Better Plan, Wisconsin

MEETING DEALING WITH WIND TURBINES ENDS BEFORE IT BEGINS

SOURCE: WTOL, www.wtol.com 

By Tim Miller

30 June 2011

“I have never seen a town so divided. Brother won’t talk to sister, sister won’t talk to brother. It’s terrible, really. I never seen a town divided so bad.”

RIGA TOWNSHIP — A special meeting to deal with wind turbines ended before it even began, the latest twist in an ongoing controversial project.

Township trustees were set to take some kind of action Thursday night on an ordinance to allow the turbines on farmers’ fields and the meeting drew so much interest that the fire chief limited attendance into the building to 200 people.

With about a hundred people stuck outside, the trustees decided to postpone the meeting to another date, at a larger venue.

Farmers who are poised to sign leases with wind turbine companies stand to make profits from the use of their land and turbines are widely seen as a new “crop” in Michigan. But the opponents come from Riga Township and surrounding communities. They say the wind turbines will destroy the peaceful country setting and lead to health hazards.

Trustee Paul Dusseau says he’s saddened by the situation. “I have never seen a town so divided. Brother won’t talk to sister, sister won’t talk to brother. It’s terrible, really. I never seen a town divided so bad.”

All sides did seem to agree that is was the right to reschedule the meeting.

Josh Nolan of the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition said, “You can’t have a project like this that is going to affect not only the people of Riga Township, but those of Sylvania Township, Palmyra Township, Blissfield Township, Ogden Township, Whiteford Township. Everyone in the area is going to be affected by this. You can’t have some major project like that and then disallow people from participating in the process.”

Supervisor Jeff Simon says the trustees will listen to the public at the next meeting and will carefully review the ordinance before they make any decision. Residents are encouraged to visit the township’s website and local newspapers to see when the next special meeting will be held.

From Illinois

LAWSUIT FILED

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE AT SOURCE: Bureau County Republican, www.bcrnews.com

July 1, 2011

By Donna Barker,

“Fundamentally, this action is necessary to preserve the value of our homes and farms in the face of overwhelming evidence that the construction of so many turbine towers, so close to our property, will cause irreparable harm to the long-standing, pre-existing use and enjoyment of our property,” Hamrick said. “Our group is seeking only to prevent the wind turbine facility from being constructed and is not seeking any monetary recovery.”

PRINCETON – A group of Bureau County residents have filed a complaint against the county of Bureau, the Bureau County Board, each member of the Bureau County Board as individuals in their official capacities, and against Walnut Ridge Wind LLC.

The goal of the complaint is to stop the building of the proposed 150-turbine Walnut Ridge Wind wind farm in northwest Bureau County.

Filing the complaint are 37 Bureau County residents whose properties are situated around the proposed Walnut Ridge Wind site. Spokespersons for the group are Ron Amerein, Deanna Wilt and Steve Hamrick. Representing the group is Rockford attorney Rick Porter of Hinshaw and Culbertson.

In a press release issued Thursday, the spokespersons claim there were “significant procedural mistakes in the process and substantial flaws in the findings” of the county board.

Filed Wednesday at the Bureau County Courthouse, the 450-page, 117-count complaint claims the county board did not have the authority or jurisdiction to grant the original conditional use permits to Walnut Ridge Wind LLC in August 2008, nor the authority to approve the permit extension requests granted by the county board in April 2011.

According to the complaint, there was improper public notice of the zoning application and the request to extend those applications; that the permits lapsed because the turbine company did not act on those permits for three years; and that the original permits are void because Bureau County had no jurisdiction to issue them. In addition, the complaint describes why the court should conclude, as did the Bureau County Zoning Board of Appeals, that granting an extension of those Walnut Ridge permits was not supported by facts of law. (On March 31, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended, on a 3-2 vote, to deny extensions to the Walnut Ridge conditional use permits.)

The complaint also asks the court to find the county board’s action is “arbitrary and capricious.” According to the plaintiffs, the county board’s decision failed to consider the negative impact of the proposed turbines, including, among other things, annoying and incessant noise, visual disturbances from flashing lights, turning blades and massive unsightly towers, shadow flicker, negative health affects, including sleep deprivation, and the impact to pets, livestock, birds and wildlife.

In their press release, the spokespersons described the plaintiffs as a very diverse group, representing individuals owning homes in close proximity to one or more of the proposed Walnut Ridge turbine towers, as well as farmers and landowners who expect their operations to be significantly harmed if the turbine towers are allowed to be built.

Each of the plaintiffs has made a financial commitment to support the cost of bringing this complaint to the courts, the spokespersons stated. For some of these property owners, the affected property represents their principal financial asset, and thus a lifetime of savings, the spokespersons claimed.

In some additional comments, spokesperson Steve Hamrick reiterated why this group of Bureau County residents has taken this legal action and what they want to accomplish.

“Fundamentally, this action is necessary to preserve the value of our homes and farms in the face of overwhelming evidence that the construction of so many turbine towers, so close to our property, will cause irreparable harm to the long-standing, pre-existing use and enjoyment of our property,” Hamrick said. “Our group is seeking only to prevent the wind turbine facility from being constructed and is not seeking any monetary recovery.”

