Better Plan, Wisconsin

THUNDERSTORM DAMAGES WIND TURBINE IN LINCOLN COUNTY

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE AT SOURCE Minnesota Public Radio, minnesota.publicradio.org

July 6, 2011

by Mark Steil,

Worthington, Minn. — Friday’s severe thunderstorm damaged at least six wind turbines in Lincoln County.

Severe thunderstorm damaged at least six wind turbines in Lincoln County, July 1, 2011. (Photo courtesy of Lincoln County's Emergency Management Office)

On this turbine, winds tore off blades, and the hood atop the tower that protects the turbine and electronic equipment housed inside. (Photo courtesy of Lincoln County's Emergency Management Office)

The storm produced strong winds, hail and a small tornado in the southwest region of Minnesota

The storm damaged wind turbines near the town of Lake Benton. said Lincoln County Emergency Management Director Jeanna Sommers. She says one machine appears a total loss.

“One-third of the top of it is bent down,” Sommers said. “Blades are completely off of it.”

Sommers says the storm damaged other nearby turbines as well. Some are missing blades. On others, strong winds tore from the top of the tower the hood that protects the turbine and electronic equipment housed inside.

The same storm also damaged farms and power lines. It also produced a tornado which caused at least minor damage for two-thirds of the houses in the town of Tyler. The county board is asking for a federal disaster declaration to help them deal with the storm damage.

NOTES FROM THE MIDWEST

NOW IS THE TIME TO LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD ON WIND FARMS

By Joan Null, Whitley County Concerned Citizens,

The Rock River Times, rockrivertimes.com

July 7, 2011

I am from Whitley County, Ind. (just west of Fort Wayne), and our county has been targeted by a wind developer. We’re doing all we can to put a stop to the project.

After seeing Dave and Stephanie Hulthen’s blog, we wanted to see for ourselves just what it was like to live in the midst of industrial wind turbines. The following is my story about our visit to DeKalb County, and was shared with the residents of our county.

Please go to this link, http://lifewithdekalbturbines.blogspot.com/, and take a really good look at the picture of the house and the wind turbine. Then, scroll down to the entry for Monday, March 14. The visitors they are talking about are eight members of Whitley County Concerned Citizens. I was one of those visitors.

We walked around that yard and stood in front of that porch, and looked out the windows of that house from the inside. It’s a beautiful house, inside and out. And the natural setting is amazing. But, you just can’t begin to imagine being surrounded by 146 turbines — spinning motion every direction that you look when you’re outside, and reflected in every shiny surface inside.

Spinning motion outside the kitchen window where you stand to do dishes, outside the windows of your front door, through the windows of your sun porch, as a backdrop watching your kids play on the swing set, outside the dining room windows, reflected in the TV screen, reflected in the glass of the pictures on the walls, reflected in the glass doors of the kitchen cabinets.

And they are so HUGELY out of proportion to everything else. The two closest ones to their home are 1,400 feet away — and they look like you could just reach out and touch them — they’re enormous. Dave pointed out a line of turbines that were 6 miles away, and some that were 8 miles away. They looked like they were just at the end of the field. (Note: the wind ordinance that the Plan Commission proposed for Whitley County last October called for a 1,200-foot setback).

Dave and Stephanie Hulthen are a very nice young couple in their mid 30s, living in their dream home. They have four young children, and they live directly across the road from the farm where Dave grew up, and Dave’s parents still live. Dave makes beautiful custom cabinets and furniture in his shop at home.

Their focus is “people need to know the truth about what it’s really like to live with turbines, and the wind companies don’t tell the truth.” Dave has a degree in physics, so he really understands a lot about how the whole system works. They are all about proper setbacks. Ironically, when Dave wanted to build his cabinet shop (very nice metal building), their county code said the shop had to be “set back” from the road at least as far as the front of his house “in order to be aesthetically pleasing.” No joke!

Dave drove us around through the wind farm, telling us the stories of various families who live there. Then, he drove to the edge of the wind farm, so that there were no turbines in view in front of us. He called our attention to the fact that we were looking at “normal” surroundings — farms and houses. Then, he said, “now I’m going to turn the vehicle around,” and suddenly you’re assaulted with this view of huge, spinning sticks towering over farmland and houses. The feeling is gut-wrenching. Before I went, I honestly thought that looking at them wouldn’t be all that bad. I was more concerned about other issues. But, I have to admit that looking at them and being surrounded by them affected me more than I thought it would. I can’t imagine our beautiful countryside looking like an industrial wasteland; and not just for a short time … but for the next 30-40 years.

There was also a constant drone of noise — and the generators weren’t even operating — they weren’t producing electricity that day. Also, there was the “whoosh, whoosh” of the blades. The shadow flicker varies from house to house depending on the distance and directional relationship between the house, the turbines and the sun. For Dave and Stephanie, the shadow flicker is like a disco strobe light at sunrise, lasting 45 minutes, from May through September.

They said some days are so bad, so noisy, and some nights so sleepless, they look at each other and say, “put the FOR SALE sign in the yard.” And then they remember, “Oh, yeah — nobody will buy our house, we’re in the middle of 146 turbines.”

Their dream has been shattered by turbines.

If you’ve not made the trip to a wind farm, and talked to those who live among the turbines — please do. The key is talking to people, seeing from their perspective, hearing directly from them how daily life has been affected by the turbines. You won’t get the complete picture just by driving down the road and looking at them.

And please write to your county commissioners. Let them know of your concerns. County officials have told us they need to hear from people in all areas of the county, not just in Washington, Jefferson and Cleveland townships. Please share this information with anyone you know in Whitley County. This is a countywide ordinance that is being considered, and the next phase of the wind farm may just target your part of the county. The time to let your voice be heard is now.

Editor’s note: Joan Null was referred to The Rock River Times by the mayor of Lee, Rich Boris, after he and I met at several meetings addressing proposals for industrial wind complexes in Boone and Ogle counties. Boris has been very active opposing complexes in Lee and DeKalb counties. I thank him for his referral, and strongly suggest readers visit the Hulthens’ blog noted below. Very opposed to industrial wind because of the hell his life has become, Dave Hulthen testified at an Ogle County Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on a text amendment to Ogle County’s wind ordinance. His powerpoint presentation, complete with stunning pictures, shows the commonly-touted setbacks of 1,300 to 1,500 feet are completely ineffective. As Vermont has now legislated, setbacks of a mile-and-a-half are less offensive; but even at that distance, many of the drawbacks of industrial wind turbines in agricultural or natural areas still persist. Readers and environmentalists should be very aware of all the proposed industrial wind complexes in Stephenson, Winnebago, Ogle and Boone counties. It’s the beginning of a possibly huge network and costly power grid, complete with eminent domain issues, and just the substantial sections now proposed will ruin our rural quality of life and viewscape for decades to come. — Frank Schier

FROM THE UK

DEEPING WOMAN TELLS OF WIND FARM NIGHTMARE

By ET News staff, www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk 7 July 2011

A woman has told how she resorted to red wine and sleeping tablets to escape the “nightmare” noise nuisance from a nearby windfarm.

