Resource Documents: Impacts (128 items)
Unless indicated otherwise, documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are shared here 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. • The copyrights reside with the sources indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations.
Sources and Uses of Minerals for a Clean Energy Economy: Testimony Before the U.S. Senate Energy Committee
Author: Mills, Mark
Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee. I’m a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute where I focus on the policy implications of technologies, especially at the intersections with energy, and where I have advocated for years that America’s energy policies should emerge from both the realities of the underlying physics of technologies, as well the unavoidable realities of geopolitics.
I am also a Faculty Fellow at the McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University where my focus is on the technology and the future of manufacturing. And, for the record, I’m a strategic partner in a venture fund dedicated to startup companies in digital oilfield technologies.
Permit me to start by noting an obvious fact, but one that deserves restating in the context of this hearing. Every product and service that exists requires extracting minerals from the earth. And all those minerals must be refined, transported and converted into materials, then fabricated into products and ultimately disposed of or recycled. All of that activity entails the use of land and energy somewhere. Thus all environmental, economic, social and geopolitical consequences derive from the quantities of materials needed and where it all comes from.
As this committee well knows, the issue of America’s strategic dependencies on a small set of “critical minerals” is not a new subject. However, the issue on the table now is the potential for “clean energy” policies to inadvertently create entirely new mineral dependencies.
And, as the Committee also knows, there are advocates who claim that the wind and sun could provide 100% of America’s energy needs, compared to today’s 3% share. While the credibility of this claim is not our focus today, it bears noting that achieving that goal is simply not possible, any more than it’s possible to use airplanes to fly to the moon. And the often-used analogy, that an ostensible energy tech revolution will echo the characteristics and velocity of the information revolution is, to put it diplomatically, fallacious.
Set aside for now whether such a huge jump in the share of wind and solar is desirable or even feasible. The fact is, a more vigorous pursuit of clean energy by the U.S., especially in concert with other nations, would lead to an unprecedented expansion in global mining and chemical processing, and collaterally a radical increase in the quantities and sources of import dependencies and geopolitical risks for the United States – and it would produce astonishing quantities of waste. And this says nothing about the demonstrably destructive economic impacts.
To understand why, we must first dissect two deeply misleading tropes used in our national debate about America’s energy future: the idea that wind and solar are “free” and that the machines access those energy sources are “renewable.”
There is no such thing as free energy, at least not delivered in a way that matters to survival. The seductive idea that the air and sun are free is no more true than is the case for oil and gas. Mankind had nothing to do with creating either. In order to deliver useful energy to society, all sources require access to and use of land, and all require construction of physical hardware, all of which has costs.
Thus, there’s no such thing as a renewable energy machine. All energy machines must be built from non-renewable minerals and all machines wear out and must be disposed of and replaced. This is, not to wax philosophical, society’s central Sisyphean struggle.
More practically, these two points are the nub of the challenge for policies that propose to radically increase America’s use of energy from wind and solar machines. The clean energy path leads to astounding increases in materials use and dependencies.
These consequences do not derive from design flaws in the green machines, in effect from a failure in human engineering or imagination. The consequences, regardless of policies or aspirations, arise from the inherent nature of the physics of energy in our universe. Per unit of useful energy delivered to society, whether measured in miles of travel, tons of products, or gigabytes of data, the wind and solar path increases both land and material uses by something like 500 to 1,000 percent.
Of course we find elements like iron, chromium, silver and neodymium used to build frack pumps in the shale fields as well as in wind turbines. But the physics difference between the quantities needed is literally visible: A wind or solar farm stretching to the horizon can be replaced by a handful of gas-fired turbines, each no bigger than a tractor-trailer.
For example, to replace the lifetime energy output from a single shale rig producing gas requires building a 6-fold greater quantity of similar-sized wind turbines. Of course, the shale rig ‘disappears’ from that shale field, and is re-used to produce more energy, while the field of wind turbines stays in sight for decades, until they wear out. And consider, because wind and solar are nearly useless without storage, it takes 60 pounds of battery to store the energy equivalent of just one pound of oil. Such realities are what leads to the ‘invisible’ amplification in the quantities of materials mined upstream, somewhere.
That amplification is made particularly clear if we examine a few specific examples in terms of total fuel-cycle mineral requirements. The battery for a single electric-car weighs about 1,000 pounds. About 50 pounds of oil can provide the same vehicle range. Fabricating that single battery involves digging up, moving and processing more than 500,000 pounds of raw materials somewhere on the planet. Meanwhile, measured over the lifespan of the battery (seven years), using oil involves one-tenth as much in cumulative material weight extracted from the earth to deliver the same vehicle-miles.
Or consider one more example. Building one wind turbine requires 1,500 tons of iron ore, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of non-recyclable plastic. For an equal amount of energy production, solar power requires even more cement, steel and glass—not to mention other metals. Increasing the wind and solar share to, say, just a one-third share of America’s energy arithmetically requires a 1,000% increase in the materials already consumed to produce such machines.
The resource realities of clean energy have not escaped the attention of international organizations including the World Bank and the International Energy Agency (IEA). But it is remarkable how little attention has been afforded to the implications for U.S. energy policymaking.
It’s worth highlighting just some of the conclusions. According to IEA analyses, in order to meet current solar forecasts, for example, global silver and indium mining will jump 250% and 1,200% respectively over the next couple of decades. Similarly, world demand for rare-earth elements—which, I note, aren’t rare but are rarely mined in America—would rise 300% to 1,000% by 2050 just to achieve the Paris Accord goals.
Or, as numerous similar analyses have shown, replacing conventional cars with EVs would drive up global demand for cobalt and lithium by more than 2,000%. We’d also see a 200% jump in copper mining, along with at least a 500% rise in graphite demand. EVs, typically, use more aluminum too in order to offset the enormous weight penalty from the battery. And none of this counts the materials demand if batteries are scaled to back up wind and solar grids.
Last year a Dutch government-sponsored study concluded that the green ambitions of the Netherlands alone would consume a major share of global minerals. Considering that the U.S., never mind the world, consumes 30-fold more energy than the Netherlands, it’s unsurprising that the study also concluded: “Exponential growth in [global] renewable energy production capacity is not possible with present-day technologies and annual metal production.”
Nonetheless, many nations including the U.S. government, and numerous states, are incentivizing, if not requiring, greater use of these co-called clean energy technologies. The implications of all this are obvious in terms of environmental, social justice and geopolitical fallout.
It’s not just the need to responsibly address the environmental challenges of mining in and of itself, as you Chairman Murkowski are painfully aware vis-à-vis Alaska’s Pebble Mine fiasco. One must also consider the astounding quantity of green machines that will wear out and all that old equipment that must be decommissioned, all generating millions of tons of waste. The IEA has calculated that solar goals for 2050 consistent with the Paris Accords – which it bears remembering are a mere shadow of green ambitions now being proposed – will require disposing of solar panels that will constitute more than double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste.
There are collateral issues. The Sydney-based Institute for a Sustainable Future, for one, cautions that in a global “gold” rush for clean-energy minerals, mining will be pushed into “some remote wilderness areas [that] have maintained high biodiversity because they haven’t yet been disturbed.”
Then there’s the staggering increase in materials production that will lead, necessarily, to a comparably radical rise in the physical transport of energy materials on global sea-lanes, both increasing and changing the locus of geopolitical supply-chain risks. We note that those who propose to allocate a share of the U.S. Navy’s budget to the cost of protecting oil supply-chains should consider a similar calculation for green supply chains.
With respect to America’s security and import dependence, it bears noting the U.S. is a minor or non-existent player in most of the materials necessary for clean energy. As this Committee knows, today the U.S. imports over half of more than four-dozen minerals that are commonly used, and 20 of the minerals must be entirely imported.
