Better Plan, Wisconsin

  From the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health, www.nidcd.nih.gov

A wind turbine is a rotary device with a gigantic propeller as big as a football field that turns in the wind to generate electricity. Although wind turbines are more often found in Europe than in the United States, they’re rapidly becoming more popular here as a “green” energy source.

Most people consider that a good thing, except the rotors of wind turbines also generate noise, particularly in the infrasound range, that some people claim makes them feel sick.

Since frequencies that low can’t be heard, many scientists who study hearing have assumed they can’t have any effect on the function of the ear. But a little known phenomenon related to the infrasound generated by wind turbines is making some scientists challenge the common wisdom that what we can’t hear won’t hurt us.

Infrasound is a subset of sound broadly defined as any sound lower than 20 Hertz (Hz), which is the lowest pitch that most people can hear. It’s all around us, even though we might only be barely able to hear a lot of it. The whoosh of wind in the trees, the pounding of surf, and the deep rumble of thunder are natural sources of infrasound. Whales and other animals use infrasound calls to communicate across long distances. There is also a wide range of manmade infrasounds, for example, the noise generated by industrial machinery, traffic, and heating and cooling systems in buildings.

Alec Salt, Ph.D., is an NIDCD-supported researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who studies the inner ear. For years, he and his group have been using infrasound as a way to slowly displace the structures of the inner ear so that their movement can be observed. In their experiments, infrasound levels as low as 5Hz had an impact on the inner ears of guinea pigs.

“We were doing lots of work with low-frequency tones,” says Salt, “and we were getting big responses.” What they were observing in the lab, however, didn’t jibe with the scientific literature about hearing sensitivity, which was in general agreement that the human ear doesn’t respond to anything as low as 5Hz. Since human ears are even more sensitive to low frequencies than guinea pig ears, that didn’t make sense.

Salt and a colleague conducted a literature search, focusing not on papers about hearing sensitivity, but on the basic physiology of the inner ear and how it responds to low-frequency sounds. During the search, Salt found anecdotal reports of a group of symptoms commonly called “wind turbine syndrome” that affect people who live close to wind turbines.

“The biggest problem people complain about is lack of sleep,” says Salt, but they can also develop headaches, difficulty concentrating, irritability and fatigue, dizziness, and pain and pressure in the ear.

Continuing his search, Salt began to see a way in which infrasound could impact the function of the inner ear, by the differences in how inner ear cells respond to low frequencies. In function, our ear acts like a microphone, converting sound waves into electrical signals that are sent to the brain. It does this in the cochlea, the snail-shaped organ in the inner ear that contains two types of sensory cells, inner hair cells (IHCs) and outer hair cells (OHCs). Three rows of OHCs and one row of IHCs run the length of the cochlea. When OHCs are stimulated by sound, special proteins contract and expand within their walls to amplify the vibrations. These vibrations cause hairlike structures (called stereocilia) on the tips of the IHCs to ripple and bend. These movements are then translated into electrical signals that travel to the brain through nerve fibers and are interpreted as sound.

Only IHCs can transmit this sound signal to the brain. The OHCs act more like mediators between sound frequencies and the IHCs. This wouldn’t matter if the OHC behaved the same way for all frequencies—the IHCs would respond to what the OHC amplified—but they don’t. It turns out that OHCs are highly sensitive to infrasound, but when they encounter it, their proteins don’t flex their muscles like they do for sound frequencies in the acoustic range. Instead they actively work to prevent IHC movement so that the sound is not detected. So, while the brain may not hear the sound, the OHC responses to it could influence function of the inner ear and cause unfamiliar sensations in some people.

Salt and his colleagues still aren’t sure why some people are sensitive to infrasound and others aren’t. It could be the result of anatomical differences among individual ears, or it could be the result of underlying medical conditions in the ear that cause the OHCs to be ultrasensitive to infrasound.

Regardless, it might not be enough to place wind turbines further away from human populations to keep them from being bothersome, since infrasound has the ability to cover long distances with little dissipation. Instead, Salt suggests wind turbine manufacturers may be able to re-engineer the machines to minimize infrasound production. According to Salt, this wouldn’t be difficult. “Infrasound is a product of how close the rotor is to the pole,” he says, “which could be addressed by spacing the rotor further away.”

Salt, AN and Hullar, TE, “Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines.” Hearing Research online 16 June 2010



I am one of the neighbors of the Vinalhaven wind turbines, misled by turbine supporters in 2008 and 2009 that "ambient sounds would mask the noise of the turbines." As I write these words, the noise from the wind turbines churns in the background.

My home is 3,000 feet from the turbines, and my experience is contrary to all the assertions that were made during the permitting process a few years ago. At this hour of the morning, it should be peaceful outside, the quiet interrupted only by the calling crows or osprey circling.

Some locals dismiss the noise complaints, saying that Vinalhaven had a diesel power plant for years. But to live near excessive noise is not the reason I chose to own property here. Also, as I have become familiar with wind turbine noise, it is more and more clear that there is a fundamental difference between turbine noise and other forms of industrial disturbances. Here, it is not just the constant noise, but the pulsing drone that makes the noise particularly hostile that is so disturbing. It is inescapable.

At a recent public hearing on Vinalhaven on turbine noise sponsored by the Island Institute, one neighbor - at the point of tears - said that she had been forced from her house when her chest began vibrating at the same syncopation as the turbines outside.

At that hearing I said I supported wind energy so long as the economic advantages to ratepayers were clear and so long as surrounding property values were not affected. The jury is out on the first point, but not on the second. The constant noise from the turbines, even at 3,000 feet, has taken away a valuable part of my investment and a key part of my family's well-being.