On Thursday, Bureau County State’s Attorney Pat Herrmann, who will represent the defendants in the complaint, said defendants have 30 days to reply after a subpoena is served.

From Ontario

SHUT DOWN TURBINES IF THEY INTERFERE WITH FARMER'S GPS SYSTEMS

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE AT THE SOURCE: The Wellington Advertiser, www.wellingtonadvertiser.com

By David Meyer

Downey suggested the words be changed so the clause reads, “turned off until the problem is solved.” He said without a required shutdown, the company could simply say it tried and was unable to prevent interference.

Driscoll said it was necessary for the township to insist upon that, rather than pitting “little Joe Farmer against NextEra. If they say ‘two weeks’ I don’t have two weeks.”

MAPLETON TWP. — When township council here considered what comments to make to the province about conditions for permitting an industrial wind farm near Arthur, councillor Neil Driscoll said turbines should be shut down immediately if they interfere with GPS users.

At a special meeting on June 21 to consider possible conditions, Driscoll told council the wind industry should not be permitted to interfere with modern farming practices.

Councillor Mike Downey supported Driscoll’s statement, and soon, so did all other councillors.

They were working their way through a commenting document to set conditions for the province, although Mapleton’s was so big there were dozens of extra pages beyond what the province offered. The township is facing a request for NextEra Energy Canada’s Conestogo Wind Energy Centre Project.

The extra comments and requests for conditions were compiled by Chief Administrative Officer Patty Sinnamon from a number of sources, many from the United States, which has far more stringent rules than Ontario.

One of the suggestions was, “If any television, cell phone, internet or broadcast radio frequency interference is shown to be created by the Wind Energy Centre, NextEra shall use commercially reasonable efforts to mitigate any problems on a case by case basis.”

Downey suggested the words be changed so the clause reads, “turned off until the problem is solved.” He said without a required shutdown, the company could simply say it tried and was unable to prevent interference.

Driscoll said it was necessary for the township to insist upon that, rather than pitting “little Joe Farmer against NextEra. If they say ‘two weeks’ I don’t have two weeks.”

Driscoll said in a later interview that GPS equipment “auto steers” farm machinery in fields. He said someone is in the tractor, but it is GPS satellite technology that runs it. It also determines the amounts of spraying a machine does.

If GPS is interfered with by a turbine, he said farmers are effectively forced to shut down their operation.

“It would lose track of where you were in the field,” he said. “It could throw the seeding off. You could lose combine rates of yield.”

The GPS works with satellite technology, and Driscoll said the technology on farms is similar to what people might have in their cars, but, “It’s just far more enhanced.”

He estimated over 75 per cent of farmers use “some type of GPS – in our spraying, in our tractors and combines. So what happens if my GPS does go down? It’s pretty hard to run without it now. We’ve become reliant on the system.”

Driscoll said satellites can give a reading of the strengths of a signal, and could tell if interference is coming from a wind turbine (that is something some wind energy companies acknowledge, and they have it included in contracts they sign with host farmers).

Driscoll also agreed with Mayor Bruce Whale, who noted all the land for the NextEra project is class one farmland.

“That’s the worst part,” Driscoll said. “This is class one farmland that can’t be replaced.”

In the past, the Ministry of Agriculture, through the provincial government, has tried to protect class one agricultural lands.

Sinnamon reminded council the county’s rural broadband project is due to come on line in September. She wondered how the township can determine if turbines are causing interference. Councillor Jim Curry said it is easy. “What was working is not.”

Sinnamon wondered about a shut down for cell phones.

Driscoll said, “If the cell phone is your lifeline … ”

Sinnamon asked how anyone can determine interference by a turbine.

Whale said, “Anyone who could do an analysis probably could … each provider has a way of measuring range.”

Driscoll said the satellite “can probably tell you what is interfering. TV providers can tell you if somebody is interfering.”

Curry said council should check other areas. “I’ve heard there have been problems.”

Whale said the township can determine what service is like before the arrival of turbines, and then afterwards.

Sinnamon said if the township insists there be no interference, it should set a deadline for how long the company will have to prove it does not interfere. She suggested five years.

Whale said council will have to set a length, and “We should know soon.”

Curry said residents hosting turbines “waive these issues.”

Other conditions

Council also went through numerous conditions to protect its roads from large and heavy machinery.

It insisted when NextEra has to dig under roads for electrical wires, it has to bore under paved roads, but it can dig up gravel roads. The elevations shall be approved by the township’s engineers.

As well, the township wants 18-inch culverts used where the road is dug for conduits.

Council wants also to be reimbursed for all inspection costs for the roads, prior to NextEra using them, and afterwards, with a limit of one year to determine settling. It wants the company to repair any damaged road base to a depth of 18 inches. Driscoll said there is a heritage road on part of the section NextEra will have to travel.

Public Works Director Larry Lynch said that road, Sideroad 17, will have to be brought back to original condition, including such things as tree canopy, and to its original narrow width.

Lynch said the township heritage committee probably won’t want it touched at all. “Once you affect the integrity, it isn’t a heritage road any more.”

Whale said the township will need a report on that issue.

“Let’s investigate. Confirm the identity – confirm what can and cannot happen.”

