Science deniers in the wind industry

The human health consequences of manipulated measurements

Guest essay by Helen Schwiesow Parker, PhD, LCP

Like the tobacco industry before it, the wind industry has spent decades vehemently denying known harmful consequences associated with its product, while promoting its fraudulent feel-good image. Dismissing or denying the serious health impacts of industrial-scale wind turbines is wishful thinking, akin to insisting that tobacco is harmless because we enjoy it.

The problem with wind energy is not just its costly, subsidized, unreliable electricity; the need to back up every megawatt with redundant fossil-fuel power; or its impacts on wildlife and their habitats.

Infrasound (inaudible) and low-frequency (audible) noise (slowly vibrating sound waves collectively referred to as ILFN) produced by Industrial-scale Wind Turbines (IWTs) directly and predictably cause adverse human health effects. The sonic radiation tends to be amplified within structures, and sensitivity to the impact of the resonance increases with continuing exposure.

These facts have been known to the wind industry and the US government since the 1980s when it became a ‘hot topic,’ with numerous studies presented and published by acousticians working under grants from the Departments of Energy, Defense and NASA. The wind industry response?

Deny the science. Insist that “what you can’t hear can’t hurt you.” Claim that “neighbors will get used to it.” Measure only outside dwellings, and allow only noise measurements in the field that reflect the relative loudness perceived by the human ear, while drastically reducing sound-level readings in the lower frequencies that are known to cause problems.

From a distance, many view the massive turbines as majestic – as a clean, seemingly quiet and free source of endless energy. To untold thousands of families clustered within 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) or more of the pulsing machines, however, the IWTs bring strangely debilitating illness – increasingly incapacitating for some, yet scoffed at by wind proponents.

Common sense tells us that fifty-story-tall metal structures with blades as long as football fields moving at 180 mph at their tips would negatively impact quiet neighborhoods. But the extent and severity of the IWT’s effect on body, mind and spirit comes as a surprise to most people.

When I’m at home I’m usually sick with headaches, nausea, vertigo, tinnitus, anxiety, hopelessness, depression. My ears pop a lot and I hardly ever sleep…. Suicide looks to be my only relief. Land of the FREE Home of the BULLSHIT! … Million to one odds anybody contacts me back.”

The primary pathway of turbine assault on human health is no mystery. The Israeli army has used low-frequency sound pulses as high-tech crowd control for years. People are made nauseous and confused, with blurred vision, vertigo, headaches, tachycardia, heightened blood pressure, pain and ringing in the ears, difficulties with memory and concentration, anxiety, depression, irritability, and panic attacks.

This also describes the Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS), a constellation of symptoms first given a name by the brilliant young MD/PhD, Nina Pierpont. She followed her astute and compassionate observations of turbine neighbors around the world with epidemiological research, using a robust case-crossover statistical design: subjects experienced symptoms that varied with proximity to the turbines. When the same subjects were placed at a greater distance from the turbines, their symptoms abated; returning them to the scene brought the symptoms back.

Michigan State University noise engineers explain that “Inaudible components [ILFN] can induce resonant vibration in liquids, gases and solids … bodily tissues and cavities – potentially harmful to humans.” A subject in the groundbreaking Cooper study describes how the resonance shows up in a glass of water on her kitchen table, and in the toilet bowl, and how she feels it in her body.

Pierpont hypothesized that a significant pathway from ILFN to symptoms might include disruption to balance mechanisms located in the inner ear.

Dr. Alec Salt and colleagues, otolaryngologists at Washington University, later found that inaudible ILFN reaches the brain via inner ear Outer Hair Cell (OHC) displacement, leading indeed to unfamiliar and disturbing sensations paralleling WTS.

As turbine size trends upward, the sickening ILFN emissions worsen. There’s a lot of money riding on keeping the science under the radar of public awareness, and regulations to a minimum.

When Denmark’s EPA proposed tightening turbine noise regulations to protect turbine neighbors from increasing ILFN (May 2011), the Vestas CEO wrote the DEPA Minister, asserting: “It simply isn’t technically possible to curtail the ILFN output,” and “Increased distance requirements [setbacks from residences] cannot be met whilst maintaining a satisfactory business outcome for the investor.”’ DEPA folded, turning instead to looser standards that were “likely to be copied by other countries.”

Although alerted to the increased endangerment of turbine neighbors around the world, the press remained silent, and Big Wind’s central players ramped up their game plan undeterred.

In addition to the impact of ILFN radiation, turbine neighbors suffer from Turbine “Flicker” – a strobe-like effect caused by turbine blades alternately blocking and allowing sunlight to skim rhythmically and repeatedly across the land, or ricochet in bursts across interior walls and stairwells.

The direct impact extends to nearly a mile from the turbine – long after sunrise, and again long before sunset. It is mesmerizing, disorienting, and often brings on nausea, dizziness, lightheadedness, irritability, even panic, indoors or outside.

Repetitive sleep disturbance and stress-related symptoms are the most common health complaints of IWT neighbors. The audible sound constantly fluctuates, described as akin to low-flying jets or the rumble of helicopters, “freakish, screeching sound sludge.” It is unnatural. People say the noise gets into your head, and you can’t get it out.

Advising the Falmouth, MA Board of Health, Dr. William Hallstein wrote: “All varieties of illnesses are destabilized, secondary to inadequate sleep: diabetic blood sugars, cardiac rhythms, migraines, tissue healing. Psychiatric problems intensify … all in the ‘normal’ brain. Errors in judgment and accident rates increase.”

As with seasickness, not everyone is similarly affected. But for many, the experience becomes literally intolerable. Devastated families and individuals around the world, having lost their health, jobs or farms, return their keys to the bank, sell their homes at fire-sale prices, or simply pack up and flee. Some never recover their health.

(For more details on this human health travesty, see my three-part series on

The continuing expansion of Big Wind is a tale of money and power shunting aside integrity and compassion, abetted by a disinterested news media, leading to an un-informed public, further betrayed by “human rights advocates” loathe to break ranks from popular positions.

The myth that “saving the world” requires tolerating the costs of Big Wind could not be further from the truth. Responsible stewardship demands critical thinking, common sense and grade school science, not just following Big Wind’s Pied Piper and supposedly good intentions.

In fact, allowing wind into the energy mix squanders our non-renewable environment and taxpayer billions that are greatly needed elsewhere, wasting them on the most idiotic of engineering conceits.

Reliance on wind actually increases emissions and fossil fuel use overall, due to inefficiencies introduced into the system. Big Wind eliminates none of the need for conventional capacity, but rather consumes vast quantities of additional fuel and raw materials, while spewing emissions during the manufacture, transportation, construction and maintenance of the enormous redundant turbines and their uniquely demanding infrastructure.

The Wind Game is nothing but an obscenely costly, mostly useless energy redundancy scheme. It funnels unimaginable profits from our taxpayer and rate-payer pockets to its inner circle, while knowingly ignoring its victims’ desperate pleas for relief – and indeed ridiculing them and trying to bury all the growing evidence of harm to their health and wellbeing.

We’ve witnessed three decades of this callous, mercenary assault, this arrogant denial of what is known to be true, this untold suffering of thousands of innocent victims around the world. It’s time to bring in the human rights and social justice referees – and call “game over.”

Helen Schwiesow Parker, PhD, is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and a Past Clinical Supervisory Faculty member at the University of Virginia Medical School. Her career includes practical experience in the fields of autism, sensory perception, memory and learning, attention deficit and anxiety disorders, including panic disorder and PTSD.

297 thoughts on “Science deniers in the wind industry

  1. I have seen those windmills. They are not pretty. But then they are meant to be functional not pretty, so where used, it is up to the citizens to decide if they want them.

    However I have long commented about the sound frequencies and how they impact not only humans, but other fauna as well. Not with empirical data, just as a learned observer noting there are differences in behavior. We should have, but will probably not, some scientific analysis of the impact. As the author said, Big Tobacco (aka the government in this case) does not want it.

    • it is up to the citizens to decide if they want them.

      Bless! Have you ever been part of any attempt to stop a wind turbine being erected?

      • The Kennedys didn’t want their ocean view marred, so they got an offshore prohect stopped.

        But ordinary humans, doubtful.

      • I have (I think).
        I don’t know what the current laws are in NY state, but 20 years ago wind “farms” were moving north from the PA border (south and west of the Finger Lakes). In NY, municipalities had no direct involvement in the contracts which were solely between landowners and energy companies. (A Spanish company was offering big money to farmers in a depressed regional environment.)
        HOWEVER, towns could write zoning codes or laws regarding the operation and construction of the sites. (say, maximum height). Most rural towns were not sophisticated enough (part time supervisor, virtually no staff) to write such codes before the “farms” were built.
        Our Supervisor asked a few citizens to from a study group to determine what impact the turbines would have on our town, and what controls the town could or should put in place. Cutting the story short, after extensive research on a variety of factors we updated zoning laws to include Wind Turbines. (We had 3 categories; residential, commercial and industrial.) We established “fees” for any town roads and bridges that would have to be upgraded prior to and during construction to enable the weight of their construction equipment and transport of the turbine parts up the mountain.
        The “Poison Pill” in our zoning laws for Industrial turbines, was the company installing the turbines had to put up a bond covering the cost of putting the land (sites, new roads etc) back to the way it was if they ceased operation or went out of business.
        – Our zoning laws were ruled legitimate by county and state authorities.
        – The Wind Farms stopped the town just south of ours.
        I understand correlation and causation so I can’t swear that our laws were responsible, but the ridges around the western finger lakes have no turbines.

      • How high is a fifty storey building? How long is a football field?

        Why not use metres or feet to tell us the height and length. Those are measurements I understand.

      • RoHa

        Good point. How many Olympic swimming pools of air will pass through the blades per second at 20 kph?


    • Perhaps the only way to adequately “Break Wind” is through similar tactics as tobacco and prove that “Second Hand Noise” can also create immediate, dangerous, and costly health issues

      • “Break wind” – LOL!

        Sorry, I know you had a very good point. However, the second hand smoke studies are now being debunked (or there are attempts to do so). And perhaps not for the reason you would suspect.

        Apparently the MJ industry wants to get rid of the stigma in order to facilitate it being smoked anywhere, any time. Kind of ironic when you think of it.

        • Javert – OT – I just got back to the short seller topic and saw your response to me. Where you took issue with my term of “sucker”. It was not the best of terms. I was being flippant with the term. It is indeed possible (and usually the case) where the short seller and the buyer both are satisfied with the transaction.

          just wanted to clarify and let you know I was not avoiding that response (I just recently returned from vacation).

