Findings of the

Lyme Citizens Wind Committee Environmental, Health and Safety Matters
May 14, 2011

On the Issues of

1

Lyme Citizens Wind Committee
On the Issues of

Environmental, Health and Safety Matters
Dr. Paul G. Carr, P.E. (Chair) Mrs. Julia Gosier (Co-Chair) Mrs. Deanne Scanlon Mrs. Joy Borowicz Mrs. Muriel Barkley Mr. Seann Coffee

May 16, 2011 Municipal Offices Town of Lyme 12175 Route 12E Chaumont, New York 13622 Attention: Supervisor Aubertine and the Town Board Attached please find the Report of the Town of Lyme Citizens’ Committee on Environmental, Health and Safety Issues. The Committee concluded its work in recent days and is pleased to turn the document over to you for the benefit of the Town. The highlights of the study findings are presented below in an “Executive Summary” format. The Fire Risks, Fire Department Needs, Hazardous Chemical Exposure in Operation, Construction Disruption, Storm Water Runoff and Erosion, Earthquake Seismic Effects, Electronic & Electromagnetic Interference, Stray Voltage AKA Ground Current, Vandalism and Security all pose manageable challenges for the Town. It is not anticipated that these issues, when properly addressed will present undo risk to the resident’s of Lyme. Relative to the matter of Birds, Bats, Avian and Wildlife Impacts, it is the finding of the Committee that given the unique nature of the area, that the cautionary guidance offered in Chapter 3 with the white paper position of Mr. Evans and Mr. Smith should be heeded. This includes an extended period of study to fully understand the implications of industrial winds turbines on the bat and avian populations. Viewshed and Visual Impacts should be addressed by the Town to maintain compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Lyme. Consideration to both the existing Comprehensive Plan in effect, and the Draft Comprehensive Plan under review should inform the Board as to the protections required for the unique character of Lyme and its natural beauty. Recognizing that the Shadow Flicker from the Turbines can create health issues in the most vulnerable of the population, particular care in the siting and placement of the turbines should be a high priority in the planning of any project. Given the continuing debate over the health effects of Low Frequency Sound [Infrasound] the Town Board should monitor this matter before any permits would ever be considered for issuance. The matter of the impact of Infrasound remains one of active research and it is expected that clarity on the health effects of this type of noise will continue to evolve.

2

Sound and Noise from any potential Wind Power Project is one of the primary concerns relative to intrusion into the daily lives of residents in proximity to the project. Generally, the Town should reject any proposed high fixed-limit of sound, as commonly seen in other New York communities. The Town must fully consider the “change” in sound levels, pre-project to post-project, with strict compliance with the well-published guidelines of a limited increase [i.e. 5 dBA] above ambient or background sound levels as a limit. In addition, the committee finds that in order to fully protect the citizens of Lyme, a pre-project ambient study must be conducted by the Town through an independent non-conflicted acoustical consultant. This ambient sound study will be provided to the developer[s] by the Town to serve as the baseline for input into the developer’s acoustical models. A comparison of the developers’ noise to the Town’s ambient study will determine if a particular plan can comply with the Town of Lyme noise limits. In considering the Safety Zones of Protection from Tower collapse, it is expected that the area of protection under the turbine, and the public’s exclusion from entering any area within 1,300 feet of the tower should be sufficient to obviate concerns of a dramatic tower collapse. This aligns with industry recommendations. On the other hand, the committee finds that the safety zone around a turbine, in the form of a safety setback from airborne debris such as blade ejection or ice throw must be much greater. The zone of protection must be specific to the turbine proposed, as it is a function of height and rotational speed of the blades. The example carried in the report considers a turbine with a nacelle approximately 300 feet above the ground, and a blade diameter of approximately 300 feet, with a rotational speed of 18 rpm. Under these circumstances, the throw distance of ejected debris will theoretically travel upwards of 2,800 feet. The safety setback from public spaces, including parks, public facilities, walkways, trails [including snowmobile trails], roadways, or any other areas where the public is present is critical for the protection of the community. The full report addresses the impact of aerodynamic drag and other factors on debris throw distances. The summary of the findings presented above represent a broad overview of the research conducted. For a better in-depth understanding of each of these issues, please refer to the full report attached. As questions arise relative to the research and the findings, please feel free to contact any of the committee members. Sincerely,

Paul G. Carr, Ph.D., P.E. Committee Chair

3

Table of Contents
Introduction Chapter 1- Fire Risks & Fire Department Needs, Hazardous chemical exposure in operation Fire Risks & Fire Department Needs Hazardous Chemicals Exposure in Operation Chapter 2 - Construction Disruption, Storm Water, Runoff Erosion, Earthquake Seismic Effects Construction Disruption Earthquake Seismic Effects Ground Water Impacts Storm Water Runoff, Erosion and Sedimentation Chapter 3 - Birds, Bats, Avian and Wildlife Impacts Chapter 4 - Viewshed – Visual Impacts Shadow Flicker Chapter 5 – Noise: Interferences from Noise, Audible Noise and Low Frequency Sound [infrasound] Noise General Understanding Noise Audible Noise Application of Ambient Sound Acceptable Noise Levels Low Frequency [Infrasound] Chapter 6 - Electronic & Electromagnetic Interference, Stray Voltage AKA Ground Current Electronic & Electromagnetic Interference Stray Voltage AKA Ground Current Chapter 7 – Health and Safety – Zones of Protection Tower Collapse Blade ejection, Overspeed Failure and Ice Throw Safety Setbacks Chapter 8 – Wind Power and its Validity as Green Energy Reliability / Efficiency of Wind Wind Power – Is it Green Energy Environmental Impact of Building an Industrial Wind Farm Will Wind Power Reduce our Dependency on Foreign Oil Chapter 9 – Vandalism and Security

4

TOWN OF LYME - Environmental, Health and Safety Wind
Committee Members 2011
Committee Background: The Town of Lyme Environmental, Health and Safety Wind Committee was established by the Town of Lyme after the town attempted to establish a local wind ordinance in 2007. The Town of Lyme does not have a present wind development application; however, a portion of the Town is impacted by the proposed transmission line from the Cape Vincent project, and there is reported to be discussion between developers and landowners within the Town of Lyme for potential wind farm development. This committee is charged with investigating the potential Environmental, Health and Safety issues with a goal to be the protection of the Town of Lyme residents for the future; both landowners’ rights to develop, and residents’ rights to protections from the potential deleterious impacts of development. This committee has made certain recommendations to the Town council relative to these protections for the Town of Lyme residents, in particular those who have a high probability of being adjacent to, or in close proximity to the potential wind turbines. Dr. Paul G. Carr, P.E. (Chair): A property owner and resident of Lyme for thirty years, resides on Point Salubrious. Paul is an engineering professor at Cornell University and maintains an active professional practice in Forensic Engineering and Failure Analysis. Paul is married to Kathleen, and they have five children and six grandchildren. Mrs. Julia Gosier (Co-Chair): A property owner and resident of Lyme for forty-one years, resides near Three Mile Bay. Julia ran a designing room for a dress manufacturer in Manhattan for seven years, ran her own custom-slipcover business locally for thirty-seven years, was town historian for eighteen years, is the director of the Lyme Heritage Center, specializing in local and family history research, and is an EMT with the Three Mile Bay Fire Department Ambulance Squad. Julia is married to Guy. Together they have five children, twelve grandchildren, and one great-grandchild. Mrs. Deanne Scanlon: A property owner and resident in Lyme for twenty-two years, resides on Independence Point. Deanne has served on various boards through the years and continues to volunteer for various projects and activities in the Chaumont/Watertown area. Her participation in the Lyme Citizen Wind Committee has been a positive endeavor, as all committee members diligently worked together in developing a report that will be instrumental in our community "going forward".
5

Mrs. Joy Borowicz: Joy has been a property owner for 13 years and a resident for 5 years. She and her husband Thomas, who is with the Syracuse Police Department, live with her mother on Three Mile Point, where they own their home on the Bay facing the western viewshed. Joy has attended Onondaga Community College and University College. She is retired from National Grid. In her spare time enjoys gardening, knitting, and reading. Mrs. Muriel Barkley: A property owner and resident of Lyme for ten years, resides in Three Mile Bay. Muriel is a retired counselor from New York State Department of Correctional Services. Muriel also worked part time for the YMCA as a chair aerobics instructor for five years. Muriel has volunteered with Hospice for over twenty-five years, is on the Executive Board of the Lyme Garden Club and volunteers at the Lyme Free Library. She has been married to husband Warren for thirty-eight years. They have two married sons and one grandson. Mr. Seann Coffee: Seann has lived in Three Mile Bay for Four years on Point Peninsula. Seann moved from a more urban life to the Town of Lyme seeking a more tranquil and natural environment. The peace, quiet, and pristine waterfront was the attraction. Seann attended School of Visual Arts in New York City and now shows and breeds Golden Retrievers.

6

Introduction In 2007, the Town Board of the Town of Lyme enacted a twelve (12) month moratorium on industrial wind energy conversion systems (IWECS) in the Town of Lyme, a moratorium that has been re-enacted several times while the Town Board has struggled with the issue of Industrial Wind Projects in the Town. In October 2010, the moratorium was extended for another twelve (12) months. This moratorium was enacted through extension to allow the Town Board to engage two Citizens’ Committees to study the possible ramifications of the placement of IWECS within the Town of Lyme. To facilitate the gathering, compilation and understanding of available information on IWECS, the Town selected a citizens’ committee comprised of six (6) residents, representing the diverse interests, occupations and viewpoints within the Town to study the Environmental, Health and Safety considerations of IWECS. Within this report are the findings of the committee to date, outlining major issues to be concerned with and recommended mitigation strategies. This report is not intended as a memorandum on the suitability of wind energy as an industry. While many members of the committee have researched the usefulness of wind energy in general, that research does not necessarily directly affect the Town. The suitability of wind energy in general and/or in theory is left for others to evaluate. This committee however has addressed a number of issues that would directly impact the Town of Lyme should industrial wind turbines be placed within or near the borders of the Town. The committee has not directly addressed non-commercial turbines, believing those to be adequately handled by the Town Board. That topic is addressed indirectly; however, by simply extrapolating data downward to the lower end of the size and scope spectrum. The Town Board should also note the continuing nature of the discussion at the County, State and National levels. At some point in the future, these officials may choose to draft legislation, including zoning rights and limits, to be put into place in the event the local Towns have not enacted their own zoning guidelines. It is the belief of this committee that the Town should enact legislation to protect its residents now, rather let outside officials take our ability to decide for ourselves the best course of action to protect the citizens and residents of the Town of Lyme. Work to Date Beginning on January 11, 2011, and again on January 28, 2011, the committee met and duty assignments were requested by each member. The third meeting was held on February 20, 2011, with the fourth on March 19, 2011. Following that meeting, individual committee members developed their sections of the report. This effort has included a series of exchanges for a review and consensus effort, with a target completion date of mid-May 2011. The committee members individually chose their respective areas of interest for investigation. Each member was tasked with independent research, serving as a primary or
7

secondary author on their respective report sections. A review of pertinent documents published electronically and traditionally, was the primary basis to inform judgments and the content of the report. These research sources include personal communications [with appropriate cautions for detection of personal bias], as well as web-based research, and other local, state, federal and international reports. Every attempt has been made to reference these resources; however, it is possible that this reference list is not all-inclusive. In that event, upon discovery an errata will be issued. Committee members have served as a sounding board for each other, examining all evidence critically, with a commitment from each member to do so in an un-biased and balanced manner, which we believe has been the case. The committee members have discussed participation in a field trip to the Wolfe Island Wind Farm in Ontario Canada. To date these visits have only been accomplished on an individual basis, not as a group. The committee has identified a list of significant issues, identified later in this document. Over the last four months, committee members have been researching and writing portions of this report on each the issues for which they accepted responsibility. These individual section reports have been integrated into our final report. After thoroughly studying the scientific facts, this document represents the Consensus Findings and Recommendations of the Lyme Environmental, Health and Safety Wind Committee. The matters considered include potential Wind Farms impacts on Shadow Flicker, Safety Setbacks, Noise and Sleep Disturbance, Stray Voltage, Construction Disruption, Earthquake Seismic Effects, Fire Risks & Fire Department Needs, Ground Water Impacts & Protection of Aquifers, Lightening Protection, Lighting Turbine Towers, Storm Water and Runoff Erosion, Road Upkeep & Repair, and Security (Vandalism/Terrorism). The Committee understands that the Town Board may wish to discuss the Committee’s Findings, and encourages the Board to meet with us to discuss these Findings. The Committee understands that the Town Board is considering a supplemental Town-wide survey of property owners. With the initiation of the survey development process, it is our strong recommendation that the questionnaire be vetted through our committee to ensure the greatest probability for proper context and face validity of the inquiry instrument. Given the broad and diverse nature of the Town of Lyme and its character, the following map from the Town website will serve as a distinction of various identified areas. It will be up to the reader to make a judgment as to whether the areas identified are a sufficient guide to identify potential areas for development. However, for the purposes of this Committee’s efforts we have discussed and agreed to accept these zones as identifying unique regions within the Town. The Watertown Daily Times has added a helpful link that guides one to articles on developments and updates in regards to wind turbine activities in our area. "Northern New York Wind Power" is a useful tool for reference to the many aspects of wind power in our communities. www.watertowndailytimes.com/section/windpower
8

Figure 1 Town of Lyme Area Map [http://www.townoflyme.com/Strategicplan/Maps/TLyme_Nbhd_E.pdf]

9

Chapter 1 Fire Risks & Fire Department Needs, Hazardous chemical exposure in operation
Fire Risk & Fire Department Needs While Industrial Wind Turbine catastrophic fires are uncommon, they nevertheless do occur. It is reported that the fires may be caused by overheating and/or lubrication failure, oil leaks and structural failure. In addition, lightning is a potential source of fire ignition. In one study used by the committee as a reference document, the Bethany Wind Study Report refers to one fire that had occurred in Europe. The excerpt follows: “In Powys, Wales in 1997 a 4 year old turbine overheated and caught fire inside the nacelle. Witnesses reported "balls of fire" coming from the turbine as burning parts flew out of the nacelle. The turbine's rotors were impossible to stop as the brake controls were aflame. Rotating, burning debris was thrown 150m (495ft), setting the hillside and a public right-of-way on fire.” With the size of the turbines reported to our committee members to be considered for Lyme, one might extrapolate the zone of danger for Lyme to be double that distance. Due to the limitations of our fire departments, and the clear danger of falling debris, it was reported within the committee that our fire official recommended that in response to a turbine fire they would cordon the area and wait for the fire to burn out. Through a conversation with Three Mile Bay Fire Chief Jeremiah Calhoun, the committee received the following information, “The usual responsibility of the local fire department for all wind turbine hazard situations is to cordon off the required area and remain on scene until relieved of stand-by by police. The wind company has their own response team for all hazardous occurrences.” (1)

Adelaide Australia January 2006

Bloomingdale, Minn., 2008 Figure 2 Example Fires in Turbines

Uelzen, Germany, December 2, 2009

10

Although somewhat uncommon, a recent news article highlights the reality of such fire and emergency situations: Electrical problem expected as cause in windmill fire: [The wind company] acknowledged the company will have to work with local firefighters in the future about responding to such situations. Ian Tillard, chief operating officer for Shear Wind, said it took about an hour for the fire to burn itself out. In such cases, he said, the turbines are designed to stop and de-energize so there is little the fire department needs to do other than keep the area clear underneath it. [H]e said. “Fires like this are extremely rare on these units, but there are concerns in the summer with forest fires and public safety.” Tillard said the area around the damaged windmill has been cordoned off and the local snowmobile club has been notified since there are some trails on the site.(2) Hazardous solvent chemicals exposure in operation and Oil spills The hydraulic system inside the nacelle includes gallons of oil in a sealed system. Sealed systems sometimes leak. This is no different from any variety of other mechanical devices commonly found throughout the Town of Lyme. It is anticipated that the IWECS maintenance staff, as well as our first responders will be well versed in dealing with any discharge from a IWECS. In the case of an oil or hazardous waste spill, it is reported to the committee that the local fire chief will call Jefferson County HAZMAT who will oversee cleanup by the wind company team. Any fire or natural hazard situation can be controlled by adhering to appropriate setbacks, inspections, and safety reports and local fire department and EMS training. Assigning 911 addresses to each turbine makes incident reporting more efficient.

