The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Saturday, May 25, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

There is "No Evidence" that Wind Turbine Syndrome Exists, Concludes Expert Panel

Zachary Rybarczyk and Stephen Lacey, Climate Progress
January 19, 2012  |  44 Comments

If we want wind to continue growing, more turbines will need to be placed in our communities and close to our backyards. And that will inevitably cause more social friction.

Wind supporters cannot discount concerns from local residents about noise and visual impact. With proper communication between developers and communities, many of the potential conflicts can be mitigated or avoided.

But there’s a huge difference between concerns of neighbors to wind projects and the faux medical conditions pushed by advocates who claim turbines are a serious threat to human health.

Although no conclusive research has shown that wind farms cause health problems, many anti-wind groups have pushed the idea that “Wind Turbine Syndrome” is a widespread problem – elevating legitimate siting concerns to scare tactics.

A new study released this week by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection finds that “there is no evidence for a set of health effects…that could be characterized as ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome.’” The supposed health impacts pushed by wind opponents include mental health problems, heart disease and vertigo.

The Department’s Panel was comprised of independent experts in a range of fields associated with the possible health impact of exposure to wind turbines. They explored scientific literature, reports, popular media and public comments and concluded that there was no scientific basis for claims about Wind Turbine Syndrome:

While the panel recommended more research on the impact of “very loud turbines” that could disrupt sleep patterns of some individuals (even though they write that a “‘very quiet wind turbine’ would not likely disrupt even ‘the lightest of sleepers’ at that same distance”), the researchers debunk the broad-based claims about Wind Turbine Syndrome:

There is insufficient evidence that the noise from wind turbines is directly… causing health problems or disease.  Claims that infrasound from wind turbines directly impacts the vestibular system have not been demonstrated scientifically. Available evidence shows that the infrasound levels near wind turbines cannot impact the vestibular system.

The study failed to produce any concrete evidence that “flicker” caused by the shadows of rotating blades causes epileptic seizure, or that turbines cause “pain and stiffness, diabetes, high blood pressure, tinnitus, hearing impairment, cardiovascular disease, [or] headache/migraine.”

The researchers concluded that the most dangerous problem in Massachusetts was from falling ice.

Zachary Rybarczyk is an intern on the energy team at the Center for American Progress. Stephen Lacey is a writer with Climate Progress.

This story was originally published on Climate Progress and was republished with permission.

44 Comments

Register To Comment
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 8, 2012
Maybe Mike's handlers think scientific studies are so dangerous that he needs to hide in: 'inaccuracies, distortions, misunderstandings or perhaps outright mistruths.'? What are 'mistruths' anyway? Maybe what Mike 'missed'?

But, even Siemens doesn't hide the facts in their datasheets and we in Calif. can't hide the waste caused by two eras of subsidized windmill investors. Why wind is second only to gas in accidental deaths here over the last few years!

But, in any event, 700 tons of fossil-fuel processed materials per installed MW, plus roads for ongoing maintenance and permanent ~10% power loss in transmission & idling is quite a price to pay just for a few investors to get subsidized FIT $.

Fortunately, the subsidies are fading and even folks like Vestas are laying off. And, the subsidies we pay for US coal & ore to be shipped via fossil fuel to Korea/China to make wind towers & rare-earth magnets, all of which gets shipped back via fossil fuel & T-bills -- those subsidies do what for US clean power? So the current wind fad will fade, as does the wind: www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html

Yes indeed, Mike's upset that reality is surfacing about the poor, short-term choice of wind power. So not much left but your weight-loss biz, eh Mike? As a self-proclaimed 'Innovation leader and omnivorous reader', you'll have no trouble moving to greener fields.
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
May 8, 2012
Actually if one reads the findings of the Massachusetts Health study you will see that they found that the typical wind turbine generates 106 dBA of noise which is enough to cause sleep disruption, that could lead to illness, to a typical person living within 1,300 feet. They also found that the sound is Amplitude Modulated (AM) which makes it more annoying than normal.