I never imagined my first waking thought would be: where is the wind blowing and how much noise are the wind turbines making now? But that is what happens in this formerly quiet, beautiful place.

At the public meeting in Vinalhaven, I asked a question: when would the natural quiet be restored and when would my property values be protected? There was no answer from the project supporters.

Silence.

Neighbors' complaints about turbine noise rose immediately after the three, 1.5 megawatt GE turbines were turned on, last fall. A year after the Vinalhaven turbines were greeted with wide public acclaim, the turbine neighbors find themselves, through no fault of their own, in an extraordinarily difficult and expensive effort to demonstrate that the wind turbines do exceed state regulations.

The cost of wind turbines has been shifted onto neighbors who never imagined these kinds of burdens when the benefits of wind energy were sold to the public. It is wrong and it is unfair to impose both the noise and the uncertainty of resolution - or if there will ever be resolution - on a few nearby homeowners.

These inequities are predictable. They will multiply wherever wind turbines are placed within a mile-and-a-half of residences, and under the State of Maine's archaic noise regulations.

The State of Maine must provide some relief to neighbors of wind turbines. To start, a fund should be established from a utility fee imposed state-wide that allows citizens to access highly technical and expensive noise and acoustic measurement equipment and data and independent experts.

The collateral damage of wind turbines is the assessment of the noise they make. No one in authority admits this, during the permitting process. They say, "The noise will be minor," or "the sound of the wind blowing in the leaves will cover the sound." That is simply not true.

The Vinalhaven neighbors have already spent tens of thousands of dollars to engage the local utility on the matter of measuring the churning noise. The costs are not trivial, but once turbines are erected in your neighborhood, their noise will be affixed to nearby property.

Be forewarned

SECOND FEATURE:

 

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Yesterday, the Greenbay Press Gazette reported that state health officer and administrator for the state’s Division of Public Health, Seth Foldy concluded there were no health concerns associated with living 1250 feet from wind turbines based on his review available scientific literature.

Would his conclusion be the same if he spoke face to face with wind project residents in our state? Unfortunately he doesn't feel this is necessary.

For the time being this scenario is being played out wherever wind projects are sited near homes. People complain about sleeplessness from the noise and headaches and nausea from the shadow flicker and are repeatedly told there is no evidence in the literature to support their experience.

Since no organized study has been done as a result of the many complaints from wind project residents, it's not surprising the available literature doesn't reflect their experiences. If Health Department officials refuse to speak to those who are suffering, it never will.

North of the border, in Ontario, the story is the same. These letters from a former wind project resident to the director of the Public Health Agency of Canada are very much like ones sent to Seth Foldy at the Wisconsin Division of Public Health, and were met with a similar response.

SOURCE: Wind Concerns Ontario

Letter #1:   From Barbara Ashbee  to Dr. King – January 26th, 2010

Dear Dr. King

I am writing to you today on behalf of residents throughout Ontario, who have become  victims suffering adverse health effects from industrial wind turbines being placed too close to their homes.

This issue has been routinely ignored by all ministries involved in renewable energy at all levels of government. My focus is on our provincial government as it is their policy that is forcing harm to people in their own homes. Many people have been so horribly affected that they have had to abandon their homes. Our public health department is the last potential department that I can think of that should be helping us and yet there has still been no assistance. I have never in my lifetime seen anything so disturbing as the way these people are being treated. It is unconscionable.

I understand you have been busy with H1N1 and I respect the overload of work you must be wading through, but I tell you these people that are being affected by wind turbines have been suffering longer than this flu outbreak has been in our midst. They have been routinely ignored and called names by our Ministers, the developers and by the Premier himself. We need help Dr. King and we need it now! These people do not have time to wait for another literature review to be done. There is ample evidence that these people are being harmed and I am getting extremely tired of being pushed off and ignored.

We need these turbines decommissioned now and no new turbines erected until there is a proper 3rd party independant health study completed. How can anyone that is supposed to be looking out for us continue to do their job and ignore this?

These victims have been forced to abandon their homes to live with relatives, have been billeted in motels, forced to pay rent for a safe house, forced to move into trailers and tents and sleep in their cars. What more do you need to acknowledge we have an urgent problem here?

These same people have followed every protocol under very debillitating conditions by contributing to the EBR registry, attending and presenting at the standing committee hearings,  attending and speaking at green energy workshops held in the province, attending and speaking at green energy act public input meetings across the province, attending and speaking at 2 Grey-Bruce Public Health open houses in Owen Sound and Walkerton in the presence of Dr. Hazel Lynn, Dr. Ray Copes and the MOE officer. They have written countless letters to the Ministers of Environment, Energy and to the Premier himself. As well as 100′s of messages and requests made to, and through their MPPs and local councils.

Nothing has happened.

I do not know what anyone expects of these people. The depth of distress these people feel by being hurt by the very systems and people that should be helping them, has created an overwhelming sense of injustice and they have lost trust in everyone.

I speak with these people almost daily and I am at a loss as to what to tell them Dr. King.

I await your response.

Sincerely,
Barbara Ashbee, RR1 Orangeville

Click here to read the response from Dr. King dated February 16 2010

Letter #2:   From Barbara Ashbee  to Dr. David C. Williams, Associate Chief Medical Officer of Health – February 28, 2010

Dear Dr. Williams,

Thank you for your letter dated February 16th in response to my letter to Dr. King, regarding the wind turbine health issues. I appreciate your response but am disappointed when you say you are reviewing existing information. Are you speaking of another literature review? I believe there is enough compelling information that a study on people should be in order. 