It is extremely unlikely that any increased mineral production will come from mines in Europe or the U.S. Instead, much of the necessary additional mining will take place in nations with significant geopolitical consequence, and where in many cases labor practices are oppressive and generally not transparent. The Democratic Republic of the Congo produces 70% of the world’s raw cobalt, and China controls 90% of cobalt refining.
The desire expressed by many citizens and corporations to ensure ethical supply chains is a particularly thorny one in general, and especially so when it comes to green energy tech. For example, the World Economic Forum’s Global Battery Alliance (and numerous pieces of investigative journalism) has observed that the “raw materials needed for batteries are extracted at a high human and environmental toll.” The London Metal Exchange proposed last year to ban the sale of “tainted” cobalt. But a broad consortium of NGOs opposed that move, worried that it would simply lead to less transparency and would just increase the amount of trade conducted in “underground” transactions.
The mineral supply chain can sometimes be rendered invisible by other means. Instead of importing minerals, America imports the finished products such as solar panels and batteries. China already has nearly 60 lithium battery manufacturers accounting for over half of the world’s production, and is on track to two-thirds dominance by 2030. As a relevant aside, all that production occurs on an electric grid that’s nearly two-thirds coal-powered. And, relevant to that fact: it takes the energy-equivalent of 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a battery that can store the energy-equivalent of one barrel.
Setting aside the ethical quagmire of sourcing more of America’s, and the world’s energy materials from places like China, Bolivia, Russia, and the Congo, one might reasonably observe, as the world bank has, that greater mineral demand would be a huge “opportunity” for citizens in such nations as Chile, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, and Peru.
But that also presents for the United States at least, another ethical question: Replacing oil, gas and coal with wind, solar and batteries takes jobs and economic output away from our citizens and adds jobs and economic benefits to other nations. Some may see this as a good outcome, but we should be honest about the realities.
More than $300 billion per year of economic output comes from America’s oil and gas production. And now our nation is not merely essentially self-sufficient in energy production, but on track to becoming a net overall energy exporter. By contrast, the clean energy materials path both increases the cost of energy and radically increase the share of those costs that comes from imports. And it would of course, reverse the recent historic gains of energy independence.
Some have proposed that the massive gap in materials disparities between hydrocarbons and green energy could be closed by spending more money on improving clean technologies. Of course useful improvements are possible for creating more efficient green machines that thus use fewer materials per unit of energy produced. But we know that those gains are limited by the fact that wind, solar and battery technologies are approaching the physics limits of performance. This means that throwing more money and subsidies at these technologies won’t lead to radical improvements in material-use efficiency. Ironically, for hydrocarbon technologies, the distance to physics limits is further away, which means greater efficiency gains are still possible for oil and gas than for green tech.
However, to the extent that ‘the train has left the station’ and our nation is embarked on a path to expand clean energy, permit me to suggest four actions Congress should consider.
First, Congress should direct an examination and accounting of the full fuel-cycle upstream materials impacts of greater use of clean energy. This will improve the transparency associated with environmental, social, economic and geopolitical impacts.
Second, Congress should direct an examination of the state of recycling clean energy minerals. Notably, only three minerals in general have achieved a 50% level of recycling, according the International Union of Geological Sciences. And rather than institute economically or operationally punitive requirements for greater recycling, efforts should be directed towards research that could yield more economically efficient recycling technologies.
Third, Congress should examine the state of basic research funding associated with the development of both more efficient and new ways to use existing minerals and even the creation of new classes of products that can replace critical minerals. This research should center on the materials genome program that targets the use of supercomputers to invent new classes of alloys that can enhance mineral flexibility and minimize the use of rare elements.
Fourth, and finally, Congress should enact policies that will encourage, not impede, the investment in and development of U.S. mines.
Geological data show that the United States has a vast untapped abundance of mineral wealth. Until engineers invent an element that one might call “unobtanium” – a magical energy-producing element that appears out of nowhere, requires no land, weighs nothing, and emits nothing – we will need more mining. We should do it here if we want to enjoy the benefits and if we want to ensure the most environmentally sound approaches.
Mark P. Mills
September 16, 2019
Mark P. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering, and author of the recent report, “The ‘New Energy Economy’: An Exercise in Magical Thinking.” Follow him on Twitter here.
Cardiologist investigation and response to industrial wind turbines in the rural residential countryside regarding concerns of adverse health effects
Author: Johnson, Ben
While ongoing for decades, more recently recorded consecutive years of rising oceans and mean global temperatures with increasing patterns of intensifying storms and fires have only heightened Man’s resolve to fundamentally change worldwide dependence on fossil fuels. We are now responding with a sense of urgency. “Renewable” energies, particularly wind and solar, among other renewable sources, have been promoted as “winning solutions”. Photovoltaic (solar) energy has become more affordable and is utilized more in sunnier locales. Commercially, beginning in northern Europe, Industrial wind turbines have, over three decades, spread rapidly across the globe. With increases in size to achieve increased power generation capacity, they appeared in the U.S. initially as a novelty but have been rapidly proliferated without a “proper introduction”. Seemingly simple and intuitively harmless in design and implementation, when placed too close to human habitation, serious problems have occurred. It is as though we “leaped before we looked”.
I am a Cardiologist who specialized in heart rhythm problems and I am providing a personal statement primarily focused on the adverse health effects (AHEs) arising from industrial wind turbines (IWTs).
A bit of history ties my interest to this concern
Over two years ago, the “legitimacy” of industrial wind turbines as a source of SAFE and sustainable electricity was suddenly thrust into my life. This appeared as a “benign letter” from a local energy provider. Proposed, was a 52-turbine farm to be erected close to my property… a place protected by a conservation easement for having a few remnant prairie hillsides. In the surrounding miles, grazing and row-crop agriculture was the focused livelihood. These communities are the definition of an extremely quiet “rural residential” landscape. I knew almost nothing about wind turbines and, like nearly everyone, thought they were quiet, good for the world and assumed they were safe. In the ensuing weeks, public meetings were held where interested citizens had a chance to voice their opinions and concerns. Despite very time-limited presentations, it became obvious that opinions had rapidly polarized, shifting the debate from county vs an outside faceless large corporation to neighbor vs neighbor. Mid-American Energy (MAE), the Wind contractor, was there to answer questions but provided no hand-outs nor substantial didactic information. They sat in a group being largely silent, they only returned brief, limited answers when questioned. There was an industry physician-consultant from Boston who presented his opinions but no facts or data, and directly dismissed that noise related complaints were “real”. Instead, (he implied) that those complaints were mostly imaginary physical or mental consequences from the presence of the IWTs. Any reasonable person present walked away after the meetings having no idea what health ramifications from IWTs might occur. The word “obfuscation” (the action of making something obscure, unclear or unintelligible) appeared in my mind.
Wind Energy’s position about adverse health effects
In these initial Board of Adjustment, and then later Board of Health meetings, Wind Energy maintained their “position”:
1) that Industrial Wind Turbines are safe – yet without qualifications of how that self-designation of “SAFE” was given” – no studies, records and evaluations of structure failures, etc. They almost always follow the “safe statement” with boasting of the number of IWTs they have placed in Iowa and the revenue to the state, jobs created, and on and on, but never have provided evidence that scientifically proves “they are safe”. Wind energy has limited “original” investigative research. Often a panel judges whether existing data supports the assertions by scientists that IWTs do cause AHEs. The subsequent peer review become akin to judging “opinions with opinions”. Importantly, “indirect” impacts, which Wind Energy routinely ignores, are just as significant to the people who are impacted as are “direct” impacts. In fact, there is an enormous amount of data linking IWTs noise emissions to direct and indirect AHEs. Thorough and objective reviews of Wind energy’s claims have been challenged and previously “debunked” (Punch and James, 2016). When challenging Wind Energy’s representatives with the assertion that “industrial wind turbines have never been proven or shown to be safe”, the don’t respond – almost as a “taught response”. Yet, after a Board of Health meeting, even one of the “pro-wind” Iowa Environmental Council academic speakers did agree with me that IWTs have not been proven to be safe.
