Better Plan, Wisconsin

Bucky can you hear me?

New PSC wind rules: Non participating homeowners setback: Forty story turbine 1240 feet from your house, 440 feet from property line, 50/45 dbA allowable noise, 30 hours allowable shadow flicker, hush money option for those living within half mile.

FIRST FEATURE

SOURCE: PSC PRESS RELEASE at wisbusiness.com

PSC: Finalizes wind siting rules

8/30/2010

Contact: Teresa Weidemann-Smith, (608) 266-9600

Uniform Standards Head to the Legislature

MADISON - The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (Commission) today finished its work on administrative rules governing the siting of wind turbines in Wisconsin. The rules were drafted in response to 2009 Wisconsin Act 40, recently-enacted legislation directing the Commission to promulgate rules that specify the restrictions local units of government may impose on the installation or use of wind energy systems.

“I am happy to have these rules completed,” said Commission Chairperson Eric Callisto. “Establishing clear and consistent siting standards is critical to removing the confusion that currently surrounds non-utility wind projects in Wisconsin.”

The Commission’s rules will function as a uniform ceiling of standards to guide the local regulation of wind siting, operation, and decommissioning for projects less than 100 megawatts in generating capacity. The rules specify how a political subdivision can establish setback requirements, noise and shadow flicker standards, and mechanisms that give non-participating landowners a stake in wind energy projects sited in their area. The rules include the following provisions:

Notice Requirements. At least 90 days before filing an application, the wind energy system owner must give notice to landowners within one mile of proposed wind turbine locations.

Noise Performance Standards. A political subdivision can require wind energy systems to be sited and operated in a manner that does not exceed 45 dBA during nighttime hours and 50 dBA during daytime hours. Noise limits will be measured from the outside wall of non-participating residences and occupied community buildings.

Shadow Flicker Performance Standards. A political subdivision can require wind energy systems to be sited and operated in a manner that does not cause more than 30 hours per year of shadow flicker for non-participating residences or occupied community buildings. If a wind energy system causes more than 20 hours per year of shadow flicker, a political subdivision can require the wind energy system owner to install mitigation measures for affected landowners, at the expense of the wind turbine owner.

Setbacks. A political subdivision can impose minimum safety setbacks of 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height of a wind turbine for participating residences, non-participating property lines, public road rights-of-way, and overhead communication and electric transmission or distribution lines. Setbacks of up to 3.1 times the maximum blade tip height of a wind turbine may be established for nonparticipating residences and occupied community buildings.

Good Neighbor Payments. The rules allow local units of government to require wind energy system owners to provide monetary compensation to non-participating landowners located within one-half mile of a wind turbine site. A political subdivision may not require these payments for non-participating landowners to exceed 25% of the payments being made to a landowner hosting a wind turbine in the project.

Complaint Resolution. The rules establish complaint resolution requirements for wind energy system owners, and a process for requesting political subdivision review of unresolved complaints. A political subdivision’s decision on review of a complaint is appealable to the Commission.

The Commission’s action today caps off six months of intense work in developing uniform wind siting rules for Wisconsin. As part of its process, the Commission established a 15-member Wind Siting Council, which, after months of deliberations, submitted its recommendations to the Commission earlier this month. The Commission also held public hearings earlier this summer in Fond du Lac, Tomah, and Madison, and accepted over 1800 public comments into the record. The Commission’s rules now head to the Legislature, where the presiding officer of each house will have 10 days to refer the rules to a standing committee for review.

SECOND FEATURE

PSC Sets new rules for wind farms

SOURCE: Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

August 31, 2010

By Tony Walter

Wind turbine siting rules approved Monday by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission likely will have little impact on a Chicago-based company’s attempts to build a 100-turbine wind farm in southern Brown County.

The PSC established guidelines for local governments to set restrictions on projects less than 100 megawatts in generating capacity.

However, the Ledge Wind project proposed by Invenergy LLC in the towns of Morrison, Holland, Glenmore and Wrightstown would exceed 100 megawatts. The company submitted its application to the PSC last year but was told to make some changes.

Invenergy officials have said they would wait for the new siting rules before resubmitting their application because they believed the rules might affect their project. Kevin Parzyck, project manager for the Ledge Wind farm, was not available for comment Monday.

The new rules could affect other wind turbine expansion in Brown County.

The rules require wind energy system owners to give 90 days notice about the filing of their turbine proposal to landowners within 1 mile of a proposed location.

