Harm to Children

Windweasels Cause a Multitude of Horrific Problems….

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind Power Sends German Power Market Into Chaos

July 31, 2014 by  

Gaza_Blackout_Main_pic_1

With the introduction of unreliable and intermittent wind power comes the risk of widespread blackouts, social and economic chaos. However, to avoid the consequences, grid managers in Germany are paying conventional generators huge premiums to compensate for wind power “outages” – and the costs of doing so are starting to bite – not that the generators mind. Keeping chaos at bay has created opportunities to milk the system for what it’s worth – with some very handsome upside for savvy marketeers.

Here’s Bloomberg on the market debacle created by German wind power.

German Utilities Bail Out Electric Grid at Wind’s Mercy
Julia Mengewein
Bloomberg Businessweek
25 July 2014

Germany’s push toward renewable energy is causing so many drops and surges from wind and solar power that the government is paying more utilities than ever to help stabilize the country’s electricity grid.

Twenty power companies including Germany’s biggest utilities, EON SE and RWE AG, now get fees for pledging to add or cut electricity within seconds to keep the power system stable, double the number in September, according to data from the nation’s four grid operators. Utilities that sign up to the 800 million-euro ($1.1 billion) balancing market can be paid as much as 400 times wholesale electricity prices, the data show.

Germany’s drive to almost double power output from renewables by 2035 has seen one operator reporting five times as many potential disruptions as four years ago, raising the risk of blackouts in Europe’s biggest electricity market while pushing wholesale prices to a nine-year low. More utilities are joining the balancing market as weak prices have cut operating margins to 5 percent on average from 15 percent in 2004, with RWE reporting its first annual loss since 1949.

“At the beginning, this market counted for only a small portion of our earnings,” said Hartmuth Fenn, the head of intraday, market access and dispatch at Vattenfall AB, Sweden’s biggest utility. “Today, we earn 10 percent of our plant profits in the balancing market” in Germany, he said by phone from Hamburg July 22.

Price Plunge

In Germany’s daily and weekly balancing market auctions, winning bidders have been paid as much as 13,922 euros to set aside one megawatt depending on the time of day, grid data show. Participants stand ready to provide power or cut output in notice periods of 15 minutes, 5 minutes or 30 seconds, earning fees whether their services are needed or not.

German wholesale next-year electricity prices have plunged 60 percent since 2008 as green power, which has priority access to the grid, cut into the running hours of gas, coal and nuclear plants. The year-ahead contract traded at 35.71 euros a megawatt-hour as of 3:54 p.m. on the European Energy Exchange AG in Leipzig, Germany.

Lawmakers last month backed a revision of a the country’s clean-energy law to curb green subsidies and slow gains in consumer power prices that are the second-costliest in the European Union. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s energy switch from nuclear power aims to boost the share of renewables to at least 80 percent by 2050 from about 29 percent now.

Power Premium

Jochen Schwill and Hendrik Saemisch, both 33, set up Next Kraftwerke GmbH in 2009 to sell power from emergency generators in hospitals to the power grid. Today, the former University of Cologne researchers employ about 80 people and have 1,000 megawatts from biomass plants to gas units at their disposal, or the equivalent capacity of a German nuclear plant.

“That was really the core of our founding idea,” Schwill said by phone from Cologne July 21. “That the boost in renewable energy will make supply more intermittent and balancing power more lucrative in the long run.”

Thomas Pilgram, who has sold balancing power since 2012 as chief executive officer of Clean Energy Sourcing in Leipzig, Germany, expects the wave of new entrants to push down balancing market payments.

“New participants are flooding into the market now, which means that prices are coming under pressure,” Pilgram said. “Whoever comes first, gets a slice of the cake, the others don’t because prices have slumped.”

Increased Competition

German grid regulator Bundesnetzagentur welcomes the increase in balancing market participants.

“That’s in our interest as we want to encourage competition in this market,” Armasari Soetarto, a spokeswoman for the Bonn-based authority, said by phone July 18. “More supply means lower prices and that means lower costs for German end users.”

The average price for capacity available within five minutes has dropped to 1,109 euros a megawatt in the week starting July 14, from 1,690 euros in the second week of January, Next Kraftwerke data show. Payments for cutting output within 15 minutes dropped to 361 euros from 1,615 euros in January.

The number of participants has increased as the country’s four grid operators refined how capacity is allocated. In 2007, the grids started one common auction and shortened the bidding periods. Since 2011, power plant operators commit their 5-minute capacity on a weekly basis instead of a month before.
Bloomberg Business week

The same conditions that allow rorting and gaming of the power market in Germany exist in Australia: huge fluctuations in wind power output – with almost daily collapses – allows sharp operators to cash in, with grid managers entirely at their mercy. During wind power “outages” the dispatch price has rocketed from around $40 per MWh to the regulated cap of $12,500 per MWh – see our post: the Great Watt and Pole Swindle.

Wind power has provided Australian generators with the perfect “cover” for pricing tactics of the kind that helped Enron make a killing in the Californian power market during the late 1990s (see our post here.).

The end of the mandatory RET can’t come soon enough.

electricity-price-rise

Excellent Letter from the Waubra Foundation! Important information!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Rye Park Wind Development, NSW. Letter to Minister for Planning from Waubra Foundation

Waubra Foundation letter to Hon Pru Goward, Minister for Planning, NSW Government. July 4, 2014
Dear Minister Goward,
 
I am writing directly to you to express the Foundation’s grave concern about the inevitable serious damage to human health, which will occur if the proposed Rye Park Wind Development is approved. Unlike the NSW Health Department, the Waubra Foundation has investigated these problems directly at NSW wind developments. The problems reported by NSW residents for over ten years are consistent with those being reported around the world. I have been working specifically in this area of low frequency noise and health full time for four years, and have given expert evidence in court proceedings in Canada and In Australia.
 
It is our opinion that previous advice given by the responsible officials from NSW Health to NSW Planning and NSW PAC members about wind turbine noise related adverse health effects (“no evidence of a problem”) is at best grossly ignorant, at worst willfully blind. We therefore urge you, as the NSW Government Minister ultimately responsible, to take heed of the warnings about serious harm to human health from wind turbine noise being increasingly expressed by researchers, medical practitioners, acousticians and scientists internationally, who have direct knowledge of the severity of the health problems, unlike theNSW Health Department who have refused to investigate for themselves.
 
I have attached a recent summary of the state of knowledge in this area, dated 1st June, 2014 together with a number of other documents which are of relevance, including a detailed critique of the latest 2014 NHMRC literature review, which details the material which was omitted from that literature review.
I have also attached some of the material sent to the Australian Medical Association from international researchers and clinicians who were extremely concerned at the ignorance and bias contained in the AMA’s recent position statement, and very concerned at the harm that would ensue if that advice was relied upon. Predictably wind developers including Epuron are publicizing that misleading AMA statement in order to mislead the public about the adverse health impacts which are very well known to the global wind industry (see http://www.epuron.com.au/wind-farms-health-australian-medical-association/ ).
The abovementioned material together with the large body of related research, and our direct knowledge of the problems being reported by residents living near wind developments in Australia and internationally provides the background context to the weight of our concerns about the impact of the Rye Park proposal on the immediate neighbours, out to at least 10km from where the wind turbines are located.
 
We have been advised there is a school in Rye Park, currently with 23 students and approximately 240 residents in Rye Park itself, but many more residents in the surrounding area out to 10km from the proposed wind development, which include part of the towns of Boorowa, Yass, Dalton as well as Rye Park.
 
