Resource Documents — latest additions
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.
Author: Logan Co., Ohio, County Commissioners
WHEREAS, … the Logan County Commissioners have reviewed the application, and different
portions of the application are incomplete or inadequate; and, …
WHEREAS, the wind developer has created confusion and given misinformation to the press
through statements and advertisements causing misunderstanding with the public; and, …
WHEREAS, if the only feasible way this project can go forward is through a tax exemption and
payment in lieu of taxes, as the wind developer claims, then something is wrong with the State tax law.
Tax abatements are to incentivize development in a specific location, not to create the business model
for the project to be developed. It is curious that under the energy project law, the local governments
are expected to take a loss of revenue while the State of Ohio’s tax revenue (commercial activity tax,
kilowatt hour tax, etc.) is to remain entirely whole; and,
WHEREAS, the Logan County Board of County Commissioners is not convinced that over the life
of the project that granting the PILOT would benefit the community. Likewise with respect to job
creation, the Logan County Board of County Commissioners is not convinced that the amount of taxes
abated would be exceeded by the benefit of gaining relatively few permanent employees; and,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Logan County Board of Commissioners that:
… The application submitted by Hardin Wind, LLC, is hereby rejected, in so far as it request any
tax exemption in Logan County.
Resolution by Trustees of Richland Township: … Road damage & drainage … Population density … Health & Safety … Environment … Housing … Taxation … The Richland Township Trustees are opposed to the construction of the Scioto Farm Wind Turbines.
Resolution by Rushcreek Township Trustees: … hereby again earnestly recommend to the Logan County Commissioners to deny a Payment in Lieu of Taxation (PILOT), and any other tax abatement for the Scioto Ridge Wind Installation, and all other industrial wind installations within this township and county.
Author: Wagner, Fritz; and Rachlew, Elisabeth
Abstract. The Swedish electricity supply system benefits strongly from the natural conditions which allow a high share of hydroelectricity. A complete supply is, however, not possible. Up to now, nuclear power is the other workhorse to serve the country with electricity. Thus, electricity production of Sweden is basically CO₂-free and Sweden has reached an environmental status which others in Europe plan to reach in 2050. Furthermore, there is an efficient exchange within the Nordic countries, Nordpol, which can ease possible capacity problems during dry cold years. In this study we investigate to what extent and with what consequences the base load supply of nuclear power can be replaced by intermittent wind power. Such a scenario leads unavoidably to high wind power installations. It is shown that hydroelectricity cannot completely smooth out the fluctuations of wind power and an additional back-up system using fossil fuel is necessary. From the operational dynamics, this system has to be based on gas. The back-up system cannot be replaced by a storage using surplus electricity from wind power. The surplus is too little. To overcome this, further strong extension of wind power is necessary which leads, however, to a reduction of the use of hydroelectricity if the annual consumption is kept constant. In this case one fossil-free energy form is replaced by another, however, more complex one. A mix of wind power at 22.3GW plus a gas based back-up system with 8.6GW producing together 64.8TWh would replace the present infrastructure with 9GW nuclear power producing 63.8TWh electricity. The specific CO₂-emission increases to the double in this case. Pumped storage for the exclusive supply of Sweden does not seem to be a meaningful investment.
Fritz Wagner, Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik, Greifswald, Germany
Elisabeth Rachlew, Department of Physics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
European Physical Journal Plus (2016) 131: 173
Author: Schäffer, Beat; et al.
[Abstract] Current literature suggests that wind turbine noise is more annoying than transportation noise. To date, however, it is not known which acoustic characteristics of wind turbines alone, i.e., without effect modifiers such as visibility, are associated with annoyance. The objective of this study was therefore to investigate and compare the short-term noise annoyance reactions to wind turbines and road traffic in controlled laboratory listening tests. A set of acoustic scenarios was created which, combined with the factorial design of the listening tests, allowed separating the individual associations of three acoustic characteristics with annoyance, namely, source type (wind turbine, road traffic), A-weighted sound pressure level, and amplitude modulation (without, periodic, random). Sixty participants rated their annoyance to the sounds. At the same A-weighted sound pressure level, wind turbine noise was found to be associated with higher annoyance than road traffic noise, particularly with amplitude modulation. The increased annoyance to amplitude modulation of wind turbines is not related to its periodicity, but seems to depend on the modulation frequency range. The study discloses a direct link of different acoustic characteristics to annoyance, yet the generalizability to long-term exposure in the field still needs to be verified.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2016 May;139(5):2949.
Beat Schäffer, Reto Pieren, Kurt Heutschi
Laboratory for Acoustics/Noise Control, Empa, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Dübendorf, Switzerland
Sabine J. Schlittmeier, Ralf Graf, and Jürgen Hellbrück
Work, Environmental, and Health Psychology, Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Eichstätt, Germany
Noise and NIR Division, Federal Office for the Environment, Bern, Switzerland
Author: Environmental Review Tribunal, Ontario
Decision delivered by Heather I. Gibbs and Robert V. Wright —
The Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (the “Director”) issued a renewable energy approval (the “REA”) on December 20, 2012, to Ostrander Point GP Inc. as general partner for and on behalf of Ostrander Point Wind Energy LP (“Ostrander”) to install nine wind turbine generators, with a total installed nameplate capacity of 22.5 megawatts, and supporting facilities (the “Project”) on the Ostrander Point Crown Land Block (the “Site”).
The Ostrander Point Crown Land Block is 324 hectares of provincial Crown land located about 15 kilometres (“km”) south of Picton on the south shore of Prince Edward County, and is one of the least developed areas of the County. It is bordered by three roads and Lake Ontario to the south. It contains a provincially significant wetland in the southeast corner and is known for its alvar vegetation. It is used for recreational purposes such as camping, hiking, “birding”, and all-terrain vehicles.
The Project would require the construction of approximately 5.4 km of gravel access roads on the Site that would be approximately 6 metres (“m”) wide with larger turnarounds. The access roads would be used to construct the wind turbines, for their ongoing maintenance, and are to be removed after decommissioning. …
Having weighed all of the relevant considerations, the Tribunal finds that the remedies proposed by Ostrander and the Director are not appropriate in the unique circumstances of this case. The Tribunal finds that the appropriate remedy under s. 145.2.1(4) is to revoke the Director’s decision to issue the REA.