From Illinois

WIND FARM CONSTRUCTION SIDE EFFECTS DISTURB LANDOWNERS

By Tamara Abbey

SOURCE www.newstrib.com

September 17, 2011 

Roads that were not meant to be used have been prepared for turbine-construction traffic in areas where there are no turbines planned. Other subcontractors have made paths through fields that aren’t even part of the project

They started the bulldozing after the corn started maturing and now the ears of corn mixed with topsoil will continue germinating for the next few years, Englehart said. The large piles of dirt ringing the remaining corn will make it difficult for combines to even get in the fields this year

Rutted paths snake through cornfields eventually ending in giant circles around pink-tipped poles standing in wetlands, ravines and in the middle of trampled cornstalks. This time it wasn’t a cyclone that hit Cyclone Road in Brooklyn Township: it’s the heavy equipment of Goldwind USA as they resume development of Shady Oaks Wind Farm.

Paths chopped through fields sometimes don’t go anywhere at all. Other paths leave only a few rows of corn standing on either side. Farmers such as Wesley Englehart and Charlene Zimmerman are left wondering how they’re going to get the crops out of the field next month around the mounds of dirt and with only slim stands of corn left in some fields.

Englehart, Zimmerman and her brother, Alan, are among landowners that signed on to the project back in 2005 when GSG Wind Energy of Sublette started the development. The project was then sold to Mainstream Renewables which in turn partnered with Goldwind USA late last year. The project was then fully acquired by Goldwind, a company that got its start by constructing wind turbines in China. The 120-megawatt Lee County wind farm is the first large-scale project undertaken by the company following a 4.5-megawatt pilot project in Minnesota.

Englehart and the Zimmermans are now learning the hard way that the 2005 contract included a lot of implied agreements between the landowners and the developers. They both reluctantly noted the original contract left a lot of control in the hands of the developer and they didn’t anticipate the project would change hands so many times.

Charlene Zimmerman said they were led to believe the turbines would generate 2-2.5 megawatts each; instead the company only makes 1.5-megawatt turbines which means they plan to erect 70-72 turbines on farms in Brooklyn Township instead of the originally-anticipated 50-60 turbines.

The increased number of turbines results in more heavy equipment and machinery trekking through corn fields and down township roads. Englehart said they sent the first wave of subcontractors out in the spring when the ground was still wet.

“They started boring right after a heavy rain,” Englehart said. “They created these two-foot-deep ruts.”

A different subcontractor arrived to work on another portion of the project but headed off in their own direction through cornfields, cutting paths and making more ruts, Zimmerman added.

The final map of turbine locations also causes some concern for Englehart and Zimmerman.

“This down the road here, it’s registered as a wetlands,” Englehart said. “If they put it in there, it would be underwater if we have a heavy rain.”

Zimmerman said turbines on her family’s property will soon be constructed in areas that turn into ponds every spring and down in ravines.

To get to these locations, the company will bring in huge equipment for construction and installation. As a township supervisor, Englehart also criticized Goldwind for a lack of communication with subcontractors. Roads that were not meant to be used have been prepared for turbine-construction traffic in areas where there are no turbines planned. Other subcontractors have made paths through fields that aren’t even part of the project, Englehart added.

Construction timing also makes no sense to Englehart. He said they came in and started bulldozing row after row of corn while leaving the primarily Round-Up ready corn mixed with the top soil. They started the bulldozing after the corn started maturing and now the ears of corn mixed with topsoil will continue germinating for the next few years, Englehart said. The large piles of dirt ringing the remaining corn will make it difficult for combines to even get in the fields this year, Zimmerman added.

He estimates losses at $30,000-$50,000 on his land alone. According to the contract, Goldwind USA is obligated to compensate him for the loss.

“Had they did it in the spring, there would have been very little damage,” he said.

Access isn’t a problem for the wind farm subcontractors though, Englehart said. Since township bridges are up to 50 years old, they cannot support oversize traffic. Instead, they created their own road right through Englehart’s cornfield and bordering wildlife conservation habitat. Bridge replacement would have cost approximately $200,000, a cost the company chose not to pay in order to reach sites where another 11 turbines will be constructed.

“I had no problem with Mendota Hills or the one on the other side of the county line,” Zimmerman said. “But this contract is you’re basically signing your life away. The contract says they can basically do anything on your land.”

Goldwind USA is contractually obligated to repair any damage to township roads and the landowners will continue to receive income from the land used for turbines, but even those guarantees are now in question based on the company’s current construction practice.

“The contract says we’re supposed to get our money the moment they started grading,” Zimmerman said. “I’m not sure that everybody has their money yet.”

Compensation for the loss of this year’s crops could delay planting next year since they have to wait for a formal statement of acres lost to the construction. Then Englehart and Zimmerman worry about the compaction to the soil and any crushed tiles that drain water from the fields. Englehart said problems with tile could take several years to detect.

Then farmers will have to watch for the buried electric cables transmitting power from the turbines to a substation. Unlike other wind farm projects, the cables will run directly from turbine to turbine rather than along township and turbine access roads. That leaves Englehart and Zimmerman with more concerns about soil compaction and later field work.

“You’ve got the driveways, you’ve got the crane paths, you’ve got the circles (around the future turbines),” Englehart said. “It’s a nightmare.”

Englehart and Zimmerman also gave Lee County Board member Lisa Zeimetz of Paw Paw a tour of some of the areas bulldozed for construction. Ziemetz said there is little the county can do since the project is under township jurisdiction. She did ask them to be available to help counsel landowners that may be involved in future projects.

“I understand they have the right to do this, but it doesn’t seem kosher,” she said.

A message left at Goldwind USA’s Chicago office was not returned. Previously published reports state Goldwind anticipates completing the project by the end of the year.

