THESE PICTURES WERE TAKEN BY JIM BEMBINSTER THIS FALL IN COLULMBIA COUNTY, WI IN THE GLACIER HILLS PROJECT, OF WE ENERGIES. THE PROJECT NAMED ABOVE. THEY CLEARLY SHOW THE FRAGMENTATION AND DESTRUCTION OF WISCONSIN FARM FIELDS BY ACCESS ROADS AND TRENCHES FOR UTILITY LINES TO TURBINES THAT DO NOT FOLLOW FENCE LINES. FARMERS ALSO COMPLAIN OF SEVERE SOIL COMPACTION DUE TO ALL OF THE HEAVY MACHINERY USED DURING CONSTRUCTION.
PLEASE CLICK ON ANY PICTURE TO ENLARGE
WINDCOWS are committed to research and provide the most accurate information possible about industrial wind farms proposed for our communities , to educate about the realities of wind energy, and to research alternative renewable energy options for our area. If there is anything you find on our website that is inaccurate, please contact us immediately at info@windcows.com. We will be glad to verify any information and correct any errors.
WISCONSIN PSC BACKDOORS HIGHER RENEWABLE FEES DURING DECEMBER LAME DUCK SESSION....
If anyone tries to tell you that industrial wind turbines will lower your rates, here is proof they are not. In the lame duck session in December, Democrats voted to allow rate increases in our utility rates over the next 4 years. Now that is a job killer.
NOISE LEVEL BLOW FOR WIND FARMS
NATIONAL AFFAIRS ( Click for link) Australia
Wind farms are coming under increased scrutiny nationally after a Senate committee this week recommended firmer noise limits and urgent research into the turbines' potentially damaging health effects on nearby residents.
WIND ENERGY ADVOCATES CONTINUE TO MAKE FALSE CLAIMS THAT INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES DO NOT CAUSE ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS.
CLAIMING THAT COMPLAINTS ARE ANECDOTAL AND THAT THERE WAS NO PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE OF ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS FROM INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES.
YET INNOCENT LANDOWERS BECOME VICTIMS OF THOSE LIES AS INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES ARE INSTALLED TOO CLOSE TO HUMANS AND ANIMALS.
From Ontario
by Carmen M.E. Krogh, BScPharm and Brett S. Horner, BA, CMA
A SUMMARY OF NEW EVIDENCE;
ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS AND INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES
Leading Scientific
Peer-Reviewed Journal Publishes Special
Edition on WindTurbines
Wind Concerns Ontario
The first peer reviewed scientific journal devoted solely to the impacts of wind turbines on communities was published today by
SAGE Publications Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society
AMERICAN TRADITIONS INSTITUTE Video Series Explains :
WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY MANDATES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PART 1
PART 2
PART 3
The
Shirley Wind
Farm is now
owned by
Duke Renewable
Energy
Their website states:
"It's part of our commitment to doing business in a way that’s good for people, the planet and profits."
IT IS ADMIRABLE TO WANT TO SAVE OUR ENVIRONMENT.
BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SACRIFICE HEALTH, SAFEETY, QUALITY OF LIFE AND PROPERTY VALUES TO ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL. WE ARE NOT FIGHTING THE EFFORT TO SAVE OUR ENVIRONMENT, WE ARE FIGHTING TO BE PART OF A BETTER SOLUTION.
WORKING TO EDUCATE COMMUNITIES ON THE TRUTHS AND
REALITIES
OF
WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Brown County
Citizens
for
Responsible
Wind
Energy
Forest Voice LLC is a multi member Wisconsin Limited Liability Company in the Town of Forest, WI.
We are an organized group of residents in the Town of Forest, WI. Our goal is to create community awareness about the realities of wind development.
Badgers for a Better Renewable Energy Plan
Coalition for Wisconsin Environmental Stewardship
A New Study Takes The Wind Out Of Wind Energy
Robert Bryce, 07.19.11, 05:00 PM EDT
Reality has overtaken green hope.
Their results show that the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and other wind boosters have vastly overstated wind's ability to cut sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide.
WISCONSIN FARMER RUES THE DAY
HE SIGNED WIND FARM DEAL
SEVERAL LANDOWNER WANT OUT OF CONTRACTS
By Regan Carstensen,
SOURCE The Republican Eagle, www.republican-eagle.com
Published November 21, 2011
“If they had both sides of the story, they may not have signed the contracts.”
WISCONSIN CITIZENS SAFE WIND SITING GUIDELINES ARE THE RESULT OF A STATEWIDE EFFORT TO CREATE SCIENCE BASED GUIDELINES FOR SAFE INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINE SITING. THESE REFERENCED GUIDELINES PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND PROPERY RIGHTS OF WISCONSIN FAMILIES. IT IS CRITICAL THAT ANY DISCUSSION ESTABLISHING SITING PARAMETERS FOR WISCONSIN WIND ENERGY FACILITIES USE THESE GUIDELINES AS A BASIS.
WIND FARM PLAN RETURNS
Credit: By Thomas Content of the Journal Sentinel,
www.jsonline.com 28 December 2011
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.
WIND RUSH: 1603 TAX DOLLARS BLOWN IN THE WIND
By Felicity Carus
Published: November 16, 2011
Hundreds of millions of federal dollars from a flagship clean energy grant program were awarded to projects that were well under way before Barack Obama was inaugurated, despite the aim of the 1603 grant program to “primarily” stimulate new projects.
“When the financial crisis hit many developers found that they didn’t have the tax liability that would allow them to claim the credits, so the program was developed to offer an alternative way to continue to incentivize renewable energy development,” a Treasury spokeswoman said. “So, the 1603 program was primarily meant to incentivize new renewable energy projects, but it also supported some existing investments.”
The 1603 grant program was funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009, better known as the stimulus, but was extended for another 12 months last year.
The 1603 “cash” grant program was a payment for “energy property” in lieu of tax credits, such as the Production Tax Credit used mostly in the wind industry, and the Investment Tax Credit used mostly to encourage solar developments. Awards were equivalent to 30% of the project’s total cost placed in service on 1 January or later. At least one payment has been made to a company after it went bust.
As of 31 October 2011, Treasury figures for the 1603 grant show that $8.474 billion of a possible $9.6 billion was split between 22,747 projects. Treasury claims these grants attracted an additional $32.9bn in private and federal investment to fund 14.1 GW-worth of projects, with a total estimated electricity generation of 36.8TWh.
The top 1603 award for any renewable industry went to E.ON Climate & Renewables North America. Treasury documents show that $542.53 million was awarded to E.ON Climate & Renewables North America this September for six projects.
