"Though sound levels of 45-50dB have been taken in stride by many, even most, places where early industrial wind development took place, it’s becoming apparent that for some types of communities, sound levels of even 40dB are triggering high levels of community push-back."

LOOKING FOR WIND INDUSTRY LEADERSHIP IN REDUCING NOISE IMPACTS

SOURCE Acoustic Ecology Institute, www.renewableenergyworld.com

February 22, 2011

By Jim Cummings

The wind industry is at an important fork in the road regarding community noise standards. Although developers have successfully used setbacks of 1200 feet and less in farm and ranch country for many years, they are now facing growing numbers of wind farm neighbors in other regions struggling with turbine noise. This has, in turn, spawned widespread resistance to traditional siting standards around the country.

Though sound levels of 45-50dB have been taken in stride by many, even most, places where early industrial wind development took place, it’s becoming apparent that for some types of communities, sound levels of even 40dB are triggering high levels of community push-back.

The industry’s first responses to this emerging problem have been counterproductive: discounting the prevalence of complaints, vilifying acousticians seeking to understand the shift, and most fundamentally, insisting to county commissions nationwide that “widely accepted” community noise standards that have worked elsewhere are applicable everywhere.

It’s high time that forward-looking industry insiders take the lead in forging a more flexible, collaborative relationship with communities, acknowledging that the noise tolerance we are used to is not universal: some rural regions are far less amenable to moderate, yet easily audible, turbine noise. Companies that accept this fact — rather than ignoring or fighting it — will build corporate reputations that could make them the go-to developers across much of rural America.

A few tidbits highlight just how counterproductive the current entrenched “everything is fine” stance has become. In many places, developers have been reduced to spending time and money arguing about whether sound levels monitored at 1-3db above regulatory limits (imperceptible to barely perceptible differences) are caused by turbine noise or ambient noise. We can’t accept or imagine that the problems are rooted in a regulatory limit that may be 10dB too high for local tolerance.

The exceedingly unusual situation in Mars Hill, Maine — where a low ridge shelters many homes within 1200-3000 feet, combined with an exemption allowing noise to 50dB — has become a public-relations disaster. It’s the Altamont of noise issues: a real outlier with its high proportion of nearby residents complaining of noise intrusions and health effects, yet fueling the perception and fear that this is how all wind farms are. Even in “wind-friendly” Europe, the EWEA says that 40% of projects end up in court, with another 30% slowed by local opposition.

If our current approach to siting is supposedly fine, why the widespread resistance?

Many still insist that noise issues are not widespread, a simple case of vocal malcontents. But the few solid surveys that have tracked community response to wind farm noise paint a more troubling picture.

Even the widely-cited Pederson-Waye-van den Berg work from Scandinavia, when vetted to tease out the rural responses from mixed rural-suburban studies, suggests rural annoyance rates of 25% as noise passes 40dB, and 40% at 45dB. (For an overview of the analysis, you can watch this webinar I did last summer, or take a look at this presentation).

Chris Bajdek, in a 2007 paper aimed at helping the industry alleviate noise fears, suggests that 44% of those within about 1900 feet of a typical wind farm would be “highly annoyed,” and that only as sound drops below 40db (at around a half mile), will annoyance drop substantially. He cites a survey from Wisconsin that found similar results, with about 50% of respondents living with in a half mile saying noise is a problem; over a third of those between a quarter and half mile had been awakened by turbines.

While community noise standards never aim to eliminate negative impacts, few would suggest that disrupting a third to half of the nearby population is an acceptable goal. It’s become clear, in both experience and the literature, that modern turbines trigger adverse reactions at lower sound levels than other community noise sources.

A growing number of acoustics professionals have been proactively seeking answers to why this may be, some looking at characteristics of turbine noise for clues, and others at psychoacoustics and rural “place identity.” These researchers appear to be coalescing around recommended wind farm noise standards of 30-35dB, which do in fact come closer to the familiar goal of keeping new noise intrusions to within 5-10dB of existing ambient conditions (rural night ambient is often around 25dB, even when winds aloft trigger turbines into action).

Unfortunately, this work has been relentlessly attacked by many in the industry, despite the fact that these more cautionary acousticians aren’t activist yahoos, but longtime industrial and military consultants with decades in the field of noise control. It’s time to step back from stubborn “lines in the sand” and really assess what they’re finding.

