The UK government announced lease bid winners for nine offshore wind development zones that together aim to provide 25% of the country’s electricity by 2020.  The winning companies will next submit development proposals, which will go through normal planning and permitting processes, with construction targeted to begin in 2014.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said: “Our policies in support of offshore wind energy have already put us ahead of every other country in the world. This new round of licences provides a substantial new platform for investing in UK industrial capacity.”

For more detail, see this post on the Yes2Wind website, which promotes wind development in the UK.

UPDATE (3/9/10):  In the wake of the “Round 3” leases noted here, doubts have been raised about whether the goal of fully building out the leases is realistic; limits in the supply chain for building such turbines is a major concern, as is financing.  See these two articles for more.

This one is a bit old (from last spring), but seems worth pointing to because it provides a somewhat new perspective on the wind farm noise debate.  US Congressman Eric Massa represents a district which is at the center of public concern about noise issues, thanks to a proposed wind farm in Plattsburg, not far from an existing wind farm in Cohocton that has spurred quite a lot of complaints.

In this interview with a local radio station, the Congressman describes some of the stories he’s heard from constituents, as well as his larger questions about the logic of building wind farms in areas like this that have only marginal wind resources (winds are strong enough to produce electricity only 30% of the time).  He also frames the issue as one of small towns being over-powered by the interests of foreign companies.

Two of the more compelling tidbits come in a brief moment of the interview, when Massa speaks of a constituent who “agreed to have a lease on his property and now he is saying – I have to move out of my property. It’s quite amazing. Not to mention the fact that as we talked about, hunters are now coming up and telling me that there’s no wildlife anywhere within distance, and I’m talking three to four miles, of any of these wind turbines because these wind turbines emit low frequency vibrations that drive the deer away.”

The latest in AEI’s ongoing series of comprehensive special reports on key topics is finally done!

This one is modeled on AEI’s acclaimed annual reviews of science and policy developments in ocean noise, but focuses for the first time on wind farm noise issues.  The 30-page report covers new research, public concerns, and industry trends over the past year.

Read the report in the embedded pdf reader below, or download a pdf copy.  Click on to below the fold for a table of contents and the report’s brief Introduction.

Read the rest of this entry »

A hearing by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission heard testimony from residents and agency staff this week, and indicated that it was going to take its time in setting statewide wind farm siting guidelines.  “I think there are a lot of remaining unanswered questions. I think there are a lot of … substantive questions as well,” Commissioner Phyllis Reha said. “I think the commission has a lot of work to do before we make any kinds of decisions.”

Monday’s hearing focused on a report issued last year by the Minnesota Department of Health outlining the potential health impacts from wind turbine noise. The PUC and its staff requested health department officials review scientific literature after people statewide raised concerns regarding wind projects.

In the scientific report, state health officials – drawing from National Research Council findings – noted that noise from wind turbines “generally is not a major concern for humans beyond a half-mile or so.”  Nonetheless, the report and PUC staff recommended that setbacks be increased only to 1000 feet; current regulations set a 500 foot minimum, but the night time noise limit of 50dB means that in practice, most turbines are sited at least 700-1200 feet from homes.

Some groups – including Goodhue County residents – have advocated setbacks of six-tenths of a mile or even 1.25 miles to prevent possible health effects, a point PUC staff and others say is supported by “scant” evidence. Still, Commissioner J. Dennis O’Brien said, “We know these issues are strong and heartfelt … and genuine and real. We’ll just have to struggle with it for a while, I think.”

Two different acoustic studies near the Willow Creek Energy Center in eastern Oregon have found that the state’s wind farm noise ordinance is being violated at several homes nearby.  How often and by how much the violations are occurring remains under contention. As reported by the East Oregonian, the commission heard from several acousticians as well as the neighbors themselves.

The state allows wind farms to be up to 36dB at neighboring homes (10dB over the night-time ambient of 26dB–based on the assumption that excess noise will not be bothersome until it exceeds ambient by 10dB).  After several neighbors raised concerns about noise, Invenergy, the wind farm developer, hired acoustical consultant Michael Theriault to take measurements.  He found that noise levels at three homes were “usually less than 37db” and that at one home, “the noise ‘moderately’ exceeded the noise code about ten percent of the time.” (it is unclear what “usually” means in this report, or what averaging period was used in the determination)

However, the Theriault did no recordings when wind speeds exceeded 9m/s, because the company says their turbines don’t get louder after that point.  This may well be true, but sound propagation can vary widely with atmospheric conditions, especially when wind is higher aloft (at turbine hub height) than on the ground.  Acoustical consultants hired by the four landowners presented findings that included measurements when wind speeds were higher, which showed that the noise at the Eaton’s residence hovered just above the noise standard on a regular basis, and at the Williams residence it regularly went above 40 decibels. The wind farm consistently broke the noise rule at precisely the time when Theriault decided not to use the data – when wind speeds exceeded 9 meters per second. When the data is analyzed in a wider range of wind speeds,  the wind farm was in violation of the rule 22 out of 37 nights. “I’m not sure how someone can say this is an unusual, infrequent event,” said Kerrie Standlee. “To me, 59 percent is not occasional or unusual.” Standlee’s noise study also went beyond Theriault’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.