Common sense dictates that we need to double that distance to account for the extra annoyance of AM, and double it again to account for atypical turbines and people. This would result in a setback of 1.25 miles which coincidently matches with what most experts recommend.

There are more than fifty people who filed complaint against wind turbines in Falmouth, MA. The Health Panel did not interview any of them and did not visit the site.
Mike Barnard
Mike Barnard
May 8, 2012
6 inaccuracies, distortions, misunderstandings or perhaps outright mistruths. One dead link followed by incoherent rhetoric.

All rebutted by referenced, coherent, logical analysis in the various articles here: http://www.quora.com/Mike-Barnard/answers/Wind-Power

While entitled to his own opinions, DrAlexC is not entitled to his own facts. His use in pt 2 of the global warming non-story is indicative of the quality of his arguments.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 8, 2012
(...continued)

5th, wind's variabiity means that countries like Denmark must continually have about 300MW of reliable generation available if the next day's forecast is off by under 1 meter per second.

6th, windmills are absurdly wasteful of basic & hi-tech materials, land & sea, compared to plain old nuclear (click on the graphic & await an equivalent wind 'farm' to appear...
http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2010/03/uptime-downtime_07.html
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/02/09/wind-nuclear-infographic/

And 7th, another wasteful wind subsidy, beyond its inevitable transmission power loss and unpredictability, is lack of de-commissioning fees/bonds...
http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/

But, investors & govts. are starting to wise up and realize that local solar on existing structures is the future, along with storage & baseload.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 8, 2012
So Mike, we're sending a new neighbor over to you -- he has 30 breeding dogs that just love to bark.
;]
Gotta love that "anecdotal" ploy, eh? When facts hurt, call them anecdotes. Wonder if we'd like doctors to diagnose us that way?

Here are some sad wind facts. 1st, that the current designs are exceedingly poor in efficiency, land use and resource consumption... http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13430
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/07/14/caltech-vertical-axis-wind-turbines-boost-wind-farm-power-efficiency-10x/

2nd, 'farm' deployments add to global warming...
www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1505.html

3rd, wind investors love subsidies that allow them to do environmental damage while calling it 'green'...
www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/allan-farago-big-wind-s-inconvenient-truth
www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/environmental-impact.html?mid=538

4th, windmills on wheels, or lots more $ to dig up their 700 tons/MW and move them, will be needed...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind
www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21tttransmission.html?_r=1&hpw

(continued...)
Mike Barnard
Mike Barnard
May 7, 2012
17 major health studies have cleared wind turbines of negative health impacts. The truth is that some people nearby find the noise annoying. Some of those people get stressed. Some of those people lose sleep, but there's no evidence that they wouldn't be stressed and losing sleep over dogs barking, traffic noise, tractors at dawn or bird cannons instead.

The evidence against wind turbines is a deeply flawed, un-peer reviewed study that is at best poor anecdotal information, but turned into a 294-page book with lots of statistics named "Wind Turbine Syndrome". It succeeded however in creating a psychogenic illness. Pity.
http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/What-might-cause-people-who-live-near-wind-turbines-to-get-sick/answer/Mike-Barnard
http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/Is-Dr-Nina-Pierpoints-Wind-Turbine-Syndrome-a-real-medical-syndrome-caused-by-wind-turbines/answer/Mike-Barnard
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
January 28, 2012
Those windmills -- just never know when they'll deliver their MW!

There was a piece in AAAS Science last year about bat deaths in Midwest wind farms and how many $billions they will end up costing farmers there, if the windmill build-out continues.

This BP projection explains why fossil fuel gang isn't afraid of 'renewables', but is desperately trying to keep nukes down...
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037134&contentId=7068677

Just like the Heating Oil Institute paid for ads to help us environmentalists not knowing better to shut down Shoreham on Long Island.
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
January 27, 2012
etcgreen:

I too have been concerned about pressure change after reading this article related to bat mortality from barotrauma near wind turbines.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825132107.htm

I am also making measurements to determine the severity of the problem, but so far I have not been able to detect any low pressure waves coming from the turbine. I have been frustrated by the fact that of the three wind turbines in Falmouth, MA only one is operational and recently it has been turned off when speeds approach max power output.