Jane Davis, who is suing the landlords, owners and operators of eight wind turbines near Grays Farm in Deeping St Nicholas, told the High Court in London yesterday that she tried a number of “coping mechanisms” to deal with the humming noise.

She and her husband Julian are seeking an injunction to stop the noise and £400,000 damages, or damages of up to £2.5 million to compensate them for being driven out of their family home by the noise.

Mrs Davis told the court that when the turbines first began to operate in 2006, she assumed that they would get used to the outlandish noise.

She said: “We found that didn’t happen. I think our first coping mechanism was probably red wine and putting a fan on to try and blot out the noise and allow us to sleep.

“We had sleeping tablets but we were very reluctant to take these because they can lead to a long-standing problem.

“It is my normal practice to sleep with the window open – it doesn’t matter how cold it is.

“So we tried to sleep with the window shut but that didn’t seem to make any difference.

“We could still feel and sometimes hear the pulsing beat through the windows.”

The couple even resorted to friends’ sofas to try to catch up with sleep that they had lost as a result of the noise, she said.

The couple finally left the family home at Grays Farm in December, 2006.

Mrs Davis said she found it hard to deal with lack of sleep at the best of times but the steady disruptions made by the turbines finally forced them out.

Asked what she and her husband wished to achieve through their case, she said: “We would like the noise to stop, the nuisance to stop, and we would like to go home and start our lives again after this five-year intermission.”

All the defendants deny that the turbines created any noise nuisance, suggesting that the couple have become “unduly sensitive” to the noise of the windfarm.

The hearing continues.

FROM PENNSYLVANIA

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: The wind turbine related bird and bat kill rates in Pennsylvania have made news several times in the past few years with numbers considered to be shockingly high.

Sadly these numbers are far less than the turbine related kill rates in the state of Wisconsin

In a recent Green Bay Press Gazette Article , turbine related bat kills in Wisconsin were reported to be as high as 50 per turbine per year, a number that is not not only ten times what the wind companies say is the national average, but it is considered to be unsustainable. To the best of our knowledge the bat kill rates from wind turbines in our state are the hightest in North America. And to the best of our knowledge no one is doing anything about it.

BLOWING' IN THE WIND

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Outdoor Trails, Staff Writer, lancasteronline.com

May 16, 2011

By AD CRABLE,

Since 2007, 73 percent of the owners of wind projects in the state have signed the Wind Energy Voluntary Cooperation Agreement.

Among the notable exceptions is Florida Power & Light and its subsidiaries, which have the most turbines in the state. High bat mortality has been found at some of them.

Are proliferating wind turbines killing a large number of birds in Lancaster County and Pennsylvania? No, say the Game Commission and power companies. You’ll have to take their word for it.

Every other day since March 1, a searcher has walked a grid pattern under the two new wind turbines on Turkey Hill, looking for the carcasses of birds that may have been killed by the turning blades.

So, have there been any bats, tundra swans, birds of prey or endangered songbirds unfortunately whacked by the 135-foot-long blades?

Project owner PPL Renewable Energy and the Pennsylvania Game Commission know, but they’re not telling.

Certainly there is no reason to think many birds are being sliced and diced at the Manor Township site.

But shouldn’t the public be allowed to know if there are? After all, the turbines were partially built with federal stimulus funds, your tax dollars.

How about bird scientists with the Pennsylvania Biological Survey, the Game Commission’s independent scientific advisers who monitor the state’s bird populations? Should they be privy to the mortality rate at Pennsylvania’s proliferating wind turbines?

The group certainly thinks so, but the body count is not shared with them, either.

Instead, the Game Commission, apparently to gain turbine owners’ participation, agree to share information with each other but not anyone else.

The agreement states, “It is understood between the parties that information resulting from the cooperator’s compliance with this agreement shall be treated with the highest affordable level of confidentiality available unless otherwise agreed to in writing by both parties.”

When I requested the results of dead bird searches at the Turkey Hill project, PPL said it “was following the Game Commission’s protocol in keeping it in confidence.”

This is the questionable state of affairs several years into wind energy taking hold in Pennsylvania.

The Game Commission is responsible for the state’s birds and mammals.

As wind technology advanced like a sudden gust of wind several years ago, it became clear there were no comprehensive regulations in place to protect wildlife.

Working with energy companies — and at least initially independent advisers such as the PBS — the Game Commission fashioned a voluntary agreement designed to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts on wild animals.

Mainly, we’re talking about birds, and especially bats, which seem to be most prone to running into turbine blades.

Since 2007, 73 percent of the owners of wind projects in the state have signed the Wind Energy Voluntary Cooperation Agreement.

Among the notable exceptions is Florida Power & Light and its subsidiaries, which have the most turbines in the state. High bat mortality has been found at some of them.

In addition to working with the Game Commission to reduce effects on birds, wind companies agree to do pre-construction surveys of birds and animals at proposed sites, and to count any mortality from turbines for two years after startup.

That advance scouting of bird habits and pooling of information has been effective, according to the Game Commission.

Turbines have been moved, bat-roosting locations have been pinpointed and protected, and even a few turbine sites have been abandoned, the agency says.

Indeed, at Turkey Hill, the number of turbines was reduced from four to two, the two turbines that were built were set back farther from the Susquehanna, vegetation is kept close-cropped so as not to attract predators and electrical lines were buried to discourage perching birds near the turbines — all because of pre-construction wildlife surveys, points out Steven Gabrielle of PPL.

“We’re not required to do this. We’re spending a lot of time and money to do this because we respect preserving the environment,” Gabrielle says.

Then why not prove it by making available the results of all those commendable approaches, I say.

Another who is very unhappy with the no-tell approach is George Gannon, a professor of biology and ecology at Penn State-Altoona who worked with the Game Commission in setting up the wind energy cooperative agreement on behalf of the PBS.