The commission also heard heartfelt testimony from the residents themselves, who said that their lives had been completely changed since the wind farm came. “A basic right in my life is to live in my beautiful home with my peace and quiet, and now I can’t do that,” Dan Williams said. When the testimony ended, the planning commission agreed to wait until their next meeting to make a decision about whether – and how – the Willow Creek wind farm must mitigate the noise problem.  An earlier article focusing on the experiences of people near the wind farm is available here.

The Japanese Environment Ministry is gearing up for the April launch of a nationwide field survey around all 1500 wind turbines in operation in the country.  Prompted by health complaints by some neighbors, the survey will the first such comprehensive study of the question; low frequency and audible noise will be recorded, to see whether there is any correlation between these sounds and the reported effects.  According to the ministry plan, the survey will first ascertain whether there have been problems reported in the vicinity of wind turbines. If residents complain of health problems, their symptoms will be examined. Measuring equipment will be placed in their homes to find out the relationship between the turbines and health problems. The distance between the turbines and homes as well as geographical features of the area will also be examined. About 30 of the nation’s 376 wind farms (1-20 turbines each) have prompted formal complaints to date.  For more, see this Japanese news report.

In what could be a precedent-setting move, the Ontario Assessment Review Board (ARB) has slashed the taxable value of a house because of noise from a transformer station across the street.  The transformer, which site 360 meters (about 1200 feet) from Paul Thompson’s home, produces a constant hum of about 40dB in Thompson’s home.  In 2008, the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. assessed the 1,320-square-foot house at $255,000; Thompson felt that assessment may be fair if not for the noise from the recently-installed substation, and appealed.  According to an article in the Home section of the Toronto Star, Thompson introduced evidence at the hearing showing that the transformer station noise was audible within the house with the windows closed. He described the noise as a “nightmare” and a constant nuisance that not only affects his day-to-day activity, but also impacts the sales value and marketability of his property. In reaching its decision to cut his assessment in half, board member Marques wrote, “The Board finds that the constant hum alleged by Mr. Thompson does exist and significantly reduces the current value of the subject property. The best evidence is the audio portion of the CD (Exhibit No. 1) and the testimony of both parties. “Having heard this nuisance, apparently sanctioned by the Municipality, the Board accepts Mr. Thompson’s testimony that the stigma of noise contamination has a negative impact on the value and marketability of the property, and that after learning of the hum, prospective purchasers will quickly lose interest in purchasing the property. The Board is satisfied that a very substantial reduction is warranted.”

It is especially interesting that the ARB felt that Thompson’s home value was so dramatically affected by sound of 40dB; many municipalities c0nsider this and higher levels to be acceptable.  Wind turbine noise, while varying widely with wind conditions, can be 45dB or higher at similar distances (1000-1500 feet), and remain above 35dB for up to a mile.  As Bob Aaron, a real estate lawyer and author of this article, notes: “Thompson’s successful appeal of his assessment is only the first of many similar cases that are certain to follow. The result, of course, will be a significant reduction in the tax base of municipalities like Amaranth, which play host to wind turbine farms.”  This hearing took place in September 2008, but only recently came to light.  Bob Aaron has posted the ARB decision on his website.

While offshore wind, especially floating deep offshore designs just beginning to be tested, offers great promise for reliable electrical generation out of earshot of communities, there remain several key technical hurdles to overcome.  In addition to needing more ships that can transport and install offshore turbines and vastly expanded transmission lines, a key concern is that wind turbines can interfere with radar signals, raising concerns about national defense implications of widespread offshore wind development.  The Department of Homeland Security and the NOAA are soliciting proposals for new techniques that could be used to accurately assess the extent and degree of radar interference by offshore wind farms.  The proposal affirms that the “intent is not to impede the propagation of wind turbines but to discover a means to co-exist.”

In early December, the Association for the Protection of Ménez, Quelec’h and Saint-Gildas won a groundbreaking court case in France, in which the Court of Appeals of Renne ordered that eight wind turbines in Cast and Châteaulin be shut down from 10pm to 7am.  The Association had sought court relief from night time noise disturbance in the area around the wind farm.  News coverage is spotty: here is a brief summary of the case, and here is a French news story, crudely translated by Google.