11

Chapter 2 Construction Disruption, Storm Water, Runoff Erosion, Earthquake Seismic Effects
Construction Disruption IWECS facilities, particularly the turbines themselves, are extremely large construction processes that will result in infrastructure impacts to the Town, as well as to the individual landowners and residents. Those landowners will include the leaseholders, but will also include those within proximity to the travel paths during the construction period, as well as adjacent to the construction sites. Considerations include: a. Roadways: Disruption to existing traffic patterns; wear and tear on roadways; temporary and permanent access roads. b. Utilities: relocation and/or addition of power lines, communications lines and poles; possible relocation or addition of cell and/or TV transmission towers. c. General: generation of dust; quarry operations; drainage issues; water well impact; construction noise. Installation will require transporting heavy equipment and significant quantities of stone, gravel and concrete by trucks in rapid succession for each turbine site. Wind turbine components are also delivered to the installation site by truck. Trucks carrying turbine components and blades may require regular interruptions of traffic patterns, wide turning lanes and specific routes based on roadway and/or bridge weight capacities and overhead obstructions. In Lyme, the intersections along Route 12 and a number of intersecting roadways can be particularly dangerous at certain times of the day throughout the year. Within the Village of Chaumont, traffic in the summer is particularly heavy with residential and transient traffic. It may be advisable to limit construction traffic during certain periods, and dictate safe routes with detours or restricted hours of operation. Portions of the construction involving heavy equipment will not be quiet. In the past, in other communities, IWECS leaseholder agreements allow for heavy equipment access 24 hours per day, and allow a noise limit of 60 decibels above ambient. This may pose site-specific difficulties that should be addressed at the time of project planning. Limitations on the use of such equipment to the hours of 7:00 am to 5:00 pm with no weekend or holiday operations (except in the case of emergency or repair) might serve to reduce the negative impact of construction on the Town of Lyme residents as well as the transient traffic through the Town throughout the construction season. Creation of permanent new access roads may introduce new hazards to existing traffic patterns, thus thorough engineering of appropriate highway / driveway cuts would be essential.

12

Earthquake / Seismic Effects The seismic activity of the area is well known. We are in an active seismic area, where the Building Code of the State of New York governs the design of major structures. As such, the American Society of Civil Engineers seismic standards will apply in the design consideration of any IWECS in the Town. The figure corresponding to the 2008 U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Map is shown below, and as is readily apparent Northern New York is an active, and well documented seismic zone.

Figure 3 National Seismic Map

This figure shows the probabilistic ground motion maps for Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), 1Hz (1.0 second SA), and 5Hz (0.2 second SA). This figure corresponds to the 2% in 50year probability of exceedance. All ground motion probabilities are computed for the B/C Boundary (Vs30 = 760 m/s). (3)

13

This Figure shows that the extent of any wind turbine project proposed in the Town of Lyme is directly on the main zone of the historical seismic area. Significant structural damage is possible in buildings, and tall structures such as IWECS turbines require special consideration. A complete seismic assessment, while difficult, should be conducted at each individual turbine location to obtain a design that will allow for the possibility of seismic complications in this area. Ground Water Impact Surface features in the Town of Lyme vary greatly across the spectrum of waterfront properties bordering the western portions of the Town, to agricultural areas to the northeast. There is a significant variety of soil types and surface drainage patterns. Major field investigations of any proposed project area would be essential if the true existing conditions of the hydrologic impacts are to be addressed. Many residents of our Town, particularly those in proximity of the more open, agricultural land seemingly the most ideal of turbine installation, rely upon wells for their water source. While the more densely populated portions of the Town are now served with community water, that is not the case for all, particularly those most vulnerable. The investigation of the groundwater aquifer and necessary protections must be in place before any consideration of turbine installation may be made. Water is the life cord to these residents, if their wells are somehow impacted, it could lead to a complete property devaluation rendering these homes uninhabitable. Storm Water Runoff, Erosion & Sedimentation Any proposed IWECS project for the Town falls within portions of the Great Lakes Basin watershed. Requirements set in the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control mandate that an erosion and sediment control plan be prepared when industrial disturbances such as industrial-scale wind turbines and associated transformers, substations, transmission lines and cables that will disturb one or more acres. The physical characteristics of each turbine site must be assessed to preclude disturbance to wetlands, stream corridors and other environmentally sensitive areas Project developer plans must also include provisions for stabilization of disturbed areas such as re-seeding and other structural erosion control measures. Some state-required studies require a full-year data set using a plan to address all points covered by the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) checklist as per New York state standards.

14

Chapter 3
Birds, Bats, Avian and Wildlife Impacts
AVIAN IMPACT

Although the Town of Lyme is not on the major Atlantic Flyway, it is on a principal flyway, (see map below). According to the Audubon Society, Point Peninsula, which is located in the Town of Lyme, is the most critical winter concentration area in the northeast for arctic breeding raptors including Rough-legged Hawks, Snowy Owls and Short-eared Owls. Point Peninsula is a significant migration corridor for an extensive variety of birds. Point Peninsula is designated an Important Bird Area (IBA) by the Audubon Society (4). Although nearby, Little Galloo Island is not in the Town of Lyme, it is also an important area as it has the largest Ring Billed Gull colony in the United States and the only Caspian Tern colony and Double Crested Cormorant colony in New York State. Black crowned NightHerons, Herring Gulls and Great-backed Gulls nest on Little Galloo Island. Little Galloo Island is designated an Important Bird Area (IBA) by the Audubon Society (5). The Perch River Wildlife Management Area/Perch River Bird Conservation Area is located in the Towns of Brownville, Orleans, and Pamelia, has one of the largest concentrations of breeding grassland birds in New York State. The area also supports an incredible wetland bird community. Perch River Bird Conservation Area is designated an Important Bird Area (IBA) by the Audubon Society (6).

Figure 4 Eastern Flyway

15

The Ashland Wildlife Management Area, which is located in the Towns of Lyme and Cape Vincent, is also a bird conservation area. Many of the birds are either endangered or threatened. These birds include the Short-eared Owl (endangered), Henslow’s Sparrow (threatened), Sedge Wren (threatened), Northern Harrier (threatened), and the Upland Sandpiper (threatened). There are also other grassland and scrubland birds that nest and breed at the Ashland BCA (7). The nationwide estimated mortality rate is 2.19 birds per turbine annually. This average is considerably less than the number of birds killed annually due to collisions with motor vehicles, tall buildings, homes and lighted communication towers. However, there are far more motor vehicles, tall buildings and homes than IWECS facilities. The percentage of kills per turbine is higher than any other cause of death. (8) The Wolfe Island Post Construction Avian-Bat Mortality Monitoring Report for January1-June 30, 2010 states that 10 raptor carcasses along with 66 carcasses of 28 other bird species and 34 bat carcasses were recovered. In the Kingston Whig Standard( January 26, 2011), Mike Norris, quotes Erwin Batalla, chairman of the nature reserve committee of the Kingston Naturalists as stating, “The raptors are the most concern. It’s probably one of the higher raptor rates at a wind turbine.” According to Environment Canada the mortality rate is within the range of other wind farms in Canada and the United States, but is the fifth or sixth highest. TransAlta, owner and operator of the 86-turbine wind farm on Wolfe Island, will conduct research this year, which will include the fall migration period of 2011. The results of this research will also aid in determining the measures to reduce the effects of wind turbines on bats (9). A study by the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Canada, states that the decompression hypothesis proposes that bats are killed by rapid airpressure reduction near moving turbines. The Department of Biological Sciences reports that Barotrauma, pain and possible damage caused to organs by changes in atmospheric pressure, is the cause of death in a high number bats through their study of the impact of wind farms on these creatures. The study found that 90% of the bat fatalities involved Barotrauma and that the reason for fewer birds than bat deaths is that the anatomy of birds is less susceptible to barotraumas than that of mammals (10). The Texas Parks and Wildlife released a documentary on the use of MERLIN SCADA, Avian Radar System. This system is used for bird and bat mortality assessment monitoring. This system can monitor birds or bats up to 6 miles away in a variety of weather conditions. When needed, MERLIN SCADA can shut down a turbine within one minute to one rpm and in five minutes to stationary. Wind farm owners may not find this cost effective but it could stop large bird kills. There are many protocols for testing. However, two documents are mentioned. The first is the document entitled Assessing Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Nocturnally Active
16

Birds and Bats: A Guidance Document at www.nationalwind.org, and the second is; Avian Risk and Fatality Protocol at www.nrel.gov. These are two important guidance documents for testing and assessing Avian risks in relation to wind energy development (11). Investigations into the impact of Windpower development on the avian and bat populations is a topic of local concern. The local issues are addressed in the white paper authored by William Evans and Gerald Smith. This document is a concise treatise on the subject and follows in its entirety.

17

18

19

20

21

22

Chapter 4
Viewshed – Visual Impacts, Lighting Turbine Towers, Shadow Flicker Having given considerable thought and research to the topic viewshed, the committee focused attention on the Comprehensive Plan that reflects the long-term viability of our community directed by the public-input survey of the residents. The Town of Lyme and the surrounding towns in the Golden Crescent have been cherished by residents for over 100 years for their natural beauty, postcard-perfect vistas, and amazing plethora of waterfront recreation. The Town of Lyme’s rural, peaceful waterfront location and quality of life are the strongest and most significant attraction to residents in our community. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide for long term land use planning and protection of our small rural scenic town on Lake Ontario from any inconsistent zoning or development. It is a land-use philosophy that must relate to zoning intent, as NYS Law requires it. Zoning ordinances must be in full accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, which reflects the best interest of our community. NYS Statute on Comprehensive Planning (N.Y. TWN.) Law 272-a: NY Code – Section 272-A states the following: “Among the most important powers and duties granted by the legislature to a town government is the authority and responsibility to undertake town comprehensive planning and to regulate land use for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens.” Measures to protect the integrity of the historical and aesthetic qualities of the Town of Lyme are consistently promoted in the Comprehensive Plan of 1999 and the Draft Comprehensive Plan of 2010. The emphasis is to preserve the cultural, historic, scenic and archaeological resources of the Town of Lyme with “sufficient buffers to conservation and preservation areas and important resources.” The previous quote is from the Town of Lyme Comprehensive Plan [CP 1999], in effect as of this writing. “Any new solar, wind, geothermal, or other local energy proposals should be viewed in the context of their economic impact, visual effect on the scenic quality and visual character of the community; as well as their potential noise and other environmental impacts.” The previous statement is from the Draft Town of Lyme Comprehensive Plan 2010. One of the controversies concerning wind turbines is their massive structure and the unique nature of their movement. Industrial wind turbines with the height of 425 to 500 feet, white in color, with lights and motion will have an impact on our community for decades. Both day and nighttime viewsheds need to be considered. If we are to bring in 425 to 500 ft. towers, they will need to have flashing lights in order to comply with the FAA requirements. 199 ft. is the highest height NOT requiring nighttime illumination via lights. Analysis beginning at a 1-mile viewshed and extending the viewshed assessment to the boundary of the Town, rather than 8-miles [by example] cited in Cape Vincent DEIS would better serve to protect the visual
23

impact on the three historic districts and the Route 12 Scenic Byway. Balloon tests at full height and with navigation lights would give a realistic rendering from various distances. In addressing the importance of aesthetics and scenic beauty, one must take into consideration the cumulative impact of not only wind turbines, but also the siting of the power transmission line.

Figure 5 Example of Power Transmission Lines

Whether or not we have placement of wind turbines in the Town of Lyme, there is proposed construction of the transmission line infrastructure through our town to carry power from the proposed Cape Vincent wind projects to the nearest National Grid substation #733 on County Rt. #179 (Chaumont-Depauville Road). The cumulative effect of potential wind turbine development in Cape Vincent, Clayton, Brownville, Galloo Island and the Golden Crescent can be likened to a tidal wave of turbines about to come to our region. Refer to map for details in Cape Vincent alone.

Figure 6 Cape Vincent Industrial Wind Farm Plan

24

The map included showing proposed turbine sites does not show related project infrastructure (e.g., construction/access roads, concrete batch plants, operation/maintenance structures, substations, meteorological towers, staging areas or transmission line infrastructure.) The following quote from the “Overall Town Planning Vision” section found in the Town of Lyme draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2010 is as follows: “Encourage development types and services in suitable areas that enhance town, hamlet and community character while preserving or enhancing priority areas and maintaining the natural, historic, and scenic qualities of the Town. Appropriate growth and development should occur while protecting priority character areas; open agricultural and open forest rural residential, open recreation, waterfront residential, community residential and business centers while retaining or enhancing scenic views.” Scenic qualities and viewshed can be a very subjective concept. Aesthetics are a very personal thing. One person's trash is another's treasure. However, the following two photos, offer a sense for the viewshed that might be expected in the Town of Lyme. These photos were not taken by “anti-wind” proponents, but rather from the Wind industry publication depicting the most noted “local wind project”, the Maple Ridge project in Lewis County. These photos are offered as an accurate depiction – presented by the wind developer, of what the turbines might look like in a rural setting.

Figure 7 Photos

Presented by the Wind Developers of the Maple Ridge Project

In addition to the concept of viewshed as a perception, changes are a very different thing. The Town of Lyme, and the surrounding towns in the Golden Crescent, are cherished for their natural beauty. The appropriateness of "industries" that have previously tried to enter our town have been questioned (the hatchery is only one example). Our comprehensive plan surveys illustrate why this is the case. Over 2/3 of our population have stated in the surveys that they want little to no business development in our town. The few that do want development want small incremental growth only. Small town living and peace and quiet were frequently the reasons people have chosen to live in our town.
25

Viewshed sensitivities are not only aesthetically motivated. If the perception and/or reality of wind turbines is that they can negatively affect property values [both economic as well as use and enjoyment], human health, wildlife, seasonal revenue, will be noisy, and overall will change the quality of life, then the "viewshed" may constantly have negative sentiments that go along with the negative aesthetics.

Figure 8 Windfarm in a level Topographic Area

The comprehensive plan that was generated based upon comprehensive data collection of the town's population via survey is a state-mandated process that dictates future zoning laws, including those for new industry. This comprehensive plan dictates the "important" areas that are revered by residents and lawmakers. These areas include the lake and bay waterfronts, historic areas, and the hamlet of Three Mile Bay, the village of Chaumont and the Chaumont River. There are those who would change the Comprehensive Plan to allow for industrial wind turbine development in a section of our township that is presently viewed as rural farmland (generally areas D,E and F in Figure 1). This would dramatically alter the viewshed and quality of the town. The open space that our rural land use provides is an integral part of our quality of life and natural beauty. Natural beauty received the highest rating in terms of its essential importance to quality of life among 11 aspects of the community. In reviewing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Town of Lyme one finds the following examples of the residents’ concern for the natural beauty of the area, and the need for continuing protection of this resource: “Throughout many areas in Lyme, sweeping views of the Lake, harbors, farm fields, and forest edges comprise many spectacular viewsheds.” Another quote: “On average, the most essential element to the respondent’s quality of life was the Natural beauty of the area – rated 2.63 on a scale of 1 to 3. Small town/rural atmosphere ranked third at 2.39, on average.”

