“It’s been an ongoing disaster since they started to turn in 2008,” Marilyn said. “Sometimes (the sound) can be compared to a helicopter; it’s not something we are able to get used to.”

According to the couple, David began experiencing sleeplessness and fatigue, which caused them to move into an apartment.

“The turbines chased us from our home and we don’t want what happened to our family happening to yours,” Marilyn said.

Opponents say 45 decibels is still too loud

SOURCE: The Allegan County News, www.allegannews.com

By Daniel Vasko, Staff Writer, 

March 24, 2010

More than 100 Monterey Township residents attended a presentation at Hopkins Middle School by the Citizens for Responsible Green Energy Saturday, March 20. The event was designed to explain the harmful effects of industrial wind turbines that are planned for Monterey Township.

The township has been considering modifying an ordinance regulating their placement since August 2009.

“The purpose of the presentation is to teach people about the turbines and how they will affect and impact their lives and quality of life,” Citizens for Responsible Green Energy member Laura Roys said.

According to another citizens group member, and Western Michigan University senior Nevin Cooper-Keels, township officials have been inefficient with drafting a safe and acceptable ordinance.

“The majority of the board on the planning commission have signed leases with the energy companies,” Cooper-Keels said. “My impression is that it has affected their judgment, and the board seems more concerned with an ordinance that will allow as many wind turbines as possible instead of protecting the community first.”

Township planning commission member Karon Knobloch, who owns an option for an easement with GE along with her husband, said in an interview there was no conflict of interest.

“It’s not a conflict of interest to write rules for (the companies); if it were to affect my home alone in some way then it would be,” Knobloch said. “Nobody wants to be awake all night because of noise; it’s our job to make it as safe and comfortable as possible.”

A major concern in drafting the wind energy ordinance has consistently been the sound levels produced by the wind turbines, and opponents have said the 45-decibel limit on all non-associated dwellings is too high.

Marilyn and David Peplinsky, who reside near wind turbines in Huron County traveled to Hopkins to speak about their experiences living near a wind farm.

“It’s been an ongoing disaster since they started to turn in 2008,” Marilyn said. “Sometimes (the sound) can be compared to a helicopter; it’s not something we are able to get used to.”

According to the couple, David began experiencing sleeplessness and fatigue, which caused them to move into an apartment.

“The turbines chased us from our home and we don’t want what happened to our family happening to yours,” Marilyn said.

Dr. Malcolm Swinbanks, who has worked for 23 years as an engineering consultant in the area of sound and vibration mitigation, said the Peplinskys live near turbines that have a 45-decibel limit—the same limit discussed by the Monterey Township planning commission.

Swinbanks also said wind turbines are known to produce low-frequency sounds that many people will find a disturbance. He also said low frequency sounds will penetrate structures and are amplified the more the background, or ambient, noise is shut out.

“It’s not something you get used to,” Swinbanks said. “(Some people) actually become more and more sensitive to it.”

He also said wind power was not as cost effective as people think, and that turbines have a greater “carbon footprint” and produce more pollution than other methods like nuclear power.

He said wind turbines each contain 20 gallons of gasoline and that the turbines run at only 20 percent efficiency.

The planning commission will meet April 12 to discuss further amendments to the ordinance.

SECOND FEATURE:

Amaranth Substation concerns remain

Orangeville Citizen, www.citizen.on.ca

March 25 2010

By Wes Keller,

A TransAlta Corp. executive said last Wednesday there are no plans to expand the Melancthon wind farm northward into Grey County and, in the meantime, the company would listen to anyone who can offer advice on how to deal with complaints of noise from the transformer substation in Amaranth.

Calgary-based Transalta is the successor to Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. (CHD), and now the owner of Canada’s two largest wind farms with a combined capacity of roughly 400 megawatts – at Melancthon/Amaranth and on Wolfe Island.

