Better Plan, Wisconsin



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.

PART 3: THE FALMOUTH EXPERIENCE:

FLICKERING LIGHT

SOURCE: WGBH BOSTON

March 9, 2011

Residents in the town of Falmouth say that a nearly 400-foot wind turbine has severely impacted their quality of life.

They talk about noise issues, ringing in their ears and changes in pressure when they are outside.

But sound isn’t the only thing generating discontent.

As Sean Corcoran reports in the third part of our series, The Falmouth Experience: The Trouble with One Town’s Turbine, there also are complaints about a phenomenon called shadow flicker.

Malcom Donald sits in his kitchen, near some of the extra windows he and his wife installed last year. He says a light-flicker caused by the turbine’s blades have degraded his quality of life.

 FALMOUTH, Mass. — It’s just after 8 in the morning, and as a light show begins in the kitchen, Malcolm Donald goes over to his computer and fiddles with its music player.

“Well, is it time to put on Dancing Queen?” he asks. “You have to do something to make it a little more tolerable, and I’ve been putting on a little disco music.”

What just a few minutes ago was a well-lit kitchen now is filled with flashing light.

The reason stands some 1,900 feet away in the form of a 400-foot wind turbine at the town’s waste water treatment plant called Wind One. Some neighbors allege the noise from the turbine is making them sick. Donald feels fine. But what he does have is this “shadow flicker,” which creates a strobe light effect on the neighborhood as the sun rises behind the moving blades.

Filmed by Malcom Donald in his kitchen

“I don’t know why we should have to be exposed to this. Somebody’s put up a machine, we lived here 20 years, and now all of a sudden we have flashing lights in the morning,” said Donald.

The intense flashing can make reading, watching television and even having a conversation a challenge. A good analogy might be to imagine trying to read a book in a moving car as the sun flashes through the trees. Donald says that this time of year the flashing continues for about 30 minutes.

Two years ago, that wouldn’t have been too much of a problem. But last year Donald and his wife installed a half-dozen new windows in the rear of the house in an effort to eat breakfast with the sunlight.

“We’ve just done major renovations, taken out some walls so we can live here and enjoy the sunshine. And now the sunshine is flashing at us,” Donald said.

Shadow flicker outside the Donald home

Opponents of wind turbines typically give a wide range of reasons for opposing it. There’s talk about alleged human and animal health effects, questions about connecting to the electricity grid, and concerns about cost, industrial accidents, property values and general noise.

David McGlinchey of the non-partisan Manomet Center for Conservation Studies in Plymouth says shadow flicker often is another source of concern, but more of an annoyance.

“As far as we know, there are no health affects related to flicker. On the other hand, if that’s your house and it’s occurring when you want to eat breakfast, it’s an impact. It’s a nuisance,” explains McGlinchey.

In recent wind debates on Cape Cod, there’s been confusion about shadow flicker. Some speakers have said it can cause health effects. And it’s not uncommon to hear claims that the flashing light can cause epileptic seizures. Heather Goldstone says that’s unlikely to be a problem in Falmouth.

“I’ve seen two studies that directly address whether shadow flicker from wind turbines can cause seizures and they both conclude that the only risk comes from small turbines that turn quickly enough to cause shadows to flicker at least three times per second. At their fastest, the blades on Falmouth’s Wind 1 interrupt the sunlight once every second and a half. It’s just not fast enough to be a risk,” Goldstone said.

The primary reason Malcolm Donald opposes Falmouth’s wind turbines is because his neighbors say sound from Wind One is making them sick. But even flicker, he says, is reason enough to stop wind projects near neighborhoods. To his aggravation, when he makes such a suggestion, the reaction he often gets from wind advocates is skepticism and indifference.

“‘You know, ‘Get over it. You’ll get used to it.’ It’s maddening. A certain small segment of the population shouldn’t have to sacrifice for the good of the entire community,” Donald argues.

Unlike noise complaints, the source and scope of which are highly debated, shadow flicker is an impact turbine developers say can be predicted by computer modeling, and often avoided or at least mitigated.

But so far, Donald says he’s received little comfort from being advised to cover his windows, grow more trees in his yard and to keep his lights on in order to reduce the flicker.

More from this series:

The Falmouth Experience, Part 1: Life under the blades

The Falmouth Experience, Part 2: Sick from the noise

_

YOU CAN'T BE FORCING THIS ON PEOPLE

Source: WGBH Boston

March 8, 2011

In Part One of his series, The Falmouth Experience: The Trouble With One Town’s Wind Turbine, WGBH radio reporter Sean Corcoran spoke to Neil Anderson, a Falmouth resident who says the nearby wind turbine has had catastrophic effects on his health. Here’s more of their conversation, plus a series of photos of the log Anderson and his wife keep of the noise and its effects on them.

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

Neil Anderson sits in his kitchen.

Anderson says the noise from the wind turbine near his Falmouth home has caused emotional and physiological problems for he and his wife.

