These photos show one of the two turbines at the 100.5 MW Grand Ridge Energy wind facility in La Salle County, Illinois, about 80 miles southwest of Chicago, which experienced blade failures on July 23-24, 2010.

Each blade is about 130 feet long-- the equivalent height of a thirteen story building.

A spokeswoman for Invenergy Wind said in the event of high winds the turbines are designed to come to rest with one blade pointing down and parallel to the base of the tower.

According to Invenergy, the winds came so quickly that the safety mechanism did not have time to engage. 

In the video below, Wisconsin wind siting Council members Ryan Schryver and Jennifer Heinzen make it clear they do not believe safety setbacks from wind turbine are warranted, saying "Safety is a relative term"

SECOND FEATURE:

Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: 

Like other local groups who are asking hard questions about wind siting in our state, Better Plan, Wisconsin is an all volunteer independent citizens group that accepts no funding from outside sources. Yet Wisconsin groups such as ours are frequently characterized as "well-funded anti-wind organizations."

In an recent Wisconsin State Journal article, reference was made to "well-funded anti-wind organizations" in our state, a statement which is frequently made in Wisconsin media without attribution or support.

Better Plan has been trying to source the statement. A google search of "well-funded anti-wind organization" pointed us to a number of PR and consulting firms often hired by wind developers to build community acceptance of a project.

Barnaby Dinges, who was quoted in the Wisconsin State Journal article but not identified as a public relations consultant, runs an Illinois PR Firm called "The Dinges Gang." Invenergy has hired Dinges to help bring in the Ledge Wind Project in Brown County.

(Scroll down to the end of the post to read more about the Dinges Gang)

PR firms such as the Dinges Gang work hard to discredit local residents who have concerns by categorizing them as "a small but vocal minority" and 'well-funded NIMBYS'. They also employ techniques to turn neighbor against neighbor. The article below, by an employee of a Public Relations firm called "The Saint Group" details how this is done.

Turning anti-wind sentiment into permits requires organization, strategy and plain ol’ grassroots politics.

By Ben Kelahan, North American Windpower, July 2009

Community relations may be the road to reputation, but understanding practical local politics paves the way to permits. Opposition groups are sophisticated, organized and well funded. They have borrowed the highest-priced tactics from corporate public relations and masterfully use the Web to circulate misinformation about the impacts of wind farms.

Understanding how the opposition plans to stop your wind farm may be the first step toward planning for its approval. The truth is that planned wind developments run into local trouble every day. Let’s begin by examining some customary tactics used by the opposition.

Opportunistic opposition

Energy developers, particularly wind developers, expect to face opposition from individual landowners and other residents based on the typical siting concerns, such as shadow flicker, noise impacts and property value arguments, that pop up across the country. However, in some cases the opposition takes on some special interest from known characters. Thus, it also takes special care in managing their impact.

Local politicians are accustomed to the usual suspects showing up at public hearings and in letters to the editor of weekly papers on controversial development projects.

Now, wind companies are beginning to notice a pattern to the cast of opponents appearing before zoning hearing boards, road commissioners and alderman, who oppose wind farms using the locality’s zoning codes and planning restrictions as tools to defeat developments town to town.

In Illinois alone, developers such as Horizon Wind Energy, NextEra Energy Resources and Iberdrola Renewables have been the targets of vociferous anti-wind sentiment.

Turning to the Web

Need talking points for the public hearing tonight? Look no further than the growing number of Web sites that circulate their own “myth versus fact” sheets about wind farms and their impact on local communities. Many of these sites have organized talking points by issue, including public safety concerns, such as wind turbine syndrome, or counter-arguments to wind energy’s effectiveness, such as like intermittency.

There are plenty of anti-wind Web sites online. These sites provide a quick primer should you be motivated to oppose the local wind farm proposed down the road. Further they provide best practices borrowed from wind energy site fights from around the globe, complete with per sonal testimonials of those that have opposed wind turbines and won.

The effectiveness of these online anti-wind sites is not necessarily their basis, because impactful opposition doesn’t necessarily need sound science or experience to be effective with local politicians. All it takes is an emotional trigger on a critical local issue to start the flames of opposition to motivate a vocal minority.

If the anti-wind sentiment goes unchecked by a majority of people in the project area who make known their support based on equally passionate arguments that activate locals to take political action on you behalf, you could be in trouble come the day of the permit vote.

Democracy in action

Wind developers are keen on establishing strong relationships within their communities. Community meetings are a popular method of introducing your project to the most people at one time.

