Listening to wind farm noise concerns

by Jim Cummings, Acoustic Ecology Institute – March 29, 2010 – renewableenergyworld.com

Over the past couple of years, wind farm developers in the US, Canada, UK, and New Zealand have faced increasingly vehement resistance from prospective neighbors of new projects, triggered by concerns that the noise from nearby turbines will disrupt their lives.

Several industry- and government-funded studies have investigated some of concrete concerns (notably health effects and property values), finding no “statistically significant” correlations with proximity to wind farms, but these reports have not calmed the storms. Some skeptics have questioned the studies’ methodologies, while others (including AEI) have noted that there are key effects that these studies’ particular designs are not likely to illuminate. For many vocal wind farm neighbors, the reported results simply run starkly counter to their own experiences. What can and should be the response to those who are reporting sleep disruption, noise that interferes with their enjoyment of the outdoors, or health impacts?

Simply discounting the issues has proven to be an unproductive response; it only leads to increased hostility and distrust. Claiming the high ground of meeting statutory requirements, while generally technically true, also tends to foster continued ill will from those who are struggling with the noise. While the local problem may be “addressed,” these unresolved issues echo and multiply across the internet to impact many future projects.

Constructively engaging those with concerns is surely the most likely path to positive resolution, though that approach is also challenging, as the small island community of Vinalhaven, Maine is discovering. There, the community-owned electric coop is purchasing power from three new 1.5MW turbines. Since the project began operating in late 2009, between a third and half of the residents within a half mile have been surprised at the noise levels they are experiencing, and the coop is working to devise a fix to reduce the noise issues. However, uncertainty among neighbors about how survey responses will be used as the community decides what to do has complicated efforts to try to learn more about exactly when and where the noise problems are the worst.

Over the past year and a half, here at the Acoustic Ecology Institute, I’ve worked to understand the dynamics and tensions that underlie these issues. It appears that there are four key themes that, when considered together, add up to create a useful ”big picture” view.

First, it’s clear that many people, in all parts of the country, have been dramatically impacted by the noise of wind farms near their homes, most commonly by sleep disruption when turbines operate in low winds aloft while the surface is calm and very quiet. While of course there are some contributing attitudinal factors, these are only part of the picture, and cannot be justifiably used to explain away the issue. Many of those now affected were wind farm supporters, and indeed would be happy to continue seeing turbines, if they were far enough away to be more consistently inaudible. To dismiss all these people as cranks, or as hyper-sensitive social outliers, does a disservice to constructive public discourse and short-circuits our opportunities to learn from their experiences as we continue to develop new wind farms.

Second, it’s also clear that wind farm noise is not particularly bothersome to many – or perhaps most – people who live close enough to hear it. And, the vast majority of wind farms never generate any substantial ongoing noise issues—perhaps because they are in less densely populated areas.

Third, the nature of the sounds of wind turbines make it especially difficult to rely on reassuring noise limits. Most notable is the commonly pulsing nature of turbine noise, which is inherently more attention-grabbing and, according to several well-regarded academic studies, more annoying than road or industrial noises. Also troublesome is that sound propagation varies greatly with changing wind and atmospheric conditions, leading to excess noise at neighboring homes, or to more times with noise levels right at the upper legal limit. Additionally, some of the methods used to set noise limits (especially those using long averaging periods) can allow some periods during which noise levels are higher than local citizens – and officials – may expect to hear.

And fourth, and perhaps most important yet least appreciated: we are facing some social choices that may be difficult to make. Several surveys suggest that between 10% and 40% of those hearing sound levels close to regulatory limits may be disturbed by it. How many such affected neighbors are we willing to accept? While 5% may be widely acceptable, there’s likely to be less consensus if 20% are bothered. We can no longer pretend this more affected minority doesn’t exist; it’s time to decide how much to adapt wind farm planning in response to these impacts.

Larger setbacks are one option, though there may also be potential in exploring operational adaptations, such as increasing the cut-in speeds in wind farms within earshot of homes. Since a very small proportion of total generation capacity occurs at the low end of operational speeds, raising the cut-in speed can dramatically reduce total operating time while having negligible impacts on overall project income.

Thanks to the increase in noise problems, it’s far less common than it was a few years ago for industry spokespeople explicitly promise that turbines will be inaudible. Rather, project planners acknowledge that the turbines will sometimes be audible, but should not be bothersome; predicted noise levels at neighboring households are compared to familiar sounds, such as light traffic at a hundred feet. This has remained problematic, since it’s often hard for citizens to really imagine what they will be hearing. One Vinalhaven resident who had been a strong supporter of the project there was surprised that the legal sound levels were notably above local background ambient conditions, reporting that “on our quiet cove, we now know that 45dB is loud!” For a significant minority of nearby residents, especially in very rural areas, this reaction is something the industry will need to come to grips with.

For an in-depth examination of these issues, see the recent Acoustic Ecology Institute report, Wind Farm Noise: 2009 in Review. Table of contents, introduction, and links to download the 45-page PDF are available here. ^[1]

Jim Cummings a writer and editor who has covered topics related to the environment, science and socially responsible investing since the early 1980s. He was an invited plenary speaker at the Alberta oil and gas Noise Control Conference in 2007 and 2009, guest editor of a special double issue on Ocean Noise for the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy. He is founder of the Acoustic Ecology Institute.

