AWEA noise study – what you won’t “hear” in the industry funded report.

Posted on December 17, 2009 by morgan

The Acoustic Ecology Institute commentary, “Wind industry study says no health effects – but omits any mention of sleep disruption” presents an excellent assessment of the recent study issued, and funded by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA), which, according to AEI, “purports to assess all currently available research on the health effects associated with exposure to wind farm noise, and concludes that there are no such problems.”

The AEI commentary continues with, “The report, funded by North Americas two key wind industry trade organizations, centers on the symptoms of the reported “wind turbine syndrome,” and offers a robust critique of the idea that low frequency noise from wind farms can cause direct health impacts; meanwhile, however, the report minimizes the levels of annoyance and impacts on quality of life reported in other studies, and completely omits any assessment of the most widely reported health-related impact of living near wind farms, sleep disruption.”

Read the complete Acoustic Ecology Institute  analysis linked above and also here, for your convenience.  Well worth your time!

Related information:  “Trade group funded study says allegations of adverse health effects from industrial wind unproven, so why spend the money to see if they’re real. What???“

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans, wind turbine noise | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Trade group funded study says allegations of adverse health effects from industrial wind unproven, so why spend the money to see if they’re real. What???

Posted on December 17, 2009 by morgan

From the “wishing it makes it so” file, the LA Times article claims “Wind turbine noise is not a health risk, says trade group report”  Take note that their source is the industrial wind’s own “trade group,” the AWEA, American Wind Energy Association.

Well, pardon me if I question the neutrality of a group existing for the sole purpose of selling the product of their members.  One would like to think they are unbiased, but evidence to the contrary exists that they might choose not to provide, so we’ll do that for them.

Here’s a WindAction Editorial from the Industrial Wind Action Group, on the very same topic, and additional information following.  See what you think.

Editorial begins:

“We believe the products we make are not injurious to health”

Over the weekend, the UK papers broke the story that government officials suppressed the findings of a 2006 study on wind turbine noise and its effects on nearby residents.

The study, prepared by acoustics noise and vibration consultants Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP), was used to support the position that existing Government wind farm noise guidelines from 1996 were adequate and that turbine noise posed no health risks for neighboring dwellings. However, draft versions of the document obtained by Mr. Mike Hulme of the Den Brook Judicial Review Group revealed that the final published report removed earlier recommendations that stated:

1. night time wind turbine noise limits should be reduced from 43dB to 38dB, and,
2. in the event that the turbine noise has a discernible beating character, the limit should be further reduced to 33dB.

These newly revealed recommendations are consistent with the World Health Organization’s (“WHO”) guidelines for nighttime noise levels published in October which state:

“Based on the systematic review of evidence produced by epidemiological and experimental studies, the relationship between night noise exposure and health effects can be summarized here . Below the level of 30 dB[1], no effects on sleep are observed except for a slight increase in the frequency of body movements during sleep due to night noise. There is no sufficient evidence that the biological effects observed at the level below 40 dB are harmful to health. However, adverse health effects are observed at the level above 40 dB, such as self-reported sleep disturbance, environmental insomnia, and increased use of somnifacient drugs and sedatives. Therefore, 40 dB is equivalent to the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) for night noise.”

We note that wind developers typically advocate for noise limits at project sites ranging between 45 and 55 dB as measured at night at the outside wall of nearby homes — well above WHO guidelines.

Despite these recommendations, a new report funded by the Canadian (CANwea) and American Wind Energy Associations (AWEA) has concluded that noise and vibrations emitted by industrial wind turbines may be annoying but pose no risk to human health. It further states that “allegations of adverse health effects from wind turbines are as yet unproven.” The expert panel that compiled the report also agreed that “the number and uncontrolled nature of existing case reports of adverse health effects alleged to be associated with wind turbines are insufficient to advocate for funding further studies.”

It may be that adverse health effects due to proximity to wind turbines is not yet proven but to turn a blind eye to testimonials now pouring in from across the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe and Asia is unimaginable. We are reminded of the assertions made by the cigarette industry in the 1950’s when reports surfaced that smoking could lead to lung cancer, including the quote used in the title of the article, “We believe the products we make are not injurious to health.”

Interestingly, David M. Lipscomb PhD, one of the experts who contributed to the CANwea and AWEA report held a very different view of noise induced annoyance in June 2000 in his testimony before the State of Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council on a proposed electric generating facility.

When asked at what sound levels he would expect to see reactions of effects of noise he stated:

“Surprisingly small sound levels can cause certain reactions. For example, sleep studies have shown that subjects will shift two or three levels of sleep when the environmental sound is increased only 5 dB. Thus, a person in the Rapid Eye Movement (REM), the fifth stage of sleep, when the bedroom sound level is 35 dBA, will shift out of that essential level of sleep when the sound increases only to about 40 dBA. As a result, this negative health effect is known to lead to chronic fatigue and irritability.”

The question of noise is front and center in the minds of most who are being asked to consider a wind plant in their community. And the wind industry’s insistence on dismissing the issue is proving a losing strategy. This most recent report, coming on the heels of the WHO’s guidelines and revelations of suppressed documents in the UK, is further proof that the industry prefers to manipulate public impression than act responsibly. As with the cigarette industry, the preponderance of evidence will become undeniable.

[1] Lnight,outside is the night-time noise indicator (Lnight): the A-weighted long-term average sound level as defined in ISO 1996-2:1987, determined over all the night periods of a year.

Editorial ends.

Oh, there’s lots more.  Check out the links under the Wind Energy Resources grouping at the left, and follow where that leads you.

