Ill Health suffered by Residents Living near Wind Turbines!

August 10, 2014 / 1957chev / 2 Comments

An ill wind blows as the surge of turbines stirs fears of silent danger to our health

TENS of thousands of Scots may be suffering from a hidden sickness epidemic caused by wind farms, campaigners have warned.

By: Paula Murray

Andrew Vivers has suffered from headaches since a wind farm was built near his home
[PAUL REID]

The Sunday Express can reveal that the Scottish Government has recently commissioned a study into the potential ill effects of turbines at 10 sites across the country.

More than 33,500 families live within two miles of these 10 wind farms – which represent just a fraction of the 2,300 turbines – already built north of the Border.

Hundreds of residents are now being asked to report back to Holyrood ministers about the visual impacts, and effects of noise and shadow flickers from nearby wind farms.

Campaigners fear that many people do not realise they are suffering from ailments brought on by infrasound – noise at such a low frequency that it cannot be heard but can be felt.

One such person is Andrew Vivers, an ex-Army captain who has suffered from headaches, dizziness, tinnitus, raised blood pressure and disturbed sleep since Ark Hill wind farm was built near his home in Glamis, Angus.

Mr Vivers, who served almost 10 years in the military, said the authorities had so far refused to accept the ill effects of infrasound despite it being a “known military interrogation aid and weapon”.

He said: “When white noise was disallowed they went on to infrasound. If it is directed at you, you can feel your brain or your body vibrating. With wind turbines, you don’t realise that is what’s happening to you.

“It is bonkers that infrasound low frequency noise monitoring is not included in any environmental assessments. It should be mandatory before and after turbine erection.”

He is raising concerns about an “acknowledged and unexplained increase of insomnia, dizziness and headaches in Dundee”, where two large wind turbines have been operating since 2006. Mr Vivers, 59, said all medical explanations of his own sudden health issues had been ruled out and it was more than 12 months before he was convinced of the link to the wind farm.

”I was getting these headaches and dizziness
and just not sleeping, but I was putting it all down
to all sorts of other things. A couple of times I was
walking on the hills around the house with my dogs
and got a really bad dizzy spell” Andrew Vivers

He said: “I was getting these headaches and dizziness and just not sleeping, but I was putting it all down to all sorts of other things. A couple of times I was walking on the hills around the house with my dogs and got a really bad dizzy spell.

“I actually had to sit down for a few minutes and while I was sitting down wondering what on earth was wrong with me, I did notice the wind was coming straight from the turbines.” Mr Vivers said he has also witnessed an “incredible number” of dead hares on the moors around Ark Hill and believes they may have succumbed to “internal haemorrhaging and death” as a result of the turbines.

He added: “If this coming winter is going to be anything like the last and with the plans to build a second wind farm much closer to us, I think we’ll have to sell our home and move elsewhere.”

The 10 sites under the microscope in the new survey include one in Dunfermline, where almost 23,000 households are nearby, and Little Raith near Lochgelly, Fife, where there are nearly 9,000 households.

The others are Achany in Sutherland, Baillie near Thurso, Caithness, Dalswinton in Dumfriesshire, Drone Hill, near Coldingham, Berwickshire, Griffin in Perthshire, Hadyard Hill in Ayrshire, Neilston in Renfrewshire and West Knock, near Stuartfield, Aberdeenshire.

About 2,000 questionnaires have been sent to residents in a move that is understood to have caused tension between the Scottish Government and the renewable energy industry.

The “wind farm impacts study” is being managed by ClimateXChange, which has published information about the project online.

It says: “The research will use two sources of information: how local residents experience and react to visual, noise and shadow-flicker impacts, and how the predicted impact at the planning stage matches the impact when the wind farm is operating.

“The final report is due in autumn 2014. It will inform the Scottish Government’s approach to planning policy on renewables and good practice on managing the impact of wind farms on local residents.”

One of the contractors involved in the project is Hoare Lea Acoustics, an international firm which specialises in measuring noise and vibration from wind farms.

However, Susan Croswaithe, the UK spokeswoman for campaign group European Platform Against Windfarms, said the study would be “little more than a box ticking exercise”.

She added: “On the face of it, it does look like a step in the right direction, but can we really trust it? My issue is that it is not independent enough.

“Our website is full of examples of people not being listened to.

“We have two very large wind farms near us in Ayrshire, Arecleoch and Mark Hill – 60 turbines and 28 turbines.

“If people in my area have noticed they are feeling better at the moment but do not understand why, it may be because the turbines have been switched off while they do maintenance on the grid.”

Wynne Couldn’t make her Disrespect for Rural Ontario, Any Clearer.

August 10, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Wynne’s rural outreach efforts could unravel in face of budget challenges

ADAM RADWANSKI

THE GLOBE AND MAIL

Last updated Saturday, Aug. 09 2014

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne listens to remarks from Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger (not shown) at the opening of the Building Canada Up Summit in Toronto on Wednesday August 6, 2014. (Chris Young/THE CANADIAN PRESS)

In a year-and-a-half as premier, Kathleen Wynne has probably spent as much time visiting Ontario’s rural regions and its smaller cities as Dalton McGuinty did in nearly a decade. She has backtracked on policies, such as an end to financial support for horse racing, that rankled those communities. Somewhat dubiously, she served as her own agriculture minister.

In short, Ms. Wynne has made an effort to demonstrate that her Ontario includes more than just Toronto, Ottawa and a few other urban centres, and to ensure the rest of the province doesn’t feel as neglected under her watch as it did under her predecessor’s.

And yet as her government seeks to eliminate its $12.5-billion deficit in three years, there is reason to believe Ms. Wynne is on a collision course with the regions to which she has tried to reach out.

The biggest hint came last month in an interview with Treasury Board President Deb Matthews, the most powerful minister in Ms. Wynne’s cabinet and the one charged with leading the fight to get back to balance.

“I think across government, we’re more and more moving to a population-based system,” Ms. Matthews said on the subject of “rationalizing” program spending. What she meant, it was fairly clear, was that to meet the needs of fast-growing communities without significantly increasing the overall envelope, it would be necessary to reduce or at least freeze spending in areas where stagnant or shrinking populations are currently overserved by comparison.

She didn’t spell out which areas she was talking about, but it’s not difficult to figure that out.

During the past census period, from 2006 to 2011, municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area grew hugely. Milton was the most extreme example, going from 53,889 residents to 84,362 – an increase of 56.5 per cent. Much bigger Brampton increased by 20.8 per cent, bringing it up to 523,911. Those places are both still getting bigger, as are other suburbs.

Meanwhile, much of the province is shrinking. Down in the southwest, Chatham-Kent recorded one of the most significant population losses (4.2 per cent) in the country between censuses. Windsor went down, too, as did Thunder Bay in the north, Brockville in the east, and plenty more; many others flat-lined.

As long as economies of scale are duly taken into account, it’s difficult to argue in theory with the basic premise that funding needs to be reallocated. But that won’t make it any less bitter a pill to swallow for communities that might be asked to make do with less.

As Ms. Matthews noted, the shift is already happening with hospitals, and child care is on the radar. Education might be a particular flashpoint, with the merging of schools in which classrooms are filled partly with empty chairs.

In conversations since that interview, Ms. Wynne’s Liberals have acknowledged both the perceived need to make such adjustments, and the difficulty in acting upon it. While most of their seats are urban and suburban, their thin majority government still includes MPPs from eastern, southwestern and northern Ontario, and they could easily feel hung out to dry.

If the Liberals prove willing and able to withstand that sort of backlash, it may have something to do with another consequence of the population trends.

At some point before the next Ontario election, the province is likely to adopt the new federal riding map so that constituencies at the two levels continue to mirror each other. If so, 11 of 15 new seats will be in the GTA. Much of the rest of the province could see its smaller share of program spending accompanied by less political clout.

Ms. Wynne may not be inclined toward that sort of cold calculation; she appears genuinely concerned about the alienation of whole chunks of the province. But that may not be compatible with returning Ontario to balance, at least as she and her top minister intend to achieve it.

Follow Adam Radwanski on Twitter: @aradwanski

Windweasels Not Above Using Bribery to Push Wind Turbines Onto Communities

August 8, 2014August 8, 2014 / 1957chev / 17 Comments

Can’t “Win” Support for your Wind Farm? Why Not Try Bribing the Locals

August 8, 2014 by stopthesethings Leave a Comment

A blustery reception for wind turbines as locals voice their opposition
Irish Examiner
Michael Clifford
26 July 2014

An energy developer has Meath GAA onboard for its project, but local people are not so receptive to the plan, writes Special Correspondent Michael Clifford.

THEY carried the pipe the day after Enda Kenny sat down with them for two hours. The pipe, as it has come to be known, measured 190m and was assembled to give locals an illustration of the size of the proposed wind turbines. Dozens of people put shoulders to the pipe, lugging it from St Michael’s GAA club down through the main drag in Carlanstown. The assembled gathering, running into the high hundreds, came from the village, outlying areas, and three neighbouring villages to observe the funereal procession.