An efficient and productive use of time and resources, community meetings provide an educational one-stop shop for answering questions and informing the public about your plans. Although these meetings can allay the concerns of locals, perceptions can change if you let the opposition speak at the gatherings.

So, that raises the question: Why have these meetings if they are not required? Some developers, mindful of being new to the community, do so as a courtesy. But is it helpful?

“It’s one thing if an agency requires a public session – you have to do those,” says Robert Kahn, a 25-year veteran public relations consultant working in wind power, “But it’s rarely a good idea to volunteer to host your own,” he says. “Too often, a public meeting simply provides opponents a chance to identify one another and get better organized. There are much better ways to get the word out.”

When the format for a community forum plays to the positions of opponents, beware.

Here’s how it typically occurs: In an effort to demonstrate transparency and a willingness to consider resident concerns about a wind development plan, the developer begins with a 10-minute presentation of the proposed plan, with specific sound bites reviewing the merits of constructing the wind farm in town. Some of the positives include green jobs, tax revenue, road improvements and donations to local schools. All of those benefits accruing to the community sound wonderful.

After your presentation, undecided residents are satisfied, even though they know it’s in your financial best interest to say so. So even after hearing the pitch, they may not trust you. Then, the outspoken opposition speaks about public safety and health issues. For those attending the hearing, it is a question of taking sides.

If you are fortunate, the undecided members will leave undecided. However, those who have decided may be recruited to speak against you at the next hearing on your special-use permit.

At some point in the approval process, holding an open house allows local residents to see visual simulations, maps and descriptions of construction plans and schedules, along with displays of planned environmental mitigations. An open house is far more relaxed than a community meeting.

Thinking like your opponents may mean acting like them. Several wind power developers have encouraged local citizens to organize support groups around which to rally environmental and property rights activists, business interests and other pro-wind constituencies. Think of these groups as an anti-not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) antidote.

“There’s no substitute for supporters standing up and speaking out on behalf of proposed projects,” Kahn says. “They can say things which a developer, who has one hand tied behind his back, can’t.’

What you can do

However, until such counter-NIMBY organizations expand, developers must n-lake a concerted effort to outnumber the vocal minority and special interest groups that desire a political victory for their own constituencies and members. It can be done, starting with the following basic steps:

Research. Understand the political climate surrounding your project before you go public with your proposal. First, make a list of likely supporters and opponents. Then, do some research. Has this site been the subject of previous controversies? Some sites are considered too troublesome and will never succeed in obtaining change-of-use permits. Knowing the history of the site could impact your decision making.

Time and target your outreach. Never let the news media be the first to describe the impact of your wind project nor be considered the best source of facts about your plans for the site. Inform the politicians and neighbors before they read it in the press.

Persuade. Go door to door informing landowners and residents. Explain the proposal, and attempt to determine who will support it, who will stay neutral and who will oppose. Shortcuts, such as hosting public meetings, will not do the trick in inoculating public opinion over a wind power project.

Get started by scheduling small meetings with key constituencies and community leaders. “These are the people who shape local opinion,” says Kahn. “Their support will be indispensable in countering the opposition.”

Political process. You need to attack this as if you were a local politician running for office, which means identifying, recruiting and organizing. Organize supporters, and then get them to attend meetings, sign petitions and write letters to the editor. Above all, you need to demonstrate public support equal to or greater than that of your opponents.

Negotiate when possible. In some cases, you can offer mitigation, or negotiate in some other way to get opponents to drop their positions. In other cases, the opponents or their backers have an economic interest in defeating your project that will never be overcome by an attempt at compromise.

In those cases, you must marshal sufficient political support to overcome the opposition and be prepared to educate your supporters in the community about what you know about your opposition – where they come from and why you feel they’re involved. Let them be the judge.

Ben Kelahan is senior vice president, energy, at Vienna, Va.-based Saint Consulting Group, a community outreach consultancy.

WHO ARE YOU, BARNABY DINGES?

Now don't us tell a FIB!

Dinges, who calls Wisconsin an "Energy Slacker"  lives in Illinois and is running for mayor of  Evanston, a city located just north of Chicago on Lake Michigan.

 He runs a Public Relations firm called "The Dinges Gang" and has been hired by wind developer giant, Invenergy, to smooth the way for the Ledge wind project in Brown County.

From "THE DINGES GANG" website:

"If your company, group or government agency is facing a challenging issue or project, call in The Dinges Gang."

Who else does the "Dinges Gang" represent?

