Better Plan, Wisconsin

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Sound is bad all day

this is one of the turbines that is around 1400 feet from the foundation of our home. this is just proof that these turbines were poorly [s]ited. they are absolutely too close to our home. some people may say the turbines look nice when visiting them, but living with them is a different story. we are not visiting them. we experience their different sounds everyday and the intense shadow flicker is disturbing. hopefully there will be some justice done in the near future.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Distressing Noise

SOURCE: KHQA NEWS  CLICK HERE TO WATCH VIDEO

ADAMS COUNTY, ILL. -- "I'm against irresponsible wind energy, and that's what this is," says Dave Hulthen.

That is Dave and Stephanie Hulthen from DeKalb County Illinois.

They are in Quincy for a couple of days sharing their thoughts on wind farms.

The Hultens live on a wind farm in DeKalb county, and they don't like it.

There are no wind turbines on their property, so they are not compensated by the wind energy company.

However, they tell KHQA their quality of life has been blown apart since the turbines came online this past December.

This is video of the Hulthen's house. You can see the shadows of the big turbines as they rotate from the wind. They tell me this happens just about every morning during a large part of the year. This is a look from the inside of their home.

"We are exposed to shadow flicker as well. That's where the turbine comes between the sun and our residence. We have a flickering in the morning where it could go for 45 minutes," says Dave Hulthen.

Dave Hulthen says there are two turbines within 1400 feet of his home. There are 13 within a mile. And the problems are more than just shadow flicker.

"It's like a jet plane just sitting on the property. Not flying overhead and leaving, but always sitting out there spinning. It's a hum, hum, hum. a low frequency drum noise," says Stephanie Hulthen.

Take a listen to this video shot around midnight one night.

The Hulthens didn't really know what it would be like to live on a wind farm. They visited one before the one near their house was built. They heard some noises and thought they could live with it. It wasn't until they lived with it 24 hours a day before they realized they didn't like it.

"Now we're affected in one way. In two years, could something else happen. We don't know," says Dave Hulthen.

So the Hulthens are in Adams County to share their concerns with the residents here. They say they have nothing to gain, they were not paid a salary to come here, they just believe people need to do their research first to make sure everyone associated with a wind farm is happy in the end.

The Hulthens do have a daily blog about living on the wind farm.

They say not all days are bad, but a majority of them are.

They also blog about the good days too.

If you'd like to read their blog posts, you can click here. 

There is also a question and answer session with the Hulthen Tuesday at the Quincy Senior and Family Resource Center from 1:00 to 3:00 in the afternoon.

The Adams County Board is voting on its newly revised draft ordinance Tueaday night.

You'll remember an original ordinance was past earlier this year.

This new draft addresses some of the concerns of residents and a wind energy company.

KHQA spoke to County Board Chairman Mike McLaughlin, he says this new draft addresses the issue of shadow flicker.

"My board's biggest concern is to take care of the health and safety of the residence of Adams County. We don't want to bring in something that's going to harm anybody. That's obviously not our intent," says McLaughlin.

McLaughlin says Adams County is working with a different company than the one that operates the wind farm in DeKalb County.

He adds there could also be other issues, such as elevation, that affect properties differently.

As far as some benefits to a wind farm in Adams County, it could be a big boost on the economic front.

McLaughlin says a lot of the county's taxing districts, like schools and libraries, would benefit a lot from the development.

In the news:

ANOTHER CHAPTER FROM "WIND DEVELOPERS BEHAVING BADLY", CANADA,

"We will build resources, including capital and marketing materials, to challenge this bylaw and any similar bylaws passed in other municipalities including funds to support any legal challenge as a result of delayed issuance of building permits," [Wind developer] Edey said.

"That is not to be looked at as a threat, because it is not," Edey told council and about a dozen wind energy opponents at the meeting. "We don't believe going to court is a good use of resources, but if that's what it takes to move the project forward, well . . ."

