Entries in wind farm wisconsin (76)
5/17/11 Checking in on family life among turbines in DeKalb IL:Like a bad neighbor, NextEra is there AND Peter broke it, tells Paul to Fix It
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: NextEra, (formerly Florida Power and Light)currently has wind developers prospecting around Wisconsin, most recently showing up in Rock County in the Towns of Spring Valley and Magnolia. This diary, kept by a family with four children, details life in a NextEra wind project and paints a clear picture of what NextEra's response has been to their problems with wind turbine noise, shadow flicker and lack of sleep.
(CLICK HERE to see where wind developers are prospecting in our state)
DIARY: LIFE IN A WIND FARM
Checking in with a family living in a Next Era wind project in DEKALB, ILLINOIS
"[NextEra] is stating that any complaint will be addressed and they do an exhaustive analysis that helps in design. once again this looks good on paper, but we are living a different reality."
-diary entry on May 13, 2011
Thank you for visiting our blog.
Our home in rural DeKalb County, IL is where we wanted to stay for good.
We have put so much into our home to make it a place where we would love to live and raise our children, and unfortunately we are being forced to live differently.
We have been bullied by a large industrial wind company (NextEra Energy, a subsidiary of Florida Power and Light (FPL) and sold-out by the DeKalb County Board.
FPL told residents that these wind turbines only "sound like a refrigerator."
Well, we have found that this is not the case.
Often times our yard sounds like an airport. We hear and feel the low frequency sound on our property as well as in our home. We are bothered by the noise, whistling, contant swirling movement, and shadow flicker.
Complaining is not something that our family is known for doing and we teach our children to look for the positive aspects of life, but this has gone too far with the turbines.
Someone needs to speak up. These industrial wind turbines should not be built close to homes. They should be at least a mile away to avoid these issues. We have 13 within a mile. The closest 2 are 1,400 feet away.
READ ENTIRE DIARY AT SOURCE:http://lifewithdekalbturbines.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
shadow flicker
Monday, May 16, 2011
Noisy Tonight!
perspective
Shadow flicker again
Friday, May 13, 2011
what we were told - part two
Double Shadow Flicker
This video was taken this last Sunday am. Both turbine #30 and #31 are creating shadow flicker on our property. This lasted about 40 minutes start to finish.
FROM ONTARIO
MPP CALLS FOR ACTION ON AMARANTH TRANSFORMER STATION
READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE:, www.orangeville.com
May 16, 2011
By Richard Vivian
During the TransAlta meeting, Whitworth said the company presented them with three options: live with it and adapt, sell your homes and move, or file a lawsuit.
The problem is too bad to stay, he said, and no one would want to buy their house given the situation. Nor do they have the money to file a lawsuit against a multi-national corporation.
For years now, two Amaranth families have endured a long list of ailments they claim are caused by “electrical pollution” from the neighbouring transformer station.
With no solution in sight, MPP Sylvia Jones is calling on Minster of the Environment John Wilkinson to step in and help them out.
“It’s gone on too long,” Jones, who made her request to the minister on May 6, said. “The minister must take responsibility and ensure this matter is resolved.”
It appears, however, like a resolution isn’t coming anytime soon — at least not one that satisfies the Kidd and Whitworth families.
Wilkinson insists his ministry has already taken steps to address their concerns and, in a statement provided to The Banner, made no commitment to do more.
“They changed the transformer to a quieter model, implemented acoustic barriers, landscaped the area for additional screening and provided three years of acoustic measurements,” the minister said.
“The transformer is now in compliance with our stringent noise requirements. We have not heard from either family about noise issues in over a year.”
The 10th Line families point the finger for their nausea, headaches, loss of balance, diarrhea and more at the nearby TransAlta transformer station, which connects 137 industrial wind turbines to the electrical grid.
“Finally, somebody is willing to try to do something to help us,” Terry Kidd said of Jones, not giving up hope an end is near. “I hope she’s able to do something.”
So far, attempts by Terry and Theresa Kidd, as well as Ted and Cheryl Whitworth, to find a solution to their situation — they now want to be bought out and compensated — have failed.
Representatives of TransAlta, which purchased the substation from Canadian Hydro Developers, deny any responsibility for the families’ illnesses.
According to Ted Whitworth, they’ve only met with TransAlta once, and all the changes referred to be Wilkinson were implemented by Canadian Hydro.
During the TransAlta meeting, Whitworth said the company presented them with three options: live with it and adapt, sell your homes and move, or file a lawsuit.
The problem is too bad to stay, he said, and no one would want to buy their house given the situation. Nor do they have the money to file a lawsuit against a multi-national corporation.
A consultant hired by the Kidds suggests there is a problem at their home.
“It appears that there is cross contamination of electrical pollution from the wind farm generation onto the electrical distribution system that supplies power to neighbouring homes,” David Colling, who brought in equipment to measure the electricity in the air, states in a reported dated Feb. 8, 2010, but based on measurements taken the previous April.
“What your family has been suffering from is likely electrical hypersensitivity,” it adds.
“You have 10kHz micro surges being introduced into your home, therefore it compares to living inside a microwave oven environment.”
After receiving the report, Terry and Theresa left their home, moving in with family near Dundalk. As a result, they said their symptoms have abated.
The Whitworths, however, have not left their home and continue to experience health issues.
Provincial legislation approved since the station was installed require they have a minimum setback of 500 metres from the nearest residence. The Kidds’ home is 390 metres from the station and the Whitworths’ is 490.
“Their family physician has said there is a problem,” Jones said, noting the doctor has the “added credibility” of being a former medical officer of health for the Region of Peel.
“(Wilkinson) kept bouncing it back to the regional office of the Ministry of the Environment,” Jones added of the concerns raised.
“He can’t continue to put it back onto the civil service.”
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Noise, Ontario, Wind developers behaving badly, Wind farm, Wind farm health effects, Wisconsin public service commission, health effects, property values, wind energy, wind farm health effects, wind farm noise, wind farm property value, wind farm sleep deprivation, wind farm wisconsin, wind power wisconsin, wind turbine
|
Comments Off
5/1/11 Turn the turbines off for one night? Sure! Give us $1,765,800 and we'll get right on it AND More turbines, more problems, Chapter 345 AND Fat Cats dealing in Big Wind
WIND FARMS PAID £900,000 TO SWITCH OFF FOR ONE NIGHT
SOURCE The Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk
May 1, 2011
By Victoria Ward,
Wind farms operators were paid £900,000 ($1,765,800 US dollars) by the National Grid to disconnect their turbines for one night because the electricity was not needed.
