In September, the Arizona Game and Fish Department released a noise study for a proposed shooting range on a site that lies 1-3 miles from the boundary of Walnut Canyon National Monument, east of Flagstaff. The results have spurred the Superintendent of Walnut Canyon to express concerns to the Game and Fish Department about the effects of the noise on visitors and wildlife, in the hopes that planned berming and other noise mitigation measures at the facility can reduce noise to the point that it is inaudible in key areas.

The Foster Ranch Shooting Range site was purchased last year after a 16-year effort to find a suitable location for a state-run range in Northern Arizona; previous sites fell victim to local resistance or grazing leases that were still active.  The noise study found that shooting was audible, but well within state noise limits, at all locations monitored, which included a nearby residence, random sites a mile away, and one site at Walnut Canyon, 3 miles from the range (download pdf of study). At Walnut Canyon, gunshot noise ranged up to 52dB, Read the rest of this entry »

Zion National Park has become the first of its brethren to adopt a formal Soundscape Management Plan, the culmination of three years of work.  For the first time, soundscape measurement metrics that have been in development at the NPS Natural Sounds Program office in Ft. Collins, Colorado, will be driving forces in ongoing Park management and assessment procedures.  One of these metrics is the “noise-free interval,” or average time between the audible presence of human sound.  According to Frank Turina, an NPS Natural Sound Program planner, “Now it’s two to three minutes before you hear a human-caused sound, usually involving an overflight, and we want to expand that to a seven-minute period. If we meet that goal we will reassess the situation to see if a longer interval is warranted.”

While some environmental groups had pushed for the Park Service to set a higher standard for back country visitors, this first step, if successful, would effectively reduce sound intrusions to less than half their current level.  And the fact is, even this first step will depend on cooperation from the Federal Aviation Administration, which has so far been slow to take on the necessary shared responsibility for National Park overflight issues.

In more active areas of the Park, such as around visitor centers and within the first mile of trailheads, where the vast majority of visitors spend their time, the goal is to reduce noise by changing some Park staff and maintenance procedures. For example, the use of leafblowers may be reduced in favor of rakes, and new vehicles will be assessed for possible noise-reduction systems.  “Surveys have shown that 90 percent of people who visit the national parks want natural quiet and to be able to hear the sounds of nature,” said Kezia Nielson, who worked on the plan. “They cannot have that experience with human-caused sound.”

For more, see this article in the Salt Lake Tribune, or visit the NPS Natural Sounds Program website.

Two interesting though not quite definitive (see update at bottom) news reports came across my desk in the past couple of weeks, both of which signal a potentially dramatic shift away from developing new land-based wind farms in Europe.  The Energy Minister of the new UK coalition government as well as the CEO of the Danish government-owned energy company both made public statements suggesting that they will be looking away from further development of wind farms on land, in response to increasing public resistance.

In the UK, the Conservative Party reflected the concerns of their largely rural constituency and had expressed far more doubts about large-scale onshore wind farms than had the Labour Party.  While Labour’s Energy secretary Ed Miliband said opposing wind farms is “socially unacceptable”, adding society should view people who blocked planning applications in the same light as drivers who refused to wear a seatbelt, the new Energy Minister Lord Marland said in early August that the “future for this country” in terms of wind energy lies in offshore schemes rather than land-band developments that have sparked anger in Westcountry rural and coastal communities.  While about 70% of the wind farm project approved by the former government are under construction,  Marland stressed that “It is our determination that there should be no dramatic increase in this (wind farms approved by Labour) and that the emphasis should be offshore, where the supply of wind is much more reliable. There are of course constraints in the environment… and fishing and shipping communities need to be listened to, but offshore is the future for this country.”  Perhaps most strikingly, the new coalition government plans to abandon a controversial set of local and regional renewable energy targets, which had been driving much of the new wind farm permitting. For more, see this article.

And in early September, a short online article from Denmark quoted Anders Eldrup, the CEO of Dong Energy, as saying, “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.”  According to this article, which appeared on the Copenhagen Post website, 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.  I have been unable to find any other references to this shift in the online media (UPDATE, 9/12: see this fairly long article in the Telegraph, repeating the quote in more definitive terms, and highlighting Danish anti-wind sentiment) and likewise no public mention of it on Dong’s website; apparently some in the Danish Parliament were unhappy with the idea, so it remains to be seen whether this reflects the CEO’s opinion or substantial new policy.  In recent months, a rising tide of protests has appeared in Scandinavia, long at the forefront of wind energy development; this article looks at some of the new resistance.
UPDATE 10/27/10: Dong says the original press coverage was “grossly misinterpreted”: This much more detailed article notes that Dong has built no new onshore windfarms in Denmark for 5 years, largely due to the fact that the country already has the highest number of wind turbines per capita in the Europe, so is not now “exiting” online development. The article also downplays the extent of public opposition, and stresses that looking offshore just makes more sense in terms of generating capacity.  Dong continues to install land-based turbines in other Scandinavian countries, and is actively pursuing three repowering projects in Denmark (repowering is an upgrade in which aging smaller turbines already in place are replaced by new, larger models, thus generating more power from existing windfarms).

