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.
Venue: Radisson Blu Hotel, Glasgow, Scotland
Date: Monday 20th April to Thursday 23rd April 2015
This is the sixth of the biennial international conferences on Wind Turbine Noise. Many of us thought, when Geoff Leventhall opened his first conference in Berlin in 2005, that by 2015 all the noise issues with wind turbines would have been solved and the conferences would no longer be necessary. The opposite is true and last year’s conference, held unusually outside Europe, attracted nearly 200 delegates from 22 countries representing manufacturers, developers, researchers, environmentalists, pressure groups, consultants and exhibitors.
The sixth conference will once again provide an opportunity for all those with an interest in wind turbine noise, its generation, its prediction, its assessment and its effects on people, to meet together and discuss common problems and solutions.
At this conference, for the first time, we will be having poster as well as oral presentations – ideal where more explanation or discussion of a topic is needed. The venue has a large open break-out space and this will be open before and, in particular, after oral presentations each day giving time for networking over refreshments, discussions round the posters and informal workshops on “hot topics”. The oral presentations are expected to be 20 minutes.
Offers of papers for this conference are invited and prospective authors should submit a 200 to 300-word abstract by 15 November 2014. There is a template for this on the website where you can sign-up to receive further information as time progresses. The conference website can be found at: http://windturbinenoise.eu
PROVISIONAL LIST OF TOPICS:
Source noise mechanisms and propagation
· Noise generation mechanisms and reduction at source
· Amplitude Modulation – mechanism and solutions
· Propagation models and their accuracy
Health issues related to turbines
· Sleep disturbance and annoyance
· Non-acoustic factors in attitudes to wind turbine noise
· Infrasound and Amplitude Modulation effects
Measurement and testing experience
· Specific instrumentation for WTN measurements
· IEC 61400-11 ed.3
· Baseline background noise
· Post completion compliance testing
· Offshore wind farm construction
· Small wind turbines – specific problems
· Standards and regulations
Further information from:
Conference Secretary, INCE/Europe
4 Oakland Vale, New Brighton, Merseyside CH45 1LQ, UK
Tel: +44 (0)151 638 0281
Announcements, Campaigns, Ireland, Meetings, Press releases •
Source: Wind Aware Ireland
Wind Aware Ireland will launch their new campaign and website on April 10th, 2014 from 10am at Buswells’ Hotel, Molesworth St., Dublin 2. We aim to hold policy makers to account to ensure that they act on evidence. We will provide a counter balance to business influence on the political process.
Wind Aware Ireland are bringing together a group of experts and formidable presenters to urge reform of the Irish government’s unsustainable wind energy policies. Our objective is to ensure that energy policies and developments fulfill the three pillars of sustainability; environmental, economic and social.
Who Are We?
Wind Aware Ireland is a non-profit, non-political alliance of community groups and individuals who challenge the Irish government’s current unsustainable wind energy policy. Wind Aware Ireland represents community groups and individuals concerned about current wind energy plans as well as the associated grid and substation infrastructure upgrades necessary to support wind energy.
The event is taking place on April 10th in Buswells’ Hotel (Dublin City) at 10am.
Confirmed speakers include:
• Fr. Sean Healy is an economist and the Director of Social Justice Ireland who provide analysis and policy to improve society and the lives of people in Ireland through focusing on human rights. He contributes to media debate on social justice and the widening gap between rich and poor in Ireland.
• Don Moore is Chairman of the Energy Standing Committee of the Irish Academy of Engineering (IAE) who have advised on achieving Ireland’s energy and CO2 reduction targets. The IAE have recognised the need for alternative policies to achieve these targets while maintaining competitiveness and reasonable electricity prices.
• Jim Power is Chief Economist at Friends First Group, one of Europe’s largest insurance groups. He previously worked as Chief Economist at Bank of Ireland Group and Treasury Economist at AIB Group. He is a frequent contributor to radio and TV.
• Senator John Whelan is a Labour party senator representing Laois/Offaly. He has consistently opposed his party on the issue of wind energy. He is a journalist of 30 years and has worked as editor of several local newspapers. He has been a long time commentator on current affairs from the midlands for the national media.
