Entries in wind farm wildlife (50)

9/13/10 Same story, different location: Wisconsin or otherwise: Wind turbines too close to homes equals no sleep

WIND FARMS FROM FAR AWAY: The view from an orbiting satellite

WIND FARMS FROM CLOSE UP: The view from someone living with them:

“I’m getting vibrations, and I haven’t slept in I don’t know how long,” Mrs. Garrow said. “But I don’t think anybody’s looking out for our interest.”

TURBINE NOISE CONCERNS RAISED

SOURCE: pressrepublican.com

September 13, 2010

By Michelle Besaw

Vibrations disturbing, some Town of Clinton residents say.

CLINTON — Noise was the big issue during the Wind Facilities Planning Board’s recent public hearing, and it wasn’t the noise coming from the 40-plus people packed into the Town Hall.

The meeting, which was set to address local concerns with variance requests from Horizon’s Marble River wind farm project, focused on noise issues surrounding Noble’s wind farms and the fear that this project will only bring the same problems.

Chad and Rose Garrow shared a complaint that the noise study done on the current turbines was unfair due to reported battery malfunctions.

“I’m getting vibrations, and I haven’t slept in I don’t know how long,” Mrs. Garrow said. “But I don’t think anybody’s looking out for our interest.”

Richard Green of Churubusco said he can feel the sounds from the turbines, citing the low range and the repetitiveness.

“It’s a constant noise that you can feel in your body.”

But Burlington, Vt., resident Martin Lavin, who owns 1,350 acres in Clinton, said he deals with noise from passing cars and loud college students at his home.

In Horizon’s original project proposal, Lavin was to have eight turbines on his property, but “we lost them all” in the scaled-back proposal, which calls for taller, yet fewer turbines.

“But I’m still in support of the project,” he said.

Jennifer Ruggles of Churubusco argued that Lavin’s example of noise was a result of his choices.

“You chose to buy a house in a city. We chose to buy a house in the country. We did not choose to move next to these things. I have 35 acres, and I can still feel (the noise). This noise came to us.”

Green said that of the landowners with turbine contracts, 49 are not town residents and just 24 are.

“The income isn’t going to town residents. They don’t have to live with the windmills.”

The town’s wind lawyer, Daniel Spitzer, suggested that the Wind Board summon a Noble representative and call a special public meeting to respond to residents’ noise complaints and address the enforcement of the noise laws.

Horizon’s variances request that it build turbines exceeding 400 feet, increasing their height to 492 feet, which raises concerns with Customs and Border Protection Supervisor Richard Bowman.

“I’ve flown around the ones that are 400 feet, and those are pretty up there,” he said, adding that the turbines’ proximity to the border is also of concern.

“We fly as low as the tress, depending on what we have to work on.”

Ruggles shared Bowman’s border concern.

“It is getting worse at our border, not better. We really should consider safety of the community before money.”

But Spitzer said the new proposal removes most of the turbines from the wetlands area, which are in the northeast area nearest to the border.

The proposal reduces the number of turbines to be built in the towns of Clinton and Ellenburg from 109 to 74.

In return, they’re replacing them with taller, more powerful turbines, generating 0.9 megawatts more than the originals, going from 2.1 to 3, which allows them to reduce the footprint of the project.

The total electrical output would remain the same as the original proposal.

Janice Padula of Plattsburgh owns land in the town but will not have turbines.

“But I am in very big support of this project,” she said.

Padula is a wind professor at Clinton Community College and supports wind energy, calling the turbines “majestic.”

“When I hung my very first load of laundry, I thought, wow, I’m going to put a turbine up here someday.

“I really know these people are reputable. Don’t throw out the project because of someone else,” she continued, referring to residents’ issues with Noble’s turbines.

“I really believe in the reputation of Horizon.”

Nancy Neubrand, a student of Padula’s, said renewable energy is necessary today.

“Wind is free. We need to get into renewables. We’re using substantial resources.”

Will Rogers of Clinton agreed.

“We need to go to renewable or be at the mercy of the Mideast.”

The Wind Facilities Planning Board will have a public meeting at 7 p.m. Monday, Sept. 20, at the Fire House, 1301 Clinton Mills Road.

They committee will review Horizon’s application for variances.

MORE FROM VINALHAVEN:

STATE MUST PROVIDE SOME RELIEF TO NEIGHBORS OF WIND TURBINES

Here, it is not just the constant noise, but the pulsing drone that makes the noise particularly hostile that is so disturbing. It is inescapable.

SOURCE: freepressonline

By Alan Farago

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

My home is 3,000 feet from the turbines, and my experience is contrary to all the assertions that were made during the permitting process a few years ago.

At this hour of the morning, it should be peaceful outside, the quiet interrupted only by the calling crows or osprey circling.

Some locals dismiss the noise complaints, saying that Vinalhaven had a diesel power plant for years. But to live near excessive noise is not the reason I chose to own property here.