This month’s Renewable Energy World podcasts focuses on a question that AEI has been focusing on for the past couple of years: When is wind energy noise pollution?  The short online article summarizes a roughly half-hour audio program that centers on three interviews: one with a Texas rancher, one with a couple in Vinalhaven, Maine, and one with yours truly.  Intereviewer and Renewable Energy World editor Stephen Lacey did a very good job framing the issue, stressing that while wind energy has great potential for good, it is clearly industrial development and deserves honest scrutiny in terms of its impacts.  My part of the conversation begins at about 17:30 and lasts for about eight minutes.

Check out the story and podcast here on the Renewable Energy World website.

Gar Lipow over at Grist has a quite detailed post today that looks at the promise of various proposed “Flying Energy Generators:”  tethered kite- or plane-like flying platforms for wind generation, able to tap into orders-of-magnitude more available wind energy than ground-based towers.  The piece addresses questions and concerns that are sure to arise about such a “pie in the sky” idea, and concludes that several designs that have completed a proof of concept phase are ready and enticing targets for truly modest government or venture funding to quarter and full scale commercial prototypes.  Links to companies working on several of the most promising approaches will really whet your appetite for more. Well worth a look!
More Than Pie in the Sky: Flying Energy Generators, Maybe the Next Big Thing

Two pieces of wind farm noise news out of Australia this week, both of which address health concerns.  Residents near the Waubra wind farm in Victoria, which began operating in February 2009, have been affected by the noise, some to the point where they’ve moved away.  A recent report by the federal government health office came to the familiar conclusion that there is no “direct, causal” link between wind farm noise and health effect, but as is common in these reports, little attention was directed toward looking at indirect impacts of sleep disruption or annoyance, and the authors of the report did not meet with any of the people who have experienced changes in their health after wind farms became operational.

In response, a Melbourne Senator has called for further inquiry. Senator Steve Fielding noted that “I think it’s only fair that if a cluster of symptoms arise in a local population at approximately the same time we owe it to the people to take a closer look,” said Senator Steve Fielding. “We all want to live in a clean environment, but we need to make sure it’s not at the cost of the local population who have to live near wind farms. It may be the case that we need to set out guidelines as to how close wind farms can be built to someone’s home, but I wouldn’t want to pre-empt any Senate inquiry.”

Meanwhile, one of the residents who had to move from his house, Noel Dean, commissioned a sound assessment by an independent acoustical engineer, Robert Thorne.  Thorne has submitted his findings to several regulatory agencies in recent months; there has been no significant challenge to his findings from wind farm developers, though he has responded to some specific critiques in his final report, which was just released.  Thorne’s report includes detailed sound measurements taken at the Dean residence; the results largely affirm that infrasound is well below audible levels, while also showing that the turbine sound spectrum (how loud the turbine is at each frequency) is often weighted toward lower-frequency audible and inaudible infrasound frequencies.  He finds a strong pulsing character to the noise, and notes the many meteorological factors that contribute to variability in actual sound levels that are not fully captured by current sound models. The report also contains a section assessing health effects, with good reference to other studies; his conclusion is that “Adverse health effects such as sleep disturbance, anxiety, stress and headaches are, in my view, a health nuisance.” Thorne takes some of the government reports to task for being incomplete assessments, and themselves not peer-reviewed.  The report concludes with a section assessing vibration, which is present, but well below levels considered problematic.  Addendums include a detailed assessment of noise complaints at several wind farms, including the Te Rere Hau wind farm in Palmerston North, New Zealand, where noise issues have occurred at far greater ranges than are observed elsewhere (surprisingly severe impacts are reported at distances of 2100-3100 meters, or almost two miles).

As noted here on AIEnews in May, a single new wind turbine in Falmouth, Massachusetts triggered noise problems for many nearby residents (12 formal complaints were filed, an unusually high number for any community, and residents of up to 45 of the 120 homes within a mile raised concerns in informal local meetings).  The town appears to have responded quickly: this news report from mid-June notes that the turbines had been shut off 39 times in the preceding month, when winds topped 22mph and noise would have been at its worst.  Both the town and a group of neighbors have hired lawyers and sound consultants to help them work through the situation; everyone spent a month discussing the nature of the noise issues as a study was designed to assess the conditions in which noise is the worst.  This recent article from the Falmouth Enterprise (sorry, no direct link found) summarizes the recent noise measurements made by both the town and residents’ sound consultants, and the first survey that recently took place.  Everyone seems to agree that the sound was much worse in its first three months of operation (March-May), when winds were higher, so it’s not altogether clear whether this survey, taken at a time when the air was quite hot and still, will suffice to answer the longer-term questions.
UPDATE: A more recent article, from the Cape Cod Times, appeared on August 1st.

Falmouth is the second small New England town to run into unexpected noise problems after installing wind turbines in an effort to reduce electric bills and contribute to a sustainable energy future in their localities. Residents of Vinalhaven, Maine are also trying to find the balance between wind energy and local quality of life; AEInews has tracked their efforts since last December. It appears that Falmouth is being a bit more pro-active, as evidenced by the quick decision to shut down turbines in high winds.  By contrast, the sound study project proceeded a bit more slowly in Falmouth, which may also be a good thing; in Vinalhaven, there was some confusion and uncertainty as a noise survey commenced suddenly this winter, without much pre-consultation with neighbors of the turbines on the design of the study or the sorts of qualitative descriptors used on the surveys (which some neighbors found did not encompass the sounds they experienced).

