Better Plan, Wisconsin

WINDMILL SECURITY OVERKILL: Residents-- Northumerland

 Source: NORTHUMBERLAND TODAY, www.northumberlandtoday.com

November 29, 2010

By VALERIE MACDONALD,

ROSENEATH -- The security was high at an open house at the Alnwick Civic Centre held for a proposed local wind farm Friday night.

Not only was there a police cruiser sitting outside -but there were at least three OPP officers on duty but out of uniform, about a half dozen uniformed security guards and another security man in plain clothes, as well as video surveillance. A sign warned about the latter and suggested people leave if they didn't want to be videotaped.

This is overkill, said several meeting attendees from the local, anti-wind turbine group, Alliance for the Protection of the Northumberland Hills.

"It's threatening," agreed Debbie Lynch, a woman who is also protesting another proposed industrial wind turbine development in Central Ontario where she lives near Norwood.

There were other concerned citizens from the Clarington, Pontypool and Millbrook areas, where wind farms are also being pursued under the rules set by the Ontario's Green Energy Act . The resulting green power will be subsidized in the form of a high per kilowatt hour "feed in" rate into the Hydro One electrical grid over the term of a 20-year contract for proponents who meet all the government-imposed criteria.

The government policy is to increase green energy and bring manufacturing jobs to Ontario as it imposes increasing Ontario content rules on the infrastructure installed for wind, solar and other energy-producing alternatives.

OPP Sgt. Jeff Lavalley, who identified himself as head of the OPP Aboriginal Policing Bureau, said officers were there to "be informed about what's going on" in relationship to the series of meetings in the area about different proposed wind farms. While not in uniform, he stressed they were not "plain-clothed" police officers.

"There have been incidents at other venues," he said. These "incidents" included intimidation and threats, particularly at the Millbrook wind turbine meeting, the Sgt. added.

Among those groups being consulted as part of the approvals process to install turbines under the Ontario Green Energy Act are First Nation peoples, said wind turbine company spokesperson Larissa Murray in an interview. There was one man escorting her everywhere she went in the Alnwick Civic Centre during the meeting.

Murray identified herself as vice president of Tantenco LLC of Delaware whose parent company is in Germany where she has lived for a number of years before beginning her career in the wind power business. Tantenco and Sunbeam LLC of the U.S. each have 50% ownership of Clean Breeze Wind Park LP (Limited Partnership), identified as the proponent for the development that was subject of Friday night's meeting. The two U.S. firms are the financial backers, she also said.

If local ownership can be increased to a minimum of 50% in the windpark, the payback on power produced through the Ontario government backed plan will rise to 14.5 cents per killowatt hour from 13.5, she said. Local investors will be sought in the future, Murray said. Studies are being conducted ranging from noise and wind assessments to the proximity to wetlands, woodlands and residences, she said. This information will be made public at least 60 days before the second public meeting, Murray added.

If there is no lease with a landholder, however "I can't put up a turbine," she said.

The local project area is bordered by County Road 22 on the north, County Road 23 on the west, just east of County Road 45 on the east, and south along Norble Road and Scots Line. A FITT contract for up to 10 megawatts of power production would be met by up to five turbines and cost about $20 million to put in the ground and wire into the grid, Murray said.

Energy Farming Ontario is a consulting firm on the local project and "some of its staff own equity" in Clean Breeze Wind Park, Murray explained. M.K. Ince & Associates Ltd. is the consulting firm overseeing the studies that are underway, holding the required public meetings and undertaking the renewable energy approvals process, she said.

A common factor in all of the 10 proposed wind turbine farms in Ontario is that M.K. Ince & Associates is undertaking the approvals process confirmed local project manager for the firm, Andrea McDowell. Half of those are in Central Ontario.

The field work for Clean Breeze Wind Park has been completed, said M.K. Ince & Associates spokesperson Jane Zednik but not all the studies. She said that they would be completed and made public in time for the second required public meeting which she expected to be held April, 2011. They will be available on the web site energyfarmingontario. com and at public libraries, Zednik said.

At this stage in the process the design has not be completed, where the lines will be buried or on poles, the location of the turbines, access roads, etc., Zednik said. One company representative said there would be a total of five turbines and another said that wasn't decided yet.

Morely Nelson has already told Northumberland Today that he has an agreement with Clean Wind Park to allow the company to put up wind turbines on his property, and that of his brother Ken. He said he lives on the property and has done his own research at other wind farms and is satisfied with what he found.

The Alliance for the Protection of the Northumberland Hills, however, is not of the same mindset.

They have warned potential landowners contemplating entering into long-term leases for wind turbines that there are downsides. They have issued newsletters and visited their neighbours. At the meeting they distributed a bulletin entitled: "What you should know about wind turbines."

The document stated that property values could be devalued by "at least 25%" and that those selling properties could wait twice as long to find a buyer if their land is in the vicinity of wind turbines.

"Concerns over noise, health affects, value loss and destruction of rural views stigmatize areas, chasing away buyers," the Alliance's statement warns.

Property reassessments are supporting this claim and it cites an appeal board decision in Amaranth Township where the assessment was cut in half by an appeal board.

Alliance member Tyne Bonebakker lives within the study area of the proposed local windfarm and he says the provincially mandated 550 meter setback from wind turbines is inadequate.

Another person who would be directly affected if the project went ahead is Denise Little who told Murray she is concerned that her retirement home will be ruined because of the project. In an interview Little said she is the type of person who gets migraines and will likely be susceptible to the ill affects that other people say they have suffered by living close to wind turbines.

These include a low-frequency noise and shadow flicker, to a strobe effect, according to the Alliance's bulletin. It claims nausea and dizziness as side effects.

"Our group is one of more than 40 citizens' groups throughout Ontario. More than 60 municipalities in Ontario have challenged the Green Energy Act and are asking for a halt to industrial wind turbine developments," the bulletin also states. The group believes more health studies need to be undertaken and that what has been done so far is inadequate.

Opposition is world wide, the anti-wind turbine group's literature also stresses.

But Murray says she has grown up with wind turbines and isn't negatively impacted by them. Europe has had them for over 30 years, she said.

Alnwick/Halidmand Mayor Elect Dalton McDonald says he lives next door to the proposed site and neither he nor his wife have concerns, even though he believes they'll be able to see them when they take walks on their property.

He noted, however, that the Green Energy Act passed by the provincial government takes away any regulating power from municipal governments.