The payments, worth up to 20 times the value of the power they would have produced, raises serious concerns about such subsidies, which are paid for by the customer.
The six Scottish wind farms were asked to stop producing electricity on a particularly windy night last month as the National Grid was overloaded.
Their transition cables do not have the capacity to transfer the power to England and so they were switched off and the operators received compensation. One operator received £312,000, while another benefited by £263,000.
The payments were discovered by the Renewable Energy Foundation, a green think tank, which accused the Government of building too many wind farms in northern Britain.
John Constable, director of policy and research, said not enough care had been taken to ensure there were enough high-voltage cables to transfer the power to other parts of the UK when it was needed.
“Hasty attempts to meet targets for renewable energy mean some Scottish wind farms are now in the extraordinary position of not only printing money when they generate, but printing it even faster when they throw their energy away,” he told the Sunday Times.
The average turbine is understood to generate power worth about £150,000 a year, but is awarded incentives in the form of subsidies worth £250,000.
Such payments were intended as a way to pay householders above market rates to generate electricity from solar panels and small wind turbines on their roofs.
But in February, Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, announced a review of financial subsidies for renewable electricity after large-scale “photovoltaic farms” began springing up all over the countryside.
The operators which halted production and benefited from the payments last month include Scottish Power, which owns Whitelee wind farm near Glasgow and Npower Renewables, which runs Farr wind farm near Inverness.
A spokesman from the National Grid confirmed the payments. He said: “On the night of April 5 and 6, the demand for power was low but the nuclear generation plants in Scotland were running as expected. There was also heavy rainfall, which meant hydro power plants were operating well, too.”
Next Story
WIND BOOM'S COSTS LOOMING ON THE HORIZON
SOURCE: Redding.com News
After several years of drought, the abundant rains this winter and spring have supplied a bit of relief to electric customers in Redding, whose rates have risen partly because of a shortage of cheap hydroelectricity from the Central Valley Project.
For our neighbors in the Pacific Northwest, however, the same abundance is too much of a good thing. A wet-year surplus of hydropower — combined with recent years' boom in wind turbines — is pushing the Bonneville Power Administration's grid beyond its limit, leaving it potentially unable even to give power away.
And even as government promotes wind farms as a source of renewable power, the BPA is considering emergency orders to shut down wind turbines, with their erratic and unpredictable generation, to avoid overwhelming the power grid. Just when the wind gets blowing, their owners might have to unplug the turbines.
Under a law Gov. Jerry Brown signed last month, California has committed to producing one-third of its power from renewable sources, including wind, within the next decade. Indeed, Brown said he's setting his sights on 40 percent renewables. That means this feast-famine cycle starting to cramp the Northwest's power grid could soon spread to California.
And one major solution? New transmission lines linking the Pacific Northwest with California's major cities and demand for renewable power, creating a more flexible West Coast power grid. Any guesses where those power lines would most likely travel? Like the scrapped TANC Transmission Projection power line, they'd probably cross right through Shasta County. At least, that's where the utilities would try to build them.
In a sense, this is a fine problem to have — at least for supporters of clean energy. Within the past five years alone, wind developers within the Bonneville Power Administration's grid, roughly following the Columbia River Gorge, have built enough new turbines to generate more than 3,000 megawatts of electricity when they're spinning at full speed. All told, the more than 3,500 megawatts of peak wind electricity in the BPA is equivalent to five times the power output of Shasta Dam. And that doesn't include other wind farms around the Northwest or many new projects in the works. They include Big Horn Wind Farm in southern Washington, which sells electricity to Redding Electric Utility.
That's a dramatic achievement. But the problem with all that wind power is that its output floats up and down like a kite on a spring breeze. Even in the steadily windy areas that make the ideal sites for wind farms, strong gusts can ramp up power and then stop cold — whereas our homes, factories and computer server farms demand an even supply.
It's possible to balance erratic supplies with demand to a point, by shutting down plants elsewhere. Indeed, temporarily burning less coal or natural gas stretches fuel supplies while cutting pollution, but eventually the power managers run out of fossil-fuel plants to shut down.
And regulations aimed at preserving fisheries don't allow hydroelectric dam managers to flip rivers on and off like a light switch, as needed. Indeed, much like the Sacramento River, the Columbia River with its massive series of hydroelectric dams is tightly regulated to prevent the extinction of salmon. Under current operating rules those dams can't even legally spill excess water, but are required to spin their turbines even when they don't need the power. (Heavy spills can leave too much nitrogen in the water, harming fish.)
The upshot: Massive investments in wind power don't end the need for existing electric plants, but instead force costly juggling — and raise the pressure for even more costly new transmission lines. And when the wind really gets blowing, we might not even be able to harvest watts from it.
Using more renewable energy remains an important goal, but in the Northwest they're learning that achieving it won't be cheap or easy. As California ramps up its renewables over the next decade, those costs will be harder to ignore.
Next Story
NextEra Energy Resources subsidiary raises $118 million in capital for wind energy projects
SOURCE: www.NextEraEnergyResources.com
May 01, 2011
Penta Wind consists of 483 megawatts of wind farm projects in five states. NextEra is the largest generator in North America of renewable energy from the wind power and solar power.
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, announced that its subsidiary Penta Wind, LLC, has issued Class B membership interests to subsidiaries of JPMorgan Capital Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. in exchange for approximately $118 million up front and a commitment to fund expected capital contributions of approximately $290 million in the future. Penta Wind consists of 483 megawatts of wind farm projects in five states.
“By combining two previously financed portfolios, this transaction represents an evolution of a structure we first used in September 2010 where the tax equity investor makes an initial up front payment and additional investments over time tied to the production of the wind projects,” said Armando Pimentel, executive vice president of finance and chief financial officer of NextEra Energy, Inc. “We’re very pleased to have closed a second transaction using this tool to raise tax equity for existing projects and to have worked with a tax equity investor new to NextEra Energy Resources.”
