Resource Documents: Siting (101 items)
Unless indicated otherwise, documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are shared here 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. • The copyrights reside with the sources indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations.
Some project specs in Iowa: area, infrastructure, foundations
Author: RPM Access
| Project Name | Top of Iowa Wind Farm |
| Developer | Midwest Renewable Energy Corporation and Zilkha Renewable Energy |
| Owner | Entergy Corporation and Shell Wind Corporation |
| Contructor | M.A. Mortenson |
| Project Size | 81 MW |
| Location | Approx 3 miles east of Town of Joice, Worth County, Iowa |
| Site Area | Approx 5,900 acres of cropland consisting of 49 separate parcels of land [73 acres/MW] |
| Generating Equipment | 89 NEG Micon 900 kW turbines on 237 foot tall tubular towers |
| Balance of Plant Facilities | 21.8 miles of underground electric and data collection cable, 10.4 miles of overhead electric cable, 16 miles of gravel service roads, 2 permanent MET towers, one 161 kV substation, and one operation and maintenance building |
| Foundation (each) | 7 ft deep, 42 feet wide; 188 cu yards of concrete; 25,713 lbs of reinforcing steel |
| Job Creation | Approx 95,300 person-hours (or 75 people for 8 months) during construction; 4-6 long-term jobs |
| Local County Taxes | Approx $13.4 Million over 25 years |
| Power Purchaser | Alliant Energy of Madison Wisconsin |
| Ground Breaking | April, 2001 |
| Commercial Operation | November, 2001 |
| Project Name | Top of Iowa II Wind Farm |
| Developer | Midwest Renewable Energy Corporation |
| Owner | Iberdrola Renewable Energies |
| Constructor | Wanzek |
| Size | 80 MW |
| Location | Approx 3 miles west of the Town of Kensett, Worth County, Iowa |
| Site Area | Approx 6,089 acres of cropland consisting of 60 separate parcels of land [76 acres/MW] |
| Generating Equipment | 40 Gamesa G87 2MW turbines on 253 foot tall tubular towers |
| Balance of Plant Facilities | 14.2 miles of underground electric and data collection cable, 8.5 miles of gravel service roads, 1 permanent MET towers, sharing of the Top of Iowa Wind Farm 161 kV substation and a single O&M Building |
| Foundation (each) | Approx 430 cu yards of concrete; 34 tons of reinforcement steel |
| Job Creation | Approx 96,000 person-hours (or 75 people for 8 months) during construction: 4-6 long-term operational |
| Power Purchasers | Wisconsin Public Power and Madison Gas and Electric |
| Local County Taxes | Approx $23.2 Million over 25 years |
| Ground Breaking | April, 2007 |
| Commercial Operation | February, 2008 |
| Project Name | Top of Iowa III Wind Farm |
| Developer | Midwest Renewable Energy Corporation |
| Owner | Madison Gas and Electric Company |
| Constructor | Wanzek |
| Size | 29.7 MW |
| Location | Approx 3 miles west of the Town of Kensett, Worth County, Iowa |
| Site Area | Approx 1,332 acres of cropland consisting of 10 separate parcels of land [45 acres/MW] |
| Generating Equipment | 18 Vestas 1.65 MW turbines on 260 foot tall tubular towers |
| Balance of Plant Facilities | 6.2 miles of underground electric and data collection cable, 3.8 miles of gravel service roads, 1 permanent MET towers and sharing of the Top of Iowa Wind Farm 161 kV substation |
| Foundation (each) | Approx 390 cu yards of concrete; 30 tons of reinforced steel |
| Job Creation | Approx 36,000 person-hours (or 25 people for 6 months) during construction; 1-2 long-term operational |
| Local County Taxes | Approx $10.3 Million over 25 years |
| Ground Breaking | April, 2007 |
| Commercial Operation | October, 2007 |
| Project Name | Barton II Wind Farm |
| Developer | Midwest Renewable Energy Corporation |
| Owner | Iberdrola Renewable Energies |
| Constructor | Wanzek |
| Size | 80 MW |
| Location | Approx 6 miles east of the Town of Kensett, Worth County, Iowa |
| Site Area | Approx 8000 acres of cropland consisting of over 50 separate parcels of land [100 acres/MW] |
| Generating Equipment | 40 Gamesa G87 2 MW turbines on 260 foot tall tubular towers |
| Balance of Plant Facilities | 12 miles of underground electric and data collection cable, 10.2 miles of gravel service roads, 1 permanent MET towers, a single 161 kV substation shared with Barton and a single shared O&M Building |
| Foundations [each] | Approx 450 cu yards of concrete; 34 tons of reinforcement steel |
| Job Creation | Approx 96,000 person-hours (or 75 people for 8 months) during construction; 5-6 long-term operational |
| Local County Taxes | Approx $30 Million over 25 years |
| Ground Breaking | May, 2008 |
| Commercial Operation | June, 2009 |
| Project Name | Elk Wind Farm |
| Project Owner | Elk Wind Energy LLC |
| Project Developer | RPMA Wind Development LLC |
| Project Size | 41 MW |
| Project Location | West of town of Greeley in Elk Township, Delaware County, Iowa |
