Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 12 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Wind farm concerns residents
Published 04:22 p.m., October 6, 2009
A 40-turbine wind farm proposed for Parkers Prairie is concerning residents.
The concerns raised during Tuesday’s Otter Tail County Board meeting were a noise level that could impact residents’ health, safety, a negative economic impact for land owners and an inability to spray crops.
Prairie Wind Energy LLC is proposing a 40-turbine project to be located in Parkers Prairie, Elmo, Effington and Folden Townships, according to a June letter written by Prairie Wind Energy President Terry Carlson. Each turbine would be rated at 2.5 megawatts each, for a total of 100 megawatts of wind-generated electricity, according to the letter. The turbines would be built about 3,000 feet apart. The project would be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, according to the letter.
Prairie Wind Energy staff was not present atTuesday’s meeting. Carlson didn’t return phone calls to The Daily Journal following the meeting.
The Otter Tail County Board unanimously approved in June a resolution that supported the concept of the project.
The turbines would be located on land leased from property owners, one of which is Fred Liljegren of Parkers Prairie Township.
Liljegren said he hasn’t signed the documents yet to allow the turbine to be built on his property.
He asked the commissioners to review the issues before the wind farm is constructed instead of afterwards. He concluded that he wasn’t against wind power, but he is requesting the county use discretion and conduct more research about the project.
“That prairie is a beautiful place. We don’t want to mess it up because we can’t see the negative impacts,” Liljegren said of Parkers Prairie.
Liljegren is concerned that the noise generated by the wind turbines would affect residents’ health. He noted that one study likened the noise to “a train that never gets there.” The noise is also louder in enclosed spaces, he said.
Liljegren also added that laws regulating wind farms are lagging in Minnesota. He is concerned about the regulations coming from the federal government, or “being pushed from the top.”
Liljegren also said he was concerned about the safety aspects of a wind turbine, noting that a blade can fly a half-mile away if it breaks off, although it doesn’t often happen.
“But if it happens on your head, it doesn’t matter how many times it happens,” Liljegren said.
Also ice can fly off the blade and land up to a quarter-mile away, he added.
Rodney Peterson is also a concerned resident who has wind turbines proposed for his property. He said that while it’s a “neat, intriguing” project, he’s concerned about the economic impact it would have for him.
Ken Peterson, who completes the aerial spraying for Rodney, noted that the wind farm should be located on property that isn’t prime agricultural land.
Ken requested that Prairie Wind Energy consider moving the turbines to the west, where there’s a wooded ridge and not agricultural land.
To be able to spray his crops located between the proposed wind turbine sites would be “suicidal,” Rodney said.
Ken echoed that sentiment, saying, “It would be suicide to go in there to spray.”
He stated he would have to be constantly remembering where they are located and be cautious while flying around the moving parts. He noted following the meeting that turbines can blend in with the crops or horizon when seen in the air.
Meanwhile, Liljegren noted that many residents in the Parkers Prairie area aren’t aware of the wind farm and its issues. He learned of the project when the company approached him about leasing his land for a turbine, he said.
Commissioner Doug Huebsch questioned whether the township boards would have the final approval on the project since the county doesn’t have an ordinance regulating commercial wind farms.
Commissioner Roger Froemming, whose residence is located close to the proposed wind farm, replied that the townships wouldn’t have a final say because they don’t have a zoning ordinance.
Land and Resource Director Bill Kalar noted that townships would have jurisdiction if they have zoning ordinances.
The county is currently in the process of reviewing its criteria for wind turbines. However, discussion has been focused on single residential turbines built by the property owner. The wind turbine rules are in the county’s shoreland ordinance, according to Kalar. All turbines located outside of shoreland areas aren’t regulated by the county, he noted.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post. To post a comment you will need to register. Or, if you're already registered but have not included your true, verifiable identity with your registration, you will need to update your account to include your identity. Effective Dec. 1, 2009, all posts appear with the commenter's true identity, which must be verified by site staff. Those who registered prior to Dec. 1, 2009, should be aware that once you update your information with your true identity, all prior posts under your user name will also indicate your true identity. If you do not wish to link yourself to prior comments, you should register again with a different user name.Posted by Timray18 (Tim Ray) on October 7, 2009 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
what??? objections??? i am surprised...the twirling blades may inspire the young to be pilots or astronauts!!!
Posted by werty (anonymous) on October 7, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets go nuclear instead....No ominous twirling blades of death that fire off heat seeking ice projectiles at the speed of sound to everyones head...and nuclear is completely silent with only steam as a byproduct.
