WIND TURBINE ISSUE TURNS SLOWLY

Credit:  By Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

October 23, 2011

In Columbia County, the biggest wind farm in the state is nearly complete.

Ninety turbines are being erected by Wisconsin contractors including the Boldt Co., Edgerton Contractors and Michels Corp., in a $367 million project. On a typical day this year, about 175 workers have been on the job, pouring foundations, constructing towers and hoisting turbines and blades into place.

The activity comes despite a stalemate on wind turbine siting that wind power supporters say threatens to make the We Energies Glacier Hills Wind Park not only the largest but the last major wind farm to go up in the state.

But wind developers are expressing hope that a logjam can be broken, after recent conversations between the governor and several wind development firms.

Since this year, wind industry representatives say five companies have suspended or canceled work on projects in Wisconsin.

At issue is the Walker administration’s work to address pressure from opponents of wind farms, including the Wisconsin Realtors Association, who say that wind projects are interfering with private property rights of homeowners who live near turbines – and the effects of noise and shadow flicker from the turbines.

Gov. Scott Walker was backed by wind farm opponents in his 2010 election campaign and included a bill to restrict wind farm development in the jobs package he unveiled in his first weeks in office.

But concern about stalling all development and business for Wisconsin firms resulted in pushback against the Walker bill, which ended up being the only piece of legislation that was left to die out of the initial jobs special session.

Criticism of wind turbine siting persists, with state Sen. Frank Lasee, a possible candidate for U.S. Senate, recently unveiling a bill calling for a statewide moratorium on wind turbine construction until more research is done on the health effects of the devices.

“We met with Gov. Walker to discuss how we can work together to allow the economic benefits of wind energy to help boost Wisconsin’s economy,” said Mike Arndt, a Wisconsin native who now is vice president of Element Power, a company developing projects around the country. Arndt was one of the wind industry representatives who met with Walker two weeks ago.

Among Element’s projects is $300 million to $400 million wind farm in Manitowoc and Kewaunee counties.

The Walker administration is now sending signals that it’s seeking middle ground on the wind controversy.

“Gov. Walker is committed to finding a resolution to this issue,” said Cullen Werwie, the governor’s spokesman. “We are hopeful that moving forward we’ll be able to find a reasonable compromise that protects property rights while allowing appropriate wind farm development.”

Now under the leadership of former Republican state Rep. Phil Montgomery, the Public Service Commission has been taking the lead in trying to forge a compromise – holding discussions with wind developers and wind critics, said utility spokeswoman Kristin Ruesch.

“Negotiations between the parties are still going on, and the PSC is trying to help find consensus,” Ruesch said.

Details of a possible compromise aren’t known, and it’s too early to tell if the parties can come to an agreement. Realtors and landowner representatives who sat on the PSC’s wind siting task force in 2010 dissented from the final rules developed by the agency.

Meanwhile, wind development activity continues apace around the country, with some of the most active states being Wisconsin’s nearest neighbors.

When state policies stymied wind farm development in Wisconsin, the Illinois Wind Energy Association touted his state as a land of opportunity for developers to pursue projects.

“Illinois is open for business,” the group’s executive director said earlier this year, seeking to capitalize on Walker’s new state slogan. “In light of Wisconsin’s War on Wind,” the group said, “we introduce a call for wind developers to ‘Escape to Illinois.’ ”

In 2010, nearly 500 megawatts of wind capacity went online in Illinois, far more than the 20 megawatts built in Wisconsin. According to an Illinois State University study, wind development in Illinois has generated $18 million in property taxes, $8.3 million in income for landowners and created nearly 500 permanent jobs.

So far this year, no wind projects have gone online in Wisconsin, while another 390 megawatts have been installed in Illinois, with a comparable amount developed in Minnesota as well. Together, the two states have built more wind projects this year than Wisconsin has built in the 12 years since the first turbine was erected here.

There is no immediate pressure on utilities to build more wind farms after Glacier Hills goes online this year, because they are all on track to comply with the state’s renewable energy standard. That requires utilities to secure 10% of Wisconsin’s electricity from renewable sources by 2015.

But the Wisconsin renewable mandate will grow after 2015, along with rising demand for electricity. We Energies, which supports the siting rule developed by the PSC, will need more renewable energy by 2017, utility spokesman Brian Manthey said.