It is very difficult for me to be pleased with the recent appointment of the research chair from our Ontario government. As I understand it, this gentleman is an electrical engineer with experience in renewable energy technology, but with no expertise in wind turbine technology.  He is not a health professional and so to hear you suggest he will “provide expert advice on potential health effects of renewable energy technologies” does not provide any degree of comfort.  

Are you able to give me a better time frame of how long these residents must continue to suffer in their own homes without any government support while you are reviewing things? Why aren’t these installations being shut down while this ongoing research is being done? 

This imbalance of power is overwhelming, and it is bewildering; why the lack of response from government since they received the very first complaints and why the continuing delays? Canadians expect our health ministries to be responsive to people who are experiencing adverse health effects, especially by a policy forced upon them by their government. Please keep in mind these people are powerless to shut these things off and our Ministry of Environment, who governs these projects, has not been able to monitor, control or assist in any way. The fact that Minister of Environment, John Gerretsen uses the term NIMBY to describe victims is befitting of the attitude from this government. The victims and their families have lost faith and trust, and who could blame them?

The quote below is from just one the many victims. 

“I am angry, helpless, and disappointed our government would let something like this happen. I am appalled at their ignorance and lack of compassion. It saddens me to watch my family and friends suffer from the same [health] effects of the turbines. “I spend as much time as I can away from my home, away from my son who is also sleep deprived. We are exhausted and miserable. I often seek refuge with friends, often falling asleep minutes after I arrive. I feel like a gypsy.“What was once a beautiful place to live has been destroyed.”

 – Tracy Whitworth, schoolteacher (Clear Creek, Ont.)

The victims need these wind installations decommissioned immediately so they can return to living in a healthy environment in their own homes while the various ministries and “experts” do their research.

If you do not agree with that, then a statement explaining your position is requested. 

It is astonishing that our provincial government is proceeding with new wind installations with the knowledge of the adverse health effects associated with them. Perhaps sustainable energy resources are their mandate, but your mandate is to protect and prevent harm to our health. With all due respect, so far I have not seen any evidence of protection or prevention, or this would not continue to carry on as long as it has.

Sincerely, 

Barbara Ashbee, RR 1, Orangeville, Ontario

Click on the image below to hear what wind siting council member Larry Wunsch has been living with for the past two years. This turbine is located 1100 feet from his home.

STATE OFFICIAL TAKES WIND OUT OF TURBINE HEALTH ISSUE

SOURCE: Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

August 28, 2010

By Tony Walter

A key state health official has notified the attorney for a Brown County citizens group that there isn’t sufficient evidence to show that wind turbines have a negative effect on human health.

To that, attorney Ed Marion replied, “There’s no question in my mind that there’s such a rush to build wind turbines that policymakers are simply ignoring all the evidence against building them. People who dismiss wind turbine complaints are flat wrong.”

Marion, former Gov. Tommy Thompson’s chief of staff, represents the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, a group that opposes a plan by Chicago-based Invenergy LLC to construct a wind farm of 100 turbines in the towns of Morrison, Holland, Wrightstown and Glenmore.

Seth Foldy, state health officer and administrator for the state’s Division of Public Health, said his conclusion is based on a study of scientific evidence.

The citizens group claims considerable evidence shows wind turbines can cause a variety of health problems for nearby residents, including sleep disturbance and headaches.

The PSC-appointed wind siting council has sent proposed turbine rules to the PSC, which is expected to vote on the rules next week. The major issues are decibel limits and setback restrictions.

“Our review of the scientific literature concludes that exposure levels measured from contemporary wind turbines at current setback distances do not reach those associated with objective physical conditions, such as hearing loss, high blood pressure, or flicker-induced epilepsy,” Foldy wrote in a July 19 letter to Marion.

“From this, we conclude that current scientific evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that contemporary wind turbines cause adverse health outcomes in those living at distances consistent with current draft rules being considered by the Public Service Commission.”

Marion said he sent three letters to Foldy before receiving a reply and said additional studies have been completed since Foldy’s July 19 letter.

“Washington University in St. Louis, a prestigious institution, released a study this month that said there’s an urgent need to do more research on wind turbine effect,” Marion said.

Marion’s May 13 letter to Foldy cited five studies that he said concluded that wind turbine noise can cause health problems.

“Wind energy proponents claim that it has not been proven that wind turbine noise causes adverse health impacts,” Marion wrote. “More to the point, it has not been proven that wind turbine noise does not cause adverse health effects.”

He called on the state Division of Public Health to conduct more in-depth research on the issue.

Foldy wrote that symptoms such as sleep disturbance and headaches are common and caused by “a wide variety of conditions.

For example, sleep disturbance is a common problem in the general population and may be a sign of an underlying medical disorder. The same is true for symptoms like nausea, headache, problems with equilibrium.”

He said the department’s staff reviewed the five reports that Marion mentioned, as well as more than 150 reports on wind turbines and health. He said the department will continue to review evidence as it becomes available.

Barnaby Dinges, spokesman for Invenergy, said the company “has no comment on the letters between Marion and the state since it was not part of the exchange. It’s really a dialogue between those two parties.”

Invenergy is expected to resubmit its application for the wind farm after the siting rules are approved.

Second feature:

Wind power fights two powerful foes

SOURCE UPI, www.upi.com

August 27 2010

The push for greener energy sources has run into a sizable roadblock with U.S. aviation experts opposing wind turbine construction, a trade group said.

The American Wind Energy Association said a survey of its members found scores of projects in 2009 ran into interference from the U.S. Defense Department and the Federal Aviation Administration, despite a push from the U.S. Energy Department to produce energy from renewable sources, The New York Times reported Friday.