2) that they (MAE) receive very few complaints… eventually they resolve. They contend that the “nocebo effect” accounts for most resident complaints. In this context, the nocebo effect is the association of symptoms and complaints “brought-on” by existing negative attitudes toward IWTs.
3) that there is no credible evidence that IWTs cause cardiovascular disease or metabolic disease.
4) that they reluctantly admit that some of “their studies” show that IWTs cause “annoyance” but reflect that it has no substantial health impact. Wind Energy, never comments about IWT-associated “severe annoyance” that causes resident evacuations of their home (which is also considered an adverse health effect).
5) that they will not admit that IWT noise causes sleep disruption. Strongly connected to this is their assertion that infrasound and low-frequency noise (ILFN) as a product of IWTs, accounts for a small part of the IWT noise and that infrasound cannot be heard and therefore cannot cause harm. Indeed, they firmly contend that ILFN is of no concern and strongly insist it should not be regulated.
I have carefully reviewed Wind Energy’s position on all these adverse health effects. I have searched for definitions, textbooks, articles, and the presence and quality of reported peer-review. When defending their assertion that IWTs are safe, Wind Energy speaks both slowly, and definitively then “hides” behind the spoken words “no credible evidence”. A reasonable person would ask “What would Wind Energy consider as credible evidence” and, as a concerned resident, what “credible evidence” have you produced that proves that IWTs are safe?
Purpose of this manual
In this manual, I have collected information – first for myself – to clarify and resolve my questions and concerns. As the answers became evident (though admittedly difficult to find, clarify and integrate), the story of how this “intrusion” happened became clear and I share it with you. This manual will hopefully later serve as a resource for all who will question what health risks (as known in 2020) may be associated with living close to industrial wind turbines. This information took several years to collect. The process by which Wind Industry acquires county permitting is “rushed through” in literally only several weeks making this information, given that inconsiderate timeline, virtually unobtainable.
In this manual, I present evidence supporting my opinion that Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) will cause adverse health effects when located near residential properties in formerly quiet rural residential communities. Beyond the potential serious health implications… we all need to fully understand and reflect carefully on the full implication of what these behemoth oscillating blades mounted high on towers will do to our personal and social and environmental communities.
I present relevant aspects of IWT-generated noise – including noise classification and its quantitative labeling through frequency and decibels measures and types of weighting through various filter types and how accurate noise exposure quantification is affected by filtering choices. The unique characteristics of IWT noise are reviewed and compared with other environmental noises. I will review the categories of noise frequencies across the entire range of emission of IWTs and important aspects of noise propagation and attenuation. Please view the table of contents for contained subjects; ALL of these subjects are relevant. The reader must NOT stop at the simple debate of “he said vs she said” about health impacts. I found the answers largely in what “wasn’t said” and past “acoustical history” and current corporate behavior.
I will highlight important historical events that add to the context of today’s IWT regulation. For example, we need to be fully aware that VERY in-depth evaluations were done in the mid-1980s by NASA and the Dept of Energy-funded research. Scientists (N.D. Kelley, et. al.), in their thorough (basic science-level) investigations, were asked to evaluate the potential possible implementation of IWTs for adverse impacts. Their focus was on understanding the physics of wind turbine operation and energy production. They also studied noise types produced by IWTs and observed and reported on the first confirmed cases of adverse health effects that developed with IWT prototypes up to 4 MW in generating capacity. Their initial determinations of ILFN and associated serious AHEs were first raised then and remain relevant to this day, although ignored by Wind Energy and its proponents. Also revealing is the history of acoustical evaluation of health-impacted occupants of some newly erected buildings from the 1970s to 1990s that was characterized as “sick-building syndrome”. Recognized in affected subjects, were similar symptoms connected to working near gas-fired turbines. Careful evaluations confirmed that ILFN from indoor HVAC (heating/cooling units) produced the symptoms. Fortunately, buildings can be re-designed, defects in air ducts fixed, and additional sound insulation placed, but the only way to eliminate ILFN from IWTs is to turn them off or distance them from residents and their property far enough away that the ILFN can no longer be heard nor “perceived”.
There are other issues besides adverse health effects
It is important to ask questions and demand that they be answered; DO NOT assume that what Wind Energy is telling you is correct. Questions, such as “where did these setbacks come from? How, based on what we know, can we have setback distances that are so close and still be considered ‘safe’? Whose responsibility is it to review these setbacks and decide if they are safe? How did Wind Energy’s proclamation that ILFN ‘is not a health concern’ ever become “accepted?” Why is potentially harmful noise pollution allowed to trespass across the private land of non-participating neighbors – particularly when pollution regulation for other industries occurs up to/at the property line?” I still ask whether the MAE’s land easements (for the entire host property) and the value of that land is used as collateral for the financing of the purchase and erection of the wind farms? If it is, what happens to that land ownership in the event that America comes to: 1) reject the denial of Wind Energy’s adverse health consequences, and also 2) see that Wind Energy is not “green” and requires concomitant availability of back-up natural gas-burning that essentially negates any “renewable” aspects and 3) realize that the real cost of that electricity is roughly 3 times the cost of conventional electric power/kw of energy produced once the subsidies are factored out. Shouldn’t we be building energy power plants that work nearly all the time (instead only one-third) and have a productive life of at least 40-50 years and 4) understand the extraordinary expense not only to maintain a functioning turbine but also related to eventual turbine/site decommissioning and non-recyclable blade disposal costs.
Where does all that money come from? Fifty-eight-year leases are a long time – generations come and go, political party majorities and Presential decrees that control the narratives keep flipping and MUCH better power production sources will become available. We need to think more about this before “leaping further.”
I include in “Part 9” important findings while searching for an explanation of why inflicting harm on people living in host communities is “acceptable”. To understand why things don’t make sense you often have to explore the motives of – (in this case, including, but not limited to) Wind Energy. Beyond the motives, are the real actions and developed agendas that allow an industry to secure, maintain and perpetuate “their narrative.” I have included several examples of what some would call “blatant” deception. For example, there is a formal presentation made by a Danish healthcare practitioner (Dr. Johansson) to Vestas’ executives where “the truth was told” but his warnings were ignored. I will leave the reader to draw his own conclusions. Sadly, the whole process continues largely unchanged. Wind Energy apparently deems their current approach as a successful business plan and continues their practices largely unchanged. We, as the users who consume electricity, have a right to know the truth behind the industry’s talking points.
It would be unfair to criticize wind energy production as an answer to global warming without offering other solutions. That said, one might assume that if an obvious better choice was available without all the problems and negative health impacts as I have reviewed, it would’ve been pursued. However, there are alternatives that are ignored. My comments are listed in part 10, “Carbon Management”.
Stay focused on the “broad” definition of health
When the public or politicians are asked if wind turbines are dangerous or cause health problems, they sometimes “mentally imagine” the worst – post-apocalyptic or post-wartime images or even human suffering with death and hospitalization of the order we now see with the Covid-19 pandemic. Even “captured” politicians, proponents, and/or Wind Energy trade organizations couldn’t sell that when subjected to any scientific scrutiny. Instead, we need to remain “broad-minded” to what health actually is – which is NOT limited to a defined set of continuously disabling symptoms that evolve in everyone over the short term and likely affects everyone the same. It is also not limited to a health effect that is progressive until death develops or when eventual disease syndromes become established with an established diagnosis. Adverse health consequences of environmental noise can be the asymptomatic (unrecognized) development of hypertension or vascular atherosclerosis or insulin resistance or can be much simply defined as the “the loss of wellbeing”. Indeed, some of the most common and impactful adverse health effects may come “as” headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, subtle confusion, unexplained loss of ambition or productivity, emotional lability or obvious or subtle depressive symptoms. Noise adverse health effects may initiate and accelerate disease progression, that may, when combined with genetic or known “accelerators” of disease (smoking, alcohol abuse, etc.) over a life-time, manifest as a recognized cardiovascular disease event – stroke, fatal or nor-fatal heart attacks.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines “health” as a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing… The WHO definition links health explicitly with wellbeing and conceptualizes health as a human right requiring physical and social resources to achieve and maintain. Mental and physical health are inextricably connected, thus highlighting that “annoyance” – at almost any level – can contribute to adverse health effects (AHEs). As described by DeFrock (Australian), “Annoyance is a non-quantitative word that implies mildness in common use. A more accurate general descriptor would be mild, serious or ‘intolerable’ impacts.” In the context of this report, “annoyance” generally means “High Annoyance” where it can result in indirect adverse health impacts. But even “mild” annoyance can create a negative or disagreeable reaction (which is NOT the nocebo effect) that can create a loss of wellbeing. Wellbeing refers to a positive rather than neutral state, framing health as a positive aspiration. Wellbeing is defined as “the state of being comfortable, healthy or happy”. Shouldn’t we protect an individual right to health and happiness – that defines wellbeing – by limiting intrusive noise pollution at one’s private property line?