See more AEInews coverage of wind turbine noise issues

It’s a beautiful idea, come to fruition: in the island communities of Vinalhaven and North Haven, Maine, a local electrical co-op joined forces with a regional nonprofit organization, and built three large wind turbines which would provide the 2,000 households on the island with locally-produced power.  On a lovely fall day in November, the largest group of island residents ever gathered in one place celebrated the commissioning of the Fox Islands Wind Project.  But for some residents, the moment they had been waiting for had an unexpected element: clearly audible noise.

“As I watched the first rotation of the giant blades from our deck,” says Sally Wylie in the island newspaper, The Working Waterfront,  “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….We have 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.”

The community came together to dream and build the turbines, and now they are working together as well to address unexpected noise issues.  Starting the day after commissioning, representatives of the wind project visited neighbors, deployed microphones, trained neighbors in how to record sound and wind speed, and asked neighbors to keep diaries of their experience of the noise.  Also writing in The Working Waterfront, board members of the local electric co-op and the Fox Island Wind LLC, formed to take advantage of tax credits available for wind development, affirm  that they are “committed to monitoring the sound impacts beyond the traditional approach of measuring wind speeds and decibel levels, as we have asked neighbors to also document their subjective experiences so that we can determine any other factors they may be finding bothersome. In a wide variety of ways, the Fox Islands Wind project has been a very different, first-of-its-kind, model wind project. We are committed to dealing with the sound issue in the same open and participatory way that we have approached the project since its inception.”

Once again, the experience of people on the ground, and initial recordings and conversations with neighbors, suggests that the noise is most troublesome within a half mile of the turbines, with some lesser effects out to a mile or more. According to Fox Islands Wind, “it does not appear that, except in a few individual spots, there is much impact beyond a half mile from the site.”  Wylie’s conversations and recordings suggest to her that “households within a mile to a mile-and-a-half radius of the turbines are impacted by the sound.” The commentary here at AEInews is beginning to sound like a broken record, but here we go again: it is clear that we will need to make some social choices about the degree of disturbance we are willing to trade for the benefits of renewable wind energy.  There is little doubt that homes within a half mile of turbines often experience elevated noise levels, and beyond that distance, impacts diminish in frequency and severity.  Where will we decide to draw the line?

Fox Islands Wind Project website

The Working Waterfront, visit for ongoing coverage of the story

Island Institute community energy web info, including article on offshore wind and column in Working Waterfront on the genesis of the Fox Islands Wind project, including its economic justice/equity goals.

Download a Word doc version of this commentary

A report issued by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) 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 report, funded by North America’s two key wind industry trade organizations, centers on the symptoms of the reported “wind turbine syndrome,” and while it offers a robust critique of the idea that low frequency noise from wind farms can cause direct health impacts, it’s hard to take its message of wind’s “clean bill of health” at face value, thanks to many topics that are ignored or underplayed.  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. (For more complete assessments of health-related issues related to wind farms and noise, see recent reports from the Minnesota Department of Health report and World Health Organization.)

The authors of the new AWEA/CanWEA report acknowledge that some people may be annoyed by the sounds of wind turbines, but stress that annoyance is not an “adverse health effect.”  They also seem intent on assuring that any mention of annoyance rates is kept to 10% or below, which necessitates some creative re-interpretation of one of their key sources, a recent paper by Eja Pederson that compiled results from three surveys near wind farms in Scandinavia, summarized in October by AEI. In particular, they combine results from two studies in rural areas and one in a suburban area, which Pederson explicitly presented separately, because they illustrate that annoyance rates are far higher in rural areas (since the suburban study had more participants, the overall average is dominated by the suburban results).  In AEI’s view (as regular readers will know), the bottom line in all annoyance studies is that while many (or even most) people who are within earshot of wind turbines are not strongly affected by the noise, a substantial minority (ranging from 5-40% depending on how close they live) are negatively impacted, sometimes to the point of abandoning their homes; our challenge is to decide how many people we feel OK disrupting, and regulating wind farm siting to match that choice.

