Denmark’s State Owned Electric Company gives up Land based Wind Turbines!
Mass protests mean the energy firm will look offshore
State-owned energy firm Dong Energy has given up building more wind farms on Danish land, following protests from residents complaining about the noise the turbines make.
It had been Dong and the government’s plan that 500 large turbines be built on land over the coming 10 years, as part of a large-scale national energy plan. This plan has hit a serious stumbling block, though, due to many protests, and the firm has now given up building any more wind farms on land.
Anders Eldrup, the CEO of Dong Energy, told TV2 News: ‘It is very difficult to get the public’s acceptance if the turbines are built close to residential buildings, and therefore we are now looking at maritime options.'
The move has met resistance from parliament, where amongst others Anne Grete Holmgaard, the chairperson of the Parliamentary Environmental Committee, said, ‘It is rather unacceptable that Dong - which is our large, state-owned energy firm - says goodbye to an investment in wind on land, and that they are doing so after we have cleared the way for a test centre where new types of turbines can be tested.’
Five myths about green energy
Americans are being inundated with claims about renewable and alternative energy. Advocates for these technologies say that if we jettison fossil fuels, we'll breathe easier, stop global warming and revolutionize our economy. Yes, "green" energy has great emotional and political appeal. But before we wrap all our hopes -- and subsidies -- in it, let's take a hard look at some common misconceptions about what "green" means.
The Washington Post By Robert Bryce Sunday, April 25, 2010
1. Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all.
Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of "energy sprawl," including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.
Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction.
Denmark, the poster child for wind energy boosters, more than doubled its production of wind energy between 1999 and 2007. Yet data fromEnerginet.dk, the operator of Denmark's natural gas and electricity grids, show that carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in 2007 were at about the same level as they were back in 1990, before the country began its frenzied construction of turbines. Denmark has done a good job of keeping its overall carbon dioxide emissions flat, but that is in large part because of near-zero population growth and exorbitant energy taxes, not wind energy. And through 2017, the Danes foresee no decrease in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation.
2. Going green will reduce our dependence on imports from unsavory regimes.
In the new green economy, batteries are not included. Neither are many of the "rare earth" elements that are essential ingredients in most alternative energy technologies. Instead of relying on the diversity of the global oil market -- about 20 countries each produce at least 1 million barrels of crude per day -- the United States will be increasingly reliant on just one supplier, China, for elements known as lanthanides. Lanthanum, neodymium, dysprosium and other rare earth elements are used in products from high-capacity batteries and hybrid-electric vehicles to wind turbines and oil refinery catalysts.
China controls between 95 and 100 percent of the global market in these elements. And the Chinese government is reducing its exports of lanthanides to ensure an adequate supply for its domestic manufacturers. Politicians love to demonize oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, but adopting the technologies needed to drastically cut U.S. oil consumption will dramatically increase America's dependence on China.
3. A green American economy will create green American jobs.
In a global market, American wind turbine manufacturers face the same problem as American shoe manufacturers: high domestic labor costs. If U.S. companies want to make turbines, they will have to compete with China, which not only controls the market for neodymium, a critical ingredient in turbine magnets, but has access to very cheap employees.
The Chinese have also signaled their willingness to lose money on solar panels in order to gain market share. China's share of the world's solar module business has grown from about 7 percent in 2005 to about 25 percent in 2009.
Meanwhile, the very concept of a green job is not well defined. Is a job still green if it's created not by the market, but by subsidy or mandate? Consider the claims being made by the subsidy-dependent corn ethanol industry. Growth Energy, an industry lobby group, says increasing the percentage of ethanol blended into the U.S. gasoline supply would create 136,000 jobs. But an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that no more than 27,000 jobs would be created, and each one could cost taxpayers as much as $446,000 per year. Sure, the government can create more green jobs. But at what cost?
4. Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.
Nissan and Tesla are just two of the manufacturers that are increasing production of all-electric cars. But in the electric car's century-long history, failure tailgates failure. In 1911, the New York Times declared that the electric car "has long been recognized as the ideal" because it "is cleaner and quieter" and "much more economical" than its gasoline-fueled cousins. But the same unreliability of electric car batteries that flummoxed Thomas Edison persists today.
Those who believe that Detroit unplugged the electric car are mistaken. Electric cars haven't been sidelined by a cabal to sell internal combustion engines or a lack of political will, but by physics and math. Gasoline contains about 80 times as much energy, by weight, as the best lithium-ion battery. Sure, the electric motor is more efficient than the internal combustion engine, but can we depend on batteries that are notoriously finicky, short-lived and take hours to recharge? Speaking of recharging, last June, the Government Accountability Office reported that about 40 percent of consumers do not have access to an outlet near their vehicle at home. The electric car is the next big thing -- and it always will be.
5. The United States lags behind other rich countries in going green.
Over the past three decades, the United States has improved its energy efficiency as much as or more than other developed countries. According to data from the Energy Information Administration, average per capita energy consumption in the United States fell by 2.5 percent from 1980 through 2006. That reduction was greater than in any other developed country except Switzerland and Denmark, and the United States achieved it without participating in the Kyoto Protocol or creating an emissions trading system like the one employed in Europe. EIA data also show that the United States has been among the best at reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per $1 of GDP and the amount of energy consumed per $1 of GDP.
America's move toward a more service-based economy that is less dependent on heavy industry and manufacturing is driving this improvement. In addition, the proliferation of computer chips in everything from automobiles to programmable thermostats is wringing more useful work out of each unit of energy consumed. The United States will continue going green by simply allowing engineers and entrepreneurs to do what they do best: make products that are faster, cheaper and more efficient than the ones they made the year before.
Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His fourth book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future," will be out Tuesday, April 27.
Concern for birds
Although the turbine industry claims that turbines kill less than 1% of the bird population, the majority of these birds would comprise of the species related to birds of prey. And since prey creatures are usually only 10% of any animal population, this 1% claim suddenly becomes more of a concern. ...There's nothing wrong with green initiatives, but it's important to put wind turbines in locations that are logical for people, wildlife and the environment and not just because of a convenient power supply.
April 23, 2010 by Andres Hoag in The Lindsay Post
I read the article on the success the osprey is having here in the City of Kawartha Lakes and it certainly is a good news story.
But with the possible allocation of wind turbines throughout our municipality, I have real concern for the future of our birds of prey. It would be difficult for anyone to argue this area seems to be a hot spot for birds. I've counted 10 species of hawk, falcon and eagle including osprey and the bald eagle just off the top of my head and there could be possibly more.