From Wind turbines in the news: 10/10/10  "Gloves off in wind farm showdown"

AUGUSTA — The Wind Energy Act of 2008, which gave developers fast-track approval for putting up wind turbines in some of the state's treasured high ground, was justified at the time in the name of jobs, energy independence and climate change.

“There is tremendous potential for Maine to become a leader in clean, renewable energy, including wind energy,” said Gov. John Baldacci, who appointed the task force whose report led to the bill. “This kind of investment would create jobs and help to expand Maine’s economy.”

But now, two years after the law was championed by Baldacci, some members of the task force are questioning whether the goals they set for wind power can, or even should be, achieved.

Critics and even some one-time supporters say the proponents of the law were swept up in a tidal wave of enthusiasm for a technology that turns out to require significant sacrifice from the state, but has little to offer Maine in return.

That issue was faced head-on recently when the state Land Use Regulation Commission was asked to rule on an extension of a TransCanada wind project in western Maine.

LURC Commissioner Ed Laverty summed up the problem with the bill: “Our job is to protect the resources in these high mountain areas ... given the fragile nature, and the rich nature of the resources in these areas, we have to ask ourselves, to what extent can these benefits really outweigh the long-term costs?

Chris O’Neil, a former state legislator who now works as a public affairs consultant to groups opposing wind power development in Maine’s mountains, said that the governor’s vision was fundamentally flawed.

“To fulfill the charge of making Maine a leader in wind power development and to simultaneously protect Maine’s quality of place is impossible,” O’Neil said.

The bill constituted one of the most significant changes in the state’s land use laws in a generation:

— It weakened longstanding rules that would have required wind turbines “to fit harmoniously into the landscape.” LURC Director Catherine Carroll said, “That’s a huge change.”

— The bill cut off a layer of appeal for those protesting state permits for wind power.

— It set ambitious goals for the development of wind power that could result in 1,000 to 2,000 turbines being constructed along hundreds of miles of Maine’s landscape, including the highly prized mountaintops where wind blows hard and consistently.

— It opened every acre of the state’s 400 municipalities to fast-track wind development.

Baldacci said all this could be done without hurting Maine’s landscape or the tourism industry.

The legislation was based on the report of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power Development, whose members all favored wind power development and who, likewise, asserted that their blueprint for wind power development would return substantial rewards and could be pursued without sacrifice.

“Maine can become a leader in wind power development, while protecting Maine’s quality of place and natural resources, and delivering meaningful benefits to our economy, environment, and Maine people,” task force members wrote.

Now, as wind turbines are sprouting on Maine’s mountains accompanied by heavy machinery, roads, transmission lines, substations, wells and concrete plants, that certainty is yielding to doubt for some.

“I think people didn’t have a good appreciation of this, including us, for what the whole thing entails,” said Maine Audubon’s Jody Jones, a biologist who served on the task force. “This process was another step to better environmental policy, but there were clearly flaws.”

And members of LURC have recently indicated they’ll turn down TransCanada’s wind power development in an ecologically sensitive, high-elevation region near the Canadian border. The move was widely seen as a rebuke to the idea that wind power should be developed at all costs and enraged the developer and wind power promoters.

That the unanimity behind the wind power law is breaking down does not surprise Jones.

Momentum slipping

“People live near them, projects have been built, we can touch and feel them in a way that’s not theoretical. ... There isn’t the momentum for wind power at all costs that there was when the task force did its work,” Jones said.

That momentum may have papered over some significant differences among task force members that are now becoming more obvious.

As they neared completion of their report on wind power development in December 2007, Baldacci made the unusual move of sending his senior policy adviser, Karin Tilberg, to press task force members to issue a unanimous set of recommendations.

They did as Baldacci asked, and that unanimity, from a group whose members represented prominent environmental groups as well as wind power developers, set the stage for the bill’s unanimous passage through a legislative committee.

Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion.

House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, said legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met. The number is likely to be at least 1,000 and perhaps as high as 2,000.