"I can have no more impact (on any decisions) than anyone else," McDonald said.

SECOND FEATURE

PUBLIC SOULD GET ANSWERS ON WIND FARM

SOURCE: UticaOD.com

Secrecy swirling around the sudden disruption in construction of Herkimer County’s first wind farm should outrage residents in Fairfield and Norway, and they should be demanding clear answers from town leaders.

Iberdrola Renewables halted turbine construction earlier Nov. 12 to perform more tests after it discovered concrete used in the some of the foundations was weak and did not meet company standards. Work resumed Nov. 19 after some tests were completed and, Iberdrola says, foundations now meet or exceed its standards. Further results are pending.

But little is known about what happened, how it was corrected and whether it could happen again.

• Iberdrola spokesman Paul Copleman would only respond to O-D inquiries by e-mail. He declined to release the names of the project’s contractors or discuss whether all current contractors would remain on the project.

• The project is small by standards set that require state oversight. The state Public Service Commission regulates wind energy projects of 80 megawatts. The Hardscrabble project falls just six megawatts shy of that. That puts regulation in the hands of local officials, PSC spokesman Jim Denn says.

• Town supervisors won’t talk. Neither Fairfield town Supervisor Richard Souza nor Norway town Supervisor Judy Gokey returned phone calls. Meanwhile, Stephanie Vetter, an environmental engineer assigned to the project, would not comment on the recent problems. She directed questions to town officials.

This is unacceptable. The Hardscrabble Wind Farm is slated to place 37 turbines in Fairfield and Norway. If the project fell within the parameters of state law, the state would have the authority to step in and conduct an investigation. But since oversight of smaller projects rests with the locality, the onus is on local officials to provide answers.

If Norway and Fairfield leaders know details of the incident and how it has been corrected to assure the public safety, they need to be upfront with that information. If they aren’t aware of what happened, they need to demand a full accounting from Iberdrola and then share that information with town residents.

We often complain about lack of autonomy and overregulation by big government, but when localities are given that responsibility and officials fail to carry out their duties or stay mum, the public is shortchanged. Don’t let that happen here. Ask questions and demand answers.

THIRD FEATURE

What Doyle did not mention was that ethanol producer Didion Milling Inc., which got $5.6 million and the largest share, is one of Wisconsin’s most chronic air and water polluters— a firm designated by the federal government as a “high priority violator.”

Less than a month before Doyle’s announcement, a federal judge ruled that Didion — headquartered in Johnson Creek, Wis. — had violated the federal Clean Water Act numerous times in 2008 and 2009. Among the violations: use of excessive amounts of chlorine and other chemicals, and the discharge of a murky yellow liquid with solids down a company wastewater pipe into a tributary of a fishing lake. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by residents who lived near the company’s Cambria, Wis., plant, about 45 miles northeast of Madison, the state capital in central Wisconsin.

The company also settled a state lawsuit in April by agreeing to pay $1.05 million for 23 air and water claims that stretched from 1999 to 2010 — a move that effectively ended three federal lawsuits filed by residents living near the plant.

Documents obtained by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism under open records laws show that officials evaluating Didion’s application for a U.S. Energy Department stimulus grant did not ask about — and Didion didn’t disclose — details of its environmental compliance record.

And once it won the grant, Didion’s project was exempted from having to conduct an analysis of its environmental impact as required by the National Environmental Policy Act — just like 99 percent of the $33 billion in stimulus projects funded by the Energy Department, according to an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative news organization in Washington and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, a nonprofit based in Madison.

Doyle’s office did not respond to e-mail and phone messages seeking response.

Didion’s vice president of operations, Dale Drachenberg, declined to address questions about the company’s environmental record or the process that led to the grant. Instead, he issued a statement touting the job-creation and clean energy benefits of the stimulus-funded project.

“Since the day we started construction on our ethanol production facility, we’ve made innovation and conservation top priorities,” Drachenberg said.

On its website and in statements, Didion has cast itself as an eco-friendly company. It was one of 50 companies that in August won a grant from the state Department of Commerce’s Wisconsin Profitable Sustainability Initiative to examine and reduce its waste streams. And in September, the company hosted a Green Energy Expo at the Cambria plant, where people could learn about recycling, energy conservation and the future of alternative fuels.

To Karen Dettman, who lives across the street from Didion and has lived with its spills, smells, noise, traffic, and murky discharges, the company’s federal grant is “green energy at any cost.”

Environmental advocates in Wisconsin also believe federal and state regulators should have taken companies’ environmental into account before awarding stimulus grants or NEPA exemptions.

“You’d think it would be a normal part of the check, whether they’re in compliance with environmental laws. That’s a phone call or two at the most,” said George Meyer, a former Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources secretary who is now executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization.

Consultants working for the state’s Focus on Energy program acknowledged they recommended Didion’s plant-expansion proposal for a grant without considering the company’s past environmental problems.

Focus on Energy, established by the Wisconsin Legislature to encourage renewable energy and energy efficiency, worked through a private contractor, CleanTech Partners of Middleton, Wis. Focus on Energy solicited applications from Wisconsin industries for federal energy efficiency stimulus grants. CleanTech picked nine, bundled them up and sent them off to the Energy Department.

CleanTech got about 25 applications — from paper companies, a lawnmower engine manufacturer and others — and winnowed the field using American Reinvestment and Recovery Act and Energy Department criteria: whether the project would preserve or create domestic jobs, how the project would be managed, how much it would cost and the potential energy savings.

Didion proposed to install a host of new technologies at its Cambria plant that would produce more ethanol from corn with less energy usage, thus allowing the company to expand production. The new technology would also extract a new product in the process, corn oil, to get more value out of the corn.

The Energy Department grant money, matched by Didion’s utility, Alliant Energy, would help the project pay for itself in 3.9 years, according to Didion’s application. It would save 11 million kilowatt-hours of energy — enough to power 828 homes for a year.

Past pollution never came up, said Thomas Reitter, a consultant for CleanTech, who worked on the applications for Focus on Energy. The only environmental issue he addressed was to make sure companies fully filled out DOE’s boilerplate environmental questionnaire. “It’s DOE’s evaluation,” he said.

The questionnaire is designed to help the Energy Department decide whether a project should trigger a detailed environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. Such reviews can take months or even years to complete.

The form asked questions including what permits would be required, how solid waste would be hauled and what emissions would result. But nothing in the 12-page form asks firms about their compliance history.