Falmouth is supposed to conduct a thirty day test with Wind II soon, and I am hoping to be able to collect data that might quantify how severe this effect might be.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
January 26, 2012
To clarify "sonic" implies pressure. Infra-sonic just means vibrations at a frequency below human hearing. So elephants' feet feel pressure changes that are indeed infrasonic ground vibrations, and boom boxes in ghetto wagons are similarly pressure generators, below 20 Hz.

A problem with wind 'farms' can be quite bad when blades are in phase from any particular angle.
Steve Frazer
Steve Frazer
January 26, 2012
DrAlexC

Certainly - but I believe there are infrasonic vibrations that humans only "feel" as pressure coming from the turbines. After consideration, there must be studies due to the number of large turbines on the planet - someone, somewhere has performed this research study.

Then again, the first study on elephant infrasonic sounds was quite recent, in 2001. To study elephant infrasound, researchers use special equipment that can record low-pitch sound waves. Another machine, called a spectrograph, translates the recorded sound waves into images, or markings, that we can see. Elephants use infrasound to communicate many types of messages over long distances.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
January 26, 2012
Just to clarify, all sound is just varying pressure -- increases/decreases. "Noise" is just pressure changes that occur fast enough for us to hear (20-20,000 vibrations/sec).
Steve Frazer
Steve Frazer
January 26, 2012
ChrisKapsambelis

Simply stand within a 100ft of a utility scale wind turbine and you will not only hear the various sounds from the generator, transmission and airfoils cutting through the air, but you can also "feel" the air pressure from the air foil chopping the air.

I am a pilot so I may be more sensitive to this effect where my ear drums have physically responded as if I was changing altitude rapidly. While my firm has high-end decibel meters, we have never used a barometric pressure sensor near a turbine. I will in the coming months and publish my findings.

Regards
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
January 26, 2012
etcgreen:

The noise problem is well known. This is the first I hear of "air pressure pollution".

Can you explain what it is, how is it measured, and how it affects the environment?

Thanks.
Steve Frazer
Steve Frazer
January 26, 2012
Why is such an obviously false information article being published on this website? Who is editing this website that they would print something like this?

We have installed dozens of wind turbines and we take the environmental - including noise and resulting air pressure pollution - issues very seriously to protect our clients.

We love wind power, but it indeed has issues. There is no reason to ignore or falsify well researched facts to promote this very viable solution.

http://etcgreen.com
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
January 26, 2012
;] Nice, Thomas. If this comment system accepted jpgs, I'd be happy to provide actual test results from folks like NREL that show the sound-pressure field around operating windmills. But, basically, standing in front gives a nice, 50dB throb, with an little extra burp as each blade passes the tower.

I srll like what one can do even when turned off...
http://tinyurl.com/bl9vlc7
Thomas M
Thomas M
January 26, 2012
Perhaps we should stick the people who are doing the survey in a room with backround noise and strobelights for 24 hrs a day and see what effect it has on their health for them to fully understand.
Though I am not totally against wind power, it should be designed and used on a smaller scale, near point of use, just like any other renewable system, to be more beneficial.
It would also seem that we need more real farms for food rather than using up precious land for windmills.
Chris Kapsambelis
Chris Kapsambelis
January 26, 2012
The epicenter of the ill effects from wind turbines is now the Falmouth, MA wind turbines that were placed there by well meaning town officials with the full support of local residents. State regulators responsible for financing the project assured the town and local residents that noise from the turbines will be in the order of a household refrigerator.

Well, they were wrong. It was not long before one after another neighbors began to complain that the noise was excessive, woke them up at night, and some began to describe symptoms that were identical to what Dr. Pierpont has coined as 'Wind Turbine Syndrome'.