The report also repeatedly states that “the sound emitted by wind turbines is not unique,” while it elsewhere briefly acknowledges the often fluctuating nature of turbine noise (amplitude modulation) and its role

Read the rest of this entry »

A study by a retired NY State Department of Environment staffer has found that in one community where two new wind farms are planned, “worst case” atmospheric conditions can occur up to 30% of nights in summer and fall, peaking at over 40% of nights in early summer.  The wind farms in Cape Vincent are moving forward in the permitting process based on noise modeling submitted by the wind developers, which predicts minimal impact on neighbors thanks to an average background ambient noise level of 45dB.  This study found that on nights with little wind at ground level, actual ambient sound in this rural area is generally below 35dB, and in many areas, drops to 25dB or lower for much of the night.  Also, and most importantly, the study used standard predictive measures (including wind differential at two near-ground heights, daytime solar radiation, and night time cloud cover) to estimate how often the winds at turbine hub height would be high enough to turn the turbines on, even as the wind at ground level remained low – the situation that often triggers the worst night time noise complaints near wind farms.  The sobering result was that such nights, which create noise issues for neighbors far beyond those predicted by the simpler noise modeling used during permitting, could be a regular occurrence for most of the summer and fall.  After taking noise measurements at a wind farm currently operating in a nearby town – which found levels similar to those predicted and allowed in current Cape Vincent planning – the author notes that the vast majority of Cape Vincent homes will be close enough to hear the turbines easily on these “worst case” nights, with a third  of local households likely to experience objectionable noise levels.

It is important to note that these levels of audibility and possibly objectionable sleep disruption will still occur on a minority of nights; indeed, on an annual basis, only  around 15% of nights. And, on those nights, just a portion of the population (those closest to the turbines) will be affected. This perspective is part of what has led to our current acceptance of relatively small setbacks from homes (often 1000-1500 feet). Our social decisions about wind farm siting will need to grapple with the question of how much disturbance we consider acceptable – in this case, a third to half of the residents of Cape Vincent may be looking at troubling noise levels for a third to half of summer and autumn nights. To protect most residents from most of the noise intrusions (by keeping noise levels to 5-10dB above the true local ambient level) would require setbacks of 1km or so (between a half and three-quarters of a mile), which would likely limit the Cape Vincent area to more like 30-50 turbines, rather than the planned 200.

Click on to go below the fold and read a more detailed summary of the research paper, which first appeared on AEI’s new science research page. Read the rest of this entry »

(this item first appeared in AEI’s lay summaries of new research)

Tougaard, Henriksen, Miller. Underwater noise from three types of offshore wind turbines: Estimation of impact zones for harbor porpoises and harbor seals. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125 (6), June 2009. 3766-3773.

Underwater noise was recorded from three different types of wind turbines in Denmark and Sweden. The authors note that virtually all airborne noise from the turbine blades is reflected off the surface of the water, while vibrations from the machinery are transmitted through the tower and into the foundation, from where it radiates out into the water column and seabed. In general, turbine noise was only measurable above ambient noise at frequencies below 500Hz, with total SPLs of 109-127db re 1uPa rms, measured at 14-20m from the turbines’ foundations. By comparing measured sound levels with audiograms of harbor seals and harbor porpoises, the researchers determined that the sounds were only slightly audible for the porpoises at ranges of 20-70m, whereas harbor seals may hear the sounds at ranges of 100m to several kilometers. As a bottom line, researchers suggest that behavioral changes are very unlikely in harbor porpoises except at very close ranges, while seals may have some behavioral reaction out to a few hundred meters. For both species, masking is predicted here to be low to non-existent (due to differences between vocalization frequency patterns and the predominantly low-frequency turbine noise), and the sound is not loud enough to cause physical injury, no matter how close the animals are.

A detailed statistical analysis of 5000 homes sold within ten miles of wind farms has failed to find any clear relationship between sales price and proximity to, or views of, industrial wind farms.  However, close reading of the results raises some questions about trends within a mile of turbines, and the authors recommend more detailed study of the closest homes as a top priority for future research.  Co-author Ryan Wiser affirmed that “It is possible that individual homes have been impacted, and frankly, I think it would be a bit silly to suggest otherwise. Human development impacts property values.”

As I look closely at the result, it seems likely that the apparent trend toward some property value effect largely mirrors surveys of residents near wind farms.  The “problem” in interpreting this data and the surveys is that there is NOT a universal increase in annoyance or sleeplessness or dropping property values as you move closer to turbines; rather, there is an increasing MINORITY of neighbors who are negatively impacted.  Several earlier posts address this factor: from 10% of neighbors at around a mile or so, increasing to 25% or so at a half mile, and perhaps 40% at a quarter mile, survey results reflect the well-known individual variability in susceptibility to noise.  It seems clear that the “small and infrequent” numbers of homes negatively affected in the study addressed here, are mostly concentrated near turbines, and may represent a similar percentage of landowners as report sleep disturbance and other noise impacts.  If so, the 5% average price hit is apt to represent a much larger valuation drop in a quarter or so of the homes that are within a mile.