And Didion did not offer much information in response to several of the queries.

“Describe any issues that would generate public controversy regarding the project,” the form says.

Didion checked “None.”

“Summarize the significant impacts that would result from the proposed project,” the last question on the form states, asking for details.

Didion left that one blank.

If federal officials who approved the stimulus grant had examined Didion’s record, they would have found a lengthy list of violations.

Aside from the 2009 Clean Water Act lawsuit, a second group of residents sued Didion last year under the federal Clean Air Act for years of air violations that the state had documented — but for which it had never punished the company.

Those and many other violations dated back to 1999. Among them: Didion built 15 grain silos, three mills, and a grain dryer without applying for the required air pollution permit. The company exceeded emission limits and ran a grain dryer outside permitted times. And it falsely claimed on a permit application that it was complying with the law, according to court records.

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency database shows Didion has received 11 notices of violation in the past five years — one of the most among all Wisconsin companies. The notices signify that state regulators believe they have solid evidence the company has broken the law, and they are the first step toward punishing the company with a formal enforcement action.

“It’s highly unusual for us to have a source that we’ve sent this many notices of violation to,” said Tom Roushar, DNR air management program supervisor for the region. “Usually if we send one, the source corrects it, and we don’t have to repeat it.”

In late 2009, while the governor was trumpeting the grant for Didion, the state Department of Justice was taking the company to task. Assistant Attorney General Steven Tinker alleged in a letter before it sued Didion that the company had racked up thousands of air permit violation-days, a measure of the number of days that each violation continued, though the total number was never counted in the Columbia County Circuit Court case that followed.

In March, the state sued Didion, and the two parties reached a settlement in April: The company would pay $1.05 million for 23 air and water claims from 1999 to 2010 and folded in the violations from three citizen lawsuits. The settlement in state court effectively rendered the federal lawsuits moot.

Residents in Cambria, a village of 746 people in south central Wisconsin, are divided over whether the plant is good for the community. At a county planning and zoning meeting earlier this year, Didion’s expansion plans were approved unanimously.

Joelle DeBoer, a Didion employee, said her company has been a good neighbor by supporting local charities and providing local jobs. She wrote a letter supporting the expansion plans.

“I believe it’s really going to help Cambria’s community, just because we’ll be bringing more jobs to the community,” DeBoer said.

Other residents said they were infuriated by the state and federal governments’ lack of attention to companies’ environmental record.

“It’s crazy not to consider their background and their history,” said John Mueller, a Cambria resident who lives a half-mile from Didion’s mills, and is co-founder of Cambrians for Thoughtful Development. The group sued the company twice for violations that were later included in the state’s settlement.

“We know they’re not trustworthy,” he said.

Editor’s note: Christa Westerberg, a Madison attorney who provides pro bono legal services to the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, has represented Cambrians for Thoughtful Development, a citizens group, in two federal environmental lawsuits against Didion Milling Inc. Westerberg provided the Center with information about the suits that has been independently verified. She did not provide the Center with legal services or participate in the writing or editing of this report.

SORRY WE MISSED THE PARTY: Drinking with the PSC

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: For those of you who have been following the wind siting rules issue in our state, Deborah Erwin (pictured below) of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission will be a familiar name to you. The photo was taken at the August "WIND POWER HAPPY HOUR" event at the Capitol Brewery.

SOURCE: Breezesandbeverages.blogspot.com

Friday, September 3, 2010

Great Attendnce for the August Wind Power Happy Hour at Capital Brewery

Photo: Deborah Erwin from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and Mike Ross from American Superconductor at Capital Brewery in Middleton, Wisconsin.

In what turned out to be one of our most well attended events of the year, more than 60 people attended the August Wind Power Happy Hour to sample some of Capital Brewery's finest offerings, sit in the Bier Garten on one of the nicest days of the summer, and to hear from a couple of great presenters.

Mike Ross, Sr. Engineer for American Superconductor in Middleton, Wisconsin was the company spotlight for this meeting. He provided an overview of three key aspects of AMSC's products: Windtec technology, superconducting cables, and the SeaTitan--a 10 MW wind turbine being developed for off shore purposes. Mike also shared that AMSC recently acquired an ownership stake in Blade Dynamics, a designer and manufacturer of advanced wind turbine blades based on proprietary materials and structural technologies.

Deborah Erwin is the Docket Manager for the Public Service Commission and the Wind Siting Council that has been developing rules for wind farms under 100 MW in Wisconsin. Its been a tough job, but she reported they are almost ready to be sent to the Legislature for approval. Click here to see a current copy of the proposed Wind Siting rules and the press release issued by the PSC on their completion of their efforts.

Special thanks to Capital Brewery for their hospitality, and for letting us use the Bier Stube for our event.

FIRST FEATURE:

THE ALLURE OF TECHNO-GLAMOR

Source: Wall Street Journal

November 20, 2010

By Virgina Postrel

[Please note: photos added by Better Plan]

When Robert J. Samuelson published a Newsweek column last month arguing that high-speed rail is "a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause," he cited cost figures and potential ridership to demonstrate that even the rosiest scenarios wouldn't justify the investment.

He made a good, rational case—only to have it completely undermined by the evocative photograph the magazine chose to accompany the article.

The picture showed a sleek train bursting through blurred lines of track and scenery, the embodiment of elegant, effortless speed. It was the kind of image that creates longing, the kind of image a bunch of numbers cannot refute. It was beautiful, manipulative and deeply glamorous.

The same is true of photos of wind turbines adorning ads for everything from Aveda's beauty products to MIT's Sloan School of Management. These graceful forms have succeeded the rocket ships and atomic symbols of the 1950s to become the new icons of the technological future. If the island of Wuhu, where games for the Wii console play out, can run on wind power, why can't the real world?

Policy wonks assume the current rage for wind farms and high-speed rail has something to do with efficiently reducing carbon emissions. So they debate load mismatches and ridership figures. These are worthy discussions and address real questions.

But they miss the emotional point.

To their most ardent advocates, and increasingly to the public at large, these technologies aren't just about generating electricity or getting from one city to another. They are symbols of an ideal world, longing disguised as problem solving. You can't counter glamour with statistics.

Glamour always contains an element of illusion. (The word originally meant a literal magic spell.) By obscuring some details and heightening others, it offers an escape from the compromises, flaws and distractions of real life. It shows no bills on the kitchen counter, no blisters under the high heels, no pimples on the movie star's face.

