How "green" is wind energy?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from AppDev. Show AppDev's posts

    How "green" is wind energy?

    How "green" is wind energy? About as green as faces of some people who live nearby. Living less than a mile from a large wind turbine is a health hazard. Recently, even the deeply compromised Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection had to prevail on the Town of Falmouth to curtail its wind turbine operations. [ Unattributed, Associated Press, Falmouth wind turbine found to be too loud, Boston Globe, May 16, 2012, at http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/16/falmouth_wind_turbine_found_to_be_too_loud/ ]

    Health effects from wind-turbine noise continue to be poorly understood. Current publications are laughably simplistic. There is no need for this. Investigators are obviously hamstrung by lack of resources. Although they can be expensive, effective technologies have been available for decades. Ample resources could readily be allocated to understand the problems, if managers of government agencies actually cared about them.

    That there are major health problems can no longer be reasonably doubted. During 2007 through 2009, Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum, a radiologist at Northern Maine Medical Center in Fort Kent, ME, interviewed almost the entire adult population living within two-thirds of a mile from the Mars Hill wind farm, in northeastern Maine, and a comparably sized group of adults living in the same area but at least two miles away from the wind farm--with the populations well matched by age distributions and ratios of women to men. [ Pilot study results, May, 2010, available at http://www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=2043 ]

    Dr. Nissenbaum documented frequent problems of sleep disturbances, headaches and weight changes among those living nearer the wind farm, compared with much lower incidences of the problems among those living farther away. Although he did not present an analysis, several differences well exceed scientific conventions for significant results. Physicians seeing several people living near the farm have given them new prescriptions for psychiatric conditions and the other ailments, when no such prescriptions were issued to those living farther away.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from topaz978. Show topaz978's posts

    Re: How "green" is wind energy?

    In the lame post that follows. Whinny people complain about noise. Did they complain about trucks bringing groceries at 3am, Trash haulers at 4am, schoolbuses at 8 am? No they complain about noise well below peak intensity and barely reaching high continuous levels before the background intensity prior to wind power was even considered. They were fine at 79DB but someone put in a windmill and a lawyer got involved and now 82 DB causes sleeplessness and family abuse. Not to mention drug use and thefts. Random murder.... ETC.
     Remember the lawyer? If a windplant causes this why are so many elsewhere without lawyers able to sue, around the world. The impact has to do with the ability of some to suck money out of any situation. Just gather enough"witnesses" to "testify" they are sorely impacted by the turbine is enough. Their history of abusive relationships and drug use has nothing to do with the "pain and suffering" of a windplant. At least as long as they get $$$.

    In Response to How "green" is wind energy?:
    [QUOTE]How "green" is wind energy? About as green as faces of some people who live nearby. Living less than a mile from a large wind turbine is a health hazard. Recently, even the deeply compromised Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection had to prevail on the Town of Falmouth to curtail its wind turbine operations. [ Unattributed, Associated Press, Falmouth wind turbine found to be too loud, Boston Globe, May 16, 2012, at http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/16/falmouth_wind_turbine_found_to_be_too_loud/ ] Health effects from wind-turbine noise continue to be poorly understood. Current publications are laughably simplistic. There is no need for this. Investigators are obviously hamstrung by lack of resources. Although they can be expensive, effective technologies have been available for decades. Ample resources could readily be allocated to understand the problems, if managers of government agencies actually cared about them. That there are major health problems can no longer be reasonably doubted. During 2007 through 2009, Dr. Michael A. Nissenbaum, a radiologist at Northern Maine Medical Center in Fort Kent, ME, interviewed almost the entire adult population living within two-thirds of a mile from the Mars Hill wind farm, in northeastern Maine, and a comparably sized group of adults living in the same area but at least two miles away from the wind farm--with the populations well matched by age distributions and ratios of women to men. [ Pilot study results, May, 2010, available at http://www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=2043 ] Dr. Nissenbaum documented frequent problems of sleep disturbances, headaches and weight changes among those living nearer the wind farm, compared with much lower incidences of the problems among those living farther away. Although he did not present an analysis, several differences well exceed scientific conventions for significant results. Physicians seeing several people living near the farm have given them new prescriptions for psychiatric conditions and the other ailments, when no such prescriptions were issued to those living farther away.
    Posted by AppDev[/QUOTE]
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from scottybass. Show scottybass's posts

    Re: How "green" is wind energy?

    so, it may or may not be "green" if there are people living nearby?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from AppDev. Show AppDev's posts

    Neglected issues of wind-turbine noise

    Wind-turbine noise presents at least five characteristic issues. (1) Unlike most noise from vehicles and engines, wind turbine noise pulsates. The usual technique of amplitude averaging does not accurately reflect noise properties. (2) Some of the noise is transmitted by ground vibrations as well as airborne accoustics. (3) Some of the noise can be amplified by resonances of houses, other structures and articles inside them. (4) Wind turbine noise intensities vary with observer distances, observer elevations, wind speeds at turbine hubs, turbine operating settings, angles between wind and observer directions, and terrains. (5) Critical noise frequencies appear to include infrasound well below 30 Hz, ignored in most current measurements.