SECOND STORY:

From Illinois

TURBINE TROUBLES PLACED ON RECORD

BY DAVID GIULIANI

SOURCE, www.saukvalley.com

September 17, 2011 

Ray Zakrzewski, Aug. 18: Shadow flicker is unnerving. Poor TV reception. Two potential buyers of house have refused to make offers because of these issues.

DIXON – Over the past few months, officials in Lee and Whiteside counties have heard plenty of promises from wind energy companies.

Corporate officials often pledge to take care of complaints about their turbines.

Will they?

Only time will tell. But experience may be an indicator in Lee County. Whiteside County, on the other hand, has no wind farms.

In its files, Lee County has 11 complaints that say turbines have affected TV and radio reception – all received this year about one company. They also blame turbines for other problems, including shadow flicker and difficulty selling homes.

Rosemead, Calif.-based Edison Mission Group has 114 turbines in Bureau and Lee counties. Residents in both counties have complained that the towers hurt broadcast reception.

In some cases, Lee County has documentation on how the company answered the complaints about the wind farm, which started a year ago.

In March, Big Sky sent letters via Federal Express to residents who have complained about the problems. The company offered a settlement of $2,500 for each resident to resolve their grievances; it was called the “best, last and final” offer.

“We believe this to be a fair market offer that has already been accepted by several of your neighbors,” the company said in the letter.

The company has 58 turbines in Lee County and 56 in Bureau County, covering 13,000 acres.

‘Take-it-or-leave-it’ deal

Resident Gary Todd filed his complaint in January, saying his rental property on Sheehan Road had suffered poor TV reception since the turbines went into operation.

In response, he said, Edison Mission put in a satellite receiver for his TV and offered to pay $2,500 for satellite service. He took the deal. The money could pay for satellite service for a few years.

“It was kind of a take-it-or-leave-it kind of deal,” he said.

Others refused the offer.

“They did have an offer of $2,500 if we never complained again,” said William Ogan of Baseline Road. “It didn’t seem right at the time.”

Ogan, who filed his complaint in January, said the company told him that his antenna wasn’t high enough. But he disagreed. With that same antenna, he said, his TV got better reception before the wind farm started.

His wife, Claudia Ogan, said her TV had often been down to one channel since the wind farm started operating. The turbine blades appear to affect the signal, she said.

“They said it was our fault, that we had to cut down trees next to the house,” she said. “We truly believe that some of the problem is caused by windmills. It’s not as if we can’t afford cable, but some people can’t.”

Still, she said, there’s a plus side to the turbines. Her family gets payments for two of them because they stand on the Ogans’ farm.

“We have a brother-in-law in a nursing home, and this is paying the way,” she said.

Mark Henkel of Maytown Road near Sublette complained in April that because of the wind farm, TV signals are intermittent, with the entire picture lost at times.

His wife, Tammy Henkel, said Edison Mission hadn’t responded.

“The ones who complained earlier got some extra service,” she said. “We’ve gotten nothing. It’s very frustrating to watch a program and you’re not even seeing half of it.

“It’s nice to sit down and watch the news or ‘CSI.’ But we’re hardly getting them. They’re not coming in.”

Aiming to be ‘good corporate citizen’

Susan Olavarria, an Edison Mission spokeswoman, said she didn’t want to discuss the details of any particular complaint.

“We’ve been diligently working to investigate and resolve legitimate issues raised by any complaining landowners, providing periodic updates to Lee and Bureau County administrators,” she said. “We want to be a good corporate citizen.”

In certain cases, Lee County has Edison Mission documents on the examination of particular properties. The company often advises residents to install taller antennas or better equipment.

It hired a consulting firm, Antenna Solutions, which stated in a report, “The TV reception issues appear to be caused by faulty or obsolete reception equipment.”

The firm added that the area in question is on the very edge of transmitters’ ranges. It advised that residents get state-of-the-art antennas.

In its main report, Antenna Solutions concluded by saying that more complicated issues needed further study.

Asked whether turbines had any effect on TV reception in general, Olavarria declined to comment.

Complaints about wind farm

The following are complaints filed, includes names of residents and dates of submission, to the Lee County zoning office on issues with the Big Sky wind farm, which straddles the Lee-Bureau county line:

William Ogan, Jan. 11: Getting fewer TV channels. Picture affected by movement of blades.

Gary Todd, Jan. 19: Poor TV reception. Poor cellphone reception.

Steve Full, Jan. 19: Shadow flicker.

Robert Nally, Jan. 19: Poor TV reception.

Doug McLaughlin, Jan. 13: TV reception disrupted.

Brian Jones, Feb. 9: Can’t use cordless phone outside and in parts of house. Radio station interference. Shadow flicker. Too many towers close to residences.

Joan Burke, March 17: Loss of Quad Cities TV stations.

Mark Henkel, April 7: Quad Cities stations are intermittent in quality of signal, losing picture on TV at times. New antenna put up a year ago.

Daniel Stephenitch, April 18: Poor TV reception.

Tom and Judy Sharkey, July 25: Not able to get some channels. Purchased a new TV and antenna for $1,190.

Ray Zakrzewski, Aug. 18: Shadow flicker is unnerving. Poor TV reception. Two potential buyers of house have refused to make offers because of these issues.

NEXT STORY

From Canada

FAMILY FIGHTS WIND POWER GAG ORDER

 By Terry Davidson

SOURCE Toronto Sun, www.torontosun.com

 September 13, 2011

Nausea, vertigo, ringing in the ears and sleepless nights.

These are things Shawn and Trisha Drennan worry they’ll experience should 150 wind turbines be erected near their southwestern Ontario farm.

The closest one is planned for a mere 650 metres from their front door.