The six E.ON projects to receive the largest combined sum include Stony Creek in Pennsylvania, and Inadale, Pyron, Panther Creek III, and both Papalote Creek I and Papalote Creek II in Texas.
Bankruptcy Is No Bump In The Road
In March 2010, Pattern Energy Group, based in San Francisco, acquired the 283.2 MW Gulf Windenergy project in Texas for an undisclosed sum from Babcock & Brown, which was placed into voluntary liquidation in March 2009.
Pattern Energy Group was a spin out from the Sydney-based global investment firm and purchased the Gulf Wind project as part of Babcock & Brown’s liquidation of assets. But $178 million, the third largest 1603 grant, was awarded to Babcock & Brown in December 2009, four months after it went bust.
But the Treasury still paid out on the award after the company called in the administrators.
“Treasury would only become a creditor if we had to recapture the funds because, for example, the project was abandoned,” said a spokeswoman. “The project was sold to another entity, which is allowed under the Section 1603 program, and is still operating.”
Pattern Energy Group also received two identical 1603 payments of $40.155 million this year for its two Hatchet Ridge wind projects in California.
Last year, Investigative Reporting Workshop revealed that $706 million in federal stimulus money went to wind farms that were completed before President Obama was inaugurated. A total of $1.3 billion went to 19 farms finished before the first dime of stimulus grant money for renewable energy was ever handed out, the report said.
As of October 31, 2011, Treasury records show at least 95 solar and wind projects were awarded grants in 2009, which means it is almost certain that these projects were well under way before Barack Obama introduced the stimulus. Although there is no suggestion of wrongdoing, there is a question of additionality, a clear objective of the stimulus funds.
Stepping In When Banks Falter
But many developers were faced with a finance gap as credit markets dried up from 2008, forcing investors to shy away from the tax-revenue dependent PTC. The funding shortfall in 2008 reveals the precariousness of mechanisms to finance renewable energy projects. Without healthy rates of tax revenue, the industry is at risk of collapse.
Moraine Wind II developed by Iberdrola Renewables, was an example of hundreds of projects that could have collapsed if the government had not introduced the 1603 cash grant.
PPM Energy, a precursor to Iberdrola Renewables, was granted a site permit authorizing construction of the project on 31 July 2007, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission records show. That project was complete by 1 January 2009, and Iberdrola Renewables was awarded $28,019,520 in September 2009.
Jan Johnson, communications director of Iberdrola Renewables, says the 1603 grant arrived just in time.
“It was essential when the 2008 financial crisis wiped out the market for monetizing tax credits,” he said, “leaving wind companies that were in the midst of building multi-million dollar facilities stuck with a decision to shut down construction and lay off workers or continue projects and take huge financial losses.
“Iberdrola Renewables and other renewable energy project developers has reasonably good assurance from the Obama transition team and congressional leaders in late 2008 that Congress would adopt what eventually became the 1603 program.”
Defending The Forward March Of Wind
Developer and manufacturers in the wind industry would also have been badly hit, says Vic Abate, VP of GE Energy’s Renewables business.
“The industry would have come to a screeching halt without 1603. A lot of those projects would never have been built. That would have been much more disruptive in my view to the economy to the industry and to the success of the US in moving forward towards a more independent energy future. 1603 did exactly what it was intended to do. It allowed those projects to keep marching forward.”
The 1603 grant was only seen by the market as a mechanism to promote additionality to the extent that it prevented the industry from grinding to a halt.
“The 1603 was not a new program, it was in lieu of the tax credits,” says Richard Caperton, a senior policy analyst with the energy opportunity team at the Center for American Progress. “These wind farms were already going to get a tax credit but they got a cash grant.
“It was intended to pick up the slack in that industry. A lot of projects get built by selling the tax credit to a tax equity investor and when there are no tax equity investors, the tax credits are worth significantly less so they created the cash grant program to make up for that. It was a well-designed alternative to a tax credit that met a specific need.
You could try to get the general public upset about this, but tax credits and cash grants are economically the same to the government and to the taxpayers.”
THE FEASIBILITY OF 20 PERCENT WIND BY 2030
INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY RESEARCH
Evaluating just the electricity subsidies, wind received more than 7 times the amount of subsidies oil and natural gas received for electricity generation, and more than 4 times the amount of subsidies that coal received. (See chart below.) The disparity gets even larger when evaluated on a unit of production basis. Wind was subsidized over 80 times more than the subsidies for conventional fossil fuels based on a megawatt hour of generation. Wind received $56 per megawatt hour compared to $0.64 per megawatt hour each for coal, and oil and natural gas combined.
LETTER FROM VESTAS: WORRIED ABOUT REGULATION OF LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE
12/16/11 A letter from a turbine manufacturerAuthor: Engel, Ditlev
Dear Karen Ellemann,*
Following previous correspondence, I am writing this letter to express my concern regarding the limits for low frequency noise from wind turbines now being proposed.
Back in January 2011 we applauded your announcement of the new regulations regarding low frequency noise and the fact that you also then emphasised that those regulations would not be tightened and that it was a question of improving the security in connection with the installation of wind turbines. Accordingly, the reaction from the industry branch back in January 2011 was positive, although as an industry we were uneasy about having heavier demands imposed on us than other industries.
When the new regulations were then published on 26.05.2011, we were of course convinced of your initial point of view. As a result, we were extremely surprised to find that the proposed new regulations do in fact include a significant and severe tightening of the previous noise regulations.
In fact, according to our analyses, the most economical turbines, the 3 MW category, are the ones that will be strongly affected by the new rules. This applies to open terrain in particular, where in future low frequency noise will dictate and increase the distance requirements to neighbours for close to half of the projects that we are already aware of over the next 2 to 3 years.
In a small country such as Denmark this means that a significant number of projects will not be viable as the increased distance requirements cannot be met whilst maintaining a satisfactory business outcome for the investor.
The Danish market for wind turbines is of minor importance for Vestas in terms of sales, typically less than 1% of our sales per year. However, the Danish market provides a number of other functions for Vestas which are of considerable value from a business point of view. By means of its high wind penetration, 24% in 2010 – still a world record – Denmark has a role as a forerunner country and a full scale laboratory for conversion to renewable energy.
This means that other countries often look to Denmark when adjusting their legislation regarding wind energy. We are therefore concerned – justifiably so as history shows – that the proposed Danish regulations for low frequency noise from wind turbines will spread to a large number of other markets with much higher commercial impact for Vestas and consequently for employment in the business.