Driscoll said some road allowances are unopened in winter, and are used only by snowmobile clubs. He said he would be unwilling to allow the wind company to open those roads, and it could use access by snowmobile – if it has paid a trail fee.

Lynch said if the company, needs access, the township could always “open the road up – at a cost.”

Councillor Andy Knetsch wondered how the company could get emergency personnel to its turbines.

Whale said that will have to be part of its emergency plan.

Lynch said it is no different than Conestogo Lake, where people are responsible for their own access in winter.

Whale said to make sure that is in the agreement.

Council agreed there will likely be some disruption when the company brings in the turbine sections and the heavy cranes to build them. It insisted farmers know well in advance what days the company will be taking machinery on township roads.

Driscoll was unhappy about farmers being unable to use township roads for long periods. “If it still takes the whole day, it doesn’t help us,” he said.

Lynch said there could be breakdowns, and wondered how the township could deny use of the road if moving turbines takes longer than expected. “We have to be careful and show due diligence and not make it too onerous,” Lynch said. “What happens if they’re a day late? Does that mean they can’t come in the next day?”

On the other hand, he understood Driscoll’s point about interrupting busy farmers if they get a good day to work.

“It’s shouldn’t be a hardship on the landowner. I think that’s what councillor Driscoll is saying,” Lynch concluded.

When it came to shadow flicker, the township noted trees can be planted as a block of the tower’s shadow.

Curry said trees must be evergreen types. In the United States, some companies planted trees that lost leaves and those were useless blocking shadow flicker. When it came to completing the project, council insisted the company remove much of the turbine’s concrete base. Council wants two metres of cement taken out, and that hole filled with topsoil so the land can be returned to farm.

The township is also going to be requiring letters of credit worth thousands of dollars to guarantee that all the liabilities of NextEra are covered.

That includes the scrap metal. It wants NextEra to bring a report to council on the value of scrap metal every three years. In many cases, the farmers can claim the scrap metal once the turbines have finished their contracts.

When it came to insurance for turbines in case of accident, Knetsch wanted to increase it from $500,000 per turbine to $1-million.

Driscoll said there could be “millions in environmental degradation. How far is that going to go? Suppose it blows up and spreads over two acres?”

Acting Building Inspector David Kopp said he wants the company to send the township proof of insurance every year it operates.

Whale said there should also be “spill insurance.” He said the problem is the township does not know what is in the landowner agreement.”

Sinnamon said that the U.S. agreements are becoming far more detailed as people there gain experience with turbines.

Knetsch said the township could use an actuary to determine what the costs might be down the road. He was concerned with “an environmental disaster. Who’s going to pay for that?”

Driscoll said council must be wary because the company is unlikely to pay for costs down the road it has not agreed in advance. “I don’t believe you’ll get it from them later.”

Council agreed it will ask for property values to be guaranteed within 5km of the turbines. Sinnamon said NextEra has stated there is no drop off in property values, but in the U.S. the company was asked to guarantee property values.

She said the company has entered into agreements on that in the U.S., “So they are [guaranteeing property values].”

Council’s debate on the issues lasted nearly four hours.

Afterwards, it also accepted a document from area residents who have listed their own concerns about the turbines.

The township has a deadline of July 9 to comment to the province, and if it meets that deadline, it can also comment further.

WIND GENERATORS STILL CAUSING PROBLEMS

SOURCE Fond du Lac Reporter, www.fdlreporter.com

April 14, 2011

I live about 2,100 feet from a wind generator and had experienced interference on my television as soon as it went into operation.

Cedar Ridge Wind Farm made arrangements to remedy the interference. I was given two years of basic Satellite TV service at no cost.

Then, I received a notice that Alliant, owners of the wind farm, had decided to grant us compensation equal to the cost of getting only the Green Bay local channels. All I needed to do was to sign a “Release of Claim,” which states in part “the undersigned… hereby fully and forever releases and discharges Wisconsin Power and Light … from any and all claims, demands, actions and/or rights … arising from…”

The three paragraphs protect Alliant forever in every way from any future actions. There is no mention of what we might expect in the coming years.

Does this sound like a good faith effort to correct a wrong done to those of us who have no commercial interest in the wind farms?

Feeling put upon by Alliant following both written and oral communications with their representative, last February I proceeded to contact my local Assembly representative, Richard Spanbauer. I received a letter from him stating, “The Joint Rules Committee recently held a public hearing about the proposed rules changes.”

He offered no suggestions regarding the restraints Alliant is imposing upon us.

Sensing that I might get a better response from our native son, U.S. Rep. Tom Petri, I delivered copies of all correspondence to his office in Fond du Lac. No response. I sent an email to him reminding him of my concern. No response.

I suppose my next attempt at obtaining fair treatment from Alliant would be to file a class action. Why must it come to that?

Allan Loehndorf

Town of Empire

FOREST RESIDENTS CONTINUE FEUD OVER WIND TURBINES

SOURCE: Pierce County Herald, www.piercecountyherald.com

April 14, 2011

Jeff Holmquist

The Town of Forest has been a quiet, rural community for much of its long history. But these days there is an atmosphere of unrest throughout the township, thanks in part to a proposed wind farm proposal that has been debated over the past couple years.