When the couple learned of the planned turbines — a project proposed by Capital Power Corp, which already has a handful of turbines in the Drennan’s home base of Ashfield Township and the surrounding area — the longtime crofters wondered about the health effects of living close to such technology.

The Drennans tried to talk to former homeowners who had lived close to turbines and who had been paid to move away by other energy companies to make room for more, only to be told by the one-time residents they were under a gag order as part of their respective buyouts.

They were forbidden from saying anything about wind turbines, health effects or otherwise.

Now the Drennans are going to court to try and have the gag clause invalidated, citing the lack of research around those possible health effects.

“We decided to talk to people and government and ask (health-based) questions, and the people most affected can’t talk about it,” Sean Drennan said Tuesday from the offices of lawyer Julian Falconer, adding he and wife, however, were able talk to homeowners living around turbines in nearby Shelburne township and the community of Clear Creek in Norfolk County.

He said some reported suffering from sick stomachs, vertigo and tinnitus — an ever-present ringing in the ears — from the “low-frequency” noise the turbines make.

Falconer, who has been hired by both the Drennans and the community group Safe Wind Energy for All Residents (SWEAR) to fight the gag order, says provincial approval for Capital Power to build the new turbines was a rush job, and the Drennans are being used as guinea pigs.

“We land the turbines first, and then worry about how (people are) affected?” asked Falconer, who questioned how a company could contractually gag people when so much uncertainty exists around the effects of wind turbines.

Farmers in the area are also concerned how the turbines will effect livestock and plants, as well as how the giant propeller-based towers will destroy the rural pulchritude the area is known for, said SWEAR’s Patrick Murphy.

“We know there are problems in neighbouring municipalities,” he said, adding concerns around a lack of research are what made the provincial government shelve its plans for offshore turbines earlier this year.

The Grits in February put on hold a multitude of offshore turbine projects, claiming a lack of research around environmental effects.

One particularly controversial project was Toronto Hydro’s plan to build around 70 turbines in Lake Ontario that would stretch from Toronto to Ajax. It was strongly opposed by those living close to the lake’s shoreline.

From Australia

HEPBURN WIND FARM: LOCAL DOCTOR SPEAKS OUT

The Courier, www.thecourier.com.au

August 18 2011

BY BRENDAN GULLIFER

[Local Doctor] said patients had come to see her to complain about the noise from the two local turbines.

“They can’t sleep and in the morning they wake up exhausted. They can’t function. They have poor concentration, probably because of poor sleeping.”

[Local resident] Mr Liversidge said he had been doing his own noise monitoring, by parking his car on the road and listening.

“Anybody can come and listen for themselves,” he said. “I don’t believe there’s any problems whatsoever.”

A local doctor has spoken out publicly for the first time after treating patients for symptoms associated with living near wind turbines.

Dr Andja Mitric-Andjic, who practises in Daylesford, said she had treated at least two local patients for sleep deprivation, and spoken with others living near the Hepburn wind farm.

SECOND STORY

From Michigan

JUDGE ORDERS WIND COMPANY'S TOWER TO TOPPLE

SOURCE Daily Telegram, www.lenconnect.com

August 17, 2011

FAIRFIELD TWP., Mich. — A 262-foot tower set up last fall to monitor weather for a potential wind energy project must come down, a judge ruled Monday.

The tower built by Orisol Energy U.S. Inc. is in violation of Fairfield Township zoning ordinances, ruled Lenawee County Circuit Judge Margaret M.S. Noe. She granted a motion by the township to affirm a February decision by Fairfield Township’s zoning board of appeals that the tower violates zoning requirements.

Orisol had the tower and weather monitoring equipment installed on property on Arnold Highway in November in preparation for a potential wind energy project. It is one of three companies working on plans to install commercial wind turbines in Riga, Ogden, Fairfield and Palmyra townships.

A legal battle developed over the tower after Orisol neglected to obtain a permit from the township before erecting it. The company did have permits from the Federal Aviation Administration and the Michigan Department of Transportation aeronautics division.

Responding to township officials, Orisol sought permission to keep the tower in December but it was denied. The zoning board of appeals reviewed an application from the company for a waiver but voted to deny it after a public hearing in February.

Orisol went to court, arguing the tower is not excluded by the township’s zoning ordinance and a 39-foot height limit for buildings in agricultural zones does not apply to towers.

An attorney for the township filed a lengthy motion in June, asking the court to affirm the zoning board of appeals decision and rule the tower a nuisance that must be removed. Attorney Carson Tucker of Farmington Hills referred to it as a “262-foot monstrosity” that is harming local citizens and neighbors.

The case had been scheduled for a jury trial in February. Monday’s ruling requires the tower to be removed unless further court action is taken to grant a delay.

Dr Mitric-Andjic, who lives at Korweinguboora, said she, her husband and14-year-old son had also suffered sleep interruption since the turbines began operating.

Dr Mitric-Andjic said she decided to speak out because the problems being experienced by local residents could not be ignored.

“Wind farm, what do you mean wind farm?” she said.

“This is industrial. No one is against green energy. Everyone would say yes, of course, but put it out of residential areas.”

Dr Mitric-Andjic, 49, practises at Springs Medical Centre. She and her husband bought land on the Ballan-Daylesford Road seven years ago and built a house there last year.

She said patients had come to see her to complain about the noise from the two local turbines.

“They can’t sleep and in the morning they wake up exhausted. They can’t function. They have poor concentration, probably because of poor sleeping.”

Hepburn Wind chairman Simon Holmes a Court said any claims of adverse health effects would be taken “very seriously”.

“As a community organisation, we’re very concerned about the well-being of our community,” Mr Homes a Court said.