Wind energy is blowing hot right now. Nationwide, wind farms are bringing in renewable energy and jobs, such as in Montana, as detailed in “Propelling Growth.” Overall, wind turbines in the United States generated 52 billion kilowatt hours in 2008, which is enough to serve 4.6 million households, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). And demand is growing: The number of wind turbines in the U.S. nearly doubled between 2006 and 2008, according to the DOE.

But it isn’t all good, according to Dr. Nina Pierpont, who has studied families living near wind turbines. Pierpont found that there are enough negative effects to warrant calling them “Wind Turbine Syndrome,” because the symptoms form a consistent pattern from person to person, she says. “A syndrome really means the description of signs and symptoms that occur together and are not yet tied together as a clear disease.”

One resident of Mars Hill, Maine, which has hosted a wind farm since 2007, wrote to Pierpont about her experience: “The noise created by the turbines can be unbearable at times,” says Wendy Todd. “It causes disruption to sleep patterns, stress and anxiety to most who live downwind of the project. For some it causes headaches, pressure or ringing in the ears, inability to concentrate, feelings of unease, and dizziness. … I am not talking about a simple nuisance, this is about life-altering changes to the environment that can literally make people sick and change the way you live in your home and use your land. A large number of the families affected have considered leaving their homes.”

In his testimony to the Michigan Public Service Commission in December 2009, Dr. Malcolm A. Swinbanks said low-frequency noise can induce feelings likened to seasickness. “Like seasickness, the sensitivity of different individuals varies enormously,” he says, “some being immediately sensitive, while others can barely detect anything.” Swinbanks says he stood beside two people in a place where low-frequency noise was present; one person couldn’t really hear anything, while the other felt ill and wanted to leave.

Pierpont’s research also finds similar inconsistencies. Further, some of her subjects note that their symptoms come and go according to the wind’s direction and strength, blade spinning speed, which way the turbines are facing and particular sounds coming from the turbines. Ultimately, Pierpont says, low-frequency noise or vibration tricks the body’s balance system into thinking it’s moving-like seasickness, as Swinbanks suggested.

Wind turbine companies have dismissed the problem, saying people are simply making the symptoms up because they just don’t like the turbines. According to a February 2009 article in Ontario, Canada’s The Windsor Star, Brian Howe, a consulting engineer in acoustics for HGC Engineering, said Ontario’s guidelines for turbine noise are adequate and consistent with Health Canada studies, and that most people near wind turbines aren’t complaining about the noise.

But Tracy Whitworth, a teacher in Clear Creek, Ontario, has multiple complaints: Her home sits among 18 turbines, all within a 1.8-mile radius and the closest about one-quarter mile from her back door. “What most don’t understand is that it is the low frequency waves you cannot hear that are so debilitating to one’s health,” she says. “I have developed tinnitus in my ears. I hear and feel the pulsating of the turbines and buzzing in my ears. I also feel the pulsating in my throat and chest. I have nausea, dizziness, significant hearing loss, itchy eyes … heart palpitations, achy joints, short-term memory loss, severe sleep deprivation on a regular basis.”

The solution to the problem, say medical experts, isn’t to stop harnessing wind’s energy, but to place the turbines a certain distance away from where people live. In flat terrain, the turbines should be placed at least 1.25 miles away from where people are located, according to Pierpont, and at least 2 miles away in mountainous terrain, where the turbines are usually on ridges.

This distance from wind farms that residents should maintain, Pierpont says, is probably the most important thing for people to know. “When the wind farms are coming to their communities, they need to know what kinds of distances to ask for,” she says. “I think government should be involved in having proper setbacks in place, because that’s always a governmental issue whether local or state, and in funding further research.”

By Jessica B. Mulholland | March 2010
Web Source: http://www.governing.com/article/are-wind-farms-health-risk

Martin Alder, managing director of Longhill Energy, said: “At this time of year the sun hits the blades of the turbine at a certain angle and creates flickering shadows over parts of the prison.

“Some of the prisoners complained that the flickering was irritating them. We’ve discussed the problem with the prison authorities and agreed to turn the turbine off for a few hours in the early morning until about 9am. The problem only occurs at certain times of the year when the sun is low. I suppose the bottom line is that it’s a matter of security.”

Mr Alder said that his company hoped eventually to install equipment to stop the turbine automatically when the sun was at the problem angle.

He said: “Shadow-flicker is a recognised problem with wind turbines. That’s why they aren’t built near housing developments. And we want to be good neighbours.”

A Home Office spokeswoman said: “The Prison Service is reaching an agreement whereby the wind turbine does not interfere with the smooth running of the prison.”

From The Times
April 9, 2005
By Richard Ford
Web Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article379096.ece

» Translations available on the toolbar at the bottom «

DeKalb residents who have been battling with wind turbine companies since 2003 said their presentation was to educate the citizens on the adverse effects they’ve personally experienced. The group has continued their efforts since the turbines went online in December and are seeking litigation.

“It sounds like a 747 parked in your backyard,” rural Shabbona resident Mel Hass said about the sound of the turbines.

Another rural Shabbona resident, Mary Murphy, explained the sound at night like a dryer with a shoe in it, right outside her bedroom.

Hinshaw & Culbertson Attorney Rich Porter who opened the informational meeting with a presentation called, “Don’t Get Blown Over By a Wind Farm,” said a study has compared the noise to a leaky faucet in the middle of the night.

Though the panel of DeKalb County residents admit some of their complaints don’t occur around the clock, they said problems are affecting their everyday lives.