Cardiovascular disease explained (simplified)
In the Cardiology world, “atherosclerosis” is a term describing the development of (lipid (fats)-filled plaques) that get sequestered within the superficial inner layer of arteries that is contained by a “thin fibrous cap”. These are initiated and develop through a complex process simply characterized as “inflammation”. Standard cardiac “risk factors, e.g. smoking, diabetes and others) facilitate atherosclerosis development. As plaque evolves, there is a complex action via cellular and neurohumoral processes that appear to be quite similar to those seen originating from other triggering sources. Some of those sources include small-sized air pollution particulates, PTSD, and of particular importance, environmental noise. In my medical practice I treat atrial fibrillation. Nearly half of those patients also have obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) which is thought to have significant adverse inflammatory triggering that may promote concomitant ischemic heart disease, hypertension and insulin resistance. Although likely less intense as a “stressor” than OSA, I believe IWTs act similarly through a stress related inflammatory pathway to promote cardiovascular disease.
With noise as the trigger, it is thought cardiovascular disease is promoted from “from an increased physiologic stress response” from noise levels “in excess of defined intensities”. It appears there are noise thresholds (which the WHO has attempted to define). Similar to OSA, it may also occur indirectly through noise-associated sleep disturbance which then produces a “stress response” via the sympathetic limb (“fight or flight”) of the autonomic nervous system. The autonomic nervous system can trigger vessel inflammation which then can promote atherosclerosis. In general, the more and longer the stress continues, the older the individual (with more time to develop larger and more “unstable” plaques), the more the likelihood that disease will become evident or “expressed”. With often unpredictable sudden “stress response triggers and/or anatomical plaque instability,” the plaque ruptures, exposing the lipid-rich core that initiates “local clotting” that may enlarge and propagate causing potential artery closure that quickly produces a state of deprived “down-stream” oxygen delivery. In the heart, when this happens, it causes a heart attack – termed “myocardial infarction”. Health means living a life where such consequences become less likely through avoiding or mitigating “unconscious inflammatory bodily responses” that promote the genesis of disease states. Atherosclerosis development should never, minimally, suddenly or eventually be allowed to continue so as to produce cardiovascular disease “endpoints”.
World Health Organization comments on wind turbines (2018 report)
Acceptable environmental noise exposure levels are defined in the Oct. 2018 WHO report for aircraft, rail, general industry, and road traffic sources, with “strong recommendations”. That rating reflects the quality and the amount of the scientific data relevant to those studied noise sources. Also, in that publication – for the first time – a suggested “conditional” exposure level for wind turbine noise exposure being expressed as “Lden” was published. Lden means average sound Level: day, evening, and night of AUDIBLE noise as “averaged” over a 24-hour period with penalties of 5 dBA for evening periods, and 10 dBA for nighttime periods. It is measured using an sound meter set to use the “dBA” filter and weighted by time of day for the penalties. That filter is the most common one promoted by Wind Energy in turbine acoustics and is “centered” around 1000 hertz. The problem with this is that it does not accurately reflect the acoustic energy of ILFN. The conditional wind turbine noise level exposure was a limit of 45 dBA Lden, equal to that of aircraft noise but substantially lower (more restrictive) than railway or road traffic. Assuming wind turbines operate 24 hours a day this limit is equivalent to a 38 dBA Leq 24-hour average sound level. The data review committee of the WHO document recommended “policymakers implement suitable measures to reduce exposure from wind turbines in that population exposure to levels above the guideline values”. The “conditional” recommendation reflected that the data was not “robust enough (statistically, due to small numbers of subjects)” to support a “strong” recommendation. Importantly, they commented that there was no data suggesting that there was no risk. It is worth noting that the WHO’s 38 dBA Leq 24 hour average is what would be calculated using the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Acoustical Society of America (ASA) Standard S12.9 Part 4 for assessing Land Use Compatibility. It is important to consider that the pre-specified health outcome evidence used was mostly limited to more serious adverse health consequences such as ischemic heart disease (atherosclerotic- disease related), hypertension (elevated sympathetic tone and acquired loss of normal vessel relaxation related) as well as the prevalence of highly-annoyed populations (outdoors). Because wind turbine sound fluctuates as much as 11 dBA above the average this level would not eliminate stress from moderate annoyance or sleep disturbance.
I have also included “noise response curves” for severe annoyance in the appendix of part 6 (Adverse Health Effects) from the Wind Farm Noise Textbook (Hansen, Doolan, Hansen, 2017) that show published data (2001, 2008, 2016) from several studies. These two graphs IMPORTANTLY reflect an even greater annoyance from IWTs (which is dominated by low frequency noise) than what is reflected by dBA measurements (measuring only audible noise) as was used in the WHO report. This highlights that IWT noise is commonly described as “distinctly annoying” and is composed of noise from nearly all portions of the noise spectrum, rumble, roar and whoosh type sound. Indeed, the omnipresent component of ILFN is a real and prominent contributor to increased annoyance from IWT noise. IWT noise can be even heard when below background noises like leaf rustle, comprised of mainly mid and high frequency sound in communities at night likely due our perception of that low frequency noise component. Annoyance derived across the “wide-range” of frequency components of IWT noise NEEDS be accounted for when enacting “protective wind ordinances.”
It is remarkable (to my knowledge) that Wind Energy has not commented on these incredibly high-level scientific assessments of potential concerns of environmental noise. The WHO virtually echoes that IWTs have never been shown to be safe. The WHO also clearly moves toward the level of declaration I make in this manual: that IWTs have AHEs including possibly serious cardiovascular effects. In fact, there is strong credible evidence that IWTs produce serious AHEs.
I would suggest separate regulatory noise limits for both audible and ILFN noise exposures with both 40 dBA (for audible) and 60 dBC (for ILFN) noise limits – each expressed as “shall-not-exceed” dBA or dBC (Lmax(fast)). Compliance with these limits shall be measured by Class 1 sound level meters set to use the “fast” measurement circuits. Other circuits incorporate averaging which will understate the fluctuating character of wind turbines that is the likely cause of annoyance, sleep disturbance, and other AHEs. Despite that MAE would like to suggest otherwise, dBC measuring tools are “standard” on professional grade sound measuring equipment which can measure both at the same time. Noise levels can be easily obtained at the property line. Prior regulatory parameters of setback distances (e.g. 1500 feet) or 45 to 50 dBA as Leq averaged sound levels) will NOT be protective of human adverse health effects. They do NOT account for fluctuating audible and ILFN acoustic energy – that have been correlated to AHEs, or the location of non-participating residences on their properties. When any wind contractor sites a turbine, they should include a design safety factor to be certain that during periods of fluctuating sound emissions the project will not exceed either of those noise limits or it will be “out of compliance”. If they are uncertain about audible and ILFN propagation/attenuation or the accuracy of computer modeling, then a greater distance-separation or use of a quieter wind turbine make and model should be used so as to completely eliminate the potential of harming residents”. Sound limits are carefully defined to protect residents and should not reflect a compromise to facilitate industrial development. Non-compliance or less restrictive noise limits that result in resident harm is NOT acceptable as reasonable “collateral damage”. Of note, George Hessler published a 2004 article that proposed dBC criteria in residential communities for low-frequency noise emissions from industrial sources that do not have fluctuating sound as a primary characteristic.