Supporters of the wind energy idea and opponents have been feuding over an agreement with Emerging Energies LLC to place up to 39 wind turbines on private properties. The agreement would pay landowners and residents within a half mile of each turbine an annual payment. The township and county would also have received annual payments.

“Residents and landowners are either for or against this,” said Jaime Junker, newly elected town board chairman. “There really is no in between ground. The division line is fairly well divided between people who would get compensated by the project and those who would not.”

Emerging Energies has been studying wind speeds in the St. Croix County township for more than two years. The Forest area was found to be a favorable location for large wind turbines due to sustained winds in the area.

The company’s research shows that average wind speeds are about 16 to 17 mph, which is sufficient to turn a large turbine and thus generate electricity.

According to the original plans, the turbine system would have been hooked up to a new or existing electric substation and the power would have ended up on the grid.

While there was support for the idea among some residents and the Forest Town Board during the initial planning stages, a number of residents are less than happy with the project.

A citizens group, called the “Forest Voice,” formed in an attempt to stop the project from moving forward.

The group filed a federal lawsuit on Feb. 9, 2011, claiming that the Town Board had bypassed open meeting law requirements to push through an agreement with Emerging Energies. The group also claimed that several board members should not have participated in the vote for the wind farm plan as they or their relatives stood to gain financially from the project.

The disgruntled Town of Forest residents also petitioned for a recall election of the former town board members. All of the challengers eventually won election to the board. The support of the majority of the residents was reaffirmed last Tuesday when wind turbine opponent Jaime Junker was re-elected as town chairman, and newly elected Patrick Scepurek and Richard Steinberger were returned to their supervisor positions.

After gaining office, the new board members voted on March 17 to rescind the wind energy development agreements, driveway permits and other approvals that had been granted to a wind developer. The board also approved a temporary stay on the location and construction of the turbines in the township.

According Forest Voice’s Attorney Glenn Stoddard, most Town of Forest residents were “completely unaware” that the former town board members had approved an agreement in 2008 and another one on Aug. 12, 2010, to proceed with the proposed wind energy project.

A postcard announcing the project was the first many heard about the plan, he claimed.

No public hearing was ever held by the defendants during a three-year development period, he further claimed.

The opponents of the wind project allege that the proposed wind energy project would destroy their quality of life and have adverse health and safety impacts on them.

Despite the fact that the agreements have been rescinded and the town board has been replaced, Stoddard said the federal lawsuit is likely to continue. He said Emerging Energies has indicated that it may seek legal action in an effort to continue with the previously approved project.

Officials with Emerging Energies did not want to comment on the Forest project when contacted.

Junker said many expect the company to seek a legal opinion in the matter.

“Now it’s pretty much a wait and see situation,” he said. “It’s hard to predict what the short term future is going to be.”

Whatever the future holds, residents on both sides of the issue say they are frustrated by the continuing feud over wind turbines.

“What has happened in our township is heartbreaking and has left many residents feeling betrayed,” said Brenda Salseg, a property owner and managing member of the Forest Voice LLC.

“Those of us who researched industrial wind turbines found disturbing evidence of health, safety and property devaluation issues associated with so-called wind farms when turbines are sited too close to homes. It’s all about what is profitable rather than responsible, which is what I thought green energy is supposed to be.”

Salseg said it’s unfair to force wind turbine opponents to live near such a large project.

“The statement we continually hear that wind energy is green, clean and renewable is nothing more than deception,” she said.

Gary Heinbuch, who continues to be a supporter of the wind project, said the atmosphere in Forest is now “as foul as can be.”

“It’s neighbor against neighbor. It’s niece against uncle,” he said. “I never thought it would get this bad.”

Rick Heibel, 53, who signed an agreement to have three turbines sited on his 240 acres, agreed.

“It’s gotten way more heated than I ever thought it would,” he said. “I never thought it would get this divisive.”

Heibel, who has lived his entire life on the farm that was first settled by his grandfather 99 years ago, said he remains convinced that the wind project would be good for him and for the town.

The annual payments to landowners and local units of government would mean a lot, he said.

“It would greatly enhance my retirement,” Heibel said. “Right now, my retirement is Social Security. All my savings is in my land, and I don’t want to sell my land. It would make my standard of living more comfortable.”

Apart from the financial benefits, Heibel said wind generation just makes sense.

He said all energy generation methods have their drawbacks. The burning of coal contributes to global warming and the mining of coal harms the land, he noted. With the ongoing disaster in Japan, Heibel wonders if more nuclear plants are a good idea. Even natural gas has its problems, he added.

“With wind, I think it’s one of the least damaging forms of generation as far as the environment goes,” he said.

Next Story

BPA, WIND DEVELOPERS ARGUE OVER LOOMING PROBLEM OF TOO MUCH POWER FROM RENEWABLES

SOURCE: The Oregonian, www.oregonlive.com

April 14 2011

By Ted Sickinger,

Under pressure from wind developers and investor-owned utilities around the region, the Bonneville Power Administration this week backed away from a plan to start pulling the plug on wind turbines when it has too much water and wind energy at the same time.

BPA Administrator Steve Wright is still reviewing a controversial plan to occasionally “curtail” wind farms in the region, a move the federal power-marketing agency has said is necessary to maintain grid reliability, protect migrating salmon and avoid passing big costs onto its public utility customers.

