B is for Basics

Before we look at what the Town of Union Ordinance has to say about setbacks, let's look at some basic information about industrial wind turbines. The picture below shows a size comparison between a barn, a house, the capitol building in Madison, and the turbine size currently proposed for Rock County. Turbines this size are already in place in Fond du Lac and Dodge Counties where the setback is 1000 feet from homes. In other parts of Wisconsin even larger turbines are proposed.

The rotor diameter of the turbines proposed for Rock County is about 269 feet, with each blade approximately 130 feet long. This blade span is wider than the blade span of a Boeing 747. The newer models are even larger.

The video below shows a model of an industrial turbine to scale, along with photos of wind turbines being erected in Fond du Lac County. The final photo in the video was taken near the town of Byron.

Q: When it comes to siting industrial wind turbines, why do we need a minimum of a 2640 foot setback from our homes?

The following is a summary of the findings about setbacks in the Town of Union wind ordinance. Better Plan, Wisconsin, (BPWI) considers this to be the most thoroughly researched and solid ordinance in the state.

(CLICK HERE to download the entire ordinance. Sorce documents and data used to determine these findings are listed in the ordinance)

The Town of Union found that large wind turbines are significant sources of noise, which, if improperly sited, can negatively impact the health of residents, particularly in quiet, rural areas.

The closer people live to a large wind turbine, the more likely they are to experience problems with the different kinds of noise made by industrial scale turbines.

There is the noise that comes from the blades passing through the air, which, depending on wind direction, speed, and other factors, can range from a rhythmic whooshing noise to the sound of a jet engine idling on a runway.

There is the mechanical noise that comes from the nacelle, at the hub of the turbine located at the top of the tower where the blade assembly is attached. The nacelle is as large as a school bus and can weigh upwards of 70 tons.

Industrial wind turbines also create low frequency sounds that we feel in our bodies, like the vibration in your chest when a marching band goes by during a parade, or a car with booming speakers stops beside you at a traffic light.

A minimum setback of 2640 feet from a home is necessary to mitigate the noise impacts that aren’t predicted by the one-size-fits-all sound models typically used by wind developers. Noise may be amplified by the lay of the land, atmospheric conditions, time of day, temperature inversions, wind layers and other factors. Low frequency noise can travel much further and easily penetrates the walls of a home.

Distance is the only thing which reliably lessens the negative effects of turbine noise. At 2640 feet, noise from an industrial wind turbine may still be heard from inside your home, but will be less of a problem than the noise from a turbine sited 1000 feet from your home. Residents whose homes are less than 2640 feet from large wind turbines have complained of trouble living with the noise they make, especially at night, and suffer from the variety of health effects associated with loss of sleep.

Recent studies show that a setback of 2640 feet will significantly reduce noise annoyance and associated adverse health effects, but even at that setback people may still suffer from problems associated with turbine noise, especially in quiet, rural environments. A setback of 5280 feet has been shown to eliminate most noise complaints. Both Germany and France have a setback of a mile.

SHADOW FLICKER

This video of shadow flicker was created by a resident of the town of Byron in Fond du Lac county who lives between two turbines. One, less than 1200 feet from his door, casts particularly harsh shadows on his home and property.

When large wind turbines rotate in sunny conditions, they cast enormous moving shadows that cause a disturbing strobe-like flicker where ever they fall.

When the shadow flicker falls on the windows of near-by homes, the effect is like rapidly flipping a light switch on and off. It is an effect that cannot be avoided by occupants of the house unless windows are completely blacked out.

Shadow flicker can cause some people to become dizzy, nauseated, or lose their balance. At certain speeds they pose the potential risk of inducing photosensitive seizures.

Because of this, the Town of Union finds that wind turbine should be sited so that shadows from the blades do not fall upon the windows of nearby dwellings or 100 feet of dwellings for any considerable period.

If placed too close to a road, the movement of the turbine blades resulting in shadow flicker can distract drivers and lead to accidents.

ICE THROW AND BLADE THROW

Large wind turbines have been known to throw ice and debris from the turbine blades. Ice throws from large wind turbines can reach up to a distance of 1750 feet and blade throws can reach 2500.

WIND TURBINE SETBACK ISSUES IN THE NEWS: 

When You're Fed Up With Turbine Noise, Who Do You Call?

(click here for source)

Ocheyeden, IOWA

DECEMBER 11, 2008

Scott Rueter is fed up with the wind turbines that are near his home and with the company that owns them. Rueter, who was scheduled to voice his complaints to the board of supervisors at their last meeting but canceled because of illness, spent about an hour with the board on Tuesday. He said that the noise from the 2.5 megawatt turbines which are located near his home just east of Harris is overwhelming.

According to Rueter, the constant “whoosh, whoosh, whoosh” along with the noise generated by either the generator itself or a fan which operates in the turbine housing are making life on his farm almost unbearable at times.

Additionally, there is the “shadow effect” which is a problem now that the trees have lost their leaves. Rueter says that for several hours a day, the rotation of the blades cast a shadow inside his house as they turn and it’s “almost like a strobe light, just not as fast.”

Rueter stated anyone is welcome to come by his house to see and hear for themselves. He lives one mile east and half mile north of Harris. He said his two kids, ages six and 10, don’t want to go outside to play anymore, because of the noise. Rueter said the noise gets in his head and doesn’t go away when he leaves the area.

