Open Letter Regarding Low Frequency Noise Due to Wind Turbines

February 3, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Australian Breastfeeding Association head office

1818-1822 Malvern Road
MALVERN EAST VIC 3145

OPEN LETTER

The article below has recently been published in the Portland Observer by Bill Meldrum “Wind Alliance rejects health claims”; I object to the incorrect statements made within it by Ms Angela McFeeters, an ABA representative at Portland and spokesperson for the Victorian/Australian Wind Alliance. I draw it to your attention for discussion, review and management of.

As one of the six resident participants in the Steven Cooper Acoustic Testing Program at Cape Bridgewater of Nov 2014, I have firsthand knowledge of impacts and conditions living in proximity to the industrial wind energy plant of 29, 2MW turbines at Cape Bridgewater causing health impacts and disturbance to us and to many others exposed to infrasound and other disturbing industrial ‘noise’ emissions around Australia.

I suggest the ABA has a duty to become more fully informed of these public health impacts to assist new mothers and babies; to become informed of the issues by reading the links below and further extensive information compiled and available at; wind.watch.org, the Waubra foundation or Stop These Things websites.

Ms McFeeters would not have the medical expertise to publically declare any conclusions on the status of my health, only my GP or Specialist have the comprehensive understanding of and authority to make any statements regarding health or impacts to it. Ms McFeeters has over the past 12 months anonymously attended community consultation meetings related to the acoustic study being conducted by the owners of the wind farm, Pacific Hydro and has heard the impacting conditions we have reported to the company and the Government Authorities over the past six years.

This is not the first biased public statement or comment Ms McFeeters has aired whilst representing the Wind Alliance and the wind industry.

Her assumptions and implied accusations in this article are based without visiting my house, nor noting medical conditions first hand, as my GP’s, Specialists or the Acoustic Engineers that have conducted studies inside my home. The study undertaken by Mr Cooper is groundbreaking and assists with the resolve of problems of noise, vibration and sensation through greater understanding and knowledge gleaned by cooperatively working together. Cooperation was undertaken for the first time ever by residents, a wind farm and an independent acoustician working with the goal of getting to the bottom of the problems. I doubt Ms McFeeters has read or understands the importance of the research or the publically released conclusions.

The most damaging impact of wind farms to public health, including my own is the serious issue of sleep deprivation. As a representative of the ABA, dismissal of the very real health impact of sleep deprivation caused by wind farm disturbance is unfeeling and callous in its disregard. Dismissing disturbances documented within the Acoustic study could damage mothers and infants living near and impacted by wind farms, not only in the Portland region but around the nation.

Sleep disturbance and post natal depression go hand in hand; her biased public opinions and her obligation to abide by the code of ethics of the ABA do not. I ask which qualifications, expertise and knowledge allows her to refute health impacts that have been well documented and confirmed as far back as 1985 in the US Kelley report and do you endorse the opinions of this Alliance?

Disturbed fertility and menstrual cycles in women living near wind turbines in Denmark, Canada and Australia are being reported from both residents and by health professionals.

Health professionals, medical practitioners, acoustic experts and researchers who have firsthand knowledge of the severity of reported health problems call for urgent multidisciplinary research in this area and include:

Professor Bob McMurtry, Dr Roy Jeffery, Associate Professor Jeff Aramini, Carmen Krogh and Mr William Palmer from Canada; Dr Alan Watts, Dr Wayne Spring, Dr David Iser, Dr Gary Hopkins, Dr Andja Mitric Andjic, Dr Sarah Laurie, Mr Les Huson, Mr Steven Cooper, Emeritus Professor Colin Hansen and Dr Bob Thorne from Australia; and Associate Professor Rick James, Mr Rob Rand, Mr Stephen Ambrose, Emeritus Professor Jerry Punch, Dr Jay Tibbetts, Dr Sandy Reider, Dr Nina Pierpont, Dr David Lawrence, Dr Paul Schomer, Mr George Hessler, and Dr Bruce Walker from the USA with others from Europe. Wind turbines are increasing in size and are being placed closer to larger human populations and justifiably, there is growing concern all over the world.

For any breastfeeding counsellor or representative within the ABA to be ignoring the serious issue of sleep deprivation is a very real concern. Evidence about sleep deprivation and its role in post natal depression is well accepted. Is this evidence being ignored by the ABA counsellors in the Portland region? Does the ABA disagree with the concerns of the Health and Acoustic Professionals and Researchers listed above?

As a concerned mother and advocate of breastfeeding I ask you to investigate. Impacts of infrasound on breastfeeding cannot be dismissed out of hand by someone without the authority or proper and independent knowledge to do so.

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/acoustic-engineering-investigation-at-cape-bridgewater-wind-facility/

http://www.pacifichydro.com.au/files/2015/01/Cape-Bridgewater-Acoustic-Report.pdf

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/2015/steven-coopers-cape-bridgewater-acoustic-research-commissioned-by-pacific-hydro-released/

https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/letter-to-the-ama-re-its-recent-paper-concerning-wind-turbines/

Read the above, acknowledge the depths of this issue and release a public apology. Proper and independent health studies are going to be conducted in the homes of impacted people near these energy plants and until this further study is undertaken and released by the Australian Government then no-one should conclude there are no impacts on residents’ health and quality of life.

Melissa Ware

A Simplifies View of the Recent “Cooper Acoustic Investigation”…. by the Waubra Foundation.

