Better Plan, Wisconsin

Steve Deslauriers is a volunteer spokesperson for Wisconsin Citizens Coalition, the group of organizations listed as authors of the "Wisconsin Citizens Safe Wind Siting Guidelines" Website: http://psc.wi.gov/apps35/ERF_view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=157326

FULL TEXT Brown County Board of Health Resolution Requesting Emergency State Aid for Families Suffering Around Industrial Wind Turbines

Brown County Board of Health formally requests temporary emergency financial relocation assistance from the State of Wisconsin for those Brown County families that are suffering adverse health effects and undue hardships caused by the irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines around their homes and property.

The State of Wisconsin emergency financial assistance is requested until the conditions that have caused these undue hardships are studied and resolved, allowing these families to once again return safely to their homes and property.

WHEREAS the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin's wind siting rules ('PSC 128') were created without oversight of a medical professional "...who is a University of Wisconsin System faculty member with expertise regarding the health impacts of wind energy systems." as mandated in 2009 WISCONSIN ACT 40. Jevon D. McFadden, MD, MPH (the Medical Doctor appointed to this role) publically acknowledged that he did not meet these criteria.

WHEREAS in the May 25, 2010 presentation made by Jevon D. McFadden, MD, MPH to the Brown County Board of Health, on behalf of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services - Division of Public Health, the State recognized and acknowledged that "Gaps remain in our knowledge of the impact that wind energy may have on human health..." but has failed to take any action to fill these gaps.

WHEREAS the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin's wind siting rules ('PSC 128') were suspended on March 1, 2011 by the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) stating that its contents "...create an emergency relating to public health, safety, or welfare; are arbitrary and capricious; and impose an undue hardship on landowners and residents adjacent to wind turbine sites."

WHEREAS the State of Wisconsin has failed to remedy this "emergency relating to public health, safety, or welfare" by carrying out the mandate of 2009 WISCONSIN ACT 40 which requires the State to enact wind siting standards that "...include setback requirements that provide reasonable protection from any health effects, including health effects from noise and shadow flicker, associated with wind energy systems..."

WHEREAS the State's inaction to enact wind siting rules that protect human health and safety has allowed development of the industrial wind project known as Shirley Wind LLC to be constructed in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County, Wisconsin (dedicated November 2010).

WHEREAS Shirley Wind LLC has created an environment that has resulted in the very same "undue hardships" that the JCRAR suspension of 'PSC 128' sought to prevent. These "undue hardships" have forced two families to vacate their homes to regain their health and continue to force at least two other families to suffer adverse health effects significant enough that they seek refuge away from their homes but do not have the financial ability to temporarily relocate.

WHEREAS the Brown County Board of Health has attached recent (2009 and newer) references (many peer-reviewed) to this resolution, organized by year of publication, accurately describing the cause, conditions, and adverse health effects being experienced by Brown County families.

WHEREAS the Brown County Board of Health has in the past, and continues to, advocate for the health and safety of Brown County families.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Brown County Board of Health formally requests temporary emergency financial relocation assistance from the State of Wisconsin for those Brown County families that are suffering adverse health effects and undue hardships caused by the irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines around their homes and property. The State of Wisconsin emergency financial assistance is requested until the conditions that have caused these undue hardships are studied and resolved, allowing these families to once again return safely to their homes and property.

Brown County Board of Health Industrial Wind Turbine Health Impact Supporting References

The following recent (2009 and newer) references (many peer-reviewed), organized by year of publication, accurately describe the cause, conditions, and adverse health effects being experienced by Brown County families.

2012:

Barbara J Frey, BA, MA (University of Minnesota), Peter J Hadden, BSc (Est Man) FRICS, Wind Turbines And Proximity To Homes: The Impact Of Wind Turbine Noise On Health, January, 2012. http://docs.wind-watch.org/Frey_Hadden_WT_noise_health_01Jan2012.pdf

2011:

Stephen E. Ambrose, INCE (Brd. Cert.), Robert W. Rand, INCE Member, The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study - Adverse Health Effects Produced By Large Industrial Wind Turbines Confirmed, December 14, 2011. http://randacoustics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-Bruce-McPherson-ILFN-Study.pdf

Carmen M.E. Krogh, BScPharm, Brett S. Horner, BA, CMA, “A summary of new evidence: Adverse health effects and industrial wind turbines”, August 2011. http://www.windaction.org/documents/32829

Krogh, C. M. E., “Industrial wind turbine development and loss of social justice?” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 321-333. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/321

Daniel Shepherd, David McBride, David Welch, Kim N. Dirks, Erin M. Hill, “Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health-related quality of life,” Noise & Health, September 2011 vol. 13 issue 54 pages 333-339. http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2011;volume=13;issue=54;spage=333;epage=339;aulast=Shepherd

Bronzaft, A. L., “The Noise from wind turbines: Potential adverse impacts on children's well-being,”
Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 291-295. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/291

McMurtry, R. Y. ,“Toward a case definition of adverse health effects in the environs of industrial wind turbines: Facilitating a clinical diagnosis,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August
2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 316-320. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/316

Environmental Review Tribunal, Case Nos.: 10-121/10-122 Erickson v. Director, Ministry of the
Environment, Jerry V. DeMarco, Panel Chair and Paul Muldoon, Vice-Chair, July 2011 http://www.ert.gov.on.ca/files/201108/00000300-AKT5757C7CO026-BHH51C7A7SO026.pdf

Harrison, J. P., “Wind turbine noise,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol.31 no. 4 pages 256-261. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/256

