Entries in Wind farm health effects (116)
2/2/11 Baby it's SNOW outside. Why not make some popcorn and sit back and watch these SHORT videos of how the Wind Siting Council helped create the rules that will go into effect on March 1st unless Walker's bill is passed. . For some it's like watching paint dry! For others it's like watching businessmen driven by profit hold your future in their hands.
CLICK on the image below to see how the PSC came up the number of hours of wind turbine shadow flicker a household must endure before they can complain to the wind company
Click on the image below to hear a PSC Wind Siting Council member suggest the setback around a wind turbine be called a 'courtesy setback' rather than a 'safety setback' because she does not believe safety is an issue
Click on the image below to hear why the Wind Siting Council would allow local government to reduce the setbacks and make them less than the PSC's saftey guidelines
Click on the image below to hear why wind developers don't want to tell people in a community that they are planning a project in their community
CLICK here to watch the PSC's Wind Siting Council unable to answer the most basic of questions. How much louder is the 25 decibel increase they have recommended?
EXTRA CREDIT READING:
“I saw those flames go out the door with no smoke and I said: ‘The barn’s on fire!’ And I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.”
ABOVE: A barn at the Nelson farm in Lowell burned down in August. State police couldn't determine a cause. Don Nelson thinks the barn was torched because of his opposition to the Lowell wind project.
By John Dillon
Vermont Public Radio News, www.vpr.net
February 1, 2011
(Host) This week, the Public Service Board opens hearings on Vermont’s largest wind development – a proposal for 21 wind turbines that would stand 440 feet tall on a ridgeline in Lowell.
Developers hoped to avoid some of the controversy that other projects have faced by asking for, and winning, Lowell voters’ support last Town Meeting Day. But it hasn’t been that easy.
In the first part of our series on wind’s future in Vermont, VPR’s John Dillon explains how passionate, and personal, the debate still is in Lowell.
(Dillon) Don Nelson is a retired dairy farmer. He’s a slight, wiry guy with white hair and a bad back from years milking cows.
The farm where Nelson and his wife, Shirley, live is far up a dirt road, snug up against the Lowell Mountains. They’ve fought wind turbine development here for almost ten years. The first company eventually called it quits.
But the project was revived by Green Mountain Power. The Nelsons continued to fight and they wonder whether they’ve been targeted as a result. Don Nelson remembers Friday the 13th of August last year.
(Nelson) “I saw those flames go out the door with no smoke and I said: ‘The barn’s on fire!’ And I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.”
(Dillon) Nelson had slept past his normal dawn rising. Soon after he poured coffee, he saw his red barn erupt in flames.
(Nelson) “It didn’t go bang. It went ‘woooom!’ And then ‘wooom!’ like that. And the first one, it forced the flames right through the cracks in the roofing.”
(Dillon) Balls of flame leveled the barn within 30 minutes. State police couldn’t determine a cause. Nelson thinks his barn was torched. And he thinks his opposition to the wind project might have been why.
(Nelson) “All I know is that it’s a $160 million project and the town of Lowell is going to get $400,000-$500,000 a year. Money changes people. I don’t know. How do I know? All I know is: I know the barn was set, and I know that we didn’t set it.”
(Dillon) The embers of the barn fire cooled last August. But tensions in Lowell and other communities remain high over wind development and the future of Vermont’s ridgelines.
On one side are people like the Nelsons. They argue the projects will hurt tourism and damage fragile mountain habitat.
But many others see economic and environmental value. Alden Warner is a selectman in Lowell. He says Vermont has to take responsibility for generating some of its own electricity.
(Warner) “Our earth’s supply of energy sources is going to be depleted. The millions of gallons that are being burned every day – we’ve got to do something to start getting prepared for our energy.”
(Dillon) Warner is also the Lowell fire chief. He thinks the Nelson fire probably was intentionally set, but who did it and why remains a mystery.
(Warner) “I would really be disappointed if I found out that if somebody that was pro wind turbines would actually take something to the degree of actually destroying somebody’s property just to get even.”
(Dillon) Warner says deep divisions remain in town. He’s a big booster of the project – but one of his brothers is involved in the opposition group.
Still, GMP won Lowell’s support on Town Meeting Day. The town will be rewarded with annual payments that could cut property taxes by a third or more.
Opponents say the impacts go far beyond Lowell.
Steve Wright is a former state Fish and Wildlife Commissioner and member of the Conservation Commission in Craftsbury. Many areas in Craftsbury overlook the Lowell range. Wright said he thought ridgeline wind generation was benign until he started reading the 1,300 page application GMP filed with the Public Service Board.
(Wright) “I read one segment in there that flipped me over completely and that was the segment on the amount of road building and alteration of the 450 million year old Cretaceous era ridgeline which currently basically has no roads there. That’s what turned me around.”
(Dillon) Trees would have to be cleared for four miles of new road. State biologists warn about damage to critical bear habitat. Wright says the mountain will have to be blasted and leveled as much as 40 feet in places. And he believes the beauty of the area will be damaged.
(Wright) “People come to many towns in Vermont, I believe, for the way these towns look. And we get some push back often on the view not meaning anything. I contest that: why have we worked for years to create a body of legislation that essentially protects the view?”
(Dillon) Wright refers to Act 250, the billboard law, and other efforts to preserve the state’s iconic character. But another land ethic runs fiercely through Vermont – and the Northeast Kingdom in particular – protection of property rights.
(Pion) “Everybody wants to have a say in everybody else’s land. And I have a problem with that.”
(Dillon) Richard Pion is chairman of the Lowell selectboard. He says landowners have the right to do what they want with their property. A neighbor steers his tractor away from Pion’s front yard, where Pion points out a few of the turbines will be visible. But he’s not worried about the view.
(Pion) “Once these are built for six months people won’t pay any attention to them. Won’t be any worse that looking at the ski resort.”
(Dillon) Back in Don and Shirley Nelson’s living room, a clock chimes the hour as they reflect on the personal toll of their opposition. Shirley Nelson says the barn fire put many on edge. Don Nelson worries about the future.
