Gatehouse Media found more than 450 families who have publicly complained about the impacts of living near wind farms. Have a similar experience? Tell your story.
Tell Gatehouse Media about your experience living near an industrial wind farm.
All submissions will be considered for publication.
Questions? Contact them.
Published stories can be viewed at:
http://gatehousenews.com/windfarms/in-your-own-words/
Rutland Herald| Letter to Editor|December 28th, 2017
A recent Rutland Herald editorial, entitled “Powering up,” concluded that we need to move with urgency toward the renewable power of the future. While that is correct, the editorial goes on to complain that “old ways” of thinking dominate the discussion in Vermont. At issue: the editorial then proceeds to propose “old ways” to move us forward.
When it comes to energy development in Vermont, the industrial wind industry leads the “old way” pack. Wind operators and developers have been living off federal subsidies since the early 1990s and have been wreaking havoc in Vermont for just as long. It’s time to boot them out of the state and employ creative Vermontsized energy solutions.
The editorial employs the “old way” strawman tactic when citing the arguments of industrial wind opponents. Legitimate concerns of Vermonters are minimized when the only argument acknowledged against ridgeline destruction is to mock “the exquisite timidity of those who grieve over birds killed by wind turbines.” It’s a cheap shot that does nothing to advance the conversation.
We should instead be talking about the entire range of problems industrial wind development brings to Vermont: mountaintop dynamiting, destruction of intact eco-systems, stormwater runoff, habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation, noise and health impacts to neighbors and wildlife, safety risks, community division, aesthetic degradation, tourism, property devaluation, and, yes, impacts on birds, bats, and even bears.
We should also talk about what does and doesn’t work. As environmentalist Suzanna Jones recently told us, “Despite the platitudes of its corporate and government backers, industrial wind has not reduced Vermont’s carbon emissions. Its intermittent nature makes it dependent on gas-fired power plants that inefficiently ramp up and down with the vicissitudes of the wind. Worse, it has been exposed as a renewable energy credit shell game that disguises and enables the burning of fossil fuels elsewhere.”
The editorial expresses concern about mass extinction facing numerous species around the globe. Bravo! Then let’s protect the ecosystems that will enable those species to migrate, adapt and survive and abandon the “old way” of thinking that allows our ridgelines and forest habitat to be destroyed by energy developers and their energy sprawl. As wildlife biologist Sue Morse tells us: “New England’s ridgelines will play an increasing and integral role as global climate change forces countless species of plant and animals to seek new habitats in which to adapt and survive.”
The editorial call for an improved large-scale infrastructure capable of transmitting intermittent power from remote, industrial-scale wind plants is another “old way” solution; rural areas are sacrificed to enable our unsustainable wastefulness. Treasured areas like the former Champion Lands, once valued for their ecological significance, become collateral damage. Large-scale transmission from rural to urban areas is a misguided “old way” use of our resources.
There is both wind and sun in our urban areas (Lake Champlain Wind Park, www.champlainwindpark.com) anyone?). We should be supporting renewable development in already-developed areas while protecting undeveloped areas.
We should also be emphasizing community scale generation facilities sited in the communities that they serve. This would reduce energy loss over lengthy transmission lines, improve system reliability, and preserve our vital wildlife habitat. This is the Vermont-scale approach that is in tune with Vermont values.
Some view turbines on distant ridgelines as a visible sign of our commitment to climate action. They’re wrong. A closer look shows that those turbines are exacerbating the very climate impacts that we wish to avoid. Industrial wind plants are putting money in the pockets of investors, developers and a few landowners, but they’re not addressing the very real and pressing problem of climate change.
The industrial wind lobby is fond of saying say we need to make sacrifices. We do. But where those sacrifices come from, whether or not they’re effective and, most certainly, who profits and who loses from them should shape our solutions. We need to change the way we live, we need to stop being so wasteful, and we need to support solutions that actually work. We need to invest in unsexy work of weatherization, efficiency and demand reduction. We should support renewable development in already-developed areas and prevent new development in resource rich areas. We should be focusing on the least destructive renewable technologies and develop microgrids around community scale generation.
Yes, we need to sacrifice, but that doesn’t mean sacrificing our natural resources. It means changing the way we live and protecting the earth. All of it.