February 3, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Acoustic Engineering Investigation into Airborne and Ground-Borne Pressure Pulses from Pacific Hydro’s Wind Turbines at Cape Bridgewater

Waubra Foundation – 1st February, 2015

1. Background

Turbines create “waste energy” in the form of airborne pressure waves (sound) and ground-borne pressure waves (vibration).
Noise is that part of the sound frequency spectrum which is audible, but “noise” is also defined by psychoacousticians as “unwanted sound”.
The strength (sometimes expressed as a loudness in the case of noise) of the sound is measured in decibels (“dB”).
The wavelength of individual sound waves is a measure of the distance between the peaks of the pressure waves. The speed of sound divided by the wavelength gives the frequency of the sound and is expressed in hertz (Hz).
Where the frequency of the sound waves is below 20 Hz, the distance between the waves is relatively long, and the general term for this portion of the frequency spectrum is known as infrasound. Infrasound is only audible at very high levels (dB). However it can be damaging to the human body at levels well below audibility.
Impulsive infrasound from a variety of industrial sources has long been known to have the potential to be harmful to humans, especially with chronic exposure. For example, human and animal studies have shown infrasound directly causes both physiological stress,i and collagen thickening in a variety of tissues including cardiac valves, arteries, and pericardium which themselves lead to a variety of cardiovascular diseases.ii
Infrasound persists for much greater distances than audible sound and, unlike audible sound, penetrates well insulated building structures (including double glazing) with ease; and often increases the impact by resonating within the house, like a drum.iii iv This occurs, regardless of the source of sound & vibration energy. Penetration of buildings and amplification via resonance can also occur from sound and vibration from natural sources such as earthquakes and thunder.
Standards for wind turbine noise pollution in Australia are set in audible decibels (“dBA”) outside houses.v Use of dBA excludes accurate measurement of frequencies below 200 Hz, including both infrasound (0 – 20 Hz) and low frequency noise (20 – 200 Hz). These Standards do not require infrasound (either within or outside homes) to be predicted in planning submissions nor to be measured in the required compliance testing to the planning permit noise conditions. Most jurisdictions do not require wind turbine generated low frequency noise to be predicted or measured either (unlike other sources of industrial noise). In fact most noise measuring instruments and microphones are unable to measure accurately in the infrasound range, especially below 8 Hz, and some Standards explicitly specify the use of equipment which cannot measure infrasound.
Wind turbines produce infrasound along with audible noise. The morepowerful the wind turbine the greater the proportion of infrasound and low frequency noise emitted,vi which then increases significantly if the turbines are sited too close together, now common practice in Australia.vii Most newer wind turbines are now 3 MW or 3.5 MW, compared to 2MW at Cape Bridgewater.
By the use of different sound meters and microphones, and in narrow (frequency) bands it is quite possible to identify and measure infrasound specifically from wind turbines, in the field. This unique “wind turbine signature” has now been demonstrated by the acoustic consultants involved in the Health Canada Studyviii and by Professor Colin Hansen’s team at Waterloo,ix in addition to Mr Cooper’s measurements at a number of locations in Australia prior to, and including, the Cape Bridgewater Acoustic Investigation.
Increasing numbers of residents living within 10km of wind turbines have suffered, and are still suffering, severe adverse health impacts since the wind turbines started operating.x xi Many have left their homes repeatedly, and eventually permanently, to live in greatly diminished financial circumstances, as their homes are no longer habitable or saleable. Some residents become too unwell to work. Wind turbines are not the only source of impulsive infrasound and low frequency noise causing severe health damage. The same pattern of identical serious adverse health effects, sleep deprivation and home abandonments, sometimes out to similar distances are being reported by neighbours to other known sources of infrasound and low frequency noise, at open cut coal mining (eg Hunter Valley in New South Wales), underground mines with large extractor fans (eg Lithgow, in New South Wales), gas turbinepower stations (eg Uranquinty, in New South Wales, Port Campbell in Victoria) and numerous other sources (eg Tara gas field in Queensland).xii
Wind power projects and other energy generating noise polluting industrial developments involve very large sums of money in construction, in revenues and in the case of industrial wind turbines – public subsidies. It is not uncommon to find companies with large investments and large cash flows going to great and improper lengths to maintain their cash flows.
The wind industry has never been asked to prove that their machines are safe, unlike other products on the market. When queries are raised about impacts on neighbours, the industry and its supporters trigger the “Four Ds” of denial, dissemble, delay and destroy the messenger, despite the wind industry being well aware of the seminal research by Dr Neil Kelley and NASA which established direct causation of symptoms from impulsive infrasound and low frequency noise from wind turbines and other sources in the 1980s, by both field and laboratory research.xiii

2. The Purpose of the Cape Bridgewater Acoustic Investigation

The purpose of the investigation was simply to find out what was causing the symptoms and sensations, resulting in sleep disturbance and health damage, reported to Pacific Hydro between 2009 and 2014 by the residents of three homes sited between 600 – 1600 metres from wind turbines sited at the Cape Bridgewater Wind Project in Victoria, Australia.xiv

3. What Are the Key Findings of the Cooper Acoustic Investigation?

The findings include:

Please read on

Village Destroyed to Accommodate Wind Turbines.

February 2, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Company’s extreme wind strategy: “Recently we bought most of a village to make a windpark.”

We solve the problem of unsellable properties in peripheral regions. We solve the problem of neighbours being critical of wind farms.”

Farm in Bollerup — Farmhouse purchased by Vattenfall for demolition.(photo: René Schütze)

The Copenhagen Post

Company’s extreme wind strategy: Towns today, turbines tomorrow

By Philip Tees

Swedish energy company Vattenfall is going to extreme lengths for the sake of its Danish windfarms – buying up whole villages in rural Denmark, razing them to the ground and replacing the buildings with wind turbines, Børsen reports.

Mette Korsager, who is responsible for Vattenfall’s onshore wind projects in Denmark, told the business newspaper that the strategy was to make it easier for the company to achieve the goal of installing 250 MW of wind turbines in Denmark by 2018-2019. “We typically buy up farms in bad condition and demolish the farmhouse,” she said.

“Recently we bought most of a village to make a windpark.”

Helps the region, according to Vattenfall

That village is Kølby in northern Jutland, and Vattenfall plans to acquire a total of 20 properties.

Korsager told Børsen the strategy served a number of purposes. “We solve the problem of unsellable properties in peripheral regions,” she said.

“We solve the problem of neighbours being critical of wind farms, and we make it easier to reach agreements about the installation of wind turbines at the municipalities because we go in and help them by developing problem areas.”

Kølby in northern Jutland.(photo: Google Street View

Windpushers Do Not Protect the Health of Vulnerable Children, (or anyone else)

January 31, 2015January 31, 2015 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

West Norfolk mother tells of blindness fears for son over wind farm scheme

Karen Robinson with her son Ronnie Robinson (9) in the garden at Clenchwarton Hall, showing the current view. ANL-150129-112536009

Ronnie Robinson suffers from primary congenital glaucoma, a severe visual impairment in which his eyes cannot cope with changing light conditions.