The study, funded by the US Department of Energy at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, took into account size and other features of the homes, and looked particularly for any trends in prices resulting from views of wind turbines, having turbines in the vicinity (1-5 miles), and nuisance factors like shadow flicker and noise.  This third focus is the one of most interest to AEI, and we took a close look Read the rest of this entry »

Two Maine towns grappling with crafting wind farm ordinances are pushing the envelope on setback requirements.  In November,, voters in Dixmont, where plans were afoot to place turbines atop the 1165-foot Mount Harris, approved a 1-mile setback requirement by a large margin.  A story in the Portland Press Herald provides a good overview of the forces behind this vote, and the ripples it is causing in the wind industry.  From the Press Herald story:

Dixmont’s farming heritage is reflected in its forests and open fields, but the town has become a rural bedroom community for Bangor, Newport and Waterville. There are few local businesses; the elementary school is the largest employer. So when developers began measuring wind speeds atop Mount Harris, Hog Hill and Peaked Mountain, some residents saw the chance to lower taxes through revenue collected from renewable energy. Others, however, saw their town with no protection from industrial development. That led to a moratorium on wind projects last November, while the town crafted rules.

What followed was a deliberate process in which the Planning Board studied wind power ordinances in other states and countries, as well as Maine’s model ordinance. The town encouraged residents to make the half-hour drive to Freedom, where they could stand under the whirling blades on Beaver Ridge. Some residents even visited the wind farm at Mars Hill in Aroostook County. Several townspeople spoke to homeowners next to these projects. Among the messages they heard is that the turbines disrupted abutters’ lives. Complaints ranged from noise and visual flicker to health effects that some people blame on living near wind farms. These anecdotes seemed to have a decisive impact, said First Selectman Judy Dann. “I think people listened to the stories that these people had to tell,” she said, and helped convince a majority that wind turbines weren’t a good fit for Dixmont.

Meanwhile, the selectmen in Jackson unveiled a 56-page draft ordinance that includes several unusually far-reaching elements. Setbacks are proposed to be 13 times turbine height, which would come to just under a mile for 400-foot turbines; current industry norms are closer to 300 feet, which would create setbacks of about three-quarters of a mile (likely to avoid nearly all noise complaints, based on recent reports of problems at other wind farms, and several larger research studies of annoyance and sleep disruption around wind farms).  This would require energy companies to negotiate with all families in that large zone if they wanted to obtain waivers, which would also be allowed. The Jackson ordinance will be put to a local vote after the selectmen consider it more fully.

Meanwhile, the Friends of Lincoln Lakes filed a legal brief supporting their appeal of the August decision of the Board of Environmental Protection (BEP). At that time, the BEP affirmed the April 2009 Order of the Department of Environmental Protection, granting a license to First Wind for the construction of the Rollins Ridge Industrial Wind Farm in Lincoln and surrounding towns. The brief questions the adequacy of the noise standards as well as the modeling used to assure compliance with the noise standards. Download full brief here.

In Dufferin County, Ontario, the Orangeville Banner recently ran a very well-written and balanced three-part series on that region’s ongoing controversies over noise from wind farms.  The piece makes very clear both the extent of noise-related disruption felt by some residents (including the first official acknowledgement I’ve seen that the wind farm developer did indeed buy out at least two nearby neighbors who could not adapt to the turbines’ presence), and the larger context that is also a consistent feature of the issue: that the majority of neighbors are not having any particular troubles with the turbines and their noise. The 133-turbine Melancthon EcoPower Centre has spurred recurring noise problems for 17 households, out of 300 that the company calls “neighbors.”  It is not clear whether those bothered are concentrated closer to turbines, or how far from the wind farm households are being included in the 300 number.

Helen Fraser and her husband, Bruce, sold their long time home to Canadian Hydro Developers in 2007 (click for full story)

The first of the three articles focuses on several people who have experienced noise problems, including sleep disruption and resultant stress.  While the scientific literature does not show clear cause-and-effect, in which increasing noise or proximity of wind turbines leads predictably to health issues, the utility and the local mayor both say that the complaints received are convincing. “I think when you look at people and the chronologies they’ve put together Read the rest of this entry »

As the Obama administration moves toward completion of its ocean policy and planning blueprint, it’s becoming clear that the new kid on the block has grown into a dynamic young adult, ready to change the shape of ocean planning forever.  Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) is taking a central role in the ocean task force’s work, and a recent symposium on MSP put together by NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries offers a great introduction to the power of this approach. At its root is a simple idea, one we’re very familiar with after decades of zoning on land: let’s identify which areas offer the best opportunities for fulfilling each of our goals and needs in the sea, then use this information to focus each activity in areas where it will have the least cumulative impact on other priorities.  Where are the regions most important for each species’ reproduction and feeding?  Which areas have the best possibilities for wind energy?  Where is shipping concentrated?  How about recreational diving and near-shore boating?  Navy training, underwater cables, key fishing grounds, and all other ocean uses are mapped into layers, from which we can make informed choices about where to focus each activity.