The turbines were constructed by Clipper, Inc., but have been sold to Florida Power and Light. The contract that land owners signed with Clipper stated that the turbines would be placed no closer than 1,200 feet to any residence but the closest one to Rueter’s house is actually 1,193 feet away as measured by the Osceola county engineering department with a laser.

Part of the problem is that the turbines are not located on Rueter’s property. They are on a neighbor’s property. The owner lives in Florida and has not responded to Rueter’s request for him to contact FPL.

Rueter has hired an attorney, who has contacted FPL, and got a response that they “were aware of the problem and were concerned” but there has been no other response, even after a second letter was sent by the attorney. Rueter said he has been in the local office of FPL to complain several times, and was told the last time that the company “would get a restraining order against him” if he returned.

He asked that the board of supervisors send a letter to FPL urging them to do something about the problem. He said he didn’t know if it would do any good but felt they might at least be able to get some sort of response.

Rueter said there are four turbines less than a half mile from his house and six that are within one mile (including the one that is less than 1,200 feet away). The Harris man said that Clipper had told land-owners that the turbines “would not make any more noise than a refrigerator”. He said that might be true for the 1.5 megawatt turbines but that the 2.5 megawatt size was much louder.

He also said that FPL is not living up to the contracts they have with landowners. FPL is supposed to shut down the generators whenever ice is building up on surfaces, since the blade tips reach up to 200 MPH in speed, and a chunk of ice thrown from them could do serious damage. Rueter said that Monday night, when ice was accumulating, the turbines were running.

The supervisors indicated that they will probably send a letter to FPL, although at press time no final decision had been made.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: What is the source of the comparison of the sound of an industrial wind turbine to the sound of a refrigerator? Watch the video below for more clues:

WIND TURBINE SETBACKS IN THE NEWS:

New York Times, December 9, 2008

(Click here for source)

Ice-Tossing Turbines: Myth or Hazard?

They produce clean energy, sure, but they can also hurl a mean snowball.

How do wind turbines fare in winter weather

Not so well, according to one little town in England. The Wisbech Standard reports a harrowing tale in which “lumps of ice three or four feet long flew through the air” and smashed into a carpet showroom and a parking lot.

They apparently came off the spinning blades of a 410-foot-tall wind turbine.

No one was hurt, but residents of Whittlesey, in the southeastern part of England, would not rest until the turbine was shut down. One local businessman described the ice shards as “javelins” coming off the blades.

The wind industry concedes that, as with all tall things (buildings, for example, or trees), ice and snow can build up and, eventually, fall down, creating a hazard to people and structures below.

But the industry denies that “ice-throwing” — another concern surrounding wind power — is a problem. “Ice can end up at places other than exactly at the base of the turbine, but it’s a myth that a turbine will (and can) operate at high speed with ice on it and fling ice for miles,” said Ron Stimmel of the American Wind Energy Association, in an e-mail message.

Just as an airplane will not be able to fly with too much ice on its wings, Mr. Stimmel said, wind turbines are designed to stop or shut off automatically, he said, when they sense the extra weight of ice.

The American Wind Energy Association has posted a brief on the subject, and also discusses the issue in its handbook for siting new wind projects.

But a 2006 publication by G.E. Energy, a maker of large wind turbines, warns that “rotating turbine blades may propel ice fragments some distance from the turbine — up to several hundred meters if conditions are right.”

Its recommendations include placing fences and warning signs around turbines, and locating them a safe distance from buildings or roads. They also recommend deactivating turbines when ice begins to form.

A Swiss report last year, titled “Wind Turbine Ice Throw Studies in the Swiss Alps,” focused on a turbine near a ski area. That report found ice throw to be a “significant safety risk.” The most dangerous place for ice was underneath the turbine, but about 5 percent of fragments landed more than 80 meters — or 260 feet — from the turbine.

A chart from the study shows where and how far ice and snow were flung, relative to the position of the turbine:

Distribution of ice throw relative to the wind turbine. (Source: Wind Turbine Ice Throw Studies in the Swiss Alps)

An earlier German study came to a similar conclusion:

As a general recommendation, it can be stated that wind farm developers should be very careful at ice endangered sites in the planning phase and take ice throw into account as a safety issue. Each incident or accident caused by ice throw is an unnecessary event and will decrease the public acceptance of wind energy.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: When we look at the following setback recommendations, we cannot help but wonder why the state of Wisconsin continues to insist that 1000 feet is a safe setback. Click here to contact your legislators and ask them if they know about these setbacks, and what they plan to do to insure residents of our state get better protection.

• Manufacturer’s Recommendation: 1,300 feet
• Protection from ice and blade throw: 1750 feet
• U.S. National Research Council: 2,500 feet
• Flicker: 3,300-5,000 feet
• Germany: 1 mile
• France: 1 mile
• Nina Pierpont Study: 1.25 miles
• Kamperman and James Study: 1.2 miles
• Rural Manitoba, Canada: 6,500 feet
• California: 2 miles
• WISCONSIN: 1000 feet

In the upcoming legislative session, there will be a push by certain legislators, supported by the Governor's office, to take the away the power to create ordinances from local governments and hand it all to the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission believes 1000 feet is a safe setback.

