DEVELOPER FILES TO BUILD 102-MW WISCONSIN WIND FARM DESPITE SUSPENDED SITING RULES
Emerging Energies of Wisconsin LLC has filed an application with Wisconsin utility regulators seeking to construct a 102.5-MW wind project, despite suspended wind siting rules that have roiled the state’s wind industry.
The application comes at a time when state rules for wind power remain in limbo, following the March decision by a Wisconsin legislative committee to suspend wind farm siting rules as they were set to go into effect. The rules had been approved by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission after years of negotiations.
Leading up to the suspension, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker had proposed an “overhaul” of the state’s wind energy siting rules that would have moved the setback distance for wind farms to at least 1,800 feet unless property owners agreed in writing, but the wind energy industry and its supporters objected, saying it would slow down development in the state.
After suspending the rules, the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules asked the PSC to see if a new agreement could be reached on the issue, but so far no proposal has been issued. If no agreement is reached by mid-March, the original rules would go into effect.
The situation since the suspension has been a political stalemate, with some developers — including Midwest Wind Energy LLC and Invenergy LLC — shelving projects citing regulatory uncertainty. Bills have been introduced to develop new rules, but so far no bills have moved forward.
“The PSC has been working with legislators, realtors and different groups,” PSC spokesman Matt Pagel told SNL Energy, adding that there is no formal rule process under way. “We are seeing if we can bridge the gap.”
Project boosted to 100 MW to move it under PSC’s authority
Emerging Energies of Wisconsin, in its application, said it is now filing for a certificate of public convenience and necessity “based on developments with the town of Forest,” which would host the majority of the project.
Specifically, the developer said that although 40 permits were issued by the town of Forest in February, a subsequent recall election resulted in a new town board that passed a new wind ordinance that sought to block the project.
Emerging Energies said it believes its permits remain valid, but William Rakocy, a founding member of Emerging Energies, said the company is increasing the size of the project from 97.5 MW to more than 100 MW in order to bring it under the PSC’s authority.
In an interview, Rakocy stressed that the application for the proposed Highland project also has setbacks of 1,250 feet from “non-participating residences,” a standard that has previously gained approval by the PSC.
“We have used that as a basis as we have developed our project; we honored that conservative guideline,” Rakocy said. “I suspect that perhaps the other developers (who suspended projects) had been working with the more typical 1,000-foot setback that had previously been used in the state, and so our belief is that as we move to the more conservative guideline of 1,250, that we have a respectable project here.”
Exactly how the PSC’s process will work, however, is not clear. The PSC’s process is not directly regulated by the previously approved local wind siting rules, but it said in a statement that it is statutorily required to consider whether an installation is consistent with its standards.
That means “the commission will need to at least consider whether the application is consistent with the standards in the promulgated, yet suspended, PSC 128 rules,” the PSC said in a Dec. 19 statement.
The Highland Wind Farm project would be in western Wisconsin in the northeast corner of St. Croix County. The farm’s facilities would be predominantly in Forest, Wis., with the exception of a substation and associated transmission to be constructed in Cylon, Wis.
As proposed the project consists of 41 turbines, with 52 possible turbine sites to choose from. The developer said in filings that it is in communication with several utilities and investors, but that no power purchase agreement is in place for the project. The power would likely be sold to one or more public, municipal or cooperatively owned utilities.
“It is probably going to take six months to a year for us to get any kind of a decision,” Rakocy said. “We don’t expect to be building until late in 2012 or 2013 and at that point in time we suspect that the needs and demands of our society and our state are probably going to change from where they are today and hopefully get better.”
The PSC has 30 days to determine whether the application is complete and 360 days to make a decision. (Docket No. 2535-CE-100)
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
LATEST LEGISLATION FAILS TO EXTEND SECTION 1603 CASH GRANT PROGRAM
North American WindPower
By NAW Staff, North American Windpower, www.nawindpower.com 27 December 2011 ~~
New legislation agreed upon by the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate on Dec. 22 – which focuses on payroll tax extension, unemployment insurance benefits and Medicare – does not include extension of the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Section 1603 cash-grant program, which is scheduled to expire at the end of this year.
Renewable energy stakeholders had vigorously lobbied for the continuation of this program in recent months.
The final agreement, which was signed into law by President Obama on Dec. 23, includes future work by senators and representatives on reconciling the differences between the chambers.