Protests over energy projects are now commonplace throughout rural Ireland, but the dispute in north Meath is very different. This time, the whole county is being dragged in. The developer has pledged to help construct a €2.5m centre of excellence for the county’s GAA.

Element Power will donate €375,000 towards the construction of the facility, in Dunganny, outside Trim, many miles from the affected communities. The 59 clubs in the county will vote on the offer on August 11, but less than a dozen clubs are located in the broad area of the proposed windfarm. The county board executive has recommended acceptance of the offer.

Depending on where you stand, the offer is either astute or cynical. Investment in communities has become a major plank of developers’ strategy for new energy projects. Having the GAA onside in a planning application, in a county where the association is particularly strong, would be a major boost. Apart from the sponsorship offer, Element has pledged to invest €3.5m in the community over the lifetime of the farm.

What has really angered the local clubs and communities is that the county board executive has recommended acceptance. “I’ve worked my life for the GAA,” says Dermot Curtis of the Rathkenny club. “All we’re asking is that the executive stay neutral. We can live without this [sponsorship]. We can manage. If the GAA takes this money it will be destroyed in this county.”

His sentiment is echoed by others who have come together to oppose the project. Personnel from clubs in the vicinity of the proposed farm are working furiously to, as they see it, tell their colleagues elsewhere in the county of the implications for voting to accept.

“The board is mesmerised by money,” says Michael Newman, chair of the North Meath Wind Information Group, formed to oppose the project. “But the amount is chickenfeed. It works out at €25 per club a week for five years. We could raise €1,200 on a good night’s fundraising. That’s what they’re selling out for. And what if Element goes bust in the next five years, or doesn’t get planning permission?”

For the county board, the issue is straightforward. It was first approached by the developer a year ago, but only received a concrete offer early in the summer.

“When an opportunity like this comes along we have a responsibility to put it to the clubs,” says NMWIG public relations officer Martin O’Halloran. “The executive has recommended acceptance, but we won’t get involved in any debate. We want the clubs to make the decision. It is a divisive issue but the clubs will decide on its merits.”

The matter first came up at the July board meeting, but after some disagreement, it was put back for decision to next month.

Energy projects elicit the most primal emotions among those who believe they will be adversely affected. Health is the primary concern, particularly from noise pollution and the concept of shadow flicker, which adversely affects light. Beyond that, many see it as a harbinger of a darker future for their way of life.

The area in question is relatively low-lying, with rolling drumlins anchored by the villages of Castletown, Rathkenny, and Carlanstown. Only Lobinstown rises up out of the rich, green pastures, a picturesque cluster of homes of small businesses.

Locally, the sponsorship offer is seen as one of three cynical elements in the project. The 47 proposed turbines were part of the Midland Energy Project, involving 1,500 turbines across seven counties, which was designed to export wind power to the UK.

In April, the then energy minister, Pat Rabbitte, announced the project was not going ahead. A week later, it began to dawn that Element Power was intent on pushing on with this phase for the domestic market. The NMWIG sees the proposal as an attempt to salvage the larger project that had to be abandoned.

Planning for the proposal is to be sought in the coming weeks, under existing guidelines which date from 2006. Following major controversy across the country in recent years, and the threefold increase in the size of turbines in the interim, new guidelines are being prepared. These were due to be ready in September, but this week, it was announced that the deadline had been postponed.

Irrespective of that, Element’s project will be processed under the old guidelines, which, locals believe, are entirely out of time.

“How can they do that,” asks Marina Reilly, from Castletown. “It’s an industrial project for what is a rural, but highly residential area.”

The mother of two says she is petrified about the future. “My husband came home from the information meeting the company had recently, and he showed us the pictures [of the proposed turbines and locations]. We were so shocked we couldn’t eat our dinner.”

As is now standard in these situations, the group has educated itself on wind energy to a frightening degree. International and domestic reports are presented as evidence of the rightness of their cause.

Unlike other groups, NMWIG even managed to snaffle a meeting with the Taoiseach. Ten days ago, Enda Kenny met a delegation in the Kells office of local Fine Gael TD Helen McEntee. The meeting was scheduled to last 20 minutes, but they ended up having his ear for two hours.

Marina Reilly gave him a piece of her mind. “I badgered Enda Kenny about the health problems,” she says. “I asked him for an assurance that health will be taken into account, because health matters aren’t in the existing guidelines. He said he would.”

The following day, they carried the pipe through Carlanstown.

From Element’s point of view, it’s just trying to do its business, while being sensitive of local perceptions and disruption. The company has introduced an innovative “near neighbour” fund, in which anybody within 1km of the farm will be entitled to a grant of up to €5,000 for their homes.

“We believe the community fund should benefit the specific region and community where the windfarm is located,” the company’s development manager Kevin Hayes says.

“We are presently drawing up a model to disburse the community fund based on an extensive consultation programme with various community groups and other stakeholders in north Meath over the last year.”

He confirmed that the sponsorship offer for the centre of excellence was dependant on the project going ahead.

Farmers and landowners on whose land the turbines will be sited have already been signed up. Around €20,000 rent per annum per turbine is the going rate. As elsewhere, the rent agreements have opened up fissures in the community. Sources say that relations between the locals who are opposed, and the beneficiaries of lucrative rents, “have cooled”. All within the NMWIG reject totally any standard rumours that there has been intimidation of landowners.

The most immediate objective for the NMWIG is to ensure the clubs reject the sponsorship offer. Time constraints have ensured that only one local club has managed to formally delegate rejection, but those involved say all others in the locality will definitely oppose.

How the clubs from beyond the immediate area vote will be fascinating to observe. Sponsorship money, in today’s world, is difficult to come by. On the other hand, the ties that have bound the GAA into an unrivalled community organisation have always relied on strength and loyalty at grassroots level. That loyalty would be tested like never before in north Meath if the offer is accepted. If so, it could be that, in time, wounds will heal and the association will continue as before. Or it could be much worse than that.

At a gathering of members of NMWIG on Thursday, one local man referenced the dire performance of the county team in last week’s Leinster final against Dublin. “Unlike the Meath team last Sunday, we won’t be lying down,” he says.

Wind farms

There was anger and confusion yesterday after it emerged that Minister for Environment Alan Kelly may overturn a decision by Donegal County Council to make large tracts of Donegal out-of-bounds for windfarm development.

Last month County Councillors voted to vary the County Development Plan in favour of restricting wind farms.

They voted by 18-11, with one abstention, to create a set-back distance of 10 times the tip height of proposed turbines from residential properties and other population centres.

However, Mr Kelly wrote to the council CEO Seamus Neely on Monday informing him that, in making their decision, the council has “ignored or not taken into account” the advice of his department.

As a result, another public consultation will take place in the county before Mr Kelly decides whether or not to formally overturn the council’s decision.

His draft direction also relates to two other variations made by councillors last month.

The council voted 16-13 to accept the inclusion of Fresh Water Pearl Mussel areas at Clady, Eske, Glaskeelin, Leannan, Owencarrow, and Owenea as areas not favoured for wind farm developments.

On the third vote, councillors decided by 21-9 that turbines could only be erected in areas that their ‘zone of visual influence’ did not include Glenveagh National Park.

Speaking yesterday, a spokesman for the Glenties Wind farm Information Group described the minister’s decision to consider overturning the councillor’s variation as “incredible” and without legal basis.

He said last month’s variation was a “triumph for democracy” and a vindication of the 3,326 people who made submissions in support of them.

“The draft Ministerial Order against the variation is an incredible decision by the minister,” said the spokesman. “He did not challenge the executive when they made the current development plan in 2012 and declared 2,300 townlands were ‘preferable’ for windfarm development.

“But now he is challenging the people of Donegal. In his draft direction to the CEO this week, the minister said that the council did not have due regard to the 2006 planning guidelines, even though these guidelines are under review and will not be published by September, as originally planned.”

The spokesman also rubbished Mr Kelly’s assertion that the variation was “not evidence- based” and did not give proper regard to the 2006 guidelines.

A spokesman for the minister said yesterday he could not elaborate on the draft issued to the council as a statutory process must now begin.

A spokesperson for the council said they are currently examining the minister’s notification.
Irish Examiner

The Truth About Wind Turbine Noise… Waubra Foundation

August 7, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind Turbine Noise: a simple statement of facts

Author: Waubra Foundation

Emission of Sound and Vibration

Note: ILFN = infrasound and low-frequency noise.

1. Wind turbine blades produce airborne pressure waves (correctly called sound but which, when unwanted, is called noise) and ground-borne surface motion (vibration).

2. Recent measurements have indicated that turbines generate vibrations even when shut down,[1] presumably from the wind causing the flexing of large blades and the tower structure, and that this vibration (when turbines are shut down) can be measured at significant distances.

3. The airborne energy manifests as sound across a range of frequencies from infrasonic (0–20 Hertz [Hz]) up through low-frequency sound (generally said to be below 200 Hz), and into the higher audible frequency range above 200 Hz. (Hertz is the variation in a particular changing level of sound pressure, as the rate of cycles [or period] per second).