• Abbott Laboratories
• Chicago Bears
• The Chicago Network
• CMGI
• Chicago Park District
• Draper and Kramer
• Illinois Department of Transportation
• Illinois Department of Public Aid
• Illinois Sports Facilities Authority
• Kraft Foods
• PLS Landscape Architects

Public Relations Team Projects for...

• ComEd
• DTE Energy
• Gateway 2000
• Ghirardelli Chocolate
• Illinois Casino Gaming Association
• Jim Beam
• Lernout & Hauspie Speech Recognition Products
• Monsanto
• Sears
• Starkist
• Trizec Hahn Properties

WHAT HAS THE DINGES GANG DONE FOR WISCONSIN?

From the DINGES GANG website:

ADVOCACY

Case Study: Forward Energy Windmill Farm

 

Generating Green Energy and Public Support

Invenergy developed plans to build Wisconsin’s largest wind farm, a 200-MW project within miles of the Horicon Marsh, a migratory destination for millions of birds and the area’s largest tourist attraction. The wind farm would provide enough power for 70,000 homes and help Wisconsin reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015.

The Challenge

In a classic case of NIMBY obstructionism, a local group used $50,000 in public funding to organize a group to oppose the project and encourage the Public Service Commission to vote against the project. The opposition group, Horicon Marsh System Advocates, created an opposition web site, and used its 300 members to write letters to regulators and media, and to attend public meetings to rail against the project. The opposition group claimed the wind farm would kill birds, destroy the area’s landscape, endanger local pilots, and harm local tourism.

The Plan

Partnering with local farmers who would host wind turbines on their land, The Dinges Gang educated the group to communicate with local officials and the media.

We placed “Wind Yes!” signs in front of their farmhouses. The group of supporters also included Wisconsin environmental groups and local labor and construction groups.

The Forward Energy team testified at public meetings and emailed letters of support to the Public Service Commission.

Supporters also wrote letters to and conducted interviews with media to underscore the broad benefits of the project (keeps farmers farming, provides $1-million annually in new local taxes for government, creates 250 construction jobs, etc.).

We also refuted each of the opposition’s arguments, showing them to be wild exaggerations and desperate attempts by a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) group to impede progress that will benefit the entire region.

Our Success
On July 8, 2005, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission voted to support the $250-million project, which will erect 133 wind turbines on the Niagara Escarpment, within two miles of the Horicon Marsh.

NOTE FROM THE BPWI NERD:

The "'NIMBY' advocacy group Dinges mentions here turned out to be right about wildlife impact.

Initial post construction mortality studies show the Forward project turbine related bat deaths are among the highest in north America at 41.5 bat kills per turbine per year, or over ten times the national average of 4 bat kills per turbine per year.

In a little more than two years, the Invenergy Forward project along side the Horicon Marsh is estimated to have killed over 7,000 bats. The bird kill rates for this project are also much higher than the national average

 The current setback from the Horicon Marsh is two miles. Invenergy is pushing to site turbines in Phase Two of this project a mile from the marsh.

At an open meeting held Thursday at the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, commissioners discussed the the text of the proposed wind siting rule.

DOWNLOAD THE PROPOSED RULE BY CLICKING HERE

Commissioner Lauren Azar suggested a setback of 2200 feet from homes unless a developer can prove  a turbine could be sited closer to a residence and still meet noise and shadow flicker standards. 

She said the setback distance was based on information from PSC staff which indicated a 45dbA noise standard would be met at that distance.

However, Commissioner Azar also noted that the World Health Organization recommends 40 dbA as a nighttime noise standard, and indicated was the noise limit she preferred.

Residents under contract with developers could waive all standards and have turbines placed as close as 1.1 times the turbine height to their homes.

Chairman Callisto and Commissioner Meyer didn't offer their immediate opinions on Azar's suggestions.

Continued discussion of wind siting rules is scheduled for Monday.

Wind farms and wildlife: The heartbreak of the Horicon

Wind farms and Bats:

How are bats being killed in wind farms?

WIND FARM CONSTRUCTION VIDEOS

Video of what kind of changes a wind turbine brings to a farmer's fields.

Trenching and electrical cables

Access roads and soil disturbance

Torn up roads and compacted soil

Heavy equipment and cranes compact soil

How big are the shadows cast by industrial scale turbines? What do they look like? Why are they a problem?

What is shadow flicker like on houses in Wisconsin wind projects?

 SECOND FEATURE

RESIDENTS SAY STATE RULES FOR WIND FARMS LACKING

SOURCE: Sun Journal, www.sunjournal.com

August 19 2010

By Eileen M. Adams

DIXFIELD — Panelists and townspeople at a public hearing Wednesday night blasted what they believe are insufficient state regulations to govern the half-dozen or so wind farms proposed for western Maine.