EMERGING ENERGIES FILES APPLICATION FOR WIND FARM IN WESTERN WISCONSIN...... THEY HAVE RUINED LIVES IN NORTHEASTERN WISCONSIN AND ARE MOVING FORWARD TO RUIN MORE LIVES IN WESTERN WISCONSIN, insisiting that the 8 turbine wind farm they constructed last year complies with all laws.
This is why it is necessary to enact new rules in Wisconsin that protect property rights of Wisconsin landowners, not the developer......
WIND FARM PROPOSAL FIRST IN TWO YEARS
Commission gets application for St. Croix County project
MADISON — Developers have applied to the Public Service Commission for a permit to build a large new wind farm in western Wisconsin, the first application of its kind in more than two years.
Emerging Energies applied this month to build Highland Wind Farm, a 41-turbine, 102.5-megawatt project in the St. Croix County towns of Forest and Cylon, about 25 miles east of the Minnesota border.
The application comes as new wind siting rules remain in limbo in the PSC, with officials trying to broker a deal between the wind industry and its critics.
William Rakocy, a founding member of Hubertus-based Emerging Energies, said his company understands there still is some uncertainty surrounding Wisconsin's wind energy regulations, but he feels confident about the project.
"I guess we would like to believe that more reasonable minds will prevail," he said.
Wind farms have been a contentious issue in Northeastern Wisconsin.
A proposed 100-turbine wind farm polarized Morrison and other southern Brown County communities before Invenergy LLC in March withdrew its plans to seek permits to develop the project. The company cited the state's lack of siting guidelines in pulling the proposal, which would have put 54 turbines in Morrison and others in Glenmore, Holland and Wrightstown.
Residents around the hamlet of Shirley have complained that a smaller wind development there has reduced their property values, and has caused health problems for some people. The development's owner insists that the wind farm complies with all laws.
Those concerns have prompted elected officials to be involved. State Sen. Frank Lasee, R-Ledgeview, this fall proposed a statewide ban on turbine construction until the state is in possession of a report that assures that they are safe.
Brown County Supervisor Patrick Evans last week called for the County Board to support the Wisconsin Citizens Safe Wind Siting Guidelines, a proposal that would establish limits for audible and low-frequency sound emissions, and set penalties for certain violations. A county committee will consider that request in January.
The new wind siting rules, more than a year in the making, were suspended just before going into effect in March. Those rules required wind turbines have a setback from the nearest property line of 1.1 times the height of the turbine, or roughly 450 feet. The rules also required turbines be no closer than 1,250 feet from the nearest residence.
Gov. Scott Walker proposed changes to those rules, pushing the setback from the property line — not just a dwelling — to 1,800 feet, or about a third of a mile. That legislation did not pass but did lead Republicans to ask the PSC to negotiate a new deal.
Those rules are for projects under 100 megawatts. The Highland project is larger and does not specifically fall under the rules under debate. But state law requires PSC officials to consider the yet-to-be approved rules when considering projects of greater than 100 megawatts.
This is only the beginning of the process, and the PSC has 30 days to determine if the application is complete. The agency has up to 360 days to make a decision.
Dan Rustowicz of Minnesota's Redwind Consulting, a wind farm builder, said he is glad to hear about the application.
"That is a really good sign," he said. "But we still need to get these rules resolved. Clarity is powerful."
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.
STATE VIEW: WIND ENERGY ISN'T REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS
Credit: By: Rolf E. Westgard, Duluth News Tribune, www.duluthnewstribune.com 28 December 2011
Minnesota Power continues to invest in its Bison 1 and 2 North Dakota wind farms, which will transmit power across the state line to Minnesota.
Also worth noting, however, is the announced startup of Minnesota’s newest wind farm near Lakefield, which also is to transmit power to a different state. This 205-megawatt project’s output is intended entirely for Indianapolis Power and Light, helping it to meet Indiana’s mandated renewable-energy standard that at least 10 percent of fuel comes from wind, solar, or biomass by 2017.
Indiana’s standard is less than the Minnesota Legislature’s demand that utilities like Minnesota Power and Excel Energy get 25 percent from renewable energy.
At the 27 percent U.S. average capacity factor for intermittent-output wind farms, the effective power of the Lakefield project can be expected to be about 55 megawatts, or a 20th that of the 90-percent capacity factor at the Prairie Island, Minn., nuclear plant.
The Lakefield developer, EnXco, has not disclosed the cost of its ratepayer- and taxpayer-subsidized project, but similar developments are in the $400 million to $500 million range. EnXco, owned by the French, expects to receive 30 percent of the project’s total cost upfront from the U.S. Department of Energy.
