Posts Tagged ‘noise’

Pugwash wind farm dead

June 8, 2009

Editor:

I would like to commend Lisa of the Pugwash wind farm blog for all her hard work. Having read her blog from time to time I know she has put up with more than her share of ugly comments and even threats as she worked to inform the local population about real problems concerning wind turbines. Lisa, I hope this is the end to the wind farm threat in your area.

Pugwash wind farm dead

Last week at the candidate forum organised by the Pugwash Chamber of Commerce, Warden Keith Hunter stated that because of local opposition to a proposed wind “farm” on the Gulf Shore, it did not go ahead. He said he helped intervene on our behalf in a conversation with (then) Minister of Environment, Mark Parent. All four candidates agreed that turbines should not intrude on the neighbouring property owners. People should be able to enjoy their properties. They all agreed that wind energy, along with other forms of renewable energy, is part of what we should be doing as a Province to reduce greenhouse gases but, for a variety of reasons, they should not be placed too close to homes. Pugwash windfarm

Why did it take so long to come to this decision?

There is an election coming up and it appears all the candidates are feeling the pressure of the electorate.

All the candidates say they want more renewable energy but they all backed down from the Pugwash windfarm. Is pressure the only thing that gets the attention of our elected officials. It appears that way. We need politicians that can think for themselves not those that merely react to pressure.

Anyway, it seems they are all still riding the “global warming/climate change train”.  I guess they will change their minds on that as soon as the public wakes up to the scam and puts the pressure on their elected officials. Until that time they will continue to be spokespersons for the UN/Gore/Suzuki scam.

What the politicians are saying to get your vote Amherst Daily

Global Warming the Big LIE!

Wind farm prospects promising

April 2, 2008

Editor
This wind farm is located in Northern Ont. far away from the heavily populated southern part of the province. What I find interesting about this piece is the statement below.

“Noise isn’t expected to be a concern because the nearest dwelling is two km away from any of the proposed turbines, Kerr said”.

What about the people in Southern Ont. where the wind turbines will be, on average, only 400 meters from homes. Should these people expect noise problems.

Research and real life experiences show that the odds on these people suffering noise, flicker, and real estate depreciation will be very high.

The wind industry has convinced the govt. that they need small setbacks in order to make their project cost effective. The fact is, homes are to close together in Southern Ont. to accommodate a reasonable setback. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO………

The govt., from your local council to the office of Premier Dalton McGuinty, and the wind industry have decided that you and your property are not important. They sell wind farms on the idea of saving the environment, while they trash your environment. Ironic.

The wind industry making money is more important than you, your family or your property.

Give Dalton a call and ask him yourself. If he tells you the wind turbines are to reduce C02 which causes GLOBAL WARMING. You might want to inform him the warming stopped in 1998. The C02 – global warming argument doesn’t hold water.
Wait a minute you say. If the warming stopped in 1998 why are they building wind farms?

Good Question

The only GREEN I can find in the wind industry is the cash being made, at your expense.

Germany has the most wind yet they are building 26 new coal fired plants. Doesn’t give one much faith in wind, does it.

Anyone from the govt. or the wind industry that wants to debate, I’m available. 519-396-1958

.

Wind farm raises health concerns

Posted on March 28, 2008.

Editor
research has suggested that those effects don’t cause long-term health impacts after people are no longer living near wind farms”.

.

Wind farm prospects promising

One of the more significant economic developments Marathon has seen in several years has taken another step to being approved.

Brookfield Power‘s plan for a $250-million wind-power farm about 20 kilometres west of town could receive government approval this spring following a mandatory public review of an environmental “screening” report.

The Ottawa-area company wants to build 66 turbines on Crown land in an unpopulated area just north of Neys Provincial Park.

The turbines, each 80 metres tall and sporting three blades as long as half a soccer field, are to collectively produce up to 100 megawatts of electricity.

That‘s about half the capacity of Brookfield‘s existing wind farm just outside Sault Ste. Marie.

Brookfield project manager Ian Kerr said construction on the Marathon-area site is expected to begin in 2010, creating a maximum of 200 jobs over the 18-month construction period.

The company will likely establish an office in Marathon to be staffed by about 10 service technicians, Kerr added.

Though the network of turbines will require the construction of about 40 km of access roads, there will only be a handful of locations from the Trans-Canada Highway that will offer a view of the machines, said Kerr.

Noise isn‘t expected to be a concern because the nearest dwelling is two km away from any of the proposed turbines, Kerr said.

The environmental report does not identify any significant impact on birds or other wildlife.

Though details haven‘t been finalized, the wind farm is expected to plug into the provincial energy grid through an existing 230,000-volt transmission line.

Kerr said the turbines the company plans to use have a life-span of about 25 years. Service technicians access the hub and blades by climbing up inside the towers.

The environmental screening report can be viewed online at coldwellwind.com.

Hard copies can be obtained at Marathon town hall, Pic River First Nation band office or the Ministry of Environment office in Thunder Bay at 435 James St. S.

Public comments must be received by May 1.

By CARL CLUTCHEY

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

chroniclejournal.com

Wind turbine noise

February 7, 2008

A short video

Our Life is Hell

Sound specialist offers expertise on industrial wind installations

February 6, 2008
Sound specialist offers expertise on industrial wind installations

[ News Watch Home ]

“Understanding Sound Associated with Industrial Wind Developments”, was the theme of the presentation by Rick Bolton, Engineer & Sound Specialist, and sponsored by Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood (CHRN), on Wednesday, January 30, at Perry’s Masonic Temple.