Others like rural Waterman resident Ron Flex said the turbines have made he and his family physically ill since being turned on. Flex said his wife became nauseous the first day they were turned on. Something he attributes to the shadow flicker from the rotating of the propellers.

Shadow flicker occurs when the sun is at an angle to produce a large shadow from the propeller of a wind turbine as it rotates around. The repetition of the shadow fading in and out is considered an annoyance.

Noise seemed to be an overwhelming complaint from each of the speakers.

Porter said that even though no noise seems present when standing below one, the turbines create a noise short distances away and can sometimes be amplified when inside a home.

Also included in the list of complaints with the turbines are lower property values, speculation about tax revenue, the inability to negotiate the contracts with the companies, and negative effects on livestock and other wildlife.

Porter urged local officials to adopt special use ordinances that deal specifically with wind turbines.

“You should be doing something about your ordinances,” he said. “There are a variety of developers circling your county.”

Speakers also urged attendees to educate themselves whether they were considering allowing the turbines on their properties.

Porter warned the crowd to be very skeptical of what they hear about tax revenue being a major benefit for schools. Taxation for the turbines as currently exists expires in 2011 and he warned there is always the possibility of them becoming tax exempt because of their portrayal as green technology.

Speaker and DeKalb County resident Tammy Duriavich added that people need to stop labeling areas with turbines as wind farms and view them as industrial.

“If you can’t plant it, harvest it, breed it…it’s not farming,” she said.

Duriavich explained the group doesn’t oppose renewable energy, but said she believes the turbines are not a good example of efficient green technology because of how much land they take out of crop production and for various other reasons.

“We’re not against renewable energy,” she said. “We just think it could be done responsibly.”

Several elected officials from the area were present to hear what they had to say.

Attempts by Brad Lila, of Renewable Energy Sources in Ashton, to point out differences between the companies were cut short. Presenters claimed the audience was there to hear the other side of the story.

For the complete article see the 03-10-2010 issue.

Credit: Ashton Gazette, www.ashtongazette.com 12 March 2010

In interviews with 10 families living 1,000 feet to 4,900 feet away from recently built industrial-size wind turbines, a “cluster” of symptoms was revealed: from sleep disturbance, which affected almost everyone, to headache to tinnitus, vertigo, nausea, irritability, memory and concentration problems, and panic episodes. Industrial wind turbines have a total height of 300 feet to 400 feet or more, with blades of 125 feet to 150 feet that sweep 1.5 acres to 2 acres of vertical airspace.

The book includes supportive reviews and notices by several noted physicians in related disciplines. Although primarily directed towards medical professionals, it also is suitable for the lay audience.

The individuals affected by Wind Turbine Syndrome noticed that they developed symptoms after the turbines near their homes started turning. Symptoms were relieved when they left the area and resumed on their return. Eight of the 10 families eventually moved away from their homes because of the severity of the symptoms.

Although not everyone living near turbines is subject to these symptoms, the data Pierpont presents is a concern, considering the current political drive to construct more and ever larger industrial wind turbines close to people’s homes, as well as in the habitats of other equally or more sensitive animals.

Pierpont’s sample size was large enough to show that individuals with pre-existing migraines, motion sensitivity or inner ear damage are particularly vulnerable. People with anxiety or other mental health problems are not particularly susceptible, she says, contradicting the common claim of industry developers that “it’s all in their head.”

“This report is a public health wake-up call that our elected officials and administrators need to take very seriously,” said Eric Rosenbloom, president of National Wind Watch, a clearinghouse for information about the adverse effects of industrial wind energy development.

Pierpont and other health and noise experts agree that at a minimum, large wind turbines should be 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) from any residence, according to an article on the national Wind Watch Web site (www.wind-watch.org/ww-noise-health.php).

According to Pierpont, low-frequency noise or vibration from the wind turbines acts on the balance organs of the inner ear to make the body think it is moving. And this misperception of motion affects other brain functions, including physical reflexes, spatial processing and memory and physiological fear responses (such as pounding heart and nausea).

For more information: www.windturbinesyndrome.com, www.wind-watch.org

Dec. 1, 2009–Wind Turbine Syndrome: Study of Adverse Health Effects Published
Posted on: December 1, 2009
Source: http://audiology.advanceweb.com/Article/Wind-Turbine-Syndrome-Study-of-Adverse-Health-Effects-Published.aspx

Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.

Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 — compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Wall Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.”

The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, “Wasting Money on Climate Change,” that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.

Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.

The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government’s promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.

A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?

In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.

Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).

This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.

Financial Post
Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. These comments were excerpted from a submission last night to the Ontario government’s legislative committee On Bill 150.

Posted: April 08, 2009, 7:29 PM by NP Editor
wind power, Michael J. Trebilcock

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com

Now substitute wind for oil and gas and consider the noise complaints being lodged against wind projects around the world.

The Obama administration has made the increased use of wind power to generate electricity a top priority. In 2009 alone, U.S. wind generation capacity increased by 39%. But more wind power means more giant turbines closer to more people. And if current trends continue, that spells trouble.

In 2007, a phalanx of wind turbines were built around Charlie Porter’s property in rural northern Missouri. Soon, Mr. Porter began to have trouble sleeping. So did his wife and daughter. The noise, he told me, made sleeping almost impossible. “We tried everything—earplugs, leaving the TV station on all night.” Nothing worked. Late last year he moved his family off their 20-acre farm.