Neil Anderson: We knew there was a turbine going over there, we were not notified of any meetings or any type of concerns. In other words, there was no input from this residence.

I am an energy conservationist, I’ve had my own passive solar building company for 35 years. I was actually looking forward to that turbine being erected there. Although when it went up it was quite astounding the size of it.

I was proud looking at it from this viewpoint until it started turning. And it is dangerous, Sean. Headaches. Loss of sleep. And the ringing in my ears is constant. Never goes away. That started probably in May. It’s a constant reminder of that thing. I can look at it all day long, and it does not bother me. It’s quite majestic. But it’s way too close.

Sean Corcoran: How long after it started to spin did you start feeling some sort of symptoms?

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

The sign at the end of the Andersons' driveway, which is just over 1,000 feet away from the turbine.

Myself, it took me about a month and a half, maybe two months, to manifest all the symptoms. First it was the pressure in the head. The ears popping for no reason at all. Trying to get the water out of your ears and there was no water there. My wife, the first day, she feels it and notices it, and she feels it and notices it every day.

People talk about the noise, it gets loud. It gets jet-engine loud from this point right here. But the noise is the minimum component of that turbine. There is a pressure involved that gets into your ear, like you’re climbing at altitude in an airplane and your ears pop.

And there is a low-frequency pulse that particularly drives me crazy and some of the neighbors around here. It is a once-per-second low-frequency pulse, and it messes up your vestibular organs in your inner ear. And gives you a sense of off-balance and vertigo.

We both have signs of these symptoms. Headaches. My wife gets headaches three or four times a week, she wakes up with a headaches. She’s actually sleeping in a back bedroom right now with earplugs and a white noise machine trying to mask the sound. But it is really not doing any good because the sound just comes right through the windows, right through the insulation, right through the earplugs. And the pulse is right there.

Can you hear it right now?

You don’t hear it. It’s inaudible. There’s testimony from all over the country of the same thing, people complaining about the turbines. Denmark, Australia, Canada, the United States. But there is really no peer-reviewed medical info, which I hear all the time. Prove it, they’re saying. Prove it. Come down here and hear it yourself if you want.

And do you take that as people calling you a liar or people calling you a fool?

I’m not sure. I think they just don’t want to believe it. It’s so ironic, here I have to try to get that thing knocked down. Basically it’s a good principle, anything that can wean us off the number-two fuel, heating oil, and that type of thing is good for us, but it has to be done correctly. In this case it certainly wasn’t.

They look at us as being the bad aspect of this. But the people in the wind industry, you cannot turn a blind eye to this. You know about it.

I’m sorry we don’t have doctors that have come to prove it. I welcome anybody to come down here with their testing equipment and test what this thing does, but I will tell you, it does hurt the wind industry. And I know there are properly-sited wind projects out there that are getting knocked down because of this. But that’s okay too.

I think everybody should just stop for awhile and figure this out. You can’t just be forcing these on people.

The Andersons decided to keep a calendar to document the turbine’s noise and its effects on them. They let us photograph parts of their log:

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

 

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

 

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

 

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

 

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

 

Jess Bidgood/WGBH

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Click on the image below to see members of the wind siting council dismiss safety concerns while creating setback guidelines for Wisconsin.

Yesterday, a joint committee that reviews administrative rules suspended the wind rules created by the PSC "on the basis of testimony it received at its February 9, 2011" and on the grounds that the PSC rules "create an emergency relating to public health, safety or welfare"  and are "arbitrary and capricious" and "impose undue hardship on landowners and residents adjacent to wind turbine sites."

 CLICK on image below to watch TV report on the rule suspention SOURCE: FOX 11 NEWS

STATE LAWMAKERS DENY PROPOSAL FOR NEW WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS

SOURCE: The Badger Herald, badgerherald.com

March 1, 2011

By Maggie Sams,

“The purpose of this hearing was not about whether wind is effective but whether this rule by the PSC was reasonable or not.

We are trying to balance the needs of industry workers and health-concerned citizens,” JCRAR co-chair Rep. Jim Ott, R-Mequon, said.

“The biggest issue we heard came from testifiers at the hearing that 1,250 ft. is too close and will result in shadow flicker and noise issues.

The health issue from testimony was the determining factor in my vote.”

To the dismay of wind energy advocates, a state legislative committee suspended enacting a rule that would have implemented statewide wind energy production regulations.

The rule would have standardized regulations concerning the construction of wind turbines in the state of Wisconsin. It also included regulations to address issues like noise level and shadow flicker.

Another part of the rule would mandate setback distances between turbines and adjacent, non-participatory properties to equal three times the maximum length of the turbine blade — roughly 1,250 feet. Turbines would only have to be one blade length away from the property hosting it.

Republicans on the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules said they voted against the rule in the interest of citizen health and well-being.

