WIND CONTRACT BINDS REGRETFUL FARMLAND OWNER

By Sue McGinn, 

SOURCE: www.saukvalley.com

September 9, 2011

When you sign a 20- to 30-year contract to have a wind turbine on your property, you may be signing away many rights you’re unaware of. A confidentiality agreement in the contract may mean legal action can be taken against you if you complain publicly. A Fond du Lac, Wis., farmer signed away his rights.

These are excerpts from a full-page ad in the Chilton (Wis.) Times-Journal, Oct. 25, 2007, as told to Don Bangart, who wrote the following on behalf of the farmer.

“As I view this year’s crops, my eyes feast on a most bountiful supply of corn and soybeans. And then my eyes focus again on the trenches and road scars leading to the turbine foundations. What have I done?”

In 2003, the energy company made first contact with a $2,000 “incentive.” In 2004 or 2005, he signed a $4,000 turbine contract allowing them to lease his land for their needs. The lease favored the company, but he didn’t realize it.

He watched them tear 22-foot-wide roads into his fields. Later, a 4-foot-deep-by-2-foot wide trench was started diagonally across his field, eventually making what was one large field into four smaller, irregularly shaped plots. The company placed roads and trenches where they would benefit it most, not the landowner. Costly tiling installed to improve drainage was cut into pieces.

The farmers were told to stay away from the work sites. Once, when he approached a crew putting in lines where they promised they would not go, a representative told him he could not be there.

There are now huge divisions between old friends and, yes, relatives. He and others tried to get out of the contracts, but they were binding.

[He] said, “Please do not do what I have done.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM WISCONSIN FARMERS WHO REGRET SIGNING ON WITH WIND COMPANIES

From Australia

ILL WIND BLOWING ACROSS THE SOUTHWEST

By Alexandra Weaver

SOURCE: The Standard, www.standard.net.au 

September 9, 2011

“When you have people that could feel that they’re locked in, that their whole entity is signed up — their house and their business — they may feel that they don’t have places to go, and they may feel that they can’t speak out because they’re in these agreements".

Turbines appear a few kilometres from Glenthompson, rising among paddocks stocked with fat lambs.

These modern windmills are a new feature of the local landscape.

On a day when grey, rain-filled clouds sweep through the area their white blades look particularly bright, each one’s rhythmic spinning commanding attention.

Late last month AGL began commissioning its 32-turbine Oaklands Hill wind farm, a project capable of producing 63 megawatts of power each year. Just four days later, Adrian and Helen Lyon began to notice a change.

The Lyons are wool producers whose home is about 1670 metres from one of the development’s turbines.

Both have reported a feeling of sustained pressure in their ears, a sensation that has disturbed their sleep.

The couple believe the problem is worst when the wind is blowing from the north, and say it disappears when the wind direction changes or they leave the 430-hectare property.

Mr Lyon said his initial worry when plans for the wind farm were unveiled in 2006 was the audible noise it could produce, adding that inaudible low-frequency noise had since become an equal concern.

“To me, and I’m pretty sure it will be for most people, if you expose yourself (to turbines) for quite some time and then go away, you will notice there is a difference,” he said.

“Exactly what we’re experiencing now, you don’t appreciate it, even after visiting Waubra.”

There are 15 turbines within about three kilometres of the Lyons’ home, though none on their land. They were invited to host generators but were concerned that doing so would restrict the number of trees they could plant.

The pair have not approached their GP to discuss the ear pressure complaint but are looking for a rental home within 50 kilometres of Glenthompson so Mr Lyon can continue running the farm.

“We’ve tried to seek answers and clarifications because if we’re being affected, other people are as well,” Mrs Lyon said.

“Some people may think that we’re just being whingers (but) we have a genuine concern for our own health and for the wellbeing that’s associated with wind farms.

“When you have people that could feel that they’re locked in, that their whole entity is signed up — their house and their business — they may feel that they don’t have places to go, and they may feel that they can’t speak out because they’re in these agreements.

“We’re an example of our home and our livelihood being affected, and impacts have begun.

“We are fortunate that we are able to speak out.”

The Waubra Foundation was formed last year to foster independent research into the health consequences of wind farms.

The organisation’s medical director, Sarah Laurie, said those living near turbines were increasingly dealing with a raft of complaints.

“I think there’s two reasons for that: one is that turbines are being placed closer to more homes, and the other issue is that the turbines are getting bigger,” she said.

“I believe, and so do other people working in the field, that it’s predominantly the low-frequency noise that’s impacting adversely on people’s health.”