• Marian Harkin MEP is an Independent MEP. She is in her second European term and previously represented Sligo/Leitrim as a TD in Dail Eireann. Her work on the Petitions Committee, involves connecting ordinary citizens to the EU Institutions to try to resolve issues where there is non compliance with EU legislation.
In order to ensure that you receive the most appropriate and targeted information from Wind Aware Ireland, can you please confirm that you (or a colleague) will be attending so that we have the appropriate individual available to you, adequate space, internet access and facilities for you.
As further speakers are yet to be confirmed, a final schedule will follow.
Ladies & Gentlemen:
I’m now sending the following note to various senators. If any of you find it useful, feel free to use it in whole or part with or without attribution.
When contacting senators’ offices, please don’t forget their in-state offices. You can find telephone and fax numbers on members’ web sites.
April 2, 2014
How much will Senator Grassley’s plan to extend the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) add to the national debt we are passing along to our children and grandchildren?
On Thursday, April 3, 2014, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee is expected to consider and report out to the full Senate a bill that would extend various federal tax breaks.
Senator Grassley (R-IA) has announced that he will amend this tax break “extender” bill to continue for two more years the wind “Production Tax Credit” (PTC) that benefits corporations that own “wind farms.” Owners of “wind farms” would be able to reduce their income tax liability by $0.023 (adjusted upward for inflation) for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced by their wind turbines during the next 10 years.
The wind PTC was initially passed in 1992 as a temporary incentive to help a then fledgling industry – with the expectation that wind energy would be environmentally benign and become economically competitive. However, after 20 years of lucrative wind energy tax breaks and subsidies valued at over $100 billion:
- Producing electricity from wind has proven to have numerous adverse environmental, economic, electric system reliability, scenic, and property value impacts not originally foreseen and still not admitted by wind industry advocates; and
- Electricity from wind remains high in true cost and low in real value – with the wind industry providing no evidence that electricity from wind will ever be commercially viable (i.e., without large tax breaks and subsidies).
Grassley’s proposed 2-year extension of the wind PTC would add more than $20 billion to the huge national debt that Congress is loading on to our children and grandchildren. That $20 billion would be in addition to the hundred plus billions that have already been lavished on the wind industry since the wind PTC was instigated by Senator Grassley in 1992!
Further, since the Government must pay interest on the national debt and Congress has shown no intention of paying off the national debt the burden of tax breaks such as the wind PTC will grow and grow – more than doubling the debt over the next two decades even if interest charges average only 4% per year and there was no more annual federal budget deficits.
Clearly, it is time for all members of Congress, including Senator Grassley, to resist pressure from the wind industry and stand up for today’s tax payers – and even more so for our children and grandchildren who will bear – unfairly – the debt that is being passed on to them.
Aesthetics, Economics, Energy, Netherlands, Publications •
Source: VVD Wijk bij Duurstede
The beautiful panorama of Wijk bij Duurstede might be changing. With an abundance of arguments you can prevent this! Will you play “Down with wind turbines”?
No. I am from SP/GroenLinks/D66.
Yes. I accept the challenge.
1. How far away can a 150-meter wind turbine be seen standing in the landscape?
2. How many euros less would a Wijks house be worth near wind turbines by the canal?
3. How many cars is the energy generated by a spinning wind turbine equivalent to?
[Shoot down the five wind turbines.]
“Ik wil een herkansing”: I want a rematch.
Le collectif « sauvons l’Aveyron » organise une grande manifestation d’opposition à l’éolien industriel à Rodez le Vendredi 7 mars 2014 devant la préfecture de 14 h. à 16 h.
Ce collectif regroupe 27 associations. Le rassemblement aura lieu place Foch à partir de 13 h.
- 94 éoliennes sont déjà installées.
- 122 ont reçu l’accord du permis de construire, essentiellement sur le Lévézou et le Sud Aveyron mais font l’objet d’un recours au tribunal administratif grâce au travail des 27 associations de protection de l’environnement soucieuses de protéger les paysages aveyronnais et leur biodiversité qui sont un patrimoine commun.
- 240 supplémentaires sont en projet d’implantation un peu partout en Aveyron.
- Soit 456 éoliennes gigantesques en tout, implantées sur 60 communes, qui entraineront la construction d’un méga-transformateur à St Victor et Melvieu capable d’accueillir 800 éoliennes.
