Entries in Wisconsin wind farm (69)

1/6/12 Giving the power back to local government: Wisconsin turbine siting issue takes a new turn 

BILL ALLOWS COMMUNITIES MORE CONTROL OVER WIND TURBINE SETBACKS

By Trent Artus,

Via www.wqow.com

January 5 2012 

Rick Stadelman, Executive Director of Wisconsin Towns Association said: “Local governments are responsible for protecting the public health and welfare of their communities. Arbitrary state standards limiting setbacks and noise levels of wind turbines take away the authority of local officials to protect their community. One size does not fit all. This bill allows local officials to exercise local control to protect the interest of their community.”

Madison, WI – State Senator Frank Lasee (R) of De Pere, WI introduced a bill allowing local communities to create their own minimum setback requirements for wind turbines. Current law doesn’t allow local communities to establish distances from property or homes that 500 feet tall wind turbines can be located.

[download copy of the bill by clicking here]

“Local communities should be able to create their own rules for public safety,” Lasee said. “We shouldn’t leave it to bureaucrats in Madison to make these decisions that affect home values and people’s lives. Madisonites aren’t the ones living next to the turbines. Having a statewide standard for the setback of these 500 feet tall wind turbines doesn’t take into account the local landscape. Local elected officials are most familiar with their area to set the correct setback distances and best represent their local constituents.”

“Over the last several months, I have spoken with numerous Wisconsin residents who have complained about wind turbines,” Lasee added. “These complaints range from constant nausea, sleep loss, headaches, dizziness and vertigo. Some have said the value of their properties has dropped on account of the turbines.”

Representative Murtha (R) of Baldwin, WI adds: “There have been many concerns raised about wind farms all over the state of Wisconsin. This bill will finally give local communities the control they have been asking for when it comes to deciding what is right for their communities and families.”

Officials and spokespersons for local communities and organizations support Senator Lasee’s bill.

Rick Stadelman, Executive Director of Wisconsin Towns Association said: “Local governments are responsible for protecting the public health and welfare of their communities. Arbitrary state standards limiting setbacks and noise levels of wind turbines take away the authority of local officials to protect their community. One size does not fit all. This bill allows local officials to exercise local control to protect the interest of their community.”

Steve Deslauriers, spokesman for Wisconsin Citizens Coalition said: “In order for wind development to be good for Wisconsin, it must be done responsibly and not in a fashion that sacrifices the health of those families forced to live within these wind generation facilities. Good environmental policy starts with safeguarding Wisconsin residents and we thank Senator Lasee for submitting this bill.”

“Wind turbine siting must be done at the local level as the population varies greatly, county by county, township to township. It is our goal to protect families within our township. This bill gives us the authority to do that.” Tom Kruse, chairman of West Kewaunee Township said.

Dave Hartke, chairman of Carlton Township added: “Carlton Township supports LRB-2700 because it places the authority for wind turbine siting at the local level where it belongs. As town chairman, I am always concerned for the health and safety of our residents.”

“We applaud Senator Lasee for introducing this bill.” Erv Selk, representative of Coalition for Wisconsin Environmental Stewardship said. “We have long thought that the Public Service Commission setbacks were not adequate to protect the people that live near the Industrial Wind Turbines.”

Senator Lasee said, “It’s about time we as legislators return local control over this important issue to the elected officials that know their area best instead of un-elected bureaucrats in Madison.”

Second Feature

BILL GIVES LOCAL CONTROL FOR DETERMINING WIND TURBINE RULES

Via Wisconsin Ag Connection, www.wisconsinagconnection.com

January 6, 2012

A Wisconsin lawmaker is introducing legislation that allows local communities to create their own minimum setback requirements for wind turbines. According to Sen. Frank Lasee, current law doesn’t allow local officials to establish distances from property or homes that 500 feet tall wind turbines can be located.

“Local communities should be able to create their own rules for public safety,” Lasee said. “We shouldn’t leave it to bureaucrats in Madison to make these decisions that affect home values and people’s lives. Madisonites aren’t the ones living next to the turbines.”

The De Pere Republican says having a statewide standard for wind turbine setbacks does not take into account the local landscape. He says local people are most familiar with their own area to set the correct distances and best represent their local constituents.

“Over the last several months, I have spoken with numerous Wisconsin residents who have complained about wind turbines,” Lasee points out. “These complaints range from constant nausea, sleep loss, headaches, dizziness and vertigo. Some have said the value of their properties has dropped on account of the turbines.”

Meanwhile, Wisconsin Towns Association Director Rick Stadelman support the effort. He says local governments are responsible for protecting the public health and welfare of their communities, and says arbitrary state standards limiting setbacks and noise levels of wind turbines take away the authority of local officials to protect their community.

The bill comes nearly a year after a joint legislative panel voted to suspend the wind siting rule promulgated by the Public Service Commission in December 2010. Those policies would have put into place standard rules that all areas of the state would need to follow when determining regulations for wind turbines.

1/4/12 Scenes from a Wisconsin wind sighting council meeting... AND Plant trees not wind turbines!

IS SAFETY A RELATIVE TERM?

Some members of the Wind-Siting council seemed to think so.

With the fate of the Wisconsin wind-siting rules (PSC 128) is still up in the air, Better Plan takes a look back at some of the wind siting council meetings that lead to PSC 128. This was filmed on July 15, 2010

The video below was shot on the 8th of December, 2011, just a few weeks ago.

