Sign up for daily updates

Do you find this site useful?

Keep it online and independent!

News Watch

Selected Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

ISSUES/LOCATIONS

View titles only
(by date)
List all documents, ordered…

By Title

By Author

View PDF, DOC, PPT, and XLS files on line
RSS

Add NWW documents to your site (click here)

Resource Documents — latest additions

Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.


Date added:  June 19, 2015
Aesthetics, U.S.Print storyE-mail story

Wind Turbine Visibility and Visual Impact Threshold Distances in Western Landscapes

Author:  Sullivan, Robert; et al.

Abstract

The siting of wind facilities to minimize visual impacts to high-value scenic resources presents a
major challenge for land management agencies in the western United States. The visibility and
potential visual contrasts associated with utility-scale wind facilities are dependent on complex
interactions of a variety of factors, but little systematic study of visibility in real landscape
settings has been conducted.

In a study sponsored by the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land
Management, 377 observations of five wind facilities in Wyoming and Colorado were made
under various lighting and weather conditions. The facilities were found to be visible to the
unaided eye at >58 km (36 mi) under optimal viewing conditions, with turbine blade movement
often visible at 39 km (24 mi).

Under favorable viewing conditions, the wind facilities were judged to be major foci of visual
attention at up to 19 km (12 mi) and likely to be noticed by casual observers at >37 km (23 mi).
A conservative interpretation suggests that for such facilities, an appropriate radius for visual
impact analyses would be 48 km (30 mi), that the facilities would be unlikely to be missed by
casual observers at up to 32 km (20 mi), and that the facilities could be major sources of visual
contrast at up to 16 km (10 mi).

Robert G. Sullivan
Program Manager/Coordinator, Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois

Leslie B. Kirchler
Landscape Specialist, Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory

Tom Lahti
State Landscape Architect (retired), Wyoming State Office, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

Sherry Roché
NLCS Wilderness Program Lead and Visual Resource Program Lead, Wyoming State Office, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

Kevin Beckman
Programmer Analyst, Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory

Brian Cantwell
Senior GIS Programmer/Analyst, Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory

Pamela Richmond
Programmer/Analyst, Environmental Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory

Download original document: “Wind Turbine Visibility and Visual Impact Threshold Distances in Western Landscapes”

Bookmark and Share


Date added:  June 18, 2015
Australia, Health, Noise, RegulationsPrint storyE-mail story

Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines: Interim Report

Author:  Australia Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines

1.1 The Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines was established in December 2014. To date, it has received 464 submissions from a wide range of stakeholders. It has conducted public hearings in Portland in south-west Victoria on 30 March, in Cairns on 18 May, in Canberra on 19 May, in Melbourne on 9 June and in Adelaide on 10 June 2015. Further public hearings are planned in Canberra on 19 June and 23 June and in Sydney on 29 June 2015.

1.2 This represents a considerable volume of evidence relating directly to the committee’s terms of reference. The committee has received written and verbal evidence from State Governments, local councils, various federal government agencies, wind farm operators and manufacturers, country fire authorities, acousticians, medical experts and representatives from various associations and institutes. In addition, many private citizens have had the opportunity to voice their concerns with the planning, consultation, approval, development and operation of wind farms in Australia.

1.3 Access to all public submissions and public hearing transcripts can be found on the committee’s website.

1.4 This report presents seven headline recommendations. …

Wind farms and human health

1.12 Why are there so many people who live in close proximity to wind turbines complaining of similar physiological and psychological symptoms? As with previous Senate inquiries, this committee has gathered evidence from many submitters attributing symptoms of dizziness, nausea, migraines, high blood pressure, tinnitus, chronic sleep deprivation and depression to the operation of nearby wind turbines. The committee invites the public to read and consider the evidence of people who have experienced these symptoms and who attribute their anxiety and ill health to the operation of turbines.

1.13 These health affects should not be trivialised or ignored. The committee was particularly distressed by renewable energy advocates, wind farm developers and operators, public officials and academics who publicly derided and sometimes lampooned local residents who were genuinely attempting to make known the adverse health effects they were suffering.

1.14 The committee is aware of people complaining of these impacts who have since left their family home. Some now live a nomadic and uncertain existence. In one case, the now deserted home had been in the family for five generations—since the 1840s. These are not decisions taken lightly. Having left the turbine vicinity, several witnesses noted that the symptoms had faded if not disappeared.