Wind developers and utilities who buy their output say such shutdowns are discriminatory, will breach transmission agreements and compromise wind-farm economics because the projects rely on lucrative production tax credits and the sale of renewable energy credits that are generated only when turbine blades are spinning.

They also maintain the plan is simply unnecessary, a sop to public utility customers that can be solved by other means.

In one sense, the debate is simply the latest wrinkle in the perennial debate over who should bear the costs and benefits of operating the federal hydroelectric dams and transmission system. But it illustrates the growing complexity of integrating into the grid intermittent sources of renewable energy.

“This is going to be a major issue for the region,” said John Saven, chief executive of the Northwest Requirements Utilities, a trade group representing 50 public utilities that buy their power from the BPA. “We’re in the first inning.”

The capacity of wind farms connected to the BPA’s transmission network has ballooned from 250 megawatts in 2005 to more than 3,500 today and is expected to double again in the next two years. That outstrips demand growth in the region and is being driven in large part by California utilities, which are required to meet a third of their customers’ electricity needs with renewables by 2020.

Oregon and Washington have their own mandates, but more than half the wind power generated in the Northwest is sold under long-term contact to California. Congested transmission often means the only things exported are the associated renewable energy certificates that buyers use to comply with state mandates. The electricity often stays in the region, dumped into this region’s wholesale market, depressing prices for electricity from all sources.

Grid balance

The BPA, which operates 75 percent of the high-voltage transmission grid in the region, is responsible for balancing the minute-to-minute variations in supply and demand on the grid. The agency says growing wind capacity requires it to reserve more of its hydro generation as backup reserves, either to fill in for scheduled electricity when the wind isn’t blowing or back off hydro production when wind-farm output is higher than scheduled.

The BPA charges wind farms for that flexibility. But it says there’s only so much it can absorb before those reserves start to compromise regular operations.

Overgeneration typically occurs in the spring and early summer, when snow runoff and heavy rains combine to increase hydro generation and the same storm fronts rapidly ramp wind turbines. The BPA says the dam operators have only limited flexibility to dial back hydro generation to accommodate wind surges because dumping water through the dams’ spillways raises dissolved nitrogen levels in the river, which can harm migrating fish.

The result, BPA officials say, is that the agency is left with more power than regional customers need or that an already congested transmission system can ship out of the region.

“Eventually, you just run out of places to put it,” said Doug Johnson, a BPA spokesman.

Long-term fixes

The BPA has worked during the past two years — some say been pushed and dragged — to accommodate more wind by improving forecasting and transmission scheduling. Adding transmission or new storage is a potential solution, as is transferring the responsibility for balancing some of the variable supply and demand to other utilities. But those are expensive, long-term fixes.

Meanwhile, new wind farms keep mushrooming on the Columbia Plateau, exacerbating the problem. Last June, high wind and water nearly forced the BPA into “negative pricing,” when it is forced to pay utilities and independent power producers in the region to shut down their plants and take BPA power instead.

That’s expensive for wind farms, where the cost of curtailment is not just replacement power, but the loss of production tax credits and renewable energy tags they generate when operating. The BPA recently estimated the combined impact at $37 a megawatt hour.

That’s not a price the BPA or its public utility customers want to pay.

Wind producers are the Johnnys-come-lately to the Northwest’s energy scene. But they argue that any move to single them out and curtail their production is discriminatory and violates the equal-access provisions of the laws governing the federal transmission system.

They have the support of Oregon’s Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Sen. Jeff Merkley, two Democrats who have criticized the agency in the past for dragging its feet on wind issues.

The BPA has backed away from formally implementing the wind-curtailment plan, a move that renewables advocates applauded. But it hasn’t come up with an alternative.

Next Story

BIRDS & BATS VS BLADES

SOURCE: Prince George Free Press, www.bclocalnews.com

April 14 2011

By Allan Wishart -

What happens when a bird or a bat gets involved with a wind turbine?

It’s not usually a good result for the animal, UNBC instructor Ken Otter told a Cafe Scientifique audience at Cafe Voltaire on Wednesday evening.

Otter, an instructor in the ecosystem science and management program, said people have been researching the idea that wind farms and birds have a collision problem.

“Most research suggests the problem is not much worse than with other tall structures, such as high-rise buildings or radio towers,” he said in an interview with the Free Press, “but certain species seem at a higher risk.”

Most of the at-risk species are migratory birds, which may encounter the turbines on their regular route, and “soaring” birds.

“These are species which make use of a lot of updrafts when they’re flying, birds like hawks or eagles and cranes.”

With the wind-farm technology still relatively new in Canada, the opportunity is there to work with industry to make it as safe as possible for the animals, he said.

“What we’re finding s it doesn’t take much to make the farms safer for birds. A lot of it is looking at weather patterns.”

Generally, he said, the birds are flying at elevations well above the turbines. Sometimes, however, a weather pattern will push them lower, to where they may be at risk.

“We can plot out the tracks of their migrations and see how they use the ridges and rises. That allows us to predict where the patterns will occur, and we can get very specific information.”

How specific? Otter says in some cases it could be a question of just idling one turbine in a group for a few minutes to allow a flock of birds to get by.