Dr. Pierpont came to Falmouth to interview people suffering the ill effects from the wind turbines. The prestigious panel of experts, in dismissing Dr. Pierpont's work, failed to talk to a single resident about their experience. This was after many requests to do so, some from prominent local political leaders.

After almost two years of more than fifty complaints, the MassDEP has yet to complete a single noise measurement, in spite of the fact that the only rationale for their existence is to protect the public from pollutants of which noise is among those specified.

Instead, they produce a politically motivated report to convince us that what the Falmouth 50 are telling us has nothing to do with wind turbines.

The Blacksmith Shop Road and its surrounding residents have lost their Quality of Life, Some have lost their health, and all have lost so much property value that they cannot afford to move anywhere else.

The town, the state, and now a prestigious panel of PHD's have shown a lack of sensitivity to the plight of people living next to these giant wind turbines that is hard to imagine. The distance away from turbines needs to be increased.

Continuing the aggressive campaign against honest reports of ill health will only exacerbate the hysteria to the point where land based wind turbines will be outlawed everywhere.
El Rucio
El Rucio
January 26, 2012
Back to the article, there is "no evidence" seemingly because the Mass. DEP chose not to examine the evidence in their own back yard. How can they claim to have studied the issue without a single interview with anyone whose complaints compelled them to undertake this, not study, but obvious snowjob?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
January 25, 2012
-27 why not man up like Jesse & use your name? Your goofy epithets are amusing though.

That Amsterdam video is indeed interesting for propaganda, like the fellow saying wind power is "the most efficient..." when any honest engineer will explain why most anything else is far more efficient. Fortunately, not everyone is fooled by folks who are more interested in $ or Euros than in efficient, safe power.

January 25, 2012
For all you wind turbine lovers out there.

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/learning-to-love-the-wind.html

January 25, 2012
Jesse-broehl-9395, Thank you for attempting to send this odd little man back to watching Opra or what ever they allow him to do during the day, in the commons room.

I merely dropped in to see where the many ex-used car salesman and ex-realestate salesperson were leading the renewable energy effort, it appears that it is the same as my last visit.

Profits and a single view agenda, lest we not forget, lots of high fives and patting on ones own back. America will always be a follower, never a leader, not with people like Alec C leading us.

Highjacking the effort is not a very honorable pursuit, but perhaps the only avenue he knows.
John Giannasca
John Giannasca
January 25, 2012
Hey Doc, I've been away for a while but on my return its good to see that some things don't change. Yes we are building our wind farms. No I haven't killed a bird...yet. Another disturbing thing that hasn't changed is the tone of these blogs. Maybe I'm just a sensitive old coot but its disturbing. I enjoy your work. We don't agree on a lot but I love your passion. Put a few smiley faces and they will get it.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
January 24, 2012
Dear Jesse, you reveal your errors too easily -- "I have seen your type of anti-wind trolling since my first month working for this website in 2003," -- I didn't even know of this site in 2003, or for some years after.

So, are you prone to fibbing for others to see, or just can't take facts? Trying to make some $ off wind subsidies from us all?

All the statements I've made about windmill resource consumption, inefficiencies, etc. come from manufacturer data sheets, reports, or govt. statistics.

If you don't like those facts. others here will. Man up, Jesse.
Jesse Broehl
Jesse Broehl
January 24, 2012
By the way, DrAlex, I have seen your type of anti-wind trolling since my first month working for this website in 2003, when you were just beginning to gestate your unguided and unsupported points of view. If history is any guide, it gets old, your comments will soon be roundly ignored and you'll eventually seek a more highly traveled bridge to blindly shout from under.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
January 24, 2012
Thanks for the advice -27. Coming from someone who's obviously not embarrassed by frivolous typing or resort to juvenilities, it's unclear whether it should be taken.

Our obligation should be to facts & not to misleading others, so you see, I don't care to convince you of anything.

