Better Plan, Wisconsin

From Australia:

TURBINE TURMOIL AS ILL WIND BLOWS

 READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: The Advertiser, www.adelaidenow.com.au

May 14, 2011 Penelope Debelle,

Wind farms are providing clean power — but are they also making people sick?

“I’ve been there 42 years in the town, never wanted to move, but you just cannot go without sleep.”

First the dogs on Andy Thomas’s farm start to howl. They sense a change in the air as the three 45m turbine blades turn into the wind. Then the blades begin to revolve. Depending on the weather and distance, they can sound like an approaching windstorm, an oncoming train or a jet engine revving for takeoff. At best they make a rhythmic, pounding swoosh.

Thomas runs a 283ha sheep farm near Burra in the Mid-North. He is a no-nonsense bloke whose family has been in the Hallett area for 150 years. The nearest 80m- high turbine is just over a kilometre away but he is close enough to hear more than 10 of them as they create electricity from the wind along the Bald Hill Ranges. “There are probably around 12 that impact on a fella,” Thomas says.

Like many country people, he supported the idea of a wind farm. It was hard to argue against harnessing the wind to generate green electricity for the national grid while bringing economic benefits to the region.

The Hallett No. 2 wind farm is on Hallett Hill, close to the township of Mt Bryan where Thomas lives. The 34 turbines started up in May last year and his life has not been the same since. Neighbours had warned him. “I knew some people who were near Hallett No. 1 who said, ‘where you’re living, you’re going to have a hell of a noise problem’,” Thomas says. “That has proved to be the case.”

His problem – like many I spoke to – is chronic sleep deprivation. Thomas is woken by the noise anywhere from 2am to 4.30am and is unable to get back to sleep. Then he rises, exhausted, to face another day of physical work. “I’m talking about three or three-and-a-half hours of broken sleep,” he says. “When you get up and sit at the table yawning you know damn well you’re having a heck of a day.”

Australia is investing in wind energy at an incredible rate. The Gillard Government wants 20 per cent of the nation’s power to be green by 2020 and rewards those who invest in renewable energy. Before 2003 South Australia had one large wind turbine, at Coober Pedy. Eight years later there are 14 farms, some with 30 or more turbines. The state’s move into wind farms has been so rapid that as of late last year, more than half of Australia’s installed wind power was here – enough capacity, in theory, to provide 30 per cent of our electricity. Yet the only restriction in SA on how far a turbine can be built from a house is on the measurable noise that they make. Western Australia has mandated a 2km buffer zone between turbines and the nearest house, as has Victoria, where the Liberal Premier, Ted Baillieu, last year campaigned in support of those who were struggling with living near them. “These are people with real issues, they’re in real locations with real lives and real problems,” Baillieu said.

Here in SA, the Environment Protection Authority’s head of science and sustainability, Peter Dolan, argues our reliance on noise limits offers greater protection than a blanket setback rule. “We have the most onerous guidelines in the country,” he says.

The problem, however, is not just the sound but an alleged condition – denied by the turbine owners – called wind turbine syndrome, which is a cluster of complaints triggered not just by noise but by infrasound. The noise is inaudible but there are fears that the pulsating low frequency soundwaves can cause a malaise not unlike seasickeness. And like seasickness, it strikes some people and not others.

“Wind turbine syndrome is a uniform collection of signs and symptoms experienced by a significant proportion of people living near large wind turbines,” the American author of Wind Turbine Syndrome, Dr Nina Pierpont, told a Senate inquiry into wind farms in March. “It is also well known to physicists who have worked with low-frequency noise and infrasound in military, naval and space program settings.”

SOUTH of Mt Bryan at Waterloo, 30km south-east of Clare, residents are leaving town. Drive through the sleepy hamlet – the home of former Birdsville Track mailman Tom Kruse whose picture is on the town’s sign – and there are protest signs on gates in the main street. The 37 turbines at the Waterloo farm dominate the dry and stony landscape. They run for about 15km along a ridge 4km west of the Tothill Belt, and each has a 3MW generator, 30 per cent bigger than those at Mt Bryan. Their size and proximity to the town may explain why the Waterloo farm, more than any other in SA, seems to be tearing a local community apart. The turbines have to be close to the mains supply because wind power cannot be stored; it has to go straight into the grid. Most of Waterloo’s problems can be traced to its location near the Robertstown power interconnector, a grid intersection point.

There are those to whom the turbines make no difference; they sleep as normal, like the way they look, and welcome the green investment. Others seem to be struggling to survive.

“I wake up in shock, my heart pounding, then I get no sleep,” says Andreas Marciniak, who lives about 3km from the Waterloo ridge. “The sound goes through you. If you’ve ever had seasickness, it’s like that, when you feel like you’re going to throw up but you know you’re not. It’s a lot worse than people think it is.”

Marciniak and his brother Johannes have serious pre-existing conditions, including angina, diabetes and high blood pressure. They separately bought property in Waterloo hoping to live a simple, almost self-sufficient life, but Johannes has walked out of a rundown service station he was renovating, claiming to fear for his life. He is staying in a friend’s caravan at Manoora, about 15km away. “I had blood pressure before but about six months ago I lost control of it, and the diabetes,” Johannes says. “I can’t stay here. After the two spells I had yesterday and the day before, I’ll be dead by the middle of this year.”