Posted in Environment, Industrial Wind Health Issues, wind turbine noise | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Opinion – Hard lessons from the Fox Islands Wind Project

Posted on December 16, 2009 by morgan

Opinion from The Working Waterfront

Hard lessons from the Fox Islands Wind Project

by Sally Wylie

North Haven and Vinalhaven Schools were let out for the ribbon cutting ceremony on November 17. Students passed out colorful pinwheels and excitement was in the air. Governor John Baldacci joined the crowd. First District Congresswoman Chellie Pingree flew in from Washington, D.C. to join her daughter Hannah Pingree, Speaker of the House, in order to celebrate the completion of the Fox Islands Wind Project. As one speaker said, this was the largest group of North Haven and Vinalhaven residents together, ever! The turbines were running, the community had pulled together, and with the support of the Fox Islands Electric Cooperative Inc., the Island Institute, and George Baker, CEO of Fox Islands Wind LLC (FIW), remarkably, the dream of community-based wind power on Vinalhaven was a reality!

Amongst the participants were many of us who are neighbors of the turbines. Although our group overwhelmingly supported the project, we now live with the daily presence of turbine noise, 24/7. As one of the Fox Islands Wind Neighbors (FIWN) recently noted, “We support the windmills, but not the noise.” The noise is as constant as the wind, building in intensity according to wind speed and direction. It can be a low rumbling, whooshing, grinding background noise that one can just hear above the sound of the trees or it can build to an in-your-face noise, like jet engines roaring combined with a grinding and pulsating sound that echoes in your head, keeps you awake at night, and beats on your house like a drum.

As neighbors of the wind turbines, we find ourselves in the midst of an unexpected, unwanted life crisis. When GE flipped the switch and the turbines began to turn, island life as we knew it evaporated.

As I watched the first rotation of the giant blades from our deck, my sense of wonder was replaced by disbelief and utter shock as the turbine noise revved up and up, past the sound of our babbling brook, to levels unimagined. It was not supposed to be this way! During informational meetings, on the Fox Islands Wind website, in private conversations, and with personal correspondence, we were all told that ambient noise from the surrounding area would cover the sound of the turbines. This was our expectation. The Fox Islands Wind August 31 cover letter to the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) explained, “When the turbines are generating higher sound levels, background noise will be higher as well, masking the sound of the turbines.” On the Fox Islands Wind Web site FAQ we read, “The blades passing through the air can make a ‘whooshing’ sound and mechanical parts or unusual wind currents can produce a steady ‘hum’ or ‘whine.’ However, ambient noise is usually louder than any noise produced by wind turbines and modern wind turbines are significantly quieter than older models.” Our immediate experience was the reverse.

Since that moment of realization, we have been on a steep learning curve. Our days are filled with e-mail correspondence with neighbors and George Baker, of Fox Islands Wind, research on the noise pollution and health risks associated with turbine noise, research on the impact of low-frequency noise, research on technological solutions, research on the impact of turbine noise on domestic and wild animals, research on state sound regulations, conversations with the press, neighborhood meetings, meetings with the electric cooperative and FIW, a meeting with the DEP, multiple letters to our State Representative, Hannah Pingree, letters to Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, letters to the Vinalhaven Land Trust board members, e-mails to possible sound consultants, debates with neighbors as to how we will pay for a sound consultant, letters to the DEP where we are beginning to know everyone’s name, and the list goes on.

We have been to the town office to copy tax maps and get the addresses of year-round and summer residents who live near the turbines. We have driven all over the island with sound meters, determining that the turbine sound can travel more than a mile in certain areas and noticing whose homes are impacted. We have spoken with people in town to spread the word. We have invited people to our homes to listen for themselves. We have learned and explained under which conditions the turbines are loudest and why. We have developed data sheets so we can keep daily noise observation records. We have worked to find the words and sounds to describe the noise, each perfecting our own imitation, some better than others. We have learned to count windmill rpm and discovered that above 15 rpm the noise is tough to take. We have read lengthy amendments and studied sound protocols. We have learned about state sound regulations and found that the 45 decibel limit that is designated as “quiet” in Maine, is truly a cruel joke. On our quiet cove, we now know that 45 decibels is loud.

We have studied spreadsheets, yearly wind speed records, and have worked to determine how much Fox Islands Wind can slow the turbines down and still cover the cost of the windmills. We are scrambling. We do not want to leave the homes we have built with our own hands, the gardens we have planted, the memories that are so much a part us, and the dreams we hold for the future. We are not looking for financial gain. We are desperate to gain back what has been taken from us.

From where we are sitting, it seems that the industry standard for turbine noise in rural areas is absolutely wrong! I cannot speak for all the Fox Islands Wind Neighbors on this, but my husband and I feel that, on a local level, well-meaning individuals made a critical miscalculation. Depending on wind speed, wind direction, etc., we estimate that households within a mile to a mile-and-a-half radius of the turbines are impacted by the sound. This is a very serious issue that affects many homeowners on Vinalhaven and could also, due to diminishing property values, affect the tax base of the town. In an island community, such as Vinalhaven, where people sincerely care about and support one another, we are in the position where economic gain in the form of reduced electrical rates/wind turbine debt could be pitted against community well-being. How willing will the Fox Islands Wind Cooperative and the community be to share the burden of this major miscalculation? Rather than bringing us together, the noise from the turbines has the potential to tear our community apart.

As I type, a computer is whirring away in our basement, sending wind speed data and noise level data to sound technicians in Boston. FIW is taking sound measurements, as required by the DEP, and it is our joint hope that they will be able to make adjustments to windmills in order to reduce the noise. Along with our neighbors, we are recording daily noise observations which sound specialists can use as a means to determine under which conditions the noise is most disturbing. We are eager participants in doing whatever we can to rectify the situation. We feel fortunate that Fox Islands Wind is controlled by the Fox Islands Electric Cooperative and that they are eager to work with us to find an answer.