Also, as I have become familiar with wind turbine noise, it is more and more clear that there is a fundamental difference between turbine noise and other forms of industrial disturbances.

Here, it is not just the constant noise, but the pulsing drone that makes the noise particularly hostile that is so disturbing. It is inescapable.

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

At that hearing I said I supported wind energy so long as the economic advantages to ratepayers were clear and so long as surrounding property values were not affected.

The jury is out on the first point, but not on the second. The constant noise from the turbines, even at 3,000 feet, has taken away a valuable part of my investment and a key part of my family's well-being.

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

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

Neighbors' complaints about turbine noise rose immediately after the three, 1.5 megawatt GE turbines were turned on, last fall.

A year after the Vinalhaven turbines were greeted with wide public acclaim, the turbine neighbors find themselves, through no fault of their own, in an extraordinarily difficult and expensive effort to demonstrate that the wind turbines do exceed state regulations.

The cost of wind turbines has been shifted onto neighbors who never imagined these kinds of burdens when the benefits of wind energy were sold to the public.

It is wrong and it is unfair to impose both the noise and the uncertainty of resolution - or if there will ever be resolution - on a few nearby homeowners.

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

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

The collateral damage of wind turbines is the assessment of the noise they make. No one in authority admits this, during the permitting process.

They say, "The noise will be minor," or "the sound of the wind blowing in the leaves will cover the sound." That is simply not true.

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

Be forewarned.

Alan Farago, Vinalhaven

THIRD STORY

Consultant: Vinalhaven wind turbine noise exceeds limit

“Anybody with a set of ears can come sit on my porch. You can clearly tell the difference between wind in the trees and the sound of the turbines. They don’t cancel each other out.”

SOURCE Bangor Daily News, www.bangordailynews.com

September 12, 2010

by Abigail Curtis

VINALHAVEN, Maine — The three wind turbines that were designed to lower and stabilize the unpredictable electric bills of Vinalhaven and North Haven islands also have brought some sleepless nights to those who live closest to their giant blades and the noises they make.

The controversy over the noise levels between Fox Islands Wind officials and some islanders began soon after the turbines went on line last fall, but last week, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection received a letter from its wind turbine noise consultant that seems to back up the project’s unhappy neighbors.

“There exists a significant body of consistent meteorological and sound data indicating sound levels greater than applicable limits,” Warren L. Brown, who also serves as the University of Maine’s radiation safety officer, wrote Wednesday in a detailed letter. “Substantial changes are recommended for FIW nighttime operations.”

Brown reached his conclusions after reviewing a noise complaint submitted by Fox Islands Wind Neighbors, a loose association of those who are negatively affected by the turbines, and also after reviewing sound and other data from the Fox Islands Wind project.

For Cheryl Lindgren, who lives less than half a mile from the turbines, Brown’s words came as welcome news, though the department has yet to make a decision based on them.

“It’s gratifying, it’s hopeful. It’s also been a lot of work having to do all this to get people to acknowledge that we have a problem,” she said Sunday in a telephone interview. “We’re hoping we can work together now to get some kind of compromise — that we can get some dialogue going, and that they will respond to the needs of the people who are suffering with this.”

But George Baker, the CEO of the Fox Island Wind electric company and vice president for wind at the Island Institute, said Brown’s findings might not be conclusive.

“He’s looked at a bunch of data that our sound consultant has put together. Our sound consultant analyzed exactly the same data and found us to be in compliance,” Baker said Sunday in a telephone interview. “There’s something going on here, and we don’t know exactly what it is, between the experts, and how they are analyzing and interpreting exactly the same data.”

According to Baker, the differences might stem from the way the experts treat ambient sound from various sources, especially the wind in the trees. State sound regulations “have a hard time” dealing with wind turbines, he said.

“If we were an industrial facility, you would turn on the facility on a still, calm day [and measure its noises],” he said. “Unfortunately, our little community wind farm doesn’t operate on still, calm days. It operates on windy days. … When the wind is blowing in the woods, it makes a lot of sound.”

Lindgren, however, says this argument is full of hot air.

“[Baker] keeps talking about the ambient sound. It’s a little disheartening,” she said. “Anybody with a set of ears can come sit on my porch. You can clearly tell the difference between wind in the trees and the sound of the turbines. They don’t cancel each other out.”

Baker said the turbines are turned down by 2 decibels at night in order to meet the state sound requirements.

“If, when experts get through sorting out this question of compliance, and it’s determined that we are out of compliance, we’ll just turn them down a little more at night,” he said. “We’re absolutely committed to compliance.”

But that solution might not sit well with some islanders, he suggested, who have benefited from a 15 to 20 percent reduction in their electricity costs since the turbines starting moving.

A survey completed a month ago by Fox Islands Electric Coop members showed that the majority of respondents were in favor of slowing down the turbines in order to reduce sound no more than state regulations require.

“The project remains very, very widely supported on the islands,” he said.