The hearing was sponsored by the River Valley Alliance and the Friends of Maine’s Mountains, groups that oppose such developments. Other groups, such as the Friends of Spruce Mountain in Woodstock, were also at the hearing.

Among the panelists was Robert Rand, an acoustical engineer from Brunswick, who described the potential effects on people of the sounds made by the blades and generators of turbines.

During much of his talk, he played a recording of a turbine operation he said was made at a small operation in Freedom.

Such noise, he said, has the potential to adversely affect people living as close as 2 miles from an operating turbine. He said the frequency and decibel levels could result in the inability to sleep, high blood pressure and other maladies.

Paul Druan, chairman of the Weld Windpower Committee that is charged with developing a wind farm ordinance, said that when he attended a similar forum with the sound of turbines turning, one man became nauseated.

Sean DuBois, whose residence was not immediately available, said he believed more studies should be conducted on the possible adverse health effects.

“Don’t you think it’s too early to judge health effects?” he said.

Rand said he didn’t think so.

“There are people in Mars Hill, Freedom and an island on the coast who definitely have problems,” he said. “I’m concerned about the lack of peer-reviewed studies by the companies.”

He said that sounds from turning turbines do not decrease as quickly over water as they do over land.

A home should not be located less than 2 miles from a turbine, and even then, the sounds could affect people, he said.

Also speaking was Karen Pease, a resident of Lexington Township which is next to the state’s largest proposed wind turbine project in Highland Plantation. Independence Wind LLC, whose principals are former Gov. Angus King and Rob Gardiner, have proposed construction of 48 turbines.

She spoke of the effect the siting of wind turbines could have on real estate. She said Maine doesn’t have a sufficient number of houses on the market to do comparable studies, but one done in Illinois showed at least a 25 to 40 percent drop in value for homes about 2 miles from a wind project.

“Some are a total loss,” she said.

Also, she said, wind developers are not being required to provide a bond for decommissioning turbines so that they could be taken down and the land reclaimed.

Dan McKay, a major player in the organization of the hearing, said that with the number of people who live in the River Valley area, building what he estimated to be about 100 turbines made little sense.

“Turbines are a chance to shut down the recreational opportunities in the area,” he said.

Nearly 200 proposed turbines are in various stages of development from the Rumford area to Highland Plantation. First Wind LLC of Newton, Mass., has proposed siting up to 19 turbines in Rumford and Roxbury; Independent Wind LLC is proposing the Highland Plantation project and 22 turbines in Roxbury; and Patriot Renewables LLC of Quincy, Mass., has proposed a total of about 50 turbines in Carthage, Dixfield, Canton and Woodstock.

McKay said signatures were being gathered on a petition asking the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to change the acceptable decibel level produced by turbines to 5 decibels above the ambient level in an area currently without turbines.

He said the signatures collected in several River Valley towns and Woodstock would be sent to the Citizens Task Force, which is circulating a petition statewide calling for more regulations on wind development.

THE RULES FOR WISCONSIN ARE HERE:

Click here to download the text of the new wind siting rules released today.

Click here to download a 'red-lined' text of the rules, which show what changes the PSC staff made to the siting council's recommendations.

The rules are now in the hands of the three PSC commissioners who will decide on the final version of the rules in a few weeks.

WIND TURBINES IN THE NEWS:

Blown in the Wind

SOURCE: SLATE.COM

By Robert Bryce

 Aug. 16, 2010

They like everything big in Texas, and wind energy is no exception. Texas has more wind generation capacity than any other state, about 9,700 megawatts. (That's nearly as much installed wind capacity as India.) Texas residential ratepayers are now paying about $4 more per month on their electric bills in order to fund some 2,300 miles of new transmission lines to carry wind-generated electricity from rural areas to the state's urban centers.

It's time for those customers to ask for a refund. The reason: When it gets hot in Texas—and it's darn hot in the Lone Star State in the summer—the state's ratepayers can't count on that wind energy. On Aug. 4, at about 5 p.m., electricity demand in Texas hit a record: 63,594 megawatts. But according to the state's grid operator, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state's wind turbines provided only about 500 megawatts of power when demand was peaking and the value of electricity was at its highest.

Put another way, only about 5 percent of the state's installed wind capacity was available when Texans needed it most. Texans may brag about the size of their wind sector, but for all of that hot air, the wind business could only provide about 0.8 percent of the state's electricity needs when demand was peaking.