He voices this complaint, “There is no independent scientific peer review of anything submitted by the wind companies, as these data are not permitted to be seen by anyone else.

“This is contrary to the very basic premise of how good science works.”

He mentions a 2009 case in West Virginia where a federal court found that a wind company’s hired bat consultants reached a conclusion favorable to the client, but turned out to be inaccurate when the actual data was reviewed.

“It was Ronald Reagan who said ‘trust but verify,’ ” continues Gannon. “Unfortunately, with the system in place, the PGC cannot verify the work submitted by wind developers and the people of Pennsylvania cannot verify either the developers or the PGC.”

In 2007, a PBS wind energy and bats subcommittee accused the Game Commission of “side-stepping” input and review from the PBS in developing the cooperative agreement with wind energy developers.

The group, which included two PGC biologists, unanimously urged the agency to abandon the protocol used in evaluating bats and bat mortality at wind turbine sites and to “develop a more realistic, more meaningful, and more scientifically sound protocol.”

The current agreement “puts the interests of the wind industry before the interests of the Commonwealth,” the PBS group said.

The Game Commission recently issued its second wind energy summary report that includes 150 wildlife surveys and research under the voluntary agreement from 2007 through June 30, 2010.

Among the tidbits (no names, of course):

The number of bat deaths comes out to 24.6 per turbine per year.

Among birds, the average death rate was 3.9 per turbine per year.

Three state-endangered birds were killed: two blackpoll warblers and one yellow-bellied flycatcher. All three were deemed to be migrants passing through and not from local breeding populations.

No large mortality events were recorded, defined as more than 50 carcasses found in a single day.

Surveys conducted as part of the agreement have located new locations of state- and federally-listed bats.

As part of the cooperative agreement, the Game Commission has said it will not pursue liability against cooperating wind turbine companies that kill birds, as long as they comply with the conditions of the agreement.

The agency is proud of its efforts.

“The Cooperative Agreement has allowed Pennsylvania to become one of the national leaders for determining and addressing wildlife impacts from wind energy development, as well as providing critical data needed to address future wind energy project proposals,” said William Capouillez, director of the agency’s Bureau of Wildlife Habitat Management.

With some transparency on behalf of the Game Commission and wind turbine operators, maybe the public would come to the same conclusion.

FROM NORTH DAKOTA

IBERDROLA SAYS FALLING SUZILON BLADES WERE A ONE-TIME ACCIDENT

READ THE WHOLE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com

May 18, 2011

By Natalie Obiko Pearson,

Iberdrola SA (IBE), the world’s biggest renewable energy producer, has found that falling blades from a Suzlon Energy Ltd. (SUEL) generator at a U.S. wind farm was a one-off accident unrelated to the turbine’s history of cracked blades.

“This type of failure is a singular event,” said an Iberdrola report, a copy of which was mailed by Suzlon to Bloomberg News, on a joint investigation by the two companies into the incident.

Iberdrola suspended operations at the 150-megawatt wind farm in Rugby, North Dakota after blades from a Suzlon S88 turbine fell from their mount, the company said on March 21. The same model suffered cracked blades starting in 2007, which had prompted a $100 million global retrofit program by India’s largest maker of windmills for power production.

The accident at Rugby was caused by the failure of a bolt connecting the rotor assembly to the nacelle, the report said. Stress may have been put on the bolt because of a misalignment of the connecting surfaces between the rotor hub and mainshaft flange, it said.

All 70 turbines and 3,360 bolts were inspected and seven bolts replaced as a precaution before Iberdrola and Suzlon agreed the site was safe to return to service, it said.

“Suzlon, who is permanently onsite, will perform additional checks in conjunction with regular maintenance activities,” it said.

Suzlon has more than 2,000 sets of S88 turbines operating worldwide and its global fleet are performing above industry standards, spending only 3 percent in downtime for maintenance, the company said in an e-mail.

Suzlon shares plummeted 83 percent between the time it announced the defect in January 2008 and completed retrofitting in October 2009 as customers, including Rosemead, California- based Edison International (EIX), canceled orders.

GOOGLE, OTHERS JOIN CONTROVERSIAL SHEPHERDS FLAT WIND FARM NEAR ARLINGTON, OREGON

SOURCE: THE OREGONIAN

April 19, 2011

By Mike Rogoway

Google said Monday that it's investing $100 million in Shepherds Flat, the controversial, taxpayer-subsidized wind farm in Eastern Oregon.

The search engine company is joined by subsidiaries of ITOCHU Corp. and Sumitomo Corp., which will together invest $400 million in the $2 billion project being developed by Caithness Energy.

Google operates a large, power-hungry data center nearby in The Dalles. But power from the wind farm, partially subsidized by Oregon tax credits, isn’t going there.

The project, near Arlington, will generate 845 megawatts for customers of Southern California Edison. The utility, like others in California, is racing to line up clean power to meet the state’s pending renewable energy requirements.

Shepherds Flat will create 400 temporary jobs and 35 permanent jobs in Gilliam and Morrow counties, which are in line for $100 million in taxes and fees from the project over 15 years.

But The Oregonian reported last month that the massive project is being subsidized by $1.2 billion in federal, state and local support.

Last fall, a memo from Obama administration advisers to the president said the project was "double-dipping," and that the value of the subsidies exceed the value of carbon reductions from the project.

Federal subsidies reduced investors' cost on a project that didn't need taxpayer help, according to the memo.

"This project would likely move without the loan guarantee," the memo concluded. "The economics are favorable for wind investment given tax credits and state renewable energy standards."

QUOTE FROM GOOGLE SPOKES PERSON:

Source: The Atlantic

Unfortunately, we can't disclose the deal structure or potential returns for the investment. But overall, we certainly see renewable energy as both good for the environment and a good business opportunity.

These projects -- Shepherds Flat and BrightSource's Ivanpah, among the others we've invested in -- can have attractive returns given the risks involved.

So the money for these investments comes out of Google Inc. and as you said, we expect to generate strong financial returns.

It's also great way to diversity our cash holdings while investing in an area that we think is important to support.

Dallas Kachan, who heads the clean tech research and consulting firm Kachan and Co <http://www.kachan.com/> , said that Google could expect to get something like a six percent return on its investment, though that number could vary by project.