However, it is very clear to us, that life as we know it on Vinalhaven has changed irrevocably. We understand that our best hope is to come to a reasonable compromise. We are working with FIW to find a balance between the level of noise that is tolerable and the turbine speed necessary to produce electricity. This is a far cry from what we were told and what we expected. One has to wonder if wind turbine technology is truly ready to be implemented in rural areas. Community based wind power is a very good idea, a smart answer to our energy dilemma. The numbers actually work. It is just that our life-for us, and for our neighbors-does not. Ironically, for households within earshot of the turbines, the GE windmills fly in the face of island sustainability. Some islanders who lived close to the turbines were given the choice of either selling their homes or land to FIW at the assessed value or living with the turbine noise. Most chose to sell rather than live with the noise. Others are trying to stay where they are with hopes that GE specialists and FIW sound specialists will find technological solutions. The Island Institute website states, “The Institute’s perspective is fundamentally ecological. It understands that all life is intimately linked with its environment; that people are therefore an inextricable part of the ecosystem of the Gulf of Maine, that there is an interdependent web of existence more evident on islands than in other communities and landscapes.” As is, there are some year-round families on Vinalhaven who feel their existence is being marginalized and the noise issue minimized.

Before any other island community takes the step towards wind power, come to Vinalhaven and see for yourselves the consequences of those actions. Come to our meetings. Come stand on our porches, listen to the nonstop roaring, thumping, whooshing, grinding sounds of the turbines, and compare it to the quiet you currently experience. Watch how our community struggles with this issue and see how we resolve it. Look at the compromises we make and decide if those trade-offs are worth it for you and your neighbors. For many islanders, a cohesive, caring community and good quality of life are of critical importance. Don’t let the wind blow it away.

Sally Wylie lives on Vinalhaven and in Rockland. She is part of the group Fox Island Wind Neighbors.

Posted using ShareThis

Posted in Environment, wind turbine noise, Windpower Industry False Claims | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Industrial wind + rare earth = Environmental Hazards

Posted on December 16, 2009 by morgan

From the unintended consequence file, an important video from Public Broadcasting:  In the effort to expand green technology – Are Rare Earth Minerals Too Costly for Environment?

Text from PBS NEWSHOUR Report aired – Dec. 14, 2009

Are Rare Earth Minerals Too Costly for the Environment?

LINDSEY HILSUM: It doesn’t look very green. Rare earth processing in China is a messy, dangerous, polluting business. It uses toxic chemicals, acids, sulfates, ammonia. The workers have little or no protection.

But, without rare earth, Copenhagen means nothing. You buy a Prius hybrid car and think you’re saving the planet. But each motor contains a kilo of neodymium and each battery more than 10 kilos of lanthanum, rare earth elements from China.

Green campaigners love wind turbines, but the permanent magnets used to manufacture a 3-megawatt turbine contain some two tons of rare earth. The head of China’s Rare Earth Research Institute shows me one of those permanent magnets. He’s well aware of the issues.

ZHAO ZENGQI, Baotou Rare Earth Research Institute: The environmental problems include air emissions with harmful elements, such as fluorine and sulfur, wastewater that contains excessive acid, and radioactive materials, too. China meets 95 percent of the world’s demand for rare earth, and most of the separation and extraction is done here. So, the pollution stays in China, too.

LINDSEY HILSUM: The authorities gave us a DVD of Baiyunebo in Inner Mongolia, where most of the world’s rare earth is mined, along with iron ore. They wouldn’t let us film it ourselves.

But at Baotou, 100 miles away, we found the frozen tailing lake where rare earth mixes with mud, waiting for processing at nearby factories. Technologies we all use, like computers, mobile phones and energy-saving light bulbs use rare earths processed here. And local villagers whose farmland has been ruined by seepage from the lake pay the price.

WANG CUN GUANG, farmer: The Baotou Environmental Protection Bureau tested our water, and they concluded that it wasn’t fit for people or animals to drink or for irrigation.

LINDSEY HILSUM: For those who remember the old life, it’s hard to understand. The authorities pay compensation, acknowledging that the land has been ruined, but they haven’t yet relocated the villagers.

JIA BAO CHENG, farmer: Rare earth is the country’s resource, but small people like us need to eat, too. We live on farming, but the crops no longer grow, and we will go hungry.

LINDSEY HILSUM: At a rare earth conference in Hong Kong, the talk is of how to reduce dependence on China, which achieved 95 percent dominance by undercutting other producers.

MARK SMITH, CEO, Molycorp Minerals: If the purpose is to lower our dependence on foreign oil, and all We’re doing is asking that we put hybrid cars on the road that need Chinese rare earth materials, aren’t we changing, you know, inter-trading one dependence for another?

LINDSEY HILSUM: High on the frozen steppe of Inner Mongolia, a huge wind farm. China is aiming to be the world leader in wind energy. Chinese negotiators at Copenhagen may resist political commitments, but the government is already subsidizing new technologies to boost the economy and be sustainable.

Deal or no deal at Copenhagen, there’s going to be an increased demand for wind turbines, both inside China and outside. But what the Chinese want to ensure is that they’re not just providing the essential raw materials, the rare earths, and doing the manufacturing, but that they also have access to the most advanced low-carbon technologies.

We were shown plans for what they’re calling the Silicon Valley of rare earth, a high-tech industrial park in Baotou to attract international investors. This year, there was an outcry when the Chinese said they would restrict the export of rare earth to conserve their supply, and to make foreign companies produce their high-end technologies here in China.

ZHAO ZENGQI: Although China has the largest reserves, we only have 50 percent of global deposits. We are supplying too much rare earth, and it’s not sustainable, so we must restrict export.

LINDSEY HILSUM: The writing on the wall says: Become the leader of the world in rare earth industry.

But China can’t produce enough for everyone anymore, and if governments are serious about low-carbon technologies, other countries will have to start producing.

MARK SMITH: I think that, if we don’t get a couple of projects up and running very, very quickly, there’s going to be very severe shortage of rare earths in the world, and all of these clean-energy technologies that we’re legislating and trying to implement through policy changes are not going to be possible.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Champions of a low-carbon future have yet to wake up to the environmental price Chinese workers and villagers are paying. At Copenhagen, politicians talk of cutting carbon emissions, but they can’t meet any targets without rare earth, and that means a sustainable supply, and not all from China.

(thanks to John Terry)

Posted in Environment, Industrial Wind Health Issues | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Camp Allegheny Industrial Wind – Hearing Update – Public Testimony Not Allowed at Hearing

Posted on December 16, 2009 by morgan

From Brightside Acres – “Public Testimony Not Allowed at Hearing”

Tuesday December 15, 2009

The Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) Hearing Examiner’s office called Brightside today to inform me that public testimony will not be allowed at the December 22 hearing. Since the hearing involves a complainant and defendant, only witnesses called by those parties will be allowed to testify.

I recognize that the SCC is merely following established procedure; however, I can’t help feeling that the process is flawed.

Here’s why:

During nearly two years of public and evidentiary hearings, in the time between Highland New Wind’s filing of an application with the SCC on November 8, 2005, and the SCC’s issuance on December 20, 2007 of a Final Order granting the wind developer a permit, no site plan existed. Incredibly, Highland New Wind did not file a site plan with the Highland County Board of Supervisors until August 3, 2009, which is the date Brightside became aware of the project.

Absent the empirical basis of a site plan, it would seem that all testimony given before the SCC between 2005 and 2007 was mere supposition wrapped in conjecture.

Since neither the specific number nor the specific location of the wind turbines was identified by the developer in an “initial site plan” until June, 2009 and not finalized until August, all previous assertions of the presence or absence of potential impacts–to wildlife, watersheds, viewsheds, and, yes, Camp Allegheny Battlefield–were little more than guesses. Guesses about which the developer quite effectively claimed to be the more educated party.

There’s a deeply disturbing logic at play here. Highland New Wind has repeatedly and consistently asserted that there will be no negative impacts from their utility. They have based this claim on their firsthand knowledge of the project, and their expressed desire to do nothing more nor less than make “green energy” for America. OK, fine. But if it’s all good, then why keep the site plan a secret for so long? If you have nothing to hide, why go to such lengths to keep what you’re doing hidden?

Perhaps, broadly speaking, because back when public testimony was being heard at the SCC, witholding the most basic information about the utility made it ohso easy to frame The People’s concerns as baseless conjecture? (Who ya gonna believe–a family of good-intentioned wind farmers, or a bunch of know-nothing citizens standing in the way of progress?)

And perhaps, more specifically, as long as nobody had a site plan, then nobody could take the measurements indicating that Camp Allegheny is much, much closer to the wind turbines than they’d claimed (and continue to claim)…and maybe, just maybe, Highland New Wind could get the thing built before West Virginians (and all American-citizen-stakeholders) realized what had happened to them.

Perhaps.

I have no firsthand knowledge of Highland New Wind’s motivations.

All I know is that a site plan indicating the final location and number of wind turbines was not released until more than a year and a half after the issuance of the SCC permit.

Deprived of the objective data upon which to base their claims of grievance, The People were, in effect, deprived of their day in court.

I recognize the SCC’s interest in following established legal procedure; however, I also recognize that any hearing regarding the public interest where the public is deprived of key data available to the developer seeking a permit is not, to put it bluntly, a fair fight.

Given the fact that Camp Allegheny Battlefield is a site of historic significance, not just to Pocahontas County, WV, but to the nation, I would hope that the SCC would re-open the court to public testimony.

Camp Allegheny Battlefield belongs to The American People.

In regards to the now well-documented impact of 19, 400-foot structures on Camp Allegheny, The American People have not yet been heard.

Posted in Allegheny Mountains, Camp Allegheny | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Civil discourse – the ultimate education.

Posted on December 13, 2009 by morgan

Some weeks ago, when Allegheny Treasures was just beginning, Jon Boone graciously agreed to be interviewed for a post, resulting in, “A Conversation with Jon Boone – Toward a Better Understanding of Industrial Wind Technology.”  The discussion was very well received and cross posted on many industry sites, including the highly regarded MasterResource – A free market energy blog.

In the comment section following the MasterResource posting was an exchange that deserves repeating here.  In the back and forth begun by reader TheLastMan’s question,  Mr. Boone, along with Mr. Tom Tanton, display the value of civil discourse between serious people with an interest in the pure exchange of ideas.

The beauty of this exchange is, even if you haven’t read “The Conversation” – which we encourage you to do – you will come away from these comments with an appreciation for, as Mr. Boone puts it – “the colloquy of good people.”

Enjoy!

Comments begin:

TheLastMan { 11.01.09 at 10:09 pm }

Some very persuasive arguments here, and in the previous article. This is the “500 pound gorilla riding the elephant in the room” of all so-called renewable energy sources – it plagues solar energy as well. Apart from the problem of variability, the best places for wind turbines (off-shore) and solar power (deserts) are way off-grid, and so require huge amounts of copper cable to be laid at vast economic and environmental expense.

However, one thing not really touched on in your piece, and many others discussing renewables is the place that energy storage can play in smoothing the fluctuations. In the UK, we had a problem in the 1960’s that we had brought a lot of nuclear plants on stream but could not shut them down at night when demand was low. One solution was to pump water uphill. A large reservoir was built in the Scottish mountains. When demand was low water was pumped uphill into it. When demand was high the water was released to drive turbines.

For me, the enabling technology for all renewables will be efficient energy storage, better still, energy that can be transported relatively cheaply.

Some solar electricty plants are toying with molten salt as a storage mechanism. However this cannot be transported so does not solve the “off-grid” problem even though it might smooth out fluctuations. Another likely candidate is hydrogen generation by electrolysis. We already have working renewable technologies (albeit uneconomic at the moment without state subsidy). But the key to making them all work is energy storage. Until that is sorted they will continue to be marginal at best, even if they ever produce electricty cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels. with Jon Boone here. […]

Tom Tanton { 11.02.09 at 8:31 am }

LastMan: yes storage is crucial, but keep in mind the time horizon of various storage devices. You mention pumped hydro which is good for diurnal to weekly periods. It simply cannot respond as fast as wind gusts (which are order of 15 minutes) because the reversible pump/generator cannot that quickly. Other technologies, like capacitors and batteries can respond faster, but are cost prohibitive and not fully developed (yes, I know that sounds redundant.)

