Better Plan, Wisconsin

STUDY CLAIMS TO SHOW HEALTH IMPACT OF TURBINES

By Christopher Kazarian,

VIA The Falmouth Enterprise,

December 30, 2011

We each experienced unpleasant symptoms of motion sickness, including ear pressure, headache, nausea, dizziness, vertigo, especially when moving about,” the report reads.

In April of this year Stephen E. Ambrose, an acoustical consultant from Windham, Maine, drove down to Falmouth in his Toyota Camry.

The license plate, which reads “BE QUIET,” was perhaps the first sign that he was sympathetic to the plight of abutters living next to the town-owned wind turbines at the Wastewater Treatment Facility.

But that is even more apparent in a study of a nearby turbine in Falmouth Technology Park owned by Notus Clean Energy that Mr. Ambrose released with Robert W. Rand, also of Maine, two weeks ago.

In that document the pair detail the same symptoms they experienced that have been reported by several of the neighbors of Wind 1, the 1.65-megawatt turbine that became operational in March of last year. “Within twenty minutes of being inside their house, while setting up our instruments, each of us started to lose our initial enthusiasm and actually started to feel less well. As time went on, we got progressively worse. We each experienced unpleasant symptoms of motion sickness, including ear pressure, headache, nausea, dizziness, vertigo, especially when moving about,” the report reads.

The two remained in Falmouth, at an undisclosed home of an abutter to the Notus turbine, for three days. Their goal was to investigate infrasonic and low-frequency noise emissions.

The study, titled “The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study,” was privately funded by Mr. McPherson, a former Hyannis resident who died last March.

As to Mr. McPherson’s role in the study, attorney Christopher G. Senie of Westboro provided some additional background.

“Mr. McPherson approached me at a Cape Cod Commission meeting I guess about a year ago and indicated to me he was interested in trying to figure out why it was Falmouth residents were having such distress so he offered to finance a study to look further into it,” Mr. Senie said.

Mr. Senie currently represents six residents in a companion case to Neil P. and Elizabeth L. Andersen’s lawsuit against the Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision that upheld Building Commissioner Eladio R. Gore’s ruling that the town did not need a special permit to build Wind 1.

He also has represented neighbors during the town’s study of the turbine’s noise impacts last year.

Mr. Senie stressed that “Mr. McPherson didn’t exercise any influence over the study. He passed away long before it was completed or a draft of it was available.”

“I think he spent time pondering the question of whether turbines could be designed differently to eliminate problems,” Mr. Senie continued. “He was certainly concerned about the Cape community, which he loved, and this study seemed important to him.”

The responsibility of conducting the study fell into the hands of Mr. Ambrose and Mr. Rand, who collectively have 66 years of experience working in the field of acoustics. For the last two years, Mr. Rand said, they have been investigating noise generated from wind turbines.

“We approach noise problems from the point of view of the neighbor.” Mr. Rand said. “It is the best way to understand complaints.”

Originally the goal was to study Wind 1, but after selectmen voted to curtail the operation of that turbine when wind speeds reach roughly 23 miles per hour, the choice was made to investigate the Notus machine. “It is an identical make and model to tbe Wind 1 and Wind 2 turbines owned by the town,” Mr. Rand pointed out.

The study focused on low-frequency noise, something the researchers noted in their report is overlooked because local and stale regulations focus on “A-weighted sound level measurements” which essentially eliminates acoustic signals below 20 Hertz where infrasound’ is located in the acoustic frequency spectrum.”

Additionally, the pair noted that the A-weighted sound level was not the best measurement for determining problems indoors where abutters were complainjng more about discomfort.

Results sbowed that “the house envelope blocked most of the frequency content above l0 Hz, and amplified the remaining low-frequency pulsations, much like a drum.”

While the study’s focus was on low frequency, much of it details the health impacts the two felt from being exposed to the turbine.

A chart, listing the daily wind speeds, also includes the symptoms the two experienced. On the first day. for example, when wind gusts were between 25 and 35 miles per hour. the researchers felt everything from nausea to dizziness to the inability to concentrate. It is noted that the two “felt miserable” and “performed tasks at a reduced pace.”

Mr. Rand said he and Mr. Ambrose felt those symptoms for several weeks after. “I did seek medical treatment for that,” he said. “I obtained an eyeglass prescription. I wear them all the time. I never wore eyeglasses before this study.”

