Resource Library Category: U.K. (74 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.
Electricity costs: The folly of wind-power
Source: Lea, Ruth
Wind-power: inordinately expensive and ineffective at cutting CO2 emissions
The focus on wind-power, driven by the renewables targets, is preventing Britain from effectively reducing CO2 emissions, while crippling energy users with additional costs, according to a new Civitas report. The report finds that wind-power is unreliable and requires back-up power stations to be available in order to maintain a consistent electricity supply to households and businesses. This means that energy users pay twice: once for the window-dressing of renewables, and again for the fossil fuels that the energy sector continues to rely on. Contrary to the implied message of the Government’s approach, the analysis shows that wind-power is not a low-cost way of reducing emissions.
Electricity Costs: the folly of wind-power, by economist Ruth Lea, uses Government-commissioned estimates of the costs of electricity generation in the UK to calculate the most cost-effective technologies. When all costs are included, gas-fired power is the most cost-efficient method of generating electricity in the short-term, while nuclear power stations become the most cost-efficient in the medium-term.
All that wind takes a lot of gas
Wind-power is acknowledged to cost more than traditional fossil fuel power stations. But estimates from Government-commissioned reports suggest that, when the cost of CO2 emissions is included, onshore wind-power becomes one of the more cost-effective means of generating electricity. Offshore wind does not however. [See p. 12 - p. 23] Unfortunately, these estimates fail to factor in all the costs of wind-power. These costs are due to the fact that energy output from wind is unpredictable and rarely occurs in areas of most demand:
… wind-power is unreliable and requires conventional back-up generating capacity when wind speeds are, for example, very low or rapidly varying … [p. 14]
This means that wind farms need to be supported by conventional capacity including gas-fired power stations that can be switched on whenever the available wind fails to match demand for electricity. Lea cites research by Colin Gibson, former Power Network Director at the National Grid Group, who has produced some of the most comprehensive estimates for these ‘add-on costs’.
When these add-on costs are included, the resultant levelised generating costs (£ per megawatt hour) for the main electricity generating technologies are, for medium-term projects:
- Nuclear pressurised water reactors (PWR): £67.8 per MWh.
- Gas-fired combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGT): £96.5 per MWh.
- Gas CCGT with carbon capture and storage (CCS): £102.6 per MWh.
- Coal (ASC) with CCS: £111.9 per MWh.
- Advanced supercritical (ASC) coal-fired power plants: £133.2 per MWh.
- Onshore wind: £146.3 per MWh (including ‘add-on costs’ of £60 per MWh).
- Offshore wind: £179.4 per MWh (including ‘add-on costs’ of £67 per MWh).
(Note: one megawatt hour can run approximately 1000 desktop computers for 8 hours)
The most cost-effective technologies are nuclear and gas-fired. Onshore, and especially offshore, wind technologies are inordinately expensive.
Pumping out more CO2
Besides the prohibitive costs, the report shows that wind-power, backed by conventional gas-fired generation, can emit more CO2 than the most efficient gas turbines running alone:
In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO2 emissions and wind-power, Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on “normal windy days” in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption, rather than saving it, when compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines. Ironically and paradoxically the use of wind farms therefore actually increased CO2 emissions, compared with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full power. [p. 30]
This means that the cost of having wind is not just carried by consumers but by the environment as well.
Caught in a cross-wind
The report explains how two competing environmental policies have generated a perverse set of priorities. The renewables targets have forced the energy sector to focus on more expensive, less reliable power sources, rather than those most likely to reduce emissions while keeping costs to the rest of economy competitive:
- The Climate Change Act 2008 requires that Britain’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be cut by 80 per cent by 2050 compared with the 1990 level and by 34% by around 2020.
- The EU’s Renewables Directive (2009) commits the UK to sourcing 15% of final energy consumption (FEC) from renewables by 2020. Renewable energy sources include wind, hydro and biomass, but not nuclear power. [pp. 4-5]
This means that UK legislation separately specifies an outcome (reduced CO2 emissions) and a process, more renewable energy.
The outcome itself is substantial and threatens many Britons’ standard of life and employment prospects if not achieved efficiently:
… consultants Redpoint Energy point out “… meeting these targets will mean a radical change in the way the UK produces and consumes energy over the coming decades.” [p. 4]
Unfortunately, the legislated process is ineffective at reaching its supposed outcome. The result of forcing unreliable renewables on the energy sector is higher costs to consumers as well as more CO2 emissions than are necessary for maintaining the electricity grid.