Posted by IramsGrandSon (anonymous) on October 7, 2009 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about studying the existing wind farms near Pipestone and along Hwy 169 in the Southern part of the state? It is not like no one in MN has built a wind farm yet. The problem with a Nuclear plant (I can't tell if werty is being facetious or not) is the incredible amount of capital investment and the energy needed to build the plant, ignoring for the moment what to do with the radioactive waste produced. Well, that and the fact we haven't built one in over 30 years. Once a nuclear plant is online, it takes about 10 years of generation to make up the energy it took to build it. I am a proponent of diversifying our energy portfolio as a country, and I think wind is a good idea and no more offensive visually than cell phone towers and better than a coal plant or nuclear plant.
Posted by BryanHauschild (anonymous) on October 7, 2009 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Unfortunately Mr. Ken Peterson was miss quoted. Aviators can see the 400' tall white wind turbines from the air, they are highly visible. What Peterson was referring to were the MET (meteorological) monitoring towers which are less then 200' tall and are not required to be marked, painted, nor lighted. MET towers can be seen from the ground with the sky in the background but from the air they readily blend in with the crop they are installed in because the land owner or renter can plant their crops within the footprint of the tower. Thus, these MET towers pose a serious safety threat to aerial applicators, medical emergency helicopters, and your local private pilot. The 400' wind turbines pose a problem to the person farming that land and the aerial applicator's ability to treat that crop. In this case potatoes, which are sprayed several times a year. The most efficient means to do so is by air. These crops need multiple treatments to prevent a "Potato famine", caused by fungus, here in the U.S. If the crop cannot be treated by aerial application, the farmer looses income, the aerial applicator looses income, to the benefit of BIG WIND energy. $300,000 per year per turbine of which the land owner normally only receives 1.6% per turbine lease!
Posted by battlelake102 (anonymous) on October 7, 2009 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Give me a break, their beautiful, and if someone wants to give me 1.6% of $300,000 -- thats over $4,000! -- to put one on my land they are welcome to it. What a bunch of whining spoiled little brats, there are happy to send so one else's loved ones to get ground into hamburger to protect their gasoline, but if an alternative might inconvenience them ever so slightly -- no way. What an outrage! I simply am stunned at the level of stupidity of these land owners. They are going to be given over $4,000 to do nothing, nothing. The noise issue is so way overblown its ludicrous. If you stand directly under them, yeah, you can hear, but from within your house from a quarter of a mile away? Give me a break. You know come December you could have the WHO playing live next door and you won't hear it, why? Because no one is outside!
Posted by pilsnerurquel (anonymous) on October 7, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Posted by FungusAmugus (anonymous) on October 7, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jesus would not approve of these windfarms! they ruin families and will destroy our moral values!! Republicans must band together to crush these immoral ideas!!! Obviously it is Socialists who are coming up with these immoral plans to ruin our country!!!!
Posted by Newshound (anonymous) on October 7, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please, please, please have somebody from the County go down to southern MN, just 30 miles from Rochester, to see the big wind farm there.
Take some of the people who will vote on this issue. Make a decision based on knowledge, facts, prior examples and tested technology rather than whirling in circles, screaming and shouting.
The one near Rochester does not seem to be driving people away.
Posted by watermelon (anonymous) on October 7, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's a step in the right direction, but of course no one wants them in their backyard. I drove right by the wind farm past Rochester a couple of years ago, and you can't even hear the things. Granted, they look rather odd coming over the horizon. Like some type of futuristic movie set.
I'm sure the Ottertail power monopoly will have a play in whether these are put into use in the near future. Even considering there would be excess power that could be sold back to them.
Posted by akmscott (anonymous) on October 7, 2009 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bird blenders!
Posted by Timray18 (Tim Ray) on October 7, 2009 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i think we are not using the old noggin here....by dumping the spent nuclear in certain spots we can guarantee humans will not live there so there is an upside....besides, Ted Kennedy can no longer see them
Posted by noway (anonymous) on October 8, 2009 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The nuclear waste problem can be corrected in the U.S. as it is in other countries, including Canada. Build Breeder reactors that regenerate and re-use spent fuel. It is safe and you have a never ending supply of fuel with no waste storage. For all of you that will scream about Chernobyl and 3 Mile please remember: Chernobyl was a catastrophe that was created by a government that wanted to test what extremes they could get away with no containment around the plant and 3 Mile had little or no environmental impact because the safeguards in place worked. Todays technology would be even better than when 3 Mile Island was built.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)
You may also register to comment in our forums at www.fergusfeedback.com.