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.
Joe attempts a variation on the Big Oil anti-green conspiracy and throws in some insults to social conservatives as well. This is just another means of distraction — nobody here is in the pay of Big Oil or Big Gas or Big Coal. The problem is wind power just doesn’t deliver. It diverts resources from energy source that work and puts them into sources that don’t work.
On the other hand, green energy does reward the politically connected.
@Joules Verne
Think about the disposable income being leached from individuals to pay subsidies for these machines, reducing money available for charitable donations to help relieve the pain and suffering in the developing world. Also think about the impact of fuel poverty on the old.
I’m all in favor of making all regulators live in the conditions to which they would willingly subject the rest of us. If they happen to stack up on them, too bad.
Below 100Hz perceived loudness (measured in fones) once the threshold is exceeded is approximately twice as great as it is at 3000Hz, where the human hearing is at its most sensitive, for the same rise in the sound pressure (measured in decibels).
“If, like me, you love birds then you might find this video a bit too sad”
That one’s a hoax. Bad motion tracking.
Noise isn’t the only legitimate concern that exists for wind power generators. Increasingly (at least for our New England utility), generators have been attempting to either co-locate their structures at an existing electric/gas utility location (e.g., a substation) or to establish them in close proximity to such locations. For reference, most New England utilities cannot possess generation assets due to the region’s movement toward deregulation in the late 1990s; however, they are obligated to purchase power from generators (with a certain percentage coming from renewables) to provide a default service to their customers.
Provided the local conditions are favorable, wind power generators believe that such a pairing is (1) an easier sell to local officials (it’s already zoned and used for energy generation/transmission/distribution), (2) provides a quick connection to the local, electric transmission grid, and (3) allows the utility to purchase wind power, assuring that a portion of its load is already paid for and permitting the utility to meet some of its renewables requirement.
Unfortunately, most utilities do not desire a tall structure nearby, which has the potential to shed snow/ice and/or its own components in a catastrophic failure over an appreciable radius. And yet, local officials tend to ignore this rather obvious concern when it comes to establishing siting conditions for wind generators – http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/wind/wind-siting-study-04-15-09.pdf .
In fact, local officials have been amazed that they neglected to review a legitimate, public safety concern (e.g., the likely result when blade debris impacts a 30,000-gallon LNG tank) – because the great majority of siting requirements are focused on the impact to Nature. As noted in the referenced Massachusetts study from 2009 (p. 2-3), “…[Wnd generators] can apply and receive exemptions from local zoning requirements via a state-level review process conducted by the Department of Public Utilities (DPU). Under Massachusetts law, decisions on zoning approvals such as special permits can be appealed… Because harm to the general public interest is not sufficient, the standing rules for zoning cases are generally considered more stringent than those for environmental cases…” The general public interest is (apparently) a vague and nebulous thing – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeoVaqdwZXw&feature=related .
So, similar to the Danish noise issue, it’s okay to fold, spindle, and otherwise mutilate little Bobby, but you’d better make damn sure Bambi doesn’t leave the turbine’s area with so much as a hangnail on his hoof. Once again, the counter-productive, impractical, and divisive outcome of an “eco-friendly” requirement manifests its “ugliness.” Properly sited, wind power generation serves a useful peaking role but is certainly no substitute for a dependable, base load.
It’s too bad people think they can escape the annoyances of the village by moving into ground zoned for agricultural use. If you choose to live among farmers don’t expect the protections afforded within town. If you do you gamble a move to the countryside and imagine a bucolic life, your house may have a hog farm, a noisy grain dryer, or an unsightly transmission line or wind tower built next to it. As far as I’m concerned one of the great advantages of wind turbines is that it keeps the complainers within city limits where they belong.
Even at a kilometre distance, the noise is disturbing. Imagine what it must be like much closer.
This is not a rhetorical question. I recently passed a house near Peterborough, England situated on a main road, and just behind was several acres of industrial estate, containing – you guessed it – a wind farm. If I say that the nearest turbine was so close to the back yard of the house that you could reach out and touch it with a broom, that is not an exaggeration. It is the most literal description possible. And this poor house was not alone – just happened to be the closest. This was off a main road, remember, with other houses further along.