Noreen Hession is a retired engineer, community organizer and environmental activist who lives in the Northeast Kingdom.
Credit: Emmetsburg News|December 19th, 2017
At the Supervisors meeting of Oct 24, they adamantly denied the accusation that they had effectively let Invenergy and MidAmerican Energy write the Palo Alto County Wind Energy Ordinance. However, documents obtained by way of the Iowa Open Records Act indicate otherwise. The original ordinance, written Aug 11, 2016, clearly did not meet with Invenergy’s and MidAmerican Energy’s approval. In a memo from Invenergy and MidAmerican Energy to the Supervisors dated Aug 26, 2016, the company states, “there are some key provisions that must be changed if the county desires to attract and encourage the development of wind energy conversion systems” Following are some specific examples comparing the original ordinance with the one modified to meet Invenergy’s demands.
Compliance with Palo Alto County Zoning Ordinance: Original: “requirement to obtain a certificate of zoning compliance in accordance with Article 9, Section 5 of the Palo Alto County Zoning Ordinance.” – Modified: zoning compliance eliminated.
Setbacks from Permanent Residential Dwellings: Original: 2640 ft.- Modified: 1500 ft.
Setbacks from Property Lines: Original: 1000 ft. – Modified: 120% of height of wind device (approximately 600 ft).
Setbacks of Wind Energy Accessory buildings from permanent residential dwellings: Original: 2640 ft. – Modified: 1500 ft.
Shadow Flicker: Original: “No wind energy conversion system shall be installed in any location where shadow shall fall on any existing residential structures.” – Modified: “The owner-developer shall use shadow flicker computer modeling to estimate the amount of shadow flicker anticipated before mitigating any of it.” (How reassuring it is to learn that how I feel about my health will be determined by an energy company’s computer model.)
Drainage Systems: Original: “Permit required if underground electrical construction activity spans across organized drainage districts and private tile systems. – Modified: No permit required for affecting private tile systems.
These are just some of the many changes demanded by Invenergy and MidAmerican Energy to increase the profitability of their project. Clearly most of the Supervisors, with assistance from other county employees, capitulated to every demand, without considering residents who are adversely affected by the project, and who elect and pay these county officials to look after their well-being.
Instead, these same officials have forfeited the health, environment, and homes of some of their constituents to generate huge profits for companies like Invenergy, Mid-American Energy and its billionaire investors like Warren Buffet, and large wealthy landowners, most of whom are absentee. Nearly all major projects such as this involve costs and downsides, as well as any benefits. In this case there are many downsides, starting with the ill health effects on humans caused by shadow flicker, audible noise, and worst of all, infrasound, which can cause stress, sleeplessness, and nausea. Further, there can be adverse effects on farm animals as well. Also, wind turbines can kill many birds, especially when placed too close to lakes and wetlands. Therefore, it is so important to follow regulations and perform due diligence, neither of which has been undertaken by our county officials.
Dr. Stephen Mathis
Professor Emeritus,
Shippensburg University,
Emmetsburg
Credit: The Intelligencer | December 20, 2017 | ~~
Experience is something you get right after you need it. On the heels of a potent, jam-packed rally in Milford to implore the government to pack up its turbines and go home, the bitter aftertaste and lingering sting of feeling deceived and betrayed remains ours to mourn and avenge.
When you think about it, the optics of investing in wind turbines can be construed as a patriotic opportunity to demonstrate support for green energy when better options may exist, but this turbine project is lead contender for first place as a blue ribbon colossal failure.
Clearly, Premier Wynne doesn’t want to be confused with facts, she has already made up her mind. Wynne is at the helm of The Ontario Green Energy Act – the largest transfer of wealth in Canadian history, and as it crosses the performance finish line, it’s lagging behind, Wynne thinks it came in first. As recited in quote after quote: The net result is this is the most over- priced, inefficient, redundant, useless subsidized wind power electricity in North America, never mind Ontario. All supply with no demand. Ontarians have an abundant supply of apologies and Mea Culpa’s from the Ontario Energy Minister for “sub- optimal outcomes”.
The notion of erecting seven 480’ turbines in Milford is just plain ludicrous, although the reality is easily heard by the heavy, gravel- laden trucks barreling down County Road 13 providing thunderous, early morning wake- up calls. The ugly esthetics beginning to sprout will impose a fire sale price tag for potential business investors in Milford and has struck fear in seniors inflicted with depressed residential land values while huddled beneath the looming white elephants. This is the Canadian government that has shoved its citizens to the sidelines to put up and shut up while they impose incompetent, environmental destruction upon a gentle community.
