“The developer has concluded it is unable to develop its project in Riga, Palmyra and Ogden townships due to significant opposition to wind generation by the residents of Lenawee County."
RIGA, Mich. — Lenawee County is apparently not going to be home to a major wind turbine project — at least not in 2012. Officials from Blissfield Wind Energy LLC filed an amendment to its contract with Consumers Energy seeking permission to move the project from Lenawee County to Gratiot or Ionia counties.
Exelon Wind is one of the partners on the Blissfield project. Doug Duimering, project manager for Exelon Wind, said the group has not given up on Lenawee County, but because the contract with Consumers Energy states they would build wind turbines in 2012, the group is looking at other sites.
“We are disappointed with the way things turned out,” Duimering said. “We will continue to explore our options in Lenawee County.”
Larry Gould, president of Great Lakes LLC, which owns 50 percent of Blissfield Wind Energy LLC, said there are negotiations to take the project elsewhere, but the Michigan Public Service Commission must approve the transfer first. Gould said he could not say much due to a confidentiality agreement.
“There’s other communities that are inviting us to go someplace else,” Gould said.
Both Blissfield Wind and Consumers Energy are asking the MPSC to allow the contract between the two parties to be amended.
The request from Consumers reads: “The developer has concluded it is unable to develop its project in Riga, Palmyra and Ogden townships due to significant opposition to wind generation by the residents of Lenawee County. Hence, the developer has relocated its development plans to either Ionia County or Gratiot County, Michigan.”
The Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition Inc. was formed in opposition to the wind turbine project. Kevon Martis of Riga Township, a director of the IICC, commented on the development in an email.
“As much as the developers tried to paint this as a question of NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) opposition to change, the bottom line for most residents is that this particular project reeked of crony capitalism and corporate welfare of the worst kind: increased industrial profits at private citizens’ expense,” Martis wrote. “Couple that with solid scientific evidence that the noise limits and setbacks proposed by the developers are, in fact, unsafe, as the IICC maintained throughout this whole episode.”
Paul Wohlfarth of Riga Township headed the group Riga Residents for Wind. In an email, he expressed his disappointment at the announcement.
“We have a well-funded nonprofit corporation based in Lenawee County who collects money from across the country to spearhead an agenda that is against green wind generation in Lenawee County, Michigan and across the country,” Wohlfarth wrote. “I believe this whole project has been misrepresented by a well-funded vocal minority. It’s too bad the majority of the tri-township area didn’t take the time and visit a nearby wind farm. I think the outcome would have been much different.”
The potential siting of wind turbines in Riga, Ogden and Palmyra townships brought organized opposition from the IICC and recalls of Ogden Township Supervisor Jim Goetz and Clerk Phyllis Gentz and recall attempts against Riga Township Supervisor Jeff Simon and Trustee Richard Beagle.
The Blissfield Wind project was the only one that had reached the development stage. Another interested party was juwi Wind, a wind power company also considering a project for the area. A spokesman for juwi said its status remains unchanged.
“We are continuing to monitor and evaluate the situation,” said Aaron Peterson, manager of community relations and regulatory affairs.
In November, a referendum vote in Riga Township upheld the wind turbine ordinance enacted in July 2010. A similar vote on the Palmyra Township ordinance is slated for May 8. An Ogden Township citizens committee is weighing the benefits of a police power ordinance, which can take the place of zoning in special instances.
In addition, the Raisin Township Planning Commission is developing a wind turbine ordinance. Officials are taking the step despite no stated intentions of a wind turbine project for Raisin Township.
For the second time this year, a study will be conducted to address concerns about sound levels at the Hardscrabble Wind Farm.
After 37 turbines began operating on Jan. 31 in the Herkimer County towns of Fairfield and Norway, some residents started complaining about the turbines producing too much noise.
A study conducted earlier this year found that the noise level in some instances went above the 50-decibel level required in the permits for the turbines, Fairfield town Supervisor Richard Souza said.
Another, more extensive study will be conducted starting in late October or early November, Souza said.
“We’ll have a better idea of what the noise level is, and we’ll be able to sit down with the company and get it corrected,” he said.
The wind project developer Iberdrola Renewables paid for the first study to be conducted earlier this year at the request of town officials and landowners. The second study also will be paid for by the developer, town and company officials said.