The Danish wind turbine industry employs approx. 25,000 people in Denmark and boasts an export which is about 8.5% of total Danish exports. Such “over-proportional” presence has become possible because Denmark has been able to create the conditions for good correlation between demonstration, education and industry research and development. In reality we fear that the demonstration element will suffer irreparable damage as a result of the new regulations regarding low frequency noise. When combined with the imminent danger that important markets will copy the new Danish regulations, I consider the new regulations to be extremely damaging to the prospects of further popularisation of land-based wind energy.
At this point you may have asked yourself why it is that Vestas does not just make changes to the wind turbines so that they produce less noise? The simple answer is that at the moment it is not technically possible to do so, and it requires time and resources because presently we are at the forefront of what is technically possible for our large wind turbines, and they are the most efficient of all.
In the light of this it seems strange that the wind turbine industry is being discriminated against compared to other industries. All other industries are subject to differential noise requirements regarding low frequency noise for night and day (20, respectively 25 dB), whereas the wind turbine industry are subject to requirements of 20 dB 24 hours a day.
The proposed low frequency limit values may hinder the development of onshore wind in Denmark, including meeting our commitments in relation to the EEC. Ultimately, we consider there is a danger that the regulations will be copied by other countries and accordingly this will provide an obstacle to the popularisation of wind energy at a global level. Both issues will damage Vestas as a business, including affecting Danish activities.
Yours sincerely,
Vestas Wind Systems A/S
[Signature]
Ditlev Engel
Chief Executive Officer
Alsvej 21, DK-8940
Dir. +45 9730 0000, www.vestas. com
A copy of this letter was sent to Lykke Friis, Minister for Climate and Energy
*Karen Ellemann, Minister of Environment
Department of Environment
Højbro Plads 4
1200 Copenhagen K
Randers, 29 June 2011/erlgs
Translated from Danish by Bente H. Sorensen, Translationz.com.auWIGGY: NO FAN OF WIND FARMS
By James Wigderson
Special Guest Perspective for the MacIver Institute
A new wind farm is complete in Columbia County and it will soon be killing more birds than a Sarah Palin Thanksgiving photo op. Or, for you heavy metal fans, more mosquito-eating bats than Ozzy Osbourne ever killed.
It’s the largest wind farm in Wisconsin, 90 turbines spread over 17,000 acres of farmland. It is expected to generate 162 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 45,000 homes.
WE Energies was expected to spend $363.7 million on the project, although it appears to have come under the target set by the Public Service Commission. Of course, the over $300 million in cost will soon be passed on to electricity rate payers as soon as 2013.
To be fair, WE Energies did not build the wind farm because it hates birds, bats or ratepayers. Nor did it build the wind farm because the company wanted to build a giant ice ball thrower.
And it certainly did not build the windmills because wind energy is cheaper than the alternatives. Because it is not.
The wind farm was built as part of a plan to increase WE Energies “renewable energy” portfolio. The company is mandated by the state of Wisconsin to increase its use of renewable energy sources from less than three percent of the electricity generated by WE Energies to 8.27% by 2015.
The mandated renewable share of total generation must be at least 6 percentage points above the average renewable share for WE Energies from 2001 to 2003. It’s part of a statewide renewable energy mandate of 10% by 2015.
Wind power is the most popular choice for filling the renewable energy mandates as it is closer to coal-generated electricity than other forms of renewable energy. However, wind is still unreliable in capacity because wind, while free fuel, is unreliable in providing a steady quantity, especially at peak demand times. As a previous report by the MacIver Institute has shown, Wisconsin is not even a good candidate for windmill siting, increasing the unreliability of wind power for our state.
Ironically, according to one environmentalist group, Clean Wisconsin, the windmill farm may not even further the goal of the renewable energy mandate, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, because WE Energies will still be reliant upon the coal-burning power plants for primary electrical generation.
Because wind is not a reliable source of energy here.
Renewable energy does not come cheap. If renewable energy were cost competitive, power companies and energy consumers would not need a mandate to prefer renewable energy sources over coal, oil and natural gas.
As the U.S. Energy Information Agency indicates in its 2011 Annual Energy Outlook projections, coal is already dropping as a share of the nation’s energy mix. However, it is naturally occurring due to the lower costs of natural gas generated electricity, including lower infrastructure costs.
The growth in renewable energy as a percentage of the nation’s energy portfolio (to 14% by 2035) is because of state renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requirements and federal tax credits.
It could be even worse. During the last session of the legislature, Wisconsin narrowly avoided imposing a new renewable energy mandate of 25% by 2025. Bipartisan opposition to the mandate, largely due to the weak economy, prevented its passage.
But as we have seen, the desire of the government to support a so-called green economy continues despite the costs to the public. Perhaps we can expect Department of Energy bureaucrats to tour the new windmill farm in new Chevrolet Volts.
Somebody has to buy them.
After all, President Barack Obama’s administration set a goal of one million electrified vehicles (including advanced hybrids) on the road by 2015. So far the Chevy Volt is going to fall short of the company’s goal of 10,000 vehicles sold by the end of this year, and USA Today reports interest in electric vehicles is declining.
After $3 billion in subsidies, Americans are showing that the only silent vehicle that doesn’t consume gas in which they have an interest is Santa’s sleigh at Christmastime. Good thing he managed to avoid the new windmill farm… this year.
THE GRAPHIC BELOW ILLUSTRATES WHY WIND TURBINE SETBACKS NEED TO BE MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE NEIGHBORS HOME.
The following graphic, provided by betterplan.squarespace.com and adapted from the original graphinc created by CWESt [available by clicking here) illustrates that when a 1250 foot setback is measured from a neighboring home, some of that neighbors land becomes a 'no-build' zone. The hosting landowner is actually using the neighbors property as a buffer zone.
Once the turbine is up on your neighbor's land, you will not be able to build on your own property if the building site is within 1250 of the turbine.
Under current Wisconsin PSC siting regulations, a 500 foot wind turbine on your hosting/neighbors property can be built as close as 1250’ from the foundation of YOUR home.
Farmer A collects the contracted payments from a wind developer and farmers B,C,D,and E lose the right to build on their own land.
AID FOR TURBINE VICTIMES SOUGHT
BROWN COUNTY PANEL: STATE SHOULD PAY MEDICAL BILLS FOR THOSE NEAR WIND FARM
Source:Green Bay PressGazette
Wisconsin should pay the medical bills of Brown County residents who were made ill by industrial wind turbines, some county supervisors say.
Saying the state allowed "irresponsible placement" of industrial wind turbines in the Glenmore area, the Brown County Human Services Committee has approved a measure to ask the state to pay emergency aid to families living near the Shirley Wind Farm.