We note that 10km is increasingly being acknowledged as the “acoustic impact zone” for large wind turbines, most recently by acoustic consultants working for a Thai wind developer, RATCH (see further details below).
 
We first mentioned the 10km distance in our Explicit Cautionary Notice, which we sent to the NSW Departments of Planning and Health in June 2011.
 
That Explicit Cautionary Notice and the reference to 10km was compiled because of the reports of characteristic symptoms and health problems from residents living out to that distance at wind developments in Australia, particularly the then only 3MW wind development (Waterloo in South Australia). Our concerns have only increased since then, with the evidence collected independently of the Waubra Foundation contained in the population noise impact surveys conducted at Cullerin in NSW, Macarthur in Western Victoria and Waterloo in South Australia, and the independent acoustic evidence collected independently of the Waubra Foundation which is confirming the presence and effects of wind turbine infrasound and low frequency noise out to that distance (see appendix 1 for details).
We note that Marshall Day Acoustics in their report for RATCH re the Mt Emerald wind development have recently referred to 10km in the context of cumulative impacts from other wind developments, and they are now specifically referencing infrasound and low frequency noise. In section 5.6 they stated in their section “review of cumulative impact” (my emphasis in red):
 
“Separate wind farm developments that are in close proximity to each other have the potential to impact on the same receiver. It is therefore necessary to assess any potential cumulative noise impact on receivers, where such circumstances exist. We understand that there are no other wind farm developments currently planned or operating within 10km of the proposed MEWF. On this basis, cumulative impacts of noise from more than one operating wind farm are not considered further.”
We note that Rye Park town itself is in a valley, and that the turbines will be on the ridges, which is known to increase the distance of sound propagation, especially with temperature inversions, common in this area.
 
Wind turbine sound is well known to travel along valleys. We note there are two other large wind developments proposed for the area (Bango Wind Development (122 turbines to the west of Rye Park) and Rugby Wind Development (52 turbines to the north of Rye Park) which increase our concerns about the cumulative adverse acoustic impact of all these projects, particularly on residents in the town of Rye Park.

Adverse Health effects from excessive noise known for many years

The significant adverse health consequences resulting from chronic exposure to excessive environmental noise resulting in chronic sleep disturbance and chronic stress and their serious downstream health consequences are detailed in numerous World Health Organisation major literature reviews on noise since 1995 (Community Noise 1995 and 1999, Night Noise Guidelines for Europe 2009, and Environmental Noise – Burden of Disease 2011 seehttp://waubrafoundation.org.au/information/acousticians-noise-regulators/literature-reviews/ ). They are also documented in a major Australian literature review on Environmental noise in 2004 (http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/health-effects-environmental-noise-other-than-hearing-loss/ ). In other words, this issue of serious health problems being caused by excessive environmental noise is not new.
 
The longer the period of time the residents are exposed to excessive noise, the worse the cumulative effect will be on their health, and the greater proportion of the population who will be adversely impacted and report disturbance from the noise, because of progressive “sensitization” to the wind turbine noise (known and described in 1985 by Dr Neil Kelley et al http://waubrafoundation.org.au/2013/explicit-warning-notice/ and also documented by Professor Geoffrey Leventhall in 2003 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/review-published-research-low-frequency-noise-leventhall/ ) and noted by UK ENT specialist Amir Farboud in 2013 (http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/wind-turbine-syndrome-fact-or-fiction-farboud-et-al/ ).
Progressive worsening of the noise related sleep impacts with cumulative exposure on a given population is illustrated by the population noise impact surveys conducted in 2012 and 2013 by NSW resident Mrs Patina Schneider, on the Cullerin Range wind development, just outside of Goulburn (see appendix 1).
Your department officials and other public servants and ministers in the NSW government are well aware of the reported wind turbine noise related sleep and health problems at Cullerin, and other NSW wind developments, but have done nothing to improve the regulation of excessive noise from wind turbines which is harming the health of NSW citizens in predictable ways.

Breaches of Human Rights

Australia is a signatory to various UN Conventions and Covenants (see https://www.humanrights.gov.au/chart-related-rights-and-articles-human-rights-instruments-human-rights-your-fingertips-human-rights . There are two general areas where the human rights of rural residents living near wind turbines are being regularly breached, particularly because of the sleep deprivation they are experiencing. They are:
a) the right of citizens to attain the highest level of mental and physical health possible
b) the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
Torture from sleep deprivation is a serious matter; as sleep deprivation and sensory bombardment from noise are acknowledged as methods of torture by bodies such as the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), Physicians for Human Rights, and by the courts. Australia is a signatory to a number of UN conventions and covenants which prohibit the torture and cruel and inhuman degrading treatment of citizens, and for which responsible public officials may be held to be complicit or responsible if there is evidence of “intention”. See Part 1, Article 1, Section 1 of the UN Convention against Torture – bolding my emphasis (http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/un-convention-against-torture/ )
 
“For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person …… for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”
The longstanding attitude of neglect towards, or bias against rural residents badly impacted by environmental noise from wind turbines and other sources such as coal mining is blatantly discriminatory. Documented public statements by some NSW public service employees that rural residents are “collateral damage” (in the case of wind turbine noise) could be held to indicate “intent”, and a discriminatory attitude, when complaints of human rights abuses currently being prepared by some residents severely impacted by environmental noise are lodged with the Human Rights Commission.
Other UN conventions and covenants stipulate that the state will help individuals to attain the best possible physical and mental health (seehttps://www.humanrights.gov.au/chart-related-rights-and-articles-human-rights-instruments-human-rights-your-fingertips-human-rights ). This is impossible for rural residents to achieve if environmental noise pollution including wind turbine noise pollution is not properly regulated, independently of the noise polluter.
 
From a planning perspective, if wind turbines are sited too close to homes this will also result in predictable and serious harm to health. There is documented harm to sleep and health in residents living out to 10km from existing wind developments in NSW, Victoria and South Australia (appendix 1).
Wind turbine noise is being measured inside these homes, and increasingly acoustic events involving infrasound and low frequency noise are being shown to correlate directly with particular sensations perceived by the residents, which is consistent with the NASA & Kelley US research in the 1980’s (see particularly Professor Con Doolan’s work at Waterloo in South Australia http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/characterisation-noise-homes-affected-by-wind-turbine-noise/ as well as Mr Les Huson’s acoustic data collection at Macarthur in Western Victoria relating to “pressure bolt sensations” http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/huson-l-expert-evidence-at-vcat-cherry-tree-hearing/ and most recently Mr Steven Cooper’s acoustic survey work at Cape Bridgewater, commissioned by Pacific Hydro, currently being completed (preliminary details here: http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/trist-sonia-pacific-hydro-meeting-with-cape-bridgewater-residents-june-2–2014/ ).

Wind Turbine Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Directly Cause Symptoms

The knowledge of direct causation of “annoyance” symptoms including sleep disturbance from impulsive wind turbine generated infrasound and low frequency noise is not new, but has been long ignored and denied by the wind industry, who are well aware of it. It is unfortunate that much of this crucially important research by credible research institutions was not included in the recent NHMRC literature review or draft information statement.
 
Researchers including NASA and Solar Energy Research Institute scientists led by Dr Neil Kelley in the USA established direct causation of “annoyance” symptoms from wind turbine noise in the 1980’s, which we have summarized in our Explicit Warning notice, also attached.
 
These research findings were consistent with previous scientific knowledge relating to military aircraft noise by Harvey Hubbard. Kelley also established a dose response relationship and recommended maximum exposure levels to help protect people from the adverse effects, which were based on his empirical data.
 