Although the turbine industry claims that turbines kill less than 1% of the bird population, the majority of these birds would comprise of the species related to birds of prey. And since prey creatures are usually only 10% of any animal population, this 1% claim suddenly becomes more of a concern. We also have to hope that 1% is the truth and not a doctored number. Birds of prey are attracted to the up drafts the turbines produce and tend to circle the turbines until they get too close and get struck by one of the blades. A bald eagle has already been found dead in southern Ontario only 40 metres from a wind turbine.
I feel the City of Kawartha Lakes is part of a natural migration route and the wind turbines will have a significant toll on our birds of prey simply because of the numbers of prey birds that live in this area.
Once the turbines are up they will not be moved, so we need to ask ourselves if this is a logical place for them. In California which is also another part of the migratory route of birds of prey, 2,000 to 5,000 birds are killed each year.
According to a web site called the Heartland Institute, quote, "A study conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that Altamont Pass bird deaths are more prevalent than previously thought. According to the Jan. 30Oakland Tribune, previous studies conducted by wind farm operators had underestimated Altamont Pass bird kills by 25 to 300%. Moreover, new technologies designed to reduce the number of bird deaths will actually have the effect of increasing turbine bird kills.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory determined that new technology that would reduce the number of turbines by increasing the size of each tower's blades would kill more birds than the preexisting turbines. The larger turbines would increase the area of "swept" air and would have more lethal blades and components than their smaller cousins.
There's nothing wrong with green initiatives, but it's important to put wind turbines in locations that are logical for people, wildlife and the environment and not just because of a convenient power supply.
Remember, we're supposed to be making the world a better place, not a more dangerous one.
Spanish Solar-Panel Trade Group Calls for Fraud Investigation
I highlight this news article to show the possibility of renewable energy sources that are funded purely by government fiat to be ripe for fraud and abuse!
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- A Spanish trade group called on authorities to investigate possible fraud among solar-power generators after a news report said that some were getting paid for producing power at night.
ASIF wants the “identification, charges and rigorous application of the law” applied to any power producer guilty of such practices, the Madrid-based association for Spain’s photovoltaic-panel industry said today in a statement.
An audit of solar-power generation from November 2009 to January 2010 found that some panel operators were paid for doing the “impossible” -- producing electricity from sunlight during the night, El Mundo reported today, citing a letter from Secretary of State for Energy Pedro Marin.
Officials at Marin’s office in Madrid weren’t immediately available for comment.
“ASIF regrets that, with relative frequency, supposed photovoltaic fraud is leaked to the press -- with harmful consequences for the public image of the sector -- which later don’t translate into any public case that identifies the guilty,” the group said.
Preliminary evidence shows some solar stations may have run diesel-burning generators and sold the output as solar power, which earns several times more than electricity from fossil fuels, El Mundo said, citing unidentified people from the energy industry. The power grid received 4,500 megawatt-hours of power from midnight to 7 a.m. in the months audited, El Mundo said.
--Editors: Stephen Cunningham, Mike Anderson.
Green glitches in Germany; Energy angst abroad and confusion at home
April 12, 2010 by Charles C. Johnson in City Journal
In Germany, Weltschmerz is the sadness one feels when comparing the way the world is to the way it ought to be. German environmentalists must be suffering a profound case of it as not-in-my-backyard protests derail industry- and government-planned alternative-energy projects. Germany's Renewable Energy Sources Act (Erneuerbare Energien Gesetz, or EEG) was supposed to help the German Ministry for the Environment achieve its goal of renewables producing 30 percent of the country's electricity by 2020. Instead, the EEG has met with widespread opposition.
Crucial to the EEG is a "feed-in" scheme, hailed by greens the world over, which encourages ordinary German households to become energy producers. Under the EEG, any German has the right to feed unlimited electricity-from home-based windmills or solar panels, for example-into the country's grid. Government-run utilities are then required to buy this energy from the households at a government-determined price. That price, which includes a profit for the households, is locked in under a 20-year contract. In theory, every individual could run a power plant, and every backyard could produce clean, renewable energy.
But in reality, every individual also has a neighbor who doesn't want a power plant next door. With the help of social-networking websites, Germans-Europe's most litigious people-have been using the country's arcane ballot initiatives to delay or shut down their neighbors' planned energy investments.
Nor is the EEG Germany's only ill-advised energy regulation. Another recent law requires new German homes to meet 10 percent of their heating needs with renewable energy. But the carbon-emission reductions that this measure achieves are effectively nonexistent, according to the journal Energy Policy. Further, the law's incentives to use only certain kinds of renewables wind up freezing technology in an industry that needs to be more dynamic.
The worst obstacle to Germany's grand plans is physics itself. A solar panel converts only 11 percent of the solar energy that it receives into usable energy, while coal and natural gas facilities convert around 40 percent of their fuel into electricity. Vast panel arrays are the only way to make solar economical: a single solar module on a very sunny day in the Sahara can create only enough energy to power one 75-watt lightbulb-and Germany on the brightest of days receives just half the sunlight that the Sahara does.
The government's intentions were good. Germany's foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, had hoped that a diversification of the country's energy portfolio would make it less dependent on Russia, from which Germany buys a third of its oil and gas. And it's true that unless renewables pick up the slack, Germany will become even more dependent on Russia for its fuel. But that's partly Germany's own fault: by 2020, it intends to phase out its 17 nuclear power plants, which now supply about a quarter of the nation's electricity and provide the only form of renewable energy capable of meeting German demand.
Greens had promised that Germany would be a Mecca for energy investment, but instead it has become a Potemkin village-fooling foreign governments into believing that its economy is a model for the future. President Obama seems to be among those taken in. "We invented solar technology, but we've fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it," he told a joint session of Congress in February. The president has indulged in his own brand of environmental fooling, trying to persuade Americans to support his wasteful cap-and-trade bill and as much as $5 billion in tax credits for weatherization schemes like insulating homes for the winter. Obama calls this a "real stimulus." The Germans have another word for it: Volksverdummung, a deliberate deception of the public.
