Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Wind Farms and Health: It's Not Black or White

By Jim Cummings, Acoustic Ecology Institute
February 17, 2012   |   70 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
Page 1 of 2
70 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 70
February 17, 2012
There is no real evidence that windfarm noise really affects their neighbours. Any evidence is falsified by the fact that we have lived near shore for ages, and that the sound of waves pounding on the beach does NOT affect the neighbours of the beach.(in a unhealthy way)

There is low frequency noise to be heard near shores, also infrasound.
But noone seems to get unhealthy there, so the similar noise of a windfarm is also not the cause of any negative health effects.
Comment
2 of 70
February 17, 2012
Henk: True, the frequency range (including being broad-band, with increasing sound energy in lower frequencies) and loudness (dB) may be in the same ranges as waves; however, it's an oversimplification to say the sound is thus "similar." The experience of sound includes factors not so easily quantified by those particular numbers. In particular, the variability in both loudness and nature of the sound (sometimes a whoosh, sometimes a knocking, sometimes more whining), as well as having it come and go throughout the day and night, can contribute to more annoyance, as well as simply more attending to the sound, rather than allowing it to melt into the background. The sound also often pulses at about once per second, with rapid rise times for each pulse; this is a very different quality of sound than the gentle rise and fall of the waves over several seconds each.

I could go on a bit here, but the real point of this piece is to encourage you to look beyond the simple framing of this as seeing reported health effects as being "caused by" the sound itself; the likely effects, for most, are strongly related to their sense of place and landscape, as well as their ability to get a good night's sleep. When there is more perceived impact on one's quality of life, there is likely to be more stress and annoyance, and from that also more cases of health impacts. The severity of these responses varies from community to community, and we're beginning to have enough experience to be able to take into account the likely severity of reactions as we decide where to site turbines (ie how close/loud a given community is likely to tolerate with relative ease).
No image available
Comment
3 of 70
Anonymous
February 17, 2012
Excellent point, Jim! I can assure you that when we chose to move out to an island in the middle of the Penobscot Bay in Vinalhaven, Maine, our motivation was to find a beautiful, QUIET, and peaceful spot. We worked a life time to make that dream come true. To have 400 foot industrial wind turbines erected near our home and to discover (after we had been told by Fox Islands Wind that noise would NOT be an issue) that the noise sometimes sounds like a helicopter is sitting on top of our house was STRESSFUL, to say the least! Sleepless nights, noisy days, and unexpected financial pressures increase our anxiety and frustration. Like so many others in our same situation, we can not afford to sell our home due to the drop in property value. If we do sell at a loss, our financial security is threatened. I agree with Jim, that stress is a key factor. For individuals who are particularly sensitive to noise, living near wind turbines can have significant and dangerous health effects. I would also like to point out that the ranchers do not have the same problem of wind shear as we do on the coast of Maine. FIW did not account for wind shear in their calculations which has been a large part of our problem. Consequently, we have a thumping kind of rhythmic turbine noise that goes through our house and through our bodies. Thank you, Jim, for your article and your sensitivity to the issue. As is obvious from an earlier comment, often times people who do not live near industrial sized turbines just don't get it.
Comment
4 of 70
February 18, 2012
My own experience during a very stressful period of my life was that popular radio made me feel sick in my stomach and my head pound. Perhaps the base beat was the stressor that put me over the edge, but music is not considered a heath threat, and it was definetely my situation and stress level that made me succeptable (I like pop music now). We need to accept the intrusive stressor of the wind farm, and that for some people it might put them over the edge. We need to short circuit the anti WF arguement (another stress in its own right), and if we support any of us poor folk who do become impacted psychologically, then the outcome has to be better, possibly even positive.
No image available
Comment
5 of 70
Anonymous
February 18, 2012
Scott is correct in that constant noise can and does put people over the edge. The wind industry's comment that the sound is like a quiet conversation in a living room is ridiculous! Imagine having someone chatting in one's ear all night, all day out in the yard, blabbing away as one tries to read a book, or tries to relax out on a deck! ALL of these issues could be avoided with responsible siting. It is time for the local and federal governments to develop noise regulations for industrial turbines that truly WORK. This would help to avoid the incredible local turmoil that follows after wind farms are erected too close to homes. The documentary Windfall illustrates how towns are torn apart by controversy surrounding wind farms, pushing residents' stress levels out of sight. If turbines are sited far enough away from homes, perhaps wind energy would receive some of the support the industry desires. As is, wind industries are playing an underhanded game and in the process are ruining people's lives and their own success. Under the current laws, individuals who live near wind farms have no other choice but to fight back or abandon their homes. Not a good choice for anyone.
Comment
6 of 70
February 21, 2012
Not sure if you can compare ocean waves to windmills. Ocean waves are not consistant. There is cancellation and reinforcement depending on the wave size, direction and frequency not to mention dead tides, low tides and high tides.
Windmills rotation and frequencies are pretty much steady and consistant even with varying wind speeds.
If this is not the case perhaps someone will come up with relaxation machines tuned to the sounds of windmills instead of soothing ocean waves.
No image available
Comment
7 of 70
Anonymous
February 21, 2012
Lucky you, Thomas, that you can afford to make jokes about wind turbine noise. Not so funny for those of us who have the choice of living with the noise or TRYING to sell our home, if anyone will buy it, and dealing with a huge financial loss if they do. Actually, I think that the pull of gravity, ie tidal power, is much more reliable than the wind. Wind is fickle. Some days the turbines do not turn at all.... a welcome relief to those of us living near by and the best stress reduction of all.
Comment
8 of 70
February 22, 2012
I am a fan of windpower, but i being a sound sensitive person myself, i believe that you can go crazy from sounds that others may find a "whisper in the background" or dont even hear at all for some reason.

Of course there are the same concerns from people living near windpower sites in germany. Besides the noise, there is also this light-shadow effect, if you are really living close.

We have regulations for that, which i dont know in deatail. There even is a the story about a user who has a red button in his house to shut off the entire facility, when he feels the effect.... I dont know how true that story is. Sounds costly...

Now what i would like to know what the differences are between US and german regulations regarding windparks. I believe there is something like a minimal distance to settlements or something. Anybody who knows about reglementations in any country?
Comment
9 of 70
February 22, 2012
Thoma
I am comparing the sound of waves that arrive on a shore with the sound of windturbines in variabel wind.
These are all random sounds, because waves almost always hit the shore at the same time along its lengt (or broadbness)

Modern windturbines have a variable speed.
The only thing that may lead to a peak in the sound frequency spectrum is the blades passing the tower.
Blades give a directional sound, that points in de direction of the flight of the blade-tips.(most of it, but not all)
This directionl sound is only discernible at a distance below, say 2 or 3 times the tower height.
And when there are more turbines within this distance, it all fades to a more uniform sound.

