Better Plan, Wisconsin

“We lost a lot of money on the sale of the house, but it was better to get away from (the turbines),” Ernest says. “We are not against wind power. We were for it. But they shouldn’t be near people.”

STUDY FUNDED BY WIND ENERGY INDUSTRY QUESTIONED:

By SUSAN HUNDERTMARK and DAN SCHWAB,

Today's Farmer, www.todaysfarmer.ca

Still poised to respond to any renewed efforts by CASA Engineering and Construction to build a wind project in the St. Columban area, Huron East Against Turbines (HEAT) is cynical about a report from the wind industry stating that wind turbines have no adverse effect on human health.

“This study is no big deal and no surprise. We still need an independent health study,” says HEAT member Rob Tetu.

The study — funded by the American Wind Energy Association and the Canadian Wind Energy Association — involved a seven-member international panel that reviewed all current peer-reviewed scientific literature on sound and health effects.

“There is no evidence that the sounds, nor the sub-audible vibrations, emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects on humans,” says a press release released by CanWEA, quoting Dr. Robert J. McCunney, one of the study’s authors.

“We’ve got no peer-reviewed studies. All we’ve got is a bunch of sick people,” responds Tetu, referring to the over 100 people documented by Wind Concerns Ontario to have suffered ill effects from living too close to wind turbines since 2007.

“I have very little faith in a study released by the wind industry,” he says.

Tetu says HEAT’s mandate is to fight the project proposed for the St. Columban area and is preparing a document to send to the province in response to its definition of a “point of reception.”

Clarification needed

He says the definition needs clarification since it’s not yet clear if barns, cabins and trailers will be considered points of reception along with houses.

Tetu says that while HEAT has determined that CASA will be subject to the new setback distances under the new Green Energy Act, the group has not been able to find out if CASA is working at redeveloping its plans from its original setbacks of 450 metres and reapplying to continue with a wind project for the St. Columban area.

The Green Energy Act sets a minimum 550-metre setback for wind turbines for projects of five turbines and under and 750 metres for projects of six to 10 turbines.

“CASA is not communicating with us but they are obligated to make contact with the community if the project is on the go,” says Tetu.

The Green Energy Act did not require an independent epidemiological study to prove that the setbacks stated in the regulations are not harmful to human health, a request made by Huron East council several months ago and a request that was recently made by Grey County council in a resolution approved by Huron East council.

While HEAT has raised $61,000 in the local community to pay for its legal bills, Tetu says HEAT is supporting “in spirit” a legal battle happening in Prince Edward County where farmer Ian Hanna is suing the Ontario government and asking for an independent health study on the effects of industrial wind turbines.

“We can’t support it financially but we can encourage local people to do so. They’re looking for $250,000 to do it — it’s a provincewide project,” says Tetu, adding interested people should access the Wind Concerns Ontario website.

Seaforth residents Ernest and Sharon Marshall say they were “forced off (their) farm in Goderich” after the elderly pair began experiencing health problems, which they believe were linked to living next to wind turbines.

In April 2006, a wind turbine was erected 548 metres from the Marshall’s property. Four turbines surrounded the house, with 11 turbines in total within a two-mile radius, Ernest says.

After that, the couple both began experiencing health issues.

The couple also says the horses they owned at the time started acting strangely after the wind turbines were built.

Ernest says after years of raising horses he’d never seen them act so bizarrely.

In April 2008, after exactly two years of living next to the wind turbines, the Marshalls moved out of the home they’d live in for 30 years and into a house in Seaforth.

“We lost a lot of money on the sale of the house, but it was better to get away from (the turbines),” Ernest says. “We are not against wind power. We were for it. But they shouldn’t be near people.”

SECOND STORY

RESIDENTS NOT SWAYED BY WIND PROJECT REPORT

www.agrinewsinteractive.com

Vol. 34, No. 1,

January 2010

North Gower and Richmond residents worried about a proposal for industrial wind turbines near the villages are not reassured by a report on health effects from the noise produced by turbines.