This is new territory for every town that grapples with it; both Falmouth and Vinalhaven are at the forefront of constructively dealing with noise issues (especially in contrast most wind projects, where the turbines are owned by large and comparatively impersonal energy companies).  As more towns and energy co-ops consider erecting small wind projects, the lessons learned in Falmouth and Vinalhaven will serve to make the process of dealing with noise issues a bit easier elsewhere.

On July 13, I was honored to be one of three presenters in a webinar sponsored by the New England Wind Energy Education Project (NEWEEP), a DOE-funded project of Wind Powering America.  Complementing the technical and regulatory information presented by Mark Bastasch and Ken Kalinsky, my presentation focused on the “qualitatitive” data that we are receiving from people living near wind farms, which can be as useful as the quantitative data coming from engineers and scientists.  The main point of the presentation was that reports in wind farm communities, as well as our best research indications, suggest that a significant minority of nearby residents—25 to 45%—are quite seriously impacted by noise issues when sound is 40dB or more (roughly within a half mile); I also included a look at interesting research into rural place identity and noise sensitivity, both of which provide some clues as to why many people find wind turbine sounds very annoying, while other neighbors are not much bothered by them.

UPDATE, 8/4: All three presentations, along with the audio of the webinar and a transcript, can now be downloaded at the Wind Powering America website: http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/calendar_past_events.asp Scroll down to “Understanding the Impacts of Wind Turbine Sound.” Mark’s presentation is largely about measuring sound; Ken’s focuses more on regulatory approaches.

A pdf version of the presentation can be downloaded here, or you can view or download the Powerpoint version via Slideshare:

Indian cities are renowned for their wild and exuberant variety of sounds: honking horns, bellowing loudspeakers, raucous holiday parades, and, much much more.  Now, urban areas are beginning to try to rein in the noise-making, at least at night.  A nationwide decree deems 10am to 6am as a time for quiet, during which restrictions have been imposed on the use of horns, sound-emitting construction equipments and bursting of firecrackers,” the federal environment ministry said.

Indian officials also announced noise-monitoring stations in major cities, including New Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore, by September.  Eighteen more cities will join the system by 2011, the ministry said. “With the new system in place, a systematic national level monitoring and reporting network in the country will be available, as in case of air and water pollution.”

For more, see this CNN report.

Ontario’s environment ministry has released proposed siting guidelines for offshore wind turbines that set a minimum distance of 5km (3.1 miles) from shore.  The rules, which are now open for public comment, will be subject to public hearings in the fall. Ontario does not have ocean frontage; the rules are meant to govern wind farms planned for the Great Lakes.

The proposed standard would undermine some proposed wind farms, which are aiming to be 2-4km from shore.  It is likely that the proposal would greatly minimize the visual impact of turbines, and would may also reduce sound impacts to an acceptable level.  As noted in this brief essay, sound travels very easily over water, so that typical onshore setbacks could be insufficient for offshore sites.  Some reports from near the Wolfe Island wind farm (at the end of Lake Ontario, near the start of the St. Lawrence Seaway) suggest they are often quite audible from two miles, and occasionally somewhat audible at five to seven miles.  While there is often an assumption that wave sounds will easily drown out distant turbines, it’s likely that people living somewhat inland from the shoreline in otherwise very quiet rural areas would be the most affected by offshore turbine sounds.

Litchfield NY is considering a relatively flexible, while stringent, local ordinance to govern construction of wind farms.  As proposed by a committee of residents charged by the Town Council, the ordinance would avoid strict setback or decibel limits, and instead require easements to be obtained from all residents within 6500 feet of a turbine (just under a mile and a quarter).

The proposed ordinance now goes to the Council for consideration, where some changes are expected to be made.  Involving all neighbors who may be affected by new wind turbines could be a very effective approach, as both studies and experience shows that when people are involved in the decision to move forward with a wind farm (and compensated financially, or feel shared ownership), they are far less likely to have negative reactions and experiences.  I’m sure that the distance at which easements are required will be a sticking point for all concerned; as proposed, it encompasses a large grey area (from roughly 3500-6500 feet) in which acoustic effects are likely to be minimal, yet possible a small proportion of the time.  If the easements don’t effectively become vetoes, it’s quite likely that being involved in the decision could play a key role in this range.  Closer than a half mile or so, the proposed easements may well be sometimes used as a veto, as at least a few residents are apt to feel that the risk of noise issues is not outweighed by financial benefits in the project.  Still, the easement approach has many benefits over a strict decibel or setback limit, assuring that the developer is engaged with everyone who may be affected by the project.

As noted in a previous post, a recent report by the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) in Ontario focused on the narrow question of whether there is a “direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects” experienced by some wind farm neighbors.  Based on a review of published research, the answer was, “no.”  This week, two of the people who were on the review committee providing feedback on the report as it moved from draft to final form noted that the final version dropped a section that some reviewers had urged be included, which would have more directly addressed the actual experiences of communities near wind farms.

Dr. Hazel Lynn, the Grey Bruce medical officer of health, told the Owen Sound Sun-Times, “The whole section that a couple of us really wanted in there on community health and community disruption went. It’s not in there. I suspect politically she can’t criticize another ministry, so I was a little disappointed.”

