I am writing in response to today’s editorial on increased wind turbine setbacks. While the editorial highlights the critical need to increase setbacks to maintain wind’s momentum, it minimizes the reasons why setbacks are important in the first place.

There is, in fact, credible evidence that low frequency sound from wind turbines can have a negative impact on health. The Minnesota Dept. of Health’s white paper on the Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines outlines this and recommends the cumulative affect of multiple turbines be taken into account when evaluating sound impacts, which is not currently done. There is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence from homeowners living near turbines all over the world on the negative impacts to quality of life, health, safety, and property values. While the wind industry and proponents of wind like to point to studies that minimize these issues, numerous other studies show these impacts to be real.

The fact is there are serious issues related to wind farming that need to be addressed including setbacks, environmental regulation, property rights, health, safety, quality of life, and economic justice, among others. Industrial scale wind turbines clustered in “farms” can ruin neighborhoods and seriously alter the course of people’s lives. Belittling their concerns will not help the wind industry in Minnesota and it certainly does not make us a national leader.

As wind continues to spread these problems will only become more pronounced. Increased setbacks, pre-permitting site guidelines, community support and involvement, alternative modeling, and other solutions are necessary for the continued growth of the wind industry in Minnesota. Developers, public officials, legislators, and environmental groups have a responsibility to address these issues.
Ann Occhiato

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/82117792.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:UUULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

That seems like a very good idea for all townships to have something like that so when developers want to come in there is mapping of good locations already at hand.  Also, all counties should opt in to control 5megawatt -- 25megawatt wind projects.  A big part of the problem with the Greenvale project is that no one who knows the land or normally has a say in land use planning (done at the township level) is involved in the decision making process.  In this case, the Medins and Sparks described the environment inside the project area (not correctly either, I might add) in their application with no information included about the surrounding habitat.  Then, five folks on the PUC, who know nothing about the area, get to decide if the project is legit.   This system seems designed to overlook important considerations.  Why is wind exempted from environmental review?

Also, Carol, do you know of any projects where turbines were spread out over a larger area instead of clustered?

State guidelines require wind developers to do their own environmental assessment of the project area and submit it with their application.  That’s it.  (see Minnesota Rules Chapter 7854.0500 at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=7854.0500).  No other environmental review is required.  No Environmental Assessment Worksheet or Environmental Impact Statement.  Ridiculous.  If this project doesn’t highlight the need for review of those guidelines I don’t know what would.

Setbacks.  500 feet may seem adequate to someone who lives in a town where there might be four homes between you and 500 feet.  But, in the country where there is more open space, 500 feet is nothing.  That is practically on top of a country home.  Setbacks should be increased to a minimum of 1/2 mile or more or developers should be required to compensate residents for their loss.

I am hoping someone can tell me why the cluster model currently used with wind farms is necessary.  Because most of the negative impacts come from clustering turbines, it seems as though spreading them out could work better.  Does anyone know if that has been done?  If we need wind farms in metro areas then adjusting the model seems necessary to me.

I also want to reiterate that the Sparks and Medins did not halt their project to address residents’ concerns as they are stating in their PR over and over again.  They have not contacted any of the residents within the project site.  They halted the project because they did not have the room to fit in enough turbines because residents would not sell their wind rights.  I would bet they are currently looking for additional project sites.  Might be your backyard next!

If so, then more people will understand the frustration of folks circumventing very real and legitimate concerns by stating it’s “simply NIMBY” so they can refrain from actually addressing any issues.  That is an uncaring and compassionless way of looking at this and it is shameful it is acceptable to do so.

Actually, if one looks at the rate of any mechanical breakdown, I found a study on turbine reliably that put the rate of mechanical problems as 1 per turbine per year. Given the repairs that have been done to the Northfield turbines so far, this doesn’t seem too surprising.

In advocating for wider setbacks for safety, I think it would be well worth your while to gather more detailed information on the frequency, and debris-throwing distances, for catastrophic turbine failures.  There are standardized risk assessment methodologies for assessing safety and health risks, and if the catastrophic failure rate is really as high as the 1-in-1000 that John George’s source suggested, than there might really be a case for demanding a greater-than-500-foot setback.

Patrick Enders  #20

Normally I try to gather information that comes from a scientific study or at least from someone who seems to be credible in their knowledge.

The 1 in 100 I believe  was from a European news cast. If there are 100,000 turbines in operation then the 1,000 number seems high if we are talking about brake failure only, but may be reasonable if  it pertains to any sort of mechanical breakdown. This deserves further investigation.

It would be interesting if an opponent of the proposed wind development would propose a mechanism by which the wind turbines might negatively affect the Chub Lake ecosystem.

This issue is not about wind farms.  This issue is about land use planning and adequate regulations.  Even 1000 foot setbacks are not adequate to maintain a decent quality of life for nearby residents, the PUC guidelines are wholly inadequate, and unjust in my opinion.

Also, there are many, many areas of Greenvale that are significantly less populated than the proposed project site.  So far, Medin Renewables and Sparks Energy have refused to explain their siting process.  I believe the reason they won’t is because they did not do due-diligence or best-practice procedures when choosing a project site.  They have a piece of property in the project site, they looked no further than that even though it is directly adjacent to a unique natural area and significantly more populated than other areas.

The siting of this wind farm is outrageous and more care needs to be taken, not simply adhering to minimum requirements but choosing to care about the communities in which we live enough to really listen to concerns and plan a project as best as possible to address them.  THAT is what community wind should represent.  Contrary to what Medin and Sparks would like you to believe (and the editors of the Northfields News who have very little idea of what they are talking about) they have not done that.  I am hopeful they will do that now that they are re-evaluating the project.

Can every single little issue be addressed?  Probably not.  Will every person be happy with the results?  Probably not.  But, attempts should be made to mitigate as many concerns as possible so we end up with a project that works, that can be replicated, and that the community can be proud of.  I believe this is possible if folks really attempt to work together.  And, I believe the Medins and Sparks are beginning to see the value in that.  It will be vital if wind will be accepted at the level we need it to be.

The Medins and Sparks have an opportunity here, we ALL have an opportunity here, to create a project that could be a national model of excellence.  Why not strive for that instead of following inadequate state guidelines that have been derived to protect developers at the expense of families?

We should want to do better and  I believe we can.

Editorial in today’s Nfld News: Case study: Why we’re not known as business-friendly.

In an Oct. 14 letter to the state, Sparks Energy and Medin Renewable Energy said they needed more time to listen and respond to residents’ concerns.

This is an admirable sentiment, but it’s not like Sparks and Medin have ignored residents. In fact, the developers have gone beyond what was required of them for public comment in the permit’s application process and have adjusted the project once already to address concerns.

I have been hoping St. Olaf envir. studies students might get engaged in the Friday morning stream protection  meetings on third floor of the new Regents building.  That is to address concerns about sensitive acres Northfield wants to annex for an industrial park between Heath Creek and Spring Brook trout stream in Bridgewater Township. We expect Northfield Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in November.

John, I don’t believe there has been any examination of noise levels, but there may be some look into effects on wildlife. I’ll ask members of the student Environmental Coalition to comment.

The two local companies behind the development of a proposed wind farm have asked to temporarily halt any further action on the 11-megawatt project located in Greenvale Township.

…

Based on the feedback returned to the companies during the project’s 180-day comment period, which ended on Oct. 7, it was clear township residents still had a number of reservations about the wind farm plans, said Sparks Energy CEO Anna Schmalzbauer.

Many of the complaints centered around the precise placement the turbines, and the distance of those turbines’ setbacks from homes, according to Schmalzbauer.