During the quarter, NextEra Energy Resources completed a review of the estimated useful life of the newer wind turbines in the company’s portfolio as of Jan. 1, 2011.
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, is a clean energy leader and one of the largest competitive energy suppliers in North America. A subsidiary of Juno Beach, Fla.-based NextEra Energy, Inc. (NYSE: NEE), NextEra Energy Resources is the largest generator in North America of renewable energy from the wind power and solar power. It operates clean, emissions-free nuclear power generation facilities in New Hampshire, Iowa and Wisconsin as part of the NextEra Energy nuclear fleet, which is the third largest in the United States. NextEra Energy had 2010 revenues of more than $15 billion, nearly 43,000 megawatts of generating capacity, and approximately 15,000 employees in 28 states and Canada.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm, wind energy, wind farm wisconsin, wind power, wind turbine
|
Comments Off
4/15/11 Got problems with wind turbines? Who ya gonna call? AND Big trouble in little Town of Forest AND Wind developers give you two choices: Take it or Take it. We're not turning them off AND Place your bets: Will wind developers turn off turbines to protect Birds and Bats?
WIND GENERATORS STILL CAUSING PROBLEMS
SOURCE Fond du Lac Reporter, www.fdlreporter.com
April 14, 2011
I live about 2,100 feet from a wind generator and had experienced interference on my television as soon as it went into operation.
Cedar Ridge Wind Farm made arrangements to remedy the interference. I was given two years of basic Satellite TV service at no cost.
Then, I received a notice that Alliant, owners of the wind farm, had decided to grant us compensation equal to the cost of getting only the Green Bay local channels. All I needed to do was to sign a “Release of Claim,” which states in part “the undersigned… hereby fully and forever releases and discharges Wisconsin Power and Light … from any and all claims, demands, actions and/or rights … arising from…”
The three paragraphs protect Alliant forever in every way from any future actions. There is no mention of what we might expect in the coming years.
Does this sound like a good faith effort to correct a wrong done to those of us who have no commercial interest in the wind farms?
Feeling put upon by Alliant following both written and oral communications with their representative, last February I proceeded to contact my local Assembly representative, Richard Spanbauer. I received a letter from him stating, “The Joint Rules Committee recently held a public hearing about the proposed rules changes.”
He offered no suggestions regarding the restraints Alliant is imposing upon us.
Sensing that I might get a better response from our native son, U.S. Rep. Tom Petri, I delivered copies of all correspondence to his office in Fond du Lac. No response. I sent an email to him reminding him of my concern. No response.
I suppose my next attempt at obtaining fair treatment from Alliant would be to file a class action. Why must it come to that?
Allan Loehndorf
Town of Empire
FOREST RESIDENTS CONTINUE FEUD OVER WIND TURBINES
SOURCE: Pierce County Herald, www.piercecountyherald.com
April 14, 2011
Jeff Holmquist
The Town of Forest has been a quiet, rural community for much of its long history. But these days there is an atmosphere of unrest throughout the township, thanks in part to a proposed wind farm proposal that has been debated over the past couple years.
Supporters of the wind energy idea and opponents have been feuding over an agreement with Emerging Energies LLC to place up to 39 wind turbines on private properties. The agreement would pay landowners and residents within a half mile of each turbine an annual payment. The township and county would also have received annual payments.
“Residents and landowners are either for or against this,” said Jaime Junker, newly elected town board chairman. “There really is no in between ground. The division line is fairly well divided between people who would get compensated by the project and those who would not.”
Emerging Energies has been studying wind speeds in the St. Croix County township for more than two years. The Forest area was found to be a favorable location for large wind turbines due to sustained winds in the area.
The company’s research shows that average wind speeds are about 16 to 17 mph, which is sufficient to turn a large turbine and thus generate electricity.
According to the original plans, the turbine system would have been hooked up to a new or existing electric substation and the power would have ended up on the grid.
While there was support for the idea among some residents and the Forest Town Board during the initial planning stages, a number of residents are less than happy with the project.
A citizens group, called the “Forest Voice,” formed in an attempt to stop the project from moving forward.
The group filed a federal lawsuit on Feb. 9, 2011, claiming that the Town Board had bypassed open meeting law requirements to push through an agreement with Emerging Energies. The group also claimed that several board members should not have participated in the vote for the wind farm plan as they or their relatives stood to gain financially from the project.
The disgruntled Town of Forest residents also petitioned for a recall election of the former town board members. All of the challengers eventually won election to the board. The support of the majority of the residents was reaffirmed last Tuesday when wind turbine opponent Jaime Junker was re-elected as town chairman, and newly elected Patrick Scepurek and Richard Steinberger were returned to their supervisor positions.
After gaining office, the new board members voted on March 17 to rescind the wind energy development agreements, driveway permits and other approvals that had been granted to a wind developer. The board also approved a temporary stay on the location and construction of the turbines in the township.
According Forest Voice’s Attorney Glenn Stoddard, most Town of Forest residents were “completely unaware” that the former town board members had approved an agreement in 2008 and another one on Aug. 12, 2010, to proceed with the proposed wind energy project.
A postcard announcing the project was the first many heard about the plan, he claimed.
No public hearing was ever held by the defendants during a three-year development period, he further claimed.
The opponents of the wind project allege that the proposed wind energy project would destroy their quality of life and have adverse health and safety impacts on them.
Despite the fact that the agreements have been rescinded and the town board has been replaced, Stoddard said the federal lawsuit is likely to continue. He said Emerging Energies has indicated that it may seek legal action in an effort to continue with the previously approved project.
Officials with Emerging Energies did not want to comment on the Forest project when contacted.
Junker said many expect the company to seek a legal opinion in the matter.
“Now it’s pretty much a wait and see situation,” he said. “It’s hard to predict what the short term future is going to be.”
Whatever the future holds, residents on both sides of the issue say they are frustrated by the continuing feud over wind turbines.
“What has happened in our township is heartbreaking and has left many residents feeling betrayed,” said Brenda Salseg, a property owner and managing member of the Forest Voice LLC.
