Wind turbines are proposed to be installed on Lake Erie as LEEDCO project developers re-submit documents previously deemed incomplete. Environmentalists continue to raise alarms of serious harmful impacts to marine and avian species. If construction goes ahead well over 2 000 industrial wind turbines could crowd the waters of Lake Erie. The Great Lakes are an important ecosystem and host location for globally significant flyways used by large numbers of migrating birds, bats and insects (such as monarch butterflies) from the far reaches of the world.
CLEVELAND, Ohio – The developers seeking to build North America’s first freshwater offshore wind project in Lake Erie moved a step closer to obtaining an essential state certification this week.
The Lake Erie Energy Development Corp. submitted two key environmental applications detailing its plans for monitoring and analyzing the impact of the six-turbine wind farm on birds, bats and fish.
Approval of the plans by the Ohio Power Siting Board is required before LEEDCo can proceed with construction of the $126 million Icebreaker Wind project planned for a site about eight to 10 miles northwest of Cleveland.
“We’ve been working with ODNR for the past few months,” said LEEDCo’s Beth Nagusky. “These are the documents the siting board required. Once they are approved, the board will issue a public notice and continue the permitting process.”
Each of the so-called memorandums of understanding lays out plans to evaluate the environmental conditions at the lake site prior to the start of construction, during construction, and after the wind farm is built and operational….
The wind farm’s impact of greatest concern to birders and environmentalists involves the potential for high mortality rates due to collisions by birds and bats into the spinning fan blades.
LEEDCo acknowledges this fear in its document, but warns that monitoring and documenting casualties from collisions are difficult and pose unique hurdles not found at land-based wind farms.
Workers locked out of a wind turbine blade plant in Tillsonburg Ontario were called to a community hall a few days later and given their dismissal notices. The plant is shutting down as not being economically viable. The plant’s opening protested by those who oppose the harms of wind power installations and its closing came a very short 6 years later. Hundred of workers in a small community now without work as wind industry jobs proved to be temporary. The turbine blade plant in Windsor now placed on a watch list for a similar and predicted demise. Ontario’s green energy economy an illusion that has been running on rate payer generated subsidies.
Kelly McParland: Another wheel flies off Ontario’s green energy bus, and lands on 340 workers
Despite overwhelming evidence that governments do badly when they try to remove the freedom from free enterprise, Wynne and McGuinty ploughed ahead with their green energy vision
When former premier Dalton McGuinty visited the new Siemens Canada plant in Tillsonburg in 2011, he brushed aside protesters and boasted that the plant was part of the Liberal alternative energy plan that would “put us at the forefront in North America.”
The plant made windmill blades. Windmills were the future. Clean energy was what McGuinty’s two-year-old Green Energy Act was all about. It would free the province of old, dirty manufacturing and introduce new, cutting-edge jobs that would make Ontario the envy of the world.
Just six years later the plant is closing. Management says big changes in the wind industry make it no longer viable. The cutting edge plant that was to help lead Ontario into the Valhalla of a clean energy future can’t survive in a market that wants bigger blades.
McGuinty has long since faded into retirement. He chose to step down rather than endure further questioning about an earlier energy fiasco. There was no sign of his successor, Kathleen Wynne, outside the factory, Tuesday, as newly-jobless workers sought an explanation for the closure. “There was quite a bit of anger in there because they shut the place down the other night and never really told anybody about it,” one complained to The London Free Press. “It was bang, everything was locked down.”
On foot of a number of complaints from the public of noise nuisance from wind farms in north Wexford, Wexford Co Co commissioned RPS Engineering in early 2016 to carry out an in-depth, extensive noise survey of the sound emitting from adjacent wind farms and their wind turbines.
Map of the four wind turbines and the position of the individual turbines
The scope of noise survey carried out, exceeded the requirements of the DEHLG noise guidance for wind farms and the requirements of most countries with well developed wind legislation. It involved inter-alia the continuous simultaneous acoustic monitoring at 4 wind farm sites, and eventually involved 13 noise meters being simultaneously deployed. In addition to noise meters a number of rain gauges and 10 metre high wind speed masts were also utilised to gather weather data.
The extended duration of this noise survey, 8 weeks at 8 sites and over 6 months at 3 sites, and the wide extent of noise parameter measurements and meteorological parameters carried out, ensured that account was made of practically all environmental and meteorological conditions experienced at the sites during the noise survey, such as differing wind speeds, directions, air temperature and particular meteorological conditions as experienced at the sites. This included the measurement of noise during periods of winter time cold temperatures with little or no wind (temperature inversions) so as to measure the noise impact during possible worst case scenarios.