The report, released last month and sponsored by both the Canadian Wind Energy Association and the American Wind Energy Association, is titled Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects.

The panel of expert reviewers concluded that there is “no evidence that audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.”

It doesn’t sit well with opponents of a proposal to build eight industrial wind turbines more than 600 feet tall in their area.

“We have joined a coalition of 41 citizens‚ groups throughout this province,” says North Gower Wind Action Group chair Gary Chandler in a press release issued by his organization.

“I can tell you that people in Ripley, Essex, Melancthon, Amaranth and on Wolfe Island are saying that the constant noise and vibration from these huge structures is very disturbing,” Chandler alleges. “These reports are real and very worrying for us.”

He asserts that the most recent report is not a true health study, but merely a review of existing reports.

“As far as I can tell, this is just a re-reading of information we had before, nothing new. And certainly, none of the reviewers ever consulted with people who are experiencing the effects from turbine noise, or their family doctors. In our view, this report is a reaction to the just-released book by Dr. Nina Pierpont, The Wind Turbine Syndrome, which is a peer-reviewed account of real experiences.”

He says his group and others continue to ask government to sponsor independent research on the health effects of exposure to industrial wind turbines, and enact a moratorium on industrial wind turbine developments until that research has been completed.

“It just makes sense not to subject more people to this noise until we know the truth,” Chandler adds. “These turbines can be a welcome source of energy, but they should not be located close to people’s homes.”

The North Gower Wind Action Group points to a Dec. 13 report in The Sunday Times of Britain that UK officials covered up warnings that wind turbines generate noise damaging to people’s health for miles near such installations. As a result, hundreds of turbines were erected and allowed to generate higher levels of noise than should be allowed.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The industry-funed health study focused mainly on homes located a half mile from wind turbines. The latest wind farm approved in Wisconsin has a setback of just 1250 feet from homes.

  Fond du Lac Reporter

Source: www.fdlreporter.com   

January 13 2010

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

My daughter recently had a basketball tournament in Lomira.

On our way home from the tournament, we drove through Brownsville and observed the wind turbines located there. My daughter, her teammate and I all had the same reaction — thank goodness we didn’t have those wind turbines in our backyard.

Simply stated, they are very ugly. What an eyesore! I wondered why anyone would agree to have those monstrosities erected on their property. So I did a little research about wind turbines and their impact on the residents and communities where they were built.

I found that many of the residents who lived near the turbines complained about the noise, comparing it to living next to a major airport. They also complained about fatigue, headaches, ringing in their ears, loss of balance and nausea.

I also discovered that residents who had tried to sell their property to get away from the turbines were either unable to do so because prospective buyers immediately became disinterested upon finding out about the turbines, or residents had to sell their homes well below fair market value.

I wondered what types of high-pressure “tactics” the wind turbine company had to use in order to convince residents that the wind turbines were a good idea without informing residents about the negative effects of the turbines.

I wondered if the company’s executives promoting wind turbine construction would agree to having one constructed on their own property. I doubt it.

I know that after researching this issue, I would absolutely oppose construction of any wind turbines in my community. My heart goes out to the innocent victims who have had their lives so negatively impacted by their greedy and selfish neighbors.

Tammy L. Kroetz
Westfield

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The only thing we don’t agree with in this letter is the idea that hosting landowners are driven only by greed and selfishness. There are a many reasons why a family might sign on with a developer. And developers talk a good game. Like any other salesman, their only objective is to make the sale.

CLICK HERE to read why a Wisconsin farmer regrets signing on with a wind developer

Click on the images below to watch an interview with Wisconsin father and son dairy farmers who talk about their first hand experiences with wind developers, hosting a met tower on their land, and what the developer did to them after they changed their mind about hosting turbines in their land.

For those who have slower internet connection, a transcript of the interview can be read by clicking here.