Developers of the Ongarhill wind farm, which is due to be debated by the West Norfolk Council planning committee next week, say conditions attached to any permission, and technology on the turbines themselves, will prevent shadow flicker from affecting residents.

But Ronnie’s mum Karen says she has been warned by doctors that she will have to leave her home on Hall Road, Clenchwarton if the plan goes ahead, in order to save his sight.

She said any flicker would leave Ronnie at risk of becoming disorientated and banging his head.

The slightest knock could mean he loses all his remaining vision.

Mrs Robinson, who moved to the area from Hertfordshire five years ago, said: “The whole reason we moved here was because it was off the road and it was safe for him to live.

“Why should we suffer just because they want to put turbines there? We moved here for a better life.”

A planning report, published last week, recommended that councillors approve the wind farm proposal, subject to the completion of a legal agreement for an ecological improvement plan within three months.

But opponents are unhappy with what they claim will be the unacceptable impact on localresidents and wildlife.

Mrs Robinson, who will be addressing Monday’s planning meeting, also fears the noise of the turbines would affect Ronnie, as he relies on his more sensitive hearing due to his eye problems.

But Cath Ibbotson, project manager for developers Coriolis Energy, yesterday said they had discussed Mrs Robinson’s concerns with her and were taking them seriously.

She said: “Tried and tested technology exists to switch off turbines at appropriate times and therefore prevent any shadow flicker occurring at the property or in the grounds for those few hours a year when it might otherwise do so.

“The council has proposed that a planning condition would be attached to any planning permission to ensure this.

“In respect of noise, anyone who has visited a wind farm for themselves will know how quiet turbines are in operation. However, national noise limits exist to protect residents.

The council have proposed in this case that the Ongarhill wind farm would have to operate to even more stringent limits, and we have agreed that we would do so. Again, this would be secured through planning conditions.”

Monday’s planning committee meeting will take place at the Lynn town hall, starting at 10am.

Eric Jelinski – Canadian Energy Engineer, Tells the Truth about the Wind Fraud!

January 31, 2015 / 1957chev / 5 Comments

Top Canadian Energy Engineer – Eric Jelinski – Slams the Great Wind Power Fraud

January 31, 2015 by stopthesethings

Provided they haven’t got their trotters in the wind industry subsidy trough, engineers are quicker than most, when it comes to rumbling the great wind power fraud.

Practically minded, and with heads for real numbers, engineers are able to pick apart the complete pointlessness of trying to rely on an energy source that will NEVER be available on demand (can’t be stored) – is entirely dependent upon the weather – and is, therefore, not a generation “system” at all: “chaos” and “system” are words that come from completely different paddocks; and which mean completely different things (see our post here).

And engineers, who build “systems”, don’t like “chaos”.

Google’s top engineers – Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein and David Fork – came out and recently tipped a bucket on the nonsense of attempting to run 21st Century economies using a ‘technology’ that was dumped way back in the 19th Century (see our post here).

Now, one of Canada’s leading energy engineers, Eric Jelinski has come out swinging too.

An Engineer Speaks
Windfarm Action
27 January 2015

The following was written by Eric Jelinski, P. Eng., a Canadian engineer who specializes in energy production. Gas plants. Nuclear plants. Wind &solar energy. He explains to his township (Clearview Township, Ontario) why wind energy is folly.

I am writing to express my objections to the installation of Industrial Wind Turbines in Clearview Township, Ontario, Canada.

My wife and I moved here to retire on 50 acres, building a house, market garden, as well as taking many other initiatives to become part of the vital social fabric.

It is bad enough that under Ontario Premier McGuinty, the social fabric in big cities like Toronto is in need of repair, as it happens, in part because those “50,000 jobs” in renewable energy have not materialized, and there is little productive activity for many of the youth in the cities. Guns and drugs are very much part of the social fabric in some neighbourhoods.

What gives McGuinty, with his Toronto constituent Members of the Provincial Parliament (MPP’s), the moral right to tell us in Clearview that we must accept wind turbines “or else”?

One way to stop the wasted energy and environmental impact of urban sprawl is for big city MPP’s to clean up their own yard and make cities safer and more habitable. While they listen to those who object to new gas plants, and cook up a new “plan of the month” for public transport, why do they ignore the issues with wind turbines?

My background is nuclear and chemical engineering, with over 30 years combined working at each of the nuclear plants in Ontario. I teach nuclear engineering at University of Toronto and Georgian College (Power Engineering) in Owen Sound for the purpose of training the next generation of staff who will design plants and work them safely.

I know nuclear reactors and how e=mc² gets us the energy. I know chemical reactors, e.g. to make gasoline from crude oil, and refining metals. I know solar and wind energy going back to the 1970’s, as energy and exergy are my major fields of study.

The application of Ontario’s “Green Energy Act” is in violation of principles in engineering, where we teach engineers to anticipate unintended consequences and not proceed with implementation until consequences and risks are taken into account.

The Green Energy Act is an abomination that is creating a living hell for almost everybody in rural Ontario, and the provincial government is ignoring the data of emerging health issues, property value issues, setbacks and zoning, impacts on fowl, fauna, and fish, impacts on local weather such as the dew point and foliar uptake by plants that is important in particular to alleviate heat stress on biota.

I have seen firsthand one of my neighbours from the 1980’s near Ripley forced out of his farm home due to wind turbines in Huron Township. Others are putting up with the impacts.

The energy available from wind in Ontario is borderline minimal compared to other countries and areas of the world. 25% to 30% is the capacity factor.

The wind is not available when we need energy the most, i.e. summer air-conditioning and winter heating. The shoulder seasons have the most wind here, yet this is when air-conditioning and heating demands are minimal.

The power equation for wind results in 8 times the energy for a doubling of wind speed, and the excess energy has to be “dumped.” Storage systems are available, but prohibitively expensive. Hythanation is possible, but wind turbines are not economic for hydrogen production given the added infrastructure relative to the cost of natural gas.