Mr. Porter’s story is no isolated event. Rural residents in Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and England have been complaining about the noise from wind turbines, particularly about sleep deprivation. Dozens of news stories—most of them published in rural newspapers—have documented the problem.

I’ve spoken to nine other people in New York, Wisconsin, Ontario, New Zealand, Nova Scotia and England who live, or lived, near wind turbines. All complained of the noise, with sleep deprivation being the most common complaint. For example, Janet Warren, who raises sheep near Makara, New Zealand, told me via email that the turbines near her home emit “continuous noise and vibration,” which disturb her sleep and are causing “loss of concentration, irritability, and short-term memory effects.”

Complaints about sleep disruption—as well as the deleterious health effects caused by the pulsing, low-frequency noise emitted by the giant turbines—are a central element of an emerging citizen backlash against the booming global wind industry.

Lawsuits that focus on noise pollution are now pending in Maine, Pennsylvania and New Zealand. In New Zealand, more than 750 complaints have been lodged against a large wind project near Makara since it began operating last April. The European Platform Against Windfarms lists 388 groups in 20 European countries. Canada has more than two dozen antiwind groups. In the U.S. there are about 100 such groups, and state legislators in Vermont recently introduced a bill that will require wind turbines be located no closer than 1.25 miles from any residence.

In theory, big wind projects should only be built in desolate areas. But the reality is that many turbines are being installed close to homes. Wind developers put a turbine within 550 meters of Mr. Porter’s house. Hal Graham, a retired office manager in Cohocton, N.Y., complains about the noise pollution caused by a turbine 300 meters from his home. Tony Moyer, a plumbing superintendent in Eden, Wis., grumbles about the noise generated by three turbines built within 425 meters of his house.

Doctors and acoustics experts from the U.S. to Australia report a raft of symptoms that they blame on wind turbine noise, including sleep disturbance, headaches and vertigo. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., has studied 36 people affected by wind turbine noise since 2004 at her own expense. The people she interviewed were widely dispersed; they lived in the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland and Italy. She found that the collection of symptoms she calls “wind turbine syndrome” disappeared as soon as people moved out of their noise-affected homes and into new locations at least five miles from any turbines.

Across the border, Ontario-based orthopedic surgeon Dr. Robert McMurtry has been researching wind turbine noise for the past 18 months. Dr. McMurtry, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, counts more than 100 people in Ontario he believes are experiencing adverse effects from turbine noise. “It has compromised their health,” he says.

The wind lobby has publicly rejected these claims. In December, the American Wind Energy Association in conjunction with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, issued a report titled “Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Review Panel.” It declared: “There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.” It also suggested that some of the symptoms being attributed to wind turbine noise were likely psychosomatic and asserted that the vibrations from the turbines are “too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans.”

Yet the report also noted that in “the area of wind turbine health effects, no case-control or cohort studies have been conducted as of this date.” True enough—but it means there are no studies to prove or disprove the case. It also says that “a small number of sensitive people” may be “stressed” by wind turbine noise and suffer sleep deprivation. But who gets to define “sensitive” and “small number”? And if turbine noise and sleep disturbance aren’t problems, then why are people in so many different locations complaining in almost identical ways? Such questions are only going to be pressed with more urgency in the future.

By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. According to the Department of Energy, meeting that goal will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, an eightfold increase over current levels. Installing tens of thousands of new turbines inevitably means they’ll be located closer to populated areas.

The health effects of low-frequency noise on humans are not well understood. The noise in question often occurs at, or below, decibel levels that are commonly considered a public nuisance. And detecting low-frequency noise requires sophisticated acoustic gear. For all of these reasons, this issue should be investigated. If policy makers are serious about considering all of the impacts of “green” energy, then an impartial, international study of the effects of wind turbine noise should be undertaken without delay.

Mr. Bryce is the managing editor of Energy Tribune. His fourth book, “Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future,” will be published in April by PublicAffairs.

Source: http://www.djreprints.com
MARCH 1, 2010, 6:44 P.M. ET

Video: 2/24/2010 Property Value Guarantees Panel:
Ruth Anne Tobias – Presentation/Q&A

Video: 2/24/2010 Property Value Guarantees Panel:
Ruth Anne Tobias & others – Q&A

So, what are we to believe? Let’s take a look at what Tobias has to say.

According to the NortherStar interview on 1/29/10 by Demarcus Robinson:
“DeKalb County negotiated a property value guarantee within 1.5 to .75 of a mile to a turbine,” Tobias said.

Let’s refer to Tobias’ presentation on 2/24/2010.

Take a look at Slide 2 on Page 134:
” Homeowners within 3/4 mile of a turbine ”
” lower price than expected in 3 mos – FPL pays difference… ”

Take a look at Page 137:
” http://dekalbcounty.org/PLanning/windfarm.html ”
” Look for ‘Ordinance’ with conditions (#14) and PVG details within ‘Exhibit D’ ”

Compare the information Tobias presents against the actual document, and you now have a different story. Follow Tobias’ link to the document and you end up looking at a map, not PVG details. So you will need to look at an authentic “Property Value Guarantee Agreement” document.

In this document there is no mention of mos, it’s all in days, either 30 or 180. 30 days regarding notification and 180 days in relation to the property. Here are the facts:

Section 7: “that the Property will be so listed until the occurrence of either the (i) sale of the Property or (ii) expiration of a period of 180 days;”

Section 8: “for a period of 180 days, not to accept any offer below the ASKING PRICE without the express and written approval of the Guarantor.”