4. Sound at 100 Hz is audible at sound levels of around 27dB (decibels) for an average person, whilst the level of sound required for average audibility rises quite quickly below frequencies of, say, 25 Hz. Sensation, being non-auditory but bodily recognition of airborne pressure waves, occurs at lower pressure levels of infrasonic frequencies than can be heard. At infrasonic frequencies the “sounds,” i.e., pressure waves, exist and may be detected by the body and brain as pressure pulses or sensations, but via different mechanisms than the perception of audible noise.

5. Periodic pressure pulses are created by each turbine blade passing the supporting pylon. This is an inherent consequence of the design of horizontal axis wind turbines. These energy pulses increase with increasing blade length, as does the power generating capacity. People living near turbines have described the effect of these pulses on their homes as “like living inside a drum”.

6. Larger turbines produce a greater percentage of their total sound emissions as low-frequency noise and infrasound than do smaller turbines.[2] Therefore replacing a number of small turbines with a lesser number of larger turbines, whilst keeping the total power output of a wind project constant, will increase the total ILFN emitted by the development. This effect will be compounded by increased wake interference, unless the turbines have also been repositioned further apart in accordance with the spacing specifications for the larger turbines. Wake interference results in turbulent air flow into adjacent turbines, with a consequent loss of efficiency, and increased ILFN generation.

7. If estimated sound contours have been used in seeking planning permits, then replacing the permitted turbines with larger turbines will significantly increase the persistence of the wake turbulence, and thereby the sound emitted by adjacent turbines (and the proportion of ILFN emitted) will be significantly above the predicted contours. This is what occurred at the Waubra development, and will occur when a lesser number of larger turbines are used to maintain the generating capacity of the development, as occurred at Macarthur (both projects being in Western Victoria).

Infrasound

1. Infrasound is common in our world, but most natural infrasound is irregular and random, or is caused by a transient event (e.g. earthquakes). Some frequency bands below 20 Hz have been shown experimentally to cause a physiological stress response in humans at below audible levels.[3] Industrial machinery noises are often regular and repetitive, as is the case with wind farm noise emissions, across the audible and infrasonic frequency spectrum.

2. Infrasonic pulsations travel much larger distances than audible noise and easily penetrate normal building materials, and once inside can resonate building elements (i.e., increase in impact inside rooms).[4]

3. Infrasonic pulsations from a single 4 MW wind turbine were measured 10km from their source by NASA researcher William Willshire in 1985.[5] Recent data collected by acoustician Les Huson in Australia and in the United Kingdom at onshore and offshore wind developments has shown that attenuation (reduction in sound level with increasing distance from the source) can be much less than the 3dB per doubling of distance found by Willshire in 1985.[6]

4. Some acoustic pressure pulsations are relatively harmless and indeed even pleasant to the body, including waves on a beach. Organ music at frequencies just below 20 Hz generates “feelings” in people that can be either pleasant or unpleasant, and has been designed to produce emotive effects.[7] Once it is understood that different frequencies can have very different effects on humans, it is easy to understand the importance of accurate acoustic measurement.

5. Dr Neil Kelley and his colleagues from NASA demonstrated in the 1980’s that wind turbine–generated energy pulses and noise in the infrasonic and low-frequency bands, which then penetrated and resonated inside the residents’ living structures, directly caused the range of symptoms described as “annoyance” by acousticians and some researchers.[8] A more accurate general descriptor would be mild, serious or intolerable “impacts”.

6. Residents and their treating medical practitioners know these symptoms and sensations include repetitive sleep disturbance, feelings of intense anxiety, nausea, vertigo, headaches, and other distressing symptoms including body vibration. American Paediatrician Dr Nina Pierpont gave this constellation of symptoms the name “wind turbine syndrome” in 2009.[9] Dr Geoff Leventhall, a British acoustician who was one of two peer reviewers of the NHMRC’s 2010 Rapid Review, has accepted these symptoms and sensations as “annoyance” symptoms, which he attributes to a stress effect, known to him to be caused by exposure to environmental noise, one source of which is wind turbine noise.[10]

Wake Interference and Turbulence

1. Historically it was accepted that wind turbines should be no less than 5–8 rotor diameters apart, depending on the direction and consistency of the prevailing wind, with the higher separation being for turbines in line with the major wind direction. This was accepted industry practice and, as an example, was explicitly specified in the 2002 NSW SEDA handbook.[11] The purpose of this specification is to minimise turbulent air entering the blades of an adjacent turbine. As noted above, turbulent air is associated with increased sound levels and infrasonic pulsations.[12]

2. If a significant proportion of the wind blows at a right angle (90°) from the major direction used for turbine layout it follows that turbine spacing should be 7 or 8 rotor diameters in both directions. It should be noted that the 7–8 rotor diameters number is a compromise between ensuring smooth air inflow to all turbines (and hence less noise and vibration) and packing as many turbines as possible into the project area. Research conducted at Johns Hopkins University in 2012 showed that the best design for efficient energy extraction suggests wind turbines should be 15 rotor diameters apart.[13]

3. It is increasingly evident that some projects are not laid out in accordance with accepted specifications to reduce turbulence, which in turn significantly increases acoustic emissions including audible noise and infrasonic pressure pulses. The consequences of increased turbulent air entering upwind-bladed wind turbines resulting in increased generation of impulsive infrasonic pressure waves and low-frequency noise were known to the industry in 1989.[14] Recent projects with turbines positioned inappropriately too close together should not have been given final approval by the responsible authorities.

4. Yawing (side to side movement of the blades caused by minor wind direction changes) is also known to increase wake interference.

Transmission of Energy Pulses

1. Information on the different attenuative and penetrative properties of infrasound and audible sound are discussed above.

2. Topography, wind speed, wind direction, wind shear, and ambient temperature will also have an impact on noise emissions and how that sound travels.

Noise Guidelines for Turbines

1. Many acoustic consultants and senior acousticians have known that wind turbines produce pulsatile ILFN as the blades pass the tower. It was common knowledge in the 1980’s, from research conducted by Dr Neil Kelley [15] and NASA researchers such as Harvey Hubbard,[16] that the pulsatile infrasound generated by a single downwind-bladed wind turbine and other sources of ILFN such as military aircraft and gas fired turbines penetrated buildings, amplified and resonated inside the building structures, and directly caused “annoyance” symptoms including repetitive sleep disturbance.[17]

2. Long-term sleep disturbance and chronic stress symptoms (accepted as “annoyance” symptoms), are well known to medical practitioners and clinical researchers to damage human health. Dr Kelley was quoted in 2013 as advising that the conclusions from his research in the 1980’s were equally relevant to modern turbine designs,[18] and this seems to have been confirmed in the preliminary results of acoustic measurements commissioned by Pacific Hydro and conducted by acoustician Steven Cooper at the Cape Bridgewater (Victoria) development.[19]

3. The New Zealand and Australian Noise Standards for wind projects were written by the then uninformed planning authorities. They were based on the UK ETSU 97 standard, also an uninformed document.[20,21]

4. Despite information being available from the Kelley research in 1985 specifying recommended exposure levels of ILFN which should not be exceeded,[22] the respective Australian guidelines only specified limits for audible, filtered, sound levels expressed as dBA outside homes; so there are no recommended limits or requirements to forecast, or to measure, ILFN levels or vibration inside homes neighbouring wind projects.

5. Permitted sound levels across most Australian States for all industrial equipment are background noise levels plus 5dBA or 35dBA whichever is less, whereas for wind turbines they are background plus 5dBA or 40dBA whichever is more. There is no scientific evidence or reason for this difference. An increase of 5dBA represents an approximate doubling of the sound level. Most rural environments have a background noise level of 18dBA to 25dBA, approximately averaging 22dBA at night. This represents a huge increase in audible sound. Increases of 10dBA at night are long known by acoustic consultants to raise complaints, and increases of 15–20dB are associated with widespread complaints and legal action. Averaging measured levels of sound across too-wide frequency bands also allows the hiding of sound pressure (level) peaks to which the ear responds, understating the true extent of facility noise emission levels.

6. World Health Organisation (WHO) Night Noise Guidelines for Europe quoted the 1999 WHO Community Noise Guidelines: “If negative effects on sleep are to be avoided the equivalent sound pressure level should not exceed 30 dBA indoors for continuous noise”.[23] Cities have a higher background noise than country areas. Denmark limits indoor noise from industrial sources, including wind turbines, to a maximum of 20 dBA at night.[24]

7. The currently permitted outdoor noise level in New Zealand and some Australian states has been ameliorated somewhat by the addition of a deduction of 5dBA from the 40dBA limit to allow for especially quiet environments.

8. History has shown that these Australian guidelines were based on ETSU 97 from the UK, and were expressly designed to encourage development of the wind industry, not to protect the health of rural residents from wind turbine noise. Predictably, because the Kelley criteria limiting exposure to impulsive ILFN were ignored,[25] these guidelines have turned out to be completely unsafe.

9. It is therefore necessary to predict and measure sound pressure levels across the full spectrum of frequencies in order to predict and control sound energy impacts on project neighbours.

Compliance with Permitted Noise Conditions

There are several problems associated with validating compliance.

