Nuclear waste: Coming to a town near you?

[Javaman]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/04/news/economy/nuclear_waste/index.htm

The nuclear industry could be on the verge of a major expansion just as the government cancels a plan to store the waste. Where's it going to go?

BAY CITY, Texas (CNNMoney.com) -- At a Texas power plant, two men in head-to-toe yellow jumpsuits are perched above a pool filled with still, crystal-clear water -- and nearly 20 years worth of nuclear waste.

The 40-feet deep pool, about the size of an Olympic-sized swimming pool, is the current home to thousands of uranium-filled fuel rods -- the radioactive byproducts of a nuclear reactor. The men are using a robotic arm to position the rods sitting at the bottom of the pool.

Pools such as this one are a temporary solution to a very long term problem: the hotly contested debate over what to do with the country's nuclear waste.

Storing nuclear waste on site in pools, or in what's called "dry casks" outside the plant, seems an acceptable solution for the next several decades at existing plants. But nuclear waste remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years, far longer than the manmade pools are likely to survive.

[ensho]

1. true

nt

[hunter]

2. Goes nowhere, does nothing.

This kind of nuclear waste is boring. This kind of nuclear waste just sits there.

Someday it will be recycled, or maybe not, but it's no threat at all compared to the other wastes our industrial society spews. Diesel exhaust and tire rubber particulates (for example) are much more deadly because they are entirely uncontained and permeate everything.

[Nederland]

3. I'd take a nuclear plant in my backyard...

...over a coal one any day.

[Javaman]

4. I'll take neither. my house runs on wind and solar and I bike to work. nt

[Taitertots]

31. That can't work for me

What am I going to do, tear down my neighbors houses to put up solar and wind?

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. What a false Dichotomy that must

Ruptured your dystopic world that give you false choices

[Nederland]

6. Okay

I'd take a nuclear power plant over:

A smog spewing coal power plant; a CO2 emitting natural gas power plant; a noisy, shadow producing field of wind turbines; and maybe even over a 20000 acre field of parabolic dishes. Not sure about that last one. Solar is the least annoying of all of them.

I ommitted wave/tidal because I live in Colorado and there is no ocean in my backyard :)

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. Oh really? Wind turbines are noisy inside and outside your house?

thank you for your consciousness on this matter

I KNOW NOISE WHEN I HEAR IT.........

and it not just the vibrations in your auditory understanding.

[Nederland]

8. Yes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNxvkrgoPLo&feature=rela...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_utFV2ukOtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOd5tSZF3A4&feature=rela...

http://www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/faqs.html
http://www.stopillwind.org/index.php
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com /
http://www.savewesternny.org /
http://www.wind-watch.org /
http://www.epaw.org /
http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=166
http://www.rivercitymalone.com/?p=654

[kristopher]

12. Fortunately noise is easily handled by a couple of hundred yards of distance

Not sure that works so well when dealing with objections related to nuclear.

[Nederland]

15. I think you need to do a little research

The people in the town featured in the video I posted live a mile away from the wind turbines and can't sleep at night because of the noise.

[kristopher]

16. I've done lots of research and that claim wouldn't stand scrutiny.

And that research includes going to wind farms and actually listening to how much noise they produce - claims like you are pushing here are bullshit "Hail Mary passes" that NIMBY opposition has to resort to because they have no legitimate basis for objecting to wind.

Most of that opposition is a result of fossil fueled astroturf groups stirring up normal people who are fearful of change. In any given project you can count on 30% of people opposing any change at all to their neighborhood environment. They don't evaluate changes for actual impact, instead they 'play safe' and try to maintain the status quo because they perceive any change as having a greater risk of disappointment than promise of improvement.

The fossil fuel industry (particularly Koch Industries) has been funding astroturf internet organizations with the aim of encouraging and supporting this segment of all populations.

The noise complaint is as I said, bogus. Measurements prove that the sound level of frogs in my backyard (as high as 80 decibels) *far* exceeds the noise level of a modern wind turbine at 100 yards (about 50 decibels). To complain about that level of noise from a mile away just marks the person complaining as an asshole.

[Nederland]

18. Link?

The noise complaint is as I said, bogus. Measurements prove that the sound level of frogs in my backyard (as high as 80 decibels) *far* exceeds the noise level of a modern wind turbine at 100 yards (about 50 decibels). To complain about that level of noise from a mile away just marks the person complaining as an asshole.

Link to evidence?

[kristopher]

19. You did a great job of finding the trash

Look for the real research yourself.

[Nederland]

20. I think not

You made the claim, you do the research.

[kristopher]

21. No, YOU made an incredible claim based on a youtube video.

The issue of noise related to wind farms has been exhaustively studied and the claim you are making contradicts both that and basic common sense. Provide some legitimate support for the bullshit or take a hike.

[Nederland]

22. I understand you think my claims are incredible

All I am asking for is some links to back up that assertion. I provided numerous links (not just a youtube video) describing issues and complaints that people have with wind power. You are welcome to respond to a post like that with links to studies of your own that offer a contradictory view. However, if you believe that simply writing a post basically saying "no, you are wrong" proves anything you are sadly mistaken. You see Kristopher, not everybody believes that something is true simply because you say it is. I know it may come as a complete shock to you, but there are some people here that think you are actually wrong about things. Posting a few links to backup your opinions is always a good idea.

[kristopher]

23. If you (or anyone) wants the information it is readily available.

It is as close as your keyboard and google. You don't want to actually learn the truth since you could have done that with the same effort that ended with your post of the bullshit. There is a world of misinformation out there and simply posting links to bullshit that's manufactured by the same people who brought us the climate change denial industry doesn't mean you've made a credible contribution to the board; you haven't. The noise nonsense doesn't even pass most basic smell test.

What you seek to do is to legitimize the idea that there is something here to discuss when there isn't. Wind has virtually no harmful external costs associated with it, but, you are on a mission to create the impression that it does so that nuclear power will seem a reasonable alternative.

The real issue is why do you insist on bringing so much misinformation into the discussion?

[Nederland]

24. You are correct, the information it is readily available.

Consider the following:


REF supported further research by G. P. van den Berg, of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Groningen into the presence of low frequency components in wind turbine noise.

G. P. van den Berg's work establishes that measurable low frequency noise is present, and is relevant to the audible noise nuisance commonly reported.

This reinforces doubts shared by many acousticians with regard to the continuing usefulness of current UK noise regulations relating to wind turbines, ETSU-R-97, which are now some ten years old, and refer to a previous generation of much smaller turbines.

Hitherto, it has been assumed that low-frequency sound from wind turbines has not been a major factor contributing to annoyance as the blade passing frequency is of the order of one hertz where the human auditory system is relatively insensitive. This argument, however, can now been seen to obscure a very relevant effect: the blade passing frequency modulates well audible, higher-frequency sounds and thus creates periodic sound.

This means that residents near wind turbines have observed that, often late in the afternoon or in the evening the turbine sound acquires a distinct ‘beating’ character, the rhythm of which is in agreement with the blade passing frequency, and that this effect is stronger for modern (tall) wind turbines.

Professor Peter Styles and his team at Keele University have very recently also published a major study on vibrations from the 60m high wind turbines at Dunlaw . Interesting findings in this second report include that 'When the windfarm starts to generate (even) at low wind speeds, considerable infrasound signals can be detected at all stations out to c 10km' (p. 66). 'We have clearly shown that wind turbines generate low frequency sound (infrasound) and acoustic signals which can be detected at considerable distances (many kilometres) from windfarms on infrasound detectors and on low-frequency microphones.'