The Midwest System Operator grid actually will receive the power for transmission to Indiana. Midwest System Operator or Indianapolis Power and Light will need additional backup power, probably from a natural-gas plant, to supply Indianapolis Power and Light when the Lakefield wind farm isn’t producing. Intermittent-energy wind farms everywhere have created demand for new natural-gas “peaker” plants. These plants are kept in spinning reserve to respond rapidly during the 75 percent of the time when the wind is too light or too strong for the wind turbines to function at capacity.
Indianapolis Power and Light has not disclosed the price it is paying for the energy from the wind farm owner, but these power-purchase contracts, forced by renewable energy legislation, are typically above the current market rate for electric power. That’s a cost that is borne by all ratepayers.
Large electric grids maintain a constant balance with control-room operators adjusting supply to meet continuing changes in power demand. Wind turbines turn themselves on and off, depending on the vagaries of the wind. As a result, wind farms have not replaced a fossil-fueled power plant anywhere on Earth. They also don’t reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, as the fluctuating backup plants have high emissions. This suggests that Department of Energy money might be better spent on wind energy research at facilities like the University of Minnesota’s Eolos Wind Research Station at UMore Park in Rosemount, Minn.
In England, Queen Elizabeth’s husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, has launched a withering assault on the wind-turbine industry, calling England’s low-capacity wind farms “a disgrace.” That’s because they tend to produce the least when demand is highest. He also has been critical of the industry’s reliance on subsidies from low- and average-income electricity customers. He has accused people who support wind energy of believing in fairy tales. A recent Sunday Telegraph audit of Britain’s 3,419 turbines revealed that 2,276 either are fully or partly owned by foreign businesses, which receive about $800 million a year in subsidies.
In 2010, Bentek Energy, a Colorado-based, energy-analytics firm, looked at power-plant records in Colorado and Texas. It concluded that despite large investments, wind-generated electricity “has had minimal, if any, impact on carbon dioxide” emissions.
As Kevin Forbes, the director of the Center for the Study of Energy and Environmental Stewardship at Catholic University, said, “Wind energy gives people a nice warm fuzzy feeling that we’re taking action on climate change. Yet when it comes to CO2 emissions, the reality is that it’s not doing much of anything.”
Rolf E. Westgard of St. Paul is a professional member of the Geological Society of America and teaches energy classes for the University of Minnesota’s Lifelong Learning program.
New Wind Farm Regulations Could Decrease Property Values By: Tom Larson
The Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) is proposing new regulations relating to the location of wind turbines and wind farms (a large number of wind turbines located in close proximity to one another) that could have a significant impact on the value of thousands of acres of Wisconsin property. These regulations will determine, among other things, how far wind turbines can be located from neighboring homes, buildings and property lines. Given that wind turbines can be over 500 feet high and the new state regulations will override all local zoning ordinances, REALTORS® and property owners should pay close attention to these regulations.
Background
During the 1970s, the United States experienced an energy crisis due to a decrease oil production in the Middle East. To encourage the use of alternative energy sources, Wisconsin enacted a law prohibiting local governments (counties, cities, villages and towns) from placing any restrictions on the installation or use of solar or wind energy systems unless the restriction is necessary to protect public health or safety. For approximately 40 years, this law has not been a significant problem for property owners.
In recent years, thousands of large wind turbines have been located in Wisconsin and other states to utilize the energy from winds blowing across the landscape. While these turbines are intended to reduce dependence on fossil-based energy sources, they have generated a lot of controversy and complaints from nearby property owners. Some of the complaints from property owners include the following:
Health problems. After wind turbines have been placed nearby, some residents have complained of insomnia, anxiety, headaches and nausea. They have blamed their health problems on the pulsing noise coming from spinning turbines near their homes.
Destruction of natural viewscapes. Turbines can be over 500 feet tall and can be seen from miles away. (As a comparison, the Wisconsin Capitol is 284 feet tall.) Some feel that these turbines detract from the natural beauty of Wisconsin’s farms and rolling landscape.
Noise. Depending on the turbine model and wind speed, wind turbines can create a constant "whooshing" or pulsating noise that can be heard both inside and outside a home (day and night), if located too close. Studies have shown that an average-size turbine (2 megawatts, 100 meters high) located 1,000 feet away can produce the same amount of noise as a suburban area during the day (51 decibels).
Excessive shadows on neighboring property. Depending upon the number of clouds and angle of the sun, wind turbines can create a "shadow flicker" (a term used to describe the shadow of the turning blades as it hits a surface) on nearby property. Some property owners have described the shadow effect on their home as being like "someone turning lights on and off inside the house at a rate of 80 times a minute" and lasting for almost an hour on sunny days.