After 42 years in Waterloo, Roger Kruse, who is a great-nephew of mailman Tom, is furious at what he says the wind farm has done to his life. He hears one or more whenever the wind is easterly. “I’m waking up at three, quarter to four, quarter to five, six o’clock,” he says. “It’s very noisy. The house vibrates, you can actually feel it.” In March he bought a house at Saddleworth, about 30km south. When the wind is blowing the wrong way, he will leave town with his wife and three children and stay at Saddleworth, he says. “I don’t want to move and that’s buggering me so bad,” he says. “I’ve been there 42 years in the town, never wanted to move, but you just cannot go without sleep.”

There is a serious body of anecdotal evidence in SA that says living close to wind turbines is at very least disruptive to lifestyle and potentially damaging to health. Small pockets of anger and resentment are bubbling away at toxic levels in Mt Bryan, Waterloo and parts of the South-East, as it is in communities in Victoria and New South Wales. Similar stories have come out of the UK, Canada and Europe.

There is no scientific evidence that wind farms, when properly installed, are harmful. But something is clearly going on. What alarms some people – particularly those living in the turbines’ shadow – is that there is no reputable scientific evidence to say that living close to a wind farm is not harmful to health. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council conducted a literature review and concluded that there was nothing supporting a conclusion of adverse effects.

The wind farm companies argue there is no problem. “We do not accept that wind turbine syndrome exists,” says AGL’s head of wind energy in Australia, Steven Altschwager. Acciona, which is behind the proposed Allendale East wind farmin the state’s South-East, says there is a small number of anecdotal reports that have not been backed by scientific or medical research, or diagnosis.

They have Premier Mike Rann’s support. When protesters turned out at the opening of the Waterloo farm in February, he dismissed their concerns. “There are 100,000 turbines around the world and there has been study after study and there have been no negative health impacts,” Rann said.

However the SA branch of the AMA wants a local study to be urgently done, particularly because in Australia wind farms are larger in scale and the turbines tend to be bigger. “We are certainly not saying there is any evidence there is such a thing as wind turbine syndrome but what there isn’t is any information to look at the health effects,” state president Andrew Lavender says. “A proper process would be for a medical study to be organised independent of both the interest groups and the wind farm providers.” Lavender is looking to the CSIRO or to the NHMRC to commission a study and believes that everyone will benefit from certainty. “There isn’t really any medical study out there in the Australian context,” he says. “The other thing is, if there is such a thing as wind farm syndrome, are some people susceptible and not others? That may well be the case, just like some people are susceptible to car sickness and motion sickness and some aren’t.”

Protesters are calling for a moratorium on any more wind farms until the medical issues have been conclusively resolved. Last year a former rural GP from Crystal Brook, Sarah Laurie, founded the Waubra Foundation, a national wind farm protest group named after the Victorian wind farm near Ballarat which has more than 100 turbines. Last month a former Liberal Minister for Health, Michael Woolridge, became a director. His presence is something of a coup for the group’s credibility. “Being a doctor he is aware of the problem; being a former health minister he understands completely what it takes to change the views,” says fellow director Peter Mitchell, an engineer.

Laurie says she is not anti-wind farm but wants them to be sited appropriately so they’re not driving people out of their homes “and out of their minds as well”. “I think there should be a temporary halt in further approval and construction of wind farm developments that are closer than 10km,” she says. “Wind farms that are further than that, go for it. But 10km is the limit at which people are expressing symptoms.”

Turbines have become political and late last year Family First MP Steve Fielding successfully moved for a Senate inquiry into their effects. “For too long the concerns of those who are sick have been dismissed,” Senator Fielding said in November. “Given the mounting physical evidence from those living near wind farms, I think it’s only fair for the Parliament to have a look at what is happening.”

The committee is due to report next month and so far more than 800 submissions have been received. One is from Richard Paltridge, a dairy farmer who last year challenged Acciona in the Environment Resources and Development Court over the proposed $175 million, 46-turbine wind farm near his dairy at Allendale East. At least six of the turbines will be less than 1km from his dairy and at night his cows will be in a paddock 500m away. He is worried about the impact of shadow flicker from the rotating blades, turbine noise and infrasound on the milk production of his herd. A decision is expected this month.

The opposition to wind farms is not about greenies versus the rest. Ally Fricker would seem to be a prime candidate for embracing wind energy. A pioneer of the anti-pesticide movement, in the 1970s she opened Stall 72, the first organic food stall at the Adelaide Central Market. She later formed the Organic Food Movement which developed some of the first guidelines for organic produce. She is a greenie who remains implacably opposed to nuclear energy. In 1996 she and her partner, Bob Lamb, bought a small property near Waterloo in an area where there was still natural bush.

In August last year, the wind farm started up. “I heard a noise and thought it was a big wind storm coming from some distance away,” says Fricker, who lives 10km from the nearest turbine. “It was dead calm at our place. After I while I thought, ‘that’s odd, that wind never got here’. Eventually the penny dropped and I realised I was hearing the wind farm.”