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0412cj.html
French Vote in Le Figaro 62% to Stop Building Wind Farms
In the French newspaper Le Figaro 62% of 21,460 people voted to stop the building of wind farms. As many of the negatives have been exposed across the world more and more countries are learning the many negatives out weigh the limited positivies.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/environnement/2010/03/26/01029-20100326QCMWWW00596-faut-il-arreter-de-construire-des-eoliennes-en-france-.php
It is time to end this lunacy
The announcement of plans for a £200million windfarm at Moy, near Inverness, was accompanied by the claim that it would provide power to 100,000 homes. This great lie is perpetuated every time a new wind development is reported. People need to understand what is actually being claimed, and this can be found in the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) publication Calculations for Wind Energy.
March 26, 2010 by Stuart Young in Press and Journal
The announcement of plans for a £200million windfarm at Moy, near Inverness, was accompanied by the claim that it would provide power to 100,000 homes.
This great lie is perpetuated every time a new wind development is reported. People need to understand what is actually being claimed, and this can be found in the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) publication Calculations for Wind Energy.
BWEA claims: "A typical turbine therefore produces enough electricity each year to meet the needs of 1,000 homes."
I have no argument with this statement. A 1.75MW turbine at 30% load factor will annually generate 4,599MWh, which is close enough to the 4,700kWh average annual consumption per home for me.
But does it actually meet the needs? The answer is no. To meet the needs, the power needs to be there when needed.
At 2am on March 19, the 1,588MW connected windpower metered by the National Grid was generating 1,355MW when nobody wanted it, and at the morning peak demand time of 8.35am on March 20, the same 1,588MW wind fleet could manage only 107MW.
The overnight excess generation wasn't used by households, and when it was needed at breakfast time, it just wasn't there. An average of 731MW was generated over the period, but it was needed at breakfast time, not over the period. This surplus generation formed part of the "electricity produced each year", but it didn't "meet the needs" of homes.
So what happened to that surplus wind-generated electricity? The wind conditions on March 22 provide a good example.
At midnight on March 21, the output from the metered windfarms was 305MW. This rose steadily to 1,024MW at 8.05am on the 22nd, then fell steadily to 456MW at midday.
It continued falling after midday, but let's just consider this 12-hour period.
As the wind output rose, National Grid was switching off output from coal-fired power stations and, as the wind output fell, the same power stations were being reconnected.
Note that coal output was switched off, not that the coal fire was doused. During that 12-hour period, almost the same amount of coal was burned as would have been if the power was being fed into the grid.
That coal was burned and no benefit whatsoever was derived from it. It was burned solely so that wind energy could be used.
It was an obscene waste of a valuable and rare resource. The wind-generated electricity the consumer was forced to buy - because the government says the National Grid must take wind energy when it is being generated - cost about three times the coal-generated power, and the cost of constraining off the coal plant was almost as much as the electricity would have been.
During this period, our electricity was about four times the cost of coal-generated power, and virtually no carbon emission was saved.
Then there is the other great lie. BWEA says: "Electricity from wind turbines replaces the output of coal and gas-fired power stations as these are the most flexible plant on the system."
Actually, this is not a lie, simply throw a switch and you stop the electricity being transmitted, and throw it again and electricity flows into the system once more. You can't get any more flexible than that.
The great lie is in the unspoken implication that just because you are using wind energy, carbon emissions are being reduced.
The coal stations can't be turned off. The wind is about to drop, but nobody knows when.
In the 12 hours from midday on March 22, wind generation went down from 456MW to 405MW, up to 554MW, then down to 381MW, up to 511MW, then down to 460MW, up to 679MW, and then down to 522MW at midnight, after which it fell to 322MW at 4.35am on March 23.
All of these swings required juggling coal power stations on and off to keep the grid balanced, and all the switches were costly.
Not one ounce of carbon emission was saved.
It is time to end this lunacy.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1661...
Start by challenging the claim "Enough power for X thousands of homes".
Follow on by exposing the deceitful disingenuity of "Electricity from wind turbines replaces the output of coal and gas-fired power stations".
Faut-il arrêter de construire des éoliennes en France ?
… today, in France, one of the birthplaces of American liberty (see Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot, etc.), the good people of France are taking part in a nationwide poll to express the national sentiment on wind farms. “Should there be a moratorium? Oui ou Non?” The poll is being run by The Figaro, France’s grande national newspaper.
Please add your vote. France, Canada, and America are joined at the hip. We are all Frenchmen and women! Vivre la france!
Log onto this site and put a “dot” in the “oui” (yes) circle.
Feeble wind farms fail to hit full power
THE first detailed study of Britain’s onshore wind farms suggests some treasured landscapes may have been blighted for only small gains in green energy.
The analysis reveals that more than 20 wind farms produce less than a fifth of their potential maximum power output.
One site, at Blyth Harbour in Northumberland, is thought to be the worst in Britain, operating at just 7.9% of its maximum capacity. Another at Chelker reservoir in North Yorkshire operates at only 8.7% of capacity.
Both are relatively small and old, but larger and newer sites fared badly, too, according to analyses of data released by Ofgem, the energy regulator, for 2008.
Siddick wind farm in Cumbria, now operated by Eon, achieved only 15.8% of capacity, the figures suggest. The two turbines at High Volts 2, Co Durham, the largest and most powerful wind farm in Britain when it was commissioned in 2004, achieved 18.7%.
Turbine efficiency is calculated by comparing theoretical maximum output with what the farms actually generate. The best achieve about 50% efficiency and the norm is 25%-30%.
Experts say the figures for individual wind farms have to be treated with caution as output can vary sharply because of factors such as breakdowns.
The revelation that so many wind farms are performing well below par, however, will reinforce the view of objectors who believe many turbines generate too little power to justify their visual impact.
Britain has 245 onshore wind farms. Although wind power is expensive, the industry has boomed because of the “renewable obligation” subsidy system, under which consumers pay roughly double the normal price for energy from wind.
The analyses were compiled by Allan Tubb, a former power engineer, on behalf of the Campaign to Limit Onshore Wind Development (CLOWD) and were based on data published by Ofgem showing the capacity and performance of Britain's renewable power generators. The original data can be found athttps://www.renewablesandchp.ofgem.gov.uk/
Michael Jefferson, professor of international business and sustainability at London Metropolitan Business School, who is also a former lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has cited the efficiency figures in peer-reviewed papers. He says the subsidy encourages the construction of wind farms.
“Too many developments are underperforming,” he said. “It’s because developers grossly exaggerate the potential. The subsidies make it viable for developers to put turbines on sites they would not touch if the money was not available.”
