Entries in wind farm complaints (77)
8/5/10 How big are those turbines? This yellow airplane gives you some idea of the scale
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.
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/layout/iconSets/dark/user-registered.png)
8/4/10 DOUBLE FEATURE Wind developer to local government: Law is on my side. In fact, I'm writing the law AND The noise heard 'round the world: report finds negative health impacts from wind turbines
PERMITS EXTENDED ON WIND FARM
August 3, 2010
By Lyn Jerde
Another Columbia County wind farm - this one in the county's southern tier - is still up in the air.
The Columbia County Board's planning and zoning committee Tuesday extended, by one year, conditional use permits to two landowners, which would allow for another year of testing wind speeds, using two 197-foot test towers set up by the Madison-based Wind Capital Group. The towers have been in place for two years.
One of the towers is in the town of Arlington, on land owned by Sherri and Lloyd Manthe. The other is in the town of Leeds, where the landowner hosting it is Alan Kaltenberg, a town supervisor.
Planning and Zoning Director John Bluemke said the extension of the conditional use permit to Aug. 1, 2011, as approved by the committee, is contingent on approval from the Arlington and Leeds town boards.
Thomas Green, senior manager for project development for Wind Capital Group, said results from the test towers (which don't have bladed turbines, as electricity-generating windmills do) have shown that southern Columbia County could have wind that is strong enough, and frequent enough, to make the area a viable location for a wind farm.
But discussion is still in the early stages, he said.
"Thus far, we feel pretty good about the wind capacity in the area," he said. "We know we have to have the data to take further steps."
Another year of testing the wind would provide additional information while the Wind Capital Group assesses other factors that might determine whether their wind farm might be in Columbia County's future.
In northeast Columbia County, construction has begun on the access roads and headquarters for the Glacier Hills Energy Park, being built by We Energies, in the towns of Scott and Randolph. The Glacier Hills turbines are scheduled to be built in the summer of 2011 - up to 90 of them, each about 400 feet from the base to the top of the highest blade tip.
If Wind Capital Group builds a wind farm, Green said, it would sell any power generated to an electric utility.
In speaking to the planning and zoning committee Tuesday, Green noted that there currently are state and federal initiatives to encourage the construction of facilities that generate electricity from renewable resources such as wind.
"For the foreseeable future," added committee member Fred Teitgen.
Green said he doesn't see the incentives going away any time soon, partly because Wisconsin has a law requiring utilities to generate a percentage of their electricity from renewable resources.
Committee member Harlan Baumgartner said he's not convinced that wind will be or should be a major factor in future energy generation.
"There might be other ways of producing energy that are more feasible than wind," he said.
Although officials of the towns of Leeds and Arlington must sign off on the extension of the test towers' conditional use permit, neither the towns nor the county can, legally, make their own regulations regarding the siting of wind turbines.
It's not that the town of Arlington hasn't tried. In the spring of 2009, the town board adopted an ordinance requiring that all wind turbines must be at least 2,640 feet, or half a mile, from buildings.
However, a new state law has directed the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, which regulates the state's utilities, to set parameters for wind turbine siting that would be applicable throughout the state - meaning that no county, town, village or city could make rules that are more restrictive.
Green said the PSC is in the process of drafting those rules, and they should be in place soon.
"We can't make a decision," he said, "until there are standards in place."
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
One thing this article does not mention is that Tom Green himself is writing the 'standards' that will allow him to site this project.
When the state legislature voted to strip local government its power to regulate wind projects, Tom Green of Wind Capitol Group was appointed to the 15 member Wind Siting Council which has just finished writing siting guidelines for the entire state.
Like Tom Green, the majority of the council has a direct or indirect financial interest in creating rules that favor wind development over protection of local residents and wildlife.
SECOND FEATURE
What's the "Dean Report" and why does it matter to wind project residents? Here's what windaction.org has to say about it
The Dean Report
Acciona Energy's Waubra wind farm, located in western Victoria, Australia is the largest operating wind facility in the southern hemisphere.
Within weeks of the towers first being turned on, Noel Dean began suffering adverse health effects. Australian newspapers quoted Dean this way: "I was waking up two days in a row with headaches, I'd have to take Panadol but they'd be gone by dinner time.
When the wind is blowing north I got a thumping headache, like someone belted me over the head with a plank of wood and I didn't know whether to go to the hospital or what to do. You couldn't really work."
Other symptoms he and his wife experienced included general malaise, nausea, sleeplessness and general uneasiness.
By July, the Deans had packed up and left their farm.
Around the same time, an investigation of wind farm noise complaints was underway in New Zealand.