A noise level of 50 decibels is often compared to the sound from a refrigerator motor running. The decibel level of a “normal conversation” is about 60 decibels, according to information provided by Iberdrola.
The first study showed noise levels reaching 60 to 65 decibels in some instances, and the permits restrict the decibel level from going above 50 – including the turbines and background noise combined, Souza said.
But the instances in the study when the noise levels were higher than 50 decibels were primarily when there were extreme wind speeds, Iberdrola spokesman Paul Copleman said. The sounds were largely due to other factors from the wind speed such as the rustling of leaves, he said.
“We didn’t consider that to be attributable to the wind farm,” he said.
That means the developers believe they’re not in violation of the wind ordinances, but the issue does warrant further studying, Copleman said.
Fairfield resident Jimmy Salamone, who lives near turbines on Davis Road in Fairfield, said the noise level has become an ongoing problem for many people in the area.
“The noise is really bad on Davis Road – very hard to live with,” Salamone said. “It’s way too loud, and it gets louder at night for some reason.”
But Salamone thinks that instead of conducting another study, something should be done to address the noise levels found in the other study earlier this year, he said.
Donald Dixon, 75, who has two wind turbines on his property at Route 170 in Fairfield, said he doesn’t believe a noise study is necessary.
“To be honest with you, I don’t even notice them,” Dixon said.
Dixon believes the people complaining about noise are the same people who complained before the turbines were put up and that they just want to continue with their complaints, he said.
Souza said he has dealt with “quite a few” complaints scattered throughout the town. It should take about three weeks to complete the study once it begins, he said. The angle and speed of the turbine blades could potentially be altered in response to the results if necessary, he said.
The first study looked at three sites in Fairfield and one in Norway, Souza said. The new study will review five sites in Fairfield and one in Norway, while also looking into more details about the time of the day and factors in the noise levels, he said.
The government and the wind energy industry have long maintained turbines have no adverse effects on property values, health or the environment.
The CBC has documented scores of families who’ve discovered their property values are not only going downward, but also some who are unable to sell and have even abandoned their homes because of concerns nearby turbines are affecting their health.
Ontario’s rapid expansion in wind power projects has provoked a backlash from rural residents living near industrial wind turbines who say their property values are plummeting and they are unable to sell their homes, a CBC News investigation has found.
The government and the wind energy industry have long maintained turbines have no adverse effects on property values, health or the environment.
The CBC has documented scores of families who’ve discovered their property values are not only going downward, but also some who are unable to sell and have even abandoned their homes because of concerns nearby turbines are affecting their health.
“I have to tell you not a soul has come to look at it,” says Stephana Johnston, 81, of Clear Creek, a hamlet on the north shore of Lake Erie about 60 kilometres southeast of London.
Johnston, a retired Toronto teacher, moved here six years ago to build what she thought would be her dream home. But in 2008, 18 industrial wind turbines sprung up near her property and she put the one-floor, wheelchair-accessible home up for sale.
“My hunch is that people look at them and say: ‘As nice as the property is going south, looking at the lake, we don’t want to be surrounded by those turbines.’ Can’t say that I blame them.”
Johnston says she has suffered so many ill health effects, including an inability to sleep — which she believes stem from the noise and vibration of the turbines— that she now sleeps on a couch in her son’s trailer, 12 kilometres away, and only returns to her house to eat breakfast and dinner and use the internet.
Industry rejects claims of lower land values
Meanwhile, the industry rejects claims of lower land values.
“Multiple studies, and particularly some very comprehensive ones from the United States have consistently shown the presence of wind turbines does not have any statistically significant impact on property values,” says Robert Hornung of the Ottawa-based Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA).
While acknowledging a lack of peer-reviewed studies in Ontario, Hornung says CANWEA commissioned a study of the Chatham-Kent area, where new wind turbines are appearing, and found no evidence of any impact on property values.
“In fact,” says Hornung, “we’ve recently seen evidence coming from Re/Max indicating that we’re seeing farm values throughout Ontario, including the Chatham-Kent area, increasing significantly this year as wind energy is being developed in the area at the same time.”