Wind turbines, some of them 400 feet tall, reportedly confuse air traffic controllers, as they resemble storms on weather radar systems. They can also cause planes in some spaces to drop off radar screens entirely, the Times reported.

Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defense recently testified that wind turbines create a high risk for planes and compromise national security.

Gary Seifert, a researcher with the Energy Department, called the collision course between Defense Department interests and energy needs “the train wreck of the 2000s.”

“The train wreck is the competing resources for two national needs: energy security and national security,” he said.

The wind energy group said the Defense Department and the FAA stalled or stopped 9,000 megawatts worth of projects in 2009, equal to the amount of wind energy projects constructed during the year.

Wind energy gets huge subsidies. So where are the CO2 reductions?

Source: Energy Tribune, www.energytribune.com

August 27, 2010

By Robert Bryce,

Ed. note: This story is an extended version of an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on August 24.

Over the last few years, the wind industry has achieved remarkable growth largely due to the industry’s claim that using more wind energy will result in major reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. There’s just one problem with that claim: it’s not true. Recent studies show that wind-generated electricity may not result in any reduction in carbon emissions, or those reductions will be so small as to be almost meaningless.

This issue is especially important now that states, even in the absence of federal legislation, are mandating that utilities produce arbitrary amounts of their electricity from renewable sources. By 2020, for example, California will require utilities to obtain 33% of their electricity from renewables. About 30 states including Connecticut, Minnesota, and Hawaii, are requiring major increases in the production of renewable electricity over the coming years. Wind, not solar or geothermal sources, must provide most of this electricity, because it is the only renewable source that can rapidly scale up to meet the requirements of the mandate. But those mandates will mean billions more in taxpayer subsidies for the wind industry and result in higher electricity costs for consumers.

There are two reasons wind can’t make major cuts in carbon emissions. The wind blows only intermittently and variably; and wind-generated electricity largely displaces power produced by natural gas-fired generators rather than that coming from plants that burn more carbon-intensive coal.

Because the wind is not dependable, electric utilities must either keep their conventional power plants running all the time (much like “spinning reserve” in industry parlance) to make sure the lights don’t go dark, or they must continually ramp up and down the output from conventional coal- or gas-fired generators (“cycling”).

Coal-fired and gas-fired generators are designed to run continuously. If they don’t, fuel consumption, and emissions of key air pollutants, generally increases. A car analogy helps explain the reason: An automobile that operates at a constant speed — say, 55 miles per hour — will have better fuel efficiency, and emit less pollution per mile traveled, than one that is stuck in stop-and-go traffic. But the wind, by its very nature, is stop-and-go. The result: minimal or no reductions in carbon emissions by shifting conventional generation to wind.

In 2008, a British energy consultant, James Oswald, along with two co-authors, published a study in the journal Energy Policy, which said that any reductions in Britain’s carbon dioxide emissions due to added wind generation capacity “will be less than expected.” The study went on to say that neither the extra costs of cycling the power plants “nor the increased carbon production are being taken into account in the government figures for wind power.”

An April study by Bentek Energy, a Colorado-based energy analytics firm, looked at power plant records in Colorado and Texas. (It was commissioned by the Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States.) Bentek concluded that despite huge investments, wind-generated electricity “has had minimal, if any, impact on carbon dioxide” emissions. Thanks to the cycling of Colorado’s coal-fired plants in 2009, for example, at least 94,000 more pounds of carbon dioxide were generated because of the repeated cycling. In Texas, Bentek estimated that the cycling of power plants due to increased use of wind energy resulted in a slight savings of carbon dioxide (about 600 tons) in 2008 and a slight increase (of about 1,000 tons) in 2009.

This month, the US Association for Energy Economics published a paper by Ross Baldick, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, which concluded that new wind generation capacity “may not be decreasing greenhouse emissions. However, even assuming that wind displaces fossil emissions, it is not ‘worthwhile’ for reducing greenhouse emissions” even if regulators put a price on carbon dioxide of up to $35 per ton.

The problems posed by the intermittency and variability of wind energy could quickly be cured if only we had an ultra-cheap method of storing large quantities of energy. If only. The problem of large-scale energy storage has bedeviled inventors for centuries. Alessandro Volta and Thomas Edison both produced working batteries. Edison spent years working on battery technology, sinking about $30 million of his own money (in current dollars) into his quest for a durable, high-capacity battery. He had some success. But modern batteries have the same suite of problems that Edison faced: they are too big, too expensive, too finicky, and lack durability.

Other solutions for energy storage like compressed air energy storage and pumped water storage are viable, but like batteries, those technologies are expensive. And even if the cost of energy storage falls dramatically — thereby making wind energy truly viable — who will pay for it? Further, even if we have a dramatic breakthrough in energy storage, the deployment of that new technology will likely take decades.

Despite the lack of storage, the US and other countries continue to deploy huge amounts of new wind generation capacity and that expense is being undertaken with the assumption that wind energy will lower carbon dioxide emissions. But federal authorities have done some estimates on how more wind energy will affect emissions. And those estimates are revealing.

Last year, the Energy Information Administration estimated the potential savings from a proposed nationwide 25% renewable electricity standard, a goal that was included in the Waxman-Market energy bill which narrowly passed the US House last year. In its best-case scenario, the annual carbon dioxide savings from that mandate would be about 306 million tons by 2030. Given that the EIA expects annual US carbon dioxide emissions to be about 6.2 billion tons in 2030, that expected reduction will only equal about 4.9% of US emissions. That’s not much when you consider that the Obama administration wants to cut US carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050.