We don't know if towns with ordinances already in place will be grandfathered in and protected, and we urge local governments to get to work on adopting a wind ordinance that will grant the same protection the residents in the Wisconsin towns of Woodville, Clay Banks, Ridgeville, Wilton, Magnolia and Union now enjoy. Residents in Trempealeau county have even more protection with an ordinance that includes a mile setback.

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP YOUR TOWNSHIP GET TO WORK ON A LARGE WIND ORDINANCE BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE?

YOU CAN CLICK HERE TO CONTACT US!

EVEN MORE ABOUT WIND TURBINE ICE THROW FROM BPWI RESEARCH NERD:

What is five feet long, three feet wide, five to 6 inches thick, weighs several hundred pounds and can’t be broken by three adults jumping up and down on it?

What roars loudly and sounds scary and makes you instinctually want to stay away?

What did the technical expert say to the turbine salesman?

Wait---is this supposed to be a joke?
Find out by reading this email!

It was sent from John Zimmerman, the president of VERA to some members of the American Wind Energy Association. The AWEA’s stated goal is to promote wind power growth through advocacy, communication, and education.

VERA provides and manages tasks and technical issues considered in commercial scale wind project development. Mr. Zimmerman’s experience is in performing technical due diligence and risk assessment across a variety of technologies.
The following email was written in January of 2000

Subject: Ice Shedding from Turbines and Public Safety

Dear [member names]
I’ve watched over the wind turbines GMP has had installed in Vermont over the last 10 years and I have several thoughts that [may] be useful to this discussion

Here in Vermont, and elsewhere in the northeastern US, the winds blow strongest at the mountain tops, where it is also the most icy. A common first question to wind developers in this region is ‘why don’t you put the wind turbines at the ski areas (where there is human development)’? The answer is because of the danger to public safety due to ice throws. Ski areas are not a good place for wind turbines.

Back in the mid 1980s one of the windy areas that was being considered for wind development was near to ski trails. Boeing and/or Hamilton Standard did some work to determine how far we must stay away from the ski trails to be safe from ice being thrown from their turbines (the MOD 5b was the [B]oeing machine at the time). Without going back to dig up those papers, and if I remember correctly, the distance was between .25 and .5 miles away, down wind. It’s a function of blade tip speed, so applicable to present day turbines too.

While the Boeing study was academic, the danger from ice being release[d] from rotor blades overhead is real—and a hard hat is not going to provide you with much comfort. I have stood near the turbines GMP had on Mt. Equinox in the early 1990’s and more recently the Zond 500 KW turbines in Searsberg VT during and after icing events. When there is heavy rime ice build up on the blades and the machines are running you instinctually want to stay away. They roar loudly and sound scarey. (sic) Probably you would feel safe within the .5 danger zone however.

One time we found a piece of ice near the base of the turbine that was pretty impressive. Three adults jumping on it couldn’t break [it] It looked to be 5 or 6 inches thick, 3 feet wide and about 5 feet long. Probably weighed several hundred pounds. We couldn’t lift it. There were a couple of other pieces nearby but we wondered where the rest of the pieces went.

In the winter, icing is a real danger and GMP therefore restricts public access to the site(s). Maintenance workers have developed protocol for working on turbines during icing conditions, though I am not familiar with the details. I’ll ‘dig into it’ if you want.

Regards,

John Zimmerman,
VERA

Note From the BPRC Research Nerd: For extra credit, read the following comment on the above. It’s from an email written by Randy Swisher, executive director of the AWEA since 1989.
This was written in February of 2004

Dear [name]

Here is a comment from John Zimmerman. He states that wind turbines don’t belong in ski areas, but I think it is really just a question of what is the appropriate setback. John describes some of the ice they have seen at the Searsburg site and it sounds pretty intimidating but manageable with proper setbacks.

I think that is the last of the information I have on the topic. It isn’t a lot but I hope you’ll find it helpful. Please let me know if you need anything else, and feel free to consult our website at www.awea.org as well.

Thanks for your interest. I hope next time I’m riding my bike in the Northeast Kingdom I will actually have a chance to see a few wind turbines!

Randy Swisher

Click here to visit the VERA website

Click here to visit the AWEA website

Click here to visit windaction.org where we found this document

FOR EXTRA EXTRA CREDIT READ ABOUT RIME ICE:
What is it?

Hard rime is a white ice that forms when the water droplets in fog freeze to the outer surfaces of objects. It is often seen on trees atop mountains and ridges in winter, when low-hanging clouds cause freezing fog. This fog freezes to the windward (wind-facing) side of tree branches, buildings, or any other solid objects, usually with high wind velocities and air temperatures between 28°F and 18°F.

A is for "assume"

near the town of byron, fond du lac county, wisconsin, fall, 2008

"[Industrial wind turbine] noise, on which the ordinance is silent,

was assumed to be captured by the 1000 foot setback"

--Alex DePillis

From the Minutes of the November 4, 1999 Guidelines and Model Ordinance Ad Hoc Subcommittee meeting.

At the time, DePillis was a state worker employed by the Wisconsin Energy Bureau, Department of Administration.

He now works as a wind developer for EcoEnergy LLC

What are the results of this "assumption" about the 1000 foot setback?

Gerry Meyer carried mail in his community for 30 years.