“If anyone is concerned that the turbines are harming them, we want to meet to understand their claims. Our project officer lives in Leonards Hill and is in frequent contact with the community around the wind farm.”

Turbine landholder Ron Liversidge said any claims of noise problems were “completely false”.

Mr Liversidge said he had been doing his own noise monitoring, by parking his car on the road and listening.

“Anybody can come and listen for themselves,” he said. “I don’t believe there’s any problems whatsoever.”

From Oregon State:

THE FUTURE OF WIND DEVLOPMENT

READ ENTIRE STORY AT SOURCE East Oregonian, www.eastoregonian.com 

July 1, 2011

By Samantha Tipler,

In the minutes after Umatilla County commissioners made their decision to approve tougher requirements for wind turbines, some people celebrated.

Others proclaimed it would be the end of the wind power business in Umatilla County.

Even the commissioners themselves were split, with Commissioner Bill Hansell voting against the two-mile setback requirement.

Exactly how these changes will affect wind power development has yet to be seen, but wind power advocates say it means the end to development in the county.

John Audley, deputy director from Renewable Northwest Project, a group advocating renewable energy, said he watched Umatilla County’s lawmaking process closely. He was disappointed in the result.

“I read this as the county saying go someplace else,” he said.

He was particularly taken by a map with two-mile setback circles around homes in a portion of Umatilla County. Those circles covered almost all the space on the map.

“There’s no opportunity for development,” Audley said. “My sense is that’s what the county wanted to say. They felt it was important to just say no.”

Elaine Albrich, with Stoel Rives of Portland, said likewise. She was personally at the meetings the county held, advocating for wind companies.

“While we understand the board had a difficult decision to make, we are disappointed in the outcomes and the process,” she said. “The impacts of the code amendment will vary from project to project but overall I can anticipate less economic development in the county from renewable energy development.”

Umatilla County Planning Director Tamra Mabbott said from her perspective, the changes to the laws will not close the door to wind development.

“We have clear objective standards designed to balance the interest of the developers and the interests of folks who will live near the development,” she said. “It’s not at all intended to foreclose development opportunities.”

In the past 15 years, Umatilla County has seen nine wind power operations sited in the county. That doesn’t necessarily mean they have been built, they’ve just passed the paperwork to be allowed to build.

There were three in 2009, two in 2002 and one each in 1997,2001, 2008 and 2011.

The 2011 wind farm — a roughly 100 megawatt project from a company called WKN Chopin LLC — started its paperwork in February, so it will not be subject to the new laws. It is still going through its permitting process, Mabbott said.

Any wind power companies applying after the commissioners made their decision Tuesday would have to go through the new process.

The biggest procedural change, she said, will be in the pre-application process. Rather than just consulting with other agencies, the county, the company and those agencies will have a meeting.

“With the pre-application meeting we get those comments right up front” Mabbott said. “That’s helpful for everybody involved, particularly with a real big project.”

The county regulations only apply to operations 105 megawatts and smaller. Larger operations are sited through the state.

Then it goes through the Energy Facility Siting Council.

Bryan Wolfe, of Hermiston, is chairman of that council, and he and his colleagues have been keeping an eye on the changes happening in Umatilla County.

“I know Umatilla County has done what they feel is necessary for them,” Wolfe said.

The siting council, too, has seen a need to revamp rules at the state level.

The council’s last two meetings bled with frustration over the inadequacy of the current rules.

The last two meetings have dealt with the Helix Wind Power Facility site amendment, doubling the size of the project. Though several members expressed dissatisfaction with that jump in size, the wind company met all the regulations, and the council approved it.

But even as the council members did so, they said things need to change. They’ve been waiting for the Legislature to wrap up before it begins that review.

Those state rules, set by the Legislature, haven’t changed in about a decade, Wolfe said.

“We should, in light of the knowledge we have, we should start updating things,” Wolfe said. “Yes, we are very aware of what the county is doing.”

When the state permits a wind farm application that would be placed in Umatilla County it considers local rules.

“When we site a project within a county,” Wolfe said, “the county has to sign off on their rules. And if the rules are more stringent than ours, then that will come into play in our decision for a state certificate.”

Wolfe was unsure if Umatilla County’s tougher standards, like the two-mile setback or the protection of the Walla Walla Watershed, would set a precedent in other counties.

Planing offices in Morrow, Union and Gilliam Counties said yes, they were aware of what Umatilla County was doing, but they did not know if it would affect them. Gilliam County — which, along with Morrow County, is where the largest wind farm in the world, Shepherds Flat, is planned — said it likely wouldn’t be affected because it is farther away from Umatilla County.

From Michigan

GROUP RECOMMENDS STRICTER NOISE LEVELS FOR MICHIGAN WIND FARMS

SOURCE: MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY NEWS

June 30, 2011

We believe wind turbines will benefit our state by offering a viable source of alternative energy, but the public must be protected from risks to safety and health."

Specifically, the new report calls for noise levels not to exceed 40 decibels, much lower than the 55 decibels the state recommends now in its 2008 guideline.

EAST LANSING, Mich. — As the call for alternative energy grows louder in Michigan and more communities consider wind farms, a group led by a pair of Michigan State University professors has issued a report calling for stricter regulations on noise levels and providing zoning guidelines for local municipalities.

MSU's Ken Rosenman and Jerry Punch, along with retired Consumers Energy engineer William MacMillan, tackle four main issues in their report on wind turbines: physical safety, shadow flicker (caused by shadows cast when sunlight hits a turbine's turning blades), conflict resolution and the most contentious issue related to turbines: noise levels.

"We strongly recommend the state of Michigan consider our recommendations in revising its 2008 guideline on the placement of onshore wind turbines," said Rosenman, the chief of MSU's Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in the College of Human Medicine.