She and Lamb have become a rallying point for the Stop Industrial Wind Turbines movement. It was not what Fricker planned at this stage of her life; she thought her days of protest were behind her. Her pamphlet – named in a nod to her hippy past, The Answer is Blowing in the Wind – urges people to speak out. She knows this goes against the grain for country folk, many of whom cherish the simple life and don’t want trouble with their neighbours. “People have loose networks based around church or social groups and they’re not used to organising in any social action sense,” she says. “They are very worried about it causing division in these very small communities where everyone literally knows everyone else’s business.”

Stories circulate in these communities about gag clauses that stop those who sign contracts for turbines from speaking against them. While confidentiality surrounds the commercial deal done between the power company and the landowner on whose property a turbine will be built, the claims that people cannot speak out are denied.

Acciona, a large Spanish-owned company, says their contracts contain no such clause. “There is nothing in any or our contracts that would impose any confidential obligations on people to speak about any health concerns they might have,” says Acciona communications director, Tricia Kent. The company also denied having intervened to prevent a former Waubra resident, Trish Godfrey, from giving evidence early this year in the Allendale East case. “We took no action to prevent Mrs Godfrey from testifying,” Kent insists.

Julie Quast joined the protest campaign with great reluctance. The Waterloo wind farm has destroyed her personal dream. She and her husband bought on the ridge six years ago when plans for the wind farm were in abeyance. She says she saw paperwork from the company saying it was not going ahead. They intended to build on the hill and use the land for crops, sheep and alpacas. Not long after, the wind farm was revived.

“We could not build on our land because we would be 1200m from the closest turbine in a direct line,” she says. She and her husband now rent a house owned by his employer, just over 2km from the nearest turbine. She can see them and, at night in particular, she is affected by them. “It gets very distressing at night because I’ll wake up sometimes with my ears pounding – not all the time,” she says. “Sometimes it may not be that windy but some nights you’re bombarded with noise if it’s an east wind.” She is resigned to living with them but says her community is being torn apart. “We are members of a church and there is a real split in the church. We have heard of families being split,” she says. “I don’t know how this community will recover.”

Fricker says in her area families are divided and neighbour is against neighbour. “Most of our neighbours don’t speak to us any more. It really is incredibly divisive and people hate that in these little communities,” she says. “They hate going into the pub and being shunned.”

Money is partly driving this division. It is widely agreed that the power companies pay landholders about $10,000 a year to place a turbine on their property. So far, none of those who are being paid have complained. But the unequal spread of rewards has contributed to the bitterness. Julie Quast refuses on principle to allow one on her land, saying she would feel hypocritical. So someone else is being paid for the wind turbines that are causing her problems.

Ben and Kerry Heinrich are paid about $30,000 a year for three turbines at Waterloo and the nearest is less than 500m from their back door. Heinrich, whose mixed farm is just off the Barrier Highway, says his family is not bothered by them. “Maybe sometimes when you’re lying in bed you can just hear it but it doesn’t affect us. We all sleep like babies,” he says. But he agrees the money is important.

Heinrich, who has a young daughter, Emmison, understands the community division and says he would not have allowed the turbines so close without a financial incentive. “I can understand people who aren’t getting paid but who have them nearby getting a bit funny about it, if they can hear them,” he says.

Greens MLC Mark Parnell is committed to wind power as an essential element in a renewable energy future but says a new industry is feeling its way. “At that level it looks very unfair,” he says of the payments. “I don’t know if there are ways to spread the love around a bit more.”

The opposition is not universal. At Snowtown, the wind farm has been trouble-free. “I’m absolutely at a loss to see what the problem is,” says Snowtown farmer Paul McCormack, who has a turbine about 600m from his house. “It hasn’t affected our TV reception and the flashing lights – we pull the blind and go to bed. I think they’re wonderful.”

In the case of Andy Thomas, the sound from AGL’s turbines at Mt Bryan exceeds EPA levels and they have been working with him for more than a year trying to lower the noise. The problem is what the company calls “tonality”, a discernible tone coming out of the gearbox. They also, Thomas says, removed the flashing red lights. Late last year AGL shut down six machines for two weeks and packed foam inside to deaden the noise. It didn’t work. Next they experimented with shutting down six turbines when the wind reached certain speeds. It helped but is a temporary solution. “We see (shutting down turbines) as a temporary solution to keep Andy in a position to be able to enjoy his property without us interfering with him,” says Altschwager.

The rush to wind power in SA may be self-limiting, at least in the short term. Accessing the national grid is getting harder and the latest infrastructure report by Engineers Australia says congestion is already a problem. Networks in the Mid-North and South-East are already struggling to cope and – not unlike a traffic jam of electricity signals – the lines clog up when the wind blows.

But Roaring 40s plans to build two more wind farms near Waterloo, one at Stony Gap to the north on a continuation of the Tothills, and another at Robertstown to the east. If it happens, Fricker says she will leave. “We consider those areas like a buffer to the Tothill Belt and they contain patches of remnant peppermint gum which is highly endangered as an ecosystem,” she says.

She will not go without a fight. She and Bob Lamb are part of a claim recently lodged in the Environment Court protesting against a new wind mast at the proposed Stony Gap farm. “If these next two go ahead we would find it very hard to imagine staying here,” she says. “But we won’t go easily, that’s for sure.”



NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Stereotyping isn't new to those of us who have expressed concerns about the wind industry's impact on people, wildlife, property values and the environment. The terms used in the following article include the usual 'NIMBY' along with 'rabid', 'shrill,' 'emotional, and divisive.'

A wind lobbyist well known for his bizarre metaphors and dismissive attitude toward people he deems 'anti-wind' adds a few more choice phrases here, this time using the pronoun "we" instead of "I"--

Describing the JCRAR's recent suspension of the Public Service Commission's wind rules, he says,

"That was a political hit job. We refer to that committee as the firing squad"

and

"We're kind of enjoying this momentary lull because we've been in a shooting war, metaphorically, with Gov. Walker since January 3. So it's nice to be able to put down the metaphorical Kalashikov and talk about strategy."

Who is 'we' in this instance?  The 'business members' who pay this fellow include power giants Alliant Energy, American Transmission Company, We Energies, Madison Gas and Electric, along with big names in the wind business like Invenergy, enXco, and Horizon. Yet he's not identified as a lobbyist in this piece.  Did the reporter not know?

One thing that distinguishes this article is the reporter's rare inclusion of the voices of two Fond du Lac County wind project residents who have been experiencing trouble since the turbines went on line near their homes.

Read what they have to say about their experience and decide for yourself who sounds 'shrill, rabid, emotional and divisive' in this article.

EXTRA CREDIT QUESTION: Does 'full disclosure' apply to paid lobbyists making public statements? Should lobbyists identify themselves as such to a reporter? Or should it be up to the reporter to find out by doing their homework?

AND THE WIND CRIES....UNCLE

SOURCE:Scenenewspaper.com

Week of April 1, 2011

By Jim Lundstrom

Before the 1936 Rural Electrification Act brought electricity to the boonies, wind was the chief source of power for many country folk. Eventually, the windmills that once dotted the rural landscape were replaced by many forests’ worth of utility poles and probably millions of miles of cable.

It’s been lost to us how those farmers felt about their vistas being ruined and the rural nature of their property being destroyed by the ugly electrification program. Or was the prospect of entering the 20th century with the flick of a switch a salve to their bruised souls?

Wind energy never really went away, but it did go into deep hibernation for most of the rest of the 20th century, only roused from sleep by nervous consumers during the fossil fuel energy crises of the 1970s.

Ironically, the oily state of Texas is a leader in wind farms, with a generating capacity of 10,085 MW. Naturally, it boasts the world’s largest in the Roscoe Wind Farm, with 627 wind turbines covering 100,000 acres and capable of generating 781.5 megawatts, enough to power a quarter of a million homes.

Iowa has the second largest capacity with 3,675 MW, followed by California (3,177 MW), Minnesota (2,192 MW) and Washington (2,104 MW).  Wisconsin produces less than 500 MW with wind power.

For all the wind in Wisconsin – it ranks 16th in the nation for quality of wind – wind supplies only 1.7% of the state’s electricity, according to the Institute for Energy Research. Coal is tops for electricity generation, providing 62.5% of the state’s power. Nuclear energy from the state’s two nuke plants accounts for 20.7% Next is natural gas with a 9.1% share, followed by hydroelectric with 2.6%, and just below wind are wood/wood-derived products and petroleum, both supplying 1.2% each of the state’s power supply.

One of the best spots in the state to generate power from wind is on the high dolomite ledge on the eastern shore of Lake Winnebago. From County A in Neenah you can see the ghostly image of the northern Fond du Lac County wind turbines, close enough to Calumet County to put the wind up folks who don’t want wind turbines in their back yard.

Fond du Lac County is home to 166 wind turbines, including the 88 in the WE Energies Blue Sky Green Field Project, which has been the largest in the state since it went online in 2008. Those are the turbines you can see across Lake Winnebago.

Fond du Lac County reaped $625,000 in revenue from the various utilities who own the wind farms for 2010. We Energies gave landowners who host the turbines in the Blue Sky Green Fields project and the townships they are in a total of $440,000.

Blue Sky Green Field is currently the largest wind farm project in the state, but owner WE Energies will surpass that next year when Glacial Hills Wind Farm goes online with 90 turbines.
The uncertainty about wind in Wisconsin and the absence of regulatory stability were cited by Invenergy on March 21 when it asked the Wisconsin Public Service Commission to terminate its application process for the proposed 150MW Ledge Wind Energy Center in southern Brown County.

With utilities required to generate 10% of their power with renewable energy by 2015, wind seems to be a good investment, just not in Wisconsin right now after the Republican-heavy Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules suspended the Public Service Commission’s wind siting rule on the eve it was to take effect. And not with the emotional and divisive opposition to wind from the likes of former Republican state senator Robert Welch

Welch now serves as a well-dressed hired gun for groups that oppose wind energy, including Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy, a group that formed when wind farms were being proposed for Brothertown and other areas in Calumet County. The group has since assisted in efforts to oppose wind development in other parts of the state.

Welch reportedly was a member of Scott Walker’s “kitchen cabinet” during his successful campaign for governor, which goes a long way in explaining why the long debated and analyzed Wisconsin Public Service Commission wind siting ruling – known as PSC 128 – was suspended by a Republican-dominated legislative committee the day before it was to go into effect on March 1.

