FROM RHODE ISLAND

TURBINE DEVELOPER FILES $25-MILLION LAWSUIT AGAINST NEIGHBORS

READ THE ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: North Kingstown Patch, northkingstown.patch.com

May 18, 2011

By Samantha Turner

"According to court documents....[the wind developer] requested preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against the defendants."

The developer of a 427-foot wind turbine is suing seven neighbors to the tune of $25 million in Washington County Superior Court for breach of contract.

Mark DePasquale, CEO of Wind Energy Development LLC, filed a lawsuit Apr. 28 against the homeowners who have not recorded their deeds to reflect a land swap with him as agreed. The quit-claim deeds are needed to continue construction on a 427-foot turbine located in DePasquale’s backyard within the North Kingstown Green subdivision.

The lawsuit (Wind Energy Development LLC v Nicole Newcombe et al) follows the Apr. 8 revocation of the North Kingstown Green building permit by the Town of North Kingstown, halting construction on the wind turbine slated for completion later this year.

In May 2010, it was determined that a land swap was necessary to address the turbine’s blades – measuring about 160 feet in length – crossing into an area of open space outside of DePasquale’s property lines. In a reconfiguration agreement executed by all residents of North Kingstown Green in May 2010, the portion of open land was swapped for land owned by DePasquale at his property in accordance with the town’s zoning and planning ordinances.

DePasquale needs 30 deeds altogether. During a North Kingstown Building Board of Appeals meeting May 4, he said he owns 16, and has acquired all but one of the remaining 14 deeds necessary to have the building permit reinstated.

According to court documents, without DePasquale’s requested preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against the defendants, the plaintiffs are at risk of “immediate irreparable harm” including “loss of rights in the plaintiffs’ recently revoked building permit,” “increased construction costs,” “loss of future incoming and profits, injury to the plaintiff’s reputation” and loss of previously expended costs. Court documents indicate that “approximately five percent of the total construction of the wind turbine” has been completed with about $350,000 thus invested in the project.

The suit names Nicole and Scott Newcombe of 52 Thornton Way, Sean Coen and Colleen Clare of 32 Thornton Way, Todd and Kimberly Teixeira of 28 Thornton Way and Subhransu Mohanty of 29 Thornton Way as defendants. The seven NK Green residents have been outspoken in their opposition to the turbine, speaking out at North Kingstown Town Council meetings and through letters to the editor.

The defendants are prohibited from “conveying, transferring, selling, assigning, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering respective interests in the reconfiguration property” to anyone besides the plaintiffs throughout this suit in order to keep the status quo.

The 427-foot turbine was approved back in October by the North Kingstown Planning Commission, becoming North Kingstown’s first approved turbine. Though its approval went largely unopposed at first, more residents and locals came out in opposition during the following months.

FROM IRELAND

WIND TURBINE NOISE ANGERS RESIDENTS

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE:

Dublin People, www.dublinpeople.com

May 18, 2011

“The problem is particularly bad at night and my husband and I have difficulty sleeping. It’s like having a washing machine on in your bedroom. “I’m living so close to them that I can hear the constant droning and have to close my windows.”

Angry residents living in the vicinity of five wind turbines are pleading with their local authority to find a solution to the noise emanating from them, which they claim is affecting their quality of life.

Residents on Hole-in-the-Wall Road, Donaghmede, say they have had their sleep disturbed due to the “whirring” sound of the turbines, which are located in nearby Father Collins Park. They are now pleading with Dublin City Council to address the problem.

Redevelopment

Father Collins Park opened in the summer of 2009 following a major redevelopment that cost approximately e20 million. One of its main features is the turbines that harness the wind and provide the energy that powers the park’s lighting and water features.

The turbines were shut down for a considerable period last year after some maintenance problems and have only been operating as normal in the last couple of months. Margaret Earlwood, who has been living on Hole-in-the-Wall Road for the last 16 years, said the park is a brilliant amenity.

Quality

“However, the noise from the wind turbines are affecting our quality of life,” she stated. “The problem is particularly bad at night and my husband and I have difficulty sleeping. It’s like having a washing machine on in your bedroom. “I’m living so close to them that I can hear the constant droning and have to close my windows.”

Ms Earlwood pointed out that she wouldn’t complain for the sake of it and said she had no objection to wind turbines in general. “If they are creating electricity and they are good for the economy, I’ve no problem with that,” she said.

Location

“It’s purely a location issue. I just think they should be out at sea and that they shouldn’t be in a residential area. “For eight or nine months they were switched off and it was great. Then when they went back on the noise problems started up again.”

Ms Earlwood said the ideal situation would be to have the turbines removed completely. “When they get faster the noise gets worse,” she added. “If they’re going 24-7 you get no break from it. “When they first came along we tried to put up with them. It’s not pleasant and we are trying to find ways to get around the problem.”

Eddie Cummins, who runs Eddie’s Smokeless Fuels along with his son, Alan, said his family was also affected by the noise. “You can’t open your windows,” stated Mr Cummins, whose business is located on Hole-in-the-Wall Road. “Alan lives at number one (Hole-in-the Wall Road) and I live at number three and we are right facing the turbines.

Sleep

“We can’t sleep with the noise. You can also hear them in the workplace during the day.” Mr Cummins has called for the turbines to be moved or some other solution to be found. “You like to open your windows to let a bit of air in, especially in the summer months,” he added. “It’s a bit annoying.”