Wind turbines use 5 to 7 times the amount of concrete and steel vs. say a nuclear plant on a per Megawatt basis. It will require some 10,000 wind turbines to replace the ~ 6000 MW of coal generation at 25% CF (capacity factor). Back-up gas fired plants have to be added like plug-ins everywhere because the wind is not reliable.

The pastoral scene of a field of wind turbines slowly turning in almost still air has environmentalists dreaming in technicolour.

The truth is that these wind turbines need about 8 km/hour of wind before they will start generating electricity. Any rotation of the blades at wind speeds below 8 km/hour is accomplished by taking power from the grid to get the wind turbine started in anticipation that the wind may pick up.

The economy of scale that has historically brought competitive energy prices in Ontario is not available, given the thousands of wind turbines, and that will also become a maintenance nightmare as machines and contracts approach end of life. Why do we not refuel Nanticoke, Lakeview, Lambton, Lennox and complete Wesleyville to run on natural gas?

What makes McGuinty et al. think they can impose industrial wind turbines on Clearview and all of rural Ontario? Is Clearview thinking of becoming part of this scheme of waste?

This scheme of waste is happening not just by government order, but it is happening because of the salacious relationship between government and the developers.

The most telling example is the head of the Federal Liberal Party is a wind developer. The activity surrounding the recent cancelled “gas plant” in order to preserve seats, and thus preserve the Green Energy Act, is also telling.

We also have the government using engineers from wind developers making recommendations on health impacts. As a P. Eng. I can say that engineers are not the authority on health. The conflict of interest between the engineer being paid for engineering work, vs. the same engineer as proponent and key advisor to the government is quite apparent.

The set-back of 550 meters has no scientific basis. Noise from wind turbines has been measured up to 10 kilometers away in some locations. Medical doctors have noted the health impacts, yet they are being ignored by the Ontario government.

The Feed-in Tariff takes billions of dollars out of communities, out of the province, and out of the country. This is money that is very much needed for healthcare, for schools and teachers, and to replace aging infrastructure and to build much needed new infrastructure such as public transit.

For the first time in decades (I don’t think it ever took place), Ontario is taking equalization payments from the Federal Government, and this points to not only the unsustainability of Ontario as an economy, it is dragging down the rest of the country. It would be different if we owned everything, did local planning, and used a process that garnered respect.

The Ontario government is following the advice of foreign countries and foreign companies to give our money away to them irrespective of the advice of many MP’s. It is most interesting to note that one of the political parties with a labour platform appears in complete agreement with giving away the work and the money and the surplus electricity.

Japan is restarting its nuclear fleet. Russia, China, India, Britain, the US, and even the United Arab Emirates are building or planning to nuclear reactors for electric generation. What is the purpose and value of Ontario energy policy? Every product we buy in Ontario that is made someplace else (most items, can you name one thing that is made here?) has a nuclear energy component in that product.

It is time to stop being altruistic or hypocritical about our energy. There is no rational reason for the 50% cap on nuclear in Ontario. Are we on some unwitting “race to the bottom” being orchestrated by some competitor countries wanting to control us? Having ample low cost energy is crucial to sovereignty, internal peace, and security.

As such, there is no respecting McGuinty, Bentley et al. for this indictment. There is also no need to respect any wind developers as they have already indicated their respect for us. I commented last year on WPD, and sent comments to their consultant as requested, and they have not replied, and their silence speaks volumes. I have sent many an e-mail to the government recommending a moratorium and have not been given the courtesy of any reply.

The purpose of the developer is to make money, i.e. take our money as allowed for by the government, and with minimum effort on their part. This speaks to the quality of the public meetings and their answers to our concerns. The public meetings are a sham.

There are quite a number of lawsuits already taking place and others pending. I thank the Federal government for the recent announcement on the health study. It is also pivotal to learn today that the Ministry of Health is being forced to testify.

My recommendation is for Clearview to take the high road and avoid complicity in matters that are before the courts, and who knows, but it is quite possible (I hope) that the renewed call for a moratorium may take hold for good reasons posted here.

A moratorium in Clearview is very appropriate.

While the WPD wind turbines west of Stayner are quite a few km from our place, they are likely the thin edge of the wedge planned for coming into Clearview. Let me remind you, we came here because this is a good place to live with good opportunities for business. All of that changes if wind turbines are allowed to disrupt the neighbourhood. And 10,000 wind turbines and solar farms are not the answer to Ontario’s energy needs.

As I said before, a province-wide moratorium is needed, and I believe this will come as a matter of time because the inconvenient truth about wind turbines is too big for McGuinty’s carpet. The track record for dictatorial governments throughout history is that all dictatorships eventually capitulate. A moratorium in Clearview would be a “made in Clearview” solution to stop the waste sooner than later.

Eric Jelinski, P. Eng.

What is interesting is that this is not only a UK or European problem and the US and Canada predates much of our wind fleet. But the problems are endemic in the industry and the political myopia of the issues and problems of wind a mystery to the other 97% of the population!
Windfarmaction

The Futility and Ridiculousness of the Windscam!

January 30, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

It Don’t Take Sherlock to Know; When the Wind Don’t Blow, The Power Don’t Flow

January 30, 2015 by stopthesethings Leave a Comment

STT has – just once or twice – smashed the myth that wind power can provide a meaningful supply of electricity (ie power “on-demand”) – and relegated to the fiction aisle the the wind industry’s “playbook”, where you’ll find, in bold print, the oft-told furphy about wind farms “powering” 10s of thousands of homes.

At STT the term “powering” means exactly what it says: that when someone – at any time of the day or night – in any and all of the thousands of homes claimed to be “powered” by wind power – flicks theswitch the lights go on or the kettle starts boiling.

The wind industry never qualifies its we’re “powering thousands of homes” mantra by saying what it really means: that wind power might be throwing a little illumination or sparking up the kettle in those homes every now and again – and that the rest of time their owners will be tapping into a system of generation that operates quite happily 24 x 7, rain, hail or shine – without which they’d be eating tins of cold baked beans, while sitting freezing (or boiling) in the dark.

Here’s a little collection of posts busting that and other wind power myths in Australia:

And hammering the same myths, elsewhere around the world:

Now, Andrew Rogers of Energy Matters has done a beautiful number on the same myths, as relentlessly pedalled by the wind industry in Europe. (Oh, and if the graphs are too puny or fuzzy, click on them, they’ll pop up in a new window and you can magnify them from there.)