“I think it’s a fair comment that there is other material that could have been in the report and wasn’t,” added Dr. Ray Copes, the director of environmental and occupational health at the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion and another member of the committee that reviewed drafts of the report. Copes said there are “really important and quite legitimate” questions about wind farms that he and Lynn thought should be discussed, but “I guess the CMOH’s report wasn’t the place for it.”

Both Lynn and Copes stressed that they agreed with the report as far as it went, and that direct noise levels and sound qualities of wind farms don’t appear likely to directly cause health problems.  Lynn noted that there is an “association” between wind farms and some health effects, but that these effects also occur elsewhere; still, she said, “Basically, I think they (wind farms) disrupt communities if they’re not properly planned and instituted and when you disrupt people’s communities they get sick.” There is evidence to back that position up, she added, but “that doesn’t come through very clearly” in King’s report. Likewise, Copes stressed that the idea of a unique quality in wind farm noise causing a new set of health problems seems “implausible,” yet he also stressed (as did AEI) that the report highlights the need for more direct measurements of sound levels around wind farms.  Such measurements will add much-needed ground truthing to the sound models currently used in siting decisions, and could provide more concrete data to use in assessing both noise complaints and health concerns.

In recent months, several lawsuits and formal complaints have been filed, claiming unlawful nuisance and/or impacts on property values and quality of life near wind farms.  Most recently, sixteen residents sued the Michigan Wind I wind farm and its developers, laying out a series of complaints, including (as detailed in the Huron Daily Tribune):

• Private nuisance from, among other things, sustained and highly annoying audible noise and amplitude modulation in both audible and sub-audible frequencies
• Negligent design of a wind farm, including a noise assessment that estimated only audible noise levels within the dBA range, and did not consider low frequency noise or impulse noise
• Negligent misrepresentation, claiming the wind companies made false representations in board of commissioner and planning commissioner meetings and public hearings when company representatives said the wind farm’s operations would not result in a noise nuisance or cause adverse health effects to adjacent landowners. “(The defendants) were negligent in making these misrepresentations because, as the parties seeking approval to construct a wind turbine farm in Huron County, they had a duty to use reasonable care to provide Huron County and its citizens with both accurate and complete information,” the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs claim the wind companies provided inaccurate and/or incomplete information about the audible turbine noise levels, and no information about low frequency noise, infrasound and/or impulse noise emitted from the turbines.

In Pennsylvania, the Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm settled out of court this week as a lawsuit brought by Todd and Jill Stull was moving toward a jury trial in July.  The suit alleged that the company misrepresented the noise levels that would be generated by assuring residents the noise would e minimal.  The agreement is bound by confidentiality, so no details are available. See earlier coverage of the lawsuit here.

Meanwhile, in neighboring Wisconsin, Read the rest of this entry »

This recording, by one of the wind farm neighbors in Wisconsin who I met when visiting there last fall, is a good, simple taste of the sounds heard from 1500 or so feet away—this one has a predominant jet plane flavor, though often neighbors report a wide variety of sounds that change depending on wind conditions.  Most of these folks have several turbines around their homes; one person told me that he thought he could live with it if the ones closer than a half mile were not there, though another of his neighbors leaned more toward a mile as his comfort zone.  Listening to this selection of sounds, recorded with different cloud covers and wind directions, I could get a sense of why some people find hearing this incredibly disruptive and intrusive, while others say they are not much bothered; this disparity of reaction is one of the fundamental paradoxes of wind farm noise issues.  

Give a listen…..turn it up and down to get a feel for it at different sound levels or distances (or to simulate how it feels to people with different degrees of sensitivity/attention to the sound)…..imagine it lasting far longer than this three minute taste—which may well make it more torturous, or might allow it to sink into the background of your awareness…..if this sound, at a moderate level, or turned down very low to be just audible, was happening in your neighborhood, how would it be for you?

The Morrow County Planning Board ruled this week that the Willow Creek Energy Center, an 80-turbine wind farm, is producing noise levels that violate Oregon’s noise limits, and gave Invenergy, the wind farm’s owner, six months to get the turbines into compliance.  The wind farm began operating in January 2009, and by March, several neighbors within a half mile had raised serious concerns about the noise (see this article for details), including regularly having difficulty sleeping. Noise monitoring then took place, and in January of this year, the Planning Board received the results, which showed that noise levels at four homes sometimes exceeded the limit of 37dB.

There was some contention at that meeting, as neighbors had hired independent noise monitoring consultants, whose records showed more consistent violations than those of the Invenergy-hired consultant; the differences were pegged to the fact that the Invenergy consultant did not record in high wind speeds, contending that the noise gets no louder above wind speeds of 9m/s.  It is unclear from initial news reports whether the wind farm will be required to comply with the noise limits based on the Invenergy sound monitoring protocol, which found excess noise just 10% of the time at one house, and less frequent slight violations at three others, or whether they’ll use the more comprehensive techniques used by the local citizens, which found violations more consistently at two homes (one just over the limit, the other often over 40dB), with one home experiencing excess noise on 22 out of 37 nights.