Dublin North East TD Sean Kenny (Lab) has called on the city council to switch off the turbines at night to allow nearby residents sleep. “I have been contacted by sleepless residents at houses at Hole-in-the-Wall Road, and nearby Grattan Lodge apartments, who are appealing for an end to the nightly noise generated by the turbines,” said Deputy Kenny.

“An apartment resident told me recently that they were totally stressed due to the noise. “It is becoming clear that wind turbines are problematic in highly built up areas and the planning regulations and guidelines need to be reviewed.

“I am calling on the Environment Minister and the Dublin City Manager to take immediate action to ensure that residents in the North Fringe area can go to work and about their daily business with the benefit of a good night’s sleep.”

A spokeswoman for Dublin City Council confirmed that they had just received a complaint about noise levels from the Father Collins Park wind turbines. She said a decision was pending on the most appropriate environmental assessment of the site.

FROM TENNESSEE

LAMAR LEXANDER ON WIND ENERGY SUBSIDIES

www.chattanoogan.com 18 May 2011

“Today, the production tax credit for wind gives 2.1 cents for every kilowatt hour of wind electricity produced by a wind turbine during the first 10 years of operation.

Let’s put this into a context that is current. The new Shepherd’s Flat Wind Farm in Oregon will have 338 of these huge wind turbines, producing enough power to run approximately 250,000 homes and will cost the American taxpayer about $57 million a year in subsidies for that electricity produced.

If we allocated the tax credit per home, taxpayers will be paying $2,300 over the next 10 years for each of the homes served by the Shepherd’s Flat Wind Farm in Oregon.

Senator Lamar Alexander said today that Congress should address wind energy subsidies during debate on oil company subsidies, noting that the 10-year price tag on the wind production tax credit is $26 billion—about $5 billion more than tax breaks being debated for the five biggest oil companies—despite the fact that wind is “about the least efficient means of energy production we have.”

Senator Alexander said in a speech on the Senate floor: “So I ask the question: If wind has all these drawbacks, is a mature technology, and receives subsidies greater than any other form of energy per unit of actual energy produced, why are we subsidizing it with billions of dollars and not including it in this debate? Why are we talking about Big Oil and not talking about Big Wind?”

In addition, at an afternoon hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Energy and Water Subcommittee, ranking member Alexander continued to question wind subsidies. U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu testified that he believes onshore wind “is a mature technology.” Chu said the Department of Energy’s wind research efforts have shifted to more innovative technologies, such as offshore wind and deepwater wind.

The full text of Senator Alexander’s floor remarks follows:

“We have been debating tax subsidies to the big oil companies. The bill proposed by the senator from New Jersey would have limited it to just the big five oil companies even though many of the tax breaks or tax credits or deductions they receive are the same tax credits that every other company may take– Starbucks, Microsoft, Caterpillar, Google, and Hollywood film producers, for example. Many of the other credits look a lot like the [research and development] tax credit or other tax credits all American businesses may receive.

“Well, I am one Senator who is very intrigued with the idea of looking at all of the tax breaks in the tax code. There are currently about $1.2 trillion a year in what we call tax expenditures, and those are intended to be for tax breaks we think are desirable. I am ready to look at all of them and use the money to reduce the tax rate and/or reduce the Federal debt. But if we are going to talk about energy subsidies — tax subsidies — we ought to talk about all energy subsidies.

“Senator John Cornyn of Texas has asked the Congressional Research Service to do just this. It is an excellent study, and I commend Senator Cornyn for asking for it. This is some of what it finds: According to the report, fossil fuels contributed about 78 percent of our energy production in 2009 and received about 13 percent of the Federal tax support for energy.

“However, during that same time 10.6 percent of our energy production was from renewables and 77.4 percent of our energy tax subsidies went to renewables. So if we are to compare the subsidy per unit of energy, the estimated federal support per million BTUs [or British Thermal Units] of fossil fuels was 4 cents, while support for renewables was $1.97 per million BTUs.

“So, federal subsidies for renewables are almost 50 times as great per unit of energy as federal subsidies for fossil fuels. [But] this would be distorted because hydroelectric power is included within renewables. Most people think of renewables as ethanol, solar, or wind and those are the renewables that actually get the subsidies, while hydroelectric does not.

“So, the federal taxpayer support for renewable energy is at least 50 times as great per unit of energy as compared with fossil fuel energy. So why aren’t we including subsidies for all renewables in our debate? Specifically, if we are talking about ‘Big Oil,’ why don’t we talk about ‘Big Wind?’ The Senate seems an appropriate place to talk about ‘Big Wind.’

“The Energy Policy Act of 1992 created what is called the production tax credit for energy produced using renewable resources. Most of this money has gone to subsidize ‘Big Wind.’ It is a policy that was supposed to last a few years. It has lasted two decades.

“Today, the production tax credit for wind gives 2.1 cents for every kilowatt hour of wind electricity produced by a wind turbine during the first 10 years of operation. Let’s put this into a context that is current. The new Shepherd’s Flat Wind Farm in Oregon will have 338 of these huge wind turbines, producing enough power to run approximately 250,000 homes and will cost the American taxpayer about $57 million a year in subsidies for that electricity produced. If we allocated the tax credit per home, taxpayers will be paying $2,300 over the next 10 years for each of the homes served by the Shepherd’s Flat Wind Farm in Oregon.