26

The waterfront area comprises approximately 40 miles of coastline between the Lake and the Bay. The plan dictates that these areas are important to protect. By most definitions, viewshed would be included in these "protected" areas. Unfortunately, because the town has never had to deal with development of tall buildings or structures, the comprehensive plan dictates a 1/4 mile radius of protection to these areas. A 450-500 foot high wind turbine would CERTAINLY be visible within the 1/4 mile distance. An independently produced professional assessment should be performed using models to determine WHERE turbines can be located (if at all) so that the viewshed is not affected in the areas that the town has previously decided are vitally important resources for the town. These remaining areas should then be vetted to ensure that other concerns are mitigated (sound, health, vibrations from ultrasound, flicker, etc.). Following this paragraph is a link to a study on viewshed. If the Town of Lyme is to consider allowing turbines at all, the same methodology should be employed by an INDEPENDENT firm to determine how to protect the MOST important asset our town has...its viewshed: http://www.otsego2000.org/documents/stonevisualizationanalysisreportrev.pdf How one begins to assess the “value” of a diminished viewshed can be subjective. We refer to the Cultural Resources Mitigation Plan of March 2010 as an example of the "value" the developers (in this case, the St. Lawrence Wind Farm) considered as fair compensation for loss of open vistas taken from the Town of Lyme for the proposed wind projects in the town of Cape Vincent. Aesthetic values do not lend themselves to measurement or elaborate analysis, yet the St. Lawrence Wind Farm proposed in their Cultural Resources Mitigation Plan of March 2010 payment of $14,310 to the Town of Lyme. To put this value in perspective, that represents a onetime payment of less than 21 cents per acre for the Town of Lyme; or 1.2 cents for every $100 of assessed value. The contribution was to compensate for the “Adverse Effect” on culture resources in the Town of Lyme. The Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation determined on June 22, 2009 that construction of St. Lawrence Windfarm (SLW) would have an “Adverse Effect” on cultural resources. SLW states that “mitigating visual impacts of wind turbines is limited due to their size and broad regional visibility.” Indeed, wind turbines with heights of 425 to 500 feet, white in color with lights and motion do have an impact on vistas. Again, the mitigation fund of $14,310 serves to compensate for these visual impacts through a stated goal of helping preserve historical resources. The quantification of its impact, and the valuation computation is at best baffling. BP accurately reports that due to the height of the proposed turbine structures and the unique nature of their movement, it is anticipated that the development of other wind projects may have cumulative visual impacts. The community may visit the Town of Cape Vincent website for access to the plan for that town. Here one may review the maps citing the viewshed of Cape Vincent. From these maps, one may determine the number of wind turbines that will be in view at different locations.
27

This identifies only those turbines planned in the BP project in Cape Vincent. The BP report continues to state that “combined, the St. Lawrence and Cape Vincent Projects would encompass a majority of the land area of the Town of Cape Vincent. Views of the turbines would be dominant and widespread.” Statements addressing the cumulative project visibility, the BP environmental document for their Town of Cape Vincent project cites; “Cumulative project visibility does not increase aesthetic impact in a linear manner. Thus, particularly in the case of the Cape Vincent and St. Lawrence Projects, given their proximity, construction of one of the projects within the agricultural landscape of the Town of Cape Vincent will change the landscape’s character. Installation of a second project of a close size within the same viewshed is compatible with the character with the first project, and will result in a lesser impact on the aesthetic quality of the land than that of the original development.” The concern for Lyme is that each community act under their home rule authorization in order to address the impacts resulting from any proposed project within the Town of Lyme. The members of this committee engaged in a comparison study between the Town of Lyme Comprehensive Plan, 1999, and the Draft Comprehensive Land-Use Plan for the Town of Lyme, 2010. We found consistencies in the philosophy of both plans. We will end this section by quoting from the "Overall Town Planning Vision" taken from the Draft Comprehensive LandUse Plan, 2010. “Encourage development types and services in suitable areas that enhance town, hamlet and community character while preserving or enhancing priority areas and maintaining the natural, historic, and scenic qualities of the Town. Appropriate growth and development should occur while protecting priority character areas; open agricultural and open forest rural residential, open recreation, waterfront residential, community residential and business centers while retaining or enhancing scenic views.” SHADOW FLICKER Shadow flicker caused by wind turbines is commonly defined as alternating changes in light intensity caused by rotating blades casting shadows on the ground and stationary objects, such as a window at a dwelling. No flicker shadow will be cast when the sun is obscured by clouds/fog or when the turbine is not rotating. Shadow flicker can occur in project area homes when the turbine is located near a home and is in a position where the blades interfere with very low angle sunlight. The most typical effect is the visibility of an intermittent light reduction in the rooms of the home facing the wind turbines and subject to the shadow flicker. Obstacles such as terrain, trees, or buildings between the wind turbine and a potential shadow flicker receptor significantly reduce or eliminate shadow flicker effects. Although shadow flicker seems benign, there is mounting evidence that its effect on nearby residents causes annoyance and stress. Some studies indicate that there might be cause for
28

concern in that the cumulative effect of shadow flicker from an area densely developed with wind turbines can lead to epileptic seizures. Wind turbine shadow flicker has the potential to induce photosensitive epilepsy seizures; however, the risk is low with large modern models and if proper planning is adhered to (12). Planning should ensure the flash frequency does not exceed three per second, and the shadows cast by one turbine on another should not have a cumulative flash rate exceeding three per second (13). Wind turbine shadow flicker induced adverse human health effects include annoyance and/or stress (14). “Shadow-flicker triggers a reflexive response in animals that results in a flight or fight response leading to an increased heart rate, muscle tension and a sense of movement” according to Dr. Herb Coussons who did a study of shadow flicker for Brown County in Denmark, WI. Dr. Coussons concluded; “Shadow-flicker and noise can be reduced by increasing the distance from the wind turbine.” (15) In another report “In some cases when wind power projects are being considered for permitting, concerns are raised that turbine-related shadow flicker has the potential to cause nausea, dizziness, and disorientation. Proponents of wind power argue that the empirical evidence does not support these assertions.”(16) It is acknowledged that “…shadow flicker can be an issue both indoors and outdoors when the sun is low in the sky. Therefore, shadow flicker may be an issue in locations other than the home.” (17) Shadow flicker modeling must consider human exposure to shadow flicker outside a building. Protection from wind turbine shadow flicker exposure must be engineered into the design of the wind turbine facility during the planning stage.(18 and 19) To ensure protection from adverse human health effects a shadow flicker study must be conducted during the planning stage of a wind turbine facility. The shadow flicker study should: 1. Calculate shadow flicker based on the actual location of the wind turbines. 2. Calculate shadow flicker exposure on the entire neighboring properties and not just the “receptor (house)”. 3. Calculate shadow flicker for both sun and moon induced flicker using conservative assumptions to ensure maximum protection against adverse human health effects and safety risks. 4. Protect against photosensitive epilepsy by ensuring the flash frequency does not exceed three per second, and the shadows cast by one turbine on another do not have a cumulative flash rate exceeding three per second. Based on the best available science the following conclusions can be drawn. Wind turbines produce noise and visual burdens. Scientific research confirms visuals impacts can adversely affect human health. Wind turbine shadow flicker has the potential to induce photosensitive epilepsy seizures; however, the risk is low with large modern models and if

29

proper planning is performed. Wind turbine shadow flicker induced adverse human health effects include annoyance and/or stress. No generalized dose-response curves have yet been modeled for wind turbine shadow flicker primarily due to the lack of results of published field studies. Protection from wind turbine shadow flicker exposure must be engineered into the design of the wind turbine facility during the planning stage.

30

Chapter 5 Noise: Interferences from Noise, Audible Noise, Low Frequency Sound [infrasound]
Noise General Industrial Wind Turbines are unquestionably a source of noise introduced into the natural environment. There has been significant research and field evaluation completed over recent years to better understand this issue and its impact on communities where wind turbines have been installed and are considered for installation. The following section of this report addresses the issues with noise from industrial wind turbine projects. The following quote from Dick Bowdler, of New Acoustics, from Dumbartonshire Scotland readily captures the issue facing the Town of Lyme related to noise from wind turbines. The issue of noise [unwanted sound] entering an environment as a result of change due to development is captured in this statement (20).

Figure 9

The issue with noise has been a matter of concern in the Town of Lyme since the beginning of the deliberation on wind development within the Town. The general promotion of the developers has been, and continues to be [as seen in the recent report on Cape Vincent and BP] that 50 decibels at the participants [leaseholders’] residence and 47 decibels at the nonparticipants’ residences are the levels of noise that can be expected when their plans for the project are completed. The discussion among potential developers considering the Town of Lyme, are that given the similarities in the topography, population density, the density of turbine layout and other factors, the noise levels predicted for Cape Vincent are likely similar to those that would be expected here. The Watertown Daily Times reported the controversy and positions in the following excerpt:

31

• • WIND FARM IS SPACED OUT • CONSTRUCTION ON HORIZON: BP's Cape Vincent project down to 84 turbines • By NANCY MADSEN • TIMES STAFF WRITER • WATERTOWN DAILY TIMES THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011 • CAPE VINCENT — BP Wind Energy has reduced the size of its planned Cape Vincent Wind Farm to 84 towers. • But the developer designed the project allowing up to 50 decibels of audible noise at participating landowners' residences. The project is also designed to allow the turbines to generate at or below 48 decibels of audible noise on the property of nonparticipating landowners and at or below 47 decibels at nonparticipating residences.

Figure 10

The news report goes on to say that the measured ambient or background noise in the development area ranged from 30.5 to 46.7 decibels at different times of the year and under differing wind conditions. The Town of Cape Vincent’s consultant rejects those studies and the conclusions (21). The critique follows:
• In the supplemental statement, BP sticks with a study by Hessler Associates, Haymarket, Va., that finds an average background noise of 46.7 decibels of audible noise in the summer and 30.5 decibels in the winter. The study came to that conclusion using an analysis that tied noise to wind speeds. • The study drew criticism from the town's independent noise consultant, Cavanaugh Tocci Associates, Sudbury, Mass., who said that the Hessler study did not show a strong correlation between wind speed and noise levels because the wind speed monitors and decibel meters were not in close proximity.

The solution to this debate is simple – the Town of Lyme, when approached by a developer, must engage a non-conflicted acoustical consultant to map the proposed development area to establish the Town’s assessment of the ambient sound levels at different times of the year and at differing wind speeds. The Town of Lyme will then provide this data to the developers as input into their acoustical models, limiting any debate by the developer as to what the current background sound levels are in the Town of Lyme. This background sound is referred to as the ambient sound level. This acoustical mapping is akin to the mapping of any other resource or condition such as topography. These existing conditions are not variable with any particular development plan, but rather the baseline acoustical mapping is unique to the community, accurately depicting the existing conditions under which development is planned.

32

The Town should not be placed in a defensive position to protect the rights of all of its citizens. This baseline mapping by the Town would be done without bias. A low ambient might be seen as too restrictive and unrealistic, while a high ambient might allow development that impinges upon the rights of non-participating citizens, thus the true ambient, established by the Town of Lyme, representing all property owners in Lyme is essential. The factual and correct ambient mapping of the Town is essential to protect the health, welfare and safety of all Town residents, regardless of any individual positions on wind energy development. Understanding Noise In order for the Town to understand the importance of this matter, it is essential to understand: 1. the basics of sound propagation 2. the current background sound levels, typical of the Town of Lyme 3. the acceptable levels of noise intrusion resulting from development 4. the impacts on the health and welfare of the residents and visitors to the Town of Lyme Basics Wind turbines generate noise in various ways, both mechanical and aerodynamic. As technology in the wind energy industry has advanced, wind turbines have become quieter. However, sound from wind turbines is still a significant siting issue. Wind turbines produce two major categories of sound – audible and infrasonic. a. Audible Although sound levels can be measured, the public's perception of wind turbine noise – noise being defined as any unwanted sound – is often a subjective determination. The intensity of sound is measured using units known as decibels (dB). On the decibel scale the smallest audible sound is 0 dB. A sound ten times louder is 10 dB. A sound 100 times louder is 20 dB. Some common sounds and their dB ratings follow: a. Silence b. A whisper c. Normal conversation d. Lawnmower e. Jet engine 0 dB 15 dB 60 dB 90 dB 120 dB

The measurement of sound is reported as an “L” rating, which refers to the amount of time the sound is “exceeded” in the following measurement periods.
LA10 Sound Level Exceeded 10% of a Measurement Period LA50 Sound Level Exceeded 50% of a Measurement Period LA90 Sound Level Exceeded 90% of a Measurement Period LAeq Equivalent Sound Level 33

The common sounds and the decibel levels of measured sound pressures (22) in a quiet rural and suburban nighttime have background sound levels are reported to be between 20 decibels and 35 decibels. Of course, this is reported as “common” expected sound levels, while each community will experience their own, unique sound character. A character that will change with seasons and environmental changes, thus it is critical to capture in the ambient baseline study of the most vulnerable time period. The question of what the expected background sound levels that will be experienced in the Town of Lyme now comes into play. It is the background or ambient sound level that defines the current conditions in the Town of Lyme. The comparison of the existing sound level to the post-project sound level will determine the acceptability of the noise increases. So the question arises – is there any data to begin to inform the Town Board as to what the sound levels presently are in the community? The answer to this is yes. There have been individual studies of the area performed, and studies conducted by the various wind development companies. Some of those findings are presented below. The first example is from the proposed Flat Rock project where at the turbine cut-in speed of 4 m/s wind speed it may be seen that the measured background or ambient sound levels are in the 17 to 28 decibel range.

17 to 28 dBA

Figure 11 Ambient Sound Levels [Typical Finding]

The second study, performed in Cape Vincent, uses the L90 measurement. In this study, the nighttime background sound levels were measured at 20 to 25 decibels. This is consistent with the developer-funded study at Flat Rock. As seen in the graph, the nighttime ambient sound levels in Cape Vincent drop to the 20-25 decibel range (Schomer and Associates – Background Sound Measurements and Analysis of Cape Vincent, New York, May 11, 2009).

34

Figure 12 Cape Vincent Ambient

A third study of summer ambient sound levels in Cape Vincent showed a daytime high of 45 decibel, but the background sound in the overnight period dropped to the 25-decibel range (Clif Schneider sound study).
Ambient Sound Levels

Figure 13 Cape Vincent typical daily fluctuation in sound levels

The fourth study, which would be highly predictive of what the Town of Lyme might expect is the study performed in the Town of Clayton for the Horse Creek project. There were a number of measurements taken, however the measure of the ambient sound level [L90], taken at night [the most sensitive period for residents’ disturbance], finds that the background sound levels at the time when the turbine would begin operation can be expected to be in the 20 to 25 decibel range. This matches closely with the Flat Rock study previously presented.

35

Figure 14

The state of Oregon requires that a pre-project ambient study is conducted, and if the study is not conducted to establish the true ambient sound for the project area, the background ambient sound level of 26 decibels will be used for comparison (23). Each of these studies, and the guidance from Oregon are consistent, particularly the Horse Creek project in Clayton, which borders on the northeast side of the Town of Lyme. It is reasonable to assume that the Town of Lyme nighttime ambient sound levels are expected to be in the 20 to 30 decibel range. The importance of this is that when the Town allows a developer funded study of the background sound levels to serve as the basis of the development, controversy ensues. The old adage of the fox guarding the chicken coop comes to mind, where one party has a real or perceived conflict of interest.

Is the Ambient Sound Level Around 20 to 25 dBA Or is it 45 dBA

Figure 15

The Town of Lyme when considering any wind project as a first order of business should conduct a thorough ambient sound study, performed by a non-conflicted acoustical consultant, to establish the baseline ambient. Based upon the research, the committee believes that the ambient sound at nighttime in Lyme will be in the 20 – 25 dBA range.
36

The question then will be; “of what consequence is the background sound level?” The next section of the report addresses this question. B. Application of these Ambient Sound Levels As new sound sources are entered into the environment, such as the sound from industrial wind turbines, this noise will add to the pre-existing background sounds levels. It is the change in noise levels that results from this added sound source that must be evaluated, planned and controlled. The following paragraphs simply and briefly outline how sound enters the environment, and how much of that sound will be heard by the observers. The simple assessment is, the farther you are away from the sound source, the lower the sound level you hear. The sound level falls with increasing distance from the source. The principal reason is the wave front spreads over a larger area, the farther from the source you are. This is known as the "inverse square law" and it applies to turbines. The simple rule of thumb is that with a doubling of the distance from a point source produces a reduction in sound level of 6-dBA.