1. Compliance is generally carried out by an acoustician or acoustics consultancy, paid directly by the owner or operator of the project. In one case a wind turbine manufacturer has contracted the acousticians directly, making the results even more questionable.

2. Compliance is of utmost importance to all parties with a financial interest in the development, but it is critical to families that neighbour the projects.

3. There are many ways that data measurements can be rigged (faux compliance): measuring instruments placed under trees or too close to buildings; waiting for optimum weather and wind conditions; not measuring for long enough continuously, recording in octave bands that are too broad and other averaging techniques. Operators may also reduce operational noise by reducing power output (with blade angle changes and slowed rotation) to reduce the noise during the monitoring period. Operators may also refuse to provide wind turbine facility operating data from test periods, claiming that it is “commercial in confidence”, thus making it impossible to verify actual operating conditions.

4. It would therefore be both appropriate and necessary for all projects to have their compliance independently audited.

5. Sufferers will not escape disturbance to their sleep and damage to their health even if a project is properly compliant with its permit conditions and noise guidelines, as preliminary findings of the acoustic survey commissioned by Pacific Hydro, conducted by Steven Cooper, have recently demonstrated.[26]

6. A compliant project may still cause damage to neighbours for numerous reasons. First, the standard refers to dBA only and thereby omits reference to ILFN; and second, even with regard to audible noise, the standard refers to a maximum of 40dBA outdoors, whereas every other form of industrial or other noise in country and city is limited to 35dBA maximum. There is no technical basis for such an aberration, and it is clearly (intended or not) discriminatory. Third, in quiet rural environments, even 35dBA will be intrusive and loud if the background level is below 25dBA, which is not uncommon. The ear responds to the peaks of sound levels, not the averages. The wind turbine noise standards all refer only to averages, and exclude ILFN, and do not account for the human response, so cannot protect people from predictable serious harm to their health.

Notes:

More Proof that Wind Turbine Syndrome is REAL!

August 6, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Pac Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm Victims Vindicated

August 6, 2014 by stopthesethings

Headache for residents after monitoring reveals bad vibes
The Australian
Graham Lloyd
2 August 2014

FOR the past two months, Melissa Ware’s 150-year-old stone-foundation house in the shadow of the Cape Bridgewater wind farm in Victoria has been wired to monitor sounds that cannot be heard easily by the human ear.

Ware, who is partially deaf, and two nearby families have kept a diary of the physical sensations they were experiencing at regular intervals. A scorecard was developed ranking three factors — noise, vibration and sensation — on a scale of one to five.

The research has been funded by wind farm owner Pacific Hydro and undertaken by acoustics specialist Steven Cooper, who has had a long interest in why wind turbines have produced so many health complaints that defy easy explanation.

For six years, since the wind turbines started operating at Cape Bridgewater, Ware has complained of headaches and other “pressure” effects she can attribute only to the arrival of the renewable energy project she once had supported enthusiastically.

The early results from comparing the readings from Cooper’s highly sensitive microphones and Ware’s diary notes provide uncomfortable evidence for the wind industry and some relief for Ware, told for six years that her problems were all in her head.

During the eight-week trials at Cape Bridgewater, from inside her house, Ware has been able to express with 100 per cent accuracy what is happening with the wind turbines outside.

In a report-back meeting to residents and the company, Cooper posed the theory that high sensations, including headaches and chest pains, correlated to times when the turbine blades were not efficiently aligned to the wind.

The results from recordings and residents’ diaries show that a change in power output of more than 20 per cent leads to a change in sensation for the residents.

“The main thing I get from the study is that there is a direct correlation from the noise coming out of the wind farm and the response in my body to that noise,” Ware says. “I have a bilateral hearing impairment, and I don’t always hear from the wind farm, but I feel it from the ground, the floor or the furniture I am sitting on.”

Cooper has said the Pacific Hydro Cape Bridgewater development complies with existing noise guidelines. Issues of ambient noise from waves on surrounding cliffs and wind direction also are relevant in the data.

Pacific Hydro has published the minutes of the report-back meetings and Cooper’s preliminary findings but has drawn no public conclusions. Company spokesman Andrew Richards says Cooper’s work has “resulted in some interesting data” but “doesn’t necessarily provide any conclusions or outcomes”.

But Richards acknowledges there is a problem. “Whatever they are experiencing is real for them,” he says.

University of Sydney public health specialist Simon Chapman has used the term “nocebo” to argue that the complaints are psychosomatic and exacerbated by warnings from anti-wind farm groups.

In a new paper, Chapman says “The statement that ‘more than 40’ houses have been ‘abandoned’ because of wind turbines in Australia is a factoid promoted by wind farm opponents for dramatic, rhetorical impact.”

A review by the National Health and Medical Research Council says there is “no consistent evidence that adverse health effects are caused by exposure to wind turbine noise”.

However, it says: “While no research has directly addressed the association between infrasound from wind turbines and health effects, the possibility of such an association cannot be excluded on present evidence.”

Concerned residents in Australia want the federal government to use Cooper’s research methodology at Cape Bridgewater as the basis for an independent study that has been promised by Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane.
The Australian

Steven Cooper is yet to analyse the mountain of data he has collected, but a snapshot of his initial findings can be found in the presentation he gave Cape Bridgewater’s long-suffering residents a couple of weeks back: pdf available here. Here’s a summary of his preliminary findings:

Initial Findings

Discussions revealed different impacts on residents – broken down to noise, vibration and sensation to be reported on a 1 – 5 severity scale.
Developed a method of graphically displaying results where blue is noise, green is vibration and red is sensation
When plotting power output of wind farms the initial assessment could not correlate results with observations except for showing changes
Found residents were just reporting changes they noticed in their perceived impacts. MAJOR FINDING
Changed reporting to give regular (1 – 2 hr) observations not just changes.
Plotting the observations versus the power output of the wind farm found correlation with some of the various acoustic indices INSIDE the dwellings.
High sensation levels related to turbines just starting, change in power levels by say more than 20% (either up or down) and when wind exceeds maximum power output and blades are being de-powered.
Correlation of external background level versus power output but no correlation of observations with the external dB(A) level.
Issue of ambient noise from waves on cliff/ocean and wind direction is relevant in data.

Preliminary Findings to Date

The use of dB(A) noise levels external to a dwelling have no correlation with internal noise levels or impacts that residents identified as occurring as a result of the wind farm.
With the wind farm not in operation the residents indicate that noise, vibration and sensation are all at low severity ratings although there was one resident who clearly has a greater sensitivity than the other residents and is able to identify instances of noise, vibration and sensation that are above a threshold level.
However those instances are of short duration and are not of a constant impact.
There is a direct correlation with the external dB(A) level and the power output of the wind farm.
There is correlation between the power level of the wind farm versus the dB(A)LF level determined inside residential dwellings.
Where the dB(A)LF exceeds 20 dB there is a corresponding identification of noise in the diary observations.
Where the internal measurements reveal the dB(A) L95 is above 20 dB(A) together with the dB(A)LF above 20 and the same time dB(C) above 50dB and the 4 Hz 1/3 octave band above 50dB then there is a higher degree of noise and sensation which would be deemed by the residents as unacceptable.
The higher levels of sensation occur with the qualification of the above indices and also exhibit a noticeable drop in the dB(C) Leq minus dB(A) Leq together with an increase in dB(A) Leq minus dB(A) L95. This may provide a simple tool to identify the need for examination of modulation of characteristics. However it is noted that there are some limitations in normal noise loggers to provide accurate results of the dB(A) Leq and dB(A) L95, due to the noise floor of instrumentation used.
At none of the houses has the dB(G) been above 85 and therefore if that level has taken as the hearing threshold of infrasound then there is no audible infrasound in any of the houses
The presence of the wind turbine signature, which is related to the blade pass frequency and multiple harmonics of that frequency, is readily identified inside dwellings and at times outside dwellings.
The wind turbines signature does not exists when the turbines are not operational.
The use of 1/3 octave band information to compare infrasound generated by turbines and the infrasound in the natural environment does not contain the required information to identify any difference. When supplemented by narrow band analysis of the infrasound region the results clearly show that the natural environment of infrasound has no such periodic patterns.
Electrical interference/surges in mains + very strong winds has created problems with some data collection.
The significant amount of data that is available from the monitoring will require further time for detailed analysis in view of issues that have been raised by the residents during the course of the monitoring and the findings to date.
Analysis of vibration measurements around an inside houses is yet to be undertaken.
Basic material is to be presented looking at the pitch angles etc. during certain time periods for further analysis by Pacific Hydro and its turbine suppliers.
The resident’s observations and identification of sensation separately to vibration and noise indicates that the major source of complaint for the operation of the turbines would appear to be related to sensation rather than noise.

Steven Cooper July 2014

It’s clear then that what people like Melissa Ware are experiencing isn’t a figment of their imaginations; or the product of “scaremongering” by the Waubra Foundation.

The punishment being meted out to people like Melissa leaves them with a choice: stay and suffer; or pack up and leave. Plenty of Australian families have plumped for the latter.

For a rundown on Australian wind farm victims abandoning perfectly good homes see our post here – where Senator John Madigan details the scale of a perfectly avoidable disaster.