Residents living near the towers in New Zealand were filing complaints of sleep disturbance, annoyance, anxiety and nausea. As more people in both Australia and New Zealand became comfortable in talking about their health concerns a picture began to emerge that researchers found unusual.
There were compelling similarities between experiences in two totally different countries, totally different environments and totally different turbines.
Audible wind farm sound and consequential sleep disturbance, annoyance and anxiety responses were similar for people in both countries. These effects were also experienced even under situations of near inaudible wind turbine sound.
The concerns of the Deans and others living within 3500 meters of operational wind farms triggered more than twelve months of intensive study by a group of 4 qualified researchers.
The result is The Dean Report, a detailed peer-reviewed analysis of the sound levels near the Dean's properties and the potential adverse effects of wind farm activity on human health.
Dr. Robert Thorne PhD[1], who authored the report, based his findings and conclusions on extensive field work, personal investigations, case studies and the development of sound analysis methodologies. He told Windaction.org that "the Dean Report, in its various forms, has been placed in evidence subject to cross-examination before a Board of Inquiry and formal wind farm hearings for the purposes of peer-review and critique. A hypothesis as to cause and effect for adverse health effects from wind farm activity is presented."
In news reports today, wind farm operator, Acciona Energy, insisted "there is already enough existing credible evidence proving there are no health effects from wind farm noise."
We respectfully disagree. The Dean Report makes clear we are only just beginning to understand problem.
[1] Dr. Thorne is a principal of Noise Measurement Services Pty Ltd in Australia. He holds a PhD in Health Science from Massey University, New Zealand. His professional background is the measurement of low background sound levels and the assessment of noise as it affects people.
Windaction.org wishes to express its thanks to Dr. Thorne and Mr. Dean for sharing the Dean Report with us and permitting us to provide its content to our readers.
Excerpt from the Dean Report:
Further research has shown that the acoustic energy from wind
turbines is capable of resonating houses, effectively turning them into
three-dimensional loud speakers in which the affected residents are now
expected to live.
The phenomenon of natural resonance combines to produce a cocktail of
annoying sounds which not only disturb the peace and tranquility
once-enjoyed by the residents, but also stimulate a number of disturbing
physiological effects which manifest in the physical symptoms described
above.
In the opinion of the author, backed up by residents' surveys and scientific
measurements and analysis of the noise of turbine can be a significant
detractor for those living within 10 kilometres of them.
More research is urgently needed to determine the extent of the nuisance
effects and what setbacks are required to minimise the negative effects on
resident communities.
The long term medical implications are considerable and need to be
researched before any further applications for wind farms are consented.
Failure to do this, in the opinion of the author, will significantly effect
the utilization of this technology and will produce long-term consequences
that will be to the detriment of the whole of society.
Notes:
[1] The Waubra wind energy facility is located near Ballarat, in western
Victoria, Australia. It is the largest operating wind facility in the
southern hemisphere consisting of 128-1.5 megawatt turbines for a total
installed capacity of 192 megawatts. The turbines were first turned on in
February 2009; the facility was fully operational by July 2009.
[2] Noel Dean and his family moved away from their farm in the spring of
2009 when the headaches and other symptoms worsened
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/layout/iconSets/dark/user-registered.png)
8/2/10 Drawing Fire: lightning destroys another wind turbine
LIGHTNING STRIKE BURNS DOWN WIND TURBINE
Source: Sioux City Journal, www.siouxcityjournal.com
August 2, 2010
By Michele Linck,
PETERSON, Iowa — A lightening strike started a fire in a wind turbine Saturday morning, destroying the turbine and one of three new blades that had been laid out on the ground beneath it in order to be installed as replacements. Damages totaled $760,000, according to Peterson Fire Chief John Winterboer.
The turbine was owned by Aes Wind Generation Inc., of Alta Iowa.
Winterboer said the call came in at 7:30 a.m., but firefighters were on the scene until 3:30 p.m. because they had to wait for the turbine and its three blades to burn enough to fall the 210 feet to the ground before they could extinguish the smoky blaze.
Winterboer said the company valued the turbine at $700,000 and the new blades at $60,000 each. He said his department was able to save two of the new blades. “We got the fire out and saved them,” he said on Sunday.
Passersby who called 911 initially reported several turbines were on fire, Winterboer said, but it was only drifting smoke they saw amongst other nearby turbines.
Although Peterson is in Clay County and the burning turbine was is Buena Vista County, the Peterson Fire Department was the closest and got the call. Winterboer said that was the third or fourth turbine fire his department had put out in about 12 years.
