4/28/10 Would you like some shadow flicker with your morning coffee?
Click on the image below to see what wind turbine shadow flicker is like at 6:30 in the morning in a PSC approved wind project in Fond du Lac County Wisconsin. This was filmed on April 28th, 2010.
The family living in this home knew nothing about wind turbine shadow flicker until the day it started to hit their home. There are three turbines, each 40 stories tall, within 1500 feet of their door. They get shadow flicker in the morning and in the evening. The only thing they can do is pull down all the shades and turn on the lights.
4/27/10 QUADRUPLE FEATURE: Wind Developer a-comin'! It's Open Season on rural Wisconsin communities AND Help a Wind Developer Out: Chicago-based Invenergy Goliath may get back up from legislature in its fight against one rural Wisconsin family AND The Wirtz Family Story for those who missed it AND Lets look at a wind tower 'tilt up' -- wait, how big is that thing again?
Click on the image above to see what the future looks like for rural Wisconsin
Proposed wind farm riles some lakeshore residents
SOURCE: WFRV Green Bay, www.wfrv.com
April 27, 2010
by Angenette Levy,
Residents of five lakeshore communities crowded a town hall Monday night to voice their concerns over a proposed wind farm.
Oregon-based Element Power hopes to build 111 wind turbines in five towns in southern Kewaunee and northern Manitowoc Counties: Carlton, West Kewaunee, Mishicot, TwoCreeks and Two Rivers.
The company would build the turbines and supply energy from them to local utilities. In order to comply with Wisconsin’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, utilities must derive 10% of the energy sold from renewable sources by 2015.
“Your contract is totally one-sided for Element Energy. It’s totally against the landowners,” one landowner told engineers with Element Power.
Landowners said they are concerned the wind farm could negatively impact property values, wildlife populations and the health of residents. Element Power does not currently operate any wind farms in Wisconsin.
Company representatives told the standing room only crowd that many of their concerns were not based in fact.
“From what we’ve seen, these concerns are unfounded based on science and we plan to prove that through our studies,” said Michael Arndt of Element Power.
Joel Link, an engineer with ElementPower, said residents would be seeing “stories all over CNN” if the turbines caused health problems. Link encouraged residents to visit others living in wind farm communities. At least two residents said they had, and didn’t like what they heard.
“We have found out so much information about them and how unhealthy they are,” said Lynn Holly, a town of Carlton resident who opposes the turbines. Holly said she traveled to Fond du Lac Co. and spoke with residents who complained of shadow flicker and health problems.
Joel Link dismissed residents concerns about turbines causing health problems, but conceded the turbines would change the towns’ landscapes.
“We’re not saying there are no impacts for windmills. I would never sit here and say that. There certainly are impacts.”
Element Power representatives said nearly 100 landowners had signed on to the project. Those who agree to lease their land to the company would receive between $8,000 and $15,000 per year. Element Power believes the project could create $2 million in landowner revenue annually. Michael Arndt said towns and counties could expect to receive as much as $800,000 in shared revenue annually.
But, Carlton town chairman Dave Hardtke said he’s skeptical about that projection. Hardtke believes communities have been short-changed by the state for the amount of money received from the two nuclear power plants on the lakeshore.
“The biggest concern is I don’t trust the state as far as what we’re going to get for it,” Hardtke said.
The wind farm proposal is subject to Wisconsin Public Service Commission approval. If the PSC signs off, Element Power could start building turbines in 2012.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: It is Better Plan's understanding that the project proposed by Element Energy was previously owned by wind developers EcoEnergy who have informed Better Plan they are no longer developing projects in Wisconsin.
The Rock County Towns of Magnolia and Union also had projects which EcoEnergy sold to Spanish wind developer Acciona. The fate of these projects is unknown. Acciona has not responded to repeated inquiries from Better Plan.
Wirtz family home abandoned because of wind turbine noise. Dodge County, Wisconsin. Photo by Gerry Meyer, Summer 2009
Wind farm fight draws Capitol response
By Paul Snyder
A wind farm dispute in Dodge County is catching the attention of state lawmakers who worry the case could affect the future of renewable energy development.