Though some noise issues had cropped up by 2000, and were increasingly a topic of concern by the middle of the decade, George Kamperman and Rick James brought these early observations together and put their reputations on the line with their 2008 “How-to Guide” for wind siting.

Paul Schomer, Director of noise standards for the Acoustical Society of America and Chair of several US and ISO noise committees, has been on the forefront of identifying more effective protocols for assessing pre-existing ambient noise in rural areas. Malcolm Swinbanks, an international figure in infrasound and low-frequency noise, has detailed the ways that turbine sound spectrums, which are heavily weighted with complex low frequency and infrasonic components, will often be perceptible well below the levels suggested by pure-tone perception curves.

Robert Thorne, in New Zealand, has focused his research on the effects of moderate noise, stressing that dB levels are not the only (or even the primary) driver of negative community responses.

Rob Rand has recently pointed out that the EPA’s 1974 “Normalized Ldn” method of community response prediction (which adds adjustments for very rural areas and new noise sources) suggest the likelihood of “Widespread Complaints” in rural areas experiencing turbine noise at 35dBA; at 45 dBA, the predicted community reaction is “Vigorous Community Action.”

And everyone’s favorite lightning rod (for both praise and vilification), Rick James, has done extensive field work at locations where noise complaints have arisen, finding complex and highly modulated infrasound components (often 30-40dB of modulation, several times per second, peaking to 90dB in the lowest frequencies), as well as audible “blade swish” at much higher than normal levels (up to 10-13db). All this work is ongoing, offers useful tools for analysis, and deserves more than the facile brush-offs it often receives.

While there clearly are communities where 50dB has been accepted, there are just as clearly others where 40dB has been problematic. Thorne and Pederson suggest that rural “amenity” or “place identity” may offer some clues: in some rural areas (perhaps where most land is under cultivation, as in Iowa), turbine noise is considered insignificant, while in others (perhaps where there are more small woods and open fields in hay, along with more non-farming residents), any clearly audible noise intrusions, especially at night, can be problematic.

The apparent fact is that “widely accepted” community noise standards of 45-50dB are not applicable everywhere; those companies that begin working with these differences will be rewarded by community acceptance and eased permitting. Despite protestations to the contrary, it’s clear that lower noise standards (or the accompanying larger setbacks) won’t kill the US or Canadian wind industries, especially when combined with provisions for waivers when neighbors agree to closer siting. Look at Oregon, with its effective 36dB limit, which is in the midst of a wind boom.

A few years back, the Alberta oil and gas industry went through a similar transformation, when coalbed methane compressors became the first 24/7 noise source in rural areas that were well-accustomed to the industry’s presence. At first, companies were caught by surprise at the complaints. Then, most aimed to do the least noise-control necessary to meet the province’s noise standard; slightly faulty noise models led to many costly retrofits. But eventually, some companies became proactive and committed to always using state-of-the-art noise control enclosures from the start.

The added costs, though significant, paid off when concerned locals could visit nearby installations that truly did keep noise at minimal, usually inaudible, levels at homes. These companies found themselves able to move new projects forward with much less local resistance.

This is where we are with wind farm noise. It’s time to get creative, and become constructive citizens by working with, rather than against, regional differences in how communities define the local quality of life.

Author Jim Cummings can be contacted at the Acoustic Ecology Institute. He is attending the AWEA Project Siting Workshop in Kansas City next week, where he looks forward to meeting other attendees, and sharing some friendly discussions and exasperated responses to these themes.



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

Looks like Fond du Lac County: Same turbine troubles, different continent: Turbines near a home in Waubra, Austraila

Community fears wind turbines too close to homes

"Council is quite concerned, as is the community, and the community have voiced this opinion to us, that they don't think it's appropriate to have wind farm developments close to residential homes, and given that there's 17 homes within two kilometres of the proposed wind turbines-"

[Source: ABC Melbourne: CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING]

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The wind project pictured in the video below is in Dodge County Wisconsin, not Fond du Lac County.

HOW BIG ARE THE TURBINES? How does the turbine scale model compare with the real thing?

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?