(Nelson) Some people couldn’t stand to live here. Some people think this is heaven, but it won’t be when this is done. It’s going to change the character of the Northeast Kingdom forever.
(Dillon) The Nelsons and others fighting the project will be at the Public Service Board this week. But they’re not hopeful. They point out that the state agency that represents electric consumers recently reversed itself and endorsed the Lowell wind project.
For VPR News, I’m John Dillon.
(Host) Tomorrow, we take a look at the science behind wind energy, and how much wind development is needed to effectively reduce greenhouse gas pollution.
OPINIONS DIFFER ON WIND POWER'S POLLUTION REDUCTION
Source: Vermont Public Radio News, www.vpr.net
February2, 2011
John Dillon
(Host) Supporters and opponents of commercial-scale wind energy projects on Vermont’s ridgelines use a lot of statistics and facts to argue their very different sides of the debate.
So it’s difficult to sort out how much carbon pollution might be cut if there were big wind turbines in the mountains. Or whether the wind generators could replace bigger electric plants, such as Vermont Yankee.
As part of a series on the future of wind energy in Vermont, VPR’s John Dillon explains the complexities.
(Dillon) Leading environmental groups say Vermont has a “moral obligation” to combat climate change. And they say developing wind projects on the state’s ridgelines is the way to make progress.
Brian Shupe of the Vermont Natural Resources Council says all that’s needed is some planning.
(Shupe) “The lack of a coherent energy plan in the state has not allowed Vermont to adequately prepare for the closing of Vermont Yankee, or to address climate change in a meaningful way.”
(Dillon) Those are the twin goals of many Vermont environmentalists: Shut down Yankee and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
But can industrial-scale wind do the job? Can it replace Yankee? To answer that, we need to step back for a moment for a lesson on how the electricity grid works.
Yankee is what’s known as a “baseload” plant. That means – barring an unexpected shutdown – it cranks 620 megawatts into the New England grid all day, every day, all year.
But the wind doesn’t blow every day, so wind power can’t be baseload. It’s known as intermittent.
ISO New England, which oversees the regional energy market, says more wind will not replace nuclear reactors like Yankee, or the big greenhouse gas polluters – coal-fired plants.
(Luce) “I’m Ben Luce. I’m a professor at Lyndon State College.”
(Dillon) Now, let’s pause for a moment for a lesson in a science lab.
Professor Luce has sandy hair and round glasses. He speaks in the measured, analytical tones of a physics professor, which is what he is. In his lab, Luce tinkers with a shiny chrome device. It’s a heat pump, kind of a reverse refrigerator.
(Luce) “Well, we try to teach about the principals of clean energy technology so people really understand them. And this geothermal heat pump unit is one we’re evaluating.”
(Dillon) Because he advocates for renewable energy, Luce has high hopes for devices like this. It can convert the cold temperatures from the ground into heat that can be used to warm buildings. But despite his environmentalist credentials, Luce is skeptical about wind in Vermont. He encouraged it in New Mexico when he worked there. But he says there’s just not enough wind potential here to make much of a difference in global climate change.
(Luce) “On the scale of U.S. energy usage, it’s quite small. If you were to develop all the so-called developable wind resources in the eastern United States they would only be able to reduce U.S. CO2 emissions by about 1 percent.”
(Dillon) Notice he said if you were to develop all the wind resources. That means turbines on many, many ridgelines and extensive offshore wind projects. Even if you did all that, says Luce, you wouldn’t make much of a dent in climate change.
(Luce) “It really is a minor resource. At the same time developing it in my opinion would have an incredibly adverse effect on the ecology and the economy and the character of the state.”
(Dillon) Yet Green Mountain Power says the 21 turbines the company hopes to build on Lowell Mountain will cut greenhouse gases. Robert Dostis is a company vice president.
(Dostis) “Every kilowatt of electricity that’s produced from Lowell is power we don’t have to buy from some other resource. And if that other resource is a fossil fuel, then that’s carbon we’re not putting into the atmosphere.”
(Dillon) But how much less on carbon? GMP says it’s difficult to say because different fuels create different emissions.
(Dostis) “The bottom line is, any development of this size obviously is going to have impacts, and it’s about the trade-offs.”
(Dillon) Even if environmental concerns weren’t part of the wind equation, there’s another piece of the energy system that critics say has to be considered.
It’s the question of “spinning reserve.” Here’s what that is: A spare power source, ready to kick in whenever it’s needed. Think of spinning reserve like this. When you’re sitting in your car waiting at a stop light, you want to be able to go as soon as the light turns green. It’ll take longer to get rolling if you have to restart the engine after every stop.
The electricity system is much more vast than a single car, though. So it also needs another reserve, one that could be powered up within 10 minutes.
New England needs 1,200 megawatts of both kinds of reserve electricity on hand. It usually comes from baseload hydro, nuclear or fossil fuel. Experts say if wind were a more significant part of the mix, there would be an even greater need for reserve because wind is intermittent.
Despite wind’s limitations, environmental groups argue that Vermont has to do something to move away from nuclear and fossil fuels. James Moore of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group says five or six wind projects would make a significant impact.
(Moore) “We’re talking about 8 percent of the state’s annual electricity demand already being met by local resources just in the next couple of years.”
(Dillon) But Physics professor Ben Luce has a different idea: solar. He says it’s getting cheaper and produces electricity when it’s most needed.
Luce says he wants the debate to be driven by science not hope.
(Luce) “So when people say we have to do something, my response to that is to say we really need to do something serious, not something that is just effectively symbolic.”
(Dillon) Most of Vermont’s greenhouse gases come from vehicles and heating fuels. Luce says that’s where the state could focus.
For VPR News, I’m John Dillon in Montpelier.
