Resource Library Category: Sweden (9 items)
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. This resource library is 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.
Danish and Swedish news – 2010
Source: Skeel Hjorth, Peter
The inhuman face of Swedish wind power
Ahead of December’s UN climate conference in Copenhagen new superpower dreams have emerged in Sweden, which on 1st July took over the presidency of the EU. New winds are blowing in Sweden, and this time it is superpower dreams in the energy field, which are to lift up the country to new heights politically, economically and commercially.
One of the heavyweights in the Swedish energy rearmament is wind power at a cost of 80 billion Swedish crowns (SEK) for wind turbines alone. Money will also be spent to improve hydro power capacity and other energy sources, which is to substitute wind farms when the wind is not blowing. Including the cost of expanding and upgrading the electrical network, changes to the roads and other infrastructure, plus the financial and other costs, the total comes to a staggering 500 billion SEK (47 billion Euros) until 2020.
It is a baffling aspiration at a time when an ever increasing doubt is mounting about the blessings of wind power. On top of that it has become known that the Uppsala University wind maps, which caused euphoria in pro-wind circles when they were published in 2006 (revised 2007), prove to be over-optimistic. The wind does not blow quite as much as we are told by the university’s man-fed computers.
“We Moderates will use the EU to make Sweden strong in Europe, and Europe strong in the world” proclaimed Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt in a full-page paid election advertisement in the days leading up to the EU elections. A few days later a report from the Moderates party suggested a big increase in nuclear power so that Sweden can export electricity to its eastern neighbours in order to minimise CO2 emissions and the use of fossil fuel in these countries.
But Sweden has a coalition government, and a firm decision on nuclear expansion hasn’t been made. The coalition has agreed, however, that existing nuclear plants will be replaced by new ones as they age.
“Wind power can lift Sweden” was the splashing headline of a debate article in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet of February 3rd by the secretary-general of the Nature Protection Society, the director of the state institution Swedish Energy Agency, the head of Vattenfall Norden and three other heavyweights of the Swedish business community having vested interest in wind power. The authors support the EU’s energy policy. In Sweden, they say, wind power will create jobs, produce clean energy, bring in revenues from export, and benefit the environment.
They further wrote: “The authorities should contribute through an efficient approval process; Government and the Legislature through clearer rules; agreements should be negotiated with other countries willing to buy efficient wind power from Sweden; but first and foremost, we should build the infrastructure of a sustainable electricity distribution system”.
The article, and the authors behind it, show beyond any doubt the magnitude of the vested interests in Swedish wind power. The partly state-owned Vattenfall is ready to invest billions in British wind power and has offered approximately 600 billion SEK to a British energy company that was given permission to build several wind farms in Wales : one at sea, and five on land where the population is outraged, much like what is now happening in many places in Sweden.
In Sweden the declared goal of the government, as advocated by the Swedish Energy Agency, is to produce 30TWh of electricity from 6000 wind mills by the year 2020. The green-industrial complex wants to build twice as many. The aim of the wind industry is, ultimately, not climate change, but profits on an unprecedented scale. For the man in the street wind power will be a very costly affair. Every single Swede must be prepared in future to budget for very big extra expenses in electricity.
Wind power will divide the population into two groups – a small minority that will become rich on subsidised wind farms, and the vast majority that will become poorer as it foots the bills. In addition, many will lose a substantial part of their savings when wind farms are built near their homes, affecting negatively their value.
With unparalleled eagerness and greed, energy companies in all sizes have fallen upon the virgin Swedish market. The most wind-swept counties have been carpet-bombed in the last two years by applications from big companies like Eon, Vattenfall and Stena Renewable, plus a number of small and medium enterprises. There is no restraint shown regarding the siting of wind turbines. Natural parks and nature reserves are not spared. As stated by the Swedish newspaper Sven Razorblades: wind power is supposed to save the climate, it can thus destroy valuable nature.
People too don’t matter: a mastodon like Eon has no qualms in erecting a wind turbine of 150-200 metres in height only 500 metres from a home.
No surprise either that behind the article in Aftonbladet we find: businessmen, a top Government official, and the secretary-general of the society that is supposed to protect nature. It is abundantly clear that politicians, public administrations, and business people are working tightly together and are co-coordinating their efforts against protests from nature lovers and local residents who object to having their nature turned into industrial areas for negligible benefit.
The population, ‘come hell or high water’, is forced to accept expensive wind-power and to live with 150-200 metre-high wind turbines in their immediate surroundings. The government has four ‘wind power coordinators’ to clear obstacles out of the way. Formally they are neutral public servants. In reality they are merely the tools of the wind power business.
