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.
WRITTEN BY A COMMITTEE WITH A MAJORITY OF THOSE PROFITTING FROM WIND TURBINE DEVELOPMENT
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.
LIFE IN A WISCONSIN WIND PROJECT
TURBINE NOISE LOG
This family lives in the Invenergy Foward Energy industrial wind project near the town of Byron in Fond du Lac County.
It is more complex than parking on the road or standing underneath a turbine for a few minutes. Please visit this site to get the real life experience.
"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
Alexander Calls on Congress to "Stop the 'Big Wind' Gravy Train"
Sen. Alexander seeks end to wind energy tax credit
By Elijah Herington Scripps Howard Foundation Wire
Thursday, March 8, 2012
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander said it's finally time to deflate the 20-year-old program that provides federal money to develop wind energy.
The Tennessee Republican member of the Environment and Public Works Committee wants a temporary production tax credit for renewable energies — a provision from the Energy Policy Act of 1992 — to expire.
Alexander has opposed the subsidy for a long time, but said Wednesday he will introduce a bill to end it.
He said wind as an energy source can provide only "puny amounts of expensive, unreliable electricity." As the provision is set to expire at the end of the year, he said that now may be his opportune moment to strike down the subsidies.
"My major legislative goal in the Senate is to let the tax credit for wind developers to go the way of Exxon oil tax credit and expire at the end of the year," Alexander told an audience at the Heritage Foundation.
Alexander knows he is fighting an uphill battle. The credit has been extended on four previous occasions.
"There's likely to be an amendment on the highway bill in the U.S. Senate this week or next week to extend the tax credit for another year," he said. "That would mean that this temporary tax subsidy that, together with these other subsidies, cost tax payers $14 billion over five years, could be extended yet one more year."
On top of the history of extensions, Alexander said, "There are more lobbyists per square foot on this issue than I've seen in a long time."
Alexander said funding should be cut because wind energy provides little power for the cost.
"We can't afford it," he said. "The federal government borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends. It cannot justify such a subsidy, especially for what the U.S. energy secretary calls 'a mature technology.' "
Not only is the government borrowing this money, but the small amount of electricity that wind does produce also is unreliable.
Jon Goldstein, director of public affairs for the American Wind Energy Association, said wind energy has been a major success. He said this success has been largely driven by the tax credit.
Since 1980, the price of wind energy has dropped about 90 percent, Goldstein said, and in the past five years, nearly 35 percent of all new American electric generation has come from wind energy.
"It's the kind of the main federal incentive that's allowing the tremendous growth in wind manufacturing," he said.
Senate Rejects Measure To Extend Wind Energy Production Tax Credit
by Laura DiMugno on Monday 12 March 2012
The U.S. Senate has voted to reject an amendment to S.1813, the Surface Transportation Bill, that would have extended several important renewable energy incentives - including the production tax credit (PTC) for wind power - for one year.
The measure, introduced by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., also called for an extension of the Section 48C advanced energy manufacturing tax credit, which expired in 2010, as well as an extension of the Section 1603 cash-grant program.
Although the vote on the measure was even at 49-49, the amendment required 60 votes to pass, and was, therefore, not agreed to.
The news comes as a disappointment to the wind industry, which was hoping for a boon in an uncertain economic climate.
"We are disappointed that tens of thousands of American jobs are being put in peril by partisan gridlock in Washington,” Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, said in a statement. “Despite the partisan vote on these broader energy amendments, the fact remains that the wind production tax credit enjoys bipartisan support in the House and Senate."
Bode also stressed the urgency for Congress to take action on extending the PTC.
“The clock is ticking, and the stakes for a timely extension of the PTC could not be clearer,” she said. “We stand to lose one of America’s best new sources of American manufacturing jobs. With every day that goes by, layoffs are occurring and further job losses - and even plant closings - will accelerate with each month we near expiration in December.”
It could have been worse
Despite the Senate’s failure to extend critical renewable energy incentives, the outcome could have been disastrous. Another measure voted on by the Senate today, introduced by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., sought to repeal all energy-specific tax credits, including those for wind power.
Even worse, the measure - also a proposed amendment to the transportation bill - would have made the PTC expire retroactively on Jan. 1, 2012, meaning tax credits already awarded this year would have been repealed.
The Senate defeated DeMint’s amendment - which was a companion to a measure proposed in the House by Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan. - by a vote of 26-72.
Moreover, the Senate voted on a third amendment to S.1813 that also had the potential to dramatically alter the U.S. energy landscape. The measure - introduced by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and presented in opposition to Stabenow’s amendment - would have extended tax credits for the oil and gas industries, as well as approved the Keystone XL Pipeline and opened up other areas for domestic oil and gas production.
Roberts claimed the measure would lower gasoline prices - an assertion that has questionable backing.
“My amendment includes many of the expired energy tax incentives as well as increases energy production incentives,” Roberts said in a statement. “With spiking gas prices hammering families and businesses, this is precisely the time to have policy that will increase energy supply. To begin addressing the oil supply issues, my amendment would cut red tape and open up more federal land for oil and gas exploration and drilling."
The Senate also voted down Roberts’ proposal, by a 41-57 vote.
Bird Conservancy Seeks Enforceable Wind Turbine Standards
March 13, 2012 Bonner R. Cohen
The American Bird Conservancy has filed a 100-page petition with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requesting replacement of FWS’s proposed voluntary guidelines for operating wind farms with mandatory, enforceable standards designed to protect birds and bats from turbines’ deadly blades.
If FWS accepts the arguments laid out in the Bird Conservancy’s petition, wind farms will be subject to a mandatory permitting system and required to mitigate harm to birds and bats.