Energizer
Most regulations focus on sound exposure. Turbine manufactures specify the sound of their machines, given a specific wind regime over a year. With this data maps can be calculated where the line of the allowed sound exposure is, for a single or group of turbines.

Also for shadow from the blades, this is calculated to a map of lines with more than a regulated amount of hours per your that shadow is experienced.
Turbines are equiped with optional automatic systems to shut down temporarily, when shadow is expected on a place that could expierience yo much shadow.

These are set amounts of sound and shadow, that apply to all citizens equally.
However there are those millions that are used to traffic noise and some that live in very quit places.
Most countries have rules that say that it is allowed that people living in quit places will experience the same sound as the millions that live in traffic noise.
No image available
Comment
10 of 70
Anonymous
February 22, 2012
In the US each state has its own noise regulations which is a major part of the problem with our inadequate noise regulations. For the most part, turbines are expected to be around 45dBA at night and 55dBA during the day. In the US, there is usually no delineation according to rural, suburban, and urban noise levels which has caused much of our noise problem. In urban areas there is going to be a much higher level of ambient sound to cover the turbine noise than in rural areas. In Australia, for instance, noise regulations are at 35 dBA day and night in sparsely populated rural areas. This makes sense because background ambient noise is much lower in rural areas and oftentimes people move to those areas specifically for peace and quiet. Setbacks from wind farms also vary by state in the US. Most setbacks are about 1,000 feet from the property line which is not nearly enough. In some states, local towns have increased setbacks in order to avoid the terrible living conditions that have resulted from siting turbines too close to homes. It is time for the US to set federal standards demanding a 1 mile setback at a minimum and a noise level set by population density. Residences who are close to turbines should be offered federal or state property guarantees so individuals who can not live with the noise can afford to sell their homes. We have made some tremendous siting mistakes in the US, most of which have been in rural areas in the US. These mistakes have given the wind industry a very bad name in small rural towns across the nation and for good reason. Currently, there is a strong backlash in the US against the wind industry and it will continue until the industry either crumbles or changes it siting and noise regulations.
Comment
11 of 70
February 22, 2012
Furthermore
I have the impression that there is a difference between countries, with how organized they are, at protecting legal placed homes and illegal of freely placed homes.

Legally placed homes are protected against too much sound
But non legal homes, such as holiday homes, are officially business buildings in some countries, which have no protection against sound
And a shed somewhere away form averyone, may also not be protected, because it is no official home.

Then is a mater of what " should" get preference, clean energy for everyone or quitness for a non official home
Comment
12 of 70
February 22, 2012
Thank you to Jim Cummings for continuing to put a rational view towards the points about sound emitted by wind turbines and human impact. Jim raises the very good point about the fixation of some studies to only look at the "direct effects" of the sound on health, and thus to claim that the sound is not high enough to cause deafness. True enough, but no one claimed that wind turbines were making them deaf. What is remarkable is the adversion of studies to look at the "indirect" health effects. We seem to have no difficulty in recognizing that flooding causes both direct health effects (drowning) and indirect health effects (disease, and stress from displacement). Both result in deaths and both are attributable to the flood. Yet, with wind turbines, the studies only look at the direct effects and ignore the indirect effects.

When a problem is identified, a common approach taken in root cause analysis is to look for what changed from before the problem occurred and after it was apparent. I have personally sat with over 40 people, and listened to their history about how before wind turbines arrived in their neighbourhood, they were fine, but after they suffered from sleep disruption, elevated blood pressure, dizziness, and difficulty concentrating. Rather than just accepting the simple explanation "it's the wind turbines" I decided to look for a scientific change. Monitoring the sound levels at 5 sites in the same environment (terrain, vegetation, proximity to roads, etc) within a 2 hour period, so that wind speeds and wind turbine output had little time to vary, I monitored a site 5 km (3 miles) from the nearest turbine, and sites within 500 m to 1000 m (approximately 1500 feet to 3000 feet) from the nearest turbine.

(continued below)
Comment
13 of 70
February 22, 2012
(continued from above)

With no turbines, the sound levels at all frequencies were very similar. When turbines were added, the sound level at all frequencies below 1000 Hz increased by 20 dB over the sound level at the remote site. As the wind speed (and turbine output) increased, yes, the sound level increased at the site remote from turbines, but it stayed 20 dB above at the sites near the turbines, and in fact the higher frequency sound levels also climbed at the sites near the turbines compared to the remote site. (These were not just one-off measurements but a repeated series.) The results can be found in the Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics at http://asadl.org/poma/resource/1/pmarcw/v12/i1/p040003_s1?bypassSSO=1
(or enter http://asadl.org/search Palmer wind turbine)

As for saying that wind turbines are like the sound for lakes or rivers, a paper by Gunnar Lundmark at the Wind Turbine Noise Conference in April 2011 showed this was not the case, even though the current measurment methods of time averaged dBA levels hides the cyclical swish noise. The wind turbine sound is distinctly different, and the cyclical nature is recognized as a factor in increasing the annoyance, and hence indirect health effect.

Thanks Jim, you are putting forward the information that for whatever reason, the responsible authorities seem to be shying away from.
Comment
14 of 70
February 22, 2012
All new science has difficulties. The industry is going to have to face the fact that there are those who do not like the presence of these huge machines anywhere they even think they can hear them, or see them. The only solution for the industry is to buy or long term lease property large enough to eliminate this as an issue, period. There are huge tracts of farmland just looking for an additional income, and corn probably does not listen to these noises with its 'ears'.
No image available
Comment
15 of 70
Anonymous
February 22, 2012
Thanks for writing a quality article.
Comment
16 of 70
February 22, 2012
Noise and annoyance are very much what you make it. In university I had a 2nd floor apt. at a trolley bus stop on a main line. Pneumatic brakes had a loud squeal; in winter sleet cutters would create a thunder clap and a ball of lightning during regen braking within 25 feet of the living room window. When we had company, their startled looks would remind us that a trolley had arrived - we never noticed a thing.

The article says "nearly all of the individuals who are telling us about their actual health impacts have no dog in the energy-policy fight" yet so many of them raise complaints like neighbors receiving a higher rate from the operator or the only one's getting paid for land use or some other financial impact.

It's not true that studies have not been done when in fact they have. The real complaint is that no studies have been done here. This is the Mazlovian localization effect: I'm special, where I live is special, and studies done anywhere else are irrelevant. Studies show that visibility and financial interest do have a substantial influence on annoyance levels. Unfortunately, there are not many studies with a control group and no blind studies that I am aware of. However, the epidemiology of the various symptoms claimed for so called wind turbine syndrome is that they occur in relatively high rates in the general population, especially auditory and balance related ones,so the baseline is far from 0. "between 5-15% of neighbors within a mile or so may be reporting health effects" is actually within range for the general population.