“Those of us who researched industrial wind turbines found disturbing evidence of health, safety and property devaluation issues associated with so-called wind farms when turbines are sited too close to homes. It’s all about what is profitable rather than responsible, which is what I thought green energy is supposed to be.”
Salseg said it’s unfair to force wind turbine opponents to live near such a large project.
“The statement we continually hear that wind energy is green, clean and renewable is nothing more than deception,” she said.
Gary Heinbuch, who continues to be a supporter of the wind project, said the atmosphere in Forest is now “as foul as can be.”
“It’s neighbor against neighbor. It’s niece against uncle,” he said. “I never thought it would get this bad.”
Rick Heibel, 53, who signed an agreement to have three turbines sited on his 240 acres, agreed.
“It’s gotten way more heated than I ever thought it would,” he said. “I never thought it would get this divisive.”
Heibel, who has lived his entire life on the farm that was first settled by his grandfather 99 years ago, said he remains convinced that the wind project would be good for him and for the town.
The annual payments to landowners and local units of government would mean a lot, he said.
“It would greatly enhance my retirement,” Heibel said. “Right now, my retirement is Social Security. All my savings is in my land, and I don’t want to sell my land. It would make my standard of living more comfortable.”
Apart from the financial benefits, Heibel said wind generation just makes sense.
He said all energy generation methods have their drawbacks. The burning of coal contributes to global warming and the mining of coal harms the land, he noted. With the ongoing disaster in Japan, Heibel wonders if more nuclear plants are a good idea. Even natural gas has its problems, he added.
“With wind, I think it’s one of the least damaging forms of generation as far as the environment goes,” he said.
Next Story
BPA, WIND DEVELOPERS ARGUE OVER LOOMING PROBLEM OF TOO MUCH POWER FROM RENEWABLES
SOURCE: The Oregonian, www.oregonlive.com
April 14 2011
By Ted Sickinger,
Under pressure from wind developers and investor-owned utilities around the region, the Bonneville Power Administration this week backed away from a plan to start pulling the plug on wind turbines when it has too much water and wind energy at the same time.
BPA Administrator Steve Wright is still reviewing a controversial plan to occasionally “curtail” wind farms in the region, a move the federal power-marketing agency has said is necessary to maintain grid reliability, protect migrating salmon and avoid passing big costs onto its public utility customers.
Wind developers and utilities who buy their output say such shutdowns are discriminatory, will breach transmission agreements and compromise wind-farm economics because the projects rely on lucrative production tax credits and the sale of renewable energy credits that are generated only when turbine blades are spinning.
They also maintain the plan is simply unnecessary, a sop to public utility customers that can be solved by other means.
In one sense, the debate is simply the latest wrinkle in the perennial debate over who should bear the costs and benefits of operating the federal hydroelectric dams and transmission system. But it illustrates the growing complexity of integrating into the grid intermittent sources of renewable energy.
“This is going to be a major issue for the region,” said John Saven, chief executive of the Northwest Requirements Utilities, a trade group representing 50 public utilities that buy their power from the BPA. “We’re in the first inning.”
The capacity of wind farms connected to the BPA’s transmission network has ballooned from 250 megawatts in 2005 to more than 3,500 today and is expected to double again in the next two years. That outstrips demand growth in the region and is being driven in large part by California utilities, which are required to meet a third of their customers’ electricity needs with renewables by 2020.
Oregon and Washington have their own mandates, but more than half the wind power generated in the Northwest is sold under long-term contact to California. Congested transmission often means the only things exported are the associated renewable energy certificates that buyers use to comply with state mandates. The electricity often stays in the region, dumped into this region’s wholesale market, depressing prices for electricity from all sources.
Grid balance
The BPA, which operates 75 percent of the high-voltage transmission grid in the region, is responsible for balancing the minute-to-minute variations in supply and demand on the grid. The agency says growing wind capacity requires it to reserve more of its hydro generation as backup reserves, either to fill in for scheduled electricity when the wind isn’t blowing or back off hydro production when wind-farm output is higher than scheduled.
The BPA charges wind farms for that flexibility. But it says there’s only so much it can absorb before those reserves start to compromise regular operations.
Overgeneration typically occurs in the spring and early summer, when snow runoff and heavy rains combine to increase hydro generation and the same storm fronts rapidly ramp wind turbines. The BPA says the dam operators have only limited flexibility to dial back hydro generation to accommodate wind surges because dumping water through the dams’ spillways raises dissolved nitrogen levels in the river, which can harm migrating fish.
The result, BPA officials say, is that the agency is left with more power than regional customers need or that an already congested transmission system can ship out of the region.
“Eventually, you just run out of places to put it,” said Doug Johnson, a BPA spokesman.
Long-term fixes
The BPA has worked during the past two years — some say been pushed and dragged — to accommodate more wind by improving forecasting and transmission scheduling. Adding transmission or new storage is a potential solution, as is transferring the responsibility for balancing some of the variable supply and demand to other utilities. But those are expensive, long-term fixes.
Meanwhile, new wind farms keep mushrooming on the Columbia Plateau, exacerbating the problem. Last June, high wind and water nearly forced the BPA into “negative pricing,” when it is forced to pay utilities and independent power producers in the region to shut down their plants and take BPA power instead.
That’s expensive for wind farms, where the cost of curtailment is not just replacement power, but the loss of production tax credits and renewable energy tags they generate when operating. The BPA recently estimated the combined impact at $37 a megawatt hour.
That’s not a price the BPA or its public utility customers want to pay.
Wind producers are the Johnnys-come-lately to the Northwest’s energy scene. But they argue that any move to single them out and curtail their production is discriminatory and violates the equal-access provisions of the laws governing the federal transmission system.
They have the support of Oregon’s Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Sen. Jeff Merkley, two Democrats who have criticized the agency in the past for dragging its feet on wind issues.
The BPA has backed away from formally implementing the wind-curtailment plan, a move that renewables advocates applauded. But it hasn’t come up with an alternative.
Next Story
BIRDS & BATS VS BLADES
SOURCE: Prince George Free Press, www.bclocalnews.com
April 14 2011
By Allan Wishart -
What happens when a bird or a bat gets involved with a wind turbine?
It’s not usually a good result for the animal, UNBC instructor Ken Otter told a Cafe Scientifique audience at Cafe Voltaire on Wednesday evening.