Lindgren, however, pointed out that electricity costs dipped nationwide last fall, not just on Vinalhaven and North Haven islands. And, after nearly a year of being woken up by the noisy turbines, she’s both frustrated and disappointed.

“We believed in ‘green energy’ as being all good. That’s not always true,” she said. “When corporations get involved, it’s not always from the heart. … I think the whole population could turn off a couple of light bulbs and we’d be in the same place.”

Posted on Monday, September 13, 2010 at 10:18AM by

The BPRC Research Nerd in Horizon wind, Life in a wind farm, Noise, Wind farm, health effects, wind developer, wind farm complaings, wind farm health effects, wind farm hum, wind farm noise, wind farm noise, wind farm ordinance, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm siting, wind farm sleep, wind farm vibration, wind farm wildlife | Comments Off

9/10/10 Director's cut: Documentary "Windfall" : A darker shade of 'green'

WINDFALL" DIRECTOR LAURA ISRAEL UNCOVERS THE DARK SIDE OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

SOURCE: Cinemablend.com

September 10, 2010

By Katey Rich

Laura Israel had been working for as a film editor for decades when the subject that inspired her to direct her first film quite literally showed up on her doorstep.

The New York-based filmmaker had spent years going up to a cabin in remote Meredith, New York without getting to know her neighbors, but when several people in town signed contracts allowing an industrial company to place wind turbines on their property, and several others opposed it, Israel found herself caught in a local political issue that resonated across the country.

The resulting documentary is Windfall, which premieres this week at the Toronto International Film Festival.

In telling the story of Meredith Israel explores the largely hidden downside of allowing wind energy corporations to stake out land in American communities, installing 400-foot high wind turbines so near peoples' homes that residents complain of headaches and respiratory problems, not to mention the diminished property values and general noise of a giant turbine so near one's home.

As the residents in Meredith duke out their concerns at town hall meetings, Israel and her crew also take us to neighboring Tug Hill, where dozens of wind turbines have already changed that small town forever.

Israel doesn't claim to have all the answers about alternative energy and how to reduce our dependence on oil, but says that with Windfall she wants to inspire people to ask questions and look beyond the easy equation that "wind energy= clean energy= good."

I talked to Israel about what inspired her to tell the story, how she's been in touch with other communities also looking for more answers about wind energy, and how making this film got her more involved with her neighbors than she previously expected. Windfall premieres this Friday, September 10th at TIFF. [Toronto Interational Film Festival]

How did this story wind up coming to you? It's obvious you feel passionately about it.

I actually own a little cabin in the woods up in Meredith. I started reading little articles in the local paper there, just mentioning "when the wind energy comes," or "when we get turbines."

I decided, oh, I would love to have a wind turbine. I started looking into it a little further, and I was really taken aback by what I found.

Because of the complexities of the issues, I thought it would make a good topic for a short film. When we started filming I realized it was much bigger topic than I thought.

Did you know most of the people we see in this movie before you started making the film?

No. I had this cabin and I went there to just be alone. When they started to raise concerns, I thought "They seem like perfectly reasonable people. "

If that's the case, and they're also raising concerns about it, there must be more of the story. Once we start looking into it, wind energy has so many different facets-- the financial, the political, the engineering. The film started to get longer.

When you start making the film, you can't participate in the issue the way you would have. How did you adjust to that?

The thing is, the issue really changed a lot. I really tried to keep the whole film from the town's point of view. We find out about things as they find out about things. That's how it happened.

The people speaking in favor of wind energy are all people based on the local level, and you don't have anyone from the wind companies themselves. Was that a deliberate choice?

Because I did it from the town's point of view, if you notice, there are no wind companies at the meetings answering questions.

That's one of the reasons why the wind people aren't in the film. They get contracts, and all of a sudden they are really scarce, and I wanted to represent that in the film, their absence.

The film isn't an expose about wind, it's more like the experience of the town. People who live among turbines are trying to get the word out about problems they're having, and I wanted to give voice to them, rather than the wind companies.

It looks like you've been in touch with a lot of people in other cities dealing with wind.

Yeah, even after we just put up the website and the trailer, I started to get a lot of requests for the film. I felt really motivated to get the film out to Toronto, and out to communities that want more information. I have been approached by quite a few people. People have been telling me their stories, and it's very moving.

Do you have a particular favorite alternative energy solution, as a viable solution that isn't industrial wind power?

I don't think the answer is going to be simple. It's something that we as a larger community have to work out the same way that Meredith did, which is really sitting down and trying to figure out, well, how are we going to negotiate something like that.

A lot of people would like to think that this is the answer, let's just do this. I think it's going to be a lot more difficult than that.

Communities being able to decide their future, and decide how they can get power instead of centralizing it among all these really big international corporations-- personally I would rather see that. I think it's something that we all have to decide and try and work toward.

Is it valid to say that wind is the lesser of the evils for energy sources?

I don't want to lull people into thinking that I have all the answers, or that the film is going to give them all the answers. I'm just trying to ask people to look closer at it. Gordon says in the film, "Ask questions, do your homework."