An important point though is that fixed setbacks make no sense and are merely a symptom of sloppy regulation. Ditto for a single sound level limit. Setbacks should at least take into account hub height and blade length and operating sound levels which are turbine specific and elevation, contour and ground cover which are site specific. Sound/infrasound limits should be over the spectrum and time dependant.
Comment
17 of 70
February 22, 2012
Good article, but it is more than a few farms that are driving residents batty, not to mention killing birds and bats. And you need about 2 kilometers for relief, not "half a mile or so." In Denmark, the complaints are so frequent that no more land based turbines are being built.
Comment
18 of 70
February 22, 2012
On thing I find interesting is that I can't find any scientifically derived sound level limits for any type of sound / noise. This is in the broad spectrum of noise sources including traffic noise, industrial equipment, appliances, tools, etc. The equivalent exposure regulations for non-ionizing radiation (primarily lasers and UV lamps) are vastly better developed in spite of the fact that there is a much shorter history (and they're not perfect). Exposure limits for sound are just barely divided into occupational and non-occupational exposures and consist of a single dBA value without regard to the nature or quality.

Audiologists seem to be poorly informed in areas such as building construction, aerodynamics, acoustics, instrumentation, etc. Typically, published data consists of well rounded broadband SPL numbers with no stated statistical confidence or distribution function, no LD50 etc. One of my faves is a study where the researchers woke up the subjects every two hours and then later queried the subjects as to whether they were feeling sleep deprived. It's fair to say that we need better data on the effects of sound and better defined control limits. Currently, there is no constraint on infrasound from any industrial equipment other than the bycatch that occurs in precision manufacturing facilities where it impacts directly on precision (and yes Virgina, a 4 lane highway at 1000 m produces a great deal).
Comment
19 of 70
February 22, 2012
Gerald, good point about getting used to sound/noise; I live a couple hundred yards from a train line, in a very rural area, and know what you mean. I also live just over a mile from an interstate, and it's nearly always audible. Neither of these, though, make me less empathetic to the impacts of a new noise source being added to a tranquil landscape. I think for many, the fundamental thing is really a loss or substantial change in their sense of place and home, which creates annoyance/stress. The very high annoyance rates in some areas are truly what I consider the major impact of wind farms, and the primary driver for the need to come up with a siting regimen that takes "rural amenity," as they call it in Australia and New Zealand, into account.

I take your point about the 10-15% being close to population-wide levels of many of these symptoms; that's well worth factoring into the discussion. However, there are also the many tales such as Bill P mentions above, in which people do seem to associate change in quality of life and some physical responses to the coming of the turbines (and their associated stressors). Perhaps these really are a much smaller proportion, the most noise sensitive. I guess my overall response to your perspective is that we should be careful of simply writing off real experiences on the basis of a perspective from which it "shouldn't be a problem."

As you likely gathered from the article, I recognize that many who raise the health issue are vehemently anti-wind on many levels, and both these groups and some understandably fearful community members are likely making more of the health issue than it may deserve. Yet that doesn't "explain away" the existence of any health-related consequences of wind development. Considering indirect stress factors and the few extremely sensitive individuals is simply part of seeing the whole picture. From there, we can address policy questions from a more informed and balanced stance.
Comment
20 of 70
February 22, 2012
test
Comment
21 of 70
February 22, 2012
@AEI -'Disturbance' is pschological as is its impact. The environment is filled with sound of all kinds. It is technically difficult to make accurate SPL readings when measuring performance such as '72 dBA measured at 4 feet from the equipment': the world is just not so quiet that ambient noise can be readilly discounted. New/unusual sensations create a level of disturbance which is greater than something familiar. I am distinctly nauseous just looking at video of high iron workers. Another aspect is that one has a higher sensitivity to input one is anticipating: when skulking after deer, a single footfall on dry leaves stands out against all the leaves rustling in the breeze. Annoyance and anxiety are processed responses to input and, among other things, tend to increase sensitivity to disturbance. It's probably safe to say that an individual is likely to be annoyed by the things that annoy them and anxious about things that they are anxious about. Often an initial experience triggers a regenerative process and it's partly about conditioning - otherwise fast food joints wouldn't keep telling you how good their food tastes. One standard bit of human response is rationalization - if we feel bad we need an explanation (hence the popularity of witch trials).
Let's consider the symptoms of wind turbine syndrome:
1 Sleep disturbance
2 Headache
3 Visceral Vibratory Vestibular Disturbance (VVVD)
4 Dizziness, vertigo, unsteadiness
5 Tinnitus
6 Ear pressure or pain
7 External auditory canal sensation
8 Memory and concentration deficits
9 Irritability, anger
10 Fatigue, loss of motivation
I'm not even sure what 3 and 7 mean, but I've experienced all of the rest without wind turbines. 4 has been around for quite a while - recently explained by a congenitally wonky heart valve. 1: hard day at the office / wife's snoring. 5: my amp set to 10 for two hours. These are all common complaints - cause and effect can not be so simply determined.
No image available
Comment
22 of 70
Anonymous
February 22, 2012
WIND TURBINES DO NOT CLEAN UP LOW LEVEL OZONE LEVELS TURBINES DIRECTLEY ADDS TO LOW LEVLE OZONE LEVELS CALLED OXIDES COMMOLY REFFERD TO OXYGEN ATTACKS ALL METAL AND PLASTICS SURFACES
Comment
23 of 70
February 22, 2012
To consider this issue from a wind farm developers perspective and with consideration of the indirect health effects from annoyance, developers either need to determine who these extra sensitive folks are and work around each of them or stay a mile away from all receptors. Neither of these options is practical.

The US will have a very dificult time installing a significant amount of wind if forced to draw a 2 mile diameter circle around every receptor. The idea of allowing every potential receptor to decide whether they are going to be annoyed seems equally unworkable.

Clean energy has some issues but they seem pretty trivial compared to what it is replacing.

If every person who could hear the noise from the interstate highway system were allowed the kind of consideration that the annoyed wind folks are wanting, what kind of interstate highway system do you think we would have?
Comment
24 of 70
February 22, 2012
I like solar for a lot of reasons...

I get the noise issues with wind. I think they're overblown especially when considering trains, traffic, airports..etc. In my opinion health issues relative to wind turbine noise may be stress related. I obviously don't know and no one else does for sure, either. At least I haven't seen any peer reviewed studies/reports.

With respect to health hazards one should read The American Lung Association report dated December 2011 outlining the various issues/health hazards relative coal emmissions. People should read it. Coal kills. No question that coal emmissions have a significantly higher adverse impact on the general populace with respect to health and health care costs. Especially those communities where those facilities are located...and then downstream. There is no dispute. Nasty stuff.