How much louder is the wind turbine noise limit proposed by the wind siting council?  How were the noise levels determined by Wind Siting Council? You'll have to see it to believe it: one of the discussions that lead to the decision about turbine noise limits.

Next Feature: A BETTER PLAN! Plant trees not wind turbines

From the UK

THE CONTRIBUTION OF TREES TO OUR LIVES: IT'S TIME TO TAKE STOCK

The Jardin des Plantes in Paris viewed from above. A tree planted in the entrance to the gardens by the French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, in 1785 still stands today. Photograph: Yann Arthus-Bertrand/Corbis

VIA The Guardian

January 3, 2012

Humans, with a mere 2 square metres of skin, underestimate the surface area of a tree. To calculate that you need to measure both sides of each leaf, add the surface of the trunk, the branches and boughs, the perennial and feeder roots and the absorbent root hairs, not forgetting the bark pockets. A 15-metre tree in leaf would cover a total area of 200 hectares, which is the size of Monaco. A tree doubles its weight when wet, and its entire surface breathes and allows us to breathe.

Give me a tree and I'll save the world – that is the message that comes across from a book just published by the French botanist Francis Hallé, Du bon usage des arbres (Making good use of trees). The book is a defence of trees addressed to decision-makers and town planners. It is hard to know which specific tree to start with, but let's take as our prime example the plane tree planted by the Comte de Buffon in 1785 at the entrance to the Jardin des Plantes in Paris. Visitors can see how well it has fared 226 years on, even though it has never been pruned.

Plane trees, like many others, have a long lifespan. They are even "potentially immortal", claims Hallé. "Man is senescent, that is to say is programmed to die, but a plane tree is not," he said. After its leaves have fallen, life begins again in the spring and the tree recovers its youthful genomes. If it is not subjected to accidents, diseases or humans, the plane tree could live for centuries. "When you talk about a 100-year-old tree, it's just a kid in shorts," said the botanist, who knows of a 2,000-year-old olive tree in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin on the Côte d'Azur.

And trees create colonies. To reproduce they distribute seeds all around, but they also spread roots from which offshoots can grow. That is why 100-year-old plane trees are often surrounded by their younger brothers, and why poplars have grown for the past 10,000 years in Utah, and there are 13,000-year-old creosote bush clones in the Mojave desert of southern California, and 43,000-year-old stands of King's holly spread over an area of one kilometre in Tasmania. Hallé says: "The history of our zoological species can be found in the life of a tree. That should make us feel humble." Perhaps that is the first good turn trees do for us.

Another marvellous thing about trees is that they solve their own problems without moving. They are model citizens, decorative, quiet, economical, calm and courageous. They are content with so little, just light, water and trace elements, and silently elude their enemies by developing an arsenal of chemicals. Trees produce molecules to keep mice and insects at bay and in doing so provide man with taxol, an efficient anti-cancer drug. As we all know, lime, birch, willow, hazel and lemon trees are all used for medicinal purposes.

Humans, with a mere 2 square metres of skin, underestimate the surface area of a tree. To calculate that you need to measure both sides of each leaf, add the surface of the trunk, the branches and boughs, the perennial and feeder roots and the absorbent root hairs, not forgetting the bark pockets. A 15-metre tree in leaf would cover a total area of 200 hectares, which is the size of Monaco. A tree doubles its weight when wet, and its entire surface breathes and allows us to breathe.

Hallé believes that arboreal photosynthesis is our best ally in the fight against global warming. Buffon's plane tree, like all trees, absorbs quantities of carbon dioxide, responsible for greenhouse gases, and between 20% and 50% of matter produced by the tree, including wood, roots, leaves and fruit, is composed of CO2. When trees breathe they clean the atmosphere and retain CO2 and urban pollutants such as heavy metals, lead, manganese, industrial soot and nitrous oxide. These are stored in the wood. That is why we should refrain as much as possible from cutting down old trees. The older they are, the better they control pollutants.

At the same time, trees release oxygen that allows us to live. An adult human consumes about 700g of O2 per day, or 255kg per year. In that time, an average tree produces 15kg to 30kg, so about 10 trees are required to provide oxygen for one person. Trees also humidify and cool the atmosphere by evaporation and transpiration. A wooded area of 50 square metres brings the temperature down by 3.5C and increases the humidity by 50%. Leaf movement, especially in conifers, releases negative ions that are supposed to have beneficial effects on health and mood. And the tree is home to many useful species.

Pascal Cribier, a professional gardener, lives in a flat overlooking the Luxembourg Gardens in Paris. He points to the tree tops there. "We only ever see half the tree and can't imagine all the underground activity, the size and strength of the roots, and the many species that live in symbiosis with it. We forget that without trees the earth would deteriorate rapidly and lastingly." It is the secret underground life of trees that led Cribier to his vocation when he was 18. He wanted to understand, to plant and put his hands to the earth.

Now he is also a "garden artist", and exhibits blocks of knotted roots in galleries. In the undergrowth, those roots and the subsoil give life to mushrooms, lichen, ferns, epiphytic plants, insects, worms and mammals. Beneath the ground, the roots circulate tonnes of water for the leaves, and they are often longer than the branches. The Libyan jujube tree is two metres high but has branches 60 metres long. "Man can't live without trees, and yet they are under threat everywhere," warns Hallé. The UN declared 2011 to be the International Year of Forests. Trees are home to 50% of the world's biodiversity, and provide subsistence to 1.6 billion humans.