Carla McLane, Planning Director for Morrow County, noted that while the commission did rule the wind farm was violating state regulations, it found the turbines only crossed the noise threshold at certain times of day and under certain conditions. “Some would want to view it in black and white and if it’s a violation then you have to shut them down,” McLane said.  “Others would want to view it in terms of shade of gray and say it’s not an ongoing and continuous violation. It’s an intermittent violation.”

”I’m not sure how someone can say this is an unusual, infrequent event,” said Kerrie Standlee, one of the neighbors’ noise consultants. “To me, 59 percent (of nights with excess noise) is not occasional or unusual.” Standlee’s noise study also went beyond Invenergy’s in that he gave the residents a sheet of paper to log their experiences with time and date. He then overlaid those comments on the data and showed that when the residents reported high noise, the wind was blowing from a particular direction or at a particular speed.  This last bit of information may offer Invenergy some direction about when they might shut down turbines if they want to avoid the worst of the noise issues, during the six months they have to get into compliance.

The Planning Board struggled with the conflicting approaches, according the the East Oregonian (article archived here). “I have a very hard time coming to a concrete conclusion on which study I feel is accurate,” Commissioner Pamela Schmidt said. “I’m not a licensed engineer in acoustics myself and there’s been so much information I can’t make a decision.”  Invenergy claimed that the background ambient noise varies, so that in higher wind periods, it should be allowed to exceed 36dB; yet, in its permit, it used the 26dB ambient standard, which is the state’s default if measurements are not made ahead of time. Complicating matters more is the fact that, as the East Oregonian noted, “the rule does not direct agencies on how to administer the rule or decide conflicts such as the one between Invenergy and its neighbors. The agency that originally enforced the rule, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, has since defunded and destaffed its noise program.”

It’s worth noting that the noise issues seem to be quite pronounced even at sound levels of 40dB.  Oregon’s 36dB limit is among the most conservative in the country; it’s based on being 10dB above average night time ambient noise levels, which have been measured at 26dB.  It appears that noise issues may well be present even when the measured sound levels are at or very near 36dB; this is in synch with reports from elsewhere, which suggest that people accustomed to quiet rural night time soundscapes are quite easily disturbed when turbine noise becomes one of the loudest local sounds, even when absolute noise levels are not extreme. In general, acousticians consider a sound to become readily audible when it is 5dB above ambient, with disturbance considered likely when it reaches 10dB above ambient.

UPDATE, June 2011: The state Land Use Board of Appeals issued a ruling that questioned the county’s interpretation of the 36dB noise limit. In its ruling, LUBA sided with the wind developer, which had said that the state laws allow wind farms to produce up to 10dB more than ambient sound levels; the county had been suggesting that if the developer doesn’t conduct ambient noise studies before construction, they must assume ambient of 26dB (typical night time ambient).  The LUBA decision said that this requirement to choose whether or not to do an ambient study prior to construction did not appear in the state rules, leaving room for companies to show later that measurements of turbine noise levels exceeding 36dB were  made when the ambient was above 26dB.

A private landowner in Clifton, Maine, is hoping to erect four commercial wind turbines on a small ridge known as Pisgah Mountain, and sell the energy to the local utility, Bangor Hydro.  Hearing of negative experiences in other Maine towns, including Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, some local residents are concerned about noise impacts and effects on wildlife.  The town of Clifton has drafted a new ordinance that sets 4000 feet as the minimum distance between a turbine and a neighboring house; this ordinance will go before voters on June 8.  In both other towns, affected families live within 3500 feet of the local turbines.

“What we have on this site is setbacks to the closest residence of a little over 4,300 feet,” says Paul Fuller, who owns the 240 acres where the turbines would be built. “I think we could boast that that is the farthest setback of any wind farm in the state of Maine at this point.”  Several other homes are within a mile to mile and a half of the location.

If this project moves ahead, it would be one of the first to do so with regulatory setbacks of over 1500-1700 feet, which are commonly used in Maine and elsewhere in the US, as developers aim to reach a 45dB limit at homes.  The ordinance allows sound levels of up to 50dB during the day and 40dB at night; past experience would suggest that at this distance, these sound levels are unlikely to be reached, though it is entirely possible that the turbines will be somewhat audible up to a mile or so away at times (night time noise levels in rural areas can be as low as 20-25db).  Some community advocates urge setbacks of a mile or mile and a quarter, to more surely eliminate audible noise issues; this project would be a valuable “guinea pig” for the helping answer the crucial question of where the proper balance lies between wind development and respecting the rural soundscape of small towns.

Read more and see a news clip at WLBZ2.com

England’s primary environmental agency, the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), has commissioned a study to improve techniques for assessing wind farm noise.  “There is a possibility that local authorities are not currently investigating complaints about noise from wind farms due to the absence of any formal technical guidance,” an internal document reads. “Defra wishes to let a contract to provide local authorities with a methodology by which to investigate noise from wind farms, to support local authority enforcement of statutory nuisance legislation.”  According to the Telegraph, the report is due out later this year, and should make it easier for local councils to respond to noise complaints.  A recent survey suggests that about one in seven UK wind farms have spurred noise complaints; noise campaigners contend that many people who are bothered do not file formal complaints, since they are rarely acted upon.