Noise Survey Parameters
The survey required the following measurements to be carried out at the 13 measurement sites,
All of 1 and 2 above to be carried out at Fast time weighing,
1/3 Octave measurements from 6 Hz to 20 KHz,
Narrow Band Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis extending from 0 Hz to 200 Hz,
Analysis for amplitude modulation,
Both 5 and 6 analysis above are to be carried out at one or two measurement sites at each wind farm for a minimum period of 2 hours, during the noise survey with environmental conditions suspected to result in tonal elements or amplitude modulation,
Wind speed and direction at 10 metres is to be recorded during the survey,
Rainfall occurrences, time and date and amounts and at each wind farm are to be recorded,
Audio was also recorded at each site at a number of occasions at a sufficient sampling and bit rate to allow further analysis, eg FFT and amplitude modulation.
This study also includes an assessment report for each wind farm addressing their compliance regarding noise emissions under the following headings:
Compliance with planning conditions on the Wind Farms being tested and or predicted sound levels at noise sensitive locations as per the planning application submitted EIS,
Compliance with the Dept of Environment, Community and Local Government, Wind Energy Development Guidelines 2006, in so far as they relate to noise standards,
Comment on the sound with regard to noise standards in
– UK and other countries with well developed wind energy infrastructure and regulations
– WHO noise limits for night-time noise
– Presence of tones, low frequencies, amplitude modulation
– On the likelihood of noise nuisance as per Section 108 of the EPA Act No 7 of 1992.
The survey was carried out in accordance with best international practice and in accordance with the most up to date Institute of Acoustics guidance for noise measurements of wind turbines/wind farms. This also included the anticipated recommendations of the Institute of Acoustics guidance document on Amplitude Modulation (IOA Noise Working Group (Wind Turbine Noise) Amplitude Modulation Working Group, Final Report, A Method for Rating Amplitude Modulation in Wind Turbine Noise), which was published in August 2016, during the noise survey, and included reference measurement methodologies, instrument placement, signal analysis, etc.
Public access to raw data
All of the raw the acoustic and audio data utilised in the analysis of these reports is available to the public on request. Due to the attendant problems the public may encounter with downloading online, very large data files associated with the raw data, Wexford County Council will be making the data available via portable hard drives. So as to protect both Wexford County Council and the end user from computer viruses etc, ensure IT security and to prevent corruption of the data, Wexford Co Co will copy the raw data from the Wexford County Councils master copy on to a new portable 250 GB hard drive, which will be supplied at the purchase cost of the hard drive.
The Software to access the raw data files is available to download from the following websites:
All of the information featured on this website and the raw data is copyright of Wexford County Council unless otherwise indicated. Wexford County Council complies with the regulations on the Re-use of Public Sector Information, and we encourage the re-use of the information that we produce.
You may re-use the information on this website and the raw data free of charge in any format. Re-use includes copying, issuing copies to the public, publishing, broadcasting and translating into other languages. It also covers non-commercial research and study.
Re-use is subject to the following conditions:
• the source and copyright must be acknowledged in cases where the information is supplied to others
• the information must be reproduced accurately and fully
• the information must not be used in a misleading way
• the information must not be used for the principal purpose of advertising or promoting a particular product or service
• the information must not be used for, or in support of, illegal, immoral, fraudulent, or dishonest purposes
• the information must not be used in a manner that would imply endorsement by Wexford County Council or in a manner likely to mislead others
• any Wexford County Council crest, logo or mark must not be reproduced except where such crest, logo or mark forms an integral part of the document being re-used
• Wexford County Council is not liable for any loss or liability associated with the re-use of information and does not certify that the information is up-to-date or error free
• Wexford County Council does not authorise any user to have exclusive rights to the re-use of its information
For more details on information held on our website, please contact out FOI officer.
Copies of the reports have been sent to the complainants and the wind farm operators. Wexford County Council is currently assessing the contents of the reports and following evaluation of the results Wexford County Council will issue further updates in due course.
These are the results of nearly six months of continuous sound measurements away from and near industrial wind turbines (IWT’s) at five locations in Grey Highlands, ON, Canada. The measurement protocol was designed to allow for corrections to account for wind induced noise resulting in findings that are directly comparable to the MOE tables. The results indicate that for three IWT sites studied, the recorded sound pressure levels (SPL’s) exceeded MOE’s noise limits a majority of the time for non‐participating receptors outside the minimum distance of 550 m and outside the 40 dBA SPL contours calculated by consultants engaged by the wind developers. The other two sites were used to measure background noise levels.