Surveys by the United Nations collaborative programme on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries show that half the planet's forests were destroyed in the 20th century. From 2000 to 2005, 7.3m hectares of tropical forest disappeared every year, or 20,000 hectares a day. As a result, tropical deforestation and forest degradation account for between 15% and 20% of CO2 emissions, because trees release carbon when they are burned or felled. The UN believes that tree planting could offset 15% of carbon emissions in the first half of the 21st century.

Take a (French) city dweller dining on a cafe terrace. He or she orders a salad with olive oil, lemon and pine nuts, followed by a truffle omelette and a glass of Chablis, and a poire belle-hélène for dessert (poached pears with melted chocolate). The meal ends with a cup of coffee sprinkled with cinnamon and a gin-based liqueur. Then our diner takes an aspirin and jots down a few lines in a notebook with a disposable ballpoint. That person has just used the output of 15 trees: ash for the chair, elm for the table, olive for the oil, umbrella pine for the nuts, a lemon tree, oak for the truffles, false acacia for the white wine barrel, a pear tree, a cocoa tree, a coffee tree, a cinnamon tree, juniper tree to flavour the gin, willow for the aspirin, castor tree for the plastic and Scots pine for the paper. We could not live without trees.

Nor could cities. The urgent need to protect trees in cities led the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) to dedicate October 2011 to urban and periurban forestry. By 2030, 70% of Earth's population will be urban and will need to be fed, since the countryside will not be enough. Urban and periurban agriculture exist already in wastelands and slums. City dwellers plant trees and vegetables to feed themselves and the FAO has been providing assistance and credit for years.

In Europe, Brussels has protected the Forêt de Soignes in the middle of the city, and Zurich is doing the same. Barcelona has made its nearby forest a protected area, and Nantes intends to plant 1,400 hectares of trees just outside the city. Julien Custot, FAO adviser, says: "Urban trees are vital in preserving the soil, containing floods, providing energy and producing healthy foodstuffs. They make cities cooler and more pleasant."

The Indian economist Pavan Sukhdev, co-director of Deutsche Bank in Mumbai, is also study leader for the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) project. In October 2010, he made a financial assessment of the services rendered by ecosystems for the Nagoya Convention of Biological Diversity, whose protocol France has just signed. He calculated the economic value of nature and its deterioration, after a three-year survey led by 100 experts. According to Sukhdev, if we halved the deforestation rate by 2030, the reduced CO2 emissions would cut the cost of global warming by €2.6 trillion ($3.5tn). The erosion of forests, soil and coastal areas leads to losses of between €1.3tn and €3.1tn a year. "It is the economic invisibility of ecosystems that has led to this ecological crisis," says Sukhdev.

As a gardener, Cribier is concerned about those figures. "A tree is invaluable," he said. "What we get from trees is priceless."

10/31/11 What's killing bats around Wisconsin wind turbines? Um... the wind turbines?

STUDY EVALUATES BAT DEATHS NEAR WIND TURBINES

SOURCE: University of Wisconsin- Madison

MADISON - It's something of an ecological murder mystery - countless numbers of bats are turning up dead near wind farms. But what is killing them?

A new study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison links on-the-ground sleuthing and clinical diagnostic techniques to sketch a better picture of how the bats are dying.

UW-Madison forest and wildlife ecology professor David Drake and former master's student Steven Grodsky have conducted environmental assessments, funded by the renewable energy company Invenergy and Wisconsin Focus on Energy, of the Forward Wind Energy Center in southeastern Wisconsin.

They recently partnered with Melissa Behr and others at the UW-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine and Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory to examine bat carcasses found near turbines at the site for clues to their demise.

The researchers had two primary suspects: blunt-force trauma from colliding with the turbine blades or poles, or barotrauma caused by flying through areas of different pressure created by spinning turbine blades.

Bats can easily navigate around stationary objects but the spinning turbines - where the blade tip can be moving about 175 miles per hour - pose a problem. With an echo-location range of about 60 feet, Drake says, "a bat would have roughly a quarter of a second to react to a turbine blade - not very long at all."

And although bats are sometimes able to avoid a direct hit and fly between the blades, the dramatic air pressure change surrounding a blade can cause serious internal injuries, akin to the bends that affect a human diver who ascends too quickly.

"Bats' anatomical structure is not strong enough to absorb the pressure differential experienced," explains Drake. "As they hit that pressure gradient, it can cause their internal organs to explode."

A much-publicized study in 2008 used field observations of dead bats to suggest that barotrauma might be the primary culprit. The Wisconsin-led group used veterinary diagnostic techniques, including x-rays, tissue analysis, and gross necropsy, to look for more definite signs.

They identified a large number and type of injuries, including many that were not externally visible. Nearly 75 percent of the bats had broken bones, mainly in the wings, and the majority had sustained a mix of skeletal fractures and soft-tissue damage such as ruptured organs, internal bleeding, and hernias.

The researchers did not find specific patterns of injuries indicative of particular causes of death and concluded that both factors are at play. However, bats with few or no broken bones were more likely to be found closer to the turbines, suggesting that barotrauma felled these bats almost instantly.

"Barotrauma is a factor but it is not the clear-cut factor," Drake says. "There is certainly barotrauma going on, but there is definitely also blunt-force trauma from colliding with the turbine blade or possibly the monopole that holds the turbine up. Our results suggest bat deaths are the combination of both."

