These postings are provided to help publicize the efforts of affiliated groups and individuals related to industrial wind energy development. Most of the notices posted here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch.
Action alerts, Comments, England, Noise •
Source: Den Brook Judicial Review Group
A long-threatened planning application obviously aimed to demolish our unprecedented noise planning condition has been submitted to the West Devon Borough Council. It is now perfectly clear that corporate developer Renewable Energy Systems’ (RES) primary intent is for protecting corporate welfare rather than the well-being of local communities surrounding the proposed nine 120 metres (394 feet) high Den Brook wind turbines.
For more than 18 months we have been cajoled with specious evidence of false positives, threats of unenforceability and promises of ‘proper safeguards’ from the ravages of excessive thumping noises penetrating the very fabric of our lives.
But now the cat is out of the bag; the rabbit out of the hat and the evidence there for all to inspect. A cursory glance not only reveals overriding disclaimers from professed independent reviewers; no doubt handsomely remunerated by the applicants, but the worth of exceedingly technical mathematical processing proposed to replace the hard-won and straightforward noise controls with which we are entirely content. We further discover in the fine print that the developer is unwilling to take responsibility for its use.
So where does this leave the citizens surrounding Den Brook, and indeed, the nation as a whole should our elected decision makers be brow beaten by corporate sleights of hand into approving this blatantly fallacious planning application?
Well, for one, such a decision would fly directly in the face of legal considerations by three of the country’s highly esteemed Law Lords who, on hearing substantive evidence, judged that the newly proposed procedures are, in fact, unlawful. What’s more, approval of the applicants’ proposals would leave the surrounding communities entirely exposed and without any effective form of redress for when the excessive amplitude modulated thumping noise (EAM) is emitted all through the Den Brook valley.
It must be remembered that a top Government Planning Inspector deemed the current noise controls essential for reaching his decision to finally approve the huge industrial scale wind development more than three years ago.
Significantly and perhaps surprisingly for those who have visited relatively quiet wind turbines during the day, this often debilitating, pulsating EAM noise generally occurs during night-times when adequate recuperation with rest and undisturbed sleep is obviously fundamental for good health and well-being.
Concerns aside, we have to believe and trust that our elected local representatives with their vast experience of diverse planning applications, and charged with protecting the best interests of fellow citizens, will not be hoodwinked.
The Den Brook Judicial Review Group will of course be monitoring every move and assisting where possible to penetrate the applicants’ hidden agenda in order to expose the real truth out of the mass of misleading claims and assertions sadly incorporated within the application for seemingly only disingenuous protection of the applicant’s bottom line.
Since first mooted some eight or so years ago, the developer has consistently claimed that no noise nuisance would emanate from the proposed wind turbines. It surely must raise not only deeply worrying but far reaching questions as to why applicants RES now seek to demolish the only truly effective EAM noise controls.
Please lend your support to the Den Brook Judicial Review Group by making a donation to assist with our essential work – Email us: email@example.com – Thank you.
P.P. The Den Brook Judicial Review Group
Ref (view details and documents, and comment): WDBC Planning Application number 00393/2013: “Variation of condition 20 of planning permission 8250/2005/OKE (appeal reference number APP/Q1153/A/06/2017162) relating to amplitude modulation”
5th International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise — 28-30 August 2013 — Denver, Colorado. windturbinenoise2013.org
Below is a current list of papers accepted. This gives an indication of the programme content but is not finalised and it does not indicate the order of presentations.
- RoBin: An Efficient System to Fulfil the IEC 61400-11 Standard and Measure the Acoustic Emission of Wind Turbines with a Single Operator
- Advanced Methods for Qualifying Background Noise Around Wind Farms
- Broadband Noise Prediction of Small Horizontal Wind Turbine Rotor
- Large-scale Calculation of Possible Locations for Specific Wind Turbines Under Consideration of Noise Limits
- Masking of Sage-grouse Display Calls by Noise from Wind Turbines
- Soundscaping: Ignoring the Health Experts and Their Perception of Wind Turbine Noise
- Trading Off Human Health: Wind Turbine Noise and Government Policy
- Wind Turbine Facilities’ Perception: A Case Study from Canada
- Audit Report: Literature Reviews on Wind Turbine Noise and Health
- Wind Turbines: What’s All the Noise About?
