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?”

Pedersen E, Persson Waye K., Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden. eja.pedersen@set.hh.se

Occup Environ Med. 2007 Jul;64(7):480-6.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise among people living near the turbines, and to study relations between noise and perception/annoyance, with focus on differences between living environments. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out in seven areas in Sweden across dissimilar terrain and different degrees of urbanisation. A postal questionnaire regarding living conditions including response to wind turbine noise was completed by 754 subjects. Outdoor A-weighted sound pressure levels (SPLs) were calculated for each respondent. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise in relation to SPLs was analysed with regard to dissimilarities between the areas. RESULTS: The odds of perceiving wind turbine noise increased with increasing SPL (OR 1.3; 95% CI 1.25 to 1.40). The odds of being annoyed by wind turbine noise also increased with increasing SPLs (OR 1.1; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25). Perception and annoyance were associated with terrain and urbanisation: (1) a rural area increased the risk of perception and annoyance in comparison with a suburban area; and (2) in a rural setting, complex ground (hilly or rocky terrain) increased the risk compared with flat ground. Annoyance was associated with both objective and subjective factors of wind turbine visibility, and was further associated with lowered sleep quality and negative emotions. CONCLUSION: There is a need to take the unique environment into account when planning a new wind farm so that adverse health effects are avoided. The influence of area-related factors should also be considered in future community noise research.

Download “Wind turbine noise annoyance”

Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise–a dose-response relationship.

Pedersen E, Waye KP, Department of Environmental Medicine, Göteborg University, P.O. Box 414, SE-405 30 Göteborg, Sweden. eja.pedersen@set.hh.se

J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Dec;116(6):3460-70.

Installed global wind power increased by 26% during 2003, with U.S and Europe accounting for 90% of the cumulative capacity. Little is known about wind turbines’ impact on people living in their vicinity. The aims of this study were to evaluate the prevalence of annoyance due to wind turbine noise and to study dose-response relationships. Interrelationships between noise annoyance and sound characteristics, as well as the influence of subjective variables such as attitude and noise sensitivity, were also assessed. A cross-sectional study was performed in Sweden in 2000. Responses were obtained through questionnaires (n = 351; response rate 68.4%), and doses were calculated as A-weighted sound pressure levels for each respondent. A statistically significant dose-response relationship was found, showing higher proportion of people reporting perception and annoyance than expected from the present dose-response relationships for transportation noise. The unexpected high proportion of annoyance could be due to visual interference, influencing noise annoyance, as well as the presence of intrusive sound characteristics. The respondents’ attitude to the visual impact of wind turbines on the landscape scenery was found to influence noise annoyance.

From Deeping St Nicholas, England, 23rd December 2007

Several people have asked us for a Christmas update on what is happening with us, and so here it is.

As far as progress goes in getting our home (or sanity back) it’s very slow indeed.

The Ombudsman is currently investigating the process by which our local Council have decided that we don’t have a statutory noise nuisance at home, because when the turbines are blowing they can’t differentiate between the noise from the turbines and any other noise.

You may well ask what was the point in having a planning condition, based on ETRSU-R-97 when the kit used by Councils can’t differentiate between noises?

Other than to determine that there is a noise of course.

Well we have asked that question too as it seems to totally undermine ETSU altogether and makes a complete nonsense of any planning condition regarding noise from wind turbines based on ETSU …

But as you aren’t allowed to have an Ombudsman investigate your case alongside a similar legal case, then we won’t be pursuing any legal avenues ourselves … yet!

DEFRA & DBERR have always maintained that there is a process that will protect people such as us who are adversely affected by noise from a wind farm.

We remain optimistic that they are correct … but 18 months after we first made our initial complaint we are running out of optimism (if anyone gets some for Christmas please could we have it?).

We have today moved our remaining personal stuff from home to our “sleeping house”, which will now become our “living house”, but it is not our home and this is the second Christmas we have had to spend out of our home because of the wind turbines. Our home looks very sad now …

My mother-in-law awaits further medical tests in January to hopefully exclude the possibility of vibro-acoustic disease. Her consultants have taken the steps to positively look for VAD as she has several anomalies in her condition that cannot be accounted for by any other means.