The knights of South Marysburgh tilting at wind turbines are growing in numbers scattered across the belly of South Bay in a mission to quash the project. Appointing Milford for monolithic wind turbines flies in the face of all that is naturally beautiful, peaceful and harmonious in the County. The 800- miles of shoreline tucked into warm, white sand dunes, tropically- hued waters, wine, food, farming, olive oil, maple syrup and bursting with artistic bounty is sacrilegious.
While defending both professional and personal scrutiny, perhaps Mayor Quaiff has the right idea, attacking the issue from within? After all, one of the most successful strategies every employed is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
Milford owns the mouth’s that roar “we are mad as hell and won’t take it anymore” and it has fallen on the selected hearing of Wynne. Steve Ferguson closed his speech at the APEC annual general meeting last Sunday, quoting McGuinty “they (the public) can’t stay mad at us forever”. In Milford, Ontario, those are fighting words.
Mary Malone
Milford
On the shores of Lake Erie in Haldimand County- Ontario, Canada hundreds upon hundreds of industrial wind turbines intrude, harm, harass and trespass.
Credit: Journal Review | Dec., 13, 2017 | www.journalreview.com
I attended a recent meeting in Linden concerning wind turbines and the current county ordinance. I came away saddened by all the conflict over this issue among neighbors and even within families over this issue.
I have always been opposed to county-wide zoning, but wind turbines seem a much worse threat to the county than zoning, since zoning only represents a raid upon our wallets, while wind turbines represent a danger to the health and safety of our neighbors and their children.
I was shocked to learn that our local ordinance allows children to play closer to the turbines than the operating companies allow their employees, except in cases of necessity.
I was saddened to hear allegations that some of our elected officials may have a monetary interest in wind turbines.
The county ordinance requires setbacks from the foundations of homes, rather than property lines. This seems to preclude anyone from building a dwelling on land between a current dwelling and the owner’s property line, which appears to be an unconstitutional taking of land without compensation.
The contracts with wind turbine builders have an allowance for $15,000 for decommissioning each turbine. This is not enough money to even get a crane to begin to take down one of these towers.
To add insult to injury, wind turbines are heavily subsidized by the federal government, because they are not and never will be economical to operate.
Finally, it is an insult to the people that our county commissioners have yet to put wind turbines on the agenda for a commissioners’ meeting.
Frank J. Stewart
Crawfordsville, USA
Letter published in: wallaceburgcourierpress.com
Friday, December 1, 2017
I have heard the stock statement answers from the premier, MOECC minister, his staff, Chatham-Kent mayor and council, municipal administration and the main owners of the North Kent wind farm that it is making me sick.
These stock answers are:
–We take the concerns about ground water seriously.
–We take a very cautious, scientifically-based approach when setting standards for renewable energy projects to protect the health of the Ontario people.
–Pile driving vibrations do not affect water wells.
–Our Government is committed to clean energy.
The concerns of residents in some of the affected areas in the former Dover Township have been made aware to the Ministry in 2012. The problem arose in the former Chatham Township shortly after pile driving started in June of this year, just as was predicted by Water Wells First, based on what had happened in Dover which has the same Kettle Point Black Shale in the aquifer. MOECC’s solution was to take turbidity tests which represents the clarity of water and not the heavy metals that are being carried in the water, some visible and some only visible under a microscope.
Dr. Colby states that the lead, arsenic mercury and uranium carried in the particles in the water will not render it unsafe. At the same time, he refuses to touch or have it tested and certainly would not drink it.
Scientific based approaches are as effective as is intended by those doing the testing.
I saw a vibration monitor on the Centre Side Road that was affixed to a well casing, which is not in contact with the bedrock, with a hose clamp that was not tightened to hold it tightly against the casing to pick up vibration. In addition, it was less then 100 meters from the road and at least 550 meters from the pile driving site. Does it seem reasonable to have a busy road between the site monitored and the sensor? Does it seem reasonable that no analysis is being done on the black matter suddenly appearing in wells that have been pristine for decades? Is that what a scientifically based cautious approach is all about?