- Infrasound Measurement, Interpretation and Misinterpretation
- Measuring and Analyzing Wind Turbine Infrasound and Audible Immissions at a Site Experiencing Adverse Community Response
- Amplitude Modulation Noise Analysis and First Look at Off-Shore Wind Turbine Aeroacoustics Simulation Study
- Which Limits for Wind Turbine Noise? A Comparison with Other Types of Sources Using a Common Metric.
- Sound Propagation from Wind Turbines Under Various Weather Conditions
- Review of NACA 0012 Turbulent Trailing Edge Noise Data at Zero Angle of Attack
- Wind Turbine Aerodynamic Noise Reduction by Stagnation Point Turbulators (STP) and Trailing-edge Serrations (TES)
- International Legislation and Regulations for Wind Turbine Noise
- Low Frequency Noise Proposed Wind Farm in Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Wind Turbine Noise: What Has the Science Told Us?
- Projected Contributions of Future Wind Farm Development to Community Noise and Annoyance Levels in Ontario, Canada
- Standard Wind speed: How To Estimate It and Its Impact on Acoustical Assessments
- Experiences With IEC 61400-11 Edition 3
- Low Frequency Noise from Wind Turbines: Do the Danish Regulations Have Any Impact?
- The Production of a Good Practice Guide to Assess Wind Turbine Noise in the United Kingdom Using ETSU-R-97
- Evaluation of Secondary Wind Shield Designs for Outdoor Measurement of Low Frequency Noise and Infrasound
- Source Identification for Low Frequency Structure-Driven Noise in Wind Turbines
- Wind Turbines and Infrasound: Monitoring Techniques
- Correlation Between People Perception of Noise from Large Wind Turbines and Measured Noise Levels
- Noise Source Localization on a 8kW Wind Turbine Using a Compact Microphone Array with Advanced Beamforming Algroithms
- The Measurement of Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise for Wind Farms
- Hiding Wind Farm Noise in Ambient Measurements – Noise Floor, Wind Direction and Frequency Limitations
- Tonality Assessment Methodology Employed at Residences Near a Wind Farm
- Accuracy of Noise Modelling for Wind Farms
- Noise’s Measure Inside Homes Generated by the Functioning of Wind Farm in Southern Italy
- Amplitude Modulationand Complaints about Wind Turbine Noise
- ALARM – Predicting Wind Turbine Tonality by Using a Validated Global Virtual Prototyping Approach
- Hybrid Methods for Noise Prediction in Aeroacoustic Simulations of Small Vertical Axis Wind Turbines
- Wind Turbine Noise Measurements – How Are Results Influenced by Different Methods of Deriving Wind Speed
- How Frequency Response Influences Measurement and Audibility of Period Wind Turbine Sound
- A Proposed Theory to Explain Some Adverse Physiological Effects of the Infrasonic Emissions at Some Wind Farm Sites
- Infrasound and the Ear
- Effects of Spatial Configuration on the Wind Turbine Noise Distribution in Residential Areas
- Suppression of the Structure-bone Sound from a Wind Turbine Generator Using Active Vibration Control Devices: Model Experiment
- Perception Change of Soundscape as Wind Turbine Alters Community Sound Profile
- Simultaneous Indoor Low-frequency Noise, Annoyance and Direction of Arrival Monitoring
- Noise Prediction of One Stage of Helical Gear System by Wind Turbine Load
- Validation of WindPRO Implementation of Nord2000 for Low Frequency Wind Turbine Noise
- Audible Amplitude Modulation – Results of Field Measurements and Investigations Compared to Psycho-acoustical Assessment and Theoretical Research
- Wind Turbine Noise Modeling Based on Amiet’s Theory
- Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise in Immission Areas
- How Does Noise Influence the Design of a Wind Farm?