Both he and Mr. Ambrose “were caught by surprise” with how severely they were impacted, Mr, Rand said. “We were unprepared and unable to take measurements,” he said, noting that “we were able to pull ourselves together after the wind subsided… This has never happened to me at any period of my career, but this is the first time we measured wind turbines indoors.”

The report does not claim the turbine caused the physiological symptoms the pair experienced, but does say “there were strong correlations established.”

As to how much weight this study will hold in the town’s ultimate decision on what to do with its wind turbines is unclear.

Mr. Senie admitted it is another tool, adding to the body of science that “lends credibility to the concern when you put a large-blade wind turbine in close proximity to homes.”

While Town Manager Julian M. Suso has yet to review the report, Selec[men Kevin E. Murphy and David Braga have. Mr. Murphy was cautious about relying on this report solely, saying that “every bit of information will be part of the solution to the problem.”

Mr. Braga, however, believed that the study simply raises more questions about the turbines and their impacts. About a year ago he recalled spending the night near the turbine to see how serious the problem was. “It sounded like someone was putting sneakers in a dryer,” he said. “If that’s what the people are living with, it is no wonder they are complaining.”

Before the board rushes to action Chairman Mary (Pat) Flynn argued that its approach has to be well thought out and deliberate. Currently town officials are seeking public input on four consultants who will be responsible for facilitating a consensus-building approach on how to mitigate the impacts of the wind turbine.

Additionally, Falmouth has shut down Wind 1, and once Wind 2 comes online, the town will study that for one month before curtailing its operation to shut down at wind speeds of roughly 23 miles per hour.

Ms. Flynn said it would be unfair for the board to base its decisions on a study like this. “This was only three days,” she pointed out. “You have to do far more than gather data for three days… We have to be as neutral as possible when we look at the facts, take it in and not let our emotions affect our judgement.”

NEXT FEATURE:

LEGO makes a wind turbine kit. The wind turbines are not at all realistic in terms of size but it seems they did get the noise problem right. Click on the video below to hear the LEGO turbine

From Lee County, Illinois

A LOT OF NOISE ABOUT NOISE

BY DAVID GIULIANI,

VIA www.saukvalley.com

December 30,  2011

John Martin of Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Power, which is planning a three-county wind farm, suggested that the county could collect from landowners with unreasonable complaints by placing liens on their properties.

DIXON – The Lee County Zoning Board of Appeals had planned to discuss at its meeting Thursday the controversial issue of how far wind turbines should be from homes.

Instead, the panel discussed another issue that had gone unresolved in a previous meeting — noise regulations for wind farms.

After 2 hours of debate, the five-member board decided to delay a vote on proposed noise rules.

Member Mike Pratt presented a proposal for noise that would require wind energy companies to conduct sound studies before and after turbines are built – all paid by the firms.

No such assessments are required under the current ordinance.

The proposal also includes a complaint procedure. After a complaint is made, an investigation would be conducted. If the property owner’s complaint is determined to be reasonable, the wind energy company would pay for the study’s costs.

But if the complaint is deemed unreasonable, the property owner must pay. Members of the audience said such studies cost thousands of dollars.

Under the proposal, both the company and the property owner would put money in an escrow account before the investigation.

The complaint procedure would apply to property owners within a mile of a turbine.

Members of the audience suggested wind energy companies pay for the costs of investigations. They said that if property owners had to front some money, that would deter them from complaining.

Pratt said the provision was included to avoid frivolous complaints. But others, including member Tom Fassler, questioned whether there would be such a problem.

Fassler, who lives near turbines, said noise is an “elusive thing” and that turbines’ noise can be bothersome one day but not the next.

He acknowledged that much of the discussion of decibel levels was “over my head.”

John Martin of Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Power, which is planning a three-county wind farm, suggested that the county could collect from landowners with unreasonable complaints by placing liens on their properties.

Some audience members groaned.

Fassler responded, “If you were out of compliance, what are you going to do for the years that you interfered with people’s lives?”

Martin then proposed companies could pay for the first investigation of a complaint, but property owners would have to put up money for subsequent ones.

“That would penalize landowners,” said Rick Porter, a Rockford attorney representing a Lee County farm.

Porter encouraged the county to include a specific limit for turbines’ noise – 5 decibels above background noise. That number has been suggested by experts, he said.

Pratt’s proposal called for following Illinois Pollution Control Board regulations. Others pointed out that those rules were created before wind farms.

The board’s chairman, Ron Conderman, repeatedly tried to wrap up the discussion on noise regulations and get a vote. In the end, members agreed to hold off.

