Small System (up to 25 kW, max. ht. 60 ft.) Attached to a house: None

Small System (up to 25 kW, max. ht. 75 feet) Not attached to a house: 1 foot for each foot of height from any property line and 1 foot for each foot of height from any vacant or occupied dwelling unit on the same property (but If the Planning Director or designee determines there will be no significant impact on abutting properties or those across a stream, lake, or other body of water, no such setback is required from the waterward property line for a turbine placed in a body of water or on a dock or pier)

Large System (more than 25 kW and less than 1,000 kW, max. ht. 199 feet): 1,300 feet

Utility-scale (max. ht. 550 feet): 6 feet for each foot of height

Such minimum setbacks for a wind energy facility shall be measured from its outermost extension (whether blade tip, nacelle/turbine housing, or tower/pole edge) that is nearest the subject property line, public or private r-o-w, and access easement. Wind Turbine Height: The distance measured from the lowest adjacent grade to the highest point of the structure, including any attachments, such as a lightening protection device or a turbine rotor or tip of the turbine blade when it reaches its highest elevation.

The Large System or Utility-scale Wind Energy Facility shall:

A. Be a non-obtrusive color (such as light blue, off-white or light gray) that blends with the sky, as determined by the Planning Director or designee.
B. Not be artificially lighted, except to the extent required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other applicable authority that regulates air safety.
C. Not contain any signs or other advertising (including flags, streamers or decorative items or any identification of the turbine manufacturer, facility owner and operator). This does not include any identification plaques that might be required by the electric utility or governmental agency.
D. Be maintained to minimize noise from the turbine, any engines or motors, and the blades or propellers.
E. Be sited and operated so as to not interfere with television, internet service, telephone (including cellular and digital), microwave, satellite (dish), navigational, or radio reception in neighboring areas. The applicant and/or operator of the facility shall be responsible for the full cost of any remediation necessary to provide equivalent alternate service or correct any problems; including relocation or removal of the facility caused or exacerbated by the operation of such equipment and any and all related transmission lines, transformers, and other components related thereto.
F. Have a leak containment system for oil, hydraulic fluids, and other non-solids that is certified by an expert (such as an engineer, turbine manufacturer, etc.) acceptable to the Planning Director or designee that all such fluids will be captured before they reach the ground. The applicant shall pay the cost of the expert.

The applicant shall provide a shadow flicker and blade glint report for each proposed wind energy facility. The report shall:

A. Evaluate the worst case scenarios of wind constancy, sunshine constancy, and wind directions and speeds.
B. Map and describe the zones where shadow flicker and blade glint will likely be present within the project boundary and a one-mile radius beyond the project boundary.
C. Identify existing residences and the locations of their windows, locations of other structures, wind speeds and directions, and existing vegetation and roadways.
D. Calculate the locations of shadow flicker caused by the proposed project and the expected durations of the flicker at these locations, including outdoor viewsheds.
E. Calculate the total number of hours per year of flicker at all locations, including the outdoor viewshed.
F. Identify problem zones within a one-mile radius where shadow flicker will interfere with existing or future residences and roadways and describe proposed measures to mitigate these problems.

Based upon the findings of the report, the wind energy facility shall be designed so that shadow flicker or blade glint will not fall on or in any roadway or occupied property.

A. Shadow flicker or blade glint that falls on a portion of an occupied property is acceptable only under the following circumstances:
1. The flicker or glint does not exceed 120 seconds per day for 7 consecutive days, with a 20-hour maximum per year and
2. The flicker or glint falls more than 100 feet from an existing residence or business property.

B. Shadow flicker or blade glint that falls on a roadway is acceptable only under the following circumstances:
1. The traffic volumes are less than 500 vehicles per day on the roadway and
2. The flicker or glint shall not fall onto an intersection of public roads.

No Large System or Utility-scale wind energy facility or any generators, equipment, or apparatus shall produce noise above 45 decibels for more than 5 consecutive minutes, as measured at any property line. … If noise levels exceed 80 decibels for more than 24 consecutive hours, as measured at any property line, the applicant and/or owner shall shut down the wind energy facility within 3 (three) business days of being informed to do so by the Planning Director or designee.

Download “Carteret County Tall Structure Ordinance”

[These data suggest] that MOE’s 40 dB(A) regulations meet the needs of only 60% of Ontario’s rural population. If MOE were to adopt regulations based on noise not exceeding any receptor point’s lowest pre-existing ambient background level by more than 3 dB(A) by night and 5 dB(A) by day, that could meet the needs of 95% or more of the population.

The resolution of this must fall to our elected representatives: For what percentage of the population is it acceptable to sacrifice health and well-being in order to meet green-energy goals for wind turbines?

Go to: “Bad Vibrations — Where’s the Science?”

Click here for original, which may have been updated.