- Perception of Low Frequency Components Contained in Wind Turbine Noise
- Wind Turbine Noise Measurements in Practice
- New Environmental Regulation for Wind turbines in Flanders (Belgium)
- Evaluation of Wind Turbine-Related Noise in Western New York State
- Danish Regulation of Low Frequency Noise from Wind Turbines
- Acoustic Array Measurements of Wind Turbine Noise
- Application of Phased Array Techniques for Amplitude Modulation Mitigation
- The Variability Problem: Source Levels, Propagation, Community Response
- A Jurisdictional Review of Wind Turbine Noise Policy: Environmental Assessment and Compliance Audits
- Acoustic Monitoring and Surveillance
- Wind Turbine Amplitude Modulation: Research to Improve Understanding as to its Cause and Effect
- Tonality in Wind Turbine Noise. IEC 61400-11 ver. 2.1 and 3.0 and the Danish/Joint Nordic Method Compared with Listening Tests
- Factors Affecting Perceived Annoyance Due to Wind Turbine Noise
- Comparison of Low Frequency and Infra-Sound from Utility Grade Wind Turbine Generators to Common, Everyday Sources
- Identification of Wind Turbine Noise Through Advanced Signal Analysis
- Wind Power Development Trends in Denmark: Targets, Legislation and Social Acceptance
- Highly Distributed Data Acquision on Wind Turbines
- Wind Farm Noise Assessment: Tonality Detection and Rating
- Wind Farm Noise Commissioning Methods: A Review of Methods Based on Measuring at Receiver Locations
- Improvement of Regression Analysis on Wind Noise Effects for Low Frequency Sound Measuring in Natural Wind
- Physics Based Spatial Acoustics in Virtual Scenes with Application to Wind Farm Noise
- State of Wind Turbine Developments in Northeastern United States – 2013
- Proposed Method for Characterizing Wind Turbine Noise and their Dependence on Meteorological Effects for Validation of Existing Studies
- Aeroacoustic Noise Mitigation Investigation for Wind Turbine Blades
- The New Good-Practice-Guide to Help Assessment of Wind Turbine Noise in Finland
- Affective Response to Amplitude Modulated Wind Turbine Sound
- Wind Farm Layout Optimization in Noise Constrained Areas
- Wake Patterns and Noise in a Dual-Rotor Wind Turbine
- Prediction of Thump Modulation
- Research Sound Power Level VAWT Turbines in an Anechoic Chamber
- Measurement of the Effect of Wind Shear on Wind Turbine Noise
- Industry’s First Best Practices for Community Engagement and Public Consultation
- Environmental Noise Assessment of Proposed Wind Farms Using Annual Average Ldn
- Comparison of Measurement of Sound Propagation Over Water with ISO 9613(2)
- Noise Prediction of Wind Turbine and Low Noise Blade Design
Charles Rhodes, Xylene Power
Recently an Illinois resident named Julie Newhouse sought my expert opinion with respect to a proposed wind farm to be built in Boone County, Illinois, adjacent to an existing major Enbridge oil pipeline. I am told that this wind farm is to include numerous wind generators geographically distributed close to the pipeline route. I believe that the wind farm developer contemplates generator interconnection via home run buried cable.
Most wind farms are located in rural areas where stray ground current between nearby wind generators is not a matter of serious concern. However, when multiple generators are located adjacent to a buried metal pipeline there are many ways for stray ground current to cause accelerated pipe corrosion, unless specific isolation measures are taken at each generator to prevent stray ground current. Implementation of such isolation measures may significantly increase the total cost of a wind farm.
If the electrical equipment includes power inverters, as do some wind generators, then stray ground current may have a substantial DC component, which can aggressively attack a nearby long metal buried pipe at any scratch or defect in its surface coating. …
In my view, the potential costs related to rupture failure of the Enbridge oil pipeline could far exceed the financial capacity of the wind farm owner and/or his liability insurers to pay. Moreover, US law might not even hold the wind farm owner liable for electrically induced pipeline corrosion.