Section 10: “within 180 days of listing the Property for sale,”

Section 11.b: “after 180 days of listing the Property for sale,”

Section 12: “during the 180 days of the property being on the market,”

This kind of gross error is inexcusable. How could Tobias, DeKalb County Board Chair and noted conference speaker be so irresponsible and misleading? It makes you wonder if she ever looked at the document and seriously question anything else she has to say.

Video:

JOSEPHINE CAFAGNA, PRESENTER: It’s the biggest wind farm operating in Victoria and it’s putting the tiny town of Waubra on the map in ways the locals never predicted. It’s been dubbed the ‘Waubra Disease’, the health effects of living surrounded by wind turbines and it’s now becoming known around the world. As the State Government approves more wind farms, there are growing demands for serious investigation and for standards to be reviewed. Cheryl Hall reports.

DONALD THOMAS, WAUBRA FARMER: I thought it was probably the greatest thing to ever happen to the area. Visited wind farm up at Ararat and was quite impressed and came home thinking well, yeah, it’s a good thing. It’s not until the windmills started turning that we started to experience a few problems.

CHERYL HALL, REPORTER: And what sort of problems have you had?

DONALD THOMAS: We’ve had troubles, ear pressure, headaches, rapid heartbeat, high blood pressure.

CHERYL HALL: 20 families living around Waubra’s wind turbines have reported similar symptoms, but not everyone can talk about it. Those with turbines on their properties have signed agreements not to speak publicly.

DONALD THOMAS: In the yard here you can feel the ones on the hill there. They get into sync and every minute or two you’ll get this – there may be three or four big whooshes that you can actually feel.

CHERYL HALL: The most high-profile case of so-called “Waubra Disease” was Trish Godfrey, who spoke to Stateline last year.

TRISH GODFREY, WAUBRA RESIDENT (Sept. 2009): Basically, the best way I can describe it is that you feel that you’ve got motion sickness, but it’s not just for a little while, it’s all the time in varying degrees. It feels like my head is in a vice. I can’t remember the last night that I had a full night’s sleep. Usually we wake up at least five or six times during the night.

CHERYL HALL: Last week she won her battle when the wind farm company Acciona bought her property, but it came at a price.

Trish and Victor Godfrey have signed a confidentiality agreement and can’t speak publicly, but the company Acciona has issued a statement denying they suffered health effects from the turbines.

BRETT THOMAS, ACCIONA: No, that certainly wasn’t the issue that they contacted us about. As I said, their concern when they contacted us was about the visual impacts.

CATHY RUSSELL, WESTERN PLAINS LANDSCAPE GUARDIANS: Absolutely ridiculous, because we all know, and as well as the media knows, as well as the greater community who reads the papers knows, Trish was very much suffering. And there’s no question of a doubt it would open the floodgates effectively with regards to liability.

CHERYL HALL: Just down the road from Donald Thomas’s house this property is deserted. The Deans haven’t lived here for 10 months.

NOEL DEAN, WAUBRA FARMER: I won’t go out there while the turbines are there. I can’t afford to. I just get too ill.

CHERYL HALL: Noel Dean has moved to Ballarat. His son works on the farm but won’t live there.

NOEL DEAN: It’s cost us approximately $400,000, of buying this shed, relocating and expenses occurred in the monitoring and investigation of the problem, which the wind farm won’t do. I’ve asked compliance from the State Government for at least six months and they won’t give any confirmation that they’ve complied with their duty.

BRETT THOMAS: We’re carrying out all of the compliance obligations that we are required to carry out at that wind farm.

CHERYL HALL: The responsibility of enforcing the permit conditions has been transferred from the Planning Minister Justin Madden to the local council. But the Pyrenees Shire Council has been unable to do its job. It says it has neither the technical skills or the financial resources to enforce the conditions. The council has received many complaints and wants the State Government to investigate them.

DAVID CLARK, PYRENEES SHIRE MAYOR: I honestly don’t know, and again all the official evidence says that no, there isn’t an impact. My personal view is very simple. My personal view is I’ve known these people all my life and a lot of them I’ve gone to school with and I trust ‘em with my life. And they’re saying to me they’ve got an issue and to me that issue needs to be investigated.

CHERYL HALL: The Planning Minister Justin Madden declined a request for an interview, but he issued a statement saying complaints regarding noise levels at the Waubra wind farm have been investigated and no breach of the conditions has been found. The Health Department says it has reviewed current research and believes there is no direct evidence that wind farms cause health problems. The Clean Energy Council agrees.

MATTHEW WARREN, CLEAN ENERGY COUNCIL: The issue of infrasound comes up in these debate, but after 20 years of wind farm development round the world and 100,000 turbines erected and studied around the world, there is no medical evidence of infrasound causing illness.

CHERYL HALL: Noel Dean has commissioned an independent report on noise levels at his property.

NOEL DEAN: I’m waiting for an independent, peer-reviewed report which at the moment indicates that there’s non-compliance at our property several times over 10 days. There is pulsing of low frequency, highly suspected of causing the illnesses we are getting.

CHERYL HALL: The report will be presented to a court case in New Zealand next week to demonstrate widespread complaints about health effects. It will include information on Waubra as well as complaints from 750 people who live near a wind farm in Makara in New Zealand.

CATHY RUSSELL: I’ve got information effectively from Makara Windfarm in New Zealand, the affidavits from the people who live near that particular wind farm, and similarly, questionnaires of a similar nature with regard to health from Waubra that back up – the same people in the same situations.