MORE ABOUT WIND TURBINES AND LIGHTNING
Wind Turbines and Lightning
by Nick Gromicko and Rob LondonWind turbines are tall, isolated towers composed of sensitive electronics, all of which are factors that make lightning a persistent and real threat. A properly installed lightning protection system, however, will intercept the lightning and effectively and safely conduct it to theearth without risking physical destruction to the wind turbine. This issue has become increasingly critical as wind turbine systems become more sophisticated and vulnerable to lightning. Lightning protection systems costs less than 1% of the total capital expenses while improving the cost-effectiveness and reliability of a wind turbine substantially.
First, a few facts to convey the danger that lightning poses to these power-producing windmills…
- According to a German study, lightning strikes accounted for 80% of wind turbine insurance claims.
- During its first full year of operation, 85% of the down time experienced by one southwestern commercial wind farm was lightning-related. Total lightning-related damage exceeded $250,000.
- The German electric power company Energieerzeugungswerke Helgoland GmbH shut down and dismantled their Helgoland Island wind power plant after being denied insurance against further lightning losses. They had been in operation three years and suffered more than $540,000 (USD) in lightning-related damage.
Wind Turbine Component DamageThe following systems, arranged in order from most to least vulnerable, may be damaged by lightningstrikes:
- damage to the control system. These include sensors, actuators, and the motors for steering the equipment into the wind. According to the updated National Fire Protection Association handbook: “While physical blade damage is the most expensive and disruptive damage caused by lightning, by far the most common is damage to the control system”;
- damage to electronics. Wind turbines are deceptively complex, housing a transformer station, frequency converter, switchgear elements, and other expensive, sensitive equipment in a relatively small space;
- blade damage. A lightning strike to an unprotected blade will raise its temperature tremendously, perhaps as high as 54,000° F (30,000° C), and result in an explosive expansion of the air within the blade. This expansion can cause delamination, damage to the blade surface, melted glue, and cracking on the leading and trailing edges. Much of the damage may go undetected while significantly shortening the blade’s service life. One study found that wood epoxy blades are more lightning-resistant than GRP/glass epoxy blades;
- damage to generators; and
- batteries can be destroyed, or even detonated, by a lightning strike.
Note that lightning dangers increase with turbine height.The National Lightning Safety Institute finds that lightning codes, in reference to the danger lightning poses to wind turbines, “provide more benefit to commercial vendors than to those seeking relief from lightning's effects” and that “devices that claim to offer absolute protection abound in the marketplace, confusing specifying architects, engineers, and facility managers.”An article published in Solar Age Magazine offers the following recommendations for wind turbine lightning protection and inspection:
- Every wire that enters the electrical panel box should have a surge suppressor grounded to an existing ground rod. The installation should have only one ground rod, which should make “better contact with the moisture in the ground than do the tower footings.”
- Lightning rods are not likely to protect the windmill’s electronic equipment. Furthermore, lightning rods may obstruct the flow of wind around the turbine’s blades, reducing the system’s efficiency. This advice contrasts with that offered by Machine Design Magazine, which states that “Franklin-type lightning rods protect [wind turbines] against direct lightning strikes.”
In summary, wind turbines are extremely vulnerable to lightning, but the danger can be mitigated by lightning protection systems.
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/layout/iconSets/dark/user-registered.png)
8/1/10 TRIPLE FEATURE: On the noise problem wind developers say does not exist.
VIDEO: THROWING CAUTION TO THE WIND:
Wind farms are springing up as easy investments in green energy. Scientific studies have raised serious concerns about the impact they could have on human health. But few are paying much attention.
As Sylvia Squair reports, some doctors and scientists are now joining concerned citizens, urging the government and the industry not to throw caution to the wind.
SECOND FEATURE:
What started out as a welcomed clean energy source has now become a public health issue, Neil Andersen said, and will only get worse when a second identical turbine on the same parcel becomes operational in the next six months.
“We’re seriously thinking about selling our home and getting out of here,” Andersen said. “I have headaches and my head is spinning. My wife wakes up crying her head off. We don’t know what to do.”
Turbine Noise Ruffling Feathers
SOURCE: Cape Cod Times, www.capecodonline.com
August 1, 2010 By Aaron Gouveia,
FALMOUTH — Neil and Elizabeth Andersen prefer open windows to air conditioning, but their home is now hermetically sealed despite the warm and breezy weather.
Although Neil, 57, and Elizabeth, 53, have spent more than 20 years enjoying Falmouth’s fresh air and working in their meticulous gardens on Blacksmith Shop Road, they now remain indoors and devote effort to blocking out the constant noise emanating from Wind I, the 400-foot-tall, 1.65-megawatt wind turbine whirling less than 1,500 feet from their front door.