Among those who have decided that their long-term health is more important than their homes is another of Pac Hydro’s victims, Sonia Trist (see our post here).

All of this suffering is the direct product of the mandatory RET: no RET, no RECs, no wind farms. The misery being dealt up at Cape Bridgewater on a nightly basis is just another unjustified cost of the most costly and perverse industry welfare scheme ever devised (see our post here).

Almost graciously, Pac Hydro spin doctor Andrew Richards concedes in favour of its victims that: “Whatever they are experiencing is real for them.” Funny about that.

For a little taste of the “reality” of the life brought to Cape Bridgewater by Pac Hydro, cop an earful of the soundtrack to this video (and see our post here).

****

Unaffordable Renewables. Lefties love them, while we get poorer.

August 5, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

KONRAD YAKABUSKI

A sunny Ontario experiment gone wrong

KONRAD YAKABUSKI

The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Aug. 04 2014,

That glare coming off selected southern Ontario farmlands these days is not the result of some secret state experiment with atomic vegetables. No, it’s the product of another form of state-sanctioned mad science that is costing Ontarians dearly without doing diddly to improve the environment.

After Germany and California, Ontario is “enjoying” its day in the sun as a global hot spot for solar power. Photovoltaic panels are carpeting fertile and fallow farmlands at a furious rate this summer as solar power promoters rush to complete projects before the subsidy gusher slows.

By the end of 2015, more than 2,000 megawatts of solar power will be connected to the Ontario grid as developers take advantage of the province’s feed-in-tariff, guaranteeing them a heady two-decade return on their investment, courtesy of the weary Ontario electricity consumer.

The newly re-elected Liberal government scaled down the FIT program last year, but not before a small group of savvy operators hit the sweet spot by locking into its risk-free cash flow. One 10MW solar farm under construction in eastern Ontario’s cottage country will get 44 cents for every kilowatt-hour of electricity it produces over 20 years.

Compare that to the average 8.55 cents per kWh that Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator says it cost to produce power in the province in 2013. The price includes a wholesale price of 2.65 cents (what the power was actually worth on the open market) and a so-called “global adjustment” of 5.9 cents to cover the sunk costs in existing nuclear, hydro and wind projects.

No other province has imitated Ontario’s folly. No wonder the solar lobby worked so hard to re-elect Premier Kathleen Wynne in the June election. The opposition Progressive Conservatives vowed to pull the plug on Liberal FIT contracts that will further burden the province’s already uncompetitive manufacturers and saddle consumers with a 50 per cent rate hike within a decade.

Solar power is not the only culprit. Far more FIT-contracted wind power will be added to the grid. Together, these contracts demonstrate the madness of Ontario’s so-called green energy policy. Not only will it cost more, it won’t remove much if any carbon from the atmosphere.

The biggest myth about wind and solar power is that they automatically displace carbon dioxide produced by coal- or gas-fired power plants. Solar power producers consistently make this claim without any proof to back it up. Quite often, the opposite is true.

Take Ontario, which counts on baseload nuclear power for 60 per cent of its installed electricity capacity. Nuclear produces no carbon emissions. Neither does the hydro power that accounts for about one-quarter of Ontario’s capacity. On many days, demand in Ontario isn’t high enough to require power from additional sources. But when it is, wind and solar can’t be counted on.

Quite simply, neither wind nor solar are reliable sources of electricity. In its latest 18-month outlook, the IESO forecasts that 99.5 per cent of Ontario’s 12,947 MW of installed nuclear capacity will be available during summer consumption peaks. But it predicts only 13.7 per cent of the 1,824 MW of installed wind capacity will be available. Solar is even less reliable. So, when wind and solar actually do produce power, it’s usually dumped.

To meet consumption peaks, Ontario’s grid operator needs a dependable supply of complementary power. In the past, that came from coal plants, which could be fired up on an as-needed basis. Thankfully, they’ve all been closed and replaced by natural gas-fired plants.

Natural gas is still a fossil fuel, but its carbon footprint is half or less that of coal. And modern combined-cycle gas plants are so efficient, reliable and cheap to build (relative to other forms of electricity) that Charles Frank of the centrist Brookings Institution calls them, along with nuclear power, “the ‘best bang for our buck’ as we seek to reduce emissions.”

“A nuclear or gas combined-cycle plant avoids far more emissions per MW of capacity than wind or solar because it can operate at 90 per cent of full capacity,” Mr. Frank notes in a new study. “Limited benefits and higher costs make wind and solar less socially valuable than nuclear, hydro and combined-cycle gas.”

Add in the alarmingly high failure rate of solar panels, the absence of a long-term track record, and the quashing of local content rules and the outcome of Ontario’s sunny experiment could be even darker than it looks.

In Spite of Evidence, Wind Pushers Still Trying To Deny Wind Turbines Make People Sick!

August 4, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Lloyd, G. Headache for Residents After Monitoring Reveals Bad Vibes — Cape Bridgewater

Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor, The Australian
August 02, 2014

Melissa Ware at Cape Bridgewater wind farm in Victoria; she has a hearing disability but can tell from inside her home what is happening with the turbines outside. Picture: David Geraghty Source: News Corp Australia

FOR the past two months, Melissa Ware’s 150-year-old stone foundation house in the shadow of the Cape Bridgewater wind farm in South Australia has been wired to monitor sounds that cannot be heard easily by the human ear.

For six years, since the wind turbines started operating at Cape Bridgewater, Ware has complained of headaches and other “pressure” effects she can attribute only to the arrival of the renewable energy project she once had supported enthusiastically.

During the eight-week trials at Cape Bridgewater, from inside her house, Ware has been able to express with 100 per cent accuracy what is happening with the wind turbines outside.

In a report-back meeting to residents and the company, Cooper posed the theory that high sensations, including headaches and chest pains, correlated to times when the turbine blades were not efficiently aligned to the wind.

The results from recordings and residents’ diaries show that a change in power output of more than 20 per cent leads to a change in sensation for the residents.

“The main thing I get from the study is that there is a direct correlation from the noise coming out of the wind farm and the response in my body to that noise,’’ Ware says. “I have a bilateral hearing impairment, and I don’t always hear from the wind farm, but I feel it from the ground, the floor or the furniture I am sitting on.’’

But Richards acknowledges there a problem. “Whatever they are experiencing is real for them,’’ he says.

University of Sydney public health specialist Simon Chapman has used the term “necebo” to argue that the complaints are psychosomatic and exacerbated by warnings from anti-wind farm groups.

A review by the National Health and Medical Research Council says there is “no consistent evidence that adverse health effects are caused by exposure to wind turbine noise’’.

Visit the Pacific Hydro website to view the preliminary findings:http://www.pacifichydro.com.au/english/our-communities/communities/cape-bridgewater-acoustic-testing-presentation/?language=en

Original story available at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/headache-for-residents-after-monitoring-reveals-bad-vibes/story-e6frg6xf-1227010639170

Stop the Windweasels Dead in Their Tracks! It’s a SCAM! NO R.E.T.!

August 3, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Lessons from Germany’s Wind Power Disaster

August 3, 2014 by stopthesethings

All lies and promises – the wind industry has finally been rumbled in Germany and is about to be shown the door in Australia.

The wind industry and its parasites have been guilty of more than just a little hubris. Claiming to be able to deliver cheap, reliable sparks was always going to be their undoing. Gradually, Europeans are waking up to the unassailable fact that wind power is based on a technology that was redundant before it began.

No modern economy can run with electricity delivered at crazy, random intervals. To compensate for that meteorological fact, Germany is flat out building more coal fired power stations – not less. Around the globe the wind industry promises to displace “dirty” coal fired power and Germany is no exception. But the reality is very different: the facts have finally caught up with them – wind power will never replace fossil fuel generators and the costs of having capacity to back up wind power is astronomical.

German industry is bailing out and heading to the US – where power is a third of the cost that it is in Germany – and some 800,000 German homeshave been disconnected from the grid – victims of what is euphemistically called “fuel poverty”. For Germans the attraction to wind power is fading fast – funny about that.

A group of Swiss energy market economists have launched a scathing attack on Germany’s wind and solar policies: “Development And Integration Of Renewable Energy: Lessons Learned From Germany” – Hans Poser; Jeffrey Altman; Felix ab Egg; Andreas Granata; and Ross Board
July 2014 (pdf available here).

We’ve extracted some of the key findings and conclusions below.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Over the last decade, well-intentioned policymakers in Germany and other European countries created renewable energy policies with generous subsidies that have slowly revealed themselves to be unsustainable, resulting in profound, unintended consequences for all industry stakeholders. While these policies have created an impressive roll-out of renewable energy resources, they have also clearly generated disequilibrium in the power markets, resulting in significant increases in energy prices to most users, as well as value destruction for all stakeholders: consumers, renewable companies, electric utilities, financial institutions, and investors.

The rapid growth of renewable energy in Germany and other European countries during the 2000’s was due to proactive European and national policies aimed at directly increasing the share of renewable production in their energy mixes through a variety of generous subsidy programs. Two main types of subsidy programs for renewable power developed in Europe include feed-in tariffs (FITs), which very quickly became the policy of choice for Germany and many other European countries, and quota obligation systems.