INCE/Europe, Wind Turbine Noise 2011— Post conference report, April 2011. http://www.confweb.org/wtn2011/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70:report&catid=35:information

Michael Nissenbaum MD, Jeff Aramini PhD, Chris Hanning MD, “Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines: a preliminary report,” 10th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, July 2011. http://www.healthywindwisconsin.com/Nissenbaum%20et%20al%20ICBEN2011_0158_final.pdf
2011 (continued):

Krogh, C. M. E., Gillis, L., Kouwen, N., and Aramini, J., “WindVOiCe, a self-reporting survey: adverse health effects, industrial wind turbines, and the need for vigilance monitoring,” Bulletin of
Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 334-345. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/334

Laurie, S., “Submission to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry on rural wind farms,” by Dr. Sarah
Laurie, BMBS, Medical Director Waubra Foundation, February 2011. http://docs.wind-watch.org/Laurie-Australia-Senate-submission-final.pdf

Møller, H. & C. S. Pedersen, “Low-frequency noise from large wind turbines,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, June 2011 vol. 129 no. 6 pages 3727-3744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3543957

Phillips, C. V., “Properly interpreting the epidemiologic evidence about the health effects of industrial wind turbines on nearby residents,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011, vol. 31 no. 4, pages 303-315. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/303

Richarz, W., Richarz, H., and Gambino, T., “Correlating very low frequency sound pulse to audible
wind turbine sound,” INCE/Europe Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise, Rome Italy, 12-14 April 2011. Cited in: http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/presentation-from-the-fourthinternational- meeting-on-wind-turbine-noise/

Salt, A. N. & Kaltenbach, J. A., “Infrasound From wind turbines could affect humans,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 296-302. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/296

Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs (Parliament of Australia), “The social and economic impact of rural wind farms,” 2011. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_farms/index.htm

Shain, M., “Public health ethics, legitimacy, and the challenges of industrial wind turbines: The
Case of Ontario, Canada,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 346-353. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/346

Shepherd, D., McBride, D., Welch, D., Dirks, K., Hill, E., Wind turbine noise and health-related quality of life nearby residents: a cross-sectional study in New Zealand. Fourth International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise. Rome Italy April 2011 http://www.maine.gov/dep/ftp/bep/ch375citizen_petition/pre-hearing/AR- 30%20chapter%20375%20-%20r%20brown%20hearing%20submission%20- %20Shepherd%20et%20al%20Wind%20turbine%20noise%20%20Quality%20of%20LIfe%20Rome %202011.pdf

Thorne, B., “The Problems with ‘noise numbers’ for wind farm noise assessment,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 262-290. http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/262

Vanderburg, W. H., “Assessing our ability to design and plan green energy technologies,” Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 2011 vol. 31 no. 4 pages 251-255 http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/251

Oregon Health Authority, Oregon Public Health Division, Office of Environmental Public Health, “Health impacts of wind energy facilities,” 2011. http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironment /TrackingAssessment/HealthImpactAssessmen t/Pages/windenergy.aspx

2010:

Chief Medical Officer of Health (of Ontario), Report: “The potential health impact of wind turbines,”May 2010. http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ministry_reports/wind_turbine/wind_turbine.pdf

Hanning, C., “Wind turbine noise, sleep And health”—Summary paper prepared by Dr. Christopher
Hanning. BSc, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FRCA, MD, November 2010. http://www.acousticecology.or /wind/winddocs/health/Hanning%202010_Wind%20turbine%20noise%20sleep%20and%20health%20November%202010.pdf

Ito, A. & T. Takeda, “Sickness claims prompt study of wind turbines [by the The Environment Ministry of Japan],” The Asahi Simbun, January 2010. http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201001180410.html

National Health and Medical Research Council (of Australia). “Wind turbines and health: a rapid review of the evidence,” 2010 http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/new0048.htm

Nissenbaum, M., Press conference by Michael Nissenbaum, MD Radiologist in Vermont's State
House, May 7, 2010, (video). http://vimeo.com/11577982

Pierpont, N., Letter to the Vermont State House of Representatives from Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Co-signed by the following: George Kamperman, PE, President, Kamperman Associates, Inc., Board-Certified Memberof Institute of Noise Control Engineers, Fellow Member of Acoustical Society of America, Member of National Council of Acoustical Consultants, F. Owen Black, MD, Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, Board-Certified Otolaryngologist, Senior Scientist, Director of Neurotology Research Balance & Hearing Center North West, Legacy Health System  Joel F. Lehrer, MD, Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, Board-Certified Otolaryngologist and Head and Neck Surgeon, Served on Hearing and Equilibrium Subcommittee of the American Academy of Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Clinical Professor of Otolaryngology, University of Medicine & Dentistry of NJ,  Stanley M. Shapiro, MD, Fellow of the American College of Cardiology, Board-Certified
Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Diseases, and Nuclear Cardiology, Champlain Valley Cardiovascular Associates,February 2010. http://docs.wind-watch.org/Pierpont-et-al.-to-Klein-2-10-10.pdf

Punch, J., James, R., & Pabst, D., (2010), “Wind-turbine noise: What audiologists should know,”
Audiology Today, July-August 2010. http://www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=2047

Salt, A., “Infrasound: Your ears ‘hear’ it but they don't tell your brain”—Powerpoint presentation by
Alec N. Salt, Ph.D., Department of Otolaryngology, (2010), Washington University School of Medicine, First International Symposium on Adverse Health and Wind Turbines, Sept 2010. http://windvigilance.com/downloads/symposium2010/swv_symposium_presentation_infrasound_your_ears_hear_it_2.pdf

