4/12/09 Wisconsin family's peaceful nights, restful sleep, are gone with the wind developer
Fond du Lac Reporter (click here to read at source)
12 April 2009
I am from the town of Empire, which includes the Cedar Ridge Wind Farm.
There are 44 wind turbines in this project, three of them are within a quarter mile (1,320 feet) from our home. I can see 12 from our door.
Now that the towers are working, people are grumbling. You cannot believe how loud these things are! Alliant has had a decibel meter on my tree for four weeks now. I can't wait to get the results. The engineer will be visiting to feel the vibration that the turbines create.
For those of you that are fighting for proper setbacks from your home, do not give up because the results are 20 times worse than even I thought. My wife has not slept in a long time. Here is something she wrote:
Hello family and friends. I want you all to understand what the wind turbines are doing to families who are located too close.
I have reviewed some low-frequency vibration studies and find them to be true since I personally am experiencing most symptoms. Also, take a moment to look at www.windturbinesyndrome.com — it is eye-opening. I am not the only one feeling the effects. It is all over the world.
In 1996 my husband and I had the opportunity to purchase our property of 35 acres to build our dream home a few years later. We were required by the Town of Empire to purchase the 35 acres in order to build our home. Both of us grew up in the country and appreciate the peacefulness. I am sad to say today I wish our dream hadn't come true. I feel betrayed by our township, fellow landowners and by our country.
I haven't had a decent night sleep since last November when the wind turbines were turned on. Each night I need to take a pill to sleep. Sometimes that doesn't even help.
This spring when we are able to open our windows, we will not be able to. I stand outside even now at night when I get home and it truly sounds like I am at O'Hare airport. I can feel the vibrations in my bed at night along with the noise.
My children have noticed not being able to sleep. I have noticed the dogs do not care to be outside for too long in the evening.
We have seen the beginning of flicker in our home. For about an hour right now at 6 p.m., our home has been turned into a disco with the shadow from the blades.
Our tax assessment went up this past year. Farmland has gained in value. I wonder why. Too many wind turbines are taking up the farmland. I know if we even tried to sell our home, it isn't salable — this is a term the appraiser used. The turbines do not affect our value, but they affect our salability. Does that make sense?
I am for renewable energy, but why so close to people's homes? Why our homes? Why not in the ocean, deserts or maybe in someone else's backyard?
When I grow old enough to retire, I will move from this place to somewhere peaceful — that is if I can grow old.
The next time you take a drive to the country and say how beautiful the wind turbines are, pull over, turn your car off, get out and listen. I know I can't hear the crickets or the frogs anymore. I can't even hear the horses next door playing in the pastures.
Tony S. Moyer and his wife reside in the town of Empire near Eden.
Red Alert, Wisconsin
Note from the BPWI Research Nerd : After spending the night in the Forward Energy Wind Farm on April 9th, and getting even the smallest idea of what the people in the wind farms of Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties are being forced to live with because of inadequate setbacks approved by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, I urge you to contact your legislators as soon as you can and let them know that Senator Plale's Turbine Siting Reform bill is a receipe for disaster.
Though the bill mentions no specifics about setbacks, noise limits, and other siting concerns, it is very clear about giving turbine siting approval to the PSC.
The PSC approved the siting of turbines 1000 feet from non-participating residents homes, and a noise limit of 50 decibels. Families in the PSC approved wind farms of Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties are now having a hard time living with the disastrous results.
After you read it, please contact your legislators (click here to find out who they are and how to contact them) and let them know if they want wind turbine siting reform, it should be based it on the Town of Union's Large Wind Ordinance. The guidelines used by the PSC were provided by an out-of-state utility with a keen interest in siting as many turbines as possible in any given area, and no interest in protecting public health, safety, welfare, and property values.
(Click here to download the Union Ordinance)
Having trouble with turbine noise or shadow flicker? Want to get your story told? Contact us by clicking here. Better Plan, Wisconsin is ready to help!
4/11/2009 Want to buy a house in a wind farm? Yes or No? How Johnsburg residents answered a survey about about life with Industrial Wind Turbines.
Red Alert, Wisconsin
The PSC approved the siting disasters in the wind farms of Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties, allowing 400 foot tall turbines to be built as close as 1000 feet from non participating neighbors homes.
All photos taken by Town of Byron Wind Farm Resident, Gerry Myer, April of 2009
The Johnsburg Survey
In May of 2008 in Johnsburg, Wisconsin, 88 industrial scale wind turbines officially went on line. When asked about their experiences with living with turbines sited so close to homes, residents made it clear they are having problems living with the results of the PSC approved siting.
After you read the the results of the Johnsburg Survey, please contact your legislators and ask them not to support Senator Plale's Wind Turbine Siting Reform bill. Tell them we need a bill which will protect Wisconsin residents with a minimum setback of 2640 feet from homes. Scroll down to the end of this post to find out more.
Wind farm project area in red
On May 18, 2008, after nearly a year of construction, the Blue Sky/ Green Field wind plant officially went on line. It consists of 88 industrial-scale turbines in the Johnsburg area of Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. Each turbine is nearly forty stories tall.
Residents of the Johnsburg, WI area who live within one half mile of at least one wind turbine were sent survey questions about the impact of the turbines on their lives. Forty six per cent returned the survey, many with additional comments.
Here is a summary of the 219 responses that were received.
A. If you could do it over, would you have turbines on your property or near your home?
60% said NO, including 30% of those currently hosting a turbine.
B. What problems have you encountered?
1. TV, radio reception – 57% (124) now have a problem with TV or radio reception
2. Shadow Flicker - 52 % (113) stated they have a problem with shadow flicker
3. Noise – 50 % (108) stated yes, noise is a problem
4. Look of the landscape – 49% (108) dislike the new views
5. Cell phone reception – 30% (66) now have cell phone reception problems
6. Construction concerns – 21% (47) cited problems during the installation
7. Impact on plants and animals – 11% (25) indicated problems
C. Would you approve an expansion for more turbines in your area? (Phase II)
63% said NO, including 26% of the respondents that indicated they already host a turbine.