Earlier this year, another arm of the Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, released a report whose conclusions were remarkably similar to those of the EIA. This report focused on integrating wind energy into the electric grid in the eastern US, which has about two-thirds of all US electric load. If wind energy were to meet 20% of electric needs in the eastern US by 2024, according to the report, the likely reduction in carbon emissions would be less than 200 million tons per year. (All the scenarios in the NREL analysis cost a minimum of $140 billion to implement and the issue of cycling conventional power plants is only mentioned in passing.)

Coal emits about twice as much carbon dioxide during combustion as natural gas. But wind generation mostly displaces natural gas because natural gas-fired generators are often the most costly form of conventional electricity production. That said, if regulators are truly concerned about carbon emissions (and cutting air pollution) they should be encouraging gas-fired generation at the expense of coal. And they should be doing so because drillers are unlocking galaxies of natural gas from shale beds, so much so that US natural gas resources are now likely large enough to meet all of America’s natural gas needs for a century.

Meanwhile, the wind industry is pocketing subsidies that dwarf those garnered by the oil and gas sector. The federal government provides a production tax credit of $0.022 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by wind. That amounts to $6.44 per million BTU of energy produced. Meanwhile, a 2008 EIA report said subsidies to the oil and gas sector totaled $1.9 billion per year, or about $0.03 per million BTU of energy produced. Thus, on a raw, per-unit-of-energy-produced basis, subsidies to the wind sector are more than 200 times as great as those given to the oil and gas sector.

Kevin Forbes, the director of the Center for the Study of Energy and Environmental Stewardship at Catholic University, told me that “Wind energy gives people a nice warm fuzzy feeling that we’re taking action on climate change.” But when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions, “the reality is that it’s not doing much of anything.”



We Energies turbines in Blue Sky Green Field project near Malone, Wisconsin

UNION MAN DETAILS HOW COUNCIL WROTE THE RULES:

 SOURCE: The Janesville Gazette, gazettextra.com

August 15, 2010

By Gina Duwe,

UNION TOWNSHIP — A local man who worked on the state council to write wind siting rules says the slanted make-up of the committee toward the wind industry created a disservice to the process.

The resulting rules likely will increase local dissent and resistance to proposed projects, which he predicts will end up in court, said Doug Zweizig, who co-chaired the wind siting council.

“I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I don’t think it’s going to be pretty,” said Zweizig, who also is vice-chair of the Town of Union Plan Commission and worked on a special committee to write the town’s wind ordinance.

The wind siting council this week released its report that serves as recommendations to the state Public Service Commission.

Zweizig was one of four council members that disagreed with portions of the report and wrote a minority opinion that was attached to the end of it. The minority report states concerns over the failure “to address the realities of the effects of large wind turbines on nearby populations, to bring quality information into critical areas and to explore the economic implications of locating an industrial facility next to a residential area.”

The process

Legislators approved a bill last fall to allow the PSC to create rules to regulate wind projects statewide instead of the patchwork of local ordinances.

The council drafted its report over the last four months, and the three PSC commissioners will consider the report, the full record and all public and stakeholder comments before issuing the final rules, said Lori Sakk, legislative liaison for the PSC.

Then the presiding officer of the state Assembly and Senate will have 10 days to refer the rules to a committee, which would have 30 days to schedule a hearing or request to meet with the agency. If neither action is taken, the rules are promulgated and become law.

The law said the council members needed to be representatives of specific categories, including the energy industry, uncompensated landowners, wind developers, real estate agents, medical and research experts, environmentalists and local government.

But, “that’s not the way the appointments were made,” Zweizig said.

Whenever the PSC had any leeway, someone with ties or a supporting opinion to the wind industry was appointed, he said.

Sakk responded by saying the council members were appointed according to the statutory eligibility requirements established by the state Legislature.

Zweizig said his impression is that wind industry advocates were frustrated with towns such as Union, which has an ordinance for a half-mile turbine setback, so they went to the state to override the local ordinances. They got the legislation, he said, and since the PSC already was supportive, a council was put together to rubber stamp the desired outcome.

“What that did in terms of group process, meant that the majority never really had to explain itself very much … or talk through issues,” Zweizig said. “They didn’t have to do that because they knew they had the votes.”

Council Chairman Dan Ebert said in a letter accompanying the report that the council had “significant discussions” on many recommendations “in the spirit of working toward consensus.” He said the recommendations reflect input from all council members, but acknowledged there were areas that the council did not reach a consensus.

The council’s report states a turbine should be sited so:

– It is set back from homes 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height, which would be 440 feet for the 400 foot turbines, Zweizig said.

– It creates no more than 40 hours of shadow flicker on a home. If it’s more than 20, the operator is required to provide mitigation, which can include putting blinds up in a house, Zweizig said.

– The noise it creates is no more than 45 decibels at night and no more than 50 decibels during the day.

Zweizig said some council members lacked concern for health problems associated with living too close to turbines. He and others tried to point out that people are abandoning their homes because of health problems stemming from the noise and shadow flicker.

That’s why council member Larry Wunsch, who lives within 1,100 feet of a turbine in Fond du Lac County, is trying to sell his property, Zweizig said. Wunsch also was among the four minority opinions on the council.

“He did whatever he could to let those on the council know those are the circumstances,” Zweizig said. “They never asked him a question. They never said, ‘What is this like?’ They just waited him out, knowing that in the end they would just outvote him.”

Local wind projects

The status of proposed projects in Union and Magnolia townships is unclear.

EcoEnergy was developing both projects, including signing on landowners, before it sold the rights for both to Acciona in 2007, said Jason Yates, contract manager with EcoEnergy in Elgin, Ill. The proposed projects back then included three turbines in Union and up to 67 in Magnolia.

Wind measurement towers were put up in both townships: Magnolia’s went up in April 2007 at County B and Highway 213 and Union’s went up in late 2008 at County C and Highway 104.