FITs are incentives to increase production of renewable energy. This type of subsidy guarantees long-term (usually for 20 years) fixed tariffs per unit of renewable power produced. These fixed tariffs normally are independent of market prices and are usually set by the government, but can be structured to be reduced periodically to account for technology cost decreases. The level of the tariffs normally depends on the technology used and the size of the production facility. Because of their generosity, FITs proved capable of quickly increasing the share of renewable power, but since the FITs are set administratively, it is difficult to meet renewable energy goals in the most cost-effective way possible.

The most important lessons learned include:

Policymakers underestimated the cost of renewable subsidies and the strain they would have on national economies. As an example, Germany’s FIT program has cost more than $412 billion to date (including granted and guaranteed, but not yet paid FIT). Former German Minister of the Environment Peter Altmaier recently estimated that the program costs would reach $884 billion (€680 billion) by 2022. He added that this figure could increase further if the market price of electricity fell, or if the rules and subsidy levels were not changed. Moreover, it is estimated that Germany will pay $31.1 billion in subsidies for 2014 alone. A recent analysis found that from 2008 to 2013, Germany incurred $67.6 billion (€52 billion) in net export losses because of its high energy costs, compared to its five leading trade partners. Losses in energy intensive industries accounted for 60 percent of the total losses. This was further highlighted by a recent International Energy Agency report, which stated that the European Union (EU) is expected to lose one-third of its global market share of energy intensive exports over the next two decades due to high energy prices, expensive energy imports of gas and oil, as well as costly domestic subsidies for renewable energy.

Retail prices to many electricity consumers have increased significantly, as subsidies in Germany and the rest of Europe are generally paid by the end users through a costsharing procedure. Household electricity prices in Germany have more than doubled, increasing from €0.14/kilowatt hour (kWh) ($0.18) in 2000 to more than €0.29/kWh ($0.38) in 2013. In Spain, prices also doubled from €0.09/kWh in 2004 to €0.18/kWh in 2013 ($0.12 to $0.23) while Greece’s prices climbed from €0.06/kWh in 2004 to €0.12/kWh in 2013 ($0.08 to $0.16). Comparatively, household electricity prices in the United States average $0.13/kWh, and have remained relatively stable over the last decade.

Fossil and nuclear plants are now facing stresses to their operational systems as these plants are now operating under less stable conditions and are required to cycle more often to help balance renewables’ variability. Investments in retrofits will be required for these plants in order to allow them to run to these new operational requirements. Moreover, renewable resources are dramatically changing thermal plants’ resource planning and margins. As a result, many of these plants are now being retired or are required to receive capacity payments in order to economically be kept online.

Large scale deployment of renewable capacity does not translate into a substantial displacement of thermal capacity. Because of the variability of wind and solar, there are many hours in the year during which most generation comes from thermal power plants, which are required to provide almost complete redundant capacity to ensure the reliability of the system. In turn, grid interventions have increased significantly as operators have to intervene and switch off or start plants that are not programmed to run following marketbased dispatching. For instance, one German transmission operator saw interventions grow from two in 2002 to 1,213 in 2013. It is higher amounts of renewables with low full load hours relative to the total portfolio of power production that creates greater variability and strains on the grid. In the case of Germany, it is the large-scale deployment of both wind and solar that has impacted the entire system.

Large-scale investments in the grid are being required to expand transmission grids so they can connect offshore and onshore wind projects in the north of Germany to consumers in the south of the country. The total investment cost for the build-out of German onshore and offshore transmission systems is estimated to be around $52 billion (€40 billion) over the next 10 years. Moreover, the grids are now being challenged to meet the dynamic flows of variable renewables and require significant additional investment to accommodate increased penetration of renewables. All of these costs will ultimately be passed on to electricity consumers. This has not gone unnoticed in Germany or in the EU. A report was released in late February 2014 by an independent expert commission mandated by the German government, which concluded that Germany’s current program of incenting renewables is an uneconomic and inefficient means to reduce emissions and therefore should be stopped. Moreover, the European Commission released new guidelines on April 9, 2014, with effect starting in 2017 that will correct market distortions. It will essentially ban all FIT subsidies and introduce technology agnostic auctions as the only incentives for renewables.

Large thermal as back-up – grid interventions

The more variable renewables there are, the more the thermal power plants will serve as back-up and balancing for renewables.

Figure 24 shows the daily production of solar, wind, and conventional generation in Germany. The maximum daily solar and wind-combined production in 2012 was 530 GWh on January 5, 2012, while the minimum was only 30 GWh on December 19, 2012.

Given the average daily power consumption of around 1,643 GWh in Germany, this means that in spite of the 13.2 percent share of wind and solar power in total power generation, there must be almost complete redundant capacity of thermal plants or storage.

Wind and solar energy, by their very nature, are highly variable, with fluctuations in weather conditions causing significant variance over multiple timescales: seconds (gusts of wind and passing cloud cover), minutes (wind speed variations, briefly overcast skies), days (diurnal cycles, creating peaks of solar condition), months/quarters (seasonal cycles), and years (annual variation in environmental conditions).

At yearly and seasonal levels, both wind and solar generation can be forecasted with relative certainty. It is when considering diurnal (daily) generation profiles that variability occurs and requires system operators to intervene and make sure that supply and demand of electricity are equal at all times.

In Germany, as the percentage of renewable power increased, so did the number of times that grid operators had to intervene to rebalance the market. In 2012, there were 1,213 such interventions.

For new thermal power plants to replace the currently uneconomical power plants once they reach their technical lifetime, current prices will have to rise. The effect of fewer operational hours needs to be compensated by higher prices in these hours. As a consequence, it is likely that markets will experience lower prices in times when there is sufficient renewable power and much higher prices at other times.

Renewables generate higher direct costs than traditional power production. Traditional base load wholesale power can be generated in Germany at around €65/MWh, but wind power and solar PV in Germany receive a FIT of around €90 /MWh.

Because renewables, like wind and solar, do not produce at certain times, available back-up power to the system is required. The back-up capacity must be financed even if it is used only occasionally as back-up. Therefore the little power that is produced in the back-up plants will become expensive. Data drawn from business models of Finadvice show that a CCGT can produce 3000 GWh per year at fixed costs of €11/MWh, in a power system without renewables. If renewables reduce the production of the CCGT to for example 1500 GWh, the price needed to recover fixed costs will double to €22/MWh. In a nutshell, this could mean that the cost of power in the hours with renewable power is the subsidized €90/MWh instead of conventional €65 MWh, and when there is no renewable power, the (back-up) power price will be €76/MWh (65 + 11).

CONCLUSION: TAKEAWAYS OF THE GERMAN AND EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE WITH RENEWABLES

The United States and other countries have a unique opportunity to assess the lessons learned in Germany and other European-member states and achieve positive results at lower cost and risk for all stakeholders.

The large increase in market share of variable renewable generation (mainly from solar PV and wind) is changing the dynamics and operations of electricity markets, as exemplified in Germany:

While in the past, German wholesale prices followed the demand curve, they now react to the weather, going down when the sun shines and the wind blows, and up, during times of high demand, when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. Accordingly, price forecasts and power trading now require new modeling and different inputs, including a much greater focus on weather forecasting.
Power trading has become more short-term (intra-day, quarter hour, regulation, capacity) than in a conventional generation environment.
Regulatory policies were not designed to incentivize flexible renewable power to be available where and when needed. Therefore, further regulatory interventions will be required to create a balanced system that will ultimately impact investments for both renewable companies and utilities over time as various energy markets transition to an increased portfolio of renewables.
The power grid has to be upgraded to accept dynamic power input from many decentralized and distant variable sources.
In the absence of energy storage, current electric systems cannot easily cope with the surplus of renewable energy, and curtailment will be required at times in order to maintain reliability.
Intermittent renewables, like solar and wind, tend to cannibalize their own market by reducing prices when they are available. With current cost structures, if wind and solar are to produce a significant share of the power generation, they will likely require support through energy storage or additional subsidies to be profitable.

In conclusion, the lessons learned in Europe prove that the large-scale integration of renewable power does not provide net savings to consumers, but rather a net increase in costs to consumers and other stakeholders. Moreover, when not properly assessed in advance, large-scale integration of renewables into the power system ultimately leads to disequilibrium in the power markets, as well as value destruction to both renewable companies and utilities, and their respective investors.

Finadvice FAA Financial Advisory AG
July 2014

The takeaway from all that is that if Australia wants energy market chaos; energy poverty; and to kill what’s left of its manufacturing sector it need only keep following Germany’s lead.

The mandatory RET must go now.

Wind Turbine Syndrome Showing Up in Vermont Doctor’s patients!

August 2, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Medical doctor sees Wind Turbine Syndrome in his patients (Vermont)

stethoscope

“Wind Turbine Noise & Adverse Health Effects”

Testimony before the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) 7/29/14

….— by Sandy Reider, MD

My name is Sandy Reider, I am a primary care physician in Lyndonville, and I have been practicing clinical medicine in Vermont since I received my license in 1971. [Dr. Reider is a graduate of the Harvard University School of Medicine — Editor.]

