Note from the BPWI Research Nerd: Wind turbine related bat kills are ten times higher in Wisconsin than anywhere in the nation except Pennsylvania. There is serious concern about the survival of bat populations near Wisconsin wind projects.

WIND TURBINES AND DISEASE CUTTING BAT TOTALS

SOURCE: The Times Leader, www.timesleader.com 

July 19 2010

By Matt Hughes,

WILKES-BARRE — Sue Gallagher of the Carbon County Environmental Center has presented her educational program on bats so many times she could probably do it hanging upside down in the dark.

She ran through much of that program Thursday at Wilkes-Barre’s River Common, going over myths and misconceptions about nature’s only flying mammals. To summarize: Bats aren’t blind, they aren’t flying mice, they won’t get stuck in your hair and, unless you’re vacationing on a South American cattle ranch, they won’t suck your blood either.

A little more than a year ago, things changed, and Gallagher’s message about bats changed with it.

Bats in Pennsylvania are dying, Gallagher said, in such extreme numbers that future generations of Pennsylvanians may never see them in the wild.

“You guys aren’t going to grow up seeing bats the way we grew up seeing bats,” Gallagher told the approximately 10 children who gathered with their parents for the program, which was sponsored by rivercommon.org.

There are two culprits in the disappearance of the state’s bats, Gallagher said.

Hibernating bats, the sort that live in caves, have been affected by white nose syndrome, a fungus-based illness that causes bats to awaken from hibernation early. The bats, which live on a diet of insects, then die of starvation.

The illness, which spread south from New York State last year, kills 85 to 100 percent of bat populations it infiltrates.

Other bats, especially the migratory variety, are being killed by an unlikely source: wind turbines. Bats are attracted to the turbines during mating season, Gallagher said, when they will fly to the highest point above ground. They are then either killed by the large fan blades or by low pressure systems that form near the tips of the blades that cause the bats’ lungs to explode.

A single turbine can kill 50 to 100 bats a year, Gallagher said, adding that it is too early to judge the effect of wind energy on bats because Pennsylvania does not track bat population size.

“We want to get behind wind energy; we want to say wind energy is green, but we’ve got to address its impact on bats,” Gallagher said.

“I feel bad, because I really like bats, and I don’t want them to die,” Bethany Kelsey, 7, of Wilkes-Barre, said after the program.

“I didn’t know that they were dying, which makes me very sad,” Kelsey’s mother, Angel Kelsey, added. “I grew up in the woods watching the bats.”

The bat program was the first in a series of free children’s nature education programs being held at the River Common. The next, a live mammals program, will take place July 23.

Wind farm sows discord among friends

Wind Industry Background Check:

The current 'Wind Industry' as it stands would not exist without Enron. This short summary from the University of Iowa explains the connection:

SOURCE: University of Iowa, Center for Agricultural Taxation

"Wind Energy Production: Legal Issues and Related Liability Concerns for Landowners in Iowa and Across the Nation"

Click here to download entire document.

OVERVIEW:
Farmers have long used wind energy. Beginning in the 1800’s, farmers installed several million windmills across the Midwest and Plains to pump water and generate power for lights and radios.

Today, farmers, ranchers, and other rural landowners in suitable areas are utilizing wind energy in a different manner.

But, where did the current emphasis on wind generation of electricity come from?

There were early attempts dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, but it wasn’t until the late 1980s and early 1990s, that Enron (an energy company based in Houston, TX) lobbied the Congress with a friendly “renewable energy” project, and packaged it with their “electricity deregulation” lobbying and political efforts.

Their efforts were successful in getting laws passed at both the federal and state levels that would permit them to tie into the grid, require utilities to buy unreliable and unpredictable electricity (i.e., electricity generated by wind) under Renewable Portfolio Standards, allow them to sell “renewable energy certificates” separate and apart from the electricity, and utilize a newly created production tax credit and take advantage of a special accelerated depreciation rule.

SECOND FEATURE:

More from the University of Iowa report: Property Values

"At the present time, anecdotal data indicates that wind turbines have a depressing effect on nearby land values and are a drag on the ag real estate market.