Instead, they got carried along in the wave of enthusiasm that emerged from the administration, the legislative committee, wind power developers and the governor’s task force.

“Wind power was exciting,” says Pingree. “I think legislators had a sense we wanted to be bold and have the state be a real leader in this area. They may not have known how many turbines, or the challenges of siting that many turbines.”

An investigation by the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting of the workings of the wind power task force through numerous interviews and a review of relevant documents reveals a number of problems with the law and its development:

— Appointing only wind power supporters to the task force and rushing the legislation through the Legislature failed to address public skepticism about the state’s wind power policy. Issues that might have been aired through a State House debate continue to be raised by a growing number of critics of wind power, who doubt the policy’s premises that wind power brings widespread economic benefits, moves Maine off fossil fuels or can be developed without compromising the quality of Maine’s landscape.

— Members of LURC, who review proposals for wind power development in unorganized territories, have expressed consternation about the contradictory and perhaps unachievable goals of the Wind Power Act: to promote wind power development, ensure communities get benefits from the development and protect the very parts of the Maine landscape where wind power turbines are likely to be built.

— The designation of “expedited wind power zones” along some of the state’s wildest mountaintops has raised the value of that real estate, since it’s now a target for wind power development. That had the unintended effect of creating competition for conservationists who want to protect that land.

— The task force ignored the need for massive new transmission line construction to move wind energy from turbines to market, which could be costly to ratepayers, disrupt habitat and landscape and engender significant opposition from towns and conservation groups.

— At least one significant task force recommendation — to allow the DEP commissioner to modify permits if wind turbines made too much noise — was left out of the governor’s bill that became the wind power law.

— One of the most crucial discussions held by the task force — what lands to open to expedited wind power development — is not in the public record. There were no minutes taken or produced for those final two meetings of the task force.

Baldacci still a believer

Gov. Baldacci remains steadfast in his support of wind power. He and Tilberg refused to grant the Center an interview in person, but Baldacci responded to questions in writing:

“I believe that reducing reliance on fossil fuels for energy in Maine and the region will greatly increase Maine’s quality of place by reducing carbon emissions, slowing climate change from greenhouse gases (which affects our forests, watersheds, oceans and fisheries, agriculture, wildlife and other natural resources), pushing natural gas off the margins in the bid stack and thereby reducing electricity costs, promoting energy security and self-reliance, and keeping Maine citizens’ dollars circulating in Maine and not being sent to other jurisdictions.

“For many people, including myself, quality of place includes living in a manner that does not push environmental or safety risks to other places and people.”

Land-based wind power development is certainly not dead in Maine. But the wind power bandwagon that came roaring out of the State House in 2008 is encountering obstacles that are slowing it down.

“Call it the bloom off the rose, call it the emperor being exposed as having no clothes,” said O’Neil. “As the public learns the truth about the impacts and the benefits of this sort of development, the public is losing its interest in industrial scale wind.”

Combine those homegrown obstacles with an increasingly tight credit market and uncertainty over continued government subsidies for the industry, and wind power development these days in Maine looks like much less of a sure thing than Baldacci, the Legislature, some environmentalists and the wind industry hoped it would be just two years ago.

Naomi Schalit is executive director and senior reporter of the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, a nonprofit and nonpartisan journalism organization based in Hallowell. E-mail: mainecenter@gmail.com. On the Web at pinetreewatchdog.org.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Why are more bats being killed in Wisconsin wind projects than anywhere else in the nation? Three recent post construction mortality studies show turbine related kill numbers in our state to be ten times the national average. They are even higher than those mentioned in the article below.

 

Bird, bat deaths prompt call for St. Lawrence Valley wind moratorium.

SOURCE North Country Public Radio, www.northcountrypublicradio.org

August 6  2010

Save the River, an environmental group based in Clayton, NY, wants a three-year delay in development of more wind power along the St. Lawrence River.

A spokesperson for the group says there are proposals for some 400 wind turbines in the Thousand Island region. Preliminary numbers from a study at an 86-turbine wind farm on Wolfe Island, a Canadian island near Kingston, Ontario, show higher than usual mortality among birds and bats. Martha Foley has more.

