Tag Archives: wind farm noise

Wind farm noise measurements questioned by acoustics consultant

27 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Ministry of Environment noise study for wind power project was done using average wind speed at a “particularly quiet site” says consultant hired by Kincardine: increase in sound from wind alone is “staggering”

(Re-posted from Wind Concerns Ontario)

Kincardine Independent, February 24, 2016

GROUNDBREAKING INFRASOUND STUDY RESULTS UNVEILED

By Barb McKay

An acoustics engineer is questioning the Ontario government’s methods for setting baseline sound limits for wind turbines after field testing was recently conducted in Kincardine.

Todd Busch, project manager for Swallow Acoustic Consultants Ltd., was in front of the Municipality of Kincardine council during its meeting last Wednesday to go over data from a study conducted within the boundaries of the Armow Wind Project last fall. Swallow was contracted by the municipality to study baseline acoustic and infrasound levels prior to the 92-turbine, 180-megawatt project becoming operational.

Engineers conducted interior and exterior sound testing at five homes within the project area between Oct. 30 and Nov. 14, 2015, using special microphones designed specifically to record infrasound (sound not picked up by the human ear). The sound measurements account for sound levels from wind in exterior testing.

Busch said when a noise impact study was conducted with audible sound testing for Armow Wind in 2013, engineers who did the study declared that the project would comply with Ontario Ministry of the Environment noise limits for industrial wind turbines. He said the study was done using an average wind speed at a particularly quiet site and a measurement of seven decibels was added to factor in sound levels at a higher wind speed. In the noise impact assessment summary, Busch said sound levels were calculated at between 37 and 39.8 decibels. The noise level limit set by the province is 40 decibels. Infrasound levels were not tested.

Busch said the report that was generated from the noise impact study did not explain why seven decibels was assumed for higher wind speeds and he questions the mehodology used to measure residual noise levels in the background environment. He does not believe the study factored in noise levels associated with wind and therefore is concerned the testing was compromised.

“We placed our microphones within 10 metres of where the noise impact assessment (study) microphones would have been,” Busch said. “A measurement of 39.8 decibels would be a candidate for scrutiny.”

Testing by Swallow generated acoustic sound levels of between 37 and 57 decibels outdoors and 20 to 40 decibels indoors. Infrasound levels measured between 57 and 88 decibels outdoors and 53 to 72 decibels indoors. He said the increase in sound from wind alone is staggering and should be explored further.

“We have been told many times from the provincial government that we can’t measure infrasound,” councillor Randy Roppel said. “Can you?”

“We did,” Busch replied.

Read the full story here

Wind turbines have serious health, economic effects: eminent physician and lawyer speak out

09 Tuesday Feb 2016

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Community group Save The South Shore in Prince Edward County, which is battling two wind power projects that threaten the natural environment including the endangered Blandings turtle and migratory birds, and will affect every resident in the area, has released two more videos in its series The County Speaks Out.

In the recent videos are Dr Robert McMurtry, former Dean of Medicine at Western University, a former assistant Deputy Minister of Health for Health Canada, and a member of the Order of Canada; and Garth Manning QC (retired).

Don’t repeat Ontario’s wind farm mistakes: Den Tandt to Liberals

01 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

3-MW turbine south of Ottawa at Brinston: Ontario not protecting citizens or economy [Photo by Ray Pilon, Ottawa]

3-MW turbine south of Ottawa at Brinston: Ontario not protecting citizens or economy [Photo by Ray Pilon, Ottawa]

From Wind Concerns Ontario http://www.windconcernsontario.ca

Writing in yesterday’s National Post and for Postmedia, Michael Den Tandt puts the climate change discussion into perspective and in particular, has some advice for the new federal government on “clean” energy:

The Liberals will also need to take pains to avoid the multi-billion-dollar waste and anti-democratic outrages of Ontario’s Green Energy Act, which foisted inefficient, hugely expensive and environmentally harmful wind turbines on rural communities that in many cases did and do not want them.

Expensive.

Inefficient.

Actually harm the environment they are supposed to be saving—that’s the lesson to be learned from Ontario about wind turbines. Only Ontario hasn’t learned it, as the government contracts for 300 more megawatts of wind in 2015 (well, turns out we have to wait now until 2016 to learn which communities are on the chopping block), and another 200 megawatts in 2016.

