Wind farm study finally recognizes that all is not well with wind power


Recognizing health concerns in wind energy development a key recommendation in new study

As wind energy development blossoms in Canada and around the world, opposition at the community level is challenging the viability of the industry. A new study with research from the University of Waterloo, published in Nature Energy, identifies four major factors leading to disputes over wind farms, and offers recommendations on avoiding disagreements.

The research project focuses on the province of Ontario. It lists socially mediated health concerns, distribution of financial benefits, lack of meaningful engagement and failure to treat landscape concerns seriously, as the core stumbling blocks to a community’s acceptance of wind energy development.

“There has been debate over whether reported negative health outcomes in nearby residents are valid” says Tanya Christidis, a PhD researcher at Waterloo’s School of Planning, who contributed to the study by looking specifically at the health impacts section in the publication. “Regardless of whether or not people are sick from wind turbine noise or from social factors they deserve to be acknowledged if renewables are going to become a key part of our future energy mix.”

The study makes recommendations for all four identified major areas of dispute.

For community members who feel the distribution of financial benefits is unfair, it recommends the province, which is constitutionally responsible for managing all energy resources within its territory, mandate more community-level decision-making and ownership. It also recommends increased transparency and compensation distribution for everyone in a community.

The study suggests that Ontario’s approval process does not encourage enough meaningful engagement. Acknowledging that this is difficult to mandate, its recommendation is that improvements in this area should still be pursued.

Finally, the study recommends greater consideration for the impact on landscapes, and in particular changes to the cultural landscapes of areas with wind energy development.

Over the past decade global wind energy capacity has increased eight-fold. Ontario, with a population of close to 13 million people and land area of 1.1 million km2 is approximately equivalent in population, size and contracted wind energy capacity (5,700 vs 6, 200 MW) 2 to Sweden and Norway combined.

Research for the report was assembled by researchers, from Waterloo. York University, Western University, Queen’s University, University of Ottawa as well as Trent University. The study is unique as it also includes a community representative and a wind industry advocate engaged in the Ontario wind energy industry.

About the University of Waterloo

University of Waterloo is Canada’s top innovation university. With more than 36,000 students we are home to the world’s largest co-operative education system of its kind. Our unmatched entrepreneurial culture, combined with an intensive focus on research, powers one of the top innovation hubs in the world. Find out more at


243 thoughts on “Wind farm study finally recognizes that all is not well with wind power

      • Who cares? The greens certainly don’t care about them, they’re only birds. In UK the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds actually put a windmill on one of their reserves. After all its not like these birds were killed by an oil spill is it, windmills are different.

    • Good point Bloke.
      Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather
      September 4, 2015
      By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
      Cold weather kills. Throughout history and in modern times, many more people succumb to cold exposure than to hot weather, as evidenced in a wide range of cold and warm climates.
      Evidence is provided from a study of 74 million deaths in thirteen cold and warm countries including Thailand and Brazil, and studies of the United Kingdom, Europe, the USA, Australia and Canada.
      Contrary to popular belief, Earth is colder-than-optimum for human survival. A warmer world, such as was experienced during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, is expected to lower winter deaths and a colder world like the Little Ice Age will increase winter mortality, absent adaptive measures. These conclusions have been known for many decades, based on national mortality statistics.

      Canada has lower Excess Winter Mortality Rates than the USA (~100,000 Excess Winter Deaths per year) and much lower than the UK (up to ~50,000 Excess Winter Deaths per year). This is attributed to our better adaptation to cold weather, including better home insulation and home heating systems, and much lower energy costs than the UK, as a result of low-cost natural gas due to shale fracking and our lower implementation of inefficient and costly green energy schemes.
      The problem with green energy schemes is they are not green and they produce little useful energy, primarily because they are too intermittent and require almost 100% fossil-fueled (or other) backup.
      The Alberta Climate Change initiative seeks to reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of green energy. In Europe, where green energy schemes have been widely implemented, the result is higher energy costs that are unaffordable for the elderly and the poor, and increased winter deaths. European politicians are retreating from highly-subsidized green energy schemes and returning to fossil fuels. When misinformed politicians fool with energy systems, innocent people suffer and die.

      • Canadian winter adaptation… My cousin, a farmer in Ontario, relocates to his basement for the winter. Another cousin, from Saskatchewan, winters in Oahu, HI. Just sayin…

      • “Wind Turbines are grossly inefficient engineering systems…”
        Cassandra, can you tell me what you mean by efficiency in this context please? As an engineering term, it would mean energy obtained vs available energy, or something like that. In economic terms, that is actually irrelevant, since the wind energy is free.

        • seaice1

          “Wind Turbines are grossly inefficient engineering systems…”

          Cassandra, can you tell me what you mean by efficiency in this context please? As an engineering term, it would mean energy obtained vs available energy, or something like that. In economic terms, that is actually irrelevant, since the wind energy is free.

          Engineering Economics has long been a full semester, required course in every engineering curicula for decades. Engineering economics, like thermodynamics, structures, fluid flow, pipe supports, insulation, mechanics of materials, or heat transfer, is a whole system analysis, a complete analysis of ALL costs analyzed over the ENTIRE TIME of the ENTIRE SYSTEM.
          Every systemic analysis uses the present value of ALL future costs (or its equivalent – the future value of ALL present costs) from theoretical analysis and research and development and design and procurement and fabrication and material storage and shipping and handling to hotel charges for the workers and the fabrication itself through operation and maintenance and repairs and controls to decommmissioning and records storage.
          Now, for ANY energy system, the present value of future costs includes the fuel expected to be required through the system’s lifetime. It includes the present value of the product (electricity to the grid) over the entire system’s lifetime.
          True, for windmills, there is no “fee” for the wind. There IS a “fee” for everything else, including the energy needed for heating the blades (or for paying the helicopter and trucks and fuel to heat the water and the water itself, and the gloves the men are wearing, and their safety glasses and the gasoline for their trucks). There IS a cost for the thousands of tons of concrete below the ground, and the digging and disposal of the dirt removed for the foundation, the roads to the windmill, and (hopefully) for the environmental damage for cutting that road to the site to bring in the cranes to build the towers to carry the electric power out from the site.
          Worldwide, there is NO MARKET for the power produced from windmills in the developed world for ANY NATIONAL SITE unless deliberately subsidized by government money to promote windmills. (Local sites in extreme conditions far from the grid (Antarctic research stations, for example) are an exception since they are so far from the real world.)
          You are playing a propaganda game, not a financial nor engineering game.

      • “…the wind energy is free.
        In case you do not undertand what I mean, we do not pay to make the wind. The wind is free. It is not free to harness the energy.

      • “You are playing a propaganda game, not a financial nor engineering game.” I simply asked for clarification of the use if an ambiguous term, and pointed out that in at least one meaning of the term it did not matter whether it was efficient or not. I presume you agree with me. You do not think that that was the definition Cassandra was meaning, but how do we know?
        Engine efficiency is “the relationship between the total energy contained in the fuel, and the amount of energy used to perform useful work.” There is no calculation of systems and lifetimes there. No consideration of manufacturing energy use etc. If I were to say car engines are inefficient, it would not be understood to include these factors – it would (I believe) be understood to mean the energy out is not a very big proportion of the energy contained in the fuel. That definition is at least as likely as the one you favor.

        • You are dead wrong. Deliberately dead wrong, misleading by deliberate misdirection.
          Every energy delivery system (car, boat, auto, aircraft, glider, parachute, windmill, slave-pulling-rope, or horse-and-buggy) can only be analyzed in its entirity as the entire system (all benefits – all costs) over the entire time frame of the system.
          Now, a clever propagandist (salesman or politician or CEO or CFO or quarterly-profit-seeking-manager) seeking to delude others about the cost of the system can chose to lie about benefits of their preferred system (which the CAGW/windfarm propagandists do)
          and they can choose to to lie about the costs of the competitive systems (which the CAGW/windmill propagandists definitely choose to do as they inflate the so-called “social costs of carbon”)
          and they can lie about the actual costs of operating their chosen system (which the CAGW/windmill propagandists definitely choose to do – which is what you are choosing to do now as you pretend only the cost of “fuel” matters in an economic decision)
          and they can lie about the supposed costs of dismantling the system at-end-of-life, and the long term maintenance cost of their chosen system (which the CAGW/windmill propagandists definitely choose to do)
          and they can ignore and lie about the environmental costs of their supported system (which the CAGW/windmill propagandists definitely choose to do.
          That they (you) chose to do these wrongs does not change the “wrongs” into “rights.”
          NO windmill in a developed country, grid-connected system is economically viable over the lifetime of the system without extensive government-chosen subsidies to the windmill promotion and propaganda industry.

      • seaice1 January 28, 2016 at 7:32 am

        “…the wind energy is free.
        In case you do not undertand what I mean, we do not pay to make the wind. The wind is free. It is not free to harness the energy

        We don’t pay to make the oil, we don’t pay to make the coal, we don’t pay to make the gas..
        Any existing natural resource is free on the above reasoning. In the case of any existing natural resource, it is the cost of harvesting the resource, converting it into something useful, and supplying it to market which costs the money.
        The problem with wind is that the harvesting costs, getting it to market (which requires new infrastructure to couple up windfarms from far off places to the existing grid), and supplying it to market (that requires 100% backup by conventional fossil fuel generation and other costs associated with balancing the grid) that are expensive and render wind uneconomical.

      • RACooke
        It is you who are wrong.
        “Every energy delivery system (car, boat, auto, aircraft, glider, parachute, windmill, slave-pulling-rope, or horse-and-buggy) can only be analyzed in its entirity as the entire system (all benefits – all costs) over the entire time frame of the system.” (emphasis mine)
        Wrong, wrong, wrong. Efficiency of both engines and wind turbines is more normally analysed as the proportion of energy in the “fuel” that is converted into useful mechanical energy.
        See this quote for example “Turbine Efficiency: if the turbine could convert all the wind’s power to mechanical power we would say it was 100% efficient.” Not by your definition, since we would have to account for all the energy used in construction.
        Under the heading “Efficency” wikipedia article on wind turbines says “Further inefficiencies, such as rotor blade friction and drag, gearbox losses, generator and converter losses, reduce the power delivered by a wind turbine. Commercial utility-connected turbines deliver 75% to 80% of the Betz limit of power extractable from the wind, at rated operating speed.”
        You can very easily find thousands of examples. Some more:
        “An automobile engine will work at about 25-28% efficiency. A steam engine will work at only 5-8% efficiency.”
        ” It would have to be a very well designed and built steam locomotive to get more than 7 or 8% efficiency.”
        “The steam turbine efficiency in converting the energy content of the steam into mechanical energy is limited to about 40%. (Carnot’s Efficiency Law).”
        “Most ac generators used in Power Stations tend to be of the “Flux Cutting” types. Their efficiencies range from less than 33% to slightly more…”
        Wikipedia says: “Engine efficiency of thermal engines is the relationship between the total energy contained in the fuel, and the amount of energy used to perform useful work.” See- they use a different definition than the one you say is the only one possible.
        This is incontovertible proof that there are other definitions of efficiency than the one you say is the only one possible. You are therefore wrong. But more seriously, these other definitions are actually the NORMAL definitions. It is perfectly reasonable to ask which meaning of “efficiency” is intended when it is not specified.
        Your accusing me of deliberate misdirection is totally wrong. I hope you will be apologising, but I won’t hold my breath.
        It surprises me why people here insist on defending the indefensible. Why make it up that efficiency can only be analysed as a complete life-cycle analysis, when the opposite is so widely understood to be the case and so easily demonstrated to be true? It is beyond me.