However, Ron VandenBussche, a Re/Max agent along the Lake Erie shore, said the reality is that the wind turbines reduce the pool of interested buyers, and ultimately the price of properties.
“It’s going to make my life more difficult,” says VandenBussche, who has been a realtor for 38 years. “There’s going to be people that would love to buy this particular place, but because the turbines are there, it’s going to make it more difficult, no doubt.”
Kay Armstrong is one example. She put her two-acre, waterfront property up for sale before the turbines appeared in Clear Creek, for what three agents said was a reasonable price of $270,000.
Two years after the turbines appeared, she took $175,000, and she felt lucky to do that — the property went to someone who only wanted to grow marijuana there for legal uses.
“I had to get out,” said Armstrong. “It was getting so, so bad. And I had to disclose the health issues I had. I was told by two prominent lawyers that I would be sued if the ensuing purchasers were to develop health problems.”
Realtor association finds 20 to 40 per cent drops in value
Armstrong’s experience is backed up in a study by Brampton-based realtor Chris Luxemburger. The president of the Brampton Real Estate Board examined real estate listings and sales figures for the Melancthon-Amaranth area, home to 133 turbines in what is Ontario’s first and largest industrial wind farm.
“Homes inside the windmill zones were selling for less and taking longer to sell than the homes outside the windmill zones,” said Luxemburger.
On average, from 2007 to 2010, he says properties adjacent to turbines sold for between 20 and 40 per cent less than comparable properties that were out of sight from the windmills.
Power company sells at a loss
Land registry documents obtained by CBC News show that some property owners who complained about noise and health issues and threatened legal action did well if they convinced the turbine companies to buy them out.
Canadian Hydro Developers bought out four different owners for $500,000, $350,000, $305,000 and $302,670. The company then resold each property, respectively, for $288,400, $175,000, $278,000 and $215,000.
In total, Canadian Hydro absorbed just over half a million dollars in losses on those four properties.
The new buyers were required to sign agreements acknowledging that the wind turbine facilities may affect the buyer’s “living environment” and that the power company will not be responsible for or liable from any of the buyer’s “complaints, claims, demands, suits, actions or causes of action of every kind known or unknown which may arise directly or indirectly from the Transferee’s wind turbine facilities.”
The energy company admits the impacts may include “heat, sound, vibration, shadow flickering of light, noise (including grey noise) or any other adverse effect or combination thereof resulting directly or indirectly from the operation.”
TransAlta, the company that took over for Canadian Hydro, refused to discuss the specific properties it bought and then resold at a loss in Melancthon. But in an email to CBC, spokesman Glen Whelan cited the recession and other “business considerations” that “influence the cost at which we buy or sell properties, and to attribute purchase or sale prices to any one factor would be impossible.”
Province says no change to tax base
Ontario’s ministers of Energy, Municipal Affairs and Finance, all in the midst of an election campaign, declined requests for an interview.
A spokesperson for Municipal Affairs says his ministry has no studies or information about the potential impact wind turbines are having on rural property values.
However, last February, before an environmental review tribunal in Chatham, Environment Ministry lawyer Frederika Rotter said: “We will see in the course of this hearing that lots of people are worried about windmills. They may not like the noise, they may think the noise makes them sick, but really what makes them sick is just the windmills being on the land because it does impact their property values.
“That’s what makes them sick is that, you know, they’ll get less money for their properties, and that’s what’s causing all this annoyance and frustration and all of that.”
When Energy Minister Brad Duguid declined comment, his staff referred CBC News to the Ministry of Finance, which oversees MPAC (the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation), which sets values on land for taxation purposes. They indicated that MPAC has no evidence wind turbines are driving down assessed values.
However, CBC found one household in Melancthon was awarded a 50-per-cent reduction in property tax because the house sat next to a transformer station for the turbines.
Losing the rural life
Almost all the people interviewed by the CBC rue the division between neighbours for and against the turbines, and said what they have lost is a sense of home and the idyllic life of living in the countryside.
Tracy Whitworth, who has a historic home in Clear Creek, refuses to sell it and instead has become a nomad, renting from place to place with her son, to avoid the ill effects of the turbines.
“My house sits empty — it’s been vandalized,” says Whitworth, a Clear Creek resident who teaches high school in Delhi. “I’ve had a couple of ‘Stop the wind turbine’ signs knocked down, mailbox broken off.