Salt, A. N. & Hullar, T. E., “Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines,” Hearing Research, September 2010 vol. 268 nos. 1-2 pages 12-21. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20561575 2010 (continued):

Thorne, R., “Assessing noise from wind farms,”—Powerpoint presentation by Robert Thorne, PhD in Health Science from Massey University, New Zealand for The Society for Wind Vigilence, First International Symposium, October 2010. http://acousticecology.org/wind/winddocs/nois/swv_symposium_paper_thorne%20slides_assessin g_noise_from_wind_farms%20copy.pdf

Thorne, R. (Noise Measurement Services), “Noise impact assessment report - Waubra Wind Farm,”
prepared by Robert Thorne, PhD in Health Science from Massey University, New Zealand, July 2010. http://docs.wind-watch.org/Dean-Waubra-Noise-Impact-July-20101.pdf

2009:
Minnesota Department of Health, “Public health impacts of wind turbines” http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/windturbines.pdf

World Health Organization, “Night noise guidelines for Europe.”
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43316/E92845.pdf

WIND POWER DOCUMENTARY TAKES A SKEPTICAL TURN

Via National Public Radio

February 2, 2012

By Mark Jenkins

As is often the case, the outside developer's biggest asset was the local elite, which was certain it knew best. Farmer and town council leader Frank Bachler joined the town's attorney in overruling a skeptical planning commission report about the effects of erecting the turbines.

Not even the most ecologically minded are always keen on the prospect of giant wind turbines near their homes. But Meredith, N.Y., welcomed "Big Wind" when it first came whistling through town. That's what makes Windfall so interesting: The documentary is the story of an education.

In some ways, Meredith seems a natural place for a wind farm. Situated in one of New York's poorest counties, it's in an agricultural area whose principal enterprise, dairy farming, has dramatically declined. But the area is mostly home to small landowners, with few large tracts that could be developed without affecting nearby neighbors. And some of those neighbors are refugees from New York City, where they learned to be skeptical and outspoken.

Director Laura Israel is among the Meredith residents who split their time between the town and the big city 160 miles to the southeast, which explains why she was able to follow the controversy over a year or more, as pro-windmill sentiments gradually shifted to anti-.

This is no first-person piece, though; Israel stays off camera, allowing her neighbors to speak. She doesn't present the views of the wind-power developer, Airtricity (originally Eiretricity, before the Irish firm was sold to Scottish and German interests), but that may be because the company is a low-profile one that didn't address the community collectively, and insisted on confidentiality agreements before it would even enter into negotiations with property owners.

As is often the case, the outside developer's biggest asset was the local elite, which was certain it knew best. Farmer and town council leader Frank Bachler joined the town's attorney in overruling a skeptical planning commission report about the effects of erecting the turbines.

Bachler and other supporters labeled the anti-windmill forces "a vocal minority." But with an election looming, the pro-wind forces had to double-check their math. Even Bachler, one of the principal on-screen proponents of the turbines, would give the whole idea a second thought.

In Meredith, the case against wind turbines turned on their size — about 400 feet high and 600,000 pounds each — not to mention their grinding noise, their bone-shaking vibrations and the flickering shadows they cast, which disrupt light and sleep (and video games). One of the opponents, Ken Jaffe, is a retired doctor who looked into the high-tech windmills' medical side effects.

Also, the turbines sometimes fall over, catch on fire or hurl dangerous ice projectiles. They kill birds and bats in large numbers. And there's more.

To optimize the investment, wind-power developers tend to build a lot more turbines than they initially propose. In Tug Hill, farther north in upstate New York, a proposed 50 high-tech windmills became 195. As skeptics began to investigate, they learned that wind power is too unreliable to replace dirtier forms of generation, and that the wind business is based less on electricity than on tax credits: Big investment companies keep flipping the companies so as to restart the depreciation process.

A veteran film editor making her first feature, Israel emphasizes the area's low-key beauty. She conducted most of the interviews outside to show the landscapes. When the movie finally gets to Tug Hill, the contrast is all the more striking. Meredith, N.Y., may not be paradise, but it's clear why residents didn't want to sacrifice its rustic appeal to the steady whomp of industrial windmills.

 Second Feature

"WINDFALL"

By John Anderson,

Via The Wall Street Journal, wsj.com

February 3, 2012 

Speaking of horror movies, the monsters are 400 feet tall in “Windfall,” easily the more haunting film of this week and a sublimely cinematic documentary by the film editor-cum-director Laura Israel. Her subject is the battle waged over wind power in the tiny upstate New York town of Meredith. What’s so scary? Industrial wind turbines, the fetish objects of the green-minded, those sleek, white, propellered and purportedly eco-friendly energy collectors that one might have seen dotting the desert outside Palm Springs, and which may soon be sprouting out of Nantucket Sound. They’re sustainable, they produce no emissions and they’ll reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil. Right? Not quite. And living next to one seems like a nightmare.

Ms. Israel’s movie proves, once again, that the best nonfiction cinema possesses the same attributes as good fiction: Strong characters, conflict, story arc, visual style. The people of Meredith, be they pro or con the wind-turbine plan being fast-tracked by their town council, are articulate, passionate, likable. The issues are argued with appropriate gravity, and even though Ms. Israel, a Meredith homeowner herself, is clearly antiturbine, the other side gets a chance to speak its piece: Farmers, an endangered species, need income. Turbine leases are a way to it. But not only do the energy and ecological benefits fall short of what they’re cracked up to be, the turbines themselves are an environmental disaster: The monotonous whoosh of the propellers, the constant strobing effect caused by the 180-foot-long propellers, the threat of ice being hurled by the blades, the knowledge that it’s never going to end, all adds up to a recipe for madness. And that’s just during the movie.