“The purpose of this hearing was not about whether wind is effective but whether this rule by the PSC was reasonable or not. We are trying to balance the needs of industry workers and health-concerned citizens,” JCRAR co-chair Rep. Jim Ott, R-Mequon, said. “The biggest issue we heard came from testifiers at the hearing that 1,250 ft. is too close and will result in shadow flicker and noise issues. The health issue from testimony was the determining factor in my vote.”

Although the vote to suspend the wind-siting rule pleased many homeowners living near turbines, it upset wind energy activists. Those who were in support of the rule believed it would have provided a boom to the economy and help create jobs.

“Creating uniform regulations for the state of Wisconsin would have brought hundreds, if not thousands, of job opportunities to the state,” Clean Wisconsin Program Director Amber Meyer Smith said. “With the return to local regulation we have jeopardized at least eleven prospective clean energy projects.”

Not only did advocates claim Wisconsin would lose jobs, but many also said they feared Wisconsin’s wind industry would move to surrounding states.

Rep. Gary Hebl, D-Sun Prairie, echoed concerns that the committee’s vote to suspend the rule was a major setback for the wind industry.

“We have developers of alternative energy — in this case wind — that have been given a kick to the gut. These folks who were going to create jobs are now going to have to go to different states,” Hebl said. “Not only would this have created hundreds of jobs, they would have been green jobs. It would have been a win-win.”

The rule would have become effective March 1, but the JCRAR chose to have another hearing to suspend the wind-siting rule after a long and passionate hearing on the rule Feb. 9.

“We heard nearly nine hours of testimony during February’s hearing,” Ott said. “Based on the testimony — some pro and a lot of con — we decided to hold a motion to suspend the rule. This is a situation where the legislature is exercising its oversight of a public agency.”

The committee voted 5-2 along party lines. The committee normally has ten voting members, but two of the 14 Democratic senators in Illinois to prevent a vote on the budget repair bill did not attend, and one Republican was on leave for unknown reasons.

COMMITTEE SUSPENDS RULE GOVERNING PLACEMENT OF WIND TURBINES

SOURCE: Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

March 1, 2011

By Thomas Content

A legislative committee voted Tuesday to suspend rules adopted by the state Public Service Commission last year regarding the placement of wind turbines.

The 5-2 vote by the joint committee that reviews administrative rules means there are now no statewide standards in place governing setbacks – the minimum distance between a turbine and a nearby home – and other permitting requirements for wind turbines on small wind projects.

In a debate that has pitted economic development opportunity against concerns about property rights, wind energy supporters argued in favor of the rule while critics of wind power projects contended it was not restrictive enough.

The PSC rule, finalized in December, would have taken effect Tuesday if the vote had failed.

Jennifer Giegerich of the League of Conservation Voters expressed disappointment with the vote, saying it sends the wrong message on job creation at a time when the wind components industry in the state has been expanding.

“Now we’re back to where we were two years ago when wind developers said Wisconsin was an unfriendly place to build,” she said.

The full Legislature must follow up on the committee’s vote by passing a bill to throw out the PSC rule. A bill under consideration would send the matter back to the PSC for revision, giving the agency seven months to complete that work, said Scott Grosz, a state Legislative Council attorney.

Sen. Leah Vukmir (R-Wauwatosa) said the PSC rule was tantamount to “a government-sanctioned taking because it reduced the value of property for nonparticipating landowners without their consent and without compensation.”

But Rep. Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) said all energy choices are controversial, including coal, and it’s important for the state to support wind energy.

“This is the next generation of technology,” he said. “Why would we not be supporting this when they say if you suspend these rules they’ll just go to another state.”

The American Wind Energy Association said the PSC rule was restrictive enough, given that it set specific noise limits and restrictions on shadow flicker in addition to turbine distance setbacks.

“These rules were developed collaboratively by the wind energy industry and all major stakeholders in Wisconsin, based on input from six public hearings and two years of information gathering, to protect the interests of all involved parties,” said Jeff Anthony, director of business development at the American Wind Energy Association and a Wisconsin resident.

But Bob Welch, a lobbyist for the Coalition for Wisconsin Environmental Stewardship, which represents groups that have been fighting wind projects, said his constituents need a “fair hearing” at the PSC. “As far as those who want to build wind turbines in Wisconsin, all they’ve got to do is treat their neighbors fairly,” Welch said. “Property rights need to be protected.”

SECOND FEATURE:

WHY AREN'T LACKAWANNA WINDMILLS TURNING?

SOURCE: wivb.com

 March 1 2011,

George Richert, 

LACKAWANNA, N.Y. (WIVB) – Have you noticed many of the new windmills along Route 5 are not working?

This isn’t the first time they’ve had mechanical problems, and we managed to dig up some hard numbers on just how much electricity they actually are generating.

In its first year, Steelwinds had to replace all of the gear boxes in the eight turbines. The next year, the blades had to be fixed. And for this entire winter, only half of the Lackawanna windmills have been working at any given time.