      • dbstealey. PE could stand for professional engineer, or process engineer. Also possibly problem of evil or premature ejaculation, but in this context I think these last two are unlikely.
        None of which makes the slightest difference. If the argument is wrong, it is wrong, whatever the qualifications of the person making it.

      • Wow that is very important information. I know people who have tried wind power to charge batteries and it was not successful. Solar worked better but still expensive but cheaper than bring power, natural gas over 20 miles of land. Propanes is easier to work with off the grid.

    • Let’s not get dragged into some diversion of a debate about some relatively minor issues with the Renewable Energy Industry and instead let’s concentrate upon some very basic factual evidence that our dear politicians and leaders ignore, mis-represent, or simply can never understand, and which the RE Industry and its supporters blatantly ignore or even lie about! There may or may not be health issues or even intrusive view issues with WT’s, but the main issue – which is the killer in the arguments against WT’s, is twofold:
      1. Wind Turbines are grossly inefficient engineering systems, to the extent that no amount of expensive R&D thrown at them will ever succeed in engineering out these inefficiencies. They produce power when the capricious wind allows them and not when it is needed; and where the wind blows and not where the power demand is. The low no/low wind conditions over any year, and their very often remote location mean that to provide the equivalent to the base load fossil fuelled power system being replaced, the Wind Farm base load system needed has also to include very significant but and essential ancillery works. These include 100% standby Gas Turbine power units capable of continuously providing the ongoing varying shortfall in Wind Turbine power generation at 0-100% of the WT’s rated capacity. In addition, very significant amounts of enhanced and additional Power Transmission works are needed to connect the remote WT’s to areas of Power Demand and to adjust and control the National Grid distribution system to accommodate power from the new WT areas.
      2. The above-mentioned massive amount of additional ancillary works needed , and the fact that WT’s only generate 25-30% of their rated power output in any year, means that despite what the WT Industry continually tells us, Wind Farms will never, by a massive amount, be cost-competitive with other base load systems, not only because of the noted additional works but also because of the subsidies they require to make WT’s commercially viable, and the additional subsidies that then have to be paid to the Gas Turbine Power Stations for them, themselves, to be commercially viable when operating their plants as standby units at ever varying and inefficient low loads.
      The choice is a no brainer: keep the debate simple, by simply explaining the above to the electorate. Dare the WT Industry to debate this in public; scrap the subsidies; dump WT’s, and simply use the same capacity GT’s alone as base load units with no need for theses ancillary works. Also, simply explain to the Green Brigade that the essential standby GT’s emit their own CO2 and as such there is only a net CO2 environmental penalty of 25-30% of this same GT’s CO2 generation of roughly 375 tonnes per gWhr power generated, i.e. roughly 100 tonnes of CO2 per gWhr generated and, according to Stern, at an environmental Present Day Cost of only US$80 per tonne of CO2 – even if CAGW exists!, i.e. at a fraction of a pence more per kWhr power used.
      What world do our politicians and leaders live in? Why can’t they sell this simple message to the people? Why are they so surprised when steelworks and other industries shut down?

      • said in 2014 that a Portuguese power company said that onshore wind was now the cheapest form of generation. There’s jargon in that which I do not understand, and I have no idea how close to reality the report is or how much the original claim may have depended on subsidies. Just mention it so that someone else can criticise it (and thus educate me).
        Wind farms provide 5% of the electricity in my country; consents have been granted for additional wind generation up to about 18% so far. Of course, we have lots of hydro, which to some extent addresses the energy storage issue. Out of curiosity I looked into small scale wind turbines, but found that the official estimate is that a family would need to spend nearly as much on wind turbines (never mind storage) as on the whole house and section to cover normal electricity use, and that small turbines don’t work well in cities anyway.

      • Good points but the health issue is very real,is local and so is all politics. A good friend farming on the western seaboard of Ireland, left his house and commutes to his farm in order to allow his young children gain a proper sleeping regime. Too young to understand but affected by the proximity to a wind farm. Similar cases of people leaving their houses elsewhere but no publicity and virtually no media interest. An informed, well publicised data base will arm local communities and give them the opportunity to fight back.

      • Thank you Cassandra, Thank you.
        Four issues … pppppphhhhtt
        There are two issues.
        1) as cassandra summarized, it is a net loss with respect any meaningful analysis.
        2) health of the local environment (including people & birds & such) will be impacted in some way or nuther by any large energy producing project(s). At this point in time it appears that dense windmills create a bigger ongoing negative impact than any other energy producer.

      • The choice is a no brainer: keep the debate simple, by simply explaining the above to the electorate. Dare the WT Industry to debate this in public; scrap the subsidies; dump WT’s, and simply use the same capacity GT’s alone as base load units with no need for theses ancillary works.

        Stellar advice. I try, though my manner grates on some. I’d rather see LFTR plants powering the grid than gas plants, as soon as humanly possible…
        Slabber and Slobber

      • Yes, and the other thing to note is that wind turbines have been around for hundreds of years, and they still haven’t been able to get them to work efficiently. They were tried and then ditched in favour of other technologies that increase prosperity rather than destroy it.

      • Cassandra:
        A few points worth noting.
        Ontario has indeed installed gas turbines to replace coal and act as base-load generation capacity.
        However, IESO actually ignores wind and solar when creating the schedule for electrical production.
        The plan had been to install single stage Gas Generation as fast followers — but I pointed out and others picked up the message that they are 38% efficient as opposed to about 58% efficient for multi stage gas generation. SO as far as I know the generators are all multi-stage.
        The main issue is that since the wind and solar are ignored in the schedule it must be dumped on the market at whatever the market will bear. We often pay our neighboring American States to take the power. On a typical day this can cost Ontarions millions of dollars. At best we seem to clear about 2.5 cents per KWh for energy that costs us about 12.5 cents to create — such a deal! You can verify this by looking at the IESO generation data and confirming that the HOEP is most often neat two to three cents per KWh. (
        As far as efficiency goes and use of dollars to generate megawatts — that’s really a non-issue as you point out since the power is intermittent, that makes it ineffective. It seems to me that that the “ineffective” characterization is better than one of inefficiency as the turbines actually generate energy with about a 98% efficiency — should the wind actually be blowing. Turbine blades can be designed to be quite efficient — should the wind be above an acceptable range however, they tend to disintegrate if not braked.
        In other words we both agree that they are a waste of money. (And a health hazard.)

      • I feel that I am banging my head on a wall.
        Take Germany
        1. Free energy provides electricity at four times the price
        2) 100% wind solar produces net increase in co2 and no reduction in fossil fuel use
        What on earth is so difficult to understand, here you have an experiment on nation state scale and its failed.

      • Cassandra said:
        “WT’s (wind turbines) only generate 25-30% of their rated power output in any year”
        That 25-30% (often less than 25%) is called the Capacity Factor, but that is NOT the relevant factor.
        The real truth is told by the Substitution Capacity, which is dropping to as low as 4% in Germany – that is the amount of conventional generation that can be permanently retired when wind power is installed into the grid.
        The E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005 is an informative document:
        (apparently no longer available from E.ON Netz website).
        Figure 6 says Wind Power is too intermittent (and needs almost 100% spinning backup);
        Figure 7 says it just gets worse and worse the more Wind Power you add to the grid (see Substitution Capacity dropping from 8% to 4%).
        Same story applies to grid-connected Solar Power (both in the absence of a “Super-Battery”).
        This was all obvious to us decades ago – we published similar conclusions in 2002.
        Trillions of dollars have been wasted globally on green energy that is not green and produces little useful energy.
        Cheap abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.
        The reality is that fossil fuels keep our families from freezing and starving to death.
        The following numbers are from the 2015 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, for the year 2014:
        Global Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel is 86% Fossil Fuel (Oil, Coal and Natural Gas),
        4% Nuclear,
        7% Hydro,
        and 2% Renewables.
        That 2% for Renewables is vastly exaggerated, and would be less than 1% if intermittent wind and solar power were not forced into the grid ahead of cheaper and more reliable conventional power.
        This is not news – we have known this energy reality for decades. As we published in 2002.
        “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
        We also write in the same article, prior to recognition that the current ~20 year “Pause” was already underway:
        “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
        I (we) now think natural global cooling will commence after the current El Nino runs its course, prior to 2020 and possibly as soon as 2017. Global cooling will cause serious problems for society – I hope we are wrong about that.
        Regards to all, Allan

      • In my province of Alberta, intermittent grid–connected wind power is paid 20 cents per KWh, 24/7 even when there is no demand for that wind power, whereas reliable fossil-fueled power is paid about 5 cents per KWh. In reality, wind power is probably worthless due to its intermittency, so the subsidy is not [20/5]=400%, it is near-INFINITE.
        When you hear politicians and others talking about “Climate Change”, you are listening to the prattling of scoundrels and imbeciles. The reason they use the term Climate Change is because it is a non-falsifiable hypothesis – it can mean anything. Climate has always changed – naturally.
        To be precise, the threat alleged by the global warming alarmists is from catastrophic manmade global WARMING (“CAGW”) and that hypothesis was effectively falsified by the natural global cooling that occurred from ~1940 to ~1975, at the same time that atmospheric CO2 strongly increased.
        Fossil fuel combustion increased strongly after about 1940, and since then there was global cooling from ~1940 to ~1975, global warming from ~1975 to ~1996, and relatively flat global temperatures since then (with a few El Nino and La Nina upward and downward spikes). This so-called “Pause”.is now almost 20 years in duration, almost as long as the previous warming period. The correlation of global temperature with increasing atmospheric CO2 has been negative, positive and near-zero, each for periods of ~20 to 25 years.
        This so-called climate sensitivity to CO2 (“ECS”) has been greatly exaggerated by the warmists in their climate computer models – in fact, if ECS exists in the practical sense, it is so small as to be insignificant – less than 1C and probably much less. That means that the alleged global warming crisis is a fiction – in reality, it does not exist.
        The warmists have responded by “adjusting” the temperature data record to exaggerate global warming. Here is one USA dataset, before and after adjustments:

      • It is an obvious notable that the best locales and heights for windmills match favoured flyways and migratory routes. Oh, well, who needed the few straggler Whooping Cranes and California Condors, anyway?