Roughly half of the bats examined also had middle and/or inner eardrum ruptures. Drake notes that such damage would not immediately be fatal but would disorient an animal, impair its ability to navigate and hunt, and likely hasten its demise. These non-instantaneous deaths may lead to an underestimation of the true extent of bat mortality near wind farms, he adds, since injured animals may be able to fly outside the search area before dying.

The issue is taking on greater urgency with the spread of white-nose syndrome, a deadly fungal disease that has decimated bat populations in the northeastern and eastern U.S. Without a better understanding of bat ecology, Drake says it's hard to predict the combined impacts of turbines and disease.

"We still don't know exactly why bats are being killed - why the bats can't see such a large thing protruding from the landscape, or what is possibly attracting the bats," he says, "but now that we know direct causes of death we can start thinking about how to redesign turbine blades to have a smaller pressure differential or identify other cost-effective mitigation strategies that would minimize damage to bats."

The study, "Investigating the causes of death for wind-turbine associated bat fatalities," [link: http://www.asmjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1644/10-MAMM-A-404.1] is published in the October 2011 issue of the Journal of Mammalogy.
###

Posted on Monday, October 31, 2011 at 07:07PM by Registered CommenterThe BPRC Research Nerd in , | Comments Off

5/24/11 LIFE IN A WIND PROJECT: From open arms to balled up fists: Nightmare on Vinalhavan AND From Up Over to Down Under, wind turbines are causing trouble AND Who ya gonna call? Putting a face on the folks the wind industry calls NIMBYs

From Maine

WIND POWER NOISE DISPUTE ON TRANQUIL MAINE ISLAND INTENSIFIES

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: HUFFINGTON POST

May 24, 2011

By Tom Zeller Jr.

While thousands of wind power enthusiasts and industry representatives gather in Anaheim Calif. for Windpower 2011, the American Wind Power Association's popular annual conference and exhibition, some 3,300 miles due east, wind power is tearing a tiny island community asunder.

In the latest turn, an attorney representing several homeowners living closest to a three-turbine wind installation on the tiny island of Vinalhaven in Maine's Penobscot Bay filed a formal complaint with the Maine Public Utilities Commission on Monday.

The complaint charges that the Fox Island Electric Cooperative, the local utility, and Fox Island Wind, the developer of the wind installation which is owned by the utility, have engaged in repeated harassment of the homeowners, who have argued since shortly after the turbines came online in late 2009 that the machines have been in violation of state noise ordinances. That assertion was subsequently supported by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

The developer has repeatedly disputed those findings, and the majority of the island's residents support the wind farm, which is seen as a source of eco-pride and sensible thrift, ostensibly saving the island from the need to import pricier power from the mainland.

But Monday's complaint states that the residents nearest the turbines have legitimate concerns that have long gone unheeded, despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue through negotiation, and that instead the local utility has recently upped the rhetorical ante by placing two separate "inserts" inside all islanders' utility bills. The inserts claim that legal expenses associated with the neighbors' noise complaints were costing the cooperative hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that as a result, a 5 percent increase in utility rates was needed.

The announcement caused the neighbors, perhaps not surprisingly, to suffer "retribution, harassment and hostility" from fellow Vinalhaven residents who are not within earshot of the turbines, according to the complaint. The utility's tactic also amounted to what the complaint called "intimidation and an abuse of the powers of a utility."

Vinalhaven became a flashpoint last year for a small but persistent backlash against industrial wind power, as residents living nearest the spinning behemoths became vocal about their experiences.

Like nearly all residents of the island, they supported the idea of a wind farm at first. Yet the Fox Island Wind Neighbors, as the loosely knit group of a dozen or so residents dubbed themselves, said they soon began to worry about the noise, being within a one-mile radius of the project site.

Representatives of Fox Island Wind assured them the noise would be minimal. But as Art Lindgren, one of the neighbors, told this reporter last year, their worst fears were confirmed once the turbines were switched on.

“In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,” he said. “Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.”

Lindgren's lament has been echoed in jurisdictions across the land, as an increasing number of communities come to weigh the innumerable collective benefits of wind power -- clean, non-toxic, no emissions, climate-friendly, water-friendly, renewable, sustainable -- against some of the downsides experienced by those living nearby.

Indeed, proximate residents around the country have cited everything from the throbbing, low-frequency drone to mind-numbing strobe effects as the rising or setting sun slices through the spinning blades:

 

 

Others have gone so far as to describe something called "wind turbine syndrome," arising from turbine-generated low-frequency noise and "infrasound," and causing all manner of symptoms -- from headache and dizziness to ear pressure, nausea, visual blurring, racing heartbeat, and panic episodes -- though the science on these claims is still thin.

And there are still lingering and long-standing concerns over hazards presented by turbines to migrating birds and bats.

At Vinalhaven, for example, a 28-month study conducted by ornithologist Richard Podolsky, who was hired by Fox Island Wind, the project's developer, recently declared the turbines' impacts on local eagle and osprey populations to be negligible.

But in March, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent a letter to attorneys representing the Fox Island Wind project, lambasting those conclusions. The letter questioned the study's methodologies for studying eagle, bat and bird collision assessment and mortality, suggesting that they needed to be more rigorous and better-defined and described.

The wildlife regulators asked that new studies be conducted before a permit necessary to allow the project to proceed -- despite the potential for incidental harm to bald and golden eagle species in the area -- is issued. Both are protected by federal legislation.

