Infrasound from turbines - fact or fiction

Submitted by visitorfromclinton on Tue, 06/19/2007 - 8:10pm
Noise

Here's an interesting article from Dr. Leventhall that came out recently. Dr. Leventhall is an expert in the field of acoustics.

http://www.noblepower.com/reference/documents/06-06Leventhall-Infras-WT-CanAcoustics.pdf

» email this page

There are plenty of points

Submitted by Dan on Fri, 07/06/2007 - 10:56pm.

There are plenty of points to argue, but I'm surprised you'd be posting something that concludes with "Yes, there are sound problems that need to be further investigated, but they aren't infrasound."
He says it's swish, and I direct you to his conclusions on page "34" (page 6 of the document):
"...there are wind turbine installations which may have noise problems."
"It is the swish noise on which the attention should be focused in order to reduce it and to obtain a proper estimate of its effects. It will then be the responsibility of legislators to fix the criterion levels"
I won't even bother with his semantic game or his lack of background in physiology (reading some of his earlier papers, it's clear that sound, to him, is measured by its direct effect on the auditory canal). It also appears that much of what he is talking about is related to the studies he has done relative to the Davis family situation at the Deeping St. Nicholas Wind Farm location.

You can play the semantic game (hey, this guy argues semantics with those who defined the term) or you can simply recognize that there are noise problems (however you want to name them) around turbines that none of their fancy "modelling software" seem to be able to predict, that are greatly affecting the lives of those around them (the Davis' live 900 meters (over 1/2 mile) away from the turbines!). And the turbine management companies' reactions to it? Shrug, tell the folks "it sucks to be you" and go on to the next town claiming there are never any noise issues.

Take some time to read this while you're reading up on turbine noise. Or maybe plan a flight to Istanbul in August to hear this talk on Vibro-acoustic disease and how wind turbines how levels of low-frequency noise from turbines measured in people's homes are at a level conducive to VAD.

» login or register to post comments | email this page

I never said that setbacks

Submitted by visitorfromclinton on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 12:42pm.

I never said that setbacks weren't necessary. I believe that interested parties are mixing sound with visual setback desires. Tell you what Dan, the contruction has begun on my property and I'll tell you later this summer exactly what its like. I'm about 1000 feet. I fully expect the ambient sound of the wind to cover the "swoosh".

» login or register to post comments | email this page

Here's the thing, visitor, I

Submitted by Dan on Sun, 07/08/2007 - 11:17pm.

Here's the thing, visitor, I would not be surprised if your predictions were correct for your situation. If you read what I say carefully, I'm not saying that every house within a 1/2 mile of a turbine will experience earth-shattering booms all the time. Far from it. What I'm saying is that there are problem installations, situations that are driving people from their homes, and as long as the industry (with the government's tacit consent) glosses over those issues and still claim that their modeling software is infallible (I work on software, I know no software is infallible), I know that the kind folks trying to sell the area on industrial wind energy plants are lying.

The same expertise that says it's all right for turbines to come here is the same expertise that was called upon that said that turbines would not cause the Davis' issues. The same expertise said "no issues" for neighbors of the Te Apiti Wind Farm (note the spokeman's comments, and Leventhall even quoted saying that infrasound could not be a problem). Same the d'Entremonts in Nova Scotia, etc. In all cases the turbine companies still insist (based on the input of their "experts") that they don't have a problem...in other words, there is no interest on their part on making it better, rather to deny a problem exists in order to protect their own financial interests.

Once they go up, nothing will stop them or bring them down short of structural failure. Not the local governments that live under threat of lawsuit (and loss of already-spent PILOT payments), not the state and federal governments that are shoving wind power plants down our throats, and certainly not the companies putting them up. I can't say for certain that turbines will cause problems in my area. I also know, from the experiences I'm reading world-wide, that the windmill companies can't say for certain that they won't cause problems. And, when they do cause problems, the turbine companies do not "mea culpa," but re-place the blame toward "rabble-rousing NIMBYs." So, the only way of protecting myself of the potential for wind turbines to cause health problems to my family is to oppose them outright.

» login or register to post comments | email this page

I wouldn't think you'd be

Submitted by visitorfromclinton on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 7:57pm.

I wouldn't think you'd be all that surprised. I don't think the statistics favor you betting otherwise. Not to say that perhaps ground conditions could cause anomolies like you point out. But its likely some freak condition if at all. I'm curious Dan - just what is the visual impact from your homestead? Are you comfortable with that aspect and its only noise? Like I said - I'll let you know what my experience is.