These exposure levels for chronic exposure to infrasound and low frequency noise were also ignored by the wind industry and its acoustic consultants, and no government wind turbine noise guidelines anywhere in the world has incorporated their measurement. This is hardly surprising given the very active role wind turbine manufacturers and developers have played in helping to write wind turbine noise guidelines – a gross financial conflict of interest which should never have happened.
 
The South Australian wind turbine noise pollution guidelines adopted by NSW were based on guidelines written in the UK called ETSU 97, which had a significant number of wind developer’s acousticians involved, and whose priority was the expansion of the British wind industry. Whilst acousticians have a professional obligation to protect the health and safety of the public above commercial considerations, it is clear that has not happened.
 
The NSW Department of Planning has also historically ignored the obvious financial conflict of interest which wind developers and wind turbine manufacturers have on this issue. Please look at the correspondence held in your department between Jonathon Upson of Infigen and responsible officers in the NSW Planning department, and Mr Ken McAlpine’s (VESTAS) submission to the NSW department of Planning concerning the proposed Wind Farm Planning Guidelines, with particular reference to their comments about infrasound and low frequency noise. Mr McAlpine’s comments were made at a time when the VESTAS CEO knew low frequency noise was harmful, but had lobbied the then Danish Environment Minister to ensure the proposed Danish low frequency noise guidelines were weakened in order to protect Danish jobs. (http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/vestas-lobbies-danish-environment-minister-not-tighten-noise-regulations/ )
Further evidence that the wind industry are well aware of the direct causation of sleep deprivation and a range of other “annoyance” symptoms now known as “wind turbine syndrome” (WTS) includes the following:
 
• Non disclosure clauses or “gag clauses” in the following types of agreements with wind developers
o Property buy out agreements of affected residents (admitted by Slater & Gordon, May 2012) http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/slater-gordon-acknowledge-confidentiality-clauses/
o Wind turbine host contracts (documented by Coalition Senator Chris Back in the Federal Senate in October 2012 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/senator-back-reveals-gag-clauses-wind-developer-contracts/
o So called “good neighbour agreements” which stop neighbours from complaining in the future about noise & health impacts. These have been particularly aggressively used by New Zealand developers Trustpower (http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/neighbour-deed-palmer-wind-farm-south-australia/ ) and Meridian Energy, including in Western Australia.
• Encumbrances over neighbouring properties. See for example schedule 3 inserted in 2006 by Meridian Energy in a contract used in NZ.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/meridian-energy-nz-forestry-group-memorandum-encumbrance/
 
• Confirmation by Professor Geoffrey Leventhall that he has known of the symptoms of “wind turbine syndrome” for years at the NHMRC workshop in June 2011, and in court proceedings in Canada. Professor Leventhall was one of two undisclosed peer reviewers of the first NHMRC literature review, who has worked with the wind industry for some years to protect its interests in various court proceedings internationally.
 
• The symptoms covered by the word “annoyance” were listed in the 2009 Literature Review commissioned by the American and Canadian Wind Industry in 2009 (the Colby Review) which was a key document relied upon by the NHMRC in its first literature review – the 2010 “Rapid Review”. Further details of what “annoyance” has been taken to mean are available here:
 
The inevitable results of this denial of the established science about the known adverse health impacts resulting from exposure to infrasound and low frequency noise, are the shattered lives and communities in places like Waterloo, South Australia and Macarthur in Western Victoria where VESTAS V 90 and V 112 wind turbines have destroyed the sleep, health and amenity of a growing number of local residents.
The experiences of these residents have been documented in senate inquiries, and in affidavits to legal proceedings in both Victoria and South Australia, and in no instance was the truth of the resident’s accounts questioned or disputed.

The importance of wind turbine separation distances

It is also of importance that these two wind developments using 3 MW turbines (Macarthur and Waterloo) as well as Cullerin Range in New South Wales (2 MWturbines), do not have the recommended turbine separation distances between them – they are far too close together, which inevitably increases the wake turbulence and the amount of infrasound and low frequency noise generated.
The NSW SEDA Wind Farm Planning Handbook from 2002 acknowledges the importance of adequate turbine separation distances (5 – 8 rotor diameters aparthttp://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/nsw-wind-energy-handbook-2002/ ) and yet the wind industry are pushing to have wind turbines sited much more closely together (eg 3 – 5 rotor diameter separation distances) at numerous wind developments across Australia (Cherry Tree in Victoria and Stony Gap in South Australia).
 
This is occuring despite longstanding research from NASA showing that increased generation of wind turbine infrasound and low frequency noise will result from upwind bladed wind turbines if the inflow air is turbulent (http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/shepherd-k-hubbard-h-noise-radiation-characteristics-westinghouse-wwg-0600-wind-turbine-generator /).
 
A useful visual dynamic depiction of this turbulence, from the tip vortices, was recently captured by researchers at the University of Minnesota using laser lighting during a snow storm http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/university-minnesota-eolos-research-new-study-uses-blizzard-measure-wind-turbine-airflow/ .
 
At static depiction of the wake turbulence and the extent of the impacts (out to 20km) from Maritime wind development at Horns Rev in the Atlantic is illustrated below.
This increased generation of infrasound and low frequency noise is further exacerbated when larger wind turbines are used, because the sound energy generated from larger more powerful machines shifts down to the lower frequencies (http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/moller-pedersen-low-frequency-noise-from-large-wind-turbines/ ).
 
Recent industry independent research from Johns Hopkins University has found that maximum energy generation efficiencies are obtained with turbine separation distances of 15 rotor diameters (http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2011/wind-farm-operators-are-going-to-have-to-space-turbines-farther-apart-johns-hopkins-univ-researcher/ .
 
Recent Adelaide University research published this year has confirmed that the tip vortices start breaking down at 7 rotor diameters distant from the turbine emitting them (https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/a-discussion-of-wind-turbine-interaction-and-stall-contributions-to-wind-farm-noise/ ).
 
It would therefore appear that a minimum of 7 rotor diameters should be used by wind developers as spacing between large wind turbines, in order to prevent the generation of excessive noise, including infrasound and low frequency noise, at least until further research is conducted to evaluate the human and acoustic impacts of using that separation distance. At the very least, in NSW, the 5 – 8 rotor diameter separation distances should be being adhered to, in accordance with the 2002 SEDA Handbook.
I have attached the Waubra Foundation’s submission to the Federal Renewable Energy Target review, which contains correspondence and data from independent acousticians Dr Malcolm Swinbanks and Mr Les Huson from the UK and Australia respectively which illustrates this point with respect to the Macarthur wind development in Victoria (see appendix http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/renewable-energy-target-review-waubra-foundation-submission-2014/ .

Concluding remarks

The serious adverse health effects including repetitive sleep deprivation and other symptoms euphemistically called “annoyance” have been known to the global wind industry and its acousticians for over thirty years (see http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/james-r-warning-signs-that-were-not-heard/ ).
UK Acoustician Professor Geoffrey Leventhall has publicly stated at the NHMRC workshop in Canberra in 2011 that the symptoms known to him as “annoyance” are identical to those described by Dr Nina Pierpont as “Wind Turbine Syndrome” (WTS). WTS is being acknowledged by increasing numbers of doctors and researchers globally, including most recently Dr Colette Bonner, the Irish Deputy Chief Medical Officer, and Dr Steven Rauch, a leading US otoneurologist from Harvard Medical School.
In addition to the sleep deprivation, annoyance symptoms and impaired quality of life which the recent 2014 NHMRC commissioned Systematic Literature Review identified, there is a disease complex known as “Vibroacoustic Disease”, (VAD) caused by chronic exposure to infrasound and low frequency noise and vibration, also described in the scientific literature for thirty years, which has more recently been identified in neighbours to wind turbines. The pathology associated withVAD is permanent, serious, and a growing public health problem because of the lack of noise pollution regulation of sound energy frequencies down in the infrasound and low frequency noise part of the sound spectra. VAD has been demonstrated in wind turbine neighbours in Portugal (http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/alves-pereria-m-castelo-branco-n-ltr-australian-new-zealand-journal-public-health/ ) and reported by rural residents living near wind turbines in Germany (http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/windwahn-story/ ).
 
