and employment levels have at times been volatile. A blade manufacturer in Newton, Iowa, laid off hundreds of employees last year because of poor sales before eventually hiring most of them back by the end of the year.

About five years into recruiting wind energy manufacturers, Iowa can point to about 1,600 people employed by them in a state of 1.6 million employed.

"Don't be changing your college curriculums to prepare for it," said Swenson, the Iowa State economist.

And there's some advice from Howard, S.D. In the 1990s it started developing wind energy and became a national model for how to use clean energy to help revive a small town. But it hasn't been easy, and there have been setbacks.

Many of Howard's jobs were provided by a blade manufacturer, but last year that company left. Now the town's industrial park employs 42 people instead of 133. Town officials are talking to other wind energy companies, hoping they'll move in.

"One of the realities is to always be paying attention," said Kathy Callies, vice president of the Rural Learning Center in Howard.

 

NEXT FEATURE:

FAIRFIELD TOWNSHIP ORDERS REMOVAL OF METEOROLIGICAL TOWER

SOURCE: Daily Telegram, www.lenconnect.com

February 19 2011

By David Frownfelder,

FAIRFIELD TWP., Mich. — Just days after the Fairfield Township Board approved a one-year moratorium on siting of wind turbines in the township, the Zoning Board of Appeals ordered Orisol Energy US Inc. to take down a 262-foot tall meteorological tower the company had erected. Both votes were unanimous.

Township supervisor Curtis Emmons said the moratorium, which passed Monday night on a 5-0 vote, will give the township planning commission time to come up with an ordinance regarding wind turbines. He said the order to tear down the meteorological tower was made because it is in violation of the township’s height and zoning ordinances. That vote was 3-0 Wednesday.

In January, Cliff Williams, director of North American operations for Orisol, said the tower is collecting data about atmospheric conditions. He was not available for comment. Emmons said the company has 30 days to appeal the ruling.

“The board took questions and comments pro and con from the audience, and Mr. Williams was able to state his case why the company felt they could put up the towers,” Emmons said. “(The board) cited several parts of the zoning ordinance in making their ruling.”

Three wind energy companies are seeking to erect some 200 wind towers in Fairfield, Riga, Palmyra and Ogden townships. Riga and Fairfield townships are developing zoning ordinances covering wind turbines.

The companies looking at northwest Ohio as sites for wind turbines are Orisol; Juwi Wind Corp., based in Cleveland; Great Lakes LLC, based in Lenawee County; and Exelon Wind, a division of Exelon Power.

NEXT FEATURE:

'WINDFALL FILM EXAMINES EFFECT OF WIND TURBINES ON RURAL, RESIDENTIAL AREAS

SOURCE: Penasee Globe, www.mlive.com

February 19 2011

By Herb Woerpel,

Attracted to the financial incentives that would seemingly boost their sinking economy, the townspeople of Meredith, New York were excited about the potential of adding wind turbines to their rural, residential neighborhood.

Lured by promises of profit, sustainability and environmental friendliness, the townspeople cherished the implementation of the massive machines.

As the 40-story tall structures were installed, the availability of wind company representatives grew sparse, and residents grew increasingly alarmed as they felt firsthand the the impacts of the 400-foot tall windmills.

Filmmaker Laura Israel, a resident of Meredith, documented the entire process and shares the haunting reality in her feature length film, “Windfall.”

A special screening of “Windfall” will be presented at 1 p.m., Saturday, Feb. 26 at Hopkins Middle School, 215 Clark St. in Hopkins. Following the screening, a 30-minute question and answer session featuring the filmmakers will take place.

The 83-minute feature film utilizes community member interviews to tell the story. Some are excited to add the turbines, others not as optimistic. The documentary eventually captures the terror that many residents endure on a daily basis following the installation of the turbines.

“The film isn’t an expose about wind, it’s more the experience of a town,” said Israel, in a Youtube.com interview. “This is people living among turbines trying to get the word out about the problems they are having. I wanted to give a voice to them.”

Israel said that she doesn’t have all the answers, and she hopes viewers don’t expect to find all the answers through the film.

“Windfall exposes the dark side of wind energy development and the potential for highly profitable financial scams,” she said. “With wind development in the United States growing annually at 39 percent, the film is an eye-opener for anyone concerned about the future of renewable energy.”