Most recent anecdotal data from Illinois indicates that assessed value on farmland is dropping approximately 22-30 percent on farmland that is near land where wind turbines
have been placed.

Also, the increased risk of getting sued for nuisance has a dampening effect on value. Likewise, the annual payments, to an extent, are replacement income for the property rights that have been given up in getting the turbines in the first place.

Many of the agreements are quite restrictive in terms of potential development of the property, farming activities, placement of buildings, etc.

A willing buyer would take all of those factors into consideration when determining what price to pay for the property "

- "Wind Energy Production: Legal Issues and Related Liability Concerns for Landowners in Iowa and Across the Nation"

University of Iowa, Center for Agricultural Taxation

Click here to download entire document.

THIRD FEATURE: 

Note from the BPWI research nerd: In an already depressed housing market, those who live in areas where wind farms have been proposed have a new problem to contend with when trying to sell their homes. Will the disclosure about the coming wind farm help or hurt the sale? What happens if you sell your home without disclosing it?

More from the University of Iowa report: Contractual Issues

In a recent New York case, the plaintiff bought the defendant’s farm (including the residence) and sought to have the sale contract rescinded based on the seller’s alleged fraud and misrepresentations for not disclosing that plans were in the works for the construction of large wind turbines on an adjacent parcel.

The plaintiffs submitted the affidavit of a neighbor of the defendant who detailed two conversations with the defendant that occurred months before the defendant put his farm on the market during which the wind farm development was discussed.

The defendant, at that time, stated that the presence of commercial wind turbines on the adjacent tract would “force” him to sell his farm.

When the plaintiff sought to rescind the contract, the defendant claimed he had no duty to the plaintiff and that the doctrine of caveat emptor (“buyer beware”) was a complete defense to the action.

The court denied summary judgment for the seller and allowed the case to go to trial.

Near Town of Byron, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. Turbine construction phase of Invenergy Forward Energy Wind Farm. Photo by Gerry Meyer

How will you know if wind developers have targeted your community? If you're lucky there may be something about it in the local paper, or something may be listed on the published agenda for the Town board meeting.

In the past, developers were very open with the community about their plans. They changed that once people began to oppose projects. Now they are more likely to keep news of wind farms a secret from the community until key landowners are signed up.

Wisconsin's recently passed turbine siting reform legislation requires that only neighbors directly adjacent to a hosting landowners property be notified that wind turbines are about to go in near their homes.

This notification does not have to happen until the wind developer submits a formal application for the project to the Town board and/or the Public Service Commission.

A developer won't file an application until enough landowners are signed up, so by the time you find out about it, the project may well be on its way. That's what happened to one of our neighbors to the north who tells us his story here

Commentaries: Study of wind project may blow you away

By: Erin Logan, Zumbrota,

SOURCE: The Republican Eagle

Click on the image above to hear what turbines can sound like on a bad day. This video was shot by a resident of the Invenrgy Forward Energy project near the Town of Byron in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin. The closest turbine to his house is less than 1600 feet away.

Are setbacks and noise limits a public health issue or a profitability issue ?

Profitability for a wind project relies on the same short setbacks and inadequate noise limits that cause problems for residents forced to live with them.

Initially, Wisconsin families complaining of harm due to short setbacks and inadequate noise limits were not believed and even openly ridiculed, particularly by wind developers and lobbyists.

In granting recent approval for the Glacier Hills wind project, the Public Service Commission admitted the problems do exist, and some residents will be bothered by turbine noise and shadow flicker. The commission even suggested the utility consider a buyout of the most severely affected homes.

Now that the PSC has acknowledged the problem, the attitude toward wind farm resident's complaints and concerns has changed. The harm caused to families by inadequate setbacks is now considered unfortunate but acceptable collateral damage, a minor concern when weighed against the greater good.

But what is the greater good in the case of Glacier Hills? Most of us assume it's the reduction of green house gas emissions by using wind power.

However, Clean Wisconsin let the PSC know that there would be no reduction in CO2/GHG levels unless the utility is required to shut down an existing coal burning plant, something the utility has no plans of doing.