      • Please don’t use the language of lies from Tobacco Control to underpin a legitimate concern. Second-hand smoke never had and never will have any scientific proof. I also take issue with the start of this article which equates the tobacco industry (Big Tobacco!) with the wind industry. The symptoms from smoking may or may not have detrimental affects on your health, but if they do, it will be a long time into the future. Harm from wind turbines is almost immediate, and the effects are far more devastating.

    • “it is up to the citizens to decide if they want them.”
      Not in Ontario. We are blessed with the “Green Energy Act” which gives local government absolutely no say in where wind turbines are installed. Because they are usually put up in rural communities, even trying to vote out the catastrophic government is not an option. Even if they had electoral clout, the Progressive Conservative Party opposition is led by a liberal who supports Ontario’s green energy fiasco. The only hope left here is for somebody to successfully sue the provincial government for their tobacco style scientific deception. Good luck with that one.

    • the French know the “impact” of ultrasound, they played with it as a military weapon back in the 60s or 70s, there is NO need to redo this study, just tell the a$$hole politicians to serve the people, and not the UN agenda 21

      • What is being proposed here is negative effects of subsoniscs, ie, frequencies below the threshold of human hearing. Not ultrasound. Despite the author’s extensive cherry-picking, there is as much reliable evidence of the harmful effects windfarms, as there is for the harmful effects of wifi, high tension lines, and GMO’s i.e. None.

        And Agenda 21? The conspiracy theorists’ favourite bogeyman. Hand out the tinfoil hats! I hear wind turbines are sending out mind rays, best be prepared.

      • Tony:

        You assert

        Despite the author’s extensive cherry-picking, there is as much reliable evidence of the harmful effects windfarms, as there is for the harmful effects of wifi, high tension lines, and GMO’s i.e. None.

        Your comment is typical of its kind.
        Your comment attempts to mislead but only reports that an anonymous troll (i.e. you) is willing to make a comment which demonstrates he/she/it is unable to refute evidence provided by the article being discussed. And your completely unjustified use of the weasel-word “reliable” increases the egregious nature of your post.

        You admit the article cites (it links to) “evidence” but you assert that this evidence is not “reliable” because it is a result of “extensive cherry-picking”. However, evidence that something exists may be valid or invalid but it cannot be a result of “cherry-picking”; this is because there cannot be evidence that something does not exist. Your failure to dispute the the validity of the provided evidence is not justified by your pretending your false accusation of “cherry-picking” provides a justification for your use of the weasel word “reasonable”.


      • People like Tony could complain with a straight face that the Nuremberg lawyers were “cherry-picking” their evidence.

        How bad does it have to be before you gather up your talking points and head for the exit? This is as close to a slam-dunk issue as one can find on this earth. To quote the old chestnut, “Have you no shame?”

      • According to everything I’ve been able to find online, Tony is right … this fake science ranks right down there with ant-GMO, anti-VAX, anti-cell phone, anti-ALAR, anti-western diet, and every other totally debunked crackpot “theory” totally unsupported by a single jot or tittle of peer-reviewed scientific confirmation, or you know, data … it’s just for wackos and tinfoil hat wearers. It seems now that anything that one is annoyed with in life can now claimed to be a health threat and a dangerous syndrome

        I have always been a global warming skeptic, I have always understood science and engineering (advanced degreed, licensed, and a 40+ year lifetime of practice in both) and I certainly how to tell science and engineering from utter bullshit and political propaganda. I’m with the Watts up crowd on calling bullshit on AGW. But I’m not with this bullshit.

        When the skeptics turn into anti-science lunatics who make the frothing lefties in PETA and Green Peace look like well grounded conservatives, sorry, you’re just out of your gourds.

        Reasonable criticisms of wind farms can be made on any number of valid grounds – economics, tax policy, energy efficiency, etc. – but not on looney tooney imagined health threats.

      • And Agenda 21? The conspiracy theorists’ favourite bogeyman.

        Conspiracy theory?
        Non’t be absurd. Agenda 21 has been freely available on the net for years for anyone to see.

    • The only ones to benefit from the disastrous national wind turban fetish will be the scrap metal salvage companies contracted to take these monstrosities down.

  2. Most of ours seem to be built off-shore over the last few years. They are pretty big, very useful for demonstrating to flatters how the earth is round. You can see them dip over the horizon very elegantly.
    I realise though that in the UK we have have a substantial amount of coast line which many countries do not have.

      • Pop. Parity will be reache’d when we use up all fosse fuels building windmills.

      • I hadn’t thought about windmills affecting whales.

        I wonder how far these bad vibes propagate in water.

    • The noise problems start at the piling stage, with the Rampion farm we got apologies, then excuses, all last summer was a nightmare of lost sleep and daytime nuisance bang boom bang boom bang boom like being hit over the head with a rubber mallet 40 times every minute with the house shaking – from 10km away!

      • I learned the other day that windmills actually pull passing birds into their blades as they are flying by.

        Industrial windmills have to be one of the worst ideas evah! New ones should be banned, and the old ones should be dismantled.

      • They don’t suck them in or draw them in or lure them in but, at least in the case of Altamont Pass wind farm, they do kill birds on an average of 1 Bird per year per turbine with over a quarter of those being Raptors

      • Griff says windmills don’t suck birds into their blades.

        Well, I just read an article a couple of days ago that said they did, mentioning something about the “vortex” pulling them in, although that is the first time I have ever seen that stated, so I can’t say if it is true or not. I can’t find the article at this time for some reason, but while looking I ran across this comment from President Trump about windmills.

        “This statement came in response to a question about Trump’s recent meeting with Nigel Farage. The Times reporter wanted to know if Trump had sought help in preventing the development of a wind farm near his golf course in Scotland: [This is the formatting as published by the New York Times.]

        TRUMP: Oh, I see. I might have brought it up. But not having to do with me, just I mean, the wind is a very deceiving thing. First of all, we don’t make the windmills in the United States. They’re made in Germany and Japan. They’re made out of massive amounts of steel, which goes into the atmosphere, whether it’s in our country or not, it goes into the atmosphere. The windmills kill birds and the windmills need massive subsidies. In other words, we’re subsidizing wind mills all over this country. I mean, for the most part they don’t work. I don’t think they work at all without subsidy, and that bothers me, and they kill all the birds. You go to a windmill, you know in California they have the, what is it? The golden eagle? And they’re like, if you shoot a golden eagle, they go to jail for five years and yet they kill them by, they actually have to get permits that they’re only allowed to kill 30 or something in one year. The windmills are devastating to the bird population, O.K. With that being said, there’s a place for them. But they do need subsidy. So, if I talk negatively. I’ve been saying the same thing for years about you know, the wind industry. I wouldn’t want to subsidize it. Some environmentalists agree with me very much because of all of the things I just said, including the birds, and some don’t. But it’s hard to explain. I don’t care about anything having to do with anything having to do with anything other than the country.”

        end excerpt

        And btw, speaking of numbers of birds killed, I believe the Obama administration allows the windmills to kill up to 4,400 raptors per year without penalty.

  3. Could we tune them to resonate at 432Hz and make them beneficial? Any chakra frequency would do.
    > obvious sarcasm <

      • Ouch! I see you’re familiar with the territory…
        Since you brought up Algore, Here’s a ditty I penned about Al and “renewables”

        Pinwheels and Mirrors

        A long time ago (in the 80’s or so),
        Al Gore warned that warming would soon be alarming;
        “Our children won’t know what it’s like to see snow!
        Our atmosphere we must stop harming!”

        He’d studied, in college, on James Hansen’s knowledge.
        Then, over years of political careers,
        He pondered this notion: The atmosphere and oceans
        Are useful to raise public fears.

        He made presentations to all the world’s nations.
        His film (sci-fi trash) was a box office smash!
        Academy sensation! Oscars, nominations
        And copious currents of cash!

        Then unto him fell the Peace Prize, Nobel…
        Authority, on him was vested.
        (Debates he must quell, for he knows quite well:
        Models failed when reality tested.)

        So, grew the meme of anthropogenic extreme.
        While insiders profited highly,
        Those who objected were quickly subjected
        To ridicule (and regarded vilely).

        Pinwheels and mirrors now litter the lands…
        Power lines, mile after mile.
        On high plains, sea cliffs and desert sands
        Our vistas, they now beguile.

        But, collectors of government subsidies
        Find them a beautiful sight,
        Big mechanical menaces… begging a breeze
        Or a sunbeam to ‘make their cost right’.

        Decades upcoming threaten cold’s icy numbing-
        Nature’s cycles, in concert, are waning.
        The slowness to warm should have cancelled alarm,
        But Al never ceases campaigning:

        “We humans are bad, with our fossil fuel fad,
        It’s a fast-building carbon disaster!
        And now it’s two-fold! It’s causing the cold
        And the hotness to come so much faster!”

        Yet, while he’s pleading that all should be heeding
        His carbon reduction ambitions,
        He hopes you’re not seeing his own footprint being
        Hundreds of poor folks’ emissions.

        Let’s hope he’s thought out, while jetting about,
        The messages of his actions.
        By far they outweigh any words he might say,
        In the minds of the wiser factions.

    • Come to Ferguson and sit in traffic on W. Florissant. You’ll hear lots of infrasound from the high-powered sub-woofer systems surrounding you, all beating against each other while the traffic light changes. Seconds seem like minutes.

      • The worst part is that the car bodies will often resonate sympathetically and make loud overtones. It’s chaotic and really makes emergency vehicles harder to hear

      • Huh? Not where I live (Richmond VA area). I’m about a mile from train tracks and I-95, and there’s major traffic going 24 hours a day.

        • The only time I saw 95 without traffic (for more than a second) was Midnight new Year’s eve 1998. It lasted about 1 minute. I was At the Lewiston exit on a hill overlooking I-95 (just finished working a New Year’s eve party).

      • Many of the truckers that I’ve talked to prefer to drive at night. Fewer cars on the road. Makes it easier for them to maintain a constant speed and less stress from trying to avoid the idiots.

    • One particular truck manufacturer had to recall and replace the seats with air cushioned ones.
      The original seats were bolted to the frame, and at speed would vibrate at the natural frequency of bone.
      They were literally shaking people apart.

      As to busy streets,ever noticed people living on main streets can’t sell their houses for the same amount as the same house in a quieter side street ?

