(Life sucks) In the Shadow of Wind Farms

Screen Shot 2017-12-21 at 9.04.56 AM

This is a very comprehensive study, investigating individuals from all over the USA, regarding the negative effects of living in the shadow of BigWind…

A six-month GateHouse Media investigation found that wind developers representing some of the world’s biggest energy companies divide communities and disrupt the lives of residents forced to live in the shadow of their industrial wind farms.

Reporters interviewed more than 70 families living near three dozen current or proposed wind farms. They also spoke to 10 state and local lawmakers, read hundreds of pages of public-service-commission records about wind projects, reviewed court filings in seven wind-related lawsuits and inspected lease agreements from at least eight wind farms.

GateHouse Media also identified through public documents and media reports an additional 400 families living near industrial wind turbines that have publicly complained about shadow flicker, noise, health problems and/or misleading statements by wind companies in an effort to solicit land agreements.

The investigation found that companies convince landowners to sign away their property rights for generations based on the promise of potential profits and the minimization of potential problems associated with wind turbines.

Those problems include shadow flicker, loud noises and low-frequency vibrations that have driven dozens of families from their homes. Many of them claim to have suffered serious health issues from the turbines before departing. Some say they’ll never be the same.

The wind industry has known about these issues for years – many of its contracts contain clauses acknowledging these effects – but it denies turbines affect human health, even as complaints mount nationwide.

Landowners often overlook potential problems until it’s too late. Many who sign contracts can’t terminate the agreements, even if they later beg for relief from what they deem intolerable living conditions. Some covenants bar people from suing or even publicly criticizing the projects.

Those who don’t sign agreements can face the same impact of living near wind turbines erected on neighboring properties. But they receive no compensation for the shadow flicker, noises and vibrations…

Wind developers have settled more than a half-dozen such cases nationwide, even while admitting no wrongdoing. Among the companies to settle is Michigan-based Consumers Energy, which owns Lake Winds Energy Park. The Shineldeckers were among several neighbors who sued the company…

Proposed wind projects also have fractured rural communities across America, pitting neighbor against neighbor in fights over property rights and money.

Many worry about the impact these turbines will have on their homes – some families interviewed have moved out of their houses after wind farms started operating; others have stayed but suffer from shadow flicker, noises and vibrations.

Elected officials tasked with voting on these developments have, in many cases, signed their own contracts with the wind companies, raising concerns about conflicts of interest.

Cary and Karen Shineldecker in their Mason County, Michigan, home. | Lucille Sherman | GateHouse Media

Among the investigation’s findings:

• Despite a growing chorus of complaints, the wind industry has expanded largely unopposed. Ten years ago, less than 300 industrial wind farms dotted the U.S. landscape. Today, more than 1,000 exist. Much of the growth has been funded by American taxpayers. Billions of dollars in state and federal incentives have made wind farms so profitable that companies are racing to develop them before the handouts disappear.

• Industrial wind turbines generate countless complaints nationwide about sleep disturbances, migraines, nausea, ear pressure, blurred vision, tinnitus and heart palpitations. Rampant reports about such effects from the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wisconsin, prompted the local Board of Health to declare the turbines a human health hazard.

• Wind industry officials have denounced people who complain about these symptoms, calling them misinformed or “anti-wind.” Some wind companies offer money or other concessions to frequent complainers, often in exchange for silence and a waiver for turbine-related claims. “I call it a shut-up clause,” said Jim Miller of South Dakota, who refused to sign such an agreement with Florida-based NextEra.

• Wind developers have used what some landowners describe as misleading tactics to get their contracts signed. Attorneys asked to review several such contracts called them one-sided, giving wind companies sweeping control over people’s property with few rights for the landowner.

• Wind farms have divided communities across America. Contracted landowners eyeing profits spar with neighbors opposing turbines near their backyards. Lifelong friendships can end. Families sometimes fray. Hopkinton, New York, resident Janice Pease said she stopped talking to relatives who support a proposed wind farm in their town. Pease adamantly opposes it.

Turbines from the Glacier Hills Wind Park in Columbia County, Wisconsin, churn in the late afternoon sun. | Arturo Fernandez | GateHouse Media

WIND INDUSTRY DENIES CLAIMS

GateHouse Media reached out to seven wind energy companies, including some of the nation’s largest, and two nonprofit groups that support the wind industry. Those representatives denied almost all of the investigation’s findings.