      • Yeah, stupid birds, who needs them… .
        It does not amaze me that some people will go to great lengths to help birds, for the capacity of the human heart to love is great. What stuns me is, with a human heart beating inside their body, how can some people care so little?
        “Fly Away Home” (song: “10,000 Miles,” Mary Chapin Carpenter)

        Killing eagles, bats, and a little swift… all for — what?
        Money — that ends up in the pockets
        of only
        a few.
        Love is the most important thing
        of all.

    • Not a word about the hundreds of Helicopter hours for deicing ? In such a cold climate, never mind the wind turbine noise, its the helicopter spraying anti-freeze at 0300 hours that bugs me
      Question, how far dose ice travel after being thrown from a blade ?

      • Yes its real, the throw distance depends on the ice and rotation rate of the turbine, but from this up to a hundred meters or more. Some of the taller structures a few hundred meters is not difficult to achieve.
        And they do not shut down with ice on the blades as shown in this video
        Do an Internet search on wind turbines ice throw and see all the building companies and insurance companies assessing the issues.

      • I work as a consultant with research companies. One client did a study for a proposed wind farm just inside Mass. near the New York border on a mountain. The ice throw distance actually resulted in the wind farm not going ahead because it would not allow enough turbines to make the project viable. (Distance between turbines, roads, buildings etc to great)

    • Millions of birds are killed by wind farms and also solar panels. Moths are attracted to the light on solar and birds eat moths. Birds also eat millions of flying “nasties” which we humans are not keen on so we will be overrun with flies, moths, spiders, earwigs, creepie crawlies etc. Birds play an important eco part in the balance of life.
      Not a good idea to kill them all.

      • Matthew Weaver

        Solar panels do not kill birds.

        Odd thing, statements like that. See, the birds that are killed by “solar panels” can’t argue with it. Those killed by the lakes of polluted water in China filled with the heavy metal wastes drained from the rare earth pits and from the solar panel factories over there are dead, and cannot be heard. The birds fried by the reflected sunlight above the Mojave Desert solar power plants can’t talk either. The birds killed by collisions with windmill blades cannot speak.

      • Matthew Weaver
        And the dead birds cannot tell the difference between government-paid propaganda and government-paid “peer-reviewed” papers.
        But they are still dead.

  1. Sure taking care of local communities should be the first thing to think of when wanting to install large scale plant on the territory.
    French nulcear industiry solves the problem by giving free power to communities next to nulcear plant. If the wind industry did the same I’m sure all the insomnia complaints would evaporate instantly. The mind deranging ‘low frequency noise pollution” would suddenly be become the gentle purring of free electricity which helps people get a good night’s sleep.

    • Exactly!
      And it gets them off the hook for paying collective tax of higher renewable energy prices to grid customers. They may end up paying carbon tax schemes elsewhere in the economy but at least this one would be off the list.

      • I don’t know if “low frequency noise” has any physiological effects on any ordinary biota other than the hypersensitive souls in the “health food/ lifestyle” movement which runs more scientific trivia up the flag pole to see who salutes the “cause of the day” than all the wood that a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood. One thing is certain there is no “extra energy” to give away to the locals.

      • I don’t know if this is an urban legend or not, but I’ve heard of rock concert attenders who sat too close to high-powered subwoofers and experienced increased bowel motility – (to put it mildly!)

    • “If the wind industry did the same I’m sure all the insomnia complaints would evaporate instantly.”
      Actually probably not. I don’t know if wind turbine noise falls into the right range, but it’s well known that certain frequencies of sound can disrupt balance and cause nausea. At sufficient volume it can even cause physical damage.
      Note particularly:

      Noise-induced neurologic disturbances in scuba divers exposed to continuous low frequency tones for durations longer than 15 minutes has involved in some cases the development of immediate and long-term problems affecting brain tissue. The symptoms resembled those of individuals who had suffered minor head injuries. One theory for a causal mechanism is that the prolonged sound exposure resulted in enough mechanical strain to brain tissue to induce an encephalopathy.

      There is a solid basis to think that the health concerns around wind turbine noise might have enough merit to at least warrant investigating.

      • There is a solid basis to think that the health concerns around wind turbine noise might have enough merit to at least warrant investigating.

        But you see, it is ONLY real people who are actually complaining about the very real windmill noise, and NOT the government-eco-greenies who THINK they can detect POTENTIAL effects from potential problems that MIGHT affect future generations of fish, fowl, and flora!
        To an Eco-illogicalogist looking for excuses and looking for collaborations for future events needed to condemn a future energy production, the POTENTIAL for possible harm to unknowing possible victims in the far future is certain data. Actual harm to real people today means nothing.

      • RACook
        You are on the right track there. If the fish are disturbed by windmill noise, well they are not expendable so we will have to so something to save them.
        “…as the core stumbling blocks to a community’s acceptance of wind energy development.”
        My ‘core stumbling block’ is that the windmills do not reduce total AG CO2 emissions, they do not give a positive return on energy invested, if all the energy from production to decommissioning is considered, and they do not save money. They are an tax sinkhole that is wrecking the environment of a province that ran fine on nuclear and hydro power. Now it is starting to run badly on a combination of nuttiness and green ‘economics’ where ‘eco-‘ means ‘greeniness’ and ‘-nomics’ means ‘name’, as ‘in name only’.
        Greeniness is name only – windmills, that is thy very definition.

      • The governments, greenies and developers who are pushing wind mills don’t have any near them.
        Maybe everyone should take a look at Ontario electricity bills which are forcing many to chose between electricity and food. Price of natural gas is OK in Ontario. But most rural Ontarians don’t have access to natural gas for household use.
        And by the way people living near wind mills are being made very ill from the noise and vibrations from them and the media won’t even cover what is happening in rural Ontario.
        IMO, the lead article presented is a puff piece of propaganda. Check out who the authors of this paper are.

      • You beat to it Don. But I was going add a little more sarcasm; there would be less than zero left and we would need to up the subsidy by another 20%.

    • Outstanding observation. I have seen that with cell towers and natural gas wells running a compressor.

    • ” If the wind industry did the same I’m sure all the insomnia complaints would evaporate instantly”
      Except for the fact that there wouldn’t be enough power. Complaints that they were too loud would be replaced with complaints that the lights were out. Again.

  2. Well it’s a start. but not much of one. doing things such as banning the industry standard a-weighted sound measurements which are used to hide the massive amounts of infra sound these things generate would be a more lasting improvement but I’m not holding my breath. the health concerns don’t affect everybody but for those they do it’s very real. one of the reasons these things are so hated is that the people who’s lives have been turned upside down by these things have been trampled and swept under the carpet.

    • If only that were true. Instead what the study claims is that the feelings of people who believe they are harmed by wind turbines are not pandered to as much as the feelings of people who believe they are saving the environment.

      The study suggests that Ontario’s approval process does not encourage enough meaningful engagement. Acknowledging that this is difficult to mandate, its recommendation is that improvements in this area should still be pursued.
      Finally, the study recommends greater consideration for the impact on landscapes, and in particular changes to the cultural landscapes of areas with wind energy development.

      This does not look much like physics to me.
      Nothing that can’t be fixed by a good group hug.

      • “The study suggests that Ontario’s approval process does not encourage enough meaningful engagement.”
        This is a wordy way to say that windmills were forced upon municipalities by the Ontario government. Objections were simply ignored.

      • We already do the engagement thing in Oregon. So, we spend a lot more time/money on engagement … then simply ignore ’em.

  3. The low frequencies are probably below the level of perceived sound (infrasonic). This frequency regime has been the subject of weapon studies going back to World War I, because it interacts with the human body’s nervous system at the muscular level. It is bad stuff and shouldn’t be joked about.

    • Fully agreed. I’m very sensitive to low frequency sounds.
      Our church seems to specialize in loud LF music.
      Like the thump, thump, thump from boom boxes.
      I can feel it hitting my chest.
      It makes me dizzy and my ears ring for a day or more afterward.
      Wearing earplugs does little good because it hits my body.
      Look up boom box music human body on the Internet.

      • Sounds terrible chucky, does it make you think twice about going to church given you know how bad you feel afterwards?

        • We go late enough to skip most of the loud music.
          I wear earplugs. That help, but it’s far from perfect.
          It a great church. But our young music director caters to the
          young people. Other than that, we love it there.

      • I was once married to a religious Ethiopian woman and every Ethiopian event we went to had music so loud I could not hear anything anyone said to me, even if they were shouting directly into my ear. Now, understand I am a bass player…and like loud music. But bassists usually insert ear plugs esp in front of some powerful amps/PA systems. My ears were rubbish from birth anyway…should have kept that receipt.

      • “Chucky77
        January 27, 2016 at 12:13 pm”
        Ear plugs won’t work all the time. Consider noise cancelling headphones. Won’t stop the pressure waves from the speakers hitting your body (Bassist here, so know all about that), but may help otherwise to “drown” out most of it from your ears.

      • Infrasound (see Wikipedia entry) can’t be heard; its wavelengths are longer than 50 feet. Hearing loss begins at the high frequency end of the spectrum. The human body’s main organ of infrasound sensation is probably the chest cavity (and apparently the vestibular system). It turns out that the effects of infrasound are very malign, notwithstanding our inability to hear the sound.

        • Let us not omit the characteristic of the noise emission – in the pattern of an alarm clock. Hearing loss is a direct result of exposure to loud noise, whereas the issues reported by myself and others appear to be on the indirect pathway. (Carmen Krogh published an illustration which seems a fit.)

    • You can suffer hearing loss in the low Frequencies Below is a link with some information on the subject.
      I have worled in Machine shops for over 40 years and learned early on to protect my hearing.
      I still have normal hearing (I have keep all my hearing test results for the last 20 years).
      Anyone living near one of these beasts should be offered hearing tests on a yearly bases including low frequencies

  4. Unfortunately the recommendations can be categorized as 1) Let’s Talk more” and 2) “Get the tyrannical provincial government out of our lives”.
    The province is being run by a fascist leftist homsexualist. Good luck with either reason or science.
    Waterloo is a diamond is a sewer pipe.
    Here is a picture of the fascist premier with her convicted pedophile who was her education adviser, and the drama teacher who is now the prime minister of the country. (Yes the creep who reviewed the health and sexuality policy for Ontario schools is a convicted pedophile)
    Left to right:
    Pedophile Ben Levin, drama queen Prime Minister, and fascist homosexualist Kathleen Wynne.
    Note the creep smiles and the rainbow beads bracelets and apparel.
    [Easy. No more rants about these people. Yes, we observe you disagree with the region’s political directors. .mod]

    • …mod..
      well ok… there is context to the report and my comment. The President of the University, Feridun Hamdullaphur PhD is an expert in energy conversion systems, particularly fluidized bed coal combustion. He personally convinced me to study nuclear engineering when he was my professor at TUNS. Recently Wynne killed the programme to construct 16 nuclear reactors in Ontario and botched a 500 million dollar power plant scandal.
      Can you imagine the excruciating pain the energy experts at Waterloo have to endure since they are funded by the hostile leftist government? I am amazed they produced this report. The authors of this report are true heros and WUWT is also for making it more broadly viewed. So not so much a rant as a vented spleen. I appreciate your indulgence considering the broad view.