(UPDATE, 8/2/10): Apparently, the news report cited above was about a call for proposals, or plans to let the contract; in August, Energy Minister Charles Hendry announced that the consulting firm Hayes McKenzie had been hired to conduct this review of noise assessment techniques.  The firm will begin work in September and is expected to complete its report by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, also in the UK, the Bradford Planning Inspector upheld a ruling by the city Council to deny a permit for building a single large turbine at a factory in town.  The applicant had appealed the denial, since its noise studies showed that that the turbine would be in compliance with the federal noise code ETSU-R-97, which is the only code named in the statutes.  However, the investigating Bradford Council Environmental Health officer used several other noise level methodologies when he visited a similar turbine in Norfolk. Using World Health Organisation and British Standard guidelines and codes of practice, as well as ETSU-R-97, he came to the conclusion that the Princes Soft Drinks turbine would cause a noise nuisance for nearby residents. The Planning ruling noted that even according to the company’s modeling, “for some dwellings under certain conditions, the emitted turbine noise is likely to lead to complaints. Furthermore, according to WHO standards, there would be times when this noise could result in sleep disturbance, or prove to be a serious annoyance to residents. I find this to be unacceptable.”

Councillor John Ruding said: “I am delighted that the inspector agreed with the local community and their voices have been heard. “These proposals were an experiment on people’s lives which was not acceptable.”  Earlier, at the time that the company appealed the initial denial, another Councillor, James Cairns, had noted, “The Council has done its best. Its officers didn’t believe it was feasible in the area. Bradford is not against wind turbines – if you go up onto the moors, you will see them. But turbines of this size have not been tried and tested in urban areas.”

When the town-owned wind turbine began operating at the Falmouth, MA wastewater treatment facility in March, most townspeople saw it as the most striking example of the town’s far-reaching commitment to sustainability.  Since then, it’s generated about a third of the town’s electricity needs, and a second turbine is being readied for installation nearby this summer.  As noted at a forum on the town’s many energy-savings initiatives, in discussing the second turbine: “The special thing about the site is it’s remote. The nearest home is about 1/3 mile away, which is important in terms of noise and appearance.” (This is just under 1800 feet, or 600 yards.)

But over the few weeks since the first turbine began operating, residents are finding the noise much more disruptive than they’d imagined.  According to the Cape Cod Times, some neighbors who live in the sparsely populated, wooded area around the treatment facility were horrified when they heard the noise. “It’s destroyed our capacity to enjoy our homes,” Kathy Elder said. Elder said the noise surrounds her residence, alternating between a jet’s whine, thunder and a thumping that sometimes can be felt.

The town has received formal complaints from six residents, one of whome, Annie Hart Cool, has gathered over 40 names of people within a mile or so who say they are affected.  She notes that her husband enjoys working in their yard after work, “but when he comes back inside and his head is hurting, you know something’s wrong.”

Assistant Town Manager Heather Harper says that the town has asked Vestas, the turbine manufacturer, to come check whether there are any mechanical issues that may be causing elevated noise levels, and is asking residents to compile records of when the sound is worst, to help the town figure out how to respond. “This has been a community project from the beginning,” Harper said. “We’re genuinely concerned and we take the complaints very seriously.”  At the same time, Harper noted that “We didn’t expect no sound, but it should meet all governmental standards.”  This is, indeed, often the issue: governmental noise standards, which tend to range from 40-50dB, are not always sufficient to avoid negative impacts on the nearest neighbors.

UPDATE: Another local newspaper covers the brewing controversy.

An excellent 3-part series on wind farm development ran this week in the Bismark Tribune. It has a good balance of the excitement and economic benefits that attract farmers to the industry, and well-stated concerns from those who want larger setbacks in order to protect neighbors from noise.  The grey area around health impacts is navigated quite well, with a well-grounded emphasis on sleep disruption; and most strikingly, the piece includes acknowledgement that there is individual variability in how easily people can adapt to a new and potentially intrusive noise source.

Interestingly, there are repeated indications that in this community, as in others, a half mile setback was seen as the “sweet spot” that could accommodate both industry and neighbors; in initial community meetings, there was significant support for a one-mile setback, while a general consensus emerged that a half mile would be tolerable to most people.  Nonetheless, the county decided to go with a third of a mile (1750-foot) setback, which has some community members concerned that the turbines will be audible enough to be disruptive at times.

“As goes Maine, so goes the Nation?”  While this old political truism has faded in recent decades, the State of Maine is currently blazing trails in carefully considered wind power development.  At the local level, small towns continue to pass moratoriums and strict setback standards.  Most recently, Thorndike became the third town to set a one-mile setback, with the neighboring town of Dixmont taking up a similar ordinance at this week’s town meeting.  Meanwhile, two more towns, Avon and New Vineyard, joined four others who have hit the pause button on any wind farm developments by adopting moratoriums on any permits.  These actions come in the wake of three projects that have generated significant noise issues for neighbors out to as far as 3000-3500 feet; thus, half-mile setbacks are being seen as not enough to avoid risk of disrupting rural lifestyles.