“This doesn’t even take into account the fact that $1.3 billion in federal loan guarantees to this project means Big Wind will have its risk of default also financed by the taxpayer. Fossil fuel companies don’t have that advantage. Nuclear power companies don’t have that advantage, even though their electricity is completely clean — no sulfur, no nitrogen, no mercury, no carbon. If, like nuclear or fossil loan guarantees do, the wind farm in Oregon had to pay the risk of default up front as a fee, it would cost another $130 million. That is money out of the pockets of taxpayers.

“The total cost of the wind production tax credit over the next 10 years will cost the American taxpayers more than $26 billion. Let me say that again. American taxpayers are subsidizing Big Wind over the next 10 years by more than $26 billion with one tax credit. In fact, the tax breaks for the five big oil companies we have been debating on the Senate floor this week actually cost less than all of the money we give to big wind. The tax breaks for the five big oil companies amount to about $21 billion over 10 years.

‘According to the Energy Information Administration in 2007, big wind received an $18.82 subsidy per megawatt hour — 25 times as much per megawatt hour as subsidies for all other forms of electricity combined. But wind is about the least efficient means of energy production we have. It accounts for just about 2 percent of our electricity. It is available only when the wind blows, which is about one-third of the time. The Tennessee Valley Authority says it is reliable even less than that, meaning we can have it when we need it only about 12 to15 percent of the time.

“Wind farms take up a huge amount of space. Turbines are 50 stories high. Their flashing lights can be seen for 20 miles. An unbroken line of turbines along the 2,178-mile Appalachian Trail would produce no more electricity than four nuclear reactors on 4 square miles of land.

“Wind is generally the strongest–and land available–where the electricity isn’t actually needed. So we have thousands of miles of new transmission lines proposed to get the energy from where it is produced to where it needs to go. Those often go through conservation areas, and according to the National Academy of Sciences, wind power is more expensive than other forms of electricity, such as coal, nuclear, biomass, geothermal, and natural gas.

“We haven’t even talked about the fact these wind turbines only last about 25 years. The question is: Who is going to take them down? Wind farms also kill as many as 275,000 birds each year, according to the American Bird Conservancy. They can interfere with radar systems, and many who live near them say they are very noisy.

“So I ask the question: If wind has all these drawbacks, is a mature technology, and receives subsidies greater than any other form of energy per unit of actual energy produced, why are we subsidizing it with billions of dollars and not including it in this debate? Why are we talking about Big Oil and not talking about Big Wind?

“I believe there are appropriate uses of temporary incentives and subsidies to help jump-start innovation and the development of new technology — such as jump-starting electric cars, or natural gas fleets of trucks, or loan guarantees for nuclear power plants and other forms of clean energy — as long as these are short term. I believe research and development is an appropriate role for the federal government whether it is in recycling used nuclear fuel or finding alternative biofuels made from crops we don’t eat. I believe it is entirely appropriate for there to be research for offshore wind farms, which we don’t know as much about and which might actually prove to be a useful supplement in the Northeast. But my point is, if we are going to debate subsidies to Big Oil, we ought to be debating all the energy subsidies including those to Big Wind.

“There is a difference between the Republican plan and the Democratic plan for $4 gasoline and high energy prices. The Democratic cure for high prices is basically to raise the price. They want to tax energy more, but that makes energy cost more. Republicans want to find more American energy and use less energy. We might sum it up this way: Republicans want to find more and use less; Democrats want to find less and tax more.

“The Democratic plan, according to Senator Schumer of New York, was never intended to talk about lowering gas prices. Senator Reid agreed, Senator Baucus agreed, Senator Landrieu agreed, and Senator Begich agreed, but why aren’t we talking about trying to find a way to lower gasoline prices when it is $4 a gallon and going up?

“The Republican plan is very specific: Find more American oil and more American natural gas. We can find that offshore where 30 percent of our domestic oil and 25 percent of our natural gas is produced. We can find it on Federal lands, and we can find it in Alaska.

“The other part of our equation is to use less. We have some agreement with the Obama administration on some of these ideas. There are a number of them, such as jump-starting electric cars. Senator Merkley and I have a bill that is before the Energy Committee tomorrow to do just that. I believe electrifying our cars and trucks is the single best way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. There is legislation to jump-start natural gas for trucks, biofuels from crops we don’t eat, and fuel efficiency. All these are various ways to use less.

“Senators Thune and Barrasso have performed a service by setting the record straight to show that the United States produces a lot of oil. We are actually the third largest oil producer in the world. So I ask this question: If less Libyan oil can raise gasoline prices — which it did — then shouldn’t more American oil help lower gasoline prices? At least, for every dollar of American oil we produce, it is one less dollar we have to send overseas for foreign oil.

“So, Madam President, the Republican plan is to find more American oil and natural gas and to use less. My suggestion is, if we are going to be talking about tax subsidies for Big Oil, let’s talk about tax subsidies for all energy. The Senate floor seems an especially appropriate place, if we are going to talk about Big Oil, to also talk about tax subsidies for Big Wind.”

PROPOSED WIND FARM REGULATIONS

SOURCE: WFRV GREEN BAY

BROWN COUNTY, Wis. (WFRV) -- A proposal from an area lawmaker will make it even harder for wind farmer developers to build in the state. This after two developers recently pulled the plug on projects in Northeast Wisconsin.

David Enz built his home for his family back in 1978. But last month he and his wife decided they could no longer stay.