“Windfall” is thoroughly engaging, educational and entertaining; the neo-blues music by Hazmat Modine is a real plus. Ms. Israel might deny it out of respect for her collaborators past and future, but documentaries are all about the editing. Many filmmakers might have been able to assemble the parts of “Windfall.” Far fewer would have produced as stylish a result.

TILTING AT WINDMILLS

By ROBERT BRYCE

via New York Post, www.nypost.com

February 4, 2012 

The battle in Meredith (population: 1,500) pitted landowners who stood to profit by putting the wind turbines on their property against those who didn’t. Israel interviews one couple, Ron and Sue Bailey, who took money from a wind company, a move they soon came to regret. The couple said they “were blinded by the money” and “never thought about what our neighbors across the road would think.”

Documentary makers are always hoping that their film will come out at just the right moment, when a favorable news cycle and popular sentiment are converging so that the public is primed for their message.

In 1989, Michael Moore made his career with “Roger & Me,” a documentary that pinned the decline of his hometown — Flint, Mich. — on General Motors. By focusing his fire on GM’s chairman, Roger Smith, Moore tapped into the public’s anger at tone-deaf corporate bosses as well as the growing disenchantment with the American car industry.

Laura Israel’s new film, “Windfall,” has the same sort of fortuitous timing. Her documentary — which focuses on the fight over the siting of wind turbines in the small upstate town of Meredith — premieres at the same time that “green energy” stimulus failures fill the news, and the wind-energy industry faces an unprecedented backlash from angry rural residents.

Consider this Nov. 1 story from The Village Market, a news outlet in Staffordshire, England, about 150 miles northwest of London. The paper’s reporter, covering the staunch local opposition to a proposed wind-energy project near the tiny village of Haunton, wrote, “Huge numbers of people in rural areas are rising up against the technology, despite government assuming they would support it.”

Throughout the UK — indeed, all over the world — fights against large-scale wind-energy projects are raging. The European Platform against Windfarms lists 518 signatory organizations from 23 countries. The UK alone now has about 285 anti-wind groups. Last May, some 1,500 protesters descended on the Welsh assembly, the Senedd, demanding that a massive wind project planned for central Wales be stopped.

Although environmental groups like Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace claim that wind energy is the answer when it comes to slowing the rate of growth in carbon dioxide emissions, policymakers from Ontario to Australia are responding to angry landowners who don’t want 100-meter-high wind turbines built near their homes.

Last September, CBC News reported that Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment has logged “hundreds of health complaints” about the thumping noise generated by the province’s growing fleet of wind turbines. In December, government officials in the Australian state of New South Wales issued guidelines that give residents living within two kilometers of a proposed wind project the right to delay, or even stop, the project’s development.

Back here in the States, many communities are passing ordinances that prohibit large-scale wind energy development. On Nov. 8, for instance, residents of Brooksville, Maine, voted by more than 2 to 1 in favor of a measure that bans all wind turbines with towers exceeding 100 feet in height.

Meanwhile, the promoters of Cape Wind, a large offshore wind project proposed for Nantucket Sound, are still hoping to get their project built. But they continue to face lots of well-heeled opposition, including, most notably, environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Well-known for his advocacy of renewable energy, Kennedy opposes the wind project — because it will be built a few miles from his family’s estate in Hyannis Port.

As “Windfall” is premiering this week in New York, wind-energy lobbyists in Washington are desperately hoping to convince Congress to pass a multi-year extension of the 2.2-cent-per-kilowatt-hour subsidy for wind energy. Without it, the domestic wind business, which is already being hammered by falling natural-gas prices, will likely end up becalmed.

Israel’s portrayal of the bitter feuding that happened in Meredith over wind-energy development is similar to fights that have occurred in numerous other rural communities around the world. The battle in Meredith (population: 1,500) pitted landowners who stood to profit by putting the wind turbines on their property against those who didn’t. Israel interviews one couple, Ron and Sue Bailey, who took money from a wind company, a move they soon came to regret. The couple said they “were blinded by the money” and “never thought about what our neighbors across the road would think.”

The landowner faction in Meredith was led by the town’s supervisor, Frank Bachler. Israel portrays him as a well-intentioned man who, in favoring the wind development, is trying to help the area’s struggling farmers. Bachler dismisses the opponents of the wind project as “a minority of people who are very aggressive.”

But Bachler is proven wrong. The anti-wind faction quickly gains momentum and the resulting feud provides a textbook example of small-town democracy. Three wind opponents run for election to the town board with the stated purpose of reversing the existing board’s position on wind. In November 2007, they win, and a few weeks later pass a measure banning large-scale wind development.

Israel’s film also features a colorful interview with Carol Spinelli, a fiery real-estate agent in Bovina, a town of about 600 people located a few miles southeast of Meredith. Bovina passed a ban on wind turbines in March 2007. Spinelli helped lead the opposition, and she nails the controversy over wind by explaining that it’s about “big money, big companies, big politics.” And she angrily denounces wind-energy developers “as modern-day carpetbaggers.”

That’s a brutal assessment. But it accurately portrays the rural-urban divide on the wind-energy issue.

Lots of city-based voters love the concept of renewable energy.

But they are not the ones who have to endure the health-impairing noise that’s created by 45-story-tall wind turbines, nor do they have to see the turbines or look at their red-blinking lights, all night, every night.

So many want to make the world green — so long as it’s not them who have to suffer for it.

