Bill's Comments

(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.

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)

The comment about EDF of France producing 20% of it's generation from renewables in the article caught my interest. Hmmm, Wikipedia showed that recently, France was 80% nuclear, 16% hydraulic, a small bit of fossil, and a tiny fraction (< 1%) solar, wind, wave, etc. So 20% renewables, probably means existing hydro, I thought.

Then I looked at some articles about solar panels in France - see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-19/edf-s-solar-time-bomb-will-tick-on-after-france-pops-renewables-bubble.html

Quoting from that article, "EDF will pay an average of 546 euros a megawatt-hour for solar power in 2011. That's almost 10 times estimated spot market power prices of 55 euros, and the highest among renewable energy sources." (In contrast, Ontario is paying up to $802 - or about 609 euro per MWh from ground mounted solar on 20 year contracts.) The article (from January 2011) goes on that France was receiving 3000 applications a day at the end of 2010 to install solar, and expeced to reach their 2020 solar target by the end of 2011.

The article closes, 'The development of wind and solar energies is "widening a deficit considerably," EDF Chief Executive Officer Henri Proglio told Senators Dec. 14. "One can't ask EDF to be the banker for marginal or local industries," he said.'

The major driver of the renewable energy field for government officials, in many countries, is the jobs created. This is particularly true in the current climate of economic downturn. In Ontario, wind developers are flocking to take part in the planned expansion to 10,800 MW of new renewables (mostly wind) by the year 2018. Every government notice includes the promise that renewable energy will bring 50,000 jobs to Ontario.

The question though is how many "sustainable jobs" are brought? The Vestas case shows that with falling subsidies, the jobs are not sustainable. Currently, the article speaks of a $22 a MWh production tax subsidy in the US, and it's elimination has Vestas threatening shutdown. In Ontario, land based wind is currently guaranteed $135 a MWh, plus a $10 federal Eco-Action grant. The comparable average system energy price (depensing on how calculated) ranges from $35 a MWh to $75 a MWh ... thus the subsidy is $110 a MWh to $70 a MWh.

Note that in Ontario the Off peak electricity price (energy plus delivery) has increased from about 7.8 cents a kWh to some 13.6 cents a kWh from 2008 to 2011 (nearly doubling in 3 years), with only a small amount of new renewables added to the system (say 1600 MW), and the additional prices of major construction projects to enable new wind resource to be added, have not been factored in. Consumer angst is increasing, and the government have begun to muse - thinking about their political future - if they need to look at the feed in tariff prices.

Is wind really the driver of sustainable jobs, or just a manner of impoverishing consumers for the years to come while developers and manufacturers flourish? Justice?

Thank you for providing the link to the source data. It is interesting to plot the data for 2005 to 2035 for the World Delivered Energy Production by Fuel. 2005 - renewables at 45.4 Quads, (mostly hydro) supply 9.6% of the World Total Consumption. Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Coal at 398 Quads supply 84.5% of the total. By 2035, renewables are predicted in the median model to increase by 64.6 Quads to supply 110 Quads or 14.3% of the World Total Consumption. Meantime, Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Coal are predicted to increase by 211 Quads, to supply 609 Quads or 79% of the total. Yes, interesting data when one keeps to the facts.

Yes, American states can learn a lot from Ontario's buy local Green Energy Policy. One of the first thing the American states can learn is that the objective of the Ontario policy is to establish Ontario as a green energy supply centre to sell to Ontario's neighbors. Are you listening American states? The intent is that you sell less domestic produced "green" goods. Never mind President Obama's State of the Union address.

The policy sets contracts for exorbitant electricity prices, in exchange for having companies establish plants in Ontario to create jobs by producing green energy goods to sell to others - the US. As an example, Samsung is the cornerstone of the Ontario program. Samsung have been guaranteed access to 2000 MW of wind generation at 135 to 190 $ per MWH and 500 MW of solar generation at 450 to 800 $ per MWh for 20 years. A quick calculation based on expected capacity factors shows this will cost Ontario electricity consumers about 1.3 Billion$ per year for 20 years, or 26 Billion $. In exchange Samsung agrees to invest 7 Billion$ in Ontario in tax forgivable, rapidly depreciable investments implying that they will never pay income tax. It's a pretty good investment these days. Why build these plants? To sell green technology items to our neighbors! Can you see the truckloads of turbine blades coming across the Peace Bridge at Fort Erie/Lewiston, or the Bluewater Bridge in Sarnia/Port Huron?