"Started feeling pressure in my ears, feeling pressurized, started feeling unstable," Enz said.

Enz attributes the symptoms to the eight wind turbines that were built last fall about a half mile from his house.

"It gets to the point where your body just does not want to be here, it just can't be here," said Enz.

Today, State Senator Frank Lasee introduced legislation that would require developers to keep turbines at least 2,250 feet from a person's property unless there's permission to build closer.

Right now, they need to be at least 1,250 feet from homes. Earlier this year, Governor Scott Walker said he wanted to change the law to 1,800 feet.

Senator Lasee says that's not enough.

"Two thousand fifty feet is a reasonable distance that will help preserve their health and safety because of shadow, flicker, noise and I believe there is either magnetic or electric noise that causes health problems for people," Lasee said.

Last month, two wind farm developers pulled out of projects in both Brown and Calumet Counties, saying the current regulations already go too far.

According to Senator Lasee, the strict regulations aren't what's driving companies away from projects here in Wisconsin. He says it all comes down to money.

"Many utilities are no longer paying premiums which drive up our electric costs for wind energy so they're having trouble getting a contract that would pay," Lasee said. "I think they're using this as an excuse."

Enz hopes the Senator's proposal can prevent other families from going through what he has.

"We have a house that we can't live in," he said.

Enz and his wife have been staying with their children for the last few weeks. Senator Lasee is circulating the bill in the senate and assembly.

LASEE BILL WOULD CHANGE RULES FOR WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS

Sen. Frank Lasee is circulating for co-sponsorship a proposal revising PSC authority over wind energy system siting. Basically, the bill requires owners of a large wind energy system to design and construct the system so a straight line distance from the vertical center line of any turbine in the system to the nearest point on the property line be at least one-half mile. The distance could be shorter if the system owner and property owners agree to a lesser distance. The bill also changes the distance from the vertical center of any turbine to the permanent foundation of any building.
 
Link to PDF of the proposed bill:
http://thewheelerreport.com/releases/April11/0415/0415lrb1507.pdf
 



WIND FIRM MAKES FINAL OFFER

SOURCE: Renewablesbiz.com

March 31, 2011

By David Giulliani

A wind company has made its "last and final offer" to residents complaining about problems with their TV reception, which they blame on nearby turbines.

Big Sky Wind, a subsidiary of Edison Mission Group, has a wind farm with turbines in Lee and Bureau counties.

Bureau County residents near the turbines have been particularly vocal about TV reception and noise problems. They also have complained about shadow flicker, which are the shadows of rotating blades that pass over windows that experts say cause seizures in some people.

Last week, Big Sky sent letters via Federal Express to residents who have complained about the problems.

In the letter, the company stated it had offered a settlement of $2,500 for each resident to resolve their TV reception complaints.

"We believe this to be a fair market offer that has already been accepted by several of your neighbors," the letter says. "With this in mind, we consider the $2,500 to be our best, last and final offer to resolve your TV reception complaint."

In the letter, Big Sky said it understands that residents also have complaints about noise and flicker. The company said it's prepared to offer a fair monetary settlement to resolve those issues, as well.

To start those settlement discussions, Big Sky requires that residents sign confidentiality agreements already sent out. The company asks that those agreements be faxed to its attorney in California.

Big Sky spokesman Charley Parnell said the letter and confidentiality agreement are intended to jump-start settlement discussions. He said most of the complaints his firm has received have come from Bureau County, but a few have come from Lee County.

Parnell said his company has received many more complaints about this wind farm than it has about others around the country.

"The vast majority of our complaints have to do with TV reception. This is our first experience on that front," he said.

Mark Wagner, a supporter of greater wind farm regulations in Lee County, said the letter is the "same old story." Companies put up their turbines with the approval of county governments, making many promises that they won't bother neighbors, he said.

"They say the problems won't happen, and then they do," he said. "They don't remediate the problems because you have to physically move the turbines; they won't do that. They'll pay you off and keep you quiet. That's the pattern we're seeing."

Parnell said his company is following Bureau County's ordinance on wind farms.

"We have to mitigate the issues. We're working through a process to mitigate the complaints and concerns," he said.

The Big Sky wind farm has 58 turbines in Lee County and 56 in Bureau County. It covers 13,000 acres.

Another company, Chicago-based Midwest Wind Energy, is planning the Walnut Ridge wind farm, which would be next to Big Sky's in Bureau County.

Some Walnut-area residents are trying to delay the proposed project until further study can be done. The group's members say Big Sky's issues trouble them.

The Bureau County Zoning Board of Appeals expects to decide today whether to recommend conditional-use permits for the Walnut Ridge project.

Bird Deaths Prompt Wind Rules

SOURCE: Ogdensburg Journal

Sunday April 3, 2011

By Nancy Madsen

After some wind power projects have had dramatically higher bird deaths than predicted, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a set of voluntary guidelines to reduce bird deaths.

Those guidelines, if adopted by the government and developers, could force significant changes to projects, including those along the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario.

Bird conservation groups want the guidelines to be mandatory rules. Wind power proponents say the guidelines are too strict as they stand.

William R. Evans, director of the nonprofit Old Bird Inc., Ithaca, said the placement of wind projects is a complicated balance between the need and political momentum for renewable wind energy and the desire to protect wildlife.

“With a few projects, there’s probably not too much damage, but a major build-out would cause damage. Where do you draw the line?” he said. “We have to face the consequences.”