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not being paid for involvement in this issue, nor did I seek this out; rather, it found me by way of a patient I had known well for several years, and who, in late 2011, suddenly developed severe insomnia, anxiety, headaches, ringing ears, difficulty concentrating, and frequent nausea, seemingly out of the blue. This puzzled us both for a few months before we finally came to understand that he suffered from what was, then, a relatively new clinical entity known as “wind turbine syndrome”, related in his particular case to the comparatively small NPS 100 KW turbine that began generating power atop Burke Mountain in the fall of 2011.

In the course of the 2012 legislative session, I described this patient in detail in testimony for the Senate Natural Resources and Health Care Committees, as well as the Governor’s Siting Commission. Since his symptoms were so typical and similar to those described by thousands of other individuals living too close to large wind turbines all over the globe, I have attached my testimony for the Senate Health Care Committee and encourage you to review it for its very characteristic description of what it is that this board, I trust, hopes to mitigate by recommending more protective sound standards for these industrial wind installations.

I should add that I have seen 4 additional patients living close to the large Sheffield and Lowell projects, as well as an individual living near another single NPS 100KW turbine in Vergennes. All presented with similar, though not identical, symptoms to those described in my testimony.

That there have already been so many complaints here in Vermont related to wind turbines suggests that the current noise standards may be inadequate. Either the utilities have been regularly out of compliance with the current existing standards (Shirley Nelson’s detailed daily records suggest this has indeed occurred with some regularity) and/or that the scientific data and studies upon which the current noise standards are based is incomplete, or possibly just plain wrong.

Over the past 2 years I have reviewed much of the relevant scientific literature, and out of my 42 years of experience and perspective as a clinician, respectfully offer the following observations and comments.

Firstly, I do not doubt at all that these large turbines can and do cause serious health problems in a significant number of persons living nearby, even though the vibrational-acoustic mechanisms behind this harm are not yet completely understood (1,5). Repetitive sleep disruption is the most often cited adverse effect, and disturbed sleep and its resulting stress over time is known to cause or exacerbate cardiovascular illnesses (2, ), chronic anxiety and depression, as well as worsening of other pre-existing medical problems. This is especially concerning for the most vulnerable among us — children, the elderly, those who are naturally sensitive to sound, or prone to motion sickness or migraine headaches, and, as mentioned, those who are unwell to start with.

The position adopted by developers of large industrial wind projects, and thus far supported by regulatory and health agencies, has been that there is no evidence of a direct effect on health from wind turbines; rather, that the claimed adverse health effects are indirect, due mainly to the individual’s negative attitude about the wind turbines (so-called “nocebo” effect), and therefore it is their fault, it’s all in their heads, and so on. Not only is this incorrect, it is disingenuous. There is simply no clinical justification for ignoring harm being done to individuals and communities, whether direct or indirect, on these grounds — simply put, harm is harm, whatever the mechanism.

However, good evidence for direct adverse effects has existed since the mid-80’s when Neil Kelley headed a group of researchers, under the auspices of the US Department of Energy and NASA, and found conclusive evidence that adverse effects, very similar to those that describe “wind turbine syndrome”, were due primarily to very low frequency sound and inaudible infrasound (6). This role of infrasound was subsequently confirmed by Kelley’s team under controlled laboratory conditions, and resulted in a complete redesign of turbines from the downwind trestle-mounted turbines to today’s upwind turbine on a single massive tower. Furthermore, he recommended protective maximum levels of this low frequency sound.

The joint radiation levels (expressed in terms of acoustic intensity and measured external to a structure) in the 8, 16, 31.5 and 63 Hz standard (ISO) octaves should not exceed band intensity threshold limits of 60, 50, 40 and 40 dB (re 1 pWm –2) more than 20% of the time. These figures compare favorably with a summary of low-frequency annoyance situations by Hubbard.

(It is worth noting that very often infrasound levels are higher inside a building than outside, the structure acting as a resonating chamber and amplifying the lower “vibration” frequencies. Thus measurements for low frequency sound should be made inside the structure as well as outside. Also, low frequency sound levels are not only building design and geometry specific, but also site specific, especially in a place like Vermont where the topography and climactic conditions are so variable. There may be unacceptable indoor infrasound levels in one home, while another home over the hill may have undetectable or very low levels.)

The wind industry’s assertion that the Kelley study is irrelevant and that infrasound levels are negligible with the current, newer turbine design and may be ignored is unfounded, and more recent evidence confirms this. (See the 2012 Falmouth study by Ambrose and Rand; Bob Thorne’s excellent quality of life study in 2011 [12]; Steven Cooper’s preliminary results in Australia, final results due in September 2014 [11]; and others.)

The aforementioned studies were performed by independent professional acousticians not connected to the wind industry. Incidentally, the severely affected patient described in my 2012 testimony never did perceive any audible noise from the turbine (and this is quite typical, the sound is more felt than heard), nor did he harbor any feelings pro or con about the installation when his problems began, though after he understood the source of his ill-health, I have no doubt that the “nocebo” effect may have added to his stress, adding insult to injury. He has since abandoned that home, and is once again sleeping soundly and feeling well.

The current sound standards, based as they are on dBA weighted acoustic measurements, gives particular weight to audible frequencies in the soundscape, but very little or no weight to low sound frequencies and infrasound, particularly below 10 Hz, which comprises a significant proportion of the sound generated by large turbines. People do not hear dBA, they hear qualitatively different sounds, birds, insects, running water, wind in the trees, etc. Basing noise criteria solely on this single number ignores the unique nature of the sound produced by large wind turbines, with its constantly changing loudness, frequency, harmonics, pitch, and impulsive quality.

It is precisely these qualities that make the sound feel so intrusive and annoying, especially in quiet rural environments where these projects are usually located (12). Parenthetically, the word “annoying” is somewhat misleading, as it implies a minor, temporary, or occasional nuisance that perhaps might be mostly ignored, rather than what it is: a repetitive stressor that can degrade one’s short and long term health and well being, and from which there is no escape over the lifetime of the project short of having to abandon one’s home.

It is worth repeating here that the current Public Service Board threshold of 45 dBA of audible sound, averaged over an hour, has never been proven safe or protective, and that most studies agree that audible sound should not exceed 35 dBA, or 5dBA above normal background sound levels. (This is especially important in rural areas where background noise is minimal.) The level should be a maximum, not an hourly average. Above 35 dBA there are likely to be significantly more complaints, particularly difficulty sleeping.

chart

Before concluding, I would like to emphasize that the bulk of scientific evidence for adverse health effects due to industrial wind installations comes in the form of thousands of case reports like the patient I described. One or two sporadic anecdotal cases can legitimately be viewed with a wait-and-see skepticism, but not thousands where the symptoms are so similar, along with the ease of observing exposure and measuring outcomes, wherever these projects have been built. I agree with Epidemiologist Carl Phillips, who opined that “these case reports taken together offer the most compelling scientific evidence of serious harm. Just because the prevailing models have failed to explain observed adverse health effects does not mean they do not exist”, and, as he succinctly, though in my opinion a bit too harshly, concluded: “The attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement and represent either gross incompetence or intentional bias” (13).

I am aware that the members of the PSB bear a heavy responsibility for Vermont’s overall energy future and have many other issues on their plate besides this one. Rather than presenting you with a long list of literature references, most of which would likely go unread (but they are included just in case ), I recommend a careful review of just one study in particular: Bob Thorne, a professional acoustician in Australia, presented an excellent and well thought-out clinical study to the Australian Senate in 2011 (12). It really does cover the waterfront, including WHO quality of life measures, audible and infrasound measurements, and health measures, in a balanced and scientific way. For your convenience there is a hard copy of this study included with my presentation today.

His comprehensive (including the full sound spectrum, not only dBA weighted sound) and protective recommendations for sound criteria are reasonable, and if adopted, would be likely more acceptable to neighboring households and communities. However, given that wind developers are these days building bigger turbines atop taller towers in order to maximize power generation and profits, adoption of these safer limits would necessitate siting the installations farther from dwellings. A 1-2 km setback is not nearly sufficient; significant low frequency sound pressure measurements have been recorded in homes 3-6 miles from large projects in Australia.

The outcomes of the study are concerned with the potential for adverse health effects due to wind farm modified audible and low frequency sound and infrasound. The study confirms that the logging of sound levels without a detailed knowledge of what the sound levels relate to renders the data uncertain in nature and content. Observation is needed to confirm the character of the sound being recorded. Sound recordings are needed to confirm the character of the sound being recorded.