One outcome of this micro-managed approach is that commercial and public sector energy users are, paradoxically, charged under the Climate Change Levy for their use of electricity generated by nuclear power stations (nuclear plants emit no CO2 after construction). The CCL is designed to encourage greater use of renewable energy sources even though wind-power can result in higher CO2 emissions than efficient gas turbines. [pp. 6-7]
The report concludes:
[Wind-power] is expensive and yet it is not effective in cutting CO2 emissions. If it were not for the renewables targets set by the Renewables Directive, wind-power would not even be entertained as a cost-effective way of generating electricity or cutting emissions. The renewables targets should be renegotiated with the EU. [p. 30]
For more information contact:
Ruth Lea, Director of the Manufacturing Renewal Project, 0207 799 6677
Civitas on 0207 799 6677
Notes
i. Ruth Lea is Director of the Manufacturing Renewal Project at Civitas and an economic adviser to the Arbuthnot Banking Group.
ii. Electricity Costs: The folly of wind-power is available to download here.
iii. Civitas is an independent social policy think tank. It has no links to any political party and its research programme receives no state funding.
Download original document: “Electricity costs: The folly of wind-power”
Wind Turbines and Proximity to Homes: The Impact of Wind Turbine Noise on Health
A review of the literature & discussion of the issues ~~
This paper addresses not only the issues of wind energy policy where it violates the basic living environment of families and the adverse health effects ofwind turbine noise, but also assesses the considerable number of anecdotal reports from people living with wind turbine noise. As noted in the authors’ 2007 paper, although there are many who dismiss anecdotal reports as inconsequential or meaningless, these reports are from real people, living with real problems, often with no recourse: they put ‘the human face on science’. The authors also examine how this translates into a human rights issue, as government policy assigns more credibility to acousticians’ reports than to medical evidence, and assigns more importance to renewable energy policy than to the individual lives injured by that policy.
The paper begins with a review of the acoustic impact of wind turbine noise reported by families and communities in the UK as well as similar cases in Japan, Australasia, the United States, Canada, and throughout Europe. This first chapter collates and details some of the evidence of recent reported cases and the extent of discomfort, distress, and health problems suffered by those families with prolonged exposure to wind turbine noise.
Chapter 2 examines the views of leading acoustic experts on the reasons that the acoustic ‘bombardment’ impacts people physically. This chapter also reviews the problems and complexities in interpreting the UK ETSU-R-97 guidance and subsequent apparent difficulty enforcing noise conditions that emerge from ETSU.
Chapter 3 discusses peer-reviewed medical research and reports from internationally recognised authorities, e.g., the World Health Organization, supporting the anecdotal evidence of health problems experienced by families living near wind turbines; these families endure the pulsating noise as well as prolonged exposure. There is also a growing body of evidence-based research substantiating the adverse health impacts of environmental noise pollution, particularly with extended exposure, of which wind turbine noise is an example.
As with many public health issues, the problems with wind turbine noise started with anecdotal reports where turbines were built too close to homes. These complaints emerged in a scattered pattern, because often the people affected did not associate the sudden onset of their sleep disturbances, headaches, or inability to concentrate with the noise. Most people were confident when told by the wind energy companies and their local officials that wind turbines were not intrusive, that the noise produced is easily masked by background noise, and that the noise compared favourably with familiar sounds, e.g., a home fridge, or a quiet conversation in the library. Initially, each affected person thought his or her new symptoms were unique.
As more complaints emerged from those who lived near newly operational wind turbine sites, and those who pinpointed the start of their newly identified health problems with the movement of the blades, some of those affected — and a few health professionals — suspected that the source of their problems might be associated with the noise generated by the wind turbines. This association seemed more likely because the victims’ symptoms were relieved when they were away from their homes or farms. Moreover, the symptoms recurred once they returned home. These patterns emerged only over time, and across many wind turbine areas, internationally. Chapter 3 also reviews several pilot studies conducted by physicians in order to assess the anecdotal reports of health effects from those living near wind turbines.
Chapter 4 considers basic international human rights, apparently sidestepped by Britain, as its environmental policy appears to assign greater priority to the protection of landscape, bats, dormice, and water voles (though the authors certainly applaud those efforts). The State appears to accord more importance to, and enforces with more stringency, those issues to the detriment of policy that protects the health and dignity of families. As a result, in their ambition to achieve renewable energy targets, public officials authorise what amounts to the degrading and inhuman treatment of families.