Every wind industry official interviewed said that relatively few people complain about wind turbines compared to the thousands of Americans living peacefully among the structures.

“We have 1,300 turbines in operation across the United States,” said Duke Energy spokeswoman Tammie McGee. Except for one wind farm in Wisconsin, “we don’t see these types of complaints at our other turbines.”

Many of the people who do complain, several representatives said, are well-known among industry insiders and comprise a small but vocal group of anti-wind activists…

When asked about the studies that do establish a link, those same wind officials disputed the validity of those papers and the credentials of the researchers…

People might be annoyed by wind turbines, several wind representatives said. But they’re not getting sick from them…

Rather than divide communities, they said their projects improve the lives of all residents. Some towns hold festivals commemorating their wind farms. Enyo Renewable Energy Principal Christine Mikell mentioned the Wind Fest in Spanish Fork, Utah, which hosts a nine-turbine wind farm.

“We have hundreds of landowners who are pleased to have us come to their communities,” said Bryan Garner of Florida-based NextEnergy Resources, the biggest wind energy producer in America with more than 100 wind farms…

 

Communities can also benefit financially from wind farms. The construction of these multi-million-dollar projects employs hundreds of temporary workers and adds new, taxable revenue to local and state coffers…

FORCED TO MOVE

As the wind industry continues to expand, so do its critics.

Hundreds of residents nationwide have claimed industrial wind turbines make them sick. Several families say the structures have forced them from their homes…

“People don’t give up their homes for no reason,” Ed Hobart said, responding to claims the symptoms were all in his head. “It had financial and emotional and health impacts on me and my wife that we will never be fully recovered from.”…

When the sun passes behind those blades, it creates a strobe-like phenomenon called shadow flicker that can disorient and nauseate those forced to live with it….

But even as complaints mount across the nation, the wind industry steadfastly denies turbines impact human health.

“We are aware of some of the cases where individuals come to believe that wind turbines are the cause of their health concerns, and we feel great sympathy for anyone who is suffering from illness of any kind,” said Dahvi Wilson of Apex Clean Energy, which owns several wind farms nationwide.

But, Wilson said, science doesn’t support their claims. And until it does, the company will continue to build wind farms based on current best practices.

The wind industry frequently cites a 2014 Health Canada study that found no direct association between health problems and wind turbines. The study involved more than 1,200 residents in 18 wind farms.

But the same study also found wind turbines “highly annoy” about one in 10 people, especially those living closest to the structures and those exposed to turbine noises exceeding 35 decibels.

That annoyance is “statistically related” to reports of migraines, tinnitus, dizziness and high blood pressure….

Researchers using low-frequency meters have found a link between wind turbines and “sensations of uneasiness and personal disturbance,” as well as “extreme pressure” and “headache or nausea or dizziness.”

One of the first to do this was Neil Kelley, a now-retired scientist from the National Wind Technology Center in Denver. The U.S. Department of Energy and NASA hired Kelley three decades ago to investigatecomplaints about their wind turbine near Boone, North Carolina.

Kelley and his colleagues determined after extensive testing that “the annoyance was real and not imagined,” the result of acoustic impulses.

Kelley did not return calls for comment.

LIKE MOTION SICKNESS

These acoustic impulses – or low-frequency sound waves – stimulate parts of the inner ear responsible for balance, motion and spatial orientation and that they provoke symptoms similar to motion sickness, some researchers say.

“If you’re sitting still and something is causing the same fluids to move, your brain doesn’t know that it’s a false signal,” said Rick James, an acoustical engineer who has written papers on the subject. “But you open your eyes and say, ‘I’m sitting still, but I feel like I’m moving.’”

The Minnesota Department of Health noted the phenomenon in 2009 paper. It found low-frequency waves cause more problems inside a house than outside because, rather than block the pulsations, the walls amplify them.

Darlene Mueller wept as she described how turbines in the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, sickened her inside her home…

 

DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUD

But some wind farm residents who spoke out about their problems said the industry belittles them. It dismisses their complaints as unfounded or labels them troublemakers, multiple people said.