Whilst earlier studies conclude there was no significant risk to human health from vibrations produced by wind-farms, these studies are dated, and refer to older, much smaller turbines. Concern is increased as most modern wind turbines are in excess of 100m (much bigger than those at Dunlaw), and developers are proposing to install these devices as close as 650m to human habitation (sometimes closer).

Professor Ffowcs-Williams, Emeritus Rank Professor of Engineering at the University of Cambridge, one of the UK's leading acoustical experts and an advisor to REF, said:

Van den Berg's paper adds weight to the criticisms frequently offered of UK regulations covering wind turbine noise, ETSU-R-97. The regulations are dated and in other ways inadequate. It is known that modern, very tall turbines, do cause problems, and many think the current guidelines fail adequately to protect the public.


http://www.flat-group.co.uk/information/studies-on-wind-turbine-noise-raise-concern.html

And this:

Although industrial-scale wind turbines are now a familiar sight in many countries, they are only now becoming common in the USA and Canada. If the past few years are any guide, industrial “wind farms” will become very common indeed in North America, especially considering the robust government incentives for renewable energy.

Nina Pierpont’s foregoing report injects an element of caution, perhaps even alarm, into this enterprise. Her research reveals significant health effects associated with living in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines. As a result of her research and that of others, we have reviewed sound studies conducted by consultants for governments, wind turbine owners, and local residents for a number of sites with known health or annoyance problems. (We included the homes of some of Pierpont’s study subjects in our review.) It is clear from Pierpont’s report that turbine noise is a major issue for virtually all of her subjects. That wind turbine noise might be responsible for the majority of ailments identified by Pierpont as Wind Turbine Syndrome should not be a surprise. Sound levels of the type and level of those found on properties and inside homes of people living near operating turbines are often associated with sleep disturbance and the vast set of pathologies known to be caused by noise induced sleep problems. Dr. Pierpont’s work builds upon a foundation of well accepted health risks documented by the World Health Organization (WHO) and other health standards
organizations.

http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/kamperman-and-james-9-pp.pdf

And this:


RSE measured ambient sound levels at various community locations near the Wind Farm site over a 48-
hour period between December 20 and 22, 2006. During this period, ambient sound levels were
monitored at six positions (MP-1 through MP-6) as shown on Figure 5-1 (attached), Vicinity Site Plan
and Sound Level Monitoring Positions, December 2006 and May 2007. The wind turbines were not
operating and locked in a set position during the ambient monitoring period and were observed not to
contribute to the measured ambient sound levels.

Instrumentation consisted of Larson-Davis Model 812 Integrating Sound Level Meters, which were
programmed to continuously measure A-weighted sound pressure levels and calculate statistics at both
hourly and ten-second intervals. A Larson-Davis Model 824 Sound Level Meter and Real Time
Analyzer was used to measure A-weighted and linear one-third octave band sound levels at position
MP-6. It also was programmed to continuously measure A-weighted and octave-band sound levels, and
calculate statistics at both hourly and ten-second intervals.

The sound level meters meet Type 1 (precision) performance requirements of American National
Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters, ANSI S1.4-1983. The microphones were fitted with
standard windscreens and mounted on tripods at a height of four to five feet above the ground. The
sound level meters were calibrated before and after each twenty-four hour monitoring period using a
Bruel & Kjaer 4231 Sound Level Calibrator. Additionally, a certified laboratory performs a calibration
within the 12 months of the measurements. Calibration certificates are available upon request.
On December 20, 2006, temperatures ranged from 10 to 25 degrees F; winds were primarily from the
south at 8 to 14 mph in the afternoon and subsiding to less than 5 mph overnight. Winds picked up from
the west during the day on December 21reaching average speeds up to 22 mph during the afternoon and
evening periods. Temperatures also increased reaching 37 degrees F during the day. Skies ranged from
clear to overcast on both days. Winds diminished overnight and through the morning of December 22
ranging from 6 to 11 mph. Overnight temperatures dropped to 18 degrees F with mostly clear skies.
Measurement graphs of ambient sound level readings taken at the Wind Farm site are presented in
Figures 6-1 through 6-6. These figures present the equivalent sound level (LAeq) and LA50 (50th
percentile) sound level for each hour of sound level measurement. The LA50 was selected to show the
variability of the average sound energy with the median sound level. The average speed and direction
for surface winds (non-ridgeline) are also shown for each hour based on observations at Northern Maine
Regional Airport in Presque Isle, Maine (ref. www.wunderground.com). Each figure also provides a

At Position MP-1, hourly LAeqs ranged from 33 to 56 dBA with higher readings noted during daytime
periods and when wind speeds increased. Wind sound was observed to be a primary source during
periods of higher readings. Other ambient sound sources at MP-1 were local traffic on East Ridge
Road, daytime construction traffic and equipment along the north access road, occasional aircraft, and
natural sounds such as birds.

At MP-2, hourly LAeqs ranged from 28 to 60 dBA with higher readings noted during daytime periods
and when wind speeds increased. Wind sound was observed to be a primary source during periods of
higher readings. Other ambient sound sources at MP-2 were construction vehicles along Tower Road,
local traffic on East Ridge Road, occasional aircraft, and natural sounds such as birds.

At Position MP-3, hourly LAeqs ranged from 35 to 51 dBA with higher readings noted during daytime
periods and when wind speeds increased. Wind sound was observed to be a primary source during
periods of higher readings. Other ambient sound sources at MP-3 were local traffic and snow grooming
equipment in the vicinity of Big Rock Ski Area, occasional aircraft, and natural sounds such as birds.
At Position MP-4, hourly LAeqs ranged from 29 to 59 dBA with higher readings noted during daytime
periods and when wind speeds increased. Wind sound was observed to be a primary source during
periods of higher readings. Other ambient sound sources at MP-4 were local traffic, occasional aircraft
and distance traffic from Route 1/1A, and natural sounds such as birds.

At Position MP-5, hourly LAeqs ranged from 30 to 53 dBA with higher readings noted during daytime
periods and when wind speeds increased. Wind sound was observed to be a primary source during
periods of higher readings. Other ambient sound sources at MP-5 were local traffic on Mountain Road,
residential activity, occasional aircraft, and natural sounds such as birds. During certain periods of
moderate winds, sound levels were low compared to other monitoring positions suggesting that
proximity to Mars Hill ridge may have provided some shielding from the wind.

At Position MP-6, hourly LAeqs ranged from 27 to 55 dBA with higher readings noted during daytime
periods and when wind speeds increased. Wind sound was observed to be a primary source during
periods of higher readings. Other ambient sound sources at MP-6 were local traffic on Mountain Road,
distant construction activity along the ridgeline, occasional aircraft, and natural sounds such as birds.
During certain periods of moderate winds, sound levels were low compared to other monitoring
positions suggesting that proximity to Mars Hill ridge may have provided some shielding from the wind.

http://www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=1264

And this:


The Institute of Environmental Medicine at Stockholm University prepared an extensive
volume for the World Health Organization (WHO) on the impact of community noise on people’s
health. They report that noise exposure can affect sleep in several ways, including:
• increasing the time needed to fall asleep,
• altering the cycle of sleep stages, and
• decreasing the quality of REM sleep.
Over extended periods of time, any one of these problems could lead to more serious health
issues.
Sleep disturbances have been linked to three characteristics of noise exposure, including:
• the total noise exposure (including daytime exposure)
• the peak noise volume
• if intermittent, the number of volume peaks
The study reports that:
• Noise levels of 60 dB wakes 90% of people after they have fallen asleep.
• Noise levels of 55 dB affects REM cycles and increases time to fall asleep.
• Noise of 40-45 dB wakes 10% of people.
WHO recommends that ambient noise levels be below 35 dB for optimum sleeping
conditions. These recommendations are significant because of a Dutch study5 that showed noise
from a 30 MW wind farm becomes more noticeable and annoying to nearby residents at night.
This study noted that although the noise is always present, certain aspects of turbine noise, such
as thumping and swishing, were not noticeable during the day, but became very noticeable at
night. Residents as far as 1900 meters from the wind farm complained about the nighttime noise.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=14&ved=0CBIQFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.nethere.net%2Fdja1701%2Ftechnical_writing%2Fpapers%2FAddressingWindTurbineNoise.pdf&ei=GEX1SsTnJM7L8QaO6M3zCQ&usg=AFQjCNGJc1KZSMD29V9ts8bBrwrTiU_1cQ&sig2=jaPovNvFz9h_o1jT4hQRhg

And this:

Industrial wind turbines produce significant amounts of audible and low-frequency noise. Dr. Oguz A. Soysal, Professor and Chairman of the Dept. of Physics and Engineering at Frostburg State University in Maryland, measured sound levels over half a mile away from the Meyersdale, PA, 20-turbine wind farm. Typical audible (A-weighted) dB (decibel) levels were in the 50-60 range, and audible plus low-frequency (C-weighted) dB were in the 65-70 range.1 65-70 dB is the loudness of a washing machine, vacuum cleaner, or hair dryer.2 A difference of 10 dB between A and C weighting represents a significant amount of low-frequency sound by World Health Organization standards.3

The noise produced by wind turbines has a thumping, pulsing character, especially at night, when it is more audible. The noise is louder at night because of the contrast between the still, cool air at ground level and the steady stream of wind at the level of the turbine hubs.4 This nighttime noise travels a long distance. It has been documented to be disturbing to residents 1.2 miles away from wind turbines in regular rolling terrain,5 and 1.5 miles away in Appalachian valleys.6

At night, the WHO recommends, the level of continuous noise at the outside a dwelling should be 45 dB or less, and inside, 30 dB or less. These thresholds should be even lower if there is a significant low-frequency component to the sound, they add—as there is for wind turbines. Higher levels of noise disturb sleep and produce a host of effects on health, well-being, and productivity.7


http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?p=76



I hope that helps you understand some of my concerns.

[kristopher]

27. "I hope that helps you understand some of my concerns" you say?

I understand your concerns perfectly - you want to exaggerate the externalities of wind so that nuclear appears more acceptable.

http://www.flat-group.co.uk/campaign/letters/index.html
That link is to a page from the group posting your first excerpt. The correspondence clearly shows that the group opposing the wind farm had an existing agenda that they try to justify using claims of "noise" and anything else they can think of. As I stated, "And that research includes going to wind farms and actually listening to how much noise they produce - claims like you are pushing here are bullshit "Hail Mary passes" that NIMBY opposition has to resort to because they have no legitimate basis for objecting to wind.
Most of that opposition is a result of fossil fueled astroturf groups stirring up normal people who are fearful of change. In any given project you can count on 30% of people opposing any change at all to their neighborhood environment. They don't evaluate changes for actual impact, instead they 'play safe' and try to maintain the status quo because they perceive any change as having a greater risk of disappointment than promise of improvement.
The fossil fuel industry (particularly Koch Industries) has been funding astroturf internet organizations with the aim of encouraging and supporting this segment of all populations.
The noise complaint is as I said, bogus. Measurements prove that the sound level of frogs in my backyard (as high as 80 decibels) *far* exceeds the noise level of a modern wind turbine at 100 yards (about 50 decibels). To complain about that level of noise from a mile away just marks the person complaining as an asshole."

You can download van den Berg's paper http://www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=1866 but I'm going to post it here for reference. I agree with much of what he says, however he is doing what too many academics do - he is ignoring the KNOWN influence of fossil fuel and mineral mining interests on the shaping of public opinion. He does that because such influence is difficult to establish to academic standards and almost impossible to quantify. It is easier to treat the criticisms as legitimate for the purpose of his analysis, but that doesn't mean they are; nor does it mean that the dark influence of the Business-As-Usual crowd doesn't exist.

(In fact, if you watch Rachael Maddow you've been treated to regular reporting of this same group's latest efforts. She has highlighted the role of Koch Industries in funding the teabagger movement. In case you aren't aware of WHY this huge petroleum conglomerate is interested in health care it is because if health care is defeated it will have a strong negative impact on Obama's ability to take action on climate change.)

Unfortunately in the real world this influence is pernicious and effective at mobilizing enough astroturf opposition to significantly affect the pace of wind development. Nimby is a difficult enough problem to deal with, but when it is exacerbated by such a tactic, it is enough to unjustly derail a large number of otherwise worthy projects. With little success van den Berg and others attempt to find an explanation in the characteristics of the sound as to why the noise from wind turbines is more annoying than for other noise sources. The reason they have so little success and are reduced to pure speculation is that the nature of the sound isn't the problem; the problem is the mindset of those doing the complaining*.

One note on the nature of the sound from turbines - the "thumping" sound is not a characteristic of turbines being marketed now. It was a result of the compression caused by the blades as they passed in front of the tower. The problem was eliminated by moving the nacelle forward and allowing more room between the tower and the blades.

*If you are interested I recommend the writings of Maarten Wolsink on the topic of public opposition to wind.

I added the bold font for emphasis.

The newsletter of The Acoustical Society of America
Volume 19, Number 3 Summer 2009
Perspectives on wind turbine noise

Frits van den Berg

When the planning of a wind farm is in public debate, different perspectives are often used without people being aware of them. Just look at websites of opponents and proponents with wind turbines towering over buildings in the background or distant turbines seen from a pleasant foreground.

According to the British Wind Energy Association "well designed wind turbines are generally quiet in operation, and compared to the noise of road traffic, trains, aircraft, and construction activities, to name but a few, the noise from wind turbines is very low.
Outside the nearest houses, which are at least 300 meters away, and more often further, the sound of a wind turbine generating electricity is likely to be about the same level as noise from a flowing stream about 50-100 meters away or the noise of leaves rustling in a gentle breeze," whereas critic Pierpont states that "the noise produced by wind turbines has a thumping, pulsing character, especially at night, when it is more audible. The noise is louder at night because of the contrast between the still, cool air at ground level and the steady stream of wind at the level of the turbine hubs. This nighttime noise travels a long distance. It has been documented to be disturbing to residents 1.2 miles away from wind turbines in regular rolling terrain, and 1.5 miles away in Appalachian valleys."

The different notions are, in part, a result of the perspective of a person or an organization. The recent WINDFARM perception study has shown that annoyance from the sound of wind turbines is related to attitude towards wind energy and/or wind turbines in the landscape, and to the visibility of a wind farm. Also, residents who had economic benefits from wind turbines were hardly or not annoyed, while for residents without such benefits the sound from wind turbines is more annoying than sound at the same level from major noise sources such as road, rail, or air traffic, and industry.

TNO (Organization for Applied Research) researchers have determined dose-response curves for wind turbine noise from all relevant studies. The results are shown in Fig. 1 for all respondents that did not have economic benefits from wind turbines. At left the results
are plotted when annoyance or severe annoyance (as perceived either indoors or outdoors) is the response and at the right when sleep disturbance (being awakened by sound at least once a month) is the response. Here the dose level (noise exposure) is the outdoor sound level in Lden (time weighted average of daytime, evening and night time) or Lnight; Lden is 4.7 dB higher and Lnight 1.6 dB lower than the sound level would be with a 8 m/s wind speed at 10 m in a 'standard' atmosphere (i.e., of neutral stability).

When compared to other noise sources the degree of annoyance of sound from wind turbines is surprisingly high. Major noise sources (road, rail, and air traffic, industry) in general do not cause severe annoyance below 42 dB(A). At 50 dB(A) 6% or less of the exposed residents are highly annoyed, whereas for wind turbines, severe annoyance (indoors) occurs at lower levels below 40 dB(A) and at 50 dB(A) has risen to 14.5% of the exposed and non-benefiting population. A clue to explain this could be the similarity with the high annoyance associated with the noise from shunting yards. Whereas most noise sources are less active at night, shunting yards often are not and the clanking and engine noise is even more audible in the relative quiet of the evening and night. Four out of ten residents find wind turbines louder at night than in daytime and another four do not find it clearly different. For an inland as well as a coastal location a 60 m high wind turbine produces the same sound level at any time of the day or night, when averaged over a long period.

Higher wind turbines are actually louder at night than they are in day time, though the difference is small (0.5 dB at 100-120 m hub height). Neighbors of modern wind turbines have learned to distinguish between a 'high wind' driving the turbine and a 'low wind' that they feel themselves, and notice that these winds can be quite different after sundown. This phenomenon-in a partly cloudy or clear sky the near-ground wind often subsides at sundown while the higher altitude wind picks up at the same time-is well known in meteorology and atmospheric physics but was considered insignificant for wind turbines.

A second explanation for the intrusiveness of wind turbine sound may be its character, the beating or thumping that may have the same effect, drawing attention, as the clanking noise from shunting trains. When asked what a wind farm sounds like, three out of four residents think that swishing or lashing is a proper description. The modulation of the sound level at the blade passing frequency (approximately once a second for modern wind turbines at high speed) can be explained by the change in wind speed over the rotor area which is higher at night than it is in daytime. It can also be caused by an obstacle (such as another turbine) upwind from a turbine. It can be shown that the modulation depth (the variation in sound level) due to altitude dependent wind speed differences can increase to 5-6 dB, and even up to ~9 dB when the modulations from several turbines are in phase and the 'thumps' from different turbines arrive at the same time. Human beings are sensitive to modulations with a frequency of the order of 1 Hz as it occurs in speech (periodicity of syllables) and musical rhythm. The beeps of a truck in reverse gear have the same periodicity.

It is interesting that a modulation of the sound level can also be observed close to a wind turbine: when standing very close to a wind turbine one can hear the swishing of the downward moving blades. This has been shown to be caused by the directivity of the blade as a noise source (more in the forward direction) and of Doppler amplification (the blade tip moves at ~ Mach 0.2). However, this explanation does not hold for a distant observer upwind or downwind from a turbine as the blades then have no changing velocity component in the direction of the observer.

It can be concluded that research in the last half decade has given a new perspective on the impact of wind turbines. This is especially true at night, a time at which measurements usually were not performed. Sound from modern, tall wind turbines does not abate at night and it is not always a soft, noisy sound (as it may be in daytime), but can at night attract attention because of its rhythm and the contrast with a quiet environment.

Proponents tend to present wind turbines as they are heard in daytime, opponents mostly use the impact they cause during the evening and night. It seems wise to me to acknowledge the visual and aural intrusion, not deny it with NIMBY ("not in my backyard") arguments that only reinforce opposition. An improvement in the assessment of the sound level will be to take into account a realistic atmosphere and a possible penalty for the amplitude modulation. A significant non-acoustical measure to reduce noise annoyance may be to involve neighboring residents in the planning of a wind farm: instead of giving them the burden of nuisance, they could share in the benefits.

Also see: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries


Koch's influence on the wind "debate" is documented well by Wendy Williams book on Cape Wind.

[madokie]

25. I think this pretty much sums it up

"What you seek to do is to legitimize the idea that there is something here to discuss when there isn't. Wind has virtually no harmful external costs associated with it, but, you are on a mission to create the impression that it does so that nuclear power will seem a reasonable alternative."

Peace

[Nederland]

26. If there are "no harmful external costs"

How do you explain all the pissed off people living near wind farms? How do you respond to the numerous studies done that show there are harmful effects caused by living near a wind farm? When choosing what to believe, why do you side with studies paid for by the wind industry over studies paid for by citizen groups and government? You wouldn't for a moment side look at a study paid for by the oil industry or the tobacco industry as having a shred of credibility, and yet you gleeful embrace studies paid for by the wind industry. It seems like an odd choice for a Democrat--choosing industry over people.

I think it's important to add that I am not against wind power. If you recall from the other thread where you chimed in at the end of a long exchange between Kristopher and me, I was arguing that Germany made a mistake by spending more money on solar than wind, because I felt wind was more suitable for that location. No, my concern with wind power is not a concern that means ending its use or expansion. My concern is that the US needs to establish some national standards regarding noise levels to protect people--because regardless of what Kristopher claims people are being adversely affected. I would recommend standards similar to what the Dutch have enacted. That we have been building out these large wind farms for almost a decade and have no national standards is just par for the course in this country. It seems like we always let industry (whether it be wind, auto, healthcare, chemical, whatever) run rampant without any concern for people.

[kristopher]

28. All the pissed off people living near windfarms?

"...claims like you are pushing here are bullshit "Hail Mary passes" that NIMBY opposition has to resort to because they have no legitimate basis for objecting to wind.

Most of that opposition is a result of fossil fueled astroturf groups stirring up normal people who are fearful of change. In any given project you can count on 30% of people opposing any change at all to their neighborhood environment. They don't evaluate changes for actual impact, instead they 'play safe' and try to maintain the status quo because they perceive any change as having a greater risk of disappointment than promise of improvement.

The fossil fuel industry (particularly Koch Industries) has been funding astroturf internet organizations with the aim of encouraging and supporting this segment of all populations.

The noise complaint is as I said, bogus. Measurements prove that the sound level of frogs in my backyard (as high as 80 decibels) *far* exceeds the noise level of a modern wind turbine at 100 yards (about 50 decibels). To complain about that level of noise from a mile away just marks the person complaining as an asshole."

The approval rating of people living near wind farms (who were there before the turbines were built) averages above 80%.

[Nederland]

29. I provide links and facts

You provide nothing.

Case closed.

[kristopher]

30. Links and facts without reason mean nothing

The "facts" you provided mean nothing without full context, an understanding of the way they fit into the context, and the ability to outline the full nature of the problem.

Your claims are nothing but chickenshit; all you are doing is pushing the agenda of the fossil fuel/nuclear lobby (they are one and the same) with information they are trying to make more relevant than it is.

You are right, the case is closed - wind turbines make significantly less noise than the frogs in my back yard on a summer night.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x215776
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=215509&mesg_id=215801

[Nederland]

33. Still here?

Wow, you really don;t know when you've lost do you?

No links, no facts. You lose.

[kristopher]

34. How clever of you to declare yourself "the winner"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=215509&mesg_id=215801


The "facts" you provided mean nothing without full context, an understanding of the way they fit into the context, and the ability to outline the full nature of the problem.

Your claims are nothing but chickenshit; all you are doing is pushing the agenda of the fossil fuel/nuclear lobby (they are one and the same) with information they are trying to make more relevant than it is.

You are right, the case is closed - wind turbines make significantly less noise than the frogs in my back yard on a summer night.

"I hope that helps you understand some of my concerns" you say?

I understand your concerns perfectly - you want to exaggerate the externalities of wind so that nuclear appears more acceptable.

http://www.flat-group.co.uk/campaign/letters/index.html
That link is to a page from the group posting your first excerpt. The correspondence clearly shows that the group opposing the wind farm had an existing agenda that they try to justify using claims of "noise" and anything else they can think of. As I stated, "And that research includes going to wind farms and actually listening to how much noise they produce - claims like you are pushing here are bullshit "Hail Mary passes" that NIMBY opposition has to resort to because they have no legitimate basis for objecting to wind.
Most of that opposition is a result of fossil fueled astroturf groups stirring up normal people who are fearful of change. In any given project you can count on 30% of people opposing any change at all to their neighborhood environment. They don't evaluate changes for actual impact, instead they 'play safe' and try to maintain the status quo because they perceive any change as having a greater risk of disappointment than promise of improvement.
The fossil fuel industry (particularly Koch Industries) has been funding astroturf internet organizations with the aim of encouraging and supporting this segment of all populations.
The noise complaint is as I said, bogus. Measurements prove that the sound level of frogs in my backyard (as high as 80 decibels) *far* exceeds the noise level of a modern wind turbine at 100 yards (about 50 decibels). To complain about that level of noise from a mile away just marks the person complaining as an asshole."

You can download van den Berg's paper http://www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=1866
but I'm going to post it here for reference. I agree with much of what he says, however he is doing what too many academics do - he is ignoring the KNOWN influence of fossil fuel and mineral mining interests on the shaping of public opinion. He does that because such influence is difficult to establish to academic standards and almost impossible to quantify. It is easier to treat the criticisms as legitimate for the purpose of his analysis, but that doesn't mean they are; nor does it mean that the dark influence of the Business-As-Usual crowd doesn't exist.

(In fact, if you watch Rachael Maddow you've been treated to regular reporting of this same group's latest efforts. She has highlighted the role of Koch Industries in funding the teabagger movement. In case you aren't aware of WHY this huge petroleum conglomerate is interested in health care it is because if health care is defeated it will have a strong negative impact on Obama's ability to take action on climate change.)

Unfortunately in the real world this influence is pernicious and effective at mobilizing enough astroturf opposition to significantly affect the pace of wind development. Nimby is a difficult enough problem to deal with, but when it is exacerbated by such a tactic, it is enough to unjustly derail a large number of otherwise worthy projects. With little success van den Berg and others attempt to find an explanation in the characteristics of the sound as to why the noise from wind turbines is more annoying than for other noise sources. The reason they have so little success and are reduced to pure speculation is that the nature of the sound isn't the problem; the problem is the mindset of those doing the complaining*.

One note on the nature of the sound from turbines - the "thumping" sound is not a characteristic of turbines being marketed now. It was a result of the compression caused by the blades as they passed in front of the tower. The problem was eliminated by moving the nacelle forward and allowing more room between the tower and the blades.

*If you are interested I recommend the writings of Maarten Wolsink on the topic of public opposition to wind.

I added the bold font for emphasis.

The newsletter of The Acoustical Society of America
Volume 19, Number 3 Summer 2009
Perspectives on wind turbine noise

Frits van den Berg

When the planning of a wind farm is in public debate, different perspectives are often used without people being aware of them. Just look at websites of opponents and proponents with wind turbines towering over buildings in the background or distant turbines seen from a pleasant foreground.

According to the British Wind Energy Association "well designed wind turbines are generally quiet in operation, and compared to the noise of road traffic, trains, aircraft, and construction activities, to name but a few, the noise from wind turbines is very low.
Outside the nearest houses, which are at least 300 meters away, and more often further, the sound of a wind turbine generating electricity is likely to be about the same level as noise from a flowing stream about 50-100 meters away or the noise of leaves rustling in a gentle breeze," whereas critic Pierpont states that "the noise produced by wind turbines has a thumping, pulsing character, especially at night, when it is more audible. The noise is louder at night because of the contrast between the still, cool air at ground level and the steady stream of wind at the level of the turbine hubs. This nighttime noise travels a long distance. It has been documented to be disturbing to residents 1.2 miles away from wind turbines in regular rolling terrain, and 1.5 miles away in Appalachian valleys."

The different notions are, in part, a result of the perspective of a person or an organization. The recent WINDFARM perception study has shown that annoyance from the sound of wind turbines is related to attitude towards wind energy and/or wind turbines in the landscape, and to the visibility of a wind farm. Also, residents who had economic benefits from wind turbines were hardly or not annoyed, while for residents without such benefits the sound from wind turbines is more annoying than sound at the same level from major noise sources such as road, rail, or air traffic, and industry.

TNO (Organization for Applied Research) researchers have determined dose-response curves for wind turbine noise from all relevant studies. The results are shown in Fig. 1 for all respondents that did not have economic benefits from wind turbines. At left the results
are plotted when annoyance or severe annoyance (as perceived either indoors or outdoors) is the response and at the right when sleep disturbance (being awakened by sound at least once a month) is the response. Here the dose level (noise exposure) is the outdoor sound level in Lden (time weighted average of daytime, evening and night time) or Lnight; Lden is 4.7 dB higher and Lnight 1.6 dB lower than the sound level would be with a 8 m/s wind speed at 10 m in a 'standard' atmosphere (i.e., of neutral stability).

When compared to other noise sources the degree of annoyance of sound from wind turbines is surprisingly high. Major noise sources (road, rail, and air traffic, industry) in general do not cause severe annoyance below 42 dB(A). At 50 dB(A) 6% or less of the exposed residents are highly annoyed, whereas for wind turbines, severe annoyance (indoors) occurs at lower levels below 40 dB(A) and at 50 dB(A) has risen to 14.5% of the exposed and non-benefiting population. A clue to explain this could be the similarity with the high annoyance associated with the noise from shunting yards. Whereas most noise sources are less active at night, shunting yards often are not and the clanking and engine noise is even more audible in the relative quiet of the evening and night. Four out of ten residents find wind turbines louder at night than in daytime and another four do not find it clearly different. For an inland as well as a coastal location a 60 m high wind turbine produces the same sound level at any time of the day or night, when averaged over a long period.

Higher wind turbines are actually louder at night than they are in day time, though the difference is small (0.5 dB at 100-120 m hub height). Neighbors of modern wind turbines have learned to distinguish between a 'high wind' driving the turbine and a 'low wind' that they feel themselves, and notice that these winds can be quite different after sundown. This phenomenon-in a partly cloudy or clear sky the near-ground wind often subsides at sundown while the higher altitude wind picks up at the same time-is well known in meteorology and atmospheric physics but was considered insignificant for wind turbines.

A second explanation for the intrusiveness of wind turbine sound may be its character, the beating or thumping that may have the same effect, drawing attention, as the clanking noise from shunting trains. When asked what a wind farm sounds like, three out of four residents think that swishing or lashing is a proper description. The modulation of the sound level at the blade passing frequency (approximately once a second for modern wind turbines at high speed) can be explained by the change in wind speed over the rotor area which is higher at night than it is in daytime. It can also be caused by an obstacle (such as another turbine) upwind from a turbine. It can be shown that the modulation depth (the variation in sound level) due to altitude dependent wind speed differences can increase to 5-6 dB, and even up to ~9 dB when the modulations from several turbines are in phase and the 'thumps' from different turbines arrive at the same time. Human beings are sensitive to modulations with a frequency of the order of 1 Hz as it occurs in speech (periodicity of syllables) and musical rhythm. The beeps of a truck in reverse gear have the same periodicity.

It is interesting that a modulation of the sound level can also be observed close to a wind turbine: when standing very close to a wind turbine one can hear the swishing of the downward moving blades. This has been shown to be caused by the directivity of the blade as a noise source (more in the forward direction) and of Doppler amplification (the blade tip moves at ~ Mach 0.2). However, this explanation does not hold for a distant observer upwind or downwind from a turbine as the blades then have no changing velocity component in the direction of the observer.

It can be concluded that research in the last half decade has given a new perspective on the impact of wind turbines. This is especially true at night, a time at which measurements usually were not performed. Sound from modern, tall wind turbines does not abate at night and it is not always a soft, noisy sound (as it may be in daytime), but can at night attract attention because of its rhythm and the contrast with a quiet environment.

Proponents tend to present wind turbines as they are heard in daytime, opponents mostly use the impact they cause during the evening and night. It seems wise to me to acknowledge the visual and aural intrusion, not deny it with NIMBY ("not in my backyard") arguments that only reinforce opposition. An improvement in the assessment of the sound level will be to take into account a realistic atmosphere and a possible penalty for the amplitude modulation. A significant non-acoustical measure to reduce noise annoyance may be to involve neighboring residents in the planning of a wind farm: instead of giving them the burden of nuisance, they could share in the benefits.

Also see: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries

Koch's influence on the wind "debate" is documented well by Wendy Williams book on Cape Wind.

[Nederland]

35. At last you admit you are wrong

...and admit that simply arguing without links to studies is idiotic.

Now that you've actually given me something to respond to, look at what your own link says regarding the night time noise levels of turbines:


It can be concluded that research in the last half decade has given a new perspective on the impact of wind turbines. This is especially true at night, a time at which measurements usually were not performed. Sound from modern, tall wind turbines does not abate at night and it is not always a soft, noisy sound (as it may be in daytime), but can at night attract attention because of its rhythm and the contrast with a quiet environment.

Proponents tend to present wind turbines as they are heard in daytime, opponents mostly use the impact they cause during the evening and night. It seems wise to me to acknowledge the visual and aural intrusion, not deny it with NIMBY ("not in my backyard") arguments that only reinforce opposition. An improvement in the assessment of the sound level will be to take into account a realistic atmosphere and a possible penalty for the amplitude modulation. A significant non-acoustical measure to reduce noise annoyance may be to involve neighboring residents in the planning of a wind farm: instead of giving them the burden of nuisance, they could share in the benefits.


Note that you very own link urges against doing precisely what you are doing: denying that there is a problem. You have stated several times that the noise level from turbines is 50 decibels. Are you aware that ISO recommendations for night time noise levels are as low as 25 dB(A) for rural areas and no higher than 40 dB(A) for urban areas? Are you aware that the Dutch government has set the maximum night time noise levels from turbines at 30 dB(A)? Are you aware that the key is not how much sound comes from turbines, but how much louder it is than average ambient noise, and that people are more sensitive to noise in certain octave ranges than others?

http://home.nethere.net/dja1701/technical_writing/papers/AddressingWindTurbineNoise.pdf

Admitting that there is a problem and passing sensible regulations is the key to ensuring that wind can become an important part of our energy mix. Simply denying that there is a problem, as you have repeatedly done, is counter-productive.



I state again,

ISO 1996-1971 Recommendations for Community Noise Limits

[kristopher]

36. That is a peculiar reading

There is no admission that I'm wrong, for starters.

What I've argued is the the "problem" is of the nature of a nuisance and is being blown out of proportion because of nimby opposition (an inevitable consequence of any development) that is being that is being capitalized on and exacerbated by fossil fuel, nuclear and minerals mining economic interests.

This is not a radical perspective.

I have no problem with establishing standards, what I do have trouble accepting is the presentation by people like you of the issue as if it were a meaningful problem for people near wind farms. It isn't, and the public opposition to wind using noise as an excuse is nearly always a bullshit scare tactic pushed by the same people who sponsor the climate denier industry.

You have totally ignored the areas in bold from the previous post (that I had to put in front of you three times).

"I hope that helps you understand some of my concerns" you say?

I understand your concerns perfectly - you want to exaggerate the externalities of wind so that nuclear appears more acceptable.

http://www.flat-group.co.uk/campaign/letters/index.html
That link is to a page from the group posting your first excerpt. The correspondence clearly shows that the group opposing the wind farm had an existing agenda that they try to justify using claims of "noise" and anything else they can think of. As I stated, "And that research includes going to wind farms and actually listening to how much noise they produce - claims like you are pushing here are bullshit "Hail Mary passes" that NIMBY opposition has to resort to because they have no legitimate basis for objecting to wind.
Most of that opposition is a result of fossil fueled astroturf groups stirring up normal people who are fearful of change. In any given project you can count on 30% of people opposing any change at all to their neighborhood environment. They don't evaluate changes for actual impact, instead they 'play safe' and try to maintain the status quo because they perceive any change as having a greater risk of disappointment than promise of improvement.
The fossil fuel industry (particularly Koch Industries) has been funding astroturf internet organizations with the aim of encouraging and supporting this segment of all populations.
The noise complaint is as I said, bogus. Measurements prove that the sound level of frogs in my backyard (as high as 80 decibels) *far* exceeds the noise level of a modern wind turbine at 100 yards (about 50 decibels). To complain about that level of noise from a mile away just marks the person complaining as an asshole."

You can download van den Berg's paper http://www.windaction.org/?module=uploads&func=download&fileId=1866
but I'm going to post it here for reference. I agree with much of what he says, however he is doing what too many academics do - he is ignoring the KNOWN influence of fossil fuel and mineral mining interests on the shaping of public opinion. He does that because such influence is difficult to establish to academic standards and almost impossible to quantify. It is easier to treat the criticisms as legitimate for the purpose of his analysis, but that doesn't mean they are; nor does it mean that the dark influence of the Business-As-Usual crowd doesn't exist.

(In fact, if you watch Rachael Maddow you've been treated to regular reporting of this same group's latest efforts. She has highlighted the role of Koch Industries in funding the teabagger movement. In case you aren't aware of WHY this huge petroleum conglomerate is interested in health care it is because if health care is defeated it will have a strong negative impact on Obama's ability to take action on climate change.)

Unfortunately in the real world this influence is pernicious and effective at mobilizing enough astroturf opposition to significantly affect the pace of wind development. Nimby is a difficult enough problem to deal with, but when it is exacerbated by such a tactic, it is enough to unjustly derail a large number of otherwise worthy projects. With little success van den Berg and others attempt to find an explanation in the characteristics of the sound as to why the noise from wind turbines is more annoying than for other noise sources. The reason they have so little success and are reduced to pure speculation is that the nature of the sound isn't the problem; the problem is the mindset of those doing the complaining*.

One note on the nature of the sound from turbines - the "thumping" sound is not a characteristic of turbines being marketed now. It was a result of the compression caused by the blades as they passed in front of the tower. The problem was eliminated by moving the nacelle forward and allowing more room between the tower and the blades.

*If you are interested I recommend the writings of Maarten Wolsink on the topic of public opposition to wind.

I added the bold font for emphasis.

The newsletter of The Acoustical Society of America
Volume 19, Number 3 Summer 2009
Perspectives on wind turbine noise

Frits van den Berg

When the planning of a wind farm is in public debate, different perspectives are often used without people being aware of them. Just look at websites of opponents and proponents with wind turbines towering over buildings in the background or distant turbines seen from a pleasant foreground.

According to the British Wind Energy Association "well designed wind turbines are generally quiet in operation, and compared to the noise of road traffic, trains, aircraft, and construction activities, to name but a few, the noise from wind turbines is very low.
Outside the nearest houses, which are at least 300 meters away, and more often further, the sound of a wind turbine generating electricity is likely to be about the same level as noise from a flowing stream about 50-100 meters away or the noise of leaves rustling in a gentle breeze," whereas critic Pierpont states that "the noise produced by wind turbines has a thumping, pulsing character, especially at night, when it is more audible. The noise is louder at night because of the contrast between the still, cool air at ground level and the steady stream of wind at the level of the turbine hubs. This nighttime noise travels a long distance. It has been documented to be disturbing to residents 1.2 miles away from wind turbines in regular rolling terrain, and 1.5 miles away in Appalachian valleys."

The different notions are, in part, a result of the perspective of a person or an organization. The recent WINDFARM perception study has shown that annoyance from the sound of wind turbines is related to attitude towards wind energy and/or wind turbines in the landscape, and to the visibility of a wind farm. Also, residents who had economic benefits from wind turbines were hardly or not annoyed, while for residents without such benefits the sound from wind turbines is more annoying than sound at the same level from major noise sources such as road, rail, or air traffic, and industry.

TNO (Organization for Applied Research) researchers have determined dose-response curves for wind turbine noise from all relevant studies. The results are shown in Fig. 1 for all respondents that did not have economic benefits from wind turbines. At left the results
are plotted when annoyance or severe annoyance (as perceived either indoors or outdoors) is the response and at the right when sleep disturbance (being awakened by sound at least once a month) is the response. Here the dose level (noise exposure) is the outdoor sound level in Lden (time weighted average of daytime, evening and night time) or Lnight; Lden is 4.7 dB higher and Lnight 1.6 dB lower than the sound level would be with a 8 m/s wind speed at 10 m in a 'standard' atmosphere (i.e., of neutral stability).

When compared to other noise sources the degree of annoyance of sound from wind turbines is surprisingly high. Major noise sources (road, rail, and air traffic, industry) in general do not cause severe annoyance below 42 dB(A). At 50 dB(A) 6% or less of the exposed residents are highly annoyed, whereas for wind turbines, severe annoyance (indoors) occurs at lower levels below 40 dB(A) and at 50 dB(A) has risen to 14.5% of the exposed and non-benefiting population. A clue to explain this could be the similarity with the high annoyance associated with the noise from shunting yards. Whereas most noise sources are less active at night, shunting yards often are not and the clanking and engine noise is even more audible in the relative quiet of the evening and night. Four out of ten residents find wind turbines louder at night than in daytime and another four do not find it clearly different. For an inland as well as a coastal location a 60 m high wind turbine produces the same sound level at any time of the day or night, when averaged over a long period.

Higher wind turbines are actually louder at night than they are in day time, though the difference is small (0.5 dB at 100-120 m hub height). Neighbors of modern wind turbines have learned to distinguish between a 'high wind' driving the turbine and a 'low wind' that they feel themselves, and notice that these winds can be quite different after sundown. This phenomenon-in a partly cloudy or clear sky the near-ground wind often subsides at sundown while the higher altitude wind picks up at the same time-is well known in meteorology and atmospheric physics but was considered insignificant for wind turbines.

A second explanation for the intrusiveness of wind turbine sound may be its character, the beating or thumping that may have the same effect, drawing attention, as the clanking noise from shunting trains. When asked what a wind farm sounds like, three out of four residents think that swishing or lashing is a proper description. The modulation of the sound level at the blade passing frequency (approximately once a second for modern wind turbines at high speed) can be explained by the change in wind speed over the rotor area which is higher at night than it is in daytime. It can also be caused by an obstacle (such as another turbine) upwind from a turbine. It can be shown that the modulation depth (the variation in sound level) due to altitude dependent wind speed differences can increase to 5-6 dB, and even up to ~9 dB when the modulations from several turbines are in phase and the 'thumps' from different turbines arrive at the same time. Human beings are sensitive to modulations with a frequency of the order of 1 Hz as it occurs in speech (periodicity of syllables) and musical rhythm. The beeps of a truck in reverse gear have the same periodicity.

It is interesting that a modulation of the sound level can also be observed close to a wind turbine: when standing very close to a wind turbine one can hear the swishing of the downward moving blades. This has been shown to be caused by the directivity of the blade as a noise source (more in the forward direction) and of Doppler amplification (the blade tip moves at ~ Mach 0.2). However, this explanation does not hold for a distant observer upwind or downwind from a turbine as the blades then have no changing velocity component in the direction of the observer.

It can be concluded that research in the last half decade has given a new perspective on the impact of wind turbines. This is especially true at night, a time at which measurements usually were not performed. Sound from modern, tall wind turbines does not abate at night and it is not always a soft, noisy sound (as it may be in daytime), but can at night attract attention because of its rhythm and the contrast with a quiet environment.

Proponents tend to present wind turbines as they are heard in daytime, opponents mostly use the impact they cause during the evening and night. It seems wise to me to acknowledge the visual and aural intrusion, not deny it with NIMBY ("not in my backyard") arguments that only reinforce opposition. An improvement in the assessment of the sound level will be to take into account a realistic atmosphere and a possible penalty for the amplitude modulation. A significant non-acoustical measure to reduce noise annoyance may be to involve neighboring residents in the planning of a wind farm: instead of giving them the burden of nuisance, they could share in the benefits.

Also see: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries

Koch's influence on the wind "debate" is documented well by Wendy Williams book on Cape Wind.

[Nederland]

37. Address your points in bold

The recent WINDFARM perception study has shown that annoyance from the sound of wind turbines is related to attitude towards wind energy and/or wind turbines in the landscape, and to the visibility of a wind farm. Also, residents who had economic benefits from wind turbines were hardly or not annoyed, while for residents without such benefits the sound from wind turbines is more annoying than sound at the same level from major noise sources such as road, rail, or air traffic, and industry.

This seems like a natural human reaction. I suspect the exact same could be said of people living near nuclear reactors--i.e. their reaction to a nuclear plant being built near them is largely dependent on their attitude toward nuclear energy.

When compared to other noise sources the degree of annoyance of sound from wind turbines is surprisingly high. Major noise sources (road, rail, and air traffic, industry) in general do not cause severe annoyance below 42 dB(A). At 50 dB(A) 6% or less of the exposed residents are highly annoyed, whereas for wind turbines, severe annoyance (indoors) occurs at lower levels below 40 dB(A) and at 50 dB(A) has risen to 14.5% of the exposed and non-benefiting population.

I agree with these facts. That's why I would recommend standard in line with World Health Organization recommendations and the regulations of numerous European countries. I have cited those standards and regulations several times above. Not really sure what your point is here. Are you saying that because only 6%-14% of residence are effected, we should just ignore their concerns? Would you be willing to use that standard for other forms of power?

[kristopher]

38. You are creating a false equivalency

First your comment that "this seems like a natural human reaction". What is "it"? Do you mean the tendency to find fault with something you have a preset bias against? If so you are correct to a point, however the key element of those selections are the words "more annoying than" in the first and "annoyance...is surprisingly high".

Both of those terms refer to research showing that the reaction to wind goes beyond the "natural human reaction" that is seen in other cases where dark interests are not operating to inflame the fears behind such a bias.


Noise is a specific, measurable external cost of building a wind farm and can easily be mitigated with distance. It is also relevant to note that a great deal of the problem (such as it is) has already been addressed with the redesign I wrote of earlier that eliminated the "thumping" sound.

Nuclear power's externalities are unlikely to be successfully mitigated in any similar fashion. When people object to nuclear power it isn't based on a local recurring externality that is being hyped by economic competitors to nuclear power; they are objecting because of thinking that mirrors the type of probability assessment underpinning lotteries.
When thinking of lotteries they see a low probability of a large reward weighed against a very low cost.
When thinking of nuclear they see a low probability of a large cost weighed against very small individual benefits. For example those benefits might be seen as a low reward of reduced costs on monthly electric bill (probably comparable to a monthly outlay on lottery tickets) or a reward centered around what is usually termed "global" environmental improvement. And it hasn't helped that historically the promised economic benefits have seldom actually materialized and there have been two prominent cases where the costs have been put front and center.

So it doesn't matter what I think about your desire to equate these two very different examples of public concern; what matters is the reality of how the objection originates and how they can both be addressed. For wind, the problem is exaggerated and a simple setback cures the problem. For nuclear, public perception is pretty much set in stone and the Bayesian approach shows no promise of changing perceptions.

[Nederland]

39. I guess its a matter of opinion

People place different values on different things. I admit it is difficult to draw hard facts from these types of comparisons. When you choose between flying to a place and driving to a place you weigh the risks against the benefits in your mind. Money, time, risk--all these things are valued differently by people and as a result different people will choose differently. Similarly, if you are choosing a place to live and have a choice between having a wind farm close by or a nuclear power plant close by you weigh the risks against the benefits. Some people will not be annoyed by the sound at all and make an easy choice. Other people will look at the very slight risk of exposure to extremely dangerous radiation compared to the guaranteed exposure to slightly annoying sound and choose to live near the wind farm. Personally, that isn't a choice I would make. That's really all I was saying in my original post.

[kristopher]

40. It's the impact on public policy that is most relevant

I think that the difference probably shows up in how the visual presence of the technologies affects the price of homes. At least one very broad hedonic price study of US homes with a view of wind farms concluded that those with a view appreciated faster than comparable properties without the view.

I feel fairly confident the opposite would be true for nuclear.

I mention this because it illustrates the nature of the two worries as they pertain to policy. The astroturf generated noise complaints mask the fact that general acceptance of wind is so high that people are willing to pay more to have it in their lives. Although the study drew no conclusions about cause, I speculate that it is due to the perception that wind is contributing to a clean local environment.

[Nederland]

41. You would be wrong

Having a nuclear power plant close by does not negatively impact housing prices.


<snip>

The impacts of nuclear facilities on adjacent communities have long been a controversial
issue – impacts on real estate, property values, employment, taxes, public and social
services, economic development, cultural parameters, etc. Those opposed to the siting of
nuclear facilities contend that they depress property values and have other negative
effects on nearby communities, while the industry contends that the opposite is the case.
While the debate among advocates, interest groups and industry has been intense, there
has been insufficient empirical analysis of the issues involved. Here we assess the
impacts of seven major nuclear facilities located throughout the USA on the surrounding
communities. Using published data, economic and statistical analyses, literature reviews,
and interviews, we find that the impacts of these facilities have been largely positive.

<snip>

In a landmark study, Gamble and Downing (1982) presented statistical evidence for
sales values of single-family properties in the vicinity of four nuclear power plants in the
north-east during the period 1975–1977, and in the vicinity of the TMI nuclear plant
during the period 1977–1979. They concluded that there was no significant impact on
property values due to proximity to a nuclear power plant, even after the March 1979
accident at TMI.
Gamble and Downing used regression analysis with linear and log-log functional
forms to determine whether proximity to the TMI nuclear facility after the TMI accident
had any measurable effect on property prices. They compared 583 residences within 25
miles of the plant with homes in a control neighbourhood 75 miles away, both before and
after the accident occurred using a hedonic model to isolate the pricing impacts of the
event. Their analysis of all valid single-family house sales over a four-year period before
the accident and over the nine months following the accident, and within a 25-mile radius
of the plant and in two control areas, disclosed no evidence that the accident had
measurable lasting effects on residential property values. Shortly following the accident,
there was a sharp decline in the volume of residential sales within ten miles of the plant
and there was a collapse in the property market around the plant, but the real estate
market returned to normal within two months, considering the financial market
conditions at that time. They thus found no statistically significant relationship.
They found that immediately after the accident there was a collapse in the property
market around the plant, but within eight weeks, the market appeared to recover. Gamble
and Downing reported that there was a large influx of clean-up workers and nuclear
technicians after the accident and surmised that this influx may have had a positive effect
on property prices. They also suggested that the absence of observed capitalisation effects
from the accident may have been due to expectations of government compensation.
However, these observations were speculative. In particular, the workers would have
been short-term residents who may have put upward pressure on rents, but would not be
expected to affect long-term expectations of capital growth in housing prices.

<snip>

http://www.misi-net.com/publications/IJNGEE-V1N1-06.pdf

If property values didn't decline even after the Three Mile Island accident I imagine they never would.

[kristopher]

42. I don't think that supports your conclusion.

I wrote "At least one very broad hedonic price study of US homes with a view of wind farms concluded that those with a view appreciated faster than comparable properties without the view. I feel fairly confident the opposite would be true for nuclear."

The nuclear study is gauging the overall economic effect to the community and comparing it with nearby communities that aren't participating in the trickle down.

The wind study is looking at identical economic conditions (as much as is possible) and attempting to isolate the impact of a single variable - with or without a view of the wind turbines. As I recall, in 8 out of 10 markets studied the homes with wind turbine views appreciated faster than those without.

Your study doesn't address that point, which is significant in that I was using it to illustrate the general public attitude towards wind in regard to the localized external costs.

Do you really believe that there are enough people willing to pay *extra* to have a view of a nuclear plant so that they skew the price upwards?

I don't.

[NNadir]

9. So what? Are you telling me that dangerous fossil fuel waste isn't in the living tissue

of everyone on earth?

If you can produce one ten millionth of the number of people who have been injured by used nuclear fuel in the 50 year history of nuclear power as have been injured in the last decade by dangerous fossil fuel waste, that would be impressive.

But you can't. You raise arbitrary criteria on subjects you know nothing about while ignoring the shit that actually matters.

There is NOT ONE dumb fundie anti-nuke who is smart enough or informed enough to understand that their indifference and selective attention is not innoncent. It's fucking deadly. Nuclear power need not be perfect to be infinitely superior to all the deadly stuff you don't care about.

It only needs to be infinitely superior, which it is.

[Javaman]

10. I didn't tell you anything, I just posted the article, you drew your own conclusions.

and frankly, I would prefer nuclear energy to be perfect, the alternative is too scary to contemplate.

you know nnadir, when you pull out the whole "fundie blah blah blah" bullshit, most of the readers here just glaze over. You're broken record insults come across as the cranky old man telling kids to get off his lawn. You would be better served to refrain from the insults and actually talk to people as equals. It would go a lot further. But I fully expect for you to insult me. That would be very typical of you and would only underline my point.

Tootles.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Javaman]

13. Thanks for proving my point.

you seem to display an inability to discuss a topic without coming off the rails.

I would really look into that anger issue. It's very unbecoming.

Tootles.

[jpak]

14. koo koo, Koo koo, Koo koo!!!111

:rofl:

[excess_3]

17. do other countries have this problem?

[excess_3]

32. anybody? .nt