What started out as a welcomed clean energy source has now become a public health issue, Neil Andersen said, and will only get worse when a second identical turbine on the same parcel becomes operational in the next six months.
“We’re seriously thinking about selling our home and getting out of here,” Andersen said. “I have headaches and my head is spinning. My wife wakes up crying her head off. We don’t know what to do.”
On Friday, Neil Andersen said his wife’s doctor told the couple Elizabeth has already suffered at least some hearing damage. She is scheduled to see a specialist in two weeks and was also given a prescription to combat vertigo.
The couple believes the cause of their medical maladies is the noise from the turbine, which they say has left them with dizziness, headaches and many sleepless nights.
The $4.3 million town-owned turbine began whirling in March. Since then, town officials say they have received “sporadic complaints” about noise from a handful of neighbors, usually when wind speeds increase.
‘I have to move away’
The turning blades are visible through the trees from the Andersens’ house. On Thursday, with westerly winds blowing at approximately 12 mph, the sound of the turbine was audible, but tamer than usual, the Andersens said.
Described as alternating between the “sound of a hovering jet that never lands” and a pronounced “whooshing” noise during periods of higher winds, Neil Andersen said he wears noise-reducing headphones while in his yard and has installed fountains in his garden to drown out the noise from the turbine.
Elizabeth Andersen sleeps with multiple fans going and simultaneously listens to a white noise machine. Neil Andersen said the only way he can sleep is to retreat to the basement.
The Andersens have complained to selectmen, the board of health, zoning officials and, on Thursday, even attempted to file a battery complaint against the turbine at the Falmouth Police Station.
The couple is not alone.
Barry Funfar, a 63-year-old veteran and Ridgeview Drive resident who lives roughly 1,700 feet from the turbine, suffered from post traumatic stress disorder before the turbine’s installations, but he said the noise from the windmill is exacerbating his condition.
What’s worse, it is also driving a wedge between Funfar and his wife because she does not want to move from the home they’ve shared for 30 years.
“My doctor tells me there’s no way I’ll be able to cope living next to that windmill,” Funfar said. “I have to face it. I have to move away.”
But Dr. Robert McCunney, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Biological Engineering and a staff physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, spoke in Bourne last month and said studies have not show a link between low-frequency sound from wind turbines and adverse health effects.
McCunney, who did not return a phone call seeking comment, said last month that the “swish, swish” of the blades rotating through the air causes only annoyance among people who live near turbines.
Sound study under way
Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum, a diagnostic radiologist at the Northern Maine Medical Center, disagrees with McCunney.
Nissenbaum spearheaded a pilot study in Mars Hill, Maine, in which he examined people living within 3,500 feet of 27 1.5-megawatt turbines, and compared them with people of similar demographics who lived three miles away.
He found the 22 people living nearest to the turbines took four times as many new or increased prescription medications, and also suffered higher incidences of sleep deprivation.
“The question then becomes, ‘Do industrial-sized wind turbines placed close to people’s homes result in chronic sleep disturbances?’ The answer is an unequivocal yes,” Nissenbaum said.
Nissenbaum recommended any turbine of more than 1.5-megawatts should be at least 7,000 feet away from homes.
Back in Falmouth, Town Manager Robert Whritenour said he is aware of the noise complaints and the town has taken steps to mitigate the problem.
The Wind I turbine automatically shuts off when wind speeds reach 22 mph, Whritenour said, to reduce turbine noise when it is loudest. The town also hired Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. of Burlington to conduct a sound study, the results of which will be released in the next two weeks, Whritenour said.
According to state Department of Environmental Protection air pollution and quality guidelines, a source of sound violates noise regulations when it increases the ambient sound level by more than 10 decibels.
The baseline noise level varies depending on the location.
Christopher Senie, a Westboro-based attorney representing 14 Blacksmith Shop Road neighbors, said noise tests should have been conducted earlier and he criticized town officials for skirting their own zoning requirements.
Senie said erecting a turbine in an industrial zone should have required a special permit process through the Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals. But Senie said town officials mistakenly believe the special act of the Legislature authorizing the town to build and finance the turbine gave them a “free pass” regarding the special permit. “Towns are not exempt from their own zoning laws,” he said.
When asked about the special permit, Whritenour said, “I’m not going to get into that,” and he stressed that the project went through a detailed permitting process and followed all necessary rules “step by step.”
Senie and his clients met with the board of health recently to air their grievances. He wants to create a new health regulation regarding wind turbine noise and submit it to the board, which could then adopt it without approval from town meeting.