“That was a political hit job. We refer to that committee as the firing squad,” said Michael Vickerman, executive director of Renew Wisconsin and one of the 11 members of the PSC Wind Siting Council that crafted PSC 128.

“We are actually trying to implement the state’s own policies. The state actually prefers native renewable energy over importing coal. It’s in the statutes,” Vickerman said, but adds it has been a Sisyphean task given the rabid opposition to wind in Wisconsin. “We think we’re advancing the public interest of the state. To come across this opposition can be bewildering. Four years of policy work and lobbying and negotiating, and now we’re back to 2007.”

Appearing at a March 2 public hearing on Calumet County’s proposed wind siting ordinance, which essentially mirrored PSC 128 (by law, a local ordinance could not be more restrictive than the state rules), Welch said it was the 1,250-foot setback from a non-participating landowner’s residence that killed PSC 128. He and his paying constituents have long advocated an 1,800-foot setback from a non-participating property line rather than residence.

“The proposed 1,800-foot from property line setback, that is a very strategically designed number. It systematically destroys wind power in Wisconsin,” said Jeff Carlson, who does wind siting analysis and mapping for wind projects. He said with all the other buffer zones and inherent setbacks for public roads and power lines, the 1,800-foot rule makes it virtually impossible to put all the pieces of a wind farm puzzle together.

Welch told the assembled audience that the “wholesale change in the Legislature” means that all the “hoopla” surrounding green energy mandates and global warming has “sort of gone away.”

Not gone, Vickerman said, but in a temporary holding pattern.

“We’re kind of enjoying this momentary lull because we’ve been in a shooting war, metaphorically, with Gov. Walker since Jan. 3. So it’s nice to be able to put down the metaphorical Kalashnikov and talk about strategy,” he said. “What the legislative panel did was a suspension. If the legislature wants to repeal the siting rule, it would have to do so, it has to pass both houses. We have a shot, some chance; we might succeed in stopping such a bill from clearing the legislature. If we don’t the rule does go back under a new rulemaking procedure with more hoops, the biggest one being the governor has to sign off, which wasn’t the case before.”

What’s wrong with wind farms?

Opponents of wind energy have a long list of complaints that include public subsidies for wind, aesthetics, property rights of non-participants, drop in property values, noise levels, shadow flicker, bird and bat mortality around turbines, disruption of radio and TV signals, and a host of physical complaints that a minority of wind turbine neighbors have expressed. And, of course, there are the ever-present NIMBYs who might not actually oppose wind energy, but they don’t want to look at wind turbines from their property.

The most specious argument is public subsidies of wind. Yes, there is a 10-year federal tax credit that provides 2.1 cents per kilowatt hour produced (that credit includes solar, geothermal and “closed-loop” bioenergy systems), but wind advocates point out that all forms of energy are subsidized in some way by we the people, and some in far more shameful examples of public policy than a 10-year federal tax credit. Think of all the body bags and human misery that have subsidized fossil fuel and coal. Nuclear power, anyone?

“There’s a shrill nature to the opposition to wind, whether it’s political or whatever,” said Jeff Carlson, the wind-siting analyst. “When you’re going to defend the oil supply as one of your energies, there are a whole lot of costs that are never discussed.”

More disturbing are the various problems experienced by some who live within a wind farm project.

“I can’t stand them,” said Jim Vollmer, who in November 2002 bought a home in a small valley in the Town of Marshfield in northern Fond du Lac County.

Vollmer, a mechanic by trade, also raises chickens for meat and show. Both he and his chickens have suffered medical problems he attributes to the arrival of a Blue Sky Green Field turbine 1,600 feet from his home. He says it is a combination of noise, shadow flicker and vibration that have caused him and his chickens a host of medical problems and chronic sleeplessness.

“I’ve got sound and vibration here. Headaches. Migraines. Earaches. Memory loss. Shadow. Sometimes it feels like your vision is all blurred, you can’t see straight sometimes,” he said. “My birds are the biggest thing I’m concerned with. I’ve been raising them for 22 years, showing at fairs and things. I was growing meat birds, all of a sudden the shadow started showing. With the shadow in the barn, the birds think it’s a hawk or something overhead and they’re scared to hell. They quit laying or start rampaging. They start eating eggs and then I have a hell of a time to get them to stop eating them. Low hatch rates. Ones that did hatch had all kinds of birth defects on them. I gave up on the meat birds. Tried to get compensation for the chickens, but nothing.”

In the mitigation process, WE Energies outfitted Vollmer and his neighbors with satellite TV and radio to overcome transmission problems caused by the turbines, and they installed double-thick blinds to stop the shadow flicker from entering his home. That stopped the inside flicker, but the blinds also make it dark as a tomb inside.

“It’s so dark you have to turn lights on,” he said. “I told them I had shadow in the barn, and they won’t do nothing about that. They were supposed to do shadow mitigation.”
Vollmer feels he has exhausted all his options in resolving the problems. He has been to town board meetings. He has complained to WE Energies, the PSC, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, various law firms, and to state Sen. Joe Liebham, one of the six Republicans on the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules.