“I think this is a Pandora’s box that could lead to all sorts of unnecessary litigation,” said state Rep. Mark Honadel, R-South Milwaukee. “And I think it’s the kind of decision the state Legislature would have to take up in some form.”
Chicago-based Invenergy LLC and Oakfield residents Ann and Jason Wirtz are awaiting Public Service Commission action on a complaint the Wirtzes filed earlier this month. The Wirtzes are claiming damages as a result of the Forward Energy Wind Center, which went online in 2008 in Brownsville.
The Wirtzes claim family members suffered health problems, the noise from nearby turbines cost them their alpaca-breeding business and a lack of interest from homebuyers led them to abandon their property in September.
But in a response filed last week, Invenergy argued the dispute is not within the PSC’s jurisdiction and finding in favor of the family would “inappropriately counteract” the state Legislatureís policy favoring development of alternative energy.
State Sen. Jeff Plale, D-South Milwaukee, said he disagrees with Invenergy’s argument.
Although the state has a goal of generating 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2015, the state Legislature last week did not vote on the Clean Energy Jobs Act, which would have established more renewable energy policies. Wisconsin also is waiting on recommendations from a PSC-directed council that will determine appropriate placement of wind turbines throughout the state.
For now, Plale said, the state’s policies on renewable energy development are scattershot at best.
“They’re evolving on a day-by-day, week-by-week basis,” he said. “The Legislature just got the ball rolling with respect to wind farms, and I think policies will change complexion a few times yet.”
But Joe Condo, Invenergy’s vice president and general counsel, said developers want certainty for projects, and a wind-development policy in flux will deter future projects.
That argument failed to sway the Wirtzes’ Madison-based attorney, Edward Marion, who said the family was not out of line in asking for a PSC judgment, and the complaint does not affect future renewable energy development.
“In terms of precedent or that old argument about slippery slope, I don’t see it,” he said. “As far as I know, this is the first time anyone has filed a claim like this, and they’re the only ones thinking about filing this kind of claim.”
PSC Spokeswoman Teresa Weidemann-Smith said the commissioners have not yet scheduled a discussion on the case.
The Legislature should take note of the PSC’s decision, said state Sen. Jim Holperin, D-Conover. But arguing the state favors renewable energy and cannot be questioned, he said, is flimsy.
“I don’t think there’s anyone,” he said, “who thinks the laws on the books right now will still be there five years from now.”
But if five years from now, Wisconsin families can sue over projects already approved and operating, it would be a business killer, Honadel said. A PSC judgment in favor of the Wirtzes, he said, would set a dangerous precedent.
“The minute you open the door for someone to become compensated because they don’t like what’s happening next door,” he said, “you open yourself up for more to follow.”
SECOND FEATURE:
Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: For those who have not been following the Wirtz family story, we re-post a story written by Lynda Barry after an interview with Ann and Jason Wirtz in June of 2009 before they moved from their home because of wind turbine noise.
Lynda Barry is a Wisconsin writer who is currently doing research for a book about life in Wisconsin's industrial wind projects.
Interview with Ann and Jason Wirtz
N1157 Hwy YY
Oakfield, WI 53065
Dodge County, Wisconsin
Conducted on the evening of May 2, 2009
WIND TURBINE NOISE FORCES WISCONSIN FAMILY TO ABANDON HOME
TOWN OF OAKFIELD- Ann and Jason Wirtz have a pretty Wisconsin farmhouse near the Town of Oakfield. It’s the kind of place that had people stopping by to ask if the family would consider selling it.
“They’d just pull into our driveway,” says Ann, a mother of four. “There were people who said if we ever decided to sell it, we should call them.”
Although turn-of-the-century house needed a lot of work when they bought it, the Wirtz family didn’t mind. They planned to stay. Both Ann and Jason grew up in the area and wanted to raise their children there.
“I thought we were going to live here for the rest of our lives.” says Ann. “I thought one of our kids was going to live here after us.”
This was before 86 industrial wind turbines went up around their home as part of the Chicago based Invenergy's Forward Energy wind project which began operation in March of 2008. The closest turbine is to the Wirtz home is less than 1300 feet from their door.