      • True, and people take a loss on the house. While people often complain about property values dropping, there are many things that drop one’s property value. If you don’t want to live next to a freeway or wind turbine, you leave and take the loss. It’s not about money, it’s about quality of life. I’d take the loss.

    • Motorway noise isn’t rhythmic, nor is it constant, nor is it restricted to particular frequences, so I imagine the effect wouldn’t be nearly as pronounced.

      • Exactly. Even living next to a railroad track is nowhere near as bad as living a mile from a commercial wind turbine.

    • I can tell you, from 3 years of driving trucks and making deliveries, my ears were always ringing after work and my body always felt numb from the constant vibrations and now, 30 years later, my ears ring constantly and the left one has an 80% loss of function.
      We also live near a Motorway and both my wife and daughter exibit the same types of symptoms as stated above.
      Although I am but one case, I can say that we do experience the same things

      • Driving trucks does have negative effects, but it’s not the same as the vibration from wind turbines.

      • Bryan, you and your family are, as you say, one case. I call it anecdotal. Here is another one:

        My dad has been driving a semi truck since the late 1960’s, and is still driving, in his mid 80’s. His hearing is excellent. Only Mom disagrees, but then, I haven’t met a woman married over five years who doesn’t claim her husband has hearing problems. This despite the noise of the truck, a previous career working at Boeing on the 747 (jet engines and riveters – not sure which is worse). Prior to that working for United Air Lines handling baggage, and even earlier working for the railroad, like my Grandpa. Include a pastime of hunting and shooting at the range. Only during the last decade has he started wearing ear protection at the range – provided by me.

        Unlike me, who has had tinnitus since age five – before I was allowed to accompany the men while hunting/shooting. No reason for it. My career was behind a desk.

        We are all different, even within bloodlines. Note that the worrisome ‘sound’ from wind turbines is sub-audible. Shouldn’t effect your hearing. Well, maybe tinnitus, if it stimulate the fluids in your inner ear.

        Oh – good news for you worriers (including me): Dad will be forced to retire next year. Despite excellent reviews on his required annual physicals as a commercial driver, the insurance company for the trucking company he works for plans to terminate his coverage for age. For us CONUS drivers, you don’t have to worry about an old man powering 40 tons toward you at a relative velocity of 120 mph, missing by a mere four feet after 2018!

    • Not the same at all. Different mix of frequencies and durations. It’s like saying that a shower is the same as a bath. The end goal may be the same, and they both use water, but the myriad of differences are obvious. So rather than just dismiss the complaints with vacuous arguments, don’t you think a proper study should be done? Think of the children!

    • Few other manmade things – are physically big enough to produce the really low frequency sound that windfarms produce in abundance. Wind farm noise goes well down to 1hz, and the harmonics pulse as the blades interact with other blades nearby. Further to that the very low frequency noise – as pointed out (correctly) in the article accumulates inside buildings when the walls vibrate. Traffic and truck noise – whilst annoying, and known to cause health problems is higher in frequency and has a different structure.

    • In Atlanta now — and I’ve also seen it elsewhere — we’re spending an enormous amount of money putting up noise shields along the interstate highways. Unfortunately, they don’t stop the noise, just keep it from directly flooding the houses backed up to the highway. But, somebody must have convinced those with the purse strings that it’s a worthwhile expenditure.

  4. Excellent article. Renewables like wind and solar also cause a significant increase in maintenance costs for fossil fuel plants. These plants have to be more frequently cycled to keep up with changing supply of wind and solar power. Frequent cycling of a fossil fuel plant causes thermal stresses that have a significant impact on maintenance costs and plant downtime. Degrading our existing generation base to allow for the introduction of solar and wind, which require or existing generation base (100% backup), seems incredibly stupid.

    • Like a diesel engine, which uses less fuel if left idling for a half hour than if turned off and back on. Less stress on the engine, too. Truckers will often leave their rigs idling in the lot at truck stops for this reason.

  5. Due to the fact that Wales is a windy country with a long coastline, we have a substantial amount of wind turbines. As a result the Welsh government carried out a review of the literature to use as a basis for further study. This was the initial findings.

    – The audible impact of turbines is greatly influenced by background noise, with well designed turbines being relatively quiet compared to most road traffic noise.
    – Messages communicated about impact of turbines on health can influence public understanding and perception. Information should therefore be appropriate, proportionate and based on available evidence.
    – Some people living near turbines reported sleeplessness and stress. Stress, tension and irritation can be linked with the perception of there being a noise, rather than noise itself.
    – Visual dissatisfaction with turbines can influence people’s perception of noise.

    Make of that what you will, but the obvious answer appears to be in siting them well offshore and phasing out land based wind farms.

      • Sounda like Gareth is volunteering to have ALL wind turbines erected on his property as they will do no damage to him.

      • Janice Moore, I never thought I would agree with you, but offshore wind is currently too expensive and the money could be better spent elsewhere. On shore wind is not, so there is no reason to stop wind now.

      • sea: Read the Ruth Lea, et al. analysis of wind power I linked in two comments on this thread and THEN (for I am sure you cannot help but be persuaded by her impeccable research) we will have, for the first time, agreed.

        Looking forward to that day! 🙂

      • IOW: sea, (to be perfectly clear) all wind power is a foolish investment of taxpayer/power customer rate surcharge payer money.

      • Janice, lets not go too far and be happy to have agreement on off-shore wind for now 🙂

      • No, windmills good, create carbon credits, can be traded for vast fortunes especially after carbon taxes kick in, oh please please please more windmills./sarc off OK I’m a little pissed at having to argue against the local warmists who have their heads you-know-where. I swear I’m going to become a Republican soon. People, how in hell are we going to avert the heavy hand of government that’ll be invoked to save us from CO2? Is this all just a huge money lunge a la Enron’s shafting of California? Is that what this stupendous fraud is about?

    • “Gareth Phillips March 8, 2017 at 11:46 am
      -The audible impact of turbines is greatly influenced by background noise, with well designed turbines being relatively quiet compared to most road traffic noise.
      – Messages communicated about impact of turbines on health can influence public understanding and perception. Information should therefore be appropriate, proportionate and based on available evidence.
      – Some people living near turbines reported sleeplessness and stress. Stress, tension and irritation can be linked with the perception of there being a noise, rather than noise itself.
      – Visual dissatisfaction with turbines can influence people’s perception of noise.”

      There’s more nonsense from the gareth trollop.
      “– The audible impact”; infra-sound is not audible!
      “– Messages communicated”; ah, yes the State should control all messages to weed out less supportive ones. Perhaps even restrict messages to the PC and Wind Farm marketing messages?
      “– Some people living”; And the obligatory minimization. Pretend that negative effects are minimal while ignoring severe negative impacts to both residents’ health and their property values.

      All to sell snake oil at excessive costs to all not directly involved in the wind farm financial returns.

      • ATheok Whined :

        There’s more nonsense from the gareth trollop.

        Gareth responds:
        You may have noticed if you had bothered to read the post that I was reporting the finding of a Welsh Government review of the literature.The are not necessarily my opinions.
        Now`I don’t expect people like yourself who have great difficulty understanding the idea of Lit.Reviews to read them properly, but do me a favour. Give me the courtesy of spelling my name with a capital G. You will note that , unlike yourself, I do not hide behind an alias in order to express my views.
        You will also find that Ad Hominem attacks do not re-enforce the point you are trying to make.

      • But to a certain extent they MUST mimic your own opinions otherwise you woldn’t have utilized them to make your point. You aren’t going to use a Soon Study to prove your viewpoint is correct if you didn’t agree with that study. You would use a Soon Study to ridicule Soon though.

      • gareth:

        Respect, you have not earned. If anything, you barely merit derision.
        Your posts are full of false facts, twisted logic and misleading information.

        You posted an alleged Welsh Government review. Following the weasel Welsh Review fake findings, you then add:

        “Make of that what you will, but the obvious answer appears to be in siting them well offshore and phasing out land based wind farms.”

        A conclusion that takes the Welsh review as truth, without applying any simple common sense or logic. Such as I applied, line by line.

        The obvious solution is to not build wind turbines, period.
        They’re bird and bat destroyers.
        They cause human health problems.
        They are inefficient, unreliable and unable to produce the consistent power and frequency necessary to refine metals or run the major industry processes required to make wind turbines.

        And, it is obvious that you do not understand the meaning of whine/whined.
        • whine. [(h)wīn]
        • VERB
        • whined (past tense) · whined (past participle)
        • •give or make a long, high-pitched complaining cry or sound:
        • •complain in a feeble or petulant way:

        Nor, do I hide behind an alias.

        Regarding ad-hominem attacks:

        “ATheok Whined :”

        “You may have noticed if you had bothered to read the post”

        “Now`I don’t expect people like yourself who have great difficulty understanding the idea of Lit.Reviews to read them properly”

        “You will note that , unlike yourself, I do not hide behind an alias in order to express my views”

        All ad-hominems.
        You resort to ad-hominems as reflex, frequently. You may think you’re clever where you demean, insult and condescend. It is not clever at all.

        Respect is granted to civilized commenters, out of politeness. That respect can be quickly lost when politeness, civilized comments and especially respect is abused by clueless climate religious advocates, like yourself.

        You lost respect long ago. Earn respect back, if you can.

      • Not only ad-hominem attacks but the “people like yourself” comment indicates a generalizing form of bigotry as well

    • Perhaps the Welsh government should be relocated next to a windfarm for six months, so they can experience it first hand.
      Nothing like getting right to the source ,instead of relying on reports from third parties.

      • Thank you for the link, Mr. Phillips. An interesting read.

        “Given this, and their high costs, government support is likely to be needed for many years to come.”
        And, despite that,
        “Investment in offshore wind systems has been growing rapidly throughout Europe and the technology will be essential in meeting EU targets for renewable energy in 2020.”
        Evidently “Investment” means “tax money”, used to make everyone feel good about supporting “renewable energy”. Does renewable energy now mean digging a deep hole, and dumping in money as quickly as possible? [rhetorical question]

      • Janice TAE

        “Does renewable energy now mean digging a deep hole, and dumping in money as quickly as possible? [rhetorical question]”


        [I know you are astonished by this answer, Janice!
        Overwhelmed, indeed.
        Reduced to jello! ]

        But not your own money.

        Taxpayers’ money.
        Every time.
        Every cent.

        – A hint of /sarc detectable, I think.