Paris – The noise of new wind turbines may justify the cancellation of the purchase of a house if the buyer claims it.
The purchaser, faced with this nuisance, may in fact invoke his own misjudgment which has vitiated his consent, especially if he has been preoccupied with the environment before buying, judges the Court of Cassation.
Although no one is at fault, the error of one of the parties leads to a defect in his consent which justifies the handing over of things to their former state, that is to say the reciprocal restitution of the house and its price, Admit the judges.
Since the construction of wind turbines is not a question of town planning, it may not be reported as such to the future purchaser, To inform the city council on urbanism projects, observes the judges.
This future purchaser can not therefore complain that it has not been reported to him. It would have been necessary to ask precisely the question of a project of installation of wind turbines. But in any case, even informed of the project, the seller could make a mistake as to the significance of its consequences.
In short, the seller, purchaser, notary and administrations are excusable because, knowing the project, nobody could imagine the magnitude of the nuisance. It was only when they appeared that the purchaser could see that if he had known, he would not have bought.
As Falmouth selectmen consider challenging a cease-and-desist order that left the community’s second wind turbine inoperable, they are taking into account all legal action surrounding the town-owned machines near Blacksmith Shop Road.
Since construction, Wind 1 and Wind 2 have drawn the ire of neighbors. Complaints include excess noise, harmful health effects, drops in property values and officials failing to follow proper rules as they allowed the projects to move forward.
A Barnstable County Superior Court judge’s decision agreeing with the zoning board of appeals in deeming Wind 2 a nuisance—and ordering it shut down—is the most recent development to garner headlines. Wind 1 powered down in 2015 after officials failed to earn a special permit from the town appeals board following another round of litigation brought on by abutters.
In a statement released after a lengthy June 26 executive session on the issue, selectmen asked all litigants to renew efforts to resolve the various legal actions involving the wind turbines outside of court.
The most pressing is the suit recently weighed in on by Judge Cornelius J. Moriarty II. Selectmen have until July 20 to decide whether to appeal, according to Town Counsel Frank K. Duffy Jr.
They likely will continue deliberating the issue in executive session—closed to the public—before their regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, July 10, Town Manager Julian M. Suso said. The next time selectmen are expected to meet is during a joint session with the planning board set for July 24—four days after the deadline.
Were selectmen to fight the ruling, the case would be heard in the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
A similar case is pending in Barnstable Superior Court. The town is appealing a decision by the zoning board of appeals to grant relief to neighbor Neil P. Andersen, who successfully argued the two turbines constituted a nuisance. A scheduling conference for that case is set for September, Mr. Duffy said.
A case pending in the Massachusetts Land Court revolves around the zoning board of appeals’ aforementioned decision to reject a special permit for operation of Wind 1. The town is appealing that ruling, and a trial assignment conference is scheduled for September, Mr. Duffy said.
Three common law cases also are pending in Barnstable Superior Court. Funfar v. Town of Falmouth, Ohkagawa v. Town of Falmouth and Elder et al v. Town of Falmouth all seek financial damages because of the nuisance caused by one or both of the turbines. None have been scheduled yet, Mr. Duffy said.
Decisions that went in town hall’s favor include one in a case arguing Wind 2 also needed a special permit to operate. A Barnstable Superior Court judge ruled in June that the effort had come too late in the process.
Still, Barry and Diane Funfar, the plaintiffs, could appeal, Mr. Duffy said.
In Laird v. Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals, the plaintiff argued officials needed to apply regulations approved since the construction of the turbines on a request for a special permit to operate. The court sided with the appeals board.
In April, a Barnstable County Superior Court jury rejected a common law nuisance case brought forward by Mr. Andersen, who sought financial compensation for physical injury, lost property value and income.
Falmouth stands to lose a significant amount of money if litigation keeps the turbines powered down. Wind 1 largely was funded through a $5 million loan, which the town pays about $400,000 toward annually, whether or not it operates.
To erect Wind 2, the town sought a $4.85 million loan through the Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust. Although the loan initially offered interest-free by the trust, officials there have threatened to charge Falmouth principal and interest if the turbine ceases operating.
Additionally, the town has an agreement with the Mass Clean Energy Center, which helped defray some of the costs associated with Wind 1, to generate renewable energy over the course of several years.