A few [more than a few --Ed.] recent news stories have told about individuals and communities who live in proximity to wind farms in the northeast United States and in Japan [and in Canada, England, Ireland, other parts of the U.S. ... --Ed.], and who started to complain about noise from wind turbines shortly after the facility began operations. The author’s own experience demonstrates that noise complaints and adverse community reaction can occur even though a wind farm is operating in compliance with local noise limits. …

Figure 3 shows the extent of people highly annoyed by wind farm noise based on the dose-response relationship given in Equation (1). As shown in the figure, within approximately 0.8 km (1/2 mile) of the wind farm, 44-percent of the population would be considered highly annoyed due to wind farm noise. At a distance of approximately 1.62 km (1 mile) from the wind farm, the percent of highly annoyed people is expected to drop to 4-percent. Such information could be useful for developers and/or regulatory authorities during the siting of a wind energy facility when deciding upon appropriate set-back distances.

The results of Figure 3 could be compared to the results of a social survey performed for this same wind farm. Figure 4 shows responses to three questions from a social survey performed in 2001. In the top chart of the figure, 44-percent of the respondents living from 800 feet to 1/4 mile of the wind farm stated that the turbines are “causing a problem with noise.” From approximately 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile from the wind farm, the percentage of respondents indicating a problem with noise increased to 52-percent. Similar trneds are shown in the responses to questions in the middle and bottom charts of Figure 4. … It should be noted that the findings of the committee with oversight of the social survey suggested that the participation of a land-owner in the project may have had an influence in the elicited response. …

It is generally recognized in the acoustical community that certain A-weighted noise metrics have been shown to correlate well with levels of annoyance. However, it is also recognized that A-weighted noise metrics underestimate the potential impact of low-frequency noise, since people do not hear low-frequency sound as wll as sound at other frequencies. In such cases, a comparison of C-weighted and A-weighted noise metrics will provide a rough estimate of the significance of noise in the low frequencies. It has been suggested that in cases where the C-weighted noise level generated by a source is 10 to 20 dB greater than the A-weighted noise level, the source is considered to have low-frequency components.

Download “Communicating the Noise Effects of Wind Farms to Stakeholders”

Now that I live within sight (about 5 miles) of a Wind Turbine Industrial Zone, I would like to comment on some of Mr. Schleede’s points regarding the false economic benefit claims by the wind industry (click here for that paper).

“7. Ignoring the COSTS imposed by the development. In the case of wind energy, these would include but are not limited to (a) the environmental and ecological costs associated with the production of the equipment, (b) constructing and operating the “wind farm” (e.g., site and road clearing, habitat destruction, noise, bird and bat kills and migration interference), (c) scenic impairment, (d) neighboring property value impairment, and (e) local infrastructure costs.”

My personal observations speak first to statement 7.(b): Driving to work each morning over the past 8 years, living where I do, I have watched geese migrations each year numbering in the dozens among each skein. At this point of their migration they are traveling low and are easy to see and count. This year, the first after the construction of the Industrial Zone, I have seen only 2 skeins of migrating birds. One had a mere 7 geese, the other only 3. This is sickening to me. These birds have always migrated precisely over the Zone where the turbines were constructed.

As to 7.(c), there is no question that our once beautiful view has been obliterated by the monstrosities during the day and the red blinking lights at night. Most visitors to our vineyard and winery are disheartened by the view.

7.(d): Having spoken to fellow residents living closer to the turbines, I have heard, “now we can’t ever sell it (the property)”.

“9. Ignoring the ‘backup power’ costs; i.e., the added cost resulting from having to keep reliable generating units immediately available (often running at less than peak efficiency) to keep electric grids in balance when those grids have to accept intermittent, volatile and unreliable output from ‘wind farms’.”

Speaking to point 9, the electric grid operators cannot keep the balance. Since the turbines have been online, we are experiencing DAILY power outages, sometime 2 or 3 in one day. Although we have Uninteruptable Power Sources for each computer and a generator for long outages, this is, as any red-blooded American will say, “unacceptable!” Why should I have to provide my own off-the-grid balance in order to fatten the wallets of the landowners and corporations enriching themselves in the name of the common good?

I would also like to add that the low-frequency noise issue is not an unwarranted claim. A neighbor told me he was awakened last Sunday morning at 3:00 a.m. by the pressure he felt and that his windows were vibrating. My husband said he could hear them as well at that same hour.

Harry, Amanda. February 2007. Wind turbines, noise, and health. 32 pp. www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com/ wtnoise_health_2007_a_barry.pdf
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=501

Kamperman GW, James RR. 2008. Simple guidelines for siting wind turbines to prevent health risks. Noise-Con, July 28-31, 2008, Institute of Noise Control Engineering/USA.
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=973

Kamperman GW, James RR. 2008. The “How To” guide to siting wind turbines to prevent health risks from sound. 44 pp. www.windturbinesyndrome.com
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=990

National Research Council. 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 185 pp, p. 109
www.wind-watch.org/documents/uploads/ NRC_Wind_Report_050307.pdf

Pedersen E. 2007. Human response to wind turbine noise: perception, annoyance and moderating factors. Dissertation, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden. 86 pp.
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=528