Next Story:

US Department of Labor’s OSHA cites wind farm servicing company for 6 willful safety violations after worker suffers burns in wind tower

SOURCE: US Department of Labor

April 19, 2011

Egregious safety violations result in proposed fines of $378,000

ODELL, Ill. — Outland Renewable Services has been issued six citations for willful safety violations after a wind farm technician suffered severe burns from an electrical arc flash on Oct. 20, 2010. The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued the citations following an investigation at the Iberdrola Streator Cayuga Ridge South Wind Farm near Odell. The company, a servicing and maintenance provider in the wind tower industry, faces proposed penalties of $378,000.

"Green jobs are an important part of our economy, and sectors such as wind energy are growing rapidly. That growth comes with a continued responsibility for employers to ensure that the health and safety of workers is never compromised," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "Outland's management was aware of the potentially hazardous conditions to which its workers could have been exposed and showed intentional disregard for employee safety by ignoring OSHA's requirements for isolating energy sources during servicing operations. Employers must not cut corners at the expense of their workers' safety."

Outland Renewable Services was issued the citations for exposing maintenance technicians to electrical hazards from the unexpected energization of transformers in three wind turbine towers. A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health.

On the day of the incident, Outland Renewable Services failed to ensure technicians working in wind farm towers affixed their own energy isolation devices — also known as personal lock and tag devices — on the tower turbine switch gear at ground level. That created the possibility for other workers to energize transformers in the turbine towers, upon which technicians were working at a distance of approximately 350 feet above ground. The injured worker suffered third degree burns to his neck, chest and arms, and second degree burns to the face as a result of an arc flash that occurred when a transformer was unexpectedly energized by another worker.

The egregious violations in this case fall under the requirements of OSHA's Severe Violators Enforcement Program. Initiated in the spring of 2010, the program is intended to focus on employers that endanger workers by committing willful, repeat or failure-to-abate violations in one or more of the following circumstances: a fatality or catastrophe; industry operations or processes that expose workers to severe occupational hazards; exposure to hazards related to the potential releases of highly hazardous chemicals; and all per-instance citation (egregious) enforcement actions. For more information about the Severe Violators Enforcement Program, visit http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=4503.

Outland Renewable Services' corporate offices are located in Canaby, Minn. This OSHA inspection was the first conducted at the Iberdrola Streator Caugya Ridge South Wind Farm.

The company has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Employers and employees with questions regarding workplace safety and health standards can call OSHA's Peoria office at 309-589-7033. To report workplace incidents, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, call the agency's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742).

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.



NOISE, DISTRACTION AND LITIGATION:

CONTROVERSY OVER HARDSCRABBLE WINDFARM

SOURCE: Utica Daily News, uticadailynews.com

April 10 2011

Dana C. Silano

“It’s gone to the credit bureau – if I wanted to sell my house, I couldn’t,” Jim Salamone said. “And I can’t get a loan. This is what happens when things aren’t done right.”

FAIRFIELD-LITTLE FALLS, April 11, 2011 — They’re a colossal sight – towering metal giants with blades as long as airplane wings humming in the rural fields of Central New York.

But for residents in Fairfield who already felt they’d been deprived of a fair say in construction, the windmills are nothing but an expensive, loud nuisance.

“We should have been able to vote on them,” said resident Carol Riesel. “We were never made aware until the deal was almost done – it’s makes me so angry. No one had a voice in this — the board members listened and looked and moved on to the next business.”

And so it was, that through the summer and fall of 2010, Iberdrola Renewables constructed the Hardscrabble Wind Farm.

Now, Riesel, who lives at 797 Davis Road, and other residents say the giant windmills are nuisance to their community.

‘THEY’RE ANNOYING’

Riesel said many of the town residents are in agreement that windmills are ugly, scary and loud.

“It interferes with my life,” she said. “Now the beautiful landscape is gone. They’re 500 feet tall! And to live underneath them is unbelievable. They’re within 1,000 feet of my property and I hate them. My anxiety is sky-high.”

Nearby, neighbor Monique Consolazio said from her home at 1183 State Route 170, the effects of the windmills – particularly one that stares into her kitchen window, dubbed Turbine 33 – are ‘maddening.’

“It’s like living in an insane discotheque,” Consolazio said. “When the sun hits the blades at a certain angle, you get a strobe-light effect. And the blades throw their black shadows across the house, the field, everything, while the strobe light effect is going on.”

That’s hard for Consolazio, who said she moved to Fairfield nearly 18 years ago, after she was widowed, to live a simple life. Now, she said, she can’t even watch basic television. Her TV is in constant pixilation, which is so annoying that half the time, she shuts it off and doesn’t bother to watch. And the noise is like listening to the highest volume of ‘an old-time coffee grinder,’ she added, making a noise that signified the sound: ‘GRIND! SWISH! GRIND! SWISH!’

“I was told by a representative (of Iberdrola) that they were sorry about that, and what I should do is do the same thing they did in World War II — get shades and black out my windows,” she said in disbelief.

A red blinking light atop each tower shows itself to air traffic, but Consolazio said the company never put the promised ‘sleeve’ over it so it wouldn’t bother land dwellers.

“No one’s taken responsibility for that,” she said.

POTENTIAL LITIGATION?

Jim and June Salamone live at 820 Davis Road. They have for many years.

Jim said he and his wife were shocked and angered when last Wednesday, April 6, they received a certified letter in the mail from Saunders Concrete Company indicating they, along with 33 other property owners, had a lien placed on their property. That’s the company that poured the concrete bases that root the windmills to the ground, residents explained to Utica Daily News.

Why legal action against the residents? Saunders Concrete’s attorneys, Gilberti Stinziano Heintz & Smith in Syracuse, did not immediately return messages from UDN, and neither did the company’s Vice President, Tracy Saunders.

In the letter, it was indicated that out of a project worth $2,165,304.40, Iberdrola’s contractor, Mortenson Construction, still owed the company $1,946,284.10. The properties listed in the lien notice all had windmills on their property – except, at least, the Salamones.

“It’s gone to the credit bureau – if I wanted to sell my house, I couldn’t,” Jim Salamone said. “And I can’t get a loan. This is what happens when things aren’t done right.”

The Salamones discovered they were listed as participants – that’s someone who hosts a windmill, wires and cables, or other parts of the wind farm project – in 2009 when friend and neighbor Andrew McEvoy noticed his name listed in some documentation.

“If Andy didn’t find it, I never would have known,” Jim Salamone said. “This is what happens though when things aren’t done right.”

From there on out, he added, the Salamones tried nine times in vain to get their name removed from anything that indicated they were participants in the project. For the record, participants are awarded annual ‘pay’ for hosting, they said.