Otter, an instructor in the ecosystem science and management program, said people have been researching the idea that wind farms and birds have a collision problem.
“Most research suggests the problem is not much worse than with other tall structures, such as high-rise buildings or radio towers,” he said in an interview with the Free Press, “but certain species seem at a higher risk.”
Most of the at-risk species are migratory birds, which may encounter the turbines on their regular route, and “soaring” birds.
“These are species which make use of a lot of updrafts when they’re flying, birds like hawks or eagles and cranes.”
With the wind-farm technology still relatively new in Canada, the opportunity is there to work with industry to make it as safe as possible for the animals, he said.
“What we’re finding s it doesn’t take much to make the farms safer for birds. A lot of it is looking at weather patterns.”
Generally, he said, the birds are flying at elevations well above the turbines. Sometimes, however, a weather pattern will push them lower, to where they may be at risk.
“We can plot out the tracks of their migrations and see how they use the ridges and rises. That allows us to predict where the patterns will occur, and we can get very specific information.”
How specific? Otter says in some cases it could be a question of just idling one turbine in a group for a few minutes to allow a flock of birds to get by.
“Most of the turbines can be idled in about two minutes. It might just be a question of having someone out there to keep an eye on the conditions and, if needed, call back to the main operation and ask them to shut one of the turbines down for a few minutes.”
Otter said a University of Calgary study found bats ran into a different problem when it came to wind turbines.
“They have very thin walls in their lungs, and a lot of capillaries to distribute the blood. the study found groups of sometimes hundreds of bats dead near a turbine, but with no contusions on their body to indicate they had been hit by one of the vanes.”
Autopsies showed the capillaries had burst inside the bats. This led researchers to take a look at how the turbines affected wind pressure in their area.
“What happens with any fan is there is a low-pressure area created right behind the vanes. The bats were coming into this area, and their capillaries were bursting because of the sudden drop in pressure.”
Again, the solution may be as simple as varying the speed the vanes turn at to ease the drop in pressure.
And, he says, the industry seems to be willing to look at making these changes.
“We’re working with them, showing them how these small changes can keep the birds and bats safe, and they’re listening.”
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Bill Rakocy, St. Croix County, Wind farm, Wind farm birds, Wisconsin wind farm, wildlife impact, wind developers, wind energy, wind farm bats, wind farm bats, wind farm birds, wind farm lawsuit, wind farm wild life, wind farm wildlife, wind farm wisconsin, wind power
|
Comments Off
3/31/11 Local elections tied to wind development in Brown County AND Big wind lawsuit in little St. Croix county AND Wind Whirl over cancelled projects: How much of it is spin? AND Wind blade factory falls through: carrot on end of stick could have been a mirage AND Hello Windmill, Bye Bye Birdie
WIND FARMS REMAIN AN ISSUE IN GLENMORE, MORRISON
Source: Green Bay Press Gazette
March 31, 2011
By Doug Schneider
Wind farms remain a campaign issue in two southern Brown County towns, despite a company's recent decision to cancel plans for 100 wind turbines in Morrison, Glenmore and other nearby communities.
Invenergy LLC said it would not pursue permits for a wind farm in the area, but campaign signs related to wind energy continue to dot the landscape, and candidates say they still need to be prepared with future proposals that could affect residents' quality of life.
"We have to keep in mind that there are other projects like this out there, smaller developments," said Todd Christensen, who is seeking re-election as Morrison town board chairman, "and there could be more in the future."
Invenergy would have put 54 turbines in Morrison, four in Glenmore, and others in Wrightstown and Holland. Because some town officials expect there will be other developments proposed, towns are banding together to push for consistent regulations on issues related to windmills, and are asking state officials to consider their concerns. A handful of wind turbines were built as part of another project off Wisconsin 96 near the hamlet of Shirley.
But candidates also say there are issues beyond wind-energy regulation.
Cliff Hammond, who is challenging Christensen, said the next town board also will need to work to maintain a balanced budget as financial support from the state and county decline.
Kriss Schmidt, who is running for board chairperson in Glenmore, said board members will have to make sure basic services like snowplowing and road-patching are maintained.
Pat Kolarik, who also is running for Glenmore board chair, said the key for elected officials will be to focus on maintaining residents' quality of life whether the issue is wind energy or something else.
"There are going to be a number of challenges we have to address — budget, services, appropriate setbacks for any structure," she said. "The goal for me would be to work with residents on appropriate solutions."
ENERGY SOLUTION OR LEGAL TROUBLE?
March 31 2011
"The controversial energy project in Forest has come under fire and may be stopped by a federal lawsuit which was filed by a citizens’ group in February."
A legal battle in northeastern St. Croix County highlights the difficult issues of wind-generated power. Talk to anyone and they will, in general terms, talk about wind power as a good, efficient and cheap energy source for the times — be it today or tomorrow.
Try finding a location to construct wind generators and suddenly you’ve got yourself a first-class controversy, complete with arguments among neighbors, recalls and lawsuits.
Such is the case in St. Croix County in the town of Forest.
The controversial energy project in Forest has come under fire and may be stopped by a federal lawsuit which was filed by a citizens’ group in February. That suit was also supported by action of a new town board that was elected through a successful recall election. The former board had approved the proposed wind energy project last summer.
A citizens’ lawsuit was filed in February. In March, the new town of Forest board voted to rescind a wind energy development agreement and other approvals that had been granted to a wind developer. The project, being proposed by a private developer named Emerging Energies, is in jeopardy.
The project in Forest called for 39 wind towers. Each tower stands about 500 feet tall.
Many landowners in the town had signed leases with the wind firm, but were prohibited from discussing the project. When the rest of the town’s residents got “wind” of the deals, the uprising began.
Now there are battles over setbacks, noise, quality of life, health, property value, safety and more. Emerging Energies, LLC, has also threat-ened the new town board with legal action.
A similar scenario developed in the eastern part of the state when a Chicago wind energy developer, Invenergy LLC, dropped its plan to build a large wind farm near Green Bay.
Opponents in the Green Bay area are expressing the same concerns and claim they will continue to work to prevent the “irresponsible development of industrial wind projects.”