Jason Edworthy, Trans- Alta’s director of communications, told Melancthon council last Thursday that CHD is “a jewel in the crown (of TransAlta’s generation network).”

He said the township staff had “done a tremendous job” of accounting for the company’s taxes (segregating the amount to be paid by TransAlta to participating landowners), and said it was “exciting to see the areas” on which the township was spending its amenities payments.

He said the only change likely to be seen in the transition from CHD would be signage. (The sign at the CHD office is still the original.)

Mr. Edworthy did have one concern: the township’s reasoning in its call for a moratorium on wind turbine development.

Mayor Debbie Fawcett responded that “people are wary of health implications,” but Deputy Mayor Bill Hill referred to the reduction of assessments near the transformer substation, and said the township “didn’t want others to come in and potentially reduce all tax assessments in half.”

Mr. Edworthy said the “process (of reassessment) did not consider scientific evidence available publicly.”

In an interview earlier last Thursday, Mr. Edworthy said the CHD substation in Amaranth has had “the most investment in the TransAlta fleet.” He said the company has done everything it could measure to satisfy neighbouring concerns.

He said the substation is in compliance with Ministry of Environment guidelines and has sound barriers plus a new transformer. “We don’t know what to fix. We can’t measure any more. If anyone can tell us how to measure (the problem), we would follow through.”

The substation has two 100-megawatt transformers, adequate for the 200- MW capacity of the Melancthon/ Amaranth (Melancthon EcoEnergy Centre) wind farm.

TransAlta is a giant in the industry by comparison with CHD. It has roughly 80 plants in Canada, the U.S., including Hawaii, and in Australia. Why did it make its hostile takeover bid for CHD?

In a nutshell, it needed CHD’s “green energy” plants and future developments to reduce its carbon footprint.

“We have a lot of coalfired plants,” said Mr. Edworthy. “There’s lots of coal in Alberta. The company recognizes it’s got to go green going forward. CHD was a logical target – hostile at the start but friendly at the end.”

Even with the addition of CHD, TransAlta generation is heavily weighted with coal: 4,967 MW capacity with an added 271 MW under development. It has 893 MW hydro with 18 MW in development, 1,843 MW in gas-fired, 950 MW wind power with another 1,123 in development stages, 164 MW in geo-thermal, and 25 in biomass.

At the moment, 57% of capacity is in coal-fired, and 20% in natural gas. Between them, wind and hydro account for 22% of capacity. On location, 75% of capacity is in Canada, 22% in the U.S., and 3% in Australia.

At the time of the hostile bid last summer, CHD had announced plans to expand its operations by 100 megawatts annually in wind, hydroelectric and biomass as well as, possibly, solar.

Going green, TransAlta also needed the expertise of CHD personnel in wind, water, solar and biomass. So the entire staff complement was simply transferred to TransAlta.

Locally, Mr. Edworthy wasn’t entirely certain of the number stationed at the CHD operations centre, but did say there would likely be a dozen involved, which would be an increase from seven permanent a year or so ago.

Wind farm shut down over safety fears after 150 ft turbine blade falls off

SOURCE: The Daily Record, www.dailyrecord.co.uk

March 23, 2010

Exclusive by Ben Spencer

Europe’s largest wind farm ground to a halt after a 150ft blade snapped off one of the turbines.

All 140 of the giant machines were immediately shut down at the £300million development near Glasgow until they could be inspected.

Engineers at Whitelee wind farm, which is run by ScottishPower Renewables, were trying to work out why the blade came crashing down.

They are looking into whether lightning could have struck the turbine or if it was caused by a mechanical problem.

It sheared off and hit the ground in the early hours of Friday morning in blustery conditions.

Automatic systems alerted operators in the control room to the damage and they immediately closed down the unit.

All 420 blades in the wind farm were being examined following the accident.

Last night, more than 50 turbines were expected to have been inspected and safely returned to operation.

The process is expected to be completed by Friday.