Monterey Township resident Laura Roys viewed the film last year in Frankfort, Mich. She couldn’t believe how similar the Meredith story was when compared to the recent happenings in Allegan County. Roys, who is facilitating the Feb. 26 screening, decided to show the film in Hopkins to help raise awareness.

“The state of Michigan has targeted and fast tracked half of Allegan County for industrial wind development,” she said. “The more educated our local political leaders and residents of Allegan County become, the odds of having a positive outcome will dramatically increase.”

The screening is free to attend. Doors will open at 12:30 p.m., and the film will begin at 1 p.m. For more information visit www.windfallthemovie.com.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Correction to the above article. The film "WINDFALL" documents the small town of Meredith's experience with proposed wind development but the turbines mentioned in the article above are in the Tug Hill wind project. "Windfall" also contains disturbing footage shot by Wisconsin wind project residents showing the serious impact of shadow flicker on their lives.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO an interview with filmmaker Laura Israel and Wisconsin cartoonist and writer Lynda Barry on WNYC's Leonard Lopate show. Israel and Barry were in New York City to support "WINDFALL" at NYC/DOC, a festival celebrating independent documentary films. "WINDFALL" took the Grand Jury Prize.

 NEXT FEATURE:

WAR MOUNTS OVER WIND PROJECTS

SOURCE: The Sun Times, www.owensoundsuntimes.com

February 18 2011

By TROY PATTERSON, QMI AGENCY,

Thunderous applause and a standing ovation followed Ashley Duncan's speech in opposition of the 80-megawatt Acciona Armow Wind Project, which spans from the former Kincardine Twp. to Bruce Twp.

Representing about 70 non-option landowners and members of the Old Order Amish community living within the proposed project, Duncan said council must act to protect the quality of life, health and property rights of its citizens within wind project areas.

"The province and wind developers have failed to address our issues. The only way to inspire provincial change and reclaim municipal control is to stand in opposition to the Green Energy Act (GEA)," said Duncan, adding it should be "designed to protect people instead of corporations."

Duncan said the local landscape is becoming "industrialized" and the failure to protect residents falls on both the province and wind proponents. The GEA is intended as a document to guide consultation and protect the public, but many residents don't see it that way," she said.

"Instead of building strong communities they've divided our community," said Duncan.

Opposition against the GEA is building province-wide, with more evidence of health issues, electrical pollution and civil opposition surfacing against wind projects, Duncan said, adding their families should be able to educate, worship, work and live in an area where they're "equally deserving of protection" as residents who live in town.

Duncan praised the provincial moratorium on Offshore Wind Power development that was announced Feb. 11, but said it could come back to the table in as few as two years.

She also addressed the municipality's support for an increased 700-metre setback from the GEA's 550, adding that less than 1,000m is inadequate. Shadow flicker and proximity of turbines to property lines both impact the enjoyment of their properties, she said.

The Ministry of Environment noise guidelines were also targeted at the meeting, as Duncan said the 40-decibel standard for noise limits from turbines more than doubles the 20db outdoors ambient noise they currently enjoy.

Although "40db is said to be the sound of a 'quiet library,' this is true but it's irrelevant," she said, adding they aren't willing to accept an increase "two times as loud as the natural environment."

With a dozen residents in the area reporting health effects from wind turbines, Duncan called on council to "put a plan in place to support people and mitigate the effects" of turbines.

A request was made to council to freeze wind power building permits, and join with the neigh-b ouring municipalities of Saugeen Shores, Arran-Elderslie and Huron-Kinloss to get involved with investigating legal defence and get involved with organizations fighting against unwanted wind power projects, she said.

Councillors praised Duncan for her "informative," "thorough" and "well thought out" presentation.

Deputy-mayor Anne Eadie said council will be taking wind power issues to the Minister of Energy at the Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA) in the coming weeks, on the premise that the municipality is concerned about curbing of future municipal growth from wind power.

"We want to protect for future growth over the next 40 years," said Eadie, adding earlier "meaningful" consultation and setbacks will also be addressed.

Coun. Ron Coristine said the province made the mistake of mixing residential and industrial zoning in the 1950's and 1960's, so wind power should be considering "best practices". He said if setbacks were 2 km from receptors, there would be no issues.