While these towns see the state as being overly aggressive in supporting ridgetop wind farms (abetted by the fact that a former Governor is one of the state’s leading wind developers), when it comes to offshore wind development, the state’s goals will be much more welcome for most coastal communities.  Instead of opening Maine state waters to windfarm leasing, the legislature’s Committee on Utilities and Energy is redrafting controversial ocean windfarm bill LD 1810 to do the very opposite. Under changes to be finalized today at the committee’s 2nd worksession on the bill, “An Act To Implement the Recommendations of the Governor’s Ocean Energy Task Force” will focus Maine instead on constructing floating deepwater windmills on land, and then deploying them at locations ten miles offshore and further, where wind speeds and higher and more consistent and fisheries are less impacted.

The plan received an enthusiastic response from the Maine Lobstermens Association, which has been very concerned about the impacts of any traditional bottom-mounted wind turbines on their activities near shore.  Habib Dagher, who leads the University of Maine’s offshore wind project, offered a timeline for getting deepwater wind energy going off Maine. “Our goal is build our first demonstration floating turbine – a third-scale turbine about 120 feet above the water – next year, and place it in the water the year after in the Monhegan site,” Dagher said. “In 2013 we would build the first 4 or 5 megawatt unit, In 2014 and 2015, a 25 megawatt farm.” He predicted that offshore wind would keep growing: “The next phase is development of a large scale 500 to 1,000 megawatt farm. We have at least one developer interested to do that and have it operational in 2020”

UPDATE: The offshore Maine project will not have its first scale model test unit in the water until 2013.

UPDATE 3/25: In response to a quick wave of outrage on editorial pages and some Park Service lobbying, Senator McCain has withdrawn his proposed amendment.  It remains to be seen whether he will let the NPS EIS process set the final rules, or seek to have the Senate write rules if the process lags or heads toward a resolution that differs from his sense of the proper balance.

That John McCain can sure be a puzzle.  Or is it a case of the old maverick’s bait and switch, staking the high moral ground while pursuing a typically old-guard agenda?  Whatever he’s up to, let’s hope the rest of his Senate colleagues don’t buy into it.  Way back in 1987 McCain led the push to enact the National Parks Overflights Act, which called for the FAA and NPS to come up with a plan to reduce the aircraft noise experienced by Grand Canyon visitors.  This was a truly welcome and indeed, maverick move.  In the 23 years since then,  as noted by the Arizona Republic this week, “the process of adopting a noise-management plan often seemed to move at the same geological pace as the forces shaping the Canyon. ”  This has frustrated advocates for natural quiet, and it has frustrated Senator McCain.  So when the Senator introduced an amendment last week to codify air tour rules, saying that  the amendment reduces excessive aircraft noise “without waiting another 23 years for progress,” it might appear that he’s still taking the high road, standing up to the ridiculous bureaucracy.

But wait: what the good Senator neglected to mention is that the NPS Environmental Impact Statement governing overflights is due out sometime in April.  Yes, the 23-year wait is at its end, after years of collaborative dialogue and NPS research, and within a few weeks, we’ll see what the NPS has proposed.  Yet for some reason, the great champion of the process wants to undercut that work and impose his own version of what would be right and good.  According to the National Parks Conservation Association, the plan McCain is putting forward would allow more air tours than are currently permitted, and otherwise constrain the Park Service’s ability to manage air tours in order to fulfill the original 1987 Act’s stated purpose of “substantial restoration of natural quiet.”  While most of McCain’s amendment seems to mimic what the NPS has indicated it’s aiming for, an FAA-convened working group fell apart over some of the NPS ideas, seasonal limits on certain popular air-tour corridors.  Air tour managers were upset at some NPS provisions, and in the wake of the group’s failure, the FAA’s role is diminished as the NPS moves ahead.  While the EIS is due in April, comment period will follow, and of course, lawsuits by air tour groups or environmentalists looking for more quiet could also delay implementation.  All this may well fuel McCain’s efforts to get something closer to the FAA or air tour groups’ sense of a fair balance into law, rather than wait through the likely challenges.

The Senate is likely to vote on McCain’s amendment this week; the measure may well slip through, as it is co-sponsored by both Arizona and both Nevada Senators (yes, Harry Reid); many air tours originate in Las Vegas.  The NPCA is urging members to call their Senators, and the Arizona Republic also weighed in against short-circuiting the nearly completed EIS.  (Ironically, the NPCA honored McCain in 2001 for his leadership on the overflight issue.)  See also Senator McCain’s floor statement, and the text of his amendment.  If you do call your Senator, this is Amendment 3528, being attached to the Senate’s consideration of HR 1586, which proposes a tax on bonuses paid by some recipients of TARP funds.

Natural England, a recently-established “statutory consultee” charged with advising the UK government on projects that may affect wildlife or the English countryside experience, has published a document that outlines its approach to providing guidance on wind farm siting.  The guidance considers both established parks and other unprotected wild lands and geo-diversity sites, as well as areas of deep peat, and areas of hightened bird sensitivity.  It also mentions previously-mapped areas of the greatest tranquility, though it is not clear just how much weight each of these various designations will carry as it balances the many factors that go into its recommendations.

Read more about the guidance on this post at New Energy Focus, or read Natural England’s press release here.  You can download the guidance document from this web page.