(Host) Tomorrow our series concludes with a look at how wind projects are financed.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm, Wind farm health effects, Wisconsin public service commission, wind energy, wind farm complaints, wind farm setbacks, wind farm wisconsin, wind ordinance, wind siting council, wind siting rules legislation and policy, wind sitng wisconsin, wind turbine property values, wind turbine safey, wind turbines noise
|
Comments Off
2/1/11 Walker's wind siting bill: What's the big deal? AND Contact your legislators AND Today's Extra Credit Reading List
Wisconsin Home in a Wind Project: Fond du Lac County
WISCONSIN GOVERNOR'S APPROACH TO WIND: BACK OFF A BIT
Source: Renewable Energy World
February 1, 2010
By Jim Cummings, Acoustic Ecology Institute.
When Scott Walker was inaugurated as Wisconsin’s new Governor earlier this month, his first order of business was fully in keeping with his Republican priorities: he called a special session of the state legislature, dubbed the “Wisconsin in Open for Business” session. All bills will be focused on improving the state’s business climate, which in these tough economic times has widespread support.
As part of his job-creation agenda, he submitted a regulatory reform bill, which came with a wild card tucked inside: a new and stricter setback standard for industrial wind farms. While some in the state have attacked the stricter standard as a job-killer, it appears to me that the Governor has his pulse on one of the key avenues that the wind industry should be pursuing in order to gain widespread acceptance in the years to come: strong protections for the private property rights of wind farm neighbors, combined with provisions for mutually agreeable closer siting.
In response to tough local rules that were seen as anti-wind, in 2009 the Wisconsin legislature called for statewide regulations that localities cannot exceed; the state’s PSC recently adopted a new statewide standard of 1250 feet from homes. Governor Walker’s bill would increase setbacks statewide to 1800 feet from property lines.
While this would not protect neighbors from hearing wind turbines, which are often audible at a half mile and can be heard to a mile or more in some situations (some activists and acousticians suggest setbacks in these larger ranges), Walker’s proposal is a substantial increase, and a reasonable middle ground. This sort of approach could well be the clearest path forward for an industry that has been beset by community resistance in recent years, with Wisconsin being one of the most active centers of concern about the effects of wind farm noise.
Critics immediately slammed the change, claiming that it would basically preclude new wind farms in the state. These critiques ignore a key provision of the Governor’s proposal: neighbors closer than 1800 feet can agree to let turbines go up, presumably in exchange for some compensation from the wind company.
It appears that Governor Walker understands that the way to move the wind industry forward is regulations that help local communities to feel more comfortable with the likely impacts of new wind farms, rather than standards designed primarily to ease the placement of turbines. Like it or not, there is increasing concern about noise levels once considered moderate, e.g., 45dB.
Communities nationwide are coming to grips with the fact that wind farms come with some audible noise issues; pushing siting standards too close to homes will only continue to feed the growing stream of “horror stories” that multiply and magnify the problem into ever more communities where wind farms are proposed.
Adopting setbacks that truly do protect the most noise-sensitive community members, while allowing turbines to go up closer to folks who have no problem with them, could well be the smoothest, and fastest, way forward. Governor Walker’s combination of larger setbacks, and provisions for neighbors to sign waivers, is the right direction for growing this industry without threatening the quality of life of rural communities.
See AEINews for ongoing coverage of wind noise issues.
WHAT'S AT ISSUE WITH GOVERNOR WALKER'S WIND SITING BILL:
Pictured Above: Setbacks between 400 foot tall wind turbines and homes in a PSC-approved wind project Fond du Lac County Wisconsin. The yellow circles indicate the 1000 foot safety zone around each turbine.
Pictured Below: PSC approved Glacier Hills Wind Project under constrution in Columbia County. In this map from WeEnergies, red dots are turbine locations. Each yellow circle containing a small red square is a non-participating home.
When they permitted the wind project, the PSC admitted that there were too many turbines around some homes but instead of asking for fewer turbines in those areas they asked the wind company to offer to purchase the homes. They did.
The PSC wind rules allow safety zones to cross property lines and allow a wind company to automatically use a neighbor's land as part of that safety zone. This creates a no-build and no tree planting zone on the property of a non-particpating land owner who must to get permission from the wind company to build a structure or plant a tree on his own land.
Senate Bill 9 helps to correct this problem.
The PSC statewide siting rules are to take effect on March 1st, 2011. They have setbacks of 1250 feet between homes and a 500 foot turbine. The rules allow a wind company to use a non participating landowner's property as a safety setback zone.
Senate Bill 9 increases the setback to 1800 feet between turbines and property lines. If a landowner wants a turbine closer he can enter into an agreement with the wind company. This bill gives some choice and a little more protection to the rural Wisconsin families who have no choice about living beneath the turbines.
PICTURED ABOVE: a map showing the noise level predicted for residents in Invenergy's proposed Ledge Wind Project in Brown County. The yellow dots are homes. The black dots are wind turbine locations. The World Health Organization says nighttime noise should no louder than 35 dbA for healthful sleep. The deep blue areas indicate predicted turbine noise levels above 50 dbA. The purple areas indicate turbine noise levels of 50dbA.
EXTRA CREDIT READING LIST
THE DIRTY COST OF CLEAN WIND
CLICK HERE to read the whole story
"This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about."
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm, Wind farm construction, Wind farm health effects, Wisconsin public service commission, walker wind siting wisconsin, wind energy, wind farm noise, wind farm noise, wind farm property value, wind siting, wind siting rules legislation and policy, wind turbine health effects, wind turbine noise, wind turbine setback, wind turbine wisconsin
|
Comments Off
1/30/11 Have you reached out and touched your Legislators today? AND Wind Industry: A 50 story tall turbine 1250 feet from your door will have no impact on you property value. Realtor: Wind farm houses don't sell. AND Looking here, looking there: How many Green Jobs has Big Wind created?
Home in Invenergy windfarm, Fond du Lac County. PSC approved setbacks: 1000 feet from homes
HAVE YOU REACHED OUT AND TOUCHED YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS TODAY?
Just a phone call is all it takes to do your part to help give rural Wisconsin an 1800' setback between industrial scale wind turbines and landowner's property lines.