Symptoms and disease complexes indicative of both WTS and VAD are being reported in an increasing number of rural Australian residents, together with exhaustion from sleep deprivation.
Sleep deprivation has been determined by courts to be an act of torture, or cruel and inhuman treatment because “sleep is considered a basic life necessity” (“Leave No Marks” http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/reports/leave-no-marks-report-2007.html ).
Sleep deprivation is well known to clinical medicine to be extremely damaging for mental and physical health, if it is prolonged. This is increasingly being demonstrated in the research literature, documented at length in the WHO guidelines for night time noise (http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/who-night-noise-guidelines-for-europe/ ) and also since (http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/sleep-duration-predicts-cardiovascular-outcomes/ ,http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/munzel-t-et-al-cardiovascular-effects-environmental-noise-exposure/ ).
Regardless of any other symptoms and health problems particular susceptible individuals may develop with exposure to excessive infrasound and low frequency noise, the cumulative sleep deprivation and its well known consequences will be the inevitable consequence for many residents in the vicinity of the Rye Park wind development, if it is approved by the NSW Government.
 
If this wind development is approved, those responsible for approving it cannot say they were not warned of the predictable serious adverse health consequences.
 
Yours sincerely
 Sarah Laurie,
CEO Waubra Foundation
Attachments (downloadable at the following links)
Waubra Foundation: Recent Summary of Adverse Health Effects, 1st June, 2014
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/wind-turbine-noise-adverse-health-effects-june-2014/
Waubra Foundation: Open letter to NHMRC re flaws in 2014 Systematic Literature Review, 2014
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/waubra-foundation-open-letter-nhmrc-re-systematic-literature-review/
Waubra Foundation: Submission to the Australian Federal Government RET Review, 2014
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/renewable-energy-target-review-waubra-foundation-submission-2014/
Letter to AMA and recent literature review, Emeritus Professor Alun Evans, Epidemiologist, Ireland, 2014
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/evans-prof-emeritus-alun-dismiss-any-adverse-effects-absurd-view-mounting-evidence/
Letter to AMA from NZ scientist Dr Bruce Rapley, New Zealand. 2014
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/rapley-b-letter-ama-audibility-and-effects-infrasound/
Article by Professor Salt and Professor Lichtenhan in the Winter Edition of Acoustics Today, 2014
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/salt-n-lichtenhan-j-t-how-does-wind-turbine-noise-affect-people/
Physicians for Human Rights, “Leave No Marks” 2007 with particular reference to pp 22 – 26 relating to the use of sleep deprivation and sensory bombardment with noise as methods of torture
http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/reports/leave-no-marks-report-2007.html

Appendix 1 — Evidence for 10km acoustic impact zone from 2 – 3 MW turbines

Waubra Foundation’s Explicit Cautionary Notice, June 2011 first mentioned problems out to 10km
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/about/explicit-cautionary-notice/
Acoustic evidence of wind turbine noise extending out to 10km
NASA research from 1985 by William Willshire
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/nasa-long-range-down-wind-propagation-low-frequency-sound/
Professor Colin Hansen’s ongoing work relating to wind turbine noise out to 10km from Waterloo wind turbines is not yet published, however his opinion based on acoustic evidence was included in his letter to the Victorian Department of Health, regarding false and misleading statements about infrasound in their technical document issued in 2013
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/prof-colin-hansen-writes-victorian-dept-health-recent-wind-farms-health-doc/
Steven Cooper’s acoustic data from Waterloo wind development (8km)
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/are-wind-farms-too-close-communities/
Mr Les Huson’s expert evidence from the Cherry Tree case, relating to Macarthur, where he found that there was no attenuation of infrasound between 1.8km and 6.4 km from the nearest wind turbines, indicating that wind turbine generated infrasound will be travelling for very large distances (much greater than 10km)
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/huson-l-expert-evidence-at-vcat-cherry-tree-hearing/
The various population noise impact surveys done in Australia are here:
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/library/community-noise-impact-surveys/
Waterloo, South Australia – VESTAS V 90 (37 along a ridge)
Mrs Mary Morris’s 2012 survey conducted at Waterloo in South Australia. This survey was the only Australian research included in the 2014 NHMRC Systematic Literature Review
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/waterloo-wind-farm-survey-2012/
This 2012 survey by Mrs Morris was based on one conducted in 2011 by Frank Wang, an Adelaide University Masters student, but the population surveyed in Wang’s survey was only out to 5km
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/evaluation-wind-farm-noise-policies-south-australia/
Mrs Morris then compiled this information in 2013 showing what happened when the turbines at Waterloo were off for a week http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/morris-m-waterloo-case-series-preliminary-report/
Cullerin Range, NSW, 2 MW Repower turbines, sited on a ridge
Mrs Schneider’s 2012 and 2013 population noise impact surveys show the extent of the sleep deprivation. Nothing has been done about the severe night time noise related sleep disturbance and adverse health impact for these NSW residents by any NSW government department, despite many complaints which are documented in the 2013 survey.
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/cullerin-range-wind-farm-survey-august-2012/
Macarthur Wind Development, 140 3 MW V 112 VESTAS wind turbines, sited on flat land in Victoria
This survey was conducted only 6 months since the wind development commenced operating. Residents report being far more adversely impacted now, because of the predictable and known adverse cumulative health effects of chronic sleep deprivation and chronic stress.
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/macarthur-wind-energy-facility-preliminary-survey/
Evidence from Macarthur Wind Development Residents and acoustician Mr Les Huson was heard during the Cherry Tree Court case before the Victorian Civil Administrative Appeal Tribunal in 2013. Links to affidavits from Macarthur residents relating to that court case are below:
Mrs Maria Linke (lives 5km away, with her husband and four children – sleep adverse affected immediately)
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/linke-m-witness-statement-vcat-cherry-tree-hearing/
Mrs Jan Hetherington, widow, glass artist, working from her home 3km away from nearest wind turbine
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/hetherington-j-witness-statement-vcat-cherry-tree-tribunal/
Mr Andrew Gardner, Farmer, home is 1.8km away from nearest wind turbine
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/gardner-statement-vcat-cherry-tree-hearing/ (1.8km away)

Posted on: 25 July 2014. Category: , . Tags: , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Some Sanity Returning?… Wind Turbine Setbacks May Halt Plans!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Monday, July 28th, 2014
By Kathy Thompson
Wind farm could be knocked flat by new regs
 