But for others, this is the kind of thing we subject innocents to via our comfort in ignorance...
www.pointcarbon.com/aboutus/pressroom/pressreleases/1.1552105
www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/17/us-siemens-energy-idUSTRE80G10920120117
www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Eye_watering_cost_of_renewable_revolution_2301121.html?utm_so

January 24, 2012
Alex C, Let us agree one a single point, please stop writing me and I shall attempt to over look your foolishness.

In closing, I ask that you read your many silly statements are merely an attempt to persuade others on how smart you think you are.

Have a good life, Remember, no more of your writing, it is embarrassing, thanks.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
January 24, 2012
Has that kind of desperate attempt at sarcasm ever worked for you -27? Maybe that's why you go by a number -- got an ankle bracelet they monitor?

Facts are your enemies, -27, not me. I'm trying to be your buddy, protecting you against future embarrassment.
;]

January 24, 2012
Alex C, I am trying to understand what psychotropic your doc has you on.

I made a few calls, it wasn't too difficult, perhaps they do not allow you phone privileges outside of visitors day.

My inquiry was made to the various operators of wind farms, none where able to backup your dubious claims and several offered a clear channel to current data. All of which went to disproving what you are needing to cling to

My advise, relax, do as the docs suggest of you, you will get better, but from this point on you must be satisfied with playing alone. Good Night Alex C
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
January 23, 2012
Now for Jbroel, who steps up with a name! '...anti-wind vitriol is mostly from small solar zealots like DrAlexC who are blinded by their perfectionism and idolatry. Or the trashing is from straight up wind haters...'

If you bothered to read & check, J, you'd see that what I write has to do with facts in evidence from wind manufacturers themselves, such as Siemens, Vestas, etc.

They all know their products consume fossil fuels & huge land & mining resources to make. They say essentially that in their data sheets. The fact of what 1000 cubic-meter concrete foundation for a 5MW windmill means for the environment is a fact. The fact of what a 400-ton steel tower means to iron & coal mining & fossil-fuel combustion is indeed engineering fact. And so on, to the clear tune of 700 tons/MW peak, not counting transmission/road construction, etc. If you don't like those facts, be less naive about supporting windmills.

Science & engineering depend on facts & honest discussion, not propaganda, just as you depend on facts from your doctor. So, this site saying it's for 'all' forms of 'renewables' (whatever that means) should welcome honest appraisals, as should you & we all. It actually seems to do that, given that it reports on bad things that occur re any particular technology.

Wind power is unusual only in its forced inefficiency -- remote 'farms'. Solar 'farms' are wasteful & unnecessary.

For imports, as a factor, world trade is what it is, independent of what technology works best. If you don't like some solar coming from Asia, but are ok with lots of windmills coming from outside the US, talk to your Congressmen. Markets & environmental realities are different things. There are plenty more distortions, like how many Chinese died per iPhone.

Thus the reliable, long-lived sources are: efficiency, local solar & nuclear. They needn't be moved when the wind changes. They don't kill as much, and they use little land.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
January 23, 2012
Ahhh, the art of partial truth, eh Mr digits (327..) who lacks gumption to use a name.

Your uber snarkiness seems to suggest you know you're grasping -- the links above show existing windmills already equal to all oil spills in bird deaths. They also show similar results for reansmission-wire electrocutions, power/comm towers, etc.

So, what you've just proven is that we can't trust your analyses/statements. Because why? Well, what do windmills need? -- oil for their production & maintenance, towers for their power lines, coal mines, trucks, trains, yadda, yadda.

The reality you seem desperate to hide is the wastefulness of a land & resource-hungry, weak, unreliable power source that just sucks $ from rate/tax-payers, gives it to a few and kills as many birds, even at its modest present build-out, as power lines, towers, oils spills...


If we didn't build them, we;d not only save $ resources & energy long term, we'd eliminate their bird kills by more than just eliminating oil spills alone. Now there's reality.

So if windows are #1 bird killers, why build anything that's unnecessary to add to that?

I know, tough question. Sorry.