CHERYL HALL: Donald Thomas fears his problems are about to get worse. There are plans to make the Waubra wind farm even bigger, with more turbines to the north.

DONALD THOMAS: There’s no way known we can allow Waubra north to go ahead, having lived next to the biggest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere.

CHERYL HALL: But the Waubra wind farm will be dwarfed by the Stockyard Hill proposal, west of Ballarat, of more than 200 turbines. Like Waubra, the communities of Beaufort and Skipton are divided over the wind farm. 300 public submissions have been received about the plan.

CASSIE FRANZOSE, WESTERN PLAINS LANDSCAPE GUARDIANS: The lack of information, the refusal to have a public meeting. There is no chance that this will not be approved. I mean, it is an absolute given. This process is – absolutely favours the deployment and widespread deployment of inappropriate wind farms across Victoria.

CHERYL HALL: Victoria currently has 10 operating wind farms, but another 27 are under development. One of those at Bald Hills in Gippsland was this week granted approval by Planning Minister Justin Madden to increase the height of its turbines by 20 per cent to 135 metres.

CATHY RUSSELL: It’s like a new frontier, effectively, because turbines, when the noise standards were set for example, were based on turbines that were around 36 metres high and now they’re 136 metres high and reaching into parts of the atmosphere never chartered before.

CHERYL HALL: But Environment Minister Peter Garrett laid the responsibility firmly with the State Government.

PETER GARRETT, FEDERAL ENVIRONMENT MINISTER: Wind farms, there are a broader range of issues, sitting issues, amenity issues, noise issues and the like, and I certainly think that it’s important that they are taken into account by local authorities and state governments in any of the states of the Commonwealth when they’re actually approving wind farms.

CHERYL HALL: Cathy Russell and Noel Dean met with Peter Garrett last night. They asked him to take their health issues seriously and fund an independent investigation.

CATHY RUSSELL: We’ve told them repeatedly, and so ultimately, he’s ignoring that advice at his peril, as he has done with insulation and solar. It’s just a minefield and it’s a time bomb waiting to happen, especially with the deployment of so many of these things throughout western Victoria.

Source: Stateline Victoria
Published: Friday, February 19, 2010 8:34 AEDT

FPL Energy Illinois Wind, in the lawsuit it filed Friday, says the Lee Village Board “arbitrarily” denied their request for permits to build six wind turbines within the one-and-a-half miles around the village that municipalities have control over under state law. The company wants a judge to order Lee to grant the permits.

But attorney Keith Foster with Foster and Buick Law Group, which represents the village, says the Board’s denial was based on input it received from the wind farm company and after hearing potential reasons for denying the request during two public hearings. He says the Board’s reasons met the requirement for denying the permits.

“The reason would have to have a reasonable basis so any reason at all that is considered rational by an ordinary person would be a basis for denial,” says Foster.

The Village Board’s reasons for the denials included feeling the 450-foot tall turbines would be too close to homes.

The Village also wants a judge to examine how the company’s lawsuit was filed, with the village’s lawyers saying an unidentified, “badge-waving” agent filed the suit and an unidentified person served summons to village board members while demanding they appear in court this week. The law firm says it has serious questions about the tactics of the wind farm company and its attorneys.

“And we are going to monitor that closely and we are going to raise objections with any tactics that are used, any procedures that are employed, that are outside of the rules that we all have to follow that are given to us by the Supreme Court,” says Foster.

An official for the wind farm project calls the claims misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

http://www.1360wlbk.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=559%3Alee-wants-suit-by-wind-farm-company-dismissed&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=65

“We believe the Village of Lee acted well within its authority in rejecting the sitting request,” attorney John Countryman said in a written statement Wednesday. “I have serious questions about the tactics of this Florida outfit and their Chicago attorneys.”

The document filed Wednesday asks a judge to investigate who was involved in filing the lawsuit and serving the summons. The document also asks a judge to throw the lawsuit out because it was filed improperly.

FPL Energy Illinois Wind LLC filed the lawsuit Friday in DeKalb County Court, claiming the Lee Village Board improperly denied the company’s application for permits to build six wind turbines. The turbines would not be within village limits, but they fall within the village’s jurisdiction, according to state law.

Anthony Pedroni, project manager of the DeKalb-Lee wind farm project, said any problems raised by lawyers for Lee are “misinterpretations or misunderstandings.” He said he was certain the law firm hired by FPL followed the letter of the law in having summons served to Lee Village Board members.

“It’s a well-respected firm, and they know how to properly go about this process,” Pedroni said.

FPL’s lawsuit demands a judge compel approval of the permits – allowing construction to move forward – and to award at least $200,000 in damages for time and resources lost while the project sits idle.

The six turbines involved in this lawsuit are part of a 151-turbine wind farm that straddles the DeKalb-Lee county line. Turbines in the non-municipal portions of the project – which will be home to most of the turbines – are under construction.

Another legal action is pending; a citizens group filed a lawsuit in July, claiming the DeKalb County Board improperly granted construction permits and is seeking a halt to the project.

By Kristen Schmidt

Daily Chronicle

23 September 2009

I am writing in response to the lead story in the April 16 edition of the Telegraph titled “Turbines divide neighbors.” These wind companies still have everyone fooled. That wind farm will not produce an average 226 megawatts. As I stated in a previous letter, the average output will be about 50 megawatts. It will not power 55,000 homes.