Whether a compromise can be reached is unclear.

In addition to backlash from wind energy companies that are seeking to invest in the state, voters in public opinion surveys have expressed support for wind power.

But with the specter of a recall election looming, Walker may seek to return to his supporters, including the Realtors – one of the governor’s biggest backers in terms of campaign donations last year.

During last year’s campaign, Walker was more strident in his opposition to wind power, documents released to the Journal Sentinel under the state’s open records law show.

“I will fight government policies that further infringe on the rights of property owners,” Walker said in a campaign letter last summer. “Wind turbines have proved to be an expensive, inefficient source of electricity and thus any further construction of turbines simply is not a policy goal or objective that should be pursued further.”

With the administration now talking compromise, one of the wind industry executives who recently met with Walker is now sounding an upbeat tone.

Construction of the two We Energies wind farms led to creation of 22 permanent jobs for Vestas, said Art Ondrejka, site manager in Wisconsin for Vestas, the world’s leading turbine supplier. Nationwide, Vestas says it’s created 2,000 jobs since 2008.

“We hire our people from nearby,” he said. “It’s by design. It gets the community more involved with them and gets local people to take some ownership in the long-term viability of the project.”

Susan Innis, Vestas senior manager of government relations, said she is hopeful a compromise can be reached, based on the recent discussions she, Arndt and others had with Walker.

“Wisconsin’s been a great state to do business, and we’d really love to do more,” she said.

OPPOSITION TO WIND TURBINES NEAR RACINE

By Janet Hoff,

Source WRJN, www.wrn.com

October 24 2011

Residents in the Village of Mount Pleasant, located near Racine, are speaking out against plans to build three wind turbines at an SC Johnson facility there.

The company is seeking approval from the Village to build the turbines, which would generate up to 10 million kilowatt hours of electricity. It’s enough to provide the company’s Waxdale facility with about 15-percent of its energy needs.

Resident Tom Joy says the noise would be like having a lawn mower running all the time, and he believes residents will end up subsidizing the project with falling property values. Joy says there are also health concerns about the turbines being so close to homes.

Gail Johnson is urging the company to continue being a good neighbor and scrap this idea. She says the noise is a real concern and other alternatives should be considered.

Mount Pleasant Community Development Planner Logan Martin says SC Johnson is following the PSC’s wind turbine guidelines from earlier this year, which may not be the permanent rules the state enacts. The permanent rules have been delayed because of debate in the state Legislature.

SENATOR CALLS FOR MORATORIM AND HEALTH STUDY ON WIND TURBINES

By Kristin Byrne

SOURCE: www.wbay.com

October 10, 2011

A state senator is on a mission to make sure wind turbines don’t hurt peoples’ health.

“We owe it to ourselves as legislators, and as a state and country, to not harm people when new things come down the pike,” Senator Frank Lasee (R-De Pere) said.

Senator Lasee is introducing a bill calling for a health study on wind turbines.

The bill would impose a moratorium on future wind turbine construction until the Public Service Commission receives a study from the Department of Health Services on turbines’ health impact on people and animals in three ways:

The impacts of low-frequency sound

How turbines affect people and animals in different proximity to the systems

Any differences associated with various wind speeds and directions

Senator Lasee was in the Town of Glenmore on Monday promoting the piece of legislation.

“There’s information coming in from around the world where they’ve had windmills longer that there are health effects,” Lasee said.

Lasee says he’s done his research on wind turbines and he’s heard from his constituents.

“I’ve seen enough now in my own district and elsewhere of people actually moving out of their homes it’s gotten so bad,” he said.

Before more turbines are raised, he thinks a study should be done on how they can impact your health.

“I don’t know that it’s going to help us, because we already have the windmills here, but hopefully it will help other families from having to go through,” Darrel Cappelle, who lives in Glenmore, said.

Cappelle and his wife Sarah say ever since eight turbines started running right by their home about a year ago, the constant hum has given them headaches, a good night’s sleep sometimes isn’t an option, and they think that’s why they’re getting sick more often.

“If you get a cold, it’ll last three weeks instead of three days,” Cappelle said.

Cappelle doesn’t know for sure if his family’s health problems are directly related to the turbines, but a study might answer that question.

“We need to have a real scientific study or use data from around the world. There are plenty of other studies out there to prove that this is causing harm to people,” Senator Lasee said.