“Most of the turbines can be idled in about two minutes. It might just be a question of having someone out there to keep an eye on the conditions and, if needed, call back to the main operation and ask them to shut one of the turbines down for a few minutes.”

Otter said a University of Calgary study found bats ran into a different problem when it came to wind turbines.

“They have very thin walls in their lungs, and a lot of capillaries to distribute the blood. the study found groups of sometimes hundreds of bats dead near a turbine, but with no contusions on their body to indicate they had been hit by one of the vanes.”

Autopsies showed the capillaries had burst inside the bats. This led researchers to take a look at how the turbines affected wind pressure in their area.

“What happens with any fan is there is a low-pressure area created right behind the vanes. The bats were coming into this area, and their capillaries were bursting because of the sudden drop in pressure.”

Again, the solution may be as simple as varying the speed the vanes turn at to ease the drop in pressure.

And, he says, the industry seems to be willing to look at making these changes.

“We’re working with them, showing them how these small changes can keep the birds and bats safe, and they’re listening.”

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: This story could have been written about any Wisconsin community targeted by wind developers: Sneak into a community and offer the big landowners big money to agree to host turbines and most importantly keep their mouths shut about the plan. These moves are straight from the wind developers playbook.

PUTTING THE WIND UP THEM

SOURCE: Goulburn Post, www.goulburnpost.com.au

March 30, 2011

by Alby Schultz

There was a public meeting in the small town of Boorowa in my federal electorate of Hume a short while ago.

A good percentage of the population packed the ex-services club to hear first-hand about the rumours swirling through the community that this area was to be the site of a massive wind generation project.

There were audible gasps from the audience as it was revealed that the project was indeed real, that it would span some 35 kilometres and involve the construction of more than 100 turbines.

There were more gasps when it became apparent that the wind energy developer had actually been in negotiations with some of their neighbours for many months.

The meeting heard that the farmers who had been quietly persuaded to host the turbines would reap tens of thousands of dollars in rental a year.

They heard about pilots who wouldn’t fight fires or dust crops if they had to fly in the vicinity of the giant swirling blades.

They heard about possible health effects for those on neighbouring land ranging from heart palpitations to migraine headaches.

But this is not an argument against wind power. It is also not a criticism of farmers who have struggled through a decade of drought and see the way clear to make some alternative income.

There may indeed be areas where wind turbines can be built and where the impact is minimal. But there are many areas where they should not be constructed. As things stand though I truly fear our rural social capital – as fragile as our topsoils – is in places being chopped to pieces by turbine blades.

We need to start by calling a spade a spade. These turbines are not ‘farming’. That is Orwellian nonsense. This is industrial scale power production in green clothing. These are major commercial developments and should be considered in the same way as any major development.

A decade ago wind turbines were almost human in scale. But the turbines which some of the Boorowa farmers will have built near their homes (the closest will be just over a 1000 metres away) are truly gargantuan. If one of these turbines was standing on Sydney Harbour, its blades would be well clear of the top of the Harbour Bridge.

I warrant that should a neighbour decide to build a two storey extension overlooking the backyard of one of these Sydney bureaucrats there would be an immediate cry of “you can’t destroy my amenity and land value like that!”

And yet when a farming community raises concerns about mega turbines they are labelled ‘nimbys’ (not in my backyard).

Local decision making must be put back into prime place. At present it is hopelessly biased towards the developer. The state government boasts that large wind developments are considered ‘critical infrastructure’ and given the red carpet treatment with a guaranteed four month approval processes.

Communities are provided just 30 days to digest and provide comment before the Minister gives the project a tick. Better still the states should all revisit the National Wind Code which the Howard Government proposed in 2006 and which they rejected.

The code would have seen legislation eventually produced right around the country better protecting local community rights.

Wherever large wind generation projects arrive the plot is predictable. A wind company identifies an area with good wind resources and reasonably close to the national grid. They begin quiet negotiations with landowners.

In my view, these power companies preying on landholders who in most case have had no cash-flow as a result of nine years of heartbreaking drought. Well down the track others in the community find out.

Those who have done the deals face bitterness and anger. Those who missed out feel betrayed and angry. Sydney based bureaucrats need to understand the impact this has in small rural communities.

There is precious little interaction when you live on a property an hour or more from your rural centre – perhaps just at special events or football or cricket matches. Wind turbine money in my electorate has poisoned those relationships.

Families stop talking to each other. Animosity and bitterness run deep. Whole rural farming communities are fractured and it lasts for years. The NSW Industry Department’s website says that whilst planned or operating wind power installations in NSW will deliver 960 megawatts at present there is potential to grow that to 3000 megawatts (a 300 per cent increase)!

The implication of that for rural communities in Hume, and elsewhere, are truly frightening unless we give local communities far more say over whether or not they want wind turbines of this scale in their area.



SECOND FEATURE

PRATTSBURGH RESIDNETS UPDATED ON WIND FARM LAWSUIT

SOURCE: Bath Courier, www.steubencourier.com

December 5 2010

By Mary Perham,

Prattsburgh — An informational meeting Tuesday night on the status of a lawsuit between a wind energy company and the town of Prattsburgh drew sharp lines between a divided town and a divided town board.