Pedersen E, Bouma J, Bakker R, van den Berg GP. 2008. Response to wind turbine noise in the Netherlands. J Acoust Soc Am 123(5): 3536 (abstract).
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=1095

Pedersen E and Persson Waye K. 2004. Perceptions and annoyance due to wind turbine noise – a dose-response relationship. J Acoust Soc Am 116(6): 3460-70.
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=821

Pedersen E and Persson Waye K. 2007. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and wellbeing in different living environments. Occup Environ Med 64(7): 480-6.
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=821

Phipps, Robyn. 2007. Evidence of Dr. Robyn Phipps, in the matter of Moturimu wind farm application, heard before the Joint Commissioners 8th-26th March 2007, Palmerston North [New Zealand]. 43 pp. www.wind-watch.org/ documents/ wp-content/ uploads/ phipps-moturimutestimony.pdf
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=754

Style, P, Stimpson I, Toon S, England R, and Wright M. 2005. Microseismic and infrasound monitoring of low frequency noise and vibrations from wind farms. Recommendations on the siting of wind farms in the vicinity of Eskdalemuir, Scotland. 125 pp. www.esci.keele.ac.uk/ geophysics/ News/ windfarm_monitoring.html
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=1098

van den Berg, GP. 2004a. Do wind turbines produce significant low frequency sound levels? 11th International Meeting on Low Frequency Noise and Vibration and Its Control, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 30 August to 1 September 2004.
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=27

van den Berg, GP. 2004b. Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound. Journal of Sound and Vibration 277: 955-970.
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=25

van den Berg, GP. 2005. The beat is getting stronger: The effect of atmospheric stability on low frequency modulated sound of wind turbines. Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration, and Active Control, 24(1): 1-24.
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=1092

van den Berg, GP. 2006. The sound of high winds: The effect of atmospheric stability on wind turbine sound and microphone noise. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. 177 pp. irs.ub.rug.nl/ ppn/ 294294104
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=1010

van den Berg GP, Pedersen E, Bakker R, Bouma J. 2008a. Wind farm aural and visual impact in the Netherlands. J Acoust Soc Am 123(5): 3682 (abstract).
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=1094

van den Berg GP, Pedersen E, Bouma J, Bakker R. 2008b. Project WINDFARMperception: visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents. Final report, June 3, 2008. 63 pp. Summary: umcg.wewi.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/ FILES/ root/ Rapporten/ 2008/ WINDFARMperception/ WFp-finalsummary.pdf
www.wind-watch.org/documents/?p=903

Preview “Wind Turbine Syndrome”, by Dr. Nina Pierpont.

Click here to download or view this video in MP4 format (7 MB).

Text:

Wind turbine noise is no joke.

The American Wind Energy Associatin (AWEA) tells us they make about as much noise as a refrigerator.

“Wind turbine noise is as loud as your refrigerator heard from the living room.” Tom Gray, AWEA

“Today, an operating wind farm at a distance of 200 meters [656 feet] is no noisier than a refrigerator.” Tom Gray, AWEA

“Today, an operating wind farm at a distance of 300 meters [984 feet] is no noisier than a kitchen refrigerator or a moderately quiet room.” Tom Gray, AWEA

“Today, an operating wind farm at a distance of a quarter of a mile [1,320 feet] is no noisier than a kitchen refrigerator or a moderately quiet room.” Tom Gray, AWEA

Is your refrigerator running?

Better go catch it.

And see if it sounds like an industrial wind turbine.

Wind turbines are large vibrating cylindrical towers, strongly coupled to the ground with massive concrete foundation, through which vibration are transmitted to the surrounding and with rotating turbine blades generating low-frequency acoustic signals which may couple acoustically into the ground. This may occur in several ways:

1. As a cantilever carrying the nacelle/blade mass, with frequencies typically less than 1Hz, depending on height of tower.
2. As a torsional oscillator at low frequencies.
3. As a complex distributed system at higher frequencies

Additionally, the blade-tower interaction is a source of pulses at a low repetition rate, which contain components in the infrasound region. The local and surrounding geology, especially layering, may play an important part in determining vibration transmission. Energy may propagate via complex paths including directly through the ground or principally through the air and then coupling locally into the ground …

Applied and Environmental Geophysics Research Group, Earth Sciences and Geography, School of Physical and Geographical Sciences, Keele University

18 July 2005

Download “Microseismic and Infrasound Monitoring of Low Frequency Noise and Vibrations from Windfarms: Recommendations on the Siting of Windfarms in the Vicinity of Eskdalemuir, Scotland”

Halmstad University/School of Business and Engineering (SET)

Proceedings of the 7th European conference on noise control, EURONOISE, June 29th — July 4th, 2008, Paris, France

Halmstad University/School of Business and Engineering (SET)

Proceedings of the 7th European conference on noise control, EURONOISE, June 29th — July 4th, 2008, Paris, France

Noise Notes, Volume 4, Number 4, October 2005 , pp. 15-40

Download “The Beat is Getting Stronger: The Effect of Atmospheric Stability on Low Frequency Modulated Sound of Wind Turbines”