In those glamour shots, wind power seems clean, free and infinitely abundant. Turbines spin silently and sometimes appear barely taller than a child. The wind blows constantly and in exactly the right amount—never so much that it piles up unwanted power and never so little that it requires backup supply. The sky is unfailingly photogenic, a backdrop of either puffy clouds or a brilliant sunset; the landscape is both empty and beautiful; and there are no transmission lines anywhere.

The image of a speeding train, meanwhile, invites you to imagine taking it when and where you want, with no waiting, no crowds and no expensive tickets. Like the turbines, high-speed trains exemplify autonomy and grace, sliding along effortlessly, with no visible source of fuel. To a stressed-out public, they promise an escape from traffic jams—and, at least until the first terrorism scare, from the hassles, intrusion and delays of airport security.

For all its deceptiveness and mystery, glamour reveals emotional truths. What today's green techno-glamour demonstrates, first and foremost, is that its audience has no inclination to give up the benefits of modernity and return to the pre-industrial state idealized by radical greens. Neither the Unabomber nor Henry David Thoreau would go for wind farms and high-speed rail. To the contrary, these iconic new machines cater to what Al Gore denounced in "Earth in the Balance" as "the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." They promise that a green future will be just as pleasant as today, only cleaner and more elegant.

For at least some technophiles, in fact, the trains and windmills are goods in and of themselves, with climate change providing a reason to force the development and adoption of cool new machines that wouldn't otherwise catch on. These technologies also restore the idea of progress as big, visible engineering projects—an alternative to the decentralized, hidden ingenuity of computer code.

They evoke the old World's Fair sense of hope and wonder, a feeling President Barack Obama draws on when he endorses high-speed rail subsidies as "building for the future." They are the latest incarnation of flying cars and electricity too cheap to meter.

The problems come, of course, in the things glamour omits, including all those annoyingly practical concerns the policy wonks insist on debating. Neither trains nor wind farms are as effortlessly liberating as their photos suggest. Neither really offers an escape from the world of compromises and constraints. The same is true, of course, of evening gowns, dream kitchens and tropical vacations. But at least the people who enjoy that sort of glamour pay their own way.

—Virginia Postrel is the author of "The Future and Its Enemies" and "The Substance of Style." She is writing a book on glamour.

SECOND FEATURE:

TURBINES IN GARDEN'S FUTURE

SOURCE: The Daily Press, www.dailypress.net

November 22 2010

By Ashley Hoholik

What does the contract say about the wind developer's rights over your land?

“…[Wind developer] shall have a non-exclusive easement over and across said property for audio, visual, view, light, noise, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, electrical, and radio frequency interference, and any other effects attributable to [wind developer's] operations.”

The lease further stipulates: “[Property owner] waives any claim with regard to any such interference or effects.”

GARDEN – A landscape dotted with wind turbines is in the Garden Peninsula’s future, thanks to a downstate sustainable energy firm. Heritage Sustainable Energy, of Traverse City, Mich., has already signed leases with a number of area residents, but not everyone is welcoming the company.

After nearly two years of various wind studies conducted in the Garden area, some by Heritage, few residents were surprised when a company began to seriously pursue unused parcels of land.

Heritage, which is best known for its nearly 2,000-acre Stoney Corners Wind Farm Project near Cadillac, Mich., plans to site leased areas and assess the land’s potential in housing one of their nearly 400-foot wind turbines.

According to Heritage Project Manager Rick Wilson, the company is excited about the Garden Township Wind Energy Project and has already leased approximately 10,000 acres throughout the Garden Peninsula, including Garden and Fairbanks Township.

“The size of this wind project is moderate; about 13 wind turbines will be placed on agricultural land between south Garden to north of Garden,” Wilson said.

“We’ve been doing energy analysis in the area for about three years and have three meteorological towers already out there.”

Wilson said the turbines will be used to produce energy that will then be sold into the transmission grid and passed on to larger Michigan utility companies.

“We’ve done the preliminary studies, done the pre-planning work, and now we are in the pre-development stages,” he explained. “We’re working toward developing this project and are hoping to begin installation of the wind turbines by the end of 2011 or early 2012.”

According to a Heritage 10-year lease provided to a Garden resident, anyone leasing their land to Heritage will be paid $15 per net surface acre. If the company decides to actually build on the leased land, a one-time $10,000 fee will be paid to the lessee. The lease also notes that Heritage has the option to continue the lease beyond the 10-year period by paying an extension payment of $30 per net surface acre. For this reason, the lease is “considered to be continuous.”

While some residents were quick to jump on board with Heritage’s project, whether it was for the financial perks, to support alternative energy or a combination of the two, others are not as willing.

Cliff and Rosemary Stollings of Garden were approached by Heritage, but decided against leasing their land. Their concerns are rooted in the fact that, currently, Delta County has no zoning ordinance for wind energy. This would give too much leeway to Heritage, said Cliff, and offers no governance on the distance a wind turbine needs to be away from a residence.

The Heritage lease stipulates that a wind turbine will have to be at least 400 feet away from a residence. Conversely, the Stollings claim that, in researching wind energy, it is now generally recommended that wind turbines be at least a mile to a mile and a half away from a residence.

While there is conflicting research regarding a wind turbine’s proximity and subsequent impact on wildlife and human health, the Stollings’ factored the potential negative impact in their decision.

A portion of the lease addresses some of these possible impacts, but not in the way that the Stollings would have liked:

“…Lessee shall have a non-exclusive easement over and across said property for audio, visual, view, light, noise, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, electrical, and radio frequency interference, and any any other effects attributable to Lessee’s operations.” The lease further stipulates: “Lessor waives any claim with regard to any such interference or effects.”

Garden Township Supervisor Morgan Tatrow said that Heritage has been visiting the area frequently, working with the township and attending a county joint governmental meeting, various Garden township meetings, and even school board meetings.

“Heritage has already obtained lease permits from private property owners, and their plans right now are to obtain the permits for access roads leading to their wind turbine locations,” explained Tatrow. “We, the township, are talking with our legal people because there are currently no ordinances regarding wind towers.” In the meantime, Heritage will continue work on the project as residents from both sides voice their support or concern.

“It’s an excellent project and an economic opportunity for Delta County and Garden Township,” said Wilson. “It is going to mean around $5 million worth of investment in the local community during the construction process and the estimated personal property tax revenue is between $30,000 to $40,000 per turbine, per year.”