“The landowners didn’t realize what they were signing, they just wanted the money,” Jim Salamone said.

Iberdrola spokesman, Paul Copleman, indicated in a statement that the concrete company, acted rashly, and alongside Mortenson, they were working to remedy the issue.

While we cannot discuss the specifics of the dispute, Iberdrola Renewables has a commitment and obligation to remedy this issue on behalf of the property owners who had a lien placed on their property and are acting to remove the liens as quickly as possible. While mechanics liens are not uncommon in construction contracts, we believe that Saunders had other avenues available to resolve their dispute with Mortenson, and by pursuing a mechanics lien they have unnecessarily involved the landowners involved in this project as well as several that are not even part of the project.

Iberdrola Renewables is working as quickly as possible to resolve this matter and remove the liens. We have been in contact with the affected landowners and will be working diligently with Mortenson Construction to secure a resolution.

Mortenson has started the process of obtaining a bond that will remove the liens from the individual property owners.

The Salamones will likely hire a lawyer, acknowledging how costly it could become, to fight the lien. They’re hoping they can at least be compensated for what they feel turned their lives upside-down.

“How am I going to get this off my credit score?” Jim Salamone asked. “I want it clean again! What happens if they don’t correct this and they go bankrupt? I have nothing to do with this and I’m right in the middle of it.”

And while Iberdrola indicated its company agreed that a lien was a hasty move to make, that doesn’t get them off the hook, Jim Salamone said. Neither does the letter of apology they sent the couple shortly after the lien letter.

“This is bad business,” he said. “They’re not even looking at what they’re doing. And they’ve got so much money they can buy their way out of it. What are we going to do?”

Companies Say ND Wind Turbine Accident Unique

SOURCE: Associated Press

April 11, 2011

By Dale Wetzel

Experts said a North Dakota wind turbine's rotor and blades crashed to the ground because they weren't properly aligned with a power shaft atop the turbine's steel tower, which caused the rotor's connecting bolts to fail.

The March 14 accident north of Rugby will prompt more frequent inspections of other turbines, said Scott Winneguth, director of wind plant engineering for Iberdrola Renewables Inc. of Portland, Ore.

Winneguth told North Dakota's Public Service Commission that investigators were unsure whether the problem resulted from the turbine's operation or reflected an assembly flaw.

He said the accident was "very out of the ordinary" and "a singular event" that did not indicate a broader problem.

"I can assure you, for the near term, that we will check for bolt integrity and misalignment on a much more frequent basis than our normal maintenance activities would entail," Winneguth told the three North Dakota commissioners, who are responsible for regulating large wind energy projects.

Normal maintenance procedures, Winneguth said, "are not designed to detect this sort of misalignment."

Commissioner Kevin Cramer said Monday the information would be useful in evaluating future requests for locating North Dakota wind farms.

"They seem to have figured out what created the failure on the one turbine," Cramer said. "I'm certainly encouraged they didn't have a bunch of other ones to report to us."

The turbine was one of 71 that make up an Iberdrola wind energy project in Pierce County, in north-central North Dakota, that is capable of generating 149 megawatts of power.

The turbine was first put into commercial service in December 2009, Mark Perryman, an Iberdrola managing director for field services, said in an interview with The Associated Press.

The turbine's rotor, which has three long blades, is attached to its main power shaft with 48 bolts. The connecting surfaces of the rotor hub and main shaft were not properly aligned, which eventually caused the bolts to fail, said Winneguth and Duncan Koerbel, an executive for the turbine's manufacturer, Suzlon Wind Energy Corp.

Winneguth said the 70 turbines in the Rugby project were subsequently inspected and each of their 3,360 bolts checked. Seven bolts on four of the turbines were replaced as a precaution.

Koerbel said the 70 turbines resumed operation within a week. The affected tower was dented by a falling blade, but it should not need to be replaced, he said.

No one was injured in the accident, which happed around noon on March 14, and Iberdrola officials said the company's emergency response plan worked well.

Koerbel told the AP that the exact cause of the misalignment wasn't known, but that North Dakota's harsh winter conditions did not cause the bolt stress. He said he was not sure how long it took for the problem to develop.

"We cannot pin it on one specific thing," he said.

Suzlon has about 7,600 wind turbines in operation worldwide, including about 1,800 of the S88 model involved in the Rugby accident. There are about 1,100 S88 models operating in the United States alone, Koerbel said.

Next Story:

WIND TURBINE CRASHES TO THE GROUND

April 11, 2011

SOURCE: WYTV.COM

A wind turbine came crashing down near Western Reserve High School in Berlin Center on Sunday.

The piece of the turbine that fell was one of three installed at the school back in 2009.  The company that makes the equipment is out of Scotland, they work with an Indiana company.

The turbines supply about 40-percent of the school's electricity.

No official word on what caused the turbine to fall.  However, officials say it may have been the result of fatigued bolts.

A crew out of North Jackson climbed the other two towers to make sure there were no structural problems with either of them.

The area's been taped off. No one was hurt. 

EXTRA CREDIT: Why some members of the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council say "Safety is a Relative Term"

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Stereotyping isn't new to those of us who have expressed concerns about the wind industry's impact on people, wildlife, property values and the environment. The terms used in the following article include the usual 'NIMBY' along with 'rabid', 'shrill,' 'emotional, and divisive.'

A wind lobbyist well known for his bizarre metaphors and dismissive attitude toward people he deems 'anti-wind' adds a few more choice phrases here, this time using the pronoun "we" instead of "I"--

Describing the JCRAR's recent suspension of the Public Service Commission's wind rules, he says,

"That was a political hit job. We refer to that committee as the firing squad"

and

"We're kind of enjoying this momentary lull because we've been in a shooting war, metaphorically, with Gov. Walker since January 3. So it's nice to be able to put down the metaphorical Kalashikov and talk about strategy."

Who is 'we' in this instance?  The 'business members' who pay this fellow include power giants Alliant Energy, American Transmission Company, We Energies, Madison Gas and Electric, along with big names in the wind business like Invenergy, enXco, and Horizon. Yet he's not identified as a lobbyist in this piece.  Did the reporter not know?

One thing that distinguishes this article is the reporter's rare inclusion of the voices of two Fond du Lac County wind project residents who have been experiencing trouble since the turbines went on line near their homes.

Read what they have to say about their experience and decide for yourself who sounds 'shrill, rabid, emotional and divisive' in this article.