NEXT FEATURE

TOPPLING TAX DOLLARS FOR TURBINES

by Marita Noon,

via finance.townhall.com

February 5, 2012 

On February 1, an urgent alert was sent to supporters of wind energy. It stated: “The PTC is the primary policy tool to promote wind energy development and manufacturing in the United States. While it is set to expire at the end of 2012 … the credit has already effectively expired. Congress has a choice to make: extend the PTC this month and keep the wind industry on track…”

The wind energy industry has reason for concern. America’s appetite for subsidies has waned. Congress is looking for any way it can to make cuts and the twenty-year old Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy is in prime position for a cut—it naturally expires at the end of 2012. Without action, it will go away.

The payroll tax extension will be a hot topic over the next few weeks as it expires on February 29. Wind energy supporters are pushing to get the PTC extension included in the bill. Whether or not it is included will be largely up to public response—after all, regarding the PTC’s inclusion in the payroll tax extension bill, the February 1 alert stated: “our federal legislators heard us loud and clear.” In the December payroll tax bill negotiations, the wind energy PTC was placed on a “short list of provisions to be extended through that bill.” Wind supporters are worried—hence the rallying cry.

Due to a deteriorating market, Vestas, the world’s largest manufacturer of industrial wind turbines, is closing a plant and laying off workers. Everyday citizens, armed with real life information gleaned from the wind energy’s decades-long history, are shocking lobbyists and killing back room deals by successfully blocking the development of industrial wind plants in their communities.

As news of actual wind energy contracts are coming in at three and four times the cost of traditionally generated electricity becomes widespread, and natural gas prices continue to drop due to abundance, states are looking to abandon the renewable energy mandates pushed through in a different economic time and a different political era. American Wind Energy Association spokesman, Peter Kelley, reports: “Industry-wide we are seeing a slowdown in towers and turbines after 2012 that is rippling down the supply chain and the big issue is lack of certainty around the production credit that gives a favorable low tax rate to renewable energy.” All of this spells trouble for the wind energy industry.

The PTC is part of a push for renewables that began in the Carter era. Enacted in 1992, the twenty-year old wind energy PTC was designed to get the fledgling industry going. However, after all this time, wind energy is still not a viable option. Even the industry’s own clarion call acknowledges that government intervention is still needed to keep it “on track.” If the training wheels are removed, it will topple.

Wind energy lobbyists have a plan: HB 3307 will extend the PTC for another four years. If the PTC extension passes, it will add an extra $6 billion to the $20 billion in taxpayer dollars the wind industry has already received over the past 20 years. These are monies we borrow (typically from China) to give to Europe—where most of the wind turbine manufacturers are located.

With advertisements featuring blue skies, green grass, and the warm and fuzzy images of families (and not one shot of a 500-foot wind turbine looming over their home), it is easy for the average person to be taken in and think we should continue to underwrite this “new technology”—after all, there is an energy shortage. “What will we do when we run out of oil?” Wind energy is electricity and electricity doesn’t come from oil—even if it did, we don’t have an oil shortage. Electricity comes from clean-burning natural gas and coal—both of which we have in abundance and know how to use effectively. They don’t need an expensive replacement.

Wind energy supporters often tout turbines because of the misguided belief they will get us off of fossil fuels—when, in fact, they commit us to a fossil fuel future. Optimistically, a wind turbine will generate electricity 30% of the time—and we cannot predict when that time will be. Highly variable wind conditions may mean the turbine generates electricity in the morning on Monday, in the middle of the night on Tuesday, and not at all on Wednesday. A true believer might be willing to do without electricity at the times when the wind is not blowing, but the general population will not. Public utilities and electric co-ops cannot—they are required to provide electricity 24/7 and to have a cushion that allows for usage spikes.

So, during that average 30% of the time that the turbine blades are spinning, the natural gas or coal-fueled power plants continue to burn fossil fuels—though possibly slightly less in an extended period of windy weather, and full-steam-ahead the remaining 70% of the time. (Research shows that turning up the heat on power plants, and then turning it back down, and up again actually increases the CO2 emissions.) Absent a major breakthrough in expensive energy storage, wind can never save enough fossil fuel to make any significant difference. After twenty years of subsidies, wind energy has not replaced one traditional power plant.

Some argue that many new technologies got their start through government support. This might be a good viewpoint if wind energy were “new.” But after twenty years of subsidies it is little better now than it was in the late 1800s. Windmills produced electricity then, and modern industrial wind turbines generate electricity now. It is not that they do not work, they do. They just don’t do so effectively, economically, or 24/7—and they still need Uncle Sam to prop them up.

Those who favor free markets need to seize upon this opportunity to push for the government to get out of the business of picking winners and losers. Clearly the “green” experiment has failed. Billions have been lost in the effort.

If we truly believe in free markets, why stop at just cutting the subsidies to wind energy? Stop the subsidies to all energy! May the strongest survive! The fact is, such a move is afoot. While HB 3307 aims to stretch out the subsidies for wind energy, HB 3308 will stop subsidies for all energy sources—wind and solar, oil and gas. The playing field will be level; billions will be saved!

A congressman I spoke to fears that, in the current political climate, his colleagues will cave on the wind energy subsidy, as they seem unwilling to take a strong stand on any issue. While wind energy supporters are calling their representatives, free-market advocates and everyone who believes the government-gone-wild spending must stop has to place a call, too.

Call, or e-mail, your Congressman, and as many others as you can take the time for, and tell them to stop subsidizing energy: “Do not include HB 3307 in the payroll tax extension bill. Support HB 3308 which will repeal the PTC and numerous other renewable energy tax incentives including the investment tax credit, the cellulosic biofuel producer credit, the tax credit for electric and fuel cell vehicles, and tax credits for alternative fuels and infrastructure. Additionally, HB 3308 will also repeal the enhanced oil recovery credit for producing oil and gas from marginal wells.”