D. How far should a turbine be placed from a home?
62% indicate a setback should be 1/2 mile or more; only (22%) support the Wisconsin Public Service Commission setback of 1,000 ft.
E. When asked about building or buying a home,
71% said not closer than 1/2 mile to a turbine.
F. What Health problems does your family experience that you attribute to the turbines?
33% indicated at least one of the following problems: Sleep Loss; Headaches; Nausea; Stress; or Seizures, with 25% stating their sleep was disturbed at least once per week.
G. In addition to these impacts on humans,
30% indicated negative effects on pets, farm animals or wildlife.
H. How do you think the wind farm has affected your property value?
58% stated their property lost value. Estimates of loss ranged from 10% to 60%.
Comments also received from those responding:
#1: I know we need alternate energy sources, but we were told they (turbines) were not noisy and they are extremely noisy.
#2: Very noisy, cannot open my windows in the spring, summer or fall.
#3: Noise is loud – you can’t hear birds in the morning or turkey gobbling. Can’t sleep with windows open. Cannot hear deer coming down trail when hunting. My home was here first!
#4: Usually they (turbines) sound like a prop plane flying over ready to land. In a rainstorm they moan and groan. If it’s windy they sound like distant thunder.
This used to be God’s country, now it looks like the “Twilight Zone” day and night. In order to receive ‘green’ energy from the wind farm, we have to pay an extra $1 per day. That’s $365 per year. This energy is on the grid and being used in southeastern Wisconsin, not here where we are inconvenienced.
#5: Ringing in my ears – it stops when I leave the area, comes back as soon as I come back in the area. My neighbors complained of it also. We can’t leave the windows open at night in warm weather because of the loud roaring or airplane noise from the turbines. When it’s windy they get louder yet. We also can’t sit outside in the summer.
#6: Rumbling at times when windy, can’t sleep. They should be put in an area where they can be uniform and not scattered around.
They should be put on a ledge where land is not disturbed. The water ways were real bad last year. Water was rerouted and there is constant ground work being done.
#7: I built in the country for peace and quiet. I do not have the “quiet of the night” anymore.
I do not hear bullfrogs, owls, or mourning doves and we live in a semi-wooded area.
I believe in wind energy, but not in a populated area. I signed a document to allow a wind mill to within 1000 feet of my home – I screwed up! I have a different opinion now!
#8: The quiet country life that we had is now gone. Stone quarries and salvage yards are only allowed to operate from 7:00 till 5:00 weekdays, till noon on Saturdays, and closed on Sundays. Why not the windmills – they are a business too?
People are not even able to build on their own property because the town board will not allow them to build closer than 1000 feet from the windmill!
People in this area no longer have any say in what happens on their own property and this is wrong. How do we get green out of a pile of scrap iron that is inefficient and a large eye sore in large areas compared to coal plants in a small area creating large amounts of energy that are still required when the windmills are not operating? And Flight for Life can not land due to wind turbulence!
#9: I think land owners and homeowners should do their homework before jumping at the almighty $Dollar. They (turbines) are an eyesore for the nice community we used to have.
My advice, don’t go through it, you’ll be sorry. In summer I cannot open windows due to the noise. People come to visit and they cannot believe people have to put up with them (turbines).
#10: Takes away from our beautiful sunrises and sunsets. We have to close windows. (to sleep)
#11: Flicker wakes you up in the morning whenever it is sunny. Very upset with the Shadow Flicker.
They say we are too far away from the windmills to qualify for the “blind program” but we still get shadow flicker all the time.
I video- taped it, gave it to them, and it still doesn’t matter. Very unhappy with the service.
#12: Dogs run in circles when flickering.
#13: The flicker causes heart rhythm problems – tachycardia. There are no quiet times outside unless the wind stops. WE Energy at times keeps the blades turning for appearance sake even though the unit is off the grid and not generating power. I would much rather have another nuclear power plant. {Note: one nuclear submarine would supply the power that the entire Johnsburg project does.)
#14: All our radios have severe static since they (turbines) went up and turned on. The “Holy Land” has lost its beauty. We are concerned about wells and water going bad.
#15: We had Monarch butterflies for 5 years. Now we have not had Monarch butterflies the first year. It (turbine) ruins the beautiful sunset.
#16: They (turbines) should not be closer than 2 miles to house.
#17: If the state is mandating the building of these units (turbines), why are there none on state property?
#18: Siting should be from property line and further from homes.
#19: They are too close to residences. We believe WE Energy was not honest with homeowners and farmers. Wondering what plans are for more in towns of Taycheedah, Calumet, and Marshfield.
#20: These things suck, put them (turbines) in an open area away from homes.
#21: Flight for Life not being able to land within ¼ mile of a wind turbine during daylight and not at all at night is a huge concern…learned about this through talking to other residents.
#22: We will be lucky if we are able to sell our house.
#23: Who will buy our home now? Why can’t someone help us now before the next 40 turbines go up in the same area? Farmers signed a contract under the table – we had no say in anything.
We can’t build a shed – it was too big so they say- but they can approve of these damn, good-for –nothing wind farms. Closed windows – still can hear them damn things. Tell people to fight back before it’s too late.
#24: I’d go where I don’t have to look at them! I am mad that our whole 75 acres is under lease, instead of the 40 (acres) I thought it was. I was upset people were so eager to sign the contract without lawyers… Get a lawyer. (Editor’s Note: Husband is upset but does not want to go public – they host turbines)
#25: What happens in years to come with underground wires? Stray voltage? That is awful to deal with – we had it here years ago.
#26: I built my house in the country because I like the view - rolling hills not turbines.
#27: My neighbor and I were good friends for over 27 years. Now that he has 2 turbines on his land, he ignores me completely and we never talk. He won’t even wave anymore. I noticed approximately 10 less species of birds in the summer of ’08. This winter I had fewer wood peckers, cardinals, blue jays, juncos, and no finches at my bird feeder.
#28: Our area used to get along well; lots of neighbors and relatives not talking now.
# 29: As a licensed WI Real Estate Agent I sold 2.95 acres (3 parcels) with lake views for $12,000. The three had listed for $86,700. The seller was forced to sell at the low figure (caused by the presence of the turbines) for personal health reasons.