The article states very few people would talk. There’s a reason for that. Once a landowner signs a lease to have a windmill, they can talk about it only to family members, a lawyer, or other landowners involved with the same company.

They forfeit the right to complain if there is an unforeseen problem. Neighbors who sign up for money are legally silenced, too.

What do the windmill companies have to hide? Why would they take away your due process if these things are so great? Would you have someone work on your house who gave you a contract like this to sign? If they are so great, then why did Renewable Energy Systems start having small meetings at a private residence?

By having small, personally invited groups, the windmill companies must feel they won’t be questioned by people who have done their research and won’t be asked the tough questions that come up in a more public forum. To meet this 25 percent renewable energy resource, it will take thousands and thousands of windmills. Apparently our Lee County Board wants all of these windmills in our county by making it so easy for these wind companies to come in and set up.

The zoning board won’t let a landowner sell off 1 acre from a farm to a family member to build a house because they don’t want prime farmland taken out of production, but this same board has no problem letting a wind company put three or four windmills on this same farm, taking up as much or more land with the turbine site and access roads as a 1-acre home site.

When will it end? When every parcel of land in rural Lee County is blanketed with windmills?

This is an excerpt from an RES brochure: “Usually, sites are located in high wind areas on larger parcels of undeveloped land.” Is Lee or DeKalb county a high wind area with undeveloped land? Then why are they allowed to come in so easily and disrupt people’s lives?

Neil Miller
Ashton

saukvalley.com

23 April 2009

Planning and Zoning Director Paul Miller has determined that on Monday, May 11, beginning at 9 a.m. at Northern Illinois University, a public hearing is to be held related to the Florida Power & Light wind farm proposal amendments. There is nothing “public” about this public hearing.

Taxpayers are forced to choose between earning a livelihood or attending the hearing. This is another example of county officials deliberately designing the public hearing process to place all burdens on the taxpayers while providing undue advantage to FPL. It is neither fair nor reasonable for DeKalb County officials to use such a financial weapon against the citizens.

To further make attendance unpalatable, the public hearing location is the Carl Sandburg Auditorium in the Holmes Student Center at NIU. County residents will be subjected to distant parking, parking fees, long walks and a less-than-impartial setting.

The standard public hearing time in DeKalb County is 7:30 p.m. In fact, DeKalb County has held public hearings in various townships at 7:30 p.m. Why do our county officials insist on a work-day, marathon wind farm hearing? The obvious answer is to prevent the public from attending, and therefore rationalize their biased vote favoring FPL’s special-use permit. Other counties appear more willing to accommodate their citizens. McLean, Livingston and Logan counties in Illinois held wind farm hearings over three, five and more evenings.

This wind farm hearing process is a flagrant violation of our rights as DeKalb County taxpayers and most especially for those forced to endure a lifetime of living within the shadow of 133 industrial wind turbines, which are 400 feet tall. The Holmes Student Center, with its 16 floors, has dominated the county skyline but will now be dwarfed by these 40-story towering turbines.

The taxpayers and residents of Afton, Clinton, Milan and Shabbona townships deserve to have the public hearing(s) held in our townships at a time when we are able to attend. A series of meetings held in each township at 7:30 p.m. would allow this process to be conducted in a reasonable and fair manner as is the right of the citizens of this county. Our county officials have yet to provide a fair and reasonable hearing process concerning the FPL application.

Sherry Hellmuth
Afton Township

Daily Chronicle

21 April 2009

The wind power debate

It took me by surprise when I saw a reply to my question on Mail Bag on Sunday, April 6, 2009 regarding industrial wind turbines. In DeKalb County, IL, the situation is different because of the following:

1. This is not west Texas which is sparcely populated with few people per square mile. DeKalb County has many rural and rural/residential properties. In Feb., 2009, we counted about 107 rural/residential properties (less than 10 acres) in Shabbona Township (DeKalb Co.) alone. Many of these properties were originally purchased from farmers who profited by selling a few acres with old buildings they had no use for. After remodeling, these are now much more valuable properties, paying high real estate taxes.

2. In DeKalb County, 1/3 of the proposed industrial wind turbines are located on property owned by absentee landlords. 30 of the turbines are located on land owned by people from outside the United States (Germany, Italy and Venezuela).

3. As wind complexes develop, it is becoming clear that wind energy has many drawbacks. Research states that wind energy is about 20% efficient. Were it not for large federal and state tax subsidies, we would not have industrial wind turbines complexes. There are many health and safety issues (see www.nowindfarms.com) such as noise, ice fling, low level vibrations, lightening strikes, turbine collapse and/or blade malfunction, fire, not to mention bird and bat kills. The public should be appraised of the true monetary cost of wind energy.

4. The property value of homes in the footprint of an industrial wind turbine complex is reduced at least 25% to 30% according to Michael McCann, Certified Appraiser, specializing in wind farms. Mary Wells, Community Outreach Manager for Florida Power and Light Energy said to me on April 1, 2009 that there is “no evidence that property values are reduced.” After Ms. Wells admitted that there is little population density in west Texas where there are numerous turbines, it became obvious that FPL uses arbitrary figures of dissimilar properties. John, if you were not making money from an industrial wind turbine, would you want a 40 story turbine, 1400 feet from your home creating noise, shadow flicker, vibration etc.?

5. Most importantly, in DeKalb County our A-1 agricultural zoning prohibits the construction of anything that dominates the landscape.

Thank you for your time.