The influential wind energy industry and its lobbyists, public agencies, environmental organisations, and many media sources often employ pejorative labels, such as NIMBY – Not In My Backyard, to decry or stigmatise those who complain, as insensitive to environmental pollution and global warming, in order to dismiss these anecdotal reports. Yet, it is essential to remember that many of those affected by wind turbine noise were those same people who welcomed the wind turbine schemes and were skeptical of those who complained about potential or actual noise interference. Many early wind turbine noise studies focused on annoyance and identified sleep disturbance as a frequent problem, but these studies did not collect data on health effects. Public health problems often evolve gradually and become more evident only with the passage of time as more people are affected (duration of exposure).
UK government renewable energy policy has focused more on expanding the role of industrial wind turbines rather than ensuring the protection of the health of those exposed to wind turbine noise, i.e., the protection of the public’s health. Thus, the voices of those affected by wind turbine noise have grown more insistent as more wind turbine sites are located near homes and villages. The solution has always seemed transparently straightforward: locate wind turbines further from homes and other sensitive structures. Of course, one must then determine the optimum distance, and there lies the rub, with industry pushing for minimal distances, while many others seek a more precautionary stance, in an effort to protect health, well-being, dignity, and quality of life.
Wind turbine noise is a form of and another cause of environmental noise pollution. Recent studies, both medical and acoustic, offer data to assist with the decision on where to site and how to design wind turbine arrays. Notably, wind energy developers often assert that there are virtually no studies on wind turbine noise and no evidence of its ill effects. However, there are not only studies specifically on the adverse effects of wind turbine noise, there are also studies on noise with similar or shared acoustic characteristics. Wind turbine noise is especially complicated because of the ‘cocktail’ of physical acoustic characters that comprise the noise pollution. The pulsating noise, characteristic of wind turbines, can be more intrusive than other types of noise, and the pulsations include both audible and inaudible components, i.e., low frequency noise, infrasound, and vibration. Noise with these characteristics is more intrusive, and the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend lowering the permissible decibel levels when noise contains these characteristics. WHO makes these recommendations not merely to reduce annoyance or nuisance. WHO makes these recommendations because epidemiological studies indicate clearly that environmental noise is prejudicial and injurious to health. [WHO 1999, 2010, 2011]
WHO’s impartial reports are particularly compelling because they undergo periodic review and updating by its international panel of experts from diverse, related fields. Moreover, the panel’s findings and reports undergo a process of stringent review internally amongst the panelists, as well as externally, by reviewers not on the panel. Most recently WHO issued Night Noise Guidelines for Europe 2009, and the Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise 2011, which, with EU directives and guidelines on noise, offer policy-makers and other invested parties with descriptions of how health is adversely affected by noise, as well as with methodologies to ameliorate or to prevent injury to health from environmental noise.
Those affected by wind turbine noise could be your relatives, friends, neighbours, and even — at some point — you. Often these are people who know austerity intimately, who understand the dilemma of balancing environmental issues such as energy supply and global warming with current policy and future demands. Instead, they are marginalised and made to feel doltish and selfish. They also feel disenfranchised and abandoned by those in whom they have placed their trust. This cynicism is not unfounded, as many are left financially impoverished as they seek advice and support in order to make their voices heard. The issue of wind turbine noise is about real people, who are genuinely suffering degrading and inhuman treatment.
Planning for industrial estates near dwellings is more restrictive on noise control, with those facilities rarely operating daily, 24/7, than the noise controls on wind turbines. Selecting a minimum distance of 2km as a buffer between homes and the placement of a wind turbine — though an even greater distance may be required — is not excessive when the lives and well-being of those affected are taken into account. There is still ample opportunity for developers to site their schemes more appropriately and for government to redress errors in policy that allow these untoward, unpredictable, and unacceptable effects.
Barbara J Frey, BA, MA (University of Minnesota)
Peter J Hadden, BSc (Est Man), FRICS
January 2012
Renewable energy: vision or mirage?
Source: Sharman, Hugh; Leyland, Bryan; and Livermore, Martin
— As renewable energy sources produce power intermittently, they cannot replace gas, coal and nuclear generation, even with further development.
— Solar and wind energy have no prospect of becoming economically competitive in an unrigged market. Government intervention will lead to higher energy costs and jeopardize energy security.