#30: In 2006 prior to the installation of the turbines we attempted to sell our home and had two interested buyers who had viewed it twice. I had to disclose the town decision to allow windmills in our area and one party said they did not want to live around turbines and the other party stopped calling. We still have not sold. (2009)
IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING SENATOR PLALE'S TURBINE SITING REFORM BILL FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD :
It should be noted that Senator Plale will have no wind turbines in his district, and no constituents who will be affected by this bill. The main impact will be on residents of rural Wisconsin.
Though the bill mentions no specifics about setbacks, noise limits, and other siting concerns, it is very clear about giving turbine siting approval to the PSC.
The PSC approved the siting of turbines 1000 feet from non-participating residents homes, and a noise limit of 50 decibels. Residents in the PSC approved wind farms of Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties are now having a hard time living with the disastrous results.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD SENATOR PLALE'S BILL
After you read it, please call your legislators (click here to find out who they are and how to contact them) and let them know if they want wind turbine siting reform, it should be based it on the Town of Union's Large Wind Ordinance, not a recycled ordinance guidelines provided by an out-of-state utility.
(Click here to download the Union Ordinance)
4/6/09 Noise, Noise and More Turbine Noise: Who ya gonna to call?
From the East Coast to the West Coast, complaints about wind turbine noise continue to pour in, but is anybody listening?
Windmills in Ore. generating complaints about noise, possible health effects
6 April 2009
Wind turbines may supply power without pollution but they are also generating complaints in Eastern Oregon about noise and even possible health effects for people who live near them.
Wind turbines may supply power without pollution but they are also generating complaints about noise and even possible health effects for people who live near them.
Dan Williams says the 240-foot-tall turbines he can see from his hilltop home near Boardman in Eastern Oregon make so much noise they keep him awake at night.
Williams is among neighbors along Highway 74 demanding that Morrow County enforce state noise regulations on the Willow Creek Wind Energy Project or revoke its land-use permit.
The 40-year-old construction contractor told The Oregonian newspaper in Portland that wind-energy companies downplay the noise.
“They said this is going to be about as loud as your refrigerator in your house, which is a crock,” he said.
With Oregon on track to triple its wind-energy production in coming years, concerns are likely to increase.
Oregon wind farms already generate 1,000 megawatts, enough to power as many as 300,000 homes, said Lou Torres, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Energy.
Wind farms to produce an additional 2,000 megawatts are in the works, he said, giving the state a total of about 2,000 turbines, many taller than the Statue of Liberty when blades are pointed up.
“When that (work) is completed in the next couple of years, we will probably be fourth or fifth in the country on wind energy,” Torres told The Oregonian.
Many are planned for Columbia Plateau in Morrow, Sherman, Gilliam, Wasco and Umatilla counties.
The Oregon Facilities Siting Council last July approved a 909-megawatt farm with 305 turbines spread over 32,000 acres in Gilliam and Morrow counties, being developed by Caithness Energy of Chicago.
But the backlash is getting some attention.
In January, a Massachusetts company yanked plans for a wind farm outside The Dalles after opponents complained that it would be too close to homes, ruin spectacular Columbia River Gorge vistas and put wildlife at risk.
Other critics, including some in Oregon, cite work by a New York doctor who coined the term “wind turbine syndrome” to describe effects such as headaches, dizziness and memory loss of living near the machines.
“This thing is not rare,” Dr. Nina Pierpont of Malone, N.Y., said of the syndrome.
Industry representatives dismiss such talk.
Shawna Seldon, spokeswoman for the American Wind Energy Association in Washington, D.C., said her group is unaware of any peer-reviewed research linking wind turbines and negative health effects.
Likewise, Mike Logsdon of Invenergy, the 6-year-old Chicago company that built the Willow Creek farm, also said there is no evidence suggesting the turbines cause health problems.
Still, another resident of the area, Mike Eaton, agrees with Williams and other neighbors who complain about the noise and vibrations from the turbines.
The retired 61-year-old furniture maker said the turbines give him nausea by aggravating inner-ear and balance problems he’s had since a 1966-67 tour in Vietnam subjected him to the constant pounding of an Army 155-mm artillery piece.
“I cannot live where I’m living now with these decibels and vibrations,” he said.
Carla McLane, Morrow County planning director, said health issues never came up during planning for the 72-megawatt Willow Creek project. The county approved the farm in 2005, and turbines began operating this past December.
But Ryan Swinburnson, an attorney for Morrow County, said officials take the complaints seriously.
“The county’s position is if there is a violation, the violating party needs to correct it,” he said.
Wind turbine noise fuels frustration in Oklahoma
By Randy Ellis
3 April 2009
Roger Mills County resident Scott Shillingstad said the noises emitted by wind turbines on a neighbor’s property are worse than annoying.
They’re unbearable.
“It sounds like we have an international airport next door to us,” Shillingstad said. “Our health is being threatened. We’re about ready to abandon our property.”
Shillingstad said he lives within 2,000 feet of the nearest turbines, which emit both high- and low-frequency sounds.
“We hear the thumping and swooshing all night long,” he said, adding that some noises sound like the combination of a high-pitched jet engine roar and the rhythmic thumping of a Laundromat.
“It rattles the windows,” said Shillingstad, 56. “My blood pressure has gone through the roof. I’ve been getting headaches, and I’ve never had headaches all my life.”
Shillingstad said he has called every state agency he can think of seeking help and now is communicating with the Environmental Protection Agency.
“All I’m trying to do is bring a little attention to our plight,” he said. “This phenomenon is going to be happening all over the state of Oklahoma. Right now, there are no state or federal regulations. They don’t take into consideration anybody’s right to privacy or right to peace.”
Cohocton not dealing with leaseholder noise complaints
The Town of Cohocton announced Monday it will no longer be dealing with any noise complaints generated by residents who lease property with wind energy developer First Wind.
The town board sent an open letter to the media Monday afternoon outlining its intentions on monitoring noise generated by the 50 wind turbines erected in the town in 2008 following complaints by residents and leaseholders involved with the project.