Our daughter, no longer having her life disrupted on a daily basis is working hard to recover the ground she has lost over the past 18 months and is hopeful that her chosen Universities will offer her a place …

The landowners, Mr Dick Tinsley and Mr Nicholas Watts are conspicuous only by their absence, although the latter, Mr Watts is currently offering shares in two of the turbines on his land to those who wish to invest in our continued torture. (Fenland Green Co-op). The Financial Services Authority had to intervene in the share prospectus as so many things they were claiming weren’t correct and a supplementary share prospectus had to be issued. Sounds like a really sound investment to me!

Similarly absent and inconspicuous is the Wind Farm Operator, Fenland Wind Farm, and the original Developer, Wind Prospect Ltd. In fact they have only made one visit to see us, 18 months ago on a sunny (and * relatively wind free) afternoon in June. That was that!

The good news is that despite being effectively homeless we have met some wonderful people over the past year. We have visited and stayed in beautiful places we would other wise not have known about, and wherever we have been we have made welcome and slept well!!!

Even better good news is that after being diagnosed with breast cancer 6 years ago Jane has now been discharged from hospital check ups.

So to everyone we have met be it in person, through the internet, on the telephone or at a presentation we thank you and wish you all a very Merry Christmas and most importantly a Peaceful and Quiet 2008!

Best wishes,

Julian & Jane Davis

From Snesere, Denmark, 6th June 1994

I send you the latest news about breakdowns. The reason for this Gierslev break down [is likely] lightning. I have copied some pages from the Danish magazine “Naturlig Energi” owned by the windmill owners [and] notice the many lightnings — also during the winter time!

I just read in the newspaper today that the European wind energy industry has founded an association called “European Wind Energy Association”, EWEA. The association has 40 members and a Dane called Niels Andersen, Vestas Danish wind Technology, is chairman of the committee. So if they go on in England as they did here, you (as windmill neighbour) will be ’secured’ against noise etc., which will never be followed up by the authorities, or delayed in the hope that you will give up. Here the authority in charge will, months after you have complained, send somebody to listen (using his ears only) to the noise and they always come when they know (from the complainer) that the mill is making almost no noise. They decide if you are entitled to have the windmill measured. This noise measuring is rather expensive and is only allowed once a year. The authority decides who is to measure the mill, and I know from my own and of course other cases that they can measure whatever result they want! So do not expect much help. The only thing we can do here in Denmark is to proceed against the owner for loss of property. It is almost impossible to sell a house near a windmill.

Another problem is reflection from the wings — either when the sun or moon are reflecting in all directions or when the wings cut the light into pieces. The problem is said to be worse than the noise. But reflecting from the wings does not exist in the law and therefore there is not help here either.

If we go to the court it will take years owing to the slow proceedings. Most probably the windmill is worn-out before you get any help.

However, owing to the bad reputation for the windmill (noise, reflections, visual destruction of the nature) coming from the windmill neighbours, the market for wind mills has almost stopped here in Denmark.

It is all a question of a lot of money and no morals. The windwill owners can do whatever they want — place the mill at your garden, take your view, because the wind is always blowing better at the neighbour’s place. They just collect the money — at least 15% — even more — tax free.

So you must fight against having them up at all.

Jyette Arp

From Laholm, Sweden, 2001

PROFIT FOR NOTHING — And a loss for you all.

Wind turbines produce nothing but a nightmare for neighbourhoods: conflicts between former friends and within families, stress and ill health. The reason? Profit for nothing. In Sweden, Denmark and Germany the situation seems to be the same. When residents try to protect themselves, their homes and the landscape, they have not only the wind company to fight but also the environmental movement and the government. This is a stressful and horrible situation for those who try to stop the violation of the quiet countryside, especially since many of them are true friends of environmental issues but do not think that it is necessary to put wind turbines, the size of Big Ben, a few hundred metres from people’s homes. Soon those who try to learn something about wind turbines also find out that it is not only a threat to the environment but also completely meaningless to put them up. This is because wind turbines rely on something as unreliable as the wind. The turbines only produce electricity in certain wind conditions (not all of the time or not always when they are rotating). Over a year, the turbine produces about 25% of the installed effect. This means that you have to have some other reliable power station ready to use all of the time. Then you might just as well use only that source instead of destroying people’s health, birds and the landscape.

I am an ordinary person who used to love the wind, rainy storms or breeze and enjoy the silent evenings in my garden and the early morning birds outside my window. Today I literally panic when I listen to a weather report, and my body starts to “run away”. I can never listen to the silence or hear the birds or look out over a stormy landscape in peace. Last easter the only way for me and my neighbours to be out in our gardens (beautiful weather, hardly any wind on the ground but wind 70 m above the ground) without having to listen to the horrible noise from the wind turbine was to let our oldest grass cutting machine run.

