OpEd: Union Wind Turbine Discussion

In the past week as hundreds of visitors from all across the country have viewed the film clips of the Union wind turbine discussion, I have been working on connecting the dots....here goes.



Any effective planning process or due diligence process requires transparency of engineering and financial impact. In the absence of each, it becomes just vague opinions and rants. Developers who proprose projects need to understand that when projects are designed to have impact on the public, the public has a right to know the impact.



In the case of the Union wind turbine public hearing, it is clear from review that there is a rich history of WHO, World Health Organization data on the impact on human health from noise where turbines are placed close to residential neighborhoods. The problem is comparing those old turbines with the new in a rapidly changing field. Dane Albright spoke to the issue of comparing properly, and suggested that when the turbines are erected in Lena, we can just go and measure. It remains unclear to me what the EcoEnergy folks are waiting for in presenting the decibel data to the planning study committee.



I would propose that the ordinance have a stated standard for decibel level---in other words, it appears that some of those old turbines from 20 years ago might have to be 5 miles away given how primitive they were. On the other hand, maybe an "urban turbine" or "verticle turbine" such as is being installed in Fitchberg might have a very close setback. The decibel level would be guraranteed for the life of the turbine. The reserve would be made for the removal costs if there was a breach of performance. So I see an ordinance, but specifically a schedule of turbines that have different setbacks, not just one. However----the health of the residents would be guaranteed.



Years ago I had an experience with laser surgery that is comparable. I was losing my sight and laser surgery was proposed by my doctor to save it. I trusted him and knew he was the best. He wrote the book on it in fact. However, in the week before the surgery, I found on the internet that in the previous decade many of the subjects in Minnesota trials with the exact same procedure had gone blind. It freaked me out to say the least. I called him and he promptly returned my call.



Doctors normally do not enjoy patients asking too many questions----but he responded that "Yes-----those were the patients we learned from. The technology was primitive and the technique was flawed. We have learned a lot since then. It is not the same. "



Insisting on a stated decibel level that complies with WHO standards for safe sleep for children...and adults too, ensures that we who are paying for the electricity are not subjects in an experimental study----in short---we want the new technology.



Secondly---in the financial area, from the testimony of Amanda McElroy, there are questions whether with the public wind speed data available, whether all the numbers work out? In short, we need a successful project for the developers and an efficient project from the rate payers view.



In her presentation, Supr. Heidi Carvin called for "compromise"----however, all the speakers for the project spoke as if the "compromise" was just as in the past---the fact that there would be winners and losers....and that we have to weigh the kids who suffer from asthma now with the possible adverse impacts from wind turbine noise on the other hand. They spoke as this being inevitable. I disagree. It is not the health of the public that is to be "compromised." The citizens who were present made that clear. I believe that it is not necessary to be compromised.



What is required now is some transparency of engineering and finance---no more delay from the developers. No more evasion in answering the questions.

The wind is coming. This specific project from this specific developer may not be coming. We can be patient and wait till the proposal arrives that protects public health and makes sense from a financial perspective---a win for the developers and the public.

The reason that folks all over the country have come to listen in on the discussion in the Town of Union? It matters!!!!!!! The discussion here can set the standard of how it should be conducted. The state of Wisconsin did not do it in their creation of the model ordinance. The public hearing recently in the Town of Union was well done---but more work is necessary. I salute those involved in this process.

That is how I see it. And you?