Entries in wind turbine noise (103)
3/20/10 DOUBLE FEATURE: What an Illinois farming family is saying to the wind developers AND Wisconsin Big Industry is saying about Wisconsin Big Wind.
SOURCE: Bureau County Republican,
Ann Burkey Brezinski
March 17, 2010
I am writing on behalf of Eileen Burkey’s and the late Willard Burkey’s farm located north of Walnut. My great-grandparents purchased and moved to this property in the 1890s.
Since that time, my family has been devoted and faithful caretakers of this acreage. Further, we intend to continue this stewardship for future generations of our family, not just for the benefit of our family but because it is the right thing to do. We are the beneficiaries of a limited, endangered resource that should not be sacrificed.
We will not sign the Wind Project Lease Agreement for four, irrefutable reasons.
First, we will not diminish our tillable acres — either by area or by productivity. To do otherwise is both short-sighted and irresponsible. A wind turbine and its access roadways would decrease our tillable acres. The productivity of the soil would be diminished by compaction and damage to the farm tile system.
Second, we will not sign a contract that provides unilateral “sole discretion” in a LaSalle Street, Chicago limited liability corporate tenant regarding numerous matters concerning our family farm. We are obviously in this for the long haul and will not let our property be irrevocably abused and controlled by outsiders for their financial gain.
Third, the proposed Wind Project Lease Agreement is extremely protective of the wind turbine company, and it does not afford the farm owner the same legal protections. My professional reservations include the potential 70-year duration of the lease and its ramifications upon future generations.
It is impossible to predict the financial viability of the developer or its successors for that time period, or even to gauge the reasonableness of the terms for such a time period. Also, the lease’s list of easement effects will affect the quality of life of anyone in the vicinity of the turbines; this list includes everything from sound pollution to visual blight to air turbulence to radio-frequency interference, to name a few.
I question whether the proposed payment structure is sufficient to compensate for this open-ended list. Further, the lease terms provide that a landowner cannot construct any structure anywhere on his property without first meeting with the developer in order to determine a site that will not impact the developer’s rights. The overriding theme in the proposed lease is clearly the developer’s rights, not the rights of landowners.
Fourth, we are very concerned about evidence showing farmland values are lowered by the existence of neighboring wind turbines. We will not sign a contract that will detrimentally impact the farmland values of our neighbors and friends, and would hope that our neighbors and friends would have the same consideration for us.
Ann Burkey Brezinski
Current 10% Renewables Mandate Costs Too Much, Creates Unneeded Generation
Wisconsin currently has much more energy supply than it has energy demand – indeed, its excess energy supply is more than twice the amount required by law.
Unfortunately, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has concluded that Wisconsin’s 10% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) trumps our energy needs, energy costs, and statutory conservation requirements, which effectively renders meaningless those “off ramps” that were intended to serve as a safety valve should the cost of renewable energy become too expensive.
We currently get about 5% of our statewide needs from renewable generation – and we have a long, expensive way to go to meet even the current 10% RPS. Yet we have no immediate, or even short term, need for more generation. Wisconsin is building a lot of unnecessary generation at a premium cost.
Crane Creek (2008) – Wisconsin Public Service Corporation – $251 million – 99 MW
The Commission concluded that Crane Creek was not needed until at least 2021 and that no new generation was needed until at least 2018.
The Commission models showed that a natural gas turbine was less expensive than a wind farm.
WPSC has a roughly 50% reserve margin - it already has way more energy supply than demand.
Bent Tree (2009) – Wisconsin Power and Light Company – $500 million – 200 MW
The Commission approved Bent Tree with a sales forecast that did not include WPL’s extraordinary loss of electric sales over the past year and more (General Motors, Domtar paper mill and other major energy-intensive companies).
WPL requested and received $30 million in its last rate case (Docket 6680-UR-117) for the up-front construction costs of the wind farm that has not yet put any iron in the ground.
Bent Tree was the biggest line item in a rate increase request of roughly $100 million or 10%.
Blue Sky Green Field (2007) – WE Energies – over $300 million – 145 MW
The Commission approved Blue Sky Green Field even though it expressly concluded that the energy would not be needed until around 2015 - eight years after it approved the project.
The Commission recognized that the Project was more expensive than fossil fuel generation.
The Commission approved the Project because of WE Energies need to meet its RPS mandate.