Worse, Big Wind has convinced the Ontario government that the 3-megawatt machines are actually “quieter” and so, new regulations for turbine noise, to be released shortly, will have zero mention of low-frequency noise or infrasound, because Big Wind says it isn’t a problem. Meanwhile, anecdotal reports out of communities where the 3-megawatt behemoths have begun operating show that people are getting sicker, faster.

Analysts such as Tom Adams, Scott Luft and Parker Gallant repeatedly offer data that shows wind power is not only high impact on the environment it is for very little benefit, and is costing Ontario in terms of competitiveness, and standard of living.

Ontario has a lot to learn, not the least of which is how to protect its citizens.

All residents in Prince Edward County turbine zone will be affected: acoustics expert

24 Tuesday Nov 2015

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

All residents in White Pines project area will be affected by noise: top acoustician testimony

Report on Environmental Review Tribunal Hearing on White Pines Wind Project

November 20, 2015

by

 Paula Peel, Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC)

APPEC’s health appeal continued on Day 10 with expert witness Dr. Paul Schomer testifying before the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) on the White Pines wind project.  The remainder of the day was spent making adjustments to the schedule following WPD’s abrupt announcement that it was dropping an appeal of the disallowance of two turbines (T7 and T11) by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).

Dr. Schomer, a former Standards Director of the Acoustical Society of America with 48 years’ experience in noise measurement, was qualified by the ERT as an expert in acoustics.  He told the Tribunal that all residents in the White Pines project area will be affected by audible and inaudible sound and a number of residents will be seriously affected.  The effects reported by people living near wind projects are similar in nature to the effects experienced by participants in a 1985 University of Toronto study on infrasound.  At lower levels and at higher levels of pure tone some participants experienced nausea and dizziness.  However, when overtones were added at higher levels, participants experienced headaches and fatigue.

Dr. Schomer considers that internationally-accepted noise standards and protocols are being flouted in Ontario.  For example, A-weighting is not supposed to be relied on when sounds have low-frequency content such as those emitted by industrial wind turbines.  Canada is one of the countries that voted for this rule.  He also calls for changes in current Ontario regulations to adjust up to 10 db(A) for wind turbine noise in rural areas.  Other suggested adjustments include up to 3 db(A) for weather conditions and 3 to 4 db(A) for locations downwind of turbines.   Dr. Schomer is highly critical of WPD’s current predicted average sound as it merely indicates that 50% of the time 50% of the residents will be exposed to sound above or below the limit.  The wind industry should be held to a higher level of accountability: db(A) limits should be met 95% of the time.

Dr. Schomer pointed to a very important figure in the Health Canada Report.  Only 1% of people are shown to be highly annoyed at 30 – 35 db(A) sound levels.  However, at 35 – 40 db(A) the number jumps to 40%.  Dr. Schomer sees this as evidence of a community response to wind turbine noise, and that what Health Canada says, what independent acoustic experts say, and what communities say should carry weight in Ontario.

Through experience Dr. Schomer has found that when community responses disagree with the physics, the physics is usually wrong.  This has been confirmed by his involvement in six studies of wind farms, including the 8-turbine Shirley Wind Farm in Wisconsin where three families abandoned their homes and about 60 other people reported adverse health effects.

The ERT continues next week. 

Ontario turbine noise regulations not adequate for health WCO tells MOECC

24 Tuesday Nov 2015

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Listen to experts on turbine noise to protect health: Wind Concerns Ontario to MOECC

November 24, 2015

Wind Concerns Ontario has written to the Green Energy Approvals section of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, following testimony from acoustics experts at the appeal of the White Pines wind power project last week. We demanded that the MOECC review the testimony of the witnesses, specifically that Ontario’s noise regulations are inadequate to protect health, and apply the information to the current review of noise regulations for wind turbines in Ontario.

The letter has been received and acknowledged.

The letter follows.

Stephanie Liu

Senior Program Advisor

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Environmental Programs Division, Modernization of Approvals Branch, Green Energy Approvals,

135 St. Clair Avenue West Toronto Ontario M4V 1P5

November 20, 2015

RE: NOISE GUIDELINES FOR WIND POWER PROJECTS

We are aware that the comment period for the proposed amendments to current noise guidelines for wind power projects has closed; however, there is testimony being given at the appeal of the White Pines project in Prince Edward County that is germane to your review, and should not be overlooked.