Why does Texas get so little juice from the wind when it really needs it? Well, one of the reasons Texas gets so hot in the summer is that the wind isn't blowing. Pressure gradients—differences in air pressure between two locations in the atmosphere—are largely responsible for the speed of the wind near the Earth's surface. The greater the differences in pressure, the harder the wind blows. During times of extreme heat these pressure gradients often are minimal. The result: wind turbines that don't turn.

Lest you think the generation numbers from Aug. 4 are an aberration, ERCOT has long discounted wind energy's capabilities. In 2007, ERCOT determined that just "8.7 percent of the installed wind capability can be counted on as dependable capacity during the peak demand period for the next year." And in 2009, the grid operator reiterated that it could depend on only 8.7 percent of Texas' wind capacity.

The incurable variability of wind is not restricted to Texas. Consider the problems with wind energy during the frigid weather that hit Britain last winter. In January, the Daily Telegraph reported that the cold weather was accompanied by "a lack of wind, which meant that only 0.2 [percent] of a possible 5 [percent] of the UK's" electricity was generated by wind over the preceding few days.

Understanding wind's unreliability is critically important now, at a time when America's basic infrastructure is crumbling and in desperate need of new investment. In June, the Government Accountability Office issued a report that said that "communities will need hundreds of billions of dollars in coming years to construct and upgrade wastewater infrastructure." Add in the need for new spending on roads, dams, bridges, pipelines, and mass transit systems, and it quickly becomes clear that politicians' infatuation with wind energy is diverting money away from projects that are more deserving and far more important to the general public.

Imagine a company proposed to construct a bridge in Minneapolis, or some other major city, that would cost, say, $250 million. The road would be designed to carry thousands of cars per day. But there's a catch: During rush hour, the thoroughfare would effectively be closed, with only 5 percent, or maybe 10 percent, of its capacity available to motorists. Were this scenario to actually occur, the public outrage would be quick and ferocious.

That's exactly the issue we are facing with wind energy. The reality is that towering wind turbines—for all their allure to certain political groups—are simply supernumeraries in our sprawling electricity delivery system. They do not, cannot, replace coal-fired, gas-fired, or (my personal favorite) nuclear power plants.

Despite these facts, wind-energy lobbyists have been wildly successful at convincing the public and—more importantly—politicians, that wind energy is the way of the future. More than 30 states now have rules that will require dramatic increases in renewable electricity production over the coming years. And wind must provide most of that production, since it's the only renewable source that can rapidly scale up to meet the requirements of the mandate.

The problems posed by the intermittency of wind could quickly be cured if only we had an ultra-cheap method of storing large quantities of energy. If only. The problem of large-scale energy storage has bedeviled inventors for centuries. Even the best modern batteries are too bulky, too expensive, and too finicky. Other solutions for energy storage like compressed-air energy storage and pumped water storage are viable, but like batteries, those technologies are expensive. And even if the cost of energy storage falls dramatically—thereby making wind energy truly viable—who will pay for it?

An unbiased analysis of wind energy's high costs and flaccid contribution to our electricity needs is essential in this time of economic constraint. Despite the dismal economic news, despite the fact that the wind-energy sector, through the $0.022 per-kilowatt-hour production tax credit, gets subsidies of about $6.40 per million Btu of energy produced—an amount that, according to the Energy Information Administration, is about 200 times the subsidy received by the oil and gas sector—wind-energy lobbyists are calling for yet more mandates. On July 27, the American Wind Energy Association issued a press release urging a federal mandate for renewable electricity and lamenting the fact that new wind-energy installations had fallen dramatically during the second quarter compared to 2008 and 2009. The lobby group's CEO, Denise Bode, declared that the "U.S. wind industry is in distress."

Good. Glad to hear it. It's high time we quit blowing so much money on the wind.

REVISIT NOISE STANDARDS

Noise standards paving the way for billion-dollar wind-farm developments across the country are biased and should be ripped up, academics say.

“One can only come to the conclusion that the concept is mainly a business promotion and public relations exercise which has been devised to appear to be taking into consideration the health and welfare of local residents but is designed to get the most out of the investment for the cheapest outlay, without causing the community to take serious legal action against the developer and territorial authority,”

- Philip Dickinson, Massey University acoustics professor who says the wind turbine noise standard, and those elsewhere in the world, appeared to be based on “scientific nonsense”.