Meanwhile, the complaint filed on Monday asks the Maine Public Utility Commission to sanction the Vinalhaven utility and Fox Island Wind for the utility bill inserts, and urges them to prevent any similar communications with ratepayers in the future.

It also asks that the state commission prevent the island utility from attempting to raise rates to cover expenses from its dispute with the affected homeowners going forward -- characterizing such expenses as "the product of mismanagement, and reckless conduct."

Queries sent to officials at Fox Island Wind and the Vinalhaven electric cooperative were not immediately returned Tuesday morning. This report will be updated if they respond.

From New York State

HEALTH CONCERNS RISE FOR PROPOSED WIND FARM 

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: The Daily News Online

May 20, 2011

By Sally Ross

Horizon, sponsor of the proposed Alabama Ledge Wind Farm, held an open meeting on March 17 at the Alabama Town Hall to respond to environmental concerns raised by the impact of industrial wind turbines. Surprisingly, their collective effect upon local residents’ health was unexplored. Therefore, this overview will attempt to summarize a recent inquiry into the impact of wind turbines upon persons and animals.

Preston G. Ribnick and Lilli-Ann Green, from Wellfleet (Cape Cod), Mass., own a medical consulting agency, advising hospitals and clinics throughout the United States. They have spent almost a year trying to understand the complexities of wind energy. Two foci of their attention have been the wind farms in Falmouth, Mass., and Vinalhaven, Maine. Early this year, Ribnick and Green were the guests of Sarah Laurie, M.D., of Waubra, Australia. Dr. Laurie and her medical colleagues have been compiling files on dozens of persons whose health has been seriously compromised by the Waubra Wind Farm. Ribnick and Green interviewed a sample of the patients.

Waubra, 100 kilometers (62 miles) from Melbourne, is primarily an agricultural community of growers who raise livestock — cattle, poultry and sheep — as well as a variety of crops. It isn’t uncommon for farms to have been in families for two or more generations, and like much of Australia, drought conditions have prevailed for nearly a decade. Wind turbines seemed like a godsend; a stable source of rental income to accompany the precarious economy.

The Waubra Wind Farm is an installation of 128 turbines in as many miles; one turbine to one mile. After the industrial wind turbine complex was up and running in 2009, dozens of previously healthy persons reported serious health issues with themselves and their animals. Here are some common complaints. They are not age-specific. They occur in children as well as in mature adults.

People — dangerously high rates in blood pressure, racing heartbeats, stroke, heart attack, sleep disturbance, involuntary neurological “upper lip quiver,” ringing in ears, inability to concentrate, severe headache, eye pain, and dizziness.

Animals — chickens laying eggs without shells, nearly one-half of the lambs expiring shortly after birth, disoriented sheep, dogs as well as birds displaying extremely agitated and abnormal behavior, and the virtual disappearance of bats.

Conditions inside of homes were worse than those outside, because houses vibrated. As a result, some people have left hearth and home and now consider themselves to be “industrial refugees.” How far away were these physiological complaints reported? Up to 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) distance from the wind turbine installations. By inference, these data should raise our local concern for those residents in Genesee, and nearby counties, who live well beyond the proposed sites for turbine installations in the town of Alabama.

The results of Ribnick, Green and Laurie’s work is widely available. A hard copy of the article upon which this summary [can be downloaded by CLICKING HERE]. Anyone opting for an electronic link, as well as additional scientific information, place contact me.

Sally Ross, Ph.D., lives in Oakfield. Write her via e-mail at srladygrail@gmail.com.

From Malone, Wisconsin

LIFE IN A WIND FARM

May 19, 2011

Thank you for the information about wind farms. We live in one and life has changed.  Quite frankly, it has been somewhat of a nightmare. We have to deal with bad tv reception, flicker and loud swoshing noises at times. We could have been part of this project as they approached us about using our land but we declined because we didn't feel educated enough. They went up anyway.

   We are still trying to educate ourselves but it just keeps making us feel sicker.
Is there anyone that you know of that is fighting for the little guys affected in all this? The neighbors who have to live with this in their back yards should have voice also.
 
Sincerely,
Bernie and Rose Petrie
Malone, WI

 

From Massachusetts

FALMOUTH DREAMS TURNED NIGHTMARE

READ ENTIRE STORY AT THE SOURCE: Cape Cod Times, www.capecodonline.com

May 24, 2011

By ELIZABETH ANDERSEN

"The 7½-ton, 135-foot-long blades of the turbine slice through the air every second, creating a sound pressure that feels like the pounding of a bass instrument coming through the walls day and night. Just try to imagine that sound always there in your yard and in every room in your house, with no opportunity to turn it off. You go insane!"

"What we have so painfully learned this year is that there has been no place to go for help. Not our town hall, nor state representatives; not the police, not the DEP, nor the Department of Public Health. What is happening wasn’t supposed to happen. So we wait and suffer while it is “figured out.”

My husband and I met in 1976 and bonded over a shared love of nature. We have long considered ourselves conservationists, not only because our wonderful Depression-era parents taught us to use things up and wear them out, but because we learned our lesson from the oil embargo of the ’70s.

This awareness of the Earth’s declining natural resources led my husband, some 30 years ago, to start one of the first alternative energy construction companies on the Cape. And when we built our home on Blacksmith Shop Road 20 years ago, we designed it to be an energy-efficient system in itself. We also recycle, compost, drive small cars, use fluorescent bulbs, turn off lights when not in use, unplug appliances using phantom electricity, keep our heat down to 60 degrees in the winter and repurpose many things that would otherwise be thrown away.