I left my home because of a wind turbine placed 650 m from my house. One day in November 1998 mine and my neighbours’ lives changed dramatically. The wind turbine, totally about 90 m high started to rotate for the first time. The noise is a torture. After one year I understood that we would not get any help and that no one can or will measure the sound level and so I decided to move. I could not cope with the noise. Others are having troubles with low-frequency noise or a very high tone. Hundreds of families in my small, formerly beautiful community on the west coast of Sweden are suffering enormously. Even people who “sold” their land to wind companies or bought shares regret their action. We can not be out in our gardens, we can not sleep with an open window and many people have the noise indoors as well as outdoors. Some of us want to give up and sell our homes — but who wants to buy? I have been trying to sell my house, and market values are dropping in Sweden in wind turbine areas. Another problem are the shadows which make people and animals crazy. You can not prevent the shadows from getting in to the house unless you put “masonite” over the windows. So, if your community now is being “attacked” by these companies — stick together and say no. Otherwise you will be in our situation before you know it. Help each other: politicians, landowners and citizens.

Do not let them ruin your countryside.

Lotta Nilsson

Does large-scale development of industrial wind energy actually reduce the consumption of fossil fuels or emission of CO₂?

Comparison of per-capita wind and thermal electricity production and CO₂ emissions in Germany, Denmark, Spain, and France.

Germany — most industrial wind facilities in the world (18,400 MW in 2005) –
2005: 10.6 tonnes CO₂ per capita, 6.4 tonnes from electricity
+190% per capita production from wind from 2000 to 2005
+9% per capita thermal electricity production from 2000 to 2005
+1% per capita CO₂ from electricity 2000 to 2005

Denmark — highest percentage of industrial wind in the world (18% of production) –
2005: 9.3 tonnes CO₂ per capita, 5.5 tonnes from electricity
+54% per capita production from wind from 2000 to 2005
−8% per capita thermal electricity production from 2000 to 2005
−11% per capita CO₂ from electricity 2000 to 2005

Spain — second most industrial wind facilities in the world (10,000 MW in 2005) –
2005: 8.5 tonnes CO₂ per capita, 3.8 tonnes from electricity
+317% per capita production from wind from 2000 to 2005
+41% per capita thermal electricity production from 2000 to 2005
+10% per capita CO₂ from electricity 2000 to 2005

France — virtually no industrial wind (760 MW in 2005) –
2005: 6.6 tonnes CO₂ per capita, 2.6 tonnes from electricity
+~0% per capita production from wind from 2000 to 2005
+19% per capita thermal electricity production from 2000 to 2005
−1% per capita CO₂ from electricity 2000 to 2005

Telecharger “Eolien industriel: un échec en filigrane dans les statistiques Européennes”

It is often said that wind power covers c. 20% of Danish electricity consumption. It is more correct to say that the production of power by Danish wind turbines corresponds to about 20% of electricity demand. A considerable part of the wind energy produced is exported to neighboring countries and thus does not cover any part of Danish electricity consumption.

Now, the question is how can one know that it is wind energy and not coal-electricity which is exported? In the present report, Danish electricity production in the years 2005 and 2006 is analyzed in a way not used previously. It is shown that in many cases there is a strong relationship over time between wind power production and net exports. It is therefore concluded that it is mainly wind power which is exported. The wind energy used in Denmark is thus calculated as wind power production minus net exports when this is positive. (See section 3 of the report for other situations.)

The following figure shows an example. The solid (green) curve gives wind power production in West Denmark (Jutland/Funen) over a 60-hour period in the middle of December 2005. [Below it is the same graph for the whole month.] The dashed (red) curve gives net exports. The claim that 20% of Danish electricity consumption is covered by wind power means that one takes all the under the green curve and says that this is the wind energy used in Denmark. But for the method used in the present report the area under the dashed curve is subtracted, because it is exported. In this way, the wind power used in Denmark becomes less and the level of coverage falls.

One could naturally believe that the correspondence of the two curves in the figure is coincidental. However, this is not the case. In the report, the extent to which the production of wind power and net exports “swing in step” month by month is calculated. In West Denmark, this is predominantly the case. In East Denmark, where the [non-wind] power stations also produce for export, the tendency is less pronounced. To get a general assessment of the amount of wind power used in Denmark, it is therefore necessary to use a more sensitive estimate fo the relationship, as explained in section 3. … For the whole country, the level of coverage in 2005 was 13.6% (not 18.7% as stated by the wind turbine industry), and in 2006 it was 10.3% (not 17%).