“Last night it was whining,” said Ann. “It wasn’t just the whoosh whoosh whoosh or the roaring. It was a high pitched whine. And I don’t just hear them, I can feel them.”
She describes a feeling like a beat in her head, a pulse that matches the turbine’s rhythm. “Last night was really bad,” she said.
She says she knows which nights are going to be loud by which way the turbine blades are facing, and her family dreads the nights when the wind is out of the west. “That’s when they are the loudest.”
Jason said he found out there was a wind farm planned for his area from a neighbor he ran into at the post office. “He asked me if I knew anything about the turbines coming in. I didn’t.” Jason came home and mentioned it to Ann.
“When I first heard about it I wasn’t that alarmed.” says Ann, “People were saying how bad they could be, but I just didn’t believe them at first.”
She assumed the turbines would be sited much further away from her home, unaware of the controversy over the setbacks approved by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin which allows turbines to be sited close as 1000 feet to the homes of people like the Wirtzes.
“All those orange flags they put in were way back there. I was thinking it wouldn’t be too bad. And then when that access road started coming in so close I said, ‘what the heck is going on?’
Meanwhile, Jason had been attending town meetings and learning more about the project. The more he learned, the more worried he became. Five months before the turbines went up, the Wirtz family decided to sell their house.
They called people who had let them know they’d be interested in buying it. “When they found out about the turbines,” said Ann, “They weren’t interested anymore.”
The Wirtz family prepared the house to put on the market. In November of 2007, the home, sitting on eight acres, was appraised for $320,000. But this once sought-after property could find no buyers. “As soon as people found out about the wind farm coming in,” says Ann. “That was it. And once they started building the roads to the turbines, forget it. They’d ask what that road was for, we’d tell them and we’d never hear from them again.”
After the turbines went up, interested buyers stopped showing up altogether.
“We tried to find another realtor,” said Ann, “They’d ask ‘is it near the wind turbines?’ and when they found out it was, they wouldn’t even bother to come out to the house to look at it. One realtor told me it wasn’t worth her marketing dollars to even list it because if it was in the wind farm she knew she couldn’t sell it. I mean have you ever heard of a real estate agent turning down a chance to sell a house?”
Another realtor said they would have to price it under $200,000 to get anyone to even look at it. “At that price we were going to be $50,000 worse than when we started, “ said Ann. “And that didn’t include the 12 years of work we put into the place.”
But the Wirtzes were increasingly anxious to get away from the turbines. While Jason, who works nights, wasn’t having much trouble with the turbine noise, it was keeping Ann and her children from sleeping well at night. They were tired all the time. They were also getting frequent headaches.
And there was trouble with their animals as well. The Wirtz family raise alpaca and have a breeding herd. Ann says the Alpaca became jumpy the first day the turbines went on line. “Normally they are so calm. But the day the towers started up, they seemed to panic. They were on their back legs right away.”
Ann says the herd had always been docile and healthy, with no breeding problems. Since the wind farm started up, their temperament has changed and none of the females have been able to carry a pregnancy to full term. “ They’re nervous all the time now. I can’t prove anything but I do know my animals. And I really felt something was wrong. All the years we’ve had them we’ve never had a problem.”
At night herd shelters in the large metal shed behind the Wirtz home. When the turbines are loud, Ann says the sound echoes inside the shed and the metal vibrates and hums. “The noise in here gets just unbelievable. When the tin starts to vibrate in here, they can’t stand it. I have to find them a better home. This is torture for them.”
The same turbine noise has driven Ann out of her own bedroom “I can’t stand to be in that room anymore. I don’t sleep at all. My sleep has been terrible.” Instead she sleeps on the couch where a fan on their pellet stove helps counter the turbine noise. “My number one complaint is how tired I am all the time,” says Ann, “I never had that before, ever.”
Says Jason, “We don’t have air conditioning, we didn’t want it and we didn’t need it. In the summer we just opened the windows and let cross breezes cool the house. But the first summer with the turbine noise we had to shut the windows and turn on the fan. We couldn’t stand it.”