Glacier Hills (2010) – WE Energies – up to $452 million – 200 MW
The Commission concluded that WE Energies needed Glacier Hills in order to meet its RPS mandate, not because it needed more generation.
In her concurring opinion, Commission Azar recognized that WE Energies - and the state as a whole - may soon be exporting energy that it does not itself need, given “the current excess of capacity in Wisconsin.” And yet, the PSC still approved this project.
WE Energies still plans to spend over $1 billion in new projects to comply with the 10% RPS law.
A decade ago Wisconsin’s electric rates were among the lowest in the country; now, its rates are among the highest in the Midwest. These four wind projects alone will cost ratepayers at minimum $1.5 billion and they are or will soon be producing energy that Wisconsin does not currently need. The reason the Commission approved these projects was to meet the current 10% RPS mandate, and we are only at 5% statewide right now.
The Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming recommends boosting the RPS to 25 percent by 2025. Imagine what a 150% increase in RPS requirement will do to customer bills, at a time when the generation simply is not needed. We will be generation rich, yes. But cash poor.
WANT MORE? CLICK HERE TO READ TODAY'S "WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS"
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Glacier Hills Wisconsin, Wisconsin wind farm, Wisconsin wind power, host wind turbine, wind developer, wind farm lease, wind turbine noise, wind turbine shadow flicker, wisconsin green jobs, wisconsin wind, wisconsin wind energy
|
Comments Off
3/19/10 Special to Columbia County: New questions being asked about the Glacier Hills project.
Glacier Hills Wind Park easement search angers neighbors
Neighbors irritated by We Energies’ continued search for Glacier Hills Wind Park easements have won the right to review changes to a project the state approved two months ago.
“If they don’t need easements to build the project, then why are they still bothering nonparticipants?” said Friesland resident Gary Steinich. “We didn’t ask for this fight.”
Steinich and other Columbia County landowners who chose not to negotiate with We Energies to give up land for the estimated $434 million wind farm formed the nonprofit group Neighbors Caring About Neighbors.
That group, responding to the utility’s interest in easements, sought and received intervener status Wednesday with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin for the project.
As an intervener, the group has access to, can comment on and can request PSC review of any changes We Energies makes to the project. The group’s argument, Steinich said, is the utility should not still be seeking easements if the state approved the project and ruled complete the application for the wind farm.
But We Energies still is deciding if it needs to change its original project plan. The utility intended to build 90 turbines, but the PSC’s January approval established 1,250-foot setbacks from properties, even though We Energies wanted 1,000-foot setbacks.
The utility still wants to build 90 turbines and is seeking easements to establish the quickest connection routes between the turbines, said We Energies spokesman Brian Manthey. He said utility representatives since the PSC approval have approached those landowners who had not agreed to give up land to ask for waivers and easements so We Energies would have more room to connect the turbines with transmission cables.
“We haven’t made a final determination on the number of turbines or where all the interconnects will go,” Manthey said. “We expect to have that information sometime in April.”
Technically, the utility, by approaching landowners, is following the guidelines in the PSC’s approval of the project, said Dan Sage, assistant administrator in the PSC’s gas and energy division. The commission’s approval had 29 conditions, including reducing the number of turbines in some areas and seeking alternate sites for some turbines and transmission lines, he said.
Still, Manthey said, even without the easements, the project can and will proceed.
If that’s the case, Steinich said, the utility should not bother the neighbors.
“Why didn’t they state that they needed these easements in the original application?” he said. “Why didn’t they just build the project?”
According to the group’s intervener request, We Energies’ application to build the wind farm explained the utility “possesses the necessary control of lands required for alternative and preferred turbine sites, cables and roads … via easements and easement and purchase options.”
Manthey said the utility simply wants to make sure it investigates all options for connecting the lines before building the farm. Unless the group’s request delays the project, construction should begin this summer, he said.
The group can accept that inevitability, but the neighbors just want to be left alone, Steinich said.
“Obviously, none of us like the wind farm, but our goal here is not to stop it,” he said. “There’s no contesting of the PSC decision. They made it. We’ll live with it.”
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Glacier Hills wind park, WEPCO, wind energy, wind power, wind turbine noise, wisconsin wind.
|
Comments Off
3/18/10 TRIPLE FEATURE: How they picked them, we don't know: Meet the PSC's new Wind Siting Council AND What the new rules may mean for Brown County AND What did the wind developer say to 1000 people in a bad mood?