I also think there's a bit of corporate accountability that should be brought up here. If people are having trouble living near these things, do some studies.

There are lot of people having trouble living near the low-frequency sound, and I think they're being ignored.

And if wind turbines are killing bats in really large numbers, then let's study that.

In towns, residents shouldn't be intimidated by these corporations when they want to come in and do the development.

Public officials who have a financial interest should not be making decisions on turbines. People should have unbiased information available to them so they can be part of the process of the future of their communities.

Posted on Friday, September 10, 2010 at 06:47AM by

The BPRC Research Nerd in Wind farm, Wind farm health effects, Wisconsin wind farm, wind farm complaints, wind farm contract, wind farm noise, wind farm property values, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm wildlife, windfall Laura Israel, windfall documentary, windfallthemovie | Comments Off

9/8/10 No need to read between the lines--

News articles about wind turbine noise and health

SOURCE: National Wind Watch

Milner, Catherine (January 25, 2004). Telegraph. “Wind farms ‘make people sick who live up to a mile away’”.

Keller, James (May 13, 2006). Hamilton Spectator. “Family says turbine vibrations made them ill enough to move”.

Kriz, Kathy (October 12, 2006). WHAM-TV. “Could Wind Turbines Be A Health Hazard?”.

Chronicle Herald (August 27, 2007). “Quietly sounding alarm; Forced from home after noise from wind farm turbines made family sick, d’Entremont telling others his story”.

St. James, Janet (July 29, 2008). WFAA-TV. “Neighbors claim wind turbine makes them ill”.

CTV (September 28, 2008). “Wind turbines cause health problems, residents say”.

Keen, Judy (November 3, 2008). USA Today. “Neighbors at odds over noise from wind turbines”.

Tilkin, Dan (November 14, 2008). KATU-TV. “Wind farms: Is there a hidden health hazard?”.

Sudekum Fisher, Maria (February 3, 2009). Associated Press. “NW Missouri man sues Deere, wind energy company”.

Takeda, Tsuyoshi (February 6, 2009). Asahi Shimbun. “Something in the Wind as Mystery Illnesses Rise”.

Blaney Flietner, Maureen. Bobvila.com. “Green Backlash: The Wind Turbine Controversy”.

Nelson, Bob (March 2, 2009). Morning Show, KFIX. “Wind farms: Interview of Malone and Johnsburg residents”.

Mills, Erin (March 8, 2009). East Oregonian. “Loud as the wind: Wind tower neighbors complain of noise fallout”.

Miller, Scott. A-News, CTV Globe Media. “Wind Turbines Driving People From Their Homes”.

Tremonti, Anna Maria (April 14, 2009). The Current, CBC Radio One. “Wind Turbines: Health”.

CBC News. April 14, 2009. “Wind turbines causing health problems, some Ont. residents say”.

Buurma, Christine (April 21, 2009). Wall Street Journal. “Noise, Shadows Raise Hurdles For Wind Farms”.

CTV Toronto (April 22, 2009). “Reports of wind farm health problems growing”.

Canadian Press (April 23, 2009). CBC News. “Formal study needed into health effects of wind turbines, doctor says”.

Miller, Scott. A-News, CTV Globe Media. “Daughter’s Earaches Blamed On Wind Farm”.

Epp, Peter (May 5, 2009). “Survey points to health woes arising from wind turbines”.

Mayne, Paul (May 7, 2009). Western News. “Is public’s health blowing in the wind?”.

Delaney, Joan (May 13, 2009). The Epoch Times. “Wind turbines blamed for adverse health effects”.

Alteri, Beth (May 15, 2009). WLBZ2. “Does wind turbine noise affect your sleep or health?”.

Hale, Caleb (May 23, 2009). Southern Illinoisan. “Health can be a key issue when living near wind farm”.

Hessling, Kate (June 4, 2009). Huron Daily Tribune. “Solutions sought for turbine noise”.

Boles, Stephen (June 7, 2009). Red, Green and Blue. “Wind Turbine Syndrome: Are wind farms hazardous to human health?”.

Kart, Jeff (June 11, 2009). Bay City Times. “Wind turbine noise is rattling some residents in Michigan’s Thumb”.

Walsh, Bill (June 19, 2009). WNEM. “Wind Farms Ruining Quality of Life?”.

Hundertmark, Susan (June 24, 2009). Lucknow Sentinel. “St. Columban residents get informed on wind turbine health concerns”.

Yoshida, Noriyuki; and Yasuda, Koichi (July 1, 2009). Daily Yomiuri. “Wind power has its own environmental problems”.

ABC News (July 15, 2009). “Wind turbine noise ‘forces’ couple out”.

Pagano, Margareta (August 2, 2009). The Independent. “Are wind farms a health risk? US scientist identifies ‘wind turbine syndrome’”.

Martin, Daniel (August 2, 2009). Daily Mail. “Living near a wind farm can cause heart disease, panic attacks and migraines”.