After one of the children was recently diagnosed with a severe stress-related illness, the Wirtzes decided they’d had enough. They decided the health of their family was more important than keeping their home, and they are abandoning it.
“Now, after all the trouble we’ve had living here” said Ann, “ If a family showed up and wanted to buy the place and they had kids, I don’t think I could sell it to them. Knowing what I know about living here, I just don’t think I could put another family through this.”
They are now looking for a place in a nearby village. “We were born and raised in the country but we’re thinking of moving to Oakfield because they aren’t going to plop a 400 foot turbine in the middle of the village, says Jason. “And I know I’m going to have to drive by this place every day on my way to work. It’s going to make me sick to see it, but I can’t stay here anymore.”
Ann adds, “I say we move near whoever it is that decides on the setbacks because you know they’ll never have a turbine by their place”
Jason and Ann sit at the dining room table and point out the elaborate woodwork they’d stripped and re-finished by hand. Jason holds a picture of the farmhouse from happier times. Earlier that day they’d met with the people at the bank to let them know they were giving up their home.
Jason says, “At least we’re young enough to start over. My mom, she doesn’t have much money and now she has turbines around her house. She said, ‘This house was my retirement,’ Her and my dad put everything into that house. Now I don’t know what she’s going to do.”
Jason says, “ The quality of life we had here is just gone. I grew up here and I loved it here. But I don’t anymore. ”
UPDATE: The Wirtz family has since moved to the village of Oakfield.
FOURTH FEATURE:
4/25/10 DOUBLE FEATURE! Invenergy Goliath still swinging at rural Brown County AND What a wind developer will do for you if turbine noise and shadow flicker are are problem.
Battle over proposed Brown County wind farms continues
SOURCE Green Bay Press-Gazette, www.greenbaypressgazette.com
April 25 2010
The fight over whether Brown County should be home to Wisconsin’s largest wind farm continues as state regulators debate rules over such energy-producing facilities.
“Our purpose is to give our towns a voice,” said Steve Deslauriers, who lives in the town of Holland. He also is a member of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, a volunteer group fighting the proposed widespread installation of turbines in the towns of Morrison, Wrightstown, Glenmore and Holland.
Kevin Parzyck is the development manager for the Ledge Wind Energy Project, a 100-wind turbine farm proposed by Chicago-based Invenergy. He said the company isn’t remaining idle as it waits for Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission’s decision on guidelines over where wind turbines can be located and what kind of impact they can have on residents and property.
“We continue to work closely with dedicated landowner groups and building relationships with county and town officials,” Parzyck said. “Clear minds will see this project and its benefits.”
Invenergy wants to build the first major commercial wind farm in Brown County and the largest in the state. It has signed contracts for about $8,000 a year with numerous property owners permitting 400-foot turbines on their property.
Many property owners and residents in the southern Brown County communities have spoken out against the project, citing negative health effects and the potential loss in property values.
The PSC has the authority to approve or reject Invenergy’s application and has formed a wind siting council to draft proposed guidelines over such operations.
The council has met several times, most recently Thursday, and is expected to make its recommendations to the PSC this spring. The public would then have time to comment on the rules before a final decision is made.
Invenergy will resubmit its application based on the state’s rules, Parzyck said.
The group fighting the wind farm in Brown County has registered with the state so it can participate in the PSC process.
The Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce has also entered the wind farm discussion. The chamber’s Public Policy Committee recently met with the opposing sides and will meet again May 21 to decide if it wants to take a side and make a recommendation to the chamber board.
“We’ll probably take a position,” said Chamber President Paul Jadin. He said the board might decide to back efforts to have the county’s health department study health and safety effects of wind turbines, or it might weigh in on whether the state should subsidize wind energy.
More than half of the proposed wind turbines would be installed in Morrison, where the Town Board has tabled the issue until the PSC publishes its siting rules.
Invenergy officials say wind energy has an economic benefit for the public.