Massive Bird Kills
Although wind power supplies only 2 percent of electricity in the United States, FWS reports the wind turbines supplying that power kill 440,000 birds each year. Other analysts maintain the number is much larger because FWS may be overlooking a substantial number of birds that receive mortal wounds from turbine strikes but don’t die in the immediate vicinity of the machines, where FWS counts bird carcasses.
Two well-documented incidents in the mountains of West Virginia shed light on the magnitude of the problem. On a single night in September 2011, a single wind farm atop Mount Storm killed 59 birds. One month later, 484 birds were killed in a single night at the newly constructed wind farm on Laurel Mountain.
In these and other incidents across the country, birds of every description—hawks, bald eagles, golden eagles, the endangered California condor, yellow-billed cuckoos, wood thrushes, and other migratory birds—have lost their lives to wind farms.
Wind Farms Given Free Pass
Migratory birds may pose the biggest threat to the wind energy industry. To date, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act has not been applied to wind firms, but the potential liability could pose a real problem to the industry. The law does not require intent, meaning incidental kills could be prosecuted by the Justice Department.
The legal uncertainty over the potential liability of wind farms might make an FWS permitting process the lesser of two evils for the wind industry. Fearful a permitting process would lead to costly bureaucratic delays, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has expressed a clear preference for FWS’s proposed voluntary guidelines. But a change of heart by the Justice Department leading to prosecution of owners of wind farms for incidental kills of migratory birds would cast a pall over the whole industry.
The industry has never been told it would not be prosecuted. Similarly, if endangered birds or bats are killed in sufficient numbers by wind farms so as to trigger lawsuits under the Endangered Species Act, the industry could be facing even greater uncertainty and costly litigation.
Congress Reconsidering Subsidies
Meanwhile, the wind industry, which has seen its political connections pay off in recent years, is facing a serious threat from another direction: Congress is losing its appetite for subsidizing renewable energy. The spectacular bankruptcy of solar panel maker Solyndra, with a loss of over $500 million suffered by U.S. taxpayers, has made Capitol Hill lawmakers wary of loan guarantees and other subsidies designed to prop up renewable energy ventures.
For years, the wind energy industry has benefited from, and indeed depended on, one such subsidy, known as the production tax credit (PTC). The PTC provides a 2.2 cents-per-kilowatt-hour subsidy for wind power generators for their first ten years of existence. In effect since 1992, the PTC could well expire at the end of this year. In working out a deal earlier this year on the extension of the payroll tax deduction, the House and Senate, despite heavy lobbying by AWEA, refused to include an extension of the PTC.
Without the PTC, the industry will be hobbled in its efforts to compete with cheaper coal and natural gas. With the growing likelihood of an expiration of the PTC at the end of the year, orders for new turbines have come to a screeching halt.
Wind Power’s Environmental Downside
“It’s about time that we look at the downside of alternative energies,” said Marita Noon, executive director of the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy.
“Since the theory of manmade climate change became fashionable, we’ve heard only that fossil fuels are bad and renewable energy is good,” said Noon. “The propaganda shows pictures of black smoke belching out of stacks contrasted with pristine, white, wind turbines. Neither reflects reality. The black smoke was cleaned up years ago. Wind turbines kill birds and bats.
“As Americans make energy decisions, they need to be based on reality, on complete science,” Noon explained. “There is no free lunch, and energy policy should fully weigh the pros and cons of each option.”
Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D. (bcohen@nationalcenter.org) is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Wind Turbines Kill 70 Golden Eagles Each Year at California’s Altamont Pass
Continuing to survive primarily on federal handouts and subsidies, the wind energy movement has recently come under fire. While it is typically seen as a “clean” and “eco-friendly” alternative to fossil fuels, as the bird carcasses accumulate, the movement is starting to see closer scrutiny. According to Robert Bryce of the Wall Street Journal:
Over the past two decades, the federal government has prosecuted hundreds of cases against oil and gas producers and electricity producers for violating some of America’s oldest wildlife-protection laws: the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Eagle Protection Act.
But the Obama administration—like the Bush administration before it—has never prosecuted the wind industry despite myriad examples of widespread, unpermitted bird kills by turbines. A violation of either law can result in a fine of up to $250,000 and imprisonment for two years…
Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported that about 70 golden eagles are being killed per year by the wind turbines at Altamont Pass, about 20 miles east of Oakland, Calif. A 2008 study funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency estimated that about 2,400 raptors, including burrowing owls, American kestrels, and red-tailed hawks—as well as about 7,500 other birds, nearly all of which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act—are being killed every year by the turbines at Altamont.
…Bats are getting whacked, too. The Pennsylvania Game Commission estimates that wind turbines killed more than 10,000 bats in the state in 2010.
ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court…to the deaths of 85 birds [not eagles] at its operations in several states, according to the Department of Justice. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Exxon agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees. In July, the PacifiCorp utility of Oregon had to pay $10.5 million in fines, restitution and improvements to their equipment after 232 eagles were killed by running into power lines in Wyoming, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
That is far fewer than the estimated 10,000 birds (nearly all protected by the migratory bird law) that are being killed every year at Altamont…
Despite the deleterious effect that the windmills are having on wildlife, the wind industry is pushing to keep both its carte blanche and generous subsidies. According to Eric Glitzenstein, a Washington D.C.-based lawyer who wrote a petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “It‘s absolutely clear that there’s been a mandate from the top” not to prosecute the wind industry for violating wildlife laws. “To me,” he said, “that’s appalling public policy.”
In 2011, wind energy was the second-largest recipient of the government’s $24 billion in energy subsidies. According CNN Money, proponents say that, “while renewable technologies may be more expensive now, federal support provides a crucial market and…given time and economies of scale, renewable technologies will eventually be able to compete with fossil fuel.”