Nous vous invitons à participer à cet évènement et vous en remercions d’avance.
Collectif Sauvons l’Aveyron
tél. 06 79 32 06 32
06 80 99 38 08
Wind power systems are expected to contribute significantly to Danish fossil free energy production by 2050. Despite initiatives aimed at increasing public participation and local acceptance, both public and private bodies continue to experience an increasing lack of local acceptance of wind power projects. This has been a common issue across Europe, with the factors driving and influencing acceptance appearing to differ depending on economic, political and cultural context. The Wind2050 project is unique in that it will draw on international experience to understand the dynamics of local acceptance of both off-shore and land based wind energy projects in DK and compare these with projects in Ireland and United Kingdom focusing on the institutional and regulatory context as well as technical and social aspects in project development. The project seeks to examine both the factors that influence local acceptance and the influence of governance, project development and deployment of wind power. The project applies an interactive, research framework involving researchers from legal, social, economic and technical sciences who continuous exchange knowledge with end-users (authorities, industry, interest organizations, citizens and other local actors). The overall analytical perspective considers wind power facilities as socio-technical systems, which allows the work packages to use different scientific perspectives and methods in order to understand why and how different institutions, regulations, actors and perceptions induce or block deployment of wind power. The analyses are finally integrated in strategic scenarios, which provide recommendations and decision support for future deployment of wind power and other renewable energy sources.
Grant recipient: Kristian Borch
Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby
Amount available: 19,9 mio. kr. [2.67 million euros; 3.80 million US dollars]
Total budget: 23,6 mio. kr. [3.16 million euros; 4.51 million US dollars]
Funding period: 2014-2017
Research: 3 ph.d.er and 3 postdocs
Partners: DTU [Technical University of Denmark] Management Engineering, DTU Wind, Københavns Universitet Department of Food and Resource Economics, KORA [Nationale Institut for Kommuners og Regioners Analyse og Forskning (National Department of Municipalities and Regions Analysis and Research)], CONCITO [“Denmark’s green think tank”], Danish Wind Industry Association, Queens University of Belfast, RPS Group Ireland, University College London, GK Energi Aps, Eurowind Energy, Kommunernes Landsforening [Local Government Denmark], Naturstyrelsen [Danish Nature Agency], Energistyrelsen [Danish Energy Agency], Siemens Wind Power, Energinet.dk, Ringkøbing-Skjern Kommune, Sønderbog Kommune, Kalundborg Kommune, Aarhus Kommune, Guldborgsund Kommune, HOFOR [Hovedstadsområdets Forsyningsselskab (metropolitan water and gas supply)], Danmarks Vindmølleforening [Danish Wind Turbine Owners' Association], Project Zero A/S [Sonderborg], Svendborg Kommune, Vestas, Vattenfall
TO: Michael Spence BA LLB Sydney DPhil PcDipTheol Oxf
Vice Chancellor and Principle, University of Sydney
I am once again writing to you in relation to Professor Simon Chapman’s active and well publicised close involvement with the Industrial Wind Industry in Australia, and the increasingly adverse effect this association is having on the University of Sydney’s reputation for quality research and ethical behaviour.
It appears possible Professor Chapman is conducting research without prior ethics committee approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University, with regard to seeking specific details of families who were forced to abandon their homes as a result of noise pollution emanating from Industrial Wind Turbines.
I would be interested to know, will the university be addressing this ethical approval oversight? Alternatively if approval has been granted could you please forward to me the date and details of that approval?
Further, I bring to your attention the participation of Professor Chapman in the launch of a wind turbine product manufacturer’s global denial of the harm their product is causing, on 18 June 2013, which VESTAS called their “ACT on FACTS” campaign, in Melbourne. Professor Chapman was listed as a Professor of Public Health at the University of Sydney.
ln 2004 a VESTAS employee called Erik Sloth delivered a presentation to the Australian Wind Energy Association’s conference. lt showed VESTAS were aware in 2OO4 that the international standards for wind turbine noise emission modeling were inadequate, that “annoyance” symptoms could result from a less than safe buffer distance, and that further research was needed.
The World Health Organisation acknowledges “annoyance” symptoms can result in adverse health effects. Environmental noise pollution is increasingly acknowledged as a growing and serious public health problem, and there are increasing reports of rural residents being forced out of their homes or living a life of chronic sleep deprivation when the turbines are operating.
