Better Plan, Wisconsin

WIND POWER: IS IT WORTH IT?

By Mark Morgan

Via West Virginia Highlands Voice, wvhighlands.org

January 10 2012

The heavily funded and admittedly effective US industrial wind lobby portrays its product as descending from old-world windmills. Close your eyes and you’ll surely imagine these magnificent machines gently turning in the breeze . each kilowatt arriving at your reading lamp courtesy of a rosy -cheeked Hummel child. Existing solely to save the planet by generating clean, affordable and environmentally friendly electricity, you can be sure that any addition to the plant owner’s bank account is purely accidental.

Hogwash! In reality, the US industrial wind business traces its roots to Ken Lay and Enron with profit as its core goal. As Gabriel Alonso, chief executive of Horizon Wind Energy LLC – one of America’s biggest wind developers, often reminds his employees . their goal isn’t to stage a renewable-energy revolution … “This is about making money!” (1)

I was not always this cynical. I wanted to believe that industrial wind would replace fossil fueled power plants and, until two years ago, defended its arrival here. Like many West Virginians, I wanted the destruction of our mountains by those who profit from the blue diamond stopped . NOW! I believed industrial wind offered the best opportunity to accomplish that goal and, even recognizing industrial wind also consumes our forest lands, it seemed an excellent alternative to the coal industry’s horribly destructive mountaintop removal mining process.

Sadly, once the layers of “woulds, coulds and shoulds” were peeled back, I found industrial wind failed to keep its environmental promises. Save the canned boilerplate responses to criticisms, the wind industry offered nothing conclusive to demonstrate it would significantly reduce emissions or close fossil fueled plants. There is no conclusive evidence that one coal plant has been closed as a direct result of the installation of tens of thousands of wind turbines. Not one! I’ve asked advocates to name one facility. Answer . zippo!

I fully expect advocates to point to many studies which validate their “woulds and shoulds.” But the studies they point to carry their own fair share of “woulds and shoulds” as well. We’re even asked to disregard the increased emissions generated by fossil fueled plants as they inefficiently try to compensate for wind’s constant variability and accept that, on their word alone, when the wind is blowing, a coal plant, somewhere, is not running. That’s equivalent to some self-appointed Giraffe Control Officer bragging that not one has been spotted in Charleston during his watch.

Consider this measure instead. US industrial wind capacity at the end of 2010 exceeded 40,000 MW (2). The US has some 490 coal power plants with an average size of 667 MW (3). A direct one to one trade would have closed some 60 coal plants. Again . name one!

Bringing this closer to home . Edison Mission Energy is heavily invested in Appalachian coal fired power plants even as it grows its Appalachian wind plants. Can we expect Edison to replace its fossil plants as it opens wind plants with equivalent MW capacity? Will any of the major players holding significant interest in both fossil fueled plants and wind plants make this commitment? I suggest they will not, as long as there is profit to be made from each.

The sad truth is that industrial wind does not replace fossil fueled electricity generators. It does not reduce emissions. It does not provide affordable, on demand electricity. The relatively miniscule amount of electricity generated typically arrives when it’s not needed and cannot effectively be stored. Industrial wind, true to Ken Lay’s intent, is a profit center founded on favorable legislation, mandated renewable energy goals and funded by taxpayer subsidies.

I did not come to the “dark side” willingly. At the suggestion of a friend, I attended a presentation on industrial wind at which the speaker systematically destroyed any notion that industrial wind has earned a seat at the US energy table. Expecting yet another NIMBY rant, the presenter instead based his case that industrial wind is a failed technology on science alone. There was little mention of view-shed, bat/bird kills, noise or health issues, all of which I’ve since learned are serious issues in their own right. The presenter focused primarily on the poor performance and high cost of industrial wind and the fact that they could never replace current generators, my main reason for initially supporting industrial wind.

Knowing that the two key representatives of our proposed wind plant were introduced as being in the audience, I could hardly wait for the question and answer session. This was going to be a knock down for the ages! Just wait until they set this clown straight!

Then, the presenter wrapped up and said the magic words I’d been waiting for . Any Questions? My gladiators stood up and walked out! Not a word! No defense! How could they let this brutal attack stand?