The ambivalence of interests reaches the very top of Swedish society. In a small, exclusive society of wind power investors and players we also find the major banks (except one), a huge insurance company, other financial institutions, and 3-4 of the country’s biggest firms of lawyers.
The Swedish Energy Agency is a very active participant in the expansion of wind power, and is starting to look like a Ministry of Propaganda. It sends out an electronic news letter about wind power that is systematically white-washed from any hint of criticism or problem. The latest is from June 18th and is about the first Global Wind Day; it says: “On this day there are fairs, lectures, and films shown in no less than 35 countries where the importance of wind power is highlighted”.
Read again: “… where the importance of wind power is highlighted”. This is neither information nor communication, only pure and simple propaganda on a scale not seen since the days of the twentieth century totalitarian ideologies.
The Swedish Energy Agency also runs an information/marketing network to promote wind power, which is a free lunch for the industry. Furthermore it is behind an educational program called Vindval – meaning the wind choice. The very combination of the word is biased, as we are not given any choice. There is no hiding at all that the aim is the increased use of wind power by eliminating obstacles to the expansion of wind farms.
The Vindval program is to provide biased science and arguments to help assess how wind power influences the landscapes, interferes with neighbours and people´s perception of wind power. The idea is also to spread (one-sided) information about wind power at Swedish universities, colleges, institutes, and companies as well as counties and other authorities. The program committee is comprised of a number of Swedish authorities, and representatives of the wind power business.
This commingling of interests extends all the way to universities. On September 8th last year a report was published about “Experiences of setting up wind power – anchorage, acceptance and resistance” by two researchers at the Lund University. This report, which is passed off as impartial scientific work, is part of Vindval’s programme to pave the way for acceptance of wind energy in Sweden.
“A project that is forced through despite resistance can result in strong resistance groups that stay active for a long time after the end of the process and obstructs future development of wind power in the area” the report states. “The analysis has clearly shown that it is very important that the local population and the local authorities see the possibilities in a wind power project in order that the process can be properly anchored” the researchers write; and they put forward some very direct suggestions on how to meet resistance: for instance through the promise of sharing financial benefits in a co-ownership scheme.
In conclusion the two researchers recommend: “Do not force projects on areas with big resistance”, and they warn: “Although this can be effective in the short term perspective, forced establishments undermine future wind power development possibilities. It can be detrimental to the confidence in wind power, sustainable energy, energy companies, authorities etc. It could put a halt to wind power development in the area for a long time”.
These words could come straight out of a political manual, but the publication is called “scientific report”. In Sweden, wind power is thus imposed on the population whether they want it or not. All methods are employed – from blatantly disregarding people’s protests, paying people to move, and offering financial sweeteners, to commissioning biased research at university level.
To the outside world the Swedish government is saying: we will save the planet. And at home it joins forces with big business, serves their financial interests, and puts a stranglehold on all resistance to what it presents as being “Salvation”. Lately, on June 9th, Swedish television informed the public that three Scanian councils have joined forces, planning to minimise the risk of protests where new wind farms are to be erected.
The approval process is now speeding up. Starting August 1st wind power is to be considered according to environmental laws only, and no longer needs to obey building and planning laws. That gives an even freer hand to the business interests that, in Sweden, control the popularly elected government whose job it is, among other things, to protect citizens against encroachment and violations, wind turbines included.
Conclusion:
Wind farms are being increasingly questioned in countries that have many of them, for they did not permit to close a single nuclear or fossil fuel plant, and failed to reduce CO2 emissions. With time they will also increase sharply the price of electricity; and this will further hurt European industry, already beleaguered by competition from emerging economic giants like China.
It stands to reason that wind farms’ perceived climate change benefits should be measured by independent scientists before Sweden ploughs huge amounts of tax money into their development. Likewise, we need an objective assessment of the collateral damage their expansion will cause to people, the economy, and the environment.
In any event, the raw power of big money should not be allowed to trample people and their lives. Sweden is a democracy founded on the rule of law, and throwing away this principle is a risky proposition. Once this democratic safeguard is gone, the door will be open to all kinds of abuses, including totalitarian practices.
More work by Peter Skeel Hjorth:
Organized resistance is beginning to stir in Sweden
More and more fellow citizens face problems
Referred to an institute for sleep disorders because of wind turbine noise
Rotating monuments to commemorate political leaders who collectively lost their heads
Neighbours on the barricades against wind turbines in Denmark
This man accepts total wind turbine domination
Swedish councils’ right to veto under attack
Five Directions: Final report from the Energy Crossroads project
Source: Swedish Royal Academy of Engineering Sciences
(Kungl. Ingenjörs Vetenskaps Akademien, IVA)
This report, among other things, looks realistically at the practicality of expanding wind power, noting that it is expensive, is not cost-effective, would be substantially exported, and requires new transmission infrastructure and reserve capacity for backup.