— Increased investment in wind turbines will do little to reduce carbon emissions and fossil fuel consumption.
The report ‘Renewable Energy: Vision or Mirage?’, released today by the Adam Smith Institute and Scientific Alliance, reveals that the government’s focus on renewable energy sources is misguided. The UK’s plans for renewables are unrealistic, and these technologies cannot provide the secure energy supply the country needs. Present policies will lead to an energy crisis by the middle of this decade. The key points from the report are detailed below:
- Wind and solar power do little to reduce carbon emissions, as they need large-scale back up generating capacity to compensate for their intermittency.
- With the decommissioning of many of the UK’s coal-fired stations – and nearly all existing nuclear reactors – over the coming decade, energy security is now a priority for policymakers alongside the drive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. However, even ignoring cost issues, problems of intermittency mean that renewable technologies are incapable of making a major contribution to energy security.
- The Renewable Energy Roadmap for 2020 is hugely overambitious. Renewable energy generation is currently 28% below its already reduced target. Subsidising renewable energy also comes at a cost to consumers who pay for it through higher electricity prices. Nuclear and gas are the most viable energy sources to avoid a capacity crisis in the near future.
Wind turbines are not the solution
- To achieve current targets for wind turbines for 2020, almost 5 wind turbines must be installed every working day, with the majority of them offshore. This is unrealistic.
- No matter how much wind capacity is added, there is no way of storing the energy long enough to avoid the need for backup generators. It cannot ensure the lights stay on, so there can be little reliance on it.
- Experience in other countries shows that a large investment in wind turbines must be matched by large-scale conventional back up generating capacity, which makes any reductions in CO2 emissions quite modest.
- Wind farms in the UK have a capacity factor of only 25%; investment in these farms would not be a commercial proposition without subsidies, even ignoring the intermittency problem.
- Wind power operators in the UK get a higher subsidy per MWh than in other countries in the EU and yet many approved wind farms never get built due to problems connecting to the Grid. Onshore wind turbines face much opposition from the public and off-shore turbines are more expensive to install.
- The operational life for wind turbines is just 20 years. This is much shorter than for coal, gas or nuclear and is another factor making wind power an expensive option.
- Planned high investment in wind power up to 2020 will preclude the possibility of investment in diversified and efficient generating capacity. Wind power is an inefficient of use of taxpayers’ money, is not as green as commonly perceived, and will not provide for the energy needs of the UK.
Solar power
- This is high cost and inefficient at our high latitude.
- The focus of subsidies has been on small scale, domestic installations which are intrinsically less cost effective.
- As there is no technology for long-term, high capacity storage of electricity, this technology cannot help to meet Britain’s energy needs.
- Large solar farms are difficult to build as they need a large land area. This acts as a financial disincentive – nuclear and coal-fired power stations need much less land.
It is difficult not to conclude that the official enthusiasm for renewables has more to do with the power of the green lobby than economics and energy security. Martin Livermore, joint author of the report, adds:
“For too long, we have been told that heavy investment in uneconomic renewable energy was not only necessary but would provide a secure future electricity supply. The facts actually show that current renewables technologies are incapable of making a major contribution to energy security and – despite claims to the contrary – have only limited potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.”
“Consumers have a right to expect government to place high priority on a secure, affordable energy supply. It seems that ministers have not yet realised the need to invest in more nuclear and gas generating capacity if the electorate is not to be badly let down.”
Download original document: “Renewable energy: vision or mirage?”
Den Brook Amplitude Modulation Noise Condition
Source: Moroney, Lee; and Constable, John
The noise most commonly associated with wind farms, and frequently complained of, is the repetitive swishing beat occurring at turbine blade rotation frequency, which is known as Amplitude Modulation (AM) of the aerodynamic turbine noise.
In 2007 the Government commissioned the University of Salford and the Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP) to investigate AM noise by means of a survey of wind farm noise complaints lodged with local authorities. At the time of publication the resulting Salford report1 did not reveal the names of any of the wind farms with noise problems nor the specifics of the noise complaints.
The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) submitted a Freedom of Information request to the University of Salford to obtain this data, and following a ruling by the Information Commissioner, this data was ultimately disclosed. The survey data was published in 20092 and revealed that a significant number of noise complaints were potentially attributable to AM noise.3
There has been an increasing debate, including those at Public Inquiries into proposals for specific wind farms, about the need for an AM noise condition to protect wind farm neighbours from excessive AM noise, which has been blamed for sleep disturbance.