Whitelee wind farm’s visitor centre, which is managed by Glasgow Science Centre and had been due to reopen after the winter break yesterday, stayed shut.

German company Siemens, who supplied the turbines, are also understood to be investigating.

The 360ft turbines are so massive that engineers have been able to climb inside them to try to detect the problem.

Over the weekend, the site at Eaglesham Moor, 13 miles from Glasgow city centre, was cordoned off to keep visitors away. Raymond Toms, 45, a teacher from East Kilbride, spotted the broken turbine as he cycled past on Sunday.

He said: “I was out for a bike ride and I saw one of the massive blades had broken clean off. It was quite unnerving really.

“You can walk right up to these things normally and touch them.

“The public have access to the network of pathways nearby.

“I have grave concerns over the safety of the public, who can walk right up to the turbines.

“It’s worrying that if one of these could fall off then perhaps another one could.

“It’s made me think about going too close, that’s for sure. It’s just lucky this took place at night, when nobody was around.”

Keith Anderson, managing director of ScottishPower Renewables, said: “This type of incident is exceptionally rare and highly unusual.

“However, the safety of our people and the public is our first priority.

“While the investigation into the cause of the incident is ongoing, our engineers continue to conduct an internal and external examination of all turbine blades at the wind farm”.

A spokesman for the firm added: “Investigations are ongoing, and a number of possibilities including mechanical failure and lightning strike are being considered.

“Operators in the 24-hour control room immediately closed the turbine down.

“This is a highly unusual situation. I’ve not heard of this kind of incident happening in 30 years.”

GREEN ENERGY BLUEPRINT

Whitelee was officially switched on in May 2009 by First Minister Alex Salmond.

Each turbine at Whitelee, which started producing electricity in January 2008, stands 360ft high.

The wind farm has 140 turbines that can generate 322 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 180,000 homes.

ScottishPower Renewables have been given permission to add 36 turbines to the site, allowing the wind farm to power 250,000 homes and create up to 300 jobs.

Last week, it was revealed that community groups in East Renfrewshire are to benefit from a fund set up from the development of Whitelee.

The fund will deliver about £140,000 a year for the next 25 years to the area’s council for local groups.

SOURCE: A Photo Blog :: Chicago Photojournalist Alex Garcia

Most people when asked are in favor of wind energy. Green. No foreign oil. No spent fuel rods. Cool-looking turbines.

But when a reporter and I went out to DeKalb County to talk to residents embroiled in a lawsuit surrounding a wind farm installed in an otherwise tranquil setting, we heard quite an earful.

Residents pitted against each other, noise, shadow flicker, lost sleep, stress, dead animals, lower real estate values, lost sightlines. It was a long list of complaints.

Although many people wrote off their grievances as little more than NIMBY, you do have to wonder whether 1400 feet is the sufficient amount of distance that a turbine should be from the foundation of a home.

Landowners who allowed the wind turbines on their properties are to be paid $9000 a year, per turbine, for the privilege. Some had a few. In this economy, I can see it from their perspective too. In this case, however you look at it, the wind blew up a storm.

SECOND FEATURE:

Letter from Dr. Nina Pierpont against siting wind turbines near home

SOURCE: Wind Concerns, Ontario

I am told that wind developers are proposing to build industrial-scale wind turbines as close as 270 meters [less than 900 feet] from people’s homes.

This is a reckless and violent act. The evidence for turbines producing substantial low frequency noise and, worse, infrasound, is no longer in dispute.

The clinical evidence is unambiguous that low frequency noise and infrasound profoundly disturb the body’s organs of balance, motion, and position sense.

The case studies performed by me and other medical doctors have demonstrated unequivocally that people living within 2 km of turbines are made seriously ill, often to the point of abandoning their homes.

There is no doubt among otolaryngologists and neuro-otologists who have studied the evidence that wind turbine low frequency noise and infrasound are seriously disrupting the body’s vestibular organs, resulting in the constellation of illness I have called Wind Turbine Syndrome.