Instead of propping up energy policy based on politics rather than sound science, we have to prop up our representatives and give them the backbone to do what is right.

Tell them to end energy subsidies.

What's wrong with this picture? Home in WeEnergies wind project near Towns of Marshfield and Malone, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin 2011. The blades on this turbine weigh about 8 tons each with a tip speed of nearly 200 miles an hour.

Photo by Better Plan Wisconsin.

7:40 PM. “Wind SSW, 12 MPH, 18.8 rpms. The jet noise is like last hour and now I also easily hear turbine 73 along with turbines 4 and 6. Inside our house I hear thumping and humping no matter which room I go to. It is hell. Hell may be better

A Wisconsin family's life has been turned upside down by noise from 400 foot wind turbines in the PSC-approved Invenergy wind project near the Town of Byron in Fond Du Lac County. Sleep deprivation from turbine noise has been the number one problem for this household since the turbines started turning.

CLICK HERE to the read daily turbine noise log kept by the Meyer family.

WIND TURBINE NOISE LOG, JANUARY 27, 2012

4:35AM. It was another night of sleep deprivation. I worked hard for 12 hours yesterday. I should have had a sound nights sleep, but not so in an Invenergy wind factory.

I was woke from sleep numerous times by turbine noise and low frequency noise. I only wrote down 2:07, 2:51 and 3:55. I tried to get back to sleep so I did not pay attention to the clock other times I was woke. After 4:00 AM I did not sleep. I got up to watch the news and was bombarded with thumping and pounding noise from the turbines in our family room.

7:10 AM. Wind NW, 10 MPH, 18.4 rpms. The noise from turbine 4 is like that of a jet flying over. Turbine 6 is 3300 feet away and is thumping and pounding. There is turbine noise from all directions this morning.

5:35 PM. Wind SSW, 12 MPH, 18.6 rpms. I just stepped out of the house and heard what sounded like two F-16s flying by. Yes, I know the sound they make because they fly over Madison when we visit. Those F-16s were turbines 4 and 6.

Turbine 6 was just as loud as turbine 4 even though it is 3300 feet away. I next went in my wood shed where the noise was more of a thumping and pounding much like listening to my heart in a stethoscope.

I then went in my shop where there also was the thumping and pounding noise. It is impossible to escape the horrendous noise without driving away.

7:40 PM. “Wind SSW, 12 MPH, 18.8 rpms. The jet noise is like last hour and now I also easily hear turbine 73 along with turbines 4 and 6. Inside our house I hear thumping and humping no matter which room I go to. It is hell. Hell may be better

8;20 PM, Wind SSW, 18.2 rpms. The jet noise continues now from turbines 4 and 73.

WIND TURBINE NOISE LOG: JANUARY 28, 2012

5:10  AM. It was another bad night of sleep because of noise from the turbines. People say “You will get used to it”.

That is not true. That statement could only come from someone who doesn't live with turbine noise.  Do you get used to having the radio between stations, or fingers scratching over the chalk board or your child continuously turning the lights on and off?

We have not gotten used to it. The effects of sleep deprivation has only gotten worse. As I write this I hear the thumping and pounding noise from the turbines. I could hear it from bed just a short while ago before I got up.

The pounding sound or low frequency noise from the turbine woke me up at 1:30. I was still awake at 1:55. I was woke again at 3:01, 3:35, 4:07 and 4:27. I no longer slept after 4:27 and soon got up. Besides being woke up numerous time during the night my sleep was very restless. At this moment I have a headache and feel warm on my face like my skin wants to shrivel up. Stressed. Exhausted too.

5:25 PM. Wind SW, 18.2 rpms. There is a loud jet sound from the turbine. In my wood shed there is a thumping and pounding noise. It's often louder indoors than outdoors. The house and sheds seem to act like drums and the pounding feels like it's coming from every direction. I say 'feel'. You can feel it not just hear it.

9:55 PM, Wind SW. The air at ground level feels calm. Above is a loud jet noise and the sound and feeling of the sky being torn open by the heavy turbine blades. Each one weighs close to nine tons. Imagine three nine ton blades with a span that is wider than a 747 and a tip speed of close to 200 miles an hour spinning over your home.

How are you ever going get used to that? How are you ever going to get used to not being able to sleep at night?

Opinion

WISCONSIN TOWN COUNCIL PLACES PRIOR RESTRAINT ON POLITICAL SPEECH

Via The New American

By Joe Wolverton II

January 9, 2012

According to the latest census, there are fewer than 2,000 people living in Morrison, Wisconsin. There are at least 10 times that many cows.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: What was the real reason Invenergy backed out of the project?

There is was no 'regulatory uncertainty' for Invenergy when it came to this project because it was over 100 megawatts.

When a project is that big it's the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) not local government that has approval. The PSC has never yet met a wind project it didn't like and has said yes to all who have applied.

Word has it that the real reason Invenergy pulled out was because they were unable to to find a utility that would agree to purchase the power or the project.