State energy regulators are now trying to come up with a plan to help support wind projects. Regulators may be asked to go back to the drawing board to develop statewide rules governing wind power projects, under a bill to be considered this week.
The Legislature’s joint committee for review of administrative rules voted earlier this month to temporarily block a wind farm site rule developed by the state Public Service Commission.
Supporters of wind energy development say legal problems will stall development, leading to a loss of jobs tied to wind turbine construction as well as revenue for host property owners and local governments. There seems to be plenty of controversy over, among other things, setbacks for wind towers.
A property rights bill introduced by Gov. Scott Walker in January would restrict wind towers from being placed less than 1,800 feet from a property line. That bill had the apparent support of wind farm opponents and the Wisconsin Realtors Association.
In its most recent wind farm decision, the PSC ruled that 1,250-foot setbacks be required for We Energies’ Glacier Hills Wind Park, now under construction in Columbia County.
The bottom line is, when wind towers begin popping up in either populated areas, or rural countryside, there is likely to be plenty of opposition. A group of wind towers doesn’t do much for the scenic value of any topography.
Despite all the virtues of wind power, developing a power source to a degree where it would have a significant impact could be difficult when facing “not in my backyard” neighborhoods.
MIDWEST WIND SUSPENDS DEVELOPMENT WORK IN STATE
"Wind industry representatives said the PSC rule was restrictive because it set specific decibel limits for turbine noise and shadow flicker restrictions as well as setbacks."
March 31, 2011
By Thomas Content
Midwest Wind Energy is suspending development of two wind farms in Wisconsin, the Illinois company said Wednesday.
The company developed the Butler Ridge wind farm in Dodge County and the Cedar Ridge project in Fond du Lac County, projects now owned and operated by other companies.
Midwest Wind said it was actively working on a 98-megawatt wind farm in Calumet County and another project for which a location had not yet been announced.
Midwest Wind cited development opportunities in other states at a time when Wisconsin policymakers are moving to restrict wind farm development.
"Most states are clearly open for renewable energy development and the economic development dollars and jobs that come with it,” said Stefan Noe, company president. “So long as there are states rolling out the welcome mat it doesn't make sense to devote significant dollars to a state that is creating unreasonable roadblocks for wind development."
The action came one week after Invenergy of Chicago canceled plans to develop a large wind farm near Green Bay, and one day after a legislative committee voted to introduce a bill sending wind siting rules back to the state Public Service Commission for more work.
Republican lawmakers and Gov. Scott Walker have said the PSC rule allowed turbines to be built too close to nearby homes. Wind industry representatives said the PSC rule was restrictive because it set specific decibel limits for turbine noise and shadow flicker restrictions as well as setbacks.
A bill that passed in the Legislature two years ago called on the PSC to set up a uniform standard for wind projects across the state, to replace a patchwork of local rules and moratoriums that were in place with regard to wind projects.
Keith Reopelle, senior policy director at the environmental group Clean Wisconsin, said the new chair of the PSC, Phil Montgomery, was a co-sponsor and supporter of the bill that called on the PSC to set statewide standards. He said he hoped the agency would move quickly to develop a workable set of rules.
When the bill was introduced in 2009, Montgomery – then a state lawmaker from Brown County and ranking Republican on the Assembly energy and utilities committee - released a statement in support of a uniform state standard.
“Wind power is job-creating power,” Montgomery said in April 2009. “A fair and uniform state standard for siting wind developments will create an environment of investment in our state while moving us closer to our green energy goals.”
WIND TURBINE PLANT ON HOLD
Source: Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune
March 31, 2011
By Nathaniel Shuda
"I think we had to give them every opportunity to succeed," council member Lee Albrecht said. "You have this carrot dangling out there that there are 600 jobs on the horizon; I think you have to do whatever you can to have that carrot come to you."
Wisconsin Rapids is ready to buy back land it sold to a local company that two years ago announced plans to build a wind-turbine blade manufacturing plant on the property.
Energy Composites Corp. faces a Friday deadline to either reach an agreement with Wisconsin Rapids or sell the nearly 94 acres of land back to the city at the original purchasing price, Mayor Mary Jo Carson said.
Carson said the sale doesn't necessarily mean the project is dead, but it won't happen right now.
"Obviously, ECC doesn't want to hold us up in reference to that land, which we thank them for," she said. "We appreciate their interest in their hometown."
Carson said City Attorney Sue Schill has been working with the company's attorney to reach a buy-back agreement.
On March 31, 2009, the company announced plans to build a 350,000-square-foot plant in the Rapids East Commerce Center that would create at least 400 local jobs. Since then, those plans expanded to 535,000 square feet and more than 600 positions.
To facilitate the project, the city later sold the Wisconsin Rapids-based company 93.7 acres of land in the Rapids East Commerce Center for $500 an acre -- a 90 percent discount from the typical asking price -- plus a $1,000 option fee, for a total price of $47,850.
Under the pending agreement, the city would buy back the land at the same price for which it sold it, Carson said.
"I'm glad to see it being sold back to the city at the original price," City Council member Marion Hokamp said. "The sooner they do it, the better it's going to be. Maybe we're going to get somebody else interested (in the property)."
As part of the original development agreement, the city would have paid $1.5 million for infrastructure costs, including extending city streets and expanding railroad access to the property, and $6,000 for each full-time job the company created on or before Dec. 31, 2012, up to $3.8 million.
At this point, Wisconsin Rapids has not invested any money in the project, city Finance Director Tim Desorcy said.
A decline in bond market conditions led company officials to put the project on hold while they searched for investors. Those efforts have been unsuccessful.
Hokamp, who has publicly criticized Energy Composites for a lack of action, said the city should have bought the property back sooner. She remained skeptical of the project throughout the process.
"Way back when they started, I never thought it was going to be done," she said. "They knew they weren't going to have anything out there a long time ago."
Other council members do not regret giving the company so long to bring the plan to fruition.
"I think we had to give them every opportunity to succeed," council member Lee Albrecht said. "You have this carrot dangling out there that there are 600 jobs on the horizon; I think you have to do whatever you can to have that carrot come to you."