It has silenced many of their neighbors whom they said suffer the same symptoms but fear the consequences of speaking out…

After Cary Shineldecker went public about his experience in Michigan’s Lake Winds Energy Park, an energy company executive singled him out at a meeting several states away.

Mike Blazer of Chicago-based Invenergy claimed to know Shineldecker’s medical history. He told a crowd in Clear Lake, South Dakota, that Shineldecker’s health woes stemmed from alcohol use, obstructive sleep apnea and an irregular heartbeat – not wind turbines…

Shineldecker said he was stunned to learn about the incident from an attorney who attended the meeting. He said he has neither sleep apnea nor alcohol problems and never received a diagnosis for those problems.

“All I ever had to go on was my integrity and honesty and work ethic,” Shineldecker said, “and then to be belittled and treated like some whack-job psycho liar is kind of unbelievable.”

Iowa wind farm resident Terry McGovern said he faced disparagement by Apex Clean Energy.

The Virginia-based company accused McGovern of holding “a personal anti-wind agenda” and claimed he would spread misinformation and generate unfounded fear of wind energy ahead of a public presentation he gave.

Apex made the claims in a July 2017 letter it sent to landowners discouraging them from attending the presentation, held near the site of its proposed Upland Prairie Wind farm in northwest Iowa.

McGovern denies holding an anti-wind agenda but is publicly critical of the industry and its business practices. His Iowa Wind Action Group calls for greater setbacks for industrial turbines to protect human health.

“Instead of focusing on the issues, they try to discredit the person,” McGovern said. “That way, they can avoid talking about the facts.”..

 

 

via In the Shadow of Wind Farms

OPSB issues draft BigWind siting rules- the joke is on us

This past week the Ohio Power Siting Board released its industrial wind facility “Draft Rules” for comment. The OPSB release states:

The public is invited to submit comments on these rules. In an entry dated September 22, 2016, the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) issued proposed rules applicable to wind‑powered electric generation facilities in amended Ohio Administrative Code 4906‑4‑08 and newly proposed 4906‑4‑09. The OPSB requests that interested persons submit formal written comments on the proposed rules by October 24, 2016 and reply comments by November 8, 2016. The entry and proposed rules are available in the online record for case number 16-1109-GE-BRO. (We have also attached the proposed rules below.)

Stakeholders may submit comments in case number 16-1109-GE-BRO via electronic filing or in hard copy to: PUCO Docketing Division, 11th Floor, 180 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Following the conclusion of the comment and reply comment period, the OPSB will later issue final rules to be reviewed by the Ohio Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review before taking effect.

Questions regarding the rulemaking may be directed to contactopsb@puco.ohio.gov.

****

Having only given the draft rules a cursory look, we cannot provide you with our detailed assessment at this time BUT we can say they appear to be a complete farce and that they fail to provide any real enforceable protection for residents and property owners. For instance, the draft rule at page 28 addresses noise at adjacent non-participating property. Everyone knows that sound from wind turbines can propagate across miles and varies depending on topography. This alone is an indicator that the rules are designed to facilitate the construction of industrial wind and nothing else. In order to make the industrial power plants seem benign, the rule actually changes the word wind “facility” to wind “farm”. Gee – will fracking sites become oil and gas farms? Anyone up for a nuclear farm?

We all remember the blade failure in Paulding County which occurred as a result of human error when an employee in some remote control center restarted a turbine that had been automatically shut down. Not to worry going forward! The new rules outlaw human error! “Bypass or override of wind turbine safety features or equipment is prohibited.” Feel better now? Not only that, the rules now require the developer to give their best guess on “probabilities” of bad things happening. If the developer doesn’t think that there is a real good chance that high winds could be dangerous, or ice throws could smash through your car window while you are driving down a road, or hit your children while playing in their yards, then Hakuna Matata! No worries!

The rules include the following provisions:

(6) High winds. The applicant shall provide an analysis of the prospects of high winds for the area, including the probability of occurrences and likely consequences of various wind velocities, and describe plans to mitigate any likely adverse consequences.

(1) The ice throw analysis shall, at a minimum, include the probability of ice throw impacts at the nearest property boundary and public road.