The request, which seeks an unspecified amount until the "hardships are studied and resolved," could come before the full County Board next month.
It is the latest attempt by county supervisors and other officials to manage an issue in which some residents began experiencing conditions such as anxiety, depression, weight loss and increased cancer risks since the wind farm was erected in 2010.
"There is a 70-year-old woman who lost 20 pounds from not being able to eat," said Barbara Vanden Boogart, a member of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, an advocacy group. "There are two adults who sleep an average of one and a half hours a night."
Shirley's operators insist their facility has been built and operated safely.
Wind farms have been a topic of debate in Wisconsin in the past several years. Advocates say wind pollutes less than coal and is less expensive and less potentially dangerous than nuclear energy.
Officials say the facilities' record isn't good enough. The County Board resolution says the state was irresponsible in allowing the Shirley Wind Farm to be built without consulting an expert on the medicaconsequences of living near wind turbines.
Supervisors said they had no indication Wednesday of how the state would respond to their request. They said the answer would be up to officials in Madison to resolve this spring.
Supervisor Patrick Evans said the government must do more to protect citizens until more is known about potential dangers, saying at least two local families living near wind farms have abandoned their homes and others lost thousands of dollars because livestock died mysteriously.
"This problem is very real," he said. Being upstairs in a house near the Shirley facility, he said, "felt after 10 or 12 minutes like you were getting carbon-monoxide poisoning."
Lawmakers also are calling on the state to adopt turbine-siting guidelines approved by citizens groups.
State Sen. Frank Lasee, R-Ledgeview, last week introduced a bill to allow cities, villages, towns and counties to establish the minimum distance between a wind turbine and a home — even if those rules are more restrictive than any the state enacts.
Statewide wind-siting rules, more than a year in the making, were suspended last March. Lawmakers sent those rules, which dealt with farms of less than 100 megawatts, back to the state Public Service Commission, where they have stayed as officials worked to reach a compromise.
Lack of regulatory agreement, particularly on the issue of how far a turbine must be from a property line, has tempered enthusiasm about wind farms. A corporation in 2011 scrapped plans for a 100-turbine development in the Morrison-Glenmore area.
An important correction needs to be made to the article (see link below) that appeared on the front page of the Jan 26, 2012 issue of the Green Bay Press Gazette.
Aid for wind turbine victims sought
In that article, reporter Doug Schneider states the following:
"Wisconsin should pay the medical bills of Brown County residents who were made ill by industrial wind turbines, some county supervisors say. Saying the state allowed "irresponsible placement" of industrial wind turbines in the Glenmore area, the Brown County Human Services Committee has approved a measure to ask the state to pay emergency aid to families living near the Shirley Wind Farm.'
This, however, is NOT what the resolution said that the Human Services Committee was considering. That resolution (attached in full), already approved by the Board of Health on Jan 10th and sent to Governor Walker, the PSC, the Wisconsin Dept. of Health Services, and State and Federal ledislators, read (in part )as follows:
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Brown County Board of Health formally
requests temporary emergency financial relocation assistance from the State of
Wisconsin for those Brown County families that are suffering adverse health
effects and undue hardships caused by the irresponsible placement of industrial
wind turbines around their homes and property. The State of Wisconsin
emergency financial assistance is requested until the conditions that have caused
these undue hardships are studied and resolved, allowing these families to once
again return safely to their homes and property.
The resolution above calls for "temporary emergency financial relocation assistance", not for payment of medical bills as stated in the article. The error in the Press Gazette diminishes the seriousness of the health impacts by not conveying the fact that the health effects are so serious as to have driven some residents from their homes.
WIND ENERGY, NOISE POLLUTION
LIVING NEAR WIND TURBINES CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH
By Robert Bryce
February 2, 2012 4:00 A.M.
National Review Online
But in their rush to embrace the wind-energy business, Obama and numerous other politicians are walking away from rural residents such as David Enz and his wife, Rose. A year ago, the couple abandoned their home near Denmark, Wis., because of the unbearable low-frequency noise produced by a half-dozen 495-foot-high wind turbines that were built near the home they’ve owned since 1978. The closest was installed about 3,200 feet from their house..........
STATEMENT OF DAVE ENZ REGARDING WIND TURBINES BUILT NEAR HIS HOME IN DENMARK, WISCONSIN.
January 31, 2012
Robertbryce.com
During my reporting on the problem of wind-turbine noise, I have interviewed a number of homeowners who have abandoned their homes due to the noise. One of those people: Wisconsin resident Dave Enz. After talking with him on the phone, he sent me the following statement. I edited only for punctuation. I have added some follow up questions at the bottom of his statement. -- RB
My name is David Enz. My wife and I used to live about 3,000 feet from the nearest wind turbine driven generator. There are five more within about one mile of our home. These Glenmore turbines are some of the tallest in the state at 492 feet.
We raised our children in this house we built in 1978. It was a great place to live but we can no longer live there. We are now living with children, friends and in our RV. So far we have received no offer of compensation. We get sick in an hour or less most times when we return to get food or different clothes. Other people also get sick when they spend time at our place. We found new homes for our dog and chickens so they could be cared for. We try to go to our home when the turbines are down because we are fine then. The turbine owners are going to sound test our home, but it doesn't matter what the test results are, the results for us are we can no longer live in our home. We and others get sick outside and inside the buildings. From the research I have done our symptoms are consistent with the other folks who are driven out of their homes.
Some of the symptoms we experience are headaches, ear pain, nausea, blurred vision, anxiety, memory loss, and an overall unsettledness. This is no way to live in one's own home! I believe there needs to be health studies done to find out what the cause of the serious health issues is, and what rules need to be in place to protect people. The present rules do not address this problem. I think different types and sizes of wind turbines produce these effects over greater distances, therefore measurements should be in place based on what is causing the adverse health effects on people. I cannot understand how the people sworn in to protect the citizens can let companies profit from the pain of the people.
We are not like some other countries where people don't have rights and freedoms. This is America where the goal is to have liberty and justice for all, not a country where the rich and powerful rule over them. The wind industry claims their turbines are not the problem but throughout the world when wind turbines go on line the problems show up. I believe if this was in any other industry they would be shut down, until they proved they were not the cause. I am not a rocket scientist, but if the health issues are present when the turbines are running and gone a while after they shut down, it sure would cause me to think maybe there is a connection. Why doesn't the turbine industry have to prove they are not the problem instead of the people proving they are?
With so many people with the same or similar health symptoms, I think if this was a drug that would be evidence enough to remove any drug from the market. The people that are hurt aren't getting any government funding to pay for a study but the industry sure is. These health issues are so unbearable they are forcing us and others from our homes. Do wind companies have this right to take away our freedom to live in a house we built, raised our family, and planned to enjoy?