[video available]

Fond du Lac County home in Invenergy wind projectPROPOSED BILL WOULD PLACE A MORATORIUM ON WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT

SOURCE: The Fond du Lac Reporter

Expert witnesses have acknowledged that Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) can cause health problems including sleep disturbance, headache, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, irritability, panic episodes, depression and a variety of other ailments, according to a press release from Lasee's office.

Madison, WI –Senator Frank Lasee (R-De Pere) has introduced “Health Study for Wind Turbines” legislation in the State Senate. The proposed bill creates a moratorium on future wind turbines until the Public Service Commission (PSC) receives a report from the Department of Health Services (DHS) regarding the health impacts on people and animals.

[Click here to download the wind turbine health study bill]

Expert witnesses have acknowledged that Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) can cause health problems including sleep disturbance, headache, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, irritability, panic episodes, depression and a variety of other ailments, according to a press release from Lasee's office.

“There are three families that I am aware of who have moved out of their homes to get relief because they are getting so ill. One family’s teenage daughter was hospitalized, and when they moved, she fully recovered. We can’t let this kind of a thing go on,” said Senator Lasee. “It’s plain un-American to have wind turbines twice as tall as the State Capitol right next to someone’s house that they are forced to look at, which makes them dizzy, nauseous and sick.”

“This has been a nightmare, we’ve had to leave our beautiful home in order to get relief from the health issues we believe were caused by the nearby wind turbines,” said Sue Ashley an impacted property owner. Darrel Cappelle, another impacted property owner added, “my wife has been suffering from migraine headaches since the wind turbines were constructed. This has been a horrible impact on my family.”

“This bill will require the PSC to protect people and their property from being harmed by the effects of Industrial Wind Turbines,” said Lasee.

SECOND STORY

WIND SITING RULES STILL STUCK IN LIMBO

By CLAY BARBOUR,

SOURCE madison.com

October 9, 2011

Hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in potential economic development are stuck in limbo as officials continue to argue over new wind siting rules.

The new rules, more than a year in the making, were suspended earlier this year just before they were to go into effect. A legislative committee sent them back to the Public Service Commission, which was tasked with finding a compromise between both sides.

Now, some seven months later, PSC officials say they are no closer to a deal than when they started. Meanwhile, wind farm developers such as Midwest Wind Energy and Redwind Consulting are sitting on their hands, and their money.

“Right now, we just don’t have a path forward in Wisconsin,” said Tim Polz, vice president of Midwest Wind Energy, a company that suspended work earlier this year on a large wind farm in Calumet County. “The uncertainty is just too much now.”

Polz said Chicago-based Midwest already spent three years and about $1 million on the Calumet County project. In full, the company expected to spend upward of $200 million on the project, employ 150 to 200 construction workers for up to 18 months and five to eight people full time after that.

The project is one of five major utility wind farms suspended or canceled as a result of the ongoing stalemate, costing the state a relatively quick infusion of about $1.6 billion in economic development and almost 1,000 temporary, full-time jobs.

“In this economy, where jobs are at a premium and people are struggling, this kind of inaction is inexcusable,” said Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha.

Set back by setbacks

The sticking point, according to PSC spokeswoman Kristin Ruesch, is what it has always been: setbacks, noise levels and the effects turbines have on neighboring property owners.

The PSC spent more than a year working out the original rules, which bore the fingerprints of Democrats and Republicans, the wind industry and its critics.

Those rules were scheduled to go into effect in March. But after taking office in January, Republican Gov. Scott Walker introduced a bill to dramatically increase setbacks.

The original rules required wind turbines have a setback from the nearest property line of 1.1 times the height of the turbine, or roughly 450 feet. The rules also required turbines be no closer than 1,250 feet from the nearest residence. Walker’s provision pushed the setback from the property line — not just a house — to 1,800 feet, about six football fields.

That proposal appealed to wind industry critics and the real estate industry, a heavy contributor to Walker’s campaign. Realtors donated more than $400,000 to Walker by October 2010, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, an election watchdog group.

But officials in the wind industry said the governor’s proposal would ruin their business in Wisconsin. Barca said the original rules were the result of a bipartisan agreement and he thinks the governor just doesn’t like the industry.

“It has been a deliberate decision by Gov. Walker,” he said. “They are going to kill wind energy in this state.”

