Better Plan, Wisconsin

It surprises people to learn that Germany leads the world in the use of solar energy. Even when clouds cover the sky, solar power is there. It's as reliable as the sunrise. And huge progress is being made in solar technology every day.

While industrial-scale wind turbines keep getting bigger-- from forty stories tall to fifty-- require more infrastructure in the form of power lines and sub-stations, require more land or off shore area to be disrupted, rely on fossil fuel burning power plants to function, and remain unreliable as the wind, solar power is getting smaller, more nimble, and able to be used right on site.

Because on-site energy production means lower profits for power companies, they won't see this as good news.... but we thought you might!

Scientists develop solar cells with a twist

(Click here to read at source)

By Julie Steenhuysen

CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. researchers have found a way to make efficient silicon-based solar cells that are flexible enough to be rolled around a pencil and transparent enough to be used to tint windows on buildings or cars.

The finding, reported on Sunday in the journal Nature Materials, offers a new way to process conventional silicon by slicing the brittle wafers into ultrathin bits and carefully transferring them onto a flexible surface.

"We can make it thin enough that we can put it on plastic to make a rollable system. You can make it gray in the form of a film that could be added to architectural glass," said John Rogers of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who led the research.

"It opens up spaces on the fronts of buildings as opportunities for solar energy," Rogers said in a telephone interview.

Solar cells, which convert solar energy into electricity, are in high demand because of higher oil prices and concerns over climate change.

Many companies, including Japanese consumer electronics maker Sharp Corp and Germany's Q-Cells are making thin-film solar cells, but they typically are less efficient at converting solar energy into electricity than conventional cells.

Rogers said his technology uses conventional single crystal silicon. "It's robust. It's highly efficient. But in its current form, it's rigid and fragile," he said.

Rogers' team uses a special etching method that slices chips off the surface of a bulk silicon wafer. The sliced chips are 10 to 100 times thinner than the wafer, and the size can be adapted to the application.

Once sliced, a device picks up the bits of silicon chips "like a rubber stamp" and transfers them to a new surface material, Rogers said.

"These silicon solar cells become like a solid ink pad for that rubber stamp. The surface of the wafers after we've done this slicing become almost like an inking pad," he said.

"We just print them down onto a target surface."

The final step is to electrically connect these cells to get power out of them, he said.

Adding flexibility to the material would make the cells far easier to transport. Rogers envisions the material being "rolled up like a carpet and thrown on the truck."

He said the technology has been licensed to a startup company called Semprius Inc in Durham, North Carolina, which is in talks to license the technology.

"It's just a way to use thing we already know well," Rogers said.

What brought all these residents out to the town hall last Thursday?
Could it have been the threat of 40 story wind turbines being built 1000 feet from their homes?
The town of Smelser in Grant County joins the long list of rural communities being aggressively targeted by wind developers.

GRANT COUNTY,
SMELSER TOWN HALL,
THURSDAY NIGHT: In response to news about the industrial scale wind development planned for their community, residents packed the Smelser Town Hall in Wisconsin's Grant County for a special meeting called to vote on set backs from their homes. 

It was standing-room only in the town hall.

Says one attendee: "The town's attorney was not even there. The chair read a letter that sounded like it was from the town's attorney and it turned out to be from the Towns Association legal counsel and was poorly done I thought. "

A fellow who appeared to be some sort of hired journalist paid by the wind developers to visit wind farms and give a talk about to Grant County residents, didn't visit the most recent wind farm in Dodge and Fond du Lac counties where residents have been complaining about turbine noise and shadow-flicker since 86 turbines went on line in March of 2008 .
Instead he visited a few wind farms including the one in Monfort, where the turbines are at least ten stories shorter than the ones being proposed in Grant County. 
He told the crowd the worst complaint he heard was about serious shadow flicker.
But were the residents buying it?

A resident who has been living with turbine noise in Fond du Lac County stood up to tell the crowd a very different story-- he's been living in a wind farm since March and spoke about his first-hand experience with living round-the-clock with wind turbines. He spoke about the problems his family has had with turbine noise and other ways the turbines have their daily lives.

The town clerk let the crowd know that a special meeting had rules similar to an annual meeting. This meant the residents could vote on  90 day moratorium on wind development. The motion passed 78-19.