“Over the past few weeks, a resident of the Town of Cohocton, Hal Graham, has been lodging complaints with First Wind, the owner of the Town of Cohocton’s two wind farms, members of the Town Board, other State and local elected officials, and the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer concerning noise levels at his home,” the letter states.
Under the town’s wind law, the letter states, there is a distinction between participating landowners — like Graham, who has several turbines on his property — and non-participating landowners.
“The town wanted to allow those persons in the town signing leases or setback waivers to make their own decisions about the use of their land, without constraining any particular landowners’ ability to negotiate with First Wind,” the letter states. “Participating landowners are viewed under the Town’s local laws as, in essence, First Wind’s co-applicants.”
The board heard complaints on noise generated from the 50 turbines on top of Pine, Lent, Dutch and Brown hills around Cohocton at its Feb. 23 meeting. At the meeting, Graham — a Lent Hill resident — addressed the board and asked if there was anything the town could do about the turbines on his property.
“They (First Wind) told us we wouldn’t hear anything at 900 feet,” he said at the meeting. “The noise is so great that my windows are vibrating.”
The letter Monday said it will not be dealing with Graham’s problems.
“While we are hopeful that First Wind will be responsive to Hal’s concerns and the concerns of any other ‘participating’ landowners, the Town will not compromise its ability to address legitimate complaints received from the owners of ‘non-participating’ parcels by taking on a ‘participating’ parcel owner’s problems,” the letter states, continuing to explain that the town’s laws on wind noise do not apply to participating landowners and they must file their complaints with First Wind.
Non-participating residents’ complaints will receive the town’s attention, though.
The current procedure for complaints is to call a toll-free number belonging to First Wind, which rings into the office located on Main Street in Cohocton. From there, First Wind officials will schedule a time for the town’s and the company’s wind turbine noise consultants to test the property and determine if there are violations of the wind law.
“If First Wind does not adequately respond to your complaint, then follow up with the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer,” the letter states.
Calls to Cohocton town Supervisor Jack Zigenfus, who sent the letter to The Evening Tribune, and Graham were not immediately returned.
By Bob Clark
Windmills a sound investment?
April 6, 2009 by Mary Perham in Corning Leader
Editor's note | This is the first part of a two-part look at developing concerns over wind farms in parts of Steuben County.
Bath, N.Y. - In early January, the blades in the 53-turbine First Wind project in the town of Cohocton began to spin. It was the first project in Steuben County to generate renewable energy and one of five under consideration in the county.
Within weeks, dozens of Cohocton residents went to the town board in neighboring Prattsburgh to warn that the machines were proving to be noisy and harmful.
"Don't let (the developers) buffalo you," Cohocton resident Hal Graham told the Prattsburgh Town Board in late February. "You know, I wanted to do something for the environment. And now I can't sleep at night."
Graham initially supported wind farm development.
Prattsburgh is the site of two wind farms planned by developers First Wind and EcoGen. Other projects have been proposed in the towns of Hartsville and Howard.
Since wind farms in Steuben County were first proposed in 2002, developers have admitted it's hard to miss seeing the 400-foot-high turbines, but insisted they sound no louder than a refrigerator's hum.
The projects have been promoted throughout the largely rural county as a quiet, inexpensive and environmentally-friendly way to provide renewable energy.
Environmental studies for Cohocton and Steuben County led to restrictions of the turbines' sound to a maximum comfort level of 50 decibels. Setbacks were established to assure both noise and other potential dangers such as shadow flicker and flying debris were lessened.
Yet the promised "refrigerator hum" of the turbines was a falsity as residents began to compare the sound to the roar of a jet engine, according to Graham.
The Cohocton residents are among a growing number of people across the nation complaining the noise made by wind turbines is intrusive and disturbing. Medical professionals have compiled studies showing the noise can pose health hazards.
And the wind industry is beginning to take notice.
In Maine, where the state welcomed renewable energy, the Mars Hill project has been widely criticized for being noisy.
According to a March 26, 2008 report by the Daily News in Bangor, Maine, UPC Wind president and CEO Paul Gaynor said the company would do a better job in the future about letting local residents know what to expect from wind farms.
"I know there was an expectation (in Mars Hill) about what these were going to sound like," Gaynor told the Daily News. "These are big structures and they do make sound."
Shortly after Gaynor spoke to the Maine newspaper, the firm changed its name to First Wind. It was formerly known as Global Winds Harvest/UPC.
Local officials said they have relied on the best information available and worked to ensure the safety of residents.
Steuben County Industrial Development Agency Executive Director James Sherron said the agency has regulatory standards based on data from the state Department of Environmental Conservation and state Energy Research Development Agency.
The Steuben County IDA has established minimum distances that wind turbines can be to a residence, called a setback. There are also limits on decibel levels.
But Sherron said he has heard reports of 110 decibels in Cohocton -- twice the accepted limit - and added any violations would go through a process of sound studies to decide the best way to solve the issue.
"We have a responsibility with the developers, they have to meet the criteria," Sherron said. "They could be asked to slow down the turbines, find alternatives. It could mean the unit would be removed."
Sherron said another factor in the noise may be the model of machine used in Cohocton.
While SCIDA initially reviewed 1.5 megawatt turbines, the five wind farm developers looking to do business in the county indicated they would be installing 2.3 megawatt turbines. The larger turbines were approved because SCIDA's consultants said there was no significant difference in their impact, Sherron said.
But all models under consideration are capable of exceeding 100 decibels at a maximum speed of 30 feet per second, according to a report to SCIDA by developer EverPower.
Typically, the blade rotation is reduced to lower speeds.
Yet some sound experts charge the current "acceptable" range of 45-50 decibels is excessive, and twice as loud as some background rural noise recorded at 20-25 decibels.
Acoustical engineer Richard James warned the noise is not only nerve-wracking, but poses health risks now being studied in the U.S. and in Europe, where wind farms have operated for nearly 20 years.
James likened the potential long-term effect of wind farms to the now-notorious region near Buffalo, where officials paved over the toxic waste which later poisoned residents.
"This is like Love Canal," he said.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in wind farm health effects, wind farm noise, wind farm noise
|
Comments Off
3/29/09: What a Congressional Research Report says about setbacks: Why not read it? You paid for it. AND Why won't the Wisconsin State Journal tell the whole story?
