Progressive Maharashtra has rushed to install wind energy plants. But, ask Nidhi Jamwal and Shikha Lakhanpal, reporting from Mumbai and Dhule, why so little electricity is actually generated. Is there another purpose to private interest in wind? Of greater note: If India must develop wind energy, should it go the way of this state?

Go to: “Fanning an Alternative”

2 NOISE CRITERIA

The general approach in setting noise criteria for new developments is to require compliance with a base noise level.

This base noise level is typically 5 dB(A) lower than the level considered to reflect the amenity of the receiving environment. Designing new developments at a lower level accounts for the cumulative effect of noise from other similar development and for the increased sensitivity of receivers to a new noise source.

The impact of a given noise is also closely linked to the amount it exceeds the background noise. For example, the same noise in a quiet rural area will generally have a greater adverse impact than in a busy urban area because of the masking effect of high ambient noise environments.

If the noise generated does not exceed the background noise by more than 5 dB(A) the impact will be marginal and acceptable.

A unique characteristic of wind farms is that the noise level from each wind turbine generator (WTG) increases as the wind speed at the site increases. As an offset, the background noise also generally increases under these conditions and can mask the WTG noise.

Comparison with a base noise level alone will therefore not be sufficient to indicate the potential impact of a wind farm: a farm could comply with this base level at lower wind speeds but exceed it when the wind speed rises.

Most international and interstate jurisdictions … set a base noise level for low wind speeds and also ensure that the wind farm noise does not exceed the background noise by more than 5 dB(A) as the wind speed increases.

This general approach recognises the unique noise generating characteristics of wind turbines and the particular ambient noise environments of most sites and is the one used by these guidelines.

Most wind farm sites are within or next to areas where low ambient noise levels are a significant component of that area’s amenity. These might include rural living zones or zones that are not intended to be subject to any other significant ambient noise sources from adjacent premises. …

— – — –
The New Zealand Standard NZS 6808 sets the predicted base level (LAeq) at 40 dB(A). This is higher than the approach of these guidelines, but the specified propagation model to be used in accordance with that standard does not account for factors such as ground absorption and topography effects that can substantially reduce the noise level in practice. In addition, the New Zealand Standard requires the criteria to be met at all receivers, regardless of their relative amenity or relationship with the wind farm development.

A comprehensive publication developed by the wind farm industry for the UK Department of Trade and Industry (1996) sets the base level (LA90) at 35 — 40 dB(A). The actual value chosen within this range depends on the number of dwellings affected, the effect on the capacity of the wind farm of meeting the standard, and the duration and level of exposure.

Wind turbines and wind farms have been being developed in Denmark for over 20 years. Denmark has set a base noise level only (and does not consider the influence of background noise). The base noise level (LAeq) is set at 40 dB(A) for a wind speed of V10m = 8 m/s. These guidelines will provide a similar result given the expected influence of background noise. …
— – — –

Where the wind farm sites are within or next to areas where more intensive activity is expected, the base noise level may also be increased commensurate with the amenity of that area. It is recommended that the developer discuss such a situation with the EPA and the relevant planning authority.

2.1 Determining wind farm operating criteria

The Environment Protection (Industrial Noise) Policy 1994 limits the noise level from non-domestic noise sources including wind farms to 40 dB(A) or the lowest typical background noise level plus 5 dB(A) (whichever is the greater) in rural areas from 2200 hrs until 0700 hrs the following day.

This limit applies to existing noise sources and does not necessarily reflect the preferred noise criterion for new (planning) development. The general approach for new development applies a night time level of 35 dB(A) to significant development in a rural location.

To prevent adverse impacts from the increased noise of WTGs under high wind conditions, the increasing noise level must also be compared to the corresponding background noise at the relevant receiver.

2.2 Noise criteria — new wind farm development

The predicted equivalent noise level (LAeq,10), adjusted for tonality in accordance with these guidelines, should not exceed:

· 35 dB(A), or

· the background noise (LA90,10) by more than 5 dB(A)

whichever is the greater, at all relevant receivers for each integer wind speed from cut-in to rated power of the WTG. …

2.5 Cumulative development

Separate wind farm developments in close proximity to each other may impact on the same relevant receiver.