    • Exit rational scientific discussion – enter ad hom attacks, where’s the mod ?
      [Westhaver, and others, have been cautioned. .mod]

      • WTF, as a grateful receiver of useful education from the University of Waterloo….I can happily tell you ..Go F yourself !!

    • mod WTF et al,
      The authors of this report are walking on eggshells. Did you read it?
      Did you read the 4 “scientific” recommendations?
      They were scientific they were political. THAT was my point. What science has any advocate of CAGW used. What science did Lewandowsky use in his ad hom attacks on Watts & Company in his conspiracy theory un-paper? puuuullleeeeesse What science did Mann use or Gore or any number of of the CAGW advocate embrace?
      This paper, if you care to read it, has WHAT science? “meaningful engagement” ? That is the science?
      The excellent researchers at Waterloo are funded by a political machine controlled by Kathleen Wynne and Trudeau. That is not science that is raw bloody street fighting politics.
      In that, ad homs are perfectly appropriate. There will be no progress in Ontario and there will be no academic freedom at Waterloo until Wynne and Trudeau are in the history books.
      WUWT josh’s cartoons etc are replete with ad homs when appropriate. WTF State you real name for the record.

      • Paul, I’m not the mod in this case, but I agree that cautioning you that this language you used was a bit over the top was appropriate. Otherwise, we become just like the people you named that insult us.
        But this post is about a paper, not the political leaders, and thus such commentary is off-topic.

      • OK Anthony. and your mod.
        I guess I’ll have some tea.
        [A show of class. Thanks. (a different mod) ]

      • Paul…..+ 10,000… Anthony and mods, thanks for understanding our Canadian anger at such insanity !!

  5. While we’re at it, can we all stop voting for the same political dynasties. I care not what the Kennedy offspring think or what they have offer.

  6. What do you mean ‘finally recognises’?
    Here is the PhD thesis of Eleanor Denny, who won the inaugural EU Award for Teaching Excellence, so she can present a very readable paper.
    It’s on the cost-benefit of wind turbines attached to a grid, You will see that, even if you assume that saving CO2 is a benefit, wind turbines provide value up to about 20% – 30% penetration. After that adding any more produces NEGATIVE benefit – measured on all scales.
    It’s a PhD thesis, so it was examined closely and passed. And it’s dated 2007. So don’t tell me that people didn’t know that wind turbines, beyond a small amount, are actually damaging…

    • I’m not going to read this report but I did read a study that indicated that the life cost basis for wind turbines was based on a 30 year life expectancy which the study ( apprx. 2013) indicated was double what experience was showing. This is the real issue with wind and solar. Conventional base load power plants are still required for when renewables are not producing. This means approx. double the capital cost. Factor in the cost of money and they just make us all poor.

    • Study or no, wind turbines provide no economic value at any level. As soon as they come on line, the cost of electricity goes up for customers who are stuck with the things. The same is true of solar power plants.

  7. The cranial vault is a closed resonating box when hit by waves of compression.
    The supposedly neurotic consequences of sound could have a physical cause.
    Hypothetically sound waves in harmonic resonance with the brain mass will make it vibrate in the closed bone cranial vault.
    Like stiff custard slopping around in a cake tin, with a lid on it.
    In its sections the brain offers a number of possible harmonics to sound waves.
    If the preferred harmonic is cranial caudal the optic centres would be damaged,leading to disturbance of vision, if lateral, so side to side, there would be disturbance of balance.
    Long wave sound penetrates buildings and travels long distances.
    Your dog always hears the low frequencies of an oncoming thunderstorm.
    Chapter 2 of this report describes some of the health effects of wind turbine noise.

    • I was once told of a man that was taking a tour group through the latest and greatest wind farm. He was asked, “do they ever kill birds”? No, I’ve never seen one kill a …”, at which point a bird flew into the blades of the nearest windmill and the bloody mess was thrown at his feet.

  8. I wish I could produce the photo that was on my Facebook feed last night (it was a friend of a friend, and I don’t know him so you’ll have to take my word for it): in Grey County, Ontario, Canada, home of many wind turbines, there are now signs warning of “turbine shredding”.

      • Right you are, it is “shedding”. Although “shredding” is possible if it gets really, really windy and they don’t shut it down in time…

  9. Elephants can hear rain hundreds of kilometers away. But then, they’ve got big ears.
    Big ears are fine, but elephants can also hear through their feet.
    And if your nose runs and your feet smell…
    …you’re upside down! ☺

  10. If we (mankind) – only judged decisions on cold hard logic and facts, then, the modern version of a laughably outdated technology – windmill turbines would have stayed thankfully locked away in the wildest imaginations of fantasist eco-warriors and brain dead politicians.
    As soon as man got the ‘hang’ of steam power – wind (power) ceased to exist. Certainly and early on at that, the Victorians knew full well running the wheels of industry depended on the power generated by burning coal and producing steam: to turn the world.
    As soon as they could, our most recent forebears realized the life saving and tremendous grace of steam power when compared to the piffling effort of wind, it was no contest.
    It is, the most heightened folly to doom ourselves by enforcing on a reluctant taxpayer-consumer by revisiting the idle vagaries, the hubris of deluded design of utterly useless and dangerous wind whirlygigs,
    The only winners here, are the Chinese Steel manufacturers and the likes of Goldman Sachs – the investment banking leeches.
    Whereas, knowing the waste, the £$€billions thrown away, the poor old proletariat – the taxpayers are kicked in the teeth again and again.
    Apologists, we could do with far less of – concerning birdchoppers the idiots of green continuing with this litany of deception of lies and half truths – enough is enough: change the bloody record end the idiocy of unworkables now, if not sooner……………….
    – let it be Trump or Cruz.

      • Chinese dumping steel on world markets, Indian steel makers still at full production – it’s not a good prospect for the US steel industry.

      • The American steel industry will go the way of the UK steel industry, to Tata in India. The UK steel industry was under threat any from the Koreans who current make the best steel at the best price.

      • In previous centuries, industrial blue-collar workers unionized to counteract management. Nowadays they should unionize to counteract globalist politicians.

      • It’s the unions that have created these problems in the first place.
        More unionism isn’t the answer.

    • ” compared to the piffling effort of wind, it was no contest”… In some parts of the world, wind is all that is available. Compared to the cost of reticulating power to some out of the way parts, even near major cities, it is cheaper to put a battery-backed solar system in to do low-power stuff. Running highway signs, for instance.
      My grandfather had a traditional Australian windmill to pump the water for his cattle. He also had a hurricane lantern to read by at night. As soon as he got electric power, he popped in an electric pump. The windmill stayed for decorative purposes – very photogenic.

  11. I know that it’s popular at this blog to totally discount wind and solar. But really, what is the objection to wind if it meets a few simple conditions?
    1. It needs to be cost effective WITHOUT SUBSIDIES
    2. It can’t be used in populated areas. Even thinly populated areas.
    3. When used in scenic areas it needs to be appropriately sized. A two meter fan on an eight meter tower pumping stock or irrgation water is probably OK. A 70 meter propeller on a 100 meter tower probably is not
    4. It needs to be coupled to an appropriate load that can deal with intermittent availability.
    Here’s a Wikipedia link for low frequency sound physiological effects.
    And here are some links to links to Mythbusters results with low frequency noise experiments. While Mythbusters isn’t always right, They seem to have little ideological bias, to be willing to admit problems and mistakes, and, if you ask me, they are far closer to being “scientists” than the climatologists are.
    They didn’t find much physiological problem with ultrasonic sound in either of those episodes.

    • I believe the objection is your factor one.
      If we weren’t being forced to pay for it, nobody would care.

    • Wind and solar power is discounted because hooking either wind or solar to the electrical grid makes it unstable. The intermittent nature of wind or solar also makes the other methods of power generation operate in a inefficient manner causing them to use more fuel to produce the same amount of power. All around wind and solar are a complete waste of time and money. That is why humans gave up on wind power a hundred years ago

      • I’ve seen the claims about grid stability, but I’ve noticed some hedging about that lately. My feeling is that if Denmark and Germany haven’t managed to crash the European grid, power grids are probably more robust wrt to wind and solar than many fear.
        With very large penetration by wind and solar, it might be necessary to make the unconventional sources sync to a timing signal on the grid in order to maintain frequency stability. Doesn’t seem like that big a deal to me, but I don’t have to make it work.

      • Don, Don, Don. You really should read up before commenting.
        The issue never was about keeping the frequency stable. If non-conventionals couldn’t do that, the power mis-match would have fried all of them the instant that they were connected to the grid.
        The problem is that the ability of the grid to handle power sources that cut in and out randomly is limited at best.
        Denmark only works because the power grid is European wide. Denmark may get a large percentage of it’s power from renewables, but Denmark is just a small percentage of the total European grid.

    • It isn’t ultrasonic sound that is the issue it’s SUB-sonic sound and it is a real issue. See the post somewhere above re weaponization of subsonic sond. It’s a fact.

      • “Denmark and Germany haven’t managed to crash the European grid”
        They didn’t crash the EU grid because they turned the windmills off on a frequent basis.

  12. Who pays for the repairs and replacement of the turbines and blades? Or is this a perpetual motion subsidy machine?

  13. In Ontario, the “clean energy” act made it illegal for local communities to veto swindle mills and subsidy farms. Green fascism at work.

  14. @Don K – A longer response.
    1. It needs to be cost effective WITHOUT SUBSIDIES
    It wasn’t cost-effective without subsidies before it became flavour of the month because the energy generation is too diffuse – you need a lot of kit for a small amount of electricity. There are MUCH better generation systems available.
    2. It can’t be used in populated areas. Even thinly populated areas.
    That rather limits it to scenic areas alone…
    3. When used in scenic areas it needs to be appropriately sized. A two meter fan on an eight meter tower pumping stock or irrgation water is probably OK. A 70 meter propeller on a 100 meter tower probably is not
    Wind power positioning is CRITICAL. You can’t just stick it anywhere. You need the BEST wind spots, otherwise you have a useless load of junk…
    4. It needs to be coupled to an appropriate load that can deal with intermittent availability.
    There isn’t one. That’s the single number 1 huge problem…

      • Bubba, That’s what I was thinking. A little windmill for pumping water on a Ranch or Farm or in remote areas of the World that unlikely to see a central power grid for some time might be economical and useful. Trying to RUN a modern Ranch or Farm on them? Forget it.