Stewart, Linda (August 3, 2009). Belfast Telegraph. “Is it dangerous to live close to wind turbines?”.

Woodrow, Shane (August 6, 2009). WIN TV. “Windfarm Research”.

Anne Ravana (August 7, 2009). Maine Public Broadcasting Network. “Discontent of Mars Hill Residents Leads to Lawsuit Against First Wind”.

Baca, Nathan (August 11, 2009). KESQ. “Migraine, Wind Turbine Connection Still Being Examined”.

Lynds, Jen (August 12, 2009). Bangor Daily News. “Mars Hill windmills prompt civil lawsuit”.

A Current Affair (August 14, 2009). Nine-MSN. “Electricity nightmares”.

Wind Concerns Ontario (August 16, 2009). “Wind Victims Gagged and Silenced in Ontario”.

ABC News (August 18, 2009). “Pyrenees Shire questions wind farm noise”.

Wilson, Lauren (August 22, 2009). The Australian. “Farmers flee as turbines trigger despair”.

Wilson, Lauren (August 24, 2009). The Australian. “No relief for land owners affected by wind farms”.

ABC News (August 28, 2009). “Govt urged to probe wind farm illness claims”.

ABC News (September 4, 2009). “Qld noise experts to test Waubra wind farm”.

Hall, Cheryl (September 4, 2009). Stateline Victoria, ABC. “Wind Farms causing head spins”.

Reading, Lyndal (September 7, 2009). Weekly Times. “Anger over wind turbine noise”.

Chatham Daily News (September 22, 2009). “Wind turbines still a problem for some”

Brown, Judy (September 30, 2009). Farm Country. “Wind turbines generate health, farming concerns”.

Stevens, Kim (October 15, 2009). The Courier. “Health check at Waubra wind farm”.

Whittle, Julian (October 22, 2009). News & Star. “Living near turbines is ‘mental torture’, Carlisle inquiry told”.

Vivian, Richard (November 12, 2009). Orangeville Banner. “Answers definitely not blowing in the wind”.

Vivian, Richard (November 16, 2009). Orangeville Banner. “No proven link exists between wind turbines, health problems”.

Vivian, Richard (November 19, 2009). Orangeville Banner. “MOE pledges ongoing research on turbines, health”.

CBC News (November 18, 2009). “Wind power health effects queried by municipal group”.

Annis, Robert (November 19, 2009). Indianapolis Star. “Boone County looking into wind farm health fears”.

Crosby, Don (November 20, 2009). Owen Sound Sun Times “Bruce seeks wind turbine health study”.

Lam, Tina (November 24, 2009). Detroit Free Press “Living by wind farms no breeze, some say”.

Yomiuri Shimbun (November 29, 2009). “Govt to study effects of wind farms on health”.

Leake, Jonathan, and Byford, Harry (December 13, 2009). Sunday Times. “Officials cover up wind farm noise report”.

White, Leslie (December 24, 2009). Weekly Times. “Report critical of wind farms”.

Braithwaite, Chris (December 30, 2009). Chronicle. “Wind tower neighbor bought out for health reasons”.

Schliesmann, Paul (January 16, 2010). Whig-Standard. “Wind turbines: Expert says people are suffering health problems from being too close to structures”.

Ito, Aya; and Takeda, Tsuyoshi (January 19, 2010). Asahi Shimbun. “Sickness claims prompt study of wind turbines”.

Squair, Sylvia (February 4, 2010). “Throwing Caution to the Wind”.

Hall, Cheryl (February 19, 2010). Stateline Victoria, ABC News. “Claims of wind farm illness”.

Bryce, Robert (March 1, 2010). Wall Street Journal. “The Brewing Tempest Over Wind Power”.

ABC News (March 4, 2010). “Govt to investigate wind farm complaints”.

Fox Business (March 4, 2010). “Wind Farms Causing Health Problems?”.

Gray, Louise (March 6, 2010). Telegraph. “Noise complaints about one in six wind farms”.

Martin, Steve (March 16, 2010). Ballarat Mornings, ABC Victoria. “Wind Turbine Syndrome with Dr Nina Pierpont”.

Snyder, Paul (April 1, 2010). Daily Reporter. “Landowners sue Invenergy over Forward Wind Energy Center”.

Spolar, Matthew (April 12, 2010). Concord Monitor. “Effects of turbines in question”.

Kottke, Colleen (April 18, 2010). Fond du Lac Reporter. “Oakfield couple files PSC complaint over wind farm”.

Roper, Matt (April 19, 2010). Daily Mirror. “Couple driven out by noisy wind turbines sue for £380,000″.

BBC News (April 27, 2010). “Lincolnshire windfarm rejected to help autistic boys”.

Oike, Yuki Tsuruta (April 30, 2010). “Japanese conference against big wind”.

Mulholland, Jessica (March 1, 2010). Governing. “Are Wind Farms a Health Risk?”.