Why did the people who once lived in this house have to abandon it?
And why won't the Wisconsin State Journal take this issue seriously?
The home in the photo above was made uninhabitable by wind turbine noise and vibration. The family who once lived here were forced to abandon their home in 2006. Three years later, it remains empty and unsold. To read more about this story, click here
When the United States Congress asked the Congressional Research Service to prepare a report on Wind Power in the United States, what setbacks did energy policy experts recommend in order to mitigate problems associated with turbine noise and shadow flicker?
The answer can be found on page 32 of the report: a minimum setback of 2640 feet.
American taxpayers spend nearly $100 million a year to fund the Congressional Research Service, a "think tank" that provides reports to members of Congress on a variety of topics relevant to current political events. We paid for this report. We'd like our lawmakers to pay attention to the results.
While wind developers continue to assert the adequacy of setbacks as close as 440 feet from participating landowner's homes, and 1000 feet from non-participating resident's homes, and as they continue to downplay serious noise and shadow flicker problems documented by residents of wind farms in Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties in Wisconsin, there is pending legislation which would make such setbacks mandatory for the entire state. (click here to find out more)
There is legislation to give Wisconsin State residents considerably less protection than recommended by the energy policy specialists who authored the Congressional Research Report entitled,
Wind Power in the United States: Technology, Economic, and Policy Issues
Download the entire Congressional Research Report report by clicking here
Order Code RL34546
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Report prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
June 20, 2008
Page 32:
"All wind turbines produce mechanical and aerodynamic noise. Noise is thus a siting criterion for regulatory purposes.
Early wind turbine models were often loud, especially downwind versions (blades behind the generator). Newer models are designed to minimize noise.
Like visual aesthetics, wind turbine noise is often a matter of individual preferences and tolerances. For residences over 1 kilometer (0.6 miles) from a wind turbine, noise is generally not an issue.
Shadow flicker, also know as shadow casting or blinking, is defined as alternating changes in light intensity caused by the moving blades casting shadows on the ground or objects.
No flicker shadow will be cast when the sun is obscured by clouds or when the turbine is not rotating. This phenomenon can be annoying for residents who live very close to turbines.
Computer simulations can help project developers position turbines so that flicker does not interfere with nearby residences. Shadow flicker generally does not affect residences located 10 rotor diameters or more (about 0.5 miles) from the turbine, except possibly early in the morning or late in the evening when shadows are long.
Jeffrey Logan and Stan Mark Kaplan
Specialists in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
QUESTION:
Why won't the Wisconsin State Journal investigate the source of the PSC's 1000 foot setback? Why won't they send a reporter to investigate complaints of problems with turbine noise, shadow flicker and homes that will not sell in the wind farms of Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties? Why do they continue to use the word "NIMBY"?
To read the Wisconsin State Journal "Nimby" editorial which ran on March 20, 2009, click here.
This editorial cartoon ran on March 23, 2009
Readers sent in their responses, here is one of them:
"Your editorial on Friday, March 20, and your editorial cartoon on March 23 look more like a PR campaign in support of proposed legislation than a reasoned position and would have far more credibility if the WSJ had actually done some reporting on the issue of the placement of wind turbines too close to homes, rather than just editorializing.
It seems inconsistent that the WSJ with its strong interest in public information would not have investigated how the Public Service Commission arrived at their minimal setbacks.
As desirable as wind is as an alternative, non-fossil fuel source of energy, large turbine wind farms have already caused harm to Wisconsin residents where wind turbines have been placed too close to their homes. Anyone wanting to get an idea of living next to a large wind turbine can type in "wind turbines" at YouTube or look at betterplan.squarespace.com.
You trivialize the experiences of these people by your insistence on the NIMBY cliché.
Doug Zweizig
For residents of Wisconsin wind farms who are having trouble living with the noise and shadow flicker caused by 400 foot tall wind turbines sited too close to homes, the cartoon felt more like this:
This response was sent to the Wisconsin State Journal from the BPWI Research Nerd, who also did the alteration on the editorial cartoon above.,
"Dear Editor,
For the residents of the wind farms in Fond du Lac and Dodge County who are now suffering from turbine noise and shadow flicker problems, whose kids can’t sleep at night, and whose homes can find no buyers, the cartoon you featured of the man screaming the word “NIMBY” added to their hopelessness of ever having their story told.
Personally, that cartoon made me wonder why the Wisconsin State Journal is either ignoring this story or purposefully suppressing it. As journalists, you have an obligation to present the whole story. Instead, you consistently brush off the other side of the story off with the word “NIMBY”.
Why?
Even the evening news in Milwaukee at least took the issue seriously enough to send a reporter. Would you like to see what he found?
Here’s the report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiSpToi982A
I’m a writer and a cartoonist and I’ve been working in print media all of my life. I’ve never had this experience with a paper before. Your absolute unwillingness to investigate the problems associated with putting turbines too close to homes and too close to sensitive wildlife areas is unlike any journalistic practice I know of. What on earth is behind it?
I’ve done work for NPR, the New York Times, The LA Times, Newsweek, Esquire, Salon.com and many other national and local publications. I tell you this in the hopes that you may pause and at least momentarily regard me as a colleague, before you write me off as yet another NIMBY.
As a colleague, I’m telling you there is a BIG Wisconsin story here. There are big problems. People are in misery. Why won’t you cover this story?
Home for sale, near the Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin Winter 2008
All of the following photos were taken in the last year in Fond du Lac and Dodge counties.
MORE RESPONSES TO THE MARCH 20th EDITORIAL:
"I bet none of the pro wind people commenting on sound or health effects live in an industrial wind farm.
I live in the Forward project erected by Invenergy of Chicago, IL. It is h- - -, to put it mildly.
For you who say you drove out and parked under a wind turbine and didn't hear any annoying sound you are not too bright, but you do fit right in to the energy company's way of doing business.
They take people out, park at the base of a turbine and let them to listen.
I thought we all knew sound [...] emanates from the source. In the case of large industrial wind turbines the sound is louder at 1500’ than 1000’ at my house.