EXTRA CREDIT QUESTION: Does 'full disclosure' apply to paid lobbyists making public statements? Should lobbyists identify themselves as such to a reporter? Or should it be up to the reporter to find out by doing their homework?

AND THE WIND CRIES....UNCLE

SOURCE:Scenenewspaper.com

Week of April 1, 2011

By Jim Lundstrom

Before the 1936 Rural Electrification Act brought electricity to the boonies, wind was the chief source of power for many country folk. Eventually, the windmills that once dotted the rural landscape were replaced by many forests’ worth of utility poles and probably millions of miles of cable.

It’s been lost to us how those farmers felt about their vistas being ruined and the rural nature of their property being destroyed by the ugly electrification program. Or was the prospect of entering the 20th century with the flick of a switch a salve to their bruised souls?

Wind energy never really went away, but it did go into deep hibernation for most of the rest of the 20th century, only roused from sleep by nervous consumers during the fossil fuel energy crises of the 1970s.

Ironically, the oily state of Texas is a leader in wind farms, with a generating capacity of 10,085 MW. Naturally, it boasts the world’s largest in the Roscoe Wind Farm, with 627 wind turbines covering 100,000 acres and capable of generating 781.5 megawatts, enough to power a quarter of a million homes.

Iowa has the second largest capacity with 3,675 MW, followed by California (3,177 MW), Minnesota (2,192 MW) and Washington (2,104 MW).  Wisconsin produces less than 500 MW with wind power.

For all the wind in Wisconsin – it ranks 16th in the nation for quality of wind – wind supplies only 1.7% of the state’s electricity, according to the Institute for Energy Research. Coal is tops for electricity generation, providing 62.5% of the state’s power. Nuclear energy from the state’s two nuke plants accounts for 20.7% Next is natural gas with a 9.1% share, followed by hydroelectric with 2.6%, and just below wind are wood/wood-derived products and petroleum, both supplying 1.2% each of the state’s power supply.

One of the best spots in the state to generate power from wind is on the high dolomite ledge on the eastern shore of Lake Winnebago. From County A in Neenah you can see the ghostly image of the northern Fond du Lac County wind turbines, close enough to Calumet County to put the wind up folks who don’t want wind turbines in their back yard.

Fond du Lac County is home to 166 wind turbines, including the 88 in the WE Energies Blue Sky Green Field Project, which has been the largest in the state since it went online in 2008. Those are the turbines you can see across Lake Winnebago.

Fond du Lac County reaped $625,000 in revenue from the various utilities who own the wind farms for 2010. We Energies gave landowners who host the turbines in the Blue Sky Green Fields project and the townships they are in a total of $440,000.

Blue Sky Green Field is currently the largest wind farm project in the state, but owner WE Energies will surpass that next year when Glacial Hills Wind Farm goes online with 90 turbines.
The uncertainty about wind in Wisconsin and the absence of regulatory stability were cited by Invenergy on March 21 when it asked the Wisconsin Public Service Commission to terminate its application process for the proposed 150MW Ledge Wind Energy Center in southern Brown County.

With utilities required to generate 10% of their power with renewable energy by 2015, wind seems to be a good investment, just not in Wisconsin right now after the Republican-heavy Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules suspended the Public Service Commission’s wind siting rule on the eve it was to take effect. And not with the emotional and divisive opposition to wind from the likes of former Republican state senator Robert Welch

Welch now serves as a well-dressed hired gun for groups that oppose wind energy, including Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy, a group that formed when wind farms were being proposed for Brothertown and other areas in Calumet County. The group has since assisted in efforts to oppose wind development in other parts of the state.

Welch reportedly was a member of Scott Walker’s “kitchen cabinet” during his successful campaign for governor, which goes a long way in explaining why the long debated and analyzed Wisconsin Public Service Commission wind siting ruling – known as PSC 128 – was suspended by a Republican-dominated legislative committee the day before it was to go into effect on March 1.

“That was a political hit job. We refer to that committee as the firing squad,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of Renew Wisconsin and one of the 11 members of the PSC Wind Siting Council that crafted PSC 128.

“We are actually trying to implement the state’s own policies. The state actually prefers native renewable energy over importing coal. It’s in the statutes,” Vickerman said, but adds it has been a Sisyphean task given the rabid opposition to wind in Wisconsin. “We think we’re advancing the public interest of the state. To come across this opposition can be bewildering. Four years of policy work and lobbying and negotiating, and now we’re back to 2007.”

Appearing at a March 2 public hearing on Calumet County’s proposed wind siting ordinance, which essentially mirrored PSC 128 (by law, a local ordinance could not be more restrictive than the state rules), Welch said it was the 1,250-foot setback from a non-participating landowner’s residence that killed PSC 128. He and his paying constituents have long advocated an 1,800-foot setback from a non-participating property line rather than residence.

“The proposed 1,800-foot from property line setback, that is a very strategically designed number. It systematically destroys wind power in Wisconsin,” said Jeff Carlson, who does wind siting analysis and mapping for wind projects. He said with all the other buffer zones and inherent setbacks for public roads and power lines, the 1,800-foot rule makes it virtually impossible to put all the pieces of a wind farm puzzle together.

Welch told the assembled audience that the “wholesale change in the Legislature” means that all the “hoopla” surrounding green energy mandates and global warming has “sort of gone away.”

Not gone, Vickerman said, but in a temporary holding pattern.

“We’re kind of enjoying this momentary lull because we’ve been in a shooting war, metaphorically, with Gov. Walker since Jan. 3. So it’s nice to be able to put down the metaphorical Kalashnikov and talk about strategy,” he said. “What the legislative panel did was a suspension. If the legislature wants to repeal the siting rule, it would have to do so, it has to pass both houses. We have a shot, some chance; we might succeed in stopping such a bill from clearing the legislature. If we don’t the rule does go back under a new rulemaking procedure with more hoops, the biggest one being the governor has to sign off, which wasn’t the case before.”

What’s wrong with wind farms?

Opponents of wind energy have a long list of complaints that include public subsidies for wind, aesthetics, property rights of non-participants, drop in property values, noise levels, shadow flicker, bird and bat mortality around turbines, disruption of radio and TV signals, and a host of physical complaints that a minority of wind turbine neighbors have expressed. And, of course, there are the ever-present NIMBYs who might not actually oppose wind energy, but they don’t want to look at wind turbines from their property.