Some argue it is anxiety over turbines that leads nearby residents to experience problems such as sleep deprivation, nausea, depression and headaches, a theory Dr Laurie disputes.

“My experience is that people hope — they desperately hope — that they’re going to not be affected,” she said.

“Nobody wants to have to leave their home.

“For some people (symptoms) start the minute the turbines go on, and it depends on the individual susceptibility, but it also depends on wind direction and it depends on topography.

“Anxiety is not the primary thing that’s driving this, because people are very clear that it only happens with certain wind directions.”

Dr Laurie said she routinely met residents who could identify wind direction and whether turbines were running without looking outside, such was the variation in their physical state.

Last month Planning Minister Matthew Guy approved amendment VC82, which included key parts of the Coalition’s pre-election wind farm policy.

Perhaps the most significant of these was a two-kilometre buffer between turbines and homes that will apply unless the developer receives written consent from the property owner.

The amendment also introduced no-go areas for wind farms in areas including land along the Great Ocean Road, and prevents projects being built within five kilometres of regional cities such as Warrnambool, Hamilton and Portland.

“I think (the two-kilometre setback) will help — there’s no doubt that (with) close proximity people’s symptoms are bad,” Dr Laurie said.

“We well know that the symptoms actually extend way beyond the two-kilometre mark.

“Low-frequency noise travels much further than the higher frequencies and it’s more penetrating, so as the turbines get higher and increase their power-generating capacity, what we’re going to see is people impacted over a greater distance.”

The Waubra Foundation has called for a 10-kilometre setback between turbines and homes, a figure that represents the furthest point at which residents near wind farms have reported problems.

It is also keen to see independent, peer-reviewed research on wind farms’ health effects completed in Australia as a matter of urgency.

The Lyons are adamant that those with an interest or stake in wind energy should visit their farm to gauge potential problems for themselves.

“(We want) to get people here when there is an acute problem, so that they know that there’s a problem.

“It’s no good doing tests if those tests aren’t covering what the problem is,” Mr Lyon said.

“I think we’ve got to try and get people here whether it’s in the house or down in the paddock. I haven’t worked out which one will affect people quicker.”

An AGL spokeswoman said pre-commissioning of turbines at Oaklands Hill began on August 19 and was slowly ramped up, with all generators available for commissioning on the evening of August 28.

“The commissioning process ensures that the turbines are operating within their design criteria and in accordance with the permit requirements,” she said.

“It involves testing of the turbines under normal operational conditions, assessing noise levels, electricity generation, testing of electrical and control components, reliability testing.”

The wind farm’s 32 turbines are expected to come online at some stage during the first quarter of next year.

The AGL spokeswoman said the company took all issues associated with its projects seriously and was investigating concerns about noise levels raised by the Lyons.

“The couple involved have been contacted directly by an AGL representative and a written acknowledgment of the complaint has also been provided,” she told The Standard yesterday.

“Post-construction noise compliance monitoring has already been planned and is scheduled to be commenced before the end of September 2011.

“The Department of Planning and Community Development and Southern Grampians Shire Council (have been) advised accordingly.”

NEXT STORY

From Ontario

LIFE 'DEVASTATED' BY WIND TURBINES

By DENIS LANGLOIS

Source: Owen Sound Sun Times

September 9, 2011

After months of sleepless nights, symptoms began to pile up — nausea, "horrendous" migraines, pressure in her ears and head, vertigo and general malaise.

Norma Schmidt says at first she welcomed the idea of wind turbines being erected near her rural home in southern Bruce County.

"I thought that this was good for the environment. I believed what the Liberal government told us," she said in an interview.

But shortly after the gigantic blades began to spin, in November 2008, Schmidt said she began tossing and turning at night and struggled to sleep.

After months of sleepless nights, symptoms began to pile up — nausea, "horrendous" migraines, pressure in her ears and head, vertigo and general malaise.

"The symptoms became so pervasive over months that I couldn't ignore them any longer," she said.

"Eventually I became extremely ill and was diagnosed with having wind turbine syndrome."

Acting on the advice of doctors and specialists, Schmidt said she and her husband Ron purchased a home in Miller Lake to get away from the 115-turbine Enbridge wind farm.

The decision to move was a difficult one, she said.

The couple has lived on their 13-acre property near Underwood for 32 years and raised three children there. It was the first home Schmidt owned after moving to Canada from Ireland.

"All my memories and life work is there. I can't grow those 6,000 trees again. I can't bring back the memories of my kids again. I can't transplant those 32 years of my life into some other environment."