Calif. has ~2500 Golden Eagles left, 1/10 that of Condors. Losing even 80 a year now to 1/3 the windmills planned is unsustainable. But, windmills will die on their own, as we all wise up.

Don't worry, windies will make some $ still, as they did in the 70s here, without having to clean up after themselves...
http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/

January 23, 2012
Alex C, who needs a Doctor, Since you continue to talk about what you seen to know nothing about, the time has come to aid in your education, or medication.

The following are the best site that should help you to get your head straight, after all, there is nothing worse than a disinformation officer...gone wild.

http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/07/dead-birds.html

Have a great day, enjoy!
Jesse Broehl
Jesse Broehl
January 23, 2012
It's amazing and dispiriting how much anti-wind trashing occurs on REW considering this website takes the logical "all of the above" approach to supporting renewables.

The anti-wind vitriol is mostly from small solar zealots like DrAlexC who are blinded by their perfectionism and idolatry. Or the trashing is from straight up wind haters like Barbara whoever that used to troll these comment threads. (maybe she's taking a break these days). Most of it is just to feed ego and get a rise from other more reasonable readers.

It's an unfortunate circular firing squad, cutting down the wrong targets. No renewable energy solution is perfect, but certainly neither are the traditional entrenched methods either. But slamming those is probably too boring. Maybe it's just more interesting and reaction-provoking to slam wind.

PS: @ DrAlex: how do you rail against wind importing towers, when so many solar wafers now come from China?

And here are the facts on tower imports: By annual average build, roughly 1/3 of U.S. towers are imported. Roughly 2/3 of that proportion comes from Asia and 1/3 from Canada. Very very few nacelles or blades are imported from Asia.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
January 20, 2012
Most human mistakes derive from intentional or unintentional accounting fibs -- Madoff & Solyndra come to mind, at least.

Same for windmills -- "...first 6 months of operation, a wind turbine generates more power than was needed for its manufacture."

Maybe so, but that's the easy part. The 700 tons of fossil-fuel-processed materials per MW of 30% duty-cycle windmill power create an emissions burden that cannot be made up that quickly, even if the wind turned the windmill at peak output all day * competed with a coal plant. And, as fossil generation subsides, the event of a new windmill makes its concomitant emissions burden even a sillier waste.

Local solar has no such burden and doesn't even depend on foreign-supplied materials -- Korean steel towers, Chinese rare-earth magnets, foreign oil... At least the 2000 tons of coal needed per 5MW windmill tower could come from us, but not easily, if it has to be shipped to Korea or China first. So the big lie in wind is in simple self-serving accounting.

That's why is will be fading away, as Vestas & the Chinese already know...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind
www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21tttransmission.html?_r=1&hpw

Even the gentle Danes aren't happy...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/7996606/An-ill-wind-blows-for-Denmarks-green-energy-revolution.html

But, we'll have our memories of its glory days...
http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
January 20, 2012
Only "30 years" Mr/Ms 'unnamed digits'?

If you don't get the self-disproving logic of listing cats, then who could help you? Not me.

In Calif., if the rate of just Golden Eagle kills by windmills were to continue due to projected buildout, 10% of the entire population would die each year. Anyone with a glimmer of environmental understanding would realize a 10% annual population-reduction rate is likely unsurvivable.

But, fortunately, due to honest accounting rather than subsidy of the few, windmills will pass into the sunset before the eagles, bats...

January 20, 2012
Alex C. Having been associated with renewable energy systems for over 30 years I believe that you are confused.

Perhaps you were referring to the millions, possibly billions of birds killed each year by cats, wind screens, jet air liners, poisons, pesticides.

No turbines should be sited in the direct path a migratory birds, that an easy one but to merely state that turbines ate in your mind the greatest danger, is absurd. But you already knew that.