Therefore, as for staged development, any additional wind farm that may impact on the same relevant receiver as an existing wind farm should meet the criteria using the background noise levels as they existed before the original wind farm site development. The noise generated by existing WTGs from another wind farm should not be considered as part of the background noise in determining criteria for subsequent development. …

3.1 Background noise

What is background noise?

Background noise is the ‘lull’ in the ambient noise environment.

Intermittent noise events such as from aircraft flying over, dogs barking, mobile farm machinery and the occasional vehicle travelling along a nearby road are all part of the ambient noise environment but would not be considered part of the background noise unless they were present for at least 90% of the time. …

4.4 Tonality

Where, in the opinion of an officer authorised under the Environment Protection Act, the wind farm exhibits tonality as a characteristic, the developer should conduct a tonality test in accordance with a procedure acceptable to the EPA.

An addition of 5 dB(A) should be made to the measured background noise level from a wind farm where tonality is shown to be a characteristic.

Download “Environmental Noise Guidelines: Wind Farms”

MYTH # 2: These industrial machines don’t make THAT MUCH noise.
Fact: Like the generator in your garage, they ARE very quiet – when they aren’t working. But at their loudest, they generate up to 90dB of noise, equivalent to a tractor or a loud car stereo. The noise can be clearly heard (and felt) for 1000’ and beyond, and much farther based on local conditions. And except on a still day, IT DOESN’T STOP.

MYTH # 3: There won’t be THAT many towers here in Prattsburgh.
Fact: The two wind companies are planning for nearly 100 wind power generating towers – and that’s just PHASE ONE.

MYTH # 4: These industrial towers will be safe to be around.
Fact: The rotating blades have tip speeds up to 180 mph, with the potential to throw ice at high velocity up to 1800’.

MYTH # 5: Besides ice throw, which would never happen in the Summer, there are no other potentially damaging health effects from close proximity to these wind towers.
Fact: At sunrise and sunset, shadow flicker can turn the 230’ spinning rotors into giant strobe generators, which can cause seizures in susceptible individuals. Also, research indicates that the persistent extreme low frequency noise wind towers generate can cause neurological problems. “Wind Farms Make People Sick Up to a Mile Away”, Sunday Telegraph, January 25, 2004.

MYTH # 6: These windfarms won’t take up THAT MUCH space.
Fact: Ecogen’s first 50 towers will have a capacity of 150 megawatts (MW), generating on average 50 MW, only one-third of capacity. A 50MW gas-fired power plant can be sited on a city block. Ecogen’s proposed “Project Area” covers 35 SQUARE MILES. This is the size of the city of Rochester. And this is JUST ONE of the wind companies.

MYTH # 7: Wind power will help free us from foreign oil for generating power.
Fact: The Department of Energy projects that wind power will represent only 1.3% of US generating capacity in 2025 (Annual Energy Outlook 2005). Projected delivered power would be about four-tenths of one percent of US electricity consumption – 17 years from now.

MYTH # 8: Wind power adds to our supply of dependable electricity.
Fact: Because wind power output is highly variable – UNDEPENDABLE – it must be backed up by spinning reserves from fossil fuel electric generating facilities in order to ensure dependable power delivery. Wind power does NOT free us from dependence on conventional electric power generation.

MYTH # 9: These industrial wind projects will generate A LOT OF JOBS.
Fact: Each 50 tower project will generate 8 jobs, or less than one-sixth of a job per tower. Think of it: SIX wind power-generating factory sites for ONE job.

MYTH # 10: The taxes or payments these wind companies will pay will all be “extra” money.
Fact: In similar locales, non-leasing adjacent landowners have experienced a significant drop in property values, in some cases 20-40%. The potential flight of landowners and reductions in the value of recreational, vacation home and retirement property could have a severe negative impact on tax revenues. And now there are concerns that the State would also reduce payments to towns and schools, claiming we’ll no longer need the money.

MYTH # 11: Windmills are safe for the environment.
Fact: Inappropriately sited and constructed wind towers can negatively affect groundwater, and the nearly one-acre swept area of the 230’ spinning rotors is a killing ground for birds.