Sound Basics [setbacks]
6 Decibel Drop with Doubling of Distance

90 – 6 = 84

84 – 6 = 78

78 – 6 = 72

Figure 16

“Sound propagation outdoors can be compared to ripples created by throwing a stone into a pond with a calm surface. The ripples spread out uniformly in all directions of the pond surface decreasing in 37

amplitude as they move away from the source. For a stationary noise source outdoors, the sound level drops by 6 dB every time the distance from the source is doubled. Thus, if the sound level is 50 dBA at 500 feet, the sound level at 1000 feet will be 44 dBA and will be 38 dBA at 2000 feet. Obstacles in the sound path, such as intervening terrain or buildings, and weather conditions may affect outdoor sound propagation (24)”

Note: A 6dB decrease is equivalent to moving double the distance away the sound source, thus given initial intensity of sound at a source, the computation of the expected setback to achieve a particular sound level is a relatively simple matter. The following turbines were used on the Mars Hill project in Maine and may represent a typical turbine that could be considered for Lyme. The projection of the sound levels at various distances may be computed from this data, recognizing the sound reduction of 6-dBA with a doubling of the distance from the sound source.
“General

Electric 1.5 MW Series Wind Turbine Brochure Sound level performance specifications for the GE 1.5sle wind turbine provide information on how the sound power level emitted by the wind turbine varies with wind speed. The GE specification “sound power levels” represent the wind turbine as a point source at the hub (rotor center)… The maximum sound power level for the 1.5MW wind turbine is 104 dBA, which is equivalent to a sound pressure level of 72 dBA at 50 feet. Typical uncertainty for the specification sound power level is plus or minus 2 dBA (24)”

Given these data, 72 dBA at 50 feet from the source, the distance / sound levels can be roughly predicted, for a “rule of thumb” sense of noise limit setbacks. Essentially, this is the method used in computer models to produce the sound level maps that predict the post-project sound levels to be expected in a community. An example of that prediction mapping is shown in the following study from the Town of Clayton, Horse Creek project. This would be typical of that produced by the developer for the Town of Lyme should a project be considered here.

38

Figure 17 Horse Creek Town of Clayton Sound Predictions

39

The predicted sound contours, as shown in the Horse Creek example, would be compared to the background ambient sound levels, previously mapped for the Town of Lyme to determine if compliance with our Wind Zoning ordinance would be achieved with the proposed turbine layout. If yes, the project would move forward on that issue. If no, the project turbine layout would be adjusted, and a new model run to predict the sound levels across the project area under a modified layout. As may be observed in the Town of Clayton map, the outer ring of acoustical isotropic lines is the prediction of a 40-decibel level of sound [noise] emanating from the turbine array. As one may also observe, the vast majority of homes within the project boundary will experience sound levels in the 40 to 50-decibel range. There is no reason to believe that the plan for Lyme would differ significantly from the proposal presently before the Town of Clayton. The question then becomes, “what are the sound levels, or sound level increase over ambient that would be considered acceptable?” Acceptable Noise Levels The interferences to daily living derived from noise intrusion are well documented. The World Health Organization [WHO], and other institutional and governmental entities offer clear guidelines as to what level of sound is considered as intrusive. The measure is both in the differential between the introduced noise [from the turbine operation] and the background level [ambient] sound level of the area prior to the project development. In addition, there are absolute values measured in decibels that set the upper limits for human exposure. Those limits for audible sound are not generally limiting for industrial wind farms, with the exception of sleep disturbance as defined by the WHO. The document on the Guidelines for Community Noise entitled “Community Noise” (25) that was prepared for the World Health Organization and published in 1995 states:
“If negative effects on sleep are to be avoided the equivalent sound pressure level should not exceed 30 dBA indoors for continuous noise.”

Therefore, it is essential that separate noise studies be carried out for daytime and nighttime. The emphasis should be on preventing sleep disturbance. This is highlighted in the recent Noise Conference post-conference finding that (26):
“The main effect of daytime wind turbine noise is annoyance. The nighttime effect is sleep disturbance. These may lead to stress related illness in some people. Work is required in understanding why low levels of wind turbine noise may produce affects which are greater than might be expected from their levels.”

40

The New York State agency with jurisdictional authority over industrial sound and noise has issued the following chart where the comparison between the ambient sound and the sound resulting from development offers a descriptive human reaction. It is further established that if the sound does not increase over the ambient by more than 3 decibels, it is considered “no impact.” (22)

Figure 18

The New York State document goes on to say that if the ambient sound level is increased by less than 3 decibels, there should be no effect on receptors [residents], while an increase of up to 6 decibels could impact the more sensitive receptors (22). An increase of 6 or more decibels would have an impact, while when the audible noise level increases by 10 decibels avoidance would be required in most cases. This is consistent with the prior recommendation that defines an increase over ambient of 10 decibels is the border between “intrusive and very noticeable.” In order to avoid the potential for adverse impacts, the following excerpt defines a maximum of 6 decibels over ambient should be the limit.

41

Figure 19 Excerpt from NYS Document (22)

The NYS guidelines suggest limiting the sound increase above ambient to no more than 6-decibels, with an absolute increase of 10 decibels. Then, accepting that Lyme could expect an ambient sound study would likely demonstrate sound levels across the Town in the 20 – 25 decibel range, this would then target a fixed limit of sound levels at non-participants’ property lines which is quite low. The consideration should be to establish a limit in noise produced by the turbine array as a function of a set limit above the established ambient sound levels throughout the Town. The State of Oregon has set a maximum limit on the sound levels over the entire range of operation of the wind turbine (23).
“purposes of determining whether an operating wind energy facility complies with the ambient noise standard where a landowner has not waived the standard, noise levels at the appropriate measurement point are measured when the facility’s nearest wind turbine is operating over the entire range of wind speeds between cut-in speed and the windspeed corresponding to the maximum sound power level and no turbine that could contribute to the noise level is disabled. The facility complies with the noise ambient background standard if the increase in noise over either the assumed ambient noise level of 26 dBA or to the actual ambient background L10 and L50 noise level, if measured, is not more than 10 dBA over this entire range of wind speeds.”

In order to reduce the risk of negative health impacts from wind turbine noise Acoustical Engineers George Kamperman and Richard James recommend audible sound limits of 5dBA over the pre-existing background sound levels (ambient level). Even the British Wind Energy Association, the trade association representing the wind industry, offers guidance on the limits of sound increase for an acceptable project, with an increase of no more than 5 dBA above average nighttime levels, with a fixed limit in the 35 decibel range. This recommendation is at odds with most proposals we find from the developers in this area (27).

42

Preliminary recommendations from the Wind Turbine Noise Working Group*1, established by the DTI, are that turbine noise level should be kept to within 5 dB(A) of the average existing evening or night-time background noise level.

A fixed low level of between 35 and 40 dB(A) may be specified when background noise is very low, ie. less than 30 dB(A). Figure 20

From these considerations, it is clear that the issue, the question that is essential to answer is; “what is the true background, or ambient sound levels throughout the Town” under different conditions. There is wide variance between the developer funded Cape Vincent study [46.7 dB], and the levels expected in rural environments posited not only by independent scientists, but also by the British Wind Energy Association. Defining the baseline or the ambient sound level throughout the Town is an essential first step. Low Frequency [infrasound] Noise, Including Infrasonic In the Town of Orleans study, the following excerpt is a well-worded basis for consideration of infrasound. Infrasound, also produced by wind turbines, is below the limit of human perception (sound below 20 Hz or cycles per second). Infrasound travels farther than higher frequencies. Infrasound may be perceived as a tactile sensation or feeling of pressure. Some effects of infrasound include fatigue, hypertension and abdominal symptoms. Infrasound is an especially important consideration for rural-agricultural areas such as Bethany. G. P. Van den Berg, in his study of a wind turbine park on the Dutch-German border found that "Residents living 500m (1,500ft) and more from the park have reacted strongly to the noise; (and) residents up to 1,900m (5,700ft) distance expressed annoyance, particularly at night." Van den Berg has pointed out that, although inaudible, turbine blades passing their towers produce higher frequency sounds, which are periodic with the effect strengthened at night. If several turbines are in the area, such as proposed for several projects in western New York state, there can be an amplification effect of the rhythmic thumping caused when turbine blades pass the towers on which they are mounted [A:E.5]. Some residents have experienced noise levels 15dB higher than expected. Wind turbines are not only a matter of renewable energy policy, but also a matter of public health policy. Sound from wind turbines is a major siting issue. If improperly sited, they
43

can have a negative impact on the health of residents, particularly in areas of low ambient noise levels such as the Town of Lyme. It is essential that one understands that wind turbines generate noise in various ways, both audible and infrasonic. Mechanical (audible or high frequency) noise is from the interaction of the turbine components. This audible wind turbine noise is commonly measured by a dBA scale. Living in a rural environment as opposed to a suburban area increases the risk of residents being impacted by noise because of the low ambient SPL (sound pressure level). Data taken in the North Country typically have nighttime ambient in the range of 20-30 dBA. Noise not only annoys, it can cause stress that can have an impact on our health and wellbeing. Scientific and medical literature essential for communities researching the health risk factors are referenced in WHO, 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise (25). An excerpt of this report follows:

3. Adverse Health Effects of Noise 3.1. Introduction
The perception of sounds in day-to-day life is of major importance for human well-being. Communication through speech, sounds from playing children, music, natural sounds in parklands, parks and gardens are all examples of sounds essential for satisfaction in every day life. Conversely, this document is related to the adverse effects of sound (noise). According to the International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO 1994), an adverse effect of noise is defined as a change in the morphology and physiology of an organism that results in impairment of functional capacity, or an impairment of capacity to compensate for additional stress, or increases the susceptibility of an organism to the harmful effects of other environmental influences. This definition includes any temporary or long-term lowering of the physical, psychological or social functioning of humans or human organs.

3.5. Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects
Acute noise exposures activate the autonomic and hormonal systems, leading to temporary changes such as increased blood pressure, increased heart rate and vasoconstriction. After prolonged exposure, susceptible individuals in the general population may develop permanent effects, such as hypertension and ischaemic heart disease associated with exposures to high sound pressure levels (for a review see Passchier-Vermeer 1993; Berglund & Lindvall 1995). The magnitude and duration of the effects are determined in part by individual characteristics, lifestyle behaviours and environmental conditions.

3.7. The Effects of Noise on Performance
It has been documented in both laboratory subjects and in workers exposed to occupational noise, that noise adversely affects cognitive task performance. In children, too, environmental noise impairs a number of cognitive and motivational parameters (Cohen et al. 1980; Evans & Lepore 1993; Evans 1998; Hygge et al. 1998; Haines et al. 1998).
44

Among the cognitive effects, reading, attention, problem solving and memory are most strongly affected by noise. Infrasound (inaudible noise or low frequency) produced by wind turbines below the limit of human perception (sound below 20 HZ or cycles per seconds), travels not only seismically but also airborne over terrain. On occasion, the local geography can act like a giant microphone. Wind turbine noise may not be heard but rather felt as a vibration or feeling of pressure. It is essential to stress the importance of proper integration of and emphasis of the low frequency sound energies for environmental noise assessment. Many factors affect the noise impact including turbine design, constantly changing atmospheric and wind speed, temperature and terrain. Since low frequency noise travels farther than higher frequency noise without losing its power, it can travel through walls, rattling objects resulting in vibration. Medical research has reported complaints from people who experienced this symptom similar to that associated with Vibroacoustic Disease (VAD). VAD has been studied in aviation workers as well as other industries and community settings. Just as we cannot detect X rays (our eyes are not sensitive to this frequency) yet can be harmed by them, so we can be harmed by non-audible noise (pressure waves in the air) though our ears are not sensitive to them (28 and 29). The mechanism of the harm is the differing resonance frequencies of different parts of the human body, especially the chest and skull. Air pressure (sound) waves of certain wavelengths resonate inside these walled spaces, setting up vibrations to which the body responds by reinforcing its softer tissues with extra collagen, causing such problems as thickening of the pericardium (membrane inside which the heart beats) and cardiac valves, fibrosis of the lungs, and proliferation of supporting cells in the brain. Acousticians measuring noise do not take into account the physiologic/medical aspects of noise. Those with backgrounds in medicine, the human biologic sciences, and the epidemiology are best suited with their expertise to properly study the effects and responses of the human body to environment noise. Human life must be the highest exponent of importance in the placement of wind turbines. Focus should be placed on the fundamental problems of environmental noise of which there are abundant scientific studies. The siting standards must protect all the citizenry in our rural setting including the elderly, ill, impaired and the very young. In other words, it is the obligation of the Town to protect the most vulnerable among us. Infrasound is a particularly important consideration for rural-agricultural areas such as the Town of Lyme where enjoyment of the external environment can be as important as the environment within the house. Those who visit a wind turbine during the day will usually not hear the turbine sounds referred to as ‘lapping’, ‘swishing’, ‘clapping’, ‘beating’, or the ‘the surf”. G. P. Van den Berg, found that “Residents living 500m (1500ft) and more from (wind turbine) parks have reacted strongly to the noise; (and) residents up to 1,900m (5.700ft) distance expressed annoyance, particularly at night” (30).

45

The evidence strongly supports those who complain of adverse health effects when living near wind turbines. Their symptoms parallel those found in areas of research into the physiologic and medical impact of noise on people. Over a prolonged period of time noise delivered with a pulsating character such as low frequency noise, infrasound, and shadow flicker pose health risks when developers site wind turbines too close to homes. Numerous studies are cited in the research Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effect on Health. (28)

Figure 21

While there are a number of proponents that infrasound is a “serious” problem with industrial wind turbines, the industry remains unconvinced. As an example, one of the three major themes to come out of the Wind Turbine Noise 2011 Conference held this April in Rome is that while infrasound continues to pose a problem, it is in need of further research [http://www.windturbinenoise2011.org/]. “Infrasound continues as a problem in public perception, but there has been no evidence to back this up, despite new studies in how the ear responds to infrasound.” For additional research on this topic, a number of peer-reviewed papers were presented. A sampling of the papers presented this year include: 1. Why turbine noise annoys. Bowdler D (UK) 2. Description of wind turbine noise by hearing related parameters. Brambilla G and Gallo V (Italy) 3. A note on the debate about health effects from low frequency noise (LFN) from modern large wind turbines. Hessler GF (USA) 4. Wind turbine noise and morning blood pressure. Laurie S and Hanning C (Australia) 5. Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines. Nissenbaum M, Arimini J and Hanning C (USA) 6. Responses of the inner ear to infrasound. Salt AN (USA) 7. The audibility of low frequency wind turbine noise. Swinbanks MA (UK) 8. Perception of noise from large wind turbines. von Hunerbein S, King A, Hargreaves J, Moorhouse A, Plack C and Pedersen TH (UK) 9. An overview of residential health effects in relation to wind turbine noise. van den Berg F (The Netherlands)
46

Chapter 6
Electronic & Electromagnetic Interference, Stray Voltage AKA Ground Current Electronic & Electromagnetic Interference The following excerpt from the Bethany study will serve as a general guide on the issue of electromagnetic interference. That study rightly took a position that in this area they would use general references to the issue. To be Town specific would be difficult and possibly meaningless – therefore the full excerpt follows: Upon notice from the Quebec Ministry of the Environment of a proposed 70 turbine CWECS facility in Murdochville, Quebec, the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) conducted pre- and post-wind turbine television interference studies including satellite pickup [A:E.9]. The wind turbine configuration in this situation included 90 meter towers with nonmetallic blades 40 meters long. The CBC has two television stations in Murdochville: Channel 10 and Channel 21, with both transmitters located on the outskirts of the town. The CBC performed signal quality measurements before and after the installation of the CWECS facility at 14 locations around the affected area. Qualitative and quantitative measurements included signal levels, waveform measurements, tape recordings and subjective signal quality evaluations. The problems found were: Static interference or "ghosting" which occurs when the signals are reflected off the turbine towers. Following turbine construction, an increase in the numbers and severity of ghosting was seen at 11 of the 14 Channel 10 locations and 3 of the 14 Channel 21 locations. The difference in the results between the two channels is attributed to their different antenna patterns. Dynamic interference caused by the production of a secondary or interference signal reflected from the rotating turbine blades, seen as a periodic variation in picture brightness or color. Dynamic interference was found at all 14 Channel 10 locations and at 4 out of 10 evaluated locations for Channel 21. Based on previous studies with NTSC, signals theory suggests that interference may occur with HDTV. It is expected that HDTV would be less likely to suffer the static (tower-related) effects but more likely to suffer dynamic (blade spinning) interference which would take the form of frozen frames and pixelation. Research papers suggest that other wireless and/or broadcast consumer services would suffer similarly, including cellular and wireless networking services [A:E.2]. Preventative measures can reduce or even eliminate these issues, but they must be taken during CWECS project planning stages. Wind energy companies need to factor in the location of all local radio communications towers, over-the-air RF links and areas of served populations. Mitigation measures, when signal degradation results from wind turbines, include: 1) replacing off-air reception with cable or satellite, 2) relocating television transmitters and 3) relocating or eliminating wind turbines.