To [the person who was] commenting on shadow flicker that “a camera is linear vs. the eye which is logarithmic” is nonsense to the families that are experiencing shadow flicker.
It is somewhat like a child turning the light switch on and off as fast as he can or a camera flash going off continuously.
Energy companies say shadow flicker is minimal and “can” be eliminated by [pre-construction]computer [modeling]programs.
Can be, but won’t be eliminated. Is 41 minutes a day twice a year for six weeks, minimal? [84 days out of the year--]. I don’t think so.
Sound is like that of a jet taking off or flying over, but it continues for days at a time. Often two of the industrial turbines are pounding away with the sound of a Chinook helicopter lifting a heavy load.
Some pro-wind people say “I live near the highway, or train tracks or airport.
First of all those sounds last a few minutes at a time. Industrial wind turbines emit their sound for hours and days-at-a-time emitting low frequency noise that often we may not hear, however the body knows is present, therefore sleep is non-existent, or interrupted.
Some feel their sleep is OK, but no longer dream-- meaning no deep sleep.
Many of the residents of this Invenergy industrial wind farm are experiencing many health affects from the constant sound and vibrations such as: migraines and other headaches, dizziness, nausea, loss of balance, tenseness, anxiety, lack of motivation, loss of memory and ringing and buzzing in the ears to list a few.
Energy companies like to say the sound is about as loud as your refrigerator. That is BS. Or they say it is soothing like the wind blowing in the trees or the waves on the ocean. Absolute BS.
I have already listed what they really sound like. What is most annoying is the pro wind. “green” and renewable people believe the outrageous lies of the energy companies, yet [disregard] the first hand experiences of the people who live in large industrial wind farms.
You see on TV the beautiful golden grain with the slow turning turbines. That is just another lie, but it does influence the uneducated.
Mr. Vickerman of Renew Wisconsin states that at 1000’ wind turbines are barely audible. I know the industrial wind turbines are always very audible at over 1500’ away. The only time the turbines are not audible is when they are not turning.
If wind energy is viable let private industry develop it without our tax dollars and production incentives. It wouldn’t happen because it is extremely expensive and horribly inefficient.
The Forward project in the second and third quarter of last year produced at 28 and 17.5% of its capacity respectively. At the same time the Point Beach nuclear facilities produced at 99 and 87% of it’s capacity. One quarter was lower due to shut down for refueling.
The project engineer at the Blue Sky project in Johnsburg told me the turbines are designed to be 27 to 30% of their capacity.
Wind energy is clean? Do you think about where the iron ore comes from? Do you think about the energy to smelt the 100,000’s of thousands of pounds of steel for each turbine?
Do you think about how those components get to the leased land to be erected and the trucks used to haul all the gravel for the access roads and the concrete bases to name just a few of the [construction requirements]? Do you think wind energy reduces carbon output? Maybe it increases it?
The environmental impact statement for this project says that wildlife will not be negatively impacted.
In the last year I have seen one turkey and no deer. We used to see 16 to 20 turkeys almost daily and deer in our gardens. Other neighbors have experienced the same findings.
Another lie of the energy companies is that property values actually go up in an industrial wind farm.
Properties for sale in this wind farm for sale since last spring don’t even get lookers or as soon as they ask about the turbines they leave.
What the State of Wisconsin needs a moratorium on industrial wind turbine construction until all the health issues can be understood, reduce the renewable portfolio standards our legislature has required and leave the siting of the industrial wind turbines to local governments.
The Public Service Commission is responsible for the inexcusable set backs and sound standards we now are forced to live with. There no longer is quality of life for those that live in the industrial wind farms of Wisconsin."
Another Response:
"The last thing that industrial wind power can do is stop the burning of coal in coal burning power plants.
What industrial scale wind turbines can do is give a funny looking greenish hat to a coal dependent electrical utility industry.
Lets face it Industrial wind turbines are the green energy (ENRON) scam we have all been fearing. Wind turbines aren't base load, wind turbines aren't reserve load. They are just intermittent load that the transmission grid people (ATC), has to deal with,
This why Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPS) wants to build a power line up to Manitoba Hydro's reservoirs north of Lake Winnipeg, in Canada, so it doesn't have to pay to put WPS wind generation on the grid at night at a loss.
Industrial wind is such a loser of a renewable energy option for Wisconsin. Check out the Wisconsin Wind Resource Assessment Program (WRAP) Final Report, available at the Focus On Energy website. Wisconsin rate payers pay for this site.There is also the AWS Truewind report. Both play up winds potential, but end only showing a "marginal" to "fair" wind resource, especially when compared to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) wind maps. Oh, and the WRAP report states, yeah, guess what the wind blows a lot at night in Wisconsin. So that noise, loss of sleep, health and safety. Yep, thats all real as steel when your operating industrial scale machinery at night.
The safe and reliable answers for Wisconsin are solar and biomass cogeneration and biorefining. Coal is biomass. You replace biomass with biomass. You get jobs. You get money staying in state, and not going to the Powder River Basin. Solar power is grid independence, and insurance against for when the grid goes down. When the grid goes down no industrial wind turbines will turn...or maybe can't stop turning. Nobody has ever heard a solar panel sound like a jet.
Hold on tight Wisconsin, and let this Industrial Wind Scam blow on by."
Another response:
"We all know who the PSC is so let’s look at the definition of stakeholder.
stakeholder : a person or group that has an investment, share, or interest in something, as a business or industry.
Do you seriously believe that The PSC and their friends the stakeholders are going to do anything to develop standards that will restrict the amount of turbines they can install?
Mr. Vickerman at Renew Wisconsin has stated several times that if siting setback distances are increased it will be the end of wind turbine development in Wisconsin.
Most recently he stated that if the distance from a property line was increased from 440’ to 1000’ there would not be a single commercial wind project operating in Wisconsin today.
If the PSC gets control of siting the setbacks will decrease if anything. Any increase in setbacks would be an admission that they have been doing it wrong so far, and that will never happen.
The irresponsible shoehorning of 400’ tall industrial wind turbines must stop.
Wind power is expensive, subsidized $23.37 per MWh compared to $0.25 for natural gas. As taxpayers and rate payers we deserve a better bang for our buck.