English summary
Sweden needs to secure its energy supply on competitive terms for industry, while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
This is a challenging vision, but Sweden is in a good position from which to proceed. Sweden already has climate-friendly electricity production and our industries are energy-efficient and adapted to meet high environmental standards. Sweden is also in a position to have an impact and make its voice heard internationally on the climate and energy issue. But transforming the energy system requires major investment and will take a long time. That is why the rules of the game need to be stable; in other words, we need a long-range and predictable energy policy. Broad political agreement on energy policy would be a step in the right direction.
The most important climate goal is to curb the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Improving energy efficiency, renewable energy and the continued use of nuclear power are means of achieving this goal, as is the introduction of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. This goal is in line with the EU’s so-called 20-20-20 objective.
To achieve this goal, our politicians must choose wisely and cost-effectively, i.e. begin with the measures that lead to the most climate benefits for the money. Otherwise energy consumers will have to pay dearly, our industries will become less competitive and we will risk losing jobs to other countries.
The most cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is using so-called market-based mechanisms which set a “market price” on emissions. Emissions trading is one such market-based mechanism. Carbon tax is another example. The result of these measures is that fossil fuels and electricity produced from fossil fuels are charged with higher costs. This is not the case for electricity and heating from carbon-neutral energy production, which therefore become more competitive. But if this system is to work in an optimal way, we need a global market – and we are not there yet.
Market-intervention control mechanisms, such as subsidies, charges and regulations, may be effective in the short term, but increase uncertainty and distort competition. In reality we will need to have a mix of market-based and market-intervention control mechanisms. The energy policy of the future should be based on carbon tax and emissions trading. These can be complemented by market-intervention control mechanisms, but it is important that the start and end dates for such control mechanisms are made clear in advance.
Improving energy efficiency is a cost-effective way of achieving lower greenhouse gas emissions. There are areas here where Swedish industry is far ahead of the pack; areas such as the electrification of vehicles, building and operating district heating networks, energy efficiency improvement within industry and better use of residual heat. There are many opportunities for greater efficiency in buildings throughout Sweden. Property owners are key here. But companies working with energy consulting and energy efficiency also have an important role to play.
Investing in renewable energy is one way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But it is important to aim for a reasonable level to get the most climate benefits for the money. Sweden already has the largest percentage of renewable energy in Europe – around 40 percent, compared to the European average of around 10 percent. The Government’s goal is to increase the percentage of renewable energy to 50 percent by 2020; the opposition party’s goal is slightly higher, at 53 percent. Plans in place to achieve these goals include expanding wind power up to 30 TWh. This would require Swedish electricity consumers to subsidise the expansion to the tune of SEK 10–15 billion per year through the electricity certificate system. It is unlikely, however, that wind power will be expanded to the extent planned, but instead as and when reserve power and the power grid are expanded. The figure would then be significantly lower than 30 TWh. A reasonable expansion of wind power (equivalent to about half of the planned 2020 goal) would mean using more resources for measures with a better climate effect, e.g. the introduction of electric vehicles.
In addition to wind power we also want to highlight the renewable energy potential offered in the form of hydropower and bioenergy.
Energy tax is high; the Swedish government collects SEK 68 billion on oil and SEK 40 billion on electricity every year. One question to ask the politicians is if, and in such a case how, they will make up for the reduction in tax revenues from oil as we move into a fossil-free society.
In addition to reducing the impact on climate change, there are clearly several other factors shaping Sweden’s energy and climate policies. One aspect may be that Sweden wants to serve as a model internationally. Other factors are securing the energy supply, geopolitical considerations, and Sweden’s current account and economic policy. The transition to a sustainable society involves significant opportunities, both for manufacturing and service sector companies aimed at the Swedish market as well as for export companies.
Energy Crossroads is aimed at decision-makers who are in a position to influence energy policy. The main idea has been to use analysis and discussion to identify the measures that provide the most climate benefits for the money. We have identified five areas – or directions – which we believe are the most important.
