Several months ago Stewart Fast, a new professor at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, undertook a study of why southern Ontario was such a hotbed of anti wind energy sentiments. His conclusions were interesting, and I’ll be having more to say about them in a future posting. As part of his study he looked at property values and in particular he looked at MPAC (the Ontario real estate assessors), Wolfe Island and the property assessment reductions thereon.
As it happens, I had also looked at MPAC and Wolfe Island and posted on it about 18 months ago. It seems that Fast and I used the same FOIA-obtained spreadsheet. My main conclusion was that there seemed to be a large number of large reductions on Wolfe Island, but there wasn’t enough of a pattern to convincingly tie the reductions to the 86 wind turbines on Wolfe’s west end.
I’ve also posted on MPAC and property assessments in a 4-part series. My main conclusion, contained in part 1′s section, was that MPAC seemed to be hiding the reductions by lowering the values in neighborhoods that just coincidentally happened to be around wind turbines, but not formally incorporating distance to a wind turbine into their regressions.
What Dr. Fast’s work added to mine was that (1) he was able to group MPAC’s reductions on Wolfe Island by their distance to the nearest wind turbine, and (2) he reminded me of how to usechi-square to test the differences between the bands for statistical significance. The quick summary is that MPAC has been providing reductions to properties close to wind turbines significantly more often that those further away. And I’m not using the word “significantly” in some fuzzy qualitative manner – I mean “significantly” in the hard statistical quantitative manner. In other words, the odds of the getting a wind-turbine-centered pattern just randomly are vanishingly small. Wolfe Island provides a good hard-to-refute example of how MPAC is finessing the numbers to deny the obvious. Continue reading MPAC and Wolfe Island, again.→
Appellants from Port Ryerse opposing the Boralex project
Because of the barn owls the MOE has asked for an additional adjournment of 5 months until March 31st 2015.
However, Boralex has requested an” Overall benefit permit” for the Owl predicament.
This means they have requested to be able to disturb the owls nesting habitat
They can also get a permit if killing the birds will improve the economy of Ontario.
THIS will be THE FIRST ever benefit permit in Ontario given ( or not) for barn owls . Please read :
Dear Ms. Pietrzyk and counsel
In preparation for tomorrow’s teleconference, MOECC has been in communication with MNRF and proponent’s counsel regarding the ongoing process under the Endangered Species Act.
We understand from MNRF that staff at MNRF have reviewed the information submitted by the proponent on the recent confirmed siting of a Barn Owl. MNRF Aylmer District staff have advised the proponent that:
Based on the information provided, MNRF can confirm that the proponent will require an overall benefit permit under section 10 (habitat) and section 9 (harm or harass a species) under the Endangered Species Act; and
The proponent will now be required to move forward on submitting an Avoidance Alternatives Form and an application for the Overall Benefit Permit.
MNRF has also informed MOECC that this will be the first Barn Owl Overall Benefit permit developed in the Province and there are a number of unknowns right now that will take some work and some time to bring to conclusion – including some identification work through the Royal Ontario Museum.
In light of MNRF’s position on the ESA permit, the Director requests a further 5 month adjournment, with the caveat that:
(a) the Director agrees to immediately inform the Tribunal and other parties if the permit is issued prior to the end of the five month period; and
(b) a teleconference is arranged 4 ½ months into the adjournment to provide the Tribunal and other parties with an update (should the permit still not be issued at that point). Please read the benefit permit requirements at: http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/endangered-species-act-overall-benefit-permits
Because the owl is also protected at the Federal level a letters should go to the ministers at both Federal and Provincial levels. This is a significant permit being developed, please write your own letters to:
The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq Minister of the Environment
The debate is no longer about the fear of change or aesthetics. It’s about preserving the health, safety, and welfare of communities from developers hell-bent on sticking turbines on every free acre with transmission access no matter who’s in the way. More than twelve active lawsuits are pending against wind projects in as many states, and more are sure to follow.
U.S. voters are unhappy with the direction of the country. The big ticket issues — ISIS, Ebola, the sluggish economy — are dominating the national dialogue and will sway votes.
But for many thousands of Americans, next week’s election is deeply personal. For them it’s their best opportunity to drive back the spread of industrial-scale wind power that’s plowing through quiet communities and destroying families. On November 4th, they will be checking the box next to those candidates who promise to permanently end the wind production tax credit (PTC).Continue reading Vote NO on Big Wind→
Adding renewable generating capacity triggers changes throughout the system that multiply costs for consumers
Ontario’s green energy transformation – initiated a decade ago under then-Premier Dalton McGuinty – is now hitting consumers. The Nov 1 increase for households is the next twist of that screw. As Ontario consumers know all too well, the province has gone from having affordable electricity to having some of the highest and fastest-increasing rates in Canada.
But complex financial structures and a lack of official disclosure around large embedded costs have let supporters of the green energy act deny that green power is responsible for the price hikes. Green industry advocates, including the consulting firm Power Advisory and advocacy group Environmental Defense, have added up the direct payments to new renewable generators, and concluded that since those costs are relatively small, the impact of renewables on the total cost of power is likewise small. Continue reading How green energy is fleecing Ontario electricity consumers→
Finally the truth about health impacts from industrial wind turbines are being exposed!
DUKE ENERGY’s Shirley Wind Turbines Declared a “HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD”
It seems the neighbors who are too close may not be crazy or making things up after all. Finally a governing body with the courage to acknowledge what the neighbors have been saying all along. We are suffering in various ways from Hoosac Wind, along with EVERY community in Massachusetts, indeed the World that has IWT’s located too close to neighbors. It’s been almost 2 years, or about 725 days have passed from when Hoosac Wind fired up and we are still missing freedom to enjoy our properties and quality as life before Hoosac Wind.
Here in Massachusetts most of the studies so far have been sound monitoring that has been a farce at best (including inappropriately placed monitoring equipment). With limited monitoring IWT’s have been found to be substantially out compliance at Hoosac Wind, yet the neighbors are still suffering. The responses so far from you you have been few and far between. Don’t you care, or please explain why we haven’t heard from you very much? You may be busy or maybe it’s not your responsibility, yet this is important to the neighbors. I feel it’s hopeless that any of you have sympathy enough to reach out personally, or maybe you don’t believe us or believe we should have sympathy? I’ve been informed by MassDEP personnel, some are fearful of loosing their jobs if not careful. I’m sorry, but the neighbors lost far more, and through no fault of our own. Sooner or later the facts will be known by more than just the neighbors, and I hope we will ALL be able to sleep. How are you all sleeping?
According experts advising us, the proposal to serrate the edges of the turbine blades will still have the neighbors of Crum Hill being pummeled by NOISE and infra sound.That modification typically only lowers sound levels by 1-2 dBa. Additionally, will not lower noise levels by the 7 dBa that Hoosac Wind was documented above state regulation, and maybe propaganda to make it seem that Iberdrola is concerned about the neighbors. We are informed the only realistic way for the Hoosac Wind to comply would be to curtail operations when the project is too loud and that continuous monitoring is necessary. The neighbors don’t have official evidence as yet, but we are aware of that even higher sound levels are bombarding our neighborhoods from the project. Seemingly the neighbors of Bakke Mountain side of the project are hopeless as MassDEP informed us there is no evidence Hoosac Wind is out of compliance and no plans to monitor. How will facts be known if no measurement is taking place? Iberdrola is receiving millions of taxpayers subsidies for this project yet and we are left to pick up the broken pieces on our own. Health and quality of life are some of the things taken from the neighbors because of Hoosac Wind.
For your reference a list of impacts the neighbors are experiencing. Sleep loss is the most common complaint from the neighbors resulting in various symptoms, and it’s well known to negatively affect health. Other symptoms reported, anxiety and feelings of stress, headaches, sinus issues, tinnitus, ear aches, numbness, irritability, palpitations of the heart, increase in blood pressure,fatigue, and lapse of memory. This list is in no particular order and by no means complete. Additional complaints from the neighbors, property value loss, wells not providing same quantities of water before blasting of the ridges, silting and addition of mineral materials in wells, and stream flows disrupted on properties. Many of us no longer enjoy being outside our homes when the turbines are noisy or in them for that matter. Indeed it’s beautiful in this area and not being able to enjoy our yards has no value limits. We just want to enjoy what’s legally our right, to pursue happiness in our homes and properties and not be subjected to human health hazards and other impacts from the nearby wind turbines at Hoosac Wind.
Wind turbine noise : Regulatory, nuisance, human annoyance, infra-sound and low frequency
October 29, 2014
How much longer before Falmouth Town Meeting Members figure out they have never been told the truth about wind turbine studies that included noise warnings from Vestas wind company , contractors and noise studies that referenced 99 homes prior to the installation of Falmouth Wind I ? The town went forward with the installation of Falmouth Wind II after all the problems with Wind I .
It is becoming clear that town officials had always known about the wind turbine noise. The State of Wisconsin is taking action against the wind turbines now.
How much more information before you understand your hurting your neighbors and friends
Brown County, Wisconsin Board of Health Declares Wind Turbines Health Hazard
“Brown County health officials have declared wind turbines a public health risk, but they haven’t determined how to put their declaration into action.”
“The county’s Health Board this month declared the Shirley Wind Farm operated by Duke Energy Renewables poses a health risk to its neighbors in the town of Glenmore. Three families have moved out of their homes rather than endure physical illness they blame on the low-frequency noise the wind turbines generate, according to Audrey Murphy, president of the board that oversees the Brown County Health Department.”
A new study has found that wind farms generate below 20% of their supposed output for 20 weeks a year, and generate below 10% for 9 weeks a year.
Wind farms, on average, only exceed 90% of their rated output for 17 hours a year.
Though the government acknowledges that wind farms produce much less energy than their sticker capacity would suggest, the report shows that even the average production (of around a quarter of capacity) is extremely misleading about the amount of power wind farms can be relied up to provide.
Wind farms are extremely volatile, with outputs fluctuating by five percentage points over short periods of time, a report based on new data by the Adam Smith Institute and Scientific Alliance has found. These findings suggest the UK’s energy infrastructure can never be reliant on them in any significant way.
Specifically, the study found that wind farms generate below 20% of their supposed output for 20 weeks a year, and generate below 10% for 9 weeks a year. Wind farms, on average, only exceed 90% of their rated output for 17 hours a year.
The paper, “Wind Power Reassessed: A review of the UK wind resource for electricity generation”, (http://www.adamsmith.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Assessment7.pdf) looks at previously unexamined wind speed data reported by anemometers located at various airfields, used as a proxy for nearby wind farms, and concludes that UK wind farms, on average, exceed 80% of their supposed output for less than one week every year.
The study also looks at the short-term (30 – 90 minute) variability of wind generation and reveals swings in output are far higher than is normal from conventional energy generation, such as from gas or nuclear plants. Swings of five percentage points of output are not uncommon, which contradicts the claim that a widespread wind fleet installation will smooth variability. There are frequent but unpredictable periods where wind energy generation fails for days on end.
The report will severely undermine the case for a move towards yet more wind generation because it suggests that wind can never be a major, reliable source of energy for the UK. It also suggests that the UK’s drive to reduce its carbon footprint through expanding wind power is misguided. Wind power is so unreliable and intermittent that it makes much more sense to look to nuclear and gas as better low emission alternatives to the status quo.
In his research, the report’s author Dr. Capell Aris looked at 6.5m individual recordings from 22 sites in the UK and 21 from Ireland and the continent.
Commenting on the report, Dr Aris said:
The current reliance on wind energy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is inefficient and compromises energy security. Power output of the studied system is below 20% of nominal capacity for over 20 weeks of the year, and below 10% for 9 weeks.
When we study those periods when production falls below 20% of rated capacity, more than three quarters of this occurs in periods longer than 12 hours. Each winter has periods where wind generation is negligible for several days.
The situation across the whole of northern Europe is much the same, so a Europe-wide power grid would provide no extra security; the study demonstrates that interconnectors will not solve wind’s intermittency problem.
Head of Policy at the Adam Smith Institute, Ben Southwood, said:
Wind farms are a bad way of reducing emissions and a bad way of producing power. They are expensive and deeply inefficient and it seems like they reduce the value of housing enormously in nearby areas. We probably do want to reduce carbon emissions, because according to the IPCC global warming will begin to slow economic growth in one hundred years, but nuclear and gas power are our best ways of doing that until cheap and efficient energy storage options are available on a vast scale to smooth the highly variable output of renewables.
Director of the Scientific Alliance, Martin Livermore, said:
This study is a graphic illustration that wind turbines cannot provide a secure supply of electricity, no matter how large the distribution grid.
Notes to editors:
For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Kate Andrews, Communications Manager, at kate@adamsmith.org / 07584 778207.
The Adam Smith Institute is an independent libertarian think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.
The Scientific Alliance was formed in 2001 to encourage politicians to make policy on the basis of scientific evidence rather than lobbying by vested interests.
The Waubra Foundation has issued a Public Statement to educate and warn public officials that they run the risk of being charged with torture under the Criminal Code Act 1995 if they continue to ignore and acquiesce in persistent sleep deprivation caused by excessive environmental noise.
“The UN Committee Against Torture have clearly stated that sleep deprivation used for prolonged periods is a breach of the Convention” said Waubra Foundation CEO, Sarah Laurie. The UNCommittee went on to say:
“Sleep deprivation can cause impaired memory and cognitive functioning, decreased short term memory, speech impairment, hallucinations, psychosis, lowered immunity, headaches, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, stress, anxiety and depression”
Chronic sleep deprivation is the most common complaint from residents living near industrial noise polluting developments in Australia and around the world, and was identified in the limited research considered by the recent National Health and Medical Research Council’s commissioned systematic literature review.
Recent developments nationally and internationally have reinforced the Foundation’s advice in June 2011 that there are serious adverse health effects including prolonged sleep deprivation, resulting from chronic exposure to wind turbine acoustic emissions including excessive audible low frequency noise out to 10km from existing wind turbines. This acoustic “zone of impact” distance will inevitably increase as wind turbine power generation capacity increases with larger, more powerful wind turbines with longer blades.
The recent declaration by the Brown County Town Health Board USA that wind turbines constitute a “Human Health Hazard” for “residents, workers, visitors and sensitive passersby” is a significant development, and we expect more such declarations to follow.
Litigation to prevent wind turbines from continuing to operate, in order to prevent additional harm to physical and psychological health, has been successful in the USA (Falmouth), Portugal and other European countries.
“All responsible authorities and public officials in Australia need to be aware that under the terms of section 274 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, torture is expressly prohibited. There is therefore no legal excuse available for any public official who is currently allowing torture from sleep deprivation from excessive environmental noise to continue” stated Dr Michael Crawford, Waubra Foundation Director.
A number of doctors have already identified multiple health problems related to ownership with these industrial machines. …On the evidence currently available, it would seem sensible in principle of responsibility to recommend minimum distances of 5 km between industrial wind turbines and homes. Ideally, it would be desirable to freeze all ongoing projects now and not induce new diseases on a large scale.
Ecology is still good. European companies seeking by all means to implement giant wind (we approach the 200 m high) in the French countryside, close to the houses. It is clear that wind turbines do not have anything green about the energy with the thousands of tons of concrete needed to support these steel monsters; it is far from the account feedback from those already established.
My concern, as a physician and member of the European Association Physicians for a healthier environment being created, focus on health. A report by the National Academy of Medicine, published in 2006, concluded that the need to suspend (or prohibit) the construction of wind turbines with a capacity greater than 2.5 megawatts located within 1500 meters of housing. These are actually real industrial plants inducing nuisance, including noise.
Industrial wind turbines are in fact classified as ICPE: installations and plants that generate risks or dangers. Several scientific studies are being published, the results recommend that wind turbines are not located within 2.5 kilometers of homes. Thus, clinical observations of Dr. Michael Nissenbaum two wind farms in the state of Maine to the United States indicate that there is a correlation between the distance residential wind turbines and health problems for residents.
The responsibility of prefects engaged
A number of doctors have already identified multiple health problems related to ownership with these industrial machines. A medically defined the “wind syndrome” which includes increasing headache (noise and turbulence as triggers of migraines), ringing in the ears like tinnitus, sleep disorders, an increase of anxiety and depressive disorders, sometimes the appearance “nausea, dizziness, palpitations, all of these chronic conditions can promote authentic depression” as Dr. Jean-François Ferrieu said.
This dimension is not taken into account, or insufficiently, by the government, probably through lack of information. During this time, various local businesses, which more often sell the exploitation rights to legally well structured international companies continue to put pressure on municipalities to accelerate project starts at close as 500 meters from housing, The responsibility of prefects is committed to this day, since it is they who issue building permits.
Gel ongoing projects
On the evidence currently available, it would seem sensible in principle of responsibility to recommend minimum distances of 5 km between industrial wind turbines and homes. Ideally, it would be desirable to freeze all ongoing projects now and not induce new diseases on a large scale.
It may also come to the conclusion that, for the health of humans and animals such as birds, farm animals or bats, precious natural “insecticides” which have been the subject of a report of the American Academy of Sciences (PNAS, September 29, 2014), it is sufficient to ban industrial wind turbines on land.
As noted by Nicolas Hulot , “initially, wind energy is a great idea, but upon arrival, it is a tragic realization. If we were told that at least it would close plants, but this is not the case. “
French to English translation assisted using Google Translate
Brown County health officials have declared wind turbines a public health risk, but they haven’t determined how to put their declaration into action.
Wind turbines in the town of Glenmore in southern Brown County. (Photo: H. Marc Larson/Press-Gazette Media/@HMarcLarson )
The county’s Health Board this month declared the Shirley Wind Farm operated by Duke Energy Renewables poses a health risk to its neighbors in the town of Glenmore. Three families have moved out of their homes rather than endure physical illness they blame on the low-frequency noise the wind turbines generate, according to Audrey Murphy, president of the board that oversees the Brown County Health Department.
“We struggled with this but just felt we needed to take some action to help these citizens,” Murphy said.
Murphy called the declaration a first step, but “the second step is up to the director of our Health Department, Judy Friederichs, and corporation counsel.”
The Health Department has statutory authority for licensing, inspection and enforcement for businesses where health and environmental problems are at issue, but just what that means for the wind farm has not yet been determined, Friederichs said.
State health officials have expressed interest in participating in Brown County’s discussion of the issue, Friederichs said. She, board members and the county’s lawyer need to put their heads together to determine the next step, she said. No timeline has been established.
“We’re all saying the same thing here: Now what?” Friederichs said. “There aren’t a lot of alternatives to mitigation. It really depends now on where this goes, what type of referrals we get, etc. There’s ongoing concerns. We’re going to have to really look at it, and it’s more of a legal question.”
Whatever happens, residents “are grateful to the Board of Health for reviewing the research and listening to the people of Brown County,” said Susan Ashley, who also lives in the Shirley area and who has helped rally opposition to the wind farm through the years.
Twenty families in the town have documented health issues since the wind farm started operated in 2009, Ashley said.
Duke Energy Renewables was not invited to the health board’s discussion and would have cited tests that determined sound levels from the wind generators were low and could not be linked to adverse health impacts, company spokeswoman Tammie McGee said. The company has not received any formal word about the board’s declaration, McGee said.
Dr. Jay Tibbetts, vice president of the Brown County health board and its medical adviser, said he knows of no science that proves there isn’t a link between health problems and the low-frequency noise the giant fans produce.
“There’s been nothing that’s debunked anything,” he said. “As far as what’s happening to these people, it doesn’t make a difference whether you’re in Shirley or Denmark, or Ontario, Canada. Forty people have moved out of their homes, and it’s not just for jollies. In Shirley, three people have moved out of their homes. I know all three. They’re not nuts. They’re severely suffering.”
People might not be able to hear the sounds the Shirley turbines produce, but Tibbetts said he knows of a teenager living in the area who can tell when the turbines are off or on without being able to see them. Area residents or former residents report headaches, nausea and other symptoms they say are brought on by the turbines, and those symptoms clear up when the residents move elsewhere for a time, Tibbetts said.
The board’s declaration may be cutting edge and controversial, but it wasn’t made lightly or without the weight of science behind it, Murphy said
“This is a serious step,” she said. “We didn’t make it lightly. There is science from around the world — the World Health Organization, Denmark, Poland, Germany. We believe there’s enough science.”
Darrell Ashley, who is Susan Ashley’s father-in-law and lives within a mile of the Shirley turbines, said his wife moved out of the house for several months until her symptoms disappeared. She has since moved back, and her symptoms are coming back, he said.
“I’m getting worse and I can’t afford to move out,” he said. “I’m just getting weaker — my legs, back, feet. My concentration is gone, head pressure, ear aches, headaches, it just goes on and on.”
Prior to 2009, when the turbines weren’t operating, he and his wife had no such problems, he said. He praised the health board and said he appreciated that someone finally listened to residents’ complaints.
Murphy said Brown County is probably the first governmental body in Wisconsin and perhaps the first in the country to make the formal declaration.
The board has been wrestling with the issue for about the last four years, Murphy said. While some scientific studies have failed to find a link between health risks and the low-frequency noise that wind turbines generate, two studies done recently on the Shirley Wind Farm specifically say otherwise, Murphy said.
“While there may still be debate about the precise mechanism that causes these sounds to induce the symptoms, it is clear from (these studies) … that acoustic energy emitted by operation of modern wind turbines is at the root of adverse health effects,” Murphy said.
Mothers Against Wind Turbines Inc. 