-- Dave Enz, October 22, 2011
Questions emailed to Enz by Robert Bryce. Replies received October 25 and 30, 2011
Q: May I publish all or part of the note you sent me?
A: Yes, you may.
Q: How old are you? How old is your wife?
A: I am 68 my wife is 66 years old.
Q: I assume you are now retired. Is that so? What was your occupation prior to retirement? In what town did you work?
A: Yes I am. I worked as a millwright in a paper mill for over thirty years. I worked in Green Bay.
Q: Have you sued the company that owns the wind turbines? If not, are you planning to?
A: We haven't been approached yet to settle and don't know if we will be.
Q: Could you sell your house in Glenmore if you attempted to do so? Or have your neighbors and others been alerted to the problems you are having?
A: We have been very open about our health issues with the neighbors, town,county and state.We thought about selling but if the new owners got sick.the money wouldn't be worth it. I don't think anyone would buy it at it's pre- turbine value even if it would sell.
Q: Are other people in your area experiencing similar problems?
A: I believe there are at least two other families that need to leave their homes to get relief from their symptoms.
Q: How did Senator Lasee become familiar with you and your story?
A: I don't know for sure but they called and asked if I would do an interview with Senator Lasee for TV. I did it because people need to be informed.
Q: What is the best outcome for you? That is, what would be a fair resolution of the situation you now face with your home?
A: First of all the industrial wind turbine setting rules would be in place to protect peoples health. That means health studies need to be done and a measurement system developed that can insure setbacks are right. As to your question, either move us with fair compensation or move the turbines. We don't think we could ever regain what has been lost by our family due to this injustice.
Q: You said you built the home in Glenmore in 1978. Do you own it free and clear or do you still have a mortgage?
A: We built it and own it. Have a small equity loan now to purchase our motor home we now call home. Makes the wife nervous since she doesn't like debt.
Q: What's the approximate value of the home?
A: Don't know because we never had it appraised. Best guess: $300,00 to $500,000.
Q: You said you and Rose raised your children in the house. How many children did you raise there?
A: Nine wonderful children. They also feel the loss because they helped build the house and out buildings. As a family, we have a lot of memories connected to this property.
Q: How many acres is your place?
A: A little over forty.
Q: On whose land were the turbines built?
A: Our next door neighbors.
Q: Are you getting any royalty payments from the turbines? If so, how much?
A: Not a dime thankfully
Q: If you are not getting payments, who is and how much are they getting?
A: Some of the neighbors received a good neighbor payment of $1,000 one time I was told. I was also told if you live within 1/2 mile you receive a small yearly payment. The turbine host have a well-kept secret. Maybe the
Town of Glenmore could shed more light on this. You can find them at townofglenmore.wi
Q. Do you have a lawyer? If so, could you provide me with his/her name?
A: I do not have a lawyer at this time.
FOND DU LAC COUNTY RESIDENTS WANT RELIEF FROM WIND FARMS TOO
Bret Lemoine,
Source: WFRV, wearegreenbay.com
February 16, 2012
Brown County will be asking for state aid to relocate residents who say they’re becoming ill because of wind turbines. That was decided at a board meeting Wednesday night.
Those residents say they’ve had to leave their homes after getting sick from low frequency noises. Now, the state legislature can either approve or deny the request for funding.
Residents living near an 88 turbine wind farm in Fond du Lac County are hopeful the decision will mean relief is also on the way, or at least a possibility. Many residents are complaining about similar problems. They claim there is constant noise generated from the turbines that keeps them up at night and even builds up pressure, giving them severe headaches.
We’re told several people have moved out of their homes. They hope similar action can be taken to help them.
“It’s about time somebody starts looking into this, finding out what they really do to people,” says resident Joan Brusoe, who lives 1400 ft. from a turbine. Her neighbor, Larry Lamont, is 1100 ft. away from one: “They could mediate some of the problems these things are creating, that would help. I don’t know if there is a total solution.”
We spoke with representatives from RENEW Wisconsin. They are a non-profit group that promotes environmentally sustainable energy policies in our state. They tell Local 5 health concerns are untrue and undocumented.
Director Michael Vickerman says, “Very few people object to wind projects. It’s just an organized group of people who don’t like these developments.”
He calls Brown County’s decision a move to step up pressure on legislators, stopping wind development in Wisconsin.
"NOT EVEN THE MOST ECOLOGICALLY MINDED ARE ALWAYS KEEN ON THE PROSPECT OF GIANT WIND TURBINES NEAR THEIR HOMES. BUT, MERIDTH, N.Y., WELCOMED "BIG WIND" WHEN IF FIRST CAME WHISTLING THROUGH TOWN. THAT'S WHAT MAKES WINDFALL SO INTERESTING: THE DOCUMENTARY IS THE STORY OF AN EDUCATION." "WINDFALL" REVIEW BY NPR'S MARK JENKINS
AT LEAST 8 FAMILIES IN SHIRLEY WISCONSIN 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 LEAST TWO OF THEM HAVE VACATED THEIR HOMES TO REGAIN THEIR HEALTH.
Video courtesy of The Forest Voice
SURVEY FINDS HIGH RATE OF WIND TURBINE SYNDROME
FROM NEWER TURBINE MODELS
March 10, 2012 (San Diego’s East County) – With two new wind farms proposed for our region and another already in operation, evaluating potential health impacts is important.
A survey was conducted on wind farm noise as part of a Master’s dissertation by Zhenhua Wang, a graduate student in Geography, Environment and Population at the University of Adelaide, Australia. The results show that 70% of respondents living up to 5 kilometers away report being negatively affected by wind turbine noise, with more than 50% of them "very or moderately negatively affected". This is considerably higher than what was found in previous studies conducted in Europe.
The survey was made in the vicinity of the Waterloo wind farm, South Australia, which is composed of 37 Vestas V90 3 MW turbines stretching over 18 km (1). These mega turbines are reported to be emitting more low frequency noise (LFN) than smaller models, and this causes more people to be affected, and over greater distances, by the usual symptoms of the Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS): insomnia, headaches, nausea, stress, poor ability to concentrate, irritability, etc, leading to poorer health and a reduced immunity to illness.
The wind industry has consistently downplayed concerns over health issues, disputing findings such as those made by Dr. Nina Pierpont in her book and peer-reviewed report, Wind Turbine Syndrome. Dr. Pierpont received her medical degree from John Hopkins University and holds a PhD from Princeton University.