The Magnolia tower came down this spring at the end of the 36-month contract, landowner Tom Drew said. Since then, Drew said the only thing he heard from the company was that it was waiting to see the results of the state’s new wind siting law.

In Union, the town permit for the tower expired last fall, and Acciona has decided to remove the tower, supervisor George Franklin said. It will be removed this fall after the corn that surrounds it is harvested, he said.

The Acciona North American website does not list any Wisconsin projects under its “In the works” projects. Acciona could not be reached for comment.

Evansville turbine begins operation

The new wind turbine in Evansville should be operational early this week, if not already, after possibly being struck by lightning.

The Northwind 100 arrived at the city’s wastewater treatment plant on Water Street in June. After running for only a couple days, the turbine stopped working late on the night of July 21 or early on July 22, said Eve Frankel, marketing and communications manager at Northern Power Systems.

“We believe that it was potentially due to a lightning strike, but it’s still under an investigation,” she said.

The manufacturer is fixing parts on the turbine and ruling out causes, she said.

The repair shouldn’t cost the city, City Administrator Dan Wietecha said, because it would be covered under the warranty or insurance.

Frankel said lightning striking a turbine is an “unusual occurrence,” though Wisconsin seems to have more lightning strikes than other regions.

The tower height on the 100 kilowatt turbine is 120 feet and each blade is 37 feet. The turbine is part of the $7.2 million effort to upgrade the wastewater treatment facility.

NEIGHBORS: WIND ENERGY HAS ITS PRICE

SOURCE: host.madison.com

August 14 2010

by Clay Barbour

ST. CLOUD, Wis. — Elizabeth Ebertz loves her garden, but the 67-year-old grandmother doesn’t work in it much anymore.

The small vegetable patch, which has produced onions, carrots and tomatoes for many family dinners, sits behind her home, in a little valley, about a half-mile from a dozen 400-foot-tall wind turbines.

The structures are part of the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in northeastern Fond du Lac County, one of the state’s largest wind farms, capable of producing energy for about 36,000 homes.

Unfortunately, said Ebertz, the turbines also produce enough noise to chase her from the garden — and most nights, disturb her sleep.

“Sometimes it sounds like a racetrack, or a plane landing,” she said. “You wouldn’t believe how loud it gets.”

The state Public Service Commission is considering a new set of wind farm regulations that could free up the industry and promote growth in Wisconsin, a state that has lagged behind the rest of the Midwest in using wind as an alternative energy source.

The PSC, which regulates state utilities, is expected to send the proposal to the Legislature by the end of the month.

If passed, the measure could go a long way in helping Wisconsin reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its energy with renewable sources by 2015. Renewable sources account for 5 percent of the state’s energy now.

The measure could also end what has been years of localized fights — often spurred by well-funded anti-wind organizations — that have effectively killed at least 10 proposed wind farms in the past eight years, and scared off several others.

But for people like Ebertz, the new rules mean more people will have to deal with wind turbines and the problems that come with them.

“I wish those things were never built here,” Ebertz said. “They’re just too close to people. I wish they were gone.”

State far behind neighbors

Wisconsin spends about $1.5 billion on imported energy every year and ranks 16th in the country in available wind.

According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Wisconsin has the capacity to produce up to 449 megawatts of energy from its current wind farms — enough to power about 110,000 homes.

Yet the state trails other Midwestern states in wind energy production. Minnesota wind farms produce 1,797 megawatts, Illinois produces 1,848 and Iowa generates 3,670. “It’s not even close,” said Barnaby Dinges, an AWEA member and lobbyist from Illinois. “Wisconsin is danger of falling out of the wind game altogether. It’s getting a reputation as inhospitable to the wind industry.”

Dinges has lobbied for six wind farms in the past five years, three of them in Wisconsin. He said the state has a number of well-organized anti-wind groups that have endangered its 10 percent goal.

“This isn’t like any grass-roots opposition we have seen elsewhere,” he said. “These aren’t just concerned citizens going to meetings. These are mass mailings, billboards, full-page ads. It’s more professional and it costs a lot of money.”

Jenny Heinzen — a professor of wind energy technology at Lakeshore Technical College, which has campuses in Manitowoc, Cleveland and Sheboygan, and a member of the state’s Wind Siting Council — said she has been amazed with the opposition.

“I have my suspicions that they are getting help from some groups from outside the state, but that has never been confirmed,” she said, referencing persistent rumors of coal and natural gas companies helping to kill wind projects here.

There are a lot of people who live near wind farms and never report problems. Still, the state is home to several anti-wind groups, including the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, the WINDCOWS, the Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy, Healthy Wind Wisconsin and the Coalition for Environmental Stewardship.

These groups have some powerful supporters, including several prominent lawyers, lobbyist and former state Sen. Bob Welch and Carl Kuehne, former CEO of American Foods Group.

But officials with the anti-wind groups say most of their members are simply residents who do not like the thought of living near a wind farm.

“We heard that criticism before — that we are a front group for oil and gas companies — but it’s just not true,” said Lynn Korinek, a member of WINDCOWS. “We are a group of about 200 members who hold rummage sales to fund our fight. There are no special interests behind us, believe me.”

Neighbors claim health problems

Most of the state’s anti-wind groups say they have nothing against wind energy, they simply disagree with how it is implemented in the state.

Still, their websites show members either fear the possible side effects of wind energy, or want others to fear them. The concerns include diminished property values, occasional noise pollution, moving shadows cast by the giant windmills along with loss of sleep from vibrations, increased menstrual cycles, high blood pressure, headaches and irritability.