"We believe wind turbines will benefit our state by offering a viable source of alternative energy, but the public must be protected from risks to safety and health."

Specifically, the new report calls for noise levels not to exceed 40 decibels, much lower than the 55 decibels the state recommends now in its 2008 guideline.

"A level of 55 decibels or higher presents unacceptable health risks," said Rosenman, citing research from the World Health Organization that found repeated exposures to a level of 40 decibels at night lead to long-term adverse health effects such as cardiovascular disease, while shorter-term exposures are associated with sleep disturbances.

While the report says published evidence directly linking noise from wind turbines to adverse health effects is based on studies of airport and road traffic noise, "there is no reason to suspect wind turbine noise will have less of a harmful effect than noise from road traffic or airplanes," Rosenman said.

The report also sets guidelines on how to best measure noise levels and includes information on zoning waivers for municipalities.

Additionally, the report calls for a minimum distance from each turbine to the nearest residence or residential property line to provide adequate safety in the event of falling towers, blade failure or ice throw.

"But it can't be assumed that distances that protect against physical safety are adequate to protect against annoyance and sleep disturbance from noise," said Punch, a retired professor of audiology in the MSU's Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders.

The report also sets out the process for municipalities to measure and predict shadow flicker, as well as ways to mitigate the problem.

Finally, Punch said, the report recommends several ways for municipalities to minimize complaints and disputes regarding wind turbines, including a mediation process as an alternative to litigation and "good-neighbor" payments to residents within pre-determined distances of wind turbines.

There currently are only a handful of wind farms operating in the state, but several municipalities are considering adding wind farms in the near future. Rosenman and Punch said they hope municipalities use the group's report as a guideline for zoning issues that arise when turbines are built. The report can be found at http://www.oem.msu.edu/userfiles/file/Resources/WindandHealthReport.pdf.

FROM ENGLAND:

OUR SLEEPLESS NIGHTS WITH THE WIND TURBINES

Read the entire story at the source: North Devon Gazzete, www.northdevongazette.co.uk

June 8, 2011

By Andy Keeble

“When they were first put up we had a long spell of really nice weather and they weren’t working at all. But since we’ve had the wind and the recent spell of bad weather the noise is unbearable of a night time.”

“It’s unbelievable the noise they make sometimes,” said Mr Paulton, 68.

A Torrington couple are selling their home and business following the erection of a wind farm in a field opposite their bungalow.

Patricia and Arthur Poulton say they are being kept awake at night by the noise from a trio of giant turbines less than 500 metres from their home at Higher Darracott.

The couple, who have operated their Deepmoor Metal Processors scrap metal business from the site for the last 21 years, said they now had no option but to sell up and move on.

“I can hear the turbines through my pillow at night,” said Mrs Paulton, 70.

“It’s a droning whooshing sound and as the blade passes the upright, the windier it gets, the noisier it gets. I have to close the window but you can still just about hear it through the double glazing.

“When they were first put up we had a long spell of really nice weather and they weren’t working at all. But since we’ve had the wind and the recent spell of bad weather the noise is unbearable of a night time.”

“It’s unbelievable the noise they make sometimes,” said Mr Paulton, 68.

“They are supposed to be no more than five decibels above background noise but when the wind blows across the bungalow it’s surprising how far it travels.”

The 240ft turbines were constructed by FIM Services Ltd in March and became operational in April. Planning consent was originally refused by Torridge District Council in May 2004 but later granted by a Government Inspector following a High Court appeal by land owners.

When the Gazette visited the couple on Wednesday, heavy blobs of white and grey cloud blotted out all but a few snatches of blue sky. On the hillside overlooking Torrington, two of the three turbines turned in a stiff breeze.

On the approaches to the town, the first of 22 ESB Wind Development UK turbines can be seen being built at Fullabrook Down on the other side of the Taw Estuary.

When the sun does shine here – especially towards the end of the day – the couple say the blades produce a “flicker shadow” over their bungalow.

“The sun goes down right behind the turbines and you get this strobe effect,” said Mrs Paulton, who suffers from Ménière’s disease – a disorder of the inner ear that can affect hearing and balance.

“They also produce a low frequency noise that you can’t hear but can cause dizziness, nausea and headaches. I’m not sure if it’s a coincidence but I’d not been ill for about five months but as soon as the turbines started I was sick for two weeks and have had to take the medication.

“We had a couple of break-ins at the yard last year and were thinking of selling up, but this has been the final straw.”

The couple have been in contact with Torridge District Council and have been asked to fill in forms to record their disturbance.

A spokesperson for the council said an official investigation had already started.

A statement from the council said: “The necessary forms have been sent to the complainants and our environmental protection team is awaiting the return of the paperwork with a diary of noise disturbances to see whether or not further investigation is required.”

Regarding shadow flicker, it said: “In the planning permission the inspector stipulated that a report should be submitted on shadow flicker which concluded that there would be very little chance of it happening. However, should it occur, effective steps should be taken to stop it.”

The couple were keen to point out that they were not concerned about the turbines’ impact on the landscape.

“We’re not bothered about how they look,” said Mrs Paulton.

The Gazette contacted FIM Service but a spokesperson was unavailable for comment.

Overcoming President Obama's Wind Power Addiction

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Forbes. com

June 7, 2011

 By Robert Bradley Jr.

An alternative form of energy with embarrassingly underwhelming returns.

Cumulative federal subsidies for wind are now well north of $100 billion. The very business running the Pennsylvania facility at which Obama made that bold prediction--Spanish wind company Iberdola--has received an astounding $1 billion in grants, tax credits and other incentives from the U.S. government (a.k.a., you and me).