THIRD FEATURE

On Electric Cars---

Adding an electric vehicle or two to a neighborhood can be like adding another house, and it can stress the equipment that services those houses. "We're talking about doubling the load of a conventional home," says Karl Rabago, who leads Austin Energy's electric vehicle-readiness program. "It's big."

Opportunity has power industry scrambling

Benefits: Big cuts in fuel costs, greenhouse gas emissions

SOURCE: Portland Press Herald

November 22, 2010

By JONATHAN FAHEY The Associated Press

The first mass-market electric cars go on sale next month, and the nation's electric utilities couldn't be more thrilled -- or worried.

Plugged into a socket, an electric car can draw as much power as a small house.

The surge in demand could knock out power to a home, or even a neighborhood. That has utilities in parts of California, Texas and North Carolina scrambling to upgrade transformers and other equipment in neighborhoods where the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt are expected to be in high demand.

Not since air conditioning spread across the country in the 1950s and 1960s has the power industry faced such a growth opportunity.

Last year, Americans spent $325 billion on gasoline, and utilities would love even a small piece of that market.

The main obstacles to wide-scale use of electric cars are high cost and limited range, at least until a network of charging stations is built. But utility executives fret that difficulties keeping the lights on for the first crop of buyers -- and their neighbors -- could slow the growth of this new niche.

"You never get a second chance to make a first impression," says Mike Rowand, who is in charge of electric vehicle planning at Duke Energy.

Auto executives say it's inevitable that utilities will experience some difficulties early on. "We are all going to be a lot smarter two years from now," says Mark Perry, director of product planning for Nissan North America.

Electric cars run on big batteries that are charged by plugging into a standard wall socket or a more powerful charging station.

A combined 30,000 Nissan Leafs and Chevrolet Volts are expected to be sold over the next year. Over the next two years, Ford, Toyota and every other major automaker also plan to offer electric cars.

Governments are promoting the technology as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil, cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.

Congress is offering electric car buyers a $7,500 tax credit and some states and cities provide additional subsidies that can total $8,000. The Leaf sells for $33,000, the Volt for $41,000.

Electric cars produce no emissions, but the electricity they are charged with is made mostly from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, which do. Still, electric cars produce two-thirds fewer greenhouse gas emissions, on average, than a similarly sized car that runs on gasoline, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Driving 10,000 miles on electricity will use about 2,500 kilowatt-hours, or 20 percent more than the average annual consumption of U.S. homes. At an average utility rate of 11 cents per kilowatt-hour, that's $275 for a year of fuel, equivalent to about 70 cents per gallon of gasoline.

"Electric vehicles have the potential to completely transform our business," says David Owens, executive vice president of the Edison Electric Institute, a trade group.

Nationwide, utilities have enough power plants and equipment to power hundreds of thousands of electric cars. Problems could crop up long before that many are sold, though, because of a phenomenon carmakers and utilities call "clustering."

Electric vehicle clusters are expected in neighborhoods where:

• Generous subsidies are offered by states and localities.

• Weather is mild, because batteries tend to perform better in warmer climates.

• High-income and environmentally conscious commuters live.

So while states like North Dakota and Montana may see very few electric cars, California cities like Santa Monica, Santa Barbara and Monrovia could see several vehicles on a block.

SoCal Edison expects to be charging 100,000 cars by 2015. California has set a goal of 1 million electric vehicles by 2020.

Progress Energy is expecting electric car clusters to form in Raleigh, Cary and Asheville, N.C. and around Orlando and Tampa, Fla. Duke Energy is expecting the same in Charlotte and Indianapolis.

Adding an electric vehicle or two to a neighborhood can be like adding another house, and it can stress the equipment that services those houses. "We're talking about doubling the load of a conventional home," says Karl Rabago, who leads Austin Energy's electric vehicle-readiness program. "It's big."

WIND FARM BACKERS FACE A LONG, COLD WINTER OF DISCONTENT

SOURCE: WBAY-TV, www.wbay.com

November 10, 2010 By Jeff Alexander,

It could be months before a decision is reached about a controversial plan to build what would be the state’s largest wind farm in southern Brown County.

Tensions are rising in the communities of Morrison, Hollandtown, and Wrightstown. The battle lines are drawn, and have been for a year now, throughout the farm lands.

“The fight is not over in my mind — or in reality. It’s not over,” Jon Morehouse said.

Morehouse leads a group of more than 200 residents opposing a plan by a Chicago-based company to erect 100 wind turbines.

The state’s Public Service Commission and lawmakers will have the final say, but Morehouse says he was told by several lawmakers Wednesday it could be spring before a decision is made.

But that’s not what Roland Klug is hearing. Klug says he’s already receiving money from a contract he signed to have two turbines on his property.

He says a project engineer told him construction will start soon.

“In the winter they’ll start getting the roads in and things, and I hope by next year this time they should be up,” Klug said.

Late Wednesday afternoon Action 2 News received word from the Public Service Commission that it’s still waiting for the wind farm developer, Invenergy, to complete its application for the project. The PSC says Invenergy withdrew its original application.

While Klug stands to make $18,000 a year for the use of his land, it’s coming at a cost. “My own kids don’t talk to me. It’s really hard.”

The wind turbine debate has become so heated and divisive here in southern Brown County, the principal of Morrison Zion Lutheran School says staff recently imposed a moratorium on students discussing the topic during school.

As residents wait for final word, opinions become stronger and wounds grow deeper.

“I think anything can be healed, but it has to be talked about,” Morehouse said.

But even that hasn’t helped so far.

SECOND FEATURE

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Below, another news story regarding the issue of conflict of interest between members of local government who have the power to push a wind project through and the wind developers who offer them lucrative contracts to help make this happen. This scenario is being played out in communities all over North America, including here in the Badger state.

While creating rules governing the siting of wind turbines, Wisconsin's  Public Service Commission had an opportunity to provide language which would protect communities from such conflicts of interest. The Public Service Commission declined to do so.

TEMPERS FLARE AT MEETING IN CAPE VINCENT: OPPONENT OF WIND CLAIMS BOARD ACTED ILLEGALLY

SOURCE: Watertown Daily Times, www.watertowndailytimes.com

November 11, 2010 

by Nancy Madsen, Times Staff Writer,

CAPE VINCENT — A Planning Board meeting devolved into physical confrontation between an opponent of industrial wind power projects in the town and Chairman Richard J. Edsall.