Wind power is unreliable and not dispatchable so no coal plants will ever be shut down no matter how many turbines are installed. Coal plants continue to run at full power when wind power is on line, the gas and hydro plants are throttled back, and that is our cleanest form of electric generation.
If the PSC and their stakeholders get their way they will cover over one million acres of land in the next few years. A few of the adverse effects of this large taking of private land are:
1 Loss of Med Flight service for sick or injured citizens.
2 Farmers will loose the ability to crop dust their fields.
3 Wind turbines and tornadoes look the same on Nexrad radar. Meteorologists will not be able to accurately predict the path and location of tornadoes or severe storms.
4 Property values inside wind facilities and a 5 mile boundary outside will decrease by 50% or more.
5 Serious adverse health effects will plague residents especially children under 6 years and adults over 65 yeas.
The good thing is Wisconsin can produce all the clean renewable energy we need without any wind turbines. We have a tremendous bio fuel and bio mass resource. We do not have a wind resource. Wind developer can extrapolate their wind data till they are blue in the face, but they can’t make the wind blow.
Contact your State Representatives, and Senators and tell them not to support the siting reform legislation that will eradicate local control of industrial wind turbines. Your Town, City, and County Board members that you elected know the best way to protect your health safety and welfare.
Nimby: a person who wants to put a turbine in everyone’s back yard except his"
Another Response:
"A picture says a thousand words. Here’s the link to the Governor’s Global Warming Task Force final report. http://dnr.wi.gov/environmentprotect/gtfgw/documents/Final_Report.pdf
On the report page labeled 15, you will see a pie chart showing predictions of electric generation in 2024. Wind turbines do not appear to be the silver bullet that rids us of coal plants and carbon emissions that wishful thinking and unsubstantiated statements claim it to be.
If you look at the pie chart that illustrates wind energy contributions by 2024, the wind share of percentage of output is based on a 29% capacity factor, which other previous posters would acknowledge would be exaggerated.
That information is available on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission site. The chart implies that it's reflecting generated power and not installed capacity.
I think if I’m calculating this correctly, and it of course depends on the size of the turbine, if you take the total amount of projected electricity generation in GWh for 2024, the projected 6% contribution of wind at the projected capacity factor of 29% would be equal to well over 10,000 wind turbines installed by 2024.
Right now if we look at the acreage taken for a new wind project in the state, we have Blue Sky Green Field with 88 turbines stretching over 10,600 acres, that’s an average of 120 acres per turbine.
Over 10,000 wind turbines is over 1,200,000 acres of land under wind turbine owners control, many of them foreign investment companies (look at a land host contract).
That also means $4000 per year per installed megawatt in shared revenues over the life of a project which is 25 to 30 years sponsored by Wisconsin tax payers.
If we take the theoretical 10,000 wind turbines X 1.5MW each that’s 15000 MW X $4000 X 25 years. That’s $60 million a year for 25 years for an energy source that’s not dispatchable, can’t be stored, uses grid power for operations and false starts and does not appear to be freeing us from our dependency on coal or foreign oil at 6% of the total, (coal is still at 56% and look at gas and oil up 15%).
The decisions made concerning this type of electric generation requires a big costly long term commitment with insignificant returns. This of course is on top of the human and wild life impacts which are supported by substantiated documentation."
Another Response:
Industrial wind power has nothing to do with national security, or energy independence from oil. Wind is about a lot of infrastructure dollars being spent in the wrong place for the wrong equipment. Our state government needs to look very carefully at what the wind industry is saying and what it will actually means for the state, it's citizens, and the quality of life going into the future. ... For everyone.
The Governor's Task Force on Global Warming (GTFGW)was working with a chart that showed Wisconsin's electrical generation would reach a total of 92,704 GWh in 2024. Wind generation would be 6% of that total, or 5,562.24 GWh. Now, if the wind turbines are 29% efficient like the GTFGW hopes, each 1.5 MW turbine would generate .435MWh. In order to reach the 5,562.24GWh stated you would need 12,787 wind turbines!
The wind developer in our area stated the turbines would only be 25% efficient, or generate .375MWh each, per year. At that efficiency rate the wind industry would need to install 14,750 1.5mw wind turbines.
And, they'd all be noisy at night, and the noise would get worse as they aged and got dirtier. Much like the wind industry's arguments.
The developer also stated, to the newspaper not to the public, his 100MW ( 67, 1.5MW wind turbines) wind facility would 'cover 6000 to 8000 acres'. If wind turbines that size require 100 acres of 'wind resource', the wind developer's 67 turbine wind farm would gobble up 6,700 acres of Wisconsin farm, home, and wildlife habitat. The wind turbine lease contracts signed by fellow citizens, or school boards, or townships, municipalities, or political subdivisions not here yet mentioned would be binding, and any violation there of would be subject to legal action by the wind developer, which may not find financial compensation sufficient. i.e. the lease signers land too!
When you add all the GTFGW required turbines together that means 1,278,700 to 1,475,000 Wisconsin acres would be bound into wind development contracts for decades and generations.
This doesn't sound like security, this sounds like servitude. When you add in the fact that land owners who sign a wind development lease are being paid $50 per acre of resource, while the wind developer gets between $2,000 to $3,000 per acre of resource, it starts to sound like share cropping.
If Wisconsin wants independence and security it requires the responsible investment in solar. Biomass will replace coal, and oil. The wind industry is no friend of Wisconsin. Oh and if industrial wind is going to be 90% of an eventual 25% renewables by 2025 you have to multiply the number of wind turbines and land grabbing by 4.
Another Response:
" In the opinion article "Don't blow chance for wind power", the phrase "not in my backyard" is used to describe a negative attitude of being resistant to wind farm development.
It's also stated that local governments lack the expertise to evaluate these developments.
So where should a local government turn to if they lack this expertise, to wind companies with financial implications in the development, or doctors and scientists who don't stand to make much, if any money from their expertise?
I would choose the doctors and scientists, which is what the local governments that are adopting stringent ordinances have been doing.