This spring, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced federal approval for the construction of a huge new offshore wind farm in Massachusetts. The so-called Cape Wind project will include 130 turbines, each roughly 440 feet tall, and span 25 miles of ocean off the coast of Cape Cod. Construction is expected to commence this fall--assuming the troubling economics of the project can be resolved.

Getting Cape Wind approved was no easy task. The project had been stalled in controversy for nearly a decade. Even the late Sen. Ted Kennedy opposed the turbines for spoiling the tranquility of his seaside vacation home.

But Cape Wind survived its environmental review. And that's in no small part due to the Obama administration. Expanding wind power is core to the president's peculiar, ill-defined green energy agenda. At an April visit to a Pennsylvania turbine manufacturing facility, he went so far as to declare wind "the future of American energy."

That's quite a claim--and hardly true. Our country's history with wind power consists of grand promises from politicians, huge investments of taxpayer dollars, ratepayer sacrifice and embarrassingly underwhelming returns. More of the same can be expected.

Of the $10 billion invested by wind developers last year, $3.4 billion came in the form of federal grants. Thus taxpayers picked up a full one-third of the tab. And ratepayers have no choice but to pay the extra cost from wind power in states that mandate its use even after the tax subsidies.

Cumulative federal subsidies for wind are now well north of $100 billion. The very business running the Pennsylvania facility at which Obama made that bold prediction--Spanish wind company Iberdola--has received an astounding $1 billion in grants, tax credits and other incentives from the U.S. government (a.k.a., you and me).

FROM RHODE ISLAND

TURBINE DEVELOPER FILES $25-MILLION LAWSUIT AGAINST NEIGHBORS

READ THE ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: North Kingstown Patch, northkingstown.patch.com

May 18, 2011

By Samantha Turner

"According to court documents....[the wind developer] requested preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against the defendants."

The developer of a 427-foot wind turbine is suing seven neighbors to the tune of $25 million in Washington County Superior Court for breach of contract.

Mark DePasquale, CEO of Wind Energy Development LLC, filed a lawsuit Apr. 28 against the homeowners who have not recorded their deeds to reflect a land swap with him as agreed. The quit-claim deeds are needed to continue construction on a 427-foot turbine located in DePasquale’s backyard within the North Kingstown Green subdivision.

The lawsuit (Wind Energy Development LLC v Nicole Newcombe et al) follows the Apr. 8 revocation of the North Kingstown Green building permit by the Town of North Kingstown, halting construction on the wind turbine slated for completion later this year.

In May 2010, it was determined that a land swap was necessary to address the turbine’s blades – measuring about 160 feet in length – crossing into an area of open space outside of DePasquale’s property lines. In a reconfiguration agreement executed by all residents of North Kingstown Green in May 2010, the portion of open land was swapped for land owned by DePasquale at his property in accordance with the town’s zoning and planning ordinances.

DePasquale needs 30 deeds altogether. During a North Kingstown Building Board of Appeals meeting May 4, he said he owns 16, and has acquired all but one of the remaining 14 deeds necessary to have the building permit reinstated.

According to court documents, without DePasquale’s requested preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against the defendants, the plaintiffs are at risk of “immediate irreparable harm” including “loss of rights in the plaintiffs’ recently revoked building permit,” “increased construction costs,” “loss of future incoming and profits, injury to the plaintiff’s reputation” and loss of previously expended costs. Court documents indicate that “approximately five percent of the total construction of the wind turbine” has been completed with about $350,000 thus invested in the project.

The suit names Nicole and Scott Newcombe of 52 Thornton Way, Sean Coen and Colleen Clare of 32 Thornton Way, Todd and Kimberly Teixeira of 28 Thornton Way and Subhransu Mohanty of 29 Thornton Way as defendants. The seven NK Green residents have been outspoken in their opposition to the turbine, speaking out at North Kingstown Town Council meetings and through letters to the editor.

The defendants are prohibited from “conveying, transferring, selling, assigning, mortgaging or otherwise encumbering respective interests in the reconfiguration property” to anyone besides the plaintiffs throughout this suit in order to keep the status quo.

The 427-foot turbine was approved back in October by the North Kingstown Planning Commission, becoming North Kingstown’s first approved turbine. Though its approval went largely unopposed at first, more residents and locals came out in opposition during the following months.

FROM IRELAND

WIND TURBINE NOISE ANGERS RESIDENTS

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE:

Dublin People, www.dublinpeople.com

May 18, 2011

“The problem is particularly bad at night and my husband and I have difficulty sleeping. It’s like having a washing machine on in your bedroom. “I’m living so close to them that I can hear the constant droning and have to close my windows.”

Angry residents living in the vicinity of five wind turbines are pleading with their local authority to find a solution to the noise emanating from them, which they claim is affecting their quality of life.

Residents on Hole-in-the-Wall Road, Donaghmede, say they have had their sleep disturbed due to the “whirring” sound of the turbines, which are located in nearby Father Collins Park. They are now pleading with Dublin City Council to address the problem.

Redevelopment

Father Collins Park opened in the summer of 2009 following a major redevelopment that cost approximately e20 million. One of its main features is the turbines that harness the wind and provide the energy that powers the park’s lighting and water features.

The turbines were shut down for a considerable period last year after some maintenance problems and have only been operating as normal in the last couple of months. Margaret Earlwood, who has been living on Hole-in-the-Wall Road for the last 16 years, said the park is a brilliant amenity.

Quality

“However, the noise from the wind turbines are affecting our quality of life,” she stated. “The problem is particularly bad at night and my husband and I have difficulty sleeping. It’s like having a washing machine on in your bedroom. “I’m living so close to them that I can hear the constant droning and have to close my windows.”

Ms Earlwood pointed out that she wouldn’t complain for the sake of it and said she had no objection to wind turbines in general. “If they are creating electricity and they are good for the economy, I’ve no problem with that,” she said.