      • Janice, Junior, here, Auto. Praying for you these past several weeks as you mourn a deep, deep, loss. I hope you are doing okay.


    • Let’s see. Wind energy is intermittent and unpredictable and unreliable. These unreliable electricity producers have to be matched about 1:1 with fossil fuel power plants when the amount of wind power is significant in the grid. Thus they make electricity more expensive. As stated in a previous post here at WUWT rare earth mining and manufacturing have destroyed significant areas of China with the attached human and environmental damages.
      Add to that the human and environmental damage from low frequency sounds documented herein and the picture becomes clearer. Increases costs of electricity and makes power less reliable. Huge environmental damages in mining and construction of wind farms, human health risks and known damage to bats, and birds during their operation. Social costs include the feed in tariffs which are an essence a tax on the poorest among us.
      The question is do un-realizable, and thus non-existent benefits, ever justify known benefits for a few at the cost of everyone else?
      Finally, I don’t think we need further field studies. It is obvious what wind energy is doing is South Australia, Germany, and other countries following this false path to CO2 reduction. Add to this that CO2 reduction itself is a chimera.

    • “Gareth Phillips March 8, 2017 at 11:46 am

      – Some people living near turbines reported sleeplessness and stress. Stress, tension and irritation can be linked with the perception of there being a noise, rather than noise itself.
      – Visual dissatisfaction with turbines can influence people’s perception of noise.”

      Utter twaddle! I guess you have never lived anywhere where there is a continuous din, from what ever source. It’s not a perception of noise, it *IS* noise. I speak from experience where, in such places with these monstrosities installed, I have to wear noise cancelling headphones at night to sleep.

    • So the fact that they cost a fortune, are a 19th century solution to the 21st century, make little useful energy, and benefit the already wealthy who lap up the tax subsidies should be overlooked if we can hide the ripoff?

  6. — Negative EROEI
    — Negative ROI but for power customer rate surcharges and tax subsidies
    — Bat lung exploder
    — Bird masher
    — Landscape uglifier
    — Human tormentor

    Only sane, loving, conclusion: end wind now.


    Very glad to see Dr. Helen Schwiesow Parker featured today when the mentally/emotionally unhealthy women among us (here in the U.S.) are doing their little “look at me” event.

    @ HSP: You GO, girl!


    Janice: On — the — job. Because…. I have nothing to prove! Yeeeeee—OOOOOWWWW!

    (Workin’ on humility, workin’ on it…. (heh).)

    • Additionally, wind energy is not scalable.

      Since capturing wind energy is a function of Earth’s surface area, it is not scalable. Same with solar. There may be localized installations that make sense, but neither is a solution for providing energy to civilizations.

      • And I am quite proud of that fact, Mr. Moore. It is NOT easy when you are as wonderful as I am.

      • Janice, I am bit of a fan of your commentary. You remind me of a rancher woman I knew in Montana. We called her “Rattlesnake Annie.” Straight shooter. She chewed tobacco and was tougher than most cowboys. Remarkable woman.

      • Oh, dear. In my glee at being taken for a nasty old rancher lady, I forgot my manners.

        Thank you, Mr. Moore, so much, for the compliment. How very kind of you to say so. Please do not take my delay in thanking you for reluctance to say so. Your taking the time to encourage me was such a ray of sunshine (believe me, I can use them!). Writing creative comments is intrinsically rewarding, but, it is so nice to know that someone enjoyed what I wrote.

      • Late to the party.
        Reminds me of a line from a song an old boss of mine would sing to put himself back in his place, “Lord, it’s hard to be humble when you’re perfect in every way!”

        (Of Course, he knew wasn’t. I loved working for that guy.)

      • Janice Moore:

        It is rare to come across a comment on WUWT that is obviously and unarguably true. So, I write to draw attention to this one that you wrote

        It is NOT easy when you are as wonderful as I am.



        Dear Richard,

        How very kind of you to tell me that. That made me happy. Even more, though, HOW GREAT IT IS TO SEE YOU POST! So glad that you are well enough to make that happen.

        I pray for you every — day.

        Take care,


        P.S. I must tell you this. In my chagrin over the responses to me of a couple of commenters recently, to console myself, I thought of my dearest person in the whole world and what he thinks of me and I also thought of YOU and how gallantly courteous you have been to me in the past. Just that memory was a confidence booster. You see? You WILL live on! (and in heaven, too, of course….. many years from now……)

      • I had a former boss who liked to accuse everyone who worked for him of having delusions of adequacy.

      • Dear Janice:

        Thankyou for your gracious words and for your prayers.

        I am trying to contribute as I can for as long as I can. But posting on the web is not easy. As you know, I suffered multiple organ failure a few years ago. I survived to attend my son’s wedding and following a different diagnosis of my heart condition I was given a new (and unpleasant) treatment that gave me great improvement (thank God for the NHS). So, I thought I was winning! Then, last August I had a stroke that affected my right arm: until then I was right-handed. Like you, I pray, and I have told the Boss that I think the stroke was unfair!

        When young I was always a ‘grumpy old man’ and now my condition makes me even grumpier. And my physical limitations give me practical difficulties posting on the web, but I am giving it a go for as long as I can.


      • Thank you, Bob boder!! 🙂


        Dear Richard,

        You wouldn’t still be here if God did not have something He wants you (only YOU) to do. Glad part of that is commenting on WUWT. So sorry about the extra boulders that have been added to your backpack, as you climb a steep hill. I hope that you realize, given those boulders, that just by posting here, you are an inspiration. You may never know (on earth) who was given that little extra push to not give up — just because he or she watched you soldiering on.

        Take care,


  7. Junk science on premier skeptics website? Here is one paragraph debunk: Earthquakes produce infra sound dwarfing anything coming from those puny wind turbines. People who experienced earthquakes (and those who were not buried under debris) are doing just fine. And people in Japan are living longer than in less earth quake prone arias.

    • Moron.

      Know anyone who’s survived an earthquake every 5 seconds for 24 hours and not been affected?

      Back to the Huff Post with you.

    • Teg: You may be correct. To be persuasive, however, you need to provide more that you have so far.

      For example, it would help your argument if you could cite some evidence showing that the duration of the “infra sound” of earthquakes is comparable to that of wind turbines. Other comparison/contract info. would be very helpful.

      So far, you have just said, essentially, “This is a bunch of junk. Believe me. I know.”

    • Your statement, tegirinenashi, makes a claim, but offers only a false strawman fallacious argument.

      Explain how the very temporary infra sounds from an earthquake compare to the ongoing consistent pulsating infrasounds from wind turbines? Especially wind turbines located close to houses in the open atmosphere?

      Making your nebulous claim the junk science.
      Your claim also indicates that you did not read the linked articles. Nor have you checked into courts finding wind power liable for turbine caused illnesses.

      Pitiful and quite pathetic trolling, tegirinenashi!

    • ‘produce infra sound dwarfing anything coming from those puny wind turbines. People who experienced earthquakes (and those who were not buried under debris) are doing just fine.’.

      Findings from the current study have potential implications for workplaces, and in particular educational institutions, in the event of a disaster. The current study’s findings are consistent with existing research in showing that psychological symptoms following a disaster are common, but for most people these improve with time.

      This study only relates to the first 18 months after the initial earthquake.
      But the quakes continue.
      Just like wind farms.
      Many have left Christchurch.
      Why inflict this damage on people?
      Wind farms are not safe to use.

      • Hi, Herr Wundersamer. Here is one of the many graphs from your link above (I hope it is one you would like to see displayed here):

        And one from your second link:
        Christchurch Earthquake Energy Graph

        I hope that was helpful to you.

        FYI (if interested): to copy an image (first test on the WUWT “Test” thread)

        1. Select an image using a Left click.
        2. On that selected image, Right click.
        3. On drop down menu which appears, Left click on “Copy image address”
        4. In WUWT Reply box (first, use “Test” thread) Type simultaneously: Ctrl — v .
        5. Click “Post Comment” as usual and, voila! Image appears (sometimes, heh).

        Thank you for sharing.


      • Bryan A suggested that :
        “He could share it with Gareth who also believes that constant exposure isn’t unhealthy”

        Gareth responds.
        Tell me Bryan, where exactly did you see me say that ? I suspect you were dreaming.

      • Bryan A Asks
        “So then you DO believe that Constant Exposure to the ILFN of Wind Turbines IS unhealthy?”

        Gareth responds:
        There certainly seems a lot of evidence that the effects of wind turbines on land are not good for the wellbeing of neighbouring populations. I suspect the jury is out on to what degree they are harmful, but I would not wish to live next door to one. On the other hand I would not want to live next door to a refinery, nuclear power station, motorway or open cast coal mine either.
        If wind turbines are to be built, they should be situated offshore, But that raises the financial issue. You can read the paper I linked to above for more background on that.

    • That is not debunking. Exposure to high levels of radioactivity for a short period of time is not the same as exposure for an extended period of time.

      Where did you get your science degree from?

    • Comparing a one time event with something constant that goes on for years.
      There’s junk science here alright, and it’s located between your ears.

    • tegirinenashi March 8, 2017 at 11:48 am

      You really need to look it the effects of persistent sound on the human ear.

      Start the vid at about 3:00 in this were it describes how the ear is damaged

      BTY I spent 40 years in the Machine /tool trade and have perfect hearing. I always used hearing protection. Still do if I am working with power equipment.


    • If you read the report at all, it talks about long term exposure to Low Frequency/Infrasonic sound..
      A long earthquake is one minute. Are you suggesting that windmills only turn for a minute at a time?

      • 70 db conversation level sound during whole lifetime won’t affect you. 1 minute exposure to jet engine or explosion would permanently damage your hearing.

        What I’m saying is that without numbers this “study” is no better than climaterish claims featured on this website.

        You really want to make a difference and see that “clean energy” nonsense go? Whining about mills striking birds won’t accomplish much.

        In contrast, consider, “Community Choice Program” where PG&E subscribes their customers without their consent to shady electricity providers such as “Peninsula Clean Energy”.
        Socialist thinking at their best: community has decided where electricity consumer money go. Somebody, like Willis can make excellent piece on that.

      • Now you ate just dissembling. You claimed to debunk the article in one paragraph. You used earthquake sound as proof that windmill sound was not harmful. Your proof has been found to be invalid. Now you want to change tactics but not admit you are wrong, and still assert that the study is bunk. The key to digging yourself into a hole is to stop digging.