At the beginning of the meeting Wednesday night, Mr. Edsall asked for approval of the board’s minutes from a previous meeting.

Hester M. Chase, a community wind project supporter but opponent of the two industrial-scale projects, stood and said the board was not acting legally. The board’s bylaws say public comments “shall be received prior to the conduct of the regular business agenda.”

“We have the right to make comment,” she said. “We’re going to start getting our rights straight.”

The board members turned toward each other and spoke, apparently approving the minutes from Oct. 13. It is unclear whether they also approved minutes from an Oct. 27 meeting with Acciona Wind Energy USA, developer of St. Lawrence Wind Farm. During the Oct. 27 meeting, the board accepted a list of what remained to be done for a complete site plan from the developer.

That meeting was stopped for an hour by wind power opponents protesting action by the board, which has three members who have conflicts of interest with Acciona or BP Alternative Energy, the other wind developer in the town.

Ms. Chase had a different version of the minutes that included the topic of the protest and said the board had proceeded with the meeting while the audience was unaware of its actions.

“They’re so fraudulent that I just felt they should be corrected,” she said after Wednesday’s meeting. “The bylaws permit the public to speak before regular business is conducted and I wanted to correct those minutes.”

Ms. Chase said frustration at having unanswered questions on setbacks on wind farms and what the board will allow the developers to do led to her actions. The Planning Board has decided on rules to govern the approval process that include allowing two public hearings with comments limited to people who live within one-half mile of the project, she said.

“I was just stunned at how cavalierly or arbitrarily they were making things up,” she said. “I had held onto the hope that they were truly going to do right by their community. I see that they seem to be fulfilling loyalty roles to BP and Acciona, I guess.”

On Wednesday night, Mr. Edsall opened a public hearing on a subdivision without addressing Ms. Chase’s concerns.

“Mr. Edsall, you are out of order,” Ms. Chase said.

The public hearing, he said, was for comments on the subdivision only.

“These people have the right to due process,” Mr. Edsall said.

“How can you make decision on anything if the board is corrupt?” asked Michael R. Bell, Cape Vincent.

Mr. Edsall responded, “These people have followed the rules.”

The board held public hearings and voted on two subdivisions. The three members, Mr. Edsall, Andrew R. Binsley and George A. Mingle, did not have maps available to act on a third subdivision.

Mr. Edsall then told wind opponents that if they wanted to talk about wind power development, the earliest the board would hold a meeting on it would be February.

He then asked to adjourn the meeting.

“You cannot do that,” Ms. Chase spoke up. “You are despicable. You approved the minutes, which are totally, totally false.”

She moved toward the dais and began passing papers to the board members.

Mr. Edsall said, “When we have a wind meeting, you can talk about wind.”

Mr. Bell said, “It’s about procedure — this is about procedure.”

Ms. Chase said, “You just lied to the whole community.”

As Mr. Edsall moved off the dais, she stood between the desk and a table. She appeared to bump into him. Mr. Edsall threatened to call the police if she touched him again.

She said he bumped into her.

“Will you get out of my way?” he asked.

She refused, but eventually let him pass. As the board members left, some members of the public berated them for passing the minutes. About a third of the audience consisted of wind power supporters. Some of them told the vocal opponents to back down.



500 foot turbine, Shirley Wind Project, Glenmore, WI

CONTROVERSIAL SHIRLEY WIND FARM BEING TESTED

SOURCE: WTAQ.Com

GLENMORE, Wis. (WTAQ) - Wisconsin’s tallest wind energy turbines are being tested this week.

Eight windmills at the Shirley Wind facility south of Green Bay are expected to start making electricity soon. They could power 8,000 homes if they had to. But the state government is buying the electricity, to help reach a goal of having 20 percent of its power from renewable sources.

State official Dave Helbach says they’ll need just 4 percent more once the Shirley Wind project goes online.

The turbines stretch up to 500 feet in the air. And the developers, Emerging Energies of Hubertus, say they’ll harness more wind and create more electricity than conventional-sized turbines.

They’re the largest windmills ever made by Tower Tech of Manitowoc. And the group Renew Wisconsin says they would never have been allowed under the proposed new locating requirements proposed by the state Public Service Commission.

Michael Vickerman said the distance limits between the towers, farm houses, and fields would have put the Shirley Wind site off limits.

A state Senate committee recently reviewed the proposed limits, and told the PSC to come back with something different. That didn’t sit well with residents near the site in the town of Glenmore near Green Bay. They say they’ll hurt by the turbines’ noise and flickering shadows.

They put up a sign near one of the turbines which says, “Welcome to the Glenmore Wind Ghetto.”

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Clarification: According to this press release [CLICK HERE] The turbines for this project were made by a company in Germany called NORDEX and shipped to the US.

Better Plan is currently investigating allegations of conflict of interest between Glenmore Town officials and wind developer Emerging Energies. Public documents indicate that several of the hosts of the turbines may have had their mortgages paid off by Emerging Energies and that at least one Town official may have been given a free trip to Germany to visit the Nordex plant.

The Public Service Commission's proposed wind siting rules do not address the troublesome issue of conflict of interest. It is a common practice among wind developers to offer lucrative contracts to members of local government who have the land to host turbines, and who also have the power to push a project through.

Better Plan also has questions about the production capacity claimed for this project. Under favorable conditions, wind turbines are about 30% efficient. In the state of Wisconsin, that number is closer to 20-25%.

If one follows the numbers presented here by Emerging Energies, the turbines in Glenmore will have a 40% generating capacity.

Better Plan is unaware of any turbines in our state which have exceed 30% efficiency.

EXTRA CREDIT: One of the founders of "Emerging Energies is Bill Rackocy, who also sat on the Wind Siting Council and helped determine the siting guidelines for our state.

SAVE THE DATE!!!

On Tuesday, November 9th the Assembly Committee on Commerce, Utilites, Energy and Rail will hold a full public hearing at the capitol because of questions raised regarding the  Public Service Commission's new wind siting rules for the state of Wisconsin.

The public is encouraged to attend and to provide testimony regarding specific concerns about the rules.

Tuesday, November 9th at 10:30 a.m. in Room 417 North at the State Capitol Building: Hearing relating to  Clearinghouse Rule 10-057

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD CLEARING HOUSE RULE 10-057

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Concerns now being raised about the new wind siting rules created by the Public Service Commission were clearly outlined in this request from members of local government in three towns in Brown County. This document was submitted to the PSC on June 23, 2010.