Just how did this get past planning? I am too incredulous for words.
Anthony:
Bird morality rate by source
Buildings 550 million
Power lines 130 milllion
Cats 100 million
Automobiles 80 milllions
Pesticides 67 million
Communication towers 4.5 mlilion
Wind turbines 28.5 thousand
….
Is the case against wind turbines so weak, we need to invent reasons?
We’re doing a study with the Swedes on wind turbine noise, looking at low frequency noise and infrasound generated from a wind-farm. Perhaps presently I’ll have something to comment on that aspect.
But I have no doubt group hysteria and NIMBA are playing a significant role here.
As Steven Mosher might say, either you’re a skeptic or you’re not. You don’t get to pick what you are a skeptic about and what you swallow without blinking and remain a true skeptic.
Carrick. How many buildings/Power lines/Cats etc etc?
Mind you I had no idea wind turbines killed quite so many birds – that’s appalling.
And yes, you do get to pick what you are skeptic about (tho’ I know what you mean, it is still a daft thing to say).
Josh: Mind you I had no idea wind turbines killed quite so many birds – that’s appalling.
Uh yeah. 0.01% of all human caused bird deaths. Appalling is the word I’d use… for the argument that this is even microscopically significant.
Yep, that’s a >really gigantic number compared e.g. to glass windows in buildings.
What is daft is you not reading the entire sentence before pulling the Mr. Snit act.
I believe it ended with “…and remain a true skeptic”.
Mr Snit? That is a new one for me, what does it mean? I will hazard a guess in the meantime 😉
Two things would be great. One is what the ratios are in your figures, eg. how many cats killed how many birds, obviously less than 100 million. And then compared to wind turbines.
Second, we can all be true skeptics and still choose what we are skeptical about. In fact almost impossible to do otherwise. If it were a verb it would go something like this.
I am skeptic
You are biased
He, she and it are idiots
Etc etc.
joe says:
February 10, 2012 at 12:46 am
They are trying to protect the coal, gas and oil industries who do far more damage to peoples health and quality of life.
————————————————-
Did you ever consider the benefits of the energy sources that you malign? One might even say that coal, gas, and oil actually improve people’s health and quality of life. I know that I prefer driving my car and living in a heated home to the alternatives, and I’m pretty healthy. Anyway It doesn’t seem as if wind “power” is going to be able to displace coal, gas, or oil.
What about the frequencies below 20hz? Are those frequencies measured / monitored? I ask because Infrasound (Sound at frequencies below 20hz), has been linked with various anxiety related symptoms in about 20% of people.
I’m informed most commercially available sound meters (at least in the UK) are built to an ITEC standard which does not include sound waves below 10hz. Anyone know anything more?
Carrick,
the birds killed by wind turbines are mostly birds of prey. Being at the top of the food chain they are much rarer than sparrows and thrushes, so number by number comparisons are meaningless. It would be like arguing that we shouldn’t care about the deaths of a few hundred siberian tigers because so many millions of lesser mammals are killed by man.
In fact, the more I think about that, the more appalled I am by your reasoning.
Josh says:
February 10, 2012 at 11:18 am
Second, we can all be true skeptics and still choose what we are skeptical about. In fact almost impossible to do otherwise.
I somewhat agree. The real scientist, even in scientists supporting CAGW by CO2, demonstrates skepticism.
I don’t have the links to them, but I’m sure we see this in the ClimateGate emails.
@Carrick
So I guess you also think that people that are against killing sharks for their vins are overreacting, since there are so many sardines in the sea?
Carrick said @ur momisugly February 10, 2012 at 10:17 am
Carrick, you are missing something here. I referred in an earlier thread to the potential for wind turbines to send the Tasmanian wedgetail eagle extinct. The turbines are not killing any significant numbers of sea eagles, even though they greatly outnumber their cousins. The number of wedgetails killed by cats, buildings, power lines, pesticides and communication towers appears to be nil.
