UPDATE: Josh adds a cartoon and writes:
An extraordinary quote from a Scottish Wind Farm Landowner.
But with recent news that wind farms have been paid a secret £13 million compensation to shut down over the last few months it is no wonder all those in the industry are hearing the clink of cash above the roar of the turbines.
If you are wondering what a wind turbine sounds like and what a blight it can be watch this short video.
If, like me, you love birds then you might find this video a bit too sad.But this will cheer you up a bit … and this one.
=============================
FROM EPAW:
Tricks are used to allow wind farms too close to habitations
In an email replying to the European Platform against Windfarms (EPAW), world-leading specialist in low-frequency sound Professor Henrik Moller of Aalborg University denounces the improper acoustic measurements carried out by Danish authorities. As a result, he says, the new regulations for wind farm noise are not in line with industrial noise standards.
According to EPAW, this effectively constitutes discrimination against wind farm neighbors, which now have less protection than other citizens – in Denmark, but also in those countries that may take their cues from the small kingdom.
Henrik Moller and his team of acousticians have been consulted by DEPA, the Danish Environmental Protection Agency. But their recommendations have been ignored: “We had many objections to the proposal, but none of these were accommodated in the final version” (1). Answering a question from EPAW, the Professor explains how the new regulations will not effectively enforce the 20 dB(A) limit of low-frequency noise levels regarding wind farms, but that this limit is indeed being applied to other industries (2). Notes Mark Duchamp, of EPAW: “In reality, this is a case of double standards.”
In his email to EPAW dated Feb. 5, 2012, Professor Moller wrote: “All these errors sum up to probably not far from 10 dB, which means that the limit is suddenly not 20 but rather 30 dB(A). But the rules are claimed to give the same protection as for industrial sources, which is simply not true.” His letter is reproduced below (2).
“At low frequencies,” continues the Professor, “the perceived intensity, the loudness, increases more steeply above threshold than at higher frequencies. This means that when the level is a few decibels above the 20 dB limit, the consequences are more severe, than if a limit for higher frequencies is exceeded by the same amount. Few people would probably accept 25 dB(A) in their home at night and hardly anyone would accept 30 dB(A).”
Adds Duchamp: “It would appear that the Danish authorities have been cooking the figures to accommodate the wind industry. Years ago, governments were protecting tobacco companies; today, they absolve wind farms of all sins and help them commit more.”
The North-American Platform against Windpower (NA-PAW) joins EPAW in denouncing these manipulations which threaten wind farm neighbors within and beyond Denmark’s frontiers. EPAW and NA-PAW in turn are joined by the Waubra Foundation, Australia’s best known organization investigating the serious health issues affecting wind farm neighbors.
References:
(1) – Quote from the Aalborg University web page on the new wind turbine noise regulations:
http://www.es.aau.dk/sections/acoustics/press/new-danish-regulations-for-wind-turbine-noise/
(2) – Email of February 5, 2012 from Professor Henrik Moller to EPAW:
Dear Mark Duchamp
The Danish 20 dB(A) limit for low-frequency noise cannot be compared to normal noise limits because
- it is an indoor limit and not an outdoor limit like usual limits for wind turbine noise
- the limit applies to the limited frequency range of 10-160 Hz – only frequencies in that range are included – the level of the full frequency range may be higher
Without an acoustical background, it may be difficult to understand how much 20 dB(A) 10-160 Hz noise is, but the limit is the same as for industrial noise in Denmark, and it is in the same order of magnitude as the limits in most other countries that have low-frequency limits (the limit may be defined in completely different ways). Most people will easily hear a noise at that level, and some will find it annoying, in particular if it goes on round the clock.
At low frequencies, the perceived intensity, the loudness, increases more steeply above threshold than at higher frequencies. This means that when the level is a few decibels above the 20 dB limit, the consequences are more severe, than if a limit for higher frequencies is exceeded by the same amount. Few people would probably accept 25 dB(A) in their home at night and hardly anyone would accept 30 dB(A). Therefore, measurements must be accurate.
In the new Danish statutory order for wind turbines, the noise is not measured but calculated. This need not be a problem, if the calculations are correct. But they are not.
The main problem is the sound insulation used to obtain indoor levels. The statutory order gives values to be used in the calculation, and these values are based on measurements in 26 Danish houses. Unfortunately, wrong measurements.
Sound at low frequencies varies a lot in a room, and according to the Danish rules for industrial noise, the level should – briefly explained – be measured, where the annoyed person finds it loudest. The sound insulation must be measured the same way in order to be applicable for calculations of indoor levels from the outdoor level. But it was not. The indoor measurement positions were simply chosen randomly and not selected for the high level. Thus the obtained values of sound insulation are too high – by several decibels.
Furthermore, statistical sound insulation values were chosen (from the wrong data) so that 33% of the houses have poorer sound insulation, meaning that the limit may be exceeded in 33% of the cases.
And finally, the calculated values may exceed the limit by a 2 dB uncertainty value. Measured levels from industrial sources are not allowed to exceed the limit.