Several experts in acoustics, who have technical experience measuring the noise and low frequency noise emissions from wind power projects, have testified over the last few days to the following key points:

  1. The Ontario regulations are inadequate to protect health
  2. The Ontario regulations rely heavily on A-weighted measurement which is not adequate or appropriate (this fact was already mentioned in the federal government funded report from the Council of Canadian Academies)
  3. Wind power developers’ predictions for noise are not always accurate and again, seek to conform to the inadequate regulations of the Ontario government
  4. The Health Canada study of wind turbine noise and health clearly shows there are problems after 35 dB

 

What follows is a citizen report of testimony given by Dr Paul Schomer, an eminent acoustics professional.

APPEC’s health appeal continued on Day 10 with expert witness Dr. Paul Schomer testifying before the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) on the White Pines wind project.  The remainder of the day was spent making adjustments to the schedule following WPD’s abrupt announcement that it was dropping an appeal of the disallowance of two turbines (T7 and T11) by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC).

Dr. Schomer, a former Standards Director of the Acoustical Society of America with 48 years’ experience in noise measurement, was qualified by the ERT as an expert in acoustics.  He told the Tribunal that all residents in the White Pines project area will be affected by audible and inaudible sound and a number of residents will be seriously affected.  The effects reported by people living near wind projects are similar in nature to the effects experienced by participants in a 1985 University of Toronto study on infrasound. 

At lower levels and at higher levels of pure tone some participants experienced nausea and dizziness.  However, when overtones were added at higher levels, participants experienced headaches and fatigue. Dr. Schomer considers that internationally-accepted noise standards and protocols are being flouted in Ontario.  For example, A-weighting is not supposed to be relied on when sounds have low-frequency content such as those emitted by industrial wind turbines.

  Canada is one of the countries that voted for this rule.  He also calls for changes in current Ontario regulations to adjust up to 10 db(A) for wind turbine noise in rural areas.  Other suggested adjustments include up to 3 db(A) for weather conditions and 3 to 4 db(A) for locations downwind of turbines.   

Dr. Schomer is highly critical of WPD’s current predicted average sound as it merely indicates that 50% of the time 50% of the residents will be exposed to sound above or below the limit.  The wind industry should be held to a higher level of accountability: db(A) limits should be met 95% of the time.

Dr. Schomer pointed to a very important figure in the Health Canada Report.  Only 1% of people are shown to be highly annoyed at 30 – 35 db(A) sound levels.  However, at 35 – 40 db(A) the number jumps to 40%.  Dr. Schomer sees this as evidence of a community response to wind turbine noise, and that what Health Canada says, what independent acoustic experts say, and what communities say should carry weight in Ontario.

Through experience Dr. Schomer has found that when community responses disagree with the physics, the physics is usually wrong.  This has been confirmed by his involvement in six studies of wind farms, including the 8-turbine Shirley Wind Farm in Wisconsin where three families abandoned their homes and about 60 other people reported adverse health effects.   

We would ask that the Ministry be certain to review and consider this important evidence in its review of the noise guidelines for wind power projects, which are in no way “farms.”

Just this past week, Wind Concerns Ontario has learned of seven families forced to leave their homes in the area of the Goshen project; another half-dozen families are leaving their homes behind in West Grey. This is all due to the noise experienced.

This is a matter of grave concern, and we hope the government is sincere when it says its mission is to “protect the environment” which also means, the environment people live in.

Thank you.

Jane Wilson, RN

President

Wind Concerns Ontario

windconcerns@gmail.com

PO BOX 509 250 Main Street Wellington Ontario

Call to register wind turbine noise complaints

12 Thursday Nov 2015

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Wind turbine and home, Brinston, Ontario. Photo by Ray Pilon.

Wind turbine and home, Brinston, Ontario. Photo by Ray Pilon.

Residents of the Brinston area, living with the South Branch wind power project operated by EDP Renewables of Spain, are reminded to call with any complaints or problems with noise or vibration experienced.

People with complaints about excessive noise from the turbines at Brinston must call both the developer, EDP Renewables (1-877-910-3377 ext 3) AND the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change/MOECC (1-800-860-2760 Cornwall area office). 

It is recommended that you call and leave a message with the particulars of your complaint such as the time of day, the duration of the problem experienced, and your specific location.

You may wish to document events on your own: there are applications to measure noise and infrasound that are free downloads to your cellphone. Record noise events by date and time, the noise level you record, and also the wind speed at the time you make your notes.

Follow up your call to the MOECC with another call to determine what action has been taken.

Note that the wind “farm” operator was mandated to complete a post-operational noise assessment which to date, it has not been done. This means that the protections afforded Ontario residents under the Green Energy Act and regulation 359/09 may not be in place for South Branch area residents. If you are concerned about this contact your MPP Jim McDonell at jim.mcdonellco@pc.ola.org and the MOECC at https://www.ontario.ca/contact-us or1-800-565-4923

You’ll have to move: doctors tell Nation Twp mothers of sick children

01 Tuesday Sep 2015

Posted by in Health, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No community support for greed in Nation Twp [Photo: Ontario Farmer]

No community support for greed in Nation Twp [Photo: Ontario Farmer]

Ontario Farmer, August 25, 2015

[Excerpted]

By Ian Cumming

Emotions were high the late afternoon of August 10 among the 200 or so folks who gathered outside the Nation Township Municipal Hall. They also lined the road beside, waving No Windmill signs, with most trucks and cars driving past honking support.

Doctors told mothers of ill children: you have to move if the turbines come

Two concerned mothers approached Ontario Farmer one the day before this protest, the other at the protest; one with an autistic son, the other with a daughter waiting for a heart transplant. Both said they were given medical advice that “we’ll have to move if the windmills come.”

The son, Michael, “who can hear a grasshopper deep in the grass that far away,” would be tormented beyond anyone’s comprehension, from the windmill swooshing sound that non-autistic people can barely sense, said his mother Susan, a former nurse. “When I drive by windmills I cry and choke with anger.”

Marc Bercier had windmills go up plus a substation on his land*, to the minimum sum of $95,000 per year for 20 years. A heck of an offer for a father who has two sons wanting to take over the operation.

“I’m pulling out of the windmill contract,” said Bercier recently. He detailed the venom that his family has faced for their decision to have windmills, including his elderly mother, when attending a public meeting the week before. [Editor: this was the huge meeting attended by 500+ people in St. Bernardin.] “I don’t want to put my family in that situation.”

The $22,000 he gets to keep as a down payment from EDF “wasn’t worth it,” said Bercier, “We value peace and family over money.” *

Even when he [Bercier] had gone public to Ontario Farmer (June 23) and other media this summer, detailing his contracts and the reasons for signing them, farmers who had done the same “attacked me, wanting me to keep quiet,” said Bercier.

Perhaps it was that self-imposed silence and the smoothness of the wind company EDF attempting a quick sales job for the community which contributed to the mounting opposition, said Bercier. “EDF didn’t do the real work with people.”

Phone call from the Liberal MPP

A last-minute pitch from EDF, which included offering to double the yearly stipend to the Nation Township from $150,000 to $300,000 per year on August 10, came the exact same day his council was meeting to reverse its earlier decisions to support the two projects [Editor: the writer fails to mention that there is a 150-MW project by EDF, and a 40-MW project by RES Canada being proposed] and declare itself an unwilling host, said Nation mayor Francois St. Amour. … The motion to reverse [Nation’s] earlier decision hadn’t even been on the agenda, but a call from local Liberal MPP Grant Crack to the mayor to deal with it, forced the issue ahead.

… [Developer EDF commented…] If people in the area have legitimate health concerns, we can certainly work with them and place the windmills so they are not affected, [Stephane Desdunes, director of development] said.

 

 

*Editor: you just don’t care about other people’s families and peace…

Amherst Island wind farm approved

25 Tuesday Aug 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Kingston Whig-Standard, August 24, 2015

Amherst Island wind project approved

By Elliot Ferguson, Kingston Whig-Standard

Monday, August 24, 2015 10:11:43 EDT PM

A map of Amherst Island from the Revised Draft Site Plan by Windlectric.

A map of Amherst Island from the Revised Draft Site Plan by Windlectric.

STELLA – A controversial wind energy project for Amherst Island has received conditional approval from the Ontario government.

The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change announced Monday the project received a renewable energy approval with more than two dozen conditions.

Windlectric Inc.’s Amherst Island Wind Energy Project is to include up to 26 wind turbine generators and one substation transformer.

The project has been ferociously opposed by many island residents, who argue the project is bad for their health, the environment and the heritage of the island.

The Association to Protect Amherst Island said the project proposal, which the government deemed complete in January 2014, is not finished and leaves too many unanswered questions.

“The Association to Protect Amherst Island deplores today’s decision by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to approve a Renewable Energy Application by Windlectric Inc. for the construction of turbines on Amherst Island, the jewel of Lake Ontario,” association member Michele Le Lay said in an email Monday evening. “The APAI team is ready to continue its commitment to preserve the cultural and natural heritage of the Island with a strong legal position and fact-based evidence.”

Since July 2014, the project has been modified four times, including a change earlier in May that lowered the maximum number of wind turbines from 33 to 26 but replaced the remaining turbines with higher power models.

In addition to the project approval, the government placed 27 conditions on the project.

Among the conditions is a three-year time frame to get the project built, requirements to monitor noise emissions and ensure they do not exceed acceptable limits, implement a post construction natural heritage monitoring program, which includes bird and bat monitoring and complete any remaining archaeological fieldwork.

Deadline today in Addington Highlands vote

30 Tuesday Jun 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Property owners in Addington Highlands are reminded that the deadline to register your opinion on the issue of the proposed wind power project by U.S.-based NextEra is midnight TONIGHT.

Have your property tax roll number at hand and go to www.addingtonhighlands.ca

Australian Senate report: dismayed by wind industry behaviour

19 Friday Jun 2015

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As you may know, the Senate in Australia (which is an elected body) has been conducting a review of wind turbines and problems associated with wind power generation in that country for several months.

Although the final report is not due out until August, the Committee felt it necessary to release an interim report and the “headline recommendations.”

They are very interesting…and refreshing in that here is a body that has listened to both sides, and has concluded there is cause for concern.

Of particular interest are these three paragraphs from the report.

Why are there so many people who live in close proximity to wind turbines complaining of similar physiological and psychological symptoms? As with previous Senate inquiries, this committee has gathered evidence from many submitters attributing symptoms of dizziness, nausea, migraines, high blood pressure, tinnitus, chronic sleep deprivation and depression to the operation of nearby wind turbines. The committee invites the public to read and consider the evidence of people who have experienced these symptoms and who attribute their anxiety and ill health to the operation of turbines.2

1.13 These health affects should not be trivialised or ignored. The committee was particularly distressed by renewable energy advocates, wind farm developers and operators, public officials and academics who publicly derided and sometimes lampooned local residents who were genuinely attempting to make known the adverse health effects they were suffering.

1.14 The committee is aware of people complaining of these impacts who have since left their family home. Some now live a nomadic and uncertain existence. In one case, the now deserted home had been in the family for five generations—since the 1840s. These are not decisions taken lightly. Having left the turbine vicinity, several witnesses noted that the symptoms had faded if not disappeared.3

The Committee quite rightly observed that the decision to leave the family home, and often hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment, to say nothing of farm operations and property, because they HAD TO.

The recommendations listed by the Senate Committee include the need for independent clinical research, and continuous independent monitoring of wind power project noise and infrasound (oh, and we need standards and regulations for infrasound–Ontario doesn’t have these and is dragging its feet on this issue)—the Committee also vindicated the effort and methodology of acoustician Stephen Cooper whose Cape Bridgeport study and finding of unique “sensation” resulting from the turbine emissions.

Several months ago, Ottawa Wind Concerns was subjected to a barrage of insulting Tweets one evening from Australia from a pro-wind power physician, and acolytes of sociologist Simon Chapman. Mr Chapman is mentioned specifically in the Senate Committee report, presumably as one of the disappointing “academics.” (Mr Chapman also functions as a paid consultant for the wind power industry.)

The commentators that evening included one Chris Young of Ottawa who works in the renewable energy field (former Board member of the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association, and former employee of NorSun Energy). Mr Young, at the end of a trail of increasingly insulting posts claiming that people who reported health effects from turbine audible noise and infrasound were essentially nuts, said that Ottawa Wind Concerns, people like us, and specifically me, were “irrelevant.”

Now that we have a government body stating that there is cause for concern, that the wind power industry’s behaviour has been lamentable, and that the way forward is research that is actually intended to find out what’s going on, we ask, who is “irrelevant” now?

Jane Wilson, RN

Chair, Ottawa Wind Concerns

ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

P.S. The Ontario Sustainable Energy Association is supported significantly by taxpayers. See funding information here.

P.P.S. Mr Young now enjoys the position of being the only person blocked from our Twitter feed.