Up to 40% of the wedgetail eagles’ diet is feral cats. Feral cats are causing a noticeable decline in our local small bird population so eliminating wedgies will undoubtedly increase the rate of small bird loss. Small birds eat many agricultural pest species (such as chafers & army worms), so that in turn will lead to a need to increase agricultural pesticide use. Consequent knock-on effects such as poisoning the small birds eating pests that have been sprayed with organophosphate insecticides will reduce their numbers even further.
Don’t be so glibly simplistic.
Carrick says:
February 10, 2012 at 10:17 am
“Buildings 550 million
Power lines 130 milllion
Cats 100 million
Automobiles 80 milllions
Pesticides 67 million
Communication towers 4.5 mlilion
Wind turbines 28.5 thousand”
First to note is the age of the report, read especially the biases section, and the older age of the studies that was used.
Secondly since 2003 US has installed some 41 000 MW more capacity compared to the around 6000 MW that was installed in 2003–the latest date under the “Avian Mortality Due to Collisions with Wind Turbines” section used.
Thirdly more and more wind power gets installed around protected areas, apparently it has something to do with the wind.
Re Carrick
No real need when there are precedents, like:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/syncrude-blames-freezing-rain-for-duck-deaths-at-tailings-pond/article1773540/
“Last Friday, an Alberta court levied a $3-million dollar fine against Syncrude for the death of 1,606 mallards in 2008.”
So there’s a going rate for a common duck, what price an endangered species killed by a wind turbine, bird or bat? Strange how oil companies get fined for bird deaths, but windmill operators do not.
Although sound and vibrations are mostly referenced in this post, another issue referenced in the linked video is the flicker effect. I live in an area where I am surrounded by hundreds of windtowers. I lived on a farm where we were less than 1/4 of a mile from the towers ( that company would not build within 1,000 ft. of a farmhouse), but we were upwind, so noise was not so much of an issue. At certain times of the year ( late fall, winter and early spring) the flicker of the towers would wake me up in the morning. Now I have moved and live where the closest windtower is just over 3/4 of a mile from my house to the southwest. In the late afternoons I still get the flicker effect through my south facing windows. The towers that affect me have 90 foot blades, but I still get flickering in my house. It is noticeable if you are doing something, but it drives you nuts if you are sitting in an area where the light hits you. blink, blink, blink, blink…
As some have noted, the bird-choppers kill the soarers, the big birds of prey that are relatively rare. They’re also pretty good at killing kites & hawks and although I’m not overly keen on flying rodents, bats too.
Considering the rarity of the birds they kill and the sparsity of wind turbines, I’m surprised at the magnitude of the kill Carrick notes.
DaveE.
So much for the conservative principle of private property rights. The people who own the land where the windmills reside have every right in the world to put windmills on them.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. I recall recently when someone near and dear to Anthony in Australia lost or almost lost their farm because neighbors didn’t like the smell and got the government to step in and pull their operating permit. In that case dear Anthony was all up in arms about protecting the private property rights of the odor factory. I agreed with him though because I’m no hypocrite. If you own land where there are no restrictions against something you don’t get to complain (without being a hypocrite) when a neighbor makes some legal use of their land that you don’t like. Tough break. That’s the price of freedom. Move to town if you want fewer land use rights in trade for your neighbors having fewer rights too.
Yet now Anthony is all against someone using their land for a perfectly legal purpose. How perfectly hypocritical.
Dave… ‘scuse me, “Joules”,
Anthony is not a hypocrite. It’s not hypocritical to be against something. I’m 100% against windmills. I’m against paying taxes to subsidize them. And your analogy is no good, because in that case the gov’t went after one family. I’m against having windmills anywhere. Solar, not so much. But windmills have no redeeming value.
Joules Verne said @ur momisugly February 10, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Talking through your arse, Joules? Nobody complained about the smell until after they reduced the number of stock. Nobody complained about the piggery next door. Cowshit smells one hell of a lot nicer than pigshit! Anyone that moves into a rural community and then complains about farmers doing what farmers do is asking for trouble.
Installing wind turbines on a property is vastly different to running sheep, cattle or other stock, providing they don’t affect anyone else; for example by not maintaining fences. I also note that many of the individuals complaining about the wind turbines are the very same people who campaigned to have them installed. Now that’s hypocrisy!