» login or register to post comments | email this page

I'm concerned primarily with

Submitted by Dan on Mon, 07/09/2007 - 9:39pm.

I'm concerned primarily with the health and safety of my family, secondarily the health and safety of my neighbors. Health and safety issues include, but aren't limited to, noise, flicker, throw (ice throw only for roads, as I know it doesn't throw enough far enough to damage houses, but ice thrown onto the roads become a driving hazard). I'd rather not be living among the tallest man-made structures in Western New York (if I wanted to live among towers, I'd have lived in the city), but if was just view-shed issues, I wouldn't bother. I would even put view-shed 3rd behind the waste of my taxes on over-priced emission reductions. Where I'm situated, I might see one from my house, based on their "plan." No biggie from a view-shed point of view.

Anyway, look forward to your observations. Not that your lease agreement would allow you to say the noise was bad even if you were dealing with 120dB noise 100% of the time...

» login or register to post comments | email this page

I'll see at least three and

Submitted by visitorfromclinton on Tue, 07/10/2007 - 8:07pm.

I'll see at least three and likely four. I guess I'm a real doubter that ice throw will travel 500 feet which seems to be what most towns have settled on regarding the setback for roads. As far as taxes - won't you benefit in that your town will reap huge Pilot payments? Which if you consider the meager amount on tax money that you actually spend supporting this technology its a pretty significant return. My land taxes are estimated to go down. Dan - just how much of your own money do you think you're dedicating to wind power? I'm curious what number you think your spending? Calc the ROI (how much you or your town spends in tax dollars supporting wind versus the dollar return to your town or per rata basis for your town). Pretty good I bet. Flicker from maybe from barely seeing one turbine? - a health hazard and the affect that will have on your family? Really - that's your position for just one turbine that is barely seen. Must be really your secondary concern that is primary in that your worried about your neighbors.

Seems like living amongst the towers is a real issue though. What I thought. Maybe though you can come up with a credible tax argument.

Regarding the lease - I'm not muzzled in saying what I hear. Certain other aspects - yes. Just what do you think you know about my contract? All speculation Dan.

» login or register to post comments | email this page

Beyond flicker is noise.

Submitted by Dan on Tue, 07/10/2007 - 10:18pm.

Beyond flicker is noise. That's what this topic is about. You don't have to be able to see a turbine to hear it. My "view" is mostly trees, which would obscure (I think) most turbines around me. It's not like my property is atop a ridge (rather it's in a bit of a dip).

As far as taxes go, yeah, I'd "see" more money than I'm spending right now on turbines (in reduced taxes, and the rate of taxes in this town are really low anyway, so I'm not sweating it). What I mean is that I pay taxes with the hope that the money be used efficiently. I see wind turbine tax breaks (including but not limited to double-declining depreciation, production credits and guaranteed sale of all produced electricity) as a waste. Sure, it may reduce emissions, but you could reduce poverty by giving every poor person $1 Million. Doesn't mean it's the most economically efficient way, but why don't you embrace that as a solution?

The "speculation" I have about the contract is closer to the truth, on the whole, than your "speculations" on why I object to wind turbines in this area.

» login or register to post comments | email this page

Well Dan, I belive you

Submitted by visitorfromclinton on Wed, 07/11/2007 - 7:57pm.

Well Dan, I belive you introduced flicker. Yes I agree this is about noise. I think if you barely in viewing range that you're thousands of feet out of the range of sound too. Just how many feet away is the current plan from your homestead?

BTW, isn't the concept with RPS not tax oriented but a modest increase in your electric rate? Plus RPS includes all forms of clean renewable energy. Here's an interesting study of the true cost and benefits of the RPS program. Seems like a modest cost for such a reduction in the carbon footprint to me.

http://www.lacapra.com/downloads/RPS_COST_STUDY_II_Volume_A_2_27_04rev1.pdf

There is a bit in here too about the real reduction of oil use and natural gas use.

.

» login or register to post comments | email this page

As far as taxes go, I was

Submitted by Dan on Wed, 07/11/2007 - 10:03pm.

As far as taxes go, I was referring primarily to Federal incentives. To a degree they rollover to the state as well, as items that have an effect on income tax, like the "five-year double-declining-balance dedepreciation," generally fall-through.

And, yeah, I would be paying more for my electricity besides, but that, as you point out, is not tax money...

» login or register to post comments | email this page

Dan, you mention

Submitted by visitorfromclinton on Thu, 07/12/2007 - 7:28pm.

Dan, you mention deprecitation but that is not a tax dollar spend but a deduction that offsets income. New development income - such as wind farms actually increases the tax base even with deductions that your so concerned about. So what tax dollar spend are you talking about that comes out of your pockets? You logic seems a bit elusive to me.