As a devoted listener of US Farm Report, sincerely,

Mark Johnson

agweb.com

9 April 2009

D’Entremont blames the turbines for sending low-frequency sound into his old house, located about 400 metres from the nearest turbine.

Family says turbine vibrations made them ill enough to move

Giant wind turbines spin next to Daniel d’Entremont’s home in a tiny rural community in southwestern Nova Scotia.

The large house in Lower West Pubnico is now empty and abandoned, d’Entremont says, because inaudible sound from the 17-turbine wind farm made his family sick.

“The noise is unbearable,” he says from Abrams River, the nearby community he recently relocated to with his wife and four of his six children.

“It’s like a surround sound — you can’t avoid it, you can’t ignore it. It just comes right into your head.”

D’Entremont blames the turbines for sending low-frequency sound into his old house, located about 400 metres from the nearest turbine.

He says his family couldn’t sleep, his children were constantly tired and suffering headaches, and nobody in the house could concentrate.

The d’Entremont family’s complaints touch on a little-known — and little-studied — debate over whether inaudible sounds from wind farms can cause health problems for residents living nearby.

While the operator of the wind farm brushes off the family’s claims, experts say vibrations from the turbines embedded deep into the ground have the potential to affect the health of some.

And new sound testing commissioned by the federal government hopes to offer more insight into what, if anything, is happening at d’Entremont’s home.

The Lower West Pubnico wind farm was fully operational in May 2005, and it wasn’t long before d’Entremont’s family starting feeling ill.

D’Entremont says complaints to politicians and to the wind farm’s owner were largely ignored, but several area naturopaths told him to relocate.

He finally moved in February after receiving the same advice from a U.S. pediatrician who has studied the effects of wind turbines on children.

“Around wind turbines, it appears there are always some people who are very disturbed by them,” Dr. Nina Pierpont says from her office in Malone, N.Y.
“It’s not everybody, so it creates a lot of controversy.

“When the exposure is inside a house, occurring 24 hours a day, even if the sound intensity is less, there is potential to produce serious pathology.”

Charles Demond, president of Pubnico Point Wind Farm Inc., says Pierpont has never visited the site.
He says the wind farm was built according to local zoning bylaws, which determine how close turbines can be to houses, and that sound tests concluded the noise levels weren’t harmful.
“Here’s someone claiming that his world is changing, but those comments don’t add up,” says Demond. “The sound testing indicated that the noise level from that wind farm is not outside any guidelines.”

Ottawa and several provinces across Canada have started to promote and foster wind energy projects.

Last year’s federal budget quadrupled the Wind Power Production Incentive, which provides funding for wind farms, and the plan is to invest at least $920 million in promoting wind power over the next 15 years.

But the growth is occurring in a largely unregulated environment.

Ontario, one of the only provinces with any regulations governing wind farms, requires a noise-impact assessment for areas up to 1,000 metres from the wind turbine.

In Pincher Creek, Alta., home of one of the largest wind farms in Canada, turbines must be set back at a distance four times their height.
In Lower West Pubnico, it’s only twice the height of the turbines.

Noise standards also differ, and none exist to regulate levels of low-frequency sound.

A report by a Halifax audio specialist measured the loudest sounds on d’Entremont’s property from the Lower West Pubnico wind farm at 50.32 decibels — roughly the intensity of a human voice nearby — below the recommended level of 55 decibels.

But Demond concedes previous tests could not rule out any effects from low-frequency noise.

“To be totally fair, what he concluded is that he didn’t have the equipment necessary to go to those sub-frequency levels to unequivocally walk away with a concrete answer,” says Demond.

That reveals a fundamental problem with the way wind farm noise is measured, making it almost impossible to know whether wind farms are causing health problems, audio experts say.

Gordon Whitehead, an audiologist who retired last month from a 21-year career at Dalhousie University in Halifax, insists low-frequency noise can affect the health of some people.

He says such inaudible vibrations — the same kind of vibrations that music fans can feel in their bodies at a loud rock concert — can lead to symptoms including loss of balance and blurred vision.

“There’s a lot of research out of the U.S. about killing large animals by hitting them with very large, very loud low-frequency sound — literally stopping the heart,” says Whitehead.

“A wind farm doesn’t produce sounds loud enough to do that, but the point is if you’re in a situation where the land around you is very dense, then some people who are very sensitive to that are going to pick that up.”

Whitehead says noise regulations only deal with sounds that humans can hear, so tests rarely focus on the low-frequency sounds in question.

“I’m in favour of wind farms, but in analysing them you have to make certain that you’re not creating a problem — and I don’t know if they are.”

The complaints from the d’Entremont family have prompted the federal Natural Resources Department to order new noise testing, which will measure the low-frequency sound in Lower West Pubnico.

“I think there is some debate about whether there is impact from low-frequency noise,” says Denis Zborowski, manager of the federal Wind Power Production Incentive program. “Normally it isn’t covered because it’s not audible.”

Zborowski says without Canadian standards, the new study, expected to be released this summer, will rely on international standards and current research to draw conclusions.

Michael Sharpe, another Dalhousie University audiologist, says even if someone isn’t affected directly by low-frequency noise, the constant swoosh of the blades, even at allowable levels, can have psychological effects.

“If the sound is audible and it annoys you, then it can seem louder,” says Sharpe, who compares it to a dripping tap that can keep someone awake at night.

“As your stress level increases, your awareness of the annoying sound increases as well. As we know, elevated stress levels for a prolonged period of time can have a negative health effect.”

Web link: http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/Content…