Ed Hourihan, the attorney defending the town in the lawsuit filed by wind farm developer Ecogen, told a crowd of 100 residents state Supreme Court Justice Ark has given the two groups time to reach an out-of-court agreement.

He said John Calloway, a representative from Ecogen’s largest shareholder, Pattern Energy, has agreed to talk to representatives from Prattsburgh and the neighboring town of Italy. Italy also is being sued by Ecogen on a related wind farm matter.

Ecogen maintains an agreement reached 3-2 by the outgoing pro-wind Prattsburgh town board in December is binding, despite the fact the new town board rescinded the agreement 4-1 the following January.

The majority of the new board believes the December agreement violates a number of laws, including the right to home rule.

Hourihan said the new board’s action prevented Ecogen from going ahead with its plans to build a 16-turbine wind farm in the town.

He said other court decisions support the new board’s action.

“It’s safe to say had the board not rescinded the settlement you could have turbines in your backyards right now,” Hourihan said.

Preventing the construction didn’t please some residents, who said they had wanted the project to go forward this year.

“You came in and stopped something (a lot of us) wanted,” one woman said.

But the cost of the lawsuit – pegged this year at $49,393 – was the chief concern of the meeting, with some angrily charging other legal costs had been hidden.

Hourihan also privately represented councilmen Chuck Shick and Steve Kula in the fall of 2009, and some residents charged those bills were hidden in the town costs.

However, Hourihan said his bill itemized every action taken on behalf of the town after Jan. 1. Any personal – or town — expenses in 2009 had not been charged to the town, he said.

Hourihan said current town Supervisor Al Wordingham told him the new board was not authorized to pay $35,000 for legal services last year.

“Now, would I like the money? Sure,” Hourihan said. “But I’m not getting it.”

When councilwoman Stacey Bottoni pointed out the town had apparently paid Kula’s and Shick’s final account, they said they would check out the $200 fee, and repay it if a mistake had occurred.

Bottoni, who supports Ecogen, also complained she had been “kept in the dark” about the bills. Hourihan said the information has always been available to here.

But Bottoni said she relied on frequent calls to Ecogen representatives for her information.

“Well, and that concerns me, Stacey,” Hourihan said, adding her contacts with Ecogen seemed to violation of client-attorney confidentiality.”

Other concerns were raised about the proposed talks with Calloway. Prattsburgh officials have suggested the developer use its original 100-site map to find other locations and reduce noise levels.

One resident asked if property owners in those other locations had been contacted to see if they wanted the 400-foot tall turbines on their land.

Kula questioned whether the town government could approach owners, but said it might be possible to form a citizens’ committee.

Bottoni angrily countered Ecogen already has spent millions on the project and doesn’t want to spend more money for new studies.

However, Shick pointed out the basic environmental studies for all the sites have been completed.

Some residents were worried because action on another ruling by Arkhas been put on hold while the parties try to work out a compromise.

Arksupported the town’s request for sworn statements from the previous town board and other officials on the events that led to the December agreement. The deadline for the statements was Nov. 24.

Hourihan said he notified Arkthe sworn statements would be delayed because of the proposed talks.

Hourihan said it would cost the town $25,000 to get the statements – and might be unnecessary if a compromise was reached.

Bottoni told the group the town was trying to prove the town illegally sided with the developer. She said there had been no illegal collusion.

“We wanted it,” she said. “We’ve wanted it for three years.”

SECOND FEATURE

WIND MILL NOISE LIMIT STILL UP IN THE AIR

 SOURCE: Journal and Courier, www.jconline.com

December 4 2010

By Dorothy Schneider,

As wind energy farms prepare to sprout in Tippecanoe County, some residents are fighting a proposal that would allow for more noise — and they fear nuisance — from the developments.

“This is not just a ‘I can’t stand that mosquito’ kind of noise,” said county resident Julie Peretin. “This is about quality of life.”

Peretin and other concerned neighbors are fighting a move being considered by the Tippecanoe County commissioners that would allow turbine noise to be as loud as 50 decibels any time of day, up from the current 45-decibel limit.

That’s the allowable noise level — about the sound of quiet dishwasher — as measured 25 feet from the dwelling of a non-participating landowner.

A non-participating landowner is one who has not permitted construction of a wind turbine on his or her property and who has not contractually granted rights to a wind farm developer, under the ordinance.

The board was due to vote on the proposal Monday, but the decision is being pushed back to the Dec. 20 meeting while further research is done on the issue. Commissioner Tom Murtaugh said the county is getting additional input from an acoustic consultant out of Chicago.

That extra consideration is one of the steps residents like Peretin have been pushing for.

The commissioners approved an ordinance in August that set the wind turbine noise limit at 45 decibels. Peretin said she and others had wanted the limit set at 35 decibels.

Lobbied for change

After the 45-decibel limit was set in August, representatives of wind energy companies sought the change to 50 decibels. Commissioners said even at 50 decibels the county’s wind ordinance would remain one of the strictest in the state.

Murtaugh hopes the consultant review will help decide if the county’s sound limit is still in an OK range “so we can put this issue to bed.” The commissioner said ordinances often need to be changed after the fact, but he doesn’t expect the county would have to make many substantive changes beyond the ones being considered.