Problem with alot of this energy stuff is the not in my back yard mentality which apparently indicates it is ok to have adverse affects on other communities just as long as it doesn't disrupt my life..(it stresses one out because I want things to stay as they have for over a 100 years)... besides, I didn't get a wind lease... and I'm pissed off... and I'm going to wreck it for "you".

Going off on a tangent (excuse me); Here's the thing, in my opinion.

We want "cheap power". Yup...uh huh. Tell me about it. I don't want to pay 3 or 4 dollars a month more for my clean energy because it may detract from some worthless plastic trinket designed to get my money to support the Chinese.. I can pick these up at Walmart for good value.

Also, I like the fact that big energy is generally a monopoly and I have fewe choices. Especially those choices facilitating the exportation of my energy dollars into some shareholder's pocket who doesn't give a damn about my community.

I like cheap power.

You see; it's mainly about me. And that's a problem, too.
Comment
25 of 70
February 22, 2012
I think Wind turbine syndrome does not exist, at least not induced by wind turbines.
In the Netherlands, hundreds of farmers have built a large turbine, within about 100 m of the farmhouse where they live with their family.
These turbines have been built in the last 20 years or so, so families have lived in the sound of the turbine, mixed with other sounds from the farm yard and often a stable with cows. Because farms are situated in quiet rural area's these families were used to quietness.
Yet they lived in the sounds and its variable noises, for years, without any registered problems.

There is however, an other explanation of health problems, that is identity.

The new turbine near there farmhouse, adds to the identity of the farmer and his family. Because of the strengthening of their identity, any problems noise could have were absorbed by their increased well being, because of the turbine.
You can find some of them at
http://www.windunie.nl/Passport/paspoort.aspx
a cooperation of 'Dutch farmers wind a wind turbine' Its a dutch language site, but just look at those proud farmers.

The same identity factor has an opposite effect for persons exposed to new turbines in the area they see as their home.
Because the turbine is not their idea, is owned by someone else, and they could not stop it, its presence is harmful for their identity. The turbine invades their territory, and they fail to cope with that change, that failure causes stress, which is harmful for their health and well being.

That is why Denmark made it obligatory by law, that a wind farm developer, sells at lease 20% of the project to citizens around the wind farm to be built, otherwise the project cannot continue.
In this way citizens have a change of positive identification with the wind farm.
http://www.socialacceptance.ch/images/State-of-the-Art_Acceptance_Wind_Energy_Denmark.pdf
page 7
Comment
26 of 70
February 22, 2012
I do not agree with the 'It does not bother me' argument. Just because you live next to a rail road track does not mean I can tolerate the sound of a train going by my house every half hour. And the argument of 1/4 mile being too little, well now we need to look at the noise levels at that point to claim or disclaim the distance in an effort to make a real reasonable decision. But using a train next to your house as a point of reference is a bit obtuse.
No image available
Comment
27 of 70
Anonymous
February 22, 2012
@henk: I think that WTS does exist - as someone said: what annoys you will annoy you. Annoyance leads to aggrevation. Ultimately, that explains every problem. What you're suggesting is a genetic resistance to WTS amongst the Danes - probably a throwback to long days of exposure to flapping sails in a dragon boat.
No image available
Comment
28 of 70
Anonymous
February 22, 2012
Henk, I do not believe that Denmark is a good example of the lack of WTS considering that due to the effects of turbine noise, there have been so many demonstrations against industrial sized turbines in Denmark that the Danish have decided to not build any more land based turbines! All new turbines must be ocean based.
Comment
29 of 70
February 22, 2012
No anonymus,
There will also be more onshore wind turbines in Demark, because they will recognize that energy may not be lost.
There has been a intolerant right wing government, now there is a left wing coalition, that immediately increased the wind power ambition.
But windfarm projects need some years to be developed.

Policy:
http://www.windpower.org/en/policy/wind_power_works.html

Public support more than 60%:
http://www.windpower.org/en/policy/planning.html

40% says there are no problems with windturbines
20% says that noise may be a problem.
But there is lots of space in the Danish countryside, so noise should not need to be a problem.
Comment
30 of 70
February 22, 2012
No anonymus,
There will also be more onshore wind turbines in Demark, because they will recognize that energy may not be lost.
There has been a intolerant right wing government, now there is a left wing coalition, that immediately increased the wind power ambition.
But windfarm projects need some years to be developed.

Policy:
http://www.windpower.org/en/policy/wind_power_works.html

Public support more than 60%:
http://www.windpower.org/en/policy/planning.html

40% says there are no problems with windturbines
20% says that noise may be a problem.
But there is lots of space in the Danish countryside, so noise should not need to be a problem.

About WTS, I thing the key point is local ownership.
As JohnIhle points out above, he thinks for himself.
He likes cheap power, for himself

That is what wind cooperatives and community wind farms are all about.

On shore Wind farms are solid investments, that do not need much risk taking businesses.
The members of a community windpower project have the cheapest energy, nobody to raise prizes for his own profit. Trust in the local community keeps WTS away.
Comment
31 of 70
February 22, 2012
No anonymus,
There will also be more onshore wind turbines in Demark, because they will recognize that energy may not be lost.
There has been a intolerant right wing government, now there is a left wing coalition, that immediately increased the wind power ambition.
But windfarm projects need some years to be developed.

Policy:
http://www.windpower.org/en/policy/wind_power_works.html

Public support more than 60%:
http://www.windpower.org/en/policy/planning.html

40% says there are no problems with windturbines
20% says that noise may be a problem.
But there is lots of space in the Danish countryside, so noise should not need to be a problem.

About WTS, I thing the key point is local ownership.
As JohnIhle points out above, he thinks for himself.
He likes cheap power, for himself

That is what wind cooperatives and community wind farms are all about.

On shore Wind farms are solid investments, that do not need much risk taking businesses.
The members of a community wind power project have the cheapest energy, nobody to raise prizes for his own profit. Trust in the local community keeps WTS away.
Comment
32 of 70
February 22, 2012
No anonymus,
There will also be more onshore wind turbines in Demark, because they will recognize that energy may not be lost.
There has been a intolerant right wing government, now there is a left wing coalition, that immediately increased the wind power ambition.
But windfarm projects need some years to be developed.

Policy:
http://www.windpower.org/en/policy/wind_power_works.html

Public support more than 60%:
http://www.windpower.org/en/policy/planning.html

40% says there are no problems with windturbines
20% says that noise may be a problem.
But there is lots of space in the Danish countryside, so noise should not need to be a problem.

About WTS, I thing the key point is local ownership.
As JohnIhle points out above, he thinks for himself.
He likes cheap power, for himself

That is what wind cooperatives and community wind farms are all about.