All these errors sum up to probably not far from 10 dB, which means that the limit is suddenly not 20 but rather 30 dB(A). But the rules are claimed to give the same protection as for industrial sources, which is simply not true.
I hope this helps your understanding.
Sincerely,
Henrik Møller
—
Henrik Møller
Professor
Section of Acoustics, Department of Electronic Systems
Aalborg University
Fredrik Bajers Vej 7 B5
DK-9220 Aalborg Ø, Denmark
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
The anti wind people are doing the right things for the wrong reasons. They are not trying to protect people from the devistating problems associated with wind turbines. They are trying to protect the coal, gas and oil industries who do far more damage to peoples health and quality of life. They are selling a devil known by creating doubt about the new devil in town. They learned how to do it from religions. We can’t possibly be raping your children and engaging in daisy chains when nobody is looking. We are pro life and hate homosexuals. Didn’t you read the brochure?
When Gaia must be saved,
what’s Green gets a free pass.
What’s always worked before,
must get it in the [assets].
(Pardon me, Mr. Greenpeace rep, but will you be using Fair Trade latex?)
Living with my window facing a highway, I can tell you how loud some seemingly quiet low frequency noises can be. And the worst part of it is that you can FEEL them as much as you can hear them, so there’s really no way to block out those low frequencies. Explains why so many neighbors to Wind turbines have complained about the noise level, though, if they’ve been cooking the books to make it “Acceptable”.
Just to make this clear; one doesn’t have to be a Professor of Acoustics like Henrik Møller to see that there is one standard for them, and one standard for industry that actually makes things.
I spent just a few hours of my Engineering studies at university on acoustics as such, out of more time on general virbrational analysis. With that inkling of “specialist” knowledge, I immediately suspected that the “measurement” method appears to have been designed to facilitate conformance, not to provide an environment where people can relax and rest.
I suspect that the modes of transmission (as identified in the translation of submission to DEPA by the university) have been deliberately ignored.
Gross theoretical extrapolation from scant measurements are of no practical value to acoustic engineering.. (Does anybody _not_ recognize a pattern here?) And it’s inappropriate theory in some cases which produces “measurements” by which compliance is judged.
In my experience, it doesn’t have much to do with decibel level. That can be quite low, but a sound that continuously repeats itself with each pulse identical to the preceding one can be extremely stressful. Electric motors driving blowers or extractors working 24/7 are bad culprits in that respect. I have lived near a river weir; the sound was continuous but the variety of detail within the sound made it soothing. I have also lived near street traffic lights. Once again, the noise level from vehicles was quite high, however it was just about tolerable because it varied. I have never lived near a wind farm, but can well imagine the stress caused by repeated wooshes, even at low Db.
So how do you determine the nuisance level just by counting decibels?
Perhaps this info will help Donald Trump in his fight against the science-challenged individuals ‘running’ Scotland.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=trump%20wind%20farms%20scotland&source=web&cd=6&sqi=2&ved=0CE4QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-16969723&ei=_t40T4X0GceY8gOWkOTIAg&usg=AFQjCNFG6adUW1R38Kq-3LmVKfNnrm3jUQ&cad=rja
The “20 dB(A) limit of low-frequency noise levels regarding wind farms”? dB(A)? The dB(A) scale rolls off steeply at both high and low frequencies, because it is a weighting devised specifically for assessing the noise levels from industrial machinery, which is mostly at midrange frequencies. It weights 160Hz by about -12dB, and anything below 20Hz (where much of the ‘thumping’ from wind farms occurs) by -50dB or more. Accordingly, use of the dB(A) scale for assessing the noise impact from something like a wind farm, which generates its noise primarily at low and very low frequencies, is entirely inappropriate in any circumstances. The standards should either be based on a weighting curve which gives full, or at least near-full, readings at these low frequencies, such as dB(C) (about -12dB at 10Hz) or, better given the frequencies involved, unweighted. Wikipedia article here has the curves.
I would question whether Prof. Moller’s distinction between indoor noise and outdoor noise is particularly relevant at the low frequencies involved. Although it is relatively straightforward to insulate an indoor environment against midband and high frequency noise, insulating it against low frequency noise is practically impossible without resorting to the sort of heavy engineering employed in the construction of anechoic chambers – massive walls, putting the whole ‘environment’ on a soft springy suspension, etc.. Otherwise, LF noise outside –> LF noise inside, with very little attenuation. Been there, measured it with very expensive testgear (not my own, alas).
The LF noise situation from wind farms is bad enough as it is, without the authorities fiddling the figures to pretend that it’s not really a problem at all. Prof. Moller is right to draw attention to this matter.
Once again, sound science is trashed to give a greenie a go. Too bad the greenies have turned into gremlins, exploiting people’s natural sympathy. Looks like a Yin Yang pendulum has started.
Very good new book on wind turbine noise, experts explaining the subject properly, free from both wind industry dissembling and popular hysteria, see http://www.multi-science.co.uk/wind-turbine.htm
In the UK the wind industry wrote its own noise standards because it knew wind turbines couldn’t meet the standards applied to all other industries. In its desire have hundreds of wind farms, the Government agreed to these wind turbine noise standards. People were not protected from the effect of wind turbine noise, but the wind industry was. That is clearly stated in the Government policy document.