      • Yes indeed. A neighbour a few miles from me has a 10 kW solar system. Virtually useless this time of year and supplies only a small portion of the power he needs in the summer. It is fine for aerating a couple of fish ponds in the summer. I aerate mine with grid power for a fraction of the cost. He did it as a demonstration project. It demonstrated to all the neighbours that other options are better. (I had some small solar powered aerators a few years back too. I ended up trenching in a few hundred metres of underground power instead as they lost power every time a cloud went by and they were completely useless in the snowy winter. I still have some solar fencers, but they need constant cleaning. Have mostly ended up running power to where I need it.)

    • Here in Aus we have public street and park lighting powered by solar. Battery charged dring the day and light used at night. That is a sensible use for the technology IMO.
      I was under the impression that solar panels need to be north facing in Australia. On my way to work each day I notice many installtions that are facing everywhere other than north.

      • I have seen the same thing here in Texas. Last week I went to service a gate. It acted like the battery was bad. After changing it, noticed the cells were pointing west.
        I believe that the person installing the system had no clue which way is south and just points it to the sun, no matter what time of the day.

      • Same problem in Canberra. Near where I live, there is a community centre powered by a set of large solar-tracking PV panels on tall poles and a small windmill. The trouble is that the PV panels point in different directions. They are obviously not really in use. Worse, the windmill is too small to power more than one computer and it never even turns except in the windiest conditions.
        What an exercise in tokenism. So typical of the watermelon government in Canberra.

    • “… deal with intermittent availability.” More like this: ‘… deal with unreliable power.’
      Along the Oregon – Washington border (Columbia River) there are many towers. They have been in parasitic mode for 3 days, now going into day 4.
      I always thought of “intermittent” as a relatively brief time — to run and go to the bathroom and get a new bag of popcorn. Having a big pile of coal or nuclear fuel on hand is reliable. Wind is unreliable. Intermittent is a weasel word.
      Link to BPA balancing chart

    • “It needs to be coupled to an appropriate load that can deal with intermittent availability.
      There isn’t one. That’s the single number 1 huge problem…”
      Of course there are. Hospitals are well known for not needing any power at night, when the wind is low. The patients are all asleep, right? Apart from the poor people in critical care – but there’s always plenty more where they came from.

    Dead whales washed up on the beach at Skegness, UK. Why?
    Look around 41 seconds in to the video……The horizon is covered by offshore wind turbines.
    Turbines give off low frequency sound. Whales navigate and communicate by low frequency sound.
    The BBC version? The whales got confused. No mention of turbines.

  16. My last trip out east to visit relatives took me to several locations in south Ontario – in and around Essex County, Windsor, Leamington, and farther east in Hamilton. The whole region is dotted with wind turbines. They are visible in every possible direction, perched on some of the most fertile farm land in Canada. Southern Ontario is not known as a particularly windy place, so their placement there seemed odd to me. Odd as well was the fact that for the whole week I was there, most of them sat either motionless, or moving so slowly as to produce a most negligible amount of electricity. Had me wondering which politician’s brother in law was in the wind turbine business. What a scam.

    • “or moving so slowly as to produce a most negligible amount of electricity”
      I’ve read that “they” actually use power from the grid to keep very large turbines turning very slowly when there is no wind in order to reduce the likelihood of the bearings seizing up. Could be true.

      • My son and I pulled off the highway in Osage County, OK and watched some apparently motionless turbines, to put what we’d heard to the test. We couldn’t tell as we drove, but parked, we could see them turn slowly, to prevent the bearings from brinelling. Any large turbine at full stop has issues.

  17. “Regardless of whether or not people are sick from wind turbine noise or from social factors they deserve to be acknowledged if renewables are going to become a key part of our future energy mix.”
    The question to ask here is, “Are the things going to last long enough to become a key part of our future energy mix?”

  18. 1) Wind isn’t ‘renewable’, which assumes a resource can be depleted and renewed, or not renewed. Forests are renewable. Wind & solar & such may be self-renewing or non-deplete-able, but that’s different.
    And credibility requires coherence.
    2) Wind energy isn’t ‘green’. Wind turbine manufacturing produces more radioactive waste than the entire US nuclear energy industry. (It’s the rare-earth magnets)
    3) Wind isn’t smart. Until there’s a practical way to store the energy, no means of weather or sunlight dependent energy production pencils out in the real world.
    4) Wind energy, as harvested today, isn’t wildlife-friendly. Huge blades slicing through the air can’t help but be bird killing machines.
    5) Finally, low-frequency-noise-effects may seem like tin-foil-hat material, but here’s one very non-tin-foil-hat minded guy assuring you… they are nothing to scoff at.
    Eventually, the world will move beyond oil as a primary energy source. For now, it is what we run on, and there’s nothing else yet ready for prime-time.

    • IM, and starting sooner than you think. That is a big problem, unaddressed by CAGW nonsense. Chances energy will end benignly are low and slimming

    • From:
      Estimates of the exact amount of rare earth minerals in wind turbines vary, but in any case the numbers are staggering. According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals.
      To quantify this in terms of environmental damages, consider that mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT’s estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science’s estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines.
      For perspective, America’s nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel. In this sense, the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less: nuclear energy comprised about one-fifth of America’s electrical generation in 2012, while wind accounted for just 3.5 percent of all electricity generated in the United States.

    • I’ve been at this game since the 70’s.
      My advice to you is to come out of the weeds and face the bottom line.
      Especially at the utility scale:
      1) Smaller turbines will not make wind power practical
      2) Taxpayer subsidies/ ripoffs will not make it practical
      3) Solving the bearing issue will not redeem it
      4) New blade designs will not redeem it
      5) Without some revolutionary energy storage breakthrough, no wind or solar or any such intermittent energy harvesting technology pencils out in the real world.
      No matter how badly you or I or any of us would like it to be otherwise, nothing using the sun or wind or waves or unicorn gas is ready for prime-time. Eventually, maybe, but not today.
      And that’s what matters.

      • Ian McConnell commented: “…Without some revolutionary energy storage breakthrough, no wind or solar or any such intermittent energy harvesting technology pencils out in the real world….”
        +1 I believe those that understood weren’t allowed in the decision making process. It’s a chicken and egg thing. Why have storage if you don’t have anything to put in it? Force the ideology then blame the technology for not keeping up. I’m guessing many people won’t really understand what’s been done to them until it hurts them personally either monetarily or health wise.

    • It’s pretty dishonest to compare mine waste to spent fuel rods. The difference in radioactivity levels are at least 5 to 6 orders of magnitude.

  19. The University of Waterloo’s study and report are disingenuous at best. “Opposition at the community level is challenging the viability of the industry”? The researchers conveniently don’t mention that the “opposition” includes the public’s knowledge that without subsidies there would be no wind industry at all, because the machines are economically useless, and have contributed substantially to soaring electricity costs. The utter economic uselessness of wind turbines and the fact that they slaughter birds and bats in huge numbers are just as much “core stumbling blocks” to public acceptance as all the other issues, and make the wind industry’s victimization and coerced sacrifices of rural people even more tragic.
    What the researchers chose to ignore, especially perhaps because, incredibly, a conflict-of-interest “wind industry advocate“ was part of the team (the price to pay in exchange for wind industry funding of this study, perhaps?), is that no amount of “community-level decision-making and ownership” or “meaningful engagement” will trump the draconian Green Energy Act, and its biased companion the Environmental Review Tribunal, which give wind companies Liberal-legally-sanctioned permission to ride roughshod over the democratic rights of the people and municipalities of rural Ontario.

    • You nailed it. There is no way that the public can challenge any aspect of wind or solar generation as mandated by the Liberals. Its the nanny state gone mad

  20. University of Waterloo students are currently voting on whether to ban Israeli academia. If this vote gets up I will be sending both of my degrees back to them and demand that my name be removed from their alumni.

  21. This is a rare opportunity where I can type from direct experience and research on a topic of this magnitude.
    Large In district Wind Turbines do produce pulsating emission which can hurt people. Unfortunately, my family and I have experienced this and it is very difficult to determine that they were the source.
    Fortunately, we are not currently as bad as some people who have had to leave their homes. But it is quite a task to know whether you are being subjected to pulsating infrasonic or not. For me, it started suddenly with 9 of the 11 health issues shortly after IWTs started operating 5km from our home. I should say, the first issue, ringing in ears, started very suddenly one night while a very subtle Whoom-whoom noise and vibration was present in our home.
    Later, in troubleshooting, I confirmed during turbine startup, shutdown and startup again and other steps that those emissions are indeed from those Wind Turbines. Gradually over time, new issues appeared and all became worse, varying in severity the same as the intensity of that noise and vibration.
    Further, I observed the issues go away when I am away from home over about 2 days. Further, I noted Wind Direction to be a factor.
    There is more, but my guests have arrived!

    • some links for you –
      bibliography of IWT, infrasound, low frequency vibration effects on mammalian physiology:
      audio-engineering study of human infrasound effects in Shirley Windfarm (Wisconsin)
      one researcher in this study experienced the effects and they persisted until he was three days absent from the environment – it is like sea-sickness where not all are affected by the vibrations at the specific amplitudes and lengths emitted. All will be at tuned frequencies – search Wright-Paterson Air Force studies in flight simulation and total body human vibration.
      these are low frequency, very long wavelengths – many miles

      • With the awful pictures of Zika virus affected babies in Brazil on my mind , the comments about the internal effects of low frequency sound suddenly made me wonder whether there has been a study of birth defects of babies born to women living in the proximity of wind farms.
        Ultra sound is of course a safe and universal imaging procedure , but there must be limits to the number of scans that are permitted during a pregnancy I would assume, based on studies with pregnant nonhuman species. Is that information relevant in terms of frequency and intensity to the situation of pregnant women living near collections of wind turbines . Surely there must be some risk assessment publicly available .

      • Thank you Bubba Cow! I have the 2nd link, but the first is full of good information which I had not seen.

    • Mike Jankowski.
      Resonances are very, very tricky to diagnoise with windmills. (Well, to diagnose also.)
      If a single,isolated windmill – and I use that term deliberately since they all grind and creak and make useless noises indiscriminately – starts and stops, it is (somewhat) easy to determine when its influences (bird strikes, shadows, health effects) start and stop.
      But if 14 of 15 windmills are in the adjacent field, starting or stopping just one out the 15 is almost impossible to determine when – if ever – that one is started, loaded, unloaded, or stopped. (Continuous camera monitoring is difficult, but unless the utility owner’s electric logs are available and the loaded/unloaded/partial loading values are found by court order, tracking times are visually impossible. ) See, a slow windmill rotation is nearly the same for low loading as for “windmilling” for shaft protection by the internal motors.
      Now, if a group of windmills are resonating – and that resonation is the cause of the problem to people’s health or their house vibration – then by definition, more than 1 mill must be running. But, at what load did the resonance occur? Same load on all running? High loading on the outer windmills, low on the downstream mills? Different effect with wind from different directions? That’s very likely – and with each direction, the resonating noise may go downstream at different noise levels in different frequencies to different lengths. Change the wind speed = change in resonance. Might be higher, might be lower peak values. Might cancel completely even. Might just change frequency.
      Nasty problem to figure out, then to assign “legally valid” blame!

        • WillR

          I think the issue is more one of beat notes as the turbines are never in exact sync.

          Like having to listen to a woodpecker glued to the side of your bedroom wall. Never quiet, but not quite steady either. You’re always “waiting” for the next tap (the next rumble) and you know it is going to come, but it is not never repetitious.

      • Many years ago I was flying in a regional turbine prop airplane. I was seated over the wing. As we reached flight altitude, I began hearing (and feeling) a harmonic resonance set up between the two engines. This “wave of sound” traveled back and forth between the engines the entire flight. After about 10 minutes of the novelty, I became nauseas and had to move to an open seat in the back of the plane. The flight attendant said its a regular occurrence.

  22. All studies to date have found no meaningful adverse health link to wind farms,apart from neg placebo effect.
    Anecdotal stories are useless evidence.

    • Why should Mr. Jankowski answer you? You refused to answer his reasonable inquiry to back up your counter-intuitive assertion with cites to the research and a definition of terms. You say, “all” and do not cite even ONE study.
      Common sense says that the air turbulence and noise (not to mention depressingly ugly looks) would cause at least some measurable and meaningful harm over a long enough and close enough exposure.
      Thus, the burden of proving your worse-than-useless monstrosity of a machine has “no meaningful adverse effect” on people or animals is on you.
      You have yet to provide one bit of evidence.

    • You have provided us with some highly probative evidence of the nature of your character by your choice of pseudonym, I must say.

    • JM,
      A proper study showing a negative effect has’nt appeared yet , only ones showing NO link, wtf,go look for yourself !.
      Your reverse burden of proof demand shows no common sense .

    • What health studies? Do mean literature reviews because this is what are being used?
      These modern wind mills are “new” to North America. Never needed any health studies to be done when there were no IWTs here. Research money not spent on something that does not exist.

    • WTF January 27, 2016 at 4:31 pm
      All studies to date have found no meaningful adverse health link to wind farms,apart from neg placebo effect.
      Anecdotal stories are useless evidence.
      You know, if you had shown some intellectual & self honest and looked the subject up people would not have to spoon feed you.
      This is your study. It’s about medical stuff, the human ear and what sounds do to it.

    • Okay
      WTF January 27, 2016 at 4:31 pm
      Michael Jankowski January 27, 2016 at 7:51 pm
      and myself have provided you with “studies”
      My link also cites other similar “studies”
      So since both Michaels are your servers this evening we have just for your dining pleasure :Wind turbine chopped crow ” Or “Spotted owl under glass”; both served with a side of wilted “greens”. Or you can do take out and chew your shoe.

    • [Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, David. What a sad, pathetic, wasted life. -mod]

    • Michaels,
      I did say “proper” studies not subjective surveys, really desperate cherry picking.
      The ball is still in your court

      • Did you digest them all? How about the points I made with regard to the scientific lifecycle? You may also refer to the Health Canada study. Despite it disqualifying the homes people abandoned because they could not stand to be in them due to the issues they suffered and self reported to be invoked by large Wind Turbine emissions, and despite it being randomized, not actually looking into the problems, they found a non-Trivial percentage of people to be clinically severely annoyed. Annoyed does not mean “Doesn’t like” or “Pissed off at the site”. WHO acknowledges noise induced annoyance to be an adverse Health Effect. Look at the indirect pathway here.
        I can reference close to 100 studies of varying types, but more evident to me are my own observations and state of mind. The conclusive proof will come in time. Your view of science is that it is only science when in the rear view mirror and that is evidence of possession of the least scientific mind. Desperation – Yes. If some thing were impacting your health and that of your children, and doctors did not have a Diagnostic Criteria (other than that which is currently proposed) – you would be too.

    • The scientific lifecycle begins with a Hypothesis! The hypothesis is derived from people’s experiences and reports. I spoke directly to the manager of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change’s Standards Branch and he admitted to me that they see the science diverging.
      To date, only the Direct pathway has been tested. Those of us who are living with the issues and can observe the emissions will not have our experiences and observations, which in parts are absolutely proven by science, not only in Wind Power Generation, but also in other areas such as industrial ventilation. I could like you to approx. 90 studies, but I will instead link to a few because I am here to tell you what I think – and that’s where I draw the line.
      Proposed Medical Diagnostic Criteria: Until family practitioners and specialists are armed with a criteria, this issue, difficult to detect and diagnose as it is, will largely fly under the radar.
      Here are several studies to lead you to where we are now. (Navigate with arrows at top.)
      Variables to be considered to know whether people will have adverse reactions or not: After observing these things myself, I found this paper and believe it to be absolutely applicable to today’s large wind turbines. (Start on page 31)
      You will note that neither permitting nor monitoring considers ANY of these variables.
      So you see, we are admittedly earlier int he scientific lifecycle of understanding why and how this is. There is much more I can share. But comments like yours toward people who are living through this are neither helpful, nor appreciated. I encourage you to continue taking in information from both sides of the issue. Haven’t found does not equal doesn’t exist.

  23. How come this group of “researchers” included, by their own admission, a wind industry advocate? Surely such a group should consist entirely of unbiased individuals seeking the truth, whatever the subject they are “researching”? The inclusion of this biased individual must by definition skew the result of their work to e point where it has nil value?

  24. Energy policy in the province of Ontario has been a disaster. Here’s a sample from the auditor general’s report in The Globe & Mail:

    As a result, electricity prices for consumers and small businesses jumped by 70 per cent – from 5.32 cents per kilowatt hour to 9.06 cents – between 2006 and 2014, she found. The largest part of the reason for that is an increase to Global Adjustment Fees, which for the past decade have paid power-generating companies more than market price for their power as an incentive to set up in Ontario. Those fees amounted to $37-billion between 2006 and 2014, and are projected to add $133-billion from 2015 to 2032.

  25. Another shoot, ready, aim by the environmentalists. There are obvious applications for wind energy, solar, hydro, etc. but none are a cure all for every situation and environment. I’m tired of the green machine shoving solutions down our throats that are not even half baked. The environmentalists need to be reeled in and spanked.

    • … shoving solutions down our throats… .

      And that is why labeling them “socialistic” is an accurate description. That is what socialists do: control. Whether the solution is half-baked or well-done, no free people should put up with that. It is called: tyranny. Freedom is the right to choose (so long as it does not stomp on another’s basic rights, e.g., to life…).

      • Janice Moore:
        Socialism is a system that attempts to provide each individual with the ability to choose the life each individual wants to seek, and that is the only true freedom.
        I explained socialism on WUWT here.
        And I add that there has been far too much unnecessary and right wing propaganda polluting WUWT recently.

      • “richardscourtney
        January 27, 2016 at 11:25 pm”
        That may be the definition choose you use however, history and reality are very different.

      • “richardscourtney
        January 27, 2016 at 11:25 pm”
        That may be the definition you choose to use however, history and reality are very different.

      • Richard – “Socialism is a system that attempts to provide each individual with the ability to choose the life each individual wants to seek, and that is the only true freedom.”
        I knew you were a Libertarian at heart!!

        • richardscourtney commented: “…That is THE definition of socialism….. Whatever your distorted views of history and reality may be, they don’t change reality….”
          Reality? I laugh at the definitions we attach to the various “isms” since none of them exist in the pure form and that makes it a moot point. I have noticed that there is excessive sophistry when admonishing Marxism/Socialism/Communism claims.

      • Mr Green Genes:
        Libertarianism is a system that attempts to prevent people obtaining what they need to better themselves and thus society. It is the antithesis of socialism which is a system that attempts to provide each individual with the ability to choose the life each individual wants to seek.

      • It really is fascinating how some people equate the ability to steal what they need from others as freedom.
        That is how socialism works, it takes from those who produce and gives freedom to those who don’t want to.
        Anybody who considers national socialism to be right wing, has no business declaring who is right wing and who isn’t.
        Richard’s claim that everyone he knows agrees that national socialists are right wing reminds me of the warmunists shrieking over and over again that 97% of scientists agree with them.

      • Fascinating Richard.
        A system that allows people to keep what they have earned, you condemn because it prevents others from taking what they want.
        Socialists are all thieve at heart. They want what they haven’t earned and don’t mind using govt to steal what they want.

      • “richardscourtney says: January 28, 2016 at 6:27 am”
        My distorted view on history and reality? Really? Errmmmm…how about Greece? 150 years of socialism that FAILED spectacularly! Socialism produced two world wars. Leninist socialism slaughtered hundreds of millions until it collapsed. The list of examples is almost endless.

      • Richard:-
        “Libertarianism is a system that attempts to prevent people obtaining what they need to better themselves and thus society. It is the antithesis of socialism which is a system that attempts to provide each individual with the ability to choose the life each individual wants to seek.”
        You will not be surprised to learn that I don’t agree with your definition of Libertarianism. However, this is neither the time nor the place to get into a discussion on the subject. Suffice it to say that if we ever meet, I’d love to engage with you on the subject. We may not persuade the other to our point of view but I’d like to think that we could both learn something.

      • Mr Green Genes:
        You say to me

        You will not be surprised to learn that I don’t agree with your definition of Libertarianism. However, this is neither the time nor the place to get into a discussion on the subject. Suffice it to say that if we ever meet, I’d love to engage with you on the subject. We may not persuade the other to our point of view but I’d like to think that we could both learn something.

        Thankyou. I, too. would welcome that engagement.
        I wish some others would adopt the attitude you have expressed instead of venting spleen. I see no purpose in further replies to them; learning is not their purpose.