WATCH PART TWO OF THIS INTERVIEW BY CLICKING HERE

READ TRANSCRIPT OF PART TWO BY CLICKING HERE

“In making this decision,” said Chairman Eric Callisto, “I know that people will make sacrifices in many ways.”

That applies, he said, to We Energies customers who will pay, with higher utility bills, the project’s estimated $352 million to $420 million cost.

But, he said, others who might have to “sacrifice” include people who live near the wind turbines and who might be bothered by the noise they make and by a strobe phenomenon called shadow flicker, from sunlight reflecting from turning turbine blades.

“When erected,” Callisto said, “these turbines will be, visually, the center of attention, for better or for worse. They are not silent. And they cause shadow flicker.”

Wind Farm gets initial go-ahead, but PSC puts conditions on WE energies project.

By Lyn Jerde, Daily Register, portagedailyregister.com

January 11 2010

MADISON – The Glacier Hills Wind Park, which could be the largest in the state, will rise from the farm fields of eastern Columbia County, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin decided Monday.

But the three-member commission called for We Energies to meet several conditions in building the 90-turbine wind farm, including a minimum of 1,250 feet of distance between the turbines and the buildings on nonparticipating property; limits on the noise generated by the turbines; and the possibility that people whose property is surrounded by the turbines might have their property bought out.

PSC staff will draft a detailed list of the conditions based on the discussion at Monday’s meeting, said PSC spokesman Timothy Le Monds. The commission is scheduled to vote on the details of the condition Jan. 20, Le Monds said.

We Energies plans to build 90 turbines, each as much as 400 feet high, on rented land covering a 17,300-acre footprint in the Columbia County towns of Randolph and Scott. It would be Wisconsin’s largest wind farm to date.

In voting unanimously to grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity to allow construction of the 90-turbine wind farm, the commissioners acknowledged that not all people will be happy about their decision.

“In making this decision,” said Chairman Eric Callisto, “I know that people will make sacrifices in many ways.”

That applies, he said, to We Energies customers who will pay, with higher utility bills, the project’s estimated $352 million to $420 million cost. But, he said, others who might have to “sacrifice” include people who live near the wind turbines and who might be bothered by the noise they make and by a strobe phenomenon called shadow flicker, from sunlight reflecting from turning turbine blades.

“When erected,” Callisto said, “these turbines will be, visually, the center of attention, for better or for worse. They are not silent. And they cause shadow flicker.”

But commissioners agreed that the necessity of creating more energy from renewable resources such as wind – required of utilities by state law – must be weighed against the effect the turbines might have on people who live near them.

“I empathize,” said Commissioner Mark Meyer, “and I have a great deal of compassion for those who will experience the effects of wind turbines. I will not deny these effects. But I must balance all the interests.”

In doing so, the three commissioners offered numerous conditions that We Energies must meet in building the wind park.

One of the key conditions: a minimum 1,250-foot setback separating the turbines from the homes of people who did not lease their land for the turbines’ construction.

This almost certainly will mean that some of the 90 proposed turbines will have to be moved from their preferred location, or possibly be eliminated, commissioners said.

Commissioners discussed, at length, how such setback would be measured, with Callisto proposing that it start from the tip of a turbine’s blade at its maximum arc. The commissioners agreed, however, that it would be measured from roughly the center of a turbine to the center of a structure on land owned by nonparticipating landowners.

The commissioners also called for a noise limit of 50 decibels day and night during winter months and 50 decibels by day and 45 decibels by night during warmer months, because many people like to sleep with windows open on warm nights.

Brian Manthey, spokesman for We Energies, said the company was encouraged by the decision and that it will work within the parameters set by the PSC.

The 1,250-foot setback might mean that some of the 90 preferred sites will not be used; the company will look at 28 alternate sites, Manthey said.

It’s possible there could be fewer than 90 turbines. If the number stays at 89 or more, it will be the largest in the state based on number of turbines.

The Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in northeast Fond du Lac County has 88 turbines and produces 145 megawatts of electricity. The project description says Glacier is projected to produce 207 megawatts.

“Obviously, we’re still going to have a pretty good-sized wind farm,” he said.

He said despite the PSC’s questions, he thought the commission was positive about the project.

“They have quite a job to take in all the different aspects of a project of this magnitude,” he said.

Other conditions that We Energies must meet will include:

• A provision allowing for a buyout of some nonparticipating landowners who are surrounded by turbines.

• Measures to deal with shadow flicker for people who experience problems with it.

• A local committee to be appointed to address concerns and complaints related to the wind farm, though We Energies also would have to be prepared to address such complaints directly.

• Agreements with local emergency responders regarding landing spots for airborne emergency vehicles, such as helicopter ambulances.

• Further study, paid for partly by We Energies, of the effects of wind turbines on flying species such as bats and birds.

The commission, however, rejected a proposal from the village of Friesland that We Energies should pay the village a fee to compensate for property value losses stemming from turbines within 1.5 miles of the village.

It also rejected a proposal that, once the wind farm is up and running, We Energies should be required to shut down a coal-burning electric plant.

The target year for the turbines becoming operational is 2012.

Daily Register Editor Jason Maddux contributed to this story.

"If the Commission allows WEPCO to continue construct Glacier Hills and operate all of its existing coal-fired capacity, WEPCO’s ratepayers will be paying over $525 million for a new facility that is not needed to satisfy demand and will not result in overall CO2 emission reductions."

-Clean Wisconsin's Glacier Hills project post hearing brief

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:  If We Energies does not shut down a coal burning plant, Clean Wisconsin testitifed there will be no reduction in CO2 /green house gasses from this project. [SOURCE]

"Hot Air on Wind Energy: Don't expect wind power to replace coal as the nation's main source of electric power, whatever Obama's interior secretary said."

CLICK HERE to read all of what FactCheck.org has to say about wind energy and coal. FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

 No matter how you may feel about the issue of climate change, there is one point few will argue: air pollution is a serious problem. How will the the Glacier Hills project help?

The 'greater good' of building our industrial scale wind farms, such as the one the PSC has approved in the Columbia County Towns of Randolph and Scott, are supposed to help to solve that problem by replacing our coal plants. This is the 'greater good' that residents are being asked to make sacrifices for.

On the surface it seems pretty logical and simple: just replace dirty coal with clean wind.

The problem is not a single coal fired plant has ever been taken off line in exchange for wind power. Not in the US, not anywhere in the world, including Denmark and Germany, two countries that use the most wind power in their energy mix, and yet continue to burn fossil fuels at an unchanged rate.  In fact, during Germany’s expanded use of more renewable energy, they've also built more coal plants.

 The elephant in the room is this: If coal fired plants are not taken off line in exchange for renewable energy, the current level of air pollution remains the same.

Which brings us to the state of Wisconsin, home to about 300 industrial scale wind turbines with hundreds more being proposed.

The question about what actual impact Wisconsin wind farms are having in terms of reducing current levels of air pollution in our state has never been fully addressed by state environmental organizations except in theory. Theoretically they should reduce GHG, but what are the facts?

 Clean Wisconsin decided to step up and ask the hard questions. Their conclusions are presented in the post-hearing brief filed with the Public Service Commission in response to the proposed Glacier Hills wind farm.

QUOTE:"This practice means that approval of Glacier Hills alone would have literally no impact on GHG reductions. On the contrary, WEPCO would have a financial incentive to generate as much electricity as possible from its coal-fired facilities."

 Though Clean Wisconsin supports the project for the economic benefits it may bring, they clearly point out that unless WEPCO retires a coal burning plant, the construction of the Glacier hills wind farm [and Invenergy's alternate proposed wind farm] will have no effect on reduction of green house gasses in our state.  And they clearly lay out the reasons why.