So we did some research to see just how much electricity these turbines have actually been producing. According to the numbers filed with the NY Independent System Operator, the eight Lackawanna windmills averaged about 40 Megawatt hours of electricity per year in 2008 and 2009. That’s enough to power almost 6,000 homes, and works out to about 23 percent of its capacity. 100 percent would only be achieved in a constant wind, with turbines that never needed maintenance, so 30 percent is the average capacity for a wind farm.

The bottom line is Steelwinds is putting out less electricity than an average wind farm, partly because of mechanical problems, but it has no effect what Lackawanna gets.

Mayor Norman Polanski said, “We still get our money from them, our $100,000 a year. Uh, but people call about them all the time, they want to know what’s going on.”

At the going rate for electricity, Steelwinds is still making over $2 million a year for the electricity it is generating. On top of that, its investors get an extra two cents a kilowatt for going green. So the investors that helped pay a million bucks to build each one of these turbines get $800,000 every year in federal tax credits.

Steelwinds has plans to build six more, but the company just notified Erie County that plans have been “delayed for several months” until next December because of “delays in completing all of the PILOT agreements, and other circumstances beyond Erie Wind’s control.” You can read the full letter here.

We reached the project manager and a Steelwinds spokesman weeks ago about this story, but they had no comment about any of it.

UPDATE: John Lamontagne of First Wind contacted News 4 Tuesday night with this explanation: “The turbines are currently down due to composite work being completed in the towers. Given the scope of work being done and the the harsh winter conditions, there has been a delay in returning the turbines to service. We expect the turbines to return to service in the near future.”

NEXT FEATURE:

 WIND SHORTFALLS MAKE GRID GUYS NERVOUS

Source: energyBiz: For Leaders in the Global Power Industry

March 2, 2011

By Ken Silverstein

When it comes to integrating wind into the transmission lines, system operators say that they are challenged. While they understand and appreciate the reasoning, they are saying that the networks lack the flexibility to handle wind variation. 

Green energy has a lot of public appeal. But the intermittent nature of wind and solar power coupled with the relatively higher costs put the grid’s traffic cops in an untenable position. Those are the fellows whose job it is to schedule the resources to where they need to be so that the electricity keeps flowing. Their task is to maintain that reliability with the lowest-priced fuels. 
 
“We have to be truthful about what the impact will be,” says Jim Detmers, principal in Power Systems Resources and the former chief operating officer of the California ISO. “The devil is in the details. These new embedded costs will be significant.” Better communication with policymakers is essential. 

In the case of California, it now has 3,000 megawatts of wind. In a few years, that will be 7,000 megawatts. A few years later, it will be 10,000 megawatts. By 2020, the goal is to have 33 percent of electricity generated from renewable energy. “That’s making grid operators nervous,” says Detmers, who spoke at Wartsila’s <http://www.wartsila.com/en_US/about-us/overview>  Flexible Power Symposium in Vail, Colo. 
 
Simply, the wind does not blow on demand. Ditto for the sun. So these resources must be backed up with other, “dispatchable” forms of generation. But such “firming” or “cycling” creates two distinct issues: The first is that the power is not free and the second is that if coal plants are “cycled” up and down, they release more pollutants per unit of output than if they ran full steam ahead. 

No doubt, the price of wind and solar energy is falling while their productivity rates are increasing. But the technologies still have a ways to go. 

“If you are a grid operator, you must be dispassionate and follow the engineering,” says David O’Brien, former head of the Vermont’s Department of Public Service and now a consultant for Bridge Energy Group, during a phone call. “The best thing they can do is to provide the data to their stakeholders and to be an honest broker. But they have to ultimately accept the policy mandates.”

Public Demands
 
According to Steve Lefton, director of Intertek Aptek who also spoke at the Wartsila conference, those base-load coal units developed decades ago were never designed to firm-up wind generation. They were made to run at full capacity. So when they are used as such, they create excess emissions. 
 
As wind energy increases its market share, thermal plants can be expected to rev up and down more often. If coal is the main fuel source that is dispatched, it will decrease the emissions savings from wind. 
 
“The actual emissions reduction rates from wind are far less than what the lobbyists are touting,” if system operators do not have the flexibility to use cleaner backup fuels, says Brannin McBee, energy analyst for Bentek Energy <http://www.bentekenergy.com/> , a speaker at the conference. “Thermal plant cycling is also very expensive,” particularly if the older coal plants are used to firm up the wind generation. 
 
With the public demands to increase green energy growing, what might be an optimal firming fuel? The answer could be natural gas. Regulators tend to favor it because it releases far fewer emissions than coal while the price is expected to remain low at $4-$7 per million BTUs. 
 
Coal facilities without carbon capture and sequestration cannot get the permits to operate, says Doug Egan, chief executive of Competitive Power Ventures. And if the plants are built with such capacity they are too costly. Even those with coal gasification that nearly eliminate the sulfur, nitrogen oxide and mercury but which don’t capture and bury the carbon are prohibitively expensive, he adds. 
 