TO: Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Docket No. 1-AC-231 Draft Chapter 128--Wind Energy Systems

Request by the Towns of Morrison, Wrightstown and Glenmore
Brown County, Wisconsin
June 23, 2010

Issue: Request to delay issuing the PSCW wind siting standards until epidemiological studies of health complaints from Wisconsin`s current wind farms are thoroughly completed.

The towns of Morrison, Wrightstown, and Glenmore in Brown County are very concerned about the mounting evidence that there are serious negative impacts on human and animal health caused by wind turbines. It appears it is not only reasonable to delay the issuance of wind siting standards but it would be irresponsible to not do so in light of new studies and ongoing complaints of residents in and near Wisconsin`s existing wind farms.

In general, scientifically and statistically relevant studies have been limited. But, a very important report was published March 2010 by the World Health Organization (WHO) entitled "Night Noise Guidelines for Europe" (available at euro.who.int/en/what-we-publish/abstracts/night-noise-guidelines-for-europe).

The report is based on a six-year evaluation of scientific evidence by thirty-five scientists from medical and acoustical disciplines. WHO indicated that now governments have justifications to regulate noise exposure at night. WHO sets the limit for annual average exposure to not exceed 40 decibels (dB) outside of a residence.

WHO stated, "Recent research clearly links exposure to night noise with harm to health. Sleep disturbance and annoyance are the first effects of night noise and can lead to mental disorders. Just like air pollution and toxic chemicals, noise is an environmental hazard to health". WHO stated that they hope their new report will prompt governments to invest effort and money in protecting health from this growing hazard.

Our towns ask the PSCW to acquire the WHO report and evaluate its application to setting appropriate sound levels for wind turbines.

The PSCW`s draft rules do not address low frequency noise levels. It is not known whether the WHO report addresses this issue but other studies have described the likely effects. This is another area where epidemiological studies are needed before wind turbine setbacks can be reasonably proposed.

Besides sleep disturbance, there are complaints of other physiological problems. It is not acceptable to ignore or minimize the significance of these impacts as just quirks of human imagination.

Also, there is evidence that existing wind farms in Wisconsin are negatively affecting farm animals. Whether it is noise or some other physical phenomena, studies and testing should be done before setting siting standards.

At a public meeting of the Brown County Health Department and the Brown County Human Services Committee, reputable medical and health experts stressed the importance of epidemiological studies to determine the true nature of health impacts of wind turbines.

The State Board of Health pointed out that the lack of funding is a hurdle. But a conviction to do the right thing should prompt the PSCW to make a case to pursue the money issue with state legislators as well as our U.S. senators and representatives. Certainly, our towns would help in this endeavor. That said, it is even more appropriate for the wind developers and their associations to offer funding for independent studies since such studies should reduce future litigation. Electric utilities should have a stake in this effort as well. This is an opportunity to involve the University of Wisconsin research capabilities in both human health and animal health.

It appears that Act 40 does not set a deadline for completing the siting rules. This week a state senator who was one of the leaders in passing the wind siting law agreed that studies should be done to be sure the rules are adequate. If one or two years were used to study the existing wind farms while delaying any new installations, the developers would still have time to help utilities meet their 15% RPS by 2015. Again, if needed, our towns would help in getting the support of legislators.

Our towns implore the PSCW and the Wind Siting Council to not ignore the evidence of potentially serious health impacts and to not set standards until they have done the obvious and reasonable step of studying the health impacts of existing wind turbine installations in Wisconsin. Professional ethics demands no less. We believe our request aligns with the PSCW`s responsibility to protect the citizens of Wisconsin.

Submitted for the towns by Glen R. Schwalbach, P.E. 

SECOND FEATURE:

OREGON STATE TO STUDY WIND TURBINE RELATED HEALTH IMPACTS

SOURCE: STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS:

Massive Protest Greets Wind Turbine Developers

FERGUS — A massive protest greeted officials from WPD Canada in Fergus Tuesday evening, and flowed into the renewable energy developer’s open house on the proposed Springwood Wind Project (formerly known as Belwood Wind Farm), a four turbine wind energy system planned for agricultural land in the northwest corner of Centre Wellington. Upwards of 1,000 people, several horses and a wagon filled with manure occupied the front parking lot of the Centre Wellington Sportsplex on Belsyde Ave E.

CONTINUE...

 

A NEW SLANT ON WIND FARMS

SOURCE: www.chronicle-express.com

Jerusalem, N.Y. — John Grabski, representing the Jerusalem Preservation Association, brought a seldom explored topic to the subject of wind farms at the Oct. 20 Jerusalem Town Council meeting – economic devaluation.

Public discussions on wind farms usually include noise, flicker, dead birds and discontented cows. Grabski pointed to those briefly, but his main point was to suggest measures to protect against personal property value loss.
Instead of looking at the big picture of how much money wind turbines could bring to the town and landowners, he pointed out in a detailed approach how money could be lost long term.

“According to expert organizations such as professional Certified Real Estate Appraisers, industrial wind development adversely impacts land values within the immediate wind-zone and a peripheral area of approximately two miles,” according to Grabski.

CONTINUE......

 

THIRD FEATURE

Three reports, created specifically to guide legislators in wind turbine siting decisions, and alert them to areas of concern, all identify a half mile as the minimum setback needed to mitigate major problems from turbine noise and shadow flicker.