The cure for Wind Turbine Syndrome is simple: Move away from the turbines or shut off the turbines.

The prevention of Wind Turbine Syndrome is even simpler: Don’t build these low frequency/infrasound-generating machines within 2 km of people’s homes.

Governments and corporations who violate this principle are guilty of gross clinical harm. Such governments and corporations should be taken before whatever level of court is necessary to stop this outrage.

I realize these are strong words. They are carefully chosen. They are strong because governments and the wind industry stubbornly—I would add, criminally—refuse to acknowledge that they are deliberately and aggressively harming people. This must stop. The evidence is overwhelming. I repeat, this must stop.

Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD

Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Former Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, New York



Brown County Board committee to join the debate on wind turbines

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

March 21, 2010

By Tony Walter

A Brown County Board committee plans to enter the debate on wind turbines.

The Planning, Development and Transportation Committee will air the controversial topic at its April meeting, although the date hasn’t been set.

The County Board voted Thursday to send the issue to the committee, but committee Chairman Bernie Erickson said there wasn’t enough time to include it on Monday’s meeting agenda.

“We put it off for 30 days because we didn’t think it was enough notice to the public,” Erickson said.

Chicago-based Invenergy LLC has applied to the Public Service Commission to build 100 wind turbines in the towns of Morrison, Glenmore, Holland and Wrights town.

Some landowners have signed contracts with Invenergy while other property owners are opposing the project, claiming it invites health problems and reduced property values.

Erickson said he has no opinion on the issue yet.

“My position is that we represent the people and if they want to make a statement (at the meeting), that’s why we’re there,” he said. “At this moment, we just want to get the facts.”

Supervisor Pat Evans said Thursday that the county should take a stand on the issue because “the PSC is rolling over the people of southern Brown County. We should create a resolution opposing the wind farms.”

Board attorney Fred Mohr told supervisors that wind turbines are a statewide issue and any resolution would be advisory only because the PSC has the authority to grant the permits.

WANT MORE? CLICK HERE TO READ TODAY'S "WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS"

UK Wind Farms Failing to Produce Enough Power

"Too many developments are under-performing. ‘It’s because the developers grossly exaggerate potential.‘The subsidies make it viable for developers to put turbines on sites they would not touch if the money was not available.’

SOURCE: Bureau County Republican,

www.bcrnews.com

Ann Burkey Brezinski

March 17, 2010

I am writing on behalf of Eileen Burkey’s and the late Willard Burkey’s farm located north of Walnut. My great-grandparents purchased and moved to this property in the 1890s.

Since that time, my family has been devoted and faithful caretakers of this acreage. Further, we intend to continue this stewardship for future generations of our family, not just for the benefit of our family but because it is the right thing to do. We are the beneficiaries of a limited, endangered resource that should not be sacrificed.

We will not sign the Wind Project Lease Agreement for four, irrefutable reasons.

First, we will not diminish our tillable acres — either by area or by productivity. To do otherwise is both short-sighted and irresponsible. A wind turbine and its access roadways would decrease our tillable acres. The productivity of the soil would be diminished by compaction and damage to the farm tile system.

Second, we will not sign a contract that provides unilateral “sole discretion” in a LaSalle Street, Chicago limited liability corporate tenant regarding numerous matters concerning our family farm. We are obviously in this for the long haul and will not let our property be irrevocably abused and controlled by outsiders for their financial gain.

Third, the proposed Wind Project Lease Agreement is extremely protective of the wind turbine company, and it does not afford the farm owner the same legal protections. My professional reservations include the potential 70-year duration of the lease and its ramifications upon future generations.

It is impossible to predict the financial viability of the developer or its successors for that time period, or even to gauge the reasonableness of the terms for such a time period. Also, the lease’s list of easement effects will affect the quality of life of anyone in the vicinity of the turbines; this list includes everything from sound pollution to visual blight to air turbulence to radio-frequency interference, to name a few.