Direction 1. Prioritise energy efficiency
Prioritise energy efficiency as the overall energy policy instrument. Sweden can save 15 TWh by improving energy efficiency with the control mechanisms currently in place. With “market pricing” for emissions the most cost-effective measures will be implemented first. Instead of detailed regulation and costly initiatives, we will have a long-term reduction in total energy consumption. Energy efficiency improvement is also saleable internationally, profitable from a public finances perspective and a concrete concept for energy consumers. There is still great potential for the use of residual heat by our industries, for both internal and external use.
Direction 2. Invest in measures that are the most beneficial for the climate
Increasing the percentage of energy we get from renewable sources does not automatically lower greenhouse gas emissions. We should increase the percentage of renewable energy, but a forced expansion would be unreasonably expensive. If implemented with today’s support systems, the renewable energy objective and today’s plans for expanding wind power up to 30 TWh would be costly for Sweden’s electricity consumers unless alternative financing is found. Expanding wind power requires investment in the power grid, expanding reserve power (hydropower) and raising subsidies. Expanding wind power too much could lead to surplus electricity and wind power exporting – paid for by Sweden’s electricity consumers. There are more cost-effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases. The renewable energy goal should steer us towards reducing the use of fossil fuels – not a one-sided investment in a single climate-friendly alternative.
Direction 3. Invest in electric vehicles
Make Sweden a pioneer in electric vehicles. The demand for fossil fuels will continue to be high. Fully applying the emissions trading system would force up prices and would be a tough blow for our industries’ ability to compete. We therefore propose adding market-intervention measures in the transport sector to stimulate a faster phasing out of fossil fuels. We should invest in electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids which could reduce the amount of carbon dioxide from private cars by 20 percent.
Direction 4. Continue to use nuclear power
Preserving nuclear power is probably the single most important measure to reduce costs to reach the climate policy goals. Also, nuclear power meets a number of criteria that are very valuable for industry. Access to secure basic power is of utmost importance. Nuclear power and hydropower will continue to be the foundation of this basic power and will ensure long-term competitive electricity production. The future of nuclear power is a tough issue for society. But the choice between using or not using nuclear power in Sweden and other European countries where nuclear power is being debated again is one of the most important choices to be made in setting climate policy.
Direction 5. Prepare for a warmer climate
The EU’s 20-20-20 goal, the agreement by the G8 nations to reduce greenhouse gases by 50 percent by 2050 and a new climate agreement in Copenhagen are all political instruments aimed at reducing emissions. But unfortunately there are few indications that the current emissions trend will be broken any time soon. Despite international efforts and initiatives, it will be difficult to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the next 20 years. For this reason, while implementing the most powerful climate measures possible, Sweden needs to prepare for a warmer climate. More research is needed into the consequences of an increase in temperature and the indirect effects in the form of migrating populations, water shortages and disease.
Download original document (Swedish): “De Fem Vägvalen”
Europe, France, Germany, Health, Human rights, New Zealand, Noise, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Property values, Regulations, Safety, Scotland, Sweden, U.K. •
Changes in Wind Turbine Setbacks
Source: Palmer, William
Note that Setbacks can have both physical safety rationale — for reasons of potential injury — and noise rationale — for reasons of annoyance and health effects
United Kingdom
Derek Taylor, 1991, “How to Plan the Nuisance Out of Wind Energy”, suggested setback from wind turbines with a 30 metre rotor to roadways and lot lines, of 50 metres adequate to a lightly traveled road, 100 metres to a heavily traveled road, and 120 to 170 metres to a home [4-5.7 times rotor diameter].
UK Noise Association, 2006, states, “It would be prudent that no wind turbine should be sited closer than 1 mile (1600 metres) from the nearest dwellings … Wind farms should only be located in areas where the “swish, swish, swish” of the turbines will not cause noise problems for people.”
United Kingdom – Scotland
From the limits identified above …
Scottish Planning Policy SPP6 – Renewable Energy (2007)
France
From no limits for safety setbacks …
Original setbacks were that noise at night should not exceed 3 dBA above background sound at night (background may be 25 to 30 dBA at night in rural areas)
Administrative Court of Appeal, Lyon, April 2006, determined a “zone of protection of 500 metres” from wind turbines to areas where people can be.
Academy of Medicine, March 2006, recommended a setback of 1500 metres from wind turbines to homes until an epidemiological study could be carried out to determine health effects.
Nova Scotia
Pubnico Point Wind Farm – No standard resulted in setback from turbine to home of 370 metres, and sound up to 13 dbA above the Ontario limit of 40 dBA.
Glen Dhu Wind Farm, October 2008, established setbacks of 1200 metres from homes of participating residents, and 1440 metres from non-participating residences.
Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbines be from homes?