Falmouth Health Agent David Carignan said members of the board of health are doing independent research to familiarize themselves with the issue and will consider Senie’s suggestions.
“We’re not saying no to the people who want to talk about it,” Carignan said. “The board has not deliberated on a specific course of action other than to continue to participate in the discussion.”
THIRD FEATURE
Turbines too loud for you? Here take $5,000
“The lady that came said everyone else signed,” said Jarrod Ogden, 33, a farmer whose house would be directly opposite several 300-foot turbines once Shepherd’s Flat is completed. “But I know for a fact that some people didn’t. I’m all for windmills, but I’m not going to let them buy me like that. I think they’re just trying to buy cheap insurance.”
SOURCE: The New York Times, www.nytimes.com
July 31 2010
By William Yardley,
IONE, Ore. — Residents of the remote high-desert hills near here have had an unusual visitor recently, a fixer working out the kinks in clean energy.
Patricia Pilz of Caithness Energy, a big company from New York that is helping make this part of eastern Oregon one of the fastest-growing wind power regions in the country, is making a tempting offer: sign a waiver saying you will not complain about excessive noise from the turning turbines — the whoosh, whoosh, whoosh of the future, advocates say — and she will cut you a check for $5,000.
“Shall we call it hush money?” said one longtime farmer, George Griffith, 84. “It was about as easy as easy money can get.”
Mr. Griffith happily accepted the check, but not everyone is taking the money. Even out here — where the recession has steepened the steady decline of the rural economy, where people have long supported the massive dams that harness the Columbia River for hydroelectric power, where Oregon has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in tax incentives to cultivate alternative energy — pockets of resistance are rising with the windmills on the river banks.
Residents in small towns are fighting proposed projects, raising concerns about threats to birds and big game, as well as about the way the giant towers and their blinking lights spoil some of the West’s most alluring views.
Here, just west of where the Columbia bends north into Washington, some people are fighting turbines that are already up and running. In a region where people often have to holler to be heard over the roar of the wind across the barren hills, they say it is the windmills that make too much noise.
“The only thing we have going for us is the Oregon state noise ordinance,” said Mike Eaton, an opponent of the turbines.
Oregon is one of a growing number of places that have drafted specific regulations restricting noise from wind turbines. The Oregon law allows for noise to exceed what is considered an area’s ambient noise level by only a certain amount. But what those ambient levels are is sometimes disputed, as is how and where they should be measured.
And while state law limits turbine noise, the state office that once enforced industrial noise laws, housed within the Department of Environmental Quality, was disbanded in 1991, long before wind power became a state priority.
“We have the regulations still on the books, and entities are expected to comply with those regulations,” said William Knight, a spokesperson for the Department of Environmental Quality. “But there really isn’t anybody from D.E.Q. going around to find out if that’s occurring. I’m not sure who you’d call out there in Columbia Gorge.”
Local government is one answer. In May, after testimony from private acoustic experts, the Morrow County Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Eaton, his wife, Sherry, and a small group of other opponents that Willow Creek, a wind farm directly behind the Eatons’ modest house on Highway 74, was indeed exceeding allowable noise levels. The commission ordered the company that operates the site, Invenergy, to come into compliance within six months.
Invenergy quickly appealed — and so did the Eatons and their allies. The county’s board of commissioners also asked the planning commission to clarify its decision. A hearing is scheduled for this month.
“The appeals were all based on the same questions,” said Carla McLane, the county planning director. “What does ‘not in compliance’ mean, and what does it take to be in compliance in six months?”
Opponents say the constant whooshing from the turbines makes them anxious and that the low-level vibrations keep them awake at night. Some say it gives them nausea and headaches. Many other residents say they hear little or nothing at all, and the question of whether windmill noise can harm health is in dispute.
Critics say those complaining about Willow Creek are just angry that they were not able to lease their land to wind developers. Some opponents say they would be happy if Invenergy just turned certain turbines off at night, but others say they want reimbursement for losing their pastoral way of life.
“What we’re really trying to do is get Invenergy to the bargaining table,” said Dan Williams, a builder who is part of the group frustrated with the noise from Willow Creek.
While Invenergy is still dealing with the noise issue even after Willow Creek, which has 48 turbines, has been up and running for more than 18 months, Caithness Energy, the company asking some residents to sign waivers allowing noise to exceed certain limits, hopes it can solve the issue up front. It also has more at stake.
Caithness is building a much larger wind farm adjoining Willow Creek called Shepherd’s Flat. The new farm is expected to have 338 turbines and generate more than 900 megawatts when it is completed in 2013, which would make it one of the largest wind facilities in the country.