An environmental group is calling for a three-year moratorium on building more wind turbines in the St Lawrence Valley. Save The River points to recently released data indicating the 86-turbine wind farm on Wolfe Island caused more than a 1800 bird and bat deaths in six months.

The group’s assistant director Stephanie Weiss says that’s more than double the national average. “When we’re comparing these numbers, we’re talking about how many birds are dying in a 12-month period. The national average might be 2 or 3 or even as high as 4. But the numbers we’re seeing out of Wolfe Island are 8 birds per turbine, in a six-month period,” Weiss said.

Wolfe Island is Canadian territory. In Canada, the province decides where wind farms can be built. In New York State, it’s up to local town governments. Weiss says a moratorium would give them time to find out why avian mortality rates are so high on Wolfe Island. It’s the only wind farm on the St Lawrence River and it’s six months into a three-year study on bird and bat deaths caused by turbines.

“There are a lot of reasons why this could happen. Wolfe Island itself is an important bird area, designated by Nature Canada. It’s a part of the fly way, which is really important. We know there’s some really essential grassland habitat here. We know it’s incredibly important over-wintering raptor area,” said Weiss.

Weiss says once a wind farm is built, environmental damage is hard to undue. She says 400 wind turbines have been proposed in the Thousand Islands. And a thorough study at Wolfe Island will help local officials make the best decisions about if, and where, they should be built. “We can’t just guess at what kind of bird and bat mortality we would have. The three years are essential. I don’t think it’s too long. The wind will still be there,” Weiss said.



Click on the image below to watch a crop duster fly through an industrial wind farm with the turbines turned off. Many aerial applicators have expressed concern about the safety of flying in wind projects.



Home in a wind farm. Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. Photo by Gerry Meyer 2009

Government of Ontario requests 'Expert Advice' on Wind Turbine Noise

From THE SOCIETY FOR WIND VIGILANCE

www.windvigilance.com

 January 20, 2010

 TORONTO- The government of Ontario admitted this week that it does not know 'how or whether' to measure for low frequency sound at wind turbine installations.

Two Requests for Proposal www.merx.com were issued yesterday by the Ontario Ministry of Environment to help the  ministry in "determining how or whether to regulate low frequency noise emissions from wind turbines".

  The requests go on to state, "The Ministry requires a consultant to assist in the development of ameasurement procedure to assess noise compliance of existing wind farms with the applicable sound level limits"

"Unlike typical industrial noise sources, measurement of audible noise from wind turbines in general raises technical challenges."

 The request adds, "the MOE Noise Guidelines for Wind Farms, October 2008 do not contain a measurement method for assessing the actual noise impact."

  Questions arise:

  If  the government does not have a method for measuring noise impact, why are  they moving ahead with more wind developments before proper studies and science are completed?

 How did the Ministry of Environment arrive at an arbitrary distance of 550m from industrial wind turbines to protect from noise?

 Reports of adverse health effects experienced by people living too close to industrial wind turbines have been brought to the attention of the Ministry of Environment for more than two years.

 Nothing has been done to mitigate the suffering and many have been forced to abandon their homes or be bought out by a wind developer. Hundreds of requests for mitigation of the issue have not been dealt with yet industrial wind turbines continue to be erected.

  The Society for Wind Vigilance, an International Federation of Physicians and other professionals, repeats its appeal to all governments including the Government of Ontario to place a moratorium on all wind development until a third party health study is conducted into the impact of industrial wind turbines on human health.

At the minimum, current turbines should be turned off at night as a French court ruled and new industrial wind turbines should be set  back a minimum of 2000 meters from residences. Ongoing monitoring for adverse health effects must be conducted.