That was my turning point. Suspicion drove me to read any article I could find about industrial wind and the more I learned the more I disliked these monstrous contraptions which were scheduled to invade my Appalachian Mountains by the tens of thousands.

Before this event, I was willing, like many of my friends, to sacrifice a mountain view, some bats and birds and even the hard earned tax dollars these wind folks would pick from my pocket if it meant the greater good would be served. What I learned, however, lead me to the conclusion that there is no trade.

• Coal plants will continue to exist at pre-wind levels and the mines will remain open in order to supply them.
• Emissions will not be reduced as a result of industrial wind. When asked if wind power was reducing carbon emissions, Deb Malin, a Bonneville Power Authority Representative, answered, “No. They are, in fact, creating emissions.” (4)
• Not only will the surface destruction brought about by mountain top removal mining not be reduced as a result of wind plants, industrial wind will bring destruction well above the ground in areas not previously impacted by mountain top removal. (5)
• The cumulative impact of long stretches of deadly 450 foot tall whirlybirds along our fragile mountain ridges will set a deadly gauntlet for many migratory species with no real benefit to show for the sacrifice.
• The arguably unnecessary remote wind installations require long runs of forest fragmenting high power lines required to bring the occasional electricity generated to a point of use.
• My picked pocket only serves to benefit the wind developers.

I cannot abide the suggestion that we must sacrifice our environment in order to save it. This is an absurd argument enabling this energy imposter’s invasion of delicate habitat with little return. Sacrifice is, after all, a forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim. Environmentalists must consider the possibility that industrial wind, by its failure to perform to stated goals, does not then qualify for this sacred consideration.

My comments here are my own. I am a member of the Board of Directors for the Allegheny Highlands Alliance (6), but do not speak for the organization in this commentary. I serve as editor of the Allegheny Treasures blog (7), an amateur site intended not to answer questions, but instead to stimulate discussion of industrial wind among readers, as I hope to do in this piece.

I arrived at my opinions after all consideration to the argument presented by the AWEA and other industrial wind support groups. I’ll be the first to admit I could be wrong, as I was when I supported industrial wind just two years ago. If a persuasive argument can be made to sway me back, I assure you I’ll happily move. But I should warn you, the argument must begin with a list of coal plant closings and not easily manipulated speculative “data.” Empty promises will not justify consuming even one more square inch of Appalachian forest.

Oh, before I’m criticized on the property rights issue . I firmly believe that you should be allowed to do anything you wish with your property as long as it brings no harm to others. But whatever you choose, don’t ask me to underwrite your adventure with my tax money in the form of subsidies, grants, or any other considerations from which you profit.

I should note that I am not insulted at the NIMBY (Not in my back yard) moniker the wind advocates apply to me. I would take it one step further and suggest they call me a NOPE (Not on planet Earth)! I believe we are all responsible for our environment and must challenge every intrusion. We cannot accept, without question, the possibility that what has been portrayed a solution may, in fact, create additional ills, no matter how much we want to believe.

We should do all possible to move this country away from fossil fuels. Choosing an alternative with no proven track record in accomplishing this effort, especially one with industrial wind’s potential for serious environmental destruction, is simply not an acceptable choice.

Footnotes:

(1)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629104576190812458488694.html

(2) http://www.nrel.gov/continuum/wind_power_innovation.cfm

(3) http://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/igcc/factsheet.pdf

(4) http://www.masterresource.org/2010/07/northwestwindpower-problems/

(5) http://wvhighlands.org/wv_voice/?p=3841

(6) http://alleghenytreasures.com/allegheny-highlands-alliance/

(7) http://alleghenytreasures.com/

Editor’s note: Mr. Morgan lives in Keyser, WV. In his cover letter offering this commentary he says, “It is my hope the piece will stimulate further discussion on the very important and timely topic of industrial wind in the Appalachians.”

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Who are the 'anti-wind cranks'?