MYTH # 12: They can’t put these towers THAT CLOSE to my property.
Fact: Prattsburgh has no zoning protection for non-participating landowners. The edge of the rotating blades for these towers can be sited as close as 374 FEET from your property line (489′ from the tower base). The leasing landowners have a say regarding where their towers are placed on their property, you DON’T. Will they want these nearly 400’ noisemaking industrial towers near their house, or NEAR YOURS (or where you want to build your future home)?

MYTH # 13: If I lease my land to the windfarms, it’s “safe” money.
Fact: Unless you require that they do so, the windfarm developers will not indemnify leasing landowners against legal liability for instances in which your neighbors, their visitors, or visitors to YOUR property incur injury or loss resulting from the operation of these windtowers.

MYTH # 14: These industrial towers will be safely sited in an industrial park.
Fact: No. If you live or own property in the 35 square-mile Ecogen “Project Area” – where the great majority of the landowners have NOT leased to the windfarm developers – the industrial park has been brought to you, and you and your neighbors live inside it.

MYTH # 15: Windfarms make good financial sense. They are more cost-effective than other sources or electricity, because they pay nothing for fuel.
Fact: Factoring in all the costs, wind power is nearly TWICE as expensive as fossil fuel electric power generation. Wind power is made financially viable – and, short term, highly profitable for windfarm developers – through multiple tax incentives, power production credits, power purchase guarantees, and NYSERDA cash transfers, and this financial burden is borne by us, the taxpayers. And the electrical utility can pass on higher prices to us, the ratepayers. The green from this “green” power goes to the developers, who often sell off the projects within two years to large corporations for their value as tax shelters.

MYTH # 16: These windfarms are “green” power. We need then to help save us from global warming, and I should pay my utility a premium for it.
Fact: The U.S. Department of Energy projects that, even with the continuation of massive subsidies, wind power will represent only a fraction of the INCREASE in future power production, so wind power won’t impact global warming. Far worse, many wind projects receive Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) based on their projected production, which are then traded to heavy polluters, allowing outdated fossil fuel plants to generate pollution beyond normal regulatory limits. These wind projects are not green power, but BROWN POWER, and your electric utility wants you to pay a premium for it. Extraordinary.

MYTH # 17: We as citizens and land owners have no say in preventing the inappropriate siting of these 400’ high industrial machines.
Fact: Yes, we can step forward and defend ourselves. Concerned residents and landowners in Prattsburgh, Naples and Italy and throughout Upstate New York should join Advocates for Prattsburgh. We need your participation and contributions to help us with our fight to protect our property values, our personal rights, the special character of our towns, and our freedom to live our lives and enjoy our property in peace and quiet. Contact us at Advocates for Prattsburgh, PO Box 221, Prattsburgh, NY 14873, and through our website: www.advocatesforprattsburgh.org.

Go to: “Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague”

Samples:

“The fight for a quieter world becomes obscured when feelings about a noise are divorced from the noise itself. We are told that how we react to a given noise may be influenced by our attitude towards the noise source, our state of health and well-being, our personalities, education, income, previous exposure, ad nauseam. Does the transportation noise problem disappear if we all learn to love driving and flying, or the industries that make these activities possible? Would I have been less disturbed by the subway project if I appreciated what the TA [NY City Transit Authority] was doing for progress? Is a 90-decibel jackhammer really less of a noise because it takes place during the day, or because I’ve heard one before? It is relatively simple to measure the physical quality of the noise signal, its decibel level, frequency distribution, duration, number of occurrences per unit time, etc. It is virtually impossible to measure the significant human response to noise. Schemes for predicting complaints and evaluating annoyance responses are crude guidelines, their effectiveness questioned even by noise specialists.”

The Weighting Game, by Jim Botsford — the players, strategies and winnings:

• Researcher: refines weighting methods endlessly, wins research contracts, publications, etc.
• Noisemaker: lacks information, supports research, waiting for answers, wins postponed expense of noise abatement
• Consultant: helps clients use weightings, wins fees
• Public: wants problem solved, wins nothing, pays bill

“Loudness, perceived noise, ‘A’ or ‘D’ decibels concentrate on one small aspect of the human response to noise: conscious awareness of irritation. Ignored in the formulae are the effects of noise on sleep, on the emotions, and on the biological processes. … Because the prolonged barking of a dog disturbs sleep, we enact ordinances to compel dog owners to keep their pets quiet at night. These anti-barking codes do not specify the size of the dog, or the decibel level of the bark, or even the use of perceived barking dog noise decibels (PBDNdBs). It is accepted that sleep must be protected, and that barking disturbs sleep. Yet when it comes to jet planes or trucks, or air conditioners, all of which can and do disturb sleep, we are asked to wait for the perfect measurement.”