Jon Boone { 11.02.09 at 10:48 am }

Last Man:
Thanks for your comments. I did remark in passing about pumped hydro storage–and its limitations. The subject of “renewables” and energy storage would take many articles to engage properly. Thomas Edison spent a small fortune trying to invent a battery storage system for volatile intermittents like wind. He failed.

The principal problem tying wind with large scale pumped storage is cost, available land, and the Rube Goldbergesque nature of trying to coordinate such a system. Tom Tanton’s comments seem apropos here. There are several less costly, less intrusive, more energy effective methods of pumping hydro for storage than deploying wind technology. As soon as steam was harnessed in the nineteenth century, the Dutch, who had used just such a wind system to “reclaim” land from the sea, never really looked back….

The infatuation with making renewables like wind and solar work at industrial scale seems, well, fatuous, given the pre-modern nature of the physical realities at work. Modern energy systems insist upon highly precise, predictable, dispatchable machine performance. Wind systems are the antithesis of such performance. There is a round hole/square peg aspect to “integrating” wind energy that is best appreciated by Cinderella’s stepsisters as they tried to make Cinderella’s slipper fit their outsized feet.

TheLastMan { 11.03.09 at 7:50 am }

Mr Boone and Mr Tanton, thanks very much for your informative replies.

I like this blog, mainly because it focuses on energy technology rather than obsessing about whether or not global warming is happening and if so when and how much – which I find rather sterile and next to impossible to ascertain.

Personally I think burning less oil, coal and gas is a “good thing” mainly because I think that convservation of limited resources reduces costs and increases profits – something that I am sure any free-market blog will appreciate!

However (as stated in previous posts) I am also against massive state subsidies to alternative energy technologies that distort the market to favour inefficient and environmentally damaging technologies (e.g. onshore wind)

However, I am slightly disenchanted with some of the tone of some of the articles that seem to want to discourage all renewable energy projects – whereas I think everybody’s efforts might be better employed trying to make them work.

For instance rather than discussing energy storage systems that might work, you choose to simply to dismiss one system (pumped hydro) that won’t.

I also talked about heat storage (molten salt being one) and water electrolysis to produce Hydrogen – neither of which you explored. I am sure there are huge technological challenges around these types of systems but rather than dismissing them out of hand would it not be useful to discuss how they might work?

For instance I am aware that electrolysis and fuel cell technologies are improving in major leaps and that the cost of this technolgy is coming down fast.

I think maybe your worry is that efficient energy storage might eventually make some renewable energy generation viable – and many on this blog seem set against renewables as a matter of principle.

I suspect after all that this blog may not be the place for me. I am looking for positive minded engineers, scientists and economists looking for economic and profitable ways to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels – not the same sort of entrenched negativity that has become apparent in the global warming pro and anti blogs.

Tom Tanton { 11.03.09 at 8:38 am }

Lastman. I encourage you to stay—at least a while longer–and you’ll see that most of us are not “anti-renewable” but rather anti-market-distorting subsidies. I am, personally, first and foremost a “techie” and always relish a new, cost effective advancement. You’re quite correct that electrolysis (along with radiolysis, biolosis and other water to hydrogen techniques) has made progress, as have fuel cells. Having previously served as an advisor to the National Fuel Cell Reserach Center, I can attest that “large advancements” do not quite equal “competitive.” A complete discussion of the myriad energy storage is beyond a comment-in-a-blog, but your correct there are numerous ones–each with different applications and different time horizons/response times. More importantly and more broadly than just fuel cells, I find that overly generous subsidies from government are actually impeding technology progress, not acclerating them. Actually I love renewables–I just wish they’d grow up. It’s time.
I likely have other reasons and give different weight to “reducing dependence on fossil fuel” than do you, but that’s an area for discussion, not silence.

Jon Boone { 11.03.09 at 10:09 am }

Lastman:
The reality is that no energy system is sustainable or renewable, although some are better, from the standpoint of human time, than others. The Second and Third Laws of Thermodynamics are inexorable; even black holes will evaporate.

Because they are so “energy diffuse” and require so much territory, wind and solar technologies offer only a tinker’s chance of doing anything effective at the scale necessary to produce a modern quality of life for 7 billion people. The energy density of fossil fuels have provided a relatively temporary solution, although they eventually will run out. And they do have negative environmental consequences, although I should point out that their overall benefits outweigh–by far–any negatives. Nonetheless, annually dumping over 3 billion tons of CO2 into the earth and sky, which is in addition to the natural transpiration cycles of the earth, may have negative consequences that we now only poorly understand.

In preparation for a future without reliance on fossil fuels (which may take centuries), why not go with a sure winner–energy dense nuclear systems. Eventually, controlled nuclear fusion reactions at relatively low temperatures will make us kings of the solar system, if this is what we wish.

Whatever you do, however, don’t precipitously unleash untested renewable technologies that oafishly intrude upon the land and water, claiming that “one day” other technologies will come along to make them all work more effectively. Which is precisely what is happening now.

Wishful thinking about reducing dependence on fossil fuels should not be an excuse for becoming an environmental terrorist.

Comments end.

That, is education!

Note:  Mr. Tom Tanton – Environmental Fellow at Pacific Research Institute, has a long and distinguished career in the energy sector.

Posted in Jon Boone | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Windpower Industry’s “top ten” false and misleading claims … Number 3 – Windplants are harmless to wildlife.

Posted on December 13, 2009 by morgan

FromStop Ill Wind:

#3. Windplants are harmless to wildlife.