The organization mentioned in the following article, Civitas: The Institute for the Study of Civil Society was founded by David G. Green and Robert Whelan early in 2000 as an independent think tank. It is a British registered charity (No. 1085494^[1]), financed by private donations. It receives no government funding and has no affiliations with any political party. The think tank describes itself as "classical liberal" and "non-partisan". [From Wikipedia]

WIND POWER IS EXPENSIVE AND INEFFECTIVE AT CUTTING CO2 SAYS CIVITAS

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent,

Via The Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk

January 9, 2012 

Wind power could actually produce more CO2 than gas and increase domestic fuel bills because of the need for “back up” power stations, a think tank has warned.

A study in the Netherlands found that turning back-up gas power stations on and off to cover spells when there is little wind actually produces more carbon than a steady supply of energy from an efficient modern gas station.

The research is cited in a new report by the Civitas think tank which warns that Britain is in danger of producing more carbon dioxide (CO2) than necessary if the grid relies too much on wind.

Wind turbines only produce energy around 30 per cent of the time. When the wind is not blowing – or even blowing too fast as in the recent storms – other sources of electricity have to be used, mostly gas and coal.

However it takes a surge of electricity to power up the fossil fuel stations every time they are needed, meaning more carbon emissions are released.

“You keep having to switch these gas fired power stations on and off, whereas if you just have highly efficient modern gas turbines and let it run all the time, it will use less gas,” said Ruth Lea, an economic adviser to Arbuthnot Banking Group and the author of the Civitas report.

“If you use less gas in a highly efficient gas turbine you use less carbon dioxide than having wind backed up by gas.”

The Dutch report, published at the end of last year by retired physicist Dr C le Pair, also points to the carbon emissions produced in building wind farms, that last a relatively short period of time compared to conventional power stations.

It concludes: “The wind projects do not fulfill ‘sustainable’ objectives. They cost more fuel than they save and they cause no CO2 saving, in the contrary they increase our environmental ‘foot print’.”

The UK Government want to build up to 32,000 wind turbines over the next 20 years, of which at least 6,000 could be onshore.

The report also found that wind is “horrendously expensive”, especially offshore wind, because of the cost of taking the turbines out to sea and installing the structures.

The fact that the power source always has to be backed up by fossil fuel stations also increases the cost.

Civitas cite official Government figures that warn green policies will add up to £400 to electricity bills over the next two decades.

The report concludes: “The most cost-effective technologies are nuclear and gas-fired. Onshore, and especially offshore, wind technologies are inordinately expensive.”

But Dr Gordon Edge, Director of policy at the lobby group RenewableUK, said much of the information was gathered from “anti-wind farm cranks”.

He explained that modern gas plants are not required to provide back-up for wind. Instead, wind is “integrated” into the existing system to act as a fuel saver, enabling the UK harness a free electricity source from the weather when it’s available. Some additional investment is required, but Dr Edge said “credible analysis” makes clear it will cost less for consumers than relying on fossil fuels, that are rising in price all the time.

“It is surprising that a think tank such as Civitas has published a report based on the work of anti-wind cranks, repeating the same discredited assertions. The UK’s energy policy over the next ten years will play a critical part in our economic success – offshore wind in particular has the potential to revitalise our manufacturing sector, with the promise of over 70,000 jobs,” he said. “This report, based on outdated and inaccurate information, does nothing to advance the debate.”

FROM ILLINOIS

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: According to this December 20th news article , wind company NextEra  (formerly Florida Power and Light) has quietly settled with DeKalb County residents who brought a lawsuit against them.

Details of the settlement are unknown, however, a website that chronicled the  Hulthen family's daily experience of living with turbine noise and shadow flicker in the NextEra wind project is suddenly gone from the web.

Wind companies often refuse to settle unless a gag-order is part of the deal. Was this one of the terms of the settlement? Is this why the website is gone?

Residents of a wind project in DeKalb Illinois talk about their experiences.

uploaded to YouTube by preservelenoxmtn on Dec 31, 2011

Dave and Stephanie Hulthen | "Life with Dekalb Turbines" | February 5, 2011 | Blissfield Middle School

The Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, a group opposing the location of wind turbines in Riga, Ogden and Fairfield townships, hosted a seminar at the Blissfield Middle School.