  Stricter setback regulations approved in June could foil proposed plans for a wind turbine project that stretches into northern Mercer County.
Gov. John Kasich signed House Bill 483 in June, which includes a revision requiring wind turbines to be erected 1,300 feet from the nearest property line. The law previously required turbines to be placed 1,300 feet from a structure and about 550 feet from a neighboring property line.
The proposed Long Prairie wind farm project involves about 300 landowners – 17 in Mercer County – who earlier leased property to BP America for the construction of 67 300-megawatt turbines. BP in May sold its 16 operating wind farms in nine states and its portfolio of planned projects to Apex Clean Energy Inc.
Apex president Mark Goodwin called HB 483 an “Ohio job killer.” As it stands, the legislation would eliminate about $114 million in local spending, $15 million in lease payments to local landowners, $45 million in local tax revenue and $22.5 million in new payroll income for the area during the next 20 to 25 years, he said.
Goodwin sent a letter to Kasich soon after the legislation was signed, stating his company has “more wind energy development projects in the state than any other company” and claimed the bill would eliminate more than $3 billion in wind project investments.
Goodwin claims Apex may be forced to take its investment elsewhere. He is hoping the bill will be amended and his company can move ahead with the project.
“We have invested about $10 million in these projects, and we have tens of thousands of acres of private land leased with local landowners,” Goodwin stated. “The setbacks will make it impossible for us to build these projects at all.”
Rob Nichols, a spokesman for Kasich’s office, said the setbacks were created to protect property value and human health.
“Every industry has rules and provisions,” he said. “This office sees this industry as no different than any other.”
Despite the setback issue, the company remains optimistic.
“We’re very excited at this new prospect,” said Scott Koziar, director of project development for Apex. “Clean energy is wanted in the nation. We know the transition has been a bit slow, but the project is one of several that we’ve acquired and we want to be open and transparent.”
Koziar said the company is still in the process of contacting landowners and government officials about the buyout, but hope in the coming weeks to meet with commissioners in both counties and have formal conversations with landowners in the spring.
“We’re at the very beginning of this,” Koziar said. “Before we do a deep dive with owners and commissioners, we need to see what our next steps are, make sure we have all our environmental studies completed, look at the taxes schools would get, and what road and maintenance commitments we will be making.”
Koziar said if the project kicks off this year or next, it could be completed by 2017 or 2018.
One of the landowners leasing property to Apex said he isn’t happy about the new setback regulations.
“Good Lord,” said Jerry Rolsten of Mendon, who has a contract to lease 186 acres of land to Apex. “That’s a lot. I may not even be eligible if that’s true. If I am, it’s going to be real close. This could get interesting.”
Rolsten said he “believes in progress” and that is why he decided to lease his land for the development of a wind farm.
Koziar said the proposed local wind farm would create 200 to 300 construction jobs and 15 to 18 long-term jobs. The wind turbines would generate electricity for 40,000 homes, he added.
“That’s actual energy consumed within the area,” Koziar said.  
Opponents claim the “flickers” or shadows cast by the blades, as well as the turbines’ loud noise are annoying. They also note their presence decreases property values.
Van Wert resident Milo Shaffner, 67, said he hopes the proposed venture is abandoned. He lives about a mile from the operational Blue Creek wind project and farms within 600 feet of turbines.
“They are very unsightly to begin with,” he said. “The sound they make is so disturbing, it sounds like a jet plane going overhead. My wife and I can’t sit on our front porch and drink coffee in the mornings anymore.”
Shaffner said his quality of life has “gone down the drain” since the turbines arrived.
“We used to have a great landscape to look at,” he said. “Our roads are ruined, my neighbors have health issues. Those turbines are industry and this is supposed to be farm country. They don’t belong here.”

Windweasels Think The Rules are made to be Broken!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Oxford MPP Ernie Hardeman calling on energy minister to make wind farm proposal transparent

By Tara Bowie, Woodstock Sentinel-Review

Wednesday, July 30, 2014 9:14:48 EDT AM

Oxford MPP Ernie Hardeman

Oxford MPP Ernie Hardeman

 

Oxford MPP Ernie Hardeman is calling on the minister of energy to make wind farm proposal processes more transparent to the public and specifically provide information requested about the local Gunn’s Hill wind farm proposal.

“Firstly, I would like to reiterate my position that it is unacceptable that approvals such as this one do not require municipal approval and public consent. In addition, applications can be changed without public involvement, as has happened with the Prowind application,” Hardeman wrote in the letter addressed to Bob Chiarelli, minister of energy.

“East Oxford Community Alliance, a community group opposing the Gunn’s Hill development, has found 26 pages of discrepancies, incomplete documents and inaccuracies yet the ministry has deemed the application complete.”

Hardeman also requested the minister explain why his office has not provided information on the grid connection change proposal, and provided concerns that his constituents are now engaged in costly and lengthy Freedom of Information requests.

Discrepancies and incomplete documents include what Prowind Canada Inc. spokesperson Juan Anderson calls a “small administrative error” of inverting the digits of a location for one turbine proposed for the now 18-megawatt project.

The error located on the paper plans puts one of the turbines about 26 metres from what would be its physical location if the proposal receives approval.

In addition to this error, a previous noise study was included when the proposal was officially changed to reflect the use of a different wind turbine model than the original application. The change of wind turbine model decreases the megawatts of the project from 25 megawatts to 18 megawatts.

Anderson explained as the size of the turbines decreased, so did the noise impact of the project, so public comment did not to be reopened.

“We waited for the ministry’s direction on how to correct the fact we did not have the correct noise report. We actually asked to post for public comment. We re-opened public comment to Aug. 8,” he said.

Anderson explained the change in turbine models came when it was realized the small project might be waitlisted and not able to get the blades when needed.

At the same time, the turbine models were changed, Prowind changed its proposal regarding how the project would connect to the electrical grid.

Originally the project would be cabled to the nearest transmission station, near Woodstock. Now the connection site is much closer and does not require cabling.

The East Oxford Community Alliance has a pending Freedom of Information request regarding correspondence between the Ministry of Energy, Hydro One, and the Ontario Power Authority.

As of most recent correspondence, the request will cost almost $800 to complete and take an additional five months to prepare.

“We can’t get our hands on any document the proponent says is complete and accurate … everything has changed and its no longer the same project. This should be concerning to the public and it makes it difficult to provide public input when all the information is not there,” Joan Morris from the East Oxford Community Alliance said.

 

Health Departments Should Have Turbine Distress Hotlines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS SHOULD HAVE TURBINE DISTRESS HOTLINES‏

July 30, 2014 · by  ·

Carthage anti-wind power advocate appeals Canton wind project approval

Terry Karkos

A Carthage woman has filed an administrative appeal with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection of the eight-turbine wind project on Canton Mountain.

Alice McKay Barnett, an anti-wind power advocate, submitted seven documents of supplemental evidence on July 17 that mostly concerns turbine noise adversely affecting health.
 
The DEP approved the nearly $50 million, eight-turbine Canton Mountain wind project in May. Canton Mountain Wind LLC is owned by Patriots Renewables LLC of Quincy, Mass.
 
The Canton project is part of a larger plan to include similar wind projects in the adjacent towns of Dixfield and Carthage. Construction has already started on the Carthage project — Saddleback Ridge. It is a 34.2 megawatt, 12-turbine wind project that’s expected to be completed in 2015.
 
The Dixfield project, Timberwinds, is still in the early stage of development, according to Patriots Renewables’ website. The proposed project would consist of six to 12 turbines sited on Colonel Holman Ridge in Dixfield.
 
In her petition for review of final agency action against the DEP and Canton Mountain Wind LLC, Barnett writes that she objects to a ruling that the wind developer establish a toll-free complaint hotline designated to allow concerned citizens to call in noise-related complaints 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Barnett said she believes a complaint hotline like that should be in the hands of health officials instead of a wind developer. She cited Spruce Mountain Wind, Patriots Renewables’ 20 megawatt, 10-turbine wind project located in Woodstock.
 
She said that developer “is not responsible to collect data of complaints.” Barnett then cites and includes several examples of that, such as complaints by residents adversely impacted by SMW turbine noise and the developer’s control of noise by purchasing noise easements or making sound agreements with property owners.
 