On shore Wind farms are solid investments, that do not need much risk taking businesses.
The members of a community windpower project have the cheapest energy, nobody to raise prizes for his own profit. Trust in the local community keeps WTS away.
Comment
33 of 70
February 22, 2012
For anyone in doubt of the unique sound waves coming from wind turbines, in the case of bat deaths, it is not the blades hitting the bats that causes their death, it is from flying into a pressure wave that explodes their lungs.
Regarding the first comment comparing wind turbine sound waves to the sound waves produced by ocean waves. I know of no incidence of dead bats near the shore line causd by ocean waves. Do you?
Comment
34 of 70
February 23, 2012
There are a number of obvious conclusions one can reach:

• No one knows for sure why there is a large number of complaints from around the world.
• Authorities, who have an obligation to investigate complaints, have failed to do so.
• The use of a specific Sound Pressure Level as a threshold to determine proper setbacks is ineffective, especially in residential neighborhoods.
• A setback distance of 2 km will eliminate complaints.
• Authorities have an obligation to protect the public against all forms of environmental pollution including noise or whatever is the root cause of these complaints.

Authorities need to establish a 2 km setback until the cause of these complaints is conclusively establish and understood.

The burden of proof that closer setbacks are safe should be placed on developers and/or government agencies who believe that wind energy is a necessity, and not the individual citizen with very limited resources.
Comment
35 of 70
February 23, 2012
Cummings notes that many people raising health concerns are opposed to industrial wind for other reasons as well. Yet he ignores the fact that the efforts to dismiss health concerns are all by industry and governments with a vested interest in erecting more of the machines. In scientific literature, authors are not required to reveal their politics. They are, however, required to reveal financial and official ties that may be relevant to the topic.

The reality, therefore, is not actually so black and white — in that both sides exaggerate and are unreliable — as Cummings would have it. One side listens to the complaints of people who live near industrial wind turbines, and the other doesn't. Only the latter has a financial interest.

Furthermore, perhaps because it too does not fit the black-white cartoon, Cummings does not mention that most of the people who report adverse effects from industrial wind turbine noise actually supported their erection or accepted the reassurances of the developer.
Comment
36 of 70
February 23, 2012
Those who have spent a lot of time near a modern wind farm have very little understanding for those who complain.

Modern turbines are unbelievably quiet, considering their size and complexity. Unbelievablly quite! Those that have personal experience with them can't explain the complaints except to say the complainers don't like turbines,the incentives,the industry or ???

There are ~500 turbines in the county where I farm and numberous homes that are within the wind park that are less than 1/2 mile from turbines. Many of these machine have been up for more than five years and there have been no reports of sleep loss or health effects. Nearly all of the homes have some economic benefit from the wind farm but if people where loosing sleep, I don't think any amount of money would prevent them from complaining.
No image available
Comment
37 of 70
Anonymous
February 23, 2012
Don,I live near a wind farm and the noise has destroyed the peace and quiet, ruined my quality of life, and had significant health effects. As much as I love my home, I fear I am going to have to sell at a significant loss in value it IF anyone is willing to buy it! The complaints that you are hearing about wind turbine noise are very real. What are the guidelines for noise levels in your area? In our state the noise level is 45 at night and 55 during the day which is very loud and loud enough to keep people up at night. Wind shear is also a factor that contributes to the noise level. Does your area have that problem? Please do not make blanket statements about wind turbine noise. Do you think that people like us invite these kinds of problems? In fact, we supported the turbines when they were erected but then again, we were told noise would not be an issue. Not so, we found out after the fact!
Comment
38 of 70
February 23, 2012
Wow, comments exploded while I was off on a birthday retreat! A few quick responses:

21: yes, of course anxiety is recursive. A central point of this article is that the responses of both industry/lit review report and community groups is exacerbating the anxiety, and thus likely making matters worse. Yet also: just because these symptoms are mostly symptoms of stress-related responses to anything (and we've all felt all of them) doesn't thus fully discount the possibility or likelihood that turbine noise can be the initial factor in this indirect pathway.

25: I've thought a lot about the interstate highway analogy, not least because I live within easy earshot of one (just over a mile). One might make private sacrifice/public benefit arguments that highways serve far more people than any wind farm. But really, there's no real resolution to that question…. I would hold that there are many places in the US where we can easily stay a mile from homes; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if half or more of new installed capacity is already in the middle of nowhere (sorry, Wyoming, I know you're somewhere!). Here in NM, all our wind farms are at least 3 miles from homes, so far. Also, there are many types of rural communities (Texas ranch and cotton-farming land) where people are far more noise-tolerant and welcome turbines closer to their homes, adding to the value of their land as others have noted. There are noise-tolerant people everywhere; for this reason, any larger setbacks should be combined with negotiated waivers/easements with neighbors who don't mind closer siting.

25 and others: Fine to rant about wind turbine syndrome not existing; this article is not about wind turbine syndrome (which presumes the symptoms are caused by direct noise exposure).
Comment
39 of 70
February 23, 2012
33: I actually wouldn't be surprised if many of the 'uncomfortable' feelings neighbors report in their ears and chests are from pressure waves in the downwind vortex, rather than sound waves…..don't think that's been investigated as of yet, though.

35: I did point out that most people ACTUALLY reporting health issues aren't anti-wind in general. Most of the folks I've talked to who are most vocal were, as you say, in favor of their local wind farm--it's the shock of how loud 45dB can feel that has them reeling, not anti-wind sentiment. And sorry, but I do think both side exaggerate, either the extent of the problem, or the total lack of a problem.

36: Exactly the point I made near the end of the piece; the ease with which ranchers and farmers live with turbines is a good indicator that the primary issue is stress/anxiety, not the noise itself. And as also noted by me and 37, in Texas, for example, it seems atmospheric conditions are such that inflow turbulence and wind shear are less apt to accentuate the noise.


Overall: I guess one of the big dividing lines in folks' responses is whether they think that subjective factors should be taken into consideration in developing siting policies. Those favoring the status quo seem to think that the fact that people respond differently means all the problems are self-induced; those looking for change say that subjective differences should be factored into planning decisions. It IS murky territory, yet acousticians working with community noise issues tend to acknowledge that dB levels alone are not sufficient for setting standards; often different noise sources need different dB limits to reach acceptable levels of community response. (though of course, govt jurisdictions don't always follow through with noise policies--it gets too complicated.)

My goal at this point is just to try to help each side understand where the other is coming from, and to help the discussion move past the mutual demonizing/dismissals.
Comment
40 of 70
February 23, 2012
The main reason for resistance against wind farm is because the identity of people living there is threatened.
They love the countryside the way it is, identify with is as part of their home.
When turbines are built, that part of their identity is damaged.
Any foreseen perception of the wind turbines is seen as the cause of any effect, noise and visuals. Or even somebody else getting the profits.