The most specious argument is public subsidies of wind. Yes, there is a 10-year federal tax credit that provides 2.1 cents per kilowatt hour produced (that credit includes solar, geothermal and “closed-loop” bioenergy systems), but wind advocates point out that all forms of energy are subsidized in some way by we the people, and some in far more shameful examples of public policy than a 10-year federal tax credit. Think of all the body bags and human misery that have subsidized fossil fuel and coal. Nuclear power, anyone?

“There’s a shrill nature to the opposition to wind, whether it’s political or whatever,” said Jeff Carlson, the wind-siting analyst. “When you’re going to defend the oil supply as one of your energies, there are a whole lot of costs that are never discussed.”

More disturbing are the various problems experienced by some who live within a wind farm project.

“I can’t stand them,” said Jim Vollmer, who in November 2002 bought a home in a small valley in the Town of Marshfield in northern Fond du Lac County.

Vollmer, a mechanic by trade, also raises chickens for meat and show. Both he and his chickens have suffered medical problems he attributes to the arrival of a Blue Sky Green Field turbine 1,600 feet from his home. He says it is a combination of noise, shadow flicker and vibration that have caused him and his chickens a host of medical problems and chronic sleeplessness.

“I’ve got sound and vibration here. Headaches. Migraines. Earaches. Memory loss. Shadow. Sometimes it feels like your vision is all blurred, you can’t see straight sometimes,” he said. “My birds are the biggest thing I’m concerned with. I’ve been raising them for 22 years, showing at fairs and things. I was growing meat birds, all of a sudden the shadow started showing. With the shadow in the barn, the birds think it’s a hawk or something overhead and they’re scared to hell. They quit laying or start rampaging. They start eating eggs and then I have a hell of a time to get them to stop eating them. Low hatch rates. Ones that did hatch had all kinds of birth defects on them. I gave up on the meat birds. Tried to get compensation for the chickens, but nothing.”

In the mitigation process, WE Energies outfitted Vollmer and his neighbors with satellite TV and radio to overcome transmission problems caused by the turbines, and they installed double-thick blinds to stop the shadow flicker from entering his home. That stopped the inside flicker, but the blinds also make it dark as a tomb inside.

“It’s so dark you have to turn lights on,” he said. “I told them I had shadow in the barn, and they won’t do nothing about that. They were supposed to do shadow mitigation.”
Vollmer feels he has exhausted all his options in resolving the problems. He has been to town board meetings. He has complained to WE Energies, the PSC, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, various law firms, and to state Sen. Joe Liebham, one of the six Republicans on the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules.

“I haven’t gotten anywhere. They all dropped the ball,” he said.
He believes his only remaining option is to sell his home and move away, but after two years on the market, “I haven’t had anyone bite on the thing yet,” he said. “I’ve had a couple people, but that was almost two years ago when I first listed it. I called another realtor up this year. I’ve had it on the market with him since Feb. 2. I dropped the price by $40,000. What really angsts me, I dropped it that much with a new realtor and that guy says we haven’t had anyone call or want to come and look at it. He said that’s not normal.”

Vollmer suggested that WE Energies buy his home.

“I told them straight up, buy the place, turn around and sell it for as much as you can get. And let me move on,” he said.

Kathy Weber runs the Pipe Meat Market in beautiful downtown Pipe. Just down County W she built a home in 2006. In 2008 a Blue Sky Green Field wind turbine was erected 850 feet from her back door.

“They built the tower too close to my house. I informed them at the time that it was too close and they put it up anyway. They are disputing the fact, saying that they had a contract before my house went up,” she said. “I told them my son has juvenile myoclonic epilepsy. I’m not saying it’s going to affect him, but I don’t want to find out. I took them at their word. The project manager for the wind farm told me after I mentioned it was too close to my house, he told me we will check the survey and get back to me. Being the country bumpkin I am, I went along with him. I came home from work one day and it was three-quarters up.”

While wind turbines as epilepsy triggers is often used as a reason against wind farms, there is little evidence to support the claim that turbines cause epileptic fits in those susceptible to them. Weber’s son, however, did have trouble concentrating, and in December moved to Fond du Lac.

Weber said she has experienced sleeping and ear problems since the turbine arrived.

“I’m 62. I never had trouble in my life with my ears,” she said.

She also learned that shadow flicker is not just a daytime problem.

“You get moon shadowing at night,” she said. “Yup, the full moon. I went to bed and I thought, ‘Oh no, don’t tell me’.”

Weber said there are times when the turbine physically makes its presence known through sound and motion.

“You can feel the difference when you’re outside and they’re moving,” she said. “People in Marytown, which is five miles away, can hear them. It’s a constant whoosh, whoosh, whoosh. In the summertime when I’m outside a lot, this may sound weird, but I start rhyming words to them, stupid words .”

Weber said WE Energies offered to lease the land from her house to the wind tower for $1,500 a year, “but I said no. I want it moved.”

But for all this, Weber is not against wind energy. She just doesn’t want a giant wind turbine literally in her back yard.

“They should not be near residential areas. They should be all together somewhere far away from residential,” she said.

“It’s not uncommon if people don’t get the resolution they expect or feel they deserve, they feel they’re not being listened to, but I can assure you we did extensive outreach efforts both prior to, during and even after in the community and with neighbors, to the extent of going door to door with participating landowners and non-participating landowners,” said Barry McNulty of WE Energies. “We’ve certainly done things to mitigate issues, too. You can’t satisfy everyone, but we’ve gone a long way to try to do so.”

“We’re not here to tell you that there are no impacts at all. There are,” said Michael Vickerman. “They tend to be localized. They don’t really have an affect on the state or the planetary environment. But when you look at the history of wind systems in this country, especially the older ones, they become accepted over time. It may take a couple of years. The howls of protest you hear now, they die off.”

Click on the image above to watch wind project residents in Australia describe life with turbines. Then click on the image below to hear what wind turbines sound like near a home in DeKalb Illinois. These are the same turbines mentioned in the following article. Read more about this wind project family's experience here: Our Life With DeKalb Wind Turbines

WIND TURBINES STILL CENTER OF DEBATE

SOURCE: Daily Chronicle, www.daily-chronicle.com

April 1, 2011

By Caitlin Mullen,

SHABBONA – Jim and Donna Nilles would like to sell their house on Leland Road.

But the Nilleses – who live within 1,800 feet of wind turbines that are part of the wind farm operated by NextEra Energy that went up in four townships in DeKalb County in late 2009 – don’t expect they’ll be able to sell their home anytime soon. Part of that is because of current economic conditions, they said, but they don’t think the wind turbines help, either.