Yet we, and our neighbors, have been criticized and made to feel guilty for complaining about ill health effects directly related to the size and proximity of utility-size wind turbines to our homes.

My husband and I were aware that the town Falmouth had been exploring the use of turbines for years, and we thought this was a good idea. However, when two turbines, already turned down by two other towns, became available, Falmouth officials chose to ignore the Falmouth windmill bylaw already on the books and erected two 400-foot mechanical machines, one 1,320 feet directly north of our home.

We, and our neighbors, were intentionally shut out of a special permitting process so that we would not hold up financing or construction in any way. Consequently, we have been living a nightmare ever since the turbine went online last year.

The 7½-ton, 135-foot-long blades of the turbine slice through the air every second, creating a sound pressure that feels like the pounding of a bass instrument coming through the walls day and night. Just try to imagine that sound always there in your yard and in every room in your house, with no opportunity to turn it off. You go insane!

At first we naively thought our Falmouth administrators would be concerned for us when informed of our health problems. Since April 2010, we and our neighbors have continually called, written, emailed or spoken in person to our town officials and begged them for some relief. The response we got for one year: no response. We contacted our building commissioner, zoning board of appeals, selectmen, and especially our board of health: no response.

Unfortunately for us, town administrators, in their haste to be “green,” did not research the negative impacts of utility-scale turbines near residential areas, and were taken by surprise by all of our complaints. Because the town of Falmouth owns the turbine, the administrators, again, chose to shut us out. We finally were forced to go to court just to get them to acknowledge us.

We wish we could list all the details of the cruel indifference we have been subjected to for a year, but the log we keep is pages too long. It was not until my husband and I were so exhausted from the ill treatment of turbine and town that we had to be civilly disobedient at a town meeting to plead for some relief. The Falmouth selectmen finally helped by way of a temporary shutoff when wind speeds reach 23 mph.

What we have so painfully learned this year is that there has been no place to go for help. Not our town hall, nor state representatives; not the police, not the DEP, nor the Department of Public Health. What is happening wasn’t supposed to happen. So we wait and suffer while it is “figured out.”

My husband and I still wholeheartedly embrace the movement toward alternative energy, but, once again, both the Massachusetts government and our town government put the cart before the horse and did not do all they could have done to protect the people. And from the looks of things going on in other towns, it is going to be up to the townspeople to fight for responsible turbine siting, to protect the health of their fellow man.

Elizabeth Andersen lives in Falmouth.

4/15/11 Got problems with wind turbines? Who ya gonna call? AND Big trouble in little Town of Forest AND Wind developers give you two choices: Take it or Take it. We're not turning them off AND Place your bets: Will wind developers turn off turbines to protect Birds and Bats?  

WIND GENERATORS STILL CAUSING PROBLEMS

SOURCE Fond du Lac Reporter, www.fdlreporter.com

April 14, 2011

I live about 2,100 feet from a wind generator and had experienced interference on my television as soon as it went into operation.

Cedar Ridge Wind Farm made arrangements to remedy the interference. I was given two years of basic Satellite TV service at no cost.

Then, I received a notice that Alliant, owners of the wind farm, had decided to grant us compensation equal to the cost of getting only the Green Bay local channels. All I needed to do was to sign a “Release of Claim,” which states in part “the undersigned… hereby fully and forever releases and discharges Wisconsin Power and Light … from any and all claims, demands, actions and/or rights … arising from…”

The three paragraphs protect Alliant forever in every way from any future actions. There is no mention of what we might expect in the coming years.

Does this sound like a good faith effort to correct a wrong done to those of us who have no commercial interest in the wind farms?

Feeling put upon by Alliant following both written and oral communications with their representative, last February I proceeded to contact my local Assembly representative, Richard Spanbauer. I received a letter from him stating, “The Joint Rules Committee recently held a public hearing about the proposed rules changes.”

He offered no suggestions regarding the restraints Alliant is imposing upon us.

Sensing that I might get a better response from our native son, U.S. Rep. Tom Petri, I delivered copies of all correspondence to his office in Fond du Lac. No response. I sent an email to him reminding him of my concern. No response.

I suppose my next attempt at obtaining fair treatment from Alliant would be to file a class action. Why must it come to that?

Allan Loehndorf

Town of Empire

FOREST RESIDENTS CONTINUE FEUD OVER WIND TURBINES

SOURCE: Pierce County Herald, www.piercecountyherald.com

April 14, 2011

Jeff Holmquist

The Town of Forest has been a quiet, rural community for much of its long history. But these days there is an atmosphere of unrest throughout the township, thanks in part to a proposed wind farm proposal that has been debated over the past couple years.

Supporters of the wind energy idea and opponents have been feuding over an agreement with Emerging Energies LLC to place up to 39 wind turbines on private properties. The agreement would pay landowners and residents within a half mile of each turbine an annual payment. The township and county would also have received annual payments.

“Residents and landowners are either for or against this,” said Jaime Junker, newly elected town board chairman. “There really is no in between ground. The division line is fairly well divided between people who would get compensated by the project and those who would not.”

Emerging Energies has been studying wind speeds in the St. Croix County township for more than two years. The Forest area was found to be a favorable location for large wind turbines due to sustained winds in the area.

The company’s research shows that average wind speeds are about 16 to 17 mph, which is sufficient to turn a large turbine and thus generate electricity.