He lives inside the Invenergy Forward Energy wind farm near the town of Byron in Wisconsin's Fond du Lac County. When the turbines went on line near his home in March of 2008, he was surprised by the amount of noise that they made. He began keeping a noise log. (The entire turbine noise log can be downloaded by clicking here)

Let's look at the noise log for September 1, 2008

6:20 AM Loud motor running or humming sound.

7:05 AM I’m hearing turbine #4 in the barn, shop, and at the computer.

[ Turbine #4 is less than 1600 feet from the house]

11:15 AM Wind SW Loud.

4:15 PM Turbine 4 and 6 are making loud jet flying over sounds, ripping the sky apart. It has been loud all day.

9:40 PM This is the loudest night in a long time.

I hear #4, 6, 73, 74a, 3a and and possibly more.

I can hear them at the computer in the front of the house and in the family room in the back of the house with the TV on.

Keep in mind turbine 6 is ¾ mile away. # 73 is 2480’ and 74a 5/8 mile away.

It is very sad our town officials and PSC have allowed this turbine project to affect the health of residents in this area and it will continue in other areas.

11:40 PM I hear turbine jet flying over sound while watching TV in our family room.

This assumption about wind turbine noise made by Alex DePillis and other members of the Model Ordinance Ad Hoc Subcommitee helped the state create guidelines which allowed Chicago-based wind developer Invenergy to site turbines as close as 1000 feet from unwilling participants homes in Fond du Lac and Dodge County.

The result?

Residents in Dodge and Fond du Lac are having trouble sleeping at night due to noise from industrial turbines, and when they want to sell their homes, no one seems interested in buying them.

This photo, taken December 8, 2008 is of a home near the town of Byron that has been on the market for a long time. The price has been reduced but still no offers.

Can you guess why?

Why would the state put so many residents at risk by allowing a committee to set guidelines based on an assumption that a 1000 foot setback would take care of noise problems?

Local governments who recognized the inadequacy of the state's guidelines for siting turbines have created large wind ordinances intended to protect the health and safety of residents. Within the last year, six Wisconsin townships have adopted ordinances with a 2640 foot setback. They didn't just pull that figure out of the air. And they didn't base it on an assumption. So what is it based on?

Here's what we learned from the findings section from the Town of Union's large wind ordinance regarding wind turbine noise.

The complete text of the findings and all documents used to support these findings are cited in the ordinance. (Download the entire Town of Union ordinance by clicking here)

This is just a summary:

The state's current wind turbine noise limit of 50dBA does not adequately protect residents from the adverse health effects associated with large wind turbine noise.

The town of Union limits large wind turbine noise to a maximum of 35dBA or 5dBA over ambient, whichever is lower, in order to protect residents from adverse health effects associated with large wind turbine noise based on the following findings:

Large wind turbines are significant sources of noise, which , if improperly sited, can negatively impact the health of residents, particularly in areas of low ambient noise levels.

Large wind turbines emit two types of noise-- 1) Aerodynamic noise from the blades passing through the air, which can generate broadband noise, tonal noise and low frequency noise; and 2) Mechanical noise from the interaction of the turbine components.

A dBA scale is commonly used to measure audible wind turbine noise.

Low frequency noise from large wind turbines is not adequately measured by the state's use of dBA weighting.

Noise is an annoyance that can negatively impact health, producing negative effects such as sleep disturbance and deprivation, stress, anxiety, and fatigue.

Large wind turbines create a noise annoyance that can hinder physical and mental healing and can cause adverse health effects associated with sleep disturbance and deprivation, psychological distress, stress, anxiety, depression, headaches, fatigue, tinnitus and hypertension.

Wind turbine noise can affect each person differently. Some people are unaffected by wind turbine noise, while others may develop adverse health effects from the same noise.

At low frequencies, wind turbine noise may not be heard but rather is felt as a vibration. Medical research reported complaints from people who felt the noise from large wind turbines, similar to symptoms that can be associated with vibroacoustic disease.

The risk for adverse health effects resulting from noise annoyance such as headaches, stress, anxiety, fatigue, depression, pain and stiffness, and decreased cognitive ability associated with sleep deprivation from wind turbine noise increases with increasing A-weighted sound pressures. According to wind turbine noise studies, few respondents were disturbed in their sleep by wind turbine noise at less than 35dBA. Respondents were increasingly disturbed in their sleep by wind turbine noise greater than 35dBA.

Wind turbine noise greater than 5dBA over ambient increases the risk for health effects because a change of 5dB is clearly noticeable.

Studies show prolonged exposure to wind turbine noise resulted in adverse health effects at sound levels below those from other sources of community noise, such as road traffic noise. Sound generated by wind turbines has particular characteristics and creates a different type of noise having different health impacts than compared to urban, industrial or commercial noise.

Living in a rural environment in comparison with a suburban area increases the risk of residents being impacted by noise from nearby large wind turbines because of the low ambient noise in rural environments. The International Standards Organization recommends community noise limits for rural areas be set at 35dBA during the day, 30 dBA during the evening, and 25dBA at night.

Eye-witnesses living near newly-constructed large wind turbines in the Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County, WI, testified at the public hearing held by the Town of Union Plan Commission that they currently experience adverse health effects from the wind turbine noise such as sleep deprivation and disturbance, headaches, nausea and dizziness. Th noise from the wind turbines in the Town of Byron is greater than 45dBA at their residences and can be heard inside of their houses and outside in their yards.