(3) In addition to the use of the safety measures enumerated in paragraph (E)(2) of this rule, the potential impact from ice throw shall be presumptively deemed to satisfy safety considerations if the probability of one kilogram of ice landing beyond the statutory property line setback for each turbine location is less than one per cent per year.

We invite you to consider the proposed rule on Noise below which is followed by Union Neighbors United’s January 18th noise comments filed with the OPSB. UNU’s comments were more fully described by its expert noise advisor again on June 9, 2016. Those written comments are attached. The only thing one can say about these “rules” is that once again the OPSB is attempting to provide wind developers with an “unregulated” environment under the guise of “regulation.” Regulation that protects no one is hardly regulation.

OPSB Draft Noise Rule

(2) The facility shall be operated so that the facility noise contribution does not result in noise levels at the adjacent non-participating property that exceed the project area ambient nighttime average sound level (Leq) by five A-weighted decibels (dBA). Non-participating property, for the purpose of this rule, refers to properties not under lease or agreement with the applicant regarding any components of the facility or project. During daytime operation only {seven a.m. to ten p.m.), the facility may operate at the greater of: the project area ambient nighttime Leq plus five dBA; or the validly measured ambient Leq plus five dBA at the location of the adjacent non-participating property. After commencement of commercial operation, the applicant shall conduct further review of the impact and possible mitigation of all project-related noise complaints through its complaint resolution process.

UNU Comment January 18, 2016

(a) Noise:

(i) To prevent annoyance and sleep deprivation from inherently intrusive wind turbine noise, operational noise levels of wind energy facilities should not exceed five dBA above the background sound level at nonparticipating properties. UNU Brief at 22-25. Since this proposed standard applies to nonparticipating properties, the rule should require all background noise measurements to be taken on location at nonparticipating properties wherever possible.2 For purposes of determining compliance with this standard, background noise assessments must be based on the L90 statistical standard, as universally acknowledged in the acoustical engineering profession. Id. at 30. The L90, known as the residual sound level, is the sound level exceeded during 90% of the measurement period. The L90 measures the quietest 10% of a time interval in order to identify the amount of background sound that is normally available to mask turbine noise that otherwise would awaken a person. By measuring the quietest 10% interval, the L90 statistic filters out the sporadic noise from noise events of short duration, such as passing cars.

By removing brief noise spikes, the L90 metric eliminates short-term noise spikes that serve no purpose for masking the sound of a new noise source. Id. (ii) No nonparticipating resident or landowner should be exposed to noise levels greater than 35 dBA and 50 dBC at any time. UNU Brief at 35-40, 44. (iii) The above standards should apply at the property lines of nonparticipating properties, not merely at neighboring residences. Id. at 44-45. (iv) Proposed subsection 4906-4-08(C)(3)(B) requires that the application address “cumulative operational noise levels at the property boundary for each non-participating property adjacent to or within the project area, under both day and nighttime conditions.” As the Board is well aware, wind energy developers often plan their facilities in phases, while in other cases, one developer’s facility is proposed in or near the location of another developer’s facility. In order to assess the cumulative impact of multiple facilities, it is critical that such assessment take into account impacts from other existing, proposed, or planned wind power facilities in addition to impacts from the facility that is the subject of the application. This comment applies not only to assessment of cumulative noise impacts, but also to visual impacts, shadow flicker, and othercumulative facility impacts.

Last June when the OPSB presented an earlier draft of wind rules, UNU asserted the proposed rules conflicted with the intent of legislation to protect the public and that they lacked enforceable standards. We have reprinted a portion of the news report from the Hannah Statehouse News Service from last June wherein” JCARR Chairman Sen. Joe Uecker (R-Loveland) said the General Assembly only required OPSB write “reasonable regulations,” and did not include the phrase “for the protection of the public.” Notwithstanding we recall that Senator Troy Balderson pointed out to the OPSB’s Legal Director, Angela Hawkins, that there were, in fact, deficiencies in the rules and he expects those deficiencies to be fixed in the upcoming new rulemaking process.

We will report further on these draft rules after we study them a bit more. In the meantime, be thinking about having your local elected officials join you in commenting on the rules when they are due one month from today on October 24th. For now, we think anyone who signs a wind lease, a “good neighbor agreement,” or a waiver should question whether their family, neighbors or community will ever truly be protected by OPSB rules….