Property values. A recent study of three Wisconsin wind farms showed that prospective buyers had a negative perception of nearby wind turbines. While the exact impact is difficult to quantify, the study indicated an average decrease in vacant residential property values ranging from 12% to 40%, depending on the size of the lot and the distance from the wind turbine.
Proposed PSC Regulations
In 2009, Wisconsin enacted a wind turbine siting law that directs the PSC to develop specific standards for, among other things, wind turbine setbacks from neighboring homes and property lines. The PSC formed a 15-member wind siting council, consisting of representatives from wind farm companies, local governments, environmental organizations, private property owners and REALTORS®.
After two months of regular meetings, the wind siting council recently completed a report containing various recommendations and submitted it to the PSC for approval. The report is controversial and many critics maintain that the interests of neighboring property owners are not adequately protected due to the makeup of the council, which was weighted in favor of wind energy interests.
The PSC has used this report to create new administrative rules, which are also controversial. Some of the specific concerns with the proposed rules include the following:
Setbacks are too small. The proposed setback from neighboring residences and buildings is 3.1 times the maximum blade tip height of the turbine. For example, if a wind turbine is 300 feet, the setback is 930 feet from a structure. This distance was chosen for safety considerations (in case the turbine falls over) and ignores possible health risks to humans and animals and the potential impact of turbines on neighboring property values. Critics suggest that a setback of 2,640 feet is more appropriate.
Noise standards are insufficient. The proposed rules allow wind turbines to create noise up to 45 decibels at night or 50 decibels during the day, as measured from the outside of a neighboring residence.
Shadow flicker limits are inadequate. The proposed rules allow wind turbines to create a shadow flicker on neighboring residences up to 40 hours per year. If shadow flicker exceeds 20 hours per year, developers must offer mitigation to property owners.
Why This Is Important for REALTORS®
Without question, the number one reason REALTORS® should care about the proposed wind farm regulations is the impact of wind turbines on property values. Numerous studies have shown that wind turbines can have a negative impact on neighboring property values and sometimes that impact can be significant. According to a survey of REALTORS® working in a wind turbine area, the impact on neighboring vacant land ranges from a 43% decrease if the wind turbine is located very close (within 600 feet) to 29% if the turbine is located in near proximity (½ mile away). With respect to the impact on improved property, the impacts are believed to be similar, but slightly lower (39% and 24%, respectively).
While wind turbines are often seen in more rural settings, these regulations do not prevent wind turbines from being located in more urban or suburban settings. Because these regulations override local zoning ordinances, wind turbines can be located almost anywhere there is adequate wind, including next to residential subdivisions and office parkss.
While developing alternative energy sources is important, so too is protecting property values. Without adequate setbacks in place, property values could suffer and property owners could face tremendous uncertainty about whether the neighboring property that is used for open space or farmland today will be used for a wind farm with large wind turbines tomorrow.
What’s Next
The PSC recently approved the proposed administrative rules and now the rules must be reviewed and approved by the Wisconsin Legislature. The PSC rules will likely be completed within the next several weeks, with legislative review occurring shortly thereafter. The legislature will likely hold public hearings within the next several weeks.
The WRA will be meeting with key legislators in an effort to make changes to the rules to ensure that the interests of property owners are adequately protected.
For more information, please contact Tom Larson (tlarson@wra.org) at (608) 240-8254.
Tom Larson is Chief Lobbyist and Director of Legal and Public Affairs for the WRA.
Published: 9/2/2010
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.
The 2010 version retains the recommended noise limits in the 1998 version, which is that
the level of sound from a wind farm should not exceed the background sound level by more
than 5 decibels (dB), or a level of 40 dB LA90(10 min)1, whichever is the greater.
40 dB is typical of a quiet residential area with only light traffic and natural sounds such as the wind
in the trees. In contrast, sound levels along-side an urban road would be around 60 to 70 dB during
the day and about 50 to 60 dB at night. There are some locations that are particularly
quiet at times and so the recommended limit of 40 dB would be considered to be unreasonable.
In recognition of this the 2010 Standard introduces the provision for a lower, more
stringent limit where a local authority has identified in its district plan the need to provide
a higher degree of protection of acoustic amenity. The Standard recommends that when particular
conditions are met, the sound from the wind farm during the evening and night time should
not exceed the background sound level by more than 5 dB or a level of 35 dB LA90(10 min), whichever is the greater.