Time pressure

In the end, the legislative committee that reviews agency rules chose not to act on the governor’s bill and instead voted to send the original rules back to the PSC to see if an agreement could be ironed out.

If no changes are made by March, the original rules go into effect. However, two bills sit in Legislative committees designed to kill the original rules and force the state to start from scratch.

“But I don’t think they want to do that,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, a Madison nonprofit that promotes clean energy. “They would be immediately vulnerable on the ‘jobs’ issue.”

Walker said he is aware of the stress caused by the delay but feels it is important any rules be fair to both sides, respecting property rights and the future of the wind industry.

Meanwhile, state Sen. Frank Lasee, R-De Pere, plans to introduce a bill Monday to call for a moratorium on wind turbines until the PSC receives a report from the Department of Health Services on possible health effects of wind farms.

“It is more important to fully vet, understand and communicate to the public the potential changes than the specific timing of when they are adopted and enacted.” Walker said. “It is important to note that whatever proposed changes are made, there are effects on a number of different areas of the economy.”

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

Wind developers-- sometimes called "landmen"-- a term for those who get rural property owners to sign long-term leases to permit development on their property-- use a lot of the same tactics used in the gas industry to get those contracts signed.

A memo that recently surfaced in Ohio lays those strategies out. For those of us who have been following the story of how Big Wind came to Wisconsin, these tactics are identical to those used to get rural landowners in our state to sign onto contracts with wind developers they now regret.

"Remember, if at all possible, try not to deliberately mislead the landowner."

CAUGHT RED-HANDED:

According to an article in Businessweek.com, a memo that appears to coach buyers of oil and gas drilling leases in rural Ohio to use deceptive tactics on unsuspecting landowners surfaced earlier this spring.

"Door-to-door lease buyers called "landmen" have proliferated for months in hopes of landing rights that will give their companies access to potential energy riches."

This memo tells them 'how to hunt and catch a rural mid-westerner'

DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE MEMO BY CLICKING HERE

EXCERPTS

 Know your demographics!

We have paid for an analysis of Ohio and its people. Use that Data.

 Ohio is a conservative leaning, Mid-west state. The typical Ohio resident will welcome you into their home and allow you to speak. This is critical. Face to face interaction can make all the difference.

Most mid-west Americans dislike confrontation. Even if they disagree on a selling point, they are unlikely to confront you over it. Therefore it is critical to obtain a lease signature at the first meeting or at least the agreement to sign and take the lease to a notary.

Drive them to the notary if you have to. If they have time to think it over, they are more likely to decline the offer.

Provide the overall position of the nation

Most landowners will be patriotic Americans and will desire to free our nation from foreign oil dependence...Fear of foreign encroachment is the biggest asset we have in selling our development strategy. Our analysis of Ohio shows that even the most liberal landowners will agree on this point.

ALWAYS start your conversation with a new potential signee on a point they will agree with. This is pure psychology. They will be more likely to let you stay and talk. Studies show the longer you talk, the more chance we have of signing.

At any point in the pitch, if talk turns to local issues, environmental hazards etc-- a good way to re-direct hte conversation is to re-engage over the nation's energy needs....

Talk about our business

... More educated landowners may know that we often sell our land leases to larger corporations. While this is often true, we don't always sell our interests. So it is reasonable to say we plan all developemnt in Ohio without partners. Future plans do not need to be fully disclosed......

[POSSIBLE PROBLEMS]

Truck Traffic: There will be extra traffic, but stress that we will do everything to keep it to a minimum... just tell landowners the more trucks, the more royalties. Money will usually deflect most arguments. Return to the nation's energy needs if you need to.

Noise: If pressed for details tell them we monitor noise to endure it is approximately [#] decibels at [#] feet.

They will not likely understand the details and will not admit that the technical data means little to them. Do not compare it to anything tangible, like train noise or airplane noise.

Stick with the numbers. They provide the truth but make it hard to understand the exact implication.

GET THE LEASE SIGNED!

If a landowner is undecided, there are several ways to offer incentives:

-Offer a slight increase in the initial lease payment. Even a $50 increase may be enough to sway the decision. Tell them it's to cover the Notary Public costs. That way you are making a concession without caving and getting into a negotiation. Mid-west Americans appreciate feeling valued. This will work in your favor.