It is essential that this issue be addressed immediately by Boone County, irrespective of lack of applicable electrical code and/or property related regulation.
Under no circumstances should Boone County permit construction of this wind farm to proceed until the wind farm electrical plans and specifications have been approved by an independent professional engineer with expertise in distributed generator isolation and metal pipeline corrosion protection. Similarly, no permit should be granted for wind generator operation until the installed wind generation equipment has been independently checked for conformity with the isolation measures contained in the plans and specifications approved by the independent professional engineer. …
Richard Kuprewicz, Accufacts
Accufacts was asked to provide independent observations related to the proposed installation of a multi-megawatt wind turbine farm “Project,” last estimated at approximately 200 MW, to be installed over, or in close proximity to, two existing liquid transmission pipelines sharing a pipeline right-of-way, or “ROW,” in Boone County, Illinois …
While an offset distance from the pipeline ROW is one possible way to approach certain threats to the existing pipelines, Accufacts believes, after reviewing Attachment 1, that such an approach may not adequately deal with the threats to the pipeline that can be associated with the Project. Federal pipeline safety regulations place specific obligations on Enbridge, the pipeline operator, to assure the safety of the pipeline from various threat activities that may exist off, as well as on, a pipeline ROW. Local and state agencies should be able to place as a condition of a permit approving the Project, that certain precautions including prudent engineering analysis have been performed, documented and are sound (usually subject to independent verification). …
Accufacts sees at least three categories of threat to the pipelines from the Project:
- external loading threats,
- misplacement or improper alignment of the wind turbines, such that tower loads or turbine blade failure could reach the pipelines, and
- stray current effects from the Project’s electrical system.
Under federal pipeline safety regulation, all of the above risks are the responsibility of the pipeline operator whether the threat is on or off the pipeline ROW. The pipeline operator should be able to demand certain requirements such that the Project will not threaten the pipelines. Local agencies should be able to mandate and require adequate proof and documentation from the pipeline operator that these threats have been prudently evaluated and resolved in the final design, its placement, and the Project’s operation. …
The potential for electric generation/transmission stray current interference to quickly rip the steel from buried pipelines, even very deep pipelines, is well understood and known in the pipeline industry. … The pipeline is well within its rights to demand and understand the Project’s electrical design/installation and its possible impacts to generate stray current on the pipelines.
The proponent, Sprott Power Corp, has failed to demonstrate that the Goulais Wind Farm will provide advantages to Algoma District. There is high risk that impact on tourism will be adverse, a subject that is inadequately addressed. The setbacks to neighbouring property lines do not provide adequate safety from known failures, and the provided documentation that claims accidents are of low frequency or that root causes have been addressed have not been adequately provided. The noise assessment fails to properly account for turbulence due to the close spacing of wind turbines in either this proposed wind farm or the neighbouring impacting wind farm. The proposal has failed to demonstrate any benefit to the province electrical system or electrical consumer.
Comments to Environmental Registry re Goulais Wind Farm
Township of Pennefather and Aweres – Algoma District
Recorded as Comment 157169 EBR Registry Number 011-8558
Volume Thirteen Number One, Spring 2013 [click to download PDF]
Special issue on proposed East-West superhighway
126th Legislative Session – Industrial Wind and E-W Corridor – by Jonathan Carter – page 14
20 Facts about Wind Power – The Facts about Wind Energy Development in Maine – by Friends of Maine’s Mountains – page 20
How Much CO₂ Can Be Avoided by 1000 Maine Wind Turbines? – by Brad Blake – page 24
The American Wind Energy Association – Promoting the Scam – by Brad Blake – page 25
Application for the Passadumkeag Wind Park – Testimony by Bradbury Blake – page 26
Wind-power Agenda Fuels CMP Increases – by The Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power – page 27
For the SECOND year in a row, people from around the province will arrive in Toronto on Wed., April 3rd to protest at Simcoe Park opposite the Toronto Convention Centre on Front St. After rallying, we will march to raise awareness of the issue for our urban neighbours!