The guidelines call for:

* Three years of pre-construction bird population studies.

* At least two and up to five years of post-construction bird fatality studies.

* Site development decisions made as a coordinated effort among the developer, the Wildlife Service and state and tribal agencies.

* If the parties can’t agree on the adverse effects on wildlife, the service may document concerns, but the decision to proceed lies with the developer.

* Use of operational modifications – raising the speed at which turbines start turning or not operating during key migratory times or using radar to turn off turbines when flocks pass – was suggested.

* Further testing on other measures, such as multicolored turbines, and effects, such as turbine noise on birds, were suggested.

The public can comment on the guidelines until May 19.

The American Wind Energy Association, Washington, D.C., takes issue with the guidelines, saying they were changed after a committee reached a consensus on reasonable measures. The extensive studies and management based on deaths will add expense and delay construction of projects, the association said in a news release. It also adds to the number of projects that would have federal oversight, raising cost without giving additional staff to review more applications, the association said.

“While the wind industry has the responsibility to minimize the impacts of development and operations to the greatest extent practicable, and are constantly striving to achieve that goal, the reality is that every form of development, energy or otherwise, has an impact on the natural environment and the choice we are left with as a society is to pursue those avenues that have the lowest amount of impact,” AWEA siting policy director John Anderson said via email.

But the American Bird Conservancy, Washington, D.C., says the guidelines aren’t strong enough because they are optional.

“The conservancy believes we must have mandatory standards to reduce impacts from wind energy,” said Kelly Fuller, wind campaign coordinator. “The industry is not going to support standards even though they’re optional.”

A key piece of the guidelines, which was also part of the previous version, called for three years of bird population studies.

“The most important thing is that wind farms be built in areas that are not so high-risk for birds that they can’t be mitigated,” Ms. Fuller said. “The only way to find that out is by having good data to find out where those areas are.”

Mitigation measures, such as curtailing turbine use during certain seasons or times of day, also depend on the species of birds involved.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated that 440,000 birds are killed each year by turbines. Because the push is to increase from 25 gigawatts now to 300 gigawatts in 2030, that number will grow, said Robert Johns, the conservancy’s public relations director.

“It doesn’t necessarily mean 12 times, but there will be a lot more birds killed,” he said. “We don’t have data on whether bigger turbines kill birds at the same rate that more smaller ones do.”

Such measures as radar to detect bird flocks and burying power lines could go a long way toward protecting bird populations, the conservancy said.

“Wind power needs to be ‘bird smart,’” Mr. Johns said. “Don’t site where lots of birds should be, employ mitigation when constructing infrastructure and compensate for lost habitat.”

The American Wind Energy Association argues that wind turbines are a very minor human cause for bird deaths. It disputes the service’s number, saying the annual number of bird deaths from turbines is about 108,000.

The association’s figure is “based on national averages as derived from over a decade of on-the-ground scientifically designed and statistically robust post-construction monitoring conducted at wind farms across the U.S. by biological consultants,” Mr. Anderson said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service extrapolated the 440,000 figure from partial data and assumptions, the association said.

Buildings kill 550 million birds per year, while power lines kill 130 million, cars kill 80 million and domestic cats kill 10 million, it said. And wind power is far less risky for bird populations than other sources of energy, it said.

Just across the Canadian border from proposed projects in Jefferson County, the Wolfe Island Wind Farm has a very high bird death rate per turbine, at 13.4 birds per turbine and a Canadian high of 0.27 birds of prey per turbine. The deaths have alarmed Canadian and U.S. conservation groups.

Mr. Evans suggested that bird deaths at St. Lawrence Wind Farm and Cape Vincent Wind Farm would be comparable to those on Wolfe Island.

“But they were proposed before the data from Wolfe Island came out,” he said. “It’s not easy to draw the line on which developments. The ones that already started could be allowed, but then others that want to come in and aren’t could say the process isn’t fair.”

Mr. Evans conducted the bird population studies for Galloo Island Wind Farm, which were “the most robust and thorough bird studies of any project in the U.S.”

The studies showed that many bird populations didn’t visit the island during migration because it is six miles offshore from the mainland.

“A substantial number of bird populations don’t want to fly over the lake,” Mr. Evans said.

Very few bird of prey species visit the island, too. A certain number of cormorants, gulls and Caspian terns fly over the island daily in search of food. But terns, the only species of concern, likely would experience 30 to 40 turbine-related deaths per year, which will hardly put a dent in a colony of 1,700 from Little Galloo Island, he said.

“It will kill terns and a substantially smaller number of raptors,” Mr. Evans said. “All these things have to be weighed against Galloo Island having one of the best wind resources on land in the Eastern U.S.”

Next story:

NO EASY ANSWERS BLOWING IN THE WIND: WIND FARMS TRICK RADAR, RAISING PUBLIC POLICY QUESTIONS

SOURCE: www.caller.com

April 2 2011

By Mark Collette,

CORPUS CHRISTI — Three or four times a day, an alarm goes off at the National Weather Service in Corpus Christi, warning of a tornado in San Patricio County.

In a dark air traffic control room at Naval Air Station Kingsville, a shadow looms on the radar screen over Kenedy County.

There is, of course, no tornado and no phantom lurking on the horizon.

But the wind farms that trigger these radar images are real, and they’re causing a collision between clean energy, military and public safety priorities.