The link above will take you to a page from which you can see the full agenda and topics considered at the symposium; I found the following three presentations to be especially useful in getting a sense of this new field:

Steven Murawski, Ecosystem Goal Team Leader for NOAA, offered a good overview of the science and planning elements that are being developed.  Of special note is the inter-relation between MSP and new “Integrated Ecosystem Assessments,” which can provide much of the data needed to make good choices about how to use each area in MSP.

Charlie Wahl of NOAA’s Marine Protected Areas Center introduced work developing a regional Ocean Uses Atlas for the west coast.  Drawing on both scientific data and workshops at which key stakeholders (fishermen, kayakers, etc.) identify areas most important to them, the Ocean Uses Atlas culminate in maps showing, for example, how many other uses co-exist in areas where offshore wind farms may be built.  The maps show that in some places, up to 17 other uses are trying to co-exist, while there are other places where only one or two other uses target the same area. When combined with wind resources data, wind farms can be targeted for the “holes” in the conflicting uses maps.

Finally, Sally Yozell, Director of Marine Conservation for The Nature Conservancy, presents a national picture, with some extra focus on the east coast. The TNC has taken the initiative of compiling a slew of existing data on biologically rich areas, wind, wave, and tidal energy, and other ocean uses to create first drafts of maps similar to those that the MPA center has developed for the west coast.  (TNC is also actively working on a similar approach to alternative energy siting on land, especially with wind in the midwest.)

Just a quick note to say that I did the first major update to AEI’s Special Report on wind farm noise today.  I added several key new pieces that will be familiar to regular readers of this blog.  The report aims for AEI’s typical sweet spot of providing a comprehensive yet concise overview of all the key issues, presented in a balanced way, with links to source material and advocates on all sides of the issue. The report can be viewed online here, or downloaded as a 33-page pdf here.

The promise of deep offshore wind energy is moving forward rapidly in the wake of the world’s first floating wind turbine, deployed off Norway  in September by StatoilHydro. The Gulf of Maine is in line to see similar turbines in coming years, thanks to a focused effort by the National Renewable Energy Lab and regional energy planners.  In Massachusetts, plans are progressing for a test deployment of a floating turbine not far from the embattled near-shore Cape Wind site, while in Maine, a public comment period is underway prior to selecting test sites for floating offshore turbines.  This Powerpoint presentation (here in pdf format) from a NREL researcher provides a good overview of the current plans in Maine.  These deep offshore designs promise to avoid the troublesome noise impacts that have become common with onshore wind farms within a half mile or mile of homes, as well as both visual and noise concerns with near-shore wind farms.

Three Deep Offshore Turbine Designs

According to EENews (subscription required), energy planners in Maine made the choice to push the new deepwater technology, rather than facing the political hurdles of near-shore wind: “We made the decision at the outset to solve engineering questions and not legal ones,” Habib Dagher said, alluding to legal and political problems faced by Cape Wind. The first deepwater turbines are slated to hit the water by April 2011 in a yet-to-be-determined location in the Gulf of Maine and at a site in the Isle of Shoals. The initial project sites will be 3 nautical miles offshore for ease of access, but commercial models would be 20 miles or more from shore, Dagher said.

EENews, cont’d: The DOE recently awarded the University of Maine $8 million to develop three deepwater offshore floating wind turbines. With $5 million coming from the Energy and Water Appropriations bill and additional state and private funds, the project is expected to have a budget of about $20 million. More than 30 research and industry partners will be tackling the deepwater initiative.  The key to the success of the models — ranging in power from 10 to 100 kilowatts — is engineering that keeps the turbines buoyant and lets waves sway them without rocking them from their moorings.  One model will be similar to StatoilHydro’s, and the company will be pitching in to assist with the work. “It’s like taking Windows 2.0 and giving it a major upgrade,” explained Habib Dagher, director of the Advanced Structures and Composites Center at the University of Maine, who will be heading up all three projects. Dagher plans to use lighter composite materials than the original Norwegian steel-based model and to make the structure larger.

UPDATE: 12/15   The State of Maine has chosen three sites off its coast, where scale models of several different floating turbine designs will be tested beginning in 2011.  And, here’s a link to a quick overview of future-looking developments in offshore wind discussed at the recent European Offshore Wind conference in Stockholm.

UPDATE, 5/30/12: The Maine scale model test has been put off by one year, to 2013, by permitting delays.