Also - your health concerns would seem to be directly related to the distance you are from the turbine - that if one believes in some of this stuff. I'm guessing your 3000-5000 feet away. I asked last night and will again - how far away are you from the current plan?

Rates according to the RPS study will vary from -1.7% to around 2% in 2013. A very low increase for such a nice carbon offset. If you were more environmentally minded - you might not mind paying for that benefit. Who knows - your rates might actually go down too.

» login or register to post comments | email this page

I'm doing some research to

Submitted by Dan on Thu, 07/12/2007 - 10:52pm.

I'm doing some research to deal with cost versus "benefit," so final numbers will have to wait. But a quick "back-of-envelope" calculation says that Maple Ridge alone will bank over $100M in production tax credits.

As far as the depreciation goes, yeah, it's not "money spent" as much as accelerating loss of revenue, tax-wise. I'm surprised you support the statement that "wind turbines have a useful life of 5 years" though. ;-)

And as far as proposed turbine placements near me goes, I do not know. I can only speculate based on the fields around me, and you don't support speculating, so I won't.

And, related to the RPS study, all the numbers in there are "soft" numbers put together by agencies with a "wind agenda." Kind of like the "greenhouse gas reduction" numbers that turbine companies put out, that assume you have the "average US fuel supply," plants that spew average emissions, and that the wind supplants those energies at some undefined (likely equal) rate.

» login or register to post comments | email this page

Thanks Dan, but I must say

Submitted by visitorfromclinton on Fri, 07/13/2007 - 7:04pm.

Thanks Dan, but I must say you're contradicting yourself. I have to remind you of what you just said.

Dan Said: "I might see one from my house, based on their "plan.""

then when asked how far away you is the tower

Dan said:
"And as far as proposed turbine placements near me goes, I do not know. I can only speculate based on the fields around me".

I ask again, from the plan you did mention - how far away was this. Not speculation. Lets not get slippery - otherwise we'll just have to read between the lines on why your hesitant and answering to this.

Now take your benefit calc - I'm going on vacation at my lake house next week so take your time. Remember though to keep focused on tax dollars spent. RPS, PTC, accelerated depreciations are not tax dollars spent. All are just offsets to income. Not coming out of your or any taxpayer's pocket.

In the spirit of speculation, you have zero idea of the motivation or quality of the RPS study. It represents a published study conducted by our govenment. If you have published material that counters this the please post it.

Ok - since when does an accelerated deprecation schedule have anything to do with the projected lifetime of what is being depreciated. Its just a cost effective tool to promote activities like this as it shortens the break even point to profit. I'm surprised you're using analogies like this. Like your early statement giving away a million dollars should have been really said as "like giving away a million dollars worth of tax credits". Just doesn't make sense. So no, of course I do not agree that the towers would only last 5 years.

» login or register to post comments | email this page

For one thing I don't need

Submitted by Dan on Sun, 07/15/2007 - 10:17pm.

For one thing I don't need to answer to you. What I have mentioned with regards to the "plan" and what I know is relation to a property that I know was leased. It is a property that is close to me, but it would depend on the setbacks to determine how close it/they would be (and how many). I have not gotten out there with a mile long tape measure to calculate the range based on a variety of possible setbacks. The property's far boundary is about a half mile from my house. I've heard they were told they'd get two, but I can't see how two could fit, so that's what makes me wishy-washy about it. There are other neighboring properties that would potentially have room for turbines, but I really have no idea whether they signed lease agreements.

I don't know what you are getting at with your request for precise measurements. You seem to think that it insinuates something...I don't get where you're going.

The definition of depreciation is to amortize the "lost value" of an asset over its useful life. The idea is that, at the end of the depreciation time-frame, the value of an asset is its salvage value, with said depreciation time-frame defining how long the asset is supposed to be useful. There's a reason a put a smiley at the end of my statement about you supporting the five year lifetime...

» login or register to post comments | email this page

Ok Dan. Seems you're a bit

Submitted by visitorfromclinton on Tue, 07/24/2007 - 8:24pm.

Ok Dan. Seems you're a bit sensetive when it comes to providing a bit of detail behind your opinions. Given that the topic of this thread is sound and I guess you have added concerns about health I would have thought that distance is a factor with you. A plan would have said by way of topo maps the varying distances between the turbines and houses as well as other interesting details. I didn't understand that you were only guessing.

The defintion you applied doesn't apply for accelerated schedules. Here's one that should allow you to expand your viewpoint a bit. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accelerateddepreciation.asp

I look forward to your benefit