Snyder, Paul (May 6, 2010). Daily Reporter. “Wind farm property sells at sheriff’s sale”.

O’Gorman, Josh (May 7, 2010). Rutland Herald. “Hospital hosts wind debate”.

Craddock, Chelsea (May 16, 2010). Watertown Daily Times. “Hospital shows off balance center”.

De Long, L. Sam (May 26, 2010). Watertown Daily Times “Another health problem caused by turbines”.

AAP (May 27, 2010). Herald Sun. “Sick residents claim wind farm ‘torture’”

WNEM (May 28, 2010). “Homeowners File Lawsuit Over Wind Turbines”.

Weaver, Alex (May 29, 2010). The Standard. “An ill wind blows in”.

McConville, Christine (June 2, 2010). Boston Herald. “Falmouth wind-turbine noise has local residents whirling”.

Simpson, Barbara (June 2, 2010). Delhi News-Record. “A quiet room of their own: Residents impacted by wind turbines sleep in Delhi”.

Sellars, Paul (June 3, 2010). Weekly Times. “Wind turbine illness claims”.

Lazzaro, Kellie (July 5, 2010). ABC News. “Residents reject wind farm health findings”.

Australia.to News (July 27, 2010). “Family First Senator seeks enquiry into health effects of wind farms”.

Hugus, Elise R. (July 27, 2010). “Bylaw in the Works to Regulate Turbine Noise”.

Posted on Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 10:55AM by

The BPRC Research Nerd in Wind farm health effects, Wisconsin wind farm, health effects, wind farm complaints, wind farm health effects, wind farm noise, wind farm noise, wind farm property value, wind farm property values, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm wildlife | Comments Off

9/7/10 What's Wrong With this Picture: National and state government throws out life lines to wind industry but refuses safety net for wind farm residents whose lives have been ruined. PSC to Wisconsin residents: You got a problem with it? Too bad. Call a lawyer

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

The majority of the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council did all they could to come up with rules that make things easier for the wind industry and harder for local government and wind project residents seeking protection and remedy.

This was hardly surprising considering the majority of the council members had a direct or indirect financial interest in doing so.

The Public Service Commission recently voted to approve rules that do the same.

Only one PSC commissioner, Lauren Azar, expressed any concern for those who will be impacted by the rules.

She repeatedly asked for provisions to protect Wisconsin residents and insure remedy for problems, specifically requesting a provision that would act as a 'safety net' for those who suffer verifiable turbine related impacts to their health.

Callisto flatly refused to consider this, indicating aggrieved residents could bring a private lawsuit against the wind company.

Azar pointed out that most rural Wisconsin residents could not afford the approximately $200,000 in non-recoverable legal fees required to bring a lawsuit against such large companies and the PSC had an opportunity to build in protections.

Callisto and Meyer were unmoved.

In the end Commissioner Azar voted with Callisto and Meyer, much to the dismay of those whose lives, futures and communities will be forever changed by rules that err on the side of corporate interests instead of caution.

Click on the image below to see Governor Doyle's cameo in a video posted by the American Wind Energy Association on YouTube

Will wind energy bring promised jobs to Wisconsin? If so, how many?

Better Plan posted this a few days ago, and we'd like to post it again as a reminder---

In Wisconsin, Facts About ‘Green Job’ Creation Elusive as the Wind

SOURCE MacIver News Service | September 1, 2010

By Bill Osmulski

MacIver News Service Investigative Reporter

[Madison, Wisc...] 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.

Wisc. Governor JimDoyle (D)

“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.

WIND POWER WANES WITH FADING FEDERAL INCENTIVES

SOURCE: NPR, www.npr.org

September 6, 2010

by Jeff Brady,

Wind power, one of the largest segments of the renewable energy market, will experience a sharp decline in growth this year.

The slowdown comes as a surprise because the stimulus bill, which President Obama signed into law 18 months ago, included a big boost for renewable forms of electricity in the form of $43 billion for energy projects.

Last year, 10,000 megawatts of wind power were brought online in the United States — that’s enough to power nearly 300,000 homes. In 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates, that number will be 57 percent lower. It will be the first time in six years that the growth rate of the wind industry will actually decline.

There are several reasons for this, but probably the biggest factor has to do with government incentives. The wind industry typically rises and falls with the passing and expiration of federal tax credits.

Depending On Federal Subsidies

Wind projects are expensive to build, so developers have depended on federal subsidies that encourage investment in renewable energy.

When the credit markets dried up in 2008, so did the money for new projects. The White House and Congress threw the industry a lifeline with the stimulus package in the form of investment tax credits.

Right now, if you build a wind project, the government will, essentially, cut you a check for 30 percent of the cost. But that incentive is running out of rope and scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. That deadline prompted a lot of activity last year.

“Everybody moved their projects forward into 2009 to take advantage of it,” says George Sterzinger, executive director of the Renewable Energy Policy Project. But now, he says, some developers are waiting to see if the credit will be extended.