Recently, the state Division of Public Health looked into the issue, studying more than 150 medical reports, interviewing dozens of residents and municipalities and consulting the universities of Wisconsin, Maine and Minnesota, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Their conclusion was that scientific evidence does not support the claim of wind turbine syndrome, an umbrella term for the health problems some have attributed to wind farms. The letter also points out that many of the symptoms associated with the condition — headaches, irritability, loss of sleep — are fairly common and can be attributed to other factors.

“They can explain it anyway they want, but something is different around here and it has been ever since they put those turbines up,” said Allen Hass, a 56-year-old farmer who owns about 600 acres in Malone, northeast of Fond du Lac.

Hass has three Blue Sky Green Field turbines on his property. He said We Energies, which owns the wind farm, pays him about $12,000 a year for the space.

Hass said the money does not make up for his health problems, including headaches and loss of memory.

“I wish I never made that deal,” he said.

Brian Manthey, We Energies spokesman, said the company is aware of Hass’s complaints, but that the scientific evidence does not support them. He said the company works hard to make its neighbors happy.

“You never get 100 percent support for anything, but you will find that a lot of people are happy with the farm,” he said.

New rules trump local ones

The new rules, written by the Wind Siting Council, streamline the state approval process so potential developers know exactly what they face when considering a project in Wisconsin.

Probably the most important aspect of the new regulations deals with state permitting. In the past, the state only had direct authority over wind farms generating more than 100 megawatts.

Under the new rules, the state would deal with all wind farms. Local municipalities would still be involved but would not be allowed to establish regulations stricter than the state’s.

Supporters figure this will open the door for the rapid growth of wind energy in the state by bypassing many of the local fights that have created such a logjam. Wisconsin is home to nine wind farms, with another two under construction, and three in the planning stages.

THIRD FEATURE:

STATE OF MAINE WANTS $36,000 for public records on wind energy

Sun Journal, www.sunjournal.com

 August 16, 2010 By Naomi Shalit,

As part of its reporting on the Wind Energy Act of 2008, the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting filed a state public records request under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act, called a FOAA request.

However, the Center never received much of the material it requested from the state because the cost was prohibitive: $36,239.52.

That’s what the state Public Utilities Commission wanted from the Center to search for e-mails from 2005-2007 between then-PUC Chairman Kurt Adams and any representatives of wind company First Wind (where Adams took a job after leaving the PUC); between Adams and Gov. John Baldacci, for whom Adams had previously worked as legal counsel; and between Adams and several prominent wind power attorneys employed by the law firm of Verrill Dana.

In her response to the Center’s request, Joanne Steneck, general counsel for the PUC, explained that “in order to review any e-mails from 2005 to 2007, it will be necessary to restore Mr. Adams’s mailbox from the mail server back up. According to the Office of Information Technology … it takes approximately 2 1/2 hours to restore a snapshot of each day’s e-mails.”

The Center sought access to the e-mails because Adams’ input had been crucial to the deliberations of the governor’s wind power task force.

Initially, Steneck told the Center that a search of backup discs containing e-mail records for the period prior to January 2008 could be done for a cost upward of $10,000.

The Center then asked for a waiver of the $10,000 cost, under provisions in the state’s FOAA that allow waivers to be granted for noncommercial use of public information.

The PUC refused to grant the waiver and revised its estimate of the cost for the Center to get the information to $36,239.52.

According to Steneck, the increased estimate represents the actual cost for OIT to retrieve and restore 824 backup tapes, at a charge of $21.99 per hour, plus the time it would take for PUC personnel to review the restored e-mail messages and redact confidential information. The process is laborious, she explained, because “the state of Maine’s e-mail system was designed in such a way that the backup and restore process allows for disaster recovery purposes only and does not include duplication or search criteria of an archive retrieval system.”

SCIENTIST CHALLENGES THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM THAT WHAT YOU CAN'T HEAR WON'T HURT YOU

SOURCE: National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health,

July 28, 2010

A wind turbine is a rotary device with a gigantic propeller as big as a football field that turns in the wind to generate electricity. Although wind turbines are more often found in Europe than in the United States, they’re rapidly becoming more popular here as a “green” energy source. Most people consider that a good thing, except the rotors of wind turbines also generate noise, particularly in the infrasound range, that some people claim makes them feel sick.

Since frequencies that low can’t be heard, many scientists who study hearing have assumed they can’t have any effect on the function of the ear. But a little known phenomenon related to the infrasound generated by wind turbines is making some scientists challenge the common wisdom that what we can’t hear won’t hurt us.

Infrasound is a subset of sound broadly defined as any sound lower than 20 Hertz (Hz), which is the lowest pitch that most people can hear. It’s all around us, even though we might only be barely able to hear a lot of it. The whoosh of wind in the trees, the pounding of surf, and the deep rumble of thunder are natural sources of infrasound. Whales and other animals use infrasound calls to communicate across long distances. There is also a wide range of manmade infrasounds, for example, the noise generated by industrial machinery, traffic, and heating and cooling systems in buildings.

Alec Salt, Ph.D., is an NIDCD-supported researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who studies the inner ear. For years, he and his group have been using infrasound as a way to slowly displace the structures of the inner ear so that their movement can be observed. In their experiments, infrasound levels as low as 5Hz had an impact on the inner ears of guinea pigs.

“We were doing lots of work with low-frequency tones,” says Salt, “and we were getting big responses.” What they were observing in the lab, however, didn’t jibe with the scientific literature about hearing sensitivity, which was in general agreement that the human ear doesn’t respond to anything as low as 5Hz. Since human ears are even more sensitive to low frequencies than guinea pig ears, that didn’t make sense.