Dave and Stephanie Hulthen spoke on "Life with Dekalb Turbines". They are from DeKalb County, IL. They live in the middle of an industrial wind farm. There are thirteen industrial wind turbines located within one mile of their home, two within 1400 feet

Next features:

A letter from North Dakota:

Subject: Life with turbines
From: Paul L Meisel Photography
Date: Sat, May 07, 2011 5:55 pm
To: windtruth@goodhuewindtruth.com

Hello,

I happened to hear you on KTLK a couple of weeks ago. I live south of
Minot, ND. A year and a half ago a wind farm of approximately 80
turbines was installed south of Minot. There are 42 in my township, the
nearest one is a little over one mile from me.

I have a 50% hearing loss, yet even on relatively calm days I can hear
the sound of the turbines. And on windy days I can feel them. It is as
if a diesel truck was idling nearby. I can hear that sound while in my
house, but not when I go outside. Therefore I conclude that it is caused
by low frequency sound or perhaps earth vibrations which cause my house
to vibrate. I now experience occasional vertigo and nausea often while
the low sound is occurring.

Driving near the turbines in winter can be dangerous. Ice dislodges from
the turbine blades, and if the wind is in the right speed and direction
the ice pieces land on the road. I have had several hit my car at night.

It was quite disconcerting.

Opposing wind development is not a very popular activity in this area.
When a neighbor and I tried to speak in opposition to the turbines at
our annual township meeting, we were quickly told that our opinions did
n

ot matter.

Prior to the turbines this was on a prime Bald Eagle migration path. I
have only seen one Baldy since the turbines went up. Also, this area was
an overnight stopping point for Sandhill Cranes. Accompanying the
Sandhills I would occasionally see Whooping Cranes. Now the cranes avoid
the region. Speaking out publicly is strongly discouraged and I am not
aware of any local action groups.

There is nothing which can be done up here, it is all too late. However
I am devoted to helping others avoid what has happened here. If I can
help in any way, please let me know. Also, I am attaching a photo of a
local turbine which experienced a blade failure several days ago. The
wind was less than 50 knots when the incident occurred (I maintain my
own weather station). Feel free to use and disseminate the image.

Regards,
Paul L Meisel

From Lee County, Illinois

A LOT OF NOISE ABOUT NOISE

BY DAVID GIULIANI,

VIA www.saukvalley.com

December 30,  2011

John Martin of Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Power, which is planning a three-county wind farm, suggested that the county could collect from landowners with unreasonable complaints by placing liens on their properties.

DIXON – The Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals had planned to discuss at its meeting Thursday the controversial issue of how far wind turbines should be from homes.

Instead, the panel discussed another issue that had gone unresolved in a previous meeting — noise regulations for wind farms.

After 2 hours of debate, the five-member board decided to delay a vote on proposed noise rules.

Member Mike Pratt presented a proposal for noise that would require wind energy companies to conduct sound studies before and after turbines are built – all paid by the firms.

No such assessments are required under the current ordinance.

The proposal also includes a complaint procedure. After a complaint is made, an investigation would be conducted. If the property owner’s complaint is determined to be reasonable, the wind energy company would pay for the study’s costs.

But if the complaint is deemed unreasonable, the property owner must pay. Members of the audience said such studies cost thousands of dollars.

Under the proposal, both the company and the property owner would put money in an escrow account before the investigation.

The complaint procedure would apply to property owners within a mile of a turbine.

Members of the audience suggested wind energy companies pay for the costs of investigations. They said that if property owners had to front some money, that would deter them from complaining.

Pratt said the provision was included to avoid frivolous complaints. But others, including member Tom Fassler, questioned whether there would be such a problem.

Fassler, who lives near turbines, said noise is an “elusive thing” and that turbines’ noise can be bothersome one day but not the next.

He acknowledged that much of the discussion of decibel levels was “over my head.”

John Martin of Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Power, which is planning a three-county wind farm, suggested that the county could collect from landowners with unreasonable complaints by placing liens on their properties.

Some audience members groaned.

Fassler responded, “If you were out of compliance, what are you going to do for the years that you interfered with people’s lives?”