  26. Renewable Energy has nothing to do with making renewable energy. It is all about making the generation of electricity expensive and unreliable. Those pushing RE KNOW that it is a losing game, but they want people to get used to not having reliable, cheap energy. Clearly they do not care at all for the environment as they are so willing to destroy so much of the landscape, the existing power grid, birds and animals, while generating huge mountains of unrecyclable materials containing rare and toxic elements. The fact that wind and solar have to be subsidized so richly shouts that these are failures from the very start.
    You cannot have industry with unreliable energy. It’s that simple. The goal is to bring down the Industrialized World, lower our standard of living to that of their ideal country, North Korea. Those of us existing after their programs decrease the world population below one billion, between 6 of 7 or 13 of 14 would be dead, we are to be relegated to human settlements. Human settlements are to be bordered by buffer zones of very limited and restricted human use and the buffer zones surrounded by forbidden zones, with no humans allowed. Settlements would be cut off from each other, meaning travel would be seriously restricted. Farming would be subsistence farming, with no machines (farming by hand), no livestock (everybody is mandated to be vegans), and no guns (no meat to be hunted and no means of resisting oppression, i.e., the rulers of this one-world government). They even plan to have “tool libraries” in the settlements, so the average individual or family, if families are even allowed, would not have any personal tools—no one could possibly build anything that was not known of.
    Yeah, renewable energy is just part of the plan to destroy humanity, reflecting the deep ecology principles originally created by the Nazis. We may have defeated Germany, but the Nazi philosophy simply migrated to the United Nations and is now more a threat to humanity than Nazi Germany. By definition a one-world government would have be to be socialist and totalitarian. To have socialism, they have to destroy religious moral systems, which is why there is the current war on Christianity and Christian principles, which in turn serve as the basic moral system for construction of human rights and principles of the US Constitution. This war on religion is targeted at the US and the Constitution; it has to go for the UN’s plans to proceed.

  27. Currently there is a small community activist group trying to stop the now Ontario Provincially approved industrial wind farms on the Bruce Peninsula. The electricity generated will send power to Toronto in Southern Ontario.
    “The Bruce Peninsula is a key area for both plant and animal wildlife. Part of the Niagara Escarpment World Biosphere Reserve, the peninsula has the largest remaining area of forest and natural habitat in Southern Ontario[1] and is home to some of the oldest trees in eastern North America. An important flyway for migrating birds, the peninsula is habitat to a variety of animals, including black bear, massasauga rattlesnake, and barred owl.” (wiki)
    Currently there are three wind turbines at Ferndale, half-way up the Bruce labeled “leap Frog” which provides power to 3600 inhabitants when the wind blows, otherwise base load is provided by Bruce Nuclear at Kincardine 50 miles south of the Bruce.
    The Northern Bruce Peninsula Municipality has ordinances like “dark skies” which regulates night time outdoor lighting. These and other ordinances, combined with the Niagara Escarpment Authority focus on maintaining the unique wildlife community of the Bruce. The Bruce Trail Conservancy purchases land to maintain the Bruce Trail from Niagara Falls to Tobermory at the tip of the Bruce Peninsula.
    “The trail follows the edge of the Niagara Escarpment, one of the thirteen UNESCO World Biosphere Reserves in Canada, for almost 900 km (560 mi). The land the trail traverses is owned by the Government of Ontario, local municipalities, local conservation authorities, private landowners and the Bruce Trail Conservancy (BTC).” (wiki)
    The local community does not need industrial wind turbines. The local community does not want industrial wind turbine farms. The local destruction of sight lines, by wind turbines already in place (at Ferndale the width of the Bruce Peninsula is 15 miles from Lake Huron to Georgian Bay and one can see the wind turbines from each shore) have provided community first hand what 3 wind turbines do let alone another 100+ new wind turbines in this ecologically fragile region. The jobs that will be provided for the construction of these wind farms, the Bruce Peninsula subsistence farmers and small boat commercial fisherman do not have such needed skills.
    The whole scheme for industrial wind farms in such an ecologically sensitive region is the product of?….Environmentalists who had political power for a brief time now almost a decade ago. The fruits of their labor is forest clear cutting; wind turbine slaughter of migrating birds; decimation of the bat population so vital for the ecology of Bruce; and a desecration of the visual landscape.
    Now tell me, when the Federal and Provincial subsidies disappear for wind turbine farms and the wind turbines are no longer profitable as Bruce Nuclear (Power), the largest operating nuclear power station in the world and is currently leased to operate until 2044 will provide power not only for local use but for Toronto and environs, who will remove these wind turbines? The subsidies are folded into the rate payers bill. Will the removal costs be folded into the rate payers bill? I believe it will.
    When the wind blows at night, who will purchase the extra power? Currently such power is discounted or….”given away” to the grid in the USA. So “free” electricity to being generated for the benefit of the lower 48 and Ontario Hydro One rate payers are footing the bill.
    More wind farms are not needed in Ontario. Only the companies who have subsidized leases and power purchase agreements are benefiting now. Tomorrow, they will be gone.

    • RiHo08, Great response but a few corrections. the 3600 inhabitants is the nameplate capacity, so given the benefit of the doubt that they actually achieve 30% capacity, the number is closer to 1080. But now that the turbines are at half life (10 years old), their generating power is half again, so realistically only power for 540 homes, annually reducing for another 5 years until the equilibrium is reached where it costs more electricity to keep them operating than they produce. Just another 10 years and they will be able to be torn down, or pulled down as they are the smaller versions of turbines. What a blight on the peninsula.

  28. There are about 5000 wind turbines in the San Gorgonio, CA pass and I drive through their midst several times a year. We are always amazed at how many of them are idle, as in stopped without any blade rotation even during opportunistic wind conditions… demonstrated by those that are busily spinning.

  29. I feel that I am banging my head on a wall.
    Take Germany
    1. Free energy provides electricity at four times the price
    2. 100% wind solar produces net increase in co2 and no reduction in fossil fuel use
    3. How much did that lot cost
    What on earth is so difficult to understand, here you have an experiment on nation state scale and its failed.

  30. Green, renewable drivers. Toxic, marginal technology. There must be a better way of judging specific fitness than marketing slogans and emotional appeals.

  31. Here is a “time line” showing the history of Wind Turbine Noise problems, going back as far as 1979. Each entry provides documentation:
    1979 “First complaints received from a dozen families within a 3km radius of turbine”.
    1981 “Wind turbine operation creates enormous sound pressure waves”
    1982 “Closed windows and doors do not protect occupants from LFN”
    1982 “NASA research on human impacts provided to wind industry”
    1985 “Hypothesis for infrasound-induced motion sickness”
    1987 “Wind industry told that dB(A) unsuitable to measure LFN emissions from wind turbines”

    2004 “Wind industry knows noise models inadequate” (from Vestas)

    2011 “Vestas knew that low frequency noise from larger turbines needed greater setbacks”

  32. ” It’s always about the almighty Dollar $$$$$$$$$$$$..The fact is ! There is no safe distance for wind Turbines, NOT GREEN, NOT CHEAP, NOT RELIABLE, and come with a very BAD side EFFECT on people and the ENVIRONMENT. there is Nothing GREEN about WIND TURBINES . SAY NO TO WIND TURBINES.

    • sergeiMK,
      That can’t compare with Prof John Brignell’s list:
      Africa devastated, African aid threatened, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, allergies increase, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), ancient forests dramatically changed, Antarctic grass flourishes, anxiety, algal blooms, Arctic bogs melt, Asthma, atmospheric defiance, atmospheric circulation modified, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, bananas destroyed, bananas grow, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, birds return early, blackbirds stop singing, blizzards, blue mussels return, boredom, Britain Siberian, British gardens change, bubonic plague, budget increases, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north. Cardiac arrest, caterpillar biomass shift, challenges and opportunities, Cholera, civil unrest, cloud increase, cloud stripping, cod go south, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), computer models, conferences, coral bleaching, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , cold spells, cost of trillions, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, cyclones (Australia), damages equivalent to $200 billion, Dengue hemorrhagic fever, dermatitis, desert advance, desert life threatened, desert retreat, destruction of the environment, diarrhoea, disappearance of coastal cities, diseases move north, Dolomites collapse, drought, drowning people, ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt. Early spring, earlier pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down, Earth spinning out of control, Earth to explode, earth upside down, Earth wobbling, earthquakes, El NiZo intensification, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, bats, pandas, pikas, polar bears, pigmy possums, gorillas, koalas, walrus, whales, frogs, toads, turtles, orang-utan, elephants, tigers, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, penguins, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, less, not polar bears), experts muzzled, extreme changes to California.Famine, farmers go under, figurehead sacked, fish catches drop, fish catches rise, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, floods, Florida economic decline, food poisoning, food prices rise, food security threat (SA), footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frosts, fungi invasion, Garden of Eden wilts, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming… &etc.
      And how about this one:
      ‘Humans Could Evolve Webbed Feet if Sea Levels Rise’

  33. “It also recommends increased transparency and compensation distribution for everyone in a community.” So if a farmer puts up windmills, he has to pay the community? And who is “the community” and how much payolla is enough? One could make the same argument for any business that makes profits–it is “unfair” and profits should be distributed. This is simply communism at work.
    Do we also distribute the fines when birds are killed? (oh, wait, there are never fines…)

    • Craig Loehle

      “It also recommends increased transparency and compensation distribution for everyone in a community.”

      So if a farmer puts up windmills, he has to pay the community? And who is “the community” and how much payolla is enough? One could make the same argument for any business that makes profits–it is “unfair” and profits should be distributed.

      An odd conclusion from the original quote.
      Rather, the original quote calls for the identification (greater transparency) of WHO is getting paid BY the government money being used (when paid as subsidies for the wind turbines) when the windmills are fabricated and installed. That may include the farmer who leases the site, but other people as well. But, if/when/since damage (harm) from windmills is widespread, should not damage (rental fees) be paid to those affected by the damage/hazard/inconveniences/noise/harm?

    • “And who is “the community” and how much payolla is enough?”
      Oh! Oh! (raises and shakes hand vigorously) Me! Me!
      The community are those effected by the act. If you do something to harm me, you either pay me what I want in compensation for the harm, or you don’t do it. If you refuse to pay compensation, or I refuse to accept the compensation offered, we engage in warfare. At that point you either kill me or I kill you.
      It’s been a human tradition for thousands of years. Next question?

    • BTW? Communism has no concept of private property. I can’t charge you, under communist doctrine, for harming “my” property because I don’t have any.
      And so we suffer the”tragedy of the commons”; since no one owns anything, everyone uses it until it’s a trash heap unable to support life. And that, in a nutshell, is Communism.

    • Craig, pretty good point.
      Whatever outreach/engagement that is required of the large developments will also be weaseled into a tool to beat on others independent individuals (farmer with a single windmill).

  34. Bottom line: Wind power is ugly. Wind power creates obnoxious and potentially health threatening low frequency noise. Wind power is unreliable. Wind power kills wildlife.
    In the 1960’s, the very same people who were screaming about hydro power are now building wind generators. It’s flat out absurd and a very bad plan. Shut it down before more billions are wasted on this brain dead technology. Wind power works on subsistence farms. It has no place in a 21st century energy infrastructure.