WIND FARMS THREATEN MANY BIRD SPECIES WITH EXTINCTION
SOURCE Save The Eagles Foundation
STEI's president, Mark Duchamp, objects to the wind industry comparing bird mortality at windfarms to that from other causes related to human activities. These other threats have already reduced bird populations worldwide, he said, and are continuing to do so.
"But mortality caused by windfarms and their power lines is new and additional", he adds, "and like the proverbial last drop that spills the glass, its effects will be upsetting.
To wit the Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle, which has been condemned to extinction by the construction of 7 windfarms in its habitat" (1).
Another important difference, says Duchamp, is that the other threats can't be easily stopped, whereas poorly-sited windfarm projects can. The Spanish Ornithological Society (SEO/Birdlife) recommended this month that windfarms no longer be built in natural areas, but in urban and industrial areas instead (2).
One week later, SEO/Birdlife revealed that bird mortality caused by windfarms and power lines was much higher than previously thought. For the Spanish region of Castilla La Mancha, they estimate it to be "1.3 million birds a year, many of them in danger of extinction like the Imperial Eagle, the Bonelli´s Eagle or the Lesser Kestrel". And they added: "(this is) a considerable number which proves that windfarms have a great capacity for killing birds". (3)
"This is what I have been claiming for 9 years", says Duchamp, "but only this month did SEO recognize the danger. During all that time I have been treated as a heretic, and was banned from ornithology forums where my whistle-blowing was causing discomfort in the profession."
The French naturalist, who lives in Spain, has been vindicated at last. He praises the American Bird Conservancy, Birdlife Bulgaria, and SEO for their firm stand against improperly sited windfarms, but laments that it will take more years before the most prominent bird societies do likewise. Conflicts of interests are at the root of the problem, he says.
STEI warns that, if we are to save our emblematic bird species from this new threat, it is urgent to impose a moratorium on windfarm construction and to call for a really independent commission to investigate the whole windfarm matter, starting with the effectiveness of this intermittent, unreliable, and ruinous form of energy.
Duchamp founded Save the Eagles International in 2009, to raise awareness and to publish inconvenient bird mortality statistics that most bird societies fail to make available to the public. He has launched today the STEI website where these numbers and their sources can be found:
REFERENCES
(1) - Wind farms: suspicious error by consultant condemns Tasmanian eagle to extinction.
(2) - SEO Birdlife: " Castilla-La Mancha "debe abandonar el viejo modelo de grandes centrales de generación eléctrica situadas en plena naturaleza y alejadas de los puntos de consumo y fomentar la generación eléctrica en suelo urbano e industrial".
Translation: "Castilla-La Mancha "must abandon the old model of large power plants located in natural habitats, far away from where the energy is consumed, and promote electrical generation in urban and industrial zones."
(3) - SEO Birdlife: "1,3 millones de aves al año... un número considerable con el que se demuestra que los parques eólicos tienen «una gran capacidad para matar aves»."
Translation: "1.3 millon birds a year... a considerable number which proves that windfarms have a great capacity for killing birds "
The BPRC Research Nerd
in BCCRWE, Bill Rakocy, Brown County, Calumet County, Columbia County, Emerging Energies, Invenergy, Midwest Wind Energy, Midwest Wind Energy, NIMBY wind, St. Croix County, St. Croix county wind, Town of Forest wind, Wind farm, Wind ordinances, Wisconsin public service commission, wind energy, wind energy wisconsin, wind farm bats, wind farm birds, wind farm lawsuit, wind farm wild life, wind farm wisconsin, wind power, wind power lawsuit wind farm lawsuit, wind power wisconsin, wind siting council, wind siting rules legislation and policy, wind turbine
|
Comments Off
3/29/11 FOLLOW UP: Why did Invenergy cancel Brown County Project? Could it be that Wisconsin is COLD when you're naked? AND It's as bad down under as it is up here in Wisconsin: misery caused by living too close to wind turbines AND Follow the money to the green jobs and you may hit a dead end AND From quiet countryside to turbine 'hell': Neighbors tell their stories
Is there something we should tell the Emperor of Invenergy about his clothes? Nah. He knows.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: What are the real reasons Invenergy pulled out of the wind project proposed for Brown County?
Chicago-based wind developer, Invenergy, told the Public Service Commission they stopped the project because of the uncertain regulatory climate in Wisconsin. In the same letter to the PSC they contradict this statement by making it clear they will develop other projects in Wisconsin.
Another problem with this claim is that the Brown County project would not be impacted by the recently suspended wind rules. The size of the project meant the Public Service Commission -which has never said no to a proposed wind project- would be the sole regulatory authority for the project.
Invenergy claims that strong community opposition to the project had no impact on the decision, but this is in keeping with an unwritten code of the wind industry: Never admit that community opposition has any impact. If you do, it will encourage other communities to fight back.
Another reason for stopping the project may be Invenergy's lack of a power purchase agreement. If they don't have a utility willing to sign onto a multi-year agreement to buy the power from the project, the project will be nearly impossible to finance.
In wind industry-speak, a wind project in this situation is called a "naked wind farm".
Although Invenergy and wind lobbyists keep spinning the cancellation of the Brown County project as a result of regulatory uncertainty, in February, Invenergy pulled out of another 'naked wind farm' that also had significant community opposition. Once again, Invenergy denies that the community opposition had anything to do with their decision, but at least in this case they do admit to being naked.
Invenergy pulls out of Belwood
February 2, 2011
Wind turbine project rights sold to TransCanada
In a new development in the battle over wind in Belwood, Invenergy LLC has pulled out and sold their ownership stake in the project to TransCanada Energy Ltd.
Following up on a tip that Invenergy was selling off their rights to the project, the News Express contacted their head office in Chicago, Illinois last week seeking comment.
Invenergy spokesperson Alissa Krinsky issued a prepared statement, reading: "TransCanada Energy Ltd. has re-acquired 100 per cent of the interest in the Belwood Wind Energy Project from Invenergy Canada.
Currently, a power purchase agreement for this green energy project has not been secured. As a result, the time lines for the potential future development of this project are not known."
That same statement is repeated on the company's former project website for Belwood at www.belwoodwindfarm.info. The site was changed and became active with that message as of Monday, Jan. 31.
Tom Patterson, the manager for power renewables for TransCanada Energy, is listed as a contact on the site. Calls to Patterson by the News Express seeking comment on the deal were not returned as of press time.