“The methods used to win acceptability for the intense noises of commerce and industry have not worked. Instead, it has become necessary to promote the ‘final’ solution: move the receiver away from the source. ‘To those who complain of [traffic noise] nuisance,’ states a leading acoustical consultant, ‘there is a reasonable reply. Move.’”

“If these men are so secure in their belief that noise is not a serious problem, except as they define it, why do they get so upset at their critics?”

Download excerpts from “The Tyranny of Noise”

As they were finishing construction of their new home, the Spanish wind company Gamesa was finishing up building its windfarm in their neighborhood. In November 2006, a month after Gail and Walter had their house-warming party, the turbines were turned on.

Their lives ever since have been hellish (except for brief trips away). Day after day. Relentless. Unending. Gail and Walter have asked that their diary be circulated widely, in the hope of saving other communities and individuals from the misery and horror they are living through.

Contact information (address, email, and phone) is given at the end of the diary, which is presented exactly as Gail wrote it, honey bees and all (they are hobby beekeepers).

The entries speak for themselves. On re-reading what we’ve been through this year it sounds like someone’s worst nightmare — and so it has been. The idea that someone, somewhere has made a lot of money by effectively dispossessing us, doesn’t bear thinking about, but it happens all the time, all over the world and the horror is creeping nearer home…

The more people know about this, the better.

Download “Italian Windfarm Diary”

On July 14, 2007, the Adivasis of Pangan and Mograpada, small villages at about 70 Km from Dhule suddenly found a fleet of more than 40 vehicles entering their village and before they could comprehend what it was they found themselves getting thrashed. It was at about 1 pm, the police and the Suzlon goons got out in an inebriated state and began thrashing the stray people they found on the roads and putting them into a van. They headed to the spot in Mograpada, about a km away where Suzlon had dug up the first pit for constructing foundation for the tower in the encroached land under Adivasi cultivation in February this year. Adivasis have been agitating against it and had succeeded in preventing the company to work there. Wondering what the police and the company were up to, some 40 to 50 people collected around the land in question from Mograpada. Some people pelted stone to enable the police burst tear gas shells. Adivasis panicked that it was gun fire and ran helter skelter. The police then ran after them and thrashed wounding some 30-40 people, many among them women variously. 18 people, one of them a girl studying for her D Ed were arrested and detained for three days before they were released on bail.

In the face of it, it was a minor incidence by the contemporary standard. Indeed it may not appear noteworthy these days to people inured to read about police firing on hapless Dalits and Adivasis and perpetrating torture and fake encounters stamping them as naxalites. If it was not for its context, it would not have been possible for anyone to take a special note of it. This historical context comprised their agitation that goes back to early sixties; the agitation to secure ownership rights for the forest land they cultivated for generations. It is the agitation that took the issue to the Supreme Court for the first time in the country and won its favourable verdict for all the Adivasis that acknowledged the historical wrong done to them and legitimated the process for its correction. Many corrective legislations also came, before and after the Supreme Court verdict, the latest being the Forest Act in 2006, but nothing changed for the Adivasi on ground. Their agitation continued as before, now for getting the law implemented by the nonchalant Administration. While this was on, they found their lands already transferred to a Wind Energy Multinational over night. The Adivasis’ agitation was now naturally directed against the company’s occupation of lands, although it was basically against the Administration that facilitated it. The Administration succeeded in killing two birds with one stone: one, they could effectively divert the issue and two; they could project the agitation as anti-development, anti-clean energy, anti-Suzlon, which goes well with the contemporary neoliberal paradigm.

This context made this minor-looking incident intriguing enough as it bared the partial character of the state machinery that persistently ignores Adivasis’ lawful demands but bends backward to facilitate the business interests of a multi-national corporate at the expense of justice. This prima facie reading of the information that reached us on August 05, 2007 prompted us to constitute a Fact Finding Enquiry into the incident.

Go to: “Unclean Intrigues Behind Clean Energy”

[Click here for a report about the similar struggle in Oaxaca.]