What are the noises that IWTs make?
IWT noise includes regular, dominant “pulsing” sensations perceived as either audible fluctuations in the sound or as bodily “pressures” due to air compression of the flowing air mass. These pressure waves are caused by changes in the lift of each of the 3 blades as they pass in front of the huge supporting tower. Also, as the blades rotate through the frequently vertically-stratified moving air mass, they may, under heavy “loading” conditions, lose lift (or stall) producing perceptible rhythmic swishing/thumping sound to which residents can become sensitized. Residents can often perceive these fluctuations as “whooshes” or “thumps” at considerable distances, well over a half mile – which is quite disagreeable and difficult to block from one’s awareness and may occur at a distance where the IWT cannot yet be seen, especially during the night when people are sleeping in quiet bedrooms. There is a rhythmic pulsation generated at the trailing-edge blade noise by the steady rotation speed that produces “blade-swish whooshes and thumps” and irregular, low-frequency “roar” from the blades due to in-flow turbulence. Collectively, there is a continuum of frequencies stretching from pressure pulsations at infrasonic frequencies 0.5 Hz (cycles per second) up through the normal hearing range of 1000 to 2000 Hz that are generated by each turbine. The sound immissions from each wind turbine also interact with nearby turbines to produce a constantly changing and distracting medley of fluctuating sound- called amplitude modulation. Depending on the frequency amplitude modulation of IWTs, ILFN is both heard and perceived and easily evokes mental and physical stress. Unlike “less complex” daily noises, IWT noise does not become “accepted” by our perception processes and then unconsciously ignored. The subtle but constant changes make it difficult to impossible to ignore. Further, residential construction of residential homes for sound insulation does not effectively block the lower frequency noises. Further, people have a right to sleep with open windows which effectively eliminate any protection offered by walls and roofs. Trying to mask IWT noise by producing bland artificial “background” noise inside a home can only mitigate some portions – but not all of “stress-creating” wind turbine noise. As coping residents engage in their daily tasks, while the turbines operate above, only a momentary lapse of that focus will remind them of the enveloping dome that separates them from the peaceful world they once enjoyed.
Included important historical insights into wind energy claims
I have included in Part 9 a number of related events, letters and a copy of a speech that unveil what Wind Energy (Vestas – largest worldwide producer of IWTs) has done to advance their “narrative” centered around the promotion of IWTs.
When the state of New South Wales (NSW) in southeastern Australia approached Vestas about implementing IWT power, the state government presented to Vestas an initial draft of guidelines that contained low frequency noise regulation that outlined that state’s proposed future “recognition, acceptance and treatment” of ILFN. In the beginning of that March, 2012 letter, Vestas in their “Executive Summary” response letter, immediately made clear their opinions about careful, science-based, health-protective regulations that would govern implementation of a new energy technology in NSW. They bluntly summarized: “Vestas opposes the Draft Guidelines, primarily because of the sheer number of additional requirements and barriers that would be placed in front of the wind energy industry without any clear evidence, justification or demonstrated need for this additional regulation”. By that time (2012), there had been several years of rigorous publications by scientific investigators and acousticians as well as likely thousands of reports of adverse effects including forced home evacuations. In general, NSW concerns were raised that mostly involved human health – in all forms. These included setbacks (proposed at 2 km), visual amenity, noise, health, decommissioning, auditing and compliance, environmental impact statements, property values, blade throw, conditions of consent and compliance as well as others. Vestas’ extraordinarily self-serving retorts to each of these concerns were “abrupt and terse” (and without basis) – other than they are viewed as too restrictive to advance IWT introduction – which they admit was the primary issue. Comments about noise from NSW in the draft were recommended to “be deleted in their entirety” so as “not to give the impression that the NSW Government places any credibility in the false claims of the anti-wind activist groups on the topic of health impacts”. Decommissioning concerns were raised by NSW. Vestas did support a decommissioning and rehabilitation plan in the environmental assessment report, however, did not support the requirement to provide a decommissioning bond, nor have periodic updates in anticipated costs and implied that wind farm operators would maintain their assets for as long as possible since wind is “free.” Vestas did not support the adoption of the noise guidelines as they claimed they were: unnecessary, discriminatory, and unclear. Again, the word “obfuscation” comes to mind. It should remain absolutely clear to any entity regulating IWTs into their jurisdiction that all these topics (and more) raised here ARE relevant and need to be addressed in writing in any Wind Ordinance; if it is not clarified, then compliance cannot be enforced.
ILFN: convenient flip-flopping by wind energy for their agendas
Further, to have health protective IWT noise regulation, as noted many times, recognition and regulation of ILFN is “critical”. It is also my opinion when reviewing several “lines of historical action and commentary by Wind Energy” that Wind Energy recognized (certainly no later than the mid-1990s) the “threat” of ILFN to their business. As mentioned earlier, N.D. Kelley clearly identified the existence and the health threat from ILFN in the mid-1980s. In the same letter (above) and then in another one just a year before, Vestas reveals that they knew “true implications of ILFN and its health concerns”. In the response to NSW suggested guidelines, Vestas denied that ILFN was a cause of AHEs and proclaimed: 1) it is therefore unnecessary to require the prediction and monitoring of low frequency noise emission from wind turbines, 2) the existing and well- validated industry standard models for acoustic propagation are not designed to deal with frequencies at the low end of the audible spectrum, specifically because noise emissions in this band are not considered to pose issues likely to affect the surrounding environment, 3) “accordingly” Vestas suggests the removal of the requirements to measure low frequency noise from the Draft Guidelines. Yet, less than a year earlier, Vestas AU had written a letter to the Danish EPA claiming that a new low frequency noise limit for wind turbines could not be met because there were no design changes to modern utility scale wind turbines that could further reduce wind turbine noise to meet the new low frequency limits. On the one hand they claim there is no problem, and on the other hand they claim that there is no solution to a problem that they admit is a characteristic of wind turbines. (My comment: There is something rotten in Denmark). It is clear to me that Vestas recognized that ILFN would be a defining concern for IWTs – particularly as power generating capacity increased (which Vestas was rapidly designing and implementing for future designs). The newer larger MW models use longer the blades and slower hub rpm. This results in more ILFN than for earlier lower MW models with shorter blades and faster rotation speeds. The Wind Industry has adopted Vestas’ stance about ILFN importance. We, as the potential residents to be affected and possibly suffer harm, need to clarify for ourselves the true existence of and potential harm from ILFN and react responsibly by regulating these harmful emissions generated by IWTs – especially with increasingly larger models that are more often being “clumped” together.
The need for informed consent when known unknown risks exist
The proposed affected residents, by a super-majority, opposes the plan (for Arbor Hills Wind Facility, Madison County) based on concerns of adverse health risks. At the same time, only a small-minority of easement owners (22%) actually live on the property and would have to endure the same health consequences. Reportedly they are not allowed, by contract, to raise health-related concerns that might arise while residing at the property. How this affects people living on that property to farm the land is not known. Having spoken to residents about their “signing experience” with a wind industry, they didn’t recall that the representative declared the turbines “safe”. They did, however, clearly remember that there was no listing or mentioning of possible adverse events, reports of serious or mild annoyance nor potential longer-term cardiovascular consequences. This failure to disclose potential risks to the participating landowner OR the non-participating (but still noise-affected neighboring resident) is bothersome and reflects a lack of due-diligence, oversight, and protective jurisprudence. With decades of ongoing concern and innumerable science-supported reports of occurring harm and well-researched plausible serious adverse health effects being published, one could reasonably describe the omission of informed consent as a failure of duty of the party seeking the easement to properly notify the lease of known risks. (Writer comment: While I not an attorney, very similar scenarios occur in human research where volunteers are asked to participate in a “condition” where there are unknown (or let alone known) potential health risks in return for financial compensation. To a reasonable person, such easement contracts demand greater transparency and much higher levels of subject protection. While it is true that Wind Industry contractors are not involved in a “medical study” per se, they are entering into a contract with potential known and unknown health consequences for which a consideration of payment is given in exchange for accepting the potential harmful consequences of exposure to that added risk, (IWT noise emissions).