“I haven’t gotten anywhere. They all dropped the ball,” he said.
He believes his only remaining option is to sell his home and move away, but after two years on the market, “I haven’t had anyone bite on the thing yet,” he said. “I’ve had a couple people, but that was almost two years ago when I first listed it. I called another realtor up this year. I’ve had it on the market with him since Feb. 2. I dropped the price by $40,000. What really angsts me, I dropped it that much with a new realtor and that guy says we haven’t had anyone call or want to come and look at it. He said that’s not normal.”

Vollmer suggested that WE Energies buy his home.

“I told them straight up, buy the place, turn around and sell it for as much as you can get. And let me move on,” he said.

Kathy Weber runs the Pipe Meat Market in beautiful downtown Pipe. Just down County W she built a home in 2006. In 2008 a Blue Sky Green Field wind turbine was erected 850 feet from her back door.

“They built the tower too close to my house. I informed them at the time that it was too close and they put it up anyway. They are disputing the fact, saying that they had a contract before my house went up,” she said. “I told them my son has juvenile myoclonic epilepsy. I’m not saying it’s going to affect him, but I don’t want to find out. I took them at their word. The project manager for the wind farm told me after I mentioned it was too close to my house, he told me we will check the survey and get back to me. Being the country bumpkin I am, I went along with him. I came home from work one day and it was three-quarters up.”

While wind turbines as epilepsy triggers is often used as a reason against wind farms, there is little evidence to support the claim that turbines cause epileptic fits in those susceptible to them. Weber’s son, however, did have trouble concentrating, and in December moved to Fond du Lac.

Weber said she has experienced sleeping and ear problems since the turbine arrived.

“I’m 62. I never had trouble in my life with my ears,” she said.

She also learned that shadow flicker is not just a daytime problem.

“You get moon shadowing at night,” she said. “Yup, the full moon. I went to bed and I thought, ‘Oh no, don’t tell me’.”

Weber said there are times when the turbine physically makes its presence known through sound and motion.

“You can feel the difference when you’re outside and they’re moving,” she said. “People in Marytown, which is five miles away, can hear them. It’s a constant whoosh, whoosh, whoosh. In the summertime when I’m outside a lot, this may sound weird, but I start rhyming words to them, stupid words .”

Weber said WE Energies offered to lease the land from her house to the wind tower for $1,500 a year, “but I said no. I want it moved.”

But for all this, Weber is not against wind energy. She just doesn’t want a giant wind turbine literally in her back yard.

“They should not be near residential areas. They should be all together somewhere far away from residential,” she said.

“It’s not uncommon if people don’t get the resolution they expect or feel they deserve, they feel they’re not being listened to, but I can assure you we did extensive outreach efforts both prior to, during and even after in the community and with neighbors, to the extent of going door to door with participating landowners and non-participating landowners,” said Barry McNulty of WE Energies. “We’ve certainly done things to mitigate issues, too. You can’t satisfy everyone, but we’ve gone a long way to try to do so.”

“We’re not here to tell you that there are no impacts at all. There are,” said Michael Vickerman. “They tend to be localized. They don’t really have an affect on the state or the planetary environment. But when you look at the history of wind systems in this country, especially the older ones, they become accepted over time. It may take a couple of years. The howls of protest you hear now, they die off.”

Click on the image above to watch wind project residents in Australia describe life with turbines. Then click on the image below to hear what wind turbines sound like near a home in DeKalb Illinois. These are the same turbines mentioned in the following article. Read more about this wind project family's experience here: Our Life With DeKalb Wind Turbines

WIND TURBINES STILL CENTER OF DEBATE

SOURCE: Daily Chronicle, www.daily-chronicle.com

April 1, 2011

By Caitlin Mullen,

SHABBONA – Jim and Donna Nilles would like to sell their house on Leland Road.

But the Nilleses – who live within 1,800 feet of wind turbines that are part of the wind farm operated by NextEra Energy that went up in four townships in DeKalb County in late 2009 – don’t expect they’ll be able to sell their home anytime soon. Part of that is because of current economic conditions, they said, but they don’t think the wind turbines help, either.

“The main gripe we have right now is nobody listens to us,” Jim Nilles said. “Nobody comes out here.”

They are among a group of DeKalb County residents who have asked county officials – most recently at a county board meeting – to look into noise and multiple other issues related to the wind farm. One of the more recent complaints came two weeks ago when a wind turbine’s blade shattered.

But the company and the county’s planning and zoning director say NextEra has remained compliant with the terms of its permit conditions.

“We have met all of our permit conditions, and we are communicating regularly with the county as outlined in those conditions,” NextEra spokesman Steve Stengel said.

Opposing viewpoints

There has been strong opposition to the wind farm since it was first proposed.

The DeKalb County Board voted in June 2009 to grant NextEra permission to build and operate 119 wind turbines in Afton, Clinton, Milan and Shabbona townships. It’s part of a larger wind farm that included 145 total turbines in DeKalb and Lee counties. Before board approval, several hearings – including one that lasted 19 hours – were held on the proposal that brought out hundreds of people.

That opposition has continued since the farm became operational in late 2009. Mel Hass, spokesman for Citizens for Open Government – a group of local residents opposed to the wind farm and that is suing to have it shut down – said he has found many board members aren’t aware of problems with the turbines.