The wind industry worries that proposed laws intended to keep turbines from interfering with military installations would thwart business in Texas, the nation’s leading wind energy state.

Weather forecasters and military officials fear turbines, which look like planes and storms on radar images, could lead to failed public warning systems and cripple the Kingsville base’s mission to train jet pilots.

For the Coastal Bend, the economic fallout of any check on the exponential growth of the industry reaches beyond the developers and the landowners who can earn around $5,000 a year on a lease for one turbine.

Shipments of wind turbine equipment through the Port of Corpus Christi in 2008 and 2009 generated $39 million in direct revenues and 256 jobs for regional businesses, according to a study by Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi economics professor Jim Lee.

As more developers pursue Coastal Bend wind projects, the potential for radar clutter rises. More than 400 turbines already have risen in San Patricio and Kenedy counties. They can produce about 1,065 megawatts, enough to power roughly 300,000 homes.

According to information compiled from government and industry sources, developers are proposing new projects in the Coastal Bend that total at least 2,445 megawatts, which could mean 800 to 1,600 more turbines.

Dottie Roark, a spokeswoman for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the agency that collects information on new wind projects, said many of the proposed farms never will be built for lack of financing, technical obstacles or other reasons.

But developers also may be considering projects the council doesn’t yet know about. That’s because state rules don’t require wind project developers to give any form of public notice until they request a connection to the state’s power grid. Even then, the information at ERCOT is geared toward people with a deep knowledge of electricity markets. Names of companies and locations of projects — except for the name of the county — aren’t revealed until late in the process unless a developer gives permission.

Wind developers say this arrangement promotes clean energy development and helps companies compete for leases on coveted land in a business where location means everything. Developers like the Coastal Bend because it has access to long-distance transmission lines and steady winds that are strong on hot afternoons when statewide electricity demand peaks.

Radar clutter has bred tense, delicate relationships between stakeholders who don’t want to be seen at odds with their counterparts — viewed as anti-clean energy or anti-military, for example — but who nonetheless have huge economic, environmental and safety interests to protect.

Within the National Weather Service, a careful balancing act is under way.

“There are people within the weather service who don’t want these wind farms anywhere near the radars,” said Ed Ciardi, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service Radar Operations Center in Norman, Okla., and one of the service’s leading wind farm clutter analysts.

Ciardi said despite the internal disagreements in the weather service, it has striven to work with wind developers, encouraging them to work out siting issues as early as possible.

“They don’t have to work with us,” he said. “In order not to cause them issues, we protect any data that could compromise them in a competitive way.”

That can mean not publicly disclosing potential wind farm sites unless forced by a request under the federal Freedom of Information Act, Ciardi said. Even then, the information usually is exempt from disclosure, he said.

In turn, the wind industry provides valuable information to the weather service. John Metz, warning coordination meteorologist for the weather service in Corpus Christi, said E. ON Climate and Renewables, owner of the Papalote Creek wind farm in San Patricio County, provided wind speed data after a rare January tornado cut a 20-mile swath across the Coastal Bend, ravaging trailers in the North Bay area and wrecking homes and a school in Robstown.

Some wind developers are agreeing to shut down turbines when severe weather approaches, Ciardi said.

When a weather radar

scans a wind farm, it interprets the movement of the blades as precipitation. The instruments are sensitive enough to detect bird flocks, so a wind farm — with 100 or 200 sets of blades that each stretch the length of a 747 jetliner and spin more than 100 mph at the tips in a 20 mph wind — can look like a tornado-breeding monster.

At Papalote Creek, the radar thinks it’s raining all the time. Under the right conditions, the blade movement triggers a tornado alarm, Metz said.

The radars can’t be programmed to ignore the wind farms because that could cause forecasters to miss a true storm. So far, there have been no weather warning delays or missed warnings in Corpus Christi, Metz said. The wind farms here are beyond a critical 10-mile range, allowing the radar to see easily beyond the turbines. But at least one proposed farm, near Petronila, is at the edge of the 10-mile radius.

Nationwide, wind farms haven’t caused forecasters to miss warning the public, but there have been instances of false warnings, Ciardi said.

“We’re still on the early stages of wind farm build-out,” he said. “Right now we’re only 10 percent of where the United States wants to be 10 or 20 years from now. Ten years from now, there’s likely to be more wind farms surrounding our radars, and I think that’s where we’re worried.”

It’s also a worry for Naval Air Station Kingsville, the commanding officer, Capt. Mark McLaughlin, said.

Proposed wind farms have the potential to create false radar returns throughout the airspace pilots use on their approach to the Navy base, McLaughlin said. Already, radars can lose track of planes when they fly into certain areas covered with false radar plots caused by turbines. Controllers then have to increase the distance between jets for safety.

“Increased separation means fewer training flights and decreased ability to perform our mission,” McLaughlin said.

Naval Air Station Corpus Christi officials did not respond by Friday evening.

State Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, D-McAllen, trying to protect the base — Kingsville’s largest employer — filed a bill that would require wind developers to notify the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and military installations of plans to build turbines within 25 miles of an installation. State Rep. J.M. Lozano, D-Kingsville, filed an identical bill in the House.

Patrick Woodson, chief development officer for E. ON, said the law would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Developers already are required to notify the Federal Aviation Administration of a wind farm project 45 days before construction, and it takes weeks to get FAA approval, he said.

Developers spend years erecting towers to test the wind and signing leases with landowners.