Large farms like Shepherd’s Flat are regulated by the state. Tom Stoops, the council secretary for the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council, said that large projects must prove they would comply with the noise ordinance and that noise waivers, or easements, were among the solutions. Asked if it was common for companies to pay people to sign such easements, Mr. Stoops said, “That’s probably a level of detail that doesn’t come to us.”
Ms. Pilz, the local Caithness representative, did not volunteer the information that Caithness offers people money to sign noise easements, though she eventually confirmed in an interview that it did. She also would not say how much money it offers, though several property owners said she had offered them $5,000.
“What we don’t do in general is change the market price for a waiver,” Ms. Pilz said. “That’s not fair.”
Some people who did not sign said that Ms. Pilz made them feel uncomfortable, that she talked about how much Shepherd’s Flat would benefit the struggling local economy and the nation’s energy goals, and that she suggested they were not thinking of the greater good if they refused.
“The lady that came said everyone else signed,” said Jarrod Ogden, 33, a farmer whose house would be directly opposite several 300-foot turbines once Shepherd’s Flat is completed. “But I know for a fact that some people didn’t. I’m all for windmills, but I’m not going to let them buy me like that. I think they’re just trying to buy cheap insurance.”
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/layout/iconSets/dark/user-registered.png)
7/30/10 Wind Turbine troubles North of the border AND Like a bad neighbor (especially in Rock County, Wisconsin) Acciona is there AND The moon is made of green cheese, economic recovery is made of green jobs
Dr. McMurtry on wind turbine concerns.
Click on the image above to hear why this Canadian doctor is concerned about the current state of wind turbine siting regulation.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
Contracts signed by local landowners in Rock County were sold when Acciona bought the rights to develop an industrial scale wind project from fledgling wind developer, EcoEnergy.
EcoEnergy did not disclose how much profit they made from selling local contracts to the Spanish wind industry giant, but local landowners will not see a higher payout as a result, or an option to get out of the contract.
Five continguous Rock County townships have adopted ordinances that require wind developers to site turbines at least 2640 feet from non-participating homes.
In a matter of weeks, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin will issue wind siting rules that will overturn those ordinances along with those of many other Wisconsin Towns and Counties.
Better Plan Wisconsin [BPWI], has repreatedly asked Acciona about its plans for the wind project in Rock County which at one time included siting 67 industrial scale wind turbines in the Town of Magnolia's 36 square miles.
Acciona has thus far failed to respond.
Landowners who signed contracts with EcoEnergy early on are now angered to find that the offer of a reported $4,000 per turbine per year is far below the going rate being offered to farmers in other communities in our state.
Some have expressed a desire to get out of those contracts and renegotiate something on par with what other wind developers are offering. Others want out because they have witnessed the damage and fragmentation of farm fields left behind by wind development in other parts of our state and want no part of it.
Still others have seen their families and communities torn apart by this issue and no longer feel that it is worth it.
However, landowners in Brown and Columbia Counties are finding out just how hard it is to get out of the contracts they signed at the kitchen table with the once 'friendly' wind developer.
Doing business on a handshake has long been the tradition in rural Wisconsin.
It was something that worked well before out-of-state wind developers began to show up at farmsteads with big promises and iron clad contracts.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, like a bad neighbor, Acciona is there too.
The Dean Report
(Posted July 28, 2010)
Within weeks of the towers first being turned on, Noel Dean began suffering adverse health effects. Australian newspapers quoted Dean this way: "I was waking up two days in a row with headaches, I'd have to take Panadol but they'd be gone by dinner time.
When the wind is blowing north I got a thumping headache, like someone belted me over the head with a plank of wood and I didn't know whether to go to the hospital or what to do. You couldn't really work."
Other symptoms he and his wife experienced included general malaise, nausea, sleeplessness and general uneasiness.
By July, the Deans had packed up and left their farm.
Around the same time, an investigation of wind farm noise complaints was underway in New Zealand. Residents living near the towers in New Zealand were filing complaints of sleep disturbance, annoyance, anxiety and nausea. As more people in both Australia and New Zealand became comfortable in talking about their health concerns a picture began to emerge that researchers found unusual. There were compelling similarities between experiences in two totally different countries, totally different environments and totally different turbines.
Audible wind farm sound and consequential sleep disturbance, annoyance and anxiety responses were similar for people in both countries. These effects were also experienced even under situations of near inaudible wind turbine sound.
The concerns of the Deans and others living within 3500 meters of operational wind farms triggered more than twelve months of intensive study by a group of 4 qualified researchers.