QUOTE: "One could therefore theoretically satisfy the RPS requirement of a specified percentage of electricity generation from renewable resources while undermining the global warming objectives of reducing GHGs emitted into the atmosphere. That is precisely what will happen here if the Commission does not restrain WEPCO’s electricity generation from coal-fired facilities."

QUOTE: "If the Commission allows WEPCO to continue construct  Glacier Hills and operate all of its existing coal-fired capacity, WEPCO’s ratepayers will be paying over $525 million for a new facility that is not needed to satisfy demand and will not result in overall CO2 emission reductions."

QUOTE: “For these reasons approval and implementation of either of the wind power proposals will not achieve their intended effect of reducing GHGs and will result in significant excess capacity unless the Commission also requires WEPCO to reduce its coal-fired generating capacity."

 There is no indication that WEPCO intends to shut down any of its coal fired plants in exchange for wind energy.

 By their willingness to acknowledge and address the difficult questions head on, Clean Wisconsin proves themselves to be an organization truly committed to protecting Wisconsin's environment and finding real ways to reduce current levels of pollution in our state.

The complete text of the Clean Wisconsin post hearing brief can be downloaded at the Public Service Commission’s website by clicking here and the Glacier Hills docket docket number 6630-CE-302

 WISCONSIN WIND TURBINE NOISE LOG, TOWN OF BROWNSVILLE, WI.

Sunday, January 10, 2010:

7:45AM. Wind SW 6 knts, 18 rpms @ 1000’ from turbine 4. dBA 51.8, dBC 67.0. Wind is low, blade speed high, low ambient sound, therefore very loud turbine sounds.

Turbines 4, 6 & 73 loudest, but also I hear 3a, 74a +. My wife did not sleep well and was up several times “trying” to get tired. Two other nights this week similar happenings for her. I woke up with a headache and it continues. Again, it is rare for me to have a headache.

I would guess my cortisol level is again high as the last week or so my food seems like it is in my throat and I need to keep drinking water to keep the food down. My weight is getting close to my all time high.

3:50 PM Wind SW, 18.6 rpms 14 knts, peak gusts 21. The sound of the wind is now loud so it covers much of the turbine sounds even though the jet sound is still heard. My wife just asked if the wind is strong because the ringing in her ears is loud.

Yes, the volume of the ringing sound varies."

---Gerry Meyer, Invenergy Forward Energy wind farm resident, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin  

Glacier Hills Wind Farm: Yellow circles indicate 1000 setback around non-paticipating homesPSC ruling expected on Glacier Hills

How big are the turbines? Click on the image above. The blades extend another 13 stories above the person who is descending from the hub of the turbine tower. In Wisconsin, industrial turbines 40 stories tall have been sited 1000 feet from homes.

WIND DEVELOPER WANTS STATE TO STEP IN

Green Bay Press-Gazette

www.greenbaypressgazette.com

28 November 2009

A wind farm developer proposing a large project in Brown County is urging state regulators to reject a similar project by another developer in Columbia County.

Invenergy LLC has unveiled plans for 100 turbines to generate electricity south of Green Bay in the towns of Glenmore, Wrightstown, Morrison and Holland.

Local and state approval is needed before the firm’s Ledge Wind Energy Project can move ahead.

In the meantime, Invenergy is asking state regulators to reject the We Energies’ proposal in Columbia County or approve both projects jointly.

In a filing earlier this week with the state Public Service Commission, Invenergy wrote that We Energies could purchase power from the Ledge Wind Energy Project for less than the cost of building its own wind farm.

The state has disclosed no timetable for deciding either proposal, although the We Energies project is further along in the regulatory review process.

Invenergy’s application to the state indicates that its Brown County wind farm could be in operation by 2011 and would generate enough electricity to power about 40,000 homes.\

OUR WIND FARM RESIDENT QUOTE OF THE DAY: [Click here for source]

“On Saturday or Sunday afternoon people come out here, stay for the afternoon, go home and wonder what the fuss is about. If you’re out here after 11pm you’ll known what we’re complaining about.”