On top of having to move, Schmidt said she became so ill while living among turbines that she is now unable to work as a registered nurse.

"My life is devastated because of it."

The feisty 55-year-old has become a vocal opponent of the province's Green Energy Act and has vowed to do whatever it takes to prevent the Liberal party from forming a government for a third consecutive time on Oct. 6.

On Wednesday, she staged an anti-wind protest in front of Huron-Bruce Liberal MPP Carol Mitchell's constituency office, after a brief meeting with the provincial cabinet minister. Schmidt said the police were called on her.

Later in the day, Schmidt joined about 70 anti-turbine protesters outside Meaford Hall for a rally to coincide with a fundraiser for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound Liberal candidate Kevin Eccles. Provincial Environment Minister John Wilkinson was expected to attend the event, but cancelled due to a scheduling conflict.

Schmidt was front and centre at the rally.

Using a megaphone, she led the crowd in chants like "Hey hey, ho ho, Dalton McGuinty's got to go," "Where's John Wilkinson," and "The winds of change are coming."

She held a large white sign that read "What about our health?"

She said her goal is to put a human face on the suffering caused by industrial wind turbines. She is calling on the province to halt new wind farm projects until an independent epidemiological health study is completed.

The Liberal government says Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health has conducted a review of existing scientific evidence on the possible health impacts of wind turbines and concluded "that while some people living near wind turbines report symptoms like dizziness, headaches and sleep disturbance, the scientific evidence available to date does not demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.

"The review also stated that the sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing impairment or other direct health effects."

Schmidt said the Liberal government is "denying" the health impacts of turbines and "ignoring" the people who are suffering.

"People just aren't going to sit back and take it anymore," she said.

She told Eccles, after he refused to commit to supporting a moratorium on turbines, that his Liberal government will lose the election because of its stance on the wind issue.

"We're going to have your government so low, so low, so low, you're not going to get elected. It's as simple as that," she said.

From Canada

COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT: Wind project resident pleads for help in another useless email to developers

SOURCE: Windyleaks.com- documents obtained through freedom of information request

EMAIL TO:  Scott Hossie, CANADIAN HYDRO DEVELOPERS
                    Gary Tomlinson – Provincial Officer, Ministry of the Environment

FROM: (A resident of Amaranth/Melancthon, Ontario)
DATE: March 16, 2009

“It is 1:00 AM.

I can’t take much more of this Scott. The Turbines were down a lot yesterday as I suppose you were testing again. Even with them looking like they weren’t working the vibration / hum in and around our house yesterday was very loud. Again, I cannot fathom what causes that when it appears everything is not running. You would know better than we.

At dinner last night it was quiet and it was the first time that it felt like the days before these turbines started. I had forgotten what peace was like.

Dennis and I went to bed at 7:20 last night because it was quiet, to try to catch up on our sleep. I prayed that you would leave these things unhooked last night so we could have one full night of rest. By midnight I was awake with the vibration back and very loud. I am so disappointed and back on the couch with the TV on to try to drown it out.

I need an answer and I need to move. I cannot bear this any longer and I will  not put up with this for Dennis and our pets either. My head felt like stew when I left the house yesterday to go shopping because the vibration was so strong. I don’t know what it is doing to us but I have the worst headache in the world right now.

I have to go to school all this week. I want you to call Dennis Monday and tell him what is going on. Gary, I am pleading with you to make this vibration in our house stop. It is absolutely maddening.”

Email to: Ministry of Environment Officials
From: a resident of Amaranth/Melancthon, Ontario
Date: Wednesday March 25, 2009 (18:18 :53)

“To all:

I would like to request a meeting with everyone to solve this ongoing problem at our property. We have vibration in our house virtually every night, some rare nights not.

I have not been lately, and will not email Canadian Hydro anymore as I do not have any faith that they are trying to help us and please note, this lack of correspondence does not suggest that things are any better in our house.

 We have done nothing but try to help them figure this out and it appears that all of our input has been for nothing. Either they are refusing to acknowledge that we have a very big problem or they do not know anything about the business they are in and can’t fix it. This would never be allowed to continue in any industrial or commercial workplace. And even then, at least the employees get to go home to a quiet house to rest. Where in the world are the safety standards for the homeowners that have had this forced upon them? This is just insane.

I do not know at which point the body starts to break down with constant vibration going through it when it is supposed to be resting. I hate for my husband, our pets and myself to be the collection of lab rats that figures that one out for them. I have to ask you what you think we would be doing right now if we had children at home? Think about it.