“The main gripe we have right now is nobody listens to us,” Jim Nilles said. “Nobody comes out here.”

They are among a group of DeKalb County residents who have asked county officials – most recently at a county board meeting – to look into noise and multiple other issues related to the wind farm. One of the more recent complaints came two weeks ago when a wind turbine’s blade shattered.

But the company and the county’s planning and zoning director say NextEra has remained compliant with the terms of its permit conditions.

“We have met all of our permit conditions, and we are communicating regularly with the county as outlined in those conditions,” NextEra spokesman Steve Stengel said.

Opposing viewpoints

There has been strong opposition to the wind farm since it was first proposed.

The DeKalb County Board voted in June 2009 to grant NextEra permission to build and operate 119 wind turbines in Afton, Clinton, Milan and Shabbona townships. It’s part of a larger wind farm that included 145 total turbines in DeKalb and Lee counties. Before board approval, several hearings – including one that lasted 19 hours – were held on the proposal that brought out hundreds of people.

That opposition has continued since the farm became operational in late 2009. Mel Hass, spokesman for Citizens for Open Government – a group of local residents opposed to the wind farm and that is suing to have it shut down – said he has found many board members aren’t aware of problems with the turbines.

Residents say there are numerous issues with the turbines, including loudness, shadow flickers and interference with TV reception. Shadow flickers happen when sunlight catches the rotating blades at an angle that creates a moving shadow through windows.

Hass said many residents have called a NextEra hotline to complain about these and other issues, but he said any response from the company comes several days later, if at all.

“I don’t know what else we can do to prove our point,” Hass said. “What’s left for me and my neighbors but for us to try to resolve this on our own?”

The shattering of a turbine blade two weeks ago at Shabbona Road between Keslinger and Gurler roads is one of the recent concerns. Residents expressed concern that the shattered turbine blade and its debris could have hit a horse or a car driving near the turbine.

“Their good-neighbor policy went out the door the day the DeKalb County Board gave them those special-use permits, as far as we’re concerned,” said Beth Einsele, who claims NextEra has ignored repeated calls to respond to problems.

Stengel said the shattered blade is unusual and is under investigation. One of the wind turbines in the wind farm also experienced a broken blade in May.

“We have not experienced that anywhere else in our fleet,” Stengel said. “The cause of that is under investigation.”

Stengel said the hotline is manned during normal business hours. An answering service picks up calls that come in at other times and forwards those to the site leader, Stengel said. If someone calls to report a problem, the company is obligated to investigate it.

Stengel said the vast majority of calls have come from people who are suing the company. He said he believes those who have problems with the wind farm are in the minority. He said the facility has performed exceptionally well; there have been no injuries at the site and equipment has been well-maintained.

“I think the things that we said, I think that those things have come to be true,” Stengel said. “There is a group of individuals that are not happy with the wind farm. Those are the same individuals that are suing us in court.”

And not all residents near the wind farm have issues with the turbines. Elizabeth Armenta said she moved to her home on McGirr Road last year and isn’t bothered by the wind turbines. She doesn’t live close enough to experience shadow flickers, and she said she can’t hear the turbines unless it’s very quiet.

Kit Tjelle, who lives on Lee Road, said she and her husband Kevin feared the worst before the turbines were installed, but she said they’ve been pleasantly surprised to find they appreciate their beauty and clean design. A few turbines stand just beyond their backyard.

“They don’t bug us at all. At all,” Tjelle said. “They’ve kind of become part of our landscape.”

Paul Miller, the county’s director of planning and zoning, said the county monitors and follows up on the 36 conditions that were part of the county’s approval of the wind farm, including things like setbacks from structures and property lines, and a property value guarantee.

“To date, we have not found them in violation of any of those conditions,” Miller said.

Lawsuit still pending

Citizens for Open Government filed a lawsuit in July 2009 that was dismissed later that year because it lacked factual evidence. The group filed an amended complaint in January 2010, asking that the wind farm be shut down and the turbines dismantled. In June 2010, a judge rejected NextEra’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The lawsuit names NextEra Energy, the county board and the nearly 100 landowners who allowed turbines to be installed on their property. The lawsuit alleges that the county board overstepped its zoning authority when it authorized the special-use zoning permits for agricultural land. County officials have said the project is allowed under a special-use clause that permits “essential service structures.”

John Farrell, who manages the civil division of the DeKalb County State’s Attorney’s Office, said the case has been pending for a while, but it’s too early to say where it’s going.

Next story

STATE SHUTES DOWN ON SHORE WIND TURBINE PROGRAM AFTER MAJOR MALFUNCTION

SOURCE: NJSPOTLIGHT

March 25, 2011

by Tom Johnson

The state has shut down its on-land wind turbine program for the time being after an incident earlier this month when three blades suddenly came off a turbine at a farm and residence in Forked River.

The incident, which is under investigation, led the state Office of Clean Energy, to halt temporarily accepting applications for its Renewable Energy Incentive Program (REIP) wind project until authorities can determine how the blades became disengaged, according to Greg Reinert, a spokesman for the Board of Public Utilities (BPU).

The problem occurred on March 2 when a still unexplained major malfunction on a recently installed wind turbine caused all three blades to break loose, Reinert said.

On March 8, the clean energy office staff directed the program coordinator to issue a notice to stakeholders advising that "Effective immediately, there is a temporary hold on all new REIP wind applications and wind rebate processing until further notice."

Ellen Carey, a spokeswoman with the American Wind Energy Association, said she had never heard of this type of accident. "I would say it is an abnormal occurrence," she said

Land and Sea

The state’s efforts to develop wind energy on land have been dwarfed by its goals to build a vibrant offshore wind industry, an ambition that aims to develop 3,000 megawatts of wind farms off the coast of New Jersey.

Four developers have announced plans to build offshore wind farms from 3 miles to about 16 miles out in the ocean.

In comparison, the onshore wind efforts are much less ambitious, in part, because the wind resources pale in comparison to what is available offshore. Still, the Office of Clean Energy had overseen the installation of 38 wind systems, eligible for up to $5 million in rebates and grants, according to Reinert. The total installed capacity is 8.0291 megawatts.

In addition, there are another 37 wind projects approved as of March 18, with a total capacity of 4.64 megawatts and eligible for up to $3.5 million in state incentives..
It is uncertain when the office will begin accepting applications again. Like last year, the clean energy office has seen its funds diverted to help balance the state budget. Under Gov. Chris Christie’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year, $52.5 million from the Clean Energy Fund will be set aside.