The panel has been meeting for 6 months to review the county’s wind ordinance. The Lee County Board will have the final say.

From Massachusetts

REMARKS PRESENTED ON WIND TURBINES TO THE BOARD OF HEALTH

Louise Barteau,

VIA www.southcoasttoday.com

December 29, 2011

Editor’s note: Louise Barteau made the following remarks to the Board of Health on Dec. 19.

By Louise Barteau

As I watched online videos or read many first-person accounts in the studies, I was struck by how often the folks telling their stories were originally in favor of the wind turbines, but later were accused in their own communities of being liars — despite having suffered unexplained and debilitating physiological symptoms, and often the complete disruption of their economic life as their houses lost 30, 50 or 100 per cent of their value.

I try to imagine what that might feel like, to feel physically ill, to not be able to live in your house, and then be accused of being a liar.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Louise Barteau and I am an artist, a writer, and an environmentalist. I used to teach art to Grades 3-6 at an elementary school. My late husband was a pediatrician. I care deeply about both sustainable energy as well as the health and well-being of children and adults in our community.

When I spoke at the School Committee meeting last week, I had just located the August issue of the Bulletin of Science Technology and Society and read the abstracts. I have since obtained the whole articles, read them, and submitted them to the committee. If you want to get a crash course in the Adverse Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines on Public Health, Wind Turbine Noise, Infrasound, and other scientific aspects of IWTs, I highly recommend these articles.

The reason the information in them should be highly valued is that they have been submitted, reviewed and accepted by an academic journal that reviews them for accuracy and good science. It further requires the authors to disclose any financial support or conflict of interest.

This is important because information funded by the wind industry has an innate tendency to suppress dangerous safety information because it will lower demand for their product. If wind turbines are perceived to be dangerous, it will be harder to sell them to towns like Fairhaven.

But although I respect the science behind the journal articles, I also value highly the first person accounts of ordinary citizens like myself. These reports should also be considered as data. As I watched online videos or read many first-person accounts in the studies, I was struck by how often the folks telling their stories were originally in favor of the wind turbines, but later were accused in their own communities of being liars — despite having suffered unexplained and debilitating physiological symptoms, and often the complete disruption of their economic life as their houses lost 30, 50 or 100 per cent of their value.

I try to imagine what that might feel like, to feel physically ill, to not be able to live in your house, and then be accused of being a liar. When many citizens living next to wind turbines first started reporting their symptoms, there wasn’t much independent science available to back them up and there wasn’t any context to understand their symptoms, so they were met with a lot of scepticism. A certain amount of scepticism is healthy, but to completely discount people’s experiences makes no sense to me either.

So when I received a very recently written study by two extremely respected scientists that verified people’s experiences by measuring sound scientifically while the authors themselves were actually experiencing symptoms, I knew it was very important. Every citizen in Fairhaven should read it.

What makes this study unusual is that both authors started experiencing physiologic symptoms within 20 minutes of entering the Falmouth home where they were measuring sounds for the study. They experienced headaches, nausea, dizziness, and had a difficult time performing their usual research the first day when symptoms were at their worst and wind speeds were at their highest.

These observations confirm the first-hand accounts of our Falmouth neighbors who experienced the same symptoms. It turns out that low frequency sounds are actually amplified by our houses, which end up acting a bit like a drum. People experience actual pressure in the ears, head and chest, which is further worsened by dizziness, confusion and anxiety as the body seeks to balance and orient itself while receiving pressure pulses, which distort the vestibular experience. One of the authors experienced vertigo for seven months following the study.

There has been a question raised as to whether the private funding of the study by Mr. McPherson, for whom the study has been named, in any way lessens the importance of the conclusions. What is extremely chilling and should give us all pause is that Mr. McPherson funded the study privately because he could not get the developers or the state to do it.

Furthermore, the authors of the McPherson study, Mr Ambrose and Mr. Rand, are both members of INCE, the Institute of Noise Control Engineering, a professional certifying association, and must agree to comply with the institute’s “Canon of Ethics,” which includes up front disclosure about funding and conflicts of interest, which they comply with. Their first conclusion is that we need more studies to study how brain waves and heart activity are affected by these pulsing low frequency sounds.

That may be true, but I don’t think Fairhaven residents should be the guinea pigs in those studies. If we build those turbines despite this growing and independent body of research, we may be doing just that.