“I request local health officials maintain a hotline (at the expense of the developer) as they know the local area and the citizens who reside in the impacted zone of industrial wind turbines,” Barnett stated in her petition.”Local health officials could respond directly to complaints on hotline, and then ask county and state for help. Public health nurses continually work to improve the health of individuals, populations, cultures and communities. A public health nurse can enforce laws and regulation,” she stated.
 
Barnett also said the Maine Department of Environmental Health and the Center for Disease Control offered no help. She said wind turbine noise is a health issue and that the DEP and Patriots Renewables are not health experts.
She also asked to strike the word “expert” from a page in the Canton Mountain Wind permit, stating the firms listed are paid consultants not experts per the order of the Bower’s Mountain uphold of denial of the Champlain Wind permit on June 5.
 
Additionally, she named five people living in East Dixfield, Jay and Canton and within two miles of the Canton Mountain Wind turbines who have asked that no harm be done to their property.
 
She defined “harm” to include light pollution from turbine blade flicker and red flashing lights, audible wind turbulence noise levels, air turbulence, sound wave emissions (included but not limited to infrasound) disturbance or emanations of any kind of nature that are created in the ordinary course of operations of the Canton wind facility.
 
“They do not want diminished property value,” Barnett said.
 
Cynthia S. Bertocci, executive analyst with the Board of Environmental Protection, replied to Barnett’s appeal in a letter dated July 22.
Bertocci told Barnett that her timely appeal contains proposed supplemental evidence that will require a ruling from the board chairman, Robert A. Foley of Wells.
 
Following Foley’s ruling on the proposed supplemental evidence,  the board will set a deadline for the filing of comments on the merits of the appeal and notify Barnet of the deadline.
Bertocci said information in Barnett’s appeal doesn’t appear in the DEP’s licensing record.
Per department rule, a respondent — defined as the licensee or anyone who submitted written comment on the application — can submit written comment on the admissibility of Barnett’s proposed supplemental evidence.
They can also offer proposed supplemental evidence in response to Barnett’s evidence and issues raised on appeal, Bertocci said. The respondent’s submission is due within 30 days of the date of the board’s written determination as to which of the appellant’s exhibits constitute proposed supplemental evidence.
Bertocci said the board may allow the record to be supplemented on appeal when it finds that the evidence offered is relevant and material and that:
* The person seeking to supplement the record has shown due diligence in bringing the evidence to the department at the earliest possible time.
* The evidence is newly discovered and by due diligence, could not have been discovered in time to be presented earlier in the licensing process.
Bertocci said the deadline for the licensee and anyone who submitted written comment on the application to comment on the admissibility of Barnett’s proposed supplemental evidence, is by 5 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 21.
 
After Foley rules on the admissibility of Barnett’s evidence, the board will set the deadline to respond to the merits of her appeal.

Concerns About Wind Turbines Too Close to Gas Lines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Turbine setback from gas lines sours some  

John Kreinbrink, an engineer who said he has worked on sour gas lines, contended that the potential for a puncture exists and that the lines could be damaged by vibrations from the shock if a windmill were to fall so close as allowed by the current setbacks on three DTE natural gas lines and one Omimex sour gas line.

Credit:  Steve Begnoche – Managing Editor, Ludington Daily News, www.ludingtondailynews.com 1 September 2011 ~~

One of the concerns raised during the run up to the Mason County Planning Commission’s approval of a special use permit for Consumers Energy’s proposed Lake Winds Energy Park was the seeming lack of awareness of the utility of sour and natural gas lines running through the wind park planned for Riverton and Summit townships.

These gas lines cross the county along rights of way used also by Consumers Energy, but the utility seemed surprised when critics of the proposed wind park pointed out the absence of the gas lines on Consumers’ wind park site maps.

Omimex Energy owns the sour gas lines and DTE the sweet gas lines.

Typically, utility concerns are ironed out in the early stages of planning for projects potentially affecting one another’s lines. The companies typically discuss with one another ways to work out logistics so one’s development doesn’t interfere with existing utility infrastructure, but that didn’t happen in the case of the Lake Winds Energy Park.

In subsequent months, conversations have taken place concerning placements of several of the turbines in relation to the gas lines.

Of concern, is how far away — or close — turbines are to the gas lines. Sour gas — which contains potentially deadly hydrogen sulfide — has to be “sweetened” before it can be used. The Omimex line transports sour gas to a sweetening plant in Manistee County.

The Vestas turbines Consumers plans to use are 476 feet tall to the tip of the 150-foot blades. The nacelle — the unit containing the generator and other equipment and where the blades connect to the tower — stands at 95 meters or about 312 feet.

Prior states in the e-mail that he would like the setback from the gas lines to be “at least a windmill height” and, he told the Daily News last week, he’d prefer it be at least 10 percent more so there could be no chance for the blades to hit the sour gas lines if a tower falls.

Schneider contends that engineering shows that if a windmill were to fall to the ground, the fiberglass blades could not penetrate the ground more than 4 feet, and thus could not damage the sour gas lines.

Prior counters if the turbines are set back beyond a tower’s height, he wouldn’t have to worry if the engineering is correct.

“I feel Consumers should move them to maximum setbacks that they can beyond the 476 feet since our pipeline contains 900 psi (pounds per square inch) of sour gas,” Prior wrote in an e-mail to the DTE Energy that he cc’ed to Mary Reilly, Mason County zoning director. The Citizens Alliance for Responsible Renewable Energy obtained a copy of the correspondence through a Freedom of Information Act request given to Reilly. “If Consumers has to reapply to the FAA, I would rather have them do that than sacrifice the potential safety of our public and our companies’ potential liability than expecting us to agree to lesser setback. If Consumer had done their homework ahead of time, this all could have been avoided.”

Consumers moved one turbine so it presents no concerns to Omimex, yet a second turbine, number 23, moved 95 feet back still is closer to the sour gas line than Prior said he’d like. The turbine is set back 376 feet from the Omimex line. Schneider said at that distance, the wind turbine is far enough away so the nacelle, which is the heaviest part of windmill, can’t fall on it and is situated in such a way that the blades can’t hit the line either. He compared the situation to a person being so close to a horse, that it can’t kick the person with its hoof because the person is too close.

CARRE’s members are using Omimex’s statements in the e-mail as one of the reasons the group wants the Mason County Zoning Board of Appeals to overturn the planning commission’s approval of the special land use permit for Lake Winds Energy Park.

At last week’s meeting, several people spoke about the matter. John Kreinbrink, an engineer who said he has worked on sour gas lines, contended that the potential for a puncture exists and that the lines could be damaged by vibrations from the shock if a windmill were to fall so close as allowed by the current setbacks on three DTE natural gas lines and one Omimex sour gas line.

“That’s a risk that had been ignored by the planning commission,” he said. “It’s something that can be detrimental to the general welfare.”

Evelyn Bergaila, long a critic of the wind park as designed, has spent much of the past year researching issues surrounding it as they have come up. She criticized the setbacks from the gas lines saying Consumers doesn’t want to move them more than the 1 foot vertical change or 100-foot horizontal change the FAA allows in its permit for the park without Consumers going back to that agency for review — a review that could slow down the project. CARRE members have said that rather than rush to construct the wind park, Consumers should slow down and address legitimate concerns, even if that means it misses a 2012 deadline to receive up to $75 million in government funds for the $200 million wind park.

Consumers seeks to have the park in production by the fall of 2012 in order to meet a deadline required for the government green energy subsidies for building the park. It is under a 2015 deadline to produce or purchase 10 percent of its power used in Michigan from renewable sources. Lake Winds Energy Park, and another park planned for the Thumb, are key components to Consumers’ plan to meet that State of Michigan green energy portfolio mandate.