Two Plan Commissioners from the Town of Union visited the newly constructed wind turbines in the Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County, WI in June 2008 and confirmed the wind turbines were a significant source of noise. One described the quality and intensity of the noise as sounding like a jet airplane. The other spoke with residents, farmers and a sheriff's deputy in the area who all stated that the turbines were noisy. He also took sound measurements from the home of a resident with a turbine less than 1500 feet from his home. The sound measured between 57 to 67 dBA on June 6-7, 2008.

However, experiences vary. Two other plan commissioners visited wind turbine sites. One visited sites in Byron Township, Lincoln Township and Montfort and found that overall, people were satisfied with the turbines. Two issues noted by this Plan commissioner were tensions between landowners profiting from the wind turbines and those landowners who did not, and poor conditions of roads following the installation of the turbines.

The other commissioner visited wind farms in Iowa. He estimated that approximately 60% of the people he spoke with had positive opinions of the wind turbines and approximately 40% of the people he spoke with had negative opinions of wind turbines.

A fifth plan commission member went to a wind farm south of Rockford, IL. No one was available to talk so he walked around the area. It was a nice day, and windy. He noticed that the windows in the homes surrounding the site were all closed and no one was outside. He stated the noise was similar to a plane going overhead. He stood under a tower and did not feel any unease.

(For the complete text of the Town of Union's findings regarding Wind Turbine Noise Impacts, please download the complete ordinance by clicking here)

This week, Better Plan, Wisconsin will be taking a step by step look at what it took to create the Town of Union's Large Wind Ordinance which was adopted on November 18, 2008.

This ordinance has a 2640 setback from residences and specific restrictions on turbine related noise for reasons of human health and safety.

It allows landowners and neighbors to sign a waiver if they wish to have turbines as close as 1000 feet from their homes but strongly protects residents who do not.

It regulates all aspects of industrial scale wind turbine construction, operation and removal in the town from restoration of roads damaged during the construction phase to removal of turbine foundations after decomissioning.

We consider it to be the most comprehensive and solidly researched large wind ordinance in the state and the very best ordinance available at this time. It's an ordinance the Union Town's Attorney stands behind and one Wisconsin townships can adopt with confidence.

(DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE HERE)

So what did it take to get there?

First ingredient: 22 months of time and dedication by the citizens large wind turbine study committee and the Town of Union local government .

Diary of the Ordinance:

On August 2, 2007, the Town of Union adopted a temporary stay-- or moratorium-- concerning the construction of large wind energy systems to give the Town time to research and develop and appropriate ordinance.

On August 30, 2007, the Town of Union appointed a Large Wind Turbine Study Committee to study wind energy systems and make written recommendations to the Plan Commission on regulations to adopt.

The Large Wind Turbine Study Committee held 14 public meetings from September 2007 through January 2008 to research the health and safety effects of large wind turbines.

The Large Wind Turbine Study Committee prepared a Setback Recommendation Report dated January 6, 2008 and a draft Large Wind Systems Licensing Ordinance that was presented to the Plan Commission on January 31, 2008.

The Plan Commission requested the Town attorney conduct a preliminary review of the draft Ordinance and provide comments to the town board. The Town attorney provided such comments to the Plan Commission and the Town Board on February 25, 2008.

On March 6, 2008, the Town Board requested that the Large Wind Turbine Study Committee review and addres the Town's attorney's comments concerning the draft ordinance.

The Large Wind Turbine Study Committee submitted a revised draft Ordinance to the Plan commission on April 26, 2008.

The Plan Commission and Town Board held public hearings on May 29, June 5, and June 26 concerning the revised draft Ordinance.

The Plan Commission conducted six working meetings in addition to time devoted to regular Plan Commission meetings to develop a final draft ordinance for recommendation to the Town Board, and on October 30, 2008, unanimously recommended that the Town board adopt this Ordinance.

On November 18, 2008, the Town board unanimously adopts the Ordinance.

On that same night, after 22 months of dedicated work, the Large Wind Turbine Study Commission was released by the town board from duty.

SECOND INGREDIENT: 22 MONTHS OF DILIGENT RESEARCH WHICH RESULTED IN THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:

(DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE TOWN OF UNION'S FINAL REPORT BY CLICKING HERE)

(DOWNLOAD IMPORTANT INDIVIDUAL DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE USED BY CLICKING HERE)

GENERAL FINDINGS:

1. Wind energy is a potential renewable and nonpolluting energy resource of the Town of Union, and its conversion to electricity may reduce dependence on nonrenewable, conventional energy sources and decrease the pollution that results therefrom. However, wind energy facilities should be sited in a way that protects the health and safety needs of the Town of Union residents residing near the large wind turbines, as well as the general public.

2. The regulation and installation of large wind turbines is necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Town of Union and the general public. Adverse health and safety issues are likely to arise if appropriate standards and setbacks are not followed in the siting and installation of large wind turbines.

3. It is appropriate to consider as relevant recommended standards for larve turbines from international organizations that have more experience with the use, siting and installation of large wind turbines than the U.S.