With increases in research and personal accounts of the health problems, property value losses, and even environmental issues caused by wind turbines, there's no wonder why local governments are adopting ordinances which increase the distance that the turbines can be built from homes and businesses.
Even without the issues that are documented by doctors and researchers, all a person has to do is look at articles which are written by people who live by, and deal with the turbines.
It seems almost every area that has a wind farm, also has a great deal of personal accounts of the problems they cause, and this information can be easily found on the internet.
Another question is why are we even talking about wind turbines? With all the issues they cause, their inefficiency, and other options with very few documented issues (solar, geothermal), why are we not putting money towards other options?
It seems that the discussion continues because wind farm developers have a huge financial stake, and have marketed wind as being the best option.
I agree we need to reduce our use of coal and oil, but bringing in another problem energy source is not the answer. Because of all the above, I also agree, NOT IN MY BACKYARD!!!"
CLICK ON THE IMAGE BELOW TO SEE just how close to homes the PSC allows turbines to be sited. Then click on the image below that to see how close they allowed wind developers to site tubines along side Wisconsin's Horicon Marsh, National Wildlife refuge.
Then contact your legislators to let them know the PSC approved the siting of turbines 1000 feet from non-participating residents homes, 440 feet from hosting landowner's homes, with a noise limit of 50 decibels. They allowed turbines to be sited too close to the Horicon Marsh. Residents in the PSC approved wind farms of Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties are now having a hard time living with the disastrous results. Post construction studies are showing bat and bird kills. (Click here to read more about this)
Let your legislators know if they want wind turbine siting reform, it should be based it on the Town of Union's Large Wind Ordinance, not not on numbers provided to the PSC by a Florida Utility. (Click here to read more on this)
(Click here to download the Union Ordinance)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD A DRAFT OF SENATOR PLALE'S BILL
Click on the image below to see just why shadow flicker is so maddening: These images were filmed in various locations inside of the Invenergy wind farm near the Town of Byron, 2008
The BPRC Research Nerd
in wind farm abandoned home, wind farm health effects
|
Comments Off
3/27/09 South of the Border: Why Illinois county of DeKalb said no to Florida Power and Light, and Statement from Environmental Protection, UK
Red Alert, Wisconsin (click here to find out why)
The latest from our neighbors to the south: Why DeKalb County, Illinois said no to Florida Power and Light wind farm.
Florida Power and Light has been denied wind farm zoning approval after a marathon 19 hour hearing last Saturday with over 800 people in attendance. The hearing lasted from 9am until 3:40 am the next morning.
Attorneys for two opposition groups presented evidence as to why the zoning should be denied.
The hearing officer agreed that the information was strong enough to create doubts about the claims, based on eight findings.
To download a copy of the findings, click here.
Hearing officer does not recommend wind farm
Elana Grimm- Daily Chronicle
(click here to read at source)
A hearing officer has recommended the county deny a request for a special use permit to a company that wants to build 133 turbines in parts of southern DeKalb County.
In a March 25 report, DeKalb County Hearing Office Dave Dockus recommended the special use permit that was applied for in January by NextEra Energy Resources be denied based on eight findings.
Those reasons include "significant disagreement" between expert sources on the effect wind turbines have on property values and the effect noise of the turbines has on public health. Dockus also cited a lack of evidence on the impact heavy trucks would have on local roads.
But the officer's recommendation isn't the final say in the matter. The county board's Planning and Zoning Committee is scheduled to meet April 1 to discuss the issue, and will make its own recommendation to the DeKalb County Board.
"The county board has a full range of options in front of it," said Paul Miller, the county's planning director. These include following the hearing officer's recommendation and denying the application, approving the application, approving it with conditions, or tabling it and sending it back to the hearing officer.
"The point is that the hearing officer's recommendation is just that – it's a recommendation," Miller said.
In his report, Dockus stated the company provided an inadequate property value guarantee plan, no clear plan on how it would pay property taxes after the current formula expires after 2011, an inadequate decommissioning process and no plan to correct drainage problems that may result during the proposed project.
Lastly, crop dusting and other farm activity would be affected by the proposed wind farm, Dockus stated in the report.
"I think I'm disappointed," said DeKalb County Board Chairwoman Ruth Anne Tobias, noting that Dockus was the hearing officer who approved a wind farm proposal in 2002.
A 19-hour public hearing on the new proposal was held Saturday at Sycamore High School, after an earlier hearing scheduled in February was canceled because there wasn't enough space for the several hundred who showed. Officials estimate more than 700 attended Saturday's public hearing, which lasted until nearly 4 a.m.
Tobias said she was unsure what course of action would be taken.
"We have done that before – we have gone over the hearing officer's recommendation. I don't know what will happen this time," Tobias said.
Dockus, contacted by Miller's office, denied a request for comment.
Noise Impacts of Wind Farms Must Not be Neglected
24 Mar 2009
Environmental Protection UK1 welcome the report released today by RSPB2, which states that the use of bird sensitivity maps will ensure that wind power and wildlife can co-exist.
We are, however, extremely concerned that some news reporting of this3 has stated that the only obstacle to onshore wind development is now 'Nimbyism'.
There is increasing evidence that if siting of turbines is not properly considered, noise impacts can make homes uninhabitable4.
With larger turbines now the norm, the more than 10 year old guidance used to predict noise from these is being found by acousticians not to be appropriate5.
It is increasingly clear that exceptional care must be taken in siting of turbines to avoid major impacts on communities, as well as wildlife.
"While Environmental Protection UK are wholeheartedly in favour of renewable energy development, this must not be at the expense of avoidable impacts on neighbouring residents." said Mary Stevens, Policy Officer at Environmental Protection UK.
"To say that Nimbyism is now the only barrier to development is a gross oversimplification."
More: Mary Stevens 01273 878770 / 07730 061850
Notes to Editors:
- Environmental Protection UK (formerly NSCA), is the environmental protection charity supported by pollution control professionals. We have been working for a cleaner, quieter, healthier world since 1898.
- Positive Planning for Onshore Wind – RSPB
- BBC Today Programme 24 March - item on wind turbines
- Press report on wind turbines
- Prediction and Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise, Bowdler et al, Institute of Acoustics Bulletin March/April 2009