Here’s a bit of news that might be spun either way, depending on your predilection.  Jane Davis, who was driven from her home by wind farm noise, has been compiling information on English wind farms and noise complaints; she has found that 37 wind farms have spurred some sort of noise complaints nationwide.  This amounts to about 1 in 7 UK wind farms, in contrast to an oft-repeated mantra that “only four” UK wind farms had noise issues, and they’d been “resolved.”  The new numbers could support those cautioning that wind farm noise issues are more widespread than generally acknowledged, AND those who claim that noise issues are the exception rather than the rule; it certainly reinforces AEI’s theme that we need to acknowledge that a minority of people are affected by noise around wind farms, and that we must come to grips with how to address this.

This article in the Telegraph details some of the information shared at a gathering of wind farm noise campaigners, WindCon2010.  Gillian Haythornthwaite, who lives near the wind farm in Askam with her partner Barry Moon, said it has been a “devastating” experience. “It is a dreadfully irritating whoosh, whoosh noise,” she said. “It is unbearable to be outside in the garden when there is the noise.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Electrical engineer Siva Sivoththaman has been named to the newly-created Ontario provincial Research Chair in Renewable Energy Technologies and Health.  Local activist groups that have raised concerns about the effects of wind farm noise on neighbors had hoped that this position, created as part of Ontario’s new Green Energy Act, would take the lead in formally investigating the negative health effects some neighbors of wind farms have reported.  However, the choice appears to be more oriented toward the technology aspect of the Chair’s responsibilities.  As noted in the request for proposals: “The Chair in Renewable Energy Technologies and Health will focus first on emerging science and technology related to wind turbines, and then will explore the potential health effects from renewable energy.”

According to a news release, “Dr. Sivoththaman will bring focus to multi-disciplinary activities in renewable energy technologies and health, ensuring that health and safety are top priorities in the induction of new technologies. His research program will develop new technical approaches and will provide guidelines in setting standards to ensure health and safety in the manufacturing, use, and end-of-life phases of renewable energy technologies.” Sivoththaman’s research centres on silicon-based crystalline and thin-film photovoltaic devices, and he serves as director of the Centre for Photovoltaic Systems and Devices, which occupies much of the photovoltaic research building beside Matthews Hall. His interest extends to nanocrystalline semiconductors, and he was the first director of the University of Waterloo’s nanotechnology engineering program when it was launched in 2004.

Two leading Ontario wind activist groups expressed their disappointment with the choice; Wind Concerns Ontario said “We have no faith in any meaningful body of evidence being produced on health effects from wind turbines by this government-funded non expert and Ontarians will suffer for it,” while the Society for Wind Vigilance chair Dr. Robert McMurtry said the choice missed the mark in that “the lead and expertise of this Research Chair would more appropriately have been a clinician scientist. We strongly encourage the new Chair to seek the appropriate collaborators as the research program is established.”

It is as yet unclear what the Chair’s timeline will be in addressing the dual (and quite distinct) topics he is charged with overseeing.  Given the widespread concern about health effects, and the role this concern is playing in the wind development process in Ontario and elsewhere, we hope that the two topics will be pursued simultaneously.  And indeed, as McMurtry suggests, it is clear that the Chair will need to bring in some experts in health and acoustics to effectively address the health aspects; in the spirit of collaboration and inclusiveness, we can also hope that his research/investigative team draws from qualified experts who have expressed concerns about wind noise, as well as those who have previously worked on reports that found few health effects.

The Fox Islands Electrical Cooperative on Vinalhaven, an island off the coast of Maine, has begun a month-long experiment as a first step in trying to come up with a local solution to noise issues from three wind turbines that began operating in November.  About two dozen people within a half-mile of the turbines have reported annoying levels of noise, with six property owners claiming that their lives are severely impacted.  Others in the same area who can hear the turbines are not particularly bothered by the noise.

Shortly after the turbines started operating, and some residents (including some who were excited about the wind farm, and some who had been skeptical) reported unexpected noise issues, neighbors began noting the times that the sound was most troublesome, in an effort to identify what wind directions or atmospheric conditions might be most to blame.  At its January meeting the Board of the electric coop decided to conduct a month-long “experiment” during February, in which the turbines would be slowed down in random patterns.  Sound measurements will be made throughout the month, and the 38 households within a half-mile are being asked to log their sense of the noise on a regular basis (half these households are summer people, so are unlikely to be participating). In a letter to coop members, the board said the experiment “will enable us, as a community, to figure out what to do and come to a solution that works, as well as possible, for everyone.”

A very detailed article in The Working Waterfront, a local paper, features a variety of comments from a locals about the process that is underway to find a community-based solution to the noise problems. Some find that the noise is moderate enough to be tolerable, easily drowned out by other sounds such as the TV or a car passing by, or being no more bothersome than a dishwasher running in another room; one person remembers the noisy generator that used to provide power to the town in the 60s and 70s, which people got used to.  Some who have been disturbed share their perceptions, as well;  Ethan Hall notes that “I’ve never heard anything in my life that sounds like it.”  Both he and Lindgren (another neighbor being affected) believe that current sound measurement standards do not take into account the complexity of turbine noise and its true impact. “The nature of the sound is so unique, that to try and quantify or qualify it with a strict dBa [decibel] measurement is an entirely inadequate way of describing the effect on people and surroundings,” Hall feels.  An hour-long radio interview with Hall and others being affected, recorded this past December, is available on the WERU website.