Resource Library Category: Wildlife (150 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.
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
Road Building on the Lowell Mountains
Source: Vt. Department of Environmental Conservation
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation photos via lowellmountainsnews.wordpress.com
Also see “Headwaters on the Lowell Mountains”
False Promise of Mountaintop Industrial Wind
Source: Carter, Jonathan
Mountaintop Industrial Wind Power Is Not Green
I have been advocating for wind power for decades. I never thought I would see the day when I would be opposing wind power development. However, the current frantic rush to install industrial wind on every viable mountaintop is both shortsighted and ecologically damaging. All one has to do is look at the impact of the Kibby TransCanada industrial wind operation in the remote Boundary Mountains of western Maine. This is nothing more than industrial wind mountaintop removal. It is being driven by dollars and cents, not ecological sense. To call mountaintop wind operations “farms” is nothing more than PR. Farms suggest a positive relationship with the land. The industrial wind operations are nothing less than massive electrical generating facilities that destroy the quality of place and pose serious health problems for both humans and wildlife.
When John Baldacci announced the formation of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power, I thought, “good idea John”. Never in my wildest dreams did I think this task force would submitted to the legislature an Expedited Wind Permitting Law which fast tracks industrial wind development in an area covering two thirds of the state. This bill was passed by the legislature in fifteen days with little to no public involvement or debate. The fact is that the Expedited Wind Law was to a large extent written by the wind developers whose primary interest is green money not green energy.
This law gives the go ahead for potentially 360 miles of industrial wind turbines on Maine mountaintops. This would result in the building of thousands of miles of additional power lines and roads. It would require the clearcutting of over 50,000 acres of carbon sequestering forestlands. Literally the tops of the mountains are blown-up in order to establish a bedrock base for the massive concrete pads need to support 400 to 500 foot turbines.
In addition to the destruction of habitat, these massive wind machines, which individually moving at over 180 miles an hour sweep an acre of space, broadcast high volume sounds which have literally driven people in Maine from their homes. It is not only audible sounds which cause a problem to people and wildlife, but probably more damaging are low frequency sound waves that are emitted from these industrial power plants. It is well documented that the low frequency sounds and shadow flicker, which can travel miles from the turbines, pose serious health risks. The neurological health problems have been labeled as Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS). People experiencing WTS can exhibit elevated heart rates, memory problems, visual blurring, nausea, sleep disturbance, and chronic headaches.
The proposal by Independence Wind for the Highland Mountains is a perfect example of how the new Expedited Wind Law will open the doors for wind developers to destroy the essence of a rural community by turning the mountains of Maine into something more analogous to Portland Jetport. The Highland Mts are right next to the Bigelow Preserve. This development would undermine the wildness character of hundreds of miles of the Appalachian Trail. The whole Bigelow Range would be confronted with, upfront in your face, a string of 49 turbines with their noise, shadow flicker, and flashing red lights. The Kibby industrial wind facility to the north and west of the Highland Mts. has already reduced the value of remote real estate and destroyed the tranquility of many camp owners who now view “Portland Jetport ever night”. If you like to hike, hunt, or fish, do you honestly think your experience is going to be enhanced by the high decibel sounds, the shadow flicker, and flashing red lights of turbines? North Carolina has put a moratorium on mountaintop turbines because they recognized that turbines would degrade the mountains, which define their state and are a major economic driver in the form of tourism and outdoor recreation. What has Maine done? It has passed an Expedited Law that will fast track industrial wind mountaintop removal.
In defiance of the Migratory Bird Protection Act, turbines routinely kill birds and bats The Highland Mts area is home to many Bald Eagles, the rare Bicknell Thrush, and the threatened Canada Lynx. While we certainly know that turbines kill bats and birds and that a string of turbines is going to destroy habitat, little research has been done on the impacts of low frequency sound on wildlife. We know it causes WTS in humans, but what does it do to wildlife – does it impact reproduction, fertility rates, feeding behavior etc? It would be prudent to find the answers before rather than regret the outcome later.