According to the original plans, the turbine system would have been hooked up to a new or existing electric substation and the power would have ended up on the grid.

While there was support for the idea among some residents and the Forest Town Board during the initial planning stages, a number of residents are less than happy with the project.

A citizens group, called the “Forest Voice,” formed in an attempt to stop the project from moving forward.

The group filed a federal lawsuit on Feb. 9, 2011, claiming that the Town Board had bypassed open meeting law requirements to push through an agreement with Emerging Energies. The group also claimed that several board members should not have participated in the vote for the wind farm plan as they or their relatives stood to gain financially from the project.

The disgruntled Town of Forest residents also petitioned for a recall election of the former town board members. All of the challengers eventually won election to the board. The support of the majority of the residents was reaffirmed last Tuesday when wind turbine opponent Jaime Junker was re-elected as town chairman, and newly elected Patrick Scepurek and Richard Steinberger were returned to their supervisor positions.

After gaining office, the new board members voted on March 17 to rescind the wind energy development agreements, driveway permits and other approvals that had been granted to a wind developer. The board also approved a temporary stay on the location and construction of the turbines in the township.

According Forest Voice’s Attorney Glenn Stoddard, most Town of Forest residents were “completely unaware” that the former town board members had approved an agreement in 2008 and another one on Aug. 12, 2010, to proceed with the proposed wind energy project.

A postcard announcing the project was the first many heard about the plan, he claimed.

No public hearing was ever held by the defendants during a three-year development period, he further claimed.

The opponents of the wind project allege that the proposed wind energy project would destroy their quality of life and have adverse health and safety impacts on them.

Despite the fact that the agreements have been rescinded and the town board has been replaced, Stoddard said the federal lawsuit is likely to continue. He said Emerging Energies has indicated that it may seek legal action in an effort to continue with the previously approved project.

Officials with Emerging Energies did not want to comment on the Forest project when contacted.

Junker said many expect the company to seek a legal opinion in the matter.

“Now it’s pretty much a wait and see situation,” he said. “It’s hard to predict what the short term future is going to be.”

Whatever the future holds, residents on both sides of the issue say they are frustrated by the continuing feud over wind turbines.

“What has happened in our township is heartbreaking and has left many residents feeling betrayed,” said Brenda Salseg, a property owner and managing member of the Forest Voice LLC.

“Those of us who researched industrial wind turbines found disturbing evidence of health, safety and property devaluation issues associated with so-called wind farms when turbines are sited too close to homes. It’s all about what is profitable rather than responsible, which is what I thought green energy is supposed to be.”

Salseg said it’s unfair to force wind turbine opponents to live near such a large project.

“The statement we continually hear that wind energy is green, clean and renewable is nothing more than deception,” she said.

Gary Heinbuch, who continues to be a supporter of the wind project, said the atmosphere in Forest is now “as foul as can be.”

“It’s neighbor against neighbor. It’s niece against uncle,” he said. “I never thought it would get this bad.”

Rick Heibel, 53, who signed an agreement to have three turbines sited on his 240 acres, agreed.

“It’s gotten way more heated than I ever thought it would,” he said. “I never thought it would get this divisive.”

Heibel, who has lived his entire life on the farm that was first settled by his grandfather 99 years ago, said he remains convinced that the wind project would be good for him and for the town.

The annual payments to landowners and local units of government would mean a lot, he said.

“It would greatly enhance my retirement,” Heibel said. “Right now, my retirement is Social Security. All my savings is in my land, and I don’t want to sell my land. It would make my standard of living more comfortable.”

Apart from the financial benefits, Heibel said wind generation just makes sense.

He said all energy generation methods have their drawbacks. The burning of coal contributes to global warming and the mining of coal harms the land, he noted. With the ongoing disaster in Japan, Heibel wonders if more nuclear plants are a good idea. Even natural gas has its problems, he added.

“With wind, I think it’s one of the least damaging forms of generation as far as the environment goes,” he said.

Next Story

BPA, WIND DEVELOPERS ARGUE OVER LOOMING PROBLEM OF TOO MUCH POWER FROM RENEWABLES

SOURCE: The Oregonian, www.oregonlive.com

April 14 2011

By Ted Sickinger,

Under pressure from wind developers and investor-owned utilities around the region, the Bonneville Power Administration this week backed away from a plan to start pulling the plug on wind turbines when it has too much water and wind energy at the same time.

BPA Administrator Steve Wright is still reviewing a controversial plan to occasionally “curtail” wind farms in the region, a move the federal power-marketing agency has said is necessary to maintain grid reliability, protect migrating salmon and avoid passing big costs onto its public utility customers.

Wind developers and utilities who buy their output say such shutdowns are discriminatory, will breach transmission agreements and compromise wind-farm economics because the projects rely on lucrative production tax credits and the sale of renewable energy credits that are generated only when turbine blades are spinning.

They also maintain the plan is simply unnecessary, a sop to public utility customers that can be solved by other means.

In one sense, the debate is simply the latest wrinkle in the perennial debate over who should bear the costs and benefits of operating the federal hydroelectric dams and transmission system. But it illustrates the growing complexity of integrating into the grid intermittent sources of renewable energy.

“This is going to be a major issue for the region,” said John Saven, chief executive of the Northwest Requirements Utilities, a trade group representing 50 public utilities that buy their power from the BPA. “We’re in the first inning.”