1.15 Some submitters attribute these illnesses to a ‘nocebo effect’—a result of expectations of harm rather than exposure to turbine activity. This claim has been made by Professor Simon Chapman, a sociologist by training and a professor of Public Health at Sydney University. He has labelled wind turbine syndrome ‘a communicated disease’, claiming that it ‘spreads by … being talked about and is therefore a strong candidate for being defined as a psychogenic condition’.

1.16 However, most people recognise that noise including low frequency noise could cause these impacts and emphasise that noise standards, properly enforced, are crucial to ensuring public safety. This view acknowledges that the noise from wind turbines creates annoyances which can manifest in sleep disruption. The clear remedy is to set noise standards (such as the New Zealand Standard) and enforce these standards. This is essentially the public position of the relevant authorities in Australia.

The need to investigate infrasound and low frequency noise from turbines and its effect on human health

1.17 The committee highlights the need for more research into the impact of low frequency noise and infrasound (0–20 hertz) from wind turbines on human health. A 2014 pilot study conducted by acoustician Mr Steven Cooper found a correlation between infrasound emitting from turbines at Cape Bridgewater in Victoria and ‘sensations’ felt, and diarised, by six residents of three nearby homes. By identifying a unique infrasound ‘wind turbine signature’, recording it as present in the homes, and linking it to ‘sensations’ felt by the residents, Mr Cooper’s research has received international attention.

1.18 It is clear that the extent and nature of wind turbines’ impact on human health is a contested issue. The nocebo effect, the existing standards for measuring audible noise and the NHMRC’s 2011 literature review have all been criticised by submitters and witnesses to this inquiry. The criticisms relate both to flaws in methodology and to inaccurate and incomplete findings.

1.19 Fundamentally, the lack of detailed, reliable data does not allow for a proper scientific conclusion to be drawn. The committee is struck by the considerable gaps in understanding about the impact of wind turbines on human health. These gaps have widely acknowledged key issues, both explicitly and implicitly:

1.20 Independent scientific research is needed into acoustic matters—such as whether each wind turbine has unique ‘signature’ and the effect of that signature on neighbouring turbines—and into health matters. …

Download original document: “Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines: Interim Report”

Download the Dissenting Report

Bookmark and Share


Date added:  June 18, 2015
Australia, Health, NoisePrint storyE-mail story

Wind turbine hosts’ testimony to Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines

Author:  Gare, Clive; and Gare, Petrina

Wednesday, 10 June 2015, Adelaide

Mr Gare: I am a host of a wind farm.

Mrs Gare: I am also a host of a wind farm. …

Mr Gare: Thank you for inviting me to present my submission today. My submission deals with the impact on my health and lifestyle living in close proximity to a wind farm. Let me say from the outset that we were excited about the prospect of being part of the renewable electricity industry. I am a host to wind towers on my property, the nearest being about 800 metres away with three towers within approximately one to 1.5 kilometres away.

We were not made aware of the impacts of noise on our health or lifestyle. Fortunately, we had heard from others that they were quite noisy. Luckily, in our contracts we inserted clauses about the need for noise mitigation. I do wonder why though the wind tower operators inserted the following clause in all the hosts’ contracts section 77C, which is on the memorandum of lease which I will table: ‘The landlord acknowledges and agrees that it is adequately compensated for any noise or inconvenience caused as a result of the permitted use of the site or the land and that it will not seek any further compensation from the tenant in relation to such matters.’ If the wind tower operators were confident of their impact studies, that clause would not be necessary.

After a short period of living with an operating wind farm, we had these products installed. I find that, because I work and reside in close proximity to the wind farm, I suffer sleep interruption, mild headaches, agitation and a general feeling of unease; however, this occurs only when the towers are turning, depending on the wind direction and wind strength. My occupation requires that I work amongst the wind towers during the day which means I suffer the full impacts of noise for days at a time without relief. The impacts are that we are not able to open our windows because of the noise at night and we are not able to entertain outside because of the noise.

In conclusion, if we did not have soundproof batts in VLam Hush windows, our house would not be habitable. In my opinion, towers should not be within five kilometres of residences, and I would personally not buy a house within 20 kilometres of a wind farm. Thank you.