In 2000 used sound limits with a rising limit as ground level wind speed rose. Limit was 40 dBA at 1 m/s and increased to 50 dBA at 12m/s.
(Ontario used this as a model to develop its sound limits, although Ontario limits allowed 53 dBA at 12 m/s, and continue to allow 51 dBA at 11 m/s even after revision).
In 2007, the Netherlands changed to a fixed upper limit for wind turbine sound of 40 dBA – recognizing the change in wind profile at night. The Netherlands is currently investigating a new monitoring method based on Lden. This is a rating of community noise exposure that differentiates between daytime, evening and nighttime noise exposure, and penalizes nighttime noise.
Germany
Rural noise from wind turbines is limited to 35 dBA at night.
Compare Ontario’s 51 dBA nighttime limit and Germany’s 35 dBA limit -note that every 6 dBA (e.g. 35 vs 41 dBA) difference means the turbines in Germany will be twice as far away as in Ontario – a 12 dBA difference (e,g, 35 vs 47 dBA) means they are 4 times further away in Germany than Ontario.
Sweden
Limits noise to 35 dBA in recreational areas in evening and at night, and to 40 dBA in residential areas at night. The measurement must be done with 10 metre wind speeds of 8 m/s. Ontario regulations permit 45 dBA at 8 m/sec.
European Union
Within the European Union the Commission has made a proposal for common noise immission level descriptions and evaluation methods. It is primarily intended for traffic noise but can be expanded to include other areas, such as wind power noise. It suggests an equivalent annual average sound level (Lden) where the night level has a penalty of 10 dBA and the evening level of 5 dBA. The day is in this case is 12 hours, the evening 4 hours and the night 8 hours.
New Zealand
NTS6808:1998, “The Assessment and Measurement of Sound From Wind Turbines”, requires the calculation of a background noise level prior to construction of a wind farm. NTS68001:1991 limits sound from all activity except wind turbines to 35 dBA from 8:00 PM to 7:00 AM. NTS6808 limits sound from wind turbines to 40 dBA or 5dBA over background sound. Sounds with a “special audible characteristic” (clearly audible tones, impulses, or modulation of sound level) shall have a 5 dBA penalty.
The Environmental Court of New Zealand issued a decision July 20, 2007, that required that when the background sound conditions are at 25 dBA or less, the noise from a wind farm shall not exceed 35 dBA at any dwelling as an absolute limit.
Sound levels in rural Ontario are typically less than 35 dBA at night. Yet, Ontario continues to have guidelines that allow up to 51 dBA, and rejects applying a penalty for cyclic noise as New Zealand does.
Hydro One, System Networks
2005 to Dec 2007 – setback of overall height of turbine (tower plus blade radius) to edge of right of way. Dec 2007 to July 2008 – increased setback to greater of 150 metres or overall height of turbine.
As of July 2008 increased setbacks to edge of right of way for 500 kV assets (critical assets) of 500 metres, to 230 kV (redundant assets) of 250 metres, and to 115 kV assets (for which loss tends to be an inconvenience but not a significant one) of 150 metres.
CanWEA, Proposed By-Laws for Rural Municipalities in Ontario
Recommends setbacks to lot lines of non-participating property, road right of ways, or non residential buildings on a participating property need not exceed blade length plus 10 metres (typically 51 metres)
Recommends setbacks to residential buildings should not be less than 200 metres (or as required to meet MOE CofA requirements)
Interesting to compare the 51 metres that CanWEA reconnnds to protect the lives of people, compared to the 500 metre safety setback that Hydro One calls for to protect its critical assets.
From this should one conclude that the lives of people do not matter as much as a hydro line?
Download original document: “Changes in Wind Turbine Setbacks”
Wind turbines—low level noise sources interfering with restoration?
Source: Pederson, Eja; and Persson Waye, Kerstin
Abstract. Wind turbines generate a low level noise and would thus not be expected to cause annoyance and disturb rest. In a society where people are being exposed to an increasing noise load, moderate and low level noise sources may also be perceived as annoying and hence inhibit restoration. This article presents an analysis of two socio-acoustic studies of wind turbine noise with the emphasis on perception, annoyance and consequences for restoration. It is hypothesized that low and moderate stressors such as wind turbine noise could have an impact on health. The risk seems to be higher if restoration is, or is perceived to be, impaired and also for certain groups of individuals. The observations warrant further studies.
Environmental Research Letters 3 (January-March 2008) 015002
Received 11 June 2007; Accepted 22 August 2007; Published 11 January 2008
Go to: “Wind turbines—low level noise sources interfering with restoration?”