And with natural gas relatively cheap now, some utilities are choosing to build gas power plants rather than wind farms.

In response, the wind industry says it needs a federal mandate — a law that would tell those utilities they have to buy more renewable forms of energy.

“We’re kind of stuck without that long-term policy in place that sends the signals to the utilities that they need to purchase wind as part of a diversified portfolio,” says Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association.

A Renewable Energy Mandate

Obama has said he supports a renewable energy mandate. Getting it passed this fall is one of the wind industry’s priorities as lawmakers return to Capitol Hill.

The wind industry is still growing this year, just not as fast as last year, or the year before that.

“We are well on our way to doubling U.S. renewable generation capacity in the U.S., which is what the president had committed to,” says Matt Rogers, a senior adviser for Recovery Act implementation at the Department of Energy.

The question now is whether that pace can be maintained. Rogers says it would help to have more certainty when it comes to tax policy and other incentives. That would give investors and wind energy developers the information they need to make long-term plans instead of waiting around for the next government lifeline.

SECOND NEWS FEATURE

SOURCE: The Oklahoman, newsok.com

September 5 2010

BY CHRIS CASTEEL,

The Obama administration’s emphasis on clean energy and the fight in Congress over energy legislation is creating some tension among certain sectors, including the natural gas and wind power industries.

The American Wind Energy Association has been fighting to counter a recent column in The Wall Street Journal that challenged a key selling point of wind — that it reduces carbon emissions. The industry also is defending its federal subsidies, arguing that they are actually less than those received by oil and gas companies.

“We’ve been under attack by the fossil fuel industry for the last six months,” Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, told reporters in July.

Bode is a former Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner, but she’s also a former head of the Washington-based trade group for independent oil and gas producers and was a highly visible advocate for the natural gas industry when she worked for the American Clean Skies Foundation.

Now, her organization is claiming that an oil and gas company trade group and think tanks financed in part with energy money are spreading misinformation to discredit wind as a renewable energy source.

Report released

The Western Energy Alliance, formerly the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States, released a report earlier this year that concluded renewable electricity mandates had actually caused pollution increases in Texas and Colorado because coal and natural gas plants operated less efficiently to accommodate the variability in wind sources.

The study was cited in The Wall Street Journal column, written by Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and that column was then cited by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington.

Bryce questioned whether wind energy’s contribution to reducing emissions would ever be significant and argued that the emphasis should be on natural gas.

Opposed to mandates

The wind energy association countered last week with Department of Energy figures showing carbon emissions had dropped steadily in Texas and Colorado as wind power was added to the mix. And it has cited studies projecting that emissions would drop by as much as 25 percent if wind generated 20 percent of electric power in the country.

It’s not just a fight between wind versus natural gas in Washington and beyond; there are lobbying battles between coal and natural gas and nuclear versus renewable sources.

And the stakes could be high.

Though pre-election fighting could further stall passage of energy legislation in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said last week that he still hopes to pass a bill before lawmakers adjourn for the year.

And Reid said he hopes to include a national renewable energy standard — a requirement for utilities to use a certain amount of renewable energy.

The wind energy association has been pushing hard for a renewable standard, arguing that it would spur manufacturing jobs while reducing emissions.

But lawmakers from states in the southeastern United States, where wind isn’t as plentiful or as easy to harness, have been strongly opposed to mandates for renewable energy.

Others watch, wait

Trade groups for oil and gas companies, including the Independent Petroleum Association of America, have not taken a public position on a renewable energy standard.

Jeff Eshelman, a spokesman for the group, said the organization has always cited the importance of all domestic energy sources.

“However, we do take issue with proposals that call for taxing American oil and natural gas companies to subsidize nonconventional energy resources,” he said.

The oil and gas industry has been pushing hard since President Barack Obama took office against his proposals to change tax rules the industry considers vital.

Democratic members of Congress also have proposed higher fees and penalties for offshore drilling.

Some lawmakers have promoted a broader mandate, called the clean energy standard, which would allow for more than just renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy. And groups representing natural gas companies have argued that natural gas should be included in such a standard.

Bode recently suggested that the industry’s future is dependent on a renewable energy standard, and she said she was in the fight “to the bitter end.”

Posted on Tuesday, September 7, 2010 at 11:22AM by

The BPRC Research Nerd in EEric Calisto PSC, Lauren Azar PSC, Tom Meyer PSC, Wind farm, Wisconsin public service commission, Wisconsin wind farm, wind farm complaints, wind farm contracts, wind farm noise, wind farm property value, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm wildlife, wind siting council, wind siting rules, wind siting rules legislation and policy | Comments Off

9/2/10 Show me the safety net: PSC commissioner Lauren Azar's letter to legislators AND Show me the green jobs: Wisconsin wind employment figures wither under scrutiny AND What to expect when you're expecting 497 foot tall turbines: Construction begins on Wind Siting Council Member Bill Rakocy's new wind farm AND a letter from Maine that could be from Wisconsin

Wind turbines on a Wisconsin Farm

While I support the overall rule because it will promote the development of wind in Wisconsin, the rule fails to provide a much-needed safety net for people whose health declines because of a Wind Turbine located near their home.