47

Stray Voltage AKA Ground Current Apprehension over stray voltage has been expressed by committee members and other concerned members of the community. Extraneous voltage or ground current appears on grounded surfaces in buildings, barns and other structures. It is also present on the surface of the earth. It is classified as a low-frequency form of conductive electromagnetic interference. In most buildings, stray voltage is not considered a problem, because the levels are generally below the perception level of humans. Usually there is no sensitive electronic equipment that can be affected by it. Concern in the agricultural field: In the 1970s, stray voltage became a concern in the agricultural field with dairy farmers. Cattle are ten times more sensitive to electricity and electronic interference than humans are, as they are constantly standing in water or on moist areas of the barn. Concerns in the Midwest with stray voltage on farms and their connection to wind farms are not conclusive at this time. While a large volume of anecdotal evidence is present, accepted documentation concerning herd health and reproductive problems is unavailable at this time. Proper Installation/Grounding: if equipment is properly installed and properly grounded, evidence does not lead to CWECS projects as being a major source of stray voltage [A:E.29]. The Town should be concerned about stray voltage, however, if the CWECS project is properly installed and maintained according to IEEE standard 519 (which has been law since 1992), the wind turbines should not themselves dictate a major concern in the community.

48

Chapter 7 Health and Safety – Zones of Protection
Sources of Risk Careful placement of the turbines can mitigate a number of problems associated with Industrial Wind Turbines; however, in a town populated as Lyme there is some question as to whether such careful placement would result in a viable project. Thus, the question of Risk assessment must come to the decision makers of the community. One of the critical issues to turbine placement is protection of the public. The realities that more turbines are now being installed in more severe environments has led to an increase in the incidence such as ice throw. As such, there is a good deal of evaluation within this report on this subject to educate the Town Board on the risks of these events. This is a difficult situation for those who must decide upon a fair and reasonable local law setting the conditions for the placement of turbines within the Town. However, once the decision makers have been advised of the Risk, to ignore that risk, adopting a plan that reduces the margin of safety to the public, could create a liability. This report begins to advise the Town officials of the scientific facts of certain risks, including the safety zones. Turbines require a fair distance from public spaces, and in particular, public thoroughfares, pedestrian areas and occupied buildings. It is the goal of this study to define what those safe distances are under the currently understood planned conditions. The types of Risk to the citizens and visitors to our community include factors such as: 1. Tower Collapse a. Foundation Failure b. Structural Failure 2. Runaway Turbine Disintegration a. Governor Failure b. Catastrophic Weather Event 3. Blade Ejection a. Structural failure b. Lightning Strike c. Over-speed 4. Ice Throw or Ice Shedding General Information This section of the report will begin with the issues that offer greater clarity with a simple explanation, in particular structural failure and runaway turbine disintegration. These types of failures are anomalies, and are hopefully not a normal part of the turbines operations.

49

The evaluation of the structural failures will be followed by the operational failure that might occur. There have been failures that have resulted from the forces of nature, including partial blade ejection. In this instance, elements such as an electrical storm could result in the destruction of a turbine blade, or portion of the blade that could be ejected and thrown some distance. The turbines are moving structures and therefore have a potential for throwing parts some distance beyond the immediate turbine site. This section of the report will end with an extension of the previous analysis evaluating the potential for the turbine throwing ice from the moving blades during the normal climatic cycles of the region. These elements will be discussed, with analysis offered, and setback recommendations and reasoning presented. Tower Collapse - Structural Failure Dramatic structural failures such as seen in the following photo, resulting from a failed foundation are rare. With proper engineering site investigations, and appropriate engineering designs, such failures should not pose a serious risk in the Town of Lyme.

Figure 22 The foundations of 19 out of 22 wind turbines installed on Nuttby Mountain, north of Truro, have

cracked. (CBC)(31)

Failures as described in the subsequent news article highlight the need for oversight during the construction. The Town should have the right, and obligation to provide a reasonable level of Quality Assurance inspections of the work as it proceeds, to ensure that the developer and contractor have in-place appropriate Quality Control programs. As such, it would be expected that such foundation failures as describe would be a rare occurrence. Nearly all of the 22 turbine foundations at Nova Scotia Power's Nuttby Mountain wind farm are cracked, CBC News has learned. "Wherever we identify cracks, they are being addressed. I think right now we are at 19 of the 22," NSP spokesman David Rodenhiser said Tuesday.
50

The problem came to light late last year when it was discovered five of the towers were moving beyond manufacturers specifications. During construction last July at the $120-million wind farm, concrete was not vibrated down to the steel base of the towers. Movement with the remaining towers is within acceptable tolerance levels, Rodenhiser said, but NSP decided to repair them anyway. "We've found some cracking in some of the other foundations …we decided the most prudent measure was to address those as well," he said. The repairs involve injecting an epoxy-like sealant into the 400-tonne concrete pads to stabilize the concrete. Structural failure can be anything from a failure in the concrete base to a failure of the blades themselves. Damage is typically limited to the turbine and anything within its falling distance. As such, the setbacks required for consideration by the Town should be minimal for such events. The immediate turbine sites will need to be isolated, and protected from public access, and therefore such failures, within a radius of the height of the turbine would likely protect the public in the event of a collapse.

Figure 23 France 2000

In France, in 2000, a turbine mast broke and toppled over during a storm. In Germany, four turbines experienced collapse due to "concrete damage" at the base. Overall, structural failure due to concrete foundation failures or tower structure failures are expected to pose minimal risk to the public within the Town of Lyme.

51

Blade Ejection, Overspeed Failures and Ice Throw A pre-eminent expert in risk assessment in the energy industry is Professor Dr. Magdi Ragheb, an Associate Professor at the University of Illinois, with a specialty of Wind Power Systems & Risk Assessment. (33) Dr. Ragheb holds his B.Sc. in Nuclear Engineering Univ. of Alexandria, M.Sc. in Nuclear Engineering Univ. of Alexandria, his M.Sc. in Nuclear Engineering and his Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison. His graduate level course in Wind Power Systems addresses many of the issues confronted by communities struggling with proper and safe setbacks of industrial wind turbines to protect the Health and Safety of the Public. The 2009 paper produced for his graduate level course, Wind Power Systems, offers very succinct summaries of the current state of wind power. It goes on to offer a warning of the risk associated with wind power. Excerpts from that paper follow:

Figure 24 Warnings of the need for an adequate Safety Zone at Turbine Sites

The paper goes on to summarize certain published setbacks for comparative purposes. The Town Board must understand one basic and principal concept. The concept is, that depending upon the height and speed of the turbine, the throw distance will vary. One size does not fit all. Simply consider a major league center fielder throwing the ball to home plate. The height of the player, the speed of the release of the ball, and the angle of the release will all influence the distance the ball will go [i.e. a big turbine]. Now take a little leaguer, twelve years old, and repeat the process. His ball will be lower when thrown, it will be released slower, and even if released at the same angle of initial trajectory, it will not go as far. The same is true of wind turbines. So to draw any conclusion as to setbacks based upon “what the other town did” or a single field study without scientific evaluation of the conditions is illogical and simply wrong. The setbacks for the Town of Lyme must be based upon sound scientific principles, and for practical purposes are non-negotiable if they are to protect the public.
52

To offer a sense of the setbacks generally considered elsewhere, the following chart from Dr. Ragheb’s paper is offered.

Figure 25

Figure 26

The Manufacturer’s recommendation referred to above is found in the Safety Regulations for the Vesta turbine and is shown below (34).

Vesta Safety Manual

Figure 27

High Wind Failure & Other Breakdowns It is accepted that IWECS facilities are among the safest energy generation methods available. Accidents are rare and usually do not result in death or severe injury, only property damage. That said, accidents do occur; here are the most common types. In 2002, in Germany, a blade broke in mid-turn with an audible "crack." Pieces were found scattered throughout surrounding fields. The cause was later found to be metal fatigue. The most common reasons for structural failure are improper installation and manufacturing defects.

53

Figure 28

High Wind Failure occurs when the braking system fails. The braking system in a turbine is designed to stop the rotors in the event the wind is too strong. When the brakes fail, the turbine spins out of control. This is potentially the most dangerous failure by far. In Germany in multiple years including 1999, 2000 and 2003, the brakes on wind turbines failed in high wind, causing the rotor to hit the tower at high speed. One accident resulted in the blade and nacelle leaving the tower. Parts of the unit landed as far as 1,650 feet away in this case.

Figure 29 aerial view of a turbine that suffered high wind failure. Significantly-sized debris is plotted in numerals

In Altoona New York, a turbine failed last year at the Noble facility. It is reported that in that event, an over-speed of the rotor was experienced, and the blade struck the tower, leading to its collapse. The report from the state investigating the failure concluded that the braking system
54

in the turbine failed, causing an overspeed, and eventual disintegration of the unit. In that event, parts were only strewn over a distance of approximately 500 feet. Theoretically, this could have been much worse, given the high rotor velocities resulting from an overspeed condition. The 500 foot distance for the debris spread is very accurate given the fact that the blade will fail when it strikes the tower in its lowest rotational position, with no upward velocity vector, will fall to the ground in 2.5 seconds. With a blade velocity of 260 feet per second, this would have a maximum travel distance of 640 feet. With drag, at 2.5 seconds, the theoretical distance of throw would be 521 feet. This debris field is what would be expected.

Figure 30

The typical overspeed failure results in the blade striking the tower. This happens when the blade is stressed and flexes beyond the safe separation distance. An example of one such failure in Vermont is shown below.

Figure 31

55

It is essential that the siting of the wind turbines take into consideration the safe distance from roadways and public rights of way [i.e. snowmobile or cross-country skiing trails] to prevent injury from rotor blade failure and ice throw. Professor Ragheb addresses this issue in the following statement:

Figure 32

In planning for the siting of turbines in the Town of Lyme consideration must be given to the reality that turbines fail. The public has the expectation and right to be protected through safe setbacks. The question is: “what are those setbacks, and is there a way to scientifically determine that distance?” The answer to that is, yes. The following section will address this question, and computes those safe distances for the turbines that are expected to be proposed for Lyme Turbines anticipated in a Town of Lyme Proposal It is the understanding of this study, that while the size and operational characteristics of the proposed wind turbines might vary, the following diagram is a “normal” type turbine that might be considered for Lyme. As the actual size and characteristics of the proposed turbines differ from the dimensions shown below, an assessment of the actual turbines should be verified to offer the protections needed by the Town. The basic turbine evaluated for the safety setback analysis is with a blade diameter of 296 feet, a nacelle height of 328 feet, and a rotation speed of 18 revolutions per minute.

56

Figure 33 Typical Turbine Dimensions

There are a number of studies that have been conducted over the years to determine guidance for proper safety setbacks, with a particular emphasis on ice throw. The blade failure assessment has a dearth of information available; however, since the physics of the potential for ice throw mimics that of a structural blade failure and release, the ice throw assessment will guide both setback matters. While infrequent, the potential for catastrophic structural failure is a reality of the turbines manufactured and installed today. With the effort to make these machines more efficient, the designs seem to work towards the balance of lighter parts, balanced with longevity and strength. These goals, as within any engineering endeavor, sometimes are at odds with one another. The reality is that turbines fail, and parts are ejected, as seen in many of the previous photos. The question is then one of, how far will those ejected parts or released ice projectiles go? To understand this the following paragraph from Professor Ragheb explains in the example.

Figure 34 Basic Assumptions of Example Computation

57

As noted above, the example prepared by Professor Ragheb is for a specific turbine, under specific operating conditions, different from what might be expected in Lyme. This example shows clearly the physics of the ejection – computing the travel distance given a particular height, velocity and trajectory. In this instance, it is from a 159-foot high tower, released at 208 feet per second at 45 degrees upward swing. The following paragraph addresses Professor Ragheb’s computation of distance, where he estimates the maximum throw distance at 1,540 feet.

Figure 35 Throw Distance Computation

When the computation is performed in the following spreadsheet, the distance of throw when released at 45 degrees is approximately 1,542 feet. This is the science of the matter.
RPM D g Tip Speed Tower BL Total Hgt. 40.00 200.00 32.20 208 159 100.00 259.00 RPM Diameter acceleration due to gravity ft. per second Turbine Height (Nacelle) Blade Length feet Upward Time vertical horizontal seconds 36.12 204.84 1.12 53.83 200.91 1.67 71.14 195.46 2.21 87.90 188.51 2.73 104.00 180.13 3.23 119.30 170.38 3.71 133.70 159.34 4.15 147.08 147.08 4.57 159.34 133.70 4.95 170.38 119.30 5.29 180.13 104.00 5.59 188.51 87.90 5.85 195.46 71.14 6.07 200.91 53.83 6.24 204.84 36.12 6.36 Upward Distiance feet 20.26 45.00 78.59 119.99 167.95 221.02 277.57 335.90 394.23 450.79 503.85 551.81 593.22 626.80 651.54 Turbine Horizont Time to Total Release Total al Throw Fall Time Point Height Distance feet feet seconds 257.48 277.7 4.1 5.27 1,079.23 255.59 300.6 4.3 5.99 1,202.68 252.97 331.6 4.5 6.74 1,317.43 249.63 369.6 4.8 7.51 1,416.47 245.60 413.6 5.1 8.29 1,493.33 240.92 461.9 5.3 9.05 1,542.52 235.60 513.2 5.6 9.79 1,559.77 229.71 565.6 5.9 10.49 1,542.20 223.28 617.5 6.2 11.13 1,488.33 216.36 667.1 6.4 11.72 1,398.08 209.00 712.9 6.6 12.24 1,272.74 201.26 753.1 6.8 12.68 1,114.89 193.20 786.4 7.0 13.05 928.25 184.88 811.7 7.1 13.33 717.55 176.36 827.9 7.2 13.52 488.37

inverse 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

sine 0.173648 0.258819 0.34202 0.422618 0.5 0.573576 0.642788 0.707107 0.766044 0.819152 0.866025 0.906308 0.939693 0.965926 0.984808

cosine 0.984808 0.965926 0.939693 0.906308 0.866025 0.819152 0.766044 0.707107 0.642788 0.573576 0.5 0.422618 0.34202 0.258819 0.173648

Figure 36 Basic Physics of Ice or Structural Throw Distance

The physics of the trajectory release is relatively simple in its basic form. However, the computation above is performed without air resistance or aerodynamic drag. This will be addressed. Physics of Ice Throw and Blade Ejection The following equation is the computation of the throw distance for any object released. When an element, such as a baseball is thrown, or a golf ball hit or a chunk of ice released from a moving turbine blade, the computation of its position at any time after release is represented in the following equation. x=vt*cos(θ) and y=vt*sin(θ)-1/2*gt²
Figure 37 Trajectory Equation

The object initially rises, then is overcome by gravity, at which point begins to drop. All the while, it continues to move away from the site of release. The question is; how far will it go.
58

The answer is: “for however long it takes for gravity to pull it back to the ground.” This is shown in the following graph. It moves in an arc.