Wind Blowing Nowhere
Energy Matters
Roger Andrews
23 January 2015

In much of Europe energy policy is being formulated by policymakers who assume that combining wind generation over large areas will flatten out the spikes and fill in the troughs and thereby allow wind to be “harnessed to provide reliable electricity” as the European Wind Energy Association tells them it will:

The wind does not blow continuously, yet there is little overall impact if the wind stops blowing somewhere – it is always blowing somewhere else. Thus, wind can be harnessed to provide reliable electricity even though the wind is not available 100% of the time at one particular site.

Here we will review whether this assumption is valid. We will do so by progressively combining hourly wind generation data for 2013 for nine countries in Western Europe downloaded from the excellent data base compiled by Paul-Frederik Bach, paying special attention to periods when “the wind stops blowing somewhere”. The nine countries are Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Germany, Spain and the UK, which together cover a land area of 2.3 million square kilometers and extend over distances of 2,000 kilometers east-west and 4,000 kilometers north-south:

We begin with Spain, Europe’s largest producer of wind power in 2013. Here is Spain’s hourly wind generation for the year. Four periods of low wind output are numbered for reference:

Now we will add Germany, Europe’s second-largest wind power producer in 2013. We find that Spanish low wind output period 4 was more than offset by a coincident German wind spike. Spanish low wind periods 1, 2 and 3, however, were not.

Now we add UK, the third largest producer in 2013. Wind generation in UK during periods 1, 2 and 3 was also minimal:

As it was in France, the fourth largest producer:

And also in the other five countries, which I’ve combined for convenience:

Figure 7 is a blowup of the period between February 2 and 15, which covers low wind period 2. According to these results the wind died to a whisper all over Western Europe in the early hours of February 8th:

These results are, however, potentially misleading because of the large differences in output between the different countries. The wind could have been blowing in Finland and the Czech Republic but we wouldn’t see it in Figure 7 because the output from these countries is still swamped by the larger producers. To level the playing field I normalized the data by setting maximum 2013 wind generation to 100% and the minimum to 0% in each country, so that Germany, for example, scores 100% with 26,000MW output and 50% with 13,000MW while Finland scores 100% with only 222MW and 50% with only 111MW. Expressing generation as a percentage of maximum output gives us a reasonably good proxy for wind speed.

Replotting Figure 7 using these percentages yields the results shown in Figure 8 (the maximum theoretical output for the nine countries combined is 900%, incidentally). We find that the wind was in fact still blowing in Ireland during the low-wind period on February 8th, but usually at less than 50% of maximum.

But even Ireland was not blessed with much in the way of wind at the time of minimum output, which occurred at 5 am. Figure 10 plots the percentage-of-maximum values for the individual countries at 5 am on the map of Europe. If we assume that less than 5% signifies “no wind” there was at this time no wind over an area up to 1,000 km wide extending from Gibraltar at least to the northern tip of Denmark and probably as far north as the White Sea:

During this period the wind was clearly not blowing “somewhere else”, and there are other periods like it.

Combining wind generation from the nine countries has also not smoothed out the spikes. The final product looks just as spiky as the data from Spain we began with; the spikes have just shifted position:

Obviously combining wind generation in Western Europe is not going to provide the “reliable electricity” its backers claim it will. Integrating European wind into a European grid will in fact pose just as many problems as integrating UK wind into the UK grid or Scottish wind into the Scottish grid, but on a larger scale. We will take a brief look at this issue before concluding.

Integrating the combined wind output from the nine countries into a European grid would not have posed any insurmountable difficulties in 2013 because wind was still a minor player, supplying only 8.8% of demand:

But integration becomes progressively more problematic at higher levels of wind penetration. I simulated higher levels by factoring up 2013 wind generation with the results shown on Figure 12, which plots the percentage of demand supplied by wind in the nine countries in each hourly period. Twenty percent wind penetration looks as if it might be achievable; forty percent doesn’t.

Finally, many thanks to Hubert Flocard, who recently performed a parallel study and graciously gave Energy Matters permission to re-invent the wheel, plus a hat tip to Hugh Sharman for bringing Hubert’s work to our attention.
Energy Matters

POINTMAN – Always Gives Us Something to Ponder….

January 29, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Pop, pop, and poppety pop.

by Pointman

A friend once turned to me on a day that had no mercy in it and said, “you’re right, there is no God.” We were both watching something slowly unfolding, something cold and just petrifying cruel which couldn’t be stopped by either of us. We couldn’t exert any control over it, we could only watch; emasculated observers at the final end of world extinction event of any residual hope about how low us human beings could really get. Pop, there they go, pop, pop, another couple of the buggers. Pop, pop, and poppety pop and yet a few more of them.

At the time and in a vague distracted sort of way, it broke my heart to see him lose his faith, because I loved him as only one man can love another and I’d always somehow relied on him to be the last unwavering believer in some sort of floor of decency that none of us could ever drop through, though I’d never quite realised that until that moment. It was a sort of good-natured buddy buddy routine we did. I’d always dissed his notions of a big G, he’d always thought I was joking as he worked on me but I wasn’t. Not really.

He did have a certain something about him and whatever that was, it became an unexamined backstop of our friendship. He was my touchstone, a glimmer of hope and my ace in the hole, someone who’d pushed through all my tough-guy BS front and taken a deep look down into me and found the little me who still wanted to be a believer. He was always confident he’d get me back into the fold and I had a sneaking hope he just might pull it off, but I should have known I couldn’t protect him from the fire, because he’d never really seen the fire. That day, he saw it and it burnt that something out of him.

It roasted the poor bastard alive.

As bad days go, the complete destruction of the steady and sure religious underpinning of his life was the cherry on top of it all. Lord help an unbeliever out here, at least spare him because I knew he’d be no bloody good wrestling with all the godless doubts that have always nagged away at a low creature like me. It was a slow, untreatable and seventy per cent, first class, New York primo steak, first degree burns injury that no amount of skin grafts could make better. In the end he became someone looking for nothing more than a meaningful way of checking out, but the reality was that he was just another casualty of that day.