In recent years, developers have abandoned their plans to build 38 coal plants, says the Sierra Club <http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2010/12/this-year-the-outlook-dimmed-for-coal.html> . Meanwhile, it says that 48 more can be expected to be retired. 
 
Natural gas is the most plausible option to firm up wind and solar. More than enough of it exists with the recent discoveries of shale gas, the unconventional source that is extracted from rocks more than a mile beneath the ground using hydraulic fracturing. That withdrawal technique, though, is under fire from some community organizations that say it is polluting their drinking water. 
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wants developers to voluntarily disclose the chemicals they are using as a way to ease tensions. Producers are balking for now, saying its exploratory methods are proprietary. 

“Fracking can be dealt with,” says Egan. “Producers will share their secret sauce. It will make it the process slightly less efficient. But a deal with get cut.” 
 
Managing a grid and keeping the lights on is difficult. Green energy’s role will increase but so too will the challenges associated with delivering it -- facts that must be relayed to policymakers and customers alike. Older coal plants present the most issues but the newer gas-fired generation may be more accommodating.

Wind turbines tower above a Wisconsin farm

EXPERT WARNS 'PROVINCE OUGHT NOT TO PROCEED' WITH INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES

SOURCE: The Windsor Star, www.windsorstar.com

February 17, 2011

By Gary Rennie,

CHATHAM-KENT, Ont. — In a case that’s put Ontario’s Green Energy Act on trial drawing expert witnesses from around the world, a prominent Canadian physician testified Wednesday that construction of new wind turbines should be put on hold until appropriate medical studies are done to ensure the safety of nearby residents.

“The province ought not to proceed with the development of industrial wind turbines any further,” said Dr. Robert McMurtry, a past dean of the medical school at the University of Western Ontario and a former assistant deputy minister of health for the federal government.

“There is a lot of suffering,” McMurtry said. “We need to understand why.”

McMurtry was a witness for Chatham-Kent residents trying to overturn ministry of environment approval for Suncor’s proposed Kent Breeze wind farm.

Using audio and video teleconferencing, expert witnesses from England, New Zealand and the U.S. have already weighed in on the complex science of industrial noise and how humans perceive and react to it.

Suncor and environment ministry lawyers have a long list of experts of their own to call in the weeks ahead. Final arguments to the two-member Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal panel aren’t expected to be made until April.

Considered the key witness for sceptics of the safety of turbines as currently regulated in Ontario, McMurtry spoke of his experiences talking to more than 40 people who have lived close to the 120-metre high towers and whirling blades. They complain of prolonged sleep deprivation, stress, headaches, extreme fatigue, and high blood pressure, he said.

Leaving their homes to stay with relatives or in motels provides relief from the symptoms, McMurtry said. “The only cure is to move.”

McMurtry was critical of both Ontario’s noise standard for wind turbines and the 550 metre setback from turbine locations to homes in the regulations to the 2009 Green Energy Act. “I do not have confidence in those guidelines.”

The setback is a key issue. If setbacks of 1,500 metres or more – which some experts call for – had been established, development of wind turbines in heavily populated Essex County and many other southern Ontario communities would have been impossible.

It’s not just a question of how loud wind turbines may be, it’s the repetitive, pulsating nature of the “whoosh, whoosh” sound that appears to annoy some people, McMurtry said.

An analogy used by other experts in the hearing is the drip of a leaky faucet, which while not loud, can be annoyingly disruptive to sleep.

Low frequency noise and inaudible, infrasound may also contribute to the distress of those living close to turbines, said McMurtry. He conceded a lack of research proving a definitive cause and effect, but at the same time, said no research proving the safety of turbines at typical setbacks exists either.

“More likely than not, people living near industrial wind turbines are suffering adverse health affects,” McMurtry said. Governments should act in precautionary way to protect the health of residents until peer-reviewed research provides greater certainty about the kinds of regulations needed for wind development, he said.

McMurtry got interested in wind turbines after buying a cottage in Prince Edward County in 2007 with enough land to potentially put up one of his own. But after researching the issue further, he became alarmed at the weak scientific basis for claims of the safety of wind turbines.

He tried unsuccessfully to raise his concerns with several Liberal cabinet ministers, getting no response.

Prince Edward County has also been a popular choice of location for several large wind projects although none have yet been built. McMurtry has been prominent in a local citizens’ group in his community questioning wind turbine development.

A past special advisor to a Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care, he has immersed himself in recent years on the scientific research around the world on the health issues raised by wind turbines.



Click on the image above to watch a video slide show of homes in the Fond du Lac County wind projects. The siting guidelines the Public Service Commission used in Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties are much like the siting rules that will take effect on March 1, 2011 unless the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) decides to suspend the rules and return them to the PSC.