Gerald R, Understands the problem, remember, "horseless carriage must be preceded by a man with a red lantern, a minimum of 15 feet."
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
January 20, 2012
Lots of term dropping, eh Gerald? "Pareto" -- ooooh. Unfortunately, terms don't substitute for facts. Even last year, Energy America admitted the rate of windmill eagle kills here in Calif. was a bit above 0, and heading higher as more subsidized, inefficient wind machines get deployed. So even the wind industry says your statement "distribution of kills alone does not correlate with the location of windmills" is BS (B for bird). It even correlates with human deaths -- we had 2 this past year just in Calif.

We all note your avoidance of the reality that wind power not only creates a huge materials & emissions deficit, but it hurts our trade balance in more than one way. But what are facts, eh?

So you can ignore the realities & the superiority of deployment of local solar, if you wish, but honest folks aren't, which is why DG is now advocated by environmental groups as well as states like Calif. The facts show there's no need for windmills. Well, except for their subsidized promoters. We had plenty of those feeding off the body politic decades ago... http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/

Funny none ever came back to clean up. Sloppy kids, what can you do!?
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
January 20, 2012
drAlex. Actually, I have. There are certainly studies of eagle populations near wind mills. The mortality data is speculative rather than observational out of practical necessity. The distribution of kills alone does not correlate with the location of windmills as much as other nearby features. A substantial percentage of creatures studied merely disappear without a trace - in any study with this much drop out, the statistical confidence is very poor.

Gee whiz ... everything costs money and it takes energy and materials to make stuff - who knew. Seriously, the TLCA of various alternatives is what matters. To be sure, a wind turbine does not spring from nothing, but then what does. Consider the concrete and steel in a hydroelectric dam. I fail to see how transmission losses and/or the cost of transmission is the special purview of wind power - the pros and cons of centralized versus distributed generation is a different discussion.

When it comes to environmental impact, I'm a high peg in the tent kind of guy. Deal first with the front-runners in the pareto chart.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
January 20, 2012
Gerald obviously hasn't noted the number of dead eagles & other birds under our windmills here in Calif. He also apparently hasn't read the studies of dead bats under midwestern windmills (AAAS Science) that will, if wind 'farms' continue to full build-out there, cost farmers more in crop losses than the sum of all electrical generation from the 'farms' -- farm products are our largest source of foreign trade income.

Gerald also doesn't seem to know the Danes have effectively banned onshore wind farms due to noise, etc. And have had to provide 300MW of quickly-dispatched fossil power to make up for next-day wind forecast shortfalls of as low as 1ft/sec (IEEE Spectrum).

And, Gerald apparently doesn't know a top-line Siemens windmill consumes 400 tons of Korean steel, strategic magnetic materials only available now from China, 2000 tons of coal (we do have that), 1000 cubic meters of concrete, made by quarrying & kilning limestone via fossil fuel, and quarried aggregate, similarly fuel dependent. Add up just the basic fabrication materials & fossil fuel consumption and we see that 700tons/MW peak is a hefty price to pay for intermittent, land wasting, species-threatening, subsidized power. And, no de-commissioning bonds needed to guarantee cleanup, including foundations, when wind is properly diagnosed as irrelevant, except to it investors.

With local solar PV & hot water, there's no need at all for wind -- no land waste, no transmission waste, no species impacts, but, with a more robust grid and a future doubling of power density that wind can't even match today.

Just as the fossil industries fib about their subsidies & cleanliness, so do the windmill promoters. My favorite...
http://tinyurl.com/bl9vlc7

The story of wind power is as P. T. Barnum knew: "There's one born every minute." Not counting the guy exploiting that one per minute.
;]
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
January 20, 2012
Clean electricity benefits everybody.
In cases where landowners lease out the space there seems to be a lot of resentment from others who don't own the space: the sense of entitlement is huge and possibly in proportion to economic status. We have a case of local upper-classers preventing the building of a wind farm some 8 miles away as it might marginally effect their sightscape.

You have to be pretty thick not to understand the value of renewable technology. I don't think education is the answer. Many US Republicans are against it because they dislike Al Gore and he at times promotes renewable energy.

Of course, the elephant in the room is cost. Gee whiz ... stuff costs money. It's easy to make any expenditure look bad and easier where the overnight cost is higher than the alternative in spite of total cost of ownership.

In any case, any new thing will encounter resistance. Recall just a few years ago when the health effects of cell phones was a hot topic - now schoolkids have them. A century ago, there was a serious belief that letting women vote would destroy the country. Dealing with resistance to change is the penance of all pioneers.
Graham Nicholls
Graham Nicholls
January 20, 2012
One of the problems is that large, faceless corporations are builkding these farms and not providing anything worthwhile for the communities the farms are located in (paying the landowner only benefits the landowner). Follow in the example of Germany and Denmark where community involvement and ownership of windfarms has led to a far greater acceptance and uptake, with many more smaller farms being located close to the communities they serve. This is often done through communities having part ownership of the site or, for instance, ownership of one or more of the turbines in the farm. Others have built in aspects such as tourist viewing platforms and visitor centres built by the developer for the community to exploit. This type of involvement has lead to more interst and understanding of other renewable technologies such that increases in privately funded intiatives also increase in the area. Give the community some of the direct benefit and they will be more accepting in general.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
January 20, 2012
Women used to faint when railroad trains went too fast, resulting in regulations against it. There was also 'evidence' that motor vehicles travelling at >15 mph was injurious to the health of horses with appropriate legal regulation applied.

There are some interesting studies on wind turbine effects, three showing that the level of annoyance due to sound levels correlated with visibility (more annoying if the turbine could be seen) and ownership (annoyance level inversely proportional to financial interest).

There is no conclusive evidence for Golden Eagles: in CA there are much stronger correlations to proximity to roadways. Of course, the majority of man made golden eagle deaths are 1) shooting, 2) poisoning, 3) highways (for bald eagles replace highways with fishing equipment). On the other hand, the loss of raptors due to mercury pollution from coal fired power plants has been clearly demonstrated. There is limited evidence for an interaction between windmills and bats but not proven.
Bob M
Bob M
January 20, 2012
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The fact that a study did not discover conclusive scientific evidence of something does not in ANY way mean that there is conclusive scientific evidence that the phenomena does NOT exist. This reminds me of the cigarette industry arguing that there is no "conclusive proof" of lung damage from their products.

So let's avoid epistemic slights of hand.

Further, despite this study's inability to discern them, there are many subjective accounts of the phenomena, and more objectively, it is hard to argue against the destruction of property values of residences near turbines as being due to a collective delusion.

Finally, I like the idea of windpower, and hope that those who build them will come to the understanding that the industry will gain much wider acceptance if it is willing to be more conservative in siting towers. (or better yet, jump in a boat and go deep offshore!)

It is ridiculous to deploy a new, supposedly more environmentally friendly technology in a manner that does not try to mitigate against it's own environmental impact and effect on communities.
ANONYMOUS
January 20, 2012
And lets not forget to count the dead birds from the Exxon Valdez or the recent Gulf oil disaster. Countless studies have confirmed that an average wind turbine kills about 1 to 2 birds per year, far less than an average house cat.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
January 20, 2012
Right, and don't count the dead Golden Eagles under our Calif. windmills, or the dead birds & bats under midwestern ones -- deaths that directly impact food production.

Problem in reality is that wind is not only wasteful, it's unnecessary.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stephen Lacey

Stephen Lacey

I am a reporter with ClimateProgress.org, a blog published by the Center for American Progress. I am former editor and producer for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, where I contributed stories and hosted the Inside Renewable Energy Podcast. Keep...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 6
    Google Reels In Wind-Kite Firm Makani
  • 5
    Wind Turbine Lubrication and Maintenance: Protecting Investments in Renewable Energy
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Renewable Energy World Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
  • EnergyDreams LLC
  • Black & Veatch Corporation
  • Trojan Battery Company
  • DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability
  • Richardson RFPD, Inc.
  • Greenpower Capital
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information