One of the wind developers warned the crowd that voting in a moratorium would kill the project.

The moratorium time will be used to research and develop a wind ordinance that will protect the health, safety and welfare of this community.

We'd like to thank attendee who sent us these photos and this report. 

A NOTE FROM THE BPRC RESEARCH NERD: AS WIND DEVELOPERS run out of places to put turbines, areas with low wind resources, like Rock County, are being targeted for siting industrial wind farms. What drives them to try to put turbines where there is little wind energy? Huge tax incentives from the federal government.
We want renewable energy. Unfortunately wind energy is an expensive and destructive form of renewable energy. The more we research this issue, the less we believe that wind developers have anything but money in mind when they push these  projects on communities where they don't fit.

Below is a letter from Martha Young in Pennsylvania who lays this issue out in a way we can all understand. (click here to read it at its source)

The collection of resources at the end of the letter (including documents from our own BPRC website) will be of value to anyone who is working with their local government to create wind ordinances with safe setbacks.

We say, Well done to Martha Young!

The letter says:

The following information was submitted to the Pennsylvania’s Potter County Commissioners during their regular meeting, open to the public, on September 25, 2008. I appeared before them to request for a 1-mile setback from non-participating landowner property lines. I went in search of documentation to defend this request, and the materials presented were the results of this search. Links to these documents can be found below.

Wisconsin has been a proving ground for industrial wind turbines. Much has been documented about their experience. The Large Wind Turbine Citizens Committee from the Town of Union published a Setback Recommendations Report. It is the most comprehensive document I have found to date.

The task of crafting a protective ordinance as well as overseeing construction and long-term operation of wind farms is monumental. Over the past few years, communities across this country have been learning, by trial and error, how to live with wind power. That developers are just now getting to Potter County testifies to the marginal quality of our sustained winds. However, our delayed development also gives us the opportunity to learn from other states so we do not have to repeat their same mistakes. There is no need for us to learn by trial and error - especially because making those same mistakes means that people will get hurt.

My primary concern is that no one gets hurt. Let’s establish as our motto “first, do no harm.” To that end, I am recommending, in addition to the 1-mile setback, establishment of a wider ring for safety (up to 3-miles) within which families have available to them remedial options should noise, shadow flicker, or blade glint be a problem; whether that means the planting of trees, installation of awnings, or buyouts for those who find life with turbines to be intolerable. For homes within this ring of safety, let the power companies put into escrow an amount equal to the appraised value of homes prior to turbine construction. Escrow funds should be available for the life of the turbine, offering protection to nearby homeowners should the turbine’s operation become more problematic over time. If the owners of these homes decide to sell and cannot sell on the open market, they will be bought-out by the escrow funds. Once the turbine is decommissioned, any unused escrow funds will be returned to the power company. If decisions on setbacks are influenced by power company claims that noise will not be a problem, let them backup their claims with financing to assist families that are affected.

Corporations do risk assessments all the time, and if the risk expense is within acceptable tolerance levels, projects move forward. Our requests for escrow funds to protect those who may be affected are certainly well within tolerance levels and would be acceptable to any power company worth doing business with.

No one knows how turbine noise will behave among the hills and valleys of Potter County. Noise research indicates that turbines can be heard 2 miles away or more. While it may not make sense from an economic development standpoint to establish a 2-mile setback, these statistics do substantiate the need to establish a safety buffer that extends beyond the setback limit. Build into the ordinance the flexibility to assess the actual impact of each turbine that goes on-line. Outline protocols to efficiently address all complaints and remediation steps for those affected. Tolerance is different for all people, and it is possible for us to address this diversity.

Noise, shadow flicker, and blade glint must not be trivialized. Noise will affect all living too close, especially at night when winds at ground level are typically quieter than winds aloft. Without ground-level ambient noise, turbine noise is louder at night than during the day. Shadow flicker and blade glint will also affect all living too close. Since this occurs only during the day, our community of retired people is particularly at risk, some of whom are elderly and whose health may be least able to withstand the experience.