The rules would also allow local governments to limit wind farms to not be louder than 45 decibels during nighttime hours and 50 decibels during daytime hours. Normal conversation and background radio noise is rated at 45 decibels. The noise limits will be measured from the outside wall of nonparticipating residences and occupied community buildings.

The rules also let local governments require wind energy system owners to provide monetary compensation to landowners who won’t have turbines on their property but are located within one-half mile of a site. Local officials may not require these payments for nonparticipating landowners to exceed 25 percent of the payments being made to a landowner hosting a wind turbine in the project.

Although the wind farm proposal for southern Brown County wouldn’t be affected by the new rules, Invenergy expects to resubmit its application soon. Invenergy’s efforts to build the wind farm are being opposed by a citizen’s group, Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, that claims Invenergy’s plan poses a health risk to property owners nearby.

A representative from the group could not be reached for comment on Monday.

The Wisconsin Legislature enacted a law in 2009 that directed the PSC to come up with rules to guide local municipalities in their control projects less than 100 megawatts. A Wind Siting Council was appointed to draft the rules, which the PSC approved on Monday.

The Legislature can send the issue back to the PSC for changes or it can accept the commission’s decision by taking no action.

THIRD FEATURE

PSC REGULATORS VOTE TO ADOPT WIND STANDARDS

SOURCE Journal Sentinel, www.jsonline.com

 August 30  2010

By Thomas Content

State energy regulators completed work Monday on rules that would restrict the location of wind turbines in Wisconsin.

The Public Service Commission voted 3-0 to adopt standards for noise and shadow flicker, and opted to allow local governments to require “good neighbor payments” to residents who live within one-half mile of a wind turbine but aren’t hosting a turbine on their land.

Commissioners have grappled with details of the rules during a series of meetings over the past few weeks, as the agency scrambled to complete the rules by the end of August. The rules are now being submitted to the state Legislature for review.

At Monday’s meeting, commissioners Mark Meyer and Lauren Azar supported a more stringent safety setback for wind turbines than had been proposed by the commission’s wind siting advisory council. PSC Chairman Eric Callisto said performance standards adopted in the rules meant that a more stringent setback wasn’t required. But Azar argued for a bigger safety setback because it is unclear how well the new performance standards will work.

“What we’re going to see is the loss of some quality land for reasonable projects that, if you followed the (performance) standards, would otherwise be safe,” Callisto said.

In a law passed earlier this year, the Legislature asked the commission to develop the standards that would eliminate a patchwork of regulations and wind-power bans that some counties have passed.

Callisto said in a statement after the meeting that he was pleased the commission has adopted the rules.

“Establishing clear and consistent siting standards is critical to removing the confusion that currently surrounds non-utility wind projects in Wisconsin,” he said.

The rules were controversial because of the tension between wind developers and property owners concerned about shadow flicker, noise and other effects caused by turbines.

The “good neighbor payments” and other restrictions will help address some of the tension, said Dan Ebert, chairman of the wind siting advisory council.

“For non-participating landowners, it’s this sense of loss of control, the sense of decisions being made without considering them, that has resulted in a lot of controversy,” he said. Giving those landowners “a stake in the project so that they will ultimately see some of the direct benefits will go a long way to reducing the controversy.”

The safety setback established by the commission would be 3.1 times the maximum height of a blade. That would be equivalent to the setbacks imposed by the commission when it endorsed the We Energies Glacier Hills wind farm in Columbia County.

The rules adopted govern smaller wind farms. Utility-scale wind farms remain under review under a separate process.

WANT MORE? WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS:

After investing one billion dollars, John Deere is quitting wind business:

SOURCE: Finance.yahoo.com

Deere said in February it was reviewing options for John Deere Renewables. It has invested $1 billion over the past five years in the financing, development and ownership of wind energy projects.

On Tuesday, Deere said the deal will allow it to get back to what it does best, which is manufacturing farm equipment.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL STORY

 

  From the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health, www.nidcd.nih.gov

A wind turbine is a rotary device with a gigantic propeller as big as a football field that turns in the wind to generate electricity. Although wind turbines are more often found in Europe than in the United States, they’re rapidly becoming more popular here as a “green” energy source.

Most people consider that a good thing, except the rotors of wind turbines also generate noise, particularly in the infrasound range, that some people claim makes them feel sick.

Since frequencies that low can’t be heard, many scientists who study hearing have assumed they can’t have any effect on the function of the ear. But a little known phenomenon related to the infrasound generated by wind turbines is making some scientists challenge the common wisdom that what we can’t hear won’t hurt us.