WE Energies Blue Sky/ Green Field project in Fond du Lac County, WIsconsin
Announced March 16, 2010
WIND SITING COUNCIL
Tom Green, Wind developer, Wind Capitol Group, Dane County
Bill Rakocy, Wind developer, Emerging Energies of Wisconsin, LLC, Wind developer, Dane County
Doug Zweizig, P&Z Commissioner, Union Township, Rock County
Lloyd Lueschow, Green County Board Supervisor, District 28, Green County,
Andy Hesselbach, Wind project manager, We Energies, Dane County
Dan Ebert, Vice President of Policy and External Affairs, WPPI Energy, Dane County
Michael Vickerman , Executive Director, RENEW Wisconsin, Madison, Dane County
Ryan Schryver , Global Warming Specialist, Organizer, Advocate: Clean Wisconsin, Madison, Dane County
George Krause Jr. Real estate broker: Choice Residential LLC, Manitowoc County
Tom Meyer, Real Estate Agent, Restaino & Associates, Middleton, Dane County
Dwight Sattler Landowner, retired diary farmer, Malone, Fond du Lac County
Larry Wunsch, Landowner, fire-fighter, non-participating resident of Invenergy Forward Energy wind project, Fond du Lac County
David Gilles, attorney specializing in energy regulatory law, shareholder, Godfrey & Kahn Attorneys at Law, Madison, Dane County
Jennifer Heinzen, Wind Energy Technology Instructor, Lakeshore Technical College, Manitowoc County, and President of RENEW Wisconsin, Madison, Dane County
Jevon McFadden University of Wisconsin, School of Medicine & Public Health, Dane County
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
Questions are being raised about the PSC's appointment of the President of RENEW Wisconsin as well the the Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin. For those wonder why RENEW has two top representatives on the siting council, why not contact the PSC and ask? We'd appreciate hearing any answers they give you. CLICK HERE TO CONTACT US
Also, we can't help noting that of the 15 members on the siting council, ten of them are from Dane County. There are 72 counties in the state of Wisconsin.
In the news:
TOUGH TASK AWAITS WIND SITING COUNCIL
SOURCE: www.jsonline.com
Thomas Content
March 17, 2010
The controversial decision about how close wind turbines should be placed from homes is now in the hands of the Wisconsin Wind Siting Council.
Homeowners who live near wind turbines built in some wind farms in Wisconsin have complained about the turbines and effects including shadow flicker and noise.
The council, appointed Tuesday by the state Public Service Commission, was set up as part of a law that passed last year to set up uniform wind siting standards for the state.
The legislation came in response to local ordinances that wind developers contended amounted to virtual outright bans on wind development. Some counties and local governments also enacted wind-development moratoriums. That stalled development of small wind farms across the state, with some developers saying they were looking to develop wind power projects outside the state.
Concerns from property owners led the Public Service Commission last fall to limit how far turbines could be located from properties in the Glacier Hills Wind Park to be built by We Energies.
More recently, concerns about living near turbines have led to nearly 200 public comments in concerning Chicago-based Invenergy’s proposal to build a big wind farm south of Green Bay in Brown County.
Two members of the council have ties to the PSC, including former chairman Dan Ebert, now with WPPI Energy, and David Gilles, former commission lawyer, now with Godfrey & Kahn. Other panel members hail from utilities, wind developers and local governments that have wrestled with development of local wind siting ordinances.
In a statement Tuesday, Eric Callisto, PSC chair, said, “Wind siting regulation is complex and sometimes controversial. I look forward to the Council’s input as we develop these rules for Wisconsin.”
SECOND FEATURE
Brown County wind farm could be slowed by new state rules
Source: Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com
Scott Williams
March 17 2010
The developer of a proposed Brown County wind farm said today the project could be slowed by a move to establish new statewide standards for wind farms.
Kevin Parzyck, project manager for Invenergy LLC, said the company already is adjusting its plans to account for standards imposed by state regulators on another wind project — with wind turbine setbacks of 1,250 feet from surrounding properties rather than the 1,000 feet originally planned by Invenergy.
If a new state advisory group recommends statewide standards before Invenergy’s project is under way, Parzyck said, that could require more adjustments.
“We’re moving down some parallel paths here,” he said during a meeting with the Green Bay Press-Gazette editorial board.
The state Public Service Commission on Tuesday named a 15-member advisory group to consider whether Wisconsin should set uniform policies regarding the construction of wind farms.