The switch came as news to the project's biggest critics, Oppose Belwood Wind Farm. Spokeswoman Janet Vallery said the first she had heard of the change came when the News Express called seeking comment.
"We've been fighting wind farms for almost a year now," she said. "As of today, we're opposing three different companies - wpd Canada, IPC and now TransCanada. Most of the community is appalled with the risks posed by those industrial wind turbines. We're fighting these companies, and if TransCanada has the desire to move forward against the community's wishes then we'll continue to oppose them."
Next Story:
SOURCE: The Courier, www.thecourier.com.au
March 29, 2011
BY BRENDAN GULLIFER
Giving evidence, fuelled at times by anger, frustration and tears, nearly 30 local residents spoke of ill-health, property devaluation, environmental damage and communities split by wind farm developments.
The wind industry had a day of reckoning yesterday when the Senate inquiry into wind farms held its Ballarat hearing.
Giving evidence, fuelled at times by anger, frustration and tears, nearly 30 local residents spoke of ill-health, property devaluation, environmental damage and communities split by wind farm developments.
Megan Read of the Western Plains Landscape Guardians Association called for an immediate moratorium on all proposed and approved wind farms until an independent health study was undertaken.
Ms Read was also one of many who said a national approach to planning and policy guidelines should be implemented to make all states consistent with federal regulations.
“The rapid onslaught of wind farm proposals and developments has affected thousands of regional Australians and many groups,” Ms Read told the hearing.
“Local short-term economic benefits are massively overwhelmed by loss of property values, population decline, job losses and restriction of agricultural business operations.
“Wind farms are not viable without government mandated and public funded subsidies.”
Ms Read called the spread of wind farms a “complete social injustice”.
“Social impacts included negative health effects from turbine noise and infrasound, breakdown in community connectedness, and the overall feeling of helplessness,” she said.
The hearing began with formal testimony from former Waubra residents Carl and Sam Stepnell and Noel Dean. They spoke of the onset of severe health problems after turbines were turned on.
Waubra operator Acciona also came in for criticism from Pyrenees Shire Council for a range of operational matters.
Council officer Chris Hall said changes were made to turbine design and height, and lights were added to turbines after planning approval and under secondary consent from then Planning Minister Justin Madden.
Mr Hall said council had received around 32 formal complaints of noise and health related effects from Waubra residents.
It is believed senators toured both Waubra and Hepburn wind farms earlier in the day, but these visits were closed to media.
Next Story
Video: Why is this wind developer smiling?
Next story:
WIND FARM IS THEIR NEIGHBOR FROM HELL
SOURCE: Herald Scotland, www.heraldscotland.com
March 29 2011
by Harry Reid
Jim Guthrie looks out of his window, across the lovely wooded valley of the River Duisk.
Beneath his house a bridge crosses the river, carrying the A714 road from Girvan up to Barrhill.
Suddenly there’s a great roaring din. A huge 12-wheeled truck is having trouble crossing the narrow bridge, and then negotiating the sharp bend at the far side. Jim sighs and says: “At least that one didn’t smash the bridge. It’s been damaged so often, the council doesn’t bother to do the repairs any more”.
The A714 is a narrow, steep road but its A-road status makes it in theory suitable for all types of traffic. These days many very long trucks are using it because of windfarm developments in the area. Land needs to be cleared, and this often requires the felling of timber. Scarring new tracks are built across virgin country, and there is much disruptive construction work. Big loads – including the colossal turbines themselves – are transported up totally unsuitable roads.
Jim Guthrie is a retired Church of Scotland minister. Like so many Scots, he is all in favour of renewable energy. But local, harrowing experience has made him deeply sceptical about windfarms.
Through the recent severe winter, when there was a big demand for electricity, Jim monitored the turbines in his immediate area. He counted 73 days when there was little or no turbine activity. “The turbines don’t operate if there’s a hard frost, or if the wind speed is less than 15mph or more than 45 mph. So they simply don’t work for long periods,” he says. “Are they worth all the bother they cause? I don’t think so”.
With Jim is Claire Perrie, secretary of the local community council. She tells me: “I don’t think that people in Glasgow or Edinburgh understand what it’s like living near these things. And I don’t think some politicians understand what they’ve agreed to. The landowners and the contactors make a lot of money, the rest of us just suffer.”
She adds: “We’re going to have to consider direct action – and I never thought I’d say that – if the Breaker Hill windfarm goes ahead”.
There are already three large scale windfarms in this beautiful part of South Carrick. The proposed Breaker Hill development would add another 15 turbines to the 144 that have already been erected in a very compact geographical area. Scottish National Heritage insists that several windfarms should not be built close to each other, but developers have other ideas.
The vast Hadyard Hill windfarm, just three miles inland from Girvan, has 56 turbines built across gently undulating moorland. In the valley below live three generations of the Baldwin family.
Robert Baldwin shows me a video he has made of the creepy “shadow flicker” which blights his home. “This is bad enough, but what’s worse is the noise, when the turbines are operating at full tilt. They stop you sleeping, and we’re double-glazed. It’s like having a loud tumble drier on, a constant, grating, whooshing noise,” he says.
There is a proposal for a further windfarm to be built immediately behind his house. Soon he and his family could be literally surrounded by huge turbines.
Jim Guthrie says: “I worked in the shipyards before I became a minister, and then I had a rural parish at the time of foot and mouth ten years ago. But I’ve never felt as helpless as I do now. The most worrying thing of all for the folk around here is that their houses are losing value, fast. They reckon they won’t be able to sell them if they feel they have to get out.”
Some community projects have benefited from investment by windfarm developers. But in South Carrick tourism is a crucial industry, and this, obviously enough, is being adversely affected.
I would not say, as some do, that windfarms are just a scam. But they produce electricity only intermittently, they disrupt communities and rupture the environment. Surely wave and tidal power would provide far more power at far less social cost?
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Invenergy, Life in a wind farm, Noise, Wind farm, Wind farm health effects, health effects, property values, wind energy, wind farm health effects, wind farm noise, wind farm property value, wind farm shadow flicker, wind farm sleep deprivation, wind farm wisconsin, wind power, wind turbine
|
Comments Off