Infrasound is a subset of sound broadly defined as any sound lower than 20 Hertz (Hz), which is the lowest pitch that most people can hear. It’s all around us, even though we might only be barely able to hear a lot of it. The whoosh of wind in the trees, the pounding of surf, and the deep rumble of thunder are natural sources of infrasound. Whales and other animals use infrasound calls to communicate across long distances. There is also a wide range of manmade infrasounds, for example, the noise generated by industrial machinery, traffic, and heating and cooling systems in buildings.

Alec Salt, Ph.D., is an NIDCD-supported researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who studies the inner ear. For years, he and his group have been using infrasound as a way to slowly displace the structures of the inner ear so that their movement can be observed. In their experiments, infrasound levels as low as 5Hz had an impact on the inner ears of guinea pigs.

“We were doing lots of work with low-frequency tones,” says Salt, “and we were getting big responses.” What they were observing in the lab, however, didn’t jibe with the scientific literature about hearing sensitivity, which was in general agreement that the human ear doesn’t respond to anything as low as 5Hz. Since human ears are even more sensitive to low frequencies than guinea pig ears, that didn’t make sense.

Salt and a colleague conducted a literature search, focusing not on papers about hearing sensitivity, but on the basic physiology of the inner ear and how it responds to low-frequency sounds. During the search, Salt found anecdotal reports of a group of symptoms commonly called “wind turbine syndrome” that affect people who live close to wind turbines.

“The biggest problem people complain about is lack of sleep,” says Salt, but they can also develop headaches, difficulty concentrating, irritability and fatigue, dizziness, and pain and pressure in the ear.

Continuing his search, Salt began to see a way in which infrasound could impact the function of the inner ear, by the differences in how inner ear cells respond to low frequencies. In function, our ear acts like a microphone, converting sound waves into electrical signals that are sent to the brain. It does this in the cochlea, the snail-shaped organ in the inner ear that contains two types of sensory cells, inner hair cells (IHCs) and outer hair cells (OHCs). Three rows of OHCs and one row of IHCs run the length of the cochlea. When OHCs are stimulated by sound, special proteins contract and expand within their walls to amplify the vibrations. These vibrations cause hairlike structures (called stereocilia) on the tips of the IHCs to ripple and bend. These movements are then translated into electrical signals that travel to the brain through nerve fibers and are interpreted as sound.

Only IHCs can transmit this sound signal to the brain. The OHCs act more like mediators between sound frequencies and the IHCs. This wouldn’t matter if the OHC behaved the same way for all frequencies—the IHCs would respond to what the OHC amplified—but they don’t. It turns out that OHCs are highly sensitive to infrasound, but when they encounter it, their proteins don’t flex their muscles like they do for sound frequencies in the acoustic range. Instead they actively work to prevent IHC movement so that the sound is not detected. So, while the brain may not hear the sound, the OHC responses to it could influence function of the inner ear and cause unfamiliar sensations in some people.

Salt and his colleagues still aren’t sure why some people are sensitive to infrasound and others aren’t. It could be the result of anatomical differences among individual ears, or it could be the result of underlying medical conditions in the ear that cause the OHCs to be ultrasensitive to infrasound.

Regardless, it might not be enough to place wind turbines further away from human populations to keep them from being bothersome, since infrasound has the ability to cover long distances with little dissipation. Instead, Salt suggests wind turbine manufacturers may be able to re-engineer the machines to minimize infrasound production. According to Salt, this wouldn’t be difficult. “Infrasound is a product of how close the rotor is to the pole,” he says, “which could be addressed by spacing the rotor further away.”

Salt, AN and Hullar, TE, “Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines.” Hearing Research online 16 June 2010



I am one of the neighbors of the Vinalhaven wind turbines, misled by turbine supporters in 2008 and 2009 that "ambient sounds would mask the noise of the turbines." As I write these words, the noise from the wind turbines churns in the background.

My home is 3,000 feet from the turbines, and my experience is contrary to all the assertions that were made during the permitting process a few years ago. At this hour of the morning, it should be peaceful outside, the quiet interrupted only by the calling crows or osprey circling.

Some locals dismiss the noise complaints, saying that Vinalhaven had a diesel power plant for years. But to live near excessive noise is not the reason I chose to own property here. Also, as I have become familiar with wind turbine noise, it is more and more clear that there is a fundamental difference between turbine noise and other forms of industrial disturbances. Here, it is not just the constant noise, but the pulsing drone that makes the noise particularly hostile that is so disturbing. It is inescapable.