This “manual” is to promote a clearer and accurate description of industrial wind turbines
I have written this personal statement for myself to collect, consider and organize the mass of information and misinformation present on IWTS. I personally have known the feelings of surprise, bewilderment, confusion, and hopeless frustration upon learning that a large industrial complex could be permitted into quiet rural residential locales that is zoned for agriculture. At county meetings where citizens voiced their concerns “on both sides” of the argument, there were some that mentioned it was their “right” to be able to earn income from the leasing of their property. Of those relatively few, there was no one that I can recall that said that it was acceptable that wind turbines could then produce noise that would actually harm their neighbors. None mentioned that their neighbors also have a “right” to enjoy the peaceful use of their properties. The authors of a comprehensive textbook “Wind Farm Noise” distilled all the conflicting pro- or anti-wind rhetoric in a simple declaration: “it is time to stop debating whether or not a problem exists. It is well known that wind farm noise does result in sleep disturbance and health effects for some people and the time has come to decide what to do about it. The fact remains that some people are so affected by wind farm noise that their health suffers and some are forced to leave their home in order to achieve an acceptable quality of life.” We need to respect each other and look for energy solutions that make sense and most residents agree about. I have desperately sought for the truth as minimal information or, (upon fact-checking), frequently incorrect information was given by a power company who planned to produce a “secure profit”. I hope this “true” version of truth is useful to those who need to make important decisions, protect themselves and their property and assist for clarification of concepts regarding Industrial wind turbine implementation and regulation. When finally understood in “all in its convoluted and conflicting enormity”, it will hopefully be clear where the real questions remain.
Points to remember: Returning to my initial assumptions upon hearing that IWTs might be placed closely to my property, I mentioned that “I thought they were quiet, good for the world and assumed they were safe”. Exploring much further, I now know that NONE of those are true. IWTs make a lot of distressing noise, when examined as a “possible solution for climate change” they don’t make sense given cost, limited life, intermittency, dependence on CO2-producing energy back-up and affordable and adequate battery technology is possibly “beyond reach” and, they are clearly NOT safe for myriad number of reasons which I tried to describe in detail. IWTs cause adverse health effects with that definition being consistent with WHO definitions and currently practiced health care. We are now in an era in science where we know that environmental factors – particular noise – can and does cause adverse health effects which can include serious cardiovascular consequences. Advances in understanding the consequences of disturbed sleep raise concern for contributing to the development of Alzheimer’s disease. Shortened sleep duration has been highly correlated with cardiovascular disease development and endpoints of hypertension and ischemic heart disease.
We know the brain while “sleeping” can still be “aware” of noise (when it reaches a certain intensity (loudness) threshold and responds to it through body motility, even full awakening or “regressing” in its process of reaching various stages where vital restorative recovery of normal brain function occurs. Sleep disruption occurs with audible and, likely more importantly with IWTs, with lower frequency noise. The WHO has recently listed wind turbines as a potentially important source of environmental noise. While “high-level correlative data” does not exist yet, the WHO lists noise thresholds for potential disease development at levels lower than road traffic. Other analyses using severe annoyance metrics that include ILFN exposure drive the threshold noise levels much lower yet. Observing current, more inclusive definitions of health, IWTS do produce AHEs as annoyance (from mild to severe), and have been shown to disrupt normal sleep stage progression.
Utilizing metrics of biologic plausibility, as described by Sir Austin Bradford Hill, if met, can establish a “causal link” between WTN and AHEs for epidemiological purposes. As examined by Jerry Punch and Rick James in their 2016 comprehensive review (ref. in text), all 9 of The Bradford Hill criteria have been identified in the scientific literature as pertinent to the relationship between IWT noise and AHEs. Dr. Hill states, “None of my nine viewpoints can bring indisputable evidence for or against the cause-and-effect hypothesis and none can be required as a sine qua non. What they can do, with greater or less strength, is to help us to make up our minds on the fundamental question – is there any other way of explaining the set of facts before us, is there any other answer equally, or more likely than cause and effect?” In his final address observation, he asserts: “All scientific work is incomplete – whether it be observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time.”
Finally, included at the end of part #15, Mathias Basner, MD, PhD – who is considered a world leader on health effects from environmental noise, produced an editorial (2019) where he reviewed the potential impacts of noise on our health. He acknowledged the problem of smaller populations in currently available studies which make statistical powering of conclusion difficult. He has stressed that NONE of the wind noise guidelines data from the 2018 WHO report found an “absence of risk”. He finished his comments with “the fact that more studies are needed should not lead us to postpone the urgently needed protection of the population from noise.” The knowledge we have acquired so far IS SUFFICIENT to take preventive actions and substantiate them with respective legal noise regulation.
We have all learned that all people suffer to some extent– it is part of being human. But to intentionally force suffering upon affected citizens for the financial benefit of others is immoral. To “mentally take refuge away from guilt” by assuming huge “pinwheels spinning in a neighbor’s field are silent” and believing Wind Energy’s mantra of ‘no credible evidence’ that IWTs cause human harm is patently disrespectful, unprofessional, immoral, and grossly irresponsible. We can and must do better.
1) I am a Cardiologist who specializes in heart arrhythmias (Electrophysiologist) who focuses on abnormal fast and slow heart rates/patterns, implantable device (pacemakers, defibrillators) therapy, and have participated (investigated, published and presented) clinical research for decades. I also have been privileged to be involved with human research and served as the Chairman of the City-Wide Investigative Review Board overseeing the ethical conduct of ongoing local clinical trials. In those patient trials, high standards of participant protection and adverse event evaluation was paramount. I am drawn to understand the societal (local and international) impacts of IWTs – particularly health. I also felt compelled, through my years of human research experience, to protect the health, safety and welfare of myself and my fellow citizens.
2) I am not an Acoustician. An Acoustician is defined as an expert in the branch of physics concerned with the properties of sound. I have, however, corresponded at length with several Acousticians who have “specialized” their acoustical practice into the understanding, measurement and regulation of industrial wind turbine noise. They have shared with me their acquired in-depth understanding of IWT noise and its impact on people – from the details of measuring and interpreting noise to the impacts of that noise on people’s lives. They have directly talked and worked with the victims of IWT noise exposure. They have been invited into these unfortunate people’s homes and first-hand have measured, experienced and, on several occasions, have themselves suffered serious adverse health events from those noise exposures. They, through their professional lives, have seen the unfolding of IWT introduction around the world, interacted with key both pro- and anti-wind experts, and from their unique vantage point, provided a clearer understanding of the “real issues” and the history behind those issues. They have presented at national societal meetings, offered insightful theories and clarifications to their worldwide colleagues, published peer reviewed papers, testified in court trials, and at the request of governments. They are members of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) and/or the Acoustical Society of America (ASA). The INCE/ASA Member has experience in noise impact assessment, the effects of noise on people, and control (complaints, annoyance, noise specifications) and is committed to their Canon of Ethics for unbiased professional services whose first mission is to protect the public’s health and welfare. They are motivated to move forward into the “headwinds of greed and misinformation” because as professional experts, “they care about people”.