 SECOND FEATURE:

 Note from the BPWI Research nerd: The Oregon State noise limit for the Invenergy wind farm mentioned in the following story is 36 dbA

The current turbine noise limit for Invenergy in the State of Wisconsin is 50 dbA

The "too loud" referred to in the story below is under 38dbA

 Study says wind farm is too loud

East Oregonian, eastoregonian.com

January 21, 2010

 The Willow Creek Energy Center is in violation of state noise standards for at least three nearby homes, its acoustical expert revealed at a planning commission meeting Tuesday night. Still up for debate, according to the other experts in attendance, is how much and how often.

 The meeting amounted to a day in court for the neighbors of the wind farm – Dan Williams, Mike and Sherry Eaton and Dennis Wade – who began complaining about farm’s noise and other effects last year.

 According to Oregon Administrative Rule, energy-generating facilities can be as loud as 36 decibels at adjacent homes – that’s 26 decibels for background noise plus 10 for the facility. In the analysis of the acoustical expert that Invenergy hired, Michael Theriault of Portland, Maine, the noise at the Wade residence was usually less than 36 decibels. At the Eaton residence, it was usually less than 37 decibels. At the Williams residence, the noise “moderately” exceeded the noise code about 10 percent of the time, Theriault said.

 Theriault also conducted a noise study at the home of another neighbor, Dave Mingo, and found that the noise was usually less than 37 decibels. “On overview, the facility is substantially in compliance with state rules,” he said.

Kelly Hossainin – a lawyer for Invenergy, the company that runs Willow Creek Energy Center – argued that the amount by which the wind farm exceeded the noise limit at the Eaton and Mingo residences, one decibel, is not perceptible outside a laboratory environment.

She said the times the wind farm exceeded the noise standards were unusual events, which would qualify for an exception under the rules.

 Theriault explained some of his methods to the planning commission. For example, he did not analyze the noise data that was generated while the wind was blowing more than 9 meters per second (about 18 miles per hour). According to General Electric, the company that made the turbines, turbine noise does not increase after that point, he said.

 Commissioner Pam Docken asked Theriault if he could speak to the health effects of turbine noise.

 “Annoyance is a very complex phenomena,” he said, referring to a recent wind-industry study that found no negative health effects of wind turbines except annoyance. “We know that in some cases, annoyance isn’t even related to noise level. It can be related to whether they see the noise source and can change with the subject’s attitude to the noise source.”

 Then Kerrie Standlee, a prominent acoustical expert – he works for the Oregon Department of Energy doing site certification reviews and was even hired by Morrow County to analyze the racetrack issue – began to speak for the Eatons, Williams and Wade. He presented his own noise study, which showed that the noise at the Eaton’s residence hovered just above the noise standard on a regular basis, and at the Williams residence it regularly went above 40 decibels.

 Standlee also analyzed Theriault’s study. He pointed out that the wind farm consistently broke the noise rule at precisely the time when Theriault decided not to use the data – when wind speeds exceeded 9 meters per second.

 When the data is analyzed in a wider range of wind speeds, he said, the wind farm was in violation of the rule 22 out of 37 nights.

 “I’m not sure how someone can say this is an unusual, infrequent event,” he said. “To me, 59 percent is not occasional or unusual.”

 Standlee’s noise study also went beyond Theriault’s in that he gave the residents a sheet of paper to log their experiences with time and date. He then overlaid those comments on the data and showed that when the residents reported high noise, the wind was blowing from a particular direction or at a particular speed.

 Another acoustical expert, Jerry Lilly, spoke for Dave Mingo. He came up with results similar to Standlee’s, but noted that the Theriault study was also flawed because it did not measure noise at the residence’s property line – as required by Morrow County noise ordinance – and it did not measure the noise inside the homes.

 The commission also heard heartfelt testimony from the residents themselves, who said that their lives had been completely changed since the wind farm came.

 “A basic right in my life is to live in my beautiful home with my peace and quiet, and now I can’t do that,” Dan Williams said.

 When the testimony ended, the planning commission agreed to wait until their next meeting to make a decision about whether – and how – the Willow Creek wind farm must mitigate the noise problem.