At a recent public hearing on Vinalhaven on turbine noise sponsored by the Island Institute, one neighbor - at the point of tears - said that she had been forced from her house when her chest began vibrating at the same syncopation as the turbines outside.

At that hearing I said I supported wind energy so long as the economic advantages to ratepayers were clear and so long as surrounding property values were not affected. The jury is out on the first point, but not on the second. The constant noise from the turbines, even at 3,000 feet, has taken away a valuable part of my investment and a key part of my family's well-being.

I never imagined my first waking thought would be: where is the wind blowing and how much noise are the wind turbines making now? But that is what happens in this formerly quiet, beautiful place.

At the public meeting in Vinalhaven, I asked a question: when would the natural quiet be restored and when would my property values be protected? There was no answer from the project supporters.

Silence.

Neighbors' complaints about turbine noise rose immediately after the three, 1.5 megawatt GE turbines were turned on, last fall. A year after the Vinalhaven turbines were greeted with wide public acclaim, the turbine neighbors find themselves, through no fault of their own, in an extraordinarily difficult and expensive effort to demonstrate that the wind turbines do exceed state regulations.

The cost of wind turbines has been shifted onto neighbors who never imagined these kinds of burdens when the benefits of wind energy were sold to the public. It is wrong and it is unfair to impose both the noise and the uncertainty of resolution - or if there will ever be resolution - on a few nearby homeowners.

These inequities are predictable. They will multiply wherever wind turbines are placed within a mile-and-a-half of residences, and under the State of Maine's archaic noise regulations.

The State of Maine must provide some relief to neighbors of wind turbines. To start, a fund should be established from a utility fee imposed state-wide that allows citizens to access highly technical and expensive noise and acoustic measurement equipment and data and independent experts.

The collateral damage of wind turbines is the assessment of the noise they make. No one in authority admits this, during the permitting process. They say, "The noise will be minor," or "the sound of the wind blowing in the leaves will cover the sound." That is simply not true.

The Vinalhaven neighbors have already spent tens of thousands of dollars to engage the local utility on the matter of measuring the churning noise. The costs are not trivial, but once turbines are erected in your neighborhood, their noise will be affixed to nearby property.

Be forewarned

SECOND FEATURE:

 

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Yesterday, the Greenbay Press Gazette reported that state health officer and administrator for the state’s Division of Public Health, Seth Foldy concluded there were no health concerns associated with living 1250 feet from wind turbines based on his review available scientific literature.

Would his conclusion be the same if he spoke face to face with wind project residents in our state? Unfortunately he doesn't feel this is necessary.

For the time being this scenario is being played out wherever wind projects are sited near homes. People complain about sleeplessness from the noise and headaches and nausea from the shadow flicker and are repeatedly told there is no evidence in the literature to support their experience.

Since no organized study has been done as a result of the many complaints from wind project residents, it's not surprising the available literature doesn't reflect their experiences. If Health Department officials refuse to speak to those who are suffering, it never will.

North of the border, in Ontario, the story is the same. These letters from a former wind project resident to the director of the Public Health Agency of Canada are very much like ones sent to Seth Foldy at the Wisconsin Division of Public Health, and were met with a similar response.

SOURCE: Wind Concerns Ontario

Letter #1:   From Barbara Ashbee  to Dr. King – January 26th, 2010

Dear Dr. King

I am writing to you today on behalf of residents throughout Ontario, who have become  victims suffering adverse health effects from industrial wind turbines being placed too close to their homes.

This issue has been routinely ignored by all ministries involved in renewable energy at all levels of government. My focus is on our provincial government as it is their policy that is forcing harm to people in their own homes. Many people have been so horribly affected that they have had to abandon their homes. Our public health department is the last potential department that I can think of that should be helping us and yet there has still been no assistance. I have never in my lifetime seen anything so disturbing as the way these people are being treated. It is unconscionable.

I understand you have been busy with H1N1 and I respect the overload of work you must be wading through, but I tell you these people that are being affected by wind turbines have been suffering longer than this flu outbreak has been in our midst. They have been routinely ignored and called names by our Ministers, the developers and by the Premier himself. We need help Dr. King and we need it now! These people do not have time to wait for another literature review to be done. There is ample evidence that these people are being harmed and I am getting extremely tired of being pushed off and ignored.