Martin then proposed companies could pay for the first investigation of a complaint, but property owners would have to put up money for subsequent ones.

“That would penalize landowners,” said Rick Porter, a Rockford attorney representing a Lee County farm.

Porter encouraged the county to include a specific limit for turbines’ noise – 5 decibels above background noise. That number has been suggested by experts, he said.

Pratt’s proposal called for following Illinois Pollution Control Board regulations. Others pointed out that those rules were created before wind farms.

The board’s chairman, Ron Conderman, repeatedly tried to wrap up the discussion on noise regulations and get a vote. In the end, members agreed to hold off.

The panel has been meeting for 6 months to review the county’s wind ordinance. The Lee County Board will have the final say.

From Massachusetts

REMARKS PRESENTED ON WIND TURBINES TO THE BOARD OF HEALTH

Louise Barteau,

VIA www.southcoasttoday.com

December 29, 2011

Editor’s note: Louise Barteau made the following remarks to the Board of Health on Dec. 19.

By Louise Barteau

As I watched online videos or read many first-person accounts in the studies, I was struck by how often the folks telling their stories were originally in favor of the wind turbines, but later were accused in their own communities of being liars — despite having suffered unexplained and debilitating physiological symptoms, and often the complete disruption of their economic life as their houses lost 30, 50 or 100 per cent of their value.

I try to imagine what that might feel like, to feel physically ill, to not be able to live in your house, and then be accused of being a liar.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Louise Barteau and I am an artist, a writer, and an environmentalist. I used to teach art to Grades 3-6 at an elementary school. My late husband was a pediatrician. I care deeply about both sustainable energy as well as the health and well-being of children and adults in our community.

When I spoke at the School Committee meeting last week, I had just located the August issue of the Bulletin of Science Technology and Society and read the abstracts. I have since obtained the whole articles, read them, and submitted them to the committee. If you want to get a crash course in the Adverse Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Public Health, Wind Turbine Noise, Infrasound, and other scientific aspects of IWTs, I highly recommend these articles.

The reason the information in them should be highly valued is that they have been submitted, reviewed and accepted by an academic journal that reviews them for accuracy and good science. It further requires the authors to disclose any financial support or conflict of interest.

This is important because information funded by the wind industry has an innate tendency to suppress dangerous safety information because it will lower demand for their product. If wind turbines are perceived to be dangerous, it will be harder to sell them to towns like Fairhaven.

But although I respect the science behind the journal articles, I also value highly the first person accounts of ordinary citizens like myself. These reports should also be considered as data. As I watched online videos or read many first-person accounts in the studies, I was struck by how often the folks telling their stories were originally in favor of the wind turbines, but later were accused in their own communities of being liars — despite having suffered unexplained and debilitating physiological symptoms, and often the complete disruption of their economic life as their houses lost 30, 50 or 100 per cent of their value.

I try to imagine what that might feel like, to feel physically ill, to not be able to live in your house, and then be accused of being a liar. When many citizens living next to wind turbines first started reporting their symptoms, there wasn’t much independent science available to back them up and there wasn’t any context to understand their symptoms, so they were met with a lot of scepticism. A certain amount of scepticism is healthy, but to completely discount people’s experiences makes no sense to me either.

So when I received a very recently written study by two extremely respected scientists that verified people’s experiences by measuring sound scientifically while the authors themselves were actually experiencing symptoms, I knew it was very important. Every citizen in Fairhaven should read it.

What makes this study unusual is that both authors started experiencing physiologic symptoms within 20 minutes of entering the Falmouth home where they were measuring sounds for the study. They experienced headaches, nausea, dizziness, and had a difficult time performing their usual research the first day when symptoms were at their worst and wind speeds were at their highest.

These observations confirm the first-hand accounts of our Falmouth neighbors who experienced the same symptoms. It turns out that low frequency sounds are actually amplified by our houses, which end up acting a bit like a drum. People experience actual pressure in the ears, head and chest, which is further worsened by dizziness, confusion and anxiety as the body seeks to balance and orient itself while receiving pressure pulses, which distort the vestibular experience. One of the authors experienced vertigo for seven months following the study.