4. Wind turbine accidents have occurred involving ice throws, blade disintegration, fire and tower failure. According to the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, from 1999 through June 2008 there were over 500 accidents fro around the world, including North America, involving ice throws, blade disintegration, fire and tower failure from large wind turbines.

5. If improperly sited, wind energy systems produce electro-magnetic radiation that can interfere with broadcast communication and signals.

6. Heavy equipment used for the construction of large wind turbines can damage local roads.

TOMORROW, PART TWO: TOWN OF UNION STUDY COMMITTEE FINDINGS ON TURBINE NOISE

(Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Unless your township adopts an ordinance, the state allows wind developers to site 400 foot tall turbine 1000 feet from your door. If you'd like to see what that looks like, visit the town of Byron in Fond du Lac County or CLICK HERE)

SECOND FEATURE:

Decision halts wind farm project

(Click here to read at source)

A decision in Monroe County Circuit Court on Nov. 26 allows vetoes made by the Towns of Wilton and Ridgeville to stand, putting a halt to a proposed project to erect wind turbines in the townships.

A ruling by Monroe County Circuit Court Judge Michael McAlpine upholds the townships’ vetoes of conditional use permits (CUP) that were granted by the Monroe County Zoning Committee last year. McAlpine’s ruling also reverses a ruling of the Monroe County Board of Adjustment (BOA) which affirmed a CUP for the Town of Wells, which will cancel that CUP as well.

Summit Ridge Energy LLC filed for CUPs for the towns of Ridgeville, Wilton and Wells in Monroe County last year. The applications for Ridgeville and Wells were approved in April of 2007, and the application for Wilton was approved in June of that year.

The permits would have allowed the developers to build 60 wind turbines within the townships. Ridgeville vetoed the CUP May 2007 and Wilton did the same weeks later on June 12. Both townships cited several reasons for the vetoes, and both included that the CUP applications were incomplete. In response to the vetoes, Summit Ridge filed a lawsuit, claiming the vetoes were not legal. In the decision, McAlpine wrote that the failure of Summit Ridge to include the locations of buried transmission lines gave the townships the right to veto the CUPs. Summit Ridge and the BOA argued that underground lines are not required to be mapped, but McAlpine disagreed, writing that without the location of the transmission lines, neither the Zoning Committee nor the local municipalities would be positioned to grant an informed approval. McAlpine also wrote that a section of state statute does restrict the ability of the townships to exercise a veto, but the only thing either township could base a veto on is that of “preserving or protecting public health or safety.”

“Summit Ridge omitting the location of below ground transmission lines from its map is dispositive,” McAlpine wrote.

McAlpine also said that he felt the Zoning Committee and BOA did fulfill their responsibilities and were conscientious in their efforts.

Earlier this year, the towns of Ridgeville and Wilton also created new wind energy ordinances. The Township of Wilton passed a Wind Energy Conversion Systems ordinance on July 8, 2008, after putting together a committee and looking at other ordinances from around the state. The 31-page Wilton ordinance allows wind turbines to be no closer than 2,640 feet from a home, or any occupied building. It also does not allow turbines to be built any closer than 1,300 feet from someone’s property line. The Township of Ridgeville passed a Wind Energy Conversion Systems Ordinance on Aug. 4.

The Tomah Journal

8 December 2008

Board of adjustment decision reversed in consolidated case concerning Town of Wells

December 4, 2008

by Pat Mulvaney in The Sparta Herald

(Click here for source)

Plans of a Chicago-based wind developer to erect over 60 wind turbines in the area may have been derailed by a ruling in Monroe County Circuit Court last week.

In a decision released Wednesday, Judge Michael McAlpine upheld the actions of the towns of Wilton and Ridgeville, which vetoed conditional use permits (CUPs) issued to the wind developer. He also reversed a ruling of the Monroe County Board of Adjustment (BOA), effectively canceling out a similar CUP in the Town of Wells.

The Monroe County Zoning Committee issued the CUPs last year to Invenergy, which is doing business locally as Summit Ridge Energy LLC. The permits would have allowed the company to erect 40-story high wind turbines within Ridgeville and Wilton townships.

Shortly after the townships' vetoes of the CUPs last spring, Invenergy filed a lawsuit, claiming the vetoes were illegal under a state statute that disallows restrictions on wind energy facilities unless for reasons of public health and safety.

However, when Ridgeville and Wilton issued their vetoes, a right given them by county ordinance, one of their arguments was the CUPs were incomplete. William Semann and Myron Brueggeman made the same argument in their case in the Town of Wells.

Among their objections was the inadequacy of a map required as part of the CUP. In particular, the omission of the locations of buried transmission lines which would carry electricity from the turbines to a substation.

Invenergy, the zoning committee and BOA had argued the transmission lines were not accessory structures, and therefore not required to be included on the project map.

In his decision, McAlpine disagreed, saying that lack of disclosure gave the towns the right to veto the CUPs under the health and safety provision provided by state law.

"Without all necessary information on the proposed project being available, neither town would be fully equipped to make such an important assessment," wrote McAlpine.

"The notion those integral parts (transmission lines) of the proposed wind energy facility lying beneath the surface need not be disclosed on the required application map, I believe to be contrary to both the public's right to access, investigate, and participate, as well as the (zoning) committee's responsibility to thoroughly evaluate before acting."