Salt and a colleague conducted a literature search, focusing not on papers about hearing sensitivity, but on the basic physiology of the inner ear and how it responds to low-frequency sounds. During the search, Salt found anecdotal reports of a group of symptoms commonly called “wind turbine syndrome” that affect people who live close to wind turbines.

“The biggest problem people complain about is lack of sleep,” says Salt, but they can also develop headaches, difficulty concentrating, irritability and fatigue, dizziness, and pain and pressure in the ear.

Continuing his search, Salt began to see a way in which infrasound could impact the function of the inner ear, by the differences in how inner ear cells respond to low frequencies. In function, our ear acts like a microphone, converting sound waves into electrical signals that are sent to the brain. It does this in the cochlea, the snail-shaped organ in the inner ear that contains two types of sensory cells, inner hair cells (IHCs) and outer hair cells (OHCs). Three rows of OHCs and one row of IHCs run the length of the cochlea. When OHCs are stimulated by sound, special proteins contract and expand within their walls to amplify the vibrations. These vibrations cause hairlike structures (called stereocilia) on the tips of the IHCs to ripple and bend. These movements are then translated into electrical signals that travel to the brain through nerve fibers and are interpreted as sound.

Only IHCs can transmit this sound signal to the brain. The OHCs act more like mediators between sound frequencies and the IHCs. This wouldn’t matter if the OHC behaved the same way for all frequencies—the IHCs would respond to what the OHC amplified—but they don’t. It turns out that OHCs are highly sensitive to infrasound, but when they encounter it, their proteins don’t flex their muscles like they do for sound frequencies in the acoustic range. Instead they actively work to prevent IHC movement so that the sound is not detected. So, while the brain may not hear the sound, the OHC responses to it could influence function of the inner ear and cause unfamiliar sensations in some people.

Salt and his colleagues still aren’t sure why some people are sensitive to infrasound and others aren’t. It could be the result of anatomical differences among individual ears, or it could be the result of underlying medical conditions in the ear that cause the OHCs to be ultrasensitive to infrasound.

Regardless, it might not be enough to place wind turbines further away from human populations to keep them from being bothersome, since infrasound has the ability to cover long distances with little dissipation. Instead, Salt suggests wind turbine manufacturers may be able to re-engineer the machines to minimize infrasound production. According to Salt, this wouldn’t be difficult. “Infrasound is a product of how close the rotor is to the pole,” he says, “which could be addressed by spacing the rotor further away.”

Salt, AN and Hullar, TE, “Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines.” Hearing Research online 16 June 2010

COUNTY BOARD APPROVES WIND TURBINE ORDINANCE

SOURCE: Kewaunee County News, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

July 28 2010

By Kurt Rentmeester,

A week after the Kewaunee County Board approved a wind power resolution, some leaders question why it’s being done if a state Public Service Commission that sets such requirements is only weeks away.

In addition to new PSC requirements, Kewaunee County Supervisor Chuck Wagner said the county can’t regulate town zoning.

“The county rule is a recommendation. My problem is it’s all irrational hype. These people are making recommendations without having any significant data to back them up,” Wagner said.

The resolution addresses the same concerns that the towns of Carlton, West Kewaunee, Two Creeks, Mishicot and Two Rivers approved last month, as they are part of a proposed area for 111 wind turbines established by Oregon-based Element Power.

Wagner suggested tabling the resolution until July 18, but the board adopted the resolution on a 17-3 vote, with support from County Supervisors Jim Abrahamson and Bruce Heidmann. County Supervisor Jan Swoboda moved to adopt the resolution and Donald Delebreau seconded it.

“My intention was to give the support to town of Carlton and I felt there was no reason we don’t support other communities,” Swoboda said. “The PSC obviously will do what they think is best for the state.”

County Supervisor Linda Sinkula supported the measure in a Health Board resolution July 13 before bringing it to the board.

“At least it’s letting our legislators know there’s a concern and that we’d just like them to look at this,” Sinkula said. “We’d like them to look at the PSC rulings before they’re approved.”

Wagner said supporters have not investigated where the state and the municipalities are on these issues. He also said the state comment period is over and the state Legislature this year will not be back in session.

Supervisor Bruce Heidman said the measure needed to be rewritten.

“It was poorly written. That was my main problem with it,” Heidmann said. “There’s was nothing specific about the setbacks and other aspects of the resolution.”

County Supervisor Jim Barlow said the county needed to act on the resolution to make its case to state legislators.

“In part, if the PSC is going to have a ruling by the end of August, we can’t wait because they’re going to have something by the end of the month,” Barlow said. “We need to do what we can. Unfortunately, all we can do is end a resolution expressing some of our wishes.”

Residents speak

Andy Knipp, a town of West Kewaunee resident, said his greatest concern about wind turbines involve is the health impact on residents and on land values.

“Before anyone allows this to be built, the residents want to know what impact it will have on property values,” Knipp said.

Tina Steffen, a town of West Kewaunee resident, asked the county board to fight on her behalf to establish a policy to protect residents from the impact of wind turbine expansion.

“We have a Smart Growth Plan in the township,” Steffen said. “I’m not allowed to put a 50-story building up. These towers are 50 stories high and they’d be going up in an agricultural zone.”

Mike Paral of Kewaunee said costs for renewable energy were handed down from Madison, but local governments are nearly broke. The state can’t use taxes anymore, he said.

“Now I’m not against wind power,” Paral said. “You can have all the wind power you want — where it belongs. There are a lot of areas in the United States that have wide-open areas that have a thousand of these. Wisconsin is not one of them, much less Kewaunee.”

SECOND FEATURE

Download the resolution from the Brown County board of health and human services by CLICKING HERE