The capacity of wind farms connected to the BPA’s transmission network has ballooned from 250 megawatts in 2005 to more than 3,500 today and is expected to double again in the next two years. That outstrips demand growth in the region and is being driven in large part by California utilities, which are required to meet a third of their customers’ electricity needs with renewables by 2020.

Oregon and Washington have their own mandates, but more than half the wind power generated in the Northwest is sold under long-term contact to California. Congested transmission often means the only things exported are the associated renewable energy certificates that buyers use to comply with state mandates. The electricity often stays in the region, dumped into this region’s wholesale market, depressing prices for electricity from all sources.

Grid balance

The BPA, which operates 75 percent of the high-voltage transmission grid in the region, is responsible for balancing the minute-to-minute variations in supply and demand on the grid. The agency says growing wind capacity requires it to reserve more of its hydro generation as backup reserves, either to fill in for scheduled electricity when the wind isn’t blowing or back off hydro production when wind-farm output is higher than scheduled.

The BPA charges wind farms for that flexibility. But it says there’s only so much it can absorb before those reserves start to compromise regular operations.

Overgeneration typically occurs in the spring and early summer, when snow runoff and heavy rains combine to increase hydro generation and the same storm fronts rapidly ramp wind turbines. The BPA says the dam operators have only limited flexibility to dial back hydro generation to accommodate wind surges because dumping water through the dams’ spillways raises dissolved nitrogen levels in the river, which can harm migrating fish.

The result, BPA officials say, is that the agency is left with more power than regional customers need or that an already congested transmission system can ship out of the region.

“Eventually, you just run out of places to put it,” said Doug Johnson, a BPA spokesman.

Long-term fixes

The BPA has worked during the past two years — some say been pushed and dragged — to accommodate more wind by improving forecasting and transmission scheduling. Adding transmission or new storage is a potential solution, as is transferring the responsibility for balancing some of the variable supply and demand to other utilities. But those are expensive, long-term fixes.

Meanwhile, new wind farms keep mushrooming on the Columbia Plateau, exacerbating the problem. Last June, high wind and water nearly forced the BPA into “negative pricing,” when it is forced to pay utilities and independent power producers in the region to shut down their plants and take BPA power instead.

That’s expensive for wind farms, where the cost of curtailment is not just replacement power, but the loss of production tax credits and renewable energy tags they generate when operating. The BPA recently estimated the combined impact at $37 a megawatt hour.

That’s not a price the BPA or its public utility customers want to pay.

Wind producers are the Johnnys-come-lately to the Northwest’s energy scene. But they argue that any move to single them out and curtail their production is discriminatory and violates the equal-access provisions of the laws governing the federal transmission system.

They have the support of Oregon’s Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Sen. Jeff Merkley, two Democrats who have criticized the agency in the past for dragging its feet on wind issues.

The BPA has backed away from formally implementing the wind-curtailment plan, a move that renewables advocates applauded. But it hasn’t come up with an alternative.

Next Story

BIRDS & BATS VS BLADES

SOURCE: Prince George Free Press, www.bclocalnews.com

April 14 2011

By Allan Wishart -

What happens when a bird or a bat gets involved with a wind turbine?

It’s not usually a good result for the animal, UNBC instructor Ken Otter told a Cafe Scientifique audience at Cafe Voltaire on Wednesday evening.

Otter, an instructor in the ecosystem science and management program, said people have been researching the idea that wind farms and birds have a collision problem.

“Most research suggests the problem is not much worse than with other tall structures, such as high-rise buildings or radio towers,” he said in an interview with the Free Press, “but certain species seem at a higher risk.”

Most of the at-risk species are migratory birds, which may encounter the turbines on their regular route, and “soaring” birds.

“These are species which make use of a lot of updrafts when they’re flying, birds like hawks or eagles and cranes.”

With the wind-farm technology still relatively new in Canada, the opportunity is there to work with industry to make it as safe as possible for the animals, he said.

“What we’re finding s it doesn’t take much to make the farms safer for birds. A lot of it is looking at weather patterns.”

Generally, he said, the birds are flying at elevations well above the turbines. Sometimes, however, a weather pattern will push them lower, to where they may be at risk.

“We can plot out the tracks of their migrations and see how they use the ridges and rises. That allows us to predict where the patterns will occur, and we can get very specific information.”

How specific? Otter says in some cases it could be a question of just idling one turbine in a group for a few minutes to allow a flock of birds to get by.

“Most of the turbines can be idled in about two minutes. It might just be a question of having someone out there to keep an eye on the conditions and, if needed, call back to the main operation and ask them to shut one of the turbines down for a few minutes.”

Otter said a University of Calgary study found bats ran into a different problem when it came to wind turbines.

“They have very thin walls in their lungs, and a lot of capillaries to distribute the blood. the study found groups of sometimes hundreds of bats dead near a turbine, but with no contusions on their body to indicate they had been hit by one of the vanes.”

Autopsies showed the capillaries had burst inside the bats. This led researchers to take a look at how the turbines affected wind pressure in their area.

“What happens with any fan is there is a low-pressure area created right behind the vanes. The bats were coming into this area, and their capillaries were bursting because of the sudden drop in pressure.”

Again, the solution may be as simple as varying the speed the vanes turn at to ease the drop in pressure.

And, he says, the industry seems to be willing to look at making these changes.

“We’re working with them, showing them how these small changes can keep the birds and bats safe, and they’re listening.”

Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next 5 Entries