“There’s no secret plot here to construct wind turbines without telling anybody,” Woodson said.

Mark Hannifan, vice president of development for Tradewind Energy, said the bills provide no specific timetable for notifying the commission. Notifying too early could hurt competition, and the 25-mile requirement would take away too many potential wind farm sites, he said.

“This bill will send (wind developers) packing out of the state of Texas and send everybody packing out of the Coastal Bend.”Greg Wortham, director of the Texas Wind Energy Clearinghouse trade association, said new state regulations aren’t warranted because the FAA already has oversight and concerns over wind farm clutter are overplayed.

“The radar issue has been abused by people who just want to create an issue,” he said, “because their real story is they just don’t like wind turbines.”

Some technical solutions are on the horizon. Defense contractor Raytheon has plans to roll out new software algorithms as early as 2012 that would help military radars distinguish aircraft from wind turbines.

Patrick Paddock, an operations specialist and radar expert at Naval Air Station Kingsville, said those solutions would require years of testing and procurement processes before the military could begin to implement them. Even then, “because of the physics of this specific radar, software mitigation alone is probably not going to solve all of the problems,” he said.

‘Windfall’

Source: The Washington Post

Friday, March 18, 9:20 PM

Film review by Ann Hornaday

"[A]n alarming portrait of small, economically vulnerable towns being cynically targeted by Big Wind — slick, savvy energy companies less interested in the public good than in profits, which are virtually ensured thanks to generous federal and state tax breaks, as well as the deep pockets of investment banks. “It’s not green energy,” notes one observer. “It’s greed.”

Faucets don’t spit fire in “Windfall,” making its local premiere Saturday at the Environmental Film Festival. But incendiary water may be the only side effect not associated with wind power in Laura Israel’s absorbing, sobering documentary about the lures and perils of green technology.

With the Oscar-nominated “Gasland” (and its flame-throwing plumbing) enlightening viewers on the environmental and public health implications of natural gas drilling, and with nuclear power’s reputation in meltdown as a global community turns an anxious gaze toward Japan, some hardy souls may see hope in wind power. After seeing “Windfall,” those optimists will probably emerge with their faith, if not shaken, at least blown strongly off course.

“Windfall” takes place in Meredith, N.Y., a once-thriving dairy-farming community of fewer than 2,000 tucked into a bucolic Catskills valley that is teetering between post-agricultural poverty and hip gentrification. When Irish energy company Airtricity offers leases to build windmills on some residents’ properties, the deals initially seem like a win-win. A little extra money in the pockets of struggling farmers, an environmentally sound technology, those graceful white wings languorously slicing the afternoon sky — what’s not to like?

Plenty, as the concerned residents in “Windfall” find out. Not only do the 400-foot, 600,000-pound turbines look much less benign up close, but research has suggested that their constant low-frequency noise and the flickering shadows they cast affect public health; what’s more, they’ve been known to fall, catch fire and throw off potentially lethal chunks of snow and ice.

Soon Meredith succumbs to drastic divisions between boosters, who see Airtricity’s offers as a godsend for the economically strapped community, and skeptics, who see the leases as little more than green-washed carpetbaggery. “Windfall” chronicles the ensuing, agonizing fight, which largely splits lifelong residents and the relatively new “downstaters,” who’ve moved in from Manhattan and want to keep their views and property values pristine.

Using artful collages of maps and signage, a rootsy soundtrack and crisp digital cinematography, Israel provides a vivid backdrop to “Windfall’s” most gripping story, the emotionally charged human conflict that results in a genuine cliffhanger of a third act. Wisely letting Meredith’s residents speak for themselves, the filmmaker avoids simple good-guy-bad-guy schematics, instead enabling each side to state its case.

Israel, a film editor making her feature debut here, has owned a cabin in Meredith for more than 20 years, a fact never made clear in “Windfall,” which is, nonetheless, filmed with careful, dispassionate distance. In large part, the documentary follows Israel’s process of discovery. Although she wasn’t approached for a lease, she initially supported wind power in the community, she said in an interview. “I wanted a turbine on my property, which motivated me to learn more about it,” she explained. “A lot of the people in the film are illustrating the process I went through, from initial excitement to having it unravel as you find out more about the subject.”

Comparing the situation in Meredith with similar ones in other New York communities, Israel conveys an alarming portrait of small, economically vulnerable towns being cynically targeted by Big Wind — slick, savvy energy companies less interested in the public good than in profits, which are virtually ensured thanks to generous federal and state tax breaks, as well as the deep pockets of investment banks. “It’s not green energy,” notes one observer. “It’s greed.”

Meanwhile, in Meredith, a handful of earnest, common-sense heroes try to separate fact from hype, do the right thing and navigate thorny questions of civic progress by way of small-town democracy. The latter isn’t always pretty, as anyone who has attended a town hall or school board meeting knows. But “Windfall” makes it look exciting, inspiring and, most important, stubbornly enduring. Last year, the Environmental Film Festival helped launch “Gasland’s” grass-roots tour, during which the film pulled the veil from an otherwise opaque subject. With luck, “Windfall” will soon embark on a similar eye-opening journey. Catch it if you can.