At the hearing, the JCRAR showed themselves to be an unusually attentive group of legislators who appeared genuinely interested in what people at the hearing had to say. They gave particular attention to the stories from the people with homes in the wind projects who are clearly having trouble living with setbacks the PSC setbacks once assumed to be safe.

Click on the links below if you'd like to contact members of the joint committee to thank them for holding the hearing and to ask that they suspend the PSC's rules.

Senator Leah Vukmir (Chair) (R- Wauwatosa) 266-2512, Sen.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov
Representative Jim Ott (Chair) (R- Mequon) 266-0486, Rep.OttJ@legis.wisconsin.gov
Senator Joseph Leibham (R- Sheboygan) 266-2056, Sen.Leibham@legis.wisconsin.gov
Senator Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) 266-7513, Sen.Grothman@legis.wisconsin.gov
Senator Lena Tayor (D-Milwaukee) 266-5810, Sen.Taylor@legis.wisconsin.gov
Senator Fred Risser (D-Madison) 266-1627, Sen.Risser@legis.wisconsin.gov
Representative Dan LeMahieu (R-Cascade) 266-9175, Rep.lemahieu@legis.wisconsin.gov  
Representative Gary Hebl (D-Sun Prairie) 266-7678,  Rep.hebl@legis.wisconsin.gov 
Representative Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee) 266-5813, Rep.kessler@legis.wisconsin.gov  

Don't forget to include your name and address.

Click on the image below to see a video made by Larry Wunsch who served on the wind-siting council.

Mr. Wunsch testified to the committee on Wednesday about his first hand experience of living 1100 feet from a wind turbine being marginalized. He said the council wouldn't allow him to play a recording of the wind turbine noise he lives with.

Although Mr. Wunsh made copies of the video below available to council members, it was never discussed.

Posted on YouTube in August of 2008, Larry Wunsch's video has been viewed over 45,000 times.

HUNDREDS JAM HEARING ON WISCONSIN WIND ENERGY RULES

SOURCE: The Associated Press

February 10, 2011

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Hundreds have packed a legislative hearing on how far energy-generating wind turbines should be located from property lines.

Statewide construction standards for turbines are set to go into effect March 1. But Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans have raised concerns that the regulations would allow turbines to be built too close to a neighbor's property.

Walker proposed a bill with larger setbacks but lawmakers decided not to consider it after critics said the measure would hurt the wind industry. GOP lawmakers instead have chosen to approach the issue through the rule-making process.

Republicans on the rule committee told state regulators they're worried the rules allow turbines to be built so close to property lines neighbors could get hurt.

The committee wasn't expected to take any action on Wednesday.

Couldn't make the wind siting hearing at the capitol on Wednesday? Want to know what happened?

WATCH WISCONSIN EYE'S VIDEO OF WEDNESDAY'S WIND SITING HEARING AT THE CAPITOL BY CLICKING HERE

Want more?

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN to Wednesday's broadcast of Wisconsin Public Radio's Joy Cardin show:  Writer Lynda Barry discusses the hearing and the research she's done on  wind siting issues in our state.

TESTIMONY

To: Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR)

From: Douglas Zweizig, Ph.D., Vice Chair, Wind Siting Council

Re: Clearinghouse Rule #10-057; PSC Wind Siting Rules proposed Chapter 128

Date: February 9, 2011

My name is Douglas Zweizig.

I am a retired UW—Madison professor from the School of Library and Information Studies. I conducted national survey research studies, and I directed doctoral students in the conduct of original research.

I’m also a member of my Town's Plan Commission, and I serve as Vice-Chair of the PSC's Wind Siting Council.

I am here today to request the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules to set aside PSC 128 (CR 10-057).

I am one of the authors of the Wind Siting Council’s minority report to the Public Service Commission. (See Appendix E of http://psc.wi.gov/mediaRoom/documents/WSC%20Final%20Report%20and%20Cover%20Letter%208-9-2010.pdf)

That minority report details grave concerns about the basis for the wind siting rules that are before us today. I am here to request that the rules be suspended because they were produced without a thorough or responsible audit of the negative impacts of industrial-scale wind turbines.

The rules as written will not protect the health, safety and welfare of impacted Wisconsin residents and communities. As you may know, the majority of the Wind Siting Council members had a direct or indirect financial interest in pushing for rules that favored the wind industry.

The rules reflect this, resulting in setbacks that are too short, limits on noise and shadow flicker that are too lax, and nearly non-existent remedies for citizens with complaints.

In Act 40, the legislature required an independent and qualified researcher "with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems" to be a member of the Wind Siting Council.

 Instead, the Public Service Commission appointed a junior physician staff member of the state Division of Public Health who was just out of medical school. He openly and publicly admitted he had no expertise in the issue of health effects and wind turbines. He had collected no data and had made no observations himself on the health effects of wind energy systems.

