[Henry]

I support the principle of CO2 reduction and the need to move away from electricity produced from fossil fuel sources.

What I cannot understand is the need to build wind turbines close to peoples houses.

I have read the harrowing story of the Davis family at Deeping St. Nicholas and how they have had to move out of their house into rented accomadation in order to sleep at night.

So why are Scottishpower Renewables wanting to build a windfarm in rural Worcestershire with the largest turbines yet erected in England closer to houses than those in Deeping St. Nicholas??? Scottish Ministers have recommended a set back of 2Km but they have chosen to ignore this when proposing windfarm sites in England. Sounds like double standards to me.

This cannot be the actions of an ethical company if they are prepared to put company profit before the lives of the local community.

I have just switched my electricity supplier away from Scottish power. I suggest you do the same.

[JonF]

I have to say that I agree with your sentiments Henry. Clearly a minimum distance of 2Km would reduce the number of available sites considerably and I suspect this is the motivation behind the powers-that-be seemingly ignoring this sensible limit.

[ekky]

I too have removed our electricity from the business unit address, renewal was June 2009 and I have made it clear to them the reason why.

[Will]

More on Deeping St Nicholas:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ire/5341216.stm

[ekky]

Read this link and think hard about how we generate new electricity. Stop and think.


http://www.dailymail...went-heads.html

[Will]

Or this, from a slightly more reputable source:

http://timesonline.c...penComment=true

[JonF]

Will, on 14 July 2009 - 11:50 PM, said:

Or this, from a slightly more reputable source:

http://timesonline.c...penComment=true

Reputable? Caitlin is certainly an amusing columnist but I'm not sure of her depth of understanding.
Her previous three articles were:
Why Ghostbusters is the best film ever made
End of the road for the Wacko Jacko caravan
I deserted you and still feel ashamed

Not exactly a selection from the New Scientist

Does anyone have links to article from informed, if not unbiased, sources?

JonF

[Will]

Sorry, Jon - I meant that The Times is slightly more reputable a source than the Mail.

I found this article very interesting and, on the whole, extremely balanced:

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/24/energy.communities

[JonF]

Will, on 16 July 2009 - 02:37 PM, said:

Sorry, Jon - I meant that The Times is slightly more reputable a source than the Mail.

I found this article very interesting and, on the whole, extremely balanced:

http://www.guardian....rgy.communities

A bit 'back and forth' but, as you say, a balanced article. I have to say though that I'm even more concerned after reading it about the potential noise issue. I really liked the clarification of why sometimes people hear noise and sometimes not...

Quote

a whooshing sound when the wind is blowing towards them or when the turbines combine to amplify the sound, and low-frequency soundwaves that cause vibrations and induce headaches and nausea. The problems are worse at night, when there is no other ambient noise

Even with my distant A level physics I know that sound is effected by other environmental conditions and with a nearly as distant psychology degree that perception of sound is a good deal removed from physical measurements. Placing a sound meter there before and after is a start but maybe far from enough.

Thanks though, a good article.

JonF.

[Will]

I think you've made a good point. There are two sides to the sound issue, one involving physics, the other involving psychology.

In other words, there's the science of acoustics, and then there's perception.

Jane Davis's statement to the Commons suggested that some degree of 'resonance' has been claimed of somewhere between 5% and 20% of windfarms.

There are, potentially, factors which could cause this, the most obvious being turbines 'synchronising' with each other. The thing to watch out for there would be the positioning of the turbines. Windfarm developers know that aligning turbines tends to effect their capacity, so they usually avoid it, although in older windfarms this may not always have been the case.

But the real problem with the 'resonance' issue seems to be that it's so difficult to pin down. Which brings in the problem of perception. There is evidence that some people hear a continuous noise (the 'Bristol' effect) in areas where no windfarms are present, and this is far from being understood. Evidently, it would help if this syndrome were understood, because the effects are identical to those reported with regard to windfarms, and it would be silly if windfarms got the blame for something that has been reported in a wide variety of other locations.

What worries me most about the protesters and their campaign is that it is priming people to find the windfarm noisy. This is a rather dangerous game to be playing, because - if the Lenchwick Windfarm does get built - there may be people who have become convinced that they will hear 'noise', regardless of whether such a noise is present or not. The protesters, then, could be creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

The video on the VVASP website, I believe, shows the result of this kind of thing. The first person to be interviewed on it, an elderly woman, can, by her own admission, not see the windfarm, which is over the hill from her house. It's pretty evident from the interview and the soundtrack that she can't actually hear it, either. And yet, she seems to be convinced that she can, and it's upsetting her.

Jane Davis accepts that reports of 'resonance' have been made with regard to, at most, one fifth of the windfarms in the UK. As you note, sound can be affected by many conditions, and some of these are understood and can be compensated for or effectively negated by careful planning. But I do fear that a kind of 'feedback' effect has and is being created, not by the turbines themselves, but by the protesters promoting the assumption that there will be resonance, leading to the belief that there is resonance.

I'm not suggesting that the minority of individuals who claim to have been affected by windfarm 'resonance' are lying, but this 'resonance' does seem to be extremely elusive, has never (to the best of my knowledge) been recorded, and may be more a perceptual problem than an acoustic fact - the result of being convinced that a windfarm will generate noise which will affect you, even though you can't see it, can't hear it, and there's even a hill in the way.

Will

[JonF]

Ther most certainly will be a 'priming effect' where concern over noise will heighten or even create a perception of noise. That said, people may be effected in a negative and very real manner.

I don't think that protest groups can be called to account for their part in this as they are simply reacting to a change in their circumstances. The same psychological effects that excasserbate the perception of noise can heighten anxiety with regard to an impending and significant change. They are just part of the equation.

As with most things I think there is a good deal of common ground here:

Wind turbines do create noise and flicker the magnitude of which is effected by other environmental factors
The extent to which this has a negative impact is further determined by psychological factors
There is a very real impact on some people, but not all

All in all it's no wonder there are so many differing accounts of wind turbine noise and flicker.

JonF.

[NLys]

Will, on 16 July 2009 - 11:32 PM, said:

I think you've made a good point. There are two sides to the sound issue, one involving physics, the other involving psychology.

In other words, there's the science of acoustics, and then there's perception.

Jane Davis's statement to the Commons suggested that some degree of 'resonance' has been claimed of somewhere between 5% and 20% of windfarms.

There are, potentially, factors which could cause this, the most obvious being turbines 'synchronising' with each other. The thing to watch out for there would be the positioning of the turbines. Windfarm developers know that aligning turbines tends to effect their capacity, so they usually avoid it, although in older windfarms this may not always have been the case.

But the real problem with the 'resonance' issue seems to be that it's so difficult to pin down. Which brings in the problem of perception. There is evidence that some people hear a continuous noise (the 'Bristol' effect) in areas where no windfarms are present, and this is far from being understood. Evidently, it would help if this syndrome were understood, because the effects are identical to those reported with regard to windfarms, and it would be silly if windfarms got the blame for something that has been reported in a wide variety of other locations.

What worries me most about the protesters and their campaign is that it is priming people to find the windfarm noisy. This is a rather dangerous game to be playing, because - if the Lenchwick Windfarm does get built - there may be people who have become convinced that they will hear 'noise', regardless of whether such a noise is present or not. The protesters, then, could be creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

The video on the VVASP website, I believe, shows the result of this kind of thing. The first person to be interviewed on it, an elderly woman, can, by her own admission, not see the windfarm, which is over the hill from her house. It's pretty evident from the interview and the soundtrack that she can't actually hear it, either. And yet, she seems to be convinced that she can, and it's upsetting her.

Jane Davis accepts that reports of 'resonance' have been made with regard to, at most, one fifth of the windfarms in the UK. As you note, sound can be affected by many conditions, and some of these are understood and can be compensated for or effectively negated by careful planning. But I do fear that a kind of 'feedback' effect has and is being created, not by the turbines themselves, but by the protesters promoting the assumption that there will be resonance, leading to the belief that there is resonance.

I'm not suggesting that the minority of individuals who claim to have been affected by windfarm 'resonance' are lying, but this 'resonance' does seem to be extremely elusive, has never (to the best of my knowledge) been recorded, and may be more a perceptual problem than an acoustic fact - the result of being convinced that a windfarm will generate noise which will affect you, even though you can't see it, can't hear it, and there's even a hill in the way.

Will

You are guilty, like the wind industry, of over-simplifying and downplaying the issue.

There are not, "... two sides to the sound issue, one involving physics, the other involving psychology." "In other words, there's the science of acoustics, and then there's perception."

It is more complicated - what about epidemiological and physiological issues?

As Nina Pierpoint and others have pointed out, there has been hardly any impartial research into wind turbine impacts from this angle.

Nearly everything to do with turbine noise (I include vibro-acoustic and visual effects) is sourced from acousticians working for the wind industry or government agencies whose primary interest is in discrediting any opposition to government policy (see the way the AM issue has been handled).

I am firmly convinced, from reading up on the subject, that acousticians in the wind industry have only a limited understanding of turbine noise effects.

As well as phase effects, there are geographical amplifiers: I have experienced ridiculously loud noise some 2 miles upwind of 100m Nordex turbines at Crystal Rig in the Scottish Borders. I was on the other side of a valley from the turbine locations. Valleys below ridgeline projects often seem to amplify noise.

One of the worst examples of noise I have heard/seen was a BBC outside broadcast from below a wind power station at Ireleth, where the same situation of elevated turbines seemed to be a factor in the racket that almost drowned out the reporter.

Not much psychology involved, I can assure you. We have used this BBC tape, which involved interviews in front of small, distant turbines with normal, non-directional mikes, on many occasions - the audience is, invariably, horrified.

[FRAWT]

Dear All,

Can I just say that we are in danger of going "off-piste". Denmark, Scotland and other countries believe that a set back distance be defined. England does not. We should agree on a set back distance (I personally think 1.5 miles minimum)from peoples houses. This will ensure that noise from the turbines (whether perceived or actual) is taken out of the equation. Also if Wind Turbine Syndrone is a reality (as per Nina Pierpont's report) then this set back distance will go a long way to giving resident the peace of mind they deserve.

This way more planning applications will be robust, spurious developers trying to cash in on the wind farm windfall will have to behave responsibly and we are all winners

Sue