We need these turbines decommissioned now and no new turbines erected until there is a proper 3rd party independant health study completed. How can anyone that is supposed to be looking out for us continue to do their job and ignore this?

These victims have been forced to abandon their homes to live with relatives, have been billeted in motels, forced to pay rent for a safe house, forced to move into trailers and tents and sleep in their cars. What more do you need to acknowledge we have an urgent problem here?

These same people have followed every protocol under very debillitating conditions by contributing to the EBR registry, attending and presenting at the standing committee hearings,  attending and speaking at green energy workshops held in the province, attending and speaking at green energy act public input meetings across the province, attending and speaking at 2 Grey-Bruce Public Health open houses in Owen Sound and Walkerton in the presence of Dr. Hazel Lynn, Dr. Ray Copes and the MOE officer. They have written countless letters to the Ministers of Environment, Energy and to the Premier himself. As well as 100′s of messages and requests made to, and through their MPPs and local councils.

Nothing has happened.

I do not know what anyone expects of these people. The depth of distress these people feel by being hurt by the very systems and people that should be helping them, has created an overwhelming sense of injustice and they have lost trust in everyone.

I speak with these people almost daily and I am at a loss as to what to tell them Dr. King.

I await your response.

Sincerely,
Barbara Ashbee, RR1 Orangeville

Click here to read the response from Dr. King dated February 16 2010

Letter #2:   From Barbara Ashbee  to Dr. David C. Williams, Associate Chief Medical Officer of Health – February 28, 2010

Dear Dr. Williams,

Thank you for your letter dated February 16th in response to my letter to Dr. King, regarding the wind turbine health issues. I appreciate your response but am disappointed when you say you are reviewing existing information. Are you speaking of another literature review? I believe there is enough compelling information that a study on people should be in order. 

It is very difficult for me to be pleased with the recent appointment of the research chair from our Ontario government. As I understand it, this gentleman is an electrical engineer with experience in renewable energy technology, but with no expertise in wind turbine technology.  He is not a health professional and so to hear you suggest he will “provide expert advice on potential health effects of renewable energy technologies” does not provide any degree of comfort.  

Are you able to give me a better time frame of how long these residents must continue to suffer in their own homes without any government support while you are reviewing things? Why aren’t these installations being shut down while this ongoing research is being done? 

This imbalance of power is overwhelming, and it is bewildering; why the lack of response from government since they received the very first complaints and why the continuing delays? Canadians expect our health ministries to be responsive to people who are experiencing adverse health effects, especially by a policy forced upon them by their government. Please keep in mind these people are powerless to shut these things off and our Ministry of Environment, who governs these projects, has not been able to monitor, control or assist in any way. The fact that Minister of Environment, John Gerretsen uses the term NIMBY to describe victims is befitting of the attitude from this government. The victims and their families have lost faith and trust, and who could blame them?

The quote below is from just one the many victims. 

“I am angry, helpless, and disappointed our government would let something like this happen. I am appalled at their ignorance and lack of compassion. It saddens me to watch my family and friends suffer from the same [health] effects of the turbines. “I spend as much time as I can away from my home, away from my son who is also sleep deprived. We are exhausted and miserable. I often seek refuge with friends, often falling asleep minutes after I arrive. I feel like a gypsy.“What was once a beautiful place to live has been destroyed.”

 – Tracy Whitworth, schoolteacher (Clear Creek, Ont.)

The victims need these wind installations decommissioned immediately so they can return to living in a healthy environment in their own homes while the various ministries and “experts” do their research.

If you do not agree with that, then a statement explaining your position is requested. 

It is astonishing that our provincial government is proceeding with new wind installations with the knowledge of the adverse health effects associated with them. Perhaps sustainable energy resources are their mandate, but your mandate is to protect and prevent harm to our health. With all due respect, so far I have not seen any evidence of protection or prevention, or this would not continue to carry on as long as it has.

Sincerely, 

Barbara Ashbee, RR 1, Orangeville, Ontario

Click on the image below to hear what wind siting council member Larry Wunsch has been living with for the past two years. This turbine is located 1100 feet from his home.

STATE OFFICIAL TAKES WIND OUT OF TURBINE HEALTH ISSUE

SOURCE: Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com

August 28, 2010

By Tony Walter

A key state health official has notified the attorney for a Brown County citizens group that there isn’t sufficient evidence to show that wind turbines have a negative effect on human health.