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
PROPOSED WIND FARM REGULATIONS
BROWN COUNTY, Wis. (WFRV) -- A proposal from an area lawmaker will make it even harder for wind farmer developers to build in the state. This after two developers recently pulled the plug on projects in Northeast Wisconsin.
David Enz built his home for his family back in 1978. But last month he and his wife decided they could no longer stay.
"Started feeling pressure in my ears, feeling pressurized, started feeling unstable," Enz said.Enz attributes the symptoms to the eight wind turbines that were built last fall about a half mile from his house.
"It gets to the point where your body just does not want to be here, it just can't be here," said Enz.
Today, State Senator Frank Lasee introduced legislation that would require developers to keep turbines at least 2,250 feet from a person's property unless there's permission to build closer.
Right now, they need to be at least 1,250 feet from homes. Earlier this year, Governor Scott Walker said he wanted to change the law to 1,800 feet.
Senator Lasee says that's not enough.
"Two thousand fifty feet is a reasonable distance that will help preserve their health and safety because of shadow, flicker, noise and I believe there is either magnetic or electric noise that causes health problems for people," Lasee said.
Last month, two wind farm developers pulled out of projects in both Brown and Calumet Counties, saying the current regulations already go too far.
According to Senator Lasee, the strict regulations aren't what's driving companies away from projects here in Wisconsin. He says it all comes down to money.
"Many utilities are no longer paying premiums which drive up our electric costs for wind energy so they're having trouble getting a contract that would pay," Lasee said. "I think they're using this as an excuse."
Enz hopes the Senator's proposal can prevent other families from going through what he has.
"We have a house that we can't live in," he said.
Enz and his wife have been staying with their children for the last few weeks. Senator Lasee is circulating the bill in the senate and assembly.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF THOSE THAT
HAVE VISITED THE ENZ FAMILY HOME.
Bob and I traveled to Shirley and experienced the wind turbines there and visited the Enz home. We both experienced effects which I have emailed to Dave & Rose. After about 20-30 minutes in the home, I started feeling like I had a head cold coming on. My ears began to crack like one experiences when ascending or descending in an airplane. My head felt pressurized and so did my chest with a feeling of anxiety and like I couldn't take a deep breath. Bob spent more time outside and he, too, felt like a head cold was coming on with additional symptoms of a headache and dizziness. We didn't end up spending the recommend one hour there because the urge to leave was so great. I believe it was the physiological "flight" response. We are so glad we made the trip and thank Dave & Rose Enz for allowing us to visit their home. There is no doubt in our minds the unacceptable conditions of living next to turbines. (Brenda and Bob are facing the same fate in Forest Township in St Croix County.
____________________________________________________________________________
You think you can imagine the effects of infrasound produced by six 50-story turbines just west of a home situated in the Glenmore Township part of the Shirley Wind Project.
You can't. Today, Carl and I were invited to visit Dave and Rose Enz's home. These are the folks, as you know, that recently walked away from their home of 30+ years due to adverse health effects since the wind turbines went online. I wasn't sure what would happen; I went really with no preconceived notions -- just a little anxiety.
At first, the house looked lived in. There's the turned over earth of last summer's garden, the old tractors parked under a roof shelter attached to their barn and the call of the large rooster and hens still in a side area of the outbuilding. Then you enter the home given a tour by Dave himself -- what they had built together and what plans they had for the future after building a side sun room last fall.
We each found chairs in the living room and sat down. The house was quiet. It was dark and damp outside, but the family pictures on the walls of nine children and now grandchildren hinted at a life that existed before the huge wind turbines were sited close to their property.
My husband Carl was the first to talk about what he was feeling: after 5 minutes, he said he felt increased poressure in his ears. He could feel " a tightness towards the back of my head and then I began to feel as though a strong drug was beginning to effect me. I began to feel dizzy. After about a half hour in that room, my vision was effected along with my sense of equilibrium. I experienced tinnitus and a sense of nausea ."
I sat in a chair nearby. The first thing I noted was some pressure on the side of my head in the temple area on both sides. Then some pain in my left ear. I mentioned this to Carl. Dave had left the room to retrieve some food from the freezer to take back to his daughter's home where he and Rose were staying. After about 20 minutes, my sense of balance was off and I could not think as clearly when I first walked in that house. I was surprised at how soon we both were feeling ill. We walked out into the back yard facing
the giant wind turbines to the west. Now you could hear the blades turning and the drone sound of the gears. The wind at this point was not very strong.