“I lived out there for a reason. It was out in the country. School’s very busy. When I come home, I like peace and quiet. Now, we have the turbines and the noise. Absolutely no wildlife. I used to go out in the morning, tend to my dogs, let my dogs run, and I’d hear the geese go over.
“And ugh! Now there’s no deer, no geese, no wild turkeys. Nothing.”
For the octogenarian Johnston, the fight is all more than she bargained for. She sank all her life savings, about $500,000, into the house, and she says she does not have the money to be able to hire a lawyer to fight for a buyout. But she is coming to the conclusion she must get a mortgage to try the legal route.
“I love being near the water and I thought, what a way to spend the rest of my days — every view is precious,” she said, as tears filled her eyes. “And I would not have that any more.
“And that is hard to reconcile and accept.”
Getting a mortgage on her house might not be that easy. CBC News has learned that already one bank in the Melancthon area is not allowing lines of credit to be secured by houses situated near wind turbines. In a letter to one family situated close to the turbines, the bank wrote, “we find your property a high risk and its future marketability may be jeopardized.”
Click on the image above to go on a tour of a wind project being built in Washington state. Note the absolute lack of homes in this wind farm.
Contrast this with a video of homes in the Butler Ridge wind project in Dodge County, Wisconsin. Setback for this project is 1000 feet from non-participating homes. Click on the image below to see what that looks like and why this setback may not be adequate.
Alliant Energy, Madison, wants to build a natural gas-fueled power plant and a wind farm in Iowa.
In a conference call with analysts Thursday, Alliant chairman Bill Harvey said Interstate Power & Light, Alliant's Iowa utility subsidiary, probably will not renew its contract for electricity from the Duane Arnold nuclear power plant past its expiration in February 2014.
"The economics didn't work out" in negotiations with the reactor owner, NextEra Energy, Alliant spokesman Scott Reigstad said Friday.
In order to make up for that loss, as well as the expected closing of aging power plants in the coming years, IPL is studying the feasibility of building a 600-megawatt natural gas-fueled plant in Iowa by 2016. No location has been chosen but the project would cost at least $650 million.
Alliant also plans to build another wind farm in north-central Iowa, adjacent to its Whispering Willow-East site, with about 60 turbines bought in 2008 but set aside for future development. Instead of being owned by one of its utility subsidiaries, it would be owned by Alliant Energy Resources, the company's unregulated, non-utility arm. That means shareholders, not ratepayers would shoulder the cost.
Reigstad said because the utility already has met its renewable portfolio standard of 10 percent, regulators are not expected to let ratepayers pick up the tab for another wind farm. Construction is expected to start Monday and the turbines should start producing power by the end of 2012.
Harvey also said Alliant plans to submit an application later this year to buy the natural gas-fired Riverside power plant in Beloit when its contract to buy electricity from the plant expires in 2013.
It was a case of clean energy polluting the environment.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has slapped a $490,000 fine, one of its largest, on Suzlon Rotor, the Pipestone, Minn., manufacturer of wind-power electricity generation equipment.
While capturing wind energy with Suzlon’s giant wind turbine blades didn’t pollute, the manufacturer of the equipment did, according to a consent agreement between Suzlon and the MPCA that was filed in Pipestone County District Court.
The agreement, in which Suzlon agreed to correct its manufacturing problems at unspecified costs, detailed violations involving air quality, hazardous waste, solid waste and the handling of storm water runoff.
Brad Wiggins, Suzlon’s regional manager in Pipestone, couldn’t be reached for comment, and a Chicago spokeswoman for Suzlon didn’t return a call.
The fine comes as Suzlon’s parent company, based in India, has been laying off workers in Pipestone. After surging to nearly 500 workers as the market for giant wind turbine blades took off in the mid-2000s, employment has dropped to about 30 people at the plant. Suzlon laid off 110 workers there late last year.
The MPCA said that, in 2009, sandblasting operations at the plant “far exceeded emissions standards for airborne particles.” In addition to sandblasting without a permit, Suzlon did so without using air emission control equipment, the MPCA said. The company also stored sandblasting waste material outdoors in uncovered piles, where it was exposed to storm water runoff, without having the correct permit, the MPCA said.