Already Japan, the European Union, and the US have filed official complaints to the world trade organization about Ontario's "prohibited" subsidies, that intend to cut other suppliers our of the Ontario market.

Yes, American states, you have a lot to learn from the Ontario policy. A policy that will impoverish local citizens playing 3 to 8 times the market price for electric supply that is not available when needed. A policy that gives foreign developers priority over local ones in securing access to the grid for renewables, and a policy challenged to WTO.

It's interesting to look at the simulation of the project site at the bottom of the linked page http://altawindenergycenter.com/awec.html

"Hey, Mom, look at the size of those turbines, the towers look barely 10 times the height of a tumbleweed, yet 300 of them make 1550 MW. Those 5 MW turbines sure must be tiny. I can hardly see how they could be of any concern."

No further comment. The picture says it all ... or does it?

A Touch of Reality, Please

The article by Mr. Levesque, of AWEA includes the usual claims of wind farms supplying electrical needs of more than XXX homes. A comment notes that the USA and Canada have more than enough wind resource to supply all the electrical needs of North America. Both are missing the reality of real wind developments. Consider the example of 1085 MW of wind turbines in service in Ontario – located in many of the best wind resource locations in the province with access to transmission lines, near the shorelines of the Great Lakes. They supplied at less or equal 15% of their output for over 40% of the last year. There were over 40 blocks of time when the turbines were not supplying as much as 15% of their output at any time in periods from 24 to 163 hours long.

Instead of supplying the electrical needs of over 350,000 homes in Ontario, as stated yesterday in a Canadian newspaper, it means that over 40% of the time, the wind turbines were supplying the actual energy needs of fewer than 40,000 homes on a winter day (based on a typical R2000 high efficiency home which supplies all of it's energy needs electrically and not by natural gas or other supply). In fact, during 14% of the last year, the wind turbine output was less or equal 5%, meaning that the electrical needs of fewer than 15,000 homes were supplied. That is a far cry from 350,00 homes!

That is an unenviable record for a generating system, and the storage system / or / batteries needed to level the supply variability to the load if wind were actually supplying the entire system would be huge.

In the mean time, at most Ontario wind farms, provincial regulations that allow siting turbines within 50 metres of lot lines and roadways, and within 550 metres from homes have citizens in duress. Wind is not necessarily evil, but please, let us keep a little reality in with the hype.

Mr. Hynes' article raises interesting points but by glossing over some, and misleading price comparisons, leaves a mistaken impression about wind. Some of the commentary starts to explain the problems, but other anonymous commentators cast criticism without even identifying themselves.

There is no simple, single solution to power generation. Industrialized nations have both a base and a daily variable load. The base varies somewhat by season and weather, but is largely based on continuous motor loads. A daily variable load is superimposed, which follows the activity of people, who get up in the morning, plug in the coffee, and work in office, commerce, or light industry.

Our source of generation must consider these variables. Nuclear electric generators, run-of-river hydraulic generators, and gas co-generators which supply industrial heat and power are good for base load, but do not cycle up and down in output easily. On top of the base generators, we need some sort of controllable ones. Hydraulic stations with head ponds, coal or oil thermal plants, and simple cycle gas turbines are usual choices for the variable plants.

It is incorrect to compare costs per "name plate" output of wind or solar plants to others which can be dispatched, and it is improper to compare annual kWH figures. One must ask if the plant is available when needed? Does it compound the problem as wind often does, with it's highest availability is at night, forcing other base load generators off line to accommodate the variability of wind? Solar is slightly better as its maximum availability is when the load is greatest in daytime, but really either wind or solar should only be compared in cost and utility if combined with a storage system.

Value to society (and price per kWH) must factor in plant availability when really needed. We have the equation backwards, as we pay top price to wind and solar, over which we have no real control, and lower prices to the workhorses of base load generators

It is really interesting that the article proudly references that Waverly Light and Power financed the installation of two turbines "to be installed in 2008 and 2009 with Clean Renewable Energy Bonds" but conveniently omits to add that the second one failed catastrophically during installation in February 2009.