Location

“It’s purely a location issue. I just think they should be out at sea and that they shouldn’t be in a residential area. “For eight or nine months they were switched off and it was great. Then when they went back on the noise problems started up again.”

Ms Earlwood said the ideal situation would be to have the turbines removed completely. “When they get faster the noise gets worse,” she added. “If they’re going 24-7 you get no break from it. “When they first came along we tried to put up with them. It’s not pleasant and we are trying to find ways to get around the problem.”

Eddie Cummins, who runs Eddie’s Smokeless Fuels along with his son, Alan, said his family was also affected by the noise. “You can’t open your windows,” stated Mr Cummins, whose business is located on Hole-in-the-Wall Road. “Alan lives at number one (Hole-in-the Wall Road) and I live at number three and we are right facing the turbines.

Sleep

“We can’t sleep with the noise. You can also hear them in the workplace during the day.” Mr Cummins has called for the turbines to be moved or some other solution to be found. “You like to open your windows to let a bit of air in, especially in the summer months,” he added. “It’s a bit annoying.”

Dublin North East TD Sean Kenny (Lab) has called on the city council to switch off the turbines at night to allow nearby residents sleep. “I have been contacted by sleepless residents at houses at Hole-in-the-Wall Road, and nearby Grattan Lodge apartments, who are appealing for an end to the nightly noise generated by the turbines,” said Deputy Kenny.

“An apartment resident told me recently that they were totally stressed due to the noise. “It is becoming clear that wind turbines are problematic in highly built up areas and the planning regulations and guidelines need to be reviewed.

“I am calling on the Environment Minister and the Dublin City Manager to take immediate action to ensure that residents in the North Fringe area can go to work and about their daily business with the benefit of a good night’s sleep.”

A spokeswoman for Dublin City Council confirmed that they had just received a complaint about noise levels from the Father Collins Park wind turbines. She said a decision was pending on the most appropriate environmental assessment of the site.

FROM TENNESSEE

LAMAR LEXANDER ON WIND ENERGY SUBSIDIES

www.chattanoogan.com 18 May 2011

“Today, the production tax credit for wind gives 2.1 cents for every kilowatt hour of wind electricity produced by a wind turbine during the first 10 years of operation.

Let’s put this into a context that is current. The new Shepherd’s Flat Wind Farm in Oregon will have 338 of these huge wind turbines, producing enough power to run approximately 250,000 homes and will cost the American taxpayer about $57 million a year in subsidies for that electricity produced.

If we allocated the tax credit per home, taxpayers will be paying $2,300 over the next 10 years for each of the homes served by the Shepherd’s Flat Wind Farm in Oregon.

Senator Lamar Alexander said today that Congress should address wind energy subsidies during debate on oil company subsidies, noting that the 10-year price tag on the wind production tax credit is $26 billion—about $5 billion more than tax breaks being debated for the five biggest oil companies—despite the fact that wind is “about the least efficient means of energy production we have.”

Senator Alexander said in a speech on the Senate floor: “So I ask the question: If wind has all these drawbacks, is a mature technology, and receives subsidies greater than any other form of energy per unit of actual energy produced, why are we subsidizing it with billions of dollars and not including it in this debate? Why are we talking about Big Oil and not talking about Big Wind?”

In addition, at an afternoon hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Energy and Water Subcommittee, ranking member Alexander continued to question wind subsidies. U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu testified that he believes onshore wind “is a mature technology.” Chu said the Department of Energy’s wind research efforts have shifted to more innovative technologies, such as offshore wind and deepwater wind.

The full text of Senator Alexander’s floor remarks follows:

“We have been debating tax subsidies to the big oil companies. The bill proposed by the senator from New Jersey would have limited it to just the big five oil companies even though many of the tax breaks or tax credits or deductions they receive are the same tax credits that every other company may take– Starbucks, Microsoft, Caterpillar, Google, and Hollywood film producers, for example. Many of the other credits look a lot like the [research and development] tax credit or other tax credits all American businesses may receive.

“Well, I am one Senator who is very intrigued with the idea of looking at all of the tax breaks in the tax code. There are currently about $1.2 trillion a year in what we call tax expenditures, and those are intended to be for tax breaks we think are desirable. I am ready to look at all of them and use the money to reduce the tax rate and/or reduce the Federal debt. But if we are going to talk about energy subsidies — tax subsidies — we ought to talk about all energy subsidies.

“Senator John Cornyn of Texas has asked the Congressional Research Service to do just this. It is an excellent study, and I commend Senator Cornyn for asking for it. This is some of what it finds: According to the report, fossil fuels contributed about 78 percent of our energy production in 2009 and received about 13 percent of the Federal tax support for energy.

“However, during that same time 10.6 percent of our energy production was from renewables and 77.4 percent of our energy tax subsidies went to renewables. So if we are to compare the subsidy per unit of energy, the estimated federal support per million BTUs [or British Thermal Units] of fossil fuels was 4 cents, while support for renewables was $1.97 per million BTUs.

“So, federal subsidies for renewables are almost 50 times as great per unit of energy as federal subsidies for fossil fuels. [But] this would be distorted because hydroelectric power is included within renewables. Most people think of renewables as ethanol, solar, or wind and those are the renewables that actually get the subsidies, while hydroelectric does not.

“So, the federal taxpayer support for renewable energy is at least 50 times as great per unit of energy as compared with fossil fuel energy. So why aren’t we including subsidies for all renewables in our debate? Specifically, if we are talking about ‘Big Oil,’ why don’t we talk about ‘Big Wind?’ The Senate seems an appropriate place to talk about ‘Big Wind.’