| Project Site Area | Approximately 3,367 acres of gently rolling and open farmland where corn and soy beans are the dominant crops [82 acres/MW] |
| Proposed Generating Equipment | Between 27 – 1.5 MW to 17 – 2.4 MW turbines on 80 meter tubular towers [17 – 2.5 MW actually erected] |
| Proposed Balance of Plant Facilities | Approximately 9.7 miles of underground electric and data collection cable, 5.4 miles of gravel service roads, 14 entrances, 1 permanent MET tower, a single 69 kV substation, and a single operations and maintenance building |
| Expected Ground Breaking | May 1, 2011 |
| Expected Commercial Operation | Dec 31, 2011 |
| Project Name | Winnebago Wind Farm |
| Developer | Midwest Renewable Energy Corporation |
| Owner | Iberdrola Renewable Energies |
| Constructor | Wanzek |
| Size | 20 MW |
| Location | Approx 2 miles south of the Town of Thompson, Winnebago County, Iowa |
| Site Area | Approx 2000 acres of cropland consisting of over 12 separate parcels of land [100 acres/MW] |
| Generating Equipment | 10 Gamesa G87 2MW turbines on 260 foot tall tubular towers |
| Balance of Plant Facilities | Approx 3 miles of underground electric and data collection cable, 2.5 miles of gravel service roads, 1 permanent MET towers, a single 69kV substation and a single shared O&M Building |
| Foundation (each) | Approx 450 cu yards of concrete; 34 tons of reinforcement steel |
| Job Creation | Approx 24,000 person-hours (or 38 people for 4 months) during construction; 1-2 long-term operational |
| Local County Taxes | Approx $7.5 Million over 25 years |
| Power Purchaser | Dairyland Power Cooperative |
| Ground Breaking | May, 2008 |
| Commercial Operation | September, 2008 |
Influence of wind turbines on radio astronomical observations in Irbene
Author: Bezrukovs, Dmitrijs
[abstract] The reflection and diffraction of external communication and navigational transmitters from tall constructions and moving blades of wind turbines produce some short-pulse additional electromagnetic interference strong enough to fully disturb radio astronomical observations. The problem of short-pulse electromagnetic interference is distinctive to all radio telescopes surrounded by wind turbines. This problem became significant for Ventspils International Radio Astronomy Centre (VIRAC) after new wind park “Platene” [near Platene and Vede] of Winergy Ltd. was built in 2012 and radio telescopes RT-16 and RT-32 renovated and equipped with cryogenic high sensitive receivers. The paper deals with the analysis and evaluation of intensities and probabilities of short-pulse interferences produced by wind park “Platene” and its possible impact on radio astronomical observations at VIRAC radio telescopes. (The distance from Irbene radio telescopes to [the wind turbines near] Platene is 19.7 km and to [those near] Vede is 8.2 km.)
Dmitrijs Bezrukovs
Ventspils International Radio Astronomy Centre, Ventspils, Latvia
Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences 2016, N 2, P 68-74
DOI: 10.1515/lpts-2016-0015
Download original document: “Influence of wind turbines on radio astronomical observations in Irbene”
Farmers vs. lakers: Agriculture, amenity, and community in predicting opposition to United States wind energy development
Author: Bessette, Douglas; and Mills, Sarah
Abstract
Utility-scale wind energy is now the largest source of renewable electricity in the US. Wind energy’s continued growth remains contingent upon finding adequate resource potential and transmission capacity, along with communities willing to host turbines. While previous research on the social acceptance of wind has relied predominantly on case studies, resident surveys, and reviews of development practices and strategies, here we use a new method. We use a wind contention survey of energy professionals (n = 46) to assess the contention associated with 69 existing wind farms in four US Midwest states and identify underlying characteristics, i.e., agricultural, land-use, and demographic characteristics, that may have predisposed communities to either support or oppose wind farm development. We then use publicly available data to parameterize and model those characteristics using wind farm contention as our dependent variable. Our analysis shows that a greater proportion of production-oriented farming and fewer natural amenities in a community are associated with reduced opposition to wind farm development. Additionally, and perhaps counterintuitively, communities with a greater percentage of residents that voted Republican in the 2016 Presidential election demonstrate less opposition. Rather than negating the need for employing best practices in community engagement, stakeholder development, and participatory decision-making processes, this study can help prepare developers for the type of reception that might await them in potential host communities.