However some jurisdictions are enacting regulations to protect residents as evidence mounts to suggest negative health impacts are a dark side of going green through wind energy.
The Danish government recognized recently that LFN is an aggravating component in the noise that affects wind farm neighbors. This prompted their issuing regulations that limit low-frequency noise levels inside homes to 20 dB(A). Unfortunately, as denounced by Professor Henrik Moller, they manipulated the calculation parameters so as to allow LFN inside homes to actually reach 30 dB(A) in 30% of cases. “Hardly anyone would accept 30 dB(A) in their homes at night”, wrote the Professor last month (2).
A summary of the Australian survey has been published (3), but the full Masters dissertation has not been made available to the public. In the interest of public health, the European Platform against Windfarms (EPAW) and theNorth-American Platform against Windpower (NA-PAW), have asked the University of Adelaide to release this important document.
A neighbor of the Waterloo wind farm, Mr Andreas Marciniak, wrote to a local newspaper last week: "Do you think it's funny that at my age I had to move to Adelaide into my Mother’s shed and my brother had to move to Hamilton nto a caravan with no water or electricity?" Both Mr Marciniak and his brother have been advised by their treating doctors, including a cardiologist, to leave their homes and not return when the wind turbines are turning.
How many people will be forced to abandon their homes before governments pay attention, wonder the thousands of wind farm victims represented by EPAW and NAPAW. "It'll take time to gather enough money for a big lawsuit", says Sherri Lange, of NAPAW. "But time is on our side: victim numbers are increasing steadily."
WIND TURBINE NOISE SEEMS TO AFFECT HEALTH ADVERSELY AND AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF EVIDENCE IS NEEDED
March 8, 2012
Authors:
Christopher D Hanning, honorary consultant in sleep medicine, Sleep Disorders Service, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester LE5 4PW, UK
Alun Evans, professor emeritus, Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University of Belfast, Institute of Clinical Science B, Belfast, UK
The evidence for adequate sleep as a prerequisite for human health, particularly child health, is overwhelming. Governments have recently paid much attention to the effects of environmental noise on sleep duration and quality, and to how to reduce such noise.1 However, governments have also imposed noise from industrial wind turbines on large swathes of peaceful countryside.
The impact of road, rail, and aircraft noise on sleep and daytime functioning (sleepiness and cognitive function) is well established.1 Shortly after wind turbines began to be erected close to housing, complaints emerged of adverse effects on health. Sleep disturbance was the main complaint.2 Such reports have been dismissed as being subjective and anecdotal, but experts contend that the quantity, consistency, and ubiquity of the complaints constitute epidemiological evidence of a strong link between wind turbine noise, ill health, and disruption of sleep.3
The noise emitted by a typical onshore 2.5 MW wind turbine has two main components. A dynamo mounted on an 80 m tower is driven through a gear train by blades as long as 45 m, and this generates both gear train noise and aerodynamic noise as the blades pass through the air, causing vortices to be shed from the edges. Wind constantly changes its velocity and direction, which means that the inflowing airstream is rarely stable. In addition, wind velocity increases with height (wind shear), especially at night, and there may be inflow turbulence from nearby structures—in particular, other turbines. This results in an impulsive noise, which is variously described as “swishing” and “thumping,” and which is much more annoying than other sources of environmental noise and is poorly masked by ambient noise.4 5
Permitted external noise levels and setback distances vary between countries. UK guidance, ETSU-R-97, published in 1997 and not reviewed since, permits a night time noise level of 42 dBA, or 5 dBA above ambient noise level, whichever is the greater. This means that turbines must be set back by a minimum distance of 350-500 m, depending on the terrain and the turbines, from human habitation.
The aerodynamic noise generated by wind turbines has a large low frequency and infrasound component that is attenuated less with distance than higher frequency noise. Current noise measurement techniques and metrics tend to obscure the contribution of impulsive low frequency noise and infrasound.6 A laboratory study has shown that low frequency noise is considerably more annoying than higher frequency noise and is harmful to health—it can cause nausea, headaches, disturbed sleep, and cognitive and psychological impairment.7 A cochlear mechanism has been proposed that outlines how infrasound, previously disregarded because it is below the auditory threshold, could affect humans and contribute to adverse effects.8
Sixteen per cent of surveyed respondents who lived where calculated outdoor turbine noise exposures exceeded 35 dB LAeq (LAeq, the constant sound level that, in a given time period, would convey the same sound energy as the actual time varying sound level, weighted to approximate the response of the human ear) reported disturbed sleep.4 A questionnaire survey concluded that turbine noise was more annoying at night, and that interrupted sleep and difficulty in returning to sleep increased with calculated noise level.9 Even at the lowest noise levels, 20% of respondents reported disturbed sleep at least one night a month. In a meta-analysis of three European datasets (n=1764),10 sleep disturbance clearly increased with higher calculated noise levels in two of the three studies.
In a survey of people residing in the vicinity of two US wind farms, those living within 375-1400 m reported worse sleep and more daytime sleepiness, in addition to having lower summary scores on the mental component of the short form 36 health survey than those who lived 3-6.6 km from a turbine. Modelled dose-response curves of both sleep and health scores against distance from nearest turbine were significantly related after controlling for sex, age, and household clustering, with a sharp increase in effects between 1 km and 2 km.11 A New Zealand survey showed lower health related quality of life, especially sleep disturbance, in people who lived less than 2 km from turbines.12
A large body of evidence now exists to suggest that wind turbines disturb sleep and impair health at distances and external noise levels that are permitted in most jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom. Sleep disturbance may be a particular problem in children,1 and it may have important implications for public health. When seeking to generate renewable energy through wind, governments must ensure that the public will not suffer harm from additional ambient noise. Robust independent research into the health effects of existing wind farms is long overdue, as is an independent review of existing evidence and guidance on acceptable noise levels.
TURBINES CAUSED HEALTH PROBLEMS
March 12 2012
by Alyssa Ashley
Since I am not old enough to vote or sign a petition, I would like a chance to voice the truth. On May 8, 2011, I left my home in Glenmore, Wis., due to many health problems that are a result from the Shirley Wind Project built at the end of 2010.
Inside my home, I was able to detect when the turbines were turning on and off by the sensations in my ears. I could not hear or see the turbines at the time; I could feel them. In early 2011, I had been noticing extreme headaches, ear pain and sleep deprivation, all three things that were either a rarity for me, or nonexistent. This caused me to struggle with my school work. I could not concentrate due to pressure releasing from my head, or to the fact that I had very little sleep.