SUPPORT (Special Session Assembly Bill 9)
Better Plan encourages you to take a moment right now to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for his wind siting bill, (CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE BILL) which provides for a setback of 1800 feet between wind turbines and property lines. Let him know you support this bill.
AND! CALL THE LEGISLATORS ON THE COMMITTEES BELOW
AND! Then call your own legislators.
And then, please accept our thanks and the thanks of many in rural Wisconsin for your help.
Office of the Governor, (608) 266-1212, govgeneral@wisconsin.gov
Senator Scott Fitzgerald (Senate Majority Leader, Juneau), 266-5660, Sen.fitzgerald@legis.wisconsin.gov
Representative Jeff Fitzgerald (Assembly Speaker, Horicon), 266-3387, Rep.fitzgerald@legis.wisconsin.gov
Representative Suder (Assembly Majority Leader, Abbotsford), 266-2401, Rep.suder@legis.wisconsin.gov
Members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations.
-Chairman Senator Rich Zipperer (R) Sen.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-9174 Capitol 323 South-Vice Chair Senator Neal Kedzie (R) Sen.kedzie@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-2635 Capitol 313 South-Senator Pam Galloway(R)
Sen.Galloway@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-2502 Capitol 409 SouthSenator Fred Risser (D) Sen.risser@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-1627 Capitol 130 SouthSenator Jon Erpenbach (D) Sen.erpenbach@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-6670 Capitol 106 South
PLEASE CONTACT ALL OF THESE MEMBERS OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND UTILITIES
Representative John Klenke (Vice-Chair) Representative Kevin Petersen Representative Gary Tauchen Representative Thomas Larson Representative Erik Severson Representative Chad Weininger Representative Josh Zepnick Representative John Steinbrink Representative Anthony Staskunas Representative Brett Hulsey
SOURCE: Daily Gazette, Sterling, Ill.
Jan 29, 2011
By David Giuliani,
Jan. 29--SHABBONA -- A real estate agent says many of her customers don't want to live near wind farms, which has caused home values to drop in those areas.
Beth Einsele of Beth Einsele Real Estate in Shabbona said she has shown her share of properties near Lee County wind farms. She said the houses there can't sell for as much as similar homes in other areas of the county.
Earlier this week, County Assessor Wendy Ryerson presented numbers to the county's ad hoc committee on wind turbines, arguing that the Mendota Hills wind farm, started in 2004, hasn't affected nearby home values.
Einsele, a Realtor, took exception to Ryerson's analysis.
"She doesn't look at comparable sales of similar properties. That's not her job. Her job is to see to it that there are fair prices for the assessments," Einsele said. "She does a good job. But she is being used by the County Board to promote their agenda."
Einsele said she has seen firsthand the effects of turbines on home sales.
For instance, a property on Bingham Road in eastern Lee County is surrounded by turbines. It was put on the market in November 2005, and didn't sell until March 2008 for $265,000, she said. Five similar properties -- a few miles away but not near wind farms -- sold much quicker and for well more than $300,000, according to the Realtors' Multiple Listing Service.
Einsele also said she got a bad reaction when she had an open house for a property near a wind farm.
"Out of nine families that came that day, seven asked, 'What are those things? What do they do? How come they're so noisy?'" she said. "That parcel remains on the market today."
In response to Einsele, Ryerson said she tries to walk a "fine line" in providing information to decision makers.
"I try to make sure the information I give out is based on fact, not emotion," she said. "I personally have nothing to gain whether or not we put in another wind project."
Her analysis focused on the area near the Mendota Hills project, looking at home sales in the townships of Brooklyn, Willow Creek, Viola and Wyoming. According to Ryerson's office, the four townships recorded 45 home sales in 2002, with a median home price of $102,400.
The median price increased over the years to $150,000 by 2007, with annual homes sales ranging from 43 to 72.
But in 2008, the median sales price dropped to $107,500, with only 30 sales. In 2009, the office recorded the same number of sales, with the median price further falling to $101,000.
Ryerson contended that the drop in prices had more to do with the declining home market in the area than wind turbines.
She said she understood the argument that fewer buyers interested in a property likely would impact a home's value. But she said nothing in her data demonstrates any effect from the Mendota Hills project on nearby properties.
John Thompson, president and CEO of the Lee County Industrial Development Association, wouldn't take a position on wind farms' effect on home values.
But he said the turbines have helped Lee County's economy. They bring more property tax revenue to government coffers, employ many people during the construction phase, and give farms that allow turbines extra income, he said.
The county's ad hoc committee is supposed to provide recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals on new wind regulations. In September, the County Board enacted a moratorium on new wind energy development while the zoning board drafted new rules.
The moratorium is set to expire Feb. 15. County Board Chairman Jim Seeberg has said he is opposed to extending it.
Wind farm opponents say the turbines are noisy, bothersome and unsightly.
SECOND FEATURE
FACTS ABOUT GREEN JOBS CREATION ELUSIVE AS THE WIND
Source: MacIver News Service
Although they are touted and promoted by policy makers and opinion leaders across the state, accurately defining and keeping track of ‘green jobs’ has proven nearly impossible in Wisconsin.
Take, for example, ‘green jobs’ associated with the wind industry.
“Clean energy technology and high-end manufacturing are Wisconsin’s future,” Governor Jim Doyle said in his final State of the State address. “We have more than 300 companies and thousands of jobs in the wind industry.”
That statistic is impossible to verify.
The State of Wisconsin does not track those companies nor the jobs within the industry. When contacted, the Office of Energy Independence (an agency created by Governor Doyle in 2007) directed MacIver News to Wisconsin Wind Works, a self-described “consortium of manufacturers representing the wind manufacturing supply chain within Wisconsin.”
The advocacy group maintains an online wind energy-related supply chain database, although a routine examination of the data proved just how unreliable the figures are.