    Realistic measurements of wind turbine noise need hundreds of sensors, thousands of hours and full-bandwidth recordings. Not a single technical study available today comes anywhere close to those requirements. If government agencies that are committing billions of dollars a year to promoting wind energy were to spend a tenth of a percent of their outlays on assessing wind turbine noise, the problems could be surmounted within a few years, and there would then be technically reliable ways to associate wind turbine noise with health effects and to predict accurately the likely health effects from turbine installations.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from scottybass. Show scottybass's posts

    Re: How "green" is wind energy?

    1) all noise (or sound) pulsates
    2) see #1
    3) see #1
    4) yeah, and objects in mirror may appear closer than they are.
    5) anything below 30hz and you could argue that whales are disturbing one's sleep!

    you are attempting to post scientific data, yet all you offer are your own less than scary opinions.

    try pouring a cup of motor oil into your drinking water supply. which is worse?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from AppDev. Show AppDev's posts

    Maine town restricts wind turbine sites

    Comments from reader "scottybass" look fairly typical of the hopes that there might be some guaranteed, all-purpose, risk-free solution to energy production. While we've been following energy-environment controversies--for well over 50 years now--there has never been any. For several reasons--some previously described--there are no highly reliable predictions of wind-turbine noise. Partly because of that, so far there are also no fully dependable assessments of health hazards.

    That doesn't mean there is no noise or there are no hazards. Hazards can be easy to dismiss--with cynical and foolish comments--if you're just an armchair philosopher or if you are financially indebted to one of the energy companies. For the rest of us, those are significant issues. It's clear that quite a few people living less than a mile from large wind turbines have experienced major health problems, when people living farther away rarely have.

    In Maine, which has been the major focus of New England wind power development since the Mars Hill wind farm began producing power in 2006, some of the towns are starting to take action. [ Tom Standard, Sumner, ME, passes wind ordinance by 2 to 1 margin, New England Sun Journal (Lewiston, ME), May 17, 2012, at http://www.sunjournal.com/news/oxford-hills/2012/05/17/sumner-passes-wind-ordinance-2-1-margin/1196762 ]

    Sumner, ME, just north of Lewiston, now requires a one-mile setback between any wind turbine and the closest property lines of land whose owners are not involved with the wind turbine. It's a somewhat clumsy law that might be too demanding in some circumstances yet not demanding enough in others. It could also lead to some legal messes, but it shows that communities are going to try to prevent health hazards.

    By contrast, the state's environmental agency has an impotent regulation, requiring a setback of 1-1/2 times a turbine's tower height. For a typical 1.5 to 2.5 MW turbine, that would be only about 400 feet, or 0.08 miles. Practical experience in Maine shows that major health problems have occurred at least within a range of 2/3 of a mile, so the Town of Sumner is clearly trying to err on the side of caution.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from AppDev. Show AppDev's posts

    Government waking up to wind turbine hazards

    State government, though laggard, is starting to wake up to health hazards of wind energy, resembling somewhat circumstances a few years ago with health hazards of proposed wood-burning power-plants. [ David Abel, Wind turbine noise targeted by state agency, Boston Globe, May 21, 2012, at http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/21/wind_turbine_noise_is_targeted/ ]

    As with wood burning, a state agency will encounter poorly understood facets of an old-fashioned technology being practiced at an enormously enlarged scale. When traditional wood stoves and farm windmills caused problems, it was mostly for their owners and immediate neighbors. The huge scale of modern wind turbines can transmit noise and vibrations strong enough to cause health problems thousands of feet away, perhaps a mile.

    Most environmental research on wind turbine noise published so far has been laughably simplistic. It has gradually become apparent to experienced investigators who are trying to cope with related issues that conventional accoustic technology and sound amplitude descriptions--the familiar dbA, dbC and other averaged, scaled and weighted measures--fail to predict accurately when wind turbine sound and vibrations will damage health. [ for example, Stephen Ambrose and Robert Rand, Bruce McPherson ILFN study report, 2011, at http://randacoustics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-Bruce-McPherson-ILFN-Study.pdf ]

    Ambrose and Rand say that when investigating a house in Falmouth, where occupants were experiencing health problems after large wind turbines began running, they "were surprised to experience the same adverse health symptoms described by neighbors living at this house...The onset of adverse health effects was swift, within twenty minutes, and persisted for some time after leaving the study area. The dBA and dBC levels and modulations did not correlate to the health effects...It took about a week to recover from the adverse health effects experienced during the study, with lingering recurring nausea and vertigo for almost seven weeks for one of the investigators."

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share