After staying away from my home for a week-and-a-half, my symptoms started to subside. I could sleep again, and my headaches were lessening. The longer I was away, the better I felt. Due to our turbine-related health issues, I spent all summer living in a camper with my family, away from the turbines.
At the end of August, my family reluctantly purchased another small house away from the wind turbines, leaving us paying two mortgages. I have not been in the Shirley area since Nov. 19, 2011, and I do not experience headaches anymore and I can sleep soundly.
My ears, however, are still sensitive to the cold and loud noises. This has never been a problem for me in my entire life, and I wonder if this damage to my ears will ever go away.
When contemplating wind turbine siting, think of me.
Alyssa Ashley
De Pere
A Cooperative Measurement Survey and Analysis of Low Frequency and Infrasound at the Shirley Wind Farm in
Brown County, Wisconsin
Prepared Cooperatively By:
Channel Islands Acoustics, Camarillo, CA
Principal: Dr. Bruce Walker
Hessler Associates, Inc., Haymarket, VA
Principals: George F. and David M. Hessler
Rand Acoustics, Brunswick, ME
Principal: Robert Rand
Schomer and Associates, Inc., Champaign, IL
Principal: Dr. Paul Schomer
A serious literature search and review is needed and is strongly recommended. Paul Schomer, in the brief amount of time for this project analysis, has uncovered some research that may provide a probable cause or direction to study for the reported adverse health effects. We could be close to identifying a documented cause for the reported complaints but it involves much more serious impartial effort. We strongly recommend additional testing at Shirley.
The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify LFN and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry.
Please pay close attention to section 5.2, which Clean Wisconsin edited out before submitting it to the PSC. It was discovered that the document was altered and the original and true document was submitted to the PSC in its entirety along with corrections submitted by the Forest Voice.
Jacque: Study finds ‘dangerous levels’ of noise from turbines; State legislator calls for end to permitting of wind projects .
Credit: Written by Maria Amante | Press-Gazette Media | December 31, 2012 | www.greenbaypressgazette.com
A Public Service Commission study has found what one Wisconsin lawmaker classifies as “dangerous levels” of wind turbine-generated low frequency noise or infrasound at the Shirley Wind Project.
Rep. Andre Jacque, R-De Pere, has called on the Public Service Commission to issue an emergency rule to immediately suspend the permitting process for wind projects.
The testing was conducted in early December by Clean Wisconsin, an environmental group that advocates clean energy, and primarily funded by the Public Service Commission, found that one woman and her child living in a residence near the turbines suffered from an “extremely adverse” as a result of the turbines.
“I am very appreciative of the Public Service Commission’s willingness to investigate the incidence of debilitating low frequency noise,” Jacque said in a statement. “These results compel them to act immediately to keep this nightmare from spreading.”
The study was released Friday, established the existence of “dangerous levels” of wind turbine-generated/infrasound in the Shirley Wind Farm in Glenmore.
The study recommended further testing to further study the effects of the turbines at the Shirley Wind Farm.
The infra and low-frequency sound is a primary characteristic of wind turbine acoustic emissions and discredited the wind industry argument that infrasound produced by modern upwind wind turbines do not have sufficient amplitude to reach the threshold of hearing, Jacque said.
Glenmore families living or previously living in or near the wind turbines complained of ear infections, heart palpitations, muscle and joint pain malaise and other symptoms. The Brown County Board of Health recommended low-frequency noise testing near the project in November.
Last year, Shirley’s operators told Press-Gazette media the facility has been built and operated safely. Wind farms have been the topic of debate in the past several years as advoctes say wind pollutes less than coal, is less expensive and potentially less dangerous than nuclear energy.
Rick James of E-coustics Solutions; The Shirley Report
by Wind Wise Radio
Sun, January 6, 2013 06:00 pm
Rick speaks about his experience as a noise control engineer and acoustician and the recently released results of the Wisconsin study authorized by the Public Service Commission centering on the Shirley wind farm in the town of Glenmore. It was conducted by Clean Wisconsin, a clean energy advocacy group, and four independent firms. The groups monitored the wind farm for four days in early December.
Study suggests wind turbines' low-frequency noise
could cause health woes
January 04, 2013 5:30 am • DEE J. HALL | Wisconsin State Journal | dhall@madison.com | 608-252-6132
When it comes to wind farms, it may be the sound you can't hear that drives you to distraction, according to a report released this week that is pitting environmental groups against one another.
The study of noise levels around the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County detected largely inaudible, low-frequency sound inside three nearby houses. But researchers found that only in the home closest to the turbines could it be correlated with sound coming from outside the house, according to the report released Monday.
The study concluded that between the low-frequency sound and the nausea, dizziness, headaches, ear pressure and other maladies reported by neighbors "enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify (low-frequency noise) as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry."
But the study could not conclude that the health problems reported by nearby residents were caused by the low-frequency sound from the eight-turbine project, according to Clean Wisconsin, a Madison environmental group that arranged the testing.
That's because "there aren't any documented peer-reviewed studies finding any health effects for inaudible sounds," said Tyson Cook, staff scientist for Clean Wisconsin, which favors development of renewable energy.
Duke Energy of Charlotte, N.C., which owns the Shirley Wind Farm, was reviewing the study but had no comment Thursday, spokesman Jason Walls said. Walls added that the facility was "in compliance with all laws and ordinances."
The study was paid for in part with funds awarded by the Public Service Commission to Clean Wisconsin and Forest Voice, a group of homeowners fighting the Highland Wind Farm, a proposed 41-turbine facility in St. Croix County. Both groups have been granted intervenor status in the Highland Wind Farm case before the PSC.
Two lawmakers and another group involved with the testing say the study could be groundbreaking.
"The report suggests that very low-frequency noise from wind turbines may cause motion sickness-like symptoms in some people," according to a statement from Forest Voice.
Rep. Andre Jacque, R-De Pere, called on the PSC to halt wind turbine construction "to keep this nightmare from spreading." Sen. Frank Lasee, R-De Pere, said in a statement the agency should "immediately establish new set-back requirements that protect the health and wellness of Wisconsin residents who are forced to live too close to these 500-foot-tall" industrial wind turbines.
The four companies in early December studied noise levels at three vacant houses near the Brown County wind farm as part of the hotly contested Highland proposal. The study detected low-frequency sound inside all three town of Glenmore homes, which had been vacated by owners complaining of negative impacts from the turbines.
One of the consultants, Robert Rand of Rand Acoustics in Brunswick, Maine, reported feeling nausea, headaches and dizziness after he spent long hours in the test homes. Rand, who suffers from seasickness, reported the symptoms subsided after about a week.