Thus, the perception that Denmark gets c. 20% of its electricity consumption covered by wind turbines is incorrect.

Download “Analysis of Wind Power in the Danish Electricity Supply in 2005 and 2006″

Download “Analyse af Vindkraft i Dansk Elforsyning 2005 og 2006″

The English translation is now available: click here.

The Smøla Archipelago off the west coast of Norway, at (63°25′ N, 8°00′ E), has a particularly high breeding density of the white-tailed sea eagle, Haliaeetus albicilla. The EIA for the proposed wind farm indicated that it would affect the sea eagle negatively in several ways. Smøla wind farm as built consists of 68 turbines, and the second phase became operational in August 2005. A research program was initiated in 2003 to monitor the territory occupancy and productivity of sea eagles and their activity related to the turbines. These studies are now continued in a larger project within the Norwegian Research Council, with support also from the authorities, Statkraft and other stake holders.

Results from the first years of the project, until the second phase was operational in August 2005, are most probably affected by the activity associated with the development of the infrastructure within the wind farm (roads, power lines and buildings), foundations for the turbines, and the erection of the turbines. At times the activity was intense in most of the area for phase 2, while it was less in the area of phase 1. From 2006 the results will more and more reflect the effects of the whole wind farm in its normal operational phase.

There were 14 to 16 sea eagle territories identified in the wind farm area before construction, but more detailed studies have shown that a minimum of 19 pairs were breeding in this area. So far at least five pairs have left their territories, without any sign of reestablishment elsewhere on Smøla. If they are not able to find optimal nest sites outside the wind farm, or if new pairs do not enter the vacated territories, then one effect of the wind farm will in the long term be a lower breeding population on Smøla.

Reproduction has been lower for the sea eagles in the project period than before construction, both inside and outside the wind farm. An important factor may be due to pairs still occupying and defending their nest sites within or close to the wind farm, but with a low breeding performance. If the low breeding output and the increased mortality continue, resulting in problems with recruitment of new breeding birds to the breeding population at Smøla and nearby areas, the wind farm could become a sink area.

After phase 2 was operational, ten fatal collisions between sea eagles and the rotor blades of the turbines were recorded between August 2005 and March 2007. Four fatalities were recorded in just 1 week during the 2006 breeding season. Both breeding adults and fledged juveniles are among the deaths, including three of the five young fledged in 2005 within the wind farm plus a 2-km buffer. Before February 2006, there were no formal searches for corpses and dead birds were incidental finds, so the total may be greater. From late summer 2006, a trained dog has been deployed to detect and mark the location of dead birds.

Post mortems by the Veterinary Institute have shown that all sea eagles show clear signs of a heavy blow to their bodies. The damage resulted in either immediate death or immobilization. They were all injured on their body or inner part of the wing, and some were cut into two or more pieces. As no birds have been found dead with injuries only on outer parts of the wing, some fatalities where the birds have not died or been immobilized may have been undiscovered. Some sea eagles have been found dead a short time after days with high soaring and termic activity of the eagles.

The results from the satellite-tagging of nestlings of fledgling white-tailed sea eagles show that the median time spent in the wind farm was c. 90 days (to c. 1 September) but with large variation between individuals. One of 15 satellite-tagged juveniles was killed during this period. Of the 12 juveniles with data sufficient for evaluation, two were killed in April in the year after tagging. The juvenile mortality seems to be higher at Smøla than in other parts of the country. Some juvenile birds disperse far — movements up to Lofoten/Vesterålen have been shown — while others stay in their natal area. Localising of transmitters several days in a row from the same position has helped in finding turbine-struck birds. The satellite telemetry has also supplied new knowledge on the use of night-roosts in the vicinity of the park. The juveniles seem to spend little time within the central parts of the wind-park in the time after fledging, but taken into account that the tags only give one position per hour many park crossings may pass undetected. The limited material so far seems to indicate increased collision risk during spring, when many of the birds return to their natal area. Females seem to move farther away from the park than males.

Monitoring of activity at nests by use of video cameras was initiated in 2006, and results so far show that the frequency of sea eagles flying to and from the nest is highest in the morning and evening. This is in accordance with what is known about where and when the sea eagles at Smøla are searching for food. Information on how the eagles use the terrain when they enter or leave the nest site may help to improve collision risk models.