It was a kind of delayed reaction thing which took a few more years of his life to play itself out. Corny but true, life has a habit of taking out the decent ones early, and again I watched and couldn’t do anything more than help see him out of the chaos his life eventually became. Hush up now, it’ll all be okay, I swear to Christ. You take your rest, I’ve got you. You just pop along now.

You stagger out of a few discos like that and it becomes clear that the common denominator, that promised basis of all religions simply doesn’t stack up with the reality – behave yourself, follow whatever scriptures you’re supposed to do and you’ll end up in Heaven, Nirvana or wherever deist carrot is being dangled. The innocents never even had the time to be bad boys or girls, so the whole idea of a life as some sort of test you run in order to earn entrance into some higher plain of existence is quite frankly open to question. The wake up message is as old as Agamemnon’s soldiers throwing Troy’s babies from the battlements of a city being sacked.

This is supposed to be a climate skeptic blog and we’re straying into areas theological, which I’m pretty sure most skeptics are uncomfortable with, but I’m afraid that atrophied appendix of a religious upbringing is the mainspring of why I blog. Relax, I’m not some born again Christian after you on the sly. Rather, anything I do here is out of a sense of fairness, which as a reason can be tinselled and tarted up to something as grand as ethics or dare I say it, morality.

Of late, notables like Andrew Montford, Peter lee and somewhat indirectly Richard Tol, have dipped their toe into those murky waters to a slightly puzzled silence from the skeptic blogosphere. Where are you Matt? Even allowing for the stiffness of the articles, it’s about time they moved out of their comfort zones and made the human case for opposition to an agenda that’s supposed to save the Earth at our expense, and I mean that not only in terms of dollars and cents but lives lost.

Lives. That’s what it’s all about. It’s not about us being proved right, about egos, about proving them wrong, but about fishing a few people out of a raging sea. We have to be focused, direct and a lot better than the stereotype we’ve always portrayed us as, so we can pull as many out as we can. The fundamental indecency of the whole thing is the widespread and unquestioned belief on both sides that it’s somehow a quasi-scientific argument, a fencing bout with supporters on sides cheering on their champions. It’s all too easy to see why the developing world see us, all of us, as totally irrelevant, if only because we behave like pampered children who’re puzzled that they don’t have any cake to eat.

I can point this very day at the harm being done to human beings by policies which are supposed to save people a century or so in the future. We don’t allow them GM crops, so they die. We don’t allow them to do coal-powered generation, so they die. We don’t allow them to DDT the arse off mosquitos that kill them with Malaria, so they die. We just don’t allow anything we think wouldn’t be good for them and they just obligingly die. It’s not a problem. Nobody sort of notices and anyway, mostly their arses aren’t white so they don’t actually count as real people.

We’ve already done the whole trip and totally ruined our own environment so there’s definitely no way we’d allow them to make the same mistakes. We’ll guide them forwards towards some medieval rustic, but yet beautiful and untainted existence skipping around the savannahs like seventeenth century French peasants and they’ll love us for doing it.

All I see are dire scientific predictions of an approaching Armageddon, which can only be prevented by throwing buckets full of money vampired out of the poor and passed on to the already rich. With a certain boring regularity, the predictions just fail to materialise and are therefore just ratcheted on a decade or two into the future. Nobody cares because it’s a feeding frenzy. Trough it baby, go for it. Get your piece of the pie while it’s still there.

I see people lining their pockets. I see greed, I see lies, mendacity, deceit and raw naked academic thuggery being used to advance a discredited theory that’s been crumbling like a sandcastle before an incoming tide for the last decade. It’s being crushed under the Everest weight of real world data that simply refuses to conform to its projections. What the hell, nobody cares anyway.

You have enough bruising encounters with ethics in the real world and I’m afraid your wonderful standards slip because you end up with the choice of being a righteous prick who’s paralysed within a dilemma of your own artificial ethical framework or someone who’s decided to do something expedient right now because you yielded to your own humanity.

If you’ve ventured to knock around the edges of our comfortable existence in the rich world, that bad day will eventually pay you a visit and it’ll be make your mind up time – and there’ll always be an urgent window on it too. Do something now, right now, because if you keep chewing it over for the next few minutes, circumstances will effectively make your decision for you.

If policies are killing people for no better reason than an unproven theory, then those policies are simply misguided, and if those policies are pursued while turning a blind eye to their impact on the most helpless ones amongst us, then anyone knowingly supporting such policies are not simply bad or ignorant people, they are immoral, if not simply evil. Their finger might not actually be on the trigger, but to my mind they’re still doing the popping.

Perhaps we’ve finally reached the stage where it’s now been recognised that it’s not about whether there actually is a legitimate moral argument which can be made by climate skeptics, but that it’s actually the argument to be made.

©Pointman

Related articles by Pointman:

Tell me why.

Is there a moral dimension to being anti-environmental?

Interest in Wind Projects Wanes, and Prices Dropping Fast!

January 29, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind auction sees low interest

Only two of four offshore MA wind areas get bids; sale prices much lower than prior sales off other states

By Mike Lawrence

Only two of four wind energy lease areas in federal waters south of Martha’s Vineyard received bids in an auction today and the sale prices were millions of dollars lower than previous auctions for leases of smaller sizes off other coastal states, according to statements by federal energy officials.

Leaders of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) expressed a sunny outlook, though, in a conference call to media following the sales.

BOEM put four lease areas up for auction this morning. The areas are collectively known as the Massachusetts Wind Energy Area and cover more than 742,000 acres in federal waters about 12 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard.

BOEM Deputy Director Walter Cruickshank said the 187,523-acre lease area closest to shore sold for $281,285 to Renewable Energy Systems (RES) Americas, and the adjacent 166,886-acre lease area sold for $166,886 to Offshore MW. The other two lease areas, farther from shore, were not bid on, he said.

U.S. Wind paid $8.7 million in August for leases on two areas totaling 79,707 acres off the Maryland coast, according to BOEM data. In September 2013, Dominion Resources paid $1.6 million for a lease on 112,799 acres off the coast of Virginia.