Figure 38 Graphic of Trajectory Release

When the object is released from an elevation of the tower height, plus the blade rise, and is thrown upward, it will take longer to return to earth, therefore it will travel farther than if released at a lower level, or simply dropped. Therefore, the distance is also a function of tower height and trajectory angle. The height of the tower from the previous example was only 195 feet. The height of the towers planned for Lyme is expected to be approximately 328 feet. The rotor diameter was 200 feet in the example, while it is expected the diameter of the turbines considered for Lyme will be 296 feet. Under these circumstances, the pure theoretical throw distance is computed to be 2,843 feet. This does not take into consideration the aerodynamic drag of the object. Aerodynamic Drag As an object travels through the air, drag is experienced. Similar to putting your hand out the window of a moving car, when the car is moving fast, the drag is greatest. As the car slows down, the drag forces diminish. Therefore, at the initial release the drag is greatest and diminishes with time, distance and velocity. This drag will slow the object’s forward movement over time, and therefore it will not go as far as theoretically possible. A simple drag equation is developed and is estimated to be represented in the following equation where “y” is the drag factor at any distance “x”:

y = 0.004x2 - 0.0841x + 0.9996
Figure 39 Approximate Aerodynamic Drag Equation

This equation is later tested against field study reports to validate its applicability to the conditions being investigated for Lyme. The following graph displays the results of the Professor Ragheb example with and without drag. With drag the throw is (867 feet) and without it is (1,542 feet).
59

300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140 -160 -180 -200 -220 -240 -260 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Figure 40

Therefore, the computation of throw distance is adjusted for aerodynamic drag. To test this, two studies of actual field conditions have been found. In each of these studies, ice formation was observed, and detailed records of the throw distance of ice objects were measured. From this data, we can then compare the modeled data of the Lyme projection with the theoretical throw distance of the field studies and the actual throw distance in the field studies. An example of the plot of collected ice throw samples is shown below. The closer to the tower, the higher the probability of ice. It is expected that this accumulation leads to some of the publications suggesting ice is not thrown a great distance from the towers. However, this detailed research does show the reality of ice thrown a significant distance from the tower (35).

Figure 41 (35)

60

Field Studies of Ice Throw from Wind Turbines The first study was conducted at a ski resort in Switzerland where the operators were concerned with the ice throw from the wind turbine and the proximity of the skiers. They set out to measure the actual ice throw and establish a safety zone around the turbine, very much as we are considering here in Lyme. The broad outline of the study follows (35):

Figure 42 Ice Throw Pattern

The nature of the ice observed is shown in the following photo. The ice objects were of significant mass and if an individual or property was struck, injury or damage would occur.

Figure 43 Ice Objects Recovered (35)

The results of the study are presented below, where the actual throw distance measured was approximately 92 meters, or 302 feet. However, recall the distance is a function of the height of the tower, the diameter of the blade, and the rotational speed, which establishes the release

61

speed. In this case, the tower was 165 feet, with a blade diameter of approximately 130 feet at the rotational speed of 16 rpm.

Figure 44 Results

From these data, we can determine that the optimal release point, for maximum throw would be approximately 35 degrees. The theoretical model of the throw distance under these circumstances is computed to be 551 feet. However, the maximum distance measured was 92 meters, or 300 feet. Some of the difference may be attributed to aerodynamic drag on the object. Applying the theoretical drag formula present above and applying that to the Swiss study, we compute the throw arc and distance as shown in the following graph.
Throw Distance in Meters
350 340 330 320 310 300 290 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115

Figure 45 Theoretical Throw Distance of 105 meters versus 92 meters discovered

Given the fact that in all likelihood the ice object recovered at 92 meters did not represent the actual “worst case” throw, it is not unexpected that the model would predict a potential for throw upwards of 105 meters. The second study of actual conditions was informed by research on Risk Analysis of Ice Throw from Wind Turbines. The quantifiable study is entitled “Wind Turbine Icing and Public Safety – A Quantifiable Risk” that serves as the second validation of the throw distance [safety setback] computation (36).
62

It is reported that due to the height of turbines, the blades can easily reach the lower clouds where icing in winter conditions are common, when the super-cooled moisture strikes the leading edge of the turbine blade. In the following photos, this is shown to have occurred.

Figure 46 Ice Buildup on the Leading Edge (38)

In these studies, it was also shown how ice released from a turbine blade in motion can cross and impact a nearby roadway if not properly sited with appropriate safety setbacks (37).

Figure 47 Example of Ice Release Impact Zone

63

From the cited study, we find the operational conditions of a 40-meter hub height, 50meter diameter blade at 25 rpm.

Figure 48

These conditions would yield the theoretical throw distance of 1,625 feet. The actual distance measured in this study was reported in the 200-meter range, or 656 feet. The range offered for the “expected” throw distance was reported to be 250 meters (820 feet). Again, the test period was unlikely to have observed the “worst-case” event. Applying the formula for trajectory and drag, the theoretical throw distance is computed to be 906 feet, matching the 820 foot ice throw safety zone recommended in the study. Again, the measured throw would likely not be the worst case, so it is not a surprise to find that the measured distance is less than the maximum distance. However, this study brings out another consideration, and that is the effect of what is referred to as the slingshot effect. This concept is that the ice will form on the blade (as seen in the prior photo), on the leading edge, in the shape of the blade. When it releases, it will slide up the blade and be slung into the air with greater force than a simple release. The study reports that the ‘slingshot’, as opposed to the simple release, is expected to increase the throw distance by a factor of 1.33. This might be considered a ‘factor of uncertainty’ or factor of safety. Application to the Town of Lyme This brings the matter back to Lyme. The calculated theoretical throw distance for a 328foot tower, ignoring aerodynamic drag, is 2,843 feet. Some would argue this is the only safe setback. Professor Terry Matilsky of Rutgers argues to ignore the drag effects, and to use the potential throw distance as the safe setback (39): “I never claim my calculation to be anything other than a maximum calculation of distance, beyond which you don't have to worry. I am not usually accused of being conservative in many ways, but when it comes to human life, I suppose I am. Why worry when you can just adopt my calculation and not be concerned at all with tragedy in the future? I remember when de-icing airplane wings was said to be unnecessary, posing no risk to public safety, and only after tragedy struck is it now "de rigeur" to do it (and do it carefully and thoroughly).”

64

While there is logic in this, when it comes to the protection of the public, aerodynamic drag has been demonstrated in two studies. However, one of those studies promotes the reality and concept of the “slingshot” effect. Both drag and slingshot should be considered. It is appropriate to consider the drag [and other factors] to the conditions expected for Lyme. When this is done, the most conservative maximum (without drag) would be a 2,843 feet of setback from public spaces, while the least conservative (with full drag) setback would be 1,661 feet. With slingshot, the distance would be approximately 2,200 feet.
1500 1500

1300 1300

Without Drag -2,843 feet With Drag – 1,661 feet With Drag and ‘Slingshot” Factor of Uncertainty – 2,252 feet

1100 1100

900 900

700 700

500 500

300 300

100 100

-100 -100

-300 -300

-500 -500

0 0

500 500

1000 1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Figure 49 Minimum (1,661 feet) and Maximum (2,843 feet) Ice Throw

The conclusion of this element of the study is that the setback from public roads, right-ofways, trails, residential structures and non-participating property lines must be at an absolute minimum of 1,661 feet, with a conservative safe separation distance of 2,843 feet. The average of these two computations is 2,252 feet. This is would provide for a factor of uncertainty of 1.35. This aligns with the factor of uncertainty in the slingshot effect of 1.33. The base setback is a non-negotiable figure based upon a 328-foot turbine, with a 296foot diameter rotor, operating at a maximum speed of 18 rpm. Under those circumstances, it is the conclusion of this section of the report that a minimum setback of 1,661 feet is essential, with a 2,250-foot setback for the protection of the public could be considered reasonable, while the 2,843-foot setback would provide absolute protection.

65

Chapter 8 Wind Power and its Validity as Green Energy
Part 1 THE RELIABILITY / EFFICIENCY OF WIND Unlike the municipal water supply, electricity at industrial levels cannot be stored in reservoirs. It must be used immediately. Over the last hundred years, large regional networks known as electricity “grids” have evolved to collect, rhythmically organize, and dispatch a mixture of power sources. Among other concerns, the industry must consider expectations, demand levels, availability, predictability, cost, exactly balancing forecasted supply with demand at all times and transmitting power over a range of distances to a variety of users within their respective regions. “Unpredictable, undispatchable, volatile wind can provide for neither base load nor peak load situations”. It can only be an occasional supplement that itself requires much supplementation. Consequently, as Australian engineer Peter Lang once wrote, since “wind cannot contribute to the capital investment in generating plants… [it] simply is an additional capital investment.” (40) “Since wind cannot provide controllable power and has no capacity value, it cannot be an alternative for machines that do provide controllable power and high capacity value.” (41) “It's difficult to accurately compare the costs of wind plants and fossil fuel plants because the cost drivers are so different. Low installed-cost-per-kilowatt figures for wind turbines are somewhat misleading because of the low capacity factor of wind turbines relative to coal and other fossil-fueled power plants. (Note: "capacity factor" is simply the ratio of actual energy produced by a power plant to the energy that would be produced if it operated at rated capacity for an entire year.) Capacity factors of successful wind farm operations range from 0.20 to 0.35. These can be compared with factors of more than 0.50 for fossil-fuel power plants and over 0.60 for some of the new gas turbines”. (42) Actual excerpts from studies showing unpredictability of wind /efficiency figures for wind farms currently online: ** For wind turbines located onshore, the annual average CF is about 30 percent and can drop to 13 percent in the summer. …. because of the unpredictable nature of wind, carbon-fueled plants will continue to underpin the load. This is particularly true in the summer, when the winds are at their lowest and the demand for power is highest. The results of a study from a group of wind power advocates at the University of Delaware that modeled data from offshore meteorological stations from Maine to the Florida Keys. Their results show that a large offshore turbine array would attain a 90 percent capacity factor only 2.2 days a year, and that 20,000 five-megawatt turbines would be needed to equal the full generating
66

capacity of those 104 nuclear reactors.” (43) ** Texas: “The same report goes on to explain that wind turbines might be quite steady during fall and spring, but wind power “has limited capability as a capacity resource as its production patterns generally do not correlate well with peak summer demand. Consequently, the capacity provided by wind projects is typically valued at 10% to 20% of their maximum rated capacity.” “The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) which manages 85 % of the state’s electric load, marks wind’s capacity factor at less than 9 % EROCT’S projections show that wind will remain a nearly insignificant player in terms of reliable capacity through at least 2014, when the grid operator expects wind to provide about 1.2 percent of the state’s needed generation”. (44) **California and Texas “Moreover, wind is least available when it would be most valuable. During the five highest load hours of 2006, California's 2,300 megawatts of wind energy generating capacity produced only 12.2 percent of their nominal capacities. For planning purposes, Texas lists a wind unit's "effective capacity" as 8.7 percent of its nameplate value.” (45) **Germany “In February, 2005, a German government’s energy agency released a report that concluded the country’s wind plants were an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy. Instead of spending billions on installing new wind-related infrastructure, the emphasis should be on increased efficiency.” (46) **Britain (cold temperatures efficiency) “Figures released in early January showed that as temperatures plunged to well below freezing and electric power demand soared, electricity production at Britain’s 3,100+ wind turbines fell from an average of 8.6 percent of Britain’s electricity mix to just 1.8 percent. Instead of serving up to 3 million homes, wind farms were serving just 30,000 homes, a mere one-hundredth of normal capacity. On the evening of December 20, Britain’s average temperature fell to minus 5.6 Celsius. At 6.30 that evening, the nation’s wind farms, which claim a generating capacity of 5.2 GW of electricity, were actually generating a piffling 40 MW, the equivalent of 20 turbines working at full capacity “ “When British wind farms were reportedly producing “practically no electricity” over a similar period in 2010 the British Government was forced to ask 95 major industrial consumers to turn off their gas pipelines. Nobody knows how much that cost the country. Back then, Nicholson stated, “If we had this 30 GW of wind power [the government’s stated goal for 2030] it wouldn’t have contributed anything of significance this winter.” (47) ***Ontario The following three points with regard to electrical power are paramount. 1. it has to be generated at the same time as it is used, 2. it has to be delivered to strict standards governing voltage levels and frequency,
67

3. security and continuity of supply is extremely important Wind is an intermittent source of power and currently the only form of energy generation that we cannot control. If there is no wind, there is no generation; if there is too much wind the turbines must be shut down before structural damage occurs. At this point in time, turbines generate such a statistically insignificant amount of energy that their intermittent supply causes no problems for consumers and those who manage supply simply ignore their existence. However, if wind industry production of 10% of our supply is successful, there would be major implications. For example, on August 16, 2002 demand in Ontario peaked at over 25,000 MW. There was no wind. Had we been relying on wind to provide any considerable portion at that point, there could have been widespread power cuts, with consequent work layoffs, school closures, added need for emergency generation at hospitals and other critical sites, etc” Such security, economic and social disasters cannot be permitted, therefore: 1. enough fossil fuel generating capacity must always be kept on stand-by ("spinning reserve" [48] ) to supply the shortfall as and when the wind drops 2. any emission / pollution reductions are thus virtually nullified 3. no power station could ever close because of development, even major, of wind energy 4. wind farms constitute an increase in energy supply, not a replacement, an extra environmental cost to add to that of fossil fuel. (49) PART 2 WIND POWER - IS IT GREEN ENERGY? One of the strongest arguments for wind power is that it is "green" energy, displacing CO2 emissions and other pollution from existing coal-fired plants. The result is that, while wind-generated power itself is CO2-free, the saving to the whole power system is not proportional to the amount of fossil-fueled power that it displaces. The operation of fossil-fired capacity as spinning reserve emits more CO2/kWh than if the use of that plant were optimized, thus is offsetting much of the benefit of wind. (50) When we are estimating the emissions abatement of wind power, it is the emissions of the overall portfolio of technologies that must be considered. The emission of CO2 from back-up generation is a serious consideration and must be taken into account when assessing the potential emissions abatement of wind-power. Fossil-fueled capacity operating as reserve and backup is required to accompany wind generation and stabilize supplies to the consumer. That capacity is placed under particular strains when working in this supporting role because it is being used to balance a reasonably predictable but fluctuating demand with a variable and largely unpredictable output from wind turbines. Consequently, operating fossil capacity in this mode generates more CO2per kWh generated than if operating normally. This compromising effect is very poorly understood -a fact acknowledged recently by the Council of European Energy Regulators. (51) The general conclusion is clear: industrial wind power does not produce the claimed
68

benefits of reductions in fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions when up-and-down backup generation inefficiencies are taken into account. (52) The doubts hanging over the cost-effectiveness of wind power as a means of electricity generation cannot be over-emphasized, and raise in an acute form the question of whether it is wise to promote randomly intermittent renewable energy as the principal means of achieving carbon reduction. (53) “Part of the rationale for introducing Renewable Profile Standards is that the substitution of “green” technologies for carbon technologies is supposed to reduce pollution emissions as well as carbon dioxide emissions. However, studies have shown that this may not be the case. As conventional generation (coal or natural gas) is reduced to make room for wind generation and is then increased as wind generation subsides, its heat rate rises. The heat rate is a measure of a generating station’s thermal efficiency commonly stated in units of Btu per kilowatt-hour. This reduction in efficiency increases its fuel consumption and emissions. When sudden increases or decreases occur in generation output, it is referred to as “cycling”.” (54) Bentek (55) did a study of the results of integrating wind into the generation mix of the Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO), using data from the company’s financial reports, the Energy Information Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (56) Colorado’s energy demand is highest during the day, peaking in late afternoon or early evening. Wind generation, however, is greatest between the hours of 9 pm and 5 am; it cannot be counted on to provide power when most needed, and so is used when available to meet the RPS. Most of the time that wind generation is available, it backs out (or replaces) natural gas. However, there are times when coal generation, which provides over 50 percent of PSCO’s base-load generation, is backed out to make room for the wind generation. When this happens, coal generation is cycled, causing its heat rate to increase and resulting in more fuel consumption and emissions. In the Denver non-attainment area, PSCO has 4 coal-fired plants: Arapahoe, Valmont, Pawnee, and Cherokee. Between 2006 and 2009, these coal-fired plants have experienced higher emissions ranging from 17 to 172 percent higher for sulfur dioxide, 0 to 9 percent higher for nitrous oxide, and 0 to 9 percent higher for carbon dioxide. In 2008, Cherokee even switched to a lower sulfur coal, but still ended up with sulfur dioxide emissions higher by 18 percent. In addition, between 2006 and 2009, these plants reduced their generation by over 37 percent, exacerbating further the increase in emissions. Because the PSCO data are limited, Bentek checked their results against data from the Energy Reliability Council of Texas, whose utilities are required to report generation levels by fuel every 15 minutes. (57) {Even} in Texas, which has a large natural gas–fired capacity base, with over 40 percent of its generation being natural gas-fired, coal-fired generation is cycled. (58)
69