"There are good wind practices, they're just not happening here," said Coristine.

Coun. Maureen Couture said council should commit to finding answers and convince the province the issues of local residents "are real."

"They have to listen to us, we vote for them too," Couture said, adding the 90% in favour of wind aren't representative of the local population. "Municipal councils are obligated to look after the health, welfare and safety of their residents . . . we should do more research into the legal aspects of all of this."

Coun. Randy Roppel said carbon credits and future decommissioning are issues of concern alongside health concerns, which the province "can hide behind anymore".

Mayor Larry Kraemer was supportive of the move to join neighbouring municipalities in an effort to investigate the legal routes to fight wind power.

Kraemer took exception to the call to freeze building permits, as he said there's no legal defence if it were to be challenged by wind developers or the province. He said it also puts municipal staff in a position where they have to choose to break council's ruling or provincial law.

"It's a legal liability and virtually undefendable, that's why blocking building permits is not done widely because it does not work," said Kraemer.

Councillors requested staff investigate the legal ramifications of such a move, so it can be discussed further by council.

Council made a motion to work on updating guidelines based on input it receives from ROMA. Staff will also seek legal advice from lawyers and determine when councillors can attend future wind power-focused meetings with neighbouring municipalities.

 NEXT FEATURE:

WIND FARMS NOT FOR THE BIRDS

Think duck deaths on oilsands tailings ponds are bad? The real slaughter happens elsewhere

SOURCE: Toronto Sun

February 20th, 2010

By EZRA LEVANT, QMI Agency

Sonya Thomas is five feet tall and weighs just 105 pounds. But last fall she won the world chicken wing eating competition in Buffalo, N.Y., devouring 181 wings in 12 minutes. She claimed she was still hungry, and an hour later ate 20 more.

She edged out Joey Chestnut, her 6-foot-2, 218-pound rival. He ate 169 wings. But in 2008 in Philadelphia, Chestnut packed away 241 wings, though he took half an hour to do it.

Together Thomas and Chestnut can polish off more than 400 wings in a sitting.

That’s more than 200 birds.

Around the same time as the Buffalo wing festival, another 200 birds died. But they weren’t eaten in New York. They were caught in a freak ice storm in northern Alberta, and landed on Syncrude’s oilsands tailing ponds. Government wildlife officers ordered them euthanized.

Linda Duncan, the NDP MP for Edmonton-Strathcona, called the bird deaths “reprehensible” and said “no amount of penalty” was enough. She demanded the tailings ponds be shut down — which would mean shutting down the whole oilsands mine at Mildred Lake. If Duncan got her way, more than 3,000 people would lose their jobs.

Duncan’s proposal would fire 15 workers for every dead duck. That’s nutty, but not much nuttier than the $2,000-a-duck fine Syncrude had to pay for a duck accident in 2008.

But as a new video produced this month by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy points out, the duck obsession of Linda Duncan and other oilsands haters is misplaced.

The Frontier Centre compared the number of birds killed by the oilsands with the number of birds killed by a wind turbine at an Ontario wind farm — allegedly a more environmentally friendly source of energy.

When the rate of bird kills was measured, kilowatt hour by kilowatt hour, windmills were 445 times deadlier than the oilsands.

You can watch the center’s video at http://bit.ly/

birdblender, but it’s not for the squeamish.

Where is Linda Duncan’s outrage for those dead birds?

Wind power proponents know their industry is a disaster when it comes to birds. Part of the Canadian Wind Energy Association’s strategy is to publish a “fact sheet” that admits windmills kill birds but shifts the blame to cats — as well as buildings and windows — for even more bird deaths.

How would that go over in court if Canada’s windmill operators were ever charged with a criminal offence, like Syncrude was?

“Your honour, it’s true that our windmills kill birds. But so do cats. And you wouldn’t prosecute a cute little kitten, would you?”

An elementary school in Bristol, in the U.K., learned about windmills the hard way. The local government spent more than $30,000 to build a 10-metre-high windmill at the school. The manufacturer said it would only kill one bird a year. But after 14 birds were killed in a six-month period, the school shut it down for fear of traumatizing the children. Headmaster Stuart McLeod said he started coming in to work early just to scoop up the carcasses before the kids arrived.