Invenergy submitted a proposal last fall to build Brown County’s first major commercial wind farm in the towns of Morrison, Holland, Glenmore and Wrightstown.
Once the firm’s application is deemed complete — the adjustments are under way — state regulators will have six months to hold public hearings and render a decision.
WARRING OVER WIND-
"With well over 1,000 people in attendance – and most of them in an unpleasant frame of mind – a public information session about the proposed Belwood Wind Farm project was held at the Lions Hall in Belwood on Tuesday, Mar 9."
NEW: Click on the button below to Follow Better Plan, Wisconsin on Twitter
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm, Wind farm health effects, fond du lac county wind, psc siting council, wind developer, wind farm lease, wind power, wind setback, wind shadow flicker, wind siting, wind turbine noise, wisconsin wind
|
Comments Off
3/10/10 What's it like to live in a Wisconsin wind project? It's been two years, are you used to it yet? AND How were you getting those transmission towers here?
What's it like to live in the 86 turbine Invenergy Forward Energy wind project?
Home in Invenergy Forward Energy project, Fond du Lac County--- photo by Gerry Meyer 2009
Here are two recent notes to Better Plan from the Meyer Family. They are residents of the Invenergy Forward Energy wind project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac county.
Since the turbines went online near their home two years ago, they have had trouble sleeping, increased blood pressure, ringing and crackling in the ears and headaches. Cheryl has been taking sleeping medication, something she never needed before the turbines started up.
The closest turbine to their home is less than 1600 feet.
From Cheryl Meyer
March 8, 2010
"The turbines are so loud that our dog, Trigger, goes to the backroom window and barks at them.
It sounds like a snowplow driving around the house full bore with its blade down.
I find it interesting the last few days that when I go out with the dog he goes so far down the sidewalk and then turns and looks north to the turbine. He stares at it a few seconds and then moves on.
But they have been usually loud the last two days. Just thought I would let you know.
Cheryl
March 9, 2010
From Gerry Meyer:
Cheryl has a really bad headache.
She has tried Imatrex or the shot three times in three days, so today went to the Doctor....
The message Cheryl wrote you was when I was in LA. I remember her telling me that the turbines sounded like snow plow coming through the house.
You could add that Trigger barked because that is what he does when a vehicle comes in the driveway. The turbine was so loud he thought a plow was in the driveway.
Gerry
This video was shot by Gerry Meyer from his porch.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
On February 18th, I spent another night in the Meyer home to get a better idea of what they are living with and was kept up well past three in the morning by a thumping from the turbines that seemed to come from all directions.
The only thing I can compare it to is the bass sound you hear coming from a car with powerful speakers. You feel the noise as well as hear it. It was impossible to sleep until it finally stopped.
The typical turbine jet sounds and whooshing were louder outdoors than indoors, but the low thumping was penetrating and much louder inside the home than outside the home. This was especially so on the second floor.
The Meyer family home is a typical wood framed old farm house found throughout rural Wisconsin. The Meyer's young son often goes to bed with two radios playing, one on either side of his head to counteract the turbine noise.
WANT MORE? CLICK HERE TO READ TODAY'S "WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS"
3/11/10 Clean and green? Or dirty and red-handed? AND Greed is a bi-partisan affair: a look at AWEA CEO's 'cleansed' bio
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm, Wind farm health effects, invenergy wind, wind energy, wind farm lease, wind impact, wind lease, wind power, wind property values, wind turbine noise, wind turbine shadow flicker, wisconsin wind
|
Comments Off
5/6/10 Wisconsin Public Television's 'In Wisconsin' looks at high bat mortality near wind turbines in our state
SOURCE: Wisconsin Public Television
Click on the image above to watch. For those whose internet connections are too slow to watch video, Click here for a transcript Wisconsin Public Television
CLICK HERE to download the post construction bat and bird mortality study for the We Energies Blue Sky/ Green Field project in Fond du Lac County. The bird and bat kills in this project are by far the highest ever recorded in the midwest.
WANT MORE? CLICK HERE TO READ TODAY'S "WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS"
The BPRC Research Nerd
in barotrauma, bird and bat wind farm, birds wind energy, birds wind farm, birds wind power, wind energy bats, wind farm bats, wind farm noise, wind farm shadow flicker, wind power bats, wind turbine bats, wind turbine noise
|
Comments Off