Buses will be rolling in at 11:30 from across the province to demand an end to the threat from industrial wind turbines.
WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY!
People in Ontario have had enough. We do NOT accept this government passing laws such as the Green Energy and Economy Act, and granting approvals to bring immeasurable harm to all we hold dear! We demand an end to the FIT program, and termination of all policies leading to the proliferation of industrial wind turbine installations.
In a strong message that says to leaders: “WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT, NOT INDUSTRY!” protests will be ongoing this week with picketing and rallying by groups in Prince
Edward County, CHAT/SWEAR in Huron County, MCSEA on Manitoulin Island, Middlesex-Lambton WAG in Middlesex, Manvers WAG in Peterborough and LSARC (Lake Superior Action Research Conservation) in Algoma Region as just some examples.
Speakers for the 3rd will include Mark Davis, Deputy Mayor of Arran Elderslie and Co-Chair of Multi-Municipal Turbine Working Group; Ginny Stewart-Love, whose passionate presentation detailing over 20 affected neighbours prompted Dr. Hazel Lynn’s latest review of health information, will talk about “receptors” (previously known in Ontario as mothers, fathers, children and grandparents); Rosemary Wakegijig, Elder Spokesperson for the Wikwemikong First Nations; and Keith Stelling of Arran Lake will speak about the flier he put together for handing out along our march route.
There is no evidence of the ability to have a meaningful “conversation” with the new Premier, says Sherri Lange of NA-PAW (North American Platform Against Wind Power). With no visible slowdown of wind projects, people have already lost faith in the so-called ‘new’ Liberal leadership.
At this time, anti-wind groups are calling for the resignation of not only Dr. Arlene King, but also of Premier Wynne, whose apparently shallow promises for rigorous consultation with communities who are “not willing hosts” are in direct opposition with even more turbine projects being hastily approved.
The health crisis continues. The assault on the natural environment continues. The Liberal pandering to developers continues. Anti-wind groups express that they want an election immediately and are prepared to act aggressively to achieve relief and a restoration of Democracy in Ontario.
“Bottom line is you can be sure we will do what we have to in order to protect our health and home. Unless Premier Wynne is prepared to immediately halt the proliferation of turbines in Ontario, offer restitution to victims, and restore sensitive areas to their original condition, there is no need for any more “conversation” of this nature,” said Gillis. “Bring us an election immediately.” It is clear that the ERT (Environmental Review Tribunals) established to provide communities with a legal avenue for challenge of approved projects, is yet another layer of frustration for communities. These appear to be front end loaded to favor developers.
“We recognize the history of turbines in Europe: the energy poverty, the loss of jobs and the well-established medical damages. With this much evidence, there can be no reasonable action but to immediately halt production, and admit the failures of this government to do proper research and to protect the province. The province has treated its people with immense indifference and disrespect. But we are prepared to take our province back,” said Lange, “one vote at a time.”
“The Green Energy and Economy Act,” says Gillis, “is a costly failure. It’s a failure to protect families, a failure to protect nature and a failure to protect the basic resources of the province.” Added Lange, “Ontario’s Green Energy policies are a self-destructive act, devised and signed by two Premiers and aided and supported by another party (NDP), both equal in energy illiteracy. Higher costs of power lead to continued loss of manufacturing and corollary businesses, which either must leave the province, or cease to exist. We have already lost 300,000 jobs in the last eight years. The proliferation of unreliable wind and solar power has added to that unmanageable cost of power. Groups around the province agree that the fiscal cliff has been reached and a turnaround is essential.
Join the protest at the Convention Centre, Simcoe Park on April 3rd.