3) The origins of the information I have presented and summarized, I believe to be reliable, verifiable and accurate. I, in no way, have manufactured history, slandered nor created (recently popularized) “alternative facts”. I have expressed personal opinions based on collected information that I believe to be factual. My “physician opinions” come from four decades of interviewing, examining patients and applying basic human physiology and medical science in the effort to protect and improve their lives. I have read and re-read reviews and individual papers from both sides of the argument. In the enormous “confusion” of pro- and anti- Wind information, I have tried to focus on the quality of data being mindful of bias and full disclosure of and composition of reported “peer review” entities. I have looked specifically for the origins of noise regulation and the process by which current IWT siting practices became established.
W. Ben Johnson, M.D.
December 7, 2020
Table of Contents
Introductory Letter to Board of Zoning (Part 1)
Manual Design and Suggestions for Use
Part 2: Sleep
I Have Seen the “Face” of Industrial Wind Turbine (IWT) Harm
Disturbed Sleep – A Worsening Modern Health Epidemic Recent “Key” Medical
Studies Linking Inadequate Sleep to Cardiovascular Events
A YouTube Documentary Worth Seeing
Disturbed Sleep from IWT Noise Emissions
Appendix: 2009 WHO Summary of Sleep Effects and Noise Thresholds
Part 3: Wind – Basics
Sound Spectrum Defined by Frequency
Sound Measurement and Filtering
Source of IWT Noise
Primer on Sound
Variable Noise Related to Blade Angle
Wind Turbine Noise is Distinctly Annoying
“Worst Case Conditions” Sound Propagation Models
Wind Speeds at Night: Contrary to Common Perception
Part 4: IWT Emission – Types
Perception Thresholds, Serious Potential Consequences with Larger IWT Power
Clear Lessons from N.D. Kelley Pioneering Studies
Infrasound Emission from IWTs Do Exist
Long-Range Propagation of Infrasound
IWT Separation and Infrasound
Sound Propagation and Computer Modeling
Low Frequency Sound
Appendix: (textbook) Inner and Outer Hair Cell Responses, Hearing Thresholds in Infrasound and Lower-Frequency Sound Spectrum
Part 5: History
Wind Energy’s Wind Ordinance Preference: Derived for Profit Where Did It Come From and Will It Protect Human Health?
Early ILFN Recognition from Turbines and HVAC Systems – Striking Similarity with Industrial Wind Turbine Emissions and Symptoms
Hearing vs. Perceiving – Both Can Produce AHEs
Wind Energy Concedes “Annoyance” Exists, but Offers Other Excuses
NASA and DOE Funded Research – First (and Lasting) Confirmation of IWT
Emissions and Associated Health Effects – Now Denied by Wind Energy
1500-Feet Setback Recommendation by MAE and Its Historical Origen
Pathway to Subsequent Adoption Worldwide
Where Is U.S. Federal-Level Oversight?
Part 6: Adverse Health Effects
Bob Thorne, PhD – IWT Study (2012) and Textbook (2014) 61 Annoyance
Infrasound Recognition and AHEs
Perception of Infrasound by a Deaf Woman
Infrasound Perception from Wind Turbines and the Inner Ear – Dr. Salt
IWT Noise and The Development of Cardiovascular Disease
What is Going On: Deep Dive into a Much Deeper Pond
Obstructive Sleep Apnea – A Model to Consider for IWT Effects
World Health Organization Comments
Appendix: Home Vacating Article – Carmen Krogh
Health Canada Study – Annoyance Related to Turbine Nois
Textbook: Wind Farm Noise (cover and author list)
Annoyance of IWT Noise vs. Other Environmental Sources
Wind Turbine Signature (Infrasound) – 2 Examples
Part 7: Other Select Topics
Human Rights and Social Justice
Potential Concerns of IWTs in Proximity to Schools
Increased Cardiovascular Disease Associated with Life in Rural Areas
Recent U.S. Upward-Trending Death Rates from Hypertension
Litigation: A Replacement of Science and Failure of Leadership
SCADA and NRO
Blade Throw: We Need to Have Written, Model-Specific Safety Information
Appendix: European Electricity Prices vs. Extent of Installed “Renewable” Energy Sources
Part 8: Peer Review
IRB Process: Gold Standard Evaluation of Safety That Has Never Been Done
Causality – Professor A.B. Hill
Part 9: Searching for an Explanation of Why Harm Is Acceptable … A View Toward the “Dark Side”
Wind Energy/Vestas – Behind the Scenes
Attack on a Science Leader Who Told the Truth
Wind Energy Self-Protecting Ordinance Writing
Declaring “Fact” Through Misuse of Standard Acoustical Instruments
Appendix: 2005 BWEA and 2020 AWEA IWT Health Claims
Danish Physician (Mauri Johansson) Addresses Vestas “Central”: A Profile of Courage
Vestas’ Response to Australian Regulation Attempts to Control Noise
Vestas Protest of Increased Noise Control of Low-Frequency Noise
Part 10: Carbon Management
We Agree on Some Things
Planet of the Humans
Hard Realities That Are Catching Up and Now Demand Action
Renewable Options Without IWT Risks
An Extraordinary Opportunity for Iowa
Appendix: National Geographic Projection of Electrical Generation by 2050
Part 11: Applied Regulation of Noise
Relevance of Background Noise
Lmax vs. Leq – Relating to an Open or Closed Window
(Audible) dBA Calculations (as a Function of Distance) for the V-110 IWT
Outside to Inside Noise Reduction
Windows – Open or Closed?
Relationship Between Night Noise and Health Effects
Loudness Variation over the Sound Spectrum
Part 12: Ordinance Examples and Regulation
Siting Turbines: Considerations
Additional Published Sound Limits
Part 13: Recommendations
Need to Have Wind Ordinance Specify ANSI Standards
Wind Farm Noise (textbook) Wind Ordinance Recommendations
Part 14: Expedited “Part” Summaries
Part 15: Conclusions, Appendix – Mathias Basner
Download original document: “A Madison County, Iowa, cardiologist’s investigation and response to industrial wind turbines in the rural residential countryside regarding concerns of adverse health effects and exploration of the relevant accompanying larger issues”
A systematic review and meta-analysis of wind turbine noise effects on sleep using validated objective and subjective sleep assessments
Author: Liebich, Tessa; et al.
Little is known about the potential impacts of wind turbine noise (WTN) on sleep. Previous research is limited to cross-sectional studies reporting anecdotal impacts on sleep using inconsistent sleep metrics. This meta-analysis sought to comprehensively review studies evaluating the impact of WTN using widely accepted and validated objective and subjective sleep assessments. Search terms included: “wind farm noise”, “wind turbine noise”, “wind turbine sound”, “wind turbine noise exposure” AND “sleep”. Only original articles published in English published after the year 2000 and reporting sleep outcomes in the presence of WTN using polysomnography, actigraphy or psychometrically validated sleep questionnaires were included. Uniform outcomes of the retrieved studies were meta-analysed to examine WTN effects on objective and subjective sleep outcomes. Nine studies were eligible for review and five studies were meta-analysed. Meta-analyses (Hedges’ g; 95% confidence interval [CI]) revealed no significant differences in objective sleep onset latency (0.03, 95% CI −0.34 to 0.41), total sleep time (−0.05, 95% CI −0.77 to 0.67), sleep efficiency (−0.25, 95% CI −0.71 to 0.22) or wake after sleep onset (1.25, 95% CI −2.00 to 4.50) in the presence versus absence of WTN (all p > .05). Subjective sleep estimates were not meta-analysed because measurement outcomes were not sufficiently uniform for comparisons between studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that WTN does not significantly impact key indicators of objective sleep. Cautious interpretation remains warranted given variable measurement methodologies, WTN interventions, limited sample sizes, and cross-sectional study designs, where cause- and-effect relationships are uncertain. Well-controlled experimental studies using ecologically valid WTN, objective and psychometrically validated sleep assessments are needed to provide conclusive evidence regarding WTN impacts on sleep.