Bergaila began her letter to the ZBA stating the planning commission erred in its decision to grant the permit “because the setback they are allowing for wind turbines to the Omimex sour gas line and the DTE sweet gas lines are inadequate. The health, safety, and welfare of the residents have not been protected as required by the Mason County Zoning Ordinance and Special Land Use Criteria.”

Bergaila contends Consumers is being inconsistent because on other setbacks, for instance one concerning a guy wire, the company recommended a greater setback than it is for the Omimex sour gas line at turbine 23.

“The acceptance of less than a tower height of setback of the wind turbines to sour and sweet gas lines … is an error that is dangerous to the health, safety and welfare of the Riverton community,” she stated.

Later in the same letter, Bergaila states, “The planning commission was both unduly influenced by the needs of Consumers Energy, in particular their schedule, and the commission erred in their decision to approve Consumers Energy’s special land use for 56 wind turbines in Riverton and Summit townships because the plan does not meet criteria number 3. This criteria states that the use ‘will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future permitted uses in the same general vicinity and in the community as a whole.’ The lack of adequate setbacks of the proposed wind turbines to the existing gas lines will be a hazard to our community.”

Complicating matters is that there is no setback standard in current law. Bergaila makes reference to a tower height plus 10 percent standard by the wind industry, but it is not a requirement.

“There are no set rules on the distance of setback and wind turbines,” Prior told the Daily News. “It’s a new concept.”

Prior, in the FOIA’d e-mail, also instructs Mary Reilly, planning administrator for Mason County, not to let Schneider speak on Prior’s or Omimex’s behalf on these matters. Prior state he would prefer not to be caught in the controversy on the matter, and had hoped it could be worked out among the companies.

The Mason County Zoning Board of Appeals will meet Wednesday, Sept. 7 at 7 p.m. in the community room in the basement of the Ludington City Hall. The appeal is expected to be a matter of deliberation. Public comment was taken last week.

Heartfelt Poetry, from a Victim of the Wind Scam! Life on a Windfarm…

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Life on a Wind Farm: 3 Poems by M. Krochmalnik Grabois

Under the Turbines

Infants and toddlers cannot speak

and even pre-teens

may not have the vocabulary to describe

the unprecedented symptoms they suffer

 

Teenagers can tell you more—

they are developing a lexicon for suffering

They are beginning to see that life is unfair

and full of strife

 

and even if they sometimes feel invulnerable

they watch their parents and know deep inside that

invulnerability is a lie

 

They watch the landscape change around them

see the five-hundred foot turbines erected

 

The sound of the gears up there are not like the sound

of their childhoods swings

which creak in the wind at night

a comforting sound

 

Now they hear the tangible sound of the wealthy

stealing from them

before they have even begun to acquire anything

 

 

More Symptoms from Living in a “Wind Farm”

Sleep disturbance in children and infants is common

Your child may feel bullied

even if no classmate is bullying him

 

He has just begun to get over the idea that there is a monster

under his bed

 

and now he awakens feeling that there is an intruder in the house

an intruder with more powerful weapons than Father’s guns

and a feeling that Father is powerless

against the greater forces in the world

 

Of course, it’s true

Father and his neighbors tried to stop the turbines

He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan

forbade them

 

Father is powerless

 

Grit

I watch my sleeping daughter grit her teeth

When she was three she had bad earaches

and took so many antibiotics

the doctor forbade us to give her milk

because milk is full of antibiotics

and we can’t afford Organic

 

Now she has ear aches again

This time the doctor says there is no treatment

other than moving out of the “wind farm”

 

It’s the pressure he says

and because of her history she is particularly

vulnerable

 

We all involuntarily explore our vulnerabilities now

 

Anxiety, nervousness—

I’ve learned there’s a difference between the two

but when I startle awake with an elevated heart rate

I’m not sure which is which

 

Nausea

I’ve always eaten like a horse and never felt nauseous in my life

Now I feel nauseous all the time

I can’t figure out how the wind turbines cause nausea

though I’ve been told it’s an inner ear thing

I guess it’s something my daughter and I

have in common

 

My neighbor, the professor

now stands in front of the chalkboard

gripping the edges of the podium

staring at his notes

 

He’s got vertigo

and can’t perambulate around his classroom

speaking extemporaneously

like he used to

 

I never much liked that guy

kind of an egghead

who moved here from some city

for the peace and quiet

That’s a laugh, ain’t it, Professor?

 

Now I feel more brotherly toward him

We stood up in public hearings

and our arguments, our pleas

were equally ignored by the corrupt commissioners

 

him with his PhD

me with my high school diploma

 

I think I was right not to go on to college

though my mother told me

I was smart enough

 

(Photo Credit: Steve Sutherland)

Toronto School Boards Really Bad at Math!!! (and science!)

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

The green mirage: Toronto school board gets free roof repairs for solar panels — or do they?

Toronto School Board flunks outToronto School Board flunks out

Canada’s largest school board, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), is getting an F on management practices.  Ontario’s Ministry of Education and Ministry of Energy must also receive a failing grade.

It starts with Toronto’s public schools having leaky roofs.  The TDSB, with much fanfareMay 2011, found the Holy Grail when they struck a deal with AMP Solar Limited Partnership for solar panels on school roofs.  TDSB thought the deal with AMP would result in free roof repairs on 450 schools, and, after AMP recovered the cost of the repairs, TDSB would also receive 14.5% of the solar power revenue generated from the Feed-In Tariff or FIT contracts they hoped to obtain from the OPA (Ontario Power Authority).  On paper it sounded wonderful; TDSB’s Director of Education Chris Spence said,  “This is a win-win for everyone involved.”

What he meant was, it would be a losing proposition for Ontario’s ratepayers.

What has happened since that announcement shows someone didn’t do their math homework or anticipate what might go wrong.

One year later: there were delays as the rules under the FIT program changed, creating lower prices for roof-top solar, and then McGuinty prorogued the Legislature.  TheToronto Sun quoted Chris Bolton, TDBS’s chair, confessing the Board didn’t have an alternate plan.  The story went on to say the Ontario government “encouraged” the TDSB to turn to FIT as a resolution to its roof repair backlog.   It is not clear if that suggestion came from the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Energy.  If it was, it was as a neat budget gambit to fool the taxpayers while sticking it to the ratepayers.   Three weeks prior to the Sun article the Ministry of Education froze new construction approvals, “citing concerns the TDSB was going over budget on building projects and in danger of not wiping out an existing $50 million capital deficit.”

A few “snags”

Fast forward July 25, 2014: the reporter who wrote the Toronto Sun story wrote one for the National Post  headlined  “Solar panel upgrades for public schools hit snags”.  The article infers “the costs” to repair the roofs are “higher than first pegged” and goes on to explain, “That’s because of greater-than-expected costs to the board’s private partner-School Top Solar LP-for roofing, installing the panels and fees to Toronto Hydro for hooking up to its power grid.”  It is unclear who School Top Solar LP is—the original TDSB partner was AMP Solar Limited Partnership, but perhaps they flipped the project to take a nice profit (as has happened with so many companies) that have obtained FIT contracts).

The result of this wonder story is that the most TDSB will get out of this free deal will be to replace one-sixth (720,000 sq. ft.) of the 4.3 million square feet of roofs.    They can also kiss goodbye to the 14.5% energy revenue Chris Spence thought they would get.