Residents say there are numerous issues with the turbines, including loudness, shadow flickers and interference with TV reception. Shadow flickers happen when sunlight catches the rotating blades at an angle that creates a moving shadow through windows.

Hass said many residents have called a NextEra hotline to complain about these and other issues, but he said any response from the company comes several days later, if at all.

“I don’t know what else we can do to prove our point,” Hass said. “What’s left for me and my neighbors but for us to try to resolve this on our own?”

The shattering of a turbine blade two weeks ago at Shabbona Road between Keslinger and Gurler roads is one of the recent concerns. Residents expressed concern that the shattered turbine blade and its debris could have hit a horse or a car driving near the turbine.

“Their good-neighbor policy went out the door the day the DeKalb County Board gave them those special-use permits, as far as we’re concerned,” said Beth Einsele, who claims NextEra has ignored repeated calls to respond to problems.

Stengel said the shattered blade is unusual and is under investigation. One of the wind turbines in the wind farm also experienced a broken blade in May.

“We have not experienced that anywhere else in our fleet,” Stengel said. “The cause of that is under investigation.”

Stengel said the hotline is manned during normal business hours. An answering service picks up calls that come in at other times and forwards those to the site leader, Stengel said. If someone calls to report a problem, the company is obligated to investigate it.

Stengel said the vast majority of calls have come from people who are suing the company. He said he believes those who have problems with the wind farm are in the minority. He said the facility has performed exceptionally well; there have been no injuries at the site and equipment has been well-maintained.

“I think the things that we said, I think that those things have come to be true,” Stengel said. “There is a group of individuals that are not happy with the wind farm. Those are the same individuals that are suing us in court.”

And not all residents near the wind farm have issues with the turbines. Elizabeth Armenta said she moved to her home on McGirr Road last year and isn’t bothered by the wind turbines. She doesn’t live close enough to experience shadow flickers, and she said she can’t hear the turbines unless it’s very quiet.

Kit Tjelle, who lives on Lee Road, said she and her husband Kevin feared the worst before the turbines were installed, but she said they’ve been pleasantly surprised to find they appreciate their beauty and clean design. A few turbines stand just beyond their backyard.

“They don’t bug us at all. At all,” Tjelle said. “They’ve kind of become part of our landscape.”

Paul Miller, the county’s director of planning and zoning, said the county monitors and follows up on the 36 conditions that were part of the county’s approval of the wind farm, including things like setbacks from structures and property lines, and a property value guarantee.

“To date, we have not found them in violation of any of those conditions,” Miller said.

Lawsuit still pending

Citizens for Open Government filed a lawsuit in July 2009 that was dismissed later that year because it lacked factual evidence. The group filed an amended complaint in January 2010, asking that the wind farm be shut down and the turbines dismantled. In June 2010, a judge rejected NextEra’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The lawsuit names NextEra Energy, the county board and the nearly 100 landowners who allowed turbines to be installed on their property. The lawsuit alleges that the county board overstepped its zoning authority when it authorized the special-use zoning permits for agricultural land. County officials have said the project is allowed under a special-use clause that permits “essential service structures.”

John Farrell, who manages the civil division of the DeKalb County State’s Attorney’s Office, said the case has been pending for a while, but it’s too early to say where it’s going.

Next story

STATE SHUTES DOWN ON SHORE WIND TURBINE PROGRAM AFTER MAJOR MALFUNCTION

SOURCE: NJSPOTLIGHT

March 25, 2011

by Tom Johnson

The state has shut down its on-land wind turbine program for the time being after an incident earlier this month when three blades suddenly came off a turbine at a farm and residence in Forked River.

The incident, which is under investigation, led the state Office of Clean Energy, to halt temporarily accepting applications for its Renewable Energy Incentive Program (REIP) wind project until authorities can determine how the blades became disengaged, according to Greg Reinert, a spokesman for the Board of Public Utilities (BPU).

The problem occurred on March 2 when a still unexplained major malfunction on a recently installed wind turbine caused all three blades to break loose, Reinert said.

On March 8, the clean energy office staff directed the program coordinator to issue a notice to stakeholders advising that "Effective immediately, there is a temporary hold on all new REIP wind applications and wind rebate processing until further notice."

Ellen Carey, a spokeswoman with the American Wind Energy Association, said she had never heard of this type of accident. "I would say it is an abnormal occurrence," she said

Land and Sea

The state’s efforts to develop wind energy on land have been dwarfed by its goals to build a vibrant offshore wind industry, an ambition that aims to develop 3,000 megawatts of wind farms off the coast of New Jersey.

Four developers have announced plans to build offshore wind farms from 3 miles to about 16 miles out in the ocean.

In comparison, the onshore wind efforts are much less ambitious, in part, because the wind resources pale in comparison to what is available offshore. Still, the Office of Clean Energy had overseen the installation of 38 wind systems, eligible for up to $5 million in rebates and grants, according to Reinert. The total installed capacity is 8.0291 megawatts.