    • And I’ll add a footnote: I don’t care if people choose to privately fund wind farms; as long as it’s not in my back yard. You can waste all the money you want to so long as it doesn’t have any impact on me. Go for it.
      But don’t expect to tax me to do it. It’s all on you.

  35. finite “fossils” imitating rigorously replenished “renewables”:

    rusty “renewables” imitating finite “fossils”:
    Finite “fossils” often spring back to life, like the phoenix rising from the ashes.
    Wind farms will never do that. The wind can’t even assemble a working 767 from a fully-equipped junk yard, apparently! 🙂

    • Not sure what the message here is Khwarizmi, but at least you can tear down a wind farm and after a decade or so restore the environment. I don’t think that holds true for a volcano.

    • Got it Khwarizmi. You’re one of these idiots that thinks natural phenomenon associated with oil and gas are the purview of humans. Sort of like those millions of barrels of oil released constantly in subsea vents consumed by microbes evolved over millions of years to eat the stuff?
      I’ll bet you consider yourself a naturalist and ecologist?

      • My point was that hydrocarbons aren’t really fossils and they must be renewable, given that, as you say, microbes have been eating the stuff for millions of years (hence my remark about the phoenix rising from the ashes), whereas wind farms are “renewable” only in the sense that you can rebuild them when they fall apart. They typically have a very short lifespan.
        How could you have missed my point?
        Regarding your strange assertion that I’m “one of these idiots that thinks natural phenomenon associated with oil and gas are the purview of humans“, I actually have a webpage dedicated to studies of, get this….non-human organisms that thrive on petroleum!
        Fancy that!
        And the “Door to Hell” isn’t a “volcano,” it’s a gas seep. A gas seep is “natural environment.”

    • If we piled all of the world’s windmills in one giant stack, it might conceivably sink deep into the earth and become a molten mass…of something, which in a few thousand millennia might create turbinia oil or perhaps the turbinia tar sands
      now put that in your volcano and smoke it

  36. There are some who wail about the poor in Africa and other countries who can’t afford electricity but say nothing about the poor in Ontario who now can’t afford electricity. Also effects the poor in New England.

    • Who exactly cares about the poor in Africa? I certainly don’t and I’m not clear on why I should? The poor in Africa are on the threshold of on using nuclear weapons to destroy the infertile plains of northern Europe? Scandinavia? Siberia? What is it you folks are afraid of? Does anyone really think [trimmed. ]?
      [ Cut it out. .mod]

      • Bartleby

        Who exactly cares about the poor in Africa? I don’t … The poor in Africa are on the threshold of on using nuclear weapons to destroy the infertile plains of northern Europe? Scandinavia? Siberia? What is it you folks are afraid of?

        Well, I am not afraid of the poor in Africa, Asia, nor India.
        I have reason to be afraid of the illegal aliens from the Muslim-poor countries now invading Europe, North America and points in between due to their thousands of rapes and assaults across every nation they have crossed in search of money and free-handouts.
        I HAVE reason to be afraid of the “rich” in poor countries such as North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and points in between because they HAVE exploded nuclear weapons … many times. That these “poor countries” have not yet exploded their nuclear bombs across the very fertile plains of northern Europe, Scandinavia, Russia, and North America is due to their inability to do just that. This month. Next month? Next year?
        Do I fear the “poor” in these countries? No. I pity them for their leaders, the very leaders and policies who are being supported BY the “rich” and the “leaders” in the rich countries worldwide. []

      • The poor in Africa and other places in the 3rd world are being used to promote a global agenda. Electricity supply is one part of this agenda.
        And at the same time those engaged in this don’t care how many people are thrown into energy poverty right here in North America and right now.

    • Electricity via burning fossil had to have the infrastructure built, which was paid for via the cost of the power.
      So too the wind grid. Subsidy was needed to encourage it’s growth. To bring economy of scale.
      The energy is free then forever.
      It will reach it’s potential when electricity storage is developed …. as it’s bound to.
      Like anything in lif, nothing comes free – or often, immediately.
      That does not make it something we shouldn’t do.

      • Toneb says:
        Electricity via burning fossil had to have the infrastructure built, which was paid for via the cost of the power. So too the wind grid. Subsidy was needed to encourage it’s growth. To bring economy of scale. The energy is free then forever…
        So many fallacies in so few pixels.

      • Windmills today only have a 7-12 year life expectancy. Not “forever”, but only 7 years.
        Subsidies are for construction, for electric rates purchase priorities (windmill power is paid for at higher rates BEFORE any other sources are allowed to be purchased), for tax write-off’s in the factories and the permitting process, in the land use contracts, and in the construction (start-up) contracts.
        NEVER for long-term or short-term operation and maintenance: 6 month repair outages, 18 months outages, and 7-year repair and replacement outages. If not done, even that 7 year optimistic lifetime will fail. ALL maintenance gear and parts have to be brought up the towers by hand, climbing hand-over-hand 200 and 300 feet up. Then you get to START work.
        Kills lots of people worldwide.

  37. Following are copied from the forum on wind turbine efficiencies, frequency and energy conversions, and wind turbine ” inside the nacelle” efficiencies.

    cswilson (Electrical)
    27 Jan 16 19:26
    In general, there are two strategies for generating synchronized AC electrical power from wind turbine generators.
    The first, and older, strategy, is to make mechanical and electrical adjustments to the generating mechanism so that it is always generating the proper magnitude, frequency and phase. The mechanical adjustments are things like changing blade pitch. The electrical adjustments usually would vary the slip frequency of an induction generator so the output frequency is always proper.
    This strategy avoids the capital expense of the rectifier and inverter, and the operating losses as well. However, the maintaining of line synchronization often means that significantly less power is generated than would otherwise be possible — for example, much of the extra power from a gust would have to be spilled by the blades to keep from losing synchronicity. Also, the effective generating range, both at the high and low ends of wind speeds, can be reduced, because it is not practical to generate synchronous power at these extremes.
    The other, more recent, strategy is to optimize the generating mechanism for maximum power generation under given conditions, allowing varying magnitude, frequency, and phase. These waveforms are rectified into DC electronically, and then inverted back into AC, with the inverter managing the full synchronization to the lines.
    The key question is whether the additional energy that this strategy permits out of the generator itself is enough to overcome the losses in the rectifier and inverter, and to justify the capital expense of the power electronics.
    One of the other factors pushing designers toward the second strategy is the fact that a permanent-magnet AC generator is significantly smaller and lighter than an induction generator of the same power capacity. This provides significant structural savings when it is so high up. But with these PM generators, it is not feasible at all to try to generate directly to the lines, because you do not have the fast “slip” adjustments of an induction generator.
    So, like most things, it comes down to engineering trade-offs.
    Curt Wilson
    Omron Delta Tau

    Practically all modern megawatt –class wind turbines utilize some kind of frequency converter between the grid and the generator. Directly grid-connected wind generators using so-called stall-control (that cswilson was referring to) are very rare in new designs mainly due to being less efficient when considering the whole operating range.
    Two of the most common concepts nowadays are the one where 100% of generator power goes through the frequency converter (generator is typically a squirrel-cage induction machine or a permanent magnet synchronous machine) and the one where only 30…40% goes through the converter and the rest goes directly to the grid (generator is doubly-fed induction generator –type). While the first one needs bigger and more expensive converter, its main benefits are better overall efficiency and brushless operation (less maintenance). Both of these generator types operate at 96…98% efficiency at the rated point, and the efficiency of the converter in MW range is around 96…97%.
    Some turbine designs use so-called direct-drive concept, where turbine is directly rotating the generator. In this case, no gear-box is needed, and the only suitable generator type is synchronous machine either with electrical or permanent magnet excitation (induction machines cannot be designed to operate at such low speeds). Direct-drive systems don’t have gear-box losses, but such generators lack in efficiency when compared to high-speed ones (with gear-box), so there is not that big difference in overall efficiency. Additionally, direct-drive machines are huge in physical size. Main benefit of course is, that they don’t have gear-box related issues.
    More common system is the one with the gear-box, where the generator speed is increased to 400…1500RPM (typically). As the efficiency of the gear-box is around 97…98%, total drive-train efficiency is typically around 90…92% when considering the gear-box, generator and frequency converter. Of course some power is lost on transformer(turbines often produce low voltage/medium voltage that needs to be stepped up) and turbines’s own consumption too.
    I wouldn’t say that efficiency is not important since the wind is free. The higher the efficiency, the more money turbine generates. Furthermore, poor system efficiency means that blades, gear-box, generator etc must be designed to handle bigger input power (torque) which makes them heavier more expensive. One old rule of thumb says that one extra kilogram up in the nacelle means 3kg extra in total due to heavier foundations and tower structure.

  38. Finally! Another study, from Europe, shows that Northern Europe’s winter may be milder due to offshore wind farms. The stirring principle is simple: warm water will come to the surface and the heat will supply the atmosphere with warmth. The air will become warmer and the winters will be milder: On the other hands, seems that the Americans remain constant to the “bigger” principle: enormous blades could lead to more offshore energy in US:–+ScienceDaily%29. And, I may add, to more damage to the Earth….

  39. Recent report from Ontario’s Engineers: “Ontario’s Electricity Dilemma – Achieving Low Emissions at Reasonable Electricity Rates.” Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE), April 2015.
    Page 15 of 23.
    “Why Will Emissions Double as We Add Wind and Solar Plants ?”
    – Wind and Solar require flexible backup generation.
    – Nuclear is too inflexible to backup renewables without expensive engineering changes to the reactors.
    – Flexible electric storage is too expensive at the moment.
    – Consequently natural gas provides the backup for wind and solar in North America.
    – When you add wind and solar you are actually forced to reduce nuclear genera,on to make room for more natural gas generation to provide flexible backup.
    – Ontario currently produces electricity at less than 40 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh.
    – Wind and solar with natural gas backup produces electricity at about 200 grams of CO 2 emissions/kWh. Therefore adding wind and solar to Ontario’s grid drives CO2 emissions higher. From 2016 to 2032 as Ontario phases out nuclear capacity to make room for wind and solar, CO2 emissions will double (2013 LTEP data).
    – In Ontario, with limited economic hydro and expensive storage, it is mathematically impossible to achieve low CO2 emissions at reasonable electricity prices without nuclear generation.

    • Richard Mann commented: “…Recent report from Ontario’s Engineers: Page 15 of 23….”
      This should have MSM coverage so the people will understand the facts about the unintended consequences of the AGW scare mongering. The Environmentalists need to be scrutinized, throttled back, removed from government/politics, and controlled.

Comments are closed.