After about 40 minutes there, I understood why Dave and Rose left their home. He said everyone is different; some people may not be effected, but his granddaughter said she doesn't want to go back there. Dave wants others in his township and others in neighboring areas to experience what is occurring in their house.
As we drove away this afternoon, I felt sick --not just the temporary nausea, but understanding what the Enz family had taken away from them. All those years and memories they made in that farm.
I think they deserve to be heard, and we all deserve to have these problems tested for and addressed by our local, county and state officials. There are more people out there living within industrial wind projects, not really knowing the implications of what they and their children are being exposed to. That's the bottom line here.
I thought it was important for you to hear their story.
Sandra
The Enz's are not the only families suffering the ill effects of
being forced to live too close to industrial wind turbines.
ANOTHER FAMILY, WHO HAS CHOOSEN NOT TO GO PUBLIC AT THIS TIME,
AND WHO LIVES 1-MILE AWAY FROM THE CLOSEST TURBINE,
HAS NOW ABANDONED THEIR HOME.............
After turbines in the Blue Sky/Green Field project went on line near the Town of Marshall in Fond Du Lac county, James Vollmer's chickens began to fail. His hatch rate plummeted and there were a high number of unusual deformities in the chicks that did hatch, including missing eyes, crossed beaks and missing leg bones.
Vollmer has been around chickens his whole life. His grandmother and grandfather raised poultry and he says he took to it right away. He has photograph taken by his grandmother of himself as a toddler in the chicken house with baby chicks nesting on his back. He says, “I can’t remember a time in my life when I wasn’t around chickens.”
A dairy farmer named Kevin Ashenbrenner whose farm is located in the Shirley Wind project (Town of Glenmore, Brown County WI), HAS LOST 17 CALVES AND 15 COWS
since the Shirley turbines began spinning,
which is more than he normally would loose in 5 years of farming and breeding.
The closest turbine to the house is 9/10 mile away as the crow flies. Six turbines total are located near the property. The family is also suffering badly with headaches, anxiety, and insomnia.
Another Wisconsin farmer, Joe Yunk, reported to the Wisconsin PSC, what happened to his beef cattle after the turbines went on line near the farm that was in his family for generations:
Shortly after the turbines began to operate, I had beef cattle become ill and die. I lost ten animals valued at $5,000 [each] over a two year period and couldn’t afford to continue."
Kevin and Joe are not alone. This video interview with Kewanee County dairy farmer Scott Srnka describes similar problems after turbines went on line near his farm. This happened years ago and industrial turbines continue to be sited to close to humans and animals.
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."
AUSTRALAINS ARE FORCED FROM THEIR HOMES TO SEEK RELIEF FROM INDUSTRIAL TURBINES:
ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS OF INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES
A PRELIMINARY REPORT
PRESENTED AT THE 10th International Congress on Noise as a
Public Health Problem
(ICBEN) 2011, London, UK
"We conclude that IWT noise at these two sites disrupts the sleep and adversely affects
the health of those living nearby. The current ordinances determining setback are inadequate
to protect the residents and setbacks of less than 1.5 km must be regarded as
unsafe. Further research is needed to determine a safe setback distance and to investigate
the mechanisms of causation"
Michael Nissenbaum MD, Northern Maine Medical Center, Fort Kent, Maine, USA, mnissenbaum@att.net
Jeff Aramini PhD, Intelligent Health Solutions Inc., Fergus, Ontario, Canada, jeff.aramini@gmail.com
Chris Hanning MD, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK, chrisdhanning@tiscali.co.uk
Michael Nissenbaum MD, Northern Maine Medical Center, Fort Kent, Maine, USA, mnissenbaum@att.net
Jeff Aramini PhD, Intelligent Health Solutions Inc., Fergus, Ontario, Canada, jeff.aramini@gmail.com
Chris Hanning MD, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK, chrisdhanning@tiscali.co.uk
Author: 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.au
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
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.
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.
WORTHLESS WIND POWER
November 21, 2011
www.lfpress.com
Britain's Prince Philip denouced wind turbines as "useless" and a "disgrace." Is he right? Lorrie Goldstein weighs in.
Now each morning when I awake, I pray and then ask myself, “What have I done?”
I am involved with the BlueSky/Greenfield wind turbine project in N.E. Fond du Lac County. I am also a successful farmer who cherishes his land. My father taught me how to farm, to be a steward of my fields, and by doing so, produce far better crop production. As I view this year’s crops, my eyes feast on a most bountiful supply of corn and soybeans. And then my eyes focus again on the trenches and road scars leading to the turbine foundations. What have I done?