There has been a question raised as to whether the private funding of the study by Mr. McPherson, for whom the study has been named, in any way lessens the importance of the conclusions. What is extremely chilling and should give us all pause is that Mr. McPherson funded the study privately because he could not get the developers or the state to do it.

Furthermore, the authors of the McPherson study, Mr Ambrose and Mr. Rand, are both members of INCE, the Institute of Noise Control Engineering, a professional certifying association, and must agree to comply with the institute’s “Canon of Ethics,” which includes up front disclosure about funding and conflicts of interest, which they comply with. Their first conclusion is that we need more studies to study how brain waves and heart activity are affected by these pulsing low frequency sounds.

That may be true, but I don’t think Fairhaven residents should be the guinea pigs in those studies. If we build those turbines despite this growing and independent body of research, we may be doing just that.

Louise Barteau

West Island

Bill Rakocy, Emerging Energies. Photo by Gerry Meyer, provided by Better Plan

WIND FARM PLAN RETURNS

Via The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

By Thomas Content

A proposal to build a wind farm in western Wisconsin is back despite the opposition of local government officials, who rescinded permits for the project and adopted a moratorium on wind projects.

The proposal from Emerging Energies of Wisconsin was filed with the state Public Service Commission. It's the first proposal for a large wind farm filed with the state this year.

Hubertus-based Emerging Energies is seeking to build 41 turbines that would generate 102.5 megawatts of power in the Town of Forest in St. Croix County.

The state Public Service Commission has jurisdiction over large wind farms - any project with at least 100 megawatts - and will begin a review of the project.

A dispute over setbacks provided to wind energy projects has led to a stalemate for the wind industry on projects below 100 megawatts.

That stalemate resulted from protests over a statewide rule on wind siting developed last year by the PSC.

Wind opponents, including the Wisconsin Realtors Association, considered the proposal too restrictive on property rights. Last January, Gov. Scott Walker, who was backed by the Realtors in his election campaign against Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, proposed a property rights bill that would require turbines to be located farther from nearby homes.

This fall, the governor's office and PSC expressed interest in a compromise between wind developers and property rights advocates.

"The PSC is still trying to facilitate a compromise," agency spokeswoman Kirsten Ruesch said.

No resolution is in sight, though.

Emerging Energies is trying to abide by standards set by the PSC when it approved We Energies' Glacier Hills Wind Park northeast of Madison, developer Bill Rakocy said. That wind farm began operation last week.

The setback standard requires that turbines be at least 1,250 feet from nearby homes. Unlike Glacier Hills, the Emerging Energies project would not require any waivers to exempt certain turbines from the setback requirement.

Rakocy said his wind project has been in development since 2007.

"We believe that, given the economy we find ourselves in, Wisconsin needs this project to move forward from an economic standpoint and a jobs standpoint," he said.

The developer is in talks with utilities that would buy the power, Rakocy said.

But local opposition to the project led to the formation of a citizens group, The Forest Voice, and subsequent recall of the entire three-member Forest Town Board earlier this year.

At that time, Emerging Energies was proposing to build four fewer turbines for a project that was under 100 megawatts.

The new town board voted at its first meeting in March to rescind building permits for the wind project and to impose a moratorium on wind power development.

Concerns about the project included the potential for having nearly 500-foot towers in the area.

As a result of the moratorium, the only way for Emerging Energies to build the project was to make it bigger. That triggers state agency review rather than local review.

The PSC has 360 days to rule on the project.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The video below features residents of the same developer's first wind turbine project and what has happened to them since the turbines went on line.

At least two families have abandoned their homes in the eight turbine project because of turbine noise and pressure in the ears.

Emerging Energies has since sold the project.

Video courtesy of The Forest Voice-- visit their website by clicking HERE

"At least eight families living in the Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore just south of Green Bay, are reporting health problems and quality of life issues since the Shirley Wind project went online in December of 2010. Six families have come forward, five of them testify on the video, and at this time two of them have vacated their homes. STAND UP to protect people, livestock, pets, and wildlife against negligent and irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines."

-The Forest Voice

The maddening sound people being asked to live with: Albany, NY --Wind turbine noise video via deepestdeepstblue