As a homeowner within a stone’s throw of open farmland, my preference would be that wind turbines are built far enough away so that I never hear them or see them. I do not look forward to the prospect of having to document the effects of turbine noise on myself and my husband, endure the time it will take for due process to reach it conclusion. But, I would much prefer having access to due process than to be left swinging the breeze, so to speak. I do not look forward to having to leave a home that I’ve come to love, but I would much prefer being given the financial resources to relocate than to face possibly abandoning my home because noise conditions make it uninhabitable.

Let our ordinance be a litmus test for power companies, surfacing those who are equally committed to wind development AND protection of human lives, and who have the financial stability to do both. Doing business with corporations that are developing too fast, and skating on thin ice financially, will only increase the probability that turbine projects will be abandoned once the power companies can no longer afford to keep them operating. And prior to abandonment, they will likely limit or curtail maintenance, increasing the chances of turbine failure and potential for additional human harm. Power companies we want to do business with are those who are willing to be long-term partners with local communities, committed to working shoulder-to-shoulder, ensuring that all benefit and not one single person gets hurt in the process. Establishment of cash escrow funds prior to construction is well within their means financially. If their turbines are as quiet as their marketing campaigns claim, then there will be little if any likelihood escrow funds will be spent.

Dealing with gigantic international corporations, Potter County becomes just a number on a spreadsheet, and not a very spectacular number at that. What will motivate corporations like this to give us any of their time and attention once wind turbines start turning? It is incumbent upon us to be the best possible advocates we can be for the protection of public health, welfare, and safety.

Given the marginal winds in Potter County, I have a concern that we’ll be seen as a short-term cash cow. Power companies will make money on marginally producing turbines in the short term because of tax credits and unusually generous depreciation allowances designed specifically for wind power development. Once they’ve milked our turbines, once the tax credits and depreciation allowances run out, turbines here many well, at best, be subject to early retirement, or worse, abandonment. If we’ve done our homework well and attracted the “right” wind companies, they will not simply walk away from a cow that is no longer producing quality milk, but instead will follow through on their commitment to the decommissioning and removal all turbines, and put us out to pasture.

It seems to me that political and economic pressures to more forward with wind development are based largely on the promise of “payments in lieu of taxes” and the promise of new local jobs. I believe these issues should be addressed in the ordinance, requiring the power companies to commit in writing before development approval is granted. How many jobs will be held strictly for local residents? How much are they committing in revenue payments? What are the annual revenue increases, especially once their initial investments are recouped? The irony is that any revenue payments received from the power companies can easily be passed on to the end consumer in the form of higher electric costs.

While setback is my primary concern, I am equally concerned about what seems to be a lack of wind turbine education for County citizens, especially those who already are, or soon will be, negotiating to lease their land. How many have sought legal advice? There is so much rhetoric flying around; PR sounds bites from both sides. There’s no question in my mind that power company representatives will take advantage of naïve property owners, and the resulting leases will be weighted heavily in favor of the power company. “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” What the property owner doesn’t know to ask about, the power representative more than likely will not volunteer. Forbearance easements that forbid landowners from complaining about turbine noise are one example. We should promote full disclosure for all problems. Any power company that would include a forbearance easement in leases, or approach non-participating landowners with money incentives to sign one, is a company no one should do business with.

Reports are coming out that wind power is not all that is advertised to be. Turbines are only 25-30% efficient, create problems for the power grid due to the poor quality of the electricity produced - power surges, drop offs, production of electricity when it’s not needed. Electricity produced at the industrial level can not be stored. It is either used or dissipates as heat. To date, no coal burning or nuclear power plants have been taken off-line and replaced by wind farms so industry promoters to say that wind turbines are today reducing greenhouse gas emissions is simply not true. Energy technology will evolve; time will tell what is to become of wind power. Given the immediacy of economic recovery in Potter County, it may well be the short term opportunity needed to stimulate growth. That is a reality I realize you absolutely can not ignore, regardless of your personal opinions on wind power. And, I believe it is possible to move forward, albeit as cautiously as possible, with wind power development in a way that not one single person gets hurt in the process. Let our motto be “first, do no harm.”

Martha Young

WISCONSIN DOCUMENTS

Better Plan, Rock County
Rock County Tax-Payers for a Better Renewable Energy Plan
betterplan.squarespace.com/wind-ordinances-wisconsin-stat/

Wind Ordinances - Wisconsin State, County, and Town
betterplan.squarespace.com/wind-ordinances-wisconsin-stat/

The Town of Union Final Report
betterplan.squarespace.com/town-of-union-final-report/

LARGER SETBACKS

Larger Setback Summary Chart, pages 99 and forward from “Town of Union Setback Recommendations Report”
betterplan.squarespace.com/town-of-union-final-report/

Wind farm causing a stir
Blair County - 2500 foot setback
www.windaction.org/news/17014
wearecentralpa.com/content/fulltext/?cid=18031

Towns in the state of Wisconsin
2640 feet setback
betterplan.squarespace.com/wind-ordinances-wisconsin-stat/

The Noise Heard Round the World - the trouble with industrial wind turbines
1/2 mile more or more setback
www.wind-watch.org/alerts/?p=591

Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks
George W. Kamperman, INCE Bd. Cert. Emeritus Kamperman Associates, Inc. george@kamperman.com
Richard R. James, INCE E-Coustic Solutions rickjames@e-coustic.com
1km (3280 feet) or more setback
www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=1650

French Academy of Medicine warns of wind turbine noise
1.5km (.9-mile) setback
kirbymtn.blogspot.com/2006/03/french-academy-of-medicine-warns-of.html

Trempealeau County, Wisconsin
1-mile setback
betterplan.squarespace.com/the-trempeleau-county-wind-ord/

National Wind Watch
1-mile setback
www.wind-watch.org/press-070402.php

U.K. Noise Association
1-mile setback
U.K. Noise Association: 1 mile setback needed for wind turbines
kirbymtn.blogspot.com/2006/08/uk-noise-association-1-mile-setback.html
UK Noise Association - Wind Farms are Causing Noise Problems
www.windaction.org/news/4230

Beech Ridge Wind Farm, West Virginia
1 to 4 miles setback
www.beechridgewind.com/Docs/1-25-06_Beech_Ridge_Wind_Fa_Sheet.pdf

Deal reached in wind turbine dispute - Fayette County
6000 foot setback
www.windaction.org/news/16447
www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/fayette/s_573705.html

Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed New Homes: Effects o Health
2km (1.2 mile) setback
www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/wtnhhr_june2007.pdf

Location, Location, Location. An investigation into wind farms and noise by the Noise Association
1 to 1.5 mile setback
www.windaction.org/documents/4281

Are wind farm turbines making people sick? Some say yes.
1.5 mile setback
www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/04/17/news/doc4807500d59725857996033.txt

Dr. Nina Pierport
1.5 mile setback, more for mountainous geography
Health Effects of Wind Turbine Noise
www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=76
Noisy Wind and Hot Air
www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=69
Wind Turbine Syndrome - testimony before the New York State Legislature Energy Committee
www.savewesternny.org/docs/pierpont_testimony.html
except from rebuttal to Noble Environmental’s draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding noise, shadow flicker, and health
www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=100

Wind Turbines, Noise and Health
Dr. Amanda Harry
1.5 mile setback
www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/wtnoise_health_2007_a_barry.pdf

Riverside County, California
2-mile setback
www.rcip.org/documents/general_plan/gen_plan/03_d_16.pdf

Marjolaine Villey-Migraine
Docteur en sciences de l’information et de la communication, Université Paris II-Panthéon-Assas, Sp&egravecialiste de l’Information Scientifique et Technique (IST)
5 km (3.1 miles)
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=588

Microseismic and Infrasound Monitoring of Low Frequency Noise and Vibrations from Windfarms
10km (6.2-mile) setback
www.esci.keele.ac.uk/geophysics/dunlaw/Final_Report.pdf

NOISE RESEARCH

Facts About Wind Energy and Noise
www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/WE_Noise.pdf

“Anti-noise” Silences Wind Turbines, publication date August 2008
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080811095500.htm

New England Wind Forum: Wind Turbine Sound
US Department of Energy
www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/ne_issues_sound.asp

“Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effects on Health.”
with an annotated review of the research and related issues
by Barbara J Frey, BA, MA and Peter J Hadden, BSc, FRICS
www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/wtnhhr_june2007.pdf