Untrue! The second leading cause of bird mortality in the nation is collisions with tall structures, particularly at night under conditions of poor visibility, when neotropical songbirds migrate twice annually (house cats, the leading cause, kill hundreds of millions annually). Some of these migrants are species with extremely vulnerable populations. During the day, thermal-riding raptors—hawks, falcons, and eagles—frequently fall victim to a wind turbine’s rotors. Experts such as Chandler S. Robbins, the dean of American ornithology, Michael Fry, of the American Bird Conservancy, Bridget Stutchbury, author of Silence of the Songbirds, and raptor specialist and author, Donald Heintzelman have expressed grave concern. But this concern is worldwide. At a recent conference in Italy, The Landscape Under Attack, scores of prominent European environments, such as Anna Giordano, who risked her life to preserve eagles, and Stefano Allaveno, a raptor specialist, spoke out against massive wind installations, citing their concern about increasing the risk of avian mortality with wind projects. And recently, Canadian environmentalist, Wayne Wegner, wrote a compelling article about his apprehensions.

Bats are greatly attracted to wind turbines, and are slaughtered wholesale. Nearly all bat scientists are alarmed, particularly Boston University’s Tom Kunz and Penn State’s Michael Gannon. Canadian researcher Erin Baerwald has uncovered provisional evidence that pressure changes near a turbine’s interior rotors caused the lungs of bats to explode, killing them instantly; many dead bats recovered at the base of wind turbines had no sign of external trauma, which would be the case with a collision. Instead, autopsies revealed internal damage to the lungs. Baerwald and others are now seeking conclusive evidence.

Nonetheless, the wind industry has touted the safety of its newer technology, maintaining that “monopole towers” and slower moving blades, which rotate no faster than 15 rpm, will not harm wildlife. However, huge 350-465 feet tall continuously lit wind turbines—with propeller blades so long that, at 15 rpm, they are moving at 170 miles per hour at their tips—and placed atop prominent ridges where large numbers of wildlife migrate—kill raptors, songbirds, and bats. Despite industry insistence this won’t happen, it already has. The annual body count at Altamont Pass, California has averaged nearly 5,000 bird deaths annually for 20 years, prompting several current lawsuits.

The wind industry response has been: “We need more time to study the problem”–while the turbines continue to run full bore. Indeed, when confronted with actual bodies on the ground, the industry argument morphs into a ten wrongs make a right scenario: “Cats and communication towers kill millions of bird and bats annually, and we don’t expect to kill that many.” When challenged about the appropriateness of this defense, the industry shifts gears once more: “The strategic need for clean energy justifies the tactical loss of some wildlife.”

When pressed hard, wind developers do admit their technology does kill. But the low bird and bat mortality ultimately acknowledged is extremely misleading if not outright disingenuous. Their “experts” often use an apples to orangutans comparison, giving statistics (only two or three birds killed per turbine) derived from turbines located in the western United States averaging about 150 feet tall and located in fields not known for significant avian migration—then stating these should be comparable to 400 foot turbines located on high forested ridges in areas well known as a major avian flyway. This kind of comparison is no basis for credible prediction, which is the purpose of scientific analysis.

Recent radar studies at proposed industrial windplant locations atop the mountains of Vermont and West Virginia demonstrate that hundreds of thousands of birds and bats fly low enough to collide with huge turbines, placing them at risk—especially birds in times of fog and low clouds. The taller the turbines, the larger the threat! In 2003, a developer-sponsored mortality study conducted over a several week period at a West Virginia windplant revealed that over 2,000 birds and bats had been killed during fall migration in that span. Independent experts have doubled that mortality figure to more than 4,000, concluding that the developer’s accounting methodology was insufficient.

While bird mortality has long been a concern, recent studies show that bat mortality may be an even greater problem, for reasons that are not entirely clear. But wind industry proponents press forward. To insure they receive all their tax credits, they continue to insist on post construction studies, a la Altamont Pass, vowing to work on resolving the “problem” in the future. Nonetheless, because of the documented experiences at Altamont and the recent discoveries made by radar analysis on ridgetop migratory routes, the industry has now begun to admit that windplant mortality could be very high. But not high enough to deter the building of windplants in risky areas, since, while the wildlife mortality at these sites may be significant, it is, according to the industry “not likely to threaten any species with extinction….”

Faced with the news that its wind turbines were killing thousands of bats at two windplants on Appalachian mountain ridgelines, Florida Power and Light, the owners of these windplants, reacted quickly. It barred scientists from pursuing follow-up work, pulled its $75,000 contribution from the research cooperative studying bat mortality and ended the doctoral work of a graduate student who had produced two years of data showing unusually high rates of bat death at the Pennsylvania and West Virginia sites. Although Florida Power and Light has pulled the plug on further research into avian and bat mortality on any of its properties, the company plans to construct hundreds more huge turbines in the mountainous areas.

But direct bird and bats kills from turbine collisions are not the only environmental threat. The montane forest fragmentation that would result from thousands of wind turbines will create hardship for a variety of wildlife and plants.

The scientific literature extensively documents concern for wildlife due to the harm such fragmentation will cause. Forest fragmentation has basically two components—the loss or reduction of habitat and the breaking of remaining habitat into smaller more isolated patches. Among the negative effects of fragmentation are:  the elimination of some species due to chance events; an increase in the isolation among species populations due to their lessened ability to move about the landscape; reductions in local population sizes sometimes leading to local extinctions; and often wholesale disruptions of ecological processes that jeopardize survival for many species.

The clearing of wide corridors for hundreds of miles along the crests of forested mountain ridges in order to construct and operate utility-scale wind turbines will be a major contributor to forest fragmentation and loss of important forest interior habitat (which is defined as woods that are more than 100 meters from a clearing) within our region.

For the forest as a whole, roads—and maintenance of roads and infrastructure—are known to have a number of negative effects, ranging from barriers to immigration and emigration, opening new corridors that provide an avenue for native predators and competitors to enter the area, as well as creating new pathways fostering the spread of non-native, invasive species.

High elevation forest interiors offer the only habitat conditions for some species– and it is the type of habitat most easily destroyed by development. When the habitat disappears, so does the species.