To that, attorney Ed Marion replied, “There’s no question in my mind that there’s such a rush to build wind turbines that policymakers are simply ignoring all the evidence against building them. People who dismiss wind turbine complaints are flat wrong.”

Marion, former Gov. Tommy Thompson’s chief of staff, represents the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, a group that opposes a plan by Chicago-based Invenergy LLC to construct a wind farm of 100 turbines in the towns of Morrison, Holland, Wrightstown and Glenmore.

Seth Foldy, state health officer and administrator for the state’s Division of Public Health, said his conclusion is based on a study of scientific evidence.

The citizens group claims considerable evidence shows wind turbines can cause a variety of health problems for nearby residents, including sleep disturbance and headaches.

The PSC-appointed wind siting council has sent proposed turbine rules to the PSC, which is expected to vote on the rules next week. The major issues are decibel limits and setback restrictions.

“Our review of the scientific literature concludes that exposure levels measured from contemporary wind turbines at current setback distances do not reach those associated with objective physical conditions, such as hearing loss, high blood pressure, or flicker-induced epilepsy,” Foldy wrote in a July 19 letter to Marion.

“From this, we conclude that current scientific evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that contemporary wind turbines cause adverse health outcomes in those living at distances consistent with current draft rules being considered by the Public Service Commission.”

Marion said he sent three letters to Foldy before receiving a reply and said additional studies have been completed since Foldy’s July 19 letter.

“Washington University in St. Louis, a prestigious institution, released a study this month that said there’s an urgent need to do more research on wind turbine effect,” Marion said.

Marion’s May 13 letter to Foldy cited five studies that he said concluded that wind turbine noise can cause health problems.

“Wind energy proponents claim that it has not been proven that wind turbine noise causes adverse health impacts,” Marion wrote. “More to the point, it has not been proven that wind turbine noise does not cause adverse health effects.”

He called on the state Division of Public Health to conduct more in-depth research on the issue.

Foldy wrote that symptoms such as sleep disturbance and headaches are common and caused by “a wide variety of conditions.

For example, sleep disturbance is a common problem in the general population and may be a sign of an underlying medical disorder. The same is true for symptoms like nausea, headache, problems with equilibrium.”

He said the department’s staff reviewed the five reports that Marion mentioned, as well as more than 150 reports on wind turbines and health. He said the department will continue to review evidence as it becomes available.

Barnaby Dinges, spokesman for Invenergy, said the company “has no comment on the letters between Marion and the state since it was not part of the exchange. It’s really a dialogue between those two parties.”

Invenergy is expected to resubmit its application for the wind farm after the siting rules are approved.

Second feature:

Wind power fights two powerful foes

SOURCE UPI, www.upi.com

August 27 2010

The push for greener energy sources has run into a sizable roadblock with U.S. aviation experts opposing wind turbine construction, a trade group said.

The American Wind Energy Association said a survey of its members found scores of projects in 2009 ran into interference from the U.S. Defense Department and the Federal Aviation Administration, despite a push from the U.S. Energy Department to produce energy from renewable sources, The New York Times reported Friday.

Wind turbines, some of them 400 feet tall, reportedly confuse air traffic controllers, as they resemble storms on weather radar systems. They can also cause planes in some spaces to drop off radar screens entirely, the Times reported.

Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defense recently testified that wind turbines create a high risk for planes and compromise national security.

Gary Seifert, a researcher with the Energy Department, called the collision course between Defense Department interests and energy needs “the train wreck of the 2000s.”

“The train wreck is the competing resources for two national needs: energy security and national security,” he said.

The wind energy group said the Defense Department and the FAA stalled or stopped 9,000 megawatts worth of projects in 2009, equal to the amount of wind energy projects constructed during the year.

Wind energy gets huge subsidies. So where are the CO2 reductions?

Source: Energy Tribune, www.energytribune.com

August 27, 2010

By Robert Bryce,

Ed. note: This story is an extended version of an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on August 24.

Over the last few years, the wind industry has achieved remarkable growth largely due to the industry’s claim that using more wind energy will result in major reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. There’s just one problem with that claim: it’s not true. Recent studies show that wind-generated electricity may not result in any reduction in carbon emissions, or those reductions will be so small as to be almost meaningless.

This issue is especially important now that states, even in the absence of federal legislation, are mandating that utilities produce arbitrary amounts of their electricity from renewable sources. By 2020, for example, California will require utilities to obtain 33% of their electricity from renewables. About 30 states including Connecticut, Minnesota, and Hawaii, are requiring major increases in the production of renewable electricity over the coming years. Wind, not solar or geothermal sources, must provide most of this electricity, because it is the only renewable source that can rapidly scale up to meet the requirements of the mandate. But those mandates will mean billions more in taxpayer subsidies for the wind industry and result in higher electricity costs for consumers.

