Resource Library Category: Environment (160 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.
Lowell Mountain road and site building
Source: Vt. Department of Environmental Conservation
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation photos from Nov. 10, 2011, by courtesy of Mountain Talk (more photos at source; click photos below to enlarge).
Field fragmentation
Source: Bembinster, Jim
Wisconsin farmers sign on with wind developers because it seems like easy money. They are told they can farm right up to the turbine foundations. They are told about a quarter acre of land will be taken out of production for each turbine.
What they are not told is there will be access roads and trenching for each turbine that will go where the developer wants them to go, crossing at diagonals in the middle of fields, and in some areas compacting the soil so badly crop production is affected and drain tiles are crushed. The farmer is not told that they’ve given the wind company the right to use the land as it wishes. It’s all in the contract, if you know how to read a contract, or take that contract to a lawyer to read over for you.
The photos below were recently taken by Jim Bembinster. They show a wind project in Columbia County being built by We Energies and the newly fragmented farm fields. [via Better Plan, Wisconsin]
Wind power and ecology
Source: Whisson, Max
The survival of the world ecosystem, including of course ourselves, requires that we harness renewable energy in an environmentally tolerable way. One source of power is wind and it is vital that we assess the impact of current developments. We are destroying our only home, the Earth, on a scale that no other species has even remotely approached. Wind power has a long history. It has been an important local source of energy, for pumping water, grinding corn etc., for almost two millennia and during the last century millions of improved small wind turbines have been usefully installed on farms. In the last three decades a dramatic change has occurred with the development of enormous horizontal axis three-bladed wind turbines, all having vast blades with tip speeds of 100 kph [actually 240-320 kph —Ed.] whirling on top of massive towers, many more than 100 m high, built on huge concrete bases set into excavated ground. These huge machines have been built in large groups on dedicated land called wind farms.
An alternative approach has been the development of small machines often fitted to rooftops, even in cities. Quiet vertical axis machines have been widely set up in a number of countries, notably in Finland. One advantage of this “distributed energy production” is that the overall wind power is more constant than it is in large concentrated installations of the wind farm type, but the huge three bladed machines now dominate the landscape in many areas around the world and form the basis of several multi-billion dollar companies with immense lobbying power. Increasingly, people living near these vast machines have suggested they are detrimental to their health and there are some reports of abnormalities appearing in farm animals.
Most of the discussions have centred on the effects of the noise made by the wind farms, and many thousands of people have reported sleep disturbances and serious health effects forcing them to leave the area they have called home. The wind turbine companies refuted, even ridiculed these complaints, and pointed out that many common sources generate noise of greater intensity. The thousands of reports from doctors dealing with people suffering stress, sudden bursts of tachycardia, and hypertension would seem to be harder to discount, but these reports have not yet been prepared as a coordinated scientifically controlled study. The turbine companies and organizations buying clusters of the turbines often have considerable power over affected communities, through agreements with local administrators and contracts with residents for use of the land. In many cases the residents of wind farms have had to sign agreements forbidding public complaints.
The advocates of the new large machines respond to complaints by residents and their doctors by stating that people would not complain if they received adequate payment for the use of their land as a wind farm. There have been many statements belittling distressed or even seriously ill people, often along the lines that they are just awkward and resistant to progress. Objections are increasing however, and in a recent decision the Victorian government has decreed that wind turbines must be at least 2 km away from inhabited areas.
With audible noise, the loudness of the sound is often emphasised whereas it is only one factor. Consider the effect of music. It can have profound effects on behaviour even when very quiet. This can be shown experimentally. If you play Mozart to mice for a few hours they find their way out of a maze much faster than mice that have had to listen to noise. Similarly music can alleviate pain and is now used clinically for this purpose. The loudness of the music is almost irrelevant. It is the sequence of harmonic tones that is important in producing the effects. It is surely similar with noise. If you are nodding off to sleep and the wind picks up, starting a group of wind turbines and your brain picks up a quiet crunch-crunch-crunch, in an irregular and unpredictable sequence because the various turbines are not synchronous, you may not imagine a monster approaching but primitive circuits in your amygdala, prefrontal cortex and other areas of your brain will automatically fire off a stress response, triggering an increase in adrenaline and cortisol secretion. This fundamental mechanism has been an important factor in our survival as a species but we have not adapted to these previously unknown disturbances. Not good for a restful sleep.