But only in the closest home, 1,280 feet from the turbines, was the low-frequency sound correlated with noise coming from the outside; state law requires a 1,250-foot separation between turbines and residences.
One of the consultants on the Shirley Wind Farm study, David Hessler of Hessler Associates Inc. of Haymarket, Va., said the study raises questions but offers no definitive answers.
"Nothing was actually discovered that would explain to any degree the health complaints reported by residents," Hessler said, adding that more testing is needed.
The report will be discussed at a Jan. 17 PSC hearing on the Highland application, which seeks permission for a 6,200-acre wind farm in the towns of Forest and Cylon in northeastern St. Croix County
WTA Board of Directors Action Regarding Wind Power
(1/23/13) The Wisconsin Towns Association has expressed concern since PSC 128 was released about two years ago that the setback distances from non-participating residences to large industrial wind turbines of only 1,250 feet is too little. In addition, a recently released report including work by four separate acoustical consultants has recommended that additional study be conducted on an “urgent priority basis” regarding the possibility of any human health effects from low frequency sound and infrasound generated by large industrial wind turbines. Wisconsin Towns Association is not opposed to alternative energy, including wind turbines. However, serious health concerns have been raised by individuals and supported by this report that warrant further study. We are urging the PSC to stop permitting the installation of large industrial wind turbines until such studies can be completed. Please click on each of the below items for viewing:
CITING WISCONSIN NOISE TURBINE STUDY, CAPE COUNCILMAN CALLS FOR STATEWIDE WIND MORATORIUM
CAPE VINCENT — Town officials are urging the Association of Towns of the State of New York to support a resolution calling for a ban on industrial wind development, pointing to a similar movement in Wisconsin.
The Wisconsin Towns Association last month adopted a resolution advising the Wisconsin Public Service Commission to enact a moratorium on wind farms after several noise consultants recommended to the PSC that more in-depth impact studies be conducted.
One of the four consultants who produced the report on low-frequency noise and infrasound for the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wis., was Hessler Associates Inc. — a Haymarket, Va., firm also hired by wind developers in Cape Vincent for a noise assessment.
In the report submitted to the Wisconsin PSC on Dec. 28, Hessler Associates suggests a limit of 39.5 dBA — A-weighted, audible spectrum noise — at neighboring homes on properties not leased for wind development rights.
John L. Byrne, a Cape Vincent councilman who is advocating a wind moratorium in New York state, said Cape Vincent Wind Farm’s former project manager, James H. Madden, a few years ago provided the town with several development scenarios, all of which exceed Hessler’s recommended noise limit.
“BP’s business developer Jim Madden told the Cape Planning Board that creating a project with a noise limit of 42 dBA — which would exceed Hessler’s suggested maximum threshold — would not be economically feasible,” Mr. Byrne said.
BP’s current director of business development for the Cape Vincent Wind Farm, Richard Chandler, did not return calls and emails seeking comment.
In 2010, two years before Cape Vincent Wind Farm’s merger with Acciona Wind Energy USA’s St. Lawrence Wind Farm, BP submitted to the local Planning Board an analysis showing the correlation among noise levels, project size and financial benefits.
The largest array scenario BP had considered at that time was projected to produce 124 megawatts of electricity and meet a noise limit of 50 dBA at non-participating property lines. The smallest configuration, which would meet a noise limit of 42 dBA, would have produced only 36 megawatts.
BP is seeking a state Article X siting process for a 124-turbine project of up to 285 megawatts in Cape Vincent.
Following in the footsteps of the Wisconsin Towns Association, Mr. Byrne said, he hopes the Association of Towns of the State of New York would call on the state PSC to halt the Article X certification process for industrial wind developments through a formal resolution so that long-term studies on potentially adverse health and environmental effects due to wind farms can be properly conducted.
“In the case of wind power development, I think it’s important that our people have a good understanding of what adverse health effects, if any, are caused by turbine noise, the spinning of the blades or the transmission of power,” Mr. Byrne said. “We should learn how our soil, water and land may be impacted by the installation of turbines and if any steps need to be taken to mitigate or eliminate negative impacts.”
PROVINCE KNEW ABOUT HEALTH EFFECTS FROM TURBINES
NIAGRATHIS WEEK.COM
Released documents show ministry aware of concerns as far back as 2006.
Documents released through a Freedom of Information request from an Orangeville resident reveal the government was aware of adverse health effects caused by industrial wind turbines as far back as 2006.
REVEALED: GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATING
‘WIND TURBINE SYNDROME’ IN DONEGAL IRELAND
THE Environment Department is conducting initial investigations in Co Donegal to see if people living close to wind farms in the county are suffering from ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’, Donegal Daily can reveal.
CHANGES TO HEALTH CANADA WIND STUDY
TARGET INDIRECT EFFECTS
Haldimand-Norfolk MPP Toby Barrett says changes to Health Canada’s wind study take direct aim at previously unexamined indirect adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines – acknowledging a key complaint of concerned residents.
WISCONSIN PSC DENIES PERMIT FOR
HIGHLAND WIND FARM APPLICATION
Today the members of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission decided, on a 2-1 vote, to deny an application of Highland Wind Farm, LLC, for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct a 102.5 Megawatt (MW) Wind Electric Facility in the Towns of Forest and Cylon in St. Croix County.
February 14, 2013 by Kristin Ruesch or Matt Pagel
MADISON - Today the members of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission decided, on a 2-1 vote, to deny an application of Highland Wind Farm, LLC, for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct a 102.5 Megawatt (MW) Wind Electric Facility in the Towns of Forest and Cylon in St. Croix County.
The majority commissioners determined a clearer record and a better demonstration that noise from the wind turbines would not exceed Commission standards was needed before making a decision to grant a CPCN. Highland Wind Farm, LLC, will be able to reapply to the Commission if an improvement to modeling and additional information is presented in a subsequent application.
Background Information on the Application
In December of 2011, Highland Wind Farm, LLC, filed an application with the Commission for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to construct a new wind electric generation facility. The project would have included the construction of up to 44 wind turbines, with an electric generating capacity of up to 102.5 megawatts.
Since the application was received, the Commission granted requests to intervene in the proceeding to Clean Wisconsin, Forest Voice, Inc., RENEW Wisconsin, and the Town of Forest, and granted intervenor compensation requests to Clean Wisconsin and Forest Voice. The Commission held multiple technical hearings in Madison; held public hearings in the project area, and accepted expert and public comments online and via U.S. mail. All documents, testimony, and comments submitted in the proceeding are available to the public at the PSC web site, http://psc.wi.gov, by entering docket number 2535-CE-100 in the Electronic Regulatory Filing System.