        “A [puny] magnitude-4.6 earthquake that occurred Jan. 3, 2011…The infrasound was primarily in the range of 1 to 5 Hertz – lower than the inaudible calls of elephants and whales – and peaked at about 70(!) decibels”
        Richter scale also logarithmic. A magnitude 7 earthquake would be equivalent to explosion level sound.

    • I can experience direct exposure to sunlight and do just fine. I can even look directly at the sun.

      Now if I do these repetitively for hours, days, weeks, months, or years on end…different story.

      I’m not sure how this concept escaped you and led you to write something so idiotic.

      • Your assumption that the sound level during earthquake is comparable to wind turbine is utterly ridiculous. It is simply that during earthquake people have bigger worries than noise.

        OK, I was not as thorough in my response as ristvan. One more time, whithout numbers this particular “research” is on the level of climaterish watts-ridiculed study we read here everyday.

    • As I noted above, even if one debunks the noise problem, there are at least a dozen excellent reasons to dump wind turbines. Besides, the environmentalists always screamed that imaginary pollution was killing people and because that was serious and making people sick we had to stop—based on the flimsiest of evidence. So why now don’t we have to stop? Is this less serious than other nasty industrial intrustions?

  8. Time to post my funky poetry:


    If you like your energy sustainable,
    You must first make the climate trainable.
    With sun day and night,
    And the wind always right…
    I think it just might be attainable!

    Solar and wind are renewable,
    But only on small scales prove doable
    They kill birds and bats
    And displace habitats…
    Conservationists find them eschew-able.

    We would, likely, employ keener vision
    Funding hydro and nuclear fission.
    (The molten salt kind,
    For our peace of mind)
    With storm-proofed grids, for transmission.

    Electricity, for the third world poor
    Will unlock the virtual door…
    To an affluent life,
    A job and a wife
    With less children than folks raised before.

    So, curtailing overpopulation
    Is not about “limiting nations
    On what they can do
    Which emits CO2”…
    It relies on industrialization!

  9. At the June, 2009 NYSERDA Environmental Groups meeting specific to industrial wind energy, a former noise control engineer for the New York State Public Service Commission, Dr. Dan Driscoll, testified that ‘infrasound’ (sounds below 20 Hz) are “sounds you can’t hear, but the body can feel,” and that ‘infrasound’ is known to be a problem associated with industrial wind factories.

    Dr. Driscoll said that ‘infrasound’ is NOT blocked by walls, and it can very negatively affect the human body – especially after prolonged, continuous exposure. He said symptoms include headache, nausea, sleeplessness, dizziness, ringing in the ears and other maladies.

    Dr. Driscoll said that setbacks from the 1.5 MW turbines being installed at that time in 2009 should be at least 3200 feet. Obviously, setbacks from the much larger turbines being proposed by the wind industry today need to be at least 1 mile (possibly much further) to adequately protect citizens.

    NYS Department of Health official, Dr. Jan Storm testified that, despite knowing the global nature of the ‘infrasound’ problem, NYS still had not done any health studies (despite having federal Stimulus money available at the time to do so).

    Here we are 8 years later, and indefensibly, New York State officials still have not called for any independent studies to assure the protection of New York State citizens – despite countless pleas to do so by citizens across the state. This is nothing short of criminal negligence!

    The crooks at the top (ie: Governor Cuomo, AG Eric Schneiderman, etc) are in on this massive transfer of wealth scheme. They could not care less about anything other than lining their own pockets at everyone else’s expense. They all belong in jail.

    NYS’ Multi-Billion Dollar Energy S-WIND-LE:

    • That really is not acceptable. Dunno whether there is a problem or not (see below for a summary of my quick research to sort this out) but that we still don’t know suggests there might be. The cell phone industry was forced to spend many hundreds of millions on the ‘cell phones cause brain cancer’ canard. 12 years. Cell phones do NOT cause brain cancer. Why isnt the wind industry held to an equivalent standard?

      [EPRI is still fighting tens of millions of losses and suits from the “Power line = increased cancer” lawyer-enviro links of the 1980’s.. .mod]

  10. It’s a good thing only half the wind farm is rotating at any given time. If they all rotated at the same time it could get right noisy.

  11. Love the no holds barred tone. To me the giant turbines have always brought to mind the giant heads of Easter Island.

      • +1

        And UGLY icons, to boot. Those ol’ stone age idol worshippers did the best with what technology they had. Creating something SO ugly for worship purposes NOW is inexcusable (yes, yes, the enviroprofiteers are not worshiping anything but money; that remark is aimed at the Holy Church of Environmentalism whose duped members keep voting for pro-wind politicians, the poor souls who keep forking over thousands of pounds, dollars, and marks, etc. in tithes).

        Yay! Let’s go to the beach for the day!


    • I must admit, I don’t think the ones on the beach look ugly, any more than Dutch windmills do. But I accept many people find them intrusive on the landscape.
      What I find ugly is coal tips, polluted rivers, oil rig fires and oil pollution. You know the sort of thing. But many people don’t have a problem with those things but are horrified by wind turbines. It’s all subjective.
      I grew up on a small mining village in Wales. I saw hundreds of men die from mining related diseases. The school in village up the valley from mine was destroyed along with more than a hundred children’s lives lost. I saw communities blighted.
      So far I have not seen the same impact from Wind farms so I am a bit biased.
      However I completely understand that people living near them do suffer ill effects in varying degrees and as a result I do not think they should be situated anywhere near inhabited areas..

      • Then they dump the ugly things in the only remaining open spaces. That’s out West were there are not enough people to fight the turbines. Plus, you have to have miles and miles and miles of transmission lines to get the electricity where you need it. It’s about as environmentally friendly as strip mining without reclamation.
        (I have a spouse who worked in uranium, coal and oil. I have seen all three up close. I will take any of these any day over the useless waste of resources turbines. My opposition is the lie that there is any value to them other than the “get rich quick off taxpayers” aspect. Environmentally, they are 100% WASTE.)

      • So far I have not seen the same impact from Wind farms so I am a bit biased.

        Have you seen the results of the rare earth mines (primarily China) or is that out of sight, out of mind.

  12. I live a mile from a wind farm, if the wind is in the right, or should that be wrong, direction you can hear an unpleasant sound when outside, I have not been consciously aware of a noise while inside. Visually I find them very depressing and distracting from the natural beauty of the scenery.

    • Me. I worked on F111s from 71 to 74. The noise from them at idle was painful with out ear protection. We all wore ear protection all the time except I once had to try it just for a moment. Didn’t notice any effect until I left the air base. A few weeks after leaving the noise I noticed that I felt less nervous. It is hard to describe the symptoms but I was fairly sure it had to be the noise from the aircraft and the turbine powered ground power units. I sure loved working on those very impressive Mach 2.5+ aircraft.

  13. Wind Turbines
    The Evil Seed

    They came in like a soft silent breeze
    Hushing the naïve
    Speaking with forked tongues
    Proclaiming black is green
    Maiming thinkers with corrupt words
    Casting a thick cloud of concern
    Residing with hidden evils
    Leaving a trail of trash
    Forever scarred
    The stench you see
    Smells of decay


    • Applause! Applause! Thank you for sharing your wonderful creative writing, Ej! (another woman on the job today, heh)

  14. Experience has shown that it takes lawsuits not settled out of court to bring well-connected and powerful industries to heel.

  15. When all is said and done, it will be solar thermal and solar PV that will provide the vast bulk of AE power generation. Wind power should be recognized for the failure it is, stopping any new wind projects cold and focusing the monies spent on wind instead towards energy storage research and application.

    • it will be

      When the technology has been invented. (eye roll)

      If that did not make sense to you, “too,” here are two videos for you to watch

      Solar Cells and Other Fairy Tales — Ozzie Zehner


      Green Illusions — Ozzie Zehner


    • Solar Thermal is also a panacea when it comes to energy production. There are only a few places wher it can function and No place where it will without a CO2 producing back-up system. Ivanpah requires 8 hours of gas fired back-up during the summer and as much as 12 houre during the winter months so the salt remains molten over night. And this is in the middle of the Mojave Desert. It also takes 5 square miles to produce 360MW of energy. Diablo Canyon Nuclear plane produces 2200MW on 12 acres. The same 2200MW in Solar Thermal would require 40 square miles of airable land and would still require a gas fired heat source to produce the night time half of the output

      • Per Wikipedia;

        The plant requires burning natural gas each morning to get the plant started. The Wall Street Journal reported: “Instead of ramping up the plant each day before sunrise by burning one hour’s worth of natural gas to generate steam, Ivanpah needs more than four times that much.”[33] On August 27, 2014, the State of California approved Ivanpah to increase its annual natural gas consumption from 328 million cubic feet of natural gas, as previously approved, to 525 million cubic feet.[34] In 2014, the plant burned 867,740 million BTU of natural gas emitting 46,084 metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is nearly twice the pollution threshold at which power plants and factories in California are required to participate in the state’s cap and trade program to reduce carbon emissions.[35] If that fuel had been used in a modern combined cycle gas plant, it would have generated about 124,000 MW·h of electrical energy. That is enough to power the annual needs of 20,660 Southern California homes.[36] Ivanpah used that gas plus solar energy to produce 524,000 MW·h of electrical energy (more than four times that of the referenced CCGT plant), all while operating at well below its expected output. 2015 showed higher production numbers, with Q1 increases of 170% over the same time period in 2014

        My emphasis

      • “Ivanpah used that gas plus solar energy to produce 524,000 MW·h of electrical energy (more than four times that of the referenced CCGT plant)”

        It is fair enough as a technical point to explain why it needs to use gas and produce carbon, and how much, but the overall output vs carbon is what tells you how carbon efficient the plant is.

    • You might be right, once they develop a battery capable of cheaply and safely containing sufficient energy.
      To date however, that quest has met with abject failure.
      And those cells are going to be dangerous if they fault.
      Witness what happened recently with the Samsung phones and the exploding batteries.
      Now scale that up to something capable of supplying a city.
      That could be a disaster of major proportions.

      • The material requirements needed for such a power-grid battery farm are non-trivial. If we converted the US total lead proven reserves into lead acid batteries, we could store enough electricity to power the nation for a total of only 9 minutes. Or to put it another way, it could supply about 1% of the nations electrical need overnight. And 5-15% of the whole battery bank would have to be replaced every year.

    • Solar PV is worse than wind and solar thermal is worse than solar PV.
      Neither will ever be reliable, economic or sufficient. Spending billions on batteries just makes it more so.