Noise pollution from wind turbines
September 20, 2007 by Julian Davis and S. Jane Davis
www.windaction.org/documents/13040

This is a list of publications from the Acoustics Laboratory and the Department of Acoustics from the period from 1974 until now. The list is sorted in chronological order starting with the most recent papers.
acoustics.aau.dk/publications/pubframe.html

Listen to the sound of the future
Noise from wind turbines, roads or railways can be a very sensitive issue. But a unique technology - Auralisation - lets you listen to the future sounds before making important and costly decisions
Contact
Specialist Soren Vase Legarth
svg@delta.dk
Tel. +45 72 19 46 10
www.delta.dk/web/dk/doc4dk.nsf/6b0201744cf26453c1256ff6003dc987/cfb4ff502bcaabdbc12574b8003c27b7?OpenDocument

Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks
PAGE 10 PROVIDES SOME VERY CLEAR GUIDELINES THAT COULD BE ADDED TO POTTER COUNTY’S ORDINANCE
George W. Kamperman, INCE Bd. Cert. Emeritus Kamperman Associates, Inc. george@kamperman.com
Richard R. James, INCE E-Coustic Solutions rickjames@e-coustic.com
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/simple-guidelines-for-siting-wind-turbines-to-prevent-health-risks.pdf

The “How To” Guide to Siting Wind Turbines to Prevent Health Risks from Sound
George W. Kamperman PE and Richard R. James INCE
batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/08-08-26%20Kamperman-James,%20(WindAction.org)%20Ver.%201.5%20Noise%20Criteria%20for%20Siting%20Wind%20Turbines.pdf

Low Frequency Noise from Large Wind Turbines
Delta Project EFP-06. Client: Danish Energy Authority
www.deltainspire.dk/C1256ED60045E95F/sysOakFil/Lavfrekvens_publ_2/$File/EFP06-LF%20Noise-Evaluation%20of%20audibility%20and%20literature%20study%20AV%201098%2008.pdf

Abstracts
Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise
Lyon, France. September 20-21, 2007
www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/wtn2007_abstracts.pdf

“Noisy Wind and Hot Air,” Nina Pierpoint, MD, PhD
www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=69
(extract) “There need to be funds to cover damages to the health, property values, and quality of life of nearby residents, should these occur.”

Excerpts from the Final Report on the Township of Lincoln Wind Turbine Moratorium Committee
www.aweo.org/windlincoln.html
(extract) “As a result of so many noise complaints, The Moratorium Committee ordered WPS to conduct a noise study. . . . [T]he study established that the turbines added 5-20 dB(A) to the ambient sound. A 10-dB increase is perceived as a doubling of noise level. As soon as the noise study was published in 2001, WPS conceded that these homes were rendered uninhabitable by the noise of the turbines and made buyout offers for the neighboring homes.”

Wind Farm Noise and Regulations in the Eastern United States
Second International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise
www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-farm-noise-and-regulations-in-the-eastern-united-states/

Acoustic Trauma: Bioeffects of Sound
Alex Davies BFS Honours
www.dartdorset.org/noise/AlexDavies_AcousticTrauma.pdf

A Review of Published Resarch on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects
Report for Defra by Dr. Geoff Leventhall
www.dartdorset.org/noise/GLlowfreqnoise.pdf

Noise Background
DART (Dorest Against Rural Turbines)
www.dartdorset.org/html/noise.shtml

Project WINDFARMperception
Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents
www.windaction.org/documents/16255
Wind turbines more annoying than expected
www.windaction.org/documents/16245

G.P. van den Berg
Wind turbines at night: acoustical practice and sound research
Science Shop for Physics, University of Groningen, the Netherlands
www.viewsofscotland.org/library/docs/Wind_turbines_at_night_Van_Den_Berg_Mar03.pdf
Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound
Journal of Sound and Vibration
www.nowap.co.uk/docs/windnoise.pdf

Vibroacoustic Disease
N.A.A. Castelo Branco and M. Alves-Pereira
www.noisefree.org/monitor.pdf

Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise
Renewable Energy Research Laboratory
www.ceere.org/rerl/publications/whitepapers/Wind_Turbine_Acoustic_Noise_Rev2006.pdf