-Tell the landowner that all their neighbors have signed. Even if the neighbors have not, this will often push an undecided landowner in favor of signing. Remember, the first visit is the most crucial. They will not know if their neighbors have signed and even if they do they will want to sign so they do not lose out on potential profits. Once they have signed, you can show those leases to undecided neighbors for added pressure.

FROM US & CANADA

Why pro-wind studies often use a 10 km radius

by Alec Salt, Professor, Department of Otolaryngology, Washington University School of Medicine

Last week I was reading of an Australian study, by a Professore Gary Wittert, which had shown sleeping pill usage for those living near wind turbines was no greater than the general population .

The study compared those living within 10 km of turbines with those living more than 10 km away. There have been similar studies with property values using a 5 mile or 10 km radius that showed property values are not affected by wind turbines.  Had you ever thought why they pick a 10 km radius?

Consider this graphic. It shows 1 km bands with the calculated area for each band shown in blue.

Let’s keep it easy and assume that households are evenly distributed and there is one household for every 10 square kilometers.

So, within 2 km (the two innermost bands) of the turbine, the area is 3.1 + 9.4 km2 (=12.5 km2) which would represent 1.2 households.

Now let’s consider the two outermost (9 km and 10 km) bands. The area of these bands is 53.4 + 59.7 km2 (= 113.1 km2) which represents 113 households. So the outermost bands have about TEN TIMES the number of households of those living within 2 km, making sure that the contribution of the inner bands is diluted, swamped, covered up or however else you would describe it.

Or consider if you live within 2 km of a turbine. The outer bands of those living from 2 – 10 km from the turbine adds up to 301.6 km2, which would represent 30.1 households – which is 24 TIMES the number of households within 2 km.

No wonder your voice is being “drowned out”. The bigger the circle, the more “dilution” occurs.

Add this to the list of things where “size matters”, and next time you see a study like this, consider the radius and area that was chosen. The choice of the circle size plays a major role in the result obtained and speaks volumes about the motivation of the author.

Alec Salt

REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY FOR WIND FARM DEVELOPERS

Read Entire Story Source: The Daily Reporter

By Clay Barbour

July 5, 2011

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — In the past six months, three wind farm developers with a combined investment of more than $600 million have stopped operations in Wisconsin — victims of regulatory uncertainty and what some now perceive as a hostile business environment for “green” energy.

The wind farms — planned for Calumet, Brown and Green Lake counties — would have created more than 1,100 jobs and helped Wisconsin reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its energy through renewable sources by 2015.

But new wind regulations, more than two years in the making, were shelved as the Public Service Commission works on a more restrictive set. Combined with a series of initiatives pushed through by Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-led Legislature, industry officials and environmental advocates say Wisconsin seems more concerned with making green than being green.

“In a typical year, you win some and you lose some. It’s about a 50-50 breakdown,” said Jennifer Giegerich, legislative director for the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters. “But this year, it has been one loss after another. We are going backwards, fast. And it’s scary.”

One day after Walker was elected governor, lame-duck predecessor Gov. Jim Doyle halted progress on a planned $810 million federally funded Madison-to-Milwaukee passenger rail project.

The governor-elect made no secret of his desire to kill the proposal. After his election, little stood in the way.

Since January, Walker and the GOP have proposed more than a dozen pieces of legislation that some say roll back or weaken environmental laws.

They exempted a parcel of land in Brown County from wetland protections, weakened the state’s clean water rules, cut state money for recycling by 40 percent, ended the office of energy independence, and got rid of loan and grant programs that encourage companies to become energy efficient.

GO TO THE DAILY REPORTER’S WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROFILE PAGE

Several proposals still are in play, including bills that change where utilities can buy renewable energy and how long renewable energy credits last. Advocates say both measures would severely damage the health of clean energy companies in the state.

“They are trying to take us backwards environmentally 20 or 30 years,” said state Rep. Brett Hulsey, D-Madison, who worked for the Sierra Club for years. “It’s this corporate mindset. It has taken over.”

But for every bill that environmental advocates see as bad, others see as valuable and necessary.

Ask Walker why he killed the train and he will tell you it was because the project was a boondoggle and the state’s efforts were better focused on roads and bridges.

Ask him why he weakened clean water rules and he says it was to provide relief to local governments from statewide mandates.

Ask him why he fought to stop the new wind siting rules and he says he was protecting the property rights of people who live near wind turbines.