McAlpine rejected the town's assertions that the zoning committee acted with bias toward Invenergy. He also said he found no merit to the argument that Semann and Brueggeman didn't receive a complete and fair appeal before the BOA.

"I am satisfied, absent the application mapping omissions, that the BOA's decision to affirm the award of the Town of Wells CUP would have withstood the court's...review," he wrote.

Semann and Brueggeman filed suit in Monroe County Circuit Court in May, claiming the zoning committee's action will adversely affect their health and safety and interfere with the use and value of their property including their air space.

Semann runs a farm operation on a few hundred acres between Summit Ridge and St. Mary's Ridge, while Brueggeman, a retired airline pilot from Chicago, owns 300 acres of ridge top land nearby.

Brueggeman has plans to turn his property into a housing development with an airstrip, which he has already acquire a CUP from the county.

The action by the Town of Wells was reviewed by the Monroe County Board of Adjustment, which found in favor of the zoning committee, upholding the CUP.

In a related matter, last August the towns of Ridgeville and Wilton approved identical ordinances, calling for half-mile setbacks from residences or occupied structures, a 1,640-foot increase over setbacks dictated by the county's ordinance.

The greater setbacks are likely to drastically reduce the number of turbines that can be erected because of the close proximity of houses in the proposed project area.

Besides the half-mile setback from residences, the ordinances call for a 1,300-foot setback from property lines and stricter regulations covering noise, siting, decommissioning, inspection and application requirements.

Web link: http://www.spartanewspapers.com/headlines.html

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The following story is not about the cutest of Wisconsin's renewable energy options, but it's a Better Plan favorite! It's the only renewable energy option we know of that takes care of other environmental problems as it generates electricity.

Wisconsin boasts most manure-to-energy projects

By Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel

(Click Here For Source)

Posted: Dec. 6, 2008

When it comes to generating renewable energy, Wisconsin lacks the high winds of the Great Plains and the steady sunlight of Arizona, but it has one abundant resource few others can match - cow power.

Although renewable energy makes up only a fraction of the state's total energy mix, one area that's growing fast is systems that convert cow manure into electricity and heat.

At the Crave Brothers dairy farm and cheese factory in Waterloo, the farm's anaerobic digester - its cow power system - takes manure from the farm's 1,100 cows and converts it to electricity.

Rising demand for the company's specialty cheeses led to an expansion that will add a second digester and triple the amount of electricity the farm produces.

"They process their own milk, and the demand for the specialty cheeses they make has increased enough to justify an expansion," said Dan Nemke, general manager of Clear Horizons, which provides the digester.

Clear Horizons estimates it invested $4 million in the Waterloo system.

Wisconsin leads the country in anaerobic digesters with 19 projects. California is second, with 16.

"And we have 16 projects under contract right now set to go in, so we should be doubling the number of digesters in this state in the next year," said Don Wichert, director of renewable energy with the state Focus on Energy program.

Behind the surge in interest in homegrown energy is the recognition that what once was waste now has value. That can include anything from cheese whey to restaurant grease to cow manure.

Alternative energy push

Renewable energy experts expect activity to intensify, given the drive to boost alternative energy sources by state and federal policy-makers.

Several recommendations to boost renewable energy from waste - known as biogas - were suggested by the state's global warming task force and may be included in a package of proposals Gov. Jim Doyle submits to the Legislature next year.

President-elect Barack Obama has voiced support for global warming legislation and has said boosting alternative energy will be one of the ingredients of his economic stimulus package that he would like to see Congress enact in early 2009.

"We've got lots of projects that would be ready to go if the economics in some way were improved," said Richard Pieper, president of Pieper Power, the Milwaukee parent company of Clear Horizons. If the U.S. enacted legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the economics would improve and "we would have enough opportunity here to power 175,000 homes in Wisconsin," he said.

Clear Horizons is a unit of Pieper's mining equipment automation business and its wastewater technology business. The firm entered the renewable energy arena seeking ways to take its construction and automation know-how and adapt it to emerging energy technologies.

"At this point, it doesn't amount to anything. It's very modest. It's less than a percent, but we're a pretty good-sized company," Pieper said.

Cow power and other renewable energy projects could be a big piece of total sales in 12 to 24 months, he said.

But Wisconsin's leadership role in renewable energy is being challenged as other states deploy the digester systems, which help reduce waste runoff into streams and minimize odors.

At the moment, other states are more competitive than Wisconsin in attracting investment in the systems, either through special electricity rates, tax incentives or both. California, which supplanted Wisconsin as the biggest dairy state several years ago, could soon overtake the state in anaerobic digesters.

Renewable energy projects are more economical in other states, such as Vermont, where incentives such as the state's Cow Power program are more lucrative than what Wisconsin offers.

"We've got a bunch of opportunities in Wisconsin," Pieper said. "They're planned, but there's nothing going forward. The economics of the plants aren't where they need to be moving forward."

The price of power

GHD Inc., which opened its first digester system in 2001, now has more digesters installed in Wisconsin than any other company.

The Chilton firm has 30 systems operating in nearly a dozen states, with another 20 planned. In Wisconsin, 10 systems have been built with another five on tap.

"We came close to doubling our size this year," said Melissa VanOrnum, marketing manager at GHD.

Driving the increase: Utilities are paying more for electricity generated by the systems. Also, farmers are more confident in the anaerobic digester technology.