I cannot put our house up for sale and move. Nobody could live here, and that was echoed by   S_ _    H_ _ _ _ (employee of the developer) as he sat at our table a month or so ago. What are we supposed to do? We need help, Please….”

SECOND STORY:

From New York State

ORLEANS TOWN COUNCIL TO CONSIDER STRICT POWER ZONING REGULATIONS

SOURCE  watertowndailytimes.com

 AUGUST 28, 2011

By NANCY MADSEN

LAFARGEVILLE — The Orleans Town Council is weighing zoning law amendments that will make its rules for wind turbine placement among the most restrictive in the region.

The town of Henderson banned all wind energy towers in November. Orleans would still allow commercial and residential turbines, but the noise and setback rules would make placing turbines in the town very difficult. A public hearing continued from Aug. 11 will be reconvened at 8 p.m. Sept. 8 at the town offices, 20558 Sunrise Ave. Copies of the law are available at the town office.

The law was written and reviewed by the Planning Board after the town’s Wind Committee made zoning recommendations in October 2009 and a Wind Economics Committee made further recommendations in May 2010.

“The Planning Board wrote it, which basically went with what the committee members had suggested — it’s very strict,” town Supervisor Donna J. Chatterton said. “Pretty much, it’s a stop to having any, but they can change it.”

The proposed law would push turbines away from neighboring property lines, roads, the St. Lawrence River, neighboring town lines, state- and federally regulated wetlands and residential, historic, school and wildlife refuge areas by 3,000 feet or 10 times the diameter of a turbine’s blade sweep area, whichever is greater.

The noise regulation sets absolute levels for daytime, evening and nighttime in both the A-weighted, or basically audible spectrum, and C-weighted, or low-frequency, noise levels. If the background noise is greater than five decibels below the standard, the allowed noise level would be five decibels above the background noise level.

For example, the allowed noise level for daytime, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., is 45 decibels on the A-weighted scale and 63 decibels on the C-weighted scale. But if the A-weighted background noise during that period reaches 44 decibels, the allowed limit would be 49 decibels. If the turbines emit a steady pure tone, which sounds like a whine, screech or hum, the allowed noise limit is decreased by five decibels.

During the evening period, 7 to 10 p.m., the law would allow 40 decibels in the A-weighted scale and 58 decibels in the C-weighted scale. And during the nighttime period, from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., the law would allow 35 decibels in the A-weighted scale and 53 decibels in the C-weighted scale.

Residents within two miles of the project would have a property value guarantee, which requires appraisals before turbine construction and when residents try to sell their properties in the first five years after construction of the wind farm. The developer and property owner would agree on an asking price, based on an appraisal, and the developer would pay the difference between the asking price and sale price.

Other regulations include:

■ The Town Council and Variance and Project Oversight Board must approve change of ownership of the project or the project’s controlling entity.

■ Notification of the project’s pending application to the town is required to be sent to all landowners within two miles of the project’s boundaries.

■ Submission of studies are required on the project’s creation of shadow flicker, visual impact, noise, electromagnetic interference, transportation issues, ice and blade throw, stray voltage and wildlife harm as well as an emergency response plan, current property value analysis, operation and maintenance plan, decommissioning plan, earthquake preparedness manual and cultural, historical and archeological resource plan.

■ Submission of an escrow agreement, proof of liability insurance of $20 million per year and wind speed data from a year prior to construction are required.

■ Turbine and blade height are limited to 400 feet.

■ An annual report from the owner or operator on the operation and maintenance activities are required so that the town can compare the project’s plan and its actual results, and its noise projections and actual noise levels.

The proposed law goes into great detail on how sound measurements should be taken. The council has flexibility on applying fines for lack of compliance with the regulations.

The amendments do not substantially change rules for personal wind towers.

Wind power development critics support the amendments and said the town should not fear the state’s placing turbines against the town’s proposed law under the rejuvenated Article X electricity development law.

“The setbacks are great,” said Patricia A. Booras-Miller of the Environmentally-Concerned Citizens Organization. “They were thinking of Article X, too; there’s a lot of documentation to support their reasons.”

The town feels urgency, too, to pass the law before a new slate of council members is elected in November. The council must act on an environmental review of the law, so the law may not pass at the September meeting.

“We want to go the next step so we can get approved before the end of the year, before our board changes,” Ms. Chatterton said.

COURT WON'T ENFORCE TURBINE NOISE RULES

SOURCE: East Oregonian, www.eastoregonian.com

August 25, 2011

By ERIN MILLS,

Invenergy claims there is no “bright line” noise standard, that it can generate 36 decibels at nearby homes or 10 decibels above the ambient, whichever is higher, up to 50 decibels.