Nick Medic of Renewable UK, which represents the wind industry, said Britain’s ambitious targets for clean power meant the country needed “every bit of green energy it could generate”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7069938.ece
Bankruptcy nears for Danish Wind Operator
In Denmark, the home of wind power, many of the leading wind power operators are facing significant economic problems, writes VA-listing. Danish Scan Energy, one of Europe's largest independent producers of renewable energy, following a failed IPO just before Christmas, is on the verge of bankruptcy. According to Danish media Scan Energy is struggling to pay the wages of its employees. It has also lodged a bankruptcy petition against the company.
Danish wind power is in crisis. At the same time two new Swedish wind power operators are seeking to be listed on the Swedish stock market.
In Denmark, the home of wind power, many of the leading wind power operators are facing significant economic problems, writes VA-listing. Danish Scan Energy, one of Europe's largest independent producers of renewable energy, following a failed IPO just before Christmas, is on the verge of bankruptcy. According to Danish media Scan Energy is struggling to pay the wages of its employees. It has also lodged a bankruptcy petition against the company.
Just last December, Scan Energy had been listed on the German Frankfurt Stock Exchange. Although the introductory rate was lowered to 8 million from an initial range of 9-13 million, the failed launch left the company without needed capital. In February, another Danish wind power operator, Green Wind Energy, which is listed on the Copenhagen Stock Exchange, issued a profit warning.
The Danish wind energy market is highly fragmented with few players at the top. Scan Energy is the largest independent wind energy operator in addition to energy giants Dong Energy and Vattenfall. Scan Energy has net 369 MW installed capacity in Denmark and on the continent. It is followed by Green Wind Energy with 76 MW of wind installed and Green Tech with 75 MW of installed capacity. There are many smaller players.
Swedish wind power operators, O2 and Arise, plan initial public offerings to be traded on the Stockholm Stock Exchange.
Scots wind farm shut over safety fears after 150ft turbine blade falls off
This wind farm has been open less than one year!
EUROPE'S largest wind farm ground to a halt after a 150ft blade snapped off one of the turbines.
All 140 of the giant machines were immediately shut down at the £300million development near Glasgow until they could be inspected.
Engineers at Whitelee wind farm, which is run by ScottishPower Renewables, were trying to work out why the blade came crashing down.
They are looking into whether lightning could have struck the turbine or if it was caused by a mechanical problem.
It sheared off and hit the ground in the early hours of Friday morning in blustery conditions.
Automatic systems alerted operators in the control room to the damage and they immediately closed down the unit.
All 420 blades in the wind farm were being examined following the accident.
Last night, more than 50 turbines were expected to have been inspected and safely returned to operation.
The process is expected to be completed by Friday.
Whitelee wind farm's visitor centre, which is managed by Glasgow Science Centre and had been due to reopen after the winter break yesterday, stayed shut.
German company Siemens, who supplied the turbines, are also understood to be investigating.
The 360ft turbines are so massive that engineers have been able to climb inside them to try to detect the problem.
Over the weekend, the site at Eaglesham Moor, 13 miles from Glasgow city centre, was cordoned off to keep visitors away. Raymond Toms, 45, a teacher from East Kilbride, spotted the broken turbine as he cycled past on Sunday.
He said: "I was out for a bike ride and I saw one of the massive blades had broken clean off. It was quite unnerving really.
"You can walk right up to these things normally and touch them.
"The public have access to the network of pathways nearby.
"I have grave concerns over the safety of the public, who can walk right up to the turbines.
"It's worrying that if one of these could fall off then perhaps another one could.
"It's made me think about going too close, that's for sure. It's just lucky this took place at night, when nobody was around."
Keith Anderson, managing director of ScottishPower Renewables, said: "This type of incident is exceptionally rare and highly unusual.
"However, the safety of our people and the public is our first priority.
"While the investigation into the cause of the incident is ongoing, our engineers continue to conduct an internal and external examination of all turbine blades at the wind farm".
A spokesman for the firm added: "Investigations are ongoing, and a number of possibilities including mechanical failure and lightning strike are being considered.
"Operators in the 24-hour control room immediately closed the turbine down.
"This is a highly unusual situation. I've not heard of this kind of incident happening in 30 years."
GREEN ENERGY BLUEPRINT
Whitelee was officially switched on in May 2009 by First Minister Alex Salmond.
Each turbine at Whitelee, which started producing electricity in January 2008, stands 360ft high.
The wind farm has 140 turbines that can generate 322 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 180,000 homes.
ScottishPower Renewables have been given permission to add 36 turbines to the site, allowing the wind farm to power 250,000 homes and create up to 300 jobs.
Last week, it was revealed that community groups in East Renfrewshire are to benefit from a fund set up from the development of Whitelee.
The fund will deliver about £140,000 a year for the next 25 years to the area's council for local groups.
Wind-power farms ‘vanity projects’
Vice-minister criticises mainland green energy sector despite global praise
Environmentalists worldwide have praised China as a leading harnesser of the wind for electricity, but a vice-minister says most of the ventures in the country were "vanity projects" - all for show.
Miao Wei , of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, also said on Sunday that one particular project that is backed by the country's top economic planner would have a "fatal result" in five years because of the sand that came with the dry wind.
Miao made the rare open criticism at a National People's Congress session that the country was unsuitable for developing wind power, according to the Beijing Times, a newspaper owned by the People's Daily.
"Most of the wind-power farms under construction on the mainland are vanity projects," the newspaper quoted Miao, who is ranked third among the ministry's seven vice-ministers, as saying.
He said other countries built their wind farms in places that had no dust or sand, but it was impossible to find such ideal locations on the mainland. Wherever the wind blows in the country, sand prevails.
The sand clogs the expensive rotating arms and power generators, which were precision-engineered products. By design, a generator, for instance, can run for 20 years. But on the mainland, the lifespan of wind-power equipment will be much shorter.
"You will see the fatal result in five years, especially the vanity project in Gansu ," Miao said.
The Gansu project, launched in 2008, was hailed as a flagship project and strongly supported by the National Development and Reform Commission, which oversees the industry and infrastructural development of the country.
The farm was expected to produce 20,000 megawatts of power by 2020 - as much as the Three Gorges Dam project - at an estimated cost of 120 billion yuan (HK$136 billion). The NDRC has already planned six more wind farms of the same scale.
But Miao's criticism indicated that even within the circle of senior government officials, opinions varied over whether the government should invest such a huge amount of taxpayers' money in the industry.
Wang Huisheng , the president of the State Development and Investment Corp, said yesterday some locations of wind farms on the mainland were indeed unsuitable.