"When I started working for GHD in 2004, the first question that farmers asked was, 'Does it really work?' But for at least the last two years, they're not asking, 'Does it work?' They're asking, 'What's my payback?' " VanOrnum said.

Other companies also are seeing growth outside Wisconsin.

Microgy, which installed three systems in Wisconsin, is focusing on projects in Texas, Nebraska and California.

One of the challenges for Wisconsin is that the digesters make the most economic sense for large farms, Focus on Energy's Wichert said.

"The biggest farms that we had were the first ones that went in, and all these gigantic farms in California, Texas, Florida and New York are realizing they should be doing digestion, too."

The price of power also determines where a system will be installed, said Larry Krom, who manages biogas renewable-energy programs for Focus on Energy.

Power prices are steeper in states such as California and Vermont. When prices are higher, the rate small generators can collect from selling power to utilities is higher.

Several utilities have boosted their renewable rates in recent years, and Madison's Wisconsin Power & Light Co. will have the highest rate in the state beginning in January.

The utility is proposing to boost its rate by 50% to 9.24 cents per kilowatt in a case that's pending with state regulators.

Interest in new biogas projects is still active, Krom said.

"Over the next month or two, a whole bunch of them are going to come on," he said.

Although most of the projects in the state process cow manure, food businesses are getting into the act. In La Crosse, City Brewery and Gundersen Lutheran Medical Foundation set up a system using waste from the brewing process to create enough electricity to power 492 average Wisconsin homes, according to Focus on Energy.

As they watch to see whether more policies encouraging renewable energy will be implemented in Washington and Madison, those in the biogas industry see plenty of room for expansion in Wisconsin.

Wichert predicts a tenfold increase in the number of cow-power systems in the state, with digesters dotting the rural landscape.

"We still have a long way to go," Wichert said, noting Wisconsin has 250 farms with at least 500 cows each. "Those probably will all eventually have digesters," he said.

It would be one thing if industrial scale wind turbines significantly reduced CO2 emissions. Few people understand that industrial scale wind turbines can't function without conventional power plants. In our state, that means coal burning. The power plants don't power down when Wisconsin's paltry winds are blowing. There may be more electricity being generated at times by the turbines, but there is no reduction in current CO2 emissions from the power plants. In fact, when the wind isn't blowing hard enough, these giant machines draw more energy than they produce. At a time when money is tight and the environment is in peril, promoting industrial scale wind in a state with a low wind resource is a crime against the environment, the tax payers, and the good name of our state. Will our legislators figure this out in time, or, helped along by wind lobbyists like RENEW, WISCONSIN, will Wisconsin residents be on the sucker end of the latest "green" Ponzie scheme?

Ethanol, meet Big Wind.

Here's an article from Milwaukee's Daily Reporter.

Power Push is Premature, Some Argue

(Click here to read at source)

Paul Snyder 

Posted December 2, 2008

As the building industry prepares for a state-fueled run on energy-related construction, the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group argues the work is unnecessary and too expensive right now.

“The state mandates 10 percent renewable energy by 2015,” said Todd Stuart, executive director of the nonprofit group representing energy consumers. “So that means add new capacity or shut down existing plants. Either way, it’s going to cost you.

“The writing’s on the wall for a 25 percent mandate, and that’s going to dictate the economics of what you build. There’s going to be a huge amount of wind farm construction that’s going to cost billions, and that money’s going to have to come from somewhere.”

He said ratepayers will pay. While power bills might stay down in 2009 because of the struggling economy, the increase is coming, he said.

The problem is that power demand in the state is tapering off, and Wisconsin is positioning itself to have a lot of excess capacity, Stuart said.

“In a time of slow to no growth in terms of demand, we’re adding billions into the rate base,” he said. “Do you need that capacity?”

We Energies spokesman Brian Manthey said the state does.

“We have to look at the late 1990s when the state was facing serious reliability constraints,” he said. “You can’t look at short-term snapshots for long-term strategies. We have to look forward at least 10 years.”

However, in doing so, ratepayers likely will face double-digit increases, Stuart said.

“I see it as a tax,” he said.

But Forrest Ceel, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2150 and a member of the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming, said it likely will cost more if energy producers wait to build the projects.

“I think the state’s renewable portfolio standards are aggressive and somewhat difficult,” he said. “But there is some leeway there in light of economic situations.

“It’s hard to read what the economy will be 10 years out, so who knows? By the time we get to 2017 or 2018, the state might decide it could ease up a little.”

Mark Reihl, executive director of the Wisconsin State Council of Carpenters, said the industry would have a difficult time refusing work, and, given the decline in demand for materials, he argued this is the time to build.

“And I think it’s time to invest in infrastructure,” he said, “on all levels.”

Manthey said it is difficult to estimate how much more power customers will pay in light of new energy development, but he said increases are likely.

“There are costs associated with whatever you do,” he said. “And those costs do enter into rates.”

Stuart said, while proponents of building more generation look at the long-term picture, it’s difficult to ignore the short-term issues.

“We have to make sure we’re doing absolutely the right thing,” he said. “Sure, 10 years from now we may be in a great position, but the folks I talk to right now are living quarter to quarter.

“There are billions of dollars in the pipeline that has to be paid for.”