Deepwater Wind paid $3.8 million for two lease areas totaling 164,749 acres in the Rhode Island/Massachusetts Wind Area – adjacent to, and closer to shore than, the areas auctioned today – in BOEM’s first competitive auction of offshore wind development leases, in July 2013.

BOEM Director Abby Ross Hopper said the bureau was “happy with the results of (today’s) auction” and set the minimum bids lower than in previous auctions because of water depth and other factors.

“The Massachusetts Wind Energy Area is located in deeper water than some of our other wind energy areas in other states,” Hopper said. “We knew that developing…in this area was going to be more expensive.”

Hopper said another factor was that, unlike Massachusetts, other states had offered offshore wind credits and other financial incentives to renewable energy developers.

“That obviously has value,” Hopper said, adding that legislation has been introduced in Massachusetts to add incentives for offshore wind, but has not yet been approved.

Cheap oil and gas prices this month also may have deflated interest in wind power ahead of today’s auction. Additionally, the regional wind industry recently took a separate hit to the jaw, when utility giants NStar and Northeast Utilities announced the termination of their contracts to buy wind power generated by Cape Wind in Nantucket Sound, saying Cape Wind failed to meet critical financing milestones.

Hopper denied a connection between Cape Wind and the lack of bids on two lease areas today.

“I think the recent activity at Cape Wind shouldn’t be read as any sort of indicator of what happened in today’s auction,” she said. “I am very encouraged by the fact that two experienced wind developers have won provisional leases in the state of Massachusetts.”

The provisional leases bought today represent less than half of the 742,000 acres that were up for auction.

Cruickshank said the two areas that did not receive bids “are still part of the Massachusetts Wind Energy Area” and the bureau will discuss future options for their use with state agencies.

He said RES Americas and Offshore MW were the only companies that placed bids in today’s auction.

Follow Mike Lawrence on Twitter: @MikeLawrenceSCT

Monte McNaughton…..Best Choice for Victims of Wind Turbines in Ontario! (That’s all of us!)

January 27, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Ending Ontario’s wind experiment

Credit: Monte McNaughton MPP | Posted 26 January 2015 | www.netnewsledger.com ~~

How do we ensure that when one government abuses its power, we don’t have to live with the consequences for a generation? Through the supremacy of our democratically elected legislative assembly in Ontario.

In 2009, the Ontario Liberals misused their majority when they stripped municipalities of their long-standing land planning rights in order to impose the wind turbine experiment. They then used executive orders to hand out sole-sourced deals ‎to line the pockets of their wind developer friends. These 20-year deals provide guaranteed pricing to developers for wind power that is above market rates—because wind power cannot be produced in Ontario at reasonable market rates. They also guarantee revenue even when turbines are asked not to produce wind power.

The Ontario Liberals deliberately ignored the interests and wishes of rural Ontario and made all consumers, both urban and rural pay for it—to the tune of $1 billion to $3 billion annually, with increases projected every year. That’s $20 billion to $60 billion over the next two decades. This accounted for only 3.4% of Ontario’s electricity generating capacity, but represented 20% of the total commodity cost of electricity in the province.

And the bad news doesn’t end there—for the last two years, our electricity system has been forced to dump more than double the amount of power generated by wind turbines into other jurisdictions, and at a 75% discount on what we paid to produce it.

Why? Because we are producing more electricity than we need, and because the wind turbines in Ontario produce most of their power during off-peak hours – when we don’t need it all.

And how are the turbines helping the environment? Since wind power is unreliable it requires additional backup power from other generation sources, such as gas-fired generation, which—you guessed it—increases air emissions.

France, Belgium, Italy, and Spain have all had to reverse course on wind power. The reason – the exorbitant costs on consumers with no benefit.

So how do we get out of this mess? If a future government issued another executive order to terminate the McGuinty-Wynne wind power scheme and keep it out of public view, then taxpayers would be on the hook for the entirety of the commitments – as was done by Dalton McGuinty in 2010 with the proposed power plants in Mississauga and Oakville. If, however, the democratically elected legislature passed an explicit statute to end the wind power rip-off, Ontario could determine what compensation, if any, would be paid, and to whom.

Enacting legislation to repeal the Liberal wind power boondoggle is the right way forward. As Premier I will do just that and introduce measures in the legislature to correct this abuse of power by the Ontario Liberals.

Visit http://www.Monte.ca/wind to learn more about McNaughton’s plan to end Ontario’s wind energy experiment, and other issues that are part of his plan for Ontario.

Wind Pushers Everywhere Terrified That the Truth Will Be Known to All!

January 27, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

What REAL Experts are Saying About Steven’s Cooper’s Wind Farm Noise Study

January 27, 2015 by stopthesethings

In our recent post we popped up the study done by Steven Cooper at Pacific Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater wind farm, that’s sent the wind industry and its parasites into complete melt-down.

Its keenest advocates have turned on Pac Hydro, with the kind of hate-filled vengeance (usually reserved for traitors) for letting Cooper off the leash in the first place (see our post here).

And a band of others – with their trotters firmly in the wind industry subsidy trough – have chimed in, in an hysterical effort to pooh-pooh Cooper’s study.

This band of Twitter jockeys – made up of pseudo-scientists, mock-medicos and eco-fascist barrackers have been uniformly desperate in their attempts to deride and attack Cooper personally; and in their attempts to demonstrate that the study is somehow “flawed”.

Curiously – none of them hold any qualifications relevant to the task at hand – save and except the ability to compress non sequiturs into 140 characters.

In a classic bait and switch technique, this reliable band of useful idiots start out by branding Cooper’s study as a piece of “academic work”; and then set out to attack it on that basis.

The study is not “academic work” of the kind familiar to those firmly ensconced in sandstone citadels, but is, rather, a field study where data was gathered; set against the hypothesis that there is a relationship between the adverse health impacts complained of by neighbours and turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound.

On that basis, the study can be seen as a robust piece of basic research; ready for further testing.

The idea of science (well, it used to be) is to propound some hypothesis directed at a particular relationship; to gather some evidence in relation to that hypothesis; and then throw that evidence firmly against the hypothesis, in an effort to disprove it. What Karl Popper called “falsifiability”; which he defined as the essential feature of science.