Mrs Gare: Good afternoon Senators, and ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for letting me speak to the committee today. I would like to open my statement with the following: developers and construction. In the beginning, I was excited about the wind farm and of course the financial security for our property and family. The process began with high-pressure consultations, negotiations for weeks on end, numerous phone calls and face-to-face meetings with the developers. We seemed to be under constant pressure to agree to their wishes and, if we wanted any changes, it took a lot of negotiation.

We had to try and foresee any problems that may impact on our lifestyle for the next 25 years plus. With little or no previous information to go on, this was a very taxing time. Having gone through this, I would like to see that a person or persons—probably with a legal background and well-schooled in wind turbine information—be contactable for future wind farm hosts for advice and even to help with negotiations with the development companies.

Construction was also a very stressful and challenging time. The landowners are up against not only the power company but also all the big contractors and civil works companies. Any meetings with the above parties had to be attended by both of us with me taking notes so that we had some kind of record of what was said and what matters needed to be addressed at the time.

We had a lot of erosion problems from the pads and roadways, which we had to chase up with the power company to get them to address. During construction there were lots of problems with gates left open, boxing up mobs of cattle which then took a full day of redrafting and settling back into their paddocks. We also had gates opening onto public roadways. We have a main bitumen road that goes past our property. This caused great angst as far as public liability is concerned, if our stock got out into the roads. We also had lots of rubbish scattered around the property. We witnessed one of our cattle eating a one metre by one metre piece of plastic sheeting.

Living with wind turbines. Our house is solid sandstone, built for the late Charles Hawker in the 1920s, with concrete internal walls and a steel roof. The house is surrounded by a lot of vegetation and trees. I have brought some photos to show the Senate. In the months after the towers started in October 2010, the noise was unbearable, especially when two towers became in sync. A loud thumping would radiate throughout the house. Even watching TV in the furthermost room from the towers, you could hear them. Sleeping was most difficult. I use, and still do, an earpiece radio every night, which helps block out the noise to a certain degree. If they are really going I have to up the volume.

After some time, due to a very slow installer, the house was finally insulated: sonobatts in the ceiling cavity; all our outside air vents blocked; a special American glass called Vlam Hush, which is two sheets of glass with a special gel between, were installed in every door and window of the house. This has improved the situation for me considerably, but at times the noise still penetrates into the house.

Ongoing issues. Due to the house being sealed we have refrigerated air conditioning, because we cannot open windows because of the noise. A separate meter was installed on the wind farm operator’s advice, so that they could pay the cost of the air conditioning usage. That went in over 12 months ago and we are still chasing payment. Another issue is the increase in our emergency services levy. The value of our property has increased by double, which has had a major increase in the levy. The power company pay council rates on the land that they lease, and we pay rates on the rest. We brought up the issue of the increased ESL with the power company, but they have not addressed it. We feel they should be responsible due to the increase in our land value. I have the value difference here: I think it is about $1.6 million increase. I quote from the contract, 6.1, rates and taxes, section B:

However, during each year of this lease the tenant must pay any increase in rates and taxes above the rates and taxes that were payable immediately before the start of the agreement to lease, if the increase is directly attributable to the works or the use of the site for the permitted use.

We also have ongoing problems with the cables which run across our property and connect into the individual towers to transport the power to a substation. There seem to be constant cable breakages, which have to be dug up and fixed. This, of course, happens all over the property. Having 19 towers, it has quite a big impact. Quite a large area is disturbed and then has to be recovered with sand or soil. We have asked for compensation concerning this, as we have numerous cable breaks on the property with disturbance to our pastures, which interferes with our stock grazing. This was discussed at a meeting back in August 2014. We are still waiting for compensation, which is agreed by the wind operators. As you can see, they are not fast movers.

The land owners need to know their rights in regard to their property and how it is treated during and after construction of towers. Land owners with residences close to towers need to be made aware of the noise impact and there should be discussion of how close towers should be permitted to their premises. In my opinion, towers should not be any closer than five kilometres to a dwelling. If we had to buy another property, it would not be within a 20-kilometre distance to a wind farm. I think that says it all.

We have a son who will come home in a couple of years, and I have concerns for him and a family that he might have in the future, with regard to any health problems that may arise. Having lived with towers now for five years, in my opinion future hosts should glean as much information as they can and find out their rights so they can fully understand what they are taking on.