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS

Stop Ill Wind
The Top Ten False and Misleading Claims the Windpower Industry Makes for Projects in the Eastern United States
www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=topten_intro

Misplaced State Government Faith in “Wind Energy”
An Analysis and Report by Glenn R. Schleede
johnrsweet.com/Personal/Wind/PDF/Schleede-KansasWind-20050301.pdf

CRS Report for Congress: Wind Power in the United States, Technology, Economic, and Policy Issues
Jeffrey Logan and Stan Mark Kaplan
Specialist in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
opencrs.com/document/RL34546

Rural Power
Community-Sealed Renewable Energy and Rural Economic Development
John Farrell and David Morris
jfarrell@ilsr.org
dmorris@ilsr.org
www.newrules.org

Cellulose Prairie
Biomass Fuel Potential
By Brett Hulsey
Better Environmental Solutions
dnr.wi.gov/environmentprotect/gtfgw/documents/CellulosePrairie.pdf

Madison WI - Alternative energy doesn't always mean solar or wind power. In fact, the alternative fuels developed by University of Wisconsin-Madison chemical and biological engineering professor James Dumesic look a lot like the gasoline and diesel fuel used in vehicles today.

That's because the new fuels are identical at the molecular level to their petroleum-based counterparts. The only difference is where they come from.

Funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy, Dumesic and his team have developed a process that creates transportation fuels from plant material. The paper, published in the Sept. 18 online version of the journal Science, explains how they convert sugar into molecules that can be efficiently "upgraded" into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.

"Domestically, there are large amounts of lignocellulose available that are not being used effectively for energy," says Dumesic. "This work is a step along the way to making it practical to use biomass as fuel."

 

Lignocellulose refers to nonedible sources of biomass, which is biological material that can be converted into fuel. Instead of relying on corn as a source of energy, Dumesic notes that the goal of researchers in the field of "cellulosic ethanol" is to turn the carbohydrates, or sugars, from agricultural waste, corn stovers (leaves and stalks), switchgrass and forest residue into ethanol. Dumesic now suggests that instead of converting the water-soluble sugars derived from cellulose to ethanol, it may be better to convert these sugars to gasoline, diesel and jet fuels via this process.

Sugars are an attractive basis for fuel because they are abundant. Sugars comprise the largest portion of biomass, and the oil layer created by Dumesic retains 90 percent of the energy content in the original sugars.

The process of converting sugar into fuel begins by adding a solid catalyst to an aqueous solution, leading to the formation of an organic oil-like solution floating on top of the water. The oil layer, which is easily transportable, contains molecules of acids, alcohols, ketones and cyclics, which Dumesic calls "functional intermediates." These molecules are the precursors to fuel.

Unlike petroleum, plant sugars contain equal numbers of carbon and oxygen atoms, making it difficult to create high-octane or cetane fuels. The solution is to remove almost all the oxygen atoms, leaving only a few to keep the molecules reactive. The reactive molecules then can then be "upgraded" into different forms of fuel, and Dumesic's team has demonstrated three such upgrading processes.

"This is the same fuel we're currently using, just from a different source," says Dumesic. "It's not something that burns like it — it is it."

SOURCE: University of Wisconsin-Madison

In Rock County, wind developers have presented plans to put as many as 67 wind turbines in the town of Magnolia's 36 square miles. Each turbine is 40 stories tall. They have plans for at least three turbines in the town of Union, and they have been prospecting in Center and Spring Valley as well. Because developers tend to be secretive and often change their stories, it's hard to know exactly what their plans for our community are, and sadly the people who will be most affected are usually the last to know.

Yesterday the Janesville Gazette reported that EcoEnergy wind developer, Curt Bjurlin ,claimed he had permission from three landowners in Center township to submit applications for FAA clearance for  turbines on their property. When the Gazette contacted the three landowners, all of them said they had not given EcoEnergy or Mr. Bjurlin permission to do this.

One of the landowners is the Chairman of Center township. Wind developers often contact board members of townships with offers of hosting turbines on their land. We assume it's in the belief that the permitting process will then be made easier. 
(click here to read the Gazette story)

In January, there will be a big push in Madison to take away local control over where turbines can be in our communities and hand it to the Public Service Commission. The PSC believes 1000 feet is an adequate setback from our homes, though an open records request has revealed that not a single bit of scientific or medical data was used to come up with this number. There is plenty of scientific and medical data to show that a forty story tall turbine with known noise and shadow flicker problems should not be 1000 feet from a home.  Common sense will tell you the same thing.