At a planning commission meeting last year, Invenergy’s acoustical expert, Michael Theriault of Portland, Maine, admitted the project violates the standard even by its own, looser definition.

The Morrow County Court stunned a crowd Wednesday when it refused to enforce an Oregon law that limits the noise a wind project can make at nearby homes.

The court voted 2-1 that, although noise from the Willow Creek wind project exceeds state standards at a few homes, the violations did not warrant enforcement action.

At one home, for example, the noise level exceeded limits 10 percent of the time the turbines were running, according to the project’s own acoustical expert.

County Judge Terry Tallman voted against the motion, only because he was against the vote itself.

“We don’t have the funds to force compliance,” he said. “The state of Oregon says it doesn’t have to do it, because it doesn’t have the funds. Why are we being forced to live by a higher standard than the state of Oregon?”

Tallman was referring to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, which wrote and, for a time, enforced the state’s industrial noise control regulations. The laws still are on the books, but the DEQ terminated its noise control program in 1991 because of budget cuts. That left enforcement up to local agencies.

Morrow County adopted the state’s noise control rules and asks wind projects to comply as part of the site certification process.

Wind projects less than 105 megawatts may seek a conditional use permit from the county; larger projects must go through the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council.

Morrow County granted the 48-turbine Willow Creek project, north of Ione, a permit in 2005.

However, after neighbors of the project began to complain about noise, county officials began to realize Oregon’s noise law is not exactly crystal clear. And a parade of lawyers and acoustical experts, for the neighbors and Invenergy, the Chicago-based company that developed the Willow Creek project, further muddied the waters.

The law says a wind project may not increase noise at adjacent homes by more than 10 decibels. If a wind developer does not conduct a study to determine the ambient noise at a site, it may use an assumed background of 26 decibels, for a total of 36 decibels.

Willow Creek’s neighbors believe a wind developer must choose, before it builds, whether to conduct an ambient noise study or go with the assumed level of 26 decibels. If it goes with 26 decibels, it cannot break the 36-decibel limit by even one decibel.

Invenergy claims there is no “bright line” noise standard, that it can generate 36 decibels at nearby homes or 10 decibels above the ambient, whichever is higher, up to 50 decibels.

At a planning commission meeting last year, Invenergy’s acoustical expert, Michael Theriault of Portland, Maine, admitted the project violates the standard even by its own, looser definition.

But because the violations are so minimal, by only a few decibels a small percentage of the time, he said, they qualify as “infrequent and unusual events” and therefore exempt from the law.

An acoustical expert for the project’s neighbors came to different conclusions.

Kerrie Standlee, who has helped complete site certificates for the Oregon Department of Energy, said the wind farm consistently broke the noise rule at precisely the time when Theriault decided not to use the study data, when wind speeds exceeded 9 meters per second.

Standlee said the wind project broke the noise rule by more decibels, and more frequently, than Invenergy claimed.

In its decision Wednesday, as in previous deliberations, however, the Morrow County Court disregarded Standlee’s testimony and relied on Invenergy’s conclusions.

“There might be some violations,” Commissioner Ken Grieb said, “but we don’t think they’re significant enough to take action.”

The ruling is a reversal of a previous, January decision, in which the court agreed the project violates the wind rule at Dan Williams’ house. His home is the one at which the violation appears to occur most frequently.

That decision modified a Morrow County Planning Commission decision, which found Invenergy out of compliance at four nearby homes.

All parties appealed the county court’s decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. The board returned the decision to the county, asking the court to clarify its decision.

“I’m flabbergasted,” said Jim McCandlish, a lawyer for three of the neighbors, after the vote. He said his clients’ constitutional right to due process was being denied. He said they intend to appeal the decision to the board of appeals.

“The county court has an obligation to protect the health and welfare of its citizens,” he said.

Irene Gilbert, an anti-wind activist from Union County, called the vote ridiculous.

“I think it sets a really bad precedent when a group of county commissioners say, in spite of the data that says there is a violation, we are choosing not to act on it.”

SECOND STORY:

COST OF TEXAS WIND TRANSMISSION LINES NEARS $7 BILLION

SOURCE The Texas Tribune, www.texastribune.org

August 24, 2011

By Kate Galbraith,

Gov. Rick Perry, who appoints the three Public Utility Commissioners, has strongly backed the build-out, which will result in several thousand miles of new transmission lines carrying wind power from West Texas to large cities hundreds of miles across the state.

The cost of building thousands of miles of transmission lines to carry wind power across Texas is now estimated at $6.79 billion, a 38 percent increase from the initial projection three years ago.