In 2003, the wind energy company made their first contacts with us. A $2,000 “incentive” started the process of winning us over, a few of us at a time. The city salesmen would throw out their nets, like fishermen trawling for fish. Their incentive “gift” first lured some of us in. Then the salesmen would leave and let us talk with other farmers. When the corporate salesmen returned, there would be more of us ready to sign up; farmers had heard about the money to be made. Perhaps because we were successful farmers, we were the leaders and their best salesmen.
Sometime in 2004 or 2005, we signed $4,000 turbine contracts allowing them to “lease” our land for their needs. Our leases favored the company, but what did we know back then? Nobody knew what we were doing. Nobody realized all the changes that would occur, over which we would have no control. How often my friends and I have made that statement: What have I done?!
I watched stakes being driven in the fields and men using GPS monitors to place markers here and there. When the cats and graders started tearing 22-foot-wide roads into my fields, the physical changes started to impact not only me and my family, but, unfortunately, also my dear friends and neighbors. Later, a 4-foot-deep by 2-foot-wide trench was started diagonally across my field. A field already divided by their road was now being divided again by the cables running to a substation. It was now making one large field into 4 smaller irregularly shaped plots. Other turbine hosts also complained about their fields being subdivided or multiple cable trenches requiring more of their land. Roads were cut in using anywhere from 1,000 feet to over half a mile of land to connect the locations. We soon realized that the company places roads and trenches where they will benefit the company most, not the landowner. One neighbor’s access road is right next to some of his outbuildings. Another’s is right next to his fence line.
At a wind company dinner presented for the farmers hosting the turbines, we were repeatedly told — nicely and indirectly — to stay away from the company work sites once they start. I watched as my friends faces showed the same concern I had, but none of us spoke out. Months later, when I approached a crew putting in lines where they promised me they definitely would not go, a representative told me I could not be there. He insisted that I leave. The line went in. The company had the right. I had signed the lease.
Grumbling started almost immediately after we agreed to 2% yearly increases on our 30-year lease contracts. Some felt we should have held out for 10%. What farmer would lock in the price of corn over the next 5 years, yet alone lock one in at 2% yearly for 30 years? Then rumors emerged that other farmers had received higher yearly rates, so now contracts varied. The fast-talking city sales folk had successfully delivered their plan. Without regard for our land, we were allowing them to come in and spoil it. All of the rocks we labored so hard to pick in our youth were replaced in a few hours by miles of roads packed hard with 10 inches of large breaker rock. Costly tiling that we installed to improve drainage had now been cut into pieces by company trenching machines.
Each night, a security team rides down our roads checking the foundation sites. They are checking for vandals and thieves. Once, when I had ventured with guests to show them foundation work, security stopped us and asked me, standing on my own property, what I was doing there. What have I done?
Now, at social functions, we can clearly see the huge division this has created among community members. Suddenly, there are strong-sided discussions and heated words between friends and, yes, between relatives about wind turbines. Perhaps this is a greater consequence than the harm caused to my land — life is short, and friendships are precious.
I tried, as did some of the other farmers, to get out of our contracts, but we had signed a binding contract. If you are considering placing wind turbines on your property, I strongly recommend that you please reconsider. Study the issues. Think of all the harm to your land, and, in the future, to your children’s land, versus the benefits from allowing companies to lease your land for turbines.
WHAT HAVE I DONE?
PLEASE DO NOT DO WHAT I HAVE DONE!
HUGE WIND TURBINE ERUPTS IN FLAMES
AS 165MPH WINDS STRIKE SCOTLAND
by ClickGreen staff. Published Thu 08 Dec 2011 17:46, Last updated: 2011-12-09
These amazing pictures show the moment a huge wind turbine erupted in flames after it was struck by hurricane-force winds in Scotland.
Local photographer Stuart McMahon from Ardrossan, North Ayrshire, snapped the fireball as it wrecked the turbine earlier this afternoon.
Stuart told ClickGreen tonight the blades on the 100m-tall mast had been braked and were not turning as the ferocious winds swept across Scotland.
“It was clear that the turbine caught fire first and the flames spread to the covering of the blades,” he said. “There was debris still on fire being swept off in the wind and across the fields.
“These are huge structures and to see one on fire was a spectacular sight.
“The fire must have lasted for about 15 or 20 minutes until the fire brigade turned up to put it out.
"The blades are now turning freely in the wind and the turbine is spinning around on the mast."