In addition, Suzlon failed to properly evaluate its waste for hazardous substances, or to correctly handle hazardous waste, MPCA said. Included in those violations were claims that Suzlon improperly sent damaged turbine blades containing lead to a landfill; the lead was subsequently recovered from the landfill, the MPCA said.
The company was ordered to stop sandblasting, evaluate hazardous wastes, dispose of lead properly, prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan and obtain all necessary permits.
The $490,000 fine wasn’t Suzlon’s first. In 2008, the company paid a $19,000 fine for violating air quality rules by failing to obtain an air quality permit before the Pipestone facility was built.
The MPCA said the amount of the latest fine is based on the seriousness of the violation, whether it was a repeat violation and how soon it was reported to authorities. It also said fines are an attempt to recover the value of the economic benefit a company received by failing to comply with environmental laws.
Tempers flared in a Town of Glenmore board meeting Wednesday night as officials approved a new wind turbine development.
The heated followed a vote in the Town of Glenmore last week, when the town board approved building permits for C-Energy to erect seven wind turbines. After several citizens opposing the decision erupted, the board decided to table the vote.
Wednesday, the town board made its final decision on the matter.
Sheriff's deputies were on-hand as citizens packed the Glenmore community center waiting to hear the town board's decision. Twenty minutes in, they got their answer.
The board voted 2-1, cementing the building permits for seven new turbines.
"Shame on you!" the crowd shouted.
Angry members in the crowd chanted "Shame!" and "Judas!" as board supervisors Don Kittell and Kriss Schmidt, who voted to approve the permits, quickly left the building without comment.
The shouting carried into the parking lot as C-Energy representatives went to their cars.
"How you can you look at yourself, you lousy, lousy people!" one person shouted.
Supervisor Ron Nowak, the only member to vote against the building permits, tried to sum up the vote.
"They did all their paperwork, got all their permits. They came to us with all their paperwork, and we're going to give it to them," Nowak said.
Representatives of C-Energy declined to comment.
After the meeting we called Kittell and Schmidt. Neither returned our calls.
GREEN BAY - Emotions continue to run hot over a wind turbine project in Brown County. The Glenmore town board tonight voted to allow CG Power Solutions to build seven turbines in the community.
The vote happened without public comment.
When the meeting was adjourned soon after the vote, many of those attending shouted down the board members. Law enforcement officers watched the crowd as the board members left.
Tonight's meeting and vote came on the heels of another heated meeting last week. At that time, the board originally approved the permit for the project, but when the crowd became angry then, the board abruptly ended the meeting.
It later reconvened and voted to delay the permit for two months. Then, the turbine company challenged that second vote, saying it violated state open meeting law.
We were not able to speak with board members following tonight's meeting.
Opponents to the plan say they have a number of concerns, including health issues.
They may look harmless, but the increasing amount of wind turbines freckling hills and skylines around the central west may be doing more harm than good.
Insomnia, nausea and headaches are just some of the health complaints slowly being brought to the surface by people living near wind farms.
Dr Sarah Laurie,who has done extensive research into the health effects of wind turbines in rural communities, spoke to residents around Blayney on Wednesday night about her findings.
Residents and land holders were particularly interested as they face a proposed $200 million wind farm being built in the Flyers Creek area across 16 properties.
“I am not anti-wind, but there’s a problem,” Dr Laurie said. “You can’t ignore the fact that people are getting sick.”
The sudden and unexplained common symptoms presented by those living up to 10 kilometres away from wind farms include nausea, headaches, sleep deprivation, tinnitus, panic attacks and high blood pressure.
Children are also presenting unusual symptoms including waking with night terrors and sudden bed wetting, despite having gone years without wetting the bed.
Residents report they can only solve these problems by leaving the area.
Dr Laurie said that medical practitioners, wind turbine companies, and the government can no longer ignore the evidence linking wind farms with negative health affects.
She believes infrasound waves that are inaudible to humans are responsible for the health problems.
“There’s a stimulation of the nervous system, and I think this is from the infrasound,” she said.
“[People] can’t really protect their homes from it because they are very penetrative.”