In the Netherlands, a study by two researchers, C. le Pair and K. de Groot found that “when the efficiency of the back-up plants was reduced by over 2 percent due to cycling caused by the integration of wind energy into the system, fuel use and emissions of the back-up plants increased.” (59) An interesting consequence of this analysis is that certain areas of the world where wind is integrated into a system that is primarily coal-based may result in an increase in total carbon dioxide emissions from using wind in their generating sector. That is, in these circumstances, wind would not be providing an offset in carbon dioxide emissions, but would actually be providing an increase in those emissions. China, for example, relies on coal for 80 percent of its generation and natural gas for only 2 percent. (60) China also added the most wind power of any country in 2009, 13 gigawatts, ranking third in the world in total wind capacity, with the United States first and Germany second. (61) Since China’s wind would primarily be backed up by power from coalfired generating units, it is no wonder that China’s carbon dioxide emissions increased by 9 percent in 2009. (62) “China’s ambition to create ‘green cities’ powered by huge wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired power plants need to be installed as well. Chinese officials are installing about 12,700 megawatts of new wind turbines in the NW province of Gansu. Nevertheless, along with those turbines, the government will install 9,200 megawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity in Gansu, “for use when the winds aren’t favorable.” (63) “A director of the western Denmark utility has stated that wind turbines do not reduce CO2 emissions, the primary marker of fossil fuel use.” (64) “Meanwhile, the bound wind energy that remains in Denmark must be balanced with conventional generation, which overwhelmingly comes from coal’s thermal generators, most of which are slowly responsive and non-dispatchable. Those coal-fired units that are relatively flexible must work much harder and much more inefficiently to balance wind flux. (65) Denmark remains near the bottom of all nations in the European Union in meeting its Kyoto Accord emission reduction goals. Despite being blanketed with industrial wind facilities, the country finally achieved a one percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions last year, due primarily to increased use of hydro from its Nordic neighbors. (66) According to Elsam’s development director, Flemming Nissen, “Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish carbon emissions.” The massive increase in construction of new wind power plants in recent years {in Germany} has greatly increased the need for wind-related reserve capacity (conventional generation). This new generation would be apart from firm generation necessary to meet expectations of increased demand, and installed at 90% of the nameplate capacity of aggregate wind plants, using more conventional fuels in the process, producing copious carbon emissions—as much or more than if wind facilities had never existed. (67)
70

In conclusion, it seems reasonable to ask why wind-power is the beneficiary of such extensive support if it not only fails to achieve the CO2 reductions required, but also causes cost increases in back-up, maintenance and transmission, while at the same time discouraging investment in clean, firm generation capacity. PART 3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF BUILDING AN INDUSTRIAL WIND FARM As we assess the environmental impact of industrial wind farms in terms of effects on our open spaces, wildlife, noise, flicker, and how very large these structures are, one topic is often overlooked. What is overlooked are the resources it takes to build industrial wind turbines when compared to other types of energy and a comparison of their differing outputs of energy. In his book Power Hungry Robert Bryce ( Bryce is an energy realist who writes to effect more informed energy discourse in the hope of achieving better energy policy. In a recent televised forum at the Manhattan Institute in which he introduced his recent book, Power Hungry, Bryce maintained he is not a political or economic ideologue, is bored with political labeling, and that his ideas result from the way he was “mugged” by the laws of physics )“…compares the foot print [of wind energy construction] to a typical US nuclear plant (such as the South Texas Project) : *12,000 acres of the South Texas Nuclear Project yields 300 horsepower per acre (56 watts per square meter) *Wind power yields 6.4 hp per acre (1.2 watts per square meter) *Solar photovoltaic yields 36 hp per acre (6.7 watts per square meter) His conclusion: “Wind power requires about 45 times as much land to produce a comparable amount of nuclear power and solar requires about 8 times as much land as nuclear.” (69) Figure 11 (70) [Our Report Figure 50 on the following page]. “Increasing numbers of large wind facilities require thousands of miles of new high-voltage transmission lines and more control installations to maintain grid stability in the face of the erratic nature of wind energy. These add substantially to the already high costs of wind energy and further degrade the environment while also raising eminent domain issues…Wind facilities are significantly altering the natural and cultural heritage of rural and wild areas that are otherwise protected from such levels of development. They threaten tourism, leisure, and recreation. (71)

71

Figure 50 Power Hungry, page 86

““Low Power Density” electricity production also requires huge quantities of steel and concrete compared to those of natural gas and nuclear. Those higher inputs mean higher relative costs per unit of power delivered and more impact on our environment just by their sheer size. The following data collected at the Milford Wind Corridor, a 300 megawatt wind project built in Utah-2009: 139 Turbines, for each megawatt of installed wind capacity consumed about 319 cubic meters of concrete” (72) Figure 12 (73) [Figure 51 in our Report on the following page].

72

Figure 51 Power Hungry, p. 91

“The substantial amount of concrete typically used in foundations for large wind turbines requires a concomitant large amount of cement, in addition to sand and aggregate. Production of cement is energy intensive and involves considerable generation of C02. "The cement industry contributes about 5% to global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, making the cement industry an important sector for CO2-emission mitigation strategies. CO2 is emitted from the calcination process of limestone, from combustion of fuels in the kiln, as well as from power generation."(98) Putting this in another perspective, the manufacture of one ton of cement releases approximately one ton of C02 (74) Furthermore, the estimated amount of energy required to produce one ton of cement in the US in 2001 was 5.3 GJ (75). In addition, significant amounts of steel are required for reinforcing concrete foundations. Production of iron and steel is also energy intensive and responsible for 39.9 million metric tons of carbon emissions in the US in 1994 (Energy Information Administration, 1998). The amount of C02 produced per tonne of steel in the US is approximately 0.55 tons based on 1994 data ((Kim and Worrell, 2002). Finally, the use of cement, water, steel, sand and aggregate also depletes natural resources.” (76)

The following is a description at several locations describing the structure of wind turbine foundations: “Florida Power & Light Energy says, “a typical turbine site takes about a 42 3 42–foot-square graveled area.” Each tower (and a site needs at least 15–20 towers to make investment in the required transmission infrastructure worthwhile) requires a huge hole filled with tons of steel rebar–reinforced concrete (e.g., 1,250 tons in each foundation at the facility in Lamar, Colo.).
73

According to Country Guardian, the hole is large enough to fit three double-decker buses. At the 89-turbine Top of Iowa facility, the foundation of each 323-foot assembly is a 7-feet-deep 42-feet-diameter octagon filled with 25,713 pounds of reinforced steel and 181 cubic yards of concrete. The foundations at the Wild Horse project in Washington are 30 feet deep. At Buffalo Mountain in Tennessee, too, each foundation is at least 30 feet deep and may contain more than 3,500 cubic yards of concrete (production of which is a major source of CO2). In Cefn Croesin Wales the developer built a complete concrete factory on the site, which is not unusual, as well as opened quarries to provide rock for new roads—neither of which activities were part of the original planning application. (77) and (78)

Figure 52 (79)Wind Turbine - Materials and Manufacturing Fact Sheet Prepared for the Office of Industrial Technologies, US Department of Energy By Princeton Energy Resources International, LLC. Ancona, Dan and McVeigh, Jim

PART 4 – WILL WIND POWER REDUCE OUR DEPENDENTCY ON FOREIGN IMPORTS? Many Americans believe that wind power development will decrease our dependence on foreign imports, namely oil. Unfortunately, our dependency will just switch from one commodity to another: namely rare earth elements. Rare earth elements are crucial in the manufacture of wind turbines. “Today, China produces over 99 percent of dysprosium and terbium and 95 percent of
74

neodymium. How important is that? A utility scale wind turbine uses more than a ton of heavyduty and lightweight magnets, 700 pounds of which is neodymium.” (80) “Many leading wind turbine manufacturers use rare-earth based PMGs [platinum group metals] .These include Siemens, Vestas and China's largest wind turbine manufacturer, Goldwind. A high-energy PMG for a 3.5MW turbine could use 2,000 kg (4,400 lbs) of rare-earth or neodymium-based alloy.” (81) “A U.S. House of Representatives Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee heard testimony March 16, 2010 that the U.S. faces a potentially serious shortage of rare earth metals, without which next-generation renewable energy technology for wind turbines, hybrid vehicles, cell phones and national defense technologies don’t work. The U.S. House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight heard from several experts about the rare earths situation, including Mark Smith, CEO of Molycorp Minerals LLC. Molycorp is the only active producer of rare earths in the Western Hemisphere and is working to re-start production at its Mountain Pass, Calif., facility. Smith told the Subcommittee that production of rare earths and the metals and magnets that derive from them is dominated by China. “At present, China produces 97 percent of the world’s rare earth supply, almost 100 percent of the associated metal production, and 80 percent of the rare earth magnets,” he said.” (82) “The latest cut in export quotas {2010} comes just four days after the US Trade Representative said his office will probe China's allegedly illegal "protective" behavior over its clean-energy industries, including wind. The complaint, filed by the United Steelworkers trade union, cites among other things China's reduced rare-earth export quotas. China has been steadily cutting export quotas of rare-earth metals by 10% to 15% yearly for about five years. More recently, China reduced 2010 production levels of rare-earth metals and slashed export quotas by a massive 72 percent for the second half of 2010, says China Daily, citing official data.” (83)
“China announced Tuesday that it will cut its export quotas for rare earth minerals by more than 11% in the first half of 2011, further shrinking supplies of metals needed to make a range of high-tech products after Beijing slashed quotas for 2010.

China produces about 97% of rare earth elements, used worldwide in high technology, clean energy and other products that exploit their special properties for magnetism, luminescence and strength.” (84) “The "Critical Materials Strategy 2010" represents Department of Energy’s effort to understand how green energy technologies depend on rare earths. Those are the minerals at the bottom of the periodic table whose unique properties make them indispensable in many high technologies, including wind turbines and solar panels. As the world recently realized, more than 95% of these minerals are sourced from China. Because of the environmental problems associated with extracting them, most countries where
75

deposits exist have discouraged mining. The two most promising non-Chinese sources are mines in Mountain Pass, California and Mount Weld, Australia, and it will take years to bring them fully online So much for DOE's claim, voiced on its website, that the "growth of clean and domestic renewable energy is an important part of . . . increasing our energy security." In reality, renewables appear to be substituting dependence on one set of foreign suppliers for dependence on another set of foreign suppliers. If we translate this into the production number it means that China produces half of the world's wind turbines, supplies half the world's hydropower projects and fabricates three-quarters of the world's compact fluorescent light bulbs. The situation on US front is quite the opposite, and many manufacturers of solar panels and wind turbines are cutting jobs and closing factories in the United States. In recent years China has also severely restricted the export of rare earth materials essential for renewable-energy technology by using the well known principle, “if you want some go get some”. Such policy forces foreign renewable energy manufacturers to move to China in order to get access to these rare materials, and once getting there, China requires foreign manufacturers to transfer their technology to Chinese partners. The end result of this is that research and development paid by U.S. taxpayers ends up in China, creating more renewable energy jobs for Chinese. (85) “In February 2011, China seems to be confirming the fears of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Economist, and others. Its cabinet announced that China would impose tighter controls on rare earth producers and also restrict output in a five-year development strategy. The announcement also promised that China would “reasonably set annual quotas for production and export,” although the government did not elaborate…” (86)

76

Chapter 9 VANDALISM & SECURITY
While vandalism is probably the biggest security concern for wind turbine owners, copper theft has become a strong second. Copper prices have started to return to their previous decade-high levels of 2008, and with this increased value offer a higher incentive for would-be thieves wishing to gain access and remove power cabling from remote and unattended wind turbines. Federal laws already provide ample language to deter trespassing and attempted damage to energy facilities, including wind projects. In the interest of national security, the U.S. Patriot Act of 2001 amended Title 18, United States Code Section 1366, to include attempted destruction of an energy facility. Since that time it became a federal offense, including severe fines and imprisonment, to damage or attempt to damage the property of an energy facility in the U.S. Probably the best way to help control wind project theft and vandalism is to develop a thorough and sensible security plan before the start of construction, and to pass the procedures on to the post-construction O&M team. Use of proper lighting, alarm systems, fencing, and deployment of security patrol services are as important during construction as they are during commercial operations. The act of consistent and routine inventory of field spares should be made the responsibility of an assigned employee, ensuring that high-value materials are properly recorded when brought on site and also when they are used. Due to the remoteness of wind projects, passive systems can be employed in most instances. For an unattended project application of door “trip switches” or perimeter alarms can be tied into the systems’ SCADA network, allowing remote centers to call local law enforcement or security teams. Since thieves will be less inclined to attempt a theft if they cannot readily enter and exit the site, mechanical security locking devices such as McGard bolts can help. Also, local law enforcement should be encouraged to patrol the area at night, and local residents can act as another form of security. (87) “Project developers report incidences of unauthorized access on their sites ranging from curiosity seekers to bullet holes in blades. Permits usually require fencing and postings at project entrances to prevent unauthorized access. Other requirements intended to reduce personal injury and public hazards include locked access to towers and electrical equipment, warning signs with postings of 24-hour emergency numbers, and fenced storage yards for equipment and spare parts. Fencing requirements will depend on existing land uses such as grazing. Some communities have established information kiosks along roadsides to channel curious sightseers out of road traffic and into an area that is a safe distance from the turbines.” (88) It was revealed that vandalism to wind turbines, although rare, does happen. Incidents found during research are varied and small in number, but seem to be more numerous in recent times. Following are several examples (89): Recent reports of vandalism have been reported in 2010 and 2011. In Johnstown, Pa on
77