When the online, searchable database was utilized earlier this summer, it listed 340 companies in Wisconsin connected to the wind industry, a fact which, without additional investigation would appear to be in line with the Governor’s statement. However, further examination showed many of those companies were not currently serving the wind industry and were only listed because they someday could serve the wind industry.
For example, the database listed 38 manufacturers, but only 24 of them have anything to actually do with the wind energy sector presently.
Of those 24 Wisconsin manufacturers, only eight were categorized as primary suppliers. Another four companies were listed as both primary and secondary suppliers. A MacIver News Service reporter contacted all eight primary suppliers and the four companies listed as primary/secondary suppliers in our initial query and what we found further eroded the credibility of Governor Doyle’s claims.
When contacted, the companies listed as both primary and secondary suppliers all described themselves merely as secondary suppliers. That means they produce products that are not exclusive to the wind energy. For example, Bushman Equipment manufactures lifts that move heavy pieces of equipment, which, among many other uses, can be used to handle wind turbines.
Wisconsin Wind Works’ database is not only generous with the number of companies within their supply chain it associates as being primary suppliers, there are issues with the actual job numbers listed for each company as well. Many of the figures are either inflated, the jobs are not located in Wisconsin, or they cannot be tied to wind energy.
For example, Rexnord Industries was one of the eight Wisconsin manufacturers listed in our query as directly serving the wind energy industry. The database shows the company has 6,000 employees. Yet a Rexnord official told the MacIver News Service that the company only has 1,500 employees in Wisconsin, and only five of those have jobs which are directly tied to the wind industry.
Wisconsin Wind Works’ database says Orchid International has 600 employees, but a company spokesperson told MacIver it only has 150. Amsoil Inc. in Superior has 236 employees listed in the Wisconsin Wind Works database, but a company representative told the MacIver News Service that only 6 of them work on wind energy-related products.
In all, at the time of our search, the database claimed 7,632 jobs among the eight manufacturers that were current primary suppliers to the wind industry. Yet, the MacIver News Service was only able to identify 31 jobs at those companies which were specifically tied to wind energy related products.
Manufacturers told MacIver News that other employees might work on wind-related products occasionally, but it does not represent the bulk of their workload.
Another 1,077 workers are listed among the secondary suppliers and we did not investigate that claim.
VAL-FAB, one of the companies listed as both a primary and secondary supplier, explained to MacIver News that it initially had high hopes for the wind energy industry that never materialized. The company specializes in fabrication for the energy sector.
William Capelle, Director of Business Development at VAL-FAB, said “At first we thought we might be able to manufacture the actual towers, but it turns out 90 percent of those are imported from Spain.”
Since the MacIver News Service first examined the Wisconsin Wind Works database, the number of companies listed has increased to 360. A reporter attempted to contact the organization for comment about the veracity of their data, but Wisconsin wind Works, which solicits members by selling itself as the “preferred partner of wind energy professionals,” did not respond.
They are, however, holding a Wind Energy Symposium in Milwaukee on October 13th.
Meanwhile the Office of Energy Independence continues to pursue the Doyle Administration’s green energy policies. As Doyle said during his final State of the State address, “anyone who says there aren’t jobs in the clean energy economy had better open their eyes.”
There is no doubt that some jobs in the wind industry exist in Wisconsin. The accurate number of these ‘green jobs’ is proving to be, at best, elusive
Representatives of Doyle’s office did not respond to repeated request for comments regarding the information contained within this article.
NOTE: THIS ARTICLE ORIGINALLY RAN IN SEPTEMBER OF 2010
By Bill Osmulski
MacIver News Service Investigative Reporter
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm, Wind farm health effects, property values, wind energy, wind farm contracts, wind farm lawsuits, wind farm noise, wind farm property value, wind farm property values, wind farm setbacks, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm wildlife, wind farm wisconsin, wind siting rules legislation and policy, wind turbine
|
Comments Off
1/29/11 Like a bad neighbor... Acciona is there and buying your silence by buying your property
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
Spanish wind giant, Acciona, already has already signed on landowners and holds long term land easements for future wind projects in our state.
TURBINES DECLARED A NASTY NEIGHBOUR AS A SECRET BUYOUT IS REVEALED.
SOURCE: Sunday Herald Sun, www.news.com.au
January 30, 2011
By Peter Rolfe
Victorians who have endured health problems from a nearby wind farm have been gagged from talking in return for the sale of their land.
Spanish multinational energy company Acciona has been quietly buying farms adjacent to its site at Waubra, near Ballarat, as an increasing number of residents in the tight-knit community complain of the ill-effects of living near turbines.
Since the wind farm started operating in July 2009, about 11 houses in the area have been vacated by people complaining of noise problems.
Acciona has bought at least another seven houses, the purchase of two of which appear to have been prompted by the new State Government’s threat to shut down the farm unless noise and permit conditions were met.
Locals in the tiny town of 700, 35km northwest of Ballarat, say the sales took place on the proviso landowners would not talk about the price of the purchase or negative health effects they blame on the wind farm.
Residents who refuse to move have accused the company of trying to buy their way out of trouble.
Noel Deans moved from Waubra to Ballarat 18 months ago because he could no longer stand headaches, tinnitus and poor health he believes are caused by high-frequency vibrations from turbines.
“The word is they’re buying everyone out and buying some of the other properties nearby just to hush them up,” he said.
“They know that we can’t fight them. We can’t win.
“They make you suffer so that you just want to get out of there. They know that it gets to you emotionally and physically.”
Mr Deans refuses to sell his property because he does not want future generations to suffer like his family. He only returns to the farm when he has to — about once a fortnight — and says every time he does he gets head pain within five minutes that takes up to 10 days to go away.
Doctors’ certificates seen by the Sunday Herald Sun back his claims.
“Once (the vibrations) get inside the house it bounces off the walls and makes you feel sick,” Mr Dean said. “If you’re exposed to it outside it goes into your inner ear and affects your balance. It’s put tinnitus in my ears which stops me sleeping.”
He has met the company to discuss his concerns, but said they would only take statements, not answer his questions.