Recently, the wind trade association, the American Wind Energy Association and Bat Conservation International have joined in research effort to find “solutions” to the wind/bat mortality problem. Contrary to public perception, this is a very problematic development. For a fee, Bat Conservation International—and, in the bird arena, Massachusetts Audubon, which has been angling to have its experts “study” the proposed Cape Wind project off Cape Cod–seem to have been co-opted as a public relations tool—giving the public the idea the industry is really concerned about protecting the environment. Nowhere, however, has any wind project has been halted or even modified because of the work of bird or bat experts. Quite the contrary!

There is little that captures the notion wind projects should not be built because there are too many unknown variables, using the precautionary principle as justification. Increasingly, bird and bat experts used as engineers or plumbers, tinkering away, hoping to discover something that might mitigate bat or avian mortality, project by project, but with no sense of consequence if they do not. Meanwhile, the wind trade association trots out for public consumption its “relationship” with the wildlife experts, confidant that those experts are one with the organization. And, if the experts do come up with a solution—wonderful! If they don’t, well, they—uh—tried…. And all the while, new wind projects are proposed in areas with a high likelihood of causing problems to bats and birds. The whole enterprise seems, well, unseemly.

Good public policy requires those who make claims about the safety of their product to substantiate those claims before introducing it into the environment, deferring to what Rachel Carson called the precautionary principle. Industry funded research should be highly suspect. Experts who work for the industry should submit their research and resulting conclusions for independent, peer-reviewed analysis. Good science insists upon conclusions that account for all the evidence, not selective pieces which fit the convenience of a developer’s point of view. Post construction studies are extremely risky and problematic—and more than a little self-serving. As is the case at Altamont Pass, who is going to shut down a $400 million capital facility once it is running, even if studies verify it kills significant wildlife?

Actually, a federal judge just did for a West Virginia project, Beech Ridge. However, Roger Titus’ injunction will likely be temporary, since he instructed the wind developer to seek an “incidental takings” permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife service, which, under that agency’s proposed new wind regulations, would allow wind projects, with a permit, to kill (take) even endangered species like the Indiana Bat, assuming the killing was not “intentional.”

It’s hard to see, though, how it could be otherwise, since wind projects will continue to be built along areas well known for sheltering both indigenous and migratory endangered species. Therefore, permitting the operation of industrial machinery even better known for its ability to attract and kill species that are threatened and endangered—and then saying that any subsequent deaths of those species caused by such machinery is “incidental”—should be an unacceptable level of Orwellian logic, even for the federal government.

Posted in Windpower Industry False Claims | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A cautionary article from the New York Times: “With Wind Energy, Opportunity for Corruption”

Posted on December 13, 2009 by morgan

Perhaps the following excerpts from the article will nudge you to read the entire article, which is linked here for your convenience – “With Wind Energy, Opportunity for Corruption”

“In the United States, one of the top three wind energy producers along with Germany and Spain, the Energy Department is doling out aid covering 30 percent of project costs and has already announced more than $1 billion in grants — with individual grants near $100 million.”

“Wind farm development follows a common pattern in Europe and the United States. It is a complex chain in which, typically, small entrepreneurs strike deals for long-term land leases with farmers and seek local government approvals for wind parks. Then the entrepreneurs sell development packages through intermediaries to large multinational companies or utilities that actually build the wind parks.”

“In New York, wind developers were prodded over the summer to sign an ethics code barring gifts to public officials, a standard developed by the office of the state attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, who also created a task force to monitor development of the industry.

“It’s a very new area of development with the promise of a lot of money that can be made, both for the developers of wind farms and landowners,” said John Milgrim, a spokesman for the New York attorney general’s office, who noted that the industry had been largely unregulated. “Anytime there’s financial dealings, new industry and large sums of money, there is potential for corruption.”

“Cash is king,” said Andrew Campanelli, a forensics investigator for Deloitte in New York. “In a down economy individuals might be more inclined to need more cash. They might look at green energy as a mechanism to use ill-gotten funds.”

Interested?  Again, read the entire article here.

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Uh Oh! Is another “shotgun wedding” in the offing for National Grid?

Posted on December 13, 2009 by morgan

Well, it certainly appears to be the case, according to the National Wind Watch article:  “Real cost of wind”

December 13, 2009

The news that Cape Wind and National Grid, a regional power distributor, will soon negotiate the cost of power from the proposed 130-turbine wind farm in Nantucket Sound sounds like the last act is near.

Perhaps, but it’s likely to be a dramatic one. Consider, if you will, the difficulties of calculating the costs of producing power over let’s say 20 years if you are unsure of the cost and source of capital, the cost and speed of construction, the unknown difficulties of maintaining offshore power production, the uncertainties of the consumer market.

The difficulties were visible in negotiations going on in Rhode Island all fall that now have resulted in an agreement. While the scale is vastly smaller than Cape Wind, the similarities are cautionary.

And yes, the price of the new wind power will be higher — 165 percent higher.

National Grid currently pays 9.2 cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity from coal, natural gas and nuclear generators, which it distributes in Rhode Island. It will pay Deepwater Wind 24.4 cents in the first year of the contract, plus an escalation of 3.5 percent a year for the 20-year term.

Deepwater, a New Jersey firm, expects to provide the power from eight turbines in state waters south of Block Island, and then plans to put a 106-turbine project farther out in federal waters.

Block Island residents, who pay the highest electricity rate in the U.S., were excited that cheaper power might come ashore on the way to the mainland.

On the mainland, however, enthusiasm dimmed when Deepwater submitted its first proposal: 30.7 cents per kWh plus the annual escalation, cable costs not included. National Grid called the proposal “not commercially reasonable.”

But Gov. Donald Carcieri, trying to get 20 percent of the state’s power from renewable sources, wouldn’t let the matter rest there. When Deepwater came back with its 24.4-cent offer, National Grid said that if Rhode Island is determined to have a demonstration project “it will be imperative for customers and the public to understand that they will be paying a significant premium for 20 years… .”