Farmers are involved as owners or have made a positive decision to lease their land for a turbine, so their identity is enforced, not harmed.

In the Netherlands spatial rulings caused that farmers could only built a turbine near the farmhouse. So hundreds of Dutch farmer families have lived within less than 100 m of their turbine, with all the sounds and shadow a turbine brings at that distance, which is not so much, the farm itself also has its own sounds. Farmer sleep well with the bedroom window open, to hear any disturbing sound from the cattle or the turbine. Reassuring good noise patterns are OK. There are no known cases of farmer families with problems with the turbines within less than 100 m
They are organized in a cooperative Windunie http://www.windunie.nl/Passport/paspoort.aspx
The link goes to the list of farmer families with a turbine.

Being member of the cooperative also reinforces the identity.

In Denmark wind farm project developers have to sell at least 20% of the project to locals, before the project can proceed with spatial procedures and building permits.

This was setup to reduce resistance, but why it works is because of the reinforcement of the local identity.
Comment
41 of 70
February 23, 2012
I just had a conversation with my Grandson. I told him to believe half of what he sees, and nothing he hears. Anonymous postings here can not be trusted. Forming opinions based on what you hear on these pages is a very dangerous thing. I parked my car less than 1/4 mile from a very large wind turbine in Buffalo NY and I could not hear a thing. No hum, no buzz, no vibration. I wonder what those like Anonymous speak of. I know what I saw. Are there noisy wind turbines out there? Probably, but making the decision they are all noisy is just wrong. Do your homework. Do they all kill birds? I do not know for sure, but if that is your standard you had better stop driving or riding in cars, because there are many birds killed by cars every day. If you are *really* concerned, buy a horse or keep your yap shut.
Comment
42 of 70
February 23, 2012
Henk: Yes, I do believe place identity is a huge factor, and as you say, that helps us understand why some places live with turbines easily and some, not so well. We should be able to take that into account when choosing locations and/or deciding on community-appropriate setbacks.

Tim: Any single, or even several, quick stops at a wind farm are not likely to be representative. I've visited several wind farms (mostly in Texas, some in Wyoming and Nebraska) and always been able to hear them to a half mile, usually disappearing into road noise by three-quarters of a mile (roads a mile or so away). And these are in locations where the noise is pretty steady; in more hilly country, there's more apt to be in-flow turbulence that creates noise peaks and banging at times. I've yet to be around wind farms at night, when sometimes residents feel they're more noticeable (when wind is calm at ground but turning the blades at hub height); also, it's not uncommon for people to report (and acousticians have measured) low-frequency noise to be audible in the house but not outside; that can be pretty troublesome at night, even if not loud.

You and others might find this in-depth lay summary of 10 recent papers on low-frequency noise and turbines useful (they all focus on audible low-frequency, though a few address infrasound as well). It's long (over 20 pages) but worth it. Includes papers from both mainstream and more cautionary acousticians.
http://aeinews.org/archives/1711
Comment
43 of 70
February 24, 2012
It is really getting tiresome to read the explanations of amateur psychologists, and the testimony of casual drive-bys. This article and this discussion would not be taking place were it not for the large number of complaints filed around the world about the annoyance and ill health affects attributed to nearby wind turbines

Acousticians have been called upon to use their skill in order to predict appropriate setbacks in residential areas. They are paid for this service by the wind turbine developers. Their work product has resulted in under-predicting sound levels by 5 dB(A), and as much as 15 dB(A).

When called upon to explain, with minor exceptions, they have been silent. From the few that have spoken out we learned the following:
• The manufacturer's warranty on wind turbine sound power is understated.
• The international specification IEC 61400-11, used to measure wind turbine sound power does not provide the maximum value. It only provides a repeatable value to be used for comparison.
• The peak values generated by Aerodynamic Amplitude Modulation (AAM) are not accounted for by IEC specification.
• Local regulations limit noise levels to an increase of 10 dB(A) ABOVE the ambient. Acousticians are falsely interpreting this as an increase IN the ambient, completely eliminating the effects of the most offensive characteristic, AAM.

There is also the suspicion that noise may not be responsible for all the complaints. The dead bats from barotrauma introduce the possibility of downwind pressure waves.

What we know for sure is that at more than 2 km from the nearest wind turbine there are almost no complaints. We need either a moratorium or a setback of 2 km until these complaints are properly addressed and our knowledge is improved enough to trust what acousticians have to say.
Comment
44 of 70
February 24, 2012
*It is really getting tiresome to read the explanations of amateur psychologists, and the testimony of casual drive-bys.*
Chris, it is my experience that the 'casual observers' are less mission orientated. Claiming that someone is not an 'expert' does not prove you correct however. And your personal fatigue has absolutely nothing to do with it ... get some exercise. The truth is that sheep skin you crow about will not keep you warm at night, its the education it represents. And with the grade curves I have seen in collages, your sheep skin is not too reliable on the intelligence front. Now, do not go on the Cliff notes as you are apparently accustomed, read the whole post. My point was, noise and vibration can be engineered out of these things. You want to scrap the whole concept and frankly that is probably never going to happen. Most people do not have sheep skins to keep them warm anyway, so they are going to need something in the form of real heat. At least all that whine will help you wash your stinky cheese down, so all is not lost <;-P~
Comment
45 of 70
February 24, 2012
Response to coment 37: THe ~500 turbines in my area are made of Vestas, GE, Siemens, and Suzlon machines. I don't know the precise shear numbers but know the increased tower height is a result of higher wind speeds at higher levels. We have shear. Turbines are constructed to noise standards and I can't imagine yours being any different than what we have here. Sorry you are unhappy with your turbines. Do you think you would feel any different if you were getting $5-$10k per year per machine?
Comment
46 of 70
February 24, 2012
Chis K : All the statistics in the world don't change the opinion of folks who live and/or work around wind farms and have no issue with noise or health effect. We only see people who are deeply offended by having these big machines in their neighborhood. Their lives are upset. The only answer for them is to make the wind developer have 1000 acres for each turbine.
No image available
Comment
47 of 70
Anonymous
February 24, 2012
Response to comment 45, We are tremendously unhappy with our wind turbines because we specifically moved to a scenic area on the coast to enjoy the beauty, peace, and quiet of the area. The turbines have taken away our peace and quiet as well as the sounds of nature. We feel sure we have lost between $100,000 and $200,000 in property value so 5 to 10K per machine would not help us. The only thing that will help us is new blade technology or for the turbines to be turned down to about 35 dBA. Our turbines operate at 45 dBA during the night and 55 during the day. What are your noise regulations?? The red flashing lights are annoying but I could live with the visual piece. The turbine noise is like nails on the chalkboard.
Comment
48 of 70
February 24, 2012
Noise can be engineered out of these things, but the ugly, well a spark plug is pretty ugly. I can not argue with anyone whose view has been obstructed by these things. But lets face it, it is not your land, you simply pay rent to the government (taxes)for the right to use it. Sad as that is.
Comment
49 of 70
February 24, 2012
don: You say "The only answer for them is to make the wind developer have 1000 acres for each turbine.". Well, actually wind turbines need a lot more land than that. According to this, most wind turbines need almost 60 acres each
.
"A wind farm also requires substantial acreage for open space between turbines, however, to maximize their efficiency in capturing the wind and to avoid turbulence that can impede airflow (Exhibit 11-5). The size of the turbine, land characteristics – plains, hills, ridges, plateaus and mountains – and the direction of the prevailing winds determine the distance needed between wind turbines and turbine rows. One study noted that on a flat site with a single prevailing wind, each turbine requires 26.7 acres, while a site with two prevailing winds requires 59 acres per turbine."