Jimmy Carter’s signature windfarm in Altamont, Calif., admits to killing about 5,000 birds a year, including protected species such as golden eagles. So that’s 5,000 birds a year for 30 years now. If they were fined $2,000 a bird like Syncrude was, that would be $300 million in fines.

Birds aren’t the only things killed by windmills. Researchers at the University of Calgary found bats are even more likely to be killed — the change in air pressure causes their lungs to explode. Oh well. Nobody likes bats anyways. They’re the environmentalists’ sacrifice species.

A cat has an excuse for killing a bird — that’s what cats eat. Sonya Thomas and Joey Chestnut have an excuse — that’s what they eat, too.

But what’s the excuse of windmill salesmen whose sole pitch is their environmental benefit?

Is it OK to butcher countless birds — and create noise pollution, and make beautiful countrysides ugly — if you mean well?

 

A is for "assume"

near the town of byron, fond du lac county, wisconsin, fall, 2008

"[Industrial wind turbine] noise, on which the ordinance is silent,

was assumed to be captured by the 1000 foot setback"

--Alex DePillis

From the Minutes of the November 4, 1999 Guidelines and Model Ordinance Ad Hoc Subcommittee meeting.

At the time, DePillis was a state worker employed by the Wisconsin Energy Bureau, Department of Administration.

He now works as a wind developer for EcoEnergy LLC

What are the results of this "assumption" about the 1000 foot setback?

Gerry Meyer carried mail in his community for 30 years.

He lives inside the Invenergy Forward Energy wind farm near the town of Byron in Wisconsin's Fond du Lac County. When the turbines went on line near his home in March of 2008, he was surprised by the amount of noise that they made. He began keeping a noise log. (The entire turbine noise log can be downloaded by clicking here)

Let's look at the noise log for September 1, 2008

6:20 AM Loud motor running or humming sound.

7:05 AM I’m hearing turbine #4 in the barn, shop, and at the computer.

[ Turbine #4 is less than 1600 feet from the house]

11:15 AM Wind SW Loud.

4:15 PM Turbine 4 and 6 are making loud jet flying over sounds, ripping the sky apart. It has been loud all day.

9:40 PM This is the loudest night in a long time.

I hear #4, 6, 73, 74a, 3a and and possibly more.

I can hear them at the computer in the front of the house and in the family room in the back of the house with the TV on.

Keep in mind turbine 6 is ¾ mile away. # 73 is 2480’ and 74a 5/8 mile away.

It is very sad our town officials and PSC have allowed this turbine project to affect the health of residents in this area and it will continue in other areas.

11:40 PM I hear turbine jet flying over sound while watching TV in our family room.

This assumption about wind turbine noise made by Alex DePillis and other members of the Model Ordinance Ad Hoc Subcommitee helped the state create guidelines which allowed Chicago-based wind developer Invenergy to site turbines as close as 1000 feet from unwilling participants homes in Fond du Lac and Dodge County.

The result?

Residents in Dodge and Fond du Lac are having trouble sleeping at night due to noise from industrial turbines, and when they want to sell their homes, no one seems interested in buying them.

This photo, taken December 8, 2008 is of a home near the town of Byron that has been on the market for a long time. The price has been reduced but still no offers.

Can you guess why?

Why would the state put so many residents at risk by allowing a committee to set guidelines based on an assumption that a 1000 foot setback would take care of noise problems?

Local governments who recognized the inadequacy of the state's guidelines for siting turbines have created large wind ordinances intended to protect the health and safety of residents. Within the last year, six Wisconsin townships have adopted ordinances with a 2640 foot setback. They didn't just pull that figure out of the air. And they didn't base it on an assumption. So what is it based on?

Here's what we learned from the findings section from the Town of Union's large wind ordinance regarding wind turbine noise.

The complete text of the findings and all documents used to support these findings are cited in the ordinance. (Download the entire Town of Union ordinance by clicking here)

This is just a summary:

The state's current wind turbine noise limit of 50dBA does not adequately protect residents from the adverse health effects associated with large wind turbine noise.