      • Me too. I have had a hot water solar generation system for some years which has saved me substantial amounts of money, as well as providing lashings of free hot water for 9 months of the year.

      • There’s a few orders of magnitude difference between heating water for a single household and providing base load power for a city, state/province, or whole country.

      • My mistake. When you talked about solar thermal I thought you were talking about plants like Ivanpah.
        Solar pre-heating of water can be effective, as well as making use of sunshine to help warm your house.
        If that’s all you want to do, and you want to spend your own money doing it, be my guest.

  16. From a distance, many view the massive turbines as majestic – as…

    Ballerinas. I kid you not. This description from some social sciences faculty.

  17. This article doesn’t say one word about the mass killing of birds and bats by the windmills.The greens are very confused on the issue.

    • They aren’t at all: properly sited wind turbines don’t kill birds.

      And that is 99% of all turbines and near 100% of those built since the 1990s.

      The figures for bird deaths are extrapolated from the handful of old style badly sited turbine sites like Altamont Pass.

      If the figures given for eagle deaths across the US were accurate, the species would have been made extinct on a regular basis…

  18. In Finland we have the same problems. There are lot of people who suffer from the infrasound problem. Officially there is no problem, because the standards are not good enough. Now they start to erect 4.5 MW wind mills too close to the houses. There is a lot of discussion about the windmill business and its negative health impacts. This seems to be a global phenomenon. Real science is badly needed to create proper standards and to show evidence that this is a serious problem.

  19. Interesting article until this:

    Reliance on wind actually increases emissions and fossil fuel use overall, due to inefficiencies introduced into the system.

    The studies have been done the actual measurements performed and this is absolutely false. But the belief in it won’t go away. You may not like wind and believe it harmful but that doesn’t mean things can be made up to support your case.

  20. There is a high end strip mall near my that brags about it’s “greenness.” It has a Wind turbine that they use to support their claims. The tower is about 100 yards/meters from the facility. Several years ago, when bringing my kitchen up to date, I went to one of the stores to pick out cabinets, sink and and a water faucet. I was told that they had the best in town. Within 15 minutes of entering the store I experienced at least three of the above mentioned symptoms. Within half an hour my feelings of anxiousness were so strong that I had to leave the store. Needless to say I did not buy anything there.

    • I’ve never had a problem. On the other hand lots of people have told me I’m pretty insensitive.

  21. It is a statistical fact that in Europe Germany and Denmark have the highest portion of windmill power. They also have the most expensive electricity, and the the biggest CO2 emissions.

  22. Color me very skeptical. There are acoustic crowd control (and related applications) devices. Called LRADs. These are very directional, highly amplified, and operate at 2.5kHz. Nothing to do with omnidirectional wind turbine infrasound.
    I read the cited Cooper report. No data, all assertion; impossible to determine its quality. But was clearly done as part of damages advocacy by those three families. Looked about on line. Found a lot of chatter equivalent to this guest post, and a lot of anecdotal stuff from anti wind turbine groups. Nothing solid, no summary of epidemiological or other studies. Granted, did not spend a day on the search.
    The most cited paper on wind turbine noise health effects is Shepard et. al. in Noise and Health 13: 333-339 (2011). It compared self assessments using a standard quality of life questionaire between a community with no wind turbines and a community with in rural New Zealand. The Seimans turbines produce 20dBa to 50 dba at the sourse. Houses were between 1000 and 2000 meters away per figure 2; the sound would have been quite attenuated. The response rate was a low 37% for the turbine community, 31% for the other. One suspects if there was a real problem the turbine community response rate would have been a lot higher. Sample size is small (total n=137) and the differences small. Most telling is that people in the turbine community who self rated as noise sensitive also self rated as lower quality of life–but just in three factors. (Sleep soundness being the only true health factor where there was a difference. The other two weakly statistically significant differences were ‘environment less healthy’ and ‘less satisfied with living conditions’. Real hard health stuff–not.)
    If that is the most cited research out there, color me VERY skeptical.

    OTH, under certain lighting conditions the stobe effect can be annoying. Mymson’s graduate school dorm room looked out on an idiotic small wind turbine on the roof of the parking garage. Pure virture signalling. It chatged thembatteries thatnrannthe packingngarage emergency lighting system. Stobe So bad he could not study late afternoons without drawing the blinds.

    • Perhaps those conducting the experiments should consider setting up home and work offices next to the wind farms.
      That way they can get a better idea about the problems and questions they should be asking.
      Instead of sitting in a lab/office hundreds of kilometers away.

      • I tend to agree. But this guest post assumes no such study is needed because the health issues are indisputable. I can say with high confidence that pyschosomatic illness is real, cause we have an instance (anxiety disorder) in my family. But there is no underlying physical cause to a psychosomatic illness. Including infrasound. It would seem that wind turbine syndrome may be in that class of ‘disease’. And the most cited research paper is worthless.
        Wind turbines can be opposed on two far easier grounds. 1. They arent economic, else they would not require continued subsidies. 2. They are intermittent and provide no grid inertia. Those are serious engineering disqualifiers, as South Australia has wound in the past few months now 5 times.

      • Perhaps the best evidence would come from animals raised next to the turbines. There are reports of mink farms being affected by turbines. Animals don’t have the psychological reactions humans do and could provide some evidence. After all, virtually everything is tested on mice. Why not use mice to test at wind plants?

      • Indirectly, government non-funding of studies of this infrasound issue is possibly due to the greenie mindset of NSF reviewers. I.e., some proposed studies may have been turned down. This should be investigated. And the NSF should indicate that it is looking to fund such studies. (I believe that it already posts / publishes lists of areas where it thinks studies should be done.)

    • ristvan, I agree with you as well. The Pierpoint study was based on 23 telephone interviews, with no medical history taken and no control group. There was selection bias because they advertised for people who attributed their problems to wind farms. Symptoms were self reported and there was no peer review. The evidence for this syndrome is very, very flimsy, whilst it has not been found by any other controlled study. Color me very skeptical too.

  23. Actually, it seem to be time to take a page from Alinsky’s book:
    …how about we sue cities disrupting endangered species.

    I am sure NYC/Chicago/LA/SF/Denver/DC/etc are using power that is causing
    …some “poor, sweet, innocent”, endangered species
    to not reproduce as well as it might (and be even more “endangered!”)

    Aren’t there any bird slicers up in polar bear country?
    That would be a nice “Poster Child” to get started.
    Or Denver/Boulder would be a good place to start.

      • More Red Kites are shot each year in Scotland than killed by wind turbines (and thankfully only a couple or dozen are shot illegally each year). More sea eagles have been killed by trains than wind turbines.

      • How do sea birds fare around offshore generating facilities?
        Probably hard to tell unless you camp out there for a year and count the bodies as they fall otherwise they are fish food and not a statistic

      • Bryan

        Sea bird migration is mostly coastal, along coasts within a fixed distance from shore.

        UK offshore turbines are required to get independent observation of seabird activity in the area before permission: UK offshore turbines are not sited in migration routes, feeding or wintering areas. The London Array extension windfarm was rejected on the grounds it would have been in wintering grounds of red throated divers (loons for you US folk).

        Studies in Denmark have tracked bird activity over offshore windfarms for extended periods using lidar as well as observations. They report birds avoid the turbines, flying between them… the reported rate of casualtyies is given as 1 in about 230,000. You can google for study online.

    • Jeopardy!

      Alex T: John, your turn.

      John: “S and O” for $1,000.


      John: What are: Sulphur hexafluoride and open document spreadsheets.

      Alex T: Yes!

      Me to my husband (just pretending): OH, GREAT. That is just great. You HAD to run the Vitamix right THEN.

      John! Help! What was the question?

      ( ?? ?? )


      [The mods. “Alex, We’ll take “What is Janice on this evening? for $200.00 please. ” 8<) .mod]

      • Dear Max Photon,

        Your quip was said with a wink, but, it still hurt (and so have some others’ here, year after year — just hoping you might help me understand the reactions of SOME of the men around here (not all, not all) …… ). If you have any respect for me at all (given that you could compare me with a dog, I doubt you have much), would you please (seriously — I’d like to hear your thoughts on this) tell me:

        1. Why my sometimes forceful/blunt writing style, instead of evoking the image of a lovely, strong, woman, evokes the image of a tobacco-spitting old rancher lady?

        2. Why my attempt at zany, silly, humor comes off, not as clever, witty, and fun, but as the “out there” ramblings of a drunk?

        3. Why my writing evokes in your mind, not a playful, possibly quite normally attractive, woman, but a contemptible, low, image of a dog (not that I do not love dogs — I sure do!)?

        I suppose, my even asking these questions reveals something unpleasant about myself. Sigh. Can’t be helped (except to just shut up, of course…. hm. Is that the point…..).



      • Aw, Janice, what an unfortunate shame. You have COMPLETELY misinterpreted my comment. I cannot speak to what others have said to you, but I will certainly share what MY intentions were.

        In my world I have long used that expression as a term of endearment when someone — male or female — is being sprite and playful, as I found you to be here.

        I always take time to read your posts, and invariably enjoy and appreciate them. I have nothing but respect for you, and seeing your name evokes warm feelings and a sense of camaraderie.

        You have my sincerest apologies for the misunderstanding.

      • Janice: In part, it’s because you use your real name and people know you’re female. If you made the same comments as “Jerry”, the reaction would not be the same. There’s really nothing to be done about it—it’s just how human beings are made. As for your gruff nature, I love it! The image you used was great. I get much the same reaction and have just come to accept that this is how people are and deal with it (mostly by ignoring the tone or just blasting away if the situation calls for it). Besides, no matter how you phrase things, someone’s going to complain. 🙂

      • Janice, again, I can’t speak to what the others wrote, but I will go out on a limb and share what my impressions were when I read those comments made by others.

        I believe those comments too were said in a spirit of comfortable playfulness based on admiration and affection for you. I get the sense you are greatly misreading them. I think you are missing that one of greatest compliments men can give women is to treat them as one of the guys. (I understand that may seem bizarre to a woman, but trust me — it’s true … and I strongly suspect it is especially true in this instance.)

        I think Sheri is missing this too. For example, I did not read it that the .mod was complaining; the .mod was simply having fun with you.

      • Dear Max Photon,

        Thank you for your generous explanation. Yes, indeed, I completely misunderstood. There is no need to apologize, for you meant no harm, but, thank you. I accept your apology. No hard feelings.

        And, thank you, for your kind words.