"The equipment does not fit the environment, and the investment return is poor," Mr Wang said.
But Miao's comments met opposition within the industry. A senior manager in charge of renewable energy development at the Beijing headquarters of a Fortune 500 energy company said his comments would not slow the rapid development of wind farms.
"This guy knows little about wind-power technology. Scientists and engineers have been working on the sand and dust issue for decades. The problem exists but is far less severe than he said," said the manager, who refused to give his name, citing company policy.
"Above all, his ministry is not in charge of the development of wind power. The commission is in charge, and the officials of the commission are very powerful and determined. They won't be affected by his comments."
Web link: http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af6...
Windfarm Noise Indisputable – Must see video
This video is from the UK, but you need to see the interviews with regular people talking about their experiences and how local office are dealing with issues they may not understand and making promises they have no way of knowing will turnout out true.
The Brewing Tempest Over Wind Power
People living near turbines increasingly report sleep deprivation, headaches and vertigo. The wind lobby says there's no proof.
Imagine this scenario: The oil and gas industry launches an aggressive global drilling program with a new type of well. Thousands of these new wells, once operational, emit a noxious odor so offensive that many of the people living within a mile of them are kept awake at night. Some are even forced to move out of their homes. It's easy to predict the reaction: denunciations of the industry, countless lawsuits, and congressional investigations.
Now substitute wind for oil and gas and consider the noise complaints being lodged against wind projects around the world.
The Obama administration has made the increased use of wind power to generate electricity a top priority. In 2009 alone, U.S. wind generation capacity increased by 39%. But more wind power means more giant turbines closer to more people. And if current trends continue, that spells trouble.
In 2007, a phalanx of wind turbines were built around Charlie Porter's property in rural northern Missouri. Soon, Mr. Porter began to have trouble sleeping. So did his wife and daughter. The noise, he told me, made sleeping almost impossible. "We tried everything—earplugs, leaving the TV station on all night." Nothing worked. Late last year he moved his family off their 20-acre farm.
Mr. Porter's story is no isolated event. Rural residents in Texas, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oregon, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France and England have been complaining about the noise from wind turbines, particularly about sleep deprivation. Dozens of news stories—most of them published in rural newspapers—have documented the problem.
I've spoken to nine other people in New York, Wisconsin, Ontario, New Zealand, Nova Scotia and England who live, or lived, near wind turbines. All complained of the noise, with sleep deprivation being the most common complaint. For example, Janet Warren, who raises sheep near Makara, New Zealand, told me via email that the turbines near her home emit "continuous noise and vibration," which disturb her sleep and are causing "loss of concentration, irritability, and short-term memory effects."
Complaints about sleep disruption—as well as the deleterious health effects caused by the pulsing, low-frequency noise emitted by the giant turbines—are a central element of an emerging citizen backlash against the booming global wind industry.
Lawsuits that focus on noise pollution are now pending in Maine, Pennsylvania and New Zealand. In New Zealand, more than 750 complaints have been lodged against a large wind project near Makara since it began operating last April. The European Platform Against Windfarms lists 388 groups in 20 European countries. Canada has more than two dozen antiwind groups. In the U.S. there are about 100 such groups, and state legislators in Vermont recently introduced a bill that will require wind turbines be located no closer than 1.25 miles from any residence.
In theory, big wind projects should only be built in desolate areas. But the reality is that many turbines are being installed close to homes. Wind developers put a turbine within 550 meters of Mr. Porter's house. Hal Graham, a retired office manager in Cohocton, N.Y., complains about the noise pollution caused by a turbine 300 meters from his home. Tony Moyer, a plumbing superintendent in Eden, Wis., grumbles about the noise generated by three turbines built within 425 meters of his house.
Doctors and acoustics experts from the U.S. to Australia report a raft of symptoms that they blame on wind turbine noise, including sleep disturbance, headaches and vertigo. Dr. Nina Pierpont, a pediatrician in Malone, N.Y., has studied 36 people affected by wind turbine noise since 2004 at her own expense. The people she interviewed were widely dispersed; they lived in the U.S., Canada, England, Ireland and Italy. She found that the collection of symptoms she calls "wind turbine syndrome" disappeared as soon as people moved out of their noise-affected homes and into new locations at least five miles from any turbines.
Across the border, Ontario-based orthopedic surgeon Dr. Robert McMurtry has been researching wind turbine noise for the past 18 months. Dr. McMurtry, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, counts more than 100 people in Ontario he believes are experiencing adverse effects from turbine noise. "It has compromised their health," he says.
The wind lobby has publicly rejected these claims. In December, the American Wind Energy Association in conjunction with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, issued a report titled "Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects: An Expert Review Panel." It declared: "There is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects." It also suggested that some of the symptoms being attributed to wind turbine noise were likely psychosomatic and asserted that the vibrations from the turbines are "too weak to be detected by, or to affect, humans."
Yet the report also noted that in "the area of wind turbine health effects, no case-control or cohort studies have been conducted as of this date." True enough—but it means there are no studies to prove or disprove the case. It also says that "a small number of sensitive people" may be "stressed" by wind turbine noise and suffer sleep deprivation. But who gets to define "sensitive" and "small number"? And if turbine noise and sleep disturbance aren't problems, then why are people in so many different locations complaining in almost identical ways? Such questions are only going to be pressed with more urgency in the future.
By 2030, environmental and lobby groups are pushing for the U.S. to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. According to the Department of Energy, meeting that goal will require the U.S. to have about 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity, an eightfold increase over current levels. Installing tens of thousands of new turbines inevitably means they'll be located closer to populated areas.
The health effects of low-frequency noise on humans are not well understood. The noise in question often occurs at, or below, decibel levels that are commonly considered a public nuisance. And detecting low-frequency noise requires sophisticated acoustic gear. For all of these reasons, this issue should be investigated. If policy makers are serious about considering all of the impacts of "green" energy, then an impartial, international study of the effects of wind turbine noise should be undertaken without delay.
Wind Turbine Developer Forced to Buy SIX HOUSES!
16, 2009 - 4:44 PM
Selling their home isn’t something Helen and Bruce Fraser wanted to do, but they felt they had no choice. They’d bought the County Road 17 Melancthon property from Bruce’s father, included stonework from Helen’s parents in the design of the house as they built it, and spent 32 years making it their home.
It’s also where they raised their four children.