The result is The Dean Report, a detailed peer-reviewed analysis of the sound levels near the Dean's properties and the potential adverse effects of wind farm activity on human health.
Dr. Robert Thorne PhD[1], who authored the report, based his findings and conclusions on extensive field work, personal investigations, case studies and the development of sound analysis methodologies. He told Windaction.org that "the Dean Report, in its various forms, has been placed in evidence subject to cross-examination before a Board of Inquiry and formal wind farm hearings for the purposes of peer-review and critique. A hypothesis as to cause and effect for adverse health effects from wind farm activity is presented."
In news reports today, wind farm operator, Acciona Energy, insisted "there is already enough existing credible evidence proving there are no health effects from wind farm noise."
We respectfully disagree. The Dean Report makes clear we are only just beginning to understand problem.
[1] Dr. Thorne is a principal of Noise Measurement Services Pty Ltd in Australia. He holds a PhD in Health Science from Massey University, New Zealand. His professional background is the measurement of low background sound levels and the assessment of noise as it affects people.
Windaction.org wishes to express its thanks to Dr. Thorne and Mr. Dean for sharing the Dean Report with us and permitting us to provide its content to our readers.
SECOND FEATURE:
“It’s easier to make the case” about jobs, Viard said, “than it is to say ‘Is wind energy or offshore oil drilling what we should be doing?’”
“The jobs argument is very popular,” Viard added. “It is very annoying to economists.”
As the Senate rushes toward a vote on oil spill legislation, those seeking changes in the bill are loading their arguments with a potent political word: jobs.
The oil and natural gas industry warns that aggressive regulation of oil drilling could kill industry jobs and those beyond the petroleum sector. Renewable power advocates argue that omitting needed climate policies from the Senate bill threatens existing green jobs and fails to bolster those that could be created.
“People want jobs, and all the more so in a situation like this,” with an ongoing recession, said Alan Viard, an economist who is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “It naturally has a political resonance.”
But Viard and other economists warn that the jobs arguments is flawed. Industries tend to look only at a policy’s impact on one sector, ignoring the broader economic impact. And they avoid a tough examination of other factors that should dictate policy decisions, such as whether something is worthwhile and what are all the costs.
“It’s easier to make the case” about jobs, Viard said, “than it is to say ‘Is wind energy or offshore oil drilling what we should be doing?’”
“The jobs argument is very popular,” Viard added. “It is very annoying to economists.”
Jobs arguments long have been made to buttress and condemn many proposed policies and became more impassioned with the recession and high unemployment. The 2009 stimulus bill passed on promises it would create jobs. It included grants, loan guarantees and other incentives meant to drive job creation, particularly in the clean energy arena.
President Obama earlier this month promoted his policies as having helped workers. While the White House has not estimated how many clean-energy jobs its policies have spawned or protected, it said that overall the Recovery Act has saved or created 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs (Greenwire, July 15).
Democrats, renewable energy sectors and environmental groups promote the potential for “green job” creation as one of the reasons passage of climate legislation is crucial. Climate legislation now appears dead for this session, but as the oil spill bill moves forward, the jobs argument thrives.
Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, on Tuesday decried Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan to omit from the bill a renewable electricity standard, a national mandate requiring utilities to use some green power(Greenwire, July 27).
“We are going to see jobs lost,” Bode said. “We are going to see manufacturing facilities not built in the United States. For 85,000 people employed by the wind sector,” she said, “this is about survival as an industry.”
Clean Energy Works, an alliance of about 60 groups that want climate legislation, on Tuesday sent an e-mail to reporters with the subject line “CEOs: Obstruction of Climate Bill Sends Jobs to China, Dollars to Enemies, Increases Pollution at Home.”
The fossil fuel industry also is talking jobs, asserting that over-regulation of the sector could be devastating for workers.
“This would cut domestic production, kill American jobs, slow economic growth and cost billions in federal oil and natural gas revenues,” said Jack Gerard, American Petroleum Institute president and CEO, about a proposal to lift limits on petroleum company liability for oil spill damages (Greenwire, July 27).
“Majority Leader Reid suggests his bill will create 150,000 new jobs,” Gerard added, “but our analysis indicates that failing to develop in the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico will cost more than that — 175,000 jobs, the majority of them in already hard-hit Gulf Coast communities.”
Any new jobs?
The reality, economists said, is that although a recession can temporarily shrink the number of jobs, there are roughly the same number of people working at any given time. Government policies can shift where those jobs exist, but for the most part not eliminate or create them, they said.
“Arguments about … the job-creating or job-destroying effects of climate legislation, those sort of miss the point,” said Chad Stone, chief economist at the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “A transformation to a green economy would change the composition of jobs in the economy, not the aggregate number of jobs.”