        I enjoy your sharp mind’s sense of humor and fun graphics. Glad you are here.

        Your too easily wounded these days WUWT ally,



        Dear Sheri,

        THANK YOU for taking the time to cheer me up and to encourage me and to offer some very good advice, too. I think you are likely right. Something about a woman’s “strong” words ellicits a different, more eager to put down, reaction in many (not all, by any means) men than the same words uttered by a man.

        Most of the time, I do just as you wisely advise, laugh it off, ignore it, or “blast” back, lolol. Something about “dog” just got to me this afternoon and it was the “straw” — only a straw. I’m back on track, now!

        What is amusing (to me, for I know me) is, no one who knows me “in real life,” considers me “gruff.” I just write that way (sometimes)! Weird, huh? 🙂 And FUN!

        And I’m going to keep right on doing it, too! Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


        See you around (I enjoy your many quips and insightful and valuable comments — I just don’t say anything many times, because I have already talked and talked on the thread where I see you).

        Your WUWT friend,


      • Thanks, Max Photon, for your trying to help me (at 6:33pm) understand the responses I get around here sometimes. I appreciate you taking the time. I believe you, and, yet….. Sheri has a good point. It is more than just being treated as “one of the guys” — that is wonderful and I am grateful for it. I, nevertheless, am treated differently than “the guys” are, at times…. and that’s just the way it is.

        Well. We could discuss this for many moons, huh? I will keep what you said in mind and factor that in (until I forget it!!! lololo — seriously, I will try to remember, but, I just know myself: I fit TOO closely that old song about the woman who does this and does that “just like a woman,” but “breaks just like a little girl.” Sickening, but, true.

        One of these years — I will grow up.

        Meh. No I won’t! lolololololol

        Again, thank you.


        P.S. Don’t be afraid to keep on giving me bad time! Just be you.

      • Janice, don’t apolgize for anything.

        “evoking the image of a lovely, strong, woman,”

        “zany, silly, humor comes off, as clever, witty, and fun,”

        “a playful, possibly quite normally attractive, woman,”

        Janice, those are the impressions *I* get when I read your posts. Your posts are always interesting. Don’t let any naysayers get you down.

      • Janice, I must comment : )
        short to the point : )

        Max Photon, very wise person, obvious experiences speaks. When you have a man tell you what he wrote, that is one of the best compliments a woman can receive. Totally agree.

        just my opinion ……… Max and Sheri very correct.

  24. I think there are enough reasons to stop building wind turbines without relying on infrasound effects. Undispatchable power and bat and bird killing is enough. It would be poetic justice to apply the greens Precautionary Principle on infrasound effects, though, and make them prove a negative.

    • I agree, Mr. Halla. That was my first thought. Whether this paper is correct or not, there is MORE than enough damage (far outweighing any potential benefit demonstrated so far) to bats and birds and to the economy to AMPLY justify shutting down Big Wind (and solar, too).

      • there may be more reasonable arguments but not necessarily more persuasive ones.
        numbers lack emotional appeal.
        on the other hand, 342 boxes of tea floating in the bay trumps that pic of a sick babby

  25. Just for the record, wind power plants produced 0.67 % of prime energy in the U.S. in 2015 and 4.7 % of electric power. That power amounted to 22 GW which was 29 % of their nameplate rating. Others pointed out to the crippling cost of such electricity and its non-measurable impact on global climate.

  26. When they start knocking these things down in 40 years, guess who will own the land with the views over the ocean and the hilltops, both prime real estate? Big Wind of course.

  27. Helen Schwiesow Parker, PhD, is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist and a Past Clinical Supervisory Faculty member at the University of Virginia Medical School. Her career includes practical experience in the fields of autism, sensory perception, memory and learning, attention deficit and anxiety disorders, including panic disorder and PTSD.

    It’s too bad she no experience in audiology and provides no links or references to sources that do.

  28. Good article, but sadly no mention of the fact that almost every country’s EPA requires that wind turbine ‘noise levels’ be measured using a type of ‘sound level meter’ traditionally used to measure audible environmental noise. Unfortunately these instruments are designed to measure only AUDIBLE sound (i.e. above about 15-20 Hz), and therefore CANNOT and WILL not indicate the true level of the sub-audible sound that can cause the adverse health effects referred to above, understating it by orders of magnitude. Whether this choice of instrument by these authorities was due to ignorance or malice I cannot answer, but either way it ensured that verification of ultrasound levels from wind turbines (and thus successful claims of harm) was rendered nearly impossible for a decade or more.
    P.S. My research indicates that the military in several countries have been studying the use of infrasound as a ‘non-lethal weapon’ since before WW2, lending strength to the argument that infrasound does cause adverse health effects on humans.

    • The military does use acoustics as a short range weapon. But NOT infrasound. Google LRAD. 2.5kHz. Aimed at the human hearing sweet spot for maximum effect. Mounted on all the new US littoral combat ships.

  29. The real “deniers” are the wind and solar supporters. They simply deny the data, they deny the physics, and they deny the engineering, and simply believe in unicorns, fairies and free green energy.

  30. Thanks Rud. I was referring to historical research that I am aware of, rather than current practise regarding non-lethal weapons. The documented attempts to use infrasound as a non-lethal weapon were apparently based on awareness in the mid 20th century that infrasound disrupts the workings of the middle and inner ear (hence the nausea, giddiness, etc.), so the denial by pro-wind turbine advocates that exposure to infrasound causes these effects would appear to be misplaced. regards,

  31. “As with seasickness, not everyone is similarly affected. But for many, the experience becomes literally intolerable. Devastated families and individuals around the world, having lost their health, jobs or farms, return their keys to the bank, sell their homes at fire-sale prices, or simply pack up and flee. Some never recover their health.”

    God that speaks to me. I got absolutely annihilated by chronic dog barking in San Francisco, and barely crawled out of the place alive. I swear I have PTSD from that #@$%! nightmare. My heart breaks for families that get destroyed by wind turbines.

  32. It’s a proven scientific fact that elephants dance when exposed to ultrasound from wind turbines. Usually when elephants dance they instinctively turn to the right and Trumpet.. But when dancing to wind turbine ultrasound, they manage to always dance to the left with no Trumpet. Go figure.

  33. I seem to recall that awhile back some enviros were railing against the US Navy claiming that newer sonar was confusing whales and causing them to ground themselves (or something like that).
    Why aren’t those same enviros railing against the sound these turbocrimes put out?

    PS “Turbocrimes”. Poetic license. Wind does have a niche, as does solar, in small scale power generation.
    Selling to the public such as a viable large scale, universal alternative to hydro or “fossil” or nuclear power that Government needs to enforce and subsidize to power “the Grid”?
    That should be a crime.

  34. “Actually the second hand smoke “studies” were debunked long ago.”

    MarkW is right.

    • W O W…it’s worse than I thought…One house, one barn, presumably a well, and 9 turbines for power…must be charging Tesla Battery Backups

      • I believe the closeset home is 1/4 mile. The barn is maybe 1/2 a mile or so. There was a huge battle over how close the turbines are to homes. However, homeowners went to court too late and they were stuck with the decision.

  35. Here in California we solved the noise problem by only allowing wind farms in areas that had no say or political juice to get it stopped. Birds? They poop on our shiny cars. But we are all for CAGW and think everyone else should do everything to support it.

  36. The worst thing is that windmill structures slow the wind: thereby, warming the earth.

  37. “I have had solar thermal hot water now for over three decades. It’s reliable, and less expensive than electric hot water.”

    I find this hard to believe. First, a lot has changed in 30 years. The amount of hot water a home uses has been greatly reduced because of low flow shower nozzles and laundry detergents that do not need hot water. How water heaters are insulated much better too.

    Second the mechanical life of solar hot water systems is 10 years.

    Third is lawyers. When I lived in California, I designed and built my own systems in 1986 buying components at cost. When the nuke plant I worked at I considered such a business. There is significant liability risk.

    When I look at those in the solar business, I think sc*m. There are situations where solar hot water could save money. Show me the your detailed economic analyses.

      • Gareth, the study I read was a long time ago, at least 10 years.

        After living in China, domestic had a different meaning. I saw many solar hot water systems on rural apartment buildings that I would estimate had 16 families. I saw no single family residences.

        As an engineer, I look for specifics. When was it built, what were the materials of construction, what did it cost, what is the rate history, and how many people does it serve.

  38. I apologize if this has been presented elsewhere, but the URL below explains the special problem with low frequency noise that you may not be able to hear and it’s implications. While I am not a specialized noise engineer, I am aware that low frequency travels over large distance compared with higher frequencies and is difficult to attenuate. expensive mufflers are often installed on high stacks to attenuate low frequency noise in adjoining neighborhoods. During close inspections of some very very noisy equipment with double ear protection I experienced vibrations in my chest and noted that there were structural failures inside a furnace due to noise induced vibration of the furnace casing.
    see URL below

  39. Wouldn’t offshore wind turbines also have impact on the creatures who live in the sea, especially mammals?

  40. There is an idiot who has a long list of reasons for not making electricity with a given technology.

    “PhD, is a Licensed Clinical Psychologist”

    “To untold thousands of families clustered within 2 kilometers (1.25 miles)”

    Having worked in nuclear power I am used to it.

    Here is the problem, you all want to use electricity and none of you have a clue about how to make it. Sorry, the internet does not give you a clue either.

    Washington State and Oregon have wind farms near where I have lived. There does not seem to be any of the problems that would prevent us from using it.

  41. Helen Schwiesow Parker,
    You wrote.
    “The continuing expansion of Big Wind is a tale of money and power shunting aside integrity and compassion, abetted by a disinterested news media, leading to an un-informed public, further betrayed by “human rights advocates” loathe to break ranks from popular positions”.

    The Lame Stream News Media are anything but “disinterested”. They are supposed to be. They are, in the main, not even Uninterested. I posit that they are extremely interested, in promoting the Green goddess Gian Narrative. The disruption of Human lives by the “Renewable Wind bird Osterizers” doesn’t fit into the Narrative, so is ignored.
    It is well known that infrasonic sound around 16 Hz. causes a sensation of terror in most individuals. It is one of the things that causes panic during large Earthquakes.

  42. I bet that if this was an article on health impacts of fracking or nuclear power, you’d simply disregard it as green propaganda.