The new number, which amounts to roughly $270 for every Texan, comes from the latest update on the project prepared for the Public Utility Commission (see page six). Ratepayers will ultimately be on the hook for the cost, but no one has begun to see the charges appear on their electric bills yet because the transmission companies building the lines must first get approval from the commission before passing on the costs to customers.

A commission spokesman, Terry Hadley, says that the first of these “rate recovery” applications may be filed before the end of the year. Ultimately, the commission says, the charges could amount to $4 to $5 per month on Texas electric bills, for years.

In 2008, when the Public Utility Commission approved the project, it was estimated at $4.93 billion. Gov. Rick Perry, who appoints the three Public Utility Commissioners, has strongly backed the build-out, which will result in several thousand miles of new transmission lines carrying wind power from West Texas to large cities hundreds of miles across the state. This is expected to spark a further boom in wind farm development, particularly in the Panhandle. Texas already leads the nation, by far, in wind power production. Electricity generated by other sources, like natural gas, coal or solar, can also use the lines.

However, deciding the routes for the lines — a painstaking process that played out in the hearing room of the Public Utility Commission — stirred controversy, as landowners in the Hill Country and other parts of the state tried to prevent them from going through their property. The transmission companies pay a one-time sum to the landowner for an easement to build the lines across his or her property, but ultimately the companies have the power of eminent domain if the landowner resists. Hill Country landowners did succeed in stopping one line and a portion of a second, after grid officials determined that it was possible to upgrade existing infrastructure, but serve the same purpose, more cheaply.

The new lines are all expected to be completed by December 2013, although delays could still occur. Construction of the lines is at various stages; one company, Wind Energy Transmission Texas, plans to begin building 378 miles of lines next month, for example.

Among the reasons for the increased costs, according to the new report, are that the original 2008 estimate used straight-line distances to calculate the cost of the lines. However, as the process played out, the Public Utility Commission often requested that the lines follow fences or roads in order to minimize the intrusion. So the distances will probably be 10 percent to 50 percent longer than the original planners allowed for, the report says. Inflation also boosts the price tag.

The new estimate, of $6.79 billion, is also subject to change.

“It is likely that costs may fluctuate and change over the next year,” states the report, which was prepared by an engineering services company called RS&H and published in July.

FROM ENGLAND:

OUR SLEEPLESS NIGHTS WITH THE WIND TURBINES

Read the entire story at the source: North Devon Gazzete, www.northdevongazette.co.uk

June 8, 2011

By Andy Keeble

“When they were first put up we had a long spell of really nice weather and they weren’t working at all. But since we’ve had the wind and the recent spell of bad weather the noise is unbearable of a night time.”

“It’s unbelievable the noise they make sometimes,” said Mr Paulton, 68.

A Torrington couple are selling their home and business following the erection of a wind farm in a field opposite their bungalow.

Patricia and Arthur Poulton say they are being kept awake at night by the noise from a trio of giant turbines less than 500 metres from their home at Higher Darracott.

The couple, who have operated their Deepmoor Metal Processors scrap metal business from the site for the last 21 years, said they now had no option but to sell up and move on.

“I can hear the turbines through my pillow at night,” said Mrs Paulton, 70.

“It’s a droning whooshing sound and as the blade passes the upright, the windier it gets, the noisier it gets. I have to close the window but you can still just about hear it through the double glazing.

“When they were first put up we had a long spell of really nice weather and they weren’t working at all. But since we’ve had the wind and the recent spell of bad weather the noise is unbearable of a night time.”

“It’s unbelievable the noise they make sometimes,” said Mr Paulton, 68.

“They are supposed to be no more than five decibels above background noise but when the wind blows across the bungalow it’s surprising how far it travels.”

The 240ft turbines were constructed by FIM Services Ltd in March and became operational in April. Planning consent was originally refused by Torridge District Council in May 2004 but later granted by a Government Inspector following a High Court appeal by land owners.

When the Gazette visited the couple on Wednesday, heavy blobs of white and grey cloud blotted out all but a few snatches of blue sky. On the hillside overlooking Torrington, two of the three turbines turned in a stiff breeze.

On the approaches to the town, the first of 22 ESB Wind Development UK turbines can be seen being built at Fullabrook Down on the other side of the Taw Estuary.

When the sun does shine here – especially towards the end of the day – the couple say the blades produce a “flicker shadow” over their bungalow.

“The sun goes down right behind the turbines and you get this strobe effect,” said Mrs Paulton, who suffers from Ménière’s disease – a disorder of the inner ear that can affect hearing and balance.