“I said ‘I don’t want you to buy me out. I want you to fix the problem’,” he said. “It’s hell on Earth living out there. That’s what it is.
“And there’s nothing we can do about it. It’s a bloody terrible thing.
“It’s knocked us around. We’re in limbo. We’ve lost two years of our life and we don’t know where it will end. I’ve put nearly 40 years into that place. It’s prime property that I was going to pass down to my son. What am I going to do? I can’t work there without being ill.”
Former National Trust chairman Randall Bell, now president of Victorian Landscape Guardians, said wind farm companies had a reputation for pulling out their chequebooks to make a problem go away.
“What they do is make people sign gag agreements which dictate that they can’t speak about the sales or their health,” he said.
“It’s a way of shutting people up.”
Acciona generation director Brett Wickham said there was no proof wind farms affected people’s health, and the plant, which employed about 70 people, was generally well accepted.
He said the most recent two houses bought by Acciona were purchased in September and October last year, when noise levels detected on the property were in breach of the company’s planning permit.
And he said confidentiality contracts used by the company were “standard practice for the industry”.
“Most of the landowners have actually sought confidentiality agreements as well,” he said.
“They are what they are.”
But Karl Stepnell, who moved his wife and three children out of Waubra after sleepless nights, heart palpitations, ear pressure and nausea that began when the turbines started turning, disagreed.
“They have bought a lot more houses than seven. There are empty houses all over the place,” he said.
“We’re all for green energy, but there have to be more conditions on what the wind companies can do.”
Planning Minister Matthew Guy, who has the power to shut down the wind farm if it does not comply with its permit, said the Government was watching closely to ensure that wind farm operators played by the rules.
“If they are not complying with their planning permit, I would close it down,” he said.
“Just as someone who doesn’t comply with a building permit or doesn’t pay a parking fine would be in trouble, so will they.”
A Senate inquiry into the possible adverse impacts of wind farms will be held later this year.
OUR 'What the--?' WIND VIDEO OF THE DAY:
BE ADVISED: Contents include man singing in French to pictures of wind turbines.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Accionia, Life in a wind farm, Noise, Wind developers behaving badly, Wind farm, Wind farm health effects, acciona, health effects, wind energy, wind farm abandoned home, wind farm contract, wind farm health effects, wind farm illness, wind farm noise, wind farm noise, wind farm wisconsin
|
Comments Off
1/25/11 UPDATE ON HERE COMES THE JUDGE: All eyes on Ontario as safety of wind developer-friendly setbacks are challenged in court AND The latest on the Wind Farm Strong Arm: Date is set for wind developer's lawsuit against a rural community AND What is wrong with this picture? Our Big Wind video of the day
WHAT'S AT ISSUE WITH GOVERNOR WALKER'S WIND SITING BILL:
Pictured Above: Setbacks between 400 foot tall wind turbines and homes in a PSC-approved wind project Fond du Lac County Wisconsin. The yellow circles indicate the 1000 foot safety zone around each turbine.
Pictured Below: PSC approved Glacier Hills Wind Project under constrution in Columbia County. In this map from WeEnergies, red dots are turbine locations. Each yellow circle containing a small red square is a non-participating home.
When they permitted the wind project, the PSC admitted that there were too many turbines around some homes but instead of asking for fewer turbines in those areas they asked the wind company to offer to purchase the homes. They did.
The PSC wind rules allow safety zones to cross property lines and allow a wind company to automatically use a neighbor's land as part of that safety zone. This creates a no-build and no tree planting zone on the property of a non-particpating land owner who must to get permission from the wind company to build a structure or plant a tree on his own land.
Senate Bill 9 helps to correct this problem.
The PSC statewide siting rules are to take effect on March 1st, 2011. They have setbacks of 1250 feet between homes and a 500 foot turbine. The rules allow a wind company to use a non participating landowner's property as a safety setback zone.
Senate Bill 9 increases the setback to 1800 feet between turbines and property lines. If a landowner wants a turbine closer he can enter into an agreement with the wind company. This bill gives some choice and a little more protection to the rural Wisconsin families who have no choice about living beneath the turbines.
PICTURED ABOVE: a map showing the noise level predicted for residents in Invenergy's proposed Ledge Wind Project in Brown County. The yellow dots are homes. The black dots are wind turbine locations. The World Health Organization says nighttime noise should no louder than 35 dbA for healthful sleep. The deep blue areas indicate predicted turbine noise levels above 50 dbA. The purple areas indicate turbine noise levels of 50dbA.
SUPPORT SENATE BILL 9: WALKER'S WIND SITING REFORM
Better Plan encourages you to take a moment right now to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for the provisions in Senate Bill 9, (CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE BILL) which provides for a setback of 1800 feet between wind turbines and property lines. Let him know you support this bill.
CONTACT Governor Scott Walker govgeneral@wisconsin.gov
115 East Capitol
Madison WI 53702
(608) 266-1212
RED ALERT!
It's very important that you contact these key legislative committee members and urge them to support this bill and vote to move it forward. Every phone call and email to these committee members matters.
Members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations.