In a post hearing brief submitted to the PSC, Clean Wisconsin states:

"If the Commission allows WEPCO to continue construct Glacier Hills and operate all of its existing coal-fired capacity, WEPCO’s rate-payers will be paying over $525 million for a new facility that is not needed to satisfy demand and will not result in overall CO2 emission reductions."

Which begs the question: If there is to be no reduction in CO2 emissions, what is the state getting in exchange for forcing Wisconsin families to sacrifice their health, well being, and property value?

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: It's not just Wisconsin residents who are being forced to make questionable sacrifices. Click on the image below to hear about sacrifices our neighbors to the north are forced to make. An Ontairo dairy farmer speaks about wind leases, turbine related negative health effects and electrical pollution

Home in the Butler Ridge wind farm, near Iron Springs, Wisconsin

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Wind farms threaten county 

Greenbay Press Gazette

January 15, 2010   

 For the past three weeks, my neighbors and I in southern Brown County have been grappling with the possibility of losing our health and our homes to a private wind-farm developer.

It seemed to happen overnight, very quietly and well planned. My husband likens it to the operation of a stealth bomber; we never saw this coming.

The proposed industrial turbines would be placed as close as 1,000 feet from many peoples' homes and places of work on the ledge escarpment south of De Pere.

Placing these 40-story turbines that close to homes and businesses has shown in New York, Maine, Illinois, Fond du Lac, as well as England, France and Germany to cause neurological symptoms, i.e., migraine headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, tingling in the hands, etc.

This scientific study, "Summary of Recent Research on Adverse Health Effects of Wind Turbines," can be found at: www.windaction .org/documents/23709 . The data gathered by doctors and research scientists concludes that a moratorium should be put in place to rethink siting turbines so close to people and animals.

Industrial turbines are rated about 25 percent efficient and may hurt the environment more than help it. Because wind energy seems to be seen as the solution to our future energy problems, its legacy may be a human health and environmental disaster.

-Sandra Johnson

Greenleaf, Wisconsin

NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: For more information  about the project in Brown County,

CLICK HERE to visit the BCCRWE website.

Brown County Citizens for Responsible Energy (BCCRWE) is a grass roots organization of local residents in Brown County where Invenergy is proposing to build the Ledge wind farm.

CLICK HERE to visit the Public Service Commission docket for this project.

Type in case number 9554-CE-100

CLICK HERE to file a comment with the PSC on the project

Home in a wind farm, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin.  Photo by Gerry Meyer

Turbine Noise Annoys: Expert says people are suffering health problems from being too close to structures

By PAUL SCHLIESMANN

THE WHIG-STANDARD, www.thewhig.com

January 16 2010

"Some people are definitely suffering from the noise. Some people suffering are keeping quiet about it because of family ties. They can also see that some people are revelling in it. They're making money. There are technicians coming over to work. Some shopkeepers made a lot of money. It's been a shot in the arm, if you like. There's a party line."

-John Harrison retired Queen's University physics professor

 

      Some might accuse John Harrison of tilting at wind turbines, but the retired Queen’s University physics professor says he’s got the science to prove that wind farms are bad for people’s health.

Harrison became an expert critic of wind technology — and an ally of those who oppose it — after learning that his retirement community of Amherst Island could become the site of a wind farm like the one on nearby Wolfe Island.

“My first reaction was I thought it would spoil the island for the looks. I didn’t realize the noise problem,” said Harrison.

“I learned that they really should be kept away from where people live.”

So began what has amounted to a self-funded second career.

Two years ago, Harrison travelled to the western Ontario community of Kincardine to monitor an Ontario Municipal Board hearing into a proposed wind turbine project there.

He came away with the impression that, in order to get the project approved, industry representatives and provincial government officials were paying little attention to the science that linked the giant machines to health concerns.

“There were two experts,” he said. “Their testimony made no impact on the OMB hearing because, for one thing, the company had a very talented lawyer.

“I know the lawyer had no idea what was going on but had this amazing expertise to orient facts.”

Harrison recalled that the 100 or so residents opposing the Kincardine project had no money to hire a lawyer of their own and no ability to pay for independent studies.