His research consisted of reviewing existing literature using very narrow criteria. This resulted in a whitewashed report to the Council which ignored not only the first-hand experience of Wisconsin residents who are clearly having trouble living with wind turbines, but also disregarded even the most basic recommendations of the World Health Organization on nighttime noise limits necessary for healthful sleep. (www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43316/E92845.pdf)

The most common health complaint from wind project residents is not mysterious: turbine vibration and noise interrupts their sleep. Health problems associated with chronic sleep deprivation from nighttime noise are well known. The PSC should be directed to carry out the quality of study called for in Act 40.

The main argument against more protective guidelines is an economic one. Wind energy proponents tell you the very setbacks that will protect the health of Wisconsin residents are “job killers.” You have been told over and over that wind energy systems will create jobs and provide a clean, effective source of energy with no negative consequences.

Of course, we are all interested in increased jobs for Wisconsin, but those who claim that short setbacks will not only do no harm but will also result in over 7,000 wind-related jobs in our state should be required to prove it, not just claim it.

The MacIver Institute recently attempted to document Wisconsin jobs related to wind energy and were able to identify only 31 jobs that were specifically tied to wind energy-related products. (http://maciverinstitute.com/2010/08/facts-about-green-job-creation-elusive-as-the-wind/) What’s the truth here? Shouldn’t we know?

In the name of questionable job creation, you are asked to accept siting rules that clearly disregard negative impacts to human health, wildlife, and property values in order to promote unsubstantiated claims of improved air quality and job growth.

If the PSC is to create wind siting rules for the entire state, then provisions for accountability must be part of those rules.

The rules must ensure the following things: that wind development does no harm to people, property values, wildlife, or habitat; that it provides an economical power source; and that it reduces output from coal-fired power plants in our state. 

As Vice-Chairman of the Wind Siting Council, I am here to say the rules as put forth by the PSC do not meet these requirements and to ask that you suspend them.

I would be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Douglas Zweizig

Evansville, WI 

Town of Union (Rock County) Plan Commission

SECOND FEATURE: LET'S REVIEW:

LEADING EXPERTS POOL MOST RECENT UNDERSTANDING OF HARM OF INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES ON HUMAN HEALTH

SOURCE: Wellington Times, wellingtontimes.ca

Evidence was presented that people likely don’t “get used to” wind turbine noise. Even those who claim not to hear noise appear to endure physiological stress related to the pulsating low frequency noise.

Among the more worrisome bits of information gleaned from the weekend conference was that current assumptions of safe setbacks are likely wrong.

November 5 2010

by Rick Conroy,

Piece by piece, presentation by presentation, the foundation upon which industrial wind industry and much of Ontario’s Green Energy Act sits was taken apart and dismantled this past weekend.

The industrial wind turbine business was always on shaky ground. It has been promoted by governments eager to be seen to be doing something about the western world’s reliance on fossil fuels—oil, gas and coal. In many respects wind energy policy has been a public relations exercise fuelled by governments’ willingness to spill billions of taxpayer dollars into developer’s pockets.

They do so with a mix of wishful thinking and willful blindness in the expectation that technology leaps will fill in the significant operational gaps before most folks realize intermittent generating sources don’t work on a large scale.

None of these folks anticipated, however, that industrial wind turbines would actually make people sick. After the first international symposium in Picton on the weekend, there can be little doubt remaining.

Several analogies were made about how the fight against the harmful effects of smoking tobacco began with just a few voices in the medical and scientific community. It would take decades, however, before governments would listen and begin to take action. The esteemed participants of the Picton gathering fervently hope it doesn’t take as long for governments and the broader public to understand the harm caused by industrial wind turbines.

Dr. Bob McMurtry, a physician and former deputy minister of health in Ontario, gathered doctors, scientists and researchers from around the world to Picton in reveal their findings and share the latest information on the impact of industrial wind turbines in what he termed a “consilience” or unity of knowledge.

WHAT WE LEARNED

Several alarming messages emerged. Every animal with a functioning hearing organ, including humans, is at risk of being affected by the low-frequency pulsating sound emitted by industrial wind turbines.

Those most acutely affected tend to be disposed to motion sickness or car sickness— but even those without these symptoms may be responding to the noise, whether they are aware of it or not.

The low-frequency and subsonic (below the hearing range) noise from wind turbines has a demonstrable effect on the ear and hearing mechanisms. The most acute symptoms include nausea, dizziness and sleep disturbance. It is now becoming evident, however, that even those who don’t suffer these particular symptoms are likely realizing some harm.

These hearing mechanisms are closely related to language development, learning and cognitive organization— as the fine components of the ear become stressed, learning in children becomes impaired, concentration becomes harder for adults, and sleep is disrupted.

Evidence was presented that people likely don’t “get used to” wind turbine noise. Even those who claim not to hear noise appear to endure physiological stress related to the pulsating low frequency noise.

Among the more worrisome bits of information gleaned from the weekend conference was that current assumptions of safe setbacks are likely wrong.

