Resource Documents: Impacts (112 items)
Also see NWW "costs/benefits" FAQ
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.
Reply Brief to Whistling Ridge Application
Author: Friends of the Columbia Gorge and Save Our Scenic Area
REPLY TO STATEMENTS OF THE CASE
The Applicant argues that it “stipulated that no more than 38 turbines would be constructed” as part of the Project. WRE Br. at 5. This is incorrect, because the Applicant never proposed a 38-turbine project in compliance with EFSEC’s mandatory procedures. Instead, the proposal reviewed below was the 50-turbine proposal in the Application.
The Applicant, citing a letter written by its company president, Jason Spadaro, asserts that it “conducted more . . . wildlife surveys than any other previously proposed project.” WRE Br. at 4 (citing AR 15791). Mr. Spadaro’s self-serving and unsupported statement is patently incorrect. The Applicant did not even comply with the bare minimum requirements of the WDFW Wind Power Guidelines and EFSEC’s rules (see infra Part III.B)—let alone conduct more surveys than other projects.
The Counties make several statements about the economics of Skamania County. Counties Br. at 1–6, 15, 27. The Supreme Court should disregard these statements, which the Counties do not even attempt to tie to any applicable statute or rule, and which have no bearing on the issues presented in this appeal and no relevance to the applicable law.
Finally, State Respondents argue incorrectly that Petitioners “conceded” that they do not seek a reversal of the decisions. State Br. at 9. To clarify, Petitioners seek both reversal and remand of the decisions listed at pages 3 and 4 of the Opening Brief. However, Petitioners do not challenge State Respondents’ authority to regulate and approve wind energy projects, in contrast to the arguments made in the “ROKT” case. See Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State EFSEC, 165 Wn. 2d 275, 305–11, 197 P.3d 1153 (2008). …
CONCLUSION
Because EFSEC failed to resolve numerous important issues that were contested below, and also violated and ignored multiple statutory and regulatory requirements in the course of its review, the Project’s true impacts were never evaluated and the decision to approve the Project was uninformed. The Court should reverse and remand for further review.
Download original document: “Whistling Ridge Petitioners Reply Brief”
U.S. wind capacity factors – 2011
Source: Form EIA-923, all wind energy facilities that submitted annual reports for ALL of 2011.
|
0.160 NJ
0.177 MA 0.206 VT 0.222 AZ 0.222 RI 0.225 TN 0.228 OH 0.237 UT 0.238 NY 0.254 CA 0.254 OR 0.262 WV 0.266 MI 0.273 PA 0.275 DE 0.276 ME 0.280 IN 0.286 WI 0.293 MO 0.296 IL 0.301 WA 0.303 CO 0.314 NH 0.316 AK 0.322 ID 0.324 MD 0.326 IA 0.338 MN 0.341 NM 0.342 TX 0.371 WY 0.376 MT 0.381 NE 0.386 ND 0.391 SD 0.393 KS 0.409 OK 0.522 HI 0.320 US TOTAL |
Northeast
New England
MA 0.177
ME 0.276 NH 0.314 RI 0.222 VT 0.206 Middle Atlantic NJ 0.160
NY 0.238 PA 0.273 South South Atlantic
DE 0.275
MD 0.324 WV 0.262 East South Central TN 0.225
West South Central OK 0.409
TX 0.342 Midwest East North Central
IL 0.296
IN 0.280 MI 0.266 OH 0.228 WI 0.286 West North Central IA 0.326
KS 0.393 MN 0.338 MO 0.293 ND 0.386 NE 0.381 SD 0.391 West Mountain
AZ 0.222
CO 0.303 ID 0.322 MT 0.376 NM 0.341 UT 0.237 WY 0.371 Pacific AK 0.316
CA 0.254 HI 0.522 OR 0.254 WA 0.301 |
U.S. wind capacity factors – 2012 (preliminary)
Author: U.S. Energy Information Administration
Source: Form EIA-923, all wind energy facilities that submitted monthly reports for ALL of 2012.
|
0.201 TN
0.202 AZ 0.231 VT 0.236 NY 0.239 WV 0.242 OH 0.243 ME 0.248 UT 0.249 CA 0.249 PA 0.259 OR 0.269 IN 0.271 WA 0.280 WI 0.294 IL 0.298 MD 0.311 MO 0.324 MI 0.330 HI 0.333 NM 0.337 CO 0.337 MN 0.337 TX 0.338 MT 0.341 ID 0.343 IA 0.352 WY 0.358 KS 0.389 ND 0.414 OK 0.428 NE 0.429 SD 0.318 US TOTAL |
Northeast
New England
ME 0.243
VT 0.231 Middle Atlantic NY 0.236
PA 0.249 South South Atlantic
MD 0.298
WV 0.239 East South Central TN 0.201
West South Central OK 0.414
TX 0.337 Midwest East North Central
IL 0.294
IN 0.269 MI 0.324 OH 0.242 WI 0.280 West North Central IA 0.343
KS 0.358 MN 0.337 MO 0.311 ND 0.389 NE 0.428 SD 0.429 West Mountain
AZ 0.202
CO 0.337 ID 0.341 MT 0.338 NM 0.333 UT 0.248 WY 0.352 Pacific CA 0.249
HI 0.330 OR 0.259 WA 0.271 |
Weaver Residence Wind Turbine Noise Assessment
Author: Kouwen, Nicholas
This report outlines the findings of an informal wind turbine noise assessment at the Weaver residence at 7624 Wellington Road 12 just south of Arthur, ON, February‐March 2013.
The Weaver property abuts the 22.92 MW Conestogo Wind Farm in Mapleton Township near Arthur, ON. The wind farm consists of 9 Siemens AG2.3 MW IWT’s and 1 Siemens AG 2.221 MW wind turbine. A location diagram is located in Appendix A. The Weaver residence is shown as receptor 65 where the “worst case” IWT sound levels were predicted to be 39.2 dBA by the proponent.
The investigation suggests that the IWT generated noise does not comply with the MOE noise guidelines ~50% of the time and that SPLs are above the predicted “worst case” ~59% of the time.
A journal of the quality of life and health problems experienced by the occupants of the home is attached as Appendix B.
Methodology
The equipment and methodology for the study is the same as that described in detail in my Grey Highlands 2012 Wind Turbine Noise Survey.
In the following part of the report, the results are paired for the two sites shown in Figures 1 & 2. Figure 1 shows the microphone location at the Weaver residence and Figure 2 shows the microphone location as a similar background site, approximately 10 km from the nearest IWT.
There are four separate comparisons:
- The time series of the A weighted sound pressure levels (SPLs) (dBA) along with the 10m wind speed in m/s and wind direction as well as ground wind speed.
- The A weighted SPL (dBA) covering all data versus 10 m wind speed.
- The A weighted SPL (dBA) versus 10 m wind speed for night time 1‐5 am only.
- The L50 versus 10m wind speed. Unweighted SPLs (dBZ) are also plotted.
In the following report, the MOE noise limits are those in NPC‐232 “Sound level limits for stationary sources in Class 1 & 2 Areas (Rural)”
When referring to the MOE protocol for determining compliance NPC‐103 “Compliance Protocol for Wind Turbine Noise” the methodology in this protocol is noted but is replaced by the more objective and workable approach adopted herein.
Download original document: “Weaver Residence Wind Turbine Noise Assessment”