When talk of a Dufferin county wind farm first started, the Frasers thought it was a great idea. They threw their support behind anything intended to better the environment. But soon after an industrial turbine — about as tall as a 25-storey building (80 metres) — started spinning nearby, they decided they had no choice but to move away.
They’re one of six Dufferin property owners to sell their land to Canadian Hydro Developers (CHD), proponents of the Melancthon EcoPower Centre, the very same operation Fraser is convinced caused their health problems.
“I’d have such a headache I’d be holding my head thinking the top was going to come off my head — that’s how bad it was,” Helen Fraser says.
“We had no idea how they would impact us until they were put up. Basically, we were all for them because we’re for anything that’s green, until [the turbines] started running. Then we started getting the symptoms.”
The Frasers lived near the first phase of the wind farm, which started operation in 2006. Not long after, she says she started to experience headaches, muscle pain, fatigue and a ringing in her ears. Bruce, she says, began having problems with his blood sugar and when the turbine faced a specific direction, their dog would urinate inside the house at night.
They didn’t connect their troubles to the turbines at first. Fraser says that came after they went away on a couple vacations and their symptoms disappeared ... until soon after they returned home.
At the time, Fraser says they lived about 420 metres from the nearest turbine. They now live in Shelburne, several kilometres away from the turbines, where Helen says they’re doing “amazing.”
“I don’t have any of the symptoms that I had before. It’s like day and night. ... We just couldn’t go on living, for health reasons, the way we were living.”
Of the six properties purchased by CHD, Scott Hossie, the company’s Ontario environmental manager, says two were purchased as a result of residents’ health complaints.
“That’s not the preferred outcome for Canadian Hydro. We prefer to find a solution that allows us to continue operating and our neighbours to continue enjoying Melancthon and Amaranth townships. By and large, we’ve been successful in doing so,” he says.
“Really, the concerns about effects on health, or concerns raised by our neighbours of wind turbines with respect to health, are very much the exception.”
CHD purchased the other four properties, Hossie says, for storage and to house construction workers as the turbines were going up.
“It’s my understanding that all these houses, if they’re not needed by Canadian Hydro, will presumably go back onto the market,” he notes.
Hossie declined to talk about which properties were purchased because of residents’ health concerns, explaining CHD and the sellers signed contracts not to discuss their deal.
Fraser says she signed such a contract.
“I can’t discuss the sale,” she says, suggesting CHD could “come back” at her if she did. “I can discuss the turbines, but we can’t discuss the sale of the property.”
Former Seventh Line of Amaranth resident Barbara Ashbee-Lormand says she too signed a similar contract with CHD, which purchased her home.
“At this point, we can state that we and Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. are pleased that we have reached a comprehensive settlement which addresses, to the satisfaction of all parties, the issues that had arisen between us regarding the performance of the General Electric wind turbines at the Melancthon EcoPower Centre,” she wrote in a statement emailed to The Banner. “The parties have all agreed that the specific terms of the settlement will remain confidential.”
Prior to the settlement, she complained vibrations from low frequency noise kept her and her husband, Dennis, up at night. She said they worked “diligently and openly” with CHD to resolve the issue without success, before they hired a lawyer to take up their case, which resulted in a settlement being reached.
The majority of people living near the local turbines don’t appear to suffer the symptoms experienced by some nearby residents.
“We’re having no problems at all,” says Melancthon’s Randy Nielsen, speaking for his wife and two teenage children. “We’re surrounded by turbines.
“We’ve had people come to visit and they all like them.”
Of about 300 neighbours, the Ministry of the Environment has received complaints from 17 regarding the Melancthon EcoPower Centre.
“If you have problems with wind turbines in your home, and you’re really having difficulty, the wind industry will eventually settle with you,” suggests Dr. Bob McMurtry, a former member of the Health Council of Canada and former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario.
“It’s worked out best for (the wind industry) if they keep those things quiet. There’s no requirement by the government for the wind industry to report settlements.”
McMurtry acknowledges he has spoken on behalf of Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) — a grassroots group dedicated to raising the profile of health complaints from people living near turbines — but maintains he has no formal affiliation with the group.
Like WCO, McMurtry is convinced of a link between wind turbines and public health problems — a link other health professionals, government officials and wind industry leaders insist has never been proven.
“Despite individual concerns on occasion, peer-reviewed literature has never indicated any trend associated with health effects coming from wind turbines,” says Hossie. “From Canadian Hydro’s perspective, if anybody has a concern, we deal with it proactively on a case-by-case basis. We certainly do take those very seriously.”
Most of the time, he says, noise complaints are mitigated through routine maintenance and upkeep of the turbines.
“In North America, we now have more than 10,000 wind turbines operating. Concerns that have been expressed with respect to health impacts across that entire fleet are few and far between,” adds Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA). “Our common understanding is that the overwhelming majority of people who live near wind turbines actually have a quite positive experience and are living productively and harmoniously with those turbines.”
McMurtry takes a different perspective on the existing literature.
“It’s remarkable. [Turbines] been around [in Canada] for over 20 years and no one’s done an adequate study to demonstrate their safety,” the doctor says.
He believes a “proper” study of the issue would take about five years to complete, with a budget of at least $1 million to complete the work.
“The only people with the resources to do that kind of thing ... is either the industry, which won’t happen I imagine, and certainly the government is responsible too, and haven’t done so.”
Exploring the Truth of Wind Energy
If you believe Wind Turbine will make any difference to CO2 emission please review this entire presentation. It contains lots of hard facts. I challenge anyone to present a fact based presentation countering the facts contained in here.
U.S. Congressman overwhelmed by wind turbine noise complaints
Transcript of AM 1480 WLEA (Hornell, NY) interview with U. S. Congressman Eric Massa (D, NY) on April 25, 2009, talking about the “virtual flood of constituents,” and even non-constituents, complaining about wind turbine noise.
Brian: Hi, and welcome to Connections with Brian O’Neil, on the phone today with Congressman Eric Massa. Congressman, good morning.
Congressman Massa: Good morning, and thank you for having me with you today.
Brian: Well, it’s always great to be on the line with you Eric.
Congressman Massa: How can I help?
Brian: Well, Congressman, one of the big stories lately on AM 1480 WLEA and, of course, the Corning Leader is what’s been going on in Prattsburgh. On Friday, you met with two Prattsburgh town board members Steve Kula and Chuck Schick. Now, having attended the last few Prattsburgh meetings myself, I’m guessing your meeting had something to do with the controversy over wind energy in Prattsburgh?