Many opponents of large scale industrial wind factories have pressed for setbacks from homes of at least two kilometres. (Ontario’s Green Energy Act prescribes setbacks of just 550 metres.) But studies done by sound experts John Harrison and Richard James now show that in some conditions— over water and rocky terrain and beneath low cloud cover—the low-frequency noise can travel up to 15 kilometres.

Keynote speaker Dr. Nina Pierpont, the author of Wind Turbine Syndrome, explained that “our brains don’t function well” when subjected to long-term sustained low thumping noise from industrial wind turbines.

According to her research 90 per cent of those in her test sample exposed to the “pulsating tone” of the wind turbines suffered from cognitive performance deficit as compared to a control group. Generally they had more difficulty with reading, spelling, math, memorization and recalling the plots of television shows.

Pierpont’s findings extend beyond cognitive issues. She has also observed that stress to the hearing organ is linked to balance, which has a close relationship to emotions including panic and fear. These are the same triggers that cause in some a paralyzing fear of heights.

She observed that two-thirds of her test group—14 of 21—presented “disturbing symptoms” such as the need to flee, difficulty breathing, and panic.

Dr. Arlene Bronzaft recounted her groundbreaking studies on noise and learning done three decades ago in New York City. In her work she documented how children on one side of a school nearest a busy train line suffered from measurable learning impairment compared with students on the opposite side of the school.

Her work led to legislation and changes in the classroom to ensure students has a quiet place to learn, not just in New York, but across the U.S..

She urged the physicians and scientists in the room to continue to produce evidence of the harm of industrial wind turbines.

“You need the studies and the research,” said Dr. Bronzaft. “You need to teach. You need to be political. But I ask you not to give up if you are successful in one area—there are communities in Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Maine and across North America with small groups who are fighting these developers. They will continue to need your help.”

Alec Salt heads the Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis. He illustrated that sound emitted from industrial turbines is many times greater than the audible hearing range—prompting him to work through the answer to his own question—does sound that you can’t hear hurt you?

Salt’s research has shown how low-frequency sound affects the transport mechanism of the ear and hearing structure.

“A big part of the sound created by an industrial wind turbine can’t be heard,” explained Salt. “That doesn’t mean it can’t hurt you. When these structures move frequently and dramatically it can have an effect on a range of symptoms.”

He asked the audience to consider this proposition against other human senses.

“Apply this notion to taste, smell, sight and touch,” said Salt. “Does anyone believe that you have to taste something in order for it to be harmful? We know that ultraviolet light (light we can’t see) can have a dramatic effect on skin and other organs. The notion that we can’t be harmed by sounds we can’t hear is nonsense. We need to stop ignoring the effects of infrasound on people.”

He is less clear about whether symptoms persist after exposure to industrial wind turbine infrasound is discontinued.

Sleep expert Dr. Chris Hanning travelled from the U.K. to explain the effect of industrial wind turbines on sleep. He observed that the need for sleep is universal among animals—that poor sleep leads to a range of disorders from obesity to heart disease.

“Disrupted sleep over time leads to heightened states of frustration, anger and feelings of loss of control,” said Hanning. “This noise is viewed as an invasion of the place in which we go to retreat from life, where we go to feel safe.”

He also observed that the pulsating tone when measured on a spectragraph appears very similar in pattern to a fire alarm: “the tone we use to arouse people from sleep and warn them of danger.”

He has found that the persistent low frequency throbbing of industrial wind turbines is more disruptive to sleep than traffic, aircraft and industrial noise. The only thing worse, according to Dr. Hanning, is the rhythmic bass pounding from a loud stereo or “boombox” nearby.

Like Dr. Bronzaft, Hanning urged his colleagues in the room to continue to produce research and studies. He said illconsidered government policies have created thousands of guinea pigs around the world.

“There are enough folks being affected right now that together we can do the work that government and industry should have done in advance,” said Hanning.

MARS HILL

After the physiological mechanics of the effect of industrial wind turbines had been described the conference turned to the victims. Dr. Michael Nissenbaum has conducted a controlled study of effects of industrial wind turbines on residents of Mars Hill in Maine.

The subjects in his study live within 1,100 metres of an industrial wind installation consisting of 28 1.5 MW wind turbines. His control group consisted of 27 adults living on average 5,000 metres from the wind turbines.

Eighty-two percent (18 of 22) of those closest to the turbine reported “a new onset or worsened sleep disturbance” since the turbines went online. Only one of the 27 of those five kilometers away reported a new or worsened sleep disturbance. One hundred per cent of those closest to the turbines had considered moving away.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Much of this evidence presented this weekend, will likely be used in January as Ian Hanna of Big Island takes on the Ontario Government in court. Hanna is arguing that the province failed to use the “precautionary principle” when it lowered and removed regulatory hurdles to developers of industrial wind energy through the Green Energy Act. The precautionary principle states that governments or organizations must ensure that its policies do not harm individuals or communities prior to enactment.

It seems clear from this weekend’s Picton conference that the province failed to meet this test.