WHY NOT TO DISMISS HEALTH IMPACTS OF WIND TURBINES

 SOURCE: Climatide, climatide.wgbh.org

 March 12, 2011 By Heather Goldstone,

The wind energy movement bills itself as an integral part of efforts to reduce fossil fuel usage and curb climate change while helping build the new green energy economy. But complaints about adverse health impacts – loss of sleep, headaches, depression – have surfaced in communities around the world where wind turbines are located in close proximity to homes, including here on Cape Cod. In their efforts to dismiss claims of adverse health impacts caused by nearby wind turbines, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) comes out looking more like big industry than grassroots environmentalist.

I was a toxicologist in a former career, and I see a lot parallels between this debate and debates about the toxicity – or not – of chemical pollutants. So, here are three reasons not to dismiss complaints about wind turbines drawn from the environmental movement and the science of toxicology.

Argument: It’s all in their heads

An AWEA-commissioned review of the science surrounding wind turbines, sound, and health asserts that the main impact of wind turbine noise is to annoy people:

A feeling described as “annoyance” can be associated with acoustic factors such as wind turbine noise. … Annoyance is clearly a subjective effect that will vary among people and circumstances. … the main function of noise annoyance is as a warning that fitness may be affected but that it causes little or no physiological effect. Protracted annoyance, however, may undermine coping and progress to stress related effects. … The main health effect of noise stress is disturbed sleep, which may lead to other consequences.

And yet, they draw a line between “annoyance” and a health impact: (my emphasis)

There is no evidence that sound at the levels from wind turbines as heard in residences will cause direct physiological effects.

Rebuttal: Immune suppression

AWEA’s argument seems to hinge on dismissing annoyance as a subjective, emotional response and, thus, dismissing the secondary health effects of annoyance. But consider this: certain chemicals can alter the immune system, impairing its ability to fight off infections. This might not be a problem if we lived in germ-free bubbles (i.e. not a direct health problem). But in the real world, the increased risk of infection poses a serious health threat. Not satisfied?

There are also deeper flaws in AWEA’s argument:

• As discussed earlier this week, the word “annoyance” as it is used by several researchers addressing the wind turbine issue has a technical definition that encompasses “a significant degradation of quality of life.”
• Sleep disturbance and deprivation need not be a secondary effect of stress; noise at levels typically produced by large turbines is capable of partially or fully waking a person. Prolonged sleep deprivation constitutes a medical issue in itself, and is also a trigger for other health problems.
• Some residents report physical sensations – like ear popping – not related to stress. There is little or no scientific data to address these claims … a point I’ll get to shortly.

Argument: It only affects a small number of people

Dr. Robert McCunney is an MIT researcher and a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. He was a member of AWEA’s expert panel that reviewed the available science and determined that there is no evidence that wind turbines directly cause health effects. He has also provided expert testimony in court to that effect. He says it’s important to remember that most people aren’t negatively affected by wind turbines:

… at least in the studies that are available, the percentage of people who report annoyance in the proximity of wind turbines tends to be a relatively low… it’s not the predominant effect, and it’s not a majority of people who report these symptoms.

Furthermore, the AWEA report states that “a small number of sensitive people … may be stressed by the sound and suffer sleep disturbances,” citing above-average sound sensitivity, as well as personality traits and pre-existing negative attitudes toward wind turbines as factors predisposing persons to such impacts.

Rebuttal: Cancer clusters

To only consider impacts that affect the majority of people holds wind turbines to a standard that would be unthinkable for chemical pollutants.

Did drinking water contaminated with industrial chemicals give the majority of children in Woburn, Massachusetts leukemia? Or did chromium give the majority of people in Hinkley, California cancer? Absolutely not. If they had, documenting those cancer clusters would have been far more straightforward. But both were eventually validated and resulted in court settlements (check out A Civil Action and Erin Brokovich this weekend for the full stories, if you’re not familiar).

For that matter, is lead any less of a concern because it mostly impacts young children and unborn babies – a particularly sensitive portion of the population?

The standard is not a majority effect, but rather, a greater than expected occurrence of symptoms in any segment of the population, based on comparison with other turbine-free areas of similar geography, demographics, etc.

Argument: There’s not enough evidence

AWEA doesn’t deny that people living close to wind turbines around the world are reporting negative impacts. However, most of the surveys and case studies that currently exist are what scientists call anecdotal data – personal stories that have not been subjected to rigorous scientific investigation or the quality-control process of peer review. Thus, Dr. McCunney and the AWEA panel insist that there’s not enough scientific evidence to conclusively link wind turbine noise to health complaints.

Rebuttal: Precautionary principle

Here we can draw on an idea long embraced by the environmental movement and the scientific community (although less so industry or government) – that of the precautionary principle. The 1998 Wingspread Conference convened by the Science and Environmental Health Network crafted and adopted the following definition (my emphasis):

Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public bears the burden of proof.

The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic, and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.

In 2005, UNESCO released a report aimed at clarifying when and how the precautionary principle should be applied:

The [precautionary principle] applies when there exist considerable scientific uncertainties about causality, magnitude, probability, and nature of harm;

This would certainly seem to be the current situation with regard to claims of health impacts caused by wind turbines. We do not yet have controlled, peer-reviewed studies that nail down exactly how many people are affected, what their symptoms are, when they began, and at what distances and sound levels they occur. Establishing the who, what, when and where of a problem will be an important first step before moving on to the more intricate questions of how and why. So there’s a long way to go before we reach a rigorous scientific understanding of the relationship between wind turbines and health. But the highly suggestive evidence at hand almost certainly meets the standards of the precautionary principle.