Louise Barteau

West Island

STUDY SHOWS HARM FROM WIND TURBINE IN MASSACHUSETTS

VIA host.madison.com

December 29, 2011

A study has been done on the East Coast measuring the low-frequency noise coming off the blades of an industrial wind turbine in Falmouth, Mass., and entering people’s homes and making them sick. This study is science-based and was completed by licensed acoustic experts. They are asking for what we here in Wisconsin are asking for — objective, science-based epidemiological health studies of operational wind projects.

Why aren’t the wind corporations calling for these needed studies? Because they know what the health experts will find and release to state officials and the media — that close siting of industrial wind turbines harms people and domesticated animals and impacts the habitat selections of wildlife.

The dirty little secret of low-frequency noise from industrial turbines harming living things is getting out to the public.

Sandy Johnson

Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy

Latest legislation fails to extend Section 1603 cash-grant program

By NAW Staff, North American Windpower, www.nawindpower.com 27 December 2011 ~~

New legislation agreed upon by the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate on Dec. 22 – which focuses on payroll tax extension, unemployment insurance benefits and Medicare – does not include extension of the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Section 1603 cash-grant program, which is scheduled to expire at the end of this year.

Renewable energy stakeholders had vigorously lobbied for the continuation of this program in recent months.

The final agreement, which was signed into law by President Obama on Dec. 23, includes future work by senators and representatives on reconciling the differences between the chambers.

Bill Rakocy, Emerging Energies. Photo by Gerry Meyer, provided by Better Plan

WIND FARM PLAN RETURNS

Via The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

By Thomas Content

A proposal to build a wind farm in western Wisconsin is back despite the opposition of local government officials, who rescinded permits for the project and adopted a moratorium on wind projects.

The proposal from Emerging Energies of Wisconsin was filed with the state Public Service Commission. It's the first proposal for a large wind farm filed with the state this year.

Hubertus-based Emerging Energies is seeking to build 41 turbines that would generate 102.5 megawatts of power in the Town of Forest in St. Croix County.

The state Public Service Commission has jurisdiction over large wind farms - any project with at least 100 megawatts - and will begin a review of the project.

A dispute over setbacks provided to wind energy projects has led to a stalemate for the wind industry on projects below 100 megawatts.

That stalemate resulted from protests over a statewide rule on wind siting developed last year by the PSC.

Wind opponents, including the Wisconsin Realtors Association, considered the proposal too restrictive on property rights. Last January, Gov. Scott Walker, who was backed by the Realtors in his election campaign against Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, proposed a property rights bill that would require turbines to be located farther from nearby homes.

This fall, the governor's office and PSC expressed interest in a compromise between wind developers and property rights advocates.

"The PSC is still trying to facilitate a compromise," agency spokeswoman Kirsten Ruesch said.

No resolution is in sight, though.

Emerging Energies is trying to abide by standards set by the PSC when it approved We Energies' Glacier Hills Wind Park northeast of Madison, developer Bill Rakocy said. That wind farm began operation last week.

The setback standard requires that turbines be at least 1,250 feet from nearby homes. Unlike Glacier Hills, the Emerging Energies project would not require any waivers to exempt certain turbines from the setback requirement.

Rakocy said his wind project has been in development since 2007.

"We believe that, given the economy we find ourselves in, Wisconsin needs this project to move forward from an economic standpoint and a jobs standpoint," he said.

The developer is in talks with utilities that would buy the power, Rakocy said.

But local opposition to the project led to the formation of a citizens group, The Forest Voice, and subsequent recall of the entire three-member Forest Town Board earlier this year.

At that time, Emerging Energies was proposing to build four fewer turbines for a project that was under 100 megawatts.

The new town board voted at its first meeting in March to rescind building permits for the wind project and to impose a moratorium on wind power development.

Concerns about the project included the potential for having nearly 500-foot towers in the area.

As a result of the moratorium, the only way for Emerging Energies to build the project was to make it bigger. That triggers state agency review rather than local review.

The PSC has 360 days to rule on the project.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: The video below features residents of the same developer's first wind turbine project and what has happened to them since the turbines went on line.

At least two families have abandoned their homes in the eight turbine project because of turbine noise and pressure in the ears.

Emerging Energies has since sold the project.

Video courtesy of The Forest Voice-- visit their website by clicking HERE

"At least eight families living in the Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore just south of Green Bay, are reporting health problems and quality of life issues since the Shirley Wind project went online in December of 2010. Six families have come forward, five of them testify on the video, and at this time two of them have vacated their homes. STAND UP to protect people, livestock, pets, and wildlife against negligent and irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines."