Although infrasound waves occur naturally, Dr Laurie believes it’s the pulsating nature of the sound waves as the blade passes the tower that is mainly responsible for the health problems.
The Senate has launched an inquiry on rural wind farms and their health effects.
Over 1000 submissions have been made so far.
Dr Laurie is hoping the inquiry will prompt the government to investigate the issue so it is better understood and preventative strategies can be taken in the future.
“It is acoustic pollution,” she said.
There are no regulations stating how far a wind farm can be from a residence.
Infigen Energy, the company behind the proposed Flyers Creek wind farm, did not provide the Central Western Daily with a comment.
Next story
BOARD OF HEALTH PRESSED TO STUDY EFFECTS OF TURBINES
Falmouth Board of Health will request that health impacts from the town’s wind turbines be studied by the state Department of Public Health, and that a complaint log based on science be established online for residents to report adverse effects from the turbines.
In a meeting last night, the board heard a presentation from Ambleside Road resident J. Malcolm Donald on health effects from a 28-turbine wind farm in Mars Hill, Maine. The controlled study, conducted by Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum, found that a large percentage of residents living within 1,100 meters of the turbines experienced symptoms, compared with residents who lived three miles away. According to Mr. Donald, the study found that 77 percent of abutters to the wind farm experienced feelings of anger, and over 50 percent felt feelings of stress, hopelessness, and depression. Over 80 percent reported sleep disturbances, compared with 4 percent in the control group, he said, and 41 percent of abutters experienced headaches.
The study, which was completed in March 2009, has yet to be published in a creditable journal—and, as several board members pointed out, has yet to stand up to the rigors of the scientific method, which include peer review and replication.
Board member John B. Waterbury, a biologist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said he had carefully read the study and other documents sent by Mr. Donald over the weekend. “As a scientist, I look and see there isn’t much peer-reviewed literature. Then there are people who are clearly impacted by this thing in a number of ways,” he said. Fellow board member George R. Heufelder said he was not convinced that the physiological symptoms listed in the study are connected to the turbines. “I can’t dismiss your irritation and angst, but my analysis says, show me the facts. It takes someone to do a good, controlled study,” he said. Mr. Donald cited the “precautionary principle,” a legal term that allows policy makers to make decisions that are not based on scientific evidence. “You don’t really need to know why something is happening. If we know it’s happening, we need to take preventive mesures to stop it from happening,” he said. Board member Jared V. Goldstone pointed out that although the principle has been adopted in the European Union, it is not law in the United States. “The legal underpinnings of [Dr. Nissenbaum’s study] just aren’t there. Right now it’s a political issue,” he said.
Mr. Donald also read verbatim a Climatide blog post written, coincidentally, by Dr. Goldstone’s wife, Heather M. Goldstone, a WCAI reporter with a doctorate in ocean science and a background in toxicology. As part of the radio station’s series on “the Falmouth Experience” with turbines, she drew parallels between the debate over the health effects of wind turbine energy and toxic chemical pollutants.
Several residents of Blacksmith Shop Road, where the town-owned turbines are located, spoke about the health and quality-of-life impacts they started experiencing after the fi rst turbine was erected last spring.
John J. Ford, who said he lives 2,745 feet from the Notus Clean Energy turbine at Falmouth Technology Park and 3,740 feet from Wind 1 at the wastewater treatment facility, said he is currently trying to soundproof his bedroom in order to sleep at night. With an elevated heart rate and blood pressure, he said his experiences are similar to those in the Nissenbaum study. “My neighbors and myself would be enthralled, if the board of health took a more active role in this,” Mr. Ford said.
Colin P. Murphy, also of Blacksmith Shop Road, said that he has felt all the effects listed in the study “at some point or other.” He invited board members to spend time in the neighborhood for a full 24-hour period in various wind conditions to feel the effects for themselves. station’s series on “the Falmouth . [sic]
Mark J. Cool, a resident of Fire Tower Road, asked the board to take a proactive approach by approaching state authorities for help and working with other town committees to address the residents grievances. “At the very least, acknowledge that something is going on in our neighborhood. It’s an enormous problem for everybody,” he said.