“Business and environment can go hand-in-hand,” Walker said. “In the past, some pushed radical policies at the expense of jobs. I believe we can both conserve natural resources and promote economic prosperity.”

There have been some bipartisan victories for the environmental movement. An attempt to rush through a controversial bill to speed up reviews of permit applications for mining died after questions were raised by members of both parties. A proposal to pare phosphorus rules also was dropped for lack of support. And originally, Walker planned to cut all money for the state’s recycling program as well as end the mandate enforcing it.

State Rep. Robin Vos, R-Rochester, led the fight to restore most of the money and the mandate.

The co-chairman of the Joint Finance Committee said he fought for the program because it’s better to invest in recycling now than to pay for more landfills later.

“But we have limited resources,” he said. “And we are always trying to find that right balance between what is achievable and what is just a lofty goal.”

Probably the oddest aspect of the business-vs.-environment debate is the role of wind energy. One might assume a fast-growing “clean energy” industry such as wind would appeal equally to both sides. But so far, that has not been the case.

The argument over wind power has divided entire communities in the state’s rural areas.

Opponents complain of diminished property values, noise, moving shadows cast by the giant turbines and loss of sleep from the vibrations.

Advocates say most of those problems are unfounded and the rest are overblown. They argue wind energy is good policy and good business for the state.

Industry insiders hoped the new rules would end years of localized fights that killed at least 10 proposed wind farms in the past eight years and scared off several others.

But earlier this year, the governor introduced a plan to quadruple the required distance between wind turbines and neighboring property.

Though the governor’s proposal was not taken up, a legislative committee suspended the new rules and asked for major revisions.

“I had concerns about the rights of property owners from the get-go,” said state Sen. Leah Vukmir, R-Wauwatosa, committee co-chairwoman. “In the end, we felt it was better to send the rules back until a balance between the wind industry and landowners could be worked out.”

Currently the PSC is holding meetings with advocates and opponents, trying to iron out a compromise. Neither side wants to start from scratch, but PSC officials said they are at a standstill.

“The uncertainty is killing us,” said Dan Rustowicz, of Minnesota’s Redwind Consulting, a company trying to develop a wind farm in Buffalo County. “It’s a shame because Wisconsin has good wind. But we have other options. If you don’t have the political support here, why try and push that rope?”

NOISY WIND FARM LEGAL FIGHT BEGINS

Read entire article at source:, www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk

July 5, 2011

A couple who claim their lives have been blighted by the “horrible noise” of a nearby wind farm are seeking thousands of pounds damages in the High Court.

A hearing was told that Jane and Julian Davis moved out of Grays Farm in Deeping St Nicholas into rented accommodation in December 2006, six months after the eight-turbine wind farm began operating about half a mile from their home.

The tenant farmers claim the noise of the turbine blades became intolerable, disrupting their sleep and making them feel ill and it was so severe that it has made the farmhouse no longer marketable as a family home.

In what could be a landmark case for hundreds of other families, lawyers for the couple are seeking an injunction to modify the windfarm by removing two turbines and cutting the operating hours of a third machine to reduce the noise. They are also seeking £400,000 damages.

Alternatively, they are seeking damages plus a like-for-like replacement of their farm home worth around £2.5 million.

The defendants in the case include R C Tinsley Ltd and Nicholas Watts, who rented out their land for the wind farm, and Fenland Windfarms Ltd and Fenland Green Power Co-operative Ltd, operators of the turbines.

Before the hearing, Mrs Davis said: “I want to stop the noise so we can go back home and relax and sleep and live like we did five years ago.

“It is a horrible noise. It is unpredictable but occurs mainly in the course of the night.

“There is a hum and ‘whoom, whoom, whoom’ that are alien to an isolated rural environment.”

The hearing also heard claims from Peter Harrison QC, representing the couple, that even when they carried out their own tests to prove that the noise was there, Mr and Mrs Davis faced “an industry operator which refused to acknowledge the noise their turbines make and the effect that has had on the lives of these claimants”.

The defendants’ lawyers say it is “not doubted” that the Davis family has been affected by noise but say it is an “over-reaction” to what they can hear or they have become “unduly sensitive” to wind farm noise.

They deny “that there has been in the past or is presently any actionable nuisance” and that the defendants have reasonably attempted to investigate complaints.

The hearing continues.