-The Forest Voice

The maddening sound people being asked to live with: Albany, NY --Wind turbine noise video via deepestdeepstblue

WIND FARM PROPOSAL IS FIRST IN TWO YEARS

Doug Schneider/Press-Gazette, Clay Barbour, Wisconsin State Journal,

via www.greenbaypressgazette.com

December 27, 2011 

MADISON — Developers have applied to the Public Service Commission for a permit to build a large new wind farm in western Wisconsin, the first application of its kind in more than two years.

Emerging Energies applied this month to build Highland Wind Farm, a 41-turbine, 102.5-megawatt project in the St. Croix County towns of Forest and Cylon, about 25 miles east of the Minnesota border.

The application comes as new wind siting rules remain in limbo in the PSC, with officials trying to broker a deal between the wind industry and its critics.

William Rakocy, a founding member of Hubertus-based Emerging Energies, said his company understands there still is some uncertainty surrounding Wisconsin’s wind energy regulations, but he feels confident about the project.

“I guess we would like to believe that more reasonable minds will prevail,” he said.

Wind farms have been a contentious issue in Northeastern Wisconsin.

A proposed 100-turbine wind farm polarized Morrison and other southern Brown County communities before Invenergy LLC in March withdrew its plans to seek permits to develop the project. The company cited the state’s lack of siting guidelines in pulling the proposal, which would have put 54 turbines in Morrison and others in Glenmore, Holland and Wrightstown.

Residents around the hamlet of Shirley have complained that a smaller wind development there has reduced their property values, and has caused health problems for some people. The development’s owner insists that the wind farm complies with all laws.

Those concerns have prompted elected officials to be involved. State Sen. Frank Lasee, R-Ledgeview, this fall proposed a statewide ban on turbine construction until the state is in possession of a report that assures that they are safe.

Brown County Supervisor Patrick Evans last week called for the County Board to support the Wisconsin Citizens Safe Wind Siting Guidelines, a proposal that would establish limits for audible and low-frequency sound emissions, and set penalties for certain violations. A county committee will consider that request in January.

The new wind siting rules, more than a year in the making, were suspended just before going into effect in March. Those rules required wind turbines have a setback from the nearest property line of 1.1 times the height of the turbine, or roughly 450 feet. The rules also required turbines be no closer than 1,250 feet from the nearest residence.

Gov. Scott Walker proposed changes to those rules, pushing the setback from the property line — not just a dwelling — to 1,800 feet, or about a third of a mile. That legislation did not pass but did lead Republicans to ask the PSC to negotiate a new deal.

Those rules are for projects under 100 megawatts. The Highland project is larger and does not specifically fall under the rules under debate. But state law requires PSC officials to consider the yet-to-be approved rules when considering projects of greater than 100 megawatts.

This is only the beginning of the process, and the PSC has 30 days to determine if the application is complete. The agency has up to 360 days to make a decision.

Dan Rustowicz of Minnesota’s Redwind Consulting, a wind farm builder, said he is glad to hear about the application.

“That is a really good sign,” he said. “But we still need to get these rules resolved. Clarity is powerful.”

NEXT FEATURE

WIND POWER MARKET FACES TOUGH 2013

Via www.reuters.com

December 28 2011

The wind turbine market faces a difficult 2013 even if a U.S. incentive scheme known as the Production Tax Credit (PTC) is extended beyond its end-2012 expiry date, Denmark-based MAKE Consulting said in a research note.

Uncertainty about whether the tax credit will be extended or replaced with something else has led to a rushed 2011 and 2012 wind farm building cycle, while new development plans for 2013 have plummeted, MAKE said.

“The wind industry will see precipitous drops in 2013 installations without a PTC,” MAKE said in an abstract of a note for paying customers entitled, “U.S. market eyes policy cliff”.

“But even if a PTC is extended, the market impact is likely to be muted due to more challenging macro-economic conditions – basic demand conditions remain weak and natural gas futures remain low,” it said. “Even with a PTC, 2013 will not be the boom market of PTC years past.”

MAKE Consulting said that an analysis of publically announced orders for projects to be completed in 2012 showed the top-tier turbine manufacturers solidifying their market shares.

MAKE’s annual ranking list published in March this year showed Danish wind turbine maker Vestas clinging to its world market leadership with a 12 percent share, ahead of China’s Sinovel in second place and U.S. industrial giant GE in third.

Turbine prices have eroded steadily since 2008, but aggressive sales tactics may not be sustainable, MAKE said.