There are two reasons wind can’t make major cuts in carbon emissions. The wind blows only intermittently and variably; and wind-generated electricity largely displaces power produced by natural gas-fired generators rather than that coming from plants that burn more carbon-intensive coal.

Because the wind is not dependable, electric utilities must either keep their conventional power plants running all the time (much like “spinning reserve” in industry parlance) to make sure the lights don’t go dark, or they must continually ramp up and down the output from conventional coal- or gas-fired generators (“cycling”).

Coal-fired and gas-fired generators are designed to run continuously. If they don’t, fuel consumption, and emissions of key air pollutants, generally increases. A car analogy helps explain the reason: An automobile that operates at a constant speed — say, 55 miles per hour — will have better fuel efficiency, and emit less pollution per mile traveled, than one that is stuck in stop-and-go traffic. But the wind, by its very nature, is stop-and-go. The result: minimal or no reductions in carbon emissions by shifting conventional generation to wind.

In 2008, a British energy consultant, James Oswald, along with two co-authors, published a study in the journal Energy Policy, which said that any reductions in Britain’s carbon dioxide emissions due to added wind generation capacity “will be less than expected.” The study went on to say that neither the extra costs of cycling the power plants “nor the increased carbon production are being taken into account in the government figures for wind power.”

An April study by Bentek Energy, a Colorado-based energy analytics firm, looked at power plant records in Colorado and Texas. (It was commissioned by the Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States.) Bentek concluded that despite huge investments, wind-generated electricity “has had minimal, if any, impact on carbon dioxide” emissions. Thanks to the cycling of Colorado’s coal-fired plants in 2009, for example, at least 94,000 more pounds of carbon dioxide were generated because of the repeated cycling. In Texas, Bentek estimated that the cycling of power plants due to increased use of wind energy resulted in a slight savings of carbon dioxide (about 600 tons) in 2008 and a slight increase (of about 1,000 tons) in 2009.

This month, the US Association for Energy Economics published a paper by Ross Baldick, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, which concluded that new wind generation capacity “may not be decreasing greenhouse emissions. However, even assuming that wind displaces fossil emissions, it is not ‘worthwhile’ for reducing greenhouse emissions” even if regulators put a price on carbon dioxide of up to $35 per ton.

The problems posed by the intermittency and variability of wind energy could quickly be cured if only we had an ultra-cheap method of storing large quantities of energy. If only. The problem of large-scale energy storage has bedeviled inventors for centuries. Alessandro Volta and Thomas Edison both produced working batteries. Edison spent years working on battery technology, sinking about $30 million of his own money (in current dollars) into his quest for a durable, high-capacity battery. He had some success. But modern batteries have the same suite of problems that Edison faced: they are too big, too expensive, too finicky, and lack durability.

Other solutions for energy storage like compressed air energy storage and pumped water storage are viable, but like batteries, those technologies are expensive. And even if the cost of energy storage falls dramatically — thereby making wind energy truly viable — who will pay for it? Further, even if we have a dramatic breakthrough in energy storage, the deployment of that new technology will likely take decades.

Despite the lack of storage, the US and other countries continue to deploy huge amounts of new wind generation capacity and that expense is being undertaken with the assumption that wind energy will lower carbon dioxide emissions. But federal authorities have done some estimates on how more wind energy will affect emissions. And those estimates are revealing.

Last year, the Energy Information Administration estimated the potential savings from a proposed nationwide 25% renewable electricity standard, a goal that was included in the Waxman-Market energy bill which narrowly passed the US House last year. In its best-case scenario, the annual carbon dioxide savings from that mandate would be about 306 million tons by 2030. Given that the EIA expects annual US carbon dioxide emissions to be about 6.2 billion tons in 2030, that expected reduction will only equal about 4.9% of US emissions. That’s not much when you consider that the Obama administration wants to cut US carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050.

Earlier this year, another arm of the Department of Energy, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, released a report whose conclusions were remarkably similar to those of the EIA. This report focused on integrating wind energy into the electric grid in the eastern US, which has about two-thirds of all US electric load. If wind energy were to meet 20% of electric needs in the eastern US by 2024, according to the report, the likely reduction in carbon emissions would be less than 200 million tons per year. (All the scenarios in the NREL analysis cost a minimum of $140 billion to implement and the issue of cycling conventional power plants is only mentioned in passing.)