Wind’s trade group argues that an renewable electricity standard would provide long-term stability for the industry and encourage private investment, leading to job growth. But that fails to acknowledge that policy could hurt jobs elsewhere, like in the coal industry, said Adele Morris, policy director for climate and energy economics at the Brookings Institution.
“The wind people, they want to focus on the gross jobs in their industry, not the net jobs across the economy,” Morris said. There may be other reasons to want wind versus coal jobs, she said, but that is a different argument.
The wind group disagreed.
“There are differences from one technology to another, and renewables tend to be more job-intensive energy sources,” AWEA said. “A critical portion of the jobs we are talking about here are manufacturing jobs, to make the 8,000 components that go into a modern wind turbine, and to create a U.S. supply chain here in the U.S. for wind and other renewable energy manufacturing.
“If those manufacturing jobs aren’t created here, they will go in Europe or China,” AWEA added. “Winning the clean energy manufacturing race is the critical opportunity right now with the RES.”
For environmental goals to succeed, Morris said, the power made from green sources has to be as inexpensive as possible. That means making the technology in the least expensive place possible. She did not say where that might be.
“Any policy that’s designed to drive manufacturing toward more expensive locations is ultimately going to undermine the environmental goal,” Morris said.
When government policies eliminate some jobs, over the long run the labor market adjusts, Morris said.
“The people who are employed in that industry eventually migrate to other sectors,” Morris said.
Larger effect
Over the short term, however, economists acknowledge adjustments can be painful to some workers and regions. The extent of that impact is open to some debate.
The American Petroleum Institute argues that an extended moratorium on deepwater oil drilling, or changes in tax law that make drilling less profitable, will eliminate jobs in the oil industry and well beyond it.
A report released Tuesday by the industry trade group says that more than 175,000 jobs would be affected annually by those kind of policies. It looked at the period from 2013 through 2035.
API reaches that number in its report by combining workers in three groups. It said that 30,183 oil company jobs would be at risk with a long-term moratorium. The analysis then adds in jobs indirectly connected to the industry, like workers with companies that make a product used in oil drilling or who work for a support company, like operators of contracted drilling rigs. That is another 63,207 positions, API said.
But the API report sees the affected employment pool as even bigger than those groups. The API study also includes all of the jobs that are affected by how oil company and ancillary business workers spend their wages. Those workers eat in a nearby restaurant, for example, and the report counts the job of the cook as also being relevant, said Kyle Isakower, API’s vice president of regulatory and economic policy. Those jobs, called the “induced effect,” total 82,051.
“Contrary to popular belief, the benefits of oil and gas development and production are not restricted to a narrow sector of the economy,” the API report says. “Rather, its impacts are broad-based benefiting manufacturing, construction, real estate, finance and insurance, health and social services among others.”
The same could be said of all jobs, some economists said. There is only so much money being spent in society at any one time, Viard said, and how it is spent has effects on different people.
“It’s absolutely true if I spend a dollar on offshore drilling instead of spending it on a hamburger, that is going to have a whole series of ripple effects,” Viard said. But the induced effect of not spending that dollar on the hamburger “is equally wide,” he said.
If an oil company did not spend money on drilling, Viard said, it might choose to return it to shareholders, who might spend it elsewhere or invest it, which could drive down interest rates and benefit home buyers.
“Everything affects everything,” Viard said. “There’s no way to trace where that money would go, but it would go somewhere, and wherever it went it would create jobs, direct, indirect and induced.”
Not all jobs have equal positive impacts on society, Isakower said.
“While there will be an induced effect for any job, some jobs have greater induced effects than others,” Isakower said. Oil industry jobs are among those that benefit many others, he said, because “they do tend to be higher-paying jobs than the national average.”
A moratorium could cause short-term pain to oil industry jobs and support businesses, Morris said, because those jobs tend to be concentrated in a few geographic areas.
“Workers can’t instantly change what industry their skills are suited to,” Morris said, and small businesses that service the oil drilling sector cannot quickly relocate.
“There’s no question that in the short run there can be economic disruption,” Morris said. “That doesn’t mean by itself [that a moratorium] is a bad policy. We could be buying time to prevent further economic degradation down the line.”
Economists argued that policy decisions should not be made solely or even largely on the basis of whether they will hurt or help jobs.
“Otherwise,” Viard said, “we would still have the horse-and-buggy industry because we didn’t want to lose horse-and-buggy jobs.”
![Registered Commenter Registered Commenter](/layout/iconSets/dark/user-registered.png)