June 1, 2010 “Authorities have mounted a coordinated investigation after shots were fired May 10 at an Adams Township wind turbine where two maintenance employees were working. …”“We have had multiple incidents around Portage. On May 10, it escalated to a point where lives were endangered,” District Attorney Kelly Callihan said Tuesday during a press conference at state Sen. John Wozniak’s office, 2307 Bedford St. in Geistown. “There were maintenance workers up on the tower,” Callihan said. Police believe the shooter was using a high-powered rifle like those used to hunt deer, Adams Township police Chief Kirk Moss said at the press conference.” (90) In Romania on July 26, 2010: “The wind farm frenzy in Dobrogea has gone wild when five people were shot with rubber bullets on the premises of one of these wind farm projects in the area earlier today. The shooting followed a conflict between the inhabitants and the mayor in Cogealac locality, on one hand, and the body guards protecting the wind farm project which is being built there….“The mayor was planning to fine the company which owns and builds the wind park in Cogealac- Continental Wind Partners and CEZ. However, the bodyguards who protect the premises have not allowed the mayor’s team to enter the site. It was during the fight when the body guards decided to fire the rubber bullet guns.” (91) In New Zealand vandals broke in at the Tararua Wind Farm in August 2010, “Vandals have shut down the Tararua wind farm, bringing more than 30 turbines to a halt and costing TrustPower at least $200,000. Thieves broke into the site’s transformer yard before 1:00 a.m. yesterday, cutting up copper earthing wire in an attempt to steal it, and drained oil from two transformers into catchment reservoirs underneath. The turbines were still not spinning this morning and at a cost to the company of up to $7000 for each hour of lost operation, the bill could blow out even further.” (92) In Ulby, Michigan, December 11, 2010: “The Huron County Sheriff’s Department says someone used a small caliber weapon to shoot an electrical transformer at a wind farm in Ubly, Michigan.” (93). Most recently on January 4, 2011 in Bonneville County, Idaho Falls, Idaho: “The Bonneville County Sheriff’s Department needs the public's help solving a vandalism case involving a BP turbine. Police said BP Wind Energy reported two shots were fired at one of their wind turbines, causing about $5,000 in damage. Police said there is reported damage to wiring, hoses and other equipment.” (94) Industrial Wind Farms have now come under scrutiny by the FAA due to their threat on our National Security. Homeland Security can now add another slightly unexpected suspect to its list of national security threats: wind turbines. According to Homeland Security Newswire, wind turbines create a shadow that makes airplanes disappear from radar screens, as well as clutter the screens with the turbines’ “signature,” which changes as blades accelerate and slow with the wind. On March 18, 2010, Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of Northern Command and the
78

North American Aerospace Defense Command, told the House Armed Services Committee that wind farms cause problems for the radar that safeguards the nation from threats from air and space.” “Comprehensive air domain awareness will not be attained unless we can resolve the growing issue of radar interference,” Renuart said in prepared testimony. “A formal vetting process is required with the necessary authorities to prevent projects from interfering with the defense of North America, while supporting the expansion of alternative energy sources, such as wind farms.” (95) “Raytheon, at the cutting edge of the issue, just won a $22 million contract from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to create a tool that can identify how proposed wind farms would interact with existing radar installations. For both airport builders and wind developers, said Paul Palagyi, an Engineering Programs Senior Manager for Raytheon Network Centric Systems, “what you’re chasing is the wind.” “Any radar system, whether it’s an ATC, air traffic control radar, or radar that may be used for some other purpose, will have the potential of being interfered with,” Palagyi said. “There could be a negative interplay between a wind farm and any kind of radar.” This explains why it is a security (DHS) matter and not a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) matter. “The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for the U.S. border,” Palagyi said. “One of their responsibilities is for air space surveillance, which is different than air traffic control” and the FAA’s air safety responsibilities. For DHS and the border patrol, Palagyi added, “there are 'friendlies' and there is the potential for 'unfriendlies,'” which keeps them on the lookout “for aircraft or objects that are threatening.” Smith [Brian Smith, General Manager for Raytheon Canada] has been developing an add-on to existing radar systems to resolve existing wind farms’ interference. Trials were completed during Summer 2010 in the U.K. and the Netherlands. “Because they’re getting so much interference, because they’re getting so many false targets from those farms,” Smith said, “they will just blank out that zone,” adding: “If you were to fly through that area, you wouldn’t be picked up by radar at all.” (96) This issue relates directly to wind farms near the Canadian Border in upstate New York. “Could wind farms in Northern New York unwittingly help drug smugglers?” That is a question the federal government may have to tackle if the Department of Homeland Security does as Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., has asked, and deploys militarygrade radar along the U.S.-Canadian border to nab low-flying aircraft. The Defense Department has warned that wind turbines interfere with radar and has opposed their placement near military installations. Turbines' effect on radar has not been a big issue along the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario, where developers have eyed a number of locations for wind farms. That could change if DHS deploys the more sophisticated radar — something Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano strongly hinted last week could happen.

79

In the north country, the Army last year objected to a 350-foot wind turbine at Indian River High School, citing the school's proximity to Wheeler-Sack Army Airfield on Fort Drum. Mr. Schumer announced last week that Ms. Napolitano agreed to deploy military-grade radar along the northern border, in response to his request. He cited increased drug smuggling along the border. A transcript of the conversation with Mr. Schumer at a hearing last week indicates Ms. Napolitano did not exactly commit to deploying military-type radar but agreed with the senator's assertion that it would be a good idea. (97)

80

References –
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Personal Communication between committee member Gosier and Fire Chief Calhoun www.ngnews.ca/News/Local/2011-01-31/article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34883176/ns/technology_and_science-science http://iba.audubon.org/IBA/viewsiteprofile.do?Siteld=805&navSite=state http://iba.audubon.org/IBA/viewsiteprofile.do?siteld=772&navSite=state http://iba.audubon.org/IBA/viewsiteprofile.do?siteld=778&navSite=state http://www.decny.gov/animals27725html Bethany Wind Study (January 25, 2007) http://www.thewhig.com Current Biology, vol. 18, issue 16, R695 & R696, 26 August 2008. http://www.detect-inc.com/Windenergyprojectservicessystem Smedley AR et al, Potential Of Wind Turbines To Elicit Seizures Under Various Meteorological Conditions., 2009 Graham Harding, Wind Turbines, Flicker, And Photosensitive Epilepsy: Characterizing The Flashing That May Precipitate Seizures And Optimizing Guidelines To Prevent Them, 2008 Ibid “Letter of Health Effects of Industrial Wind Turbines“, Dr. Herb Coussons, January 8, 2010 An Introduction to Shadow Flicker and its Analysis, Priestley, Thomas, Ph.D., AICP/ASLA, February 10, 2011. Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) 2009 Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines National Research Council (NRC). Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects, 2007 NRC, Washington, DC Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) 2009 Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines www.newacoustics.co.uk/ http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/March 3, 2011 Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts, Environmental Conservation Law, Articles 3, 8, 23, 27 Division of Environmental Permits, Environmental Permits October 6, 2000 www.lcd.state.or.us/ENERGY/RENEW/Wind/docs/OAR340-035-0035.pdf http://www.marshillwind.com/uploads/q1_soundLevel.pdf “Community Noise” World Health Organization (1995) Stockholm University and Karolinska Institute, World Health Organization, Geneva http://www.windturbinenoise2011.org/ The Working Group on Wind Turbine Noise, the Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, September 1996. ETSU-R-97. Schomer and Schneider and Pedersen and Waye, 3/1/2007, p. 485 pdf Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD, August 1, 2006, Wind Turbine Syndrome, Inter-Noise 2007, August 28-31, Mariana Alves-Pereira and Nuno A,A, Castelo Branco http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/science/2006/g.p.van.den.berg/ Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed Near Homes: Effect on Health, February www.cbc.ca/news/.../nova-scotia/.../ns-nuttby-mountain-wind-farm-cracks.html 2007,v.1 https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPREWindPowerSystems/index.htm www.wind-watch.org/documents/ WIND TURBINE ICE THROW STUDIES IN THE SWISS ALPS René Cattin1, Stefan Kunz1, Alain Heimo2, Gabriela Russi1, Markus Russi3, Michael Tiefgraber1 Meteotest, Fabrikstrasse 14, 3012 Bern, Switzerland, 81

36. WIND TURBINE ICING AND PUBLIC SAFETY - A QUANTIFIABLE RISK?, Colin Morgan and Ervin Bossanyi - Garrad Hassan and Partners Limited Coach House, Folleigh Lane Long Ashton Bristol BS18 9JB UK 37. RISK ANALYSIS OF ICE THROW FROM WIND TURBINES Henry Seifert, Annette Westerhellweg, Jürgen Kröning, D-27472 Cuxhaven, Germany 38. Ice Shedding and Ice Throw – Risk and Mitigation, General Electric, David Wahl Philippe Giguere, Wind Application Engineering, GE Energy, Greenville, SC, 2006, 39. Professor Terry Matilsky, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, N. J. 40. Peter Lang: “Cost and Quantity of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Avoided by Wind Generation.” Carbon-sense.com, February 16, 2009.http://alleghenytreasures.wordpress.com/highlyrecommended/peter-lang-cost-and-quantity-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-avoided-by-windgeneration/ 41. Oxymoronic Windpower (Part II: Windspeak),Boone, Jon, January 19, 2011 Illustrated History of Wind Power Development, Part 5 http://www.telosnet.com/wind/future.html 42. “Electric power from offshore wind via synoptic-scale interconnection”, Kempton, Willett, Pimenta, Felipe, Veron, Dana and e Colle, Brian A., Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences, printed April 5, 2010. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/29/0909075107 43. “Get Clear on the Facts of Industrial wind.” Eastman, Ajax, The Philadelphia Tribune, Feb. 10, 2011. http://www.phillytrib.com/tribune/tribunecommentary/17374-get-clear-on-the-facts-aboutindustrial-wind.html 44. “Electric Reliability council of Texas, “Report on the Capacity, Demand and Reserves in the ERCOT Region,” 13, http.//w.w.w.ercot.com/about/. 45. “Hot Air and Wind”, Michaels, Robert. National Review (online) December 20, 1997. 46. Robert Michaels is a professor of economics at California State University, Fullerton, and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. 47. German Government Study Questions Value of Wind Power, Environment News, June 1, 2005. 48. “Will British weather provide reliable electricity?”Oswald, James, Raine, Mike and Ashraf-Ball, Hezlin, Energy Policy 36 (2008) 3212-3225 (British Energy Consultants) 49. Petre Commercial Wind Turbine Generating Plant, January 13, 2002 by Archives & Collections Society 50. Report from the Bethany Wind Turbine Study Committee Jan. 25, 2007 pp. 11-12/68 51. The Journal of the Institute of Civil Engineers. Council Of European Energy Regulators (CEER), Current Experience With Renewable Support Schemes In Europe (2004), pp. 57, 59. 52. Other reports have come to similar conclusions. See, Council Of European Energy Regulators (CEER), Current Experience With Renewable Support Schemes In Europe (2004), e.g. p. 12, available from http://www.ceer-eu.org/. See also, ESB National Grid, Impact of Wind Power Generation in Ireland on Operation of Conventional Plant (ESB National Grid, 2004).” 53. “Wind Integration: Incremental Emissions from Back-Up Generation Cycling (Part I: A Framework and Calculator)”, Hawkins, Kent, Nov. 13, 2009, http://www.heartland.org/full/28011/Study_Wind_Power_Raises_CO2_Emissions.html 54. “Wind Integration: Does It Reduce Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions?”, By Institute for Energy Research Thursday, June 24, 2010 55. gdhttp://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/natural-resources/wind-windmills-renewableenergy/2010-bentek-energy-study-wind-coal-gas 56. “Bentek Energy LLC, How Less Became More: Wind, Power and Unintended Consequences in the Colorado Energy Market” 57. “Wind Integration:: Does It Reduce Pollution and Greenhouse Gas Emissions?”, By Institute for Energy Research Thursday, June 24, 2010 58. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, March 2010 59. “The impact of wind generated electricity on fossil fuel consumption“, C. le Pair and K. de Groot, 82

60. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2010, Tables H10, H12, and H13, 61. Global Wind Energy Council, Global wind power boom continues amid economic woes, March 2, 2010 62. Ibid. 63. Reuters, China top carbon emitter for second year running, June 9, 2010 64. Wall Street Journal, Sept. 28, 2009. Jing ‘Yang, “China’s Wind Farms Come with a Catch: Coal Plants” 65. A Problem With Wind Power by Eric Rosenbloom (freelance science editor/global science publisher Elsevier) 66. Pitt, Lawrence and G. Cornelis van Kooten, Murray Love and Ned Djilali, Utility-scaleWind Power: Impacts of Increased Penetration, Department of Economics, University of Victoria, Resource and Environmental Economics and Policy Analysis (REPA) Research Group, Working Paper 2005-02. Presented at the Proceedings of the International GreenEnergy Conference, 12-16 June 2005, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/newsreleases/GHG2006-en 67. Pitt, et al, page 28.75. European Environment Agency 68. E.On Netz GmbH Wind Report, 2004. E.ON Netz GmbH Wind Report, 2004 www.ref.org.uk/pages/press/061004.html...REPORT. 69. Power Hungry, Bryce, Robert, pp. 84. 70. Data compiled by the Nature Conservatory (the biggest and most conservative of Environmental Groups) See 2009 study called “Energy Sprawl or Energy Efficiency Also see Ausubel, Jesse, “The Future Environment for the Energy Business,” APPEA Journal (2007) 71. North America Platform Against Windpower http://na-paw.org 72. Power Hungry ,Bryce, p 90 73. “Issues for Nuclear Power Construction Costs and Waste management”, Peterson, F. September 16, 2008. 74. www.ostp.gov/galleries/PCAST/PCAST%20Sep.%202008%Peterson%20slides.pdf, 75. “Cement and Concrete Development From an Environmental Perspective, in Concrete Technology for a Sustainable Development in the 21St Century“, A'itcin, P. C., Gjorv, O.E., and Sakai K., Spon E & F.N., London, 2000, pp. 206-217 76. “Energy Use in the Cement Industry in North America: Emissions, Waste Generation and Pollution Control 1990-2001, Second North American Symposium on Assessing the Environmental Effects of Trade“, M. Jacott M., Reed C., Taylor A. and Winfield, M., 2003. 77. “Sustainable Concrete for Wind Turbine Foundations: Berndt, June, 2004, Energy Resources Division, Energy Sciences and Technology Dept., Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973. 78. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm. 79. “A Problem With Wind Power”, Rosenburg, Eric, September 5, 2006. 80. ”China Tightens Grasp on Rare Earth Metals Vital for Green Technologies.” Pasternack, Alex, posted on Tree Hugger, A Discovery Company, September 1, 2009 81. “China to cut export of rare-earth metals”, Davidon, Ros, Windpower Monthly, October 19, 2010 82. “Renewable energy technology threatened by rare earth metal shortage.” Allied Power Group, Published March 17, 20120 83. “China to cut export of rare-earth metals”, Davidson, Ros; Windpower Monthly, October 19, 2010. 84. “China Cuts Export Quotas for Rare Earths by 35%”, Bloomberg News - Dec 28, 2010 85. “Dependency on Foreign Oil? No Dependency on Foreign Rare Earths”, Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2011, page 11.

83

86. “What Does Red China Intend With Its Rare Earth Monopoly? “NEW AMERICAN, Walker, Bruce, February 18, 2011 87. “Maintenance”, Brown, Merritt N. , “Wind System, December , 2010 88. NYSEDRA Tool Kit ,NYS Energy Research & Development Authority, 17 Columbia Circle, Albany, NY 12203-6399-October 2005 p. 3 89. “The Telegraph, UK, Sapsted, David, May 24, 2007 90. “Reward offered for information in turbine shooting.” Griffith, Randy, The Tribune Democrat, Johnstown, PA, June 1, 2010. 91. Romania Business Insider, Romania-Insider.com” Quarrel and shooting at Cogealac wind farm in Dobrogea,” July 26, 2010. 92. “Vandals Cripple Wind Turbins”, Kirk, Stacy, Manawatu Standard , Manawatu, New Zealand, 8/17/2010 93. http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/12/11/vandalism-sparks-wind-farm-automatic-shutdown/(video available) 94. “Vandals Strike Bonneville County Wind Turbines” in LocalNew8.com , Bonneville County, Idaho Falls, Idaho, posted online January 4, 2011. 95. http://www.executivegov.com/2010/04/wind-turbines-a-national-security-threat-says-noradgeneral/ 96. Can Raytheon Keep Wind Farms From Threatening National Security? DHS awards a $22 million contract seeking a tool to keep thousands of megawatts of wind farms from reading as targets. “Greentechmedia” Trabish, Herman. February 21, 2011 97. “Can wind farms aid criminals? RADAR DEPLOYMENT: Turbines may produce false detection readings on U.S.-Canada border “Heller, Marc, Times Washington Correspondent, March 15, 2011 http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20110315/NEWS02/303159969/-1/news 98. Annual Review of Energy and Environment, Vol. 26, 2001, Authors: Ernst Worrell, Lynn Price, C. Hendricks, L. Ozawa Media, Publication Date: Publication Number: LBNL-49097 ,Pages: 303-329 ,Volume: 26

84