For more information please contact:
CEO NA-PAW North American Platform Against Wind Power
Chair of Ontario Regional Group Against Wind Turbines
Every March 10,000-15,000 Tundra Swans migrate from the eastern USA seaboard to the Arctic tundra of Canada and Alaska. On their epic 6,500-kilometer migration the swans stop to rest and feed on the Thedford Bog and environs near Grand Bend on Lake Huron. The Thedford Bog area is a unique habitat ideally suited specifically for the migrating Tundra Swans, with its wide expanse of flat fields that feature large areas of ice, water and snow in March, providing safety and undisturbed quiet for resting, and food in the surrounding agricultural corn stubble fields for building strength. Tourists, photographers, bird watchers and outdoor enthusiasts flock to marvel at the spectacle of this annual migration every year. There are currently multiple wind turbine projects slated for the very ground that is the Tundra Swan migration habitat, and they are being rushed through final approvals (Notice to Proceed) to be completed by April and May, in the apparent absence of any credible environmental impact studies. These projects must be stopped as they will disrupt one of the last great migrations and irrevocably destroy the traditional Tundra Swan staging and rest stop habitat that has been a vital part of their route for thousands of years. Time is of the essence with construction planned to start this summer.
Tundra Swans are huge birds measuring 115–150 cm (45–59 in) in length, with a 168–211 cm (66–83 in) wingspan. They fly at altitudes of up to 8 km and speeds of up to 80 km per hour. Their approach as they come down to the Thedford Bog flats, both during the day and at night (when they will not be able see the turbines), is correspondingly long and very low. The proposed setbacks of 800-940 metres for the wind turbines that are planned to surround the bog and in part be built right on it are therefore utterly, tragically inadequate not only when the swans will try to land on Thedford Bog and flats but also on the approach to any of the other fields in the area that they normally visit. In short, the turbines will kill and scare off the Tundra Swans with the likely result that the birds, in desperate need of rest and sustenance on their arduous migration, will cease to arrive in Grand Bend at all.
Click here to go to the petition.
The Honourable Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario
The Honourable Jim Bradley, Minister of the Environment, Province of Ontario
Tom Mitchell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Power Generation
Please stop the multiple wind turbine projects that will spell the destruction of the Tundra Swan migration habitat on the Thedford Bog near Grand Bend on Lake Huron.
As you know, every March 10,000-15,000 Tundra Swans migrate from the eastern USA seaboard to the Arctic tundra of Canada and Alaska. On their epic 6,500-kilometer migration the swans stop to rest and feed on the Thedford Bog flats and environs near Grand Bend on Lake Huron. The Thedford Bog area is a unique habitat ideally suited specifically for the migrating Tundra Swans, with its wide expanse of flat fields that feature large areas of ice, water and snow in March, providing safety and undisturbed quiet for resting, and food in the surrounding agricultural corn stubble fields for building strength. Tourists, photographers, bird watchers and outdoor enthusiasts flock to marvel at the spectacle of this annual migration every year.
As you know, there are currently multiple wind turbine projects slated for the very ground that is the Tundra Swan migration habitat, and they are being rushed through final approvals (Notice to Proceed) to be completed by April and May, in the apparent absence of any credible environmental impact studies. These projects must be stopped as they will disrupt one of the last great migrations and irrevocably destroy the traditional Tundra Swan staging and rest stop habitat that has been a vital part of their migration route for thousands of years.
As you know, Tundra Swans are huge birds measuring 115–150 cm (45–59 in) in length, with a 168–211 cm (66–83 in) wingspan. They fly at altitudes of up to 8 km and speeds of up to 80 km per hour. Their approach as they come down to the Thedford Bog flats, both during the day and at night (when they will not be able see the turbines), is correspondingly long and very low, as you can imagine. The proposed setbacks of 800-940 metres for the wind turbines that will surround the bog and in part be built right on it are therefore utterly, tragically inadequate not only when the swans will try to land on Thedford Bog and flats but also on any of the other fields in the area that they normally visit. In short, the turbines will kill and scare off the Tundra Swans with the likely result that the birds, in desperate need of rest and sustenance on their arduous migration, will cease to arrive in Grand Bend at all.
Please act now and stop the unchecked proliferation of multiple, deadly wind turbine projects that will destroy the unique and sensitive habitat of the migrating Tundra Swans and many other bird species.