[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Bigger wind farm setback pushed 

Credit:  www.saukvalley.com 20 July 2011 ~~

A Lee County group is pushing for a new rule requiring that wind turbines be at least 1.5 miles away from houses. But a company planning a wind farm for Lee, Bureau and Whiteside counties says such a distance would effectively ban turbines.

On Thursday, the attorney for the Informed Farmers Coalition, a grass-roots group in Lee County, is slated to present a proposed wind farm ordinance to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The board is reviewing the county’s current ordinance and is expected to make recommendations for changes to the full County Board. That process could last several months.

Larry Gerdes, a founder of the coalition, said the 1.5-mile setback is important for protecting residents’
health and safety. The distance would be far higher than the current setback of 1,400 feet, which is a little more than a quarter-mile.

Gerdes said people near turbines cannot sleep because of noise and flashing lights, and cannot concentrate because of shadow flicker during parts of the day, he said.

Also, residents have reported that they can’t use their cell phones or get TV reception, which they blame on turbines, Gerdes said.

Keith Bolin of Ireland based Mainstream Renewable Energy, which is planning a wind farm in the tri-county area, said his company opposes a 1.5-mile setback.

“That wouldn’t be a wind ordinance. That would be a wind ban. You would just be sending the message that you don’t want wind development,” Bolin said.

Gerdes, however, said the goal of an ordinance shouldn’t be the protection of the wind industry. “What obligation do we have to make sure they [wind energy companies] stay in business?” he said. “We don’t have that obligation.”

Source:  www.saukvalley.com 20 July 2011

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational 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. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Contributions
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share

News Watch Home

Get the Facts
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky