Among the wind turbine functions that use electricity are the following:†

• yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) — the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine
• blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)
• lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.
• heating the blades — this may require 10%-20% of the turbine’s nominal (rated) power
• heating and dehumidifying the nacelle — according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, “power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds”
• oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox
• hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)
• thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) — 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost
• magnetizing the stator — the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a “large” amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous “cage rotor” that encloses the generator shaft; at the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine’s rated capacity, in slower winds possibly much more
• using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not,‡ particularly during important site tours) — it seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning, along with the gears that increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind§

Could it be that at times each turbine consumes more than 50% of its rated capacity in its own operation?! If so, the plant as a whole — which may produce only 25% of its rated capacity annually — would be using (for free!) twice as much electricity as it produces and sells. An unlikely situation perhaps, but the industry doesn’t publicize any data that proves otherwise; incoming power is apparently not normally recorded.

Is there some vast conspiracy spanning the worldwide industry from manufacturers and developers to utilities and operators? There doesn’t have to be, if engineers all share an assumption that wind turbines don’t use a significant amount of power compared to their output and thus it is not worth noting, much less metering. Such an assumption could be based on the experience decades ago with small DC-generating turbines, simply carried over to AC generators that continue to metastasize. However errant such an assumption might now be, it stands as long as no one questions it. No conspiracy is necessary — self-serving laziness is enough.

Whatever the actual amount of consumption, it could seriously diminish any claim of providing a significant amount of energy. Instead, it looks like industrial wind power could turn out to be a laundering scheme: “Dirty” energy goes in, “clean” energy comes out. That would explain why developers demand legislation to create a market for “green credits” — tokens of “clean” energy like the indulgences sold by the medieval church. Ego te absolvo.

(One need only ask utilities to show how much less “dirty” electricity they purchase because of wind-generated power to see that something is amiss in the wind industry’s claims. If wind worked and were not mere window dressing, the industry would trot out some real numbers. But they don’t. One begins to suspect that they can’t.)

*There is also the matter of reactive power (VAR). As wind facilities are typically built in remote areas, they are often called upon to provide VAR to maintain line voltage. Thus much of their production may go to providing only this “energy-less” power.

†Much of this information comes from a Swedish graduate student specializing in hydrogen and wind power, as posted in a Yes2Wind discussion. Also see the Danish Wind Industry Association’s guide to the technology. The rest comes from personal correspondence with other experts and from industry spec sheets.

‡An observer in Toronto, Ontario, points out that the blades of the turbines installed at the Pickering nuclear plant and Exhibition Place turn 90% of the time, even when there is barely a breeze and when the blades are not properly pitched — in a region acknowledged to have low wind resource.

§“In large rotating power trains such as this, if allowed to stand motionless for any period of time, the unit will experience “bowing” of shafts and rotors under the tremendous weight. Therefore, frequent rotating of the unit is necessary to prevent this. As an example, even in port Navy ships keep their propeller shafts and turbine power trains slowly rotating. It is referred to as “jacking the shaft” to prevent any tendency to bow. Any bowing would throw the whole train out of balance with potentially very serious damage when bringing the power train back on line.
“In addition to just protecting the gear box and generator shafts and bearings, the blades on a large wind turbine would offer a special challenge with respect to preventing warping and bowing when not in use. For example, on a sunny, windless day, idle wind turbine blades would experience uneven heating from the sun, something that would certainly cause bowing and warping. The only way to prevent this would be to keep the blades moving to even out the sun exposure to all parts of the blade.
“So, the point that major amounts of incoming electrical power is used to turn the power train and blades when the wind is not blowing is very accurate, and it is not something the operators of large wind turbines can avoid.
“[In addition, there is] the likely need for a hefty, forced-feed lubricating system for the shaft and turbine blade assembly bearings. This would be a major hotel load. I can’t imagine passive lubrication (as for the wheel bearings on your car) for an application like this. Maybe so, but I would be very surprised. Assuming they have to have a forced-feed lubrication system, given the weight on those bearings (40 tons on the bearing for the rotor and blades alone) a very robust (energy sucking) lubricating oil system would be required. It would also have to include cooling for the oil and an energy-sucking lube oil purification system too.”
–Lawrence E. Miller, Gerrardstown, WV, an engineer with over 40 years of professional experience with large power train machinery associated with Navy ships.

Congress is once again considering major energy legislation, focused largely on promotion of energy sources that produce few or no greenhouse gases. This current concentration on promoting so-called renewable energy sources assumes that congressional action now will lead to such significant growth in renewable energy sources that the use of carbon-based energy will subside, thus reducing the expansion of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other global warming gases.

Congress’s effort to expand renewable energy sources starts from a relatively meager production base. Nearly half of America’s electricity is generated from coal, with natural gas and nuclear energy adding about 20 percent each.[1] Most of the rest is provided by renewable sources, primarily hydroelectric energy at 6 percent. Non-hydro renewables like wind and solar energy and biomass total only 3 percent.

For many years, federal energy and environmental policy has nudged production of some electricity sources over others, either through “sticks,” such as costly air quality regulations targeting coal, or through “carrots” like tax credits and subsidies for wind. Proposed global warming legislation would alter the electricity mix to an unprecedented degree by putting a price on emissions of greenhouse gases, chiefly carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion. Coal is the most carbon-intensive energy source, and any stringent cap-and-trade provisions would significantly curtail its use in favor of other sources in the decades ahead. Such legislative measures, however, are very costly,[2] and the prospects for passage in 2010 are uncertain.

Congress is also considering achieving similar but less ambitious goals via a renewable electricity standard (RES). Twenty-nine states have versions of an RES, but Washington is considering a nationwide standard. Under this mandate, a growing percentage of electricity would have to be produced by approved renewable energy sources. Much of the RES would be met with increased energy generation from wind turbines.

It stands to reason that an RES would raise electricity prices. After all, if electricity created by wind and other renewables were cost competitive, consumers would use more of it without a federal law to force consumption. Recent experience with the mandate for renewable fuels like corn ethanol also suggests significant cost increases as well as technical shortcomings.[3]

While proponents argue that wind is free, harnessing it into useful electricity certainly is not. However, the question of how much an RES will affect electric bills does not have a straightforward answer.

Perhaps easiest to calculate is the direct cost of purchasing, installing, and operating the increasing number of wind turbines needed to meet the RES. A bit murkier are questions about the costs of the necessary additional transmission lines to deliver the electricity from where it is generated— the most desirable sites for wind are often remote mountain ridges or sparsely populated plains—to the cities where it is needed.[4] The economics of an RES is further complicated by the legal and administrative objections to establishing appropriate sites for wind farms and transmission lines, which already are quite common and would only grow with an RES.[5]

It is particularly difficult to take into account the substantial costs created by the intermittent and unreliable nature of wind. Simply put, the wind does not always blow, and it is difficult to predict and impossible to control. Given the need for electricity 24 hours a day seven days a week and the reality that times of peak demand—hot summer days—are precisely when the wind is usually still, a mandate for increased wind-generated energy is also a mandate for increased non-wind backup systems for balancing wind fluctuations.[6] In effect, increased wind power cannot simply be added to the existing grid without transforming the grid in ways that introduce both significant costs and operational inefficiencies.

These shortcomings will not be overcome through increases in scale. Connecting a large number of widely dispersed wind farms to the grid will not smooth the overall supply enough to make balancing unnecessary. Though variability can be reduced, a recent analysis states, “These results do not indicate that wind power can provide substantial baseload power simply through interconnecting wind plants.”[7]

There are federal studies of the costs of an RES that conclude that it would add no more than a few percent to electric rates,[8] but these studies do not take the full cost of wind and other renewables into account. This Center for Data Analysis (CDA) Report provides such a comprehensive economic analysis.

CDA analysis projects that an RES as outlined below would:

• Raise electricity prices by 36 percent for households and 60 percent for industry;
• Cut national income (GDP) by $5.2 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
• Cut national income by $2,400 per year for a family of four;
• Reduce employment by more than 1,000,000 jobs; and
• Add more than $10,000 to a family of four’s share of the national debt by 2035.

Comparing the Costs of Wind and Coal

The flow of wind is erratic and uncertain, which means that so is the power generated from wind. This unreliable nature is especially problematic when wind is used to generate utility-scale electricity for the power grid.

Keeping line quality, primarily voltage and frequency, within the necessarily close tolerances requires constant monitoring of demand and the constant monitoring and adjustment of supply.[9] Even under the best of circumstances, these adjustments require a certain fraction of power to be delivered from generators that can be ramped up and down rapidly. For the most part, this easily ramped electricity comes from natural-gas fired turbines that are relatively expensive to operate compared to a baseload source such as coal, nuclear, or natural-gas combined-cycle power plants.

Though coal, nuclear, and gas combined-cycle power plants are much more sluggish in response to changing demand, their dependability is very high. Indeed, their output can be matched to sizeable, expected changes in demand when given sufficient lead time. Wind energy plants do not have this ability by themselves, so direct comparisons of wind costs per kilowatt hour to coal or gas costs are misleading.

Further, location choices for fossil and nuclear-fueled power plants have much greater latitude than those for wind turbines, which, like hydropower plants, must be located where the natural resource is best suited—not necessarily close to where the power is used. This feature adds additional transmission costs to wind energy.

With nuclear power not considered to be renewable, the least-cost renewable source for electricity is onshore wind. In an early-release version of its “Annual Energy Outlook 2010,” the Energy Information Administration (EIA) lists the levelized costs of various sources of electricity projected for 2016 (in 2008 dollars).[10]

The EIA levelized costs per megawatt hour are $78.10 for conventional coal power,[11] $149.30 for onshore wind power, $191.10 for offshore wind power, $396.10 for photo-voltaic solar power, $256.60 for thermal solar power, and $139.50 for power generated by natural-gas conventional turbines.

Even though the $149.30 for the cheapest renewable power is already well above the cost of conventional power sources, it does not include any adjustment for reliability or additional transmission costs.

Wind cannot be turned on and off to match changes in demand. There are no feasible energy storage options for most wind farms. So, unlike power from conventional sources, wind power must be used when the wind is actually blowing.

Geography puts wind at another disadvantage. To keep the cost of wind power as low as possible, it is necessary to locate the wind farms in areas with the strongest and steadiest winds. As is the case with solar power, many of the best areas for wind power are located far from the major population centers. This requires construction of new, high-capacity transmission lines. A review of transmission costs suggests a median cost of $15 per megawatt hour.[12]

The dependability problem is more complicated. Power-grid management requires constant and instantaneous balancing of supply and demand. Sophisticated analysis and long experience guide grid operators as they schedule the various sources of generation. Nevertheless, there will still be unanticipated changes in both supply and demand; further, there can be variations in demand that cannot easily be matched by the most efficient conventional sources (coal, nuclear power, and integrated combined-cycle gas) even if they are anticipated. The most common energy source for balancing these very short-run changes is natural gas turbines, which are less efficient than coal, nuclear power, or natural gas combined cycle.

Wind, like solar energy, is not a dispatchable power source; that is, it cannot be turned on at will. As a result, increasing dependence on wind adds variability and uncertainty to the power grid that must be offset by quick-ramping power sources like natural gas turbines to maintain a relatively constant flow of electricity.

This increased reliance on natural gas turbines comes from two sides of the balancing equation. When there is an unanticipated decline in wind generation, or when the decline is anticipated but is for too short a period to balance with coal, natural gas turbines fill the gap. On the other hand, when wind generation is low compared to capacity, there is need for power sources that can be quickly ramped down. In this case, there would be additional need for natural gas generation so that unanticipated increases in wind power can be accommodated by rapidly cutting power from the natural gas turbines.

Gas turbines are not a renewable energy source, so swapping a megawatt hour of wind power for a megawatt hour of coal power also requires swapping power from natural gas turbines for additional coal. Since coal power is cheaper than power generated by natural gas turbines, the difference must be added to the cost differential between wind and coal.

There is little research directly addressing the question of how much additional gas-turbine power will be needed. The theoretical limits are zero (all fluctuations are perfectly anticipated and balanced with the cheapest coal power) and the inverse of the capacity factor, which would imply three megawatt hours of additional gas-turbine power for every megawatt hour of wind power.[13] In theory, this could add as much as $179 per megawatt hour to the cost of wind power.

A study done for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that the spinning reserves must be increased about 0.2 megawatt capacity for each megawatt of wind power.[14] “Spinning reserves” describes the power plants that must be warmed up and synchronized with the grid so that they can be brought online more quickly. They use fuel, but not as much as when they are called upon to supply power to the grid.

This measure is somewhat different from the necessary increase in actual gas-turbine electricity production, but it is very much related to the uncertainty and variability problem. Though 0.2 megawatt per hour may be a significant underestimate for the amount of additional gas-turbine power, it is the factor employed for this analysis. That is, for every megawatt hour of wind that is substituted for coal power, an additional 0.2 megawatt hour of gas-turbine power must be substituted for coal as well. Using this ratio adds $12 per megawatt hour instead of the theoretical maximum of $179 per megawatt hour to the cost of wind power.

After making these adjustments for transmission costs and additional gas-turbine generation, the cost of an additional megawatt of onshore wind power is $177 per hour. This is 126 percent above the cost of a megawatt of coal power per hour.

Put another way, the electric bill for a typical family of four would be $189 per month if it was powered entirely by coal, but it would rise to $340 per month if it was supplied entirely by onshore wind power.[15]

Since onshore wind is the least expensive of the renewable electricity sources (ruling out conventional hydro and nuclear power), any plan that uses the more expensive renewable sources—such as offshore wind ($218 per megawatt hour); thermal solar power ($284 per megawatt hour); or photovoltaic solar power ($423 per megawatt hour)— would have even greater costs. As the mandated renewable-fraction of electric power rises, so does the average cost of electricity.

Chart 1 shows the hypothetical family-of-four electric bill for different sources of electric power. Though former Vice President Al Gore has suggested moving the country entirely to renewable electricity generation in 10 years, few if any legislative proposals seek complete dependence on renewables. Nevertheless, Chart 1 illustrates the large cost differences between the cheaper conventional energy sources and various renewable energy sources.

With a standard that requires only a fraction of electricity to be generated by renewable sources, the adverse impact on electric bills will be diluted as the higher cost of renewable electricity is averaged with the lower-cost conventional power. However, as the relative amount of wind power grows, the impact on electricity prices grows as well.

A Renewable Standard

Renewable energy standards typically stipulate a timeline of minimum levels of electricity that must be met by approved renewable sources. Usually, these minimum levels are expressed as a fraction of total electricity generation for each year.

For the purposes of this study, the RES starts at 3 percent for 2012 and rises by 1.5 percent per year. This profile mandates a minimum of 15 percent renewable electricity by 2020, a minimum of 22.5 percent by 2025, and a minimum of 37.5 percent by 2035, which is the end year for this analysis.

CDA analysts assume that the higher costs of the renewable power are averaged in with the lower costs of conventionally generated power so that within each of the sectors (industrial, commercial, and residential), all customers pay the same price per kilowatt hour. Further, for the purposes of this analysis, prices do not vary from one part of the country to another. In reality, an RES will have differential impacts from one market to another. In general, smoothing adverse impacts in economic analysis reduces overall costs. So although the analysis may blur the pattern of economic distress, it is unlikely to have overestimated it.

Economic Responses

When the cost of any commodity rises, actors in the economy respond in uncounted ways to offset the impact. Though specific responses cannot be predicted, general patterns and magnitudes can be estimated from past responses to price changes.

Electricity prices have risen and fallen over the decades, and businesses and households have adjusted. The adjustments can be as routine as parents reminding their children to turn off the lights or as entrepreneurial as an engineer setting up a firm to develop new technology. When electricity prices rise, heat-pump salespeople are more likely to emphasize the advantages of their more efficient (and more expensive) models; producers of electronic controls will see a greater market for programmable thermostats; people will turn down the thermostat and be more inclined to buy Energy Star-rated appliances.[16] These impacts and more are reflected in the complex system of equations that have been estimated for the macroeconomic model and are reflected in the coefficients of the smaller energy model employed to estimate initial electricity price effects.[17]

Even when averaging the cost of the mandated renewable electricity with the cheaper conventionally sourced electricity, the price rises are noticeable. For residential consumers, the price increases start small (because the renewable mandate starts at only 3 percent), but by 2035, the price rises 36 percent above the baseline price. Forced to pay higher prices, households cut electricity use by 19 percent. Even after these consumption cutbacks, a family of four will see its annual electric bill rise by over $300.

Because the cost of generation is a bigger fraction of the industrial electricity price than of the residential electricity prices, the RES causes a bigger percentage increase in industrial electricity prices than in residential electricity prices. The price increase is 5 percent in 2012 and rises to 60 percent in 2035. The higher prices force cutbacks in consumption that reach 23 percent below baseline in 2035. The net impact in 2035 is that industrial users will pay out 21 percent more dollars for 23 percent less electricity than if there were no RES.

Electric power is one of the most critical inputs to a modern economy. Thus, it is no surprise that forcing the cost of electricity to rise dampens economic activity. The cost increase for electricity can be viewed as a particularly damaging energy tax, because a renewable mandate, unlike the case of a normal tax, provides no revenue to at least partially offset the higher cost. By way of comparison, the highway use tax on gasoline raises the price of gasoline, but it also generates revenues for building and maintaining roads and bridges.[18] On the other hand, a renewable energy standard raises costs in the form of less efficient production, which provides no economic benefit.

As an analogy, suppose a farmer is able to produce 10,000 bushels of wheat per year with the aid of irrigation from a nearby river. If a regulation prohibiting irrigation cuts production to 9,000 bushels, then, to the farmer, this is the same as a 10 percent tax. However, with an actual tax, the government would have 1,000 bushels to distribute, while with the prohibition on irrigation, those bushels simply disappear—providing benefits to no one.

The Macroeconomic Impacts

Analysis of cap-and-trade bills that impose economy-wide reductions in CO2 emissions shows overall losses to the economy of $5 trillion to nearly $10 trillion between 2012 and 2035.[19] Though renewable energy standards apply only to the power sector (electricity generation), they provide less flexibility in meeting the goals than does cap-and-trade and can lead to losses of the same order of magnitude as the more comprehensive cap-and-trade regulations.

The broadest measure of a country’s economic activity is gross domestic product (GDP). As the mandated level of renewable energy rises over time, so does the cost of electricity and so do the losses imposed on the economy. Compared to the no-RES baseline, GDP drops by $50 billion in 2012. The annual losses increase to $197 billion by 2020, $300 billion in 2030, and more than $325 billion in 2035. Summing up the impacts for 2012 to 2035 yields a total loss of $5.2 trillion. All of these impacts are adjusted for inflation to 2010 dollars. On a family-of-four basis, this lost income averages over $2,400 per year.

When the economy is shocked by the higher electricity prices, employment declines. In the first year (2012), employment drops 330,000 jobs below the baseline level. The battle between market adjustments and ever-rising electricity prices leads to periods of growing job losses interspersed with periods of relative stability. However, by 2017, employment falls 1,000,000 jobs below the baseline and at times is more than 1.2 million jobs below the baseline. On average, there will be 1,000,000 fewer people working with the RES in effect than if there were no RES.

Falling incomes and rising unemployment squeeze government finances from two sides: Tax revenues fall, and expenditures on such things as unemployment insurance rise. These two responses cause federal deficits to grow even faster than they are already projected to grow. The RES will add over $10,000 to a family of four’s share of the national debt by 2035.

Conclusion

Mandating that an ever-increasing fraction of electrical power must be generated from renewable sources will raise the cost of electricity, force inconvenient and painful cuts in electricity use, and damage the economy. Households will see their electricity prices rise 36 percent by 2035, while industrial users will see their electricity prices rise 60 percent even after adjusting for inflation.

Since virtually every product and service depends on electricity to some extent, these price increases have pervasive impacts. Compared to projected levels without the RES, economic activity falls by $5.2 trillion, which is an inflation-adjusted average annual loss of $218 billion, or more than $2,400 per family of four each year.

Declining economic activity is bad for employment. Implementing the RES cuts jobs. Compared to baseline projections (that is, without the RES), employment averages 1,000,000 jobs below the baseline projection.

Though the source of wind and solar energy is free, power delivered from these sources is very expensive. For now at least, onshore wind is the cheapest renewable energy source that can be scaled in significant fashion. But scaling up wind power simply lays bare the costly nature of harnessing wind and magnifies the economic losses. A renewable electricity standard is not a path to the new economy, but an example of the stale old thinking that will hobble the already damaged economy with job-killing cost increases.

—David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., is Research Fellow in Energy Economics and Climate Change in the Center for Data Analysis; Karen A. Campbell, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis; William W. Beach is Director of the Center for Data Analysis; Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies; and Nicolas D. Loris is a Research Assistant in the Roe Institute at The Heritage Foundation.

Appendix

Methodology

As described in the section “Comparing the Costs of Wind and Coal,” CDA analysts calculated the increase in the cost of wind power per megawatt hour. This cost is then translated to that for 1 percent of base-year power production. This 1 percent cost is multiplied by the RES percent for each year, and an average price increase is calculated from that. The price increases are then passed on to the macroeconomic model.

Macroeconomic Simulation Overview

Heritage analysts used the IHS Global Insight long-term macroeconomic model of the U.S. economy to estimate the effects of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) on the overall economy.[20] The simulation was implemented by changing variables in the macroeconomic model according to the changes predicted by a microeconomic model of the energy sector maintained by the CDA (see above). In order to estimate the policy impact, two main pieces needed to be simulated: price effects and energy efficiency effects.

The energy model estimated the change in energy production prices and retail energy prices that would result from changing the production mix from renewable energy and traditional energy sources. These prices were matched with their corresponding variables in the macroeconomic model to estimate the effect that these price changes would have on the economy overall.

The energy model projects changes in fuel efficiency and changes in total highway fuel consumption. Corresponding macro-model variables were changed. The effect of these changes helps to mitigate some of the total increased consumer expenditure on fuel.

The macroeconomic model does not have specific variables corresponding to alternative renewable fuel sources as does the CDA energy model. The macroeconomic simulation takes into account the increase in domestic alternative fuel source supply by adjusting the variable amount of residual energy demand that affects the amount of imported energy.

Here’s the report, which is part of the US Department of Energy (DOE):  http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/tablees1a.html

The numbers below come from the March 2010 column in the first table, “Total Electric Power Industry Summary Statistics,” right on the top of the first page.

Of that total (still measured in units of 1000 megawatthours), here is how many thousand megawatthours came from each of the following sources during March 2010:

Coal:                                            145,198    (about 46.5%)

Nuclear:                                         64,639    (about 20.7%)

Natural Gas:                                    62,882    (about 20.1%)

Hydroelectric:                                  20,574    (about 6.6%)

Wind:                                                8,196     (about 2.6%)

Wood & wood derived fuels:             3,306     (about 1.1%)

Petroleum Liquids                              1,249     (about 0.4%)

Petroleum Coke                                 1,210     (about 0.4%)

Solar                                                       64     (about 0.0%)

(There are a few other minor sources, including biomass, geothermal, etc., each with tiny amounts)

You can see that in March 2010, if you combine both petroleum liquids and petroleum coke (anything used in the USA that is derived from oil), only about eight-tenths of one percent came from those sources…by far the lions share of our electricity comes from coal, with natural gas and nuclear fighting for second/third place, and hydroelectric “in fourth place.”   Wind energy only accounted for 2.6% of our electricity in March 2010.

This means that the arguments that we need wind energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil are…to put it in a word…ridiculous.  They are not based on anything factual at all.  It represents a smart ploy on the part of the wind industry’s public relations firms, however, to use the general public’s ignorance of where our electricity actually comes from, along with the public’s distaste of relying on oil from foreign countries and fear of terrorist regimes in order to gain public support for wind development by saying we need to use turbines to replace foreign oil.

I noticed that most of the speakers at the Adams County Public Hearing who spoke in favor of wind development in Adams County mentioned our need to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.  I don’t disagree that it would be good to do that, but the way to do that is ride bicycles instead of drive cars, or buy more electric cars, or find other ways to cut down on burning gasoline in automobiles.

It is amazing, and a little frightening, that so many otherwise intelligent Americans have “bought” this idea about wind energy without giving it any critical thought.  But let us be smarter than that.  One commercial aired on CNN showing military vehicles being blown up by roadside bombs, ending with an appeal to “bring our boys home” and then showing wind turbines as the “answer.”  We can all look forward to the day when, in peace, our troops can return home.  However, just a tiny bit of reasonable thinking reveals that cars use gasoline, which is the real “culprit” behind our dependence on foreign oil–and covering the whole nation with wind turbines will not change the amount of foreign oil we burn in our automobiles.

The statistics above prove that electricity mainly comes from coal, nuclear, and natural gas–all of which are produced domestically and create scores of jobs in the United States–far more than mostly foreign-owned wind companies produce as they win big in our massive give-away of American tax dollars to subsidize wind development.  The “war of words” between wind and oil is a 2.6% producer of electricity (wind) telling the nation that we need wind to replace a 0.8% producer of electricity (oil).

But don’t be too hasty about eliminating that 0.8% producer.  Not all electric generation plants perform the same function on our nation’s grid.  Petroleum products are normally burned in what are called “Peaker Plants.”  Those generate electricity on demand during times of peak electric demand; they have to be ready to fire up quickly to balance the demand on the grid with an equivalent supply.  Wind energy, by contrast, cannot ever serve this function on the grid, because it only offers electricity when the wind blows–not “on demand.”  So, to replace oil burning peaker plants, we need some other form of electricity generation that is “on demand,” and wind is not a candidate for that.

Even if we cover the entire nation with wind turbines, we cannot dismantle even one oil-burning “peaker plant,” unless we’re willing to have all the lights go out when everyone turns on their air conditioners on a hot, still day.  Because wind energy generation is completely dependant on something out of our control–the wind speed–we must have enough electric generating capacity available from other sources–coal, nuclear, or other non-wind sources–to meet 100% of our needs at all times.  That means that wind’s current function on the electric grid is simply to create excess electricity and ”replace” power purchased (not produced) from the other sources on the grid.  The effect of this is to take purchases (money) away from nuclear or coal or other sources, without enabling them to cut down on production–so what do you think that does to the price of electricity from those sources? This excess production of electricity by wind turbines happens on a moment-by-moment basis (whenever the wind blows), eliminating the possibility to plan ahead for even a brief period of time when we could “switch on wind” and “switch off coal.”  Because we cannot depend on wind, we cannot tell an eight hour shift over at the coal-burning plant to stay home, for example–they have to keep their coal burning and be ready to “carry” wind turbines by “switching on” at any moment.  That means that even when we “switch on wind,” we cannot stop burning coal.

It would be a good thing for wind energy to actually help our nation cut back on burning coal someday (although it would eliminate domestic jobs in the coal industry), but first we would need the ability to store the intermittent power that wind turbines produce, and make it something we can control and plan ahead to use.  Unfortunately, we do not have that ability at this time; batteries that would store the amounts of power needed are too expensive and impractical.  Other ideas have been proposed, such as using turbines to pump water from a river below a hydroelectric dam back up into the reservoir, so that we could get “double” use of the same water in hydroelectric generation.  In that scenario, extra water could be released at times of peak electric need, and create more electricity in a predictable way.  Ideas such as this are prohibitively expensive at this time (have you priced hydroelectric dams lately?), and could not make enough of a impact in the total picture, but still deserve further study as a possible useful role for wind turbines.  If this is a future possibility, more turbines should be built near hydroelectric dams, and not 1000 feet from people’s homes in rural America.

I hope Americans stop to think just a little bit before we wreck every scenic vista in the nation, destabilize our electric grid, raise the cost of our own electricity, and give mostly foreign companies huge American tax subsidies over a terribly expensive and half-baked idea, all because we believed the wind companies commercials that told us we could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil while driving our cars around under 400 foot wind turbines.

A Concerned Citizen

Download File(s):
McCann Appraisal, LLC written testimony re Setbacks & property values June 8 2010.pdf (5.07 MB)

I work for wind power constructors all across America as a project controls consultant and have been in the power industry for the past 30 years. Let me offer some observations before this paper and others rush to support jamming wind towers on the mountains in Maine.

No project I have worked on ever proposed placing a tower within two miles of a residence. Communities I have worked in are always 100 percent in favor of the projects. No one ever has an issue with a landowner giving an easement for cash, nor does anyone take issue with the constructor.

So, why can’t we find places in Maine two miles or more from residences on low-lying areas that don’t go against the wishes of local citizens and throw up 2,000 wind towers so the governor can feel green?

Answer: greed. It’s all about money.

Change the state’s ordinance to embrace those simple rules and see how much money the developers throw at projects in Maine.

I am also aware of the cost of wind power. Adding 20 percent wind to the Maine power mix is voting to increase a monthly light bill by 25 to 40 percent when the transmission and distribution costs are added in.

Evidently, the people involved in the sweetheart deals made in Augusta with developers aren’t too worried about that.

Wind is the most expensive power in America. No one disputes that.

Tom Powell, Dixfield

By Tom Powell
May 10, 2010 12:00 am

Web Ref: http://www.sunjournal.com/node/841157

“People do not want to buy near windmills,” said Amanda J. Miller, owner of Lake Ontario Realty, Dexter, who specializes in waterfront property sales. “They avoid purchasing in towns like Cape Vincent.”

REALTOR’S REPORT: Proposed turbine projects put damper on residential property sales in Cape Vincent

By NANCY MADSEN

TIMES STAFF WRITER

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2010

Sales records show that Cape Vincent has had a steeper decline in residential property sales than its neighbors and real estate professionals are starting to blame proposed wind power developments.

“People do not want to buy near windmills,” said Amanda J. Miller, owner of Lake Ontario Realty, Dexter, who specializes in waterfront property sales. “They avoid purchasing in towns like Cape Vincent.”

She presented her views and a report on property values to the Jefferson County Board of Legislators on Tuesday night.

In other countries that have had wind power development for a while, they have seen 40 percent to 60 percent drops in resale values, she said. Closer to home, she’s had clients pull out of deals and refuse to consider areas that are possible sites for wind turbines.

“Even if people don’t mind looking at it, they’re not going to put their investment in an area where they’re going to have turbines depreciate it,” Ms. Miller said in a phone interview on Monday. “They don’t want to look at them, see them, and others don’t want to buy because they don’t know what the wind turbines will do for property values.”

National studies have gone both ways, some saying that wind turbines have no effect on property values and others saying the projects hurt property values.

Data on the local real estate trends were compiled by Clifford J. Schneider, a Cape Vincent resident and former fisheries biologist with the state Department of Environmental Conservation.

The analysis compared Cape Vincent sales, closing prices and days on market to those in Alexandria Bay, Brownville, Clayton and Lyme from 2000 through 2009. The analysis included houses of more than 1,000 square feet on the Jefferson-Lewis Board of Realtors Multiple Listing Service.

Both overall residential sales and a subset of waterfront residential sales were analyzed.

Closings for the 2006-09 period declined 8.4 percent in the other four towns and 15.4 percent in Cape Vincent, though that was not statistically significant.

In waterfront properties over the last decade, closings fell 12 percent in Cape Vincent and 4.6 percent in the four-town average. In the more recent 2006-09 period, closings fell 10 percent per year for the four-town average and 25 percent in Cape Vincent. The difference in the decline was statistically significant.

Cape Vincent had 10 residential property closings in 2009, three of which were waterfront.

“This should be a good wake-up call to people,” Ms. Miller said.

Prices didn’t vary much, with all categories rising for Cape Vincent and surrounding towns.

Average days on market declined for the four towns by 9.5 percent per year through the decade. Through the decade, the trend was a drop by 7.3 percent per year in Cape Vincent, but in 2006-09 the days on market increased 58.5 percent per year, while the four-town average increased 10 percent.

“There is some evidence that the Cape Vincent housing market is in a slump, more so than what would normally be credited to the decline in the general economy,” the report said.

The economy is playing some role in the decreased number of sales.

“Things are slow partly because the overall economy is so bad,” said Brooks J. Bragdon, a real estate sales agent and Cape Vincent councilman. “But things are even slower in areas overdeveloped by wind turbines.”

Some local wind farm opponents are pushing for a property value assurance agreement, in which a developer would pay the difference between a property’s sale price and the value of comparable property outside of a wind power development if the property loses value.

The two real estate professionals said that won’t be enough.

“I don’t put too much stock into it because the aesthetics of the area are so valuable that you can’t put a dollar figure onto it,” Mr. Bragdon said. “We should address the setbacks and make them reasonable according to the zoning law and comprehensive plan and state and federal rules without getting into compensating people for lost value.”

Ms. Miller agreed.

“It doesn’t take care of the tourism economy,” she said. “There’s no way to solve that.”

Web Ref: http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20100407/NEWS03/304079990

Listening to wind farm noise concerns

by Jim Cummings, Acoustic Ecology Institute – March 29, 2010 – renewableenergyworld.com

Over the past couple of years, wind farm developers in the US, Canada, UK, and New Zealand have faced increasingly vehement resistance from prospective neighbors of new projects, triggered by concerns that the noise from nearby turbines will disrupt their lives.

Several industry- and government-funded studies have investigated some of concrete concerns (notably health effects and property values), finding no “statistically significant” correlations with proximity to wind farms, but these reports have not calmed the storms. Some skeptics have questioned the studies’ methodologies, while others (including AEI) have noted that there are key effects that these studies’ particular designs are not likely to illuminate. For many vocal wind farm neighbors, the reported results simply run starkly counter to their own experiences. What can and should be the response to those who are reporting sleep disruption, noise that interferes with their enjoyment of the outdoors, or health impacts?

Simply discounting the issues has proven to be an unproductive response; it only leads to increased hostility and distrust. Claiming the high ground of meeting statutory requirements, while generally technically true, also tends to foster continued ill will from those who are struggling with the noise. While the local problem may be “addressed,” these unresolved issues echo and multiply across the internet to impact many future projects.

Constructively engaging those with concerns is surely the most likely path to positive resolution, though that approach is also challenging, as the small island community of Vinalhaven, Maine is discovering. There, the community-owned electric coop is purchasing power from three new 1.5MW turbines. Since the project began operating in late 2009, between a third and half of the residents within a half mile have been surprised at the noise levels they are experiencing, and the coop is working to devise a fix to reduce the noise issues. However, uncertainty among neighbors about how survey responses will be used as the community decides what to do has complicated efforts to try to learn more about exactly when and where the noise problems are the worst.

Over the past year and a half, here at the Acoustic Ecology Institute, I’ve worked to understand the dynamics and tensions that underlie these issues. It appears that there are four key themes that, when considered together, add up to create a useful ”big picture” view.

First, it’s clear that many people, in all parts of the country, have been dramatically impacted by the noise of wind farms near their homes, most commonly by sleep disruption when turbines operate in low winds aloft while the surface is calm and very quiet. While of course there are some contributing attitudinal factors, these are only part of the picture, and cannot be justifiably used to explain away the issue. Many of those now affected were wind farm supporters, and indeed would be happy to continue seeing turbines, if they were far enough away to be more consistently inaudible. To dismiss all these people as cranks, or as hyper-sensitive social outliers, does a disservice to constructive public discourse and short-circuits our opportunities to learn from their experiences as we continue to develop new wind farms.

Second, it’s also clear that wind farm noise is not particularly bothersome to many – or perhaps most – people who live close enough to hear it. And, the vast majority of wind farms never generate any substantial ongoing noise issues—perhaps because they are in less densely populated areas.

Third, the nature of the sounds of wind turbines make it especially difficult to rely on reassuring noise limits. Most notable is the commonly pulsing nature of turbine noise, which is inherently more attention-grabbing and, according to several well-regarded academic studies, more annoying than road or industrial noises. Also troublesome is that sound propagation varies greatly with changing wind and atmospheric conditions, leading to excess noise at neighboring homes, or to more times with noise levels right at the upper legal limit. Additionally, some of the methods used to set noise limits (especially those using long averaging periods) can allow some periods during which noise levels are higher than local citizens – and officials – may expect to hear.

And fourth, and perhaps most important yet least appreciated: we are facing some social choices that may be difficult to make. Several surveys suggest that between 10% and 40% of those hearing sound levels close to regulatory limits may be disturbed by it. How many such affected neighbors are we willing to accept? While 5% may be widely acceptable, there’s likely to be less consensus if 20% are bothered. We can no longer pretend this more affected minority doesn’t exist; it’s time to decide how much to adapt wind farm planning in response to these impacts.

Larger setbacks are one option, though there may also be potential in exploring operational adaptations, such as increasing the cut-in speeds in wind farms within earshot of homes. Since a very small proportion of total generation capacity occurs at the low end of operational speeds, raising the cut-in speed can dramatically reduce total operating time while having negligible impacts on overall project income.

Thanks to the increase in noise problems, it’s far less common than it was a few years ago for industry spokespeople explicitly promise that turbines will be inaudible. Rather, project planners acknowledge that the turbines will sometimes be audible, but should not be bothersome; predicted noise levels at neighboring households are compared to familiar sounds, such as light traffic at a hundred feet. This has remained problematic, since it’s often hard for citizens to really imagine what they will be hearing. One Vinalhaven resident who had been a strong supporter of the project there was surprised that the legal sound levels were notably above local background ambient conditions, reporting that “on our quiet cove, we now know that 45dB is loud!” For a significant minority of nearby residents, especially in very rural areas, this reaction is something the industry will need to come to grips with.

For an in-depth examination of these issues, see the recent Acoustic Ecology Institute report, Wind Farm Noise: 2009 in Review. Table of contents, introduction, and links to download the 45-page PDF are available here. ^[1]

Jim Cummings a writer and editor who has covered topics related to the environment, science and socially responsible investing since the early 1980s. He was an invited plenary speaker at the Alberta oil and gas Noise Control Conference in 2007 and 2009, guest editor of a special double issue on Ocean Noise for the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy. He is founder of the Acoustic Ecology Institute.

Wind energy is blowing hot right now. Nationwide, wind farms are bringing in renewable energy and jobs, such as in Montana, as detailed in “Propelling Growth.” Overall, wind turbines in the United States generated 52 billion kilowatt hours in 2008, which is enough to serve 4.6 million households, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). And demand is growing: The number of wind turbines in the U.S. nearly doubled between 2006 and 2008, according to the DOE.

But it isn’t all good, according to Dr. Nina Pierpont, who has studied families living near wind turbines. Pierpont found that there are enough negative effects to warrant calling them “Wind Turbine Syndrome,” because the symptoms form a consistent pattern from person to person, she says. “A syndrome really means the description of signs and symptoms that occur together and are not yet tied together as a clear disease.”

One resident of Mars Hill, Maine, which has hosted a wind farm since 2007, wrote to Pierpont about her experience: “The noise created by the turbines can be unbearable at times,” says Wendy Todd. “It causes disruption to sleep patterns, stress and anxiety to most who live downwind of the project. For some it causes headaches, pressure or ringing in the ears, inability to concentrate, feelings of unease, and dizziness. … I am not talking about a simple nuisance, this is about life-altering changes to the environment that can literally make people sick and change the way you live in your home and use your land. A large number of the families affected have considered leaving their homes.”

In his testimony to the Michigan Public Service Commission in December 2009, Dr. Malcolm A. Swinbanks said low-frequency noise can induce feelings likened to seasickness. “Like seasickness, the sensitivity of different individuals varies enormously,” he says, “some being immediately sensitive, while others can barely detect anything.” Swinbanks says he stood beside two people in a place where low-frequency noise was present; one person couldn’t really hear anything, while the other felt ill and wanted to leave.

Pierpont’s research also finds similar inconsistencies. Further, some of her subjects note that their symptoms come and go according to the wind’s direction and strength, blade spinning speed, which way the turbines are facing and particular sounds coming from the turbines. Ultimately, Pierpont says, low-frequency noise or vibration tricks the body’s balance system into thinking it’s moving-like seasickness, as Swinbanks suggested.

Wind turbine companies have dismissed the problem, saying people are simply making the symptoms up because they just don’t like the turbines. According to a February 2009 article in Ontario, Canada’s The Windsor Star, Brian Howe, a consulting engineer in acoustics for HGC Engineering, said Ontario’s guidelines for turbine noise are adequate and consistent with Health Canada studies, and that most people near wind turbines aren’t complaining about the noise.

But Tracy Whitworth, a teacher in Clear Creek, Ontario, has multiple complaints: Her home sits among 18 turbines, all within a 1.8-mile radius and the closest about one-quarter mile from her back door. “What most don’t understand is that it is the low frequency waves you cannot hear that are so debilitating to one’s health,” she says. “I have developed tinnitus in my ears. I hear and feel the pulsating of the turbines and buzzing in my ears. I also feel the pulsating in my throat and chest. I have nausea, dizziness, significant hearing loss, itchy eyes … heart palpitations, achy joints, short-term memory loss, severe sleep deprivation on a regular basis.”

The solution to the problem, say medical experts, isn’t to stop harnessing wind’s energy, but to place the turbines a certain distance away from where people live. In flat terrain, the turbines should be placed at least 1.25 miles away from where people are located, according to Pierpont, and at least 2 miles away in mountainous terrain, where the turbines are usually on ridges.

This distance from wind farms that residents should maintain, Pierpont says, is probably the most important thing for people to know. “When the wind farms are coming to their communities, they need to know what kinds of distances to ask for,” she says. “I think government should be involved in having proper setbacks in place, because that’s always a governmental issue whether local or state, and in funding further research.”

By Jessica B. Mulholland | March 2010
Web Source: http://www.governing.com/article/are-wind-farms-health-risk

Dr Chris Hanning, a retired NHS sleep disorder specialist, is one of a number of experts due to speak at a conference in Darlington on Saturday.

Organised by the Bolam Area Action Group, the Wind Action Conference, at Polam Hall, will bring together 140 opponents of wind farms from Devon up to the Highlands of Scotland.

Dr Hanning, who founded one of the largest NHS hospital services of its kind in the UK, in Leicester, has reviewed more than 40 international reports on the impact of wind farm noise.

He is convinced that building wind turbines within two kilometres of homes will lead to health problems, because of the low frequency noise produced by turbine blades.

“If a wind turbine is within two kilometres there is a high risk of sleep disturbance and a high risk of ill health,” Dr Hanning told The Northern Echo.

“If they are built offshore they may have a point but they should not be placed too close to people’s homes.

“If the industry and the Government agreed to a two kilometre setback, all of this fuss would die down,” he added.

The retired consultant said the repetitive, low-level “thump” produced by wind turbines was “several times more annoying than road traffic or air noise”.

Under certain wind conditons the turbine noise could be “very intrusive”, he added.

John Wilson, a member of the action group which is opposing the construction of wind turbines near the village of Bolam, near Darlington, said: “We are expecting 140 people from all over the country, from the South-West to Scotland and Wales. It is going to be a truly national conference.”

People who say their lives are blighted by wind turbines are due to speak at the event.

Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users’ Group, will talk about the economics of wind power.

The British Wind Energy Association insists that every reputable scientific study has shown that wind turbines are safe.

For more information visit windconf.co.uk

March 4, 2010
England, U.K.

By Barry Nelson, The Northern Echo, www.thenorthernecho.co.uk 4 March 2010

Martin Alder, managing director of Longhill Energy, said: “At this time of year the sun hits the blades of the turbine at a certain angle and creates flickering shadows over parts of the prison.

“Some of the prisoners complained that the flickering was irritating them. We’ve discussed the problem with the prison authorities and agreed to turn the turbine off for a few hours in the early morning until about 9am. The problem only occurs at certain times of the year when the sun is low. I suppose the bottom line is that it’s a matter of security.”

Mr Alder said that his company hoped eventually to install equipment to stop the turbine automatically when the sun was at the problem angle.

He said: “Shadow-flicker is a recognised problem with wind turbines. That’s why they aren’t built near housing developments. And we want to be good neighbours.”

A Home Office spokeswoman said: “The Prison Service is reaching an agreement whereby the wind turbine does not interfere with the smooth running of the prison.”

From The Times
April 9, 2005
By Richard Ford
Web Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article379096.ece

» Translations available on the toolbar at the bottom «

DeKalb residents who have been battling with wind turbine companies since 2003 said their presentation was to educate the citizens on the adverse effects they’ve personally experienced. The group has continued their efforts since the turbines went online in December and are seeking litigation.

“It sounds like a 747 parked in your backyard,” rural Shabbona resident Mel Hass said about the sound of the turbines.

Another rural Shabbona resident, Mary Murphy, explained the sound at night like a dryer with a shoe in it, right outside her bedroom.

Hinshaw & Culbertson Attorney Rich Porter who opened the informational meeting with a presentation called, “Don’t Get Blown Over By a Wind Farm,” said a study has compared the noise to a leaky faucet in the middle of the night.

Though the panel of DeKalb County residents admit some of their complaints don’t occur around the clock, they said problems are affecting their everyday lives.

Others like rural Waterman resident Ron Flex said the turbines have made he and his family physically ill since being turned on. Flex said his wife became nauseous the first day they were turned on. Something he attributes to the shadow flicker from the rotating of the propellers.

Shadow flicker occurs when the sun is at an angle to produce a large shadow from the propeller of a wind turbine as it rotates around. The repetition of the shadow fading in and out is considered an annoyance.

Noise seemed to be an overwhelming complaint from each of the speakers.

Porter said that even though no noise seems present when standing below one, the turbines create a noise short distances away and can sometimes be amplified when inside a home.

Also included in the list of complaints with the turbines are lower property values, speculation about tax revenue, the inability to negotiate the contracts with the companies, and negative effects on livestock and other wildlife.

Porter urged local officials to adopt special use ordinances that deal specifically with wind turbines.

“You should be doing something about your ordinances,” he said. “There are a variety of developers circling your county.”

Speakers also urged attendees to educate themselves whether they were considering allowing the turbines on their properties.

Porter warned the crowd to be very skeptical of what they hear about tax revenue being a major benefit for schools. Taxation for the turbines as currently exists expires in 2011 and he warned there is always the possibility of them becoming tax exempt because of their portrayal as green technology.

Speaker and DeKalb County resident Tammy Duriavich added that people need to stop labeling areas with turbines as wind farms and view them as industrial.

“If you can’t plant it, harvest it, breed it…it’s not farming,” she said.

Duriavich explained the group doesn’t oppose renewable energy, but said she believes the turbines are not a good example of efficient green technology because of how much land they take out of crop production and for various other reasons.

“We’re not against renewable energy,” she said. “We just think it could be done responsibly.”

Several elected officials from the area were present to hear what they had to say.

Attempts by Brad Lila, of Renewable Energy Sources in Ashton, to point out differences between the companies were cut short. Presenters claimed the audience was there to hear the other side of the story.

For the complete article see the 03-10-2010 issue.

Credit: Ashton Gazette, www.ashtongazette.com 12 March 2010

In interviews with 10 families living 1,000 feet to 4,900 feet away from recently built industrial-size wind turbines, a “cluster” of symptoms was revealed: from sleep disturbance, which affected almost everyone, to headache to tinnitus, vertigo, nausea, irritability, memory and concentration problems, and panic episodes. Industrial wind turbines have a total height of 300 feet to 400 feet or more, with blades of 125 feet to 150 feet that sweep 1.5 acres to 2 acres of vertical airspace.

The book includes supportive reviews and notices by several noted physicians in related disciplines. Although primarily directed towards medical professionals, it also is suitable for the lay audience.

The individuals affected by Wind Turbine Syndrome noticed that they developed symptoms after the turbines near their homes started turning. Symptoms were relieved when they left the area and resumed on their return. Eight of the 10 families eventually moved away from their homes because of the severity of the symptoms.

Although not everyone living near turbines is subject to these symptoms, the data Pierpont presents is a concern, considering the current political drive to construct more and ever larger industrial wind turbines close to people’s homes, as well as in the habitats of other equally or more sensitive animals.

Pierpont’s sample size was large enough to show that individuals with pre-existing migraines, motion sensitivity or inner ear damage are particularly vulnerable. People with anxiety or other mental health problems are not particularly susceptible, she says, contradicting the common claim of industry developers that “it’s all in their head.”

“This report is a public health wake-up call that our elected officials and administrators need to take very seriously,” said Eric Rosenbloom, president of National Wind Watch, a clearinghouse for information about the adverse effects of industrial wind energy development.

Pierpont and other health and noise experts agree that at a minimum, large wind turbines should be 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) from any residence, according to an article on the national Wind Watch Web site (www.wind-watch.org/ww-noise-health.php).

According to Pierpont, low-frequency noise or vibration from the wind turbines acts on the balance organs of the inner ear to make the body think it is moving. And this misperception of motion affects other brain functions, including physical reflexes, spatial processing and memory and physiological fear responses (such as pounding heart and nausea).

For more information: www.windturbinesyndrome.com, www.wind-watch.org

Dec. 1, 2009–Wind Turbine Syndrome: Study of Adverse Health Effects Published
Posted on: December 1, 2009
Source: http://audiology.advanceweb.com/Article/Wind-Turbine-Syndrome-Study-of-Adverse-Health-Effects-Published.aspx