http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/renewable/wind.php

And this has nothing to do with how close they are sited to people. Apparently wind turbines are not bad just near people they also have a negative effect on each other.

They may be all right for Texas, but it's doubtful that you can put more than a handful in the Northeast, without destroying a lot of neighborhoods.
Comment
50 of 70
February 24, 2012
tim-gard: Noise can not be engineered out of a machine whose purpose is to obstruct the wind with moving blades.
Comment
51 of 70
February 24, 2012
Rucio ... sorry, an element of statistics ... lets say engineered for a specific application. The noise spoke of before in this forum was about mechanical vibrations and excessive wind compression without proper harmonics imposed. Mechanical mistakes that can be dealt with using proper applied science. Ever hear a Ford model T engine run? Pathetic ... but that was fixed with scientific study and mechanical advancement.
No image available
Comment
52 of 70
Anonymous
February 24, 2012
Tim-gard, I am not so sure about that. We have had specialists from NREL and GE look at our turbines, make adjustments, etc... and they are still incredibly noisy, like a cement mixer at times or a jet plane at others. Sure would be nice if there was some technological fix, but there isn't.
Comment
53 of 70
February 24, 2012
Chris K. 60 acres per turbine is reasonable for a commercial wind farm with "normal topography". A 100MW wind farm in our area would need about 3000 acres. My point was that if wind developers had to stay one mile away from all potential receptors, they would need a huge block of ground just to get one turbine up. A one mile setback from a home would represents 2000 acres with no turbines. Even in sparcely populated areas, having circles that size drawn around every home would ruin the wind industry.
Comment
54 of 70
February 24, 2012
COmment 47 I'm not sure about our noise regulations but I believe they are restricted to a level above ambient. They measure normal sounds and allow 10 or 20 db above that, I think??? I have been told that Oregon has very stringent noise rules but our turbines aren't any different than anyone elses and with waivers, many machines are placed less than 1/2 mile from homes.
Comment
55 of 70
February 24, 2012
Don: That's where allowing for exemptions/easements to build closer to willing neighbors would come in. Many people would be more than willing to let developers build closer.
Comment
56 of 70
February 24, 2012
If the wind industry cannot exist without harming abutters, then we need to decide between the benefits of wind, and how to compensate those who are affected. I believe existing noise regulations are being manipulated by the industry with the aid of willing acoustic and health experts who are prostituting their professional integrity in the belief that wind energy will contribute to the elimination of Global Warming.

If we do need to save the world from Global Warming with wind energy, I take exception to doing it on the backs of people unfortunate enough to live within 2 km of someone else's wind turbine.

Until authorities do credible investigation of the many complaints from around the world, that can establish the safety of closer setbacks, we need to err on the side of caution and give those complaining the benefit of the doubt.
No image available
Comment
57 of 70
Anonymous
February 24, 2012
comment 54, If your turbines are only slightly above ambient noise, I do not wonder why you are not hearing complaints. Our ambient noise level is about 20 or 25 dBA and our turbines are 45/55. This is LOUD. According to an article I read concerning Oregon and the $5,000 fee individuals are receiving, those people are under gag orders by wind companies! http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/us/01wind.html No wonder you are not hearing complaints!
Comment
58 of 70
February 24, 2012
This piece, recently published here on REW, highlights a book by wind historian Robert Righter, who is all for rapid expansion of the industry, and points to the great plains and west as places where this can happen without impacting rural quality of life. Of course, there will need to be more openness to transmission lines, a largely visual impact.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/02/wind-historian-says-build-new-wind-farms-farther-from-neighbors
Comment
59 of 70
February 24, 2012
I can see, I think, what is happening here, and it is no surprise. A similar thing happened with the DC generators initially installed by Thomas Edison in New Jersey if memory serves me. Thomas Edison was in a scientific battle with Nicola Tesla in regard to DC vs AC. Edison actually electrocuted an aged circus elephant in the streets of New York City to show how dangerous AC was. The idea was to discourage the new AC science Tesla was pushing, hoping investment capitol people might drop Tesla. Lucky for us Edison failed at that attempt. Big money was spent on equipment that has flaws in this wind turbine design race, and the researchers must defend their science with their last breath if they are going to ever have a sliver of hope to receive more funding. Just like Edison. So any problem must be defended as 'minor' even if it is not. These wind turbine guys have my most honest heartfelt sympathy. Now, tear these noisy damned things down and try again ...
No image available
Comment
60 of 70
Anonymous
February 25, 2012
Wind farm developers forget to tell you they are industrial turbines and do cause noise at high levels sometimes. That is why some are turned off during nights. People are forced to listen to the constant noise and also the flicker of the blades as they turn against sunlight depending on how they are sited. Many people have been 'gagged' from speaking out about how they are affected by turbines when signing contracts to host. DO THE RESEARCH and also go live near them for a while and see if they affect you.Like an epidemic it does not impact on everyone. What really annoys me is that an ABC employee went to a meeting and on the way home went to an industrial complex and asked to be taken away immediately as she was ill through them. No biased reporting there when nothing was mentioned about her just how good they are not even how bad making them is with all their components and rare earth minerals. Needing backup from coal or gas because if the wind is not blowing the generators still have to turn. Rising electricity prices due in part to the use of backup 24/7. There are far better ways of renewable than costly inefficient wind. Too many overseas reports and peer-reviewed evidence they cause problems and why is Spain getting rid of them? Why 14,500 rusting in California and many in Hawaii? 6.5 billion pounds in the UK to subsidise them through RETs and 2.6 billion in Scotland to pay for idle turbines. It was too warm.
No image available
Comment
61 of 70
Anonymous
February 25, 2012
In addition there are families in Australia who have not been able to sell their properties and yet have walked off them not able to stand the noise and sleep deprivation. It is not that they are not getting paid by the wind industry they cannot live with turbines. When you see a beautiful rural setting with animals grazing etc. you also do not want to see these turbines standing in a row some with blades turning and some not. This particular complex has been used as an exammple of how good they are yet they do not tell you they are only 45m high and that one man has become ill living nearby. Most now are 100m to 150 m high and take away valuable agricultural land not to mention the widening of country lanes to 11m to accommodate the vehicles required to take giant structures to their destination. The wind industry have standard spiels to sell their useless products when you hear one it is exactly the same as another company salesman.Denmark sells their wind energy elsewhere and buy back energy from other countries at cost to the consumer because they are usually not producing energy when needed most. China is building 3 coal fired plants to sustain one windfarm. There is a number of videos people should watch like Their're Not Green, Windfall, Rare Earth Mineral Mining in China and there are so many on YouTube. See also Aalborg University Acoustics Dept. Denmark and their study of windfarms. Environmental vandals they have done much damage to the environment with concrete not removed when they turbines have been sold off for scrap which in most cases is useless tagled mess.
Comment
62 of 70
February 27, 2012
Comment 57: The $5k to $10k payments that I mentioned represent the range of royalties paid per year to a landowner for the placement of a turbine on their property.