-Chairman Senator Rich Zipperer (R) Sen.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-9174 Capitol 323 South-Vice Chair Senator Neal Kedzie (R) Sen.kedzie@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-2635 Capitol 313 South-Senator Pam Galloway(R)
Sen.Galloway@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-2502 Capitol 409 SouthSenator Fred Risser (D) Sen.risser@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-1627 Capitol 130 SouthSenator Jon Erpenbach (D) Sen.erpenbach@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-6670 Capitol 106 SouthAssembly Committee on Energy and Utilities
Representative Mark Honadel (Chair)(888) 534-0021 (414) 764-9921 (South Milwaukee)
Rep.Honadel@legis.wisconsin.gov
Representative John Klenke (Vice-Chair)(888) 534-0088 (Green Bay) new
Rep.Klenke@legis.wi.gov
Representative Kevin Petersen(888) 947-0040 (Waupaca)
Rep.Petersen@legis.wisconsin.gov
Representative Gary Tauchen(608) 266-3097 (Bonduel)
Rep.Tauchen@legis.wisconsin.gov
Representative Thomas Larson(888) 534-0067 (Colfax) new
Rep.Larson@legis.wi.gov
Representative Erik Severson(888) 529-0028 (Star Prairie) new
Rep.Severson@legis.wi.gov
Representative Chad Weininger(888) 534-0004 (Green Bay) new
Rep.Weininger@legis.wi.gov
Representative Josh Zepnick(608) 266-1707 (414) 727-0841 (Milwaukee)
Rep.Zepnick@legis.wisconsin.gov
Representative John Steinbrink(608) 266-0455 (262) 694-5863 (Pleasant Prairie)
Rep.Steinbrink@legis.wisconsin.gov
Representative Anthony Staskunas(888) 534-0015 (414) 541-9440 (West Allis)
Rep.Staskunas@legis.wisconsin.gov
Representative Brett Hulsey(608) 266-7521 (Madison)
Rep.Hulsey@legis.wi.gov
And be sure to contact your own legislators and encourage them to support the bill.
THE LATEST ON THE ONTARIO WIND LAWSUIT:
UPDATED JANUARY 24, 2011
ONTARIO LAWYER CHALLENGES CREDIBILITY OF LEADING WITNESSES IN CHALLENGE TO WIND FARM LAW
Read it at the Source: Ottawa Citizen
January 24, 2010
By Lee Greenberg
TORONTO — An Ontario government lawyer attacked the credibility of three star witnesses in a key legal challenge to the province’s new green energy legislation.
Sara Blake said Dr. Robert McMurtry and two other physicians, who cast doubt on the safety of wind turbines, are not reliable witnesses.
The three are named as experts in the case brought against the government by Prince Edward County property owner Ian Hanna. Hanna and his fellow anti-wind campaigners believe turbines emit low-frequency noise that lead to a range of health problems, including sleep deprivation, stress, chronic depression and even cardiovascular disease.
The case is the first major test of new regulations introduced in September 2009, four months after the province passed its Green Energy Legislation. According to those new rules, wind turbines will have to be placed a minimum of 550 meters from the nearest home.
That “setback” is at the centre of Monday’s court challenge.
Hanna and his backers say the government failed to fully examine the medical studies on the health affects of turbines. The government denies the claim.
Blake says McMurtry, an orthopedic surgeon and former medical school dean who also has advised the federal government on health policy, is neither an expert on the issue of noise emissions nor is he impartial.
He and the other two doctors cited in the court challenge all took an interest in wind turbines because they were being built near their homes, the prosecutor said. (McMurtry, who is the brother of former Ontario chief justice and attorney general Roy McMurtry, owns property in Prince Edward County and is the founding member of an anti-wind group there).
Blake said McMurtry expresses opinions in a deposition that he is not qualified to give.
“This is pure advocacy,” she told a three-member panel at Osgoode Hall in Toronto Monday. “He is not an expert ... It is the belief of a passionate person.”
She also cast aspersions on the study of Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, who concluded people living within 1.1 kilometres of a wind farm in Maine suffered numerous health affects, including hearing problems, increased psychiatric symptoms and overall increased use of prescription medication.
The study is not published and is not peer reviewed, she said.
Eric Gillespie, the lawyer for Hanna and the anti-wind advocacy group behind him, contends that the rule placing turbines 550 meters from the nearest house was made without sufficient scientific evidence.
But under questioning from the three judges hearing the case, Gillespie acknowledged the science is inconclusive on the health effects of turbines.
He also takes issue with the fact that a planning expert — and not a public health expert — reviewed the science on the impacts of turbines.
“On a matter of human health it is not enough to have a land use planner say we considered it,” he said in court.
Gillespie also withdrew a request for an injunction on all new wind farms in Ontario. He is asking the court to strike down regulations laying out the 550-meter setback. It is unclear what sort of temporary regulations would emerge if he is successful in the request.
It is unknown when — if at all — the court will issue a decision on Monday’s one-day hearing.
While the three judges listened to arguments, they are also considering an argument by the attorney general that the case should be sent to an environmental tribunal.
Previous story:
The Green Challange
SOURCE: Owen Sound Sun Times
January 24, 2011
Jonathan Sher
Ian Hanna has asked an Ontario court to strike down part of the province's Green Energy Act, enlisting doctors who argue human health was compromised when the act created a buffer of only 550 metres between wind turbines and homes.
* If Hanna prevails, the burgeoning wind industry could grind to a halt until medical studies are done.
* The lobby group for the wind industry has intervened in the case.
* The Ontario government dismisses medical claims as irrelevant and says Hanna doesn't have a legal basis for a challenge.
* Three judges in Toronto will hear evidence Monday and Tuesday.
- - -
Health effects
Several doctors are saying turbines emit low-pitched sounds that disrupt the body's normal rhythms and cause ailments including:
* Headaches
* Irritability
* Problems with concentration and memory
* Dizziness
* Tinnitus
* Rapid heart rate
* Nausea
- - -
'The right thing to do'
Last week Free Press Reporter Jonathan Sher spoke with the Prince Edward County man who sought the judicial review, Ian Hanna, and his Toronto lawyer, Eric Gillespie. Below are excerpts of their conversation:
Q Prior to getting involved with wind turbines had you been involved with environmental issues or activism?
Hanna: No to both questions.
Q You never led petitions before, subscribed to newsletters on environmental issues or tried to interject yourself into public debate?
That's absolutely correct.
Q What things attracted you to move to Big Island from the GTA?
The idea of a more rural atmosphere appealed to us. The openness, the stars, the birds. You have to come here sometime and walk outside on a summer's afternoon. It's just unbelievable.
Q What about adverse health effects of wind turbines?
People appear to be emotionally drained, unable to really function on a calm, natural basis. We know people can't sleep properly at all when they are close to industrial wind turbines . . . They appeared to be very tortured by the effects.
Q Why did you continue to pursue the case even though your home and Big Island no longer in harm's way?
Because it's the right thing to do. I have three children who if I gave them nothing else . . . I think I at least gave them the strength or assisted them with gaining the strength to stand up for what they believe in and for what's right.
Q How has the legal action been financed?
We put every cent we could put in to it so far and if we have to put more, we'll find it . . . 100% of the money that's been contributed has come from people just like us, other families all over Ontario . . .
Q How much has been raised so far? Ballpark?
Close to $200,000
Q How are you feeling as you head toward the hearing in Toronto?
I'm excited, I'm confident, I'm grateful for the incredible capable way it's been handled . . . and to be really fair I'm exceedingly sad and disappointed . . . It's all been based on facts and realities and truths coming from just regular people like myself who have no axe to grind with anybody beyond the fact that we're frightened by the potential of this, yet, the other side has done one thing and one thing only: They've circled their wagons.
WIND ON TRIAL
A burgeoning billion-dollar industry and the political fortunes of Dalton McGuinty's Liberals may turn on a legal challenge by a single man whose day in court arrives Monday.
Ian Hanna lives far away from the corridors of power in Queens Park and Bay Street in a century-old farmhouse on Big Island in Prince Edward County. But Monday he finds himself in the epicentre of a debate that could shape the economic future of the province and the political fate of the ruling Liberals.
It's a fight over wind turbines that have been rising across Ontario with ever greater frequency, an industry the Liberal government has subsidized with plans to double its energy capacity in this year alone.
But those plans in Queens Park -- really the heart of the Green Energy Act -- were placed in judicial crosshairs 15 months ago. That's when Hanna, 58, challenged a provision that creates a buffer of only 550 metres between turbines and homes.
Several doctors have lined up behind Hanna's challenge, saying turbines emit low-pitched sounds that disrupt the body's normal rhythms and cause ailments including headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, rapid heart rate, irritability and problems with concentration and memory.
Those concerns have been dismissed as irrelevant by lawyers representing the Ontario government, who instead will try to convince three judges in Toronto that Hanna doesn't have a legal basis for his claim -- that there is no provision in the Green Energy Act itself or elsewhere that allows a citizen to challenge a regulation.
The dismissive approach concerns Hanna's lawyer Eric Gillespie.
"That's been a significant concern for all the experts that are part of this process on behalf of Mr. Hanna. These are medical doctors from Ontario, the United States and England, all of whom have seen what they believe to be first-hand sufficient evidence to say that industrial wind turbines do pose a very real risk to residents," Gillespie said.
Gillespie is an environmental lawyer who cases include one that landed a $36-million award since appealed.
The government's decision to object solely on procedural grounds worries the wind industry that over the next 20 years has planned about $20 billion in investments that would be subsidized by Ontario taxpayers.
A lawyer for the Canadian Wind Energy Association declined to comment about Hanna's case but did provide a copy of its written arguments.
An Ontario Environment Ministry spokesperson defended the Green Energy Act.
"Our process is based on science, modelling and jurisdictional comparisons. It will be protective of public health and the environment," Kate Jordan said.
Read more about the Ian Hanna Legal Challenge:
Application for Judicial Review against the Ontario government goes to court Jan. 24-25
Second Feature:
JUDGE SETS ECOGEN, PRATTSBURGH HEARING
SOURCE Bath Courier, www.steubencourier.com
January 23, 2011
By Mary Perham,
Prattsburgh, NY — A court hearing has been set for Jan. 27 to learn more details about the events behind a year-long lawsuit between the town of Prattsburgh and a wind farm developer.
The hearing will resolve some issues and lead to a final decision in the dispute between the town and the developer, Ecogen, according to state Supreme Court Justice John Ark.
Ark wants sworn testimony from former town officials, including Attorney John Leyden and Supervisor Harold McConnell, Ecogen representatives and other town officials.
Questions appear to pinpoint Ecogen’s contention that it has been ready to set up 16 turbines for more than two years and questions Ecogen’s claim it had “vested rights” by late 2008.
Ecogen also claims board members have stymied the builder’s efforts to proceed with the project.
“Which is funny, when they’re on record telling the Town of Italy, Prattsburgh has been very cooperative throughout,” said Prattsburgh’s attorney Ed Hourihan.
Hourihan said the town is pleased to see the judge has narrowed the issues to “specifically pin down Ecogen’s ever changing position. Since this litigation has started, Ecogen had changed its position so many times its hard to tell what is the truth.”
Hourihan said he will question the witnesses and can present evidence proving any testimony is incorrect.
Last fall Ark said he was close to a decision in the case, but urged Ecogen and the town to meet and find an out-of-court compromise.
Town officials offered to provide other sites for the proposed turbines, but Ecogen maintained the December 2009 agreement was binding and refused to compromise.
An offer to meet with Prattsburgh by Ecogen’s parent company, Pattern, apparently fell through last month, current town Supervisor Al Wordingham said.
Wordingham said he called Pattern representative John Galloway just before Christmas to follow up on several phone conferences and a plan to meet.
“He told me he had some internal issues to resolve,” Wordingham said.
Galloway has not returned his final call, Wordingham told residents at the town board meeting Monday night.
“And we still don’t have their final site map,” Wordingham said.
In related action, the board held a public hearing on extending their moratorium on tower construction another six months. Several residents said they supported the moratorium, although they thought six months was too long.
The board will vote on the moratorium during their regular Feb. 22 meeting.
FROM OUR 'WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?' VIDEO FILE-- Or Why aren't those turbines turning?
AND: What they're finding out about big wind in Taiwan
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Brown County, Columbia County, Emerging Energies, Fond du Lac County, Ian Hanna, Invenergy, Wind developers behaving badly, Wind farm, Wind farm health effects, Wisconsin public service commission, health effects, wind farm contract, wind farm health effects, wind farm lawsuit, wind farm lawsuit, wind farm wisconsin, wind siting rules legislation and policy
|
Comments Off