The Hannah Statehouse News Service Reported the hearing as follows (emphasis added by Wind News):

Wind Farm Certification Rules Clear JCARR despite Opposition

A new rule revising the content and substance of certificate applications for electric generation facilities, including wind farms, cleared the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) on Monday.

The Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) rule addresses new wind turbine setback requirements set in 130-HB483…

Lawyer Christopher Walker, representing Union Neighbors United (UNU), testified in opposition to the rule saying it violates the third JCARR prong — conflicting with legislative intent.

“Today’s rule purports to contain the board’s regulations governing health and safety, land use, and ecological impacts of wind energy projects. However, this rule lacks the standards explicitly required by the General Assembly to protect the public health and public interest from the impacts of wind farm operations,” Walker said.

“Neither Rule 4906-4-08 nor the remainder of the board’s rules establish any requirements governing the reconstruction or enlargement of wind turbines, protection of recreational lands or wildlife,” Walker continued. “Furthermore, the rules contain no enforceable standards for wind facility decommissioning or for protection of the public from ice throw, wind turbine noise, blade shear, or shadow flicker. Instead, this rule, which purports to address health and safety impacts of wind energy facilities, is merely a laundry list of various information that a wind energy facility developer must submit to the board and its staff in its application.”

Walker said he was particularly concerned that the rule does not set specific standards for blade and ice throw, noting turbines can fling fragments 1,640 feet. He said the rule is “silent” on this issue.

Rep. Dan Ramos (D-Lorain) pointed out the rule requires applicants to evaluate and describe the potential impact from blade shear and ice throw at the nearest property boundary and public road and include plans to mitigate the potential effects and instruct workers of potential hazards. Walker responded by saying he meant the rule does not include enforceable standards on these issues.

Walker said several times that HB562 required “reasonable regulations” “for the protection of the public.” JCARR Chairman Sen. Joe Uecker (R-Loveland) said the General Assembly only required OPSB write “reasonable regulations,” and did not include the phrase “for the protection of the public.” Walker acknowledged the latter phrase was not included in the law….

 

How far away does your home have to be from a turbine to keep its $ value?

THE leading wind turbine appraisal expert in the USA has spoken, and what he said is not good for BigWind. Here, in Ohio, we must be thankful for our legislature, last year.  They approved INcreased setbacks from property lines for industrial wind turbines – although still woefully Inadequate.  Additionally, it was refreshing to see our Governor approve a ‘freeze’ on our renewable energy standards. Both of these legislative victories have given us time to gather more information, like this, about the negative impacts that industrial wind turbines can have on our property, communities, citizens, businesses and economy…

Michael McCann, of McCann Appraisal, LLC, a Chicago-based company, testified about property values and how they are negatively affected when wind turbines are installed.

    He said he has 33 years experience in appraising many types of commercial real estate, land and special use properties. He also has extensive litigation experience, qualified as an expert witness in over 20 states, and has testified at federal and state trials, zoning hearings, utility siting boards and arbitration. He has also done work for other wind farm projects throughout the United States….

    He also illustrated reasons for people to sell property with a turbine on or near it include health impacts….

    He also listed issues he called “more physical in nature.” These included trespass or intrusion, excessive noise, vibrations, odor, contaminants and flicker….

    McCann said overall results showed a 25 percent lower value within three miles of the turbines as compared to control sales more than three miles away from turbines.

    Property impact studies have been done throughout the world and one he described showed assessed values indicated a 20 percent deviation from assessed sale value.

    McCann also said he came to some conclusions, including having a setback of less than three miles can cause a significant loss of value, as well as many of the health problems people have described to him in the past that qualified experts have agreed with.

    “They (doctors) do find it happens,” McCann said. “It doesn’t happen to everybody.”

    McCann also noted that people should hire appraisers that comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisers Practice, especially in cases like this.

Experts offers insight to wind farm questions – News – Pontiac Daily Leader – Pontiac, IL – Pontiac, IL.

Farmers’ coalition warning us about BigWind !!!

Please share with your neighbors and family members. The $ offered to farmers is very enticing….