I question whether the proposed payment structure is sufficient to compensate for this open-ended list. Further, the lease terms provide that a landowner cannot construct any structure anywhere on his property without first meeting with the developer in order to determine a site that will not impact the developer’s rights. The overriding theme in the proposed lease is clearly the developer’s rights, not the rights of landowners.

Fourth, we are very concerned about evidence showing farmland values are lowered by the existence of neighboring wind turbines. We will not sign a contract that will detrimentally impact the farmland values of our neighbors and friends, and would hope that our neighbors and friends would have the same consideration for us.

Ann Burkey Brezinski

Current 10% Renewables Mandate Costs Too Much, Creates Unneeded Generation

SOURCE: WIEG.ORG

Wisconsin currently has much more energy supply than it has energy demand – indeed, its excess energy supply is more than twice the amount required by law. 

Unfortunately, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin has concluded that Wisconsin’s 10% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) trumps our energy needs, energy costs, and statutory conservation requirements, which effectively renders meaningless those “off ramps” that were intended to serve as a safety valve should the cost of renewable energy become too expensive. 

We currently get about 5% of our statewide needs from renewable generation – and we have a long, expensive way to go to meet even the current 10% RPS.  Yet we have no immediate, or even short term, need for more generation.  Wisconsin is building a lot of unnecessary generation at a premium cost. 

Crane Creek (2008) – Wisconsin Public Service Corporation – $251 million – 99 MW

The Commission concluded that Crane Creek was not needed until at least 2021 and that no new generation was needed until at least 2018.

The Commission models showed that a natural gas turbine was less expensive than a wind farm.

WPSC has a roughly 50% reserve margin - it already has way more energy supply than demand.

Bent Tree (2009) – Wisconsin Power and Light Company – $500 million – 200 MW

The Commission approved Bent Tree with a sales forecast that did not include WPL’s extraordinary loss of electric sales over the past year and more (General Motors, Domtar paper mill and other major energy-intensive companies).

WPL requested and received $30 million in its last rate case (Docket 6680-UR-117) for the up-front construction costs of the wind farm that has not yet put any iron in the ground.

Bent Tree was the biggest line item in a rate increase request of roughly $100 million or 10%.

Blue Sky Green Field (2007) – WE Energies – over $300 million – 145 MW

The Commission approved Blue Sky Green Field even though it expressly concluded that the energy would not be needed until around 2015 - eight years after it approved the project.

The Commission recognized that the Project was more expensive than fossil fuel generation. 

The Commission approved the Project because of WE Energies need to meet its RPS mandate.

Glacier Hills (2010) – WE Energies – up to $452 million – 200 MW

The Commission concluded that WE Energies needed Glacier Hills in order to meet its RPS mandate, not because it needed more generation.

In her concurring opinion, Commission Azar recognized that WE Energies - and the state as a whole - may soon be exporting energy that it does not itself need, given “the current excess of capacity in Wisconsin.”  And yet, the PSC still approved this project.

WE Energies still plans to spend over $1 billion in new projects to comply with the 10% RPS law.

A decade ago Wisconsin’s electric rates were among the lowest in the country; now, its rates are among the highest in the Midwest.  These four wind projects alone will cost ratepayers at minimum $1.5 billion and they are or will soon be producing energy that Wisconsin does not currently need.  The reason the Commission approved these projects was to meet the current 10% RPS mandate, and we are only at 5% statewide right now. 

The Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming recommends boosting the RPS to 25 percent by 2025.  Imagine what a 150% increase in RPS requirement will do to customer bills, at a time when the generation simply is not needed.  We will be generation rich, yes.  But cash poor. 

WANT MORE? CLICK HERE TO READ TODAY'S "WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS"

Glacier Hills Wind Park easement search angers neighbors

SOURCE: Daily Reporter

March 18, 2010