By Laura Carpenter

Via  The Newport Daily Express, newportvermontdailyexpress.com

January  11, 2012 

“Mitigation, metaphorically, is a bit like a surgeon cutting off your right arm but assuring you that he or she will see to it your left arm remains protected for the rest of your life. Your right arm, meanwhile, is still gone. Yes, GMP has secured conservation easements from a few area landowners by paying them a ton of money and arranging creative land swaps. The moose, deer, bear, bobcat, grouse, fisher, et al, were apparently not consulted. Such action does not assure existing habitat connectivity or cushion the overall effects of fragmentation of what was an intact montane ecosystem. The right arm is still missing, lost in the clear-cutting and blasting,”

LOWELL, VT – Work on Green Mountain Power’s (GMP) controversial Lowell Mountain wind turbine project will continue through the winter, although some of the activity will subside and pick up again in the spring. The lack of snowfall has allowed for some of the construction work to continue further than expected.

Road building, blasting and excavation continue along the ridgeline, according to Dorothy (Dotty) Schnure with GMP. Concrete foundation work began this week on the collector substation, which is located halfway up the access road on Lowell Mountain. Construction of the collector substation on the mountain will continue. In addition crews are preparing to set poles for the overhead collector line, which will carry power from the underground electric lines on the ridge to the substation.

The project involves the construction of 21 industrial size turbines and upgrades to the Vermont Electric Cooperative transmission system between Jay and Lowell.

GMP has all necessary pre-construction permits and has met all required pre-construction conditions placed on it by state regulators.

One of the requirements set by the Public Service Board (PSB) was to obtain easements of “adequate size and location” to address fragmentation of habitat caused by the project. The wind project impacts 159 acres on the Lowell Mountains. In late December, the PSB approved GMP’s proposal to conserve approximately 1,600 acres of wildlife habitat in Eden.

“The conserved land provides for important habitat to offset the overall project effects and provides connectivity to other conserved lands. This level of mitigation is unprecedented in Vermont,” said Mary Powell, President and CEO of GMP in a written statement.

In addition to the two parcels just approved for conservation in Eden, GMP has also conserved approximately 1,070 acres on Lowell Mountain. Of these acres, 778 acres will be conserved in perpetuity (forever) and another 292 acres will be conserved for the life of project plus 25 years.

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources attorney Jon Groveman, in a letter filed with the PSB, said the conserved land on either side of East Hill Road helps maintain the ecological and landscape connectivity that currently exists between the Lowell Mountain Habitat block and the Green River Reservoir habitat block.

But not everyone agrees that the easements make up for the loss, including Steve Wright of Craftsbury, a former Vermont Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife.

“Mitigation, metaphorically, is a bit like a surgeon cutting off your right arm but assuring you that he or she will see to it your left arm remains protected for the rest of your life. Your right arm, meanwhile, is still gone. Yes, GMP has secured conservation easements from a few area landowners by paying them a ton of money and arranging creative land swaps. The moose, deer, bear, bobcat, grouse, fisher, et al, were apparently not consulted. Such action does not assure existing habitat connectivity or cushion the overall effects of fragmentation of what was an intact montane ecosystem. The right arm is still missing, lost in the clear-cutting and blasting,” Wright said.

Still under dispute is a section of land where the crane path for the wind project is built. Shirley and Don Nelson, adjacent property owners, say the land is really theirs. But Trip Wileman, the property owner leasing to GMP, says it is his. The issue is in court but has not been decided.

“It is unconscionable that Judge Maley continues to hold that case while GMP destroys what is likely to be ruled the Nelson property. Actually, I guess GMP has already destroyed it, so maybe it’s only an issue of determining a compensatory value,” Wright said.

WIND POWER: IS IT WORTH IT?

By Mark Morgan

Via West Virginia Highlands Voice, wvhighlands.org

January 10 2012

The heavily funded and admittedly effective US industrial wind lobby portrays its product as descending from old-world windmills. Close your eyes and you’ll surely imagine these magnificent machines gently turning in the breeze . each kilowatt arriving at your reading lamp courtesy of a rosy -cheeked Hummel child. Existing solely to save the planet by generating clean, affordable and environmentally friendly electricity, you can be sure that any addition to the plant owner’s bank account is purely accidental.

Hogwash! In reality, the US industrial wind business traces its roots to Ken Lay and Enron with profit as its core goal. As Gabriel Alonso, chief executive of Horizon Wind Energy LLC – one of America’s biggest wind developers, often reminds his employees . their goal isn’t to stage a renewable-energy revolution … “This is about making money!” (1)

I was not always this cynical. I wanted to believe that industrial wind would replace fossil fueled power plants and, until two years ago, defended its arrival here. Like many West Virginians, I wanted the destruction of our mountains by those who profit from the blue diamond stopped . NOW! I believed industrial wind offered the best opportunity to accomplish that goal and, even recognizing industrial wind also consumes our forest lands, it seemed an excellent alternative to the coal industry’s horribly destructive mountaintop removal mining process.

Sadly, once the layers of “woulds, coulds and shoulds” were peeled back, I found industrial wind failed to keep its environmental promises. Save the canned boilerplate responses to criticisms, the wind industry offered nothing conclusive to demonstrate it would significantly reduce emissions or close fossil fueled plants. There is no conclusive evidence that one coal plant has been closed as a direct result of the installation of tens of thousands of wind turbines. Not one! I’ve asked advocates to name one facility. Answer . zippo!

I fully expect advocates to point to many studies which validate their “woulds and shoulds.” But the studies they point to carry their own fair share of “woulds and shoulds” as well. We’re even asked to disregard the increased emissions generated by fossil fueled plants as they inefficiently try to compensate for wind’s constant variability and accept that, on their word alone, when the wind is blowing, a coal plant, somewhere, is not running. That’s equivalent to some self-appointed Giraffe Control Officer bragging that not one has been spotted in Charleston during his watch.

Consider this measure instead. US industrial wind capacity at the end of 2010 exceeded 40,000 MW (2). The US has some 490 coal power plants with an average size of 667 MW (3). A direct one to one trade would have closed some 60 coal plants. Again . name one!