Joe, above, makes some wild claims as to the safety records of oil, gas and coal. There are more people killed in the wind industry than any other power industry. Scrubbed flue gasses are water vapour and CO2 neither of which are a problem.
Wind power is expensive and produces little power. Without the high subsidies it would not be installed. Photo-voltaic cells are expensive and an examination of them by a university in the UK found that payback was 25 years. The cell life was found to be 21 years. So not too good either.
24/7 power can be supplied by nuclear, oil, gas, coal. Tidal will work but not everywhere and is expensive. Hydroelectric is good in some places but can have a limited life due to lake sedimentation rates.
Berndt Felsche: great comment, especially on the too-common tendency to generalize from too small (and often too constrained) a sample. Daniel Kahneman (“Thinking, Fast and Slow”) describes many cognitive errors –the belief in the infallibility of experts is one–and he says that we are wired to find it hard to reason from general principles and apply baseline data to evaluate our specific case. That requires analysis and research and objective weighting of complex data. We find it much too easy to reason the other way, look at our specific (arbitrary, even contrived) case and assume it will work everywhere. As we are finding out with wind turbines, that assumption may be wrong, and every one of those ten thousand turning blades will remind us of it, by day and especially by night.
Adds Duchamp: “It would appear that the Danish authorities have been cooking the figures to accommodate the wind industry. Years ago, governments were protecting tobacco companies; today, they absolve wind farms of all sins and help them commit more.”
There is an article in the left-wing Counterpunch newsletter that’s discussing noise levels and community complaints in the US.
The article goes on to make a few demands such as, “2) apply 35 dbA limits to nighttime operations immediately,” which is rather high considering what the Danish scientist says about the maximum tolerable levels of noise (30 dBA).
It is well-worth reading in full.
joe says:
February 10, 2012 at 12:46 am
“The anti wind people are doing the right things for the wrong reasons. […] We are pro life and hate homosexuals. Didn’t you read the brochure?”
joe, we know the warmists are wrong but your parody of them is a little over the top.
I also recommend “spin, baby spin” be henceforth upheld as the official motto of the pro-wind crowd.
John Marshall says:
February 10, 2012 at 2:11 am
“Joe, above, makes some wild claims as to the safety records of oil, gas and coal. There are more people killed in the wind industry than any other power industry.”
With one exception: forestry, which is partially a power industry. Deaths and injuries from falling trees, chainsaw accidents etc are so common they don’t even make it out of the local news.
In Australia it seems people paid a lot of money to have them on their property don’t experience any health problems. Their neighbours on the other hand soon turn into the walking dead. Funny that.
February 2, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Wind Energy, Noise Pollution
Living near wind turbines can be hazardous to your health.
By Robert Bryce
Original with many embedded reference links found here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289920/wind-energy-noise-pollution-robert-bryce
Copy found here, faster loading without the images or links, on one page:
http://wind-watch.org/news/?p=18597
(PIPA/SOPA disclaimer: site says it’s allowable “fair use” by a nonprofit.)
Good reading, much info.
I hate that this sort of thing happens in the world.
Why can’t people be honest about something so basic?
**So how do you determine the nuisance level just by counting decibels?**
I can’t think of a model which could include the enormous nuisance caused by a low-decibel but inquisitive and hungry mosquito…..
Has anybody considered what effect windmills have on the climate? They are taking energy out of the climate system, there must be some effect.
Here’s a fun game to play with warmista.
It goes like- remind them that rising CO2 causes rising temperatures.So far so good.
Next, point them to this especially with reference to Domestic Electricity prices in Denmark, Germany and Spain. Suggest that rising numbers of windmills and solar panels explain what you see there.
Beware, exploding heads can get messy……
From The Telegraph (UK):
Switch-off for noisy wind farms
Wind turbines are being turned off during periods of high wind in case they become too loud.
By Jasper Copping, and Richard Gray
9:00PM GMT 19 Nov 2011
They’ve been throttling back the beasties when the wind is strong to quiet them down, making them even closer to completely worthless.
Which of course naturally leads to this new article:
World’s biggest offshore wind farm opens off Britain as new minister admits high cost
Ed Davey, the new Energy and Climate Change Secretary, has admitted offshore wind turbines are a high cost form of energy as he opened the world’s largest wind farm off the coast of north England.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
3:36PM GMT 09 Feb 2012
Due to the noise on land provoking too many complaints, wind farm developers are moving turbines offshore, even if it does make them much more costlier to build and operate. (But hey, it’s not like the taxpayers and ratepayers are paying for it, right?)
Animal rights groups sued the US Navy over their underwater sonar disturbing the marine life. Won’t the noise from the offshore wind turbines disturb the sea critters as well? Will the animal rights groups jump up to support their noble cause and sue to stop the offshore wind farms from disrupting the hapless ocean dwellers? Will they rise up to save the innocent intelligent dolphins from this vicious unwarranted onslaught?
joe says:
February 10, 2012 at 12:46 am
Joe. You are sick.