So, computer models and engineer’s theory say that pile driving does not affect water wells! No one has heard of a major water well problem for years, yet within two or three months of pile driving at least 16 water wells have been adversely affected. Engineer’s theory also said that the Titanic was unsinkable. Engineer’s theory and model said that the O ring in the Challenger space shuttle was adequate, but its failure caused an explosion and a major crisis in the USA space program. There is precedence for engineer’s theories and models for being wrong. Could this be another? Does actual observation not have preference over theory?
Our government is committed to clean energy apparently at the cost of water wells. Perhaps if the following questions were answered, it would shed some light on why they have this commitment.
How much money was paid by the wind industry to individuals, political parties and the Ontario government for the privilege of building turbines in Ontario without interference?
How much money was paid by the wind industry to individuals and the municipality to become friendly hosts for turbine construction?
How much money would it take to stop construction and stop operation of turbines until their negative impact on environment issues, especially water, are properly assessed by an independent party, since our politicians, local and provincially, obviously had not done “due diligence” prior to signing the agreements?
Are the citizens of this province being used as pawns in a system that is broken? Are some ministries, such as MOECC, actually company self-monitoring agencies that are incorrectly being paid by our tax dollars rather then the companies that they refuse to police. How do we change things? Is common sense dead?
Peter J Hensel
Dover Centre
ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Silverdale Community Hall, 4610 Sixteen Rd. St. Ann’s, ON
Members Election of Board 7:00 pm • Program Start 7:30 pm
• Current Situation, Locally, Provincially & World Wide • Legal actions in Ontario
• What are our Activities? Health study for those thinking of moving.
• Long term exposure and VAD • The Risks – Infra Sound – Stray Current-Water Wells
• 2500 Homes in rural in West Lincoln exposed to IWT’s • Your Questions Answered
WLGWAG • wlwag.com
Has Samsung SLAPP’ ed back at protesters of its North Kent Wind project?
“Strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) has been defined as a lawsuit started against one or more people or groups who speak out or take a position on an issue of public interest. The purpose of a SLAPP is to silence critics by redirecting their energy and finances into defending a lawsuit and away from their original public criticism. Concerns have been raised that SLAPPs also act as a warning to other potential critics. The effect of SLAPP suits is to discourage public debate.”
Read more about SLAPP lawsuits
Chatham, ON – The Council of Canadians is condemning Samsung Energy for filing a million dollar plus statement of claim against Chatham area residents who blocked construction at one of 34 wind turbines the company is erecting as part of its North Kent One* wind power project.
Many of the people who took part in the 11 day blockade have filed well interference complaints against the developer, citing the vibrations from the company’s pile driving activity as the cause of the sudden influx of black silt in their wells. At least thirteen well interference complaints have been made since the company started pile driving for the turbine foundations last June.
According to the developer’s Statement of Claim, the impact of the construction delay caused by the blockade “amounts to costs ranging from $50,000 to $100,000 per day, covering only the current amount of labour and equipment idle.”
The Statement of Claim names Water Wells First spokesperson Kevin Jakubec and Cindy Soney as defendants. It also includes “other individuals who have been involved in the unlawful conduct….who have not yet been identified and have been named as John Doe and Jane Doe.”
The well water on the Jakubec family’s farm became polluted with black silt shortly after pile driving began nearby.
“Our well water was crystal clear for decades before the pile driving started,” said Jakubec. “Now, Samsung is claiming that we damaged them to the tune of millions of dollars. I wonder how they sleep at night because I sure can’t.”
In 2016, Kevin Jakubec challenged the government’s approval of the North Kent One project at the Environmental Review Tribunal where expert witnesses warned specifically that vibrations from pile driving could cause the pollution problems seen in the last few months.
“Million dollar lawsuits are usually meant to intimidate,” said Mark Calzavara, Ontario Organizer for The Council of Canadians. “But people don’t back down when it comes to protecting their water. The evidence clearly shows that the construction is causing the pollution. Samsung must stop this project now.”
* North Kent One Wind is owned and developed by Samsung Energy and Pattern Energy.
For more information or to arrange interviews:
Dylan Penner, Media Officer, Council of Canadians, 613-795-8685, dpenner@canadians.org. Twitter: @CouncilOfCDNs
Mothers Against Wind Turbines Inc. 