Of particular interest is the case of the Den Brook wind farm application. This project was consented in December 2009 following a second public inquiry during which noise issues were extensively discussed. The Inspector accepted that a planning condition to prevent excessive AM noise was both necessary and reasonable, and included a new AM condition as part of the consent.
Unfortunately, the Inspector’s drafting of the terms surrounding enforcement of this AM condition was ambiguous, resulting in an appeal to the Courts, essentially for clarification. An Appeal Court decision provided that clarity by stating that the AM limits defined in Condition 20 of the Inspector’s decision must be complied with for the 25 year lifetime of the planning permission.4
The Den Brook AM condition
The Den Brook AM condition, Condition 20 of the decision, states:
20. At the request of the local planning authority following the receipt of a complaint the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, employ a consultant approved by the local planning authority, to assess whether noise immissions at the complainant’s dwelling are characterised by greater than expected amplitude modulation. Amplitude modulation is the modulation of the level of broadband noise emitted by a turbine at blade passing frequency. These will be deemed greater than expected if the following characteristics apply:
a) A change in the measured L Aeq, 125 milliseconds turbine noise level of more than 3 dB (represented as a rise and fall in sound energy levels each of more than 3 dB) occurring within a 2 second period.
b) The change identified in (a) above shall not occur less than 5 times in any one minute period provided the L Aeq, 1 minute turbine sound energy level for that minute is not below 28 dB.
c) The changes identified in (a) and (b) above shall not occur for fewer than 6 minutes in any hour.
Noise immissions at the complainant’s dwelling shall be measured not further than 35m from the relevant building and not closer than within 3.5m of any reflective building or surface, or within 1.2m of the ground.
At first glance this condition appears complex and it has excited controversy, in part because it has been argued that it is difficult to distinguish wind farm AM noise from other noises in the environment.
We believe that it would be a useful contribution to the understanding of the potential application of the Den Brook noise condition if it were used to assess actual, i.e. real and empirical, wind farm noise data.
However there is little useful wind farm noise data in the public domain. We are fortunate in that we have recently obtained data collected by the Hayes McKenzie partnership as part of a Government contract in 2005 to investigate low frequency noise at wind farms. 5
That this raw noise data has come into the public domain is testament to the determination of an individual who, with the assistance of the local MP and advice from the Campaign for Freedom of Information and the Information Commissioner, succeeded in obtaining the data from the Department of Energy and Climate Change in spite of a surprising unwillingness on the part of DECC officials to facilitate its release. 6
Applying the Den Brook Noise Condition to Real Wind Farm Data
In order to demonstrate the Den Brook noise condition in application to wind farm noise data we have extracted a sample subset from the Hayes McKenzie data. This consists of noise levels (LAeq) measured at 100 millisecond (ms) intervals, where the overall level exceeds 28dB as dictated by condition 20(b). This measurement frequency is a finer level of granularity than required by the condition and a good match for the LAeq, 125 milliseconds measurements defined in 20 (a) of the condition.
The following graph shows a one minute period of this data, a time interval chosen because it is that which is specified in condition 20(b).
Figure 1: Period 10: One minute of LAEq (100ms) wind turbine noise levels from 14 May 2005, 03:09:00. The dots above the general noise level line show AM peaks in noise level where the rise and fall exceeds 3dB.
For this one-minute period, a breach of the AM condition requires, firstly, that the overall level exceeds 28 dB(A): the minimum level is 37.3dB(A) in this period so that requirement is met. Secondly, it requires that AM peak-to-trough changes in LA(eq) exceed 3 dB ‘(represented as a rise and fall in sound energy levels each of more than 3 dB) occurring within a 2 second period’. A dot has been placed above every peak in Figure 1 that exceeds 3 dB.
The following chart displays a six-second period extracted from Figure 1 that demonstrates more clearly the levels of rise and fall in each two-second period. It can be seen that in each of the three two-second periods there is at least one example of a rise and fall in noise level of more than 3 dB. These changes demonstrate a breach of the condition under the terms of 20 (a). Counting the number of similar amplitude peaks in Figure 1 (marked with a dot above the line of the turbine noise level), it can be seen that there are at least 16 in that one-minute sample. This demonstrates that this particular minute is in breach of the AM condition as described at 20 (b).
Figure 2: Period 10: The six-second period from 8–14 seconds taken from Figure 1, demonstrating the rise and fall in noise levels.
The final stage necessary to demonstrate breach of the condition is described at 20(c) and requires that there are at least six minutes in an hour demonstrating the defined level of AM. In Appendix 1 of this report we give a further five charts of one-minute periods within the same hour that also display the features typical of AM in breach of the condition.
We therefore conclude that this dataset indicates a breach of the Den Brook AM Condition 20.
It is also relevant to this discussion to consider if the amplitude modulation displayed here is attributable to wind farm noise or perhaps arises from some other noise in the environment. There are a number of ways of ensuring that the noise measured is wind farm noise, the obvious one being a simultaneous audio recording.
However, we can also inspect the noise levels displayed in the various graphs for any characteristic signature or structure, and in this case we observe that there are periods of clearly regular beats. If the wind farm is the source of the noise then the frequency of the beats will agree with the blade passing frequency of the turbines. The data in Figure 1 indicates beating approximately once per 0.7 second, corresponding to a blade passing frequency of 1.4 per second or 28 revolutions per minute, which is a plausible rate of rotation for this wind turbine. This conclusion could be verified against the SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) data automatically accumulated at each turbine, but unfortunately we do not have access to this information.
Conclusion
We believe that this exercise demonstrates that the Den Brook condition is straightforward and that it is possible for this condition to be employed in a transparent and objective manner to demonstrate the existence of excess AM in wind turbine noise.
The point of the current analysis is simply and solely to demonstrate the technical application of the key elements of the Den Brook noise condition to real wind farm noise data and we have shown that this is possible and can be conducted in a clear and objective manner. It should be noted, however, that we have not set out in this paper to prove that the particular wind farm in question would breach the Den Brook AM noise condition in a legal sense and indeed this AM condition does not apply to that windfarm. To do so would require evidence demonstrating that the noise measurements were compliant with the final part of the condition, namely that the measurements were taken not closer than 3.5m to any reflective building or surface, or within 1.2m of the ground, and we have no information on this matter, but if such evidence were available then legal breach of the condition could, in principle, be demonstrated.
These findings should be welcomed by both wind-farm neighbours, developers, and decision makers in the planning process. AM noise provokes complaints and heated debates, and an enforceable, objective, condition to cap such noise gives all parties clarity, as well as sparing neighbours and developers the trouble, expense, and uncertainty of private nuisance actions. The Den Brook condition appears to be a readily workable solution to this very real problem.
Dr Lee Moroney
Dr John Constable
References
1. Moorhouse, Hayes, von Hunerbein, Piper, Adams, “Research into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise” (NANR233) July 2007. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file40570.pdf
3. G. P. van den Berg, ‘Why is wind turbine noise noisier than other noise?’, Euronoise (2009).
4. See Hulme v SoS for Communities & Local Government & Ors 2011 EWCA Civ 638. Available from: http://www.richardbuxton.co.uk/v3.0/node/520
5. ‘The measurement of low frequency noise at three UK wind farms’, DTI 06/1412 Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd, 2006, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sources/renewables/publications/page31267.html
6. The private individual who received the data from DECC has kindly given REF a copy. The released material consists of approximately 70 GB of data on a hard drive in a format only readable using proprietary software. We have extracted some of the 100ms LAeq wind turbine noise data and would be happy to provide that as a text file on request for others to analyse.
Appendix 1
Figure 3: Period 9: One minute of LAEq (100ms) wind turbine noise levels from 14 May 2005, 03:08:00. The dots above the general noise level line show AM peaks in noise level where the rise and fall exceeds 3dB.
Figure 4: Period 2: One minute of LAEq (100ms) wind turbine noise levels from 14 May 2005, 03:01:00. The dots above the general noise level line show AM peaks in noise level where the rise and fall exceeds 3dB.
Figure 5: Period 13: One minute of LAEq (100ms) wind turbine noise levels from 14 May 2005, 03:12:00. The dots above the general noise level line show AM peaks in noise level where the rise and fall exceeds 3dB.
Figure 6: Period 3: One minute of LAEq (100ms) wind turbine noise levels from 14 May 2005, 03:02:00. The dots above the general noise level line show AM peaks in noise level where the rise and fall exceeds 3dB.
Figure 7: Period 6: One minute of LAEq (100ms) wind turbine noise levels from 14 May 2005, 03:05:00. The dots above the general noise level line show AM peaks in noise level where the rise and fall exceeds 3dB.
Download original document: “The Den Brook Amplitude Modulation Noise Condition “