SOURCE: The Press News , August 18, 2010   READ COMPLETE STORY BY CLICKING HERE

We Energies turbines in Blue Sky Green Field project near Malone, Wisconsin

UNION MAN DETAILS HOW COUNCIL WROTE THE RULES:

 SOURCE: The Janesville Gazette, gazettextra.com

August 15, 2010

By Gina Duwe,

UNION TOWNSHIP — A local man who worked on the state council to write wind siting rules says the slanted make-up of the committee toward the wind industry created a disservice to the process.

The resulting rules likely will increase local dissent and resistance to proposed projects, which he predicts will end up in court, said Doug Zweizig, who co-chaired the wind siting council.

“I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I don’t think it’s going to be pretty,” said Zweizig, who also is vice-chair of the Town of Union Plan Commission and worked on a special committee to write the town’s wind ordinance.

The wind siting council this week released its report that serves as recommendations to the state Public Service Commission.

Zweizig was one of four council members that disagreed with portions of the report and wrote a minority opinion that was attached to the end of it. The minority report states concerns over the failure “to address the realities of the effects of large wind turbines on nearby populations, to bring quality information into critical areas and to explore the economic implications of locating an industrial facility next to a residential area.”

The process

Legislators approved a bill last fall to allow the PSC to create rules to regulate wind projects statewide instead of the patchwork of local ordinances.

The council drafted its report over the last four months, and the three PSC commissioners will consider the report, the full record and all public and stakeholder comments before issuing the final rules, said Lori Sakk, legislative liaison for the PSC.

Then the presiding officer of the state Assembly and Senate will have 10 days to refer the rules to a committee, which would have 30 days to schedule a hearing or request to meet with the agency. If neither action is taken, the rules are promulgated and become law.

The law said the council members needed to be representatives of specific categories, including the energy industry, uncompensated landowners, wind developers, real estate agents, medical and research experts, environmentalists and local government.

But, “that’s not the way the appointments were made,” Zweizig said.

Whenever the PSC had any leeway, someone with ties or a supporting opinion to the wind industry was appointed, he said.

Sakk responded by saying the council members were appointed according to the statutory eligibility requirements established by the state Legislature.

Zweizig said his impression is that wind industry advocates were frustrated with towns such as Union, which has an ordinance for a half-mile turbine setback, so they went to the state to override the local ordinances. They got the legislation, he said, and since the PSC already was supportive, a council was put together to rubber stamp the desired outcome.

“What that did in terms of group process, meant that the majority never really had to explain itself very much … or talk through issues,” Zweizig said. “They didn’t have to do that because they knew they had the votes.”

Council Chairman Dan Ebert said in a letter accompanying the report that the council had “significant discussions” on many recommendations “in the spirit of working toward consensus.” He said the recommendations reflect input from all council members, but acknowledged there were areas that the council did not reach a consensus.

The council’s report states a turbine should be sited so:

– It is set back from homes 1.1 times the maximum blade tip height, which would be 440 feet for the 400 foot turbines, Zweizig said.

– It creates no more than 40 hours of shadow flicker on a home. If it’s more than 20, the operator is required to provide mitigation, which can include putting blinds up in a house, Zweizig said.

– The noise it creates is no more than 45 decibels at night and no more than 50 decibels during the day.

Zweizig said some council members lacked concern for health problems associated with living too close to turbines. He and others tried to point out that people are abandoning their homes because of health problems stemming from the noise and shadow flicker.

That’s why council member Larry Wunsch, who lives within 1,100 feet of a turbine in Fond du Lac County, is trying to sell his property, Zweizig said. Wunsch also was among the four minority opinions on the council.

“He did whatever he could to let those on the council know those are the circumstances,” Zweizig said. “They never asked him a question. They never said, ‘What is this like?’ They just waited him out, knowing that in the end they would just outvote him.”

Local wind projects

The status of proposed projects in Union and Magnolia townships is unclear.

EcoEnergy was developing both projects, including signing on landowners, before it sold the rights for both to Acciona in 2007, said Jason Yates, contract manager with EcoEnergy in Elgin, Ill. The proposed projects back then included three turbines in Union and up to 67 in Magnolia.

Wind measurement towers were put up in both townships: Magnolia’s went up in April 2007 at County B and Highway 213 and Union’s went up in late 2008 at County C and Highway 104.

The Magnolia tower came down this spring at the end of the 36-month contract, landowner Tom Drew said. Since then, Drew said the only thing he heard from the company was that it was waiting to see the results of the state’s new wind siting law.

In Union, the town permit for the tower expired last fall, and Acciona has decided to remove the tower, supervisor George Franklin said. It will be removed this fall after the corn that surrounds it is harvested, he said.