DNA analysis was carried out for feather samples from chicks born in 2006, moulted feathers from adult individuals on the nest, and tissue samples from several of the dead sea eagles. These analyses gave no match with DNA samples from the three dead eagles found in early May 2006 and samples from the nests. This was most probably due to the lack of DNA samples from all territorial sea eagles at Smøla.

The DNA analyses will over time allow detailed mortality assessments, and it should be possible to address whether the mortality among breeding eagles in or close to the windmill park is higher than in the rest of the sea eagle population. The DNA approach has already revealed several interesting details on the breeding ecology of the sea eagle.

There are at least four ways in which long-term effects on the population level at Smøla may be manifested:

• Reduced breeding population, if birds no longer breed within or close to the wind farm or do not succeed in raising young.
• An increase in adult mortality, due to collisions with the wind turbines.
• Reduced breeding success (at least as long as some pairs try to hold their territories within or close to the wind farm).
• Increased juvenile mortality (poor post-fledging survival due to collision with wind turbines).

Results so far indicate some factors it may be important to focus on when new wind farms are planned, if we want to avoid some of the negative effects on birds as we have seen for the sea eagles at Smøla. Perhaps most important, given further proposals for wind farms along the Norwegian coast, in other areas of high density of breeding white-tailed eagles, is to focus on the cumulative impacts on the population from multiple wind farms along the coast.

Download full paper in Norwegian from Norsk Institutt for Naturfoskning (NINA [Norwegian Institute for Nature Research]): Follestad, A., Flagstad, Ø., Nygård, T., Reitan, O. & Schulze, J. 2007. Smøla vindpark påvirker havørnbestanden.

This doctoral thesis is based on four papers:

I. Pedersen, E., and Persson Waye, K. Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise—a dose-response relationship. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2004, 116, 3460–3470.

II. Pedersen, E., Hallberg, L.R.-M., and Persson Waye K. Living in the vicinity of wind turbines — grounded theory study. Qualitative Research in Psychology. In press.

III. Pedersen, E., and Persson Waye, K. Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and wellbeing in different living environments. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Published online, 1 Mar 2007.

IV. Pedersen, E., and Larsman, P. The impact of visual factors on noise annoyance among people living in the vicinity of wind turbines. Submitted.

[Abstract] Results  Dose-response relationships were found both for perception of noise and for noise annoyance in relation to A-weighted sound pressure levels (SPLs). The risk of annoyance was enhanced among respondents who could see at least one turbine from their dwelling and among those living in a rural in comparison with a suburban area. Noise from wind turbines was appraised as an intrusion of privacy among people who expected quiet and peace in their living environment. Negative experiences that led to feelings of inferiority added to the distress. Sound characteristics describing the amplitude modulated aerodynamic sound were appraised as the most annoying (swishing, whistling and pulsating/throbbing). Wind turbines were judged as environmentally friendly, efficient and necessary, but also as ugly and unnatural. Being negative towards the visual impact of the wind turbines on the landscape scenery, rather than towards wind turbines as such, was strongly associated with annoyance. Self-reported health impairment was not correlated to SPL, while decreased well-being was associated with noise annoyance. Indications of possible hindrance to psycho-physiological restoration were observed.

Conclusions  Wind turbine noise is easily perceived and is annoying even at low A-weighted SPLs. This could be due to perceived incongruence between the characteristics of wind turbine noise and the background sound. Wind turbines are furthermore prominent objects whose rotational movement attracts the eye. Multimodal sensory effects or negative aesthetic response could enhance the risk of noise annoyance. Adverse reactions could possibly lead to stress-related symptoms due to prolonged physiological arousal and hindrance to psychophysiological restoration. The observed differences in prevalence of noise annoyance between living environments make it necessary to assess separate dose-response relationships for different types of landscapes.

Download “Human response to wind turbine noise”

• People’s Health and Quality of Life (see all reports)
• Wildlife (see Ireland and UK report)
• Our environment (see all reports)
• Property prices (see all reports)
• Tourism (see Germany report)

From our extensive research conducted over the past 14 months, we have selected the attached reports describing the devastating effects of turbines in 4 different countries. The stories make for alarming reading.

[Brigitte Schorn represents KLADEA, Knockraha Leamlara and District Environmental Association, in County Cork, Ireland.

Download “KLADEA documents on wind turbine impacts”