Official plans for Tippecanoe County’s first wind farm were announced in early September.

Carmel-based Performance Services plans to build a 25-turbine wind farm on about 2,500 acres in the northwest part of the county.

In the southwestern part of Tippecanoe County, Invenergy Wind LLC of Chicago is planning a wind farm with 133 turbines.

Greg Leuchtmann, development manager for Invenergy’s project, spoke in support of the proposed noise limit changes at last month’s meeting.

Comparable noise

According to Purdue’s audiology department, 50 decibels of sound equates to the noise of soft talking, a washing machine, a quiet air conditioner or an electric toothbrush.

But the sound levels are not the only issue in play, according to Carmen Krogh.

Krogh, a board member with The Society for Wind Vigilance in Canada, is helping collect information from people worldwide who’ve reported adverse health impacts from living close to wind turbines.

Krogh is a retired pharmacist who used to work with a group that monitored symptoms and reports after new drugs were released on the market. Now she’s trying to carry that practice into the study of wind energy developments, which she and others believe merit further scrutiny.

“We’re finding the number one issue (being reported) is sleep disturbance,” Krogh said. “If it’s chronic, that can lead to sleep deprivation, and medically it can lead to a lot of other conditions,” such as anxiety, stress and cognitive issues.

Debra Preitkis-Jones, a spokeswoman with the American Wind Energy Association, said wind plants are generally quiet and that developers try to be good neighbors.

And she pointed to a report from the chief medical officer of health in Ontario — where Krogh and others are collecting information — that found no scientific evidence demonstrating a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.

But Krogh said there’s simply too many unknowns. In the absence of human health studies, she said, companies have been relying on computer models to determine proper setbacks and noise levels.

“We would never put out a new drug without figuring out the impact to the human body,” she said. “Our position (on wind turbines) is we really need to pause and conduct the human health studies that correlate.”

Tippecanoe County officials dismissed a request residents made earlier this year to put a moratorium on wind farm developments here.

But Peretin said she’s still optimistic that the county will work with acoustic professionals through this process to make sure the quality of life for residents is protected.

Want to comment?

The Tippecanoe County commissioners will discuss and vote on the wind energy ordinance when they meet at 10 a.m. on Dec. 20.

The board also will meet at 10 a.m. Monday, and it takes public comment at all commissioners meetings.

The meetings are held in the Tippecanoe Room of the County Office Building, 20 N. Third St. in Lafayette.

Symptoms

Some of the symptoms that have been linked to living in close proximity to wind turbines include:
# Sleep disturbance
# Headache
# Dizziness, vertigo
# Ear pressure or pain
# Memory and concentration deficits
# Irritability, anger
# Fatigue, loss of motivation

Source: Audiology Today

500 foot turbine, Shirley Wind Project, Glenmore, WI

CONTROVERSIAL SHIRLEY WIND FARM BEING TESTED

SOURCE: WTAQ.Com

GLENMORE, Wis. (WTAQ) - Wisconsin’s tallest wind energy turbines are being tested this week.

Eight windmills at the Shirley Wind facility south of Green Bay are expected to start making electricity soon. They could power 8,000 homes if they had to. But the state government is buying the electricity, to help reach a goal of having 20 percent of its power from renewable sources.

State official Dave Helbach says they’ll need just 4 percent more once the Shirley Wind project goes online.

The turbines stretch up to 500 feet in the air. And the developers, Emerging Energies of Hubertus, say they’ll harness more wind and create more electricity than conventional-sized turbines.

They’re the largest windmills ever made by Tower Tech of Manitowoc. And the group Renew Wisconsin says they would never have been allowed under the proposed new locating requirements proposed by the state Public Service Commission.

Michael Vickerman said the distance limits between the towers, farm houses, and fields would have put the Shirley Wind site off limits.

A state Senate committee recently reviewed the proposed limits, and told the PSC to come back with something different. That didn’t sit well with residents near the site in the town of Glenmore near Green Bay. They say they’ll hurt by the turbines’ noise and flickering shadows.

They put up a sign near one of the turbines which says, “Welcome to the Glenmore Wind Ghetto.”

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Clarification: According to this press release [CLICK HERE] The turbines for this project were made by a company in Germany called NORDEX and shipped to the US.

Better Plan is currently investigating allegations of conflict of interest between Glenmore Town officials and wind developer Emerging Energies. Public documents indicate that several of the hosts of the turbines may have had their mortgages paid off by Emerging Energies and that at least one Town official may have been given a free trip to Germany to visit the Nordex plant.

The Public Service Commission's proposed wind siting rules do not address the troublesome issue of conflict of interest. It is a common practice among wind developers to offer lucrative contracts to members of local government who have the land to host turbines, and who also have the power to push a project through.

Better Plan also has questions about the production capacity claimed for this project. Under favorable conditions, wind turbines are about 30% efficient. In the state of Wisconsin, that number is closer to 20-25%.

If one follows the numbers presented here by Emerging Energies, the turbines in Glenmore will have a 40% generating capacity.

Better Plan is unaware of any turbines in our state which have exceed 30% efficiency.

EXTRA CREDIT: One of the founders of "Emerging Energies is Bill Rackocy, who also sat on the Wind Siting Council and helped determine the siting guidelines for our state.