The Reports include:

The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies of Science Report "Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects". (2007) [Download Document]

The Congressional Research Service Report prepared for Members and Committees of Congress "Wind Power in the United States: Technology, Economic, and Policy Issues (2008) [Download document]

The Minnesota Department of Health, Environmental Health Division In response to a request from: Minnesota Department of Commerce, Office of Energy Security: "Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines" (2009) [Download Document]

IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS WHICH SUPPORT A SET BACK OF 2640 FEET FROM HOMES

The Noise Heard Round the World - the trouble with industrial wind turbines
1/2 mile more or more setback
www.wind-watch.org/alerts/?p=591

Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks
George W. Kamperman, INCE Bd. Cert. Emeritus Kamperman Associates, Inc. george@kamperman.com
Richard R. James, INCE E-Coustic Solutions rickjames@e-coustic.com
1km (3280 feet) or more setback
www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=1650

French Academy of Medicine warns of wind turbine noise
1.5km (.9-mile) setback
kirbymtn.blogspot.com/2006/03/french-academy-of-medicine-warns-of.html

National Wind Watch
1-mile setback
www.wind-watch.org/press-070402.php

U.K. Noise Association
1-mile setback
U.K. Noise Association: 1 mile setback needed for wind turbines
kirbymtn.blogspot.com/2006/08/uk-noise-association-1-mile-setback.html

UK Noise Association - Wind Farms are Causing Noise Problems
www.windaction.org/news/4230

Beech Ridge Wind Farm, West Virginia
1 to 4 miles setback
www.beechridgewind.com/Docs/1-25-06_Beech_Ridge_Wind_Fa_Sheet.pdf

Deal reached in wind turbine dispute - Fayette County
6000 foot setback
www.windaction.org/news/16447
www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_573705.html

Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed New Homes: Effects o Health
2km (1.2 mile) setback
www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/wtnhhr_june2007.pdf

Location, Location, Location. An investigation into wind farms and noise by the Noise Association
1 to 1.5 mile setback
www.windaction.org/documents/4281

Are wind farm turbines making people sick? Some say yes.
1.5 mile setback
www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/04/17/news/doc4807500d59725857996033.txt

Dr. Nina Pierport
1.5 mile setback, more for mountainous geography
Health Effects of Wind Turbine Noise
www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=76
Noisy Wind and Hot Air
www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=69
Wind Turbine Syndrome - testimony before the New York State Legislature Energy Committee
www.savewesternny.org/docs/pierpont_testimony.html
except from rebuttal to Noble Environmental’s draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding noise, shadow flicker, and health
www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=100

Wind Turbines, Noise and Health
Dr. Amanda Harry
1.5 mile setback
www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/wtnoise_health_2007_a_barry.pdf

Riverside County, California
2-mile setback
www.rcip.org/documents/general_plan/gen_plan/03_d_16.pdf

Marjolaine Villey-Migraine
Docteur en sciences de l’information et de la communication, Université Paris II-Panthéon-Assas, Sp&egravecialiste de l’Information Scientifique et Technique (IST)
5 km (3.1 miles)
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=588

Microseismic and Infrasound Monitoring of Low Frequency Noise and Vibrations from Windfarms
10km (6.2-mile) setback
www.esci.keele.ac.uk/geophysics/dunlaw/Final_Report.pdf

NOISE RESEARCH

Facts About Wind Energy and Noise
www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/WE_Noise.pdf

“Anti-noise” Silences Wind Turbines, publication date August 2008
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080811095500.htm

New England Wind Forum: Wind Turbine Sound
US Department of Energy
www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/ne_issues_sound.asp

“Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effects on Health.”
with an annotated review of the research and related issues
by Barbara J Frey, BA, MA and Peter J Hadden, BSc, FRICS
www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/wtnhhr_june2007.pdf

Noise pollution from wind turbines
September 20, 2007 by Julian Davis and S. Jane Davis
www.windaction.org/documents/13040

This is a list of publications from the Acoustics Laboratory and the Department of Acoustics from the period from 1974 until now. The list is sorted in chronological order starting with the most recent papers.
acoustics.aau.dk/publications/pubframe.html

George W. Kamperman, INCE Bd. Cert. Emeritus Kamperman Associates, Inc. george@kamperman.com
Richard R. James, INCE E-Coustic Solutions rickjames@e-coustic.com
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/simple-guidelines-for-siting-wind-turbines-to-prevent-health-risks.pdf

The “How To” Guide to Siting Wind Turbines to Prevent Health Risks from Sound
George W. Kamperman PE and Richard R. James INCE
batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/08-08-26%20Kamperman-James,%20(WindAction.org)%20Ver.%201.5%20Noise%20Criteria%20for%20Siting%20Wind%20Turbines.pdf

Low Frequency Noise from Large Wind Turbines
Delta Project EFP-06. Client: Danish Energy Authority
www.deltainspire.dk/C1256ED60045E95F/sysOakFil/Lavfrekvens_publ_2/$File/EFP06-LF%20Noise-Evaluation%20of%20audibility%20and%20literature%20study%20AV%201098%2008.pdf

Abstracts
Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise
Lyon, France. September 20-21, 2007
www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/wtn2007_abstracts.pdf

“Noisy Wind and Hot Air,” Nina Pierpoint, MD, PhD
www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=69
(extract) “There need to be funds to cover damages to the health, property values, and quality of life of nearby residents, should these occur.”

Excerpts from the Final Report on the Township of Lincoln Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee
www.aweo.org/windlincoln.html
(extract) “As a result of so many noise complaints, The Moratorium Committee ordered WPS to conduct a noise study. . . . [T]he study established that the turbines added 5-20 dB(A) to the ambient sound. A 10-dB increase is perceived as a doubling of noise level. As soon as the noise study was published in 2001, WPS conceded that these homes were rendered uninhabitable by the noise of the turbines and made buyout offers for the neighboring homes.”

Wind Farm Noise and Regulations in the Eastern United States
Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise
www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-farm-noise-and-regulations-in-the-eastern-united-states/

Acoustic Trauma: Bioeffects of Sound
Alex Davies BFS Honours
www.dartdorset.org/noise/AlexDavies_AcousticTrauma.pdf

A Review of Published Resarch on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects
Report for Defra by Dr. Geoff Leventhall
www.dartdorset.org/noise/GLlowfreqnoise.pdf

Noise Background
DART (Dorest Against Rural Turbines)
www.dartdorset.org/html/noise.shtml

Project WINDFARMperception
Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents
www.windaction.org/documents/16255
Wind turbines more annoying than expected
www.windaction.org/documents/16245

G.P. van den Berg
Wind turbines at night: acoustical practice and sound research
Science Shop for Physics, University of Groningen, the Netherlands
www.viewsofscotland.org/library/docs/Wind_turbines_at_night_Van_Den_Berg_Mar03.pdf
Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound
Journal of Sound and Vibration
www.nowap.co.uk/docs/windnoise.pdf

Vibroacoustic Disease
N.A.A. Castelo Branco and M. Alves-Pereira
www.noisefree.org/monitor.pdf

Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise
Renewable Energy Research Laboratory
www.ceere.org/rerl/publications/whitepapers/Wind_Turbine_Acoustic_Noise_Rev2006.pdf