  43. Turbine operations are synchronous when tied to mains so I can see constructive harmonics kicking amplitude in certain areas. From first hand experience with a defective sunroof spoiler, it takes only seconds at infrasonic freq to make me ill. I solved the sunroof issue by installing aircraft vortex generators on the leading edge of the spoiler. Later models of this vehicle employed a notched spoiler to the same effect. Nothing can be done on wind turbines to reduce noise other than a suitable quantity of high explosive in the right spot.

  44. I wonder what the service life is for a commercial wind turbine? Seeings as they can’t even generate enough money to pay for their maintenance, are we going to see defunct wind-farms with rusty towers, fried generators, and a blade or two missing: lovely. Has money been set aside for environmental restoration?

    • and yes, turbines have a end of life plan. but note very many are upgraded to bigger models before end of life

    • mairon62 March 9, 2017 at 7:39 am
      I wonder what the service life is for a commercial wind turbine? Seeings as they can’t even generate enough money to pay for their maintenance, are we going to see defunct wind-farms with rusty towers, fried generators, and a blade or two missing: lovely. Has money been set aside for environmental restoration?

      Perhaps those who profit from the promotion of these choppers look on them as Gillette looked at disposable razor blades? (a steady supply of green)
      Disposable power generators!
      “As long as the are taxpayers sold on the idea, we’ll grab our green while they feel good about being green while their green is “gone with the wind”!

  45. “I wonder what the service life is for a commercial wind turbine?”

    It depends on the price of natural gas. We are now seeing nuke plants that have spent the money to extend the license for 60 years, shut down ten years sooner.

    Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.

  46. I still can’t believe there are people willing to defend wind turbines against these irrefutable health claims (which for me makes this a very interesting thread). Is this the sophist mind gone completely off the deep end? Since I haven’t seen these links posted yet, here they are (and there are many more like them):

    • Rw, the problem is these claims ARE refutable without proper underlying epidemiological studies. I don’t like wind turbines either for reasons stated above. Whining about as yet unproven speculative health effects is a very weak argument.

    • “I still can’t believe there are people willing to defend wind turbines against these irrefutable health claims”

      People like Grifter will do anything if you cross theie palm with silver – forty pieces is I believe the going rate.

      • I’m not paid, not a lefty, etc.

        I wonder that the first recourse of the so called principled skeptic is always to make such accusations.

        • “I’m not paid, not a lefty, etc”

          I don’t believe you.

          “I wonder that the first recourse of the so called principled skeptic is always to make such accusations.”

          Says the misogynistic hate-filled little liar who attempted to damage the professional reputation of Dr. Susan Crockford and Professor Judith Curry by asserting that they are paid to lie by the oil industry, and called all AGW sceptics who post on this blog “mad, stupid or paid for”.

          Then you accuse others of lacking principles…

          What a thoroughly nasty piece of work you are.

          One of these days Skanky, one of these days…

  47. Janice Moore, thank you for the Ozzie Z. link and your posts!
    Fighting the windmill folly is a must wordwide!
    In Germany the windmill-madness assumes disastrous forms!
    The consequences of the Weibull distribution are simply not taken into account und the economic consequences are masked by subsidies and the priority access to the power-grids!
    Without smoothing by (economic) storage we have a strong oscillation of power output, due to the poor physical efficiency of wind turbines. (and of course zero output for days with windstill ,and there is no economic storage with sufficient energy density in sight!)
    A drop in wind speed of 50% (from 12m/s to 6m/s) results in a loss of 87,5% in energy output! Therefore , coal/nat.gas power stations must be in constant standby mode!
    The result is resource waste instead of environmental protection! ( Quite apart from that bat and bird shreddering and driving local residents ill!)
    It’s just a bad political subsidy matter in the fraudulent CAGW agenda of decarbonisation and the so called “Great Transformation”!
    Though this be madness, yet there is method in it!

    • Thank you, alacran! 🙂

      Thank you for your excellent post full of facts about how foolish “investing” in wind power is.

      Guessing that English is not your first language (since you talk about Germany at length, there) — wow! I admire you very much for your excellent communication ability.

  48. Many thanks for publishing this. This is the first I have heard of the sonic problems created by these windmills. I might have known better if I lived near a wind farm. Lots of food for thought. Far more than I can digest just now.

  49. What’s the feedback from Texas. From recent personal observation, they seem to be able to make it possible for the industry to actually function. I have not had the time to browse the relevant from the prattle. I have been swayed toward acknowledging significant economic justification in a widening set of circumstances. The bulk of what has been done in most circumstances, to date, has been criminal. Perhaps someone can summarize.

    • “Texas. From recent personal observation, they seem to be able to make it possible for the industry to actually function.

      Of course wind farms work for the owner, you get paid an annual figure to have the facility, a figure when you generate and the power is used, a figure when you generate and it is not used. Whats not to like?

      But, the remainder of the power system has to be on standby to produce electric when you generators are not turning, the system has to fund 100% of the systems conventional generation even though YOU are being paid to produce electric when the wind blows.

      From the system level, it is catastrophic!

      Conventional generators are now uneconomic and closing.

      Just look at S.Australia – blackouts, look at Germany with all generator capacity being split into two, one that makes money one that loses money.

      Do you think this is sustainable?

      No, but wind farm owners are making money so why worry, even in Texas…

      • “But, the remainder of the power system has to be on standby to produce electric when you generators are not turning”

        No it does not… in the UK the wind is sufficiently predictable to allow fire up of generators only as the wind falls off as predicted. Increasing use of grid scale batteries will further ‘cushion’ this as they take up demand until the gas plant is fully spun up. Same solution in use in Eire.

        You might note that the owner of a German windfarm is usually the local village/farmers/community.

  50. I live 2 miles from O’Hare airport, I’m running a youtube song, the furnace is running, the computer fan runs constantly.
    I’m living in an environment full of sound waves.
    Maybe it has driven me nuts enough to opine here.

    Windmills are nothing but a cash-cow, politicians pretend they care, manufacturers get rich, and it all comes out of the taxpayers pocket.
    What a waste of: time, treasure, skills, education…. (feel free to add to the list).

    I’m used to the corruption in Chicago, but windmills are just too much.

  51. From the replies to my earlier comment, it doesn’t look like anyone has read the more recent engineering and cost breakdowns, nor the Texas laws and right-of-way powers that set the State to benefit far differently from the locations blighted by various Greens.

  52. Alternative Energy and American Health and Safety – A Closer Look

    One cannot have a conversation regarding American energy and environmental policy without discussing the issue of alternative energy and the overwhelming financial and regulatory support that alternative energy enjoyed from the previous administration.

    On the topic of alternative energy, and particularly industrial wind turbines, perhaps the following should be considered by EPA Administrator Pruitt and Energy Secretary Perry. In our view, the concern of the Trump administration should be focused on the inappropriate siting of alternative energy installations and its impact on American health, safety and private property rights.

    I believe that the following achieves the objective of controlling the inappropriate siting of industrial wind turbines, while embracing the protection of the health and safety, as well as the private property rights, of Americans who have been, or may be negatively affected by alternative energy installations sited too close to their neighborhoods and shorelines.

    Our Recommended Approach

    The EPA and the Trump administration should be committed to protect the health and safety, as well as the private property rights, of Americans who have been, or may be negatively affected by alternative energy installations sited too close to their neighborhoods and shorelines. The EPA and the Trump administration should be concerned with how ethics, transparency and accountability at all levels of government impacts the American people. The EPA and the Trump administration should share the view that government must embrace the highest levels of ethics and transparency when developing, adopting and implementing an energy and environmental policy that includes alternative energy and to be held accountable by and to the American people when the conduct of government does not meet this very high standard. And the EPA and the Trump administration need to understand how these commitments impact energy, environmental and tax policy.

    Let’s take a closer look!

    The Obama Administration’s Climate Action Plan


    On March 12, 2015, the Obama administration posted on the White House website a report released that same day by the Department of Energy titled “Wind Vision: A New Era for Wind Power in the United States, which the White House described as “a highly anticipated analysis of America’s wind energy industry – charting the future of wind power through 2050 and underscoring the economic and environmental benefits that steady growth will make possible.”


    As those of us following the story know, the only way that this energy policy could even remotely be achieved is to construct, deploy and operate these industrial wind turbines in close proximity to our neighborhoods and shorelines. There is no other way. In reading this report, it is clear that the White House had no interest in, or intention of protecting the health and safety of those Americans negatively impacted by industrial wind turbines. This neglect is consistent with the challenges and frustrations that folks throughout the United States, including many in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, have experienced these past few years with their elected officials as it relates to inappropriately sited alternative energy installations.

    I believe that the Trump administration and the EPA will do better!

    The Production Tax Credit

    In December 2015, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 extended the expiration date for this tax credit to December 31, 2019, for wind facilities commencing construction, with a phase-down beginning for wind projects commencing construction after December 31, 2016. The Act extended the tax credit for other eligible renewable energy technologies commencing construction through December 31, 2016. The Act applies retroactively to January 1, 2015.

    The federal renewable electricity production tax credit (PTC) is an inflation-adjusted per-kilowatt-hour (kWh) tax credit for electricity generated by qualified energy resources and sold by the taxpayer to an unrelated person during the taxable year. The duration of the credit is 10 years after the date the facility is placed in service for all facilities placed in service after August 8, 2005.

    The wind industry cannot survive without these tax credits. We as taxpayers are financing the installation of industrial wind turbines sited in close proximity to our neighborhoods and shorelines. This must stop.

    In my view, the Trump administration and the EPA can immediately ask the Congress to design and adopt legislation to develop and implement retroactive national siting criteria for alternative energy installations. This will ensure the protection of the health, safety and property rights of Americans in communities hosting alternative energy installations by eliminating existing and future inappropriate siting of alternative energy projects

    Additionally, there should have been no renewal of the tax credit for wind energy retroactive to January 1, 2015 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, should be repealed.

  53. Wind Industry…. that is exactly what it is. Wind Industry. We have a lot of “Wind Industry” these days. And it is not only limited to the manufacturing of wind mills.
    Fact is that “Wind Industries” don’t contribute to the rise and well being of human civilization.

  54. The fact that phenomina like “Wind Industry”, carbon taxes, eco taxes and all other related BS exist in the first place means we’re taken for a ride and no longer live in a free world.

    Now we know how the clock is ticking, we can simply change that.

    But for some reason we leave it all up to Trump and a few great souls of good will.

    And watch how they are worn out and crushed.

    In the mean time they poison our food with carcinogenic palm oil.

    But that’s another story, not?

    This isn’t about climate and therefore probably off topic.

Comments are closed.