The town of Union limits large wind turbine noise to a maximum of 35dBA or 5dBA over ambient, whichever is lower, in order to protect residents from adverse health effects associated with large wind turbine noise based on the following findings:

Large wind turbines are significant sources of noise, which , if improperly sited, can negatively impact the health of residents, particularly in areas of low ambient noise levels.

Large wind turbines emit two types of noise-- 1) Aerodynamic noise from the blades passing through the air, which can generate broadband noise, tonal noise and low frequency noise; and 2) Mechanical noise from the interaction of the turbine components.

A dBA scale is commonly used to measure audible wind turbine noise.

Low frequency noise from large wind turbines is not adequately measured by the state's use of dBA weighting.

Noise is an annoyance that can negatively impact health, producing negative effects such as sleep disturbance and deprivation, stress, anxiety, and fatigue.

Large wind turbines create a noise annoyance that can hinder physical and mental healing and can cause adverse health effects associated with sleep disturbance and deprivation, psychological distress, stress, anxiety, depression, headaches, fatigue, tinnitus and hypertension.

Wind turbine noise can affect each person differently. Some people are unaffected by wind turbine noise, while others may develop adverse health effects from the same noise.

At low frequencies, wind turbine noise may not be heard but rather is felt as a vibration. Medical research reported complaints from people who felt the noise from large wind turbines, similar to symptoms that can be associated with vibroacoustic disease.

The risk for adverse health effects resulting from noise annoyance such as headaches, stress, anxiety, fatigue, depression, pain and stiffness, and decreased cognitive ability associated with sleep deprivation from wind turbine noise increases with increasing A-weighted sound pressures. According to wind turbine noise studies, few respondents were disturbed in their sleep by wind turbine noise at less than 35dBA. Respondents were increasingly disturbed in their sleep by wind turbine noise greater than 35dBA.

Wind turbine noise greater than 5dBA over ambient increases the risk for health effects because a change of 5dB is clearly noticeable.

Studies show prolonged exposure to wind turbine noise resulted in adverse health effects at sound levels below those from other sources of community noise, such as road traffic noise. Sound generated by wind turbines has particular characteristics and creates a different type of noise having different health impacts than compared to urban, industrial or commercial noise.

Living in a rural environment in comparison with a suburban area increases the risk of residents being impacted by noise from nearby large wind turbines because of the low ambient noise in rural environments. The International Standards Organization recommends community noise limits for rural areas be set at 35dBA during the day, 30 dBA during the evening, and 25dBA at night.

Eye-witnesses living near newly-constructed large wind turbines in the Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County, WI, testified at the public hearing held by the Town of Union Plan Commission that they currently experience adverse health effects from the wind turbine noise such as sleep deprivation and disturbance, headaches, nausea and dizziness. Th noise from the wind turbines in the Town of Byron is greater than 45dBA at their residences and can be heard inside of their houses and outside in their yards.

Two Plan Commissioners from the Town of Union visited the newly constructed wind turbines in the Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County, WI in June 2008 and confirmed the wind turbines were a significant source of noise. One described the quality and intensity of the noise as sounding like a jet airplane. The other spoke with residents, farmers and a sheriff's deputy in the area who all stated that the turbines were noisy. He also took sound measurements from the home of a resident with a turbine less than 1500 feet from his home. The sound measured between 57 to 67 dBA on June 6-7, 2008.

However, experiences vary. Two other plan commissioners visited wind turbine sites. One visited sites in Byron Township, Lincoln Township and Montfort and found that overall, people were satisfied with the turbines. Two issues noted by this Plan commissioner were tensions between landowners profiting from the wind turbines and those landowners who did not, and poor conditions of roads following the installation of the turbines.

The other commissioner visited wind farms in Iowa. He estimated that approximately 60% of the people he spoke with had positive opinions of the wind turbines and approximately 40% of the people he spoke with had negative opinions of wind turbines.

A fifth plan commission member went to a wind farm south of Rockford, IL. No one was available to talk so he walked around the area. It was a nice day, and windy. He noticed that the windows in the homes surrounding the site were all closed and no one was outside. He stated the noise was similar to a plane going overhead. He stood under a tower and did not feel any unease.

(For the complete text of the Town of Union's findings regarding Wind Turbine Noise Impacts, please download the complete ordinance by clicking here)