The Institution of Engineering and Technology magazine has published a very good overview of wind turbine noise issues.  The article includes summaries and criticisms of many of the leading researchers on both sides of the issue, including the ongoing (and soon to ramp up) controversies surrounding Nina Pierpont’s “Wind Turbine Syndrome.”  Of special note are comments from Geoff Leventhall, a longtime low-frequency noise researcher who has often criticized Pierpont: “The wind developers are going to rubbish her book, and quite rightly so, but what must be accepted – and developers don’t want to accept this – is that yes, people are disturbed,” he says. “If people are consistently disturbed, and their sleep is consistently disturbed, then they will develop some very ‘unclever’ stress symptoms. That will lead to stress-related illness.”  Read the whole article here.

This one just popped up, though it’s from last spring: a seemingly quite comprehensive survey of people living within a half-mile of one of the major wind farms in Wisconsin that has triggered noise concerns.  The results reinforce the emerging picture: many people are being affected, but negative impacts are not inevitable or universal.

The survey was returned by over 200 families, just under half those who live within a half-mile  or so of at least one turbine in the Blue Sky Green Field wind project, which covers 10,600 acres of farmland.  It would have been interesting to see some of these numbers broken out to see responses from those with several turbines in within a half mile, but for now, this is what we learn:

• Overall, 50% were bothered by noise; an equal number were not
• Of those within 3000 feet, 56%  (90) were bothered by noise, while 44% (72) were not; beyond 3000 feet, 3 of 10 families reported noise issues; among those who did not specify a distance, 15 were troubled, and 19 were not.
• Of 23 respondents who had leased land for turbines, 9 (39%) noted that noise was a problem for them, and 6 (26%) said they would not so, if they knew then what they know now.
• 30% reported negative effects on pets, farm animals, or wildlife; 70% saw no such effects
• 25% said their sleep was interrupted at least once a week; 75% had no sleep issues
• 33% reported various stress-related health issues, while two-thirds did not.
• 62% said the setbacks should be a half mile or more; 22% supported the current 1000 foot setback.

Once again, we are left with the murky social question: what proportion of the population is it OK to bother?  Should we move turbines further away (thus sacrificing some sites) in order to reduce impacts on the scale we see here? Or, with a healthy majority of people reporting no negative health impacts, is it fine to proceed as we have been?  I suspect that the answer to these questions is equally clear to some on each side of the issue, while many others likely struggle to find a balance that makes sense.

See this recent AEInews post summarizing three recent scientific papers on annoyance and health impacts from wind turbine noise, which lead to similarly murky conclusions.

(This item appeared recently in AEI’s ongoing lay summaries of new research page)
The take-away from three new research papers appears to be that while significant proportions of the population – often around 25% – are affected by moderate wind farm noise, neither increasing wind farm noise nor even annoyance with noise lead inevitably to health effects. There is an entire separate body of research investigating various attitudinal aspects related to stress and health, which only muddy the waters as we try to interpret these direct studies on wind farm noise. Some studies indicate that attitudes toward a noise source can affect both annoyance and stress responses, and that a subjective sense of being threatened can likewise increase physiological responses to noise; however, once again, these correlations are far from universal, so they cannot be used to “explain away” either annoyance or health impacts that do take place, any more than annoyance can be used as a clear indication of eventual health effects.

There is far more gray than black and white in these reports. Still, they provide a concrete picture of annoyance and sleep deprivation increasing as turbine noise increases, along with a better sense of the proportion of affected neighbors who will experience these impacts at various distances and received sound levels. Clearly, 35-45dB is a range at which impacts on neighbors become far more widespread. The social question that will need to addressed is what proportion of nearby neighbors we will accept causing sleep deprivation or annoyance in: 10%? 20%? Where will we draw the line, beyond which we consider turbine placement too close? Read the lay summaries below the fold: Read the rest of this entry »