Science is not conducted by a show of hands or a popularity contest. Having a million scientists (or Twitter followers) “agree” with a particular hypothesis does not add to the robustness of that hypothesis. Indeed, the entire point of science is constant conjecture and repeated challenge to establish and maintain a robust and reliable body of fundamental human knowledge. Humans have been at it – in an organised way – for around 300 years and have improved their lot as the direct result of that quest.

And it most certainly isn’t conducted on the basis of the popularity of an ideologically driven agenda, generated by carping and nitpicking on Twitter; or during ABC propaganda love-ins.

In 1907 – when Albert Einstein – then, a lowly Austrian patent clerk – started scratching out what became known as his theory of “relativity”, young Albert was very much on his lonesome. In fact, he was roundlyridiculed and criticised by his contemporaries – and it took decades before his theory was taken seriously. The lack of “agreement” among physicists with Einstein’s theory did not, however, render the theory false or incorrect.

Einstein (correctly) identified that: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”. Physicists are still trying to prove Einstein’s theories wrong – and so it should be.

If the eco-fascist cheer squad were, in fact, serious scientists, they would be out in paddocks and inside homes armed with microphones and sensors, gathering their own datasets to throw against the hypothesis, in an effort to disprove it; and advance science.

Cooper’s methods and approach sit fairly and squarely within that model: the target hypothesis was set; and data was thrown against it. The hypothesis remains; leaving it standing to be belted again and again, until such time as evidence shows the hypothesis to be invalid.

If any scientist seeks to protect their pet hypothesis (eg, the nonsense “nocebo” effect, for example) then your Spidey senses should be tingling: the “scientist” in question is then simply an advocate for their idea; the whole concept of scientific progress is to belt the hypothesis repeatedly with evidence relevant to that task. If the hypothesis remains, then so be it.

In the case of Cooper’s study, limitations on the length of the study and the size of the dataset (number of participants etc) were firmly set by Pac Hydro – the wind power outfit in question, which paid for the study as its Penance for being the object of over 6 years of residents’ well-justified complaints.

No such controls or limitations are placed on “academic research” – here, Pac Hydro’s deliberate controls and limitations were driven by, obviously, commercial considerations, and aimed at protecting a corporate reputation under threat (ie, “damage control”).

So it seems a bit rich that the Twitter jockeys are attacking Cooper’s study as “flawed” on that basis.

Among the raft of limitations placed on Cooper by Pac Hydro, was its rejection of Cooper’s request that the study be peer reviewed, prior to its release. Pac Hydro, sensing it already had a public relations disaster in the making, deliberately decided to prevent peer review of the study, which would have only added weight and validity to its results.

However, as a piece of basic scientific research, Cooper’s study stands alone; and is, therefore, easily capable of being:

reproduced;
scaled up to include more homes and residents;
further validated and supported with the inclusion of a representative cohort as a control group in any further study; and
therefore, repeated, validated and extended, both here, and all around the world.

So far, so scientific.

But instead of letting the eco-fascist cheer squad, wind industry and its parasites “own” the debate about the validity of Cooper’s study, why nothear from two highly qualified and experienced acoustic engineers, instead of media manipulators armed with arts and sociology degrees?

Rob Rand and Stephen Ambrose have, between them, published dozens of peer reviewed articles on wind turbine noise impacts (a few are available here); have over 65 years of acoustics experience between them; and have been working specifically on low-frequency noise and infrasound emissions from wind turbines for nearly 20 years.

Let’s hear what properly qualified experts have to say about Steven Cooper’s study.

January 21, 2015

Dear Steven,

Re: Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm Acoustic Study

Congratulations on this superlative work investigating the neighbor reports and correlating (unintended) adverse effects of the facility. The scope and detail of your report is sure to assist acoustic investigators, planners, utilities, and the public to understand without any further doubt or dismissal what wind turbine neighbors have been saying for years, as you so clearly sum up,

“What we found was that previously they were complaining about the noise, but it wasn’t really the noise, it was sensations.”

The report’s establishing of tonal energy at the blade pass and harmonics along with higher frequencies with sidebands as the wind turbine signature, puts to rest any further tendency by acoustic professionals to rely on constant-percentage bands to attempt to assess neighbor impacts from wind turbine signals.

The correlation of sensation level to WTS tone level in the infrasonic and audible bands brings wind turbine acoustics right to the door of medical science. Medical tests in the homes, long overdue, can now be correlated directly to WTS. May the medical testing in homes begin without further delay.

I would like to express my deep appreciation to Pacific Hydro for sponsoring the study and providing turbine on/off conditions for evaluation.

Best Regards,
________________________
Robert W. Rand, ASA, INCE
RAND ACOUSTICS

Original letter from Rob Rand

January 22, 2015

Ref: Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm Acoustic Study

Congratulations, I commend you for pursuing scientific truth by investigating the human response to large wind-turbines in the acoustic environment. Your correlation of human response journal entries with scientific waveform analysis clearly shows hearing is not limited to audible sounds. Research continues to reveal that the ear has multiple functions and capabilities. This study merits recognition by acoustic and public health professionals for more research.

Your study goes far beyond the 1980s Neil Kelley et al. studies that identified operating wind-turbines can produce airborne transmissions that humans detect as “sensations”. Bray/James research showed that one-third octave band filters could not measure the low-frequency peaks produced by wind-turbines.

Neighbors’ complaints were ignored by the majority. Acoustic experts failed to understand the limitations of their instruments and analysis methods. The Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm Analysis Study should end blaming the neighbor. Neighbors deserve respect. Experts earn respect.

Before wind turbines, the highest negative community reaction was “vigorous community action to stop the noise”. Wind turbines have raised the bar to “home abandonment”. This life-saving option is not affordable; most experience diminished quality of life, degradation of health, and loss of wellbeing. The population majority remains unknowing and unaffected by wind turbines because they live far away or genetically protected from “sensations”. I was surprised to learn that I should not live near a wind turbine neighbor. I have no sympathy; I have real empathy.

Thank you and best wishes.

Respectfully,

Stephen E. Ambrose, ASA, INCE, Board Certified
Principal Consultant

Original letter from Stephen Ambrose

	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!

Return to sanity!