“They also produce a low frequency noise that you can’t hear but can cause dizziness, nausea and headaches. I’m not sure if it’s a coincidence but I’d not been ill for about five months but as soon as the turbines started I was sick for two weeks and have had to take the medication.

“We had a couple of break-ins at the yard last year and were thinking of selling up, but this has been the final straw.”

The couple have been in contact with Torridge District Council and have been asked to fill in forms to record their disturbance.

A spokesperson for the council said an official investigation had already started.

A statement from the council said: “The necessary forms have been sent to the complainants and our environmental protection team is awaiting the return of the paperwork with a diary of noise disturbances to see whether or not further investigation is required.”

Regarding shadow flicker, it said: “In the planning permission the inspector stipulated that a report should be submitted on shadow flicker which concluded that there would be very little chance of it happening. However, should it occur, effective steps should be taken to stop it.”

The couple were keen to point out that they were not concerned about the turbines’ impact on the landscape.

“We’re not bothered about how they look,” said Mrs Paulton.

The Gazette contacted FIM Service but a spokesperson was unavailable for comment.

Overcoming President Obama's Wind Power Addiction

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Forbes. com

June 7, 2011

 By Robert Bradley Jr.

An alternative form of energy with embarrassingly underwhelming returns.

Cumulative federal subsidies for wind are now well north of $100 billion. The very business running the Pennsylvania facility at which Obama made that bold prediction--Spanish wind company Iberdola--has received an astounding $1 billion in grants, tax credits and other incentives from the U.S. government (a.k.a., you and me).

This spring, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced federal approval for the construction of a huge new offshore wind farm in Massachusetts. The so-called Cape Wind project will include 130 turbines, each roughly 440 feet tall, and span 25 miles of ocean off the coast of Cape Cod. Construction is expected to commence this fall--assuming the troubling economics of the project can be resolved.

Getting Cape Wind approved was no easy task. The project had been stalled in controversy for nearly a decade. Even the late Sen. Ted Kennedy opposed the turbines for spoiling the tranquility of his seaside vacation home.

But Cape Wind survived its environmental review. And that's in no small part due to the Obama administration. Expanding wind power is core to the president's peculiar, ill-defined green energy agenda. At an April visit to a Pennsylvania turbine manufacturing facility, he went so far as to declare wind "the future of American energy."

That's quite a claim--and hardly true. Our country's history with wind power consists of grand promises from politicians, huge investments of taxpayer dollars, ratepayer sacrifice and embarrassingly underwhelming returns. More of the same can be expected.

Of the $10 billion invested by wind developers last year, $3.4 billion came in the form of federal grants. Thus taxpayers picked up a full one-third of the tab. And ratepayers have no choice but to pay the extra cost from wind power in states that mandate its use even after the tax subsidies.

Cumulative federal subsidies for wind are now well north of $100 billion. The very business running the Pennsylvania facility at which Obama made that bold prediction--Spanish wind company Iberdola--has received an astounding $1 billion in grants, tax credits and other incentives from the U.S. government (a.k.a., you and me).

Wisconsin Wind Farm Sold to Duke Energy

Company Will Surpass 1,000 Megawatts of Wind Power

PRESS RELEASE: CHARLOTTE, N.C., May 26, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK) will acquire a 20-megawatt wind farm in operation in Wisconsin.

Duke Energy Renewables, a commercial business unit of Duke Energy, agreed to purchase the Shirley Windpower Project from a subsidiary of Central Hudson Enterprises Corporation on May 24. The wind farm is located on approximately 500 acres of leased land in Glenmore, roughly 30 miles southeast of Green Bay.

The Shirley Windpower Project, which began commercial operation in December 2010, sells all of its output and associated renewable energy credits to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation under the terms of a 20-year power purchase agreement. The eight Nordex 2.5-megawatt (MW) wind turbines that comprise the Shirley Windpower Project are capable of generating enough electricity to power approximately 6,000 homes.

"Our strategic acquisition of the Shirley Windpower Project not only helps us reach the 1,000-megawatt milestone, it serves as a springboard for growth in a new region of the United States," said Greg Wolf, president of Duke Energy Renewables.

The deal is expected to close this summer. The purchase price was not disclosed.

With the addition of the Shirley project, Duke Energy Renewables will own 1,006 MW of generating capacity at 10 U.S. wind farms – four in Wyoming, three in Texas, one in Colorado, one in Pennsylvania, and one in Wisconsin.