Congressman Massa: Well ,yes, and as some listeners may remember and certainly you might remember, for almost three years of my candidacy, and certainly since I have become an incumbent, I have been very focused on the challenges this area faces as foreign-owned industrial wind turbine corporations attempt to build thousands of these 450 foot tall towers on virtually every hill in western New York State, despite the fact that the United States Meteorological Service has stated very clearly we simply don’t have the wind in this area of the world to economically justify this. We have seen a consistent effort by these foreign companies to subvert local governments who are ill prepared to deal with these million-dollar industrial systems, to back out of commitments they’ve made through the industrial development agencies, not to pay their contributions to the local schools that they promised, not to create new jobs. So, this is, unfortunately, what we’ve been talking about, and I wish I was wrong, but everything I said for the last three years has come true. But nowhere is that more apparent than now, with the fact that these wind turbines generate so much noise that the very homes on the properties that leased agreements to the wind turbines now can’t be occupied. Now I’m not making this up. I have been in my office with a virtual flood of constituents who have come to me, both on and off properties that were leased to the wind companies, saying that they can’t live in the houses anymore, yet they can’t sell them, and in fact the town supervisor of Cohocton, a man that would not even shake my hand at a parade because he was so upset that I dared challenge this issue, has written a letter to the very company that he invited into his community, saying – we can’t have these wind turbines here because they’re too noisy. Well, you know, three years too late, and I am meeting with the folks in Prattsburgh so that they get – first off, they requested to meet with me, because they’re asking for help, to make sure that what was rammed down Cohocton does not get rammed down Prattsburgh. And it’s very disconcerting that everyone has such a wonderful opinion of these 450 foot towers that frankly don’t even produce electricity, and I don’t say that comically, I say that realistically. It’s a huge local issue.
Brian: Now, Congressman, are more wind farmers besides Hal Graham stepping forward to you and telling you that the wind turbines are driving them nuts?
Congressman Massa: Its – I have been, I would say, every weekend a different family in the office, talking with me.
Brian: Wow. And they’re wind farmers, some of them?
Congressman Massa: Yes. In fact one is the, one owns a home and he agreed to have a lease on his property and now he is saying – I have to move out of my property. It’s quite amazing. Not to mention the fact that as we talked about, hunters are now coming up and telling me that there’s no wildlife anywhere within distance, and I’m talking three to four miles, of any of these wind turbines because these wind turbines emit low frequency vibrations that drive the deer away. So if some foreign companies have their way you’ll never be able to hunt in the southern tier again because we won’t have any deer. And that’s, again, I know that sounds like an exaggeration.
Brian: Right.
Congressman Massa: But it’s not an exaggeration. Anybody who can tell you about animals in the wild will tell you they hear frequencies that humans cannot. And the low frequency vibrations from these industrial wind turbines drive the deer away. It’ll be the end of hunting for us.
Brian: Now, Congressmen Massa, back to what you said just a moment ago – you said these things don’t generate electricity at all?
Congressman Massa: Bingo. So, if the winds not blowing, they’re not generating. But if the wind is blowing, the electricity they’re generating, even now, is not going to come to New York it’s being shipped to other states like Massachusetts. And even now, we have a very limited capability technologically with the Independent System Operator, that’s the technical name of the individuals that oversee the incorporation of all electrical production into our New York Grid, a very limited ability to actually absorb the very unpredictable and highly variable nature of the electricity driven by wind turbines. Period.
Brian: Congressman Massa, when you met with those Prattsburgh officials on Friday afternoon, or Friday morning I think it was, what sort of impression did you walk away with when you left the meeting with those two Prattsburgh board members on Friday.
Congressman Massa: Well, first off, that they were very serious and concerned, that they were local officials of what I call gravitas. In other words, they’ve thought this through, they’ve asked the tough questions, they’ve asked for help from every, anyone and they told me that I was the only local, state or federal official that would sit down and talk to them.
Brian: I can believe that.
Congressman Massa: Now, this is an issue that I have been dealing with for years because I refuse to take the side of these very powerful foreign companies who are willing to do all kinds of things to get me to spout the party line for them. By the way, speaking of party lines, just about everybody that’s come up to me and asked me for this help is not of the same political party I am, because this, like every other issue that I deal with, cuts across party lines. This is about the future of this area. One of the last things we have, after everything else has been taken from us, is our environment, and now they want to take that too, and I will not rush willy-nilly down a road, a road by the way that has been torn up by the heavy tractors transporting these windmills and then we have to pay to repave them, I won’t go down that road without a fight, and that’s what I am trying to make happen.
Brian: We’re talking with Congressman Eric Massa on Connections here on AM 1480 WLEA. Congressman Massa, it seems to me that the two big issues right now in regards to wind energy are the problems with noise and the problem with corruption, with politicians having conflicts of interest. Some of these politicians out there, it seems like they’re just being out and out agents for wind companies in more than one way. One way would be bullying around anyone at these meetings who asks any, who questions at all, anything at all that the wind company wants. Another way would be for them to vote just down the line in every way that the wind company wants them to. As a matter of fact, at the last Prattsburgh meeting I attended, a man stepped forward and complained that one of the Prattsburgh Town Board members had given his name to a wind company person and this wind company person showed up at this Prattsburgh man’s house. And the Prattsburgh man was furious that his address and name had been given out to a wind company official by a Prattsburgh Town Board member for purposes of solicitation. Congressman, what’s going on here?
Congressman Massa: I think it’s a combination of opportunism and short- sightedness. I have been to these meetings. I have seen the bullying. You can’t – I am not easy to bully.
Brian: Right.
Congressman Massa: Many people will tell me they don’t like me because I’m too outspoken.
Brian: And you’re fast on your feet, yeah, I’ve seen you in a debate.
Congressman Massa: But on the other hand, I think that the voices of the people that have no voice need to be represented. Now, if in a free and fair and open and informed decision a town decides they want to do this, then great, that’s a local issue. But I want it to be free, fair and informed and when the information actually gets out there, people say – well, we don’t want that. Nobody, including me, is against the clean production of wind energy where it makes economic and technical sense, at all. It doesn’t here. We are being taken advantage of because we ‘re being treated like a bunch of country bumpkins by these foreign folks from European capitals, and it’s got to stop.
Brian: Congressman, one person said to me recently that you seem to be way ahead of most of your political colleagues on this subject of wind energy because most leaders at the federal level that we’ve seen are just acting like, basically, public relations guys for wind companies. Do you think that someday that wind will be looked on in some areas like ours as a fad and a phase that just didn’t work out?