-PSC Commissioner Lauren Azar

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FINAL WIND RULES FROM THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

SOURCE: PSC DOCKET # 1-AC-231

From PSC commissioner Lauren Azar

To The Honorable Fred Risser The Honorable Michael Sheridan
The State Senate The State Assembly

State Capitol, Room 220 South State Capitol, Room 211 West

Madison, WI 53702 Madison, WI 53702
Re:Wind Siting Rules, Clearinghouse Rule 10-057

Dear Senate President Risser and Speaker Sheridan:

I write to explain my concurrence with the Commission’s rule on the siting of certain wind energy systems (Wind Turbines) in Wisconsin.

While I support the overall rule because it will promote the development of wind in Wisconsin, the rule fails to provide a much-needed safety net for people whose health declines because of a Wind Turbine located near their home.

The safety net I propose would be a minimal burden to wind developers while simultaneously protecting Wisconsin citizens who are sensitive to the noise emitted from Wind Turbines.

Among other things, 2009 Wisconsin Act 40 requires the Commission to develop rules that “provide reasonable protection from any health affects” associated with Wind Turbines. Wis. Stat. § 196.378(4g)(b).

There is substantial evidence that noise from Wind Turbines could negatively impact the health of a small percentage of the population.

To better ensure compliance with Act 40’s mandate, I proposed the following safety net: under limited circumstances, the owner of a Wind Turbine must purchase, at fair market value, the home of someone who can prove that a nearby Wind Turbine is directly causing a significant adverse health outcome. [1]

Unfortunately, at this time, we cannot accurately identify the precise line between safe levels of noise from Wind Turbines and those levels that will negatively affect human health.

Nor do we know why a small percentage of the population is affected more negatively by Wind Turbines than the rest of the population.

As new information becomes available, the Commission can revise this rule.

While more study is needed to better understand the full health impacts of Wind Turbines, it is important that we establish some remedy for the people who can prove that their health is being compromised by nearby Wind Turbines before the Commission has an opportunity to revise this rule.

To be clear, this safety net does not include awarding damages to the injured party; instead, it allows the injured party to move quickly from the area, thereby abating health concerns.

The safety net would be limited to landowners who provide evidence (in the form of a certification) from a licensed Wisconsin medical doctor that one or more Wind Turbines have directly caused a significant adverse health outcome on the injured party.

The only impact to the owner of the Wind Turbine(s) would be the need to resell the house.

Hence, the proposed safety net would not be an onerous requirement on the Wind Turbine owner and should not hamper wind development in Wisconsin.

The safety net could be structured as follows:

“PSC 128.XX Individual Hardships. If the owner of a nonparticipating residence experiences adverse health outcomes that are shown to be the direct result of the operation of a wind energy system, the owner of the nonparticipating residence may petition the political subdivision for mitigation of the adverse health outcomes.

The petition for mitigation shall be referred to the Commission, which may order mitigation of the adverse health outcomes.

A medical doctor licensed in the State of Wisconsin shall attest that that one or more wind turbine(s) have caused a significant adverse health outcome on the injured party before any relief may be granted under this section.

Mitigation may include requiring the owner of the wind energy system to purchase the nonparticipating residence at fair market value.

Note: The Wind Siting Council may make recommendations with respect to the form and type of information that is required to show that adverse health outcomes are the direct result of the operation of a wind energy system.

Absent a safety net provision like this, it is unclear how an injured party could obtain mitigation of adverse health outcomes from a Wind Turbine owner.

If they are unable to sell their property for fair market value, injured parties would be forced to file suit against the owner of a Wind Turbine.

This could require the injured party to incur significant legal costs that are not recoverable in a lawsuit and may dwarf the value of the home.

The State of Wisconsin should not place its citizens in this position.

In conclusion, while I concur with the rule as a package, I remain concerned that this rule fails to protect the most vulnerable of our community and, therefore, I must qualify my support of this important rule. When this rule is referred to the appropriate standing committees, please forward a copy of this letter with the rule.

Sincerely,

Lauren Azar
Commissioner

[1] The operation of this safety net proposal is not unprecedented. The Commission recently identified that the purchase of property at fair market value was a potential remedy for two landowners affected by a large wind energy development. Because the two landowners had a significant number of Wind Turbines within view from their homes, the Commission required mitigation, including the possibility that the utility purchase the properties at fair market value. The utility did not object to this potential remedy and has since purchased the properties.

SECOND FEATURE

In Wisconsin, Facts About ‘Green Job’ Creation Elusive as the Wind

SOURCE MacIver News Service | September 1, 2010

By Bill Osmulski

MacIver News Service Investigative Reporter

Take, for example, ‘green jobs’ associated with the wind industry.