On May 24, Duke Energy Renewables announced plans to start construction of a 168-MW wind power project in Kansas in the fall of 2011.

Since 2007, Duke Energy has invested more than $1.5 billion to grow its commercial wind and solar power businesses.

About Duke Energy Renewables

Duke Energy Renewables, part of Duke Energy's Commercial Businesses, is a leader in developing innovative wind and solar energy solutions for customers throughout the United States. The company's growing portfolio of commercial renewable assets includes nine wind farms and four solar farms in operation in five states, totaling approximately 1,000 megawatts in electric-generating capacity.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy is a Fortune 500 company traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol DUK. More information about the company is available on the Internet at: www.duke-energy.com.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The Enz family abandoned their home in this wind project because of turbine related problems. The project, which has been on line for less than a year, has already been sold twice. Read about the Enz family and why they left their home by clicking here.

·FROM AUSTRALIA

From:  George Papadopoulos, Pharmacist
To:  Jillian Skinner MP, NSW Minister for Health; Brad Hazzard MP, NSW Planning Minister
Regarding:  Wind Turbine Syndrome victims of the “Crookwell 1 Trial Wind Turbine” site, New South Wales (Australia)
Date:  May 24, 2011

Dear Ministers,

I am a trained and registered, practising health professional (pharmacist).

Yesterday, I met two elderly ladies from the Crookwell region who have been for years quietly suffering the effects of what has been described as Wind Turbine Syndrome.

These ladies have been quietly suffering for years. Their local medical practitioners are unable to do much beyond prescribe antidepressants, sleeping tablets and other medication, or recommend that they move.

There is a lack of “published peer reviewed evidence” that these health problems exist, as the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NH&MRC) “Rapid Review” report pointed out.  But that does NOT mean there is no health problem, which is what the wind developers and many individuals in government have been wrongly inferring or assuming from the NH&MRC’s report. They have ignored the NH&MRC’s advice to “adopt a precautionary approach.”

I asked one of these ladies why she hasn’t taken the matter further—why she isn’t discussing the matter with the locals. Well, surprisingly, the locals have ostracised her for making comments that might affect the tourist business in Crookwell. So she decided to shut up and suffer, or otherwise become a social outcast.

So who is listening to these quiet victims of this “innovative,” original New South Wales (NSW) wind turbine trial? Why is it that the suffering of these quiet victims has not affected the planning process of newer wind turbine developments?

Strange isn’t it? What was the point of this trial site?

I then decided with two companions to pay my own visit to the local trial industrial wind turbine site—situated amongst rural blocks. I have never been so close to a wind turbine site before. In fact, so close (within 250 metres) thanks to a third victim of this development, who allowed us to access their property. This third victim also needs sleeping pills to sleep and is unduly chronically ill due to Wind Turbine Syndrome.

Well, our experience was absolutely stunning! Almost immediately, pressure sensations in the head abruptly started—plus blocked ears that could not be relieved by swallowing or yawning. We couldn’t hear any loud deafening noises, but the constant whooshing noise was phenomenal—enough to drive you mad.

We were ultimately compelled to leave the site due to severe nausea in all three of us. Perhaps it wasn’t a good idea to get so close to the turbines. Eventually it was only at 5km away that we finally felt totally relieved and normal—we had finally escaped this whirlpool of disaster.

My dear politician, I am not having a joke. This is no good story. It is a very sad reality of what is happening here in Australia, in our meant-to-be progressive, clean democracy where the rights of the individual should be upheld against the little, if any, good that can be found in these developments.

Why are our planning departments ineffective in drafting policies to protect public health? Why aren’t our health departments effective in monitoring the health of individuals surrounding these industrial power sites? Why are the local medical practitioners and other local health professionals so slow in protecting these most sweet, kind-hearted elderly souls?

The reason is, despite these problems being reported globally, no government has listened to its citizens and ensured that appropriate independent acoustic and medical research is commissioned and funded, to help find out why these problems are occurring and how to prevent them. Or, in plain terms, research which will determine the safe distance between turbines and homes and workplaces.

If this were a drug, these experiences would be reported as “Adverse Events” and the drug would be withdrawn, pending further investigation until its safety from unanticipated side effects could be guaranteed. The equivalent in this situation is to immediately instigate a moratorium where turbines are close to homes, and fully investigate these occurrences.

It’s time to do something about it. The recent Federal Senate Inquiry has heard many stories such as the one above, in both written and oral testimony. I hope you feel compelled as a publicly elected official in a democratic country to do something about this great injustice—and stop it from happening again and again in different sites around NSW and the rest of Australia.