The Ardrossan wind farm was sold by Scottish and Southern Energy to Infinis last year for £54 million. It comprises of 15 turbines with the capacity to power about 29,500 homes.
A second wind turbine was also brought crashing to the ground near Coldingham Village in the Border region.
Other parts of Scotland were bruised and battered by the hurricane-strength winds that the Met Office confirmed reached an incredible 165mph on the Cairngorm summit.
Police warned the public to stay indoors as uprooted trees and flying debris blocked several major roads and railways lines and Scotland's three main airports were forced to cancel more than 100 flights.
The Police had warned against all travel across central Scotland until at least 7pm this evening and the severe weather warning was extended to 2am on Friday morning in north east Scotland and the Grampian region.
Schools and colleges had been closed for the day after the Met Office upgraded it's severe weather warning advice overnight.
LETTER FROM VESTAS: WORRIED ABOUT REGULATION OF LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE
12/16/11 A letter from a turbine manufacturer
Video courtesy of The Forest Voice
"At least eight families living in the Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore just south of Green Bay, are reporting health problems and quality of life issues since the Shirley Wind project went online in December of 2010. Six families have come forward, five of them testify on the video, and at this time two of them have vacated their homes. STAND UP to protect people, livestock, pets, and wildlife against negligent and irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines."
-The Forest Voice
RESIDENTS OF GLENMORE, WISCONSIN, LOCATED IN BROWN COUNTY DESCRIBE WHAT IT IS LIKE LIVING IN THE VICINITY OF 500FT TALL INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES.
AND National release of documentary "Windfall" announced.
WINDFALL
WINDFALL, The adwad winning documentary which includes video from industrial wind farms in Wisconson, will be released nationally in February 2012.
Wind power... It's green... It's good... It reduces our dependency on foreign oil... That's what the people of Meredith, in upstate New York first thought when a wind developer looked to supplement this farm town's failing economy with a farm of their own -- that of 40 industrial wind turbines. Attracted at first to the financial incentives, residents grow increasingly alarmed as they discover side effects they never dreamed of, as well as the potential for disturbing financial scams.
VIEW THE TRAILER OF WINDFALL BELOW
WIGGY: 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.
WIND TURBINES AND PROXIMITY TO HOMES:
THE IMPACT OF WIND TURBINE NOISE ON HEALTH
a review of the literature and discussion of the issues
by
Barbara J Frey, BA, MA (University of Minnesota
&
Peter J Hadden, BSc (Est Man), FRICS
January 2012
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being,
and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity.
(The World Health Organization)
WISCONSIN TOWN COUNCIL PLACES
PRIOR RESTRAINTS ON POLITICAL SPEECH
Written by Joe Wolverton, II
THE NEW AMERICAN
Monday, 09 January 2012
WIND TURBINE BILL INTRODUCED
by Beth Jones,
via FOX 11 News, www.fox11online.com
January 7, 2012
GREEN BAY – While the state continues to try to iron out uniform regulations when it comes to the use of wind energy, one area lawmaker is taking matters into his own hands.
But wind supporters feel it’ll ultimately cost the state jobs.
Large wind turbines are becoming a common sight across the nation, as communities turn to the renewable energy for power.
But projected wind farms in Wisconsin hit a bit of a snag early last year, when the state voted to suspend the Public Service Commission’s statewide rules, sending the commission back to the drawing board.
“We’re talking about putting up 40-story buildings and saying, eh, just put it up, and that’s not right,” said State Sen. Frank Lasee (R-De Pere).
Lasee is hoping to jump-start some new regulations.
Instead of statewide standards, Lasee’s proposal would give each individual community the power to create its own requirements for how close the turbines could be to buildings.
“This would be for local governments, so it goes back to a process of zoning for local governments, so they’d have to establish an ordinance and go through the proper hearing process, proper public input,” Lasee explained.
Sen. Lasee introduced the bill this week, but it has yet to be debated on the Senate floor.
But some already feel the bill would only deter potential companies from coming to Wisconsin.
“We would oppose any move to create a patch-work of different regulations throughout Wisconsin,” said Amber Smith with Clean Wisconsin. “We already know of several wind companies that have left Wisconsin and abandoned projects in Wisconsin because of the patch-work of regulations.”
Smith says a unified rule is what Wisconsin needs, and this would only make things more complicated.
“Having a statewide standard protects everyone, the health of everyone, the health of the environment and local regulations in and of themselves can’t necessarily do that,” Smith said.
And the legislature will soon decide whether that’s the case or not.
Lasee hopes to begin debating the bill before the end of the current session this Spring.
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.