“The Energy Policy Act of 1992 created what is called the production tax credit for energy produced using renewable resources. Most of this money has gone to subsidize ‘Big Wind.’ It is a policy that was supposed to last a few years. It has lasted two decades.

“Today, the production tax credit for wind gives 2.1 cents for every kilowatt hour of wind electricity produced by a wind turbine during the first 10 years of operation. Let’s put this into a context that is current. The new Shepherd’s Flat Wind Farm in Oregon will have 338 of these huge wind turbines, producing enough power to run approximately 250,000 homes and will cost the American taxpayer about $57 million a year in subsidies for that electricity produced. If we allocated the tax credit per home, taxpayers will be paying $2,300 over the next 10 years for each of the homes served by the Shepherd’s Flat Wind Farm in Oregon.

“This doesn’t even take into account the fact that $1.3 billion in federal loan guarantees to this project means Big Wind will have its risk of default also financed by the taxpayer. Fossil fuel companies don’t have that advantage. Nuclear power companies don’t have that advantage, even though their electricity is completely clean — no sulfur, no nitrogen, no mercury, no carbon. If, like nuclear or fossil loan guarantees do, the wind farm in Oregon had to pay the risk of default up front as a fee, it would cost another $130 million. That is money out of the pockets of taxpayers.

“The total cost of the wind production tax credit over the next 10 years will cost the American taxpayers more than $26 billion. Let me say that again. American taxpayers are subsidizing Big Wind over the next 10 years by more than $26 billion with one tax credit. In fact, the tax breaks for the five big oil companies we have been debating on the Senate floor this week actually cost less than all of the money we give to big wind. The tax breaks for the five big oil companies amount to about $21 billion over 10 years.

‘According to the Energy Information Administration in 2007, big wind received an $18.82 subsidy per megawatt hour — 25 times as much per megawatt hour as subsidies for all other forms of electricity combined. But wind is about the least efficient means of energy production we have. It accounts for just about 2 percent of our electricity. It is available only when the wind blows, which is about one-third of the time. The Tennessee Valley Authority says it is reliable even less than that, meaning we can have it when we need it only about 12 to15 percent of the time.

“Wind farms take up a huge amount of space. Turbines are 50 stories high. Their flashing lights can be seen for 20 miles. An unbroken line of turbines along the 2,178-mile Appalachian Trail would produce no more electricity than four nuclear reactors on 4 square miles of land.

“Wind is generally the strongest–and land available–where the electricity isn’t actually needed. So we have thousands of miles of new transmission lines proposed to get the energy from where it is produced to where it needs to go. Those often go through conservation areas, and according to the National Academy of Sciences, wind power is more expensive than other forms of electricity, such as coal, nuclear, biomass, geothermal, and natural gas.

“We haven’t even talked about the fact these wind turbines only last about 25 years. The question is: Who is going to take them down? Wind farms also kill as many as 275,000 birds each year, according to the American Bird Conservancy. They can interfere with radar systems, and many who live near them say they are very noisy.

“So I ask the question: If wind has all these drawbacks, is a mature technology, and receives subsidies greater than any other form of energy per unit of actual energy produced, why are we subsidizing it with billions of dollars and not including it in this debate? Why are we talking about Big Oil and not talking about Big Wind?

“I believe there are appropriate uses of temporary incentives and subsidies to help jump-start innovation and the development of new technology — such as jump-starting electric cars, or natural gas fleets of trucks, or loan guarantees for nuclear power plants and other forms of clean energy — as long as these are short term. I believe research and development is an appropriate role for the federal government whether it is in recycling used nuclear fuel or finding alternative biofuels made from crops we don’t eat. I believe it is entirely appropriate for there to be research for offshore wind farms, which we don’t know as much about and which might actually prove to be a useful supplement in the Northeast. But my point is, if we are going to debate subsidies to Big Oil, we ought to be debating all the energy subsidies including those to Big Wind.

“There is a difference between the Republican plan and the Democratic plan for $4 gasoline and high energy prices. The Democratic cure for high prices is basically to raise the price. They want to tax energy more, but that makes energy cost more. Republicans want to find more American energy and use less energy. We might sum it up this way: Republicans want to find more and use less; Democrats want to find less and tax more.

“The Democratic plan, according to Senator Schumer of New York, was never intended to talk about lowering gas prices. Senator Reid agreed, Senator Baucus agreed, Senator Landrieu agreed, and Senator Begich agreed, but why aren’t we talking about trying to find a way to lower gasoline prices when it is $4 a gallon and going up?

“The Republican plan is very specific: Find more American oil and more American natural gas. We can find that offshore where 30 percent of our domestic oil and 25 percent of our natural gas is produced. We can find it on Federal lands, and we can find it in Alaska.

“The other part of our equation is to use less. We have some agreement with the Obama administration on some of these ideas. There are a number of them, such as jump-starting electric cars. Senator Merkley and I have a bill that is before the Energy Committee tomorrow to do just that. I believe electrifying our cars and trucks is the single best way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. There is legislation to jump-start natural gas for trucks, biofuels from crops we don’t eat, and fuel efficiency. All these are various ways to use less.

“Senators Thune and Barrasso have performed a service by setting the record straight to show that the United States produces a lot of oil. We are actually the third largest oil producer in the world. So I ask this question: If less Libyan oil can raise gasoline prices — which it did — then shouldn’t more American oil help lower gasoline prices? At least, for every dollar of American oil we produce, it is one less dollar we have to send overseas for foreign oil.

“So, Madam President, the Republican plan is to find more American oil and natural gas and to use less. My suggestion is, if we are going to be talking about tax subsidies for Big Oil, let’s talk about tax subsidies for all energy. The Senate floor seems an especially appropriate place, if we are going to talk about Big Oil, to also talk about tax subsidies for Big Wind.”