Some environmentalists have been drawn into believing that if you are not for covering the mountains of Maine with wind turbines, then you are acting against the unfolding disaster of climate change. This is a false dichotomy. Global warming is a catastrophic crisis, but the solution is not to destroy the pristine character of the Maine Mountains. The industrial wind mountaintop frenzy sweeping across Maine is not tied to shutting down an oil or coal power plant. It is simply feeding our gluttonous consumption of more and more energy. It makes no sense to destroy our mountaintops to feed this appetite.
There are better alternatives – the first being CONSERVATION. It is no secret that if the federal subsidies (as much as 60% of cost) being poured into industrial wind were invested instead into efficiency and conservation projects, the reductions in carbon emissions would dwarf those potentially created by mountaintop industrial wind. It would also create thousands of more jobs for local communities. If these funds were used for forest restoration the reductions per dollar expended would be even greater.
Maine, a state with one of the highest renewable energy portfolios, already produces more than enough energy. In fact, we export energy. It has been estimated that Maine and the rest of New England will have excess capacity for the next fifteen to twenty years. It is clear that the right choice for Maine is offshore. This is where the best winds are, where turbines can be placed out of sight, and, in general, where the least amount of environmental damage will occur. Norway is already pursuing offshore with great success. In addition, residential and community based wind projects hold a lot of promise. At a local or community scale turbines are much smaller, emit a lot less sound, have reduced shadow flicker, do not require flashing red lights, are less damaging to migratory birds, and, if placed properly, will not destroy fragile habitat.
It is time to take a step back from industrial wind power mountaintop removal and to develop an energy policy that is not simply driven by the huge profits to be made from federal subsidies. If we allow this mountaintop wind gold rush to continue, after the rush has played out Mainers will be left with the tailings of a despoiled landscape and the magic of the mountains gone forever.
The False Promise of Mountaintop Industrial Wind
The developers of mountaintop industrial wind are touting many promised benefits – from reduced greenhouse gas emissions, decreased dependence on fossil fuels, to a huge economic renaissance. These are all false promises spun to enhance public acceptance. In recent months as I have studied the economic and ecological impacts of mountaintop industrial wind, I have been amazed at the distortions and misrepresentations of the wind developers which unfortunately have been accepted without question by many in the media. As an environmentalist, I have for decades supported a move away from our addiction to oil to more eco-friendly renewable energy including wind. However, when I hear the developers spin the tragic Gulf oil spill to justify their desire to use our tax dollars to destroy Maine mountaintops with as many as 1800 four hundred foot turbines spread over 360 miles, I am appalled by how this “justification “ is so disingenuous. The truth is that only about 1% of our electricity is generated by oil. In Maine almost all of our oil consumption is used for heat and transportation. Generating 2700 MW of mountaintop wind will not reduce our oil consumption or prevent ecological disasters like the spill in the Gulf.
Another favorite tactic of the developers is to promote mountaintop industrial wind as a panacea for climate change. While it may seem counter intuitive, this also is a false promise. There has never been a coal or oil fired power plant closed down due to wind generation. Indeed, in Europe and China where wind power has become a significant source of electric energy, greenhouse gases have actually increased significantly. It is simply not true that mountaintop wind will reduce greenhouse gases. Since wind is intermittent and not reliable, it is necessary to maintain back up power or what is called “spinning reserve” to replace the wind power when the wind is not blowing. This has resulted in the need to build additional carbon emitting power plants. In China this has meant a new coal fired plant coming online each week. When the wind is blowing, it is necessary to reduced power from conventional sources. It is simply not possible to just turn on and off oil and coal power plants in response to constantly changing winds. They can be ramped down, but their efficiency is compromised and the amount of carbon emitted actually increases. This situation is analogous to driving in stop and go traffic – fuel consumption increases and greater amounts of pollution are emitted. If the technology was available to store wind energy, the problem of intermittency could be overcome. Unfortunately, this is decades away.