The Acciona North American website does not list any Wisconsin projects under its “In the works” projects. Acciona could not be reached for comment.

Evansville turbine begins operation

The new wind turbine in Evansville should be operational early this week, if not already, after possibly being struck by lightning.

The Northwind 100 arrived at the city’s wastewater treatment plant on Water Street in June. After running for only a couple days, the turbine stopped working late on the night of July 21 or early on July 22, said Eve Frankel, marketing and communications manager at Northern Power Systems.

“We believe that it was potentially due to a lightning strike, but it’s still under an investigation,” she said.

The manufacturer is fixing parts on the turbine and ruling out causes, she said.

The repair shouldn’t cost the city, City Administrator Dan Wietecha said, because it would be covered under the warranty or insurance.

Frankel said lightning striking a turbine is an “unusual occurrence,” though Wisconsin seems to have more lightning strikes than other regions.

The tower height on the 100 kilowatt turbine is 120 feet and each blade is 37 feet. The turbine is part of the $7.2 million effort to upgrade the wastewater treatment facility.

NEIGHBORS: WIND ENERGY HAS ITS PRICE

SOURCE: host.madison.com

August 14 2010

by Clay Barbour

ST. CLOUD, Wis. — Elizabeth Ebertz loves her garden, but the 67-year-old grandmother doesn’t work in it much anymore.

The small vegetable patch, which has produced onions, carrots and tomatoes for many family dinners, sits behind her home, in a little valley, about a half-mile from a dozen 400-foot-tall wind turbines.

The structures are part of the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in northeastern Fond du Lac County, one of the state’s largest wind farms, capable of producing energy for about 36,000 homes.

Unfortunately, said Ebertz, the turbines also produce enough noise to chase her from the garden — and most nights, disturb her sleep.

“Sometimes it sounds like a racetrack, or a plane landing,” she said. “You wouldn’t believe how loud it gets.”

The state Public Service Commission is considering a new set of wind farm regulations that could free up the industry and promote growth in Wisconsin, a state that has lagged behind the rest of the Midwest in using wind as an alternative energy source.

The PSC, which regulates state utilities, is expected to send the proposal to the Legislature by the end of the month.

If passed, the measure could go a long way in helping Wisconsin reach its goal of generating 10 percent of its energy with renewable sources by 2015. Renewable sources account for 5 percent of the state’s energy now.

The measure could also end what has been years of localized fights — often spurred by well-funded anti-wind organizations — that have effectively killed at least 10 proposed wind farms in the past eight years, and scared off several others.

But for people like Ebertz, the new rules mean more people will have to deal with wind turbines and the problems that come with them.

“I wish those things were never built here,” Ebertz said. “They’re just too close to people. I wish they were gone.”

State far behind neighbors

Wisconsin spends about $1.5 billion on imported energy every year and ranks 16th in the country in available wind.

According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Wisconsin has the capacity to produce up to 449 megawatts of energy from its current wind farms — enough to power about 110,000 homes.

Yet the state trails other Midwestern states in wind energy production. Minnesota wind farms produce 1,797 megawatts, Illinois produces 1,848 and Iowa generates 3,670. “It’s not even close,” said Barnaby Dinges, an AWEA member and lobbyist from Illinois. “Wisconsin is danger of falling out of the wind game altogether. It’s getting a reputation as inhospitable to the wind industry.”

Dinges has lobbied for six wind farms in the past five years, three of them in Wisconsin. He said the state has a number of well-organized anti-wind groups that have endangered its 10 percent goal.

“This isn’t like any grass-roots opposition we have seen elsewhere,” he said. “These aren’t just concerned citizens going to meetings. These are mass mailings, billboards, full-page ads. It’s more professional and it costs a lot of money.”

Jenny Heinzen — a professor of wind energy technology at Lakeshore Technical College, which has campuses in Manitowoc, Cleveland and Sheboygan, and a member of the state’s Wind Siting Council — said she has been amazed with the opposition.

“I have my suspicions that they are getting help from some groups from outside the state, but that has never been confirmed,” she said, referencing persistent rumors of coal and natural gas companies helping to kill wind projects here.

There are a lot of people who live near wind farms and never report problems. Still, the state is home to several anti-wind groups, including the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, the WINDCOWS, the Calumet County Citizens for Responsible Energy, Healthy Wind Wisconsin and the Coalition for Environmental Stewardship.

These groups have some powerful supporters, including several prominent lawyers, lobbyist and former state Sen. Bob Welch and Carl Kuehne, former CEO of American Foods Group.