A lawsuit in Ontario, an EIS in Wisconsin, and a gauntlet thrown down at an industry confab in England are the latest fronts in a global debate over the noise impacts of wind farms sited close to residences.  Most dramatic was the opening plenary at the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) annual conference, where John Prescott, a key player in crafting the Kyoto Protocols, attacked NIMBY opponents and local councils for dramatically slowing the build-out of wind farms in Britain, culminating with the rallying cry, “They’ve had it their way for far too long. So let me tell them loud and clear – it’s not your back yard any more, it’s ours.” Prescott bemoaned the fact that 75% of wind farm applications are being denied, putting the blame as much on local authorities as on vocal opponents; he called for mandates compelling localities to designate some areas as suitable for wind development as a way to break the logjam.  Local authorities shot back that federal renewable energy goals can be met in other ways, and that land protection in local areas is warranted.  Prescott’s attack was cast in class terms, suggesting “squires” were fighting to save their “chocolate box views,” though in many areas it is noise impacts, rather than changing views, that drive the opposition.  In those areas, the issue is not whether to build wind farms, but rather how much buffer to require around homes.  An EIS for the Glacier Hills Wind Park, released in Wisconsin this month, acknowledges that noise is in fact an issue for some wind farm neighbors: “The studies done to date…support the concern that some people do react negatively to wind turbine noise, primarily through annoyance and sleep disturbance.  It is widely accepted that disruption of sleep can lead to other physiological and psychological problems…Although specific sound levels or distances from turbines cannot be directly correlated with these disturbance or annoyance problems, project design and siting should take potential impactcs of turbine noise into account.”  In Ontario, a wind farm plan has been challenged in court by a resident who says that five turbines within 900m (a bit over a half mile) is too many, too close.  “As a father, as a husband, I became very concerned about the welfare of my family,” he told CBC News. “We’re very worried about the possibilities of having industrial wind turbines located so close to our home that it will be harmful.” He wants construction stopped until studies “rule out concerns” about impacts on health, an end-point that is surely not within sight, if even possible within the context of the scientific method. Dr. Robert McMurtry, former dean of medicine at the University of Western Ontario, who appeared at a media conference yesterday launching the court action, said there are now more than 100 people in Ontario who report suffering health problems due to wind turbine noise. “There’s no authoritative guidelines for the siting of wind turbines because there’s no good evidence as to when they will be safe or not,” McMurtry said, “This is not an acceptable state of affairs when we’re planning to plunge ahead on such a large scale, a tenfold increase in Ontario.”

The debate over wind farm siting is becoming exceedingly tangled, with visual, noise, and health impacts all on the table, and too often blurred by both proponents decrying NIMBYism and opponents with varying degrees of clarity about their fears and concerns.  Prescott makes a potentially valid point when he suggests that in this age of climate crisis, resistance to visual impacts should give way to the greater public good, as it has with cell phone towers and power lines.  Yet the noise impacts are real, and increasingly well-documented within a half mile to a mile—see this fascinating summary of the disconnect between  1.5-2km (a mile-plus) setback guidelines suggested by researchers and health officials responding to noise issues and the much closer setbacks (1000 feet to 550m/1800 feet) actually being implemented by local, state or provincial, and national standards. When concerns about health effects extend beyond just sleep disruption from audible noise, to include effects of inaudible, but still physiologically significant, low frequency noise, things get more nebulous and difficult to either quantify or protect against, since susceptibility to LF noise is more variable from person to person, and LF noise levels are much harder to predict in the landscape.

AEI will soon be focusing more intently on the slew of reports and studies that have come out in recent months, with a goal of organizing the mass of information into something useful for planners, citizens, and those in industry who want to work with residents more constructively.

Refining previous Community Noise Guidelines issued in 1999, and incorporating more recent research, the World Health Organization has released a comprehensive report on the health effects of night time noise, along with new (non-mandatory) guidelines for use in Europe.  Rather than a maximum of 30dB inside at night (which equals 45-50dB max inside), the WHO now recommends a maxiumum year-round outside nighttime noise average of 40db to avoid sleep disturbance and its related health effects. The report notes that only below 30dB (outside annual average) are “no significant biological effects observed,” and that between 30 and 40dB, several effects are observed, with the chronically ill and children being more susceptible; however, “even in the worst cases the effects seem modest.”  Elsewhere, the report states more definitively, “There is no sufficient evidence that the biological effects observed at the level below 40 dB (night,outside) are harmful to health.” At levels over 40dB, “Adverse health effects are observed,” and “many people have to adapt their lives to cope with the noise at night. Vulnerable groups are more severely affected.”

The 184-page report offers a comprehensive overview of research into the various effects of noise on sleep quality and health (including the health effects of non-waking sleep arousal), and is recommended reading for anyone working with noise issues.  The use of an outdoor noise standard is in part designed to acknowledge that people do like to leave windows open when sleeping, though the year-long average may be difficult to obtain (it would require longer-term sound monitoring than is usually budgeted for by either industry or neighborhood groups).

While recommending the use of the average level, the report notes that some instantaneous effect occur in relation to specific maximum noise levels, but that the health effects of these “cannot be easily established.”

Well-known cartoonist Lynda Barry lives in rural Wisconsin, and while her home is not in the midst of a wind farm, she has become a leader of local resistance, with a focus on the noise that keeps people awake, and strange physcial sensations, including one that she herself experiences when near operating turbines. “You know how sometimes, around your eye, you’ll get this little tic that kind of wiggles?” says Barry. “It was like having that in your ear and your chest. A pulsing. It’s the weirdest feeling!”  She experienced this while visiting a home 1100 feet from the nearest turbine, one of many homes she’s visited and spent the night in as she has worked to understand what some wind farm neighbors are living with.  Her work is highlighted in a recent feature article in Isthmus, a Madison weekly, which is illustrated with a classic-style Barry cartoon in which each panel highlights a different neighbor’s story.