Let’s see where the mistakes were made. First, the math on the 66 MW that will be installed: based on the original roof-top solar prices ($700 per megawatt hour), the 66 MW could have generated in excess of $40 million annually and $806 million over the 20-year life of the contract. The developer (AMP) claimed the 66 MW would produce enough electricity to power 6,000 average homes, which means 57,600 megawatt hours (MWh) of power yearly.

Now the roof repair costs: roof replacement repairs to the 4.3 million square feet would run to $8 or $9 per sq. ft., meaning total costs would be in the $40 million range.  Capital cost of solar per MW is $5 million (approximately) as estimated by the U.S. EIA, so 66 MW would have cost $330 million making total costs (including roof repairs) about $370 million and recovery of the cost outlays (including maintenance) should have taken nine to ten years.

If it looks too good to be true, maybe…

The reduction in the FIT rates threw the “free” roof idea into jeopardy. It now looks like the TDSB will have to go cap in hand to the Minister of Education, Liz Sandals, if they want those leaking roofs fixed, without making the Board’s $50-million capital deficit disappear.

What’s funny is that now, as reality hits, a few of the education board trustees interviewed for the National Post said they actually want to blame the school principals(some of them had requested adjustments to the placement of the equipment used to hook up the panels to Toronto Hydro’s electricity grid).

Perhaps Ms. Sandals will solve the TDSB dilemma by getting the teachers unions to back down on their demands for raises and pension benefits until the roof leaks have been plugged!

This is another example of the many logic failures brought to Ontario by the Liberal government and its push for renewable energy on a large-scale!

Parker Gallant,

July 28, 2014

Windweasels Won’t Take NO for an Answer! Appealing Court Decision!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Utility Appeals Wind Turbine Noise Court Ruling

Ruling could impact wind plants across Michigan

By JACK SPENCER | July 29, 2014

The Lake Winds Energy Plant in Mason County.

Consumers Energy is appealing the 51st Circuit Court ruling that upheld Mason County’s determination that the Lake Winds Energy Plant near Ludington is in violation of the county’s 45-decibel noise ordinance.

Arguing that the County’s decision was an “erroneous ruling,” the utility filed a 38-page appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals on July 18. In addition, Consumers Energy is saying that if the ruling by 51st Circuit Court Judge Richard Cooper were allowed to stand, it could have an impact on many other wind turbine plants across the state.

“This has implications beyond just Mason County,” Dennis Marvin, spokesman for Consumers Energy told Capitol Confidential. “We believe the study the county based its decision on was flawed. We took this decision (to appeal) very seriously, but ultimately our legal staff determined this was in the best interest of our customers and the landowners at the wind park.”

Rick James, of East Lansing-based E-Coustic Solutions, is an acoustician specializing in the production, control, transmission, reception and effects of sound. According to James, Consumers Energy is not exaggerating when it talks about the potential impact of the Lake Winds case.

“Consumers’ appeal has less to do with the supposed 1 decibel error, the topic of the appeal, and more to do with the wind industry’s broader concerns,” James said. “A decision by the Appeals Court in favor of Mason County would make it easier for other counties and townships with wind energy utility noise regulations to prove non-compliance.”

“Consumers would have been better advised if they had not accepted the conclusions of their acoustical consultant that the proposed project could be fit into the host community without causing problems,” James continued. “Both Consumers and its consultant should have known from past work on other projects that locating large, utility-scale wind turbines close to residential homes was likely to result in the type of litigation now in progress.”

Located south of Ludington, Lake Winds was the utility company’s first wind plant project in Michigan. Residents who live near the $255 million, 56-turbine facility started complaining of health problems shortly after the turbines began operating. They filed a lawsuit on April 1, 2013, arguing that noise, vibrations and flickering lights emanating from the wind plant were adversely affecting their health. Among the symptoms noted in the lawsuit were dizziness, sleeplessness and headaches.

Less than six months later, in September 2013, the Mason County Planning Commission determined that the wind plant was not in compliance with safety guidelines. CMS Energy, which is the parent company of Consumers Energy, then appealed that decision to the Mason County Zoning Board of Appeals and lost. In January, CMS took the case to court again, where it lost once more.

As the case began at the Circuit Court level, in January, the utility asked Judge Cooper to delay the requirement that it make efforts to mitigate the alleged noise problem until the court made its final ruling. Cooper denied that request. Now, as part of its appeal, Consumers Energy is asking the same thing of the Appeals Court.

“Lake Winds is an embarrassment for CMS and for good reason,” said Kevon Martis, director of the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, a nonprofit organization that is concerned about the construction of wind turbines in the region. “They denied well-established science that indicated in advance that this project would not comply with the noise language CMS essentially dictated to Mason County. The truth is that even if CMS complied with the wind turbine noise limits they demanded from Mason County, evidence from inside Lake Winds, as well as inside almost every major wind plant across the state, is clear: 45-decibel wind turbine noise limits are not adequate to protect homeowners whose township has been turned into a 47-story tall power plant.”

“Ohio just recently modified their turbine setback standards to 1,320 feet and for that distance to be established from property lines,” Martis continued. “Our home rule townships would be wise to adopt similar or stronger language to protect their residents from such abuse.”

Marvin denied that CMS dictated the details of Mason County’s noise ordinance.

“We provided input and so did others,” Marvin said.

Lake Winds is part of the utility’s effort to meet Michigan’s renewable energy mandate, which requires that 10 percent of the state’s energy be produced by in-state renewable sources by 2015. The mandate was supposedly aimed at reducing carbon emissions, however; the 2008 law did not require the monitoring of emissions to measure the mandate’s actual impact. 

~~~~~

Ontario Ministry of Energy Continues Along Their Path of Destruction!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Goshen Wind Energy Centre approved by Ontario Ministry of Energy 

By John Miner, The London Free Press

Monday, July 28, 2014 

 

NextEra Energy Canada has been given the green light by the Ontario Environment Ministry for a $300-million wind farm in South Huron and Bluewater municipalities near the shoreline of Lake Huron.

The Goshen Wind Energy Centre will involve the construction of about 60 wind turbines with a capacity of 102 megawatts.

Both South Huron and Bluewater councils have passed resolutions declaring themselves unwilling hosts for industrial wind farms. The Goshen project, however, predates changes to the Ontario government’s policies that now require companies show local support in order to win a government contract.

A spokesperson for NextEra said construction of Goshen will start in the next few weeks with site preparation, road construction and excavation of foundation sites.

The company estimates there will be 300 construction workers on the project at the peak.

The Goshen and Grand Bend Wind Farm, a project that has also been approved but is being appealed, have both drawn opposition from people concerned some of the wind turbines will interfere with the migration of tundra swans.

NextEra said in an e-mail it has sited its projects to minimize the impact to the natural environment, including the tundra swans.

There has also been concern raised the Goshen wind farm could interfere with Environment Canada’s weather radar located eight kilometres east of the community of Exeter.

In approving Goshen, the Ontario Environment Ministry stipulated NextEra must work with Environment Canada to ensure the radar system’s ability to detect and monitor extreme weather is not adversely impacted by the facility.

In its move into the London region, Florida-based NextEra Energy took over and developed several wind farms originally planned by other companies​.

Its Bluewater Wind Energy Centre north of Grand Bend started commercial operation earlier this month, while the Bornish wind farm near Parkhill and Adelaide Wind Energy Centre near Strathroy are in their final stages of construction.

NextEra has also started construction of the Jericho Wind Energy Centre in Lambton County. It operates two solar farms as well.

In approving the Goshen project, the Ontario Environment Ministry set down a number of conditions, including that construction be complete within three years and a community liaison committee be established with members from the public and company.

NextEra has also agreed to establish a “community vibrancy fund” to support projects that will benefit local residents.