Watch this video and see why. For those whose internet connection isn't fast enough to view the video, please email us at betterplan.rockcounty@gmail.com with your address and we'd be happy to send you a copy. You can also write us at Better Plan, Rock County  P.O. Box 393, Footville, WI 53537.

If your township doesn't already have an ordinance to protect residents, why not drop your town clerk a line asking that work on an ordinance begin? Better yet, why not attend a town meeting and make the request in person? Your future could depend on it.

Here's a letter from someone living with turbines on the East Coast. The story they tell is strikingly similar to the stories that are coming to us from Fond du Lac County. This letter was written on 3/26/08 by Mark and Kate Harris, Mars Hill, Maine. Mark is a pastor and Kate is a hospital administrator.

"You have asked for a description of how our lives have been affected by the wind farm on Mars Hill. These comments may be used in any way you please in assisting your town in making their decisions. I serve three congregations here as their pastor and my wife is an administrator in the area hospital. We moved here four years ago, coming from Vermont. We reside in the town of Bridgewater, Maine, which is eight miles from Mars Hill. We have purchased eighty acres on Mars Hill with the intention of building a home and living there when we retire. Unfortunately this cannot happen with the wind farm destroying the peace and safety of the residents all along the east and north sides of the mountain.

What has convinced us that we [can]not invest ourselves and our life savings here are our own observations, not what someone else has said. Over the past four years we have been working on establishing our boundaries, cutting in roads, developing a potable water source, thinning and pruning a maple sugar orchard, releasing and pruning apple trees, and establishing the best site for our house. In the last year, it has become increasingly clear that we will not be able to tolerate the intermittent and intense sounds coming from the turbines. When the wind comes from the west or the northwest, there is a rhythmic pounding that exceeds the permitted level of sound, namely in excess of fifty decibels. The nature of the sound is that it has a major low frequency component that makes the sound penetrate homes. My own experience is that when I am cutting with my chainsaw, when I put on my helmet with the hearing protectors, the sound actually penetrates the protectors. They [hearing protectors] block out the sounds of birds, wind, tree in the wind, brook babble, but not the relentless pounding of the turbines. The sound penetrates Wendy Todd’s home when we have meetings there, as well as Merle Copperwaithe’s home when we meet there.

We are greatly disappointed that there is no one to address our plight. My neighbors along the Mountain Road are discouraged with the lack of integrity of the town fathers, the Department of Environmental Protection, and UPC, the [wind]farm’s developers, who all have just abandoned us to our plight. The notion of this being “clean power” is untrue. It is morally and ethically unclean. The town was lied to by representatives of the investors, the town fathers did not read the application before they co-signed the application, the DEP did not and still does not have the expertise to assess or monitor the wind farm and UPC cannot be trusted. We do not have wind-farm specific laws to protect us from these uncontrolled forces. You are at great risk if you let these people into your town. With an investment of eighty-five million dollars, people’s judgment begins to erode.

I was trained as a biologist and worked in medical research and the food industry, and my wife is a hospital administrator. The health field is an unanswered question when it comes to turbines near homes. We have seen research that is coming out regarding the health problems involved with long-term exposure to the wind turbines. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have more documentation than we do. The World Health Organization has recommended a two kilometer distance between a turbine and a dwelling. We have turbines within a thousand feet of a dwelling, with children in the family.

Your risk at the hands of these uninformed and overzealous and unscrupulous people is large. Let them put the turbines in wilderness areas and not near dwellings. Better safe than sorry, as my grandfather used to put it.

I hope this letter may be of some use to you. There are others in our group who have better firsthand experience than I. I hope they will assist you. Wendy and Perrin Todd have given of themselves to this community and you can trust them. They are good people and not just some whacks. They have integrity in our community and you can trust what they tell you. Any mud slung at them will not stick. They have served this community well.

If there is anything else we can do, let us know. May God help you as there is no one else presently able to if you should let these turbines come to town.

Mark and Kate Harris