Coal emits about twice as much carbon dioxide during combustion as natural gas. But wind generation mostly displaces natural gas because natural gas-fired generators are often the most costly form of conventional electricity production. That said, if regulators are truly concerned about carbon emissions (and cutting air pollution) they should be encouraging gas-fired generation at the expense of coal. And they should be doing so because drillers are unlocking galaxies of natural gas from shale beds, so much so that US natural gas resources are now likely large enough to meet all of America’s natural gas needs for a century.

Meanwhile, the wind industry is pocketing subsidies that dwarf those garnered by the oil and gas sector. The federal government provides a production tax credit of $0.022 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by wind. That amounts to $6.44 per million BTU of energy produced. Meanwhile, a 2008 EIA report said subsidies to the oil and gas sector totaled $1.9 billion per year, or about $0.03 per million BTU of energy produced. Thus, on a raw, per-unit-of-energy-produced basis, subsidies to the wind sector are more than 200 times as great as those given to the oil and gas sector.

Kevin Forbes, the director of the Center for the Study of Energy and Environmental Stewardship at Catholic University, told me that “Wind energy gives people a nice warm fuzzy feeling that we’re taking action on climate change.” But when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions, “the reality is that it’s not doing much of anything.”



This interview was conducted by Tim Harmann who is with the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy (Link: BCCRWE.com)

Elizabeth Eberts is a resident of the We Energies Blue Sky/Green Field wind project. Click on the image below to hear what she has to say about living with wind turbines. For those whose internet connection isn't fast enough to watch video, a transcript is provided below.

Transcript of Interview with  Elizabeth Eberts

I'm a non participant of the wind turbines but I have them to the north, west and south of me. We live down in this hollow part and they just come straight above by our house and we hear all the noise.

And sleeping at night, if they don't turn at night, I sleep great. Like last night I had a terrific nights sleep but this week, Wednesday they were really going and just like that in the middle of the night I'll just jump up and there's nothing I can do.

It just does something. I don't know what the noise is that wakes me up or what it is but I can sleep through thunderstorms, anything. But I cannot sleep through this. I've tried different things but I just can't.

And I complained to them about the noise and they said they can do nothing about the noise. It's the way it is, etc. etc.

Well I had my son over here because he had to have major surgery. And you know, because we could leave from here I thought it was real nice.

Well then he told me, he said he couldn't sleep all night because it sounded like an airplane hovering over his bedroom all night long. So he couldn't sleep.

And I thought it was just me, you know? I never gave it a thought.

In our township, noise means nothing. That's exactly what they told me. They say it at every meeting you go to. "We're not going to discuss the noise."

Well, it's a big problem here. Especially for me with [turbine noise ] coming down at me.

And they just don't acknowledge it at all.

So in addition to your noise and your sleep, you had some problems with your TV?

Well we have problems with the TV, the scanner and the FM radio.

The TV was the worst of them all. It took a good year, and I just told them after all that they did I said that this is it. Take it out. I don't care what you give me. I can't stand it any more.

It would go out. You'd be listening to a program, you'd see half of it, and all of a sudden it's gone. Then it would come back again. Well. It was just totally out of control. I was just plain frustrated. You just turned the TV off and just let it off for awhile.

And you said you visit your daughter who is in the wind farm too and she has other issues?

Yes. She has bad shadow flicker. Over the complete house. Because the wind turbine to the east of her is on a very high hill, so it covers their whole house.

She can't go anyplace in her house where she does not see shadow flicker.

Well, [the wind developer] offered the blinds and that. Well, [the flicker will] go through the top part of your window. You can put them up as good as you want, it still goes through.

I was putting up-- we made curtains for her--- and I was putting them up and I seen this flickering going in there, and I said, "Oh my gosh," I had to get down from the ladder and turn away from it.

And she says, "Oh, this isn't bad, mom."

Well, to me it was. That was very bad.

But they will put blinds up for you or whatever
 But what do you put windows in your house for?

[This wind farm] they just put it up and that was it. They didn't work with us at all.

And what they say to you, don't believe them.

I had this guy from We Energies coming into my house and telling me he'd give me back everything he took away.

And then he shook my hand.

And you know what? To this day yet I haven't gotten everything back they took away, They can't give me  it back. There is no way. Unless they stop these turbines.