It really is a shame that the Wind industry does not keep better records of its failures, and seems to depend on the public press and citizens groups to tell the full story.

See the Waverly Newspaper Feb 26, 2009.

"The blades and generator of Cannon II collapsed Saturday.
A 50-ton structure fell 246 feet to the
frozen ground on Saturday when the
blades of a turbine under construction
east of Waverly caught wind and started
rotating at a speed reaching 60 rpm.
The hub housing the generating
components of the Cannon II turbine and
the structure's three 177-foot blades
collapsed after spinning for hours at the
mercy of the wind, says Waverly Light
and Power General Manager Diane
Johnson."

"A gust caught the blades prematurely on
Friday because, prior to the installation,
they were not turned in a way that would
have prevented them from catching wind
until construction was complete,
according to a press release issued by the municipal utility."

That is the sort of reason that a small utility may well want to have second thoughts about installation of wind turbines.

Ah, numbers. So a 600 turbine plant can produce power for more than 140,000 homes, it says. Now, that would be on a windy summer night, assuming 2 MW peak output turbines, when the demand for each home was less than 850 watts (the fridge, and freezer running, with the AC, TV, and appliances off)? Mind you on the nice summer days when the air conditioners are humming and the home demands are about 2500 watts, and the winds turn calm, (Oh, Oh, our output is down below 10% again, like it was on >50% of the 100 summer days during peak hour in Ontario for two years in a row, even for widely separated wind farms) so we can supply less than 5,000 homes. Crank up the back up generators again. But wait, it promised right there in the "News" that we could "replace" those back up generators (coal or whatever). Sorry about that for the rest of you 135,000 customers. Check with us tomorrow evening, will you? You don't mind, do you?

In 2006, Ontario's electrical energy used was 164 TWh. (Up 22% in 12 years). By 2025, the Ontario Power Authority expects an electrical energy use of 177 TWh, (up less than 8% in 18 years, a much reduced rate of increase). Even at that decreased growth, 50% of Ontario's electrical energy by 2018 would require 85 TWh from renewables. Hydraulic supplied 34 TWh in 2006, and planned projects increase this to 40 TWh – about the limit for hydraulic in Ontario. That leaves 45 TWh to come from other renewables. Biomass supplies less than 1 TWh. Solar and wind would have to supply the remaining 44 TWh. We can assume 40 TWh from wind.

This would require 15,000 MW of wind turbines (7500 x 2 MW) by 2018. The density of turbines in windy areas (along the great lakes), their impact on the local environment and citizens in those areas would be frightening. It would require a significant increase in transmission lines to get this energy to the load centres (more impact on the environment). It ignores the system stability limit of 5000 MW calculated for wind generation in Ontario.

40 TWh wind energy contribution assumes the turbines generating when the wind blows. During the windy nights of spring and fall the 15,000 MW of wind turbines would able to supply nearly all the Ontario overnight load. Unless energy storage banks are developed (unplanned), other generation would need to be shut down overnight. Ontario expects 14,000 MW of nuclear by 2018, itself nearly able to handle the nighttime load. If nuclear were shut down when the wind turbines load, when the wind falls in the morning while load increases, system load and generation would be imbalanced, as nuclear is not highly maneuverable. If the wind turbines are limited to supplying in the day time when the load increases, to achieve the annual wind contribution of 40 TWh an even greater wind turbine generation capacity than 15,000 MW would be needed.

Sadly, development of renewable energy in Canada has lost sight of the principle of sustainable power, that it should not harm the environment or neighbors.  Instead, the principle has become maximization of profit for the developers and exposure for politicians who cater to the “green” interests of the population who do not live near where the renewables will be installed – forgetting the rights of the neighbors. Citizens fighting installation of wind turbines are not opposed to sustainable power, but they want siting decisions to ensure adequate physical setbacks so that public safety risks are not unacceptable, and to ensure that annoyance and potential harm from noise are considered.  Factual evidence has been presented to show currently approved setbacks are inadequate, and will have adverse impacts. Only when the true principles of sustainable power are accepted, to show justice and respect to neighbors, will renewables come of age.