“There has been a great deal of static created by fear stirred up by the opposition that has a variety of agendas they’re trying to fulfill,” Parzyck said. “No doubt there are some in the group with an agenda to stop wind energy altogether in the state of Wisconsin and flies in the face of the goals of the governor and Legislature.”
The goals, according to Deslauriers, are protecting health, safety and financial well-being of landowners.
“The state is taking the voice away from the towns,” he said. “We also have a big concern about well contamination out here because of questionable use practices on our land.”
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: What will a wind developer or wind company do for you if turbine noise and shadow flicker are a problem after the turbines are up? The complaint and 'solution' outlined in this letter from a wind project resident to the North Dakota Public Service Commission are nearly identical to wind project residents in Wisconsin.
TO: Jerry Lien
North Dakota Public Service Commission
April 16, 2010
Greetings Jerry,
I appreciate your attention to this matter of the effects of living next to wind turbines. As was discussed in our phone conversation, Next Era Energy is not offering to repair the damage or fix the problem of the noise and shadow flicker imposed on our home, business and property. They merely want to pay us to accept it.
They say we can use the payment to fix the problem ourselves. In order to receive the payment, we must accept this contract as offered, which I have attached to this letter [below]. This contract, as you can see, is a release for the company to negatively affect us. Furthermore, this contract has more wording in it about keeping quiet about the whole issue than solving the problem. Also you can see that it will be binding on us and our property in any future issues.
$15,000 as a payment is not going to fix this problem. We did not ask for money from this company but requested a relief to the problem at hand. Scott Scovill from Next Era, suggested for us to buy trees with the money.
Trees will not block the effects because they are not tall enough and may take up to twenty years before they would grow even fifty ft. tall. One solution we suggested was to turn the offending turbines off only during the time they cause shadows. That suggestion was answered by Scott bluntly saying “we’re not shutting them off”. Since then Scott or any other Next Era representative has not returned our phone calls.
Mary Ann and I cannot sign on to a contract of this nature. Our attorney advises against it as well. We are not willing to release to the company our property and enjoyment of our home so they can cause noise, shadow flicker, interference, diminishment of property value and the effects acknowledged in their contracts. We are now suffering from these problems as a result of the decision to allow this irresponsible siting of wind towers too close to our farm.
By reviewing the project you can see there are about four or five turbines to the east of our farm that are causing blinking shadows up to and hour and a half per day for at least 12 weeks of the year. The shadow effects across the windows of our offices are severely disruptive to our business.
How does the Public Service Commission plan to deal with our issue? Is this going to be allowed in every wind farm project in the future? Is it going to be allowed that a large out-of-state company negatively impact a local business? Are the residents of this state expected to sell – (quoted from the contract) “the ability to use or enjoy your property, nuisance, injury or harm to persons, anxiety, suffering, mental anguish and loss of ability to enjoy life”?
I would like a response to these questions.
It has been brought to my attention that Next Era representatives have been spreading a lie that we knew this wind farm project was planned before we purchased our property here in Griggs County. This is a false statement and can be proven. We were living on our farm when we were invited to the first meeting of this project.
I request that you make this contract and my letter part of the public record.
Sincerely,
Jim Miller
[[[[ ]]]]
RELEASE
THIS RELEASE (“Release”) is made as of the _____ day of _____________, 2010 by and between Ashtabula Wind II LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Company”) and __________________________________, (“Owner”) (hereinafter collectively the “Parties”) upon the terms and conditions set forth below:
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of a certain tract of land located in Griggs County, North Dakota legally described on the attached Exhibit A (“Property”) and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, Company owns and operates the Ashtabula Wind Energy Center (“Wind Farm”), a wind farm which is adjacent to the Property; and
WHEREAS, Owner notified Company that they are experiencing problems with shadow flicker at their residence on the Property.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements set forth herein, the Parties hereby agree, as follows:
The recitals are true and correct and are incorporated in this Release by reference.
Company shall pay to Owner the one-time amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00), payable on or before March 31, 2010, for any and all shadow flicker related to the Property, caused or alleged to be caused by the Wind Farm stemming from, related to or attendant to the operation of the Wind Farm by Company, its parent companies, affiliates, successors, assigns, related companies including but not limited to interference with glare, shadow flicker, diminishment of the value of the Property, the ability to use or enjoy the Property, nuisance, and any injury or harm to persons, including but not limited to anxiety, suffering, mental anguish, loss of the ability to enjoy life, or any other harm or wrong, tort, intentional or negligent conduct stemming from, related to or consequent to shadow flicker from the Wind Farm whether claimed or not claimed, including all claims that could have been brought, or which hereafter might be brought by Owner or any of their successors and assigns.
The matters settled and released pursuant to this Release include all matters, claims, causes of action, and disputes of any nature whatsoever within the authority of the Parties (including third-party claims, indemnity claims, contribution claims, direct and derivative claims, and any other claims held in any capacity) whether or not fully accrued, relating to or arising out of the interference on the Property. The foregoing matters described in paragraph 2 are referred to hereinafter in this Release as the “Released Matters.”
The Parties, each for itself and its directors, officers, agents, and/or representatives, hereby expressly and unconditionally release and discharge one another, and their respective directors, officers, agents, representatives, employees, agents, successors and/or assigns, from any and all obligation, liability or responsibility arising from or as a result of the Released Matters.
The execution of this Release shall not be construed as an admission by any Party as to the validity or invalidity of any other Party’s position with reference to the issues resolved in this Release and neither party shall, directly or indirectly, seek to take or advance any position before any court, agency, or administrative tribunal, predicated in whole or in part on any term or condition of this Release except in connection with an action to enforce this Release or the terms or conditions thereof.
The fact of settlement, the amount, nature of terms of the Release, and this Release are to are to remain strictly, totally and completely confidential and any breach of the terms of this Release shall entitle the non-breaching Party to seek all equitable relief as well as monetary damages from Owner.
The Parties agree not to make any statements, written or verbal, or cause or encourage others to make any statements, written or verbal, that defame, disparage or in any way criticize the personal or business reputation, practices, or conduct of the other party, its employees, directors, and officers.
The Parties acknowledge and agree that this prohibition extends to statements, written or verbal, made to anyone, including but not limited to, the news media, investors, potential investors, any board of directors or advisory board or directors, industry analysts, competitors, strategic partners, vendors, employees (past and present), and clients. Either Party, if approached, has the right to state “we had an issue and that the issue has been resolved to our satisfaction.”
The Release may not be modified or amended except by a written instrument signed by all the Parties hereto.
In the event of litigation arising out of or in connection with the enforcement of this Release or any dispute arising out of this Release, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and incidental expenses incurred in connection with such litigation proceeding, including all costs or fees incurred on appeal.
The provisions of this Release shall be governed by North Dakota law.
8. This Release shall be binding upon the predecessors, heirs, successors, and assigns of each Party.
EXECUTED on the dates appearing below their signatures by the Parties’ undersigned officers, duly authorized.
Company:
Ashtabula Wind II LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: ________________________________________
Name: Dean R. Gosselin, Vice President
Date: ________________________________________
Owner: ________________________________________
Name: ________________________________________
Date: ___________________________________
4/24/10 DOUBLE FEATURE: How many Wind Siting Council Members have financial ties to wind? What's the problem? AND Take a look at who is on the council to see why there is concern.
Wind Siting Council members reject bias allegations
Members of the state’s Wind Siting Council are deflecting allegations the group is biased toward development.
“I think it’s a fairly well-balanced group,” said council member Dwight Sattler, a Fond du Lac County resident and neighbor of the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Farm. “If anything, vocally, it seems slanted against development right now.”
But five Calumet County residents aren’t convinced and have sued the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. The lawsuit seeks to have the Wind Siting Council’s 15 members reselected or have the state’s three PSC commissioners reconvene and jointly approve the siting council’s roster.
“It’s very difficult to believe they’ll be impartial,” said Ric Van Sistine, one of the challengers. “If you spend any time looking at the members of this group, the deck seems pretty stacked to me.”
Steven Frassetto of Appleton-based Menn Law Firm Ltd., the group’s attorney, said the only public records about the siting council’s appointment are attributed to PSC Chairman Eric Callisto.
The state law creating the siting council directed the PSC to choose the members, Frassetto said, not just its chairman.
The PSC is seeking dismissal of the case, according to PSC spokeswoman Teresa Weidemann-Smith.
If Callisto alone picked the siting council members, he did so with a preference for wind farm proponents, said DuWayne Klessig, another Calumet County resident in the suit.
“There’s minimal numbers from people concerned about the issue,” he said. “Time will tell how standards fold out, but I have deep concerns about what could unfold.”
The siting council’s job is to create the rules used to place turbines throughout Wisconsin. Those rules will include setback distances from residences, noise limits for turbines and developer timelines for giving public notice about proposed projects.
The council is scheduled to have recommendations ready by July. It has met six times, beginning in March.
“I think the question is whether consensus is possible,” Sattler said. “I think it’s going to be very difficult.”
Klessig and Van Sistine said they had not attended any of the council’s meetings.
Dan Ebert, senior vice president of Sun Prairie-based WPPI Energy and chairman of the siting council, said it’s too early to tell what the siting council’s recommendations will be.
“Some members are becoming very clear about what they want, but we’re still just getting our feet wet,” he said. “I think finding consensus on some of the issues will be a very difficult and arduous process.”
Ebert said he did not know about the lawsuit and that none of the residents had contacted him with their concerns.
If the residents want to make a legal challenge to the group’s decision, Sattler said, they are free to do so.
But he said it’s wrong to assume the group is one-sided.
“If anything,” he said, “I would encourage them to actually listen in on what we’re saying.”
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Better Plan has been video taping the WSC meetings and posting them on YouTube. Click here to watch them.
SECOND FEATURE:
WHO IS ON THE WIND SITING COUNCIL?
4/23/10 What's all this noise about turbine noise? Whose word will you take? Someone who profits from putting turbines close to people's homes, or someone who is living with turbine noise every day?
Veteran noise engineer George Kamperman, Board Certified in Noise Control Engineering by the American Institute of Noise Control Engineering, wrote the following commentary after listening to a video clip (above) recorded by Larry Wunsch who lives near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. The closest turbine to his home is 1100 feet away. Wunsch is a firefighter and also happens to be a member of Wisconsin's Wind Siting Council, a fifteen member group who are now at work on creating guidelines for siting turbines in our state.
There is a must-see-and-hear 9 minute DVD by Larry Wunsch at his home in Byron, Wisconsin. Turn up the volume on your computer and listen either through earphones with good uniform base response, or listen from a full frequency range sound system.
You may be shocked by what you hear. The wind turbines make a roaring sound like a jet aircraft. The wind turbines radiate an excessive amount of low frequency energy, and this is the primary reason for our new approach (see How Loud Is Too Loud?) for determining wind turbine setback from dwellings.
Whenever you read about noise levels in the media, the decibel (dB) numbers are frequency weighted (dBA). The term is the “A-weighted” sound level. This frequency weighting discriminates against low frequency sounds, somewhat similar to human hearing response at low sound levels. The wind turbine industry has taken advantage of the phenomenon to show wind turbines produce sound levels no higher than the sound from “a gentle breeze rustling leaves of a tree” or “a small flowing stream” or “the refrigerator in your kitchen,” to cite just some of the examples argued by the wind turbine lobby. These examples are all plausible, and the industry probably has data to show it to be true.
What’s wrong with this picture? The wind industry examples definitely do not sound like the jet engine noise outside the home of Larry Wunsch! The problem is that wind turbines generate far more low frequency noise than high frequency noise where dBA is most sensitive. This is a dirty little secret the wind turbine industry has been hiding from the public.
To meet this challenge we have added (again, see How Loud Is Too Loud?) a requirement that both dBA and dBC noise data be published by the wind industry. The dBC frequency scale has a flat, uniform response throughout the audible range and thus is a better measure of any noise rich in low frequency sound. We propose wind turbine setbacks must meet both dBA and dBC limits.
I did an actual instrumentation analysis of the Larry Wunsch (YouTube) turbine noise recorded outside his front door. My measured noise characteristics agreed with the manufacturer’s claimed noise emission. Both sets of data show excessive low frequency noise outside the Wunsch home, and they show the dBC (broadband) turbine noise to be 13 dB higher than the dBA (high frequency) turbine noise.
Whenever dBC results exceed dBA results, it is a clear indication that low frequency noise not measured by dBA is in fact present. Noise engineers know this; the general public does not. The industry example of rustling leaves, above, would necessiate dBC one dB ldBA lower than dBA, which is clearly not the case outside Mr. Wunsch’s front door.
Behold the wind industry chicanery (deceit) when it pretends rustling leaves = whispering turbines. Rubbish!
Think of dBA and dBC as tone controls for listening to your favorite music. The treble control being the dBA, and the bass control being the dBC. A uniform random noise is often referred to as white noise. When you reproduce white noise and turn down the treble control (dBA) for reduced highs, and turn up the base control (dBC) for more “boom,” you end up with sound close to the wind turbine noise spectrum.
Or consider this illustration. All propellers produce what’s often called a “haystack” spectrum, where the top of the haystack (peak energy in the spectrum) is determined primarily by the diameter of the propeller circle (twice a blade radius). Think of the whining sound of small model airplanes. Next, think of the engine sound of an ultralight (single-person) aircraft. In this case the engine sound has a lower frequency than the remote-control model airplane. Next, think of the engine sound of a standard, single-engine plane. A Cessna or Piper Cub, let’s say. The engine sound is lower than the ultralight’s. Finally, imagine a B-36 bomber aircraft, where the engine pitch is lower yet.
The point being, as the propeller-sweep-circle-diameter increases, the top of the haystack pitch, or frequency, shifts downward.
Now, graduate to wind turbines. The biggest of them all. Huge propellers sweeping an enormous circle. Propellers so big that the peak of the haystack (peak sound energy) is in the 10 and 20 Hz range–and the peak is no longer audible. Even so, turbine propellers generate plenty of sound energy on the high frequency side, sliding down (increasing frequency) the high frequency side of the haystack, with the result that wind turbine sound spectrum continues to be very audible indeed.
The standard noise meter has had the same two, dBA and dBC, sound weightings since the instrument was invented (around 1940, I believe). The peak in the haystack spectrum for wind turbines is below the frequency range of both human hearing and the range of a standard sound-level meter (10 Hz to 20,000 Hz). In fact, the sound-level meter dBA response becomes increasingly less sensitive to sounds below 500 Hz (2 octaves above middle C on the piano), and has a uniform sensitivity at higher frequencies above 500 Hz. The dBC response, on the other hand, remains uniform thoughout all frequencies above 32 Hz (equivalent to the lowest note on a grand piano) to the upper limit of the instrument (which is 20,000 Hz). The low frequency roll-off below 32 Hz is standardized down to 10 Hz. Thus, this instrument is somewhat useful for near infrasound.
Wind turbines, by the way, do indeed produce infrasound, contrary to misleading statements by some acousticians. Since there is no ANSI (American National Standards Institute) or IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) standard suitable for dealing with wind turbine infrasound, Rick James and I have sidestepped the issue for the time being in our “How To” guide. Rural America will be flooded with wind turbines of questionable value long before a consensus emerges among noise engineers on dealing with wind turbine infrasound. Individuals and communities who are understandably suffering from the infrasound and low frequency noise of turbines cannot wait for ANSI and the IEC to catch up with their dilemma. That’s why my colleague, Rick James, and I have jumped in and made do with the best off-the-shelf technology, instrumentation, and international noise standards currently available. When health and homes are under assault, as the research of Dr. Pierpont and many others makes clear they are, it would be unconscionable for someone with my training to look the other way.
Somehow we need to convince government... that wind turbines must be kept away from people’s homes. That many of these wind farms are in areas of marginal wind energy value makes this even more tragic.
-George Kamperman
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm health effects, Wisconsin wind farm, Wisconsin wind turbine, wind farm noise, wind farm setbacks, wind property values, wind shadow flicker, wind turbine, wind turbine noise
|
Comments Off