The gag orders you reference are statements that individuals sign saying they will not object to the sounds from a turbine that is sited less than the distance recommended by permit.

Those who have signed these, in our area, have no regrets because the turbines are not offensive.

I have no turbines on my land but I would welcome them. I have family with homes that are less than 1/2 mile from them. I have friends who live near them and I work near them. Anyone who questions my statements about how quiet the wind turbines are just needs to spend some time near them. I have taken many people out to visit the wind farms. The common comment is about how quiet they are.The sound of the wind passing your ear is greater than the machine. People who are making a big deal about noise do not like wind turbines for some other reason. End of story.
Comment
63 of 70
February 27, 2012
Landowners risk losing those payments if they go public with noise complaints. Because of the terms of the lease agreements, their testimony can not be considered the last word.

Nevertheless, many landowners and neighbors who welcomed the turbines have spoken out. That is obviously a different ending of the story. Heaping on contempt doesn't change it.
Comment
64 of 70
February 27, 2012
The last two comments are clear representative samples of the fact that different people DO respond differently to similar sounds. This is the crux of the challenge for those trying to craft siting standards.

The fact that many people live near turbines easily, as Don point out, is one reason that I think the industry could thrive with larger minimum setbacks (to assure unwilling neighbors do not have their sense of place and tranquility disturbed), along with readily available easements/waivers that allow siting closer to willing neighbors. As Don suggests, there will be plenty of people willing to allow closer siting.

This approach would need to be carefully framed to be clear that the larger setbacks are designed to protect the most sensitive neighbors from intrusion, rather than as representative of a "safe" distance; the inclusion of a minimum distance from lease-holders and waiver-holders would specify a "safe" minimum. By removing the frustration of being forced to live near turbines (and related fears of how that will affect them), this path could allow much more harmonious community relations, both between companies and communities, and among community members themselves.

Yes, some locations would still be un-developable under such an arrangement (in some places, even just a a quarter of those within the setback distance refusing to agree to closer siting could derail a project)--yet these are likely to be exactly the types of communities where building a wind farm WOULD lead to much rancor and significant numbers of people feeling their life has been significantly disrupted. Better to target new development efforts in places where closer siting is likely to be accepted, or in areas where there are few if any residents other than leaseholders to be affected.
Comment
65 of 70
February 27, 2012
Would it be possible to install acoustical sets that would mimic the sound and vibration of the projected installation? Then set the parameters for an installation before the build is done?
No image available
Comment
66 of 70
Anonymous
February 27, 2012
I agree, Jim. It makes sense to place turbines in areas where people will not be as sensitive to the noise. However, I believe that in Oregon where Don (of #62 comment) lives, the turbines are run at 36 dBA round the clock. In Maine, where I live, turbines are run at 45 (night) and 55 (day). BIG difference! We are talking apples and oranges here. Jim, how many times louder are the Maine turbines than the Oregon ones? Clearly, if turbines were run at reasonable noise levels, there would be a lot fewer complaints.
Comment
67 of 70
May 7, 2012
It is actually pretty black-and-white. Wind turbine noise annoys a small subset of people who live near them. Some of those people get stressed, and some of them lose sleep. There's no reason to believe that they would haven't been stressed and lost sleep over dogs barking, traffic, tractors at dawn or bird cannons, all staples of rural noise complaints.

What is evident is that complaints rise rapidly when anti-wind advocates start spreading word of the psychogenic complaint, "wind turbine syndrome". Created almost from whole cloth by Dr. Nina Pierpont in 2009, this deeply flawed study has created many more health problems than any it was purporting to address.
http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/Is-Dr-Nina-Pierpoints-Wind-Turbine-Syndrome-a-real-medical-syndrome-caused-by-wind-turbines/answer/Mike-Barnard
http://www.quora.com/Wind-Power/What-might-cause-people-who-live-near-wind-turbines-to-get-sick/answer/Mike-Barnard
Comment
68 of 70
May 7, 2012
Sorry I am a tree hugger. Siting these things away from people? What about wildlife? If people are negatively impacted by these things, why not bears? Squirrels? Deer? Fish? Is it alright then to do environmental damage so we might find another way to generate a lame power supply? And wind turbines are about as lame as it gets efficiency wise.
Comment
69 of 70
Tim if you really were a tree hugger, you were promoting wind turbines in every forest. Because the air mixing they do, creates a warmer climate for trees near turbines.

According to EWEA statistics worldwide more wind farm power was built than any other type of power plant.
The US was overtaken by China in 2011, so get used to cheap power from wind turbines everywhere.

You won't benefit as an enemy you will be excluded from the sustainable community and have to pay for year on year more expensive gasoline.
While everyone else is using power from wind farms to drive and power the home and their business
Comment
70 of 70
May 7, 2012
@Tim: Animals are immune from human hysterias. As humans have zero real impacts from wind turbines except for very human psychosomatic illnesses and some noise annoyance, animals will not be impacted.

On the flip side, wind turbines are much, much healthier for animals, whether they be two-legged, four-legged or winged than coal plants, which destroy habitat, pollute the air and cause acid rain.

In other words, Tim, vote early and vote often for wind turbines. They are one for the most tree-hugging options around if you actually want to have an espresso now and then.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Jim Cummings

View Jim Cummings's Profile
About: I am an editor and writer with a longtime focus on science and the environment. AEI is a resource/info center, not an advocacy organization. It is, in essence... more »

Advertise With Us

ESI Inc. of Tennessee Endurance Wind Power Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Zep Solar AEG Power Solutions Unirac, Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine 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 India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters