Resource Documents: Noise (678 items)
(noise inside entry vestibule at midnight, 3 1.5-MW GE turbines 1500 feet downwind, Bliss, N.Y.)
Also see NWW press release on noise
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.
Ground motions induced by wind turbines
Author: Nagel, Sven; et al.
Abstract – Wind flow transfers forces to the wind turbine’s rotor blades. These then set the rotor in motion. The hub and the gearbox, where present, transfer this rotational energy to the generator for conversion into electrical power. All the rotating components have significant mass and are located at the head of a slender, elastic load-bearing tower in which they induce dynamic effects. The resulting vibrations, generated at the upper end of the tower, are modified by the dynamic properties of the tower structure and pass through the foundations into the ground. Broadband seismometers record these ground vibrations not only directly adjacent to the wind turbine but also at greater distances of (up to) several kilometers from the turbine. We are aware that local residents and opponents of wind power consider that these vibration phenomena bear potential negative health effects. In the context of this paper, seismic vibrations were measured at the foundation of a 2 MW reference turbine. These seismic signals were compared to numerical simulations. Based on this, we explain the physical background. In the past, any ground vibrations measured have usually been attributed exclusively to the excitation frequencies from the rotor. However, the investigations presented here show that the structural properties of the tower structure significantly influence the type and intensity of the vibrations induced in the ground and dominate the ground motion amplitudes. Finally, we show that the targeted use of absorbers can significantly reduce the vibrations induced in the ground.
Sven Nagel, Thomas Ummenhofer, Peter Knödel, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, Stahl- und Leichtbau, Karlsruhe, Germany
Toni Zieger, Joachim Ritter, Geophysikalisches Institut, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany
Birger Luhmann, Stuttgarter Lehrstuhl für Windenergie, Institut für Flugzeugbau, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Germany
Civil Engineering Design. 2021;3:73–86. doi:10.1002/cend.202100015
Download original document: “Ground motions induced by wind turbines”
Pre-Sleep Cognitive Arousal and Sleep Misperception
Author: Sharman, Rachel; et al.
Pre-Sleep Cognitive Arousal Is Negatively Associated with Sleep Misperception in Healthy Sleepers during Habitual Environmental Noise Exposure: An Actigraphy Study
Abstract – Specific noises (e.g., traffic or wind turbines) can disrupt sleep and potentially cause a mismatch between subjective sleep and objective sleep (i.e., “sleep misperception”). Some individuals are likely to be more vulnerable than others to noise-related sleep disturbances, potentially as a result of increased pre-sleep cognitive arousal. The aim of the present study was to examine the relationships between pre-sleep cognitive arousal and sleep misperception. Sixteen healthy sleepers participated in this naturalistic, observational study. Three nights of sleep were measured using actigraphy, and each 15-s epoch was classified as sleep or wake. Bedside noise was recorded, and each 15-s segment was classified as containing noise or no noise and matched to actigraphy. Participants completed measures of habitual pre-sleep cognitive and somatic arousal and noise sensitivity. Pre-sleep cognitive and somatic arousal levels were negatively associated with subjective–objective total sleep time discrepancy (p < 0.01). There was an association between sleep/wake and noise presence/absence in the first and last 90 min of sleep (p < 0.001). These results indicate that higher levels of habitual pre-sleep arousal are associated with a greater degree of sleep misperception, and even in healthy sleepers, objective sleep is vulnerable to habitual bedside noise.
Rachel L. Sharman, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Sleep and Circadian Neuroscience Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.
Michael L. Perlis, Behavioral Sleep Medicine Program, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Célyne H. Bastien, École de Psychologie, Université Laval, and Centre de Recherche CERVO, Québec, Québec, Canada
Nicola L. Barclay, Jason G. Ellis, and Greg J. Elder, Northumbria Sleep Research, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.
Published: 24 February 2022. Clocks & Sleep 2022, 4(1), 88-99; doi:10.3390/clockssleep4010010
Download original document: “Pre-Sleep Cognitive Arousal Is Negatively Associated with Sleep Misperception in Healthy Sleepers during Habitual Environmental Noise Exposure: An Actigraphy Study”
Pre-Sleep Cognitive Arousal Is Unrelated to Sleep Misperception in Healthy Sleepers When Unexpected Sounds Are Played during Non–Rapid Eye Movement Sleep: A Polysomnography Study
Abstract – Background: It is well-established that environmental noise can disrupt sleep, and cause a mismatch between subjective and objective sleep, which is known as “sleep misperception”. Naturalistic studies indicate that pre-sleep cognitive arousal and sleep misperception are associated in the context of noise. However, it is not known if this is the case when ecologically valid noises are specifically played during non–rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep, which is susceptible to noise-related disruption. The present study evaluated if pre-sleep cognitive arousal was associated with sleep misperception in healthy normal sleepers, when unexpected ecologically valid common nocturnal noises were played during NREM sleep. Methods: Eighteen healthy sleepers (Mage = 23.37 years, SDage = 3.21 years) participated. Sleep was measured objectively on three consecutive nights using polysomnography, in a sleep laboratory environment, and subjectively, through participant estimates of total sleep time (TST). Night 1 was a baseline night where no noises were played. On Night 2, noises, which were chosen to be representative of habitual nocturnal noises heard in home environments, were played to participants via in-ear headphones after 5 min of objective sleep. Results: Unexpectedly, habitual pre-sleep cognitive arousal was not associated with subjective–objective TST discrepancy on Night 2. Conclusions: These results suggest that in healthy sleepers, when ecologically valid noises are played unexpectedly during NREM sleep in an unfamiliar sleep laboratory environment the subjective experience of sleep is not associated with pre-sleep cognitive arousal, or negatively impacted by noise exposure.
Rachel L. Sharman, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Sleep and Circadian Neuroscience Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.
Célyne H. Bastien, École de Psychologie, Université Laval, and Centre de Recherche CERVO, Québec, Québec, Canada
Michael L. Perlis, Behavioral Sleep Medicine Program, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Mark A. Wetherell, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.
Nicola L. Barclay, Nayantara Santhi, Jason G. Ellis, and Greg J. Elder, Northumbria Sleep Research, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.
Published: 9 September 2022. Brain Sciemces 2022, 12(9), 1220; doi:10.3390/brainsci12091220
Download original document: “Pre-Sleep Cognitive Arousal Is Unrelated to Sleep Misperception in Healthy Sleepers When Unexpected Sounds Are Played during Non–Rapid Eye Movement Sleep: A Polysomnography Study”
Wind power harms the environment, fuels bad energy policies and poor investments
Author: Gitt, Brian
I love the *idea* of wind power. It sounds natural. Clean. Moral. But in reality, wind power harms the environment & people—especially low-income people. The myths about wind power are fueling bad energy policies & poor investments. The facts make it all look ridiculous.
2/ MYTH: wind power helps the environment.
Wind power requires excessive mining & land use. It industrializes coastline & kills wildlife.
Nuclear & natural gas power plants reduce CO₂ emissions more effectively.
3/ Wind turbines are made from minerals, petrochemicals, & fossil fuels.
Building a single 2 MW windmill uses 187 tons of coal—the equivalent of 125 pickup trucks full of coal.
Vaclav Smil: “What I See When I See a Wind Turbine”
4/ Building a 100 MW wind farm requires 30,000 tons of iron ore, 50,000 tons of concrete & 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics for the blades—all mined, transported & produced with hydrocarbons.
5/ Wind farms need 360× more land to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear power plant.
A 200 MW wind farm spans 13+ sq miles (36 sq km). A natural-gas power plant with the same generating capacity could fit onto a single city block.
Dave Merrill, Bloomberg: “The U.S. Will Need a Lot of Land for a Zero-Carbon Economy”
6/ Wind turbines threaten endangered whales & fisheries, & kill hundreds of thousands of birds every year.
Robert Bryce, Real Clear Energy: “The Sierra Club Loves Wind Turbines, Not Whales”
7/ Each wind turbine blade is over 165 feet (50 meters) long & is made from toxic materials that can’t be recycled & that are getting dumped in landfills.
Tens of thousands of these blades will eventually enter the waste stream.
Chris Martin, Bloomberg: “Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills”
8/ There are better ways of reducing climate risk.
The carbon footprint of an offshore wind farm is 3 times larger than the carbon footprint of a nuclear plant.
Building wind farms channels resources away from better ways of reducing climate risk like nuclear power.
9/ MYTH: Wind power helps people.
Households pay more for electricity where there are wind & solar mandates:
German households saw their energy bills increase by 34% between 2010-2020.
American households in CA pay 80% more, & 11% more in 28 other states with mandates.
10/ Lower-income people subsidize wind-power tax credits for the wealthy.
“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” —Warren Buffett
11/ The wind industry still needs subsidies even after billions in public handouts.
The US Treasury estimates the wind production tax credit will cost taxpayers ~$34 billion from 2020 to 2029. It’s by far the most expensive energy subsidy.
Chart created by @pwrhungry
12/ People who live near wind farms report sleep disturbances, headaches, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, blurry vision, irritability, & problems with concentration & memory.
13/ China takes up 7 spots among the world’s top 10 wind turbine manufacturers—where weak environmental regulations prevail & lower production costs are fueled by coal & cheap labor.
14/ Goldwind (2nd largest wind manufacturer in the world) has factories in China’s Xinjiang province, where hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs are working in slave labor conditions.
15/ MYTH – We can build enough wind farms to meet our energy needs.
People hate living near wind farms.
The farms are loud & large (each is 400-700 ft tall (122-213 m).
They destroy views & hurt property values.
16/ Public backlash against wind farms is growing in the US & Europe.
Local governments have rejected over 317 US wind projects since 2015.
17/ Offshore wind farms sidestep some community conflicts but have other problems.
Building offshore farms is 3× more expensive than onshore.
They threaten endangered whales, fisheries, ocean views & industrialize the coastline.
18/ Wind turbines generate electricity only ~30% of the time because the wind doesn’t always blow.
Every megawatt of wind needs a megawatt of fossil fuel power (usually natural gas) as a backup.
19/ MYTH – Better tech will solve problems with wind power.
The Betz limit in physics caps the maximum efficiency for a wind turbine. At most, only 60% of the kinetic energy from wind can be used to spin the turbine & generate electricity.
20/ Not all tech innovation makes things cheaper.
Offshore wind is getting more expensive. The cost has been increasing by 15% whenever capacity doubles.
Renewable Energy Foundation: “Wind Power Economics – Rhetoric and Reality”
21/ Some people think we’ll be able to store surplus wind energy in batteries. But the world’s largest battery factory (Tesla’s Gigafactory) would need 1,000 years to make enough batteries for 2 days’ worth of US electricity demand. And batteries cost 200× more than natural gas.
22/ Wind farms break down often & don’t last long.
Equipment failures & declining performance make the cost of operating a 16+ yr old wind turbine prohibitive.
Onshore turbines lose 37% output & offshore turbines lose 50% output at 16 yrs.
23/ Myths about wind power are driving bad investments & policy decisions.
Dollars spent on them cause harm & suffering to the poorest among us–a high cost for false moral comfort.
Let’s build an energy system that maximizes human flourishing & minimizes environmental harm.
24/ What We Need To Do:
End subsidies & incentives for wind & solar.
Retire the dirtiest coal power plants.
Build new efficient natural gas power plants (and hydro and geothermal where possible).
Reform regulations & build nuclear power plants.
Invest in energy R&D.
Brian Gitt
Feb 15, 2022, Twitter (@BrianGitt)
Noel Uren and John Zakula v Bald Hills Wind Farm
Author: Richards, Melinda
Supreme Court of Victoria, VSC 145, 25 March 2022
TORTS – Nuisance – Private
– Wind farm operated by defendant
– Plaintiffs complain noise from wind turbines disturbs sleep
– Substantial interference with plaintiffs’ enjoyment of land
– Interference is intermittent and specifically affects plaintiffs’ ability to sleep undisturbed at night
– Social and public utility of wind farm
– Whether plaintiffs hypersensitive
– Nature and established uses in locality
– Whether wind farm an established use in locality
– Whether defendant took reasonable precautions
– Noise found to be substantial and unreasonable interference with plaintiffs’ enjoyment of land.
PLANNING – Permit compliance
– Relevance of permit compliance to private nuisance claim
– Noise conditions in planning permit apply New Zealand Standard 6808:1998 Acoustics – The Assessment and Measurement of Sound from Wind Turbine Generators
– Whether wind farm complied with noise conditions in permit
– Proper interpretation of noise conditions and NZ Standard
– Role of Minister in relation to permit compliance
– Minister responsible authority for noise conditions under Planning and Environment Act 1987(Vic)
– Not for Minister to determine permit compliance
– Defendant did not establish compliance with noise conditions in permit.
INJUNCTION
– Whether damages an adequate remedy for continuing nuisance
– Damages not an adequate remedy
– Injunction restraining defendant from continuing to permit noise from wind turbines to cause nuisance at night and requiring defendant to take necessary measures to abate nuisance
– Injunction stayed for three months.
DAMAGES
– Damages for past loss of amenity
– Aggravated damages
– High-handed conduct of defendant
– Exemplary damages not awarded.
Download original document: “Noel Uren and John Zakula v Bald Hills Wind Farm”