That premium, the governor said, will be $1.35 a month for each typical Rhode Island residential customer (500 kilowatts per month) at the start. That’s not an unreasonable price to pay for kick-starting a new industry.

In Massachusetts, the National Grid wholesale residential rate is 8.6 cents per kWh; Cape Wind’s proposal will certainly be higher than that.

We continue to support renewable energy projects under certain circumstances, but Cape Wind is the wrong project in the wrong place — regardless of the price of the electricity.

Cape Cod Times

www.capecodonline.com

13 December 2009

Related “Ms. Industrial Wind get’s hitched to Mr. National Grid while Pastor Politics holds the shotgun.“

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

From the “that can’t happen here” file: Officials “suppressed warnings that wind turbines can generate noise damaging people’s health for several square miles around.”

Posted on December 13, 2009 by morgan

From the Industrial Wind Action Group:  Officials cover up wind farm noise report

The guidance from consultants indicated that the sound level permitted from spinning blades and gearboxes had been set so high – 43 decibels – that local people could be disturbed whenever the wind blew hard. The noise was also thought likely to disrupt sleep. The report said the best way to protect locals was to cut the maximum permitted noise to 38 decibels, or 33 decibels if the machines created discernible “beating” noises as they spun. It has now emerged that officials removed the warnings from the draft report in 2006 by Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP), the consultants. The final version made no mention of them.

December 12, 2009 by Jonathan Leake and Harry Byford in Times Online
Civil servants have suppressed warnings that wind turbines can generate noise damaging people’s health for several square miles around.The guidance from consultants indicated that the sound level permitted from spinning blades and gearboxes had been set so high – 43 decibels – that local people could be disturbed whenever the wind blew hard. The noise was also thought likely to disrupt sleep.

The report said the best way to protect locals was to cut the maximum permitted noise to 38 decibels, or 33 decibels if the machines created discernible “beating” noises as they spun.

It has now emerged that officials removed the warnings from the draft report in 2006 by Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP), the consultants. The final version made no mention of them.

It means that hundreds of turbines at wind farms in Britain have been allowed to generate much higher levels of noise, sparking protests from people living near them.

Among those affected is Jane Davis, 53, a retired National Health Service manager, who has had to abandon her home because of the noise.

It lies half a mile from the Deeping St Nicholas wind farm in south Lincolnshire whose eight turbines began operating in 2006.

“Our problems started three days after the turbines went up and they’ve carried on ever since. It’s like having helicopters going over the top of you at times – on a bad night it’s like three or four helicopters circling around,” she said.

“We abandoned our home. We rent a house about five miles away – this is our fourth Christmas out of our own home. We couldn’t sleep. It is torture – my GP describes it as torture. Three hours of sleep a night is torture.”

The HMP report was commissioned by the business department whose responsibilities for wind power have since been taken over by Ed Miliband’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

The decision to stick with existing noise limits became official guidance for local authorities ruling on planning applications from wind farm developers.

It has also been used by ministers and officials to support the view that there was no need to revise official wind farm noise guidelines and that erecting turbines near homes posed no threat to people’s health and wellbeing.

In 2007 Mike Hulme of the Den Brook Judicial Review Group, a band of residents opposing a wind turbine development close to their houses in Devon, submitted a Freedom of Information request asking to see all draft versions of the study.

Officials refused the request, claiming it was not in the public interest for them to be released. Hulme appealed to the information commissioner’s office, which has ordered Miliband’s department to release the documents. The drafts show the HMP originally recommended that the night-time wind turbine noise limit should be reduced from 43 decibels to 38, or 33 if they made any kind of swishing or beating noise – known as “aerodynamic modulation”.

The HMP researchers had based their recommendations on evidence. They took noise measurements at houses close to three wind farms: Askam in Cumbria, Bears Down in Cornwall and Blaen Bowi in Carmarthenshire.

They found that the swish-swish signature noise of turbines was significantly greater around most wind farms than had been foreseen by the authors of the existing government guidelines, which date from 1996. They also found that the beating sound is particularly disruptive at night, when other background noise levels are lower, as it can penetrate walls.

In their draft report the HMP researchers recommended that “Consideration be given to a revision of the night-time absolute noise criterion”, noting that this would fit with World Health Organisation recommendations on sleep disturbance.

However, an anonymous government official then inserted remarks attacking this idea because it would impede wind farm development. He, or she, wrote: “What will the impact of this be? Are we saying that this is the situation for all wind farms … I think we need a sense of the scale of this and the impact.”

The final report removed any suggestion of cutting the noise limits or adding any further penalty if turbines generated a beating noise – and recommended local authorities to stick to the 1996 guidelines.

Hulme said: “This demonstrates the conflict of interests in DECC, because it has the responsibility for promoting wind farm development while also having responsibility for the wind farm noise guidance policy … meant to protect local residents.”

Ron Williams, 74, a retired lecturer, lives half a mile from the Wharrels Hill wind farm in Cumbria. He has been forced to use sleeping pills since its eight turbines began operating in 2007.

“The noise we get is the gentle swish swish swish, non-stop, incessant, all night,” he said. “It’s like a Chinese torture. In winter, when the sun is low in the sky, it goes down behind the turbines and causes flickering shadows coming into the room.

“It’s like somebody shining car headlights at your window … on and off, on and off. It affects us all. It’s terrible. Absolutely horrible.”

Lynn Hancock, 45, runs a garden maintenance business. She has suffered disruption since 2007 when the 12-turbine Red Tile wind farm began operating several hundred yards from her Cambridgeshire home.

“Imagine a seven-ton lorry left running on the drive all night and that’s what it’s like,” she said. “People describe it as like an aeroplane or a helicopter or a train that never arrives. It’s like it’s coming but it never gets here.”

Such problems are likely to increase. Britain has 253 land-based wind farms generating 3.5 gigawatts, but this is expected to double or even triple by 2020 to help to meet targets for cutting CO2 emissions.

Posted in Wind Energy Shenanigans, Windpower Industry False Claims | Tagged , , | Leave a comment