The Informed Farmers Coalition IFC was formed five years ago to study the impacts of wind turbines on our agricultural and residential community. The group consists of past or present union iron workers, school teachers, township officials, lawyers, a farm manager, a plumber, a fireman, a mechanic, school board members, county board member, union truck drivers, a dentist, retail workers, construction workers, nurses, union equipment operators, hospital workers, a social worker, bookkeepers, a school administrator, salesmen, an electrical engineer for Com Ed, an EMT, numerous local business owners, large/small landowners, homeowners, and of course, farmers – many of whom are the third and fourth generation on that farm. Many are lifetime residents of this agricultural community.

They have discovered, through sworn testimony throughout the state, that people are suffering from the same health issues, noise disturbances, untruthful wind company promises, property value losses, etc. The ongoing research brings the discovery our local landowners may be responsible for the property taxes and decommissioning of the wind turbine should the wind company walk away from the project. The turbine property tax bill stays in the name of the landowner with the bill being listed c/o of the wind company. So ultimately if the wind company doesn’t pay, it will be sent to the landowner.

IFC became aware some of our local landowners with signed contracts had never seen a map where their turbines were projected to be placed. The map presented with the petition to the county also shows underground transmission lines. Some landowners were not aware transmission lines would go through their property and did not think they had signed up for that. One landowner agreed to a contract but for only 80 acres of his property. But when IFC was researching at the county, they discovered his contract was filed containing all 560 acres of his property.

The real experts about wind turbines are the citizens living among them. IFC has attended numerous county meetings across the state of Illinois only to realize the people testifying under oath all have the same story – homes where they can no longer live or sell due to noise and health issues; wind companies that townships must sue to collect their rightful money; trespassing of heavy equipment on non-participating land that compact the soil for years as well as damage crops and tile; crop dusting problems; GPS systems that no longer get a signal; cell phones and TV reception problems; etc.  IFC is aware that Lifeline helicopters may not choose to land in a turbine area; this was needed this spring for a local farm accident. A letter from a school superintendent states the children in his school district are suffering from the effects of the turbines, since they went online.

IFC also became aware that once a person signs a contract they have agreed to a gag order that restricts them from talking about the wind company…

via Guest Commentary | BCRNews.com.

Ada, Ohio turbines are a nuisance to the neighbors

It is unfortunate, how quiet this situation has been, until now. Is it too late? And what about ONU and Ada schools? Will they respond in a kind manner to their fellow local taxpayer? Will they be a good neighbor? I thought their wind turbine ordinance had a decommissioning clause. It is definitely NOT good advertising for the University or the Village…

The impact of wind turbines
Editor’s Note: This first letter to the Ada Village Council from Carl Wilkerson of Ada was printed in the Ada Herald on March 10.
–––––
To the editor:
It has now been almost two years since I first complained of the noise from the wind turbine sited at the Ada Schools. Its constant grinding has again wakened me from sleep by vibrating the windows in my house.
I kept records at the mayor’s request as to when this type of thing was happening. Nothing was ever done about it. I was told that a woman from LaFayette was on top of this problem and the one at ONU that has never worked. It would be taken care of soon.
I was told by the mayor to report the noise to the police department when I heard it. I have done so on many occasions and still nothing has happened. A year later nothing has happened. The one at ONU is still not working. The one at the school is still grinding.
We were told that these turbines would be removed if they did not function or operate efficiently. They do neither and are still here. If the one out my back door is not going to be fixed can you at least get it turned off?
The mayor has heard it and walked away. School officials have hard it and walked away. The police have heard it and walked away. The lady from LaFayette that was on top of it never showed up.
I would like to see the city council do something about this problem. We will see if you walk away or never show up.