Douglas L. Bessette, Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, East Lansing
Sarah B. Mills, Graham Sustainability Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Energy Research & Social Science, Volume 72, February 2021, 101873
doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101873
Download original document: “Farmers vs. lakers: Agriculture, amenity, and community in predicting opposition to United States wind energy development”
Malitsch and Mangold v. Penn Forest Township Zoning Hearing Board
Author: Court of Common Pleas, Carbon County, Pa., Civil Division
28. Atlantic Wind has failed to produce sufficient evidence and failed to sustain its burden to show that the proposed Wind Turbine project will comply with section 402.A.54.p of the Zoning Ordinance.
29. As Atlantic Wind has failed to meet its burden of proof and persuasion regarding the specific requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for wind turbines, no presumption has arisen that Atlantic Wind’s proposed use is consistent with the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
30. Although we find that no burden has shifted to the Objectors to present evidence and persuade this Court that the proposed use will generate adverse impacts not normally generated by such use and that these impacts would pose a substantial threat to the health and safety of the community, the Objectors presented credible expert testimony and scientific evidence that the proposed use will have a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community. …
38. The current principal use of the proposed Project Area is for the production of potable water.
39. The proposed wind turbine project would be an additional principal use in the Project Area. ( Zoning Ordinance, section 306.B.1).
40. Unless Bethlehem Authority ceases to use the Project Area for the production of potable water, the Wind Turbine Project would constitute a second principal use within a residential district in violation of section 801.B.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
41. As Atlantic Wind does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance relative to the proposed use and does not challenge the validity of the Zoning Ordinance nor seek to have the property re-zoned, the application for a special exception to permit wind turbines in an R-1 zoning district must be denied.
42. Having failed to meet its burden of production and persuasion concerning its request for a special exception to permit wind turbines in an R-1 zoning district, Atlantic Wind’s second request for a special exception to permit an operations and safety building as a use not specifically provided for (and not prohibited) in any of the zoning districts is rendered moot and denied.
43. Having failed to meet its burden of production and persuasion concerning its request for a special exception to permit wind turbines in an R-1 zoning district, Atlantic Wind’s request for an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance relative to the proposed permanent meteorological towers being permitted as either integral parts of the wind turbine use or as accessory uses or structures which are customary and incidental to the wind turbine use is rendered moot and denied.
44. Having failed to meet its burden of production and persuasion concerning its request for a special exception to permit wind turbines in an R-1 zoning district, Atlantic wind’s request for a special exception to permit the permanent meteorological towers as a use not specifically provided for (and not prohibited) in any of the zoning districts is rendered moot and denied. …
IV. CONCLUSION
As Atlantic Wind has failed to demonstrate that the sound produced by the proposed wind turbines will not exceed forty-five (45) A-weighted decibels and that there will be only one (1) principal use on the proposed project area, Atlantic wind has failed to meet its burden of persuasion that the proposed wind turbine project will comply with all the objective requirements for a special exception to be granted under the Penn Forest Township Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the deemed approval of Atlantic Wind’s application for a special exception must be vacated and we will enter the following
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, to wit, this 21st day of April, 2020, upon consideration of Appellants’ land use appeal and the oral argument of counsel thereon, our review of the record created before the Penn Forest Township Zoning Hearing Board and the Referee appointed by this Court, the briefs of the parties, and the report of the Referee, and in accordance with our Memorandum Opinion bearing even date herewith, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED as follows:
1. The land use appeal of Phillip C. Malit sch and Christopher Mangold is GRANTED;
2. The deemed approval of the application of Atlantic Wind, LLC, for a special exception under the Penn Forest Township Zoning Ordinance is VACATED; and
3. The application of Atlantic Wind, LLC for special exceptions under the Penn Forest Township Zoning Ordinance is DENIED.
Download original document: “Malitsch and Mangold v. Penn Forest Township Zoning Hearing Board”