Bringing this closer to home . Edison Mission Energy is heavily invested in Appalachian coal fired power plants even as it grows its Appalachian wind plants. Can we expect Edison to replace its fossil plants as it opens wind plants with equivalent MW capacity? Will any of the major players holding significant interest in both fossil fueled plants and wind plants make this commitment? I suggest they will not, as long as there is profit to be made from each.

The sad truth is that industrial wind does not replace fossil fueled electricity generators. It does not reduce emissions. It does not provide affordable, on demand electricity. The relatively miniscule amount of electricity generated typically arrives when it’s not needed and cannot effectively be stored. Industrial wind, true to Ken Lay’s intent, is a profit center founded on favorable legislation, mandated renewable energy goals and funded by taxpayer subsidies.

I did not come to the “dark side” willingly. At the suggestion of a friend, I attended a presentation on industrial wind at which the speaker systematically destroyed any notion that industrial wind has earned a seat at the US energy table. Expecting yet another NIMBY rant, the presenter instead based his case that industrial wind is a failed technology on science alone. There was little mention of view-shed, bat/bird kills, noise or health issues, all of which I’ve since learned are serious issues in their own right. The presenter focused primarily on the poor performance and high cost of industrial wind and the fact that they could never replace current generators, my main reason for initially supporting industrial wind.

Knowing that the two key representatives of our proposed wind plant were introduced as being in the audience, I could hardly wait for the question and answer session. This was going to be a knock down for the ages! Just wait until they set this clown straight!

Then, the presenter wrapped up and said the magic words I’d been waiting for . Any Questions? My gladiators stood up and walked out! Not a word! No defense! How could they let this brutal attack stand?

That was my turning point. Suspicion drove me to read any article I could find about industrial wind and the more I learned the more I disliked these monstrous contraptions which were scheduled to invade my Appalachian Mountains by the tens of thousands.

Before this event, I was willing, like many of my friends, to sacrifice a mountain view, some bats and birds and even the hard earned tax dollars these wind folks would pick from my pocket if it meant the greater good would be served. What I learned, however, lead me to the conclusion that there is no trade.

• Coal plants will continue to exist at pre-wind levels and the mines will remain open in order to supply them.
• Emissions will not be reduced as a result of industrial wind. When asked if wind power was reducing carbon emissions, Deb Malin, a Bonneville Power Authority Representative, answered, “No. They are, in fact, creating emissions.” (4)
• Not only will the surface destruction brought about by mountain top removal mining not be reduced as a result of wind plants, industrial wind will bring destruction well above the ground in areas not previously impacted by mountain top removal. (5)
• The cumulative impact of long stretches of deadly 450 foot tall whirlybirds along our fragile mountain ridges will set a deadly gauntlet for many migratory species with no real benefit to show for the sacrifice.
• The arguably unnecessary remote wind installations require long runs of forest fragmenting high power lines required to bring the occasional electricity generated to a point of use.
• My picked pocket only serves to benefit the wind developers.

I cannot abide the suggestion that we must sacrifice our environment in order to save it. This is an absurd argument enabling this energy imposter’s invasion of delicate habitat with little return. Sacrifice is, after all, a forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim. Environmentalists must consider the possibility that industrial wind, by its failure to perform to stated goals, does not then qualify for this sacred consideration.

My comments here are my own. I am a member of the Board of Directors for the Allegheny Highlands Alliance (6), but do not speak for the organization in this commentary. I serve as editor of the Allegheny Treasures blog (7), an amateur site intended not to answer questions, but instead to stimulate discussion of industrial wind among readers, as I hope to do in this piece.

I arrived at my opinions after all consideration to the argument presented by the AWEA and other industrial wind support groups. I’ll be the first to admit I could be wrong, as I was when I supported industrial wind just two years ago. If a persuasive argument can be made to sway me back, I assure you I’ll happily move. But I should warn you, the argument must begin with a list of coal plant closings and not easily manipulated speculative “data.” Empty promises will not justify consuming even one more square inch of Appalachian forest.

Oh, before I’m criticized on the property rights issue . I firmly believe that you should be allowed to do anything you wish with your property as long as it brings no harm to others. But whatever you choose, don’t ask me to underwrite your adventure with my tax money in the form of subsidies, grants, or any other considerations from which you profit.

I should note that I am not insulted at the NIMBY (Not in my back yard) moniker the wind advocates apply to me. I would take it one step further and suggest they call me a NOPE (Not on planet Earth)! I believe we are all responsible for our environment and must challenge every intrusion. We cannot accept, without question, the possibility that what has been portrayed a solution may, in fact, create additional ills, no matter how much we want to believe.

We should do all possible to move this country away from fossil fuels. Choosing an alternative with no proven track record in accomplishing this effort, especially one with industrial wind’s potential for serious environmental destruction, is simply not an acceptable choice.

Footnotes:

(1)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629104576190812458488694.html

(2) http://www.nrel.gov/continuum/wind_power_innovation.cfm

(3) http://www.energyjustice.net/files/coal/igcc/factsheet.pdf

(4) http://www.masterresource.org/2010/07/northwestwindpower-problems/

(5) http://wvhighlands.org/wv_voice/?p=3841

(6) http://alleghenytreasures.com/allegheny-highlands-alliance/

(7) http://alleghenytreasures.com/

Editor’s note: Mr. Morgan lives in Keyser, WV. In his cover letter offering this commentary he says, “It is my hope the piece will stimulate further discussion on the very important and timely topic of industrial wind in the Appalachians.”