But officials with the anti-wind groups say most of their members are simply residents who do not like the thought of living near a wind farm.

“We heard that criticism before — that we are a front group for oil and gas companies — but it’s just not true,” said Lynn Korinek, a member of WINDCOWS. “We are a group of about 200 members who hold rummage sales to fund our fight. There are no special interests behind us, believe me.”

Neighbors claim health problems

Most of the state’s anti-wind groups say they have nothing against wind energy, they simply disagree with how it is implemented in the state.

Still, their websites show members either fear the possible side effects of wind energy, or want others to fear them. The concerns include diminished property values, occasional noise pollution, moving shadows cast by the giant windmills along with loss of sleep from vibrations, increased menstrual cycles, high blood pressure, headaches and irritability.

Recently, the state Division of Public Health looked into the issue, studying more than 150 medical reports, interviewing dozens of residents and municipalities and consulting the universities of Wisconsin, Maine and Minnesota, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Their conclusion was that scientific evidence does not support the claim of wind turbine syndrome, an umbrella term for the health problems some have attributed to wind farms. The letter also points out that many of the symptoms associated with the condition — headaches, irritability, loss of sleep — are fairly common and can be attributed to other factors.

“They can explain it anyway they want, but something is different around here and it has been ever since they put those turbines up,” said Allen Hass, a 56-year-old farmer who owns about 600 acres in Malone, northeast of Fond du Lac.

Hass has three Blue Sky Green Field turbines on his property. He said We Energies, which owns the wind farm, pays him about $12,000 a year for the space.

Hass said the money does not make up for his health problems, including headaches and loss of memory.

“I wish I never made that deal,” he said.

Brian Manthey, We Energies spokesman, said the company is aware of Hass’s complaints, but that the scientific evidence does not support them. He said the company works hard to make its neighbors happy.

“You never get 100 percent support for anything, but you will find that a lot of people are happy with the farm,” he said.

New rules trump local ones

The new rules, written by the Wind Siting Council, streamline the state approval process so potential developers know exactly what they face when considering a project in Wisconsin.

Probably the most important aspect of the new regulations deals with state permitting. In the past, the state only had direct authority over wind farms generating more than 100 megawatts.

Under the new rules, the state would deal with all wind farms. Local municipalities would still be involved but would not be allowed to establish regulations stricter than the state’s.

Supporters figure this will open the door for the rapid growth of wind energy in the state by bypassing many of the local fights that have created such a logjam. Wisconsin is home to nine wind farms, with another two under construction, and three in the planning stages.

THIRD FEATURE:

STATE OF MAINE WANTS $36,000 for public records on wind energy

Sun Journal, www.sunjournal.com

 August 16, 2010 By Naomi Shalit,

As part of its reporting on the Wind Energy Act of 2008, the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting filed a state public records request under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act, called a FOAA request.

However, the Center never received much of the material it requested from the state because the cost was prohibitive: $36,239.52.

That’s what the state Public Utilities Commission wanted from the Center to search for e-mails from 2005-2007 between then-PUC Chairman Kurt Adams and any representatives of wind company First Wind (where Adams took a job after leaving the PUC); between Adams and Gov. John Baldacci, for whom Adams had previously worked as legal counsel; and between Adams and several prominent wind power attorneys employed by the law firm of Verrill Dana.

In her response to the Center’s request, Joanne Steneck, general counsel for the PUC, explained that “in order to review any e-mails from 2005 to 2007, it will be necessary to restore Mr. Adams’s mailbox from the mail server back up. According to the Office of Information Technology … it takes approximately 2 1/2 hours to restore a snapshot of each day’s e-mails.”

The Center sought access to the e-mails because Adams’ input had been crucial to the deliberations of the governor’s wind power task force.

Initially, Steneck told the Center that a search of backup discs containing e-mail records for the period prior to January 2008 could be done for a cost upward of $10,000.

The Center then asked for a waiver of the $10,000 cost, under provisions in the state’s FOAA that allow waivers to be granted for noncommercial use of public information.

The PUC refused to grant the waiver and revised its estimate of the cost for the Center to get the information to $36,239.52.

According to Steneck, the increased estimate represents the actual cost for OIT to retrieve and restore 824 backup tapes, at a charge of $21.99 per hour, plus the time it would take for PUC personnel to review the restored e-mail messages and redact confidential information. The process is laborious, she explained, because “the state of Maine’s e-mail system was designed in such a way that the backup and restore process allows for disaster recovery purposes only and does not include duplication or search criteria of an archive retrieval system.”