Download original document: “Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines, Adelaide, 10 June 2015”

Bookmark and Share


Date added:  June 15, 2015
Maine, OrdinancesPrint storyE-mail story

Wind Energy Facility Ordinance for the Town of Dixfield

Author:  Dixfield, Maine

Section 11. Approval and Performance Standards

11.1 Setback

A WEFU or WEFS shall comply with the following setback requirements. If more than one (1) set back requirement applies, the greater set back distance shall be met. All measurements shall be based on horizontal distances.

11.1.1 All WEFUs shall be set back a horizontal distance of four thousand (4,000) feet from any Occupied Building in Dixfield and two thousand (2,000) feet from the boundaries of the Project Parcel unless the Applicant submits in writing: 1) a waiver of the Occupied Building setback signed by the pertinent abutting landowner and; 2) evidence such as operating protocols, safety programs, or recommendations from the manufacturer or a licensed professional engineer with appropriate expertise and experience with WEFUs, demonstrating that the reduced set back proposed by the Applicant will not cause the WEFU to violate any other approval standards of this Ordinance.

11.1.2 All WEFUs must be set back a minimum of four thousand (4,000) feet from any Scenic or Special Resource as defined in Section 4.0 of this Ordinance.

11.1.3 Each WEFU shall be equipped with an over-speed control system that: 1) includes both an aerodynamic control such as stall regulation, variable blade pitch or other similar system and a mechanical brake that operates in fail safe mode; or 2) has been designed by the manufacturer or a licensed engineer and found by the Board, based on its review of a written description of the design and function of the system, to meet the needs of public safety.

11.1.4 WEFUs shall be setback a horizontal distance equivalent to one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the Turbine Height from Project Boundaries, Occupied Buildings, public and private rights-of-way and overhead utility lines that are not part of the proposed WEFS. No waiver of this standard is permitted. …

11.10.2 Sound Limits

No Permit shall be issued if the pre-permit information or sound study indicates that the proposed WEFU or WEFS will not comply with the following requirements, which are to apply at all Sensitive Receptors within four thousand (4,000) feet of any WEFU, except on Project Parcel(s) or on a Participating Parcel(s) which is subject to a Mitigation Waiver which specifies different sound limits than those below.

If pre-construction estimates of the post-construction sound levels exceed the limits below, then the WEFU or WEFS Application shall be denied; if these limits are exceeded after the WEFU or WEFS has been built, then the WEFU or WEFS will be in violation of this Ordinance:

A. The sound limits below are stated in terms of LeqA (post). Prior to construction of the WEFU or WEFS, the “pre” values are as measured and the “post” values are as calculated. After the WEFU or WEFS has been constructed, the “pre” values are the WEF-OFF values and the “post” values are the WEF-ON values.

B. Audible Sound Limit

1) No WEFU or WEFS shall be located so as to generate post-construction sound levels that exceed thirty-five (35) dBA at night (7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) or forty-five (45) dBA during the day (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) anywhere in the Town beyond the boundaries of the Project Parcel and all Participating Parcels whose owners have waived noise restrictions.

2) No WEFU shall be allowed to operate if it exceeds fifty (50) dBC anywhere in the Town beyond the boundaries of the Project Parcel and all Participating Parcels whose owners have waived noise restrictions. …

D. Post-Construction Sound Measurements. Starting within twelve (12) months after the date when the WEFU or WEFS has begun operating, a post-construction sound study shall be performed for all WEFUs or WEFSs that are operating. Post-construction sound studies shall be conducted by a Qualified Independent Acoustical Consultant. The Permittee shall also pay for a Qualified Independent Acoustical Consultant chosen by the Planning Board to review the Permittee’s study. The Permittee shall deposit the estimated cost of such review upon notification by the Board. The Town’s consultant may observe the Permittee’s consultant’s monitoring. The Permittee shall provide all technical information required by the Board or Independent Qualified Acoustical Consultant before, during, and/or after any acoustical studies required by this document and for local area acoustical measurements. The Post-construction sound measurements shall be repeated every three (3) years throughout the life of the facility and submitted to the Code Enforcement Officer. The applicant may seek a waiver from the Code Enforcement Officer of all but the first post-construction measurements if no valid noise complaints are received during the previous three (3) year period.

E. Pre-construction and post-construction monitoring shall report sound levels in terms of LeqA, L90A, LeqC, and L90C for each hour of the monitoring period.

Download original document: “Wind Energy Facility Ordinance for the Town of Dixfield”

Bookmark and Share


Earlier Documents »

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

HOME ABOUT PRIVACY CONTACT DONATE
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Formerly at windwatch.org.

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share