Though Wednesday’s inclement weather prohibited attendance by many from outlying areas, citizens and Town Board members from Perry, Gainesville, Leicester, and Orangeville were there. Mr. Bolton’s presentation was designed to convey a basic understanding of the complexities of sound, effects on humans, and flaws in current analysis standards being employed by wind developers in the U.S.

Mr. Bolton began by explaining that sound associated with wind turbines is an extremely complex issue, and one that needs thorough analysis. “Sounds are waves – just like light and water,” he said. These sound waves are measured in deci-Bels (dB, or dBA – A-weighted deci-Bels – most closely imitate the human ear).

“Human audibility is extremely sensitive,” he said. “In fact, far more sensitive than anything we can use to record sound electronically. While the human ear can detect to 0 dBA, the lowest range even the most expensive noise meters can measure is 14 dBA.”

Elaborating on the factors that can amplify sound, Bolton pointed out:

1.) Sound can propagate for over a mile, and even further over water;

2.) Sound gets worse in water (i.e. – ice, fog);

3.) Low frequencies can double sound by refraction off hard surfaces (hillsides, snow-pack);

4.) ‘Wave Coherence’, created by a number of turbines together, amplifies sound;

5.) When the wind is blowing, it can refract noise from the elevated source-point downward;

6.) Sounds below 30 Hz, termed ‘infrasound’, create serious health problems (turbines have been indicated as being a strong source of ‘infrasound’)

7.) Ice-loading on the front edge of turbine blade tips disturbs air flow around the blade, creating turbulence, and increasing sound.

8.) Modulation occurs when the blade compresses air as passing the mast of the turbine, and is worsened by large groups of turbines’ blades not operating in sync. (Bolton has never seen modulation addressed in any wind developer provided studies.)

Bolton explained the many ways wind developers methodology is flawed. Field measurements are not done correctly (i.e. – improper microphone placement, no justification for sampling sites, etc.); accurate samplings need to be done for a full year to account for seasonal variations, but aren’t; and computer prediction models wind developers rely on are inadequate because they don’t account for modulation, coherence, refraction, and icing.

Facts contained in Perry’s DEIS from the sound study done by Horizon for Perry were brought up that highlighted Bolton’s point that sound studies being done are totally inadequate: “5 monitoring locations; Survey was carried out over roughly a 3-week period; Unfortunately, 3 primary & 2 backup instruments were destroyed by water infiltration, so octave band data could not be collected for ALL positions for the entire 3-week survey; There were a number of periods of either inclement weather or low wind speeds – conditions that are not generally useful; General conditions of temperature, barometric pressure, & wind for the survey period are shown in plots below as observed at DANSVILLE, NY – some 20 miles southeast of the site.”

Illustrating and explaining his points with numerous charts and graphs that were part of his presentation, he also included examples and measurements from homes that had been abandoned by their owners due to the resulting life-altering health effects of living too close to turbines. Not surprisingly, these health problems have been linked to sleep disturbances.

The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend that sound level should not exceed 30 dBA for a good night’s sleep. WHO also unanimously agrees that noise levels greater than 42 dBA create sleep disturbances, and that disturbed sleep has serious health effects.

Bolton explained that rural country settings currently enjoy extremely quiet night-time noise levels of 20 – 30 dBA. However, wind developers typically propose 50 dBA as acceptable noise levels at property lines of neighboring homes to their industrial wind installations. They do so despite the fact that the NYS DEC recommends no more than a 6 dBA increase over existing night-time ambient noise levels.

“Every 6 dBA is a perceived doubling of sound, or loudness,” Bolton said. When you understand this, you can begin to understand the problems that are occurring from siting these facilities far too close to people’s homes in rural areas. Bolton’s research suggests that 3,000′ – 5,000′ setbacks from the nearest property line should be the rule of thumb.

Neither citizens, nor the town officials being rushed through zoning, siting, and approval processes by wind developers truly understand the vast difference between 30 and 50 dBA until it is too late. Bolton stressed the importance of “getting it right” before allowing industrial wind facilities to be built, since mitigation after the fact is not available. He has yet to see wind developers do any follow-up studies for those now experiencing problems. They simply ignore them.

Bolton also explained that NY Townships are perpetuating flawed methods by accepting, and placing in their ordinances, the 50 dBA sound levels being submitted by wind developers, without demanding justifications – despite the fact that this is contrary to SEQR rules. NYS DEC’s Environmental Conservation Rules for SEQR state that the noise pollution potential must be evaluated at each affected “receptor”.

NYS DEC’s Program Policy, “Assessing & Mitigating Noise Impacts”, states: “When a sound level evaluation indicates that receptors may experience sound levels or characteristics that produce significant noise impacts, or impairment of property use, the Department is to require the permittee or applicant to employ necessary measures to either eliminate, or mitigate, adverse noise effects.”

If our townships fail to hold developers accountable to required standards, “we will lose the privilege, and precious asset, of having the peace and quiet of the country,” he said.

Mr. Bolton then took questions from the crowd. In response to questions asking what he thought of being “surrounded” by up to 23 turbines within 1.5 miles of their homes, he answered, “I would be VERY concerned if I were you.”

When asked if he has conducted any studies in the Perry area, Bolton replied that he had. Those who attended Perry’s Public Hearing October 16, 2006, will remember Mr. Bolton adding his comments, and handing in the study he did for Perry to the Board that evening. (Mr. Bolton’s comments on the Noise Issue can be found in the Comments to Perry’s DEIS under H-1, pages 1-24.)

By Mary Kay Barton

Batavia Daily News