———————-

I would like to add the following to an editorial for the Kenton Times. Several Ada residents asked that I send it along to the Kenton Times because of the problems they will be having if the Logan and Hardin County commissioners allow nearly 200 turbines be built by British companies with free U.S. government funds and needless local tax abatements.
The catch is this. These turbines are twice the size of the ones in Ada (nearly 500 feet tall) and will affect all the properties east of Indian Lake to west of the Kenton airport and from State Route 67 to several miles south of Belle Center.
Nearly every home in that area will be in range of shadow flicker from those huge blades. The value of the properties will drop by about 35 percent. If and after they are constructed your recourse will be nothing. Just as it is in Ada.
When these turbines break down or stop producing at over 125 percent of what you can buy electricity for off the grid they will be abandoned and left for you to deal with. These people will declare bankruptcy, reorganize and go visit another sent of county commissioners.
Sadly, only the Logan County commissioners can save you now. Hardin County’s sold out a couple of years ago and don’t seem inclined to correct their mistake. After they get these 200 wind turbines up they will be back for more like hogs to the trough.
Enjoy the mess and flicker and noise! Maybe when the value of your property does down the county will lower your taxes.
Carl Wilkerson
Ada

via:http://www.kentontimes.com/reader-editorials/the-impact-of-wind-turbines/

Imagine 1 turbine every 10 miles across the ENTIRE state of Ohio!

Last week, the Senate Public Utilities Committee resumed hearings on Sub. Senate Bill 58 to modify the energy mandates. Excerpts from 1 of the testimonies is below.  The testimony of Kevon Martis notes that to fulfill the Ohio renewable mandate would require 6,765 MW’s of installed wind capacity with a generous capacity factor of 30%.  That translates into 4,000 1.7MW G.E. turbines or one turbine per every ten square miles across the entire State of Ohio.   When you consider that commercially viable wind resources are only present in less than 5% of Ohio’s land mass, it means fulfillment of the mandate would eventually obliterate certain counties. What would this do for future economic growth? Future residential growth and property taxes? This scenario is a nightmare, but not as much as the one noted below. Our pitiful setbacks from residences, instead of property lines, means that children can end up playing in a dangerous area – an area that the industry considers necessary to mandate that their workers wear hardhats and steel toed boots.  In some cases, this area could even be located on a school property, where we believe our children should be “safe”…

Testimony of Joshua J. Nolan, Esq., IICC…

As an attorney licensed in both Ohio and Michigan, I have represented individuals, farmers, wind turbine lease holders, and non-profit corporations whom are faced with questions surrounding industrial wind turbines.  Some of those clients have sought my counsel prior to the construction of any turbines in their area, whereas other have attempted to take action only after their landscape has been altered forever.  When possible, I volunteer my services to help educate others of the dangers of improperly sited industrial wind turbines….

As this panel is undoubtedly aware, the constitutionality of Ohio’s in-state generation mandate is highly questionable.  Although stated in dicta, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals made it crystal clear that in-state generation mandates like those contained in Michigan’s P.A. 295 (which is substantially similar to Ohio’s SB221) are viewed as unconstitutional encroachments upon Congress’ exclusive authority to regulate interstate commerce.  If, as Judge Posner stated, “Michigan cannot, without violating the commerce clause of Article 1 of the Constitution, discriminate against out-of-state renewable energy,” neither can Ohio.

Because of this unconstitutional in-state generation mandate, SB221 was successful in creating a market for renewable energy where none existed.  However, many Ohio residents have paid a steep price to create that market.  Because SB221 demands that Ohio produce a certain amount of renewable energy, regardless of its suitability for producing such energy.  Ohio residents have been forced to deal with the consequences of an industry ill-suited for its environment due to population density and questionable wind resources.  These factors have led to the improper and unsafe siting of industrial wind turbines throughout rural Ohio, without due regard for their impact on existing residents….

SB 221’s unconstitutional in-state generation mandate is the reason that children (whom have not even left their own yards) are forced to live and play inside the danger zones within which turbine manufacturers require their own employees to wear hard hats and steel toe boots.  And that same constitutional in-state generation mandate is used as a shield to defend against claims from those whose lives have been disrupted by noise pollution and sleep deprivation following the forced placement of industrial wind turbines next to their home….

To be clear, the need to end this oppression of Ohio’s rural residents is neither a Republican, nor a Democratic issue.  It is not a Conservative or a Progressive issue.  This is an issue that crosses all races, religions, creeds, colors, and yes, even political parties.  Low frequency noise emitted by industrial wind turbines knows no color, race, or gender.  Shadow flicker does not distinguish on the basis of income or one’s belief in the proper role of government.  A chunk of flying turbine blade debris will not alter its flight because the adjacent landowner voted Democratic in the last election….