Statement of significance:
Studies investigating the impact of wind turbine noise (WTN) on objectively measured sleep outcomes are scarce. Previous reviews and meta-analyses are limited to cross-sectional studies based largely on anecdotal impacts on sleep and reporting indirect and inconsistent sleep metrics. Without the use of objective and standardised questionnaires, only limited conclusions can be drawn. To date, several experimental studies have examined the i pact of WTN on sleep using polysomnography, actigraphy and psychometrically validated questionnaires, calling for an updated review. The present review and meta-analysis show that key indicators of objective sleep outcomes do not appear to be impacted by WTN, whereas psychometrically validated subjective sleep outcomes showed more inconsistent findings.
Branko Zajamšek, Tessa Liebich, Leon Lack, Nicole Lovato, Peter Catcheside, Kristy Hansen, Gorica Micic
Adelaide Institute for Sleep Health: A Flinders Centre of Research Excellence, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Bedford Park; College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide; College of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Journal of Sleep Research. Published on line November 12, 2020. doi: 10.1111/jsr.13228
Author: Koster, Hans; and Dröes, Martijn
Countries that invest in renewable energy production face frequent opposition from local homeowners. Using a detailed housing transactions dataset covering the whole of the Netherlands since 1985, this column compares the overall impact that wind turbines and solar farms have on housing prices. It finds that tall wind turbines (over 150 metres) have a negative effect, and solar farms generate losses as well (2-3% for homeowners within a 1km orbit). This evidence should be factored into finding the optimal allocation of renewable energy production facilities.
Renewable energy is on the rise (Newbery 2018). While global demand is still strongly increasing amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, the demand for fossil fuels has steeply declined (IEA 2020). Wind turbines are an important source of renewable energy, with 30% of total capacity located in Europe and 17% in the US in 2018. China has invested especially heavily in wind energy, overtaking the EU in 2015 as the largest producer of wind energy. Currently, 36% of worldwide capacity is located in China (GWEC 2019). Wind turbines have become taller over time: turbines in the 1980s were still around 30 metres, while the newest generation of wind turbines are well above 100 metres.
A related trend is the commercial production of renewable energy via solar farms. The first solar farm was constructed in 1982 in California. Yet, with advances in technology, the commercial exploitation of solar farms has only become attractive in the last decade or so (Heal 2009). These solar farms have also become bigger over time; the largest solar farm currently is 40km2 and located in Bhadla, India.
Even though wind turbines comprise a larger part of renewable energy production, last year’s growth in solar photovoltaics capacity was about twice that of wind turbines (REN21 2020). Whether the current surge in the construction of tall wind turbines and large solar farms will continue remains to be seen, but some countries have already suggested that the economic recovery after Covid-19 should be a green one (Jordans 2020).
Wind turbines make noise, cast shadows, cause flickering, and visually pollute the landscape, typically leading to substantial opposition from the local population, including homeowners. A similar story applies for ground-mounted solar panels, as they reflect ambient sound, sunlight, create a buzzing sound, and are also not so great to look at. In line with a large literature on hedonic pricing, we would expect that such ‘external effects’ capitalise into local house prices. Increasing our understanding of these external effects is important to gaining insight into the optimal allocation of renewable energy production facilities.
In a recent study (Dröes and Koster 2020), we examine the effects of tall wind turbines and solar farms on residential property values. Using a detailed housing transactions dataset covering the whole of the Netherlands since 1985, and a difference-in-differences regression methodology, we compare changes to house prices in areas that will receive a turbine in the future to areas in which a turbine already has been built, taking into account a host of other factors determining house prices such as location, general economic trends, and housing quality. In this way, we ensure that we compare apples with apples (i.e. houses in areas that have a turbine compared to houses in near-identical areas without a turbine), rather than apples with oranges. A comparable approach is used to measure the effects of solar farms.
In Figures 1a and 1b, we plot the spatial distribution of (respectively) wind turbines and solar farms across the Netherlands. It is easy to observe that turbines are more common than solar farms.
Most solar farms have been built in recent years. Turbines are particularly common in coastal areas where wind is ubiquitous. Solar farms are mainly built in the northwest of the Netherlands, as more space is available to facilitate large solar farms.
With regard to the empirical results for wind turbines, residential property values are negatively impacted when properties are in close proximity to a wind turbine. In particular, the house prices of properties within a 2km radius decrease on average by 2% relative to comparable properties with no wind turbines nearby. However, we find considerable heterogeneity in the effect of turbines on house prices (see Figure 2). For example, a tall wind turbine (>150m tip height) generates a negative price effect of about 5% within 2km, while we do not find a significant effect for turbines below 50m. We show that our results are robust when (i) we allow for changes in perception to wind turbines, (ii) we look at removals of turbines rather than placements, and (iii) we allow for the effects of multiple turbines. Regarding the latter, we find that only the first turbine within 2km has an effect on property prices. From a policy standpoint, this suggest that it is preferable to cluster wind turbines into large wind farms. We also show that the impact area of turbines is essentially the same for turbines taller than 50m, while the effects are more localised for turbines under 50m.
Taking the empirical results at face value, we calculate the overall loss in housing wealth as a result of wind turbines and solar farms. It appears that just 25 turbines account for almost 50% of the total loss, which shows that it is very important to build turbines not too close to residential properties. Indeed, the median loss per turbine is much lower and about €166,000, or about €89 per megawatt hour (MWh). Given the construction costs of about €1.27 million per MW, and the median installed capacity of 3MW, the median loss in housing values is about 4.4% of the median construction costs. Interestingly, the median loss per MWh varies considerably across turbines of different heights. For example, because tall turbines generate more power, the median loss per MWh is about €10, while it is €844 for small turbines. Hence, despite the smaller effects of small turbines on house prices, the lower power output means it is not more efficient to build small turbines.
For solar farms the results are less convincing because the number of solar farms is much lower, making the estimated coefficients less precise. Still, we find evidence suggesting that solar farms lead to a house price decrease of about 2-3%. Unsurprisingly, the effect is more localized than the effect of turbines and confined to 1km. Because fewer solar farms are constructed, the total loss is just over €84 million. Here it also seems more informative to look at the median loss of a solar farm, which amounts to about €0.5 million – somewhat larger than the median loss for one turbine. However, this is mainly because solar farms are generally larger and generate more electricity. The median loss per MWh is €63, which is in the same order of magnitude as the median loss per MWh for wind turbines (i.e. €89 per MWh).
Producing energy in a sustainable way is an important step towards a climate-neutral economy with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions (Castle and Hendry 2020). Wind and solar energy are important sources of renewable energy. However, while reductions in CO₂ emissions benefits the whole population, external effects are borne only by households living close to production sites. Hence, insights into these external effects is paramount, as the size of external effects directly informs the local support for the opening of production sites, such as wind turbines and solar farms. Our study shows that the location of production sites of renewable energy matters, as a few sites cause the lion’s share of losses in housing values in the Netherlands. The results also highlight that when building tall turbines in the right locations, reductions in housing values are a relatively small share (<5%) of the total construction costs of turbines.
Hans Koster, Professor of Urban Economics and Real Estate, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Martijn Dröes, Assistant Professor of Real Estate Finance, University of Amsterdam
20 September 2020
Jordans, F (2020), “Germany, Britain call for ‘green recovery’ from pandemic”, Associated Press Berlin, 27 April.
Castle, J and D Hendry (2020), “Decarbonising the Future UK Economy”, VoxEU.org, 4 June.
Dröes, M and H Koster (2020), “Wind turbines, solar farms, and house prices“, CEPR Discussion Paper 15023.
GWEC (2019), Global Wind Report 2018, Global Wind Energy Council.
Heal, G (2009), “Can Renewable Energy Save the World?” VoxEU.org, 29 October.
IEA (2020), Global energy review 2020.
Newbery, D (2018), “Evaluating the Case for Supporting Renewable Electricity”, VoxEU.org, 20 July.
REN21 (2020), Renewables 2020 Global Status Report.