The measures of wind turbine noise exposure that the study has identified as being acoustical markers for excessive noise and known risk of serious harm to health (significant adverse health effects):

(1) Criterion: An LAeq or ‘F’ sound level of 32 dB(A) or above over any 10 minute interval, outside;
(2) Criterion: An LAeq or ‘F’ sound level of 22 dB(A) or above over any 10 minute interval inside a dwelling with windows open or closed.
(3) Criterion: Measured sound levels shall not exhibit unreasonable or excessive modulation (‘fluctuation’).
(4) Criterion: An audible sound level is modulating when measured by the A-weighted LAeq or ‘F’ time-weighting at 8 to 10 discrete samples/second and (a) the amplitude of peak to trough variation or (b) if the third octave or narrow band characteristics exhibit a peak to trough variation that exceeds the following criteria on a regularly varying basis: 2dB exceedance is negligible, 4dB exceedance is unreasonable and 6dB exceedance is excessive.
(5) Criterion: A low frequency sound and infrasound is modulating when measured by the Z- weighted LZeq or ‘F’ time-weighting at 8 to 10 discrete samples/second and (a) the amplitude of peak to trough variation or (b) if the third octave or narrow band characteristics exhibit a peak to trough variation that exceeds the following criteria on a regularly varying basis: 2dB exceedance is negligible, 4dB exceedance is unreasonable and 6dB exceedance is excessive.
(6) Definitions: ‘LAeq’ means the A-weighted equivalent-continuous sound pressure level [18]; ‘F’ time-weighting has the meaning under IEC 61672-1 and [18]; “regularly varying” is where the sound exceeds the criterion for 10% or more of the measurement time interval [18] of 10 minutes; and Z-weighting has the meaning under AS IEC 61672.1 with a lower limit of 0.5Hz.
(7) Approval authorities and regulators should set wind farm noise compliance levels at least 5 dB(A) below the sound levels in criterion (1) and criterion (2) above. The compliance levels then become the criteria for unreasonable noise.

Measures (1-6) above are appropriate for a ‘noise’ assessment by visual display and level comparison. Investigation of health effects and the complex nature of wind turbine noise require the more detailed perceptual measures of sound character such as audibility, loudness, fluctuation strength, and dissonance.

To exclude careful independent well-designed case studies like Thorne’s ( and others ) in a review of the scientific literature that purports to be thorough is, I repeat, a serious omission and is not “scientific”. Careful consideration of these independent well done studies, if nothing else, should encourage regulatory agencies to adopt a much more precautionary approach to the siting of today’s very big industrial wind projects in order to adequately protect public health.

For better or worse, in today’s “information age” we are perhaps too fascinated by computers and mountains of data, but truth is truth, wherever you find it, even in small places.

Contact:

….Sandy Reider, MD
….PO Box 10
….East Burke, VT 05832
….(802) 626-6007
….sandyreider@yahoo.com

*Many thanks to Dr. Sarah Laurie, CEO of the Waubra Foundation, for her tireless work, and generosity in sharing so much information.

1. Pierpont, N 2009 from the executive summary of her peer-reviewed study,http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/wind-turbine-syndrome-executive-summary/

2. Capuccio et al 2011 “Sleep Duration predicts cardiovascular outcomes: a systemic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies” European Heart Journal, (2011) 32, 1484–1492 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/sleep-duration-predicts-cardiovascular-outcomes/

3. Nissenbaum, M Hanning, C and Aramini J 2012 “Effects of industrial wind turbines on sleep and health” Noise and Health, October 2012

4. Shepherd, D et al 2011 “Evaluating the impact of wind turbine noise on health related quality of life” Noise and Health, October 2011 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/evaluating-impact-wind-turbine-noise-health-related-quality-life/

5. Arra, M & Lynn H 2013 Powerpoint presentation to the Grey Bruce Health Unit, Ontario, “Association between Wind Turbine Noise and Human Distress”http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/association-between-wind-turbine-noise-and-human-distress/

6. “Acoustic noise associated with Mod 1 Turbine, its impact and control”http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/kelley-et-al-1985-acoustic-noise-associated-with-mod-1-wind-turbine/

7. James, R 2012 “Wind Turbine Infra and Low Frequency Sound: Warning Signs That Went Unheard” Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 32(2) 108 – 127, accessed via Professor Colin Hansen’s submission to the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry Excessive Noise from Windfarms Bill (Renewable Energy Act) November 2012 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/testimony-hansenc-excessive-noise-bill-inquiry-submission/. James references another useful bibliography of references of the early NASA research, compiled by Hubbard & Shepherd 1988 “Wind Turbine Acoustic Research: Bibliography with selected Annotation”http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/hubbard-h-shepherd-k-nasa-wind-turbine-acoustics-research/

8. Hubbard, H 1982 “Noise induced house vibrations and Human Perception”http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/hubbard-h-1982-noise-induced house vibrations-human-perception/

9. Ambrose, Stephen and Rand, Robert 2011 “Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study” http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/bruce-mcpherson-infrasound-low-frequency-noise-study/

10. http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/schomer-et-al-wind-turbine-noise-conference-denver-august-2013/

11. http://waubrafoundation.org.au/2014/pacific-hydro-commended-initiating-wind-turbine-noise-acoustic-survey/

12. http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/wind-farm-generated-noise-and-adverse-health-effects/

13. “Properly interpreting the Epidemiological evidence about the health effects of Industrial Wind turbines on nearby residents” Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society vol 31 No 4 (August 2011) pp 303–315 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/properly-interpreting-epidemiologic-evidence-about-health-effects/

See: Bob Thorne, “The Problems with ‘Noise Numbers’ for Wind Farm Noise Assessment,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2011 31: 262. DOI: 10.1177/0270467611412557, http://bst.sagepub.com/content/31/4/26
2

Windweasels….No Surprise There is Mafia Involvement. They love this type of scam!

August 2, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

MAFIA ALERT RAISED OVER WIND FARMS
WATCHDOG WARNING ON WIND FARM CORRUPTION

par Ken Seaton

the connexion

	How The Climate Grif… on There is NO Global Warming…
	Bob Bateman on Government-Induced Climaphobia…
	William Hooi on Germany’s Renewable Energy Dis…
	Jessica on Issues for Landowners to Consi…
	Raymond on Poorest Families Left Powerles…

"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

Children Deserve Protection!

Health

Ill Health suffered by Residents Living near Wind Turbines!

Wynne Couldn’t make her Disrespect for Rural Ontario, Any Clearer.

Wynne’s rural outreach efforts could unravel in face of budget challenges

Windweasels Not Above Using Bribery to Push Wind Turbines Onto Communities

Can’t “Win” Support for your Wind Farm? Why Not Try Bribing the Locals

The Truth About Wind Turbine Noise… Waubra Foundation

Wind Turbine Noise: a simple statement of facts

Emission of Sound and Vibration

Infrasound

Wake Interference and Turbulence

Transmission of Energy Pulses

Noise Guidelines for Turbines

Compliance with Permitted Noise Conditions

More Proof that Wind Turbine Syndrome is REAL!

Pac Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm Victims Vindicated

Unaffordable Renewables. Lefties love them, while we get poorer.

A sunny Ontario experiment gone wrong

In Spite of Evidence, Wind Pushers Still Trying To Deny Wind Turbines Make People Sick!

Lloyd, G. Headache for Residents After Monitoring Reveals Bad Vibes — Cape Bridgewater

Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor, The Australian
August 02, 2014

For six years, since the wind turbines started operating at Cape Bridgewater, Ware has complained of headaches and other “pressure” effects she can attribute only to the arrival of the renewable energy project she once had supported enthusiastically.

During the eight-week trials at Cape Bridgewater, from inside her house, Ware has been able to express with 100 per cent accuracy what is happening with the wind turbines outside.

Stop the Windweasels Dead in Their Tracks! It’s a SCAM! NO R.E.T.!

Lessons from Germany’s Wind Power Disaster

Wind Turbine Syndrome Showing Up in Vermont Doctor’s patients!

Medical doctor sees Wind Turbine Syndrome in his patients (Vermont)

“Wind Turbine Noise & Adverse Health Effects”

Windweasels….No Surprise There is Mafia Involvement. They love this type of scam!

MAFIA ALERT RAISED OVER WIND FARMS
WATCHDOG WARNING ON WIND FARM CORRUPTION

Wynne’s rural outreach efforts could unravel in face of budget challenges

Can’t “Win” Support for your Wind Farm? Why Not Try Bribing the Locals

Emission of Sound and Vibration

Infrasound

Wake Interference and Turbulence

Transmission of Energy Pulses

Noise Guidelines for Turbines

Compliance with Permitted Noise Conditions

Pac Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm Victims Vindicated

Lloyd, G. Headache for Residents After Monitoring Reveals Bad Vibes — Cape Bridgewater

Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor, The AustralianAugust 02, 2014

For six years, since the wind turbines started operating at Cape Bridgewater, Ware has complained of headaches and other “pressure” effects she can attribute only to the arrival of the renewable energy project she once had supported enthusiastically.

During the eight-week trials at Cape Bridgewater, from inside her house, Ware has been able to express with 100 per cent accuracy what is happening with the wind turbines outside.

Lessons from Germany’s Wind Power Disaster

Medical doctor sees Wind Turbine Syndrome in his patients (Vermont)

“Wind Turbine Noise & Adverse Health Effects”

MAFIA ALERT RAISED OVER WIND FARMSWATCHDOG WARNING ON WIND FARM CORRUPTION

Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor, The Australian
August 02, 2014

MAFIA ALERT RAISED OVER WIND FARMS
WATCHDOG WARNING ON WIND FARM CORRUPTION