Congressman Massa: Yeah, but the problem is when they look at that, we’re going to have hundreds of these industrial wind turbines broken and rusting and spilling oil that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to take down and return those forests to what they were so we can go back to enjoying and attracting people for what they come here for. That’s the problem. So we shouldn’t have to wait to realize that a mistake has been made. If we had wind greater than 33 percent, which means that more than a third of the time the wind blew strong enough to actually turn the blades and make electricity, we could have some hope of having a real contribution to help stop environmental degradation, and yes that’s global warming, and to make inexpensive electricity. But, none of that electricity is staying here and those turbines are not generating electricity, so you can look at this from many different levels. And it’s very sad. And then, of course, I get painted as an out of control you know, aggressive, guy. Well, I’m going to be very aggressive when it comes to fighting for our local interests, because, candidly, nobody else is.
Brian: Congressman, it seems that you have a lot of knowledge about laws regarding wind power. Do you know who would be held responsible if a neighbor of a wind project suffered something like property value loss or their house was vibrating and, you know, they’re living next door to a wind turbine that’s causing their house to shake or the noise is terrible at night. Do you know who’s responsible for that – the wind company, the IDA, the town? Do you know who has to take responsibility?
Congressman Massa: Well, the immediate supposition is that the source of the problem is culpable for the property degradation. That’s generally the rule, but the wind companies then seek protection by saying – well, the town boards and the local towns gave us permission to do that, it’s their problem. The town board says – yeah, but the IDA gave us permission to do this, so it’s their problem. Then all of a sudden, a single family has to go running around, all up and down trying to get someone to help them when they are given the run around. This is exactly what happened in Cohocton. When people went to the town board and complained and said – listen, you guys voted to put these things up here, it exceeds the noise limit. The town board said – well, don’t talk to us, talk to the wind company. They went to the wind company, the wind company said – not our problem, the town board issued us a permit. And this is how you end up going in that circular run around that drives people crazy and they shouldn’t have to. So I’ve said – come see me, it’s my job to help where I can help, and I’m going to do that.
Transcript provided by Helderberg Community Watch
Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbines be from homes?
Let's start with what one manufacturer considers to be safe for its workers. The safety regulations for the Vestas V90, with a 300-ft rotor span and a total height of 410 feet, tell operators and technicians to stay 1,300 feet from an operating turbine -- over 3 times its total height -- unless absolutely necessary.
That already is a much greater distance than many regulations currently require as a minimum distance between wind turbines and homes, and it is concerned only with safety, not with noise, shadow flicker, or visual intrusion.
In February 2008, a 10-year-old Vestas turbine with a total height of less than 200 feet broke apart in a storm. Large pieces of the blades flew as far as 500 meters (1,640 feet) -- more than 8 times its total height.
The Fuhrländer turbine planned for Barrington, R.I., is 328 feet tall with a rotor diameter of 77 meters, or just over 250 feet (sweeping more than an acre of vertical air space). According to one news report, the manufacturer recommends a setback of 1,500 feet -- over 4.5 times the total height. In Wisconsin, where towns can regulate utility zoning for health and safety concerns, ordinances generally specify a setback of one-half mile (2,640 ft) to residences and workplaces.
But that may just be enough to protect the turbines from each other, not to adequately protect the peace and health of neighbors.
When part of an array, turbines should be at least 10 rotor diameters apart to avoid turbulence from each other. In the case of the proposed 77-meter rotor span in Barrington, that would be 770 meters, or 2,525 feet. For the Gamesa G87, that's 2,850 feet; for the Vestas V90, 2,950 feet -- well over half a mile.
Jane and Julian Davis, whose home is 930 m (3,050 ft) from the Deeping St. Nicholas wind energy facility in England, were forced by the noise to rent another home in which to sleep. In July 2008 they were granted a 14% council tax reduction in recognition of their loss. It appears in this case that the combination of several turbines creates a manifold greater disturbance.
Since the human ear (not to mention the sensory systems of other animals or the internal organs of bats, which, it is now emerging, are crushed by the air pressure) is more sensitive than a giant industrial machine, doubling that would be a reasonable precaution (at least for the human neighbors -- it still doesn't help wildlife).
Sound experts Rick James and George Kamperman recommend a minimum 1 km (3,280 ft) distance in rural areas. James himself suggests that 2 km is better between turbines and homes, and Kamperman proposes 2-3 km as a minimum. German marketer Retexo-RISP also suggests that "buildings, particulary housing, should not be nearer than 2 km to the windfarm"; and that was written when turbines were half the size of today's models.
Both the French Academy of Medicine and the U.K. Noise Association recommend a minimum of one mile (or 1.5 km, just under a mile) between giant wind turbines and homes. Trempealeau County in Wisconsin implemented such a setback. National Wind Watch likewise advocates a minimum one-mile setback.
Dr. Nina Pierpont, the preeminent expert on "wind turbine syndrome", recommends 1.25 miles (2 km). That is the minimum the Davises insist on as safe as well. In France, Marjolaine Villey-Migraine concluded that the minimum should be 5 km (3 miles).
Cost and Quantity of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Avoided by Wind Generation By Peter Lang
Emission Cuts Realities – Electricity Generation
We get comments saying we don't suggest alternatives. Well here is a well reasoned analysis from Australia
Emission Cuts Realities – Electricity Generation
By Peter Lang, January 2010
Cost and CO2 emissions projections for different electricity generation options for Australia to 2050
Peter Lang is a retired geologist and engineer with 40 years experience on a wide range of energy projects throughout the world, including managing energy R&D and providing policy advice for government and opposition. His experience includes: coal, oil, gas, hydro, geothermal, nuclear power plants, nuclear waste disposal, and a wide range of energy end use management projects.
Abstract
Five options for cutting CO2 emissions from electricity generation in Australia are compared with a ‘Business as Usual’ option over the period 2010 to 2050. The six options comprise combinations of coal, gas, nuclear, wind and solar thermal technologies.
The conclusions: The nuclear option reduces CO2 emissions the most, is the only option that can be built quickly enough to make the deep emissions cuts required, and is the least cost of the options that can cut emissions sustainably. Solar thermal and wind power are the highest cost of the options considered. The cost of avoiding emissions is lowest with nuclear and highest with solar and wind power.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/09/emission-cuts-realities/
The full 32 page
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/lang_2010_emissions_cuts_realities_v1a1.pdf