As yet, there is no research involving the concurrent measurement of the full spectrum of acoustic frequencies, and EEG, blood pressure, heart rate and cortisol levels in people reporting adverse health impacts from wind turbine noise specifically, although adverse health effects including the consequences of chronic sleep deprivation and chronic physiological stress have been found from other sources of noise. Yet Professor Chapman, Public Health Professor and Director of Research at the University of Sydney is now publicly stating ‘research is not necessary’, even though he stated at the Federal Senate inquiry in 2011, it was a ‘wonderful idea’, and VESTAS stated it was needed in 2004.
I would request you read the critiques of Professor Chapman’s paper by knowledgeable experts in the fields of medicine, acoustics, and audiology and in the analysis of his research for court evidence. As you will find, there are serious concerns about his research and the conclusions drawn by him and his co researchers.
Professor Chapman’s ‘diagnosis’ of a nocebo effect was made without any evidence collected from the homes of people reporting symptoms. He has never spoken to or visited these people, and of course he has no training to examine or diagnose medical conditions nor is he a psychiatrist trained to diagnose illnesses of the mind. At the very least he can only make a guess at what he thinks could be the situation, but for him to use his position at the university as an expert in these health matters is inappropriate and a snub to the importance and role of appropriately trained professionals in acoustics, neurophysiology, and clinical medicine.
As a Sociologist working in the area of Public Health he can only make theory judgements on social groups and not medical diagnosis on individuals. There is no evidence from those residents reporting the symptoms or from their treating health professionals that the nocebo diagnosis is valid.
While Professor Chapman worked to highlight the adverse health effects of tobacco and cigarettes by exposing the denial by tobacco companies and their supporters, he is now using his reputation to hinder the work of those trying to expose the truth about Industrial Wind Turbines and adverse health effects. He does this by writing papers, speaking publicly and attending functions in support of the global wind industry.
I ask that you read the decision of Justice Muse from Falmouth, USA, from late 2013 where he granted an immediate injunction to stop wind turbines turning at night, in order to prevent ‘irreparable harm to physical and psychological health’ of the residents reporting problems.
I would also recommend you read carefully American Psychiatrist Dr William Hallstein’s letter to the Falmouth Board of Health, which clearly explains what wind turbine noise is doing to people.
While Professor Chapman continues to deny the existence of research showing people are suffering, in an effort to uphold his personal theory it’s not difficult to find such research, articles and papers, if you choose to look for them.
For instance early research well before any publicity about the symptoms was conducted by Dr David Iser, a rural GP from Toora in Victoria and he raised concerns with the Victorian government about the effects of wind turbine noise. There is also Dr Amanda Harry, a rural GP in the UK, both of whom behaved in the best traditions of ethical practice of medicine, and research.
I urge you to read the work of the above to understand how harmful reliance on utterances from unqualified people can be, especially with respect to health issues, even if they are university Professors.
In addition I ask you consider what breaches of human rights may be occurring to residents who are being ignored by their governments who are charged with the responsibility of protecting them from known harm. Surely these vulnerable citizens deserve to be treated as every other citizen, with respect and consideration of their predicament which they have no control over, in the expectation their rights to live and work without the imposition of annoyance causing them harm being thrust upon them.
If the University does not want to be seen to be actively supporting an industry which is proven to be less than honest with respect to what they know and who have acknowledged the human adverse effects of their industry, then I would urge you to speak out and request Professor Chapman to publicly state that what he is expressing is his personal opinion and not that of the University, especially when he is saying that research is not necessary.
There is an impression the University could be seen to be unreservedly supporting the Industrial Wind Industry. I urge you to consider how the conflict of interest issues of some of the Fellows on the University Senate are handled, as public perception with regard to integrity of the governance of the University is at stake.
Finally I ask, does the University wish to be implicated in continuing to support an industry who are hiding known evidence of harm (see also Matt Peacock’s book “Killer Company” re the role the University of Sydney played in the asbestos story), or would the University prefer to act in the finest traditions of higher education establishments, and actively and vocally support the required multidisciplinary independent research recommended by the 2011 Australian Federal Senate inquiry.
J A Rovensky (Mrs)
PORT MacDONNELL, SA
7 Feb 2014