In addition, there are another 37 wind projects approved as of March 18, with a total capacity of 4.64 megawatts and eligible for up to $3.5 million in state incentives..
It is uncertain when the office will begin accepting applications again. Like last year, the clean energy office has seen its funds diverted to help balance the state budget. Under Gov. Chris Christie’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year, $52.5 million from the Clean Energy Fund will be set aside.

SECOND TURBINE FALLS APART IN DEKALB ILLINOIS

SOURCE  Our Life with DeKalb Wind Turbines

Sunday, March 20, 2011

There was another turbine blade that shattered this morning in the Lee/Dekalb county windfarm project by Nextera Energy Resources (approximately 4 miles from our home … we can see the shattered turbine from our property). there was debris thrown from the blade.

In May of 2010 there was a blade that shattered in this project, and the NextEra spokesperson (Steve Stengel) said in the Dekalb County Chronicle: “that type of blade failure is unusual.”



Glenmore town board approves turbines: fox11online.com

GLENMORE TOWN BOARD APPROVES TURBINES

SOURCE: FOX11

MARCH 17, 2011

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.

Next story

AIRING WIND FARM FEARS

By Erin Somerville, Central Western Daily, www.centralwesterndaily.com.au 18 March 2011

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

SOURCE Falmouth Enterprise, (via National Wind Watch)

15 March 2011

By ELISE R. HUGUS,

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.

Next story

PLANNERS APPROVE TWO MILE SETBACK

SOURCE East Oregonian, www.eastoregonian.com

March 16, 2011

By Clinton Reeder,

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.

[rest of article available here]

Next story

FLICKER OF HOPE FOR WIND TURBINE VICTIMS

SOURCE: The Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk

March 17, 2011

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent,

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.

ROTOR CRASHES AT IBERDROLA WIND FARM IN NORTH DAKOTA

SOURCE: North American Wind Power

March 16, 2011

NAW has learned that a rotor came crashing to the ground at the 149.1 MW Rugby Wind Power Project, located near Rugby, N.D. The wind farm, owned and operated by Iberdrola Renewables, consists of 71 2.1 MW wind turbines, which were manufactured by Suzlon Wind Energy Corp.

According to a local resident, the incident occurred around 2:30 p.m. local time on Monday. There were no reported injuries.

Dan Smith, a local commercial photographer who has photographed the wind project from its early stages, says the wind farm's technicians told him that the incident may have stemmed from a failed braking mechanism.

"It looks like the braking mechanism failed, and the rotor gained speed, flexed and hit the tower and sheared off the mounting plate at the hub where it connects with the nacelle," Smith explains.

He adds that the rotor appeared to scrape the tower on its way to the ground, which could require the tower to be replaced as well.

READ ENTIRE STORY AT NORTH AMERICAN WIND POWER WEBLINK

CLICK ON THE IMAGE BELOW TO WATCH A SIMILAR ROTOR COLLAPSE AFTER WIND TURBINE BRAKES FAIL

From Illinois

WIND FARM PLAN SHOCKS BOARD

Source www.saukvalley.com

16 March 2011

BY DAVID GIULIANI,

MORRISON – Some Whiteside County Board members are upset that they hadn’t been informed about the possibility of wind energy development in the county.

A couple of weeks ago, a county official told a board committee about a company’s plans for wind turbines north of the village of Deer Grove and extending west of state Route 40.

Deer Grove, 11 miles south of Rock Falls, has a population of about 50.

Apparently, some board members didn’t know of the proposed project until they read about it in the newspaper.

At the board’s monthly meeting Tuesday, member Bill Milby, whose district includes Deer Grove, said a number of people have contacted him expressing their concerns about the proposed wind farm.

Milby said he wished he would learn of such developments from the county, rather than the newspaper.

Stuart Richter, the county’s planning and zoning administrator, emphasized that the county hadn’t received an application from the company, Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Energy. He said he expected to receive the application in September.

“It’s not a big secret,” he said, adding that he hadn’t seen the layout of the proposed wind farm.

Board member Jim Duffy asked whether the wind farm would be rushed through the board at the last minute.

“I certainly hope not,” Richter responded. “This is all new to us, but we won’t be reinventing the wheel.”

Board member Jon Hinton suggested the county put a hold on all permits for a while, adding that he hadn’t known about the proposed wind farm until recently.

Members asked what would happen when companies abandoned their turbines.

Richter responded that the county would enter into separate agreements for such issues. He said some counties require companies to post money to be put in escrow to cover the costs of the eventual decommissioning of their turbines.

During the public comment portion of the meeting, Sterling resident Amanda Norris, head of the local Sauk Valley Tea Party, said she and her husband recently bought land near Prophetstown and planned it to use for recreational purposes.

“This leaves us very concerned about protecting our property rights,” she said. “Having a turbine only a few hundred feet from our property would make it worthless to us. How does Whiteside County intend to protect the rights of property owners such as me and my husband?”

Whiteside County doesn’t have any wind turbines, but Lee and Bureau counties have had them for years. Those counties have been embroiled in bitter debates because many residents find the turbines noisy and unsightly, and say they cause health issues.

Mainstream is planning 190 turbines for the local project, which would include Bureau, Lee and Whiteside counties. Most of the turbines would be in Lee County, but company representatives wouldn’t say how many would be in each county.

The representatives confirmed that they planned to apply for permits in the three counties in the coming months.