Chairman Gail A. Harkness said it was clear that residents are affected, but the turbines are related to the town’s finances, over which the board of health does not have jurisdiction. Mr. Murphy said that money should not be a concern for the board of health. “Aren’t I worth more than $178,000? I think I’m worth more than that,” he shouted, referring to the town’s estimate of how much money will be saved through wind energy each year.
Mr. Donald said that those savings should be enough to fund a study.
“Why can’t the board take some milk from those ‘cash cows’ to fund an epidemiological study?” he asked.
Dr. Harkness, an epidemiologist by training, suggested approaching the schools of public health at Harvard or Boston University to do a controlled study. “One residential study does not give you the truth. Repeated findings do not lead to a cause-effect scenario,” she said.
Mr. Cool asked board members whether they had seen the noise complaint log, which Falmouth Wastewater Superintendent Gerald C. Potamis explained is being kept by a private consultant. Dr. Goldstone said that could be helpful, especially if the log featured “controlled vocabulary” that could be used as scientific data for the sometimes subjective complaints.
Several residents said they had not heard of the log, and had been sending their complaints directly to selectmen or the town manager. Dr. Waterbury suggested posting the log, along with wind turbine data, on the town website so that it would be easily accessible.
Board members questioned whether pending litigation between a group of residents and the town would affect the online log, but they said they would explore the idea, along with the possibility of getting state health authorities to conduct a study in the affected neighborhoods.
The board will follow up on these action items at its next meeting on March 28.
The Umatilla County Planning Committee has voted unanimously to send a proposed two-mile setback of wind towers from rural homes and from city urban growth boundaries to the Umatilla County Commissioners for approval.
This guarantees both the cities and the rural homeowners the right to say “no” to wind towers encroaching upon their properties against their will. If they say “no,” then no tower can be built closer than two miles from a home, nor will a wind tower be built closer than two miles from a city’s urban growth boundary.
The misery of shadow flicker, which blights the lives of people living near some wind turbines, could soon be over.
The flickering is caused when rotating turbine blades periodically cast shadows through openings, such as windows.
A report commissioned by the Department for Energy and Climate Change recommended that turbines should be built no closer than 10 rotor diameters from the nearest home.
This means that if the blade had an 80metre (262ft) diameter, it should be at least 800 metres, or half a mile away.
Shadow flicker is worse when the sun is low in the sky in winter, when the wind can also be strong.
Studies cited in the report said that, over the long term, it could cause “a significant nuisance”.
It was also a risk for a small number of people with epilepsy.
Although the report concluded that flicker was not a “significant health risk”, protesters insist the issue can cause headaches and stress–related problems.
Lynn Harlock, who lives almost half a mile from Redtile wind farm in Cambridgeshire, said she was “sick to death” of flicker.
“You cannot sit in any rooms when the sun is setting at certain times of year,” she said.
“It is like flashing strobe lighting. It is quite upsetting not being able to sit in your own home.
“People think you are barmy. They think you are after compensation. But all we want is our home back.”
The report recommended that homes and offices within 500 meters, or a third of a mile, of a turbine should not suffer flicker for more than 30 minutes a day or 30 hours a year.
Developers applying for planning permission where there could be a flicker should put in place measures to stop significant nuisance, it added.
In many cases, problems could be solved by shutting a turbine down for short periods of the year, changing the position slightly or planting vegetation and trees.
The Coalition wants to build up to 6,000 wind turbines onshore over the next 10 years.
Charles Hendry, minister for energy and climate change, welcomed the report. He said new planning laws would ensure turbines were sited where there was plenty of wind rather than near residential areas where they might cause protests. Planning guidance would stick to the “10 diameter rule”.
Lee Moroney, a wind energy expert with the Renewable Energy Foundation, said the rules were not strong enough and wind turbines should not be built within a mile of residential areas.
Birds are not so eagle–eyed after all, according to a study that found that some species crash into wind turbines and power lines because they do not look where they are going.
Professor Graham Martin at the University of Birmingham said large birds of prey and sea birds were particularly vulnerable to crashing into man–made structures. In a study published in the journal Ibis, he suggested the reason was because birds had evolved to look for movement either side and potential prey on the ground rather than straight ahead.
He suggested that wind farms or other structures should have decoys on the ground to try to distract birds, or emit sound to alert them to the danger.
The BPRC Research Nerd