In the case of mountaintop industrial wind, it is necessary to add to the carbon calculation the loss of carbon sequestering forests due to massive clearcutting on ridgelines and the construction of roads and power lines. If the 1800 turbines were constructed as much as 50,000 acres of carbon sequestering forest would have to be clearcut. In addition, the turbines require electricity to run which does not come from the turbines, but must be generated on site by diesel generators or brought in on separate power lines. Each turbine also requires as much as 200 gallons of oil lubricant which must be changed on a regular basis. One study done in Colorado actually determined that wind power increased carbon emissions by 10%.
Finally, it is particularly disturbing to hear developers tout the economic benefits of mountaintop industrial wind. There is simply no way in a cost- benefit analysis mountaintop industrial wind comes out as a good economic option. The cost of wind generation is 2-3 times more expensive than conventional power – and this does not include the added cost of CMP’s 1.4 billion dollar “ bogus upgrade” which is necessary to hook up the industrial wind. Our tax dollars in the form of huge subsidies are the only reason mountaintop wind, with its incredibly low efficiency, is being pursued. It is ironic that our tax dollars are paying for mountaintop wind which will ultimately raise our electric rates. Developers like to tout the benefits of jobs and local/state tax revenues. Yes, it is true that during the mountaintop leveling and construction phase several hundred temporary jobs are created, but after construction is complete about one permanent job for each 12 turbine is created – so 360 miles of destroyed mountaintop would ultimately generate about 150 jobs! While local property taxes may decline, this has not been documented in any place in Maine where wind has been installed. What has been documented is that home values drop from 20 to 40% within a two mile radius of a wind turbine. People do not want to live near industrial wind plants – noise and visual pollution! State and county government may collect some tax dollars, but this will be more than offset by reduced tourism and declining recreational dollars .This is why North Carolina put a moratorium on mountaintop industrial wind. They realized that mountaintop industrial wind would destroy the economic engine fueled by their pristine mountains.
In the end, the only folks who will benefit are the developers who will walk away with millions of our tax dollars. Mountaintop wind can be called nothing less than an economic scam concocted by a few mountain slayers and profiteers.
Anybody who takes the time to seriously study mountaintop wind will come to understand its exorbitant cost and its negative environmental impact. A thorough and objective review of current literature could only lead one to the conclusion that mountaintop industrial wind is a disaster and should be abandoned. It would be far better to target the investment of our 5 billion in tax dollars earmarked for mountaintop toward conservation through efficiency and weatherization. This approach would actually decrease our oil consumption, reduce greenhouse gases, and create thousands of permanent jobs and business opportunities – things that mountaintop wind simply does not come even close to accomplishing.
Jonathan Carter, Director, Forest Ecology Network
fen@207me.com
www.forestecologynetwork.org
Etude de la mortalité des chiroptères
Source: AVES environnement
Parc éolien du Mas de Leuze Saint-Martin-de-Crau (nine 800-kW turbines, 48-m-diam blade area [1,810 m², 0.45 acre], 50 m hub ht)
103 chauves-souris ont été trouvées mortes ou blessées (2 individus) au cours des 56 contrôles réalisés, entre le 17 mars et le 27 novembre 2009, sous les neuf éoliennes du parc du Mas de Leuze.
D’après la formule adaptée de celle préconisée par Erickson et al. (2000), le nombre effectif de victimes, calculée sur la base des 103 chauves-souris trouvées entre le 17 mars et le 27 novembre 2009 et en tenant compte des différents facteurs de correction, est estimé à 714 chauves-souris (tableau 5), ce qui correspond à un taux de mortalité de 79,3 individus par éolienne et par an.
(79.3 bats killed per turbine per year)
Etude de la mortalité des chiroptères