After looking at evidence from several seemingly disparate areas of research it seems to me that the effect of the current wind farms is not confined to the noise they make. I am convinced that the evidence suggesting tissue damage both to people and to a wide range of other species is strong enough to sound a warning of environmental damage far beyond 2 km both on land and on water.
That the disturbance caused by the new large turbines is not trivial is highlighted by a recent decision by the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) objecting to plans to build wind turbines on the north-west coast of England and the south-west coast of Scotland. Why? Because the vibrations, the “seismic noise” from such wind farms would interfere with the MOD instruments that detect terrorist bombs.
So, what do we know about the seismic noise of wind turbines? Quite a lot actually, but it has not yet received as much attention as it warrants. Like the UK MOD, scientists seeking to find evidence of gravitational waves have extremely sophisticated equipment designed to detect vibrations in rock, soil and water. Any device producing such vibrations can interfere with their research, so several centres, notably the Laser Interferometric Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO), University of Oregon, near the Stateline Wind Project, and the VIRGO European Gravitational Observatory in Pisa, near a small wind farm, have done detailed measurements of the generation and transmission of seismic vibrations from large wind turbines. Both of these centres were able to detect seismic vibrations travelling through soil, rock and water. The vibrations were correlated unambiguously with the operation of the wind turbines. The distance travelled by these vibrations may surprise those who talk about siting homes no closer than 2 kilometres from the turbines. The seismic vibrations remained strong beyond 10 kilometres and were still detectable at 18 kilometres.
It is important then to ask the question whether vibrations can affect health. Here we can refer to a quite extensive literature on communication between creatures. These range from the simplest multicellular organisms such as Physarum polycephalum, a yeast that can at times join with its neighbours and coordinate joint behaviour by transmitting vibrations from cell to cell, to a wide range of insects that transmit information to others of their species using a range of different mechanisms. In most species the frequencies used are below 20 Hz and transmission is through solids, usually the fine stems of flowers and leaves. The vibrations produced in a plant stem by a small insect are so tiny they are undetectable without very sensitive equipment. For a small insect however they are immensely significant, sending information about potential threats, about food, and of course courtship. Most marine creatures, some of them very small, transmit information through water, also usually by low frequency vibration. All fish are very sensitive to low frequency vibrations and any angler will tell you that merely walking on the side of a lake will send most fish scurrying out of range of their net.
The sensitivity of earthworms to vibration is well-known not only to anglers but to predators that have learned to bring the worms to the surface by a carefully calculated series of taps on the ground. Here it is important to note that there are many reports from farmers that seagulls no longer follow the plough in areas near wind turbines. It has been suggested that the seagulls have learned that the worms have all been driven away and that in that area the farmer’s plough will not bring breakfast to the surface. They must go elsewhere for their food.
How many of the species found in the soil and waterways have been affected by wind farm vibrations? We do not know because the necessary environmental and ecological studies have simply not been done. There are many anecdotal reports but it is surely urgent that we learn a great deal more. Of particular concern is that many farmers have reported that bees are no longer seen in the vicinity of wind farms.
What is known of the effect of vibrations on people working in industry? Here there is a great deal of information, but it is not widely known. Much of what has been discovered over the last three decades is reported by Mariana Alves-Pereira and Nuño Castelo Branco of Portugal. These extensive studies report numerous serious illnesses and, yes, many deaths, mainly from unusual cancers. A particularly characteristic finding is a thickening of the fibrous sheath surrounding the heart, the pericardium. Diseases such as type I diabetes and epilepsy developing late in life were also found and unusual malignant tumours were seen in the lungs, colon and brain. Rage attacks occurred in some individuals and sudden attacks of nonconvulsive mental defects were seen. These illnesses were caused by low frequency vibrations and developed slowly over many years, with deaths usually occurring after five years of exposure. The low frequency induced disease complex is called Vibro Acoustic Disease, or VAD and is thought to be the result of disruption of the fine fibres that connect the cells of the body. This disease complex is not yet widely recognised clinically or legally and this has seriously delayed diagnosis. Detailed experimental studies of VAD pathology have been reported. A characteristic finding is the production of excess collagen in the absence of an inflammatory response. This results in the thickening of blood vessel walls and abnormal gas flow in the lungs. Other findings in the experimental studies were unusual cell death without the usual “cell suicide” mechanism of apoptosis.
So, what can we expect from the noise and vibrations caused by wind farms? Many of the illnesses caused by industrial vibrations would not be associated with wind farms by doctors seeing such patients. Someone develops a heart disease, a brain tumour or gets a stroke five years after a wind farm starts up a few kilometres from their home. Or they have their first epileptic fit very late in life, or they get a cancer in the lung or bowel. Few doctors today would make the connection with the wind farm. A diagnosis of VAD could be made by detecting a thickening of the pericardium, but this would not be done unless the clinician suspected VAD. The association of this disease with wind farm operation is not widely known.
Putting all this together, it seems obvious to me that there is a very urgent need to study disease rates and death rates in the areas near wind farms and in “control” areas more than 10 km away. There is also an urgent need to organise clinical and epidemiological studies to seek further evidence of the diseases and pathology described in the studies of industrial Vibro Acoustic Disease. There is similarly a very urgent need for veterinarians and ecologists to follow up the reports from farmers all around the world of abnormalities in farm animals near current large wind turbines, as with chickens that are hatching with crossed beaks and other abnormalities, and stock of many types being born with unusual abnormalities. Above all I feel that there is an urgent need to study the epidemiology of organisms that live in the soil and water around wind farms. These organisms are known to communicate by low frequency vibration. All of this must be correlated with precise measurements of noise and vibration associated with wind turbine operation. Such measurements must be made on the turbine towers, on surrounding soils and on surrounding buildings out to at least 10 km.
And what of the prospects for wind power today? A potentially extremely valuable source of auxiliary power I would say, but definitely not if it continues to be developed for massive commercial gain as at present. Instead of covering the planet with small quiet wind turbines feeding continuously into an international power grid we have “wind farms” springing up as concentrated power producing enterprises that are as much like a farm as an open cut coal mine.
Nature and Society, October-November 2011, pp. 7-9
Max Whisson, MB, BS FRCPath, is a retired pathologist with a strong interest in ecological issues. He invented the Whisson Windmill, a device for extracting water from the atmosphere.
Download original document: Nature and Society, October-November 2011
Damage Limitation
Source: Markieta, Michael; and Carver, Steve
Regular visitors to the Scottish hills cannot have failed to notice the increasing environmental influence of renewable energy in recent years. Windfarms now feature prominently in views from many of our most iconic ‘wild’ mountains, a trend likely to accelerate with the Scottish Government’s tight timetable to generate all of Scotland’s power needs with low carbon technologies. If many more large onshore windfarms now look inevitable, then the question of how best to minimise their environmental impact arguably gains greater urgency. Is it possible both to develop and to conserve the large areas of scenic wild landscape for which Scotland is notable in a European context? Where are the areas which if developed would minimise the extent of intrusion on the remaining uninfluenced landscape? A new study by Steve Carver and Michael Markieta of the Wildland Research Institute at the University of Leeds aims to address this question.
The team summarise their work for UK Hillwalking here, with links to the interactive mapping they’ve been using to determine landscape impacts.
Windfarms beyond the National Park boundary will soon be prominent in this view from Braeriach
No High Ground – mapping out the landscape and renewable energy conflict
We’ve all seen the headlines. We’ve all seen them sprouting up across the mountain landscape, cluttering the horizon as we look out from our favourite hill. We’ve all had those well-worn debates with friends and colleagues across the dinner table or down the pub over a pint as to why they are a good or a bad thing. We all know we have to do something about our insatiable demand for electrical energy, but what we don’t know is just how much impact wind turbines have and will have on our landscape. What we do know is that wind energy is having a significant impact on the Scottish landscape and that this is set to increase over the next few years as more wind farms are constructed. The SNP are firmly committed to increasing investment in the renewable energy sector and have set a target for Scotland to generate 100% of its energy requirements from renewable sources by 2020. Although the renewable mix is likely to include hydro, wave and tidal power it is likely that the bulk of the burden in reaching this ambitious target will fall on the shoulders of wind, both onshore and offshore, because this is where the engineering challenges are better understood and the investment:returns ratio is most profitable. This can only mean one thing… more turbines on the hills and along our coasts.
‘The area of the Scottish countryside that is free from visual influence caused by built development declined from 41% in 2002 to 28% in 2009′
A recent analysis carried out by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) showed that the area of the Scottish countryside that is free from visual influence caused by built development declined from 41% in 2002 to 31% in 2008. More recently still, this figure has now declined to 28% in 2009. While this figure is based on all built structures (airports, roads, railways, pylons, urban areas, etc. and importantly existing wind turbines) it is an alarming trend and one that potentially masks the contribution to this erosion of landscape character and values that is due to wind energy developments. Earlier work by SNH showed that in the central Highlands the amount of land free from impacts caused by road and rail access, plantation forestry, hydro power and electrical transmission lines declined rapidly between 1860, 1950 and 2000. Government claims that “Scotland has the potential to become the Saudi Arabia of renewable” backed by the 100% renewable target has surely given a green light to further expansion of wind energy over the next few years. Such a trend is not without its detractors and questions have been raised in Parliament by the John Muir Trust on this.
Meanwhile, other aspects of the Scottish economy depend heavy on tourism with estimates ranging from £5-10billion from 15million visitors per year with figures set to increase by almost two fold by 2020. Of course, some of this revenue is from people visiting cultural centres like Glasgow and Edinburgh, but many of Scotland’s visitors come for the landscape whether it’s to walk, climb, sail, play golf, fish, shoot or just enjoy the magnificent countryside from bus or car. A key characteristic of the Scottish countryside is its wildness; the qualities of which are most strongly expressed in those areas that are dominated by natural or near-natural vegetation, lack of human intrusion from built structures and the rugged, challenging and remote nature of the land. Recent surveys on behalf of SNH in 2007 and 2010, respectively, have reported that 91% of Scottish residents think that it is important to have wild places and 98% thought that wild land in Scotland should be protected.
‘Where are the areas which if developed would minimise the extent of intrusion on the remaining uninfluenced landscape?’
It would seem that 2020 is a significant date here in both respects; as an ambitious target for renewable energy generation and a hopeful one for tourism revenue. However, there seems to be an obvious conflict, one that implies that more wind turbines will mean a bigger impact on the landscape and potentially, therefore, less tourism. Research currently underway at the Wildland Research Institute at the University of Leeds is attempting to provide some of the answers as to exactly how existing and planned wind farms are impacting on Scotland’s landscape. The work attempts to provide greater information about the cumulative effects of wind turbines in the Scottish landscape, such as how many turbines are visible, how much of them can be seen given the terrain and exactly big they look . As already discussed, the extent of Scotland’s landscape that is unaffected with a view of modern human artefacts is decreasing rapidly and the effect of wind turbines needs to be accurately monitored. Our analysis takes into account all turbines in the various stages, including those already built as well as those in approved, planned and scoping stages. The basic aim of this study is to identify areas where further development of Scotland’s wind energy potential will not mean further erosion of the landscape quality and further reduction of the 28% figure.
Figure 1
Figure 2
See Figure 2 as an interactive map on Maptube here.
To do this we make extensive use of computer mapping techniques and digital map data together with a technique known as “viewshed” analysis to map the turbines’ zone of visual influence (ZVI). Generally, a viewshed analysis is performed to identify the areas from where a turbine can be seen or not seen. The results show the areas that are within or outwith the ZVI as a map like the one shown in Figure 1. With modern computing techniques, a viewshed for over 4200 wind turbines in Scotland can be computed in a matter of hours, rather than days or weeks or even months. Currently, 71% of Scottish countryside is without a view of an installed turbine. However, if all the wind turbines that are currently approved or in the planning or scoping phase are built, then this figure will fall to 49%. Added to the existing visual impact from other human artefacts reported in the SNH work, then it is unlikely that many areas of the Scottish landscape will be free from visual influence by the 2020 date. However, logic dictates that there must be some places where a wind farm could effectively be hidden from view, so that those areas currently without a view of a turbine or other human artefact are either not adversely affected or reduced further still. By utilizing careful application of the viewshed analysis, we can reverse engineer the primary outputs (where you can and can’t see a wind turbine) to check if there are any areas which can be further developed so as to not further reduce the amount of the remaining uninfluenced landscape.
Early indications are that there are very few areas that can be further developed without reducing the remaining uninfluenced landscape. This begs a further question: where are the areas which if developed would minimise the extent of intrusion on the remaining uninfluenced landscape? Inherently, the question is rooted in humanistic perception of acceptable levels of cumulative impacts. For discussion’s sake, the top 10% lowest impact zones are shown above (Figure 2). These are located mainly around existing wind farms, such as Whitelee Wind Farm, as well as various offshore areas.
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 3 interactive version here.
Figure 4 interactive version here.
We have also run a similar analysis for areas in Scotland that are protected for their exceptional biodiversity or landscape value. The total land area protected for its biodiversity (including Natura2000 sites, National Nature Reserves, etc.) is actually very large and consequently the analysis reports that there are very few areas (Figure 3) that do not have a view of these protected areas. However, fewer areas of Scotland are covered by landscape designations (National Parks and National Scenic Areas) and therefore the viewshed analysis reveals much larger regions (Figure 4), mainly in Aberdeenshire, which do not have a view of a protected landscape.
‘Further renewable energy developments in Scotland need to be carefully sited to avoid conflict with landscape policy and tourism potential’
While the results for the biodiversity and landscape areas are different, there is an important point to be made here, namely that the biodiversity areas are often quite fragmented whereas the landscape areas are not. Biodiversity can be found across a range of scales from your local pond to whole landscapes, but in the long run the resilience and sustainability of that diversity depends on the connectivity and unfettered state of natural ecosystems and processes, and that these require large areas to be natural in. So, in the long run it is actually quite difficult to separate biodiversity from landscape as logic dictates that high biodiversity tends to produce beautiful and natural looking landscapes, while large, unmodified landscapes gives nature room to flourish, such that the two remain mutually inclusive. The important take home message here is that policy and decision making on wind energy in Scotland needs to take into account the cumulative impacts of not only the wind turbines on the Scottish landscape, but also the protected areas for their exceptional biodiversity or landscape characteristics and values. The problem here is that while the area within protected high value landscapes is remarkably beautiful, the viewshed from within and into the protected landscape area extends way beyond the boundary. In essence, the value of the National Park or NSA is detracted by any tall wind turbines outside of boundary that are visible, but also within the viewshed of the protected area. Results suggest that 58% of the installed wind turbines are visible from a designated protected landscape and if wind turbines in all stages of development are taken into consideration, this figure may well increase to something like 62%.
Interactive map of Wildness Quality here.
It is our opinion that further renewable energy developments in Scotland need to be carefully sited to avoid conflict with landscape policy and tourism potential. There is no perfect solution, so we will probably have to accept some level of compromise both from a landscape and biodiversity perspective. While what we are doing here attempts to provide a technical response to a complex social (landscape values and climate change) and economic (energy vs tourism) problem, it is clear that the answer is essentially a spatial one and the kind of methods described can provide the information base on which better informed decisions and policy can be made.
Michael Markieta and Steve Carver
Wildland Research Institute, University of Leeds
June 2011