“That was a real eye-opener for me,” he said. “First that there are noise problems, that there is a valid scientific basis for the noise problems, and that the ministry of the environment and developers are not interested in hearing about the noise problem.”

The scientist began poring over the research literature. He sent his analyses and critiques to anyone connected with wind projects, including Ontario’s environment minister, John Gerretsen, who is also MPP for Kings -ton and the Islands.

At the time, Wolfe Island, in Gerretsen’s riding, was about to become home to an 86-turbine facility built by Canadian Hydro Developers.

It officially opened last summer and was soon purchased by TransAlta.

Canadian Hydro had been considering a second wind farm on Amherst Island.

“I came back from Kincardine and started reading original reports, original science,” said Harrison.

One study, by a Dutch researcher on the topic of background noise, stood out.

At the time, Ontario’s regulations limited the noise effect from wind turbines on nearby residents to 40 decibels. At a wind speed of 50 km/h, however, up to 50 decibels were allowed, the theory being that wind blowing through surrounding vegetation such as trees and shrubs would mask the additional 10 decibels.

Harrison said the Dutch study showed that “at nighttime there is no masking noise.”

This would be especially true in places like Wolfe and Amherst islands, which are rural and quiet.

“This thesis was a thorn in the side for the Ministry of the Environment because it made nonsense of their thesis,” said Harrison. “It really rattled the Ministry of the Environment. Politically, it wasn’t good because it meant the regulation wasn’t very good.”

Gerretsen says the regulations that were subsequently written into Ontario’s Green Energy Act — with a 40-decibel maximum and 550-metre minimum setbacks — exceed all other jurisdictions and make the Dutch study irrelevant.

“He’s wrong about the masking,” said Gerretsen.

Despite his criticisms, Harrison was asked to sit on an environment ministry working group made up of about 40 people — ministry personnel and engineers, acoustic consultants, municipal staff, planning consultants, as well as himself and two other citizens.

When the working group endorsed a report written by a Ryerson University professor dismissing the Dutch study, Harrison was perturbed and, typically, responded with his own critique.

When a group of Wolfe Island residents asked for his help reviewing the environmental study for the new 86-turbine project in their community, again he found what he considered flaws in the data and dutifully told the consultants, Canadian Hydro and the ministry.

“They just ignored the whole thing. There was no check and balance in the system,” he said. “Those measurements were worthless. The ministry accepted them.”

Harrison said Wolfe Islanders today are more divided over the issue than many let on.

“Some people are definitely suffering from the noise. Some people suffering are keeping quiet about it because of family ties. They can also see that some people are revelling in it. They’re making money. There are technicians coming over to work. Some shopkeepers made a lot of money. It’s been a shot in the arm, if you like. There’s a party line.”

Harrison says he isn’t opposed to wind energy, though he feels it will never supply more than 4% or 5% of Ontario’s power.

He is against putting them near people. “My intention has been, let’s install renewable energy, but let’s install it away from people.”

Gerretsen said most wind-energy companies would probably prefer to be situated in remote locations to avoid conflicts, but the cost of getting the energy to the grid would become prohibitive.

“If you find more remote places, then you get into the problem of transmission lines,” he said.

In a recent interview with the Whig-Standard, Gerretsen endorsed an industry-funded report by the Canadian and American wind energy associations that characterized most of the health problems documented by people living near wind turbines as psychosomatic.

He said the Wolfe Island wind farm opponents were promoting not-in-my-backyard activism because they didn’t like the looks of the turbines.

Harrison dismissed that review as “an industry association convened and sponsored attempt to deny the adverse health effects being reported.”

He said the symptoms are real — people are losing sleep, becoming stressed and experiencing various health problems.

“Other families in Ontario are using safe houses maybe 20 km away. When they need a good night’s sleep, they go to these safe houses,” he said.

Harrison takes credit for helping a woman and her husband near Kindcardine get a settlement from the wind farm company.

“I sent in a report that the noise was far in excess of the Ontario noise regulation. The result was the company bought her out and made her sign a gag order,” he said.

“I think down the line you will see this on Wolfe Island.