Bill Rakocy, founder of Emerging Energies, is named in the lawsuitFOREST RESIDENTS FILE SUIT AGAINST TOWN OFFICIALS

SOURCE: New Richmond News, www.newrichmond-news.com

February 17, 2011

By Kevin Murphy,

Three Town of Forest Board supervisors subject to a recall election are defendants in a federal lawsuit alleging their secret agreement of a wind farm developer violated some property owners’ constitutional rights.

According to the suit filed Feb. 9 in Madison:

A group of town residents calling themselves “Forest Voice” alleged board supervisors Roger Swanepoel, Douglas Karau and Carl Cress approved an agreement with Emerging Energies of Wisconsin in April 2008 without notifying affected property owners or holding a public hearing.

In the plan, not announced publically until Aug. 12, 2010, EE sought town approval to construct 39 wind towers of up to 500 feet tall. According to “Forest Voice,” EE’s turbines would create noise and “shadow flicker” up to one-half mile away when operating, diminishing the value of use of the affected properties.

Swanepoel, Karau and Cress also had a conflict of interest in representing the town because each of them or a family member could obtain annual financial payments from EE because they would host or were considering hosting a wind turbine on their property, the lawsuit alleges.

Calls to Swanepoel’s and Karau’s residences Monday seeking comment on the allegations weren’t returned before deadline. Cress said he had no comment Monday on the suit’s allegations.

The agreement approved in April 2008 with EE was reached through a “walking quorum” of phone calls, e-mails and personal conversations in apparent violation of state open meeting laws, the lawsuit claims. The agreement grants annual payments to property owners including Swanepoel, Karau and Cress, living within one-half mile of a wind turbine.

While the agreement creates a “financially favored” class of persons within the town who would benefit from annual payments, it also creates a “financially disfavored” class in terms of safety, quality of life, use of property and property values, the lawsuit claims. Those residents would all be adversely affected by EE’s proposed wind energy project, “Forest Voice” members claim.

Alleged “financially disfavored” residents include:

• Property owners not selected by EE to host a wind turbine but living within one-half mile of one owned by another individual:

• Persons living more than one-half mile from a proposed wind turbine location:

• Persons owning non-occupied residents within one-half mile of a turbine:

• Those living within one-half mile of a turbine who opposed the wind energy project.

“Forest Voice” members including Judi Beestman, Bill Dyer, Jeff Erickson, Scott Voeltz and Brenda and Robert Salseg, are town residents opposed to the EE project on safety and quality of life issues. The board failed to tell the Salsegs about the proposed agreement when approving the Salseg’s request for a trailer home on property within one-quarter mile of a proposed turbine.

The “Forest Voice” residents aren’t eligible for annual payments under the agreement because either the property they own isn’t within one-half mile of a proposed turbine or their property is within a half-mile of a turbine on land owned by someone else.

This “differential selective treatment” of residents in the 2008 agreement is not only “patently arbitrary and irrationally discriminatory, with no rational relationship to any legitimate governmental purpose,” according to the suit, it’s also designed to financially reward participating property owners including Swanepoel, Cress and Karau or their families.

By 2010, the town’s attorney became concerned about the conflict of interest Cress and Swanepoel created by signing the agreement, especially Swanepoel, according to the suit. To disguise and remedy Swanepoel’s conflict, the suit alleges, attorneys for the town and EE and EE co-founder, William Rakocy, devised an illegal “walking quorum” which violated open meeting laws but where the town board would adopt a new agreement without Swanepoel voting.

The 2010 agreement was also developed though secret negotiations between board members and EE and approved without holding a public hearing, “Forest Voice” alleges.

The agreement creates annual payments of $4,000 per megawatt, up to 50 megawatts, to be divided equally among the town, St. Croix County and each property owner of an occupied residence within one-half mile of turbine on their property.

Calls to the attorney for Forest Voice wasn’t returned before deadline.

Attempts to contact Rakocy on Monday weren’t succesful.

The suit claims the board’s approving the 2008 and 2010 agreements without holding a public hearing and completed for their financial reward violated the due process and equal protection rights of the members of “Forest Voice.”

The suit seeks unspecified damages from the town, the three board members and EE.

The suit also seeks a permanent injuction against constructing the EE wind energy project.