Resource Library Category: New Zealand (12 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.
Bird species of concern at wind farms in New Zealand
Source: Powlesland, R. G.
ABSTRACT
Wind generation currently contributes about 1.5% of New Zealand’s energy production, but the forecast rapid expansion in wind farm construction is likely to take this to close to 20% over the next 10 years. To date, no published studies are available giving accounts of the impacts of wind farms on birdlife in New Zealand; therefore, part of the challenge is to determine which species are likely to be adversely affected by wind farm construction and operation here. This resource document provides a brief summary of the threat ranking, distribution and movements of native and migrant bird species on the North and South Islands of New Zealand, and the potential impacts that wind farms may have on them (displacement, habitat loss and collision fatalities). The following species warrant particular consideration when present as residents in the vicinity of a wind farm, or when likely to be moving through a wind farm area on migration or during local movements: all kiwi, Australasian crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus), all penguins, threatened species of herons and allies, blue duck (Hymenolaimus malacorhynchos), brown teal (Anas aucklandica), New Zealand falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae), waders (Charadrii), and cuckoos. More research is required into the migratory behaviour of several native species to determine which wind farm sites are most likely to result in collision fatalities. In addition, data on the rates of avoidance of wind turbines by birds flying through wind farms is required, especially for those undertaking nocturnal migrations. The number of collision fatalities at New Zealand wind farms needs to be determined using systematic searches that take account of searcher efficiency and scavenger activity.
September 2009
New Zealand Department of Conservation Research & Development Series 317
Download original document: “Bird species of concern at wind farms in New Zealand”
Concerns regarding draft standard for wind farm noise
Source: Dickinson, Philip
Submission to Standards New Zealand
with regard to
draft Standard DZ 6808:2009
Acoustics – Wind farm noise
from
Philip J Dickinson Ph.D., FASA
13 April, 2009
1 The noise immission in any sleeping area, must meet the World Health Organization’s recommendations to protect public health, and minimise sleep disturbance at night – a level of 30 deciBels (LAeq) for steady continuous noise. The draft does not ensure this.
2 Any low frequency noise components in the sound from the windfarm(s) should be limited to ensure room resonances are not set up in any sleeping area to the degree that sleep is disturbed. The draft treats this as of no significance.
3 Windfarm sound has distinct characteristics and is not masked by natural sounds such as that from the wind in trees. The background sound level should not be assumed to mask windfarm sound – as the draft Standard does.
4 The noise limiting criteria should not be based on the background sound level plus 5 dB or 40 dB whichever is greater. This is not sustainable management, as defined in the Resource Management Act. The criteria to meet should be a fixed value to comply with the WHO recommendations, and not related to the background sound at all.
5 There must be a simple method to show compliance (or non-compliance) with any noise rule set. The measurement metric and methodology used in the draft bring in quite unnecessary complications that prohibit any tests by local authorities to relate the noise immission to local noise ordinances. Once the windfarm is in operation there is little one can do to control its noise emissions under the present or draft standard. This is not acceptable.
6 If the WHO recommendations are to be met, the measurement metric should not be based on long term averages or L90, but be the time average level over a short time period (no more than 10 minutes).
7 Any noise prediction for design compliance must include all other wind farms within the locality, say, within 10 km. The draft considers only the noise from one windfarm at a time, excluding all others. The noise predicted at any noise sensitive location will be underestimated and perhaps greatly so.
8 The noise prediction and all working should be written out – as on a spreadsheet – including base data and any assumptions made, so that it may be verified by anyone. With a computer program one can get almost any answer one likes.
9 From experience, at distances over 2 kilometres, the prediction methodology greatly under-predicts the sound immission, often by more than 15 deciBels. Either a new prediction methodology should be produced – one that relates better to reality – or the Standard should use a protocol where prediction does not come into the equation.
Download original document: “Concerns regarding draft NZ standard for wind farm noise”
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”
Acoustics: Wind farm noise — New Zealand Standards public comment draft
Source: New Zealand Standards
Version 2.5, 2 Feb. 2009
Closing date for comment: 30 April 2009
Comment on line or download comment form: http://www.standards.co.nz/web-shop/?action=viewDraft&draftId=DZ6808&mod=drafts
This Standard covers the prediction, measurement and assessment of the received sound from wind farms. It recommends noise limits that balance the need to avoid disturbance to people living in the vicinity with the need to provide for development of a source of renewable energy.
Limits for wind farm noise are required to provide protection against sleep disturbance and maintain reasonable residential amenity.
In order to provide a satisfactory level of protection against sleep disturbance, this Standard recommends an upper limit of wind turbine sound levels outdoors at residential locations of 40 dB L90.
Primary noise limit
As a guide to the limits of acceptability, at any wind speed wind farm sound levels (LA90(10 min)) should not exceed the background sound level by more than 5 dB, or a level of 40 dB LA90(10 min), whichever is the greater. The noise limit applies at every point within the notional boundary of any noise sensitive location.
Secondary noise limit
In most circumstances the primary noise limit will be adequate to protect health and some degree of amenity. However, at some locations a secondary noise limit may be desirable to afford a greater degree of protection during evening and night-time. A secondary noise limit should only be considered where:
a) Background sound levels during evening or night-time are commonly less than 25 dB when the wind farm sound levels are predicted to exceed the background sound level by 10 dB or more; or
b) Objectives or policies in a district plan promote a higher degree of protection of amenity, related to the sound environment of a particular locality, than generally applies in a district; or
c) District plan rules require a higher degree of protection of amenity related to the sound environment of a particular locality.
Where a secondary noise limit is applicable, wind farm sound levels (LA90(10 min)) should not exceed the background sound level by more than 5 dB, or a level of 35 dB LA90(10 min), whichever is the greater. The noise limit applies at every point within the notional boundary of an existing noise sensitive location where a secondary noise limit is shown to be justified. The secondary limit only applies when the wind speed at the hub-height of the nearest wind turbine is less than 6 m/s, during evening and night-time. During daytime and for higher wind speeds the primary noise limit should always apply. It is recommended that wind farm noise limits should not be set lower than 35 dB L90 at any time.
Claims have been made that low frequency noise and vibration from wind turbines have caused illness and other adverse physiological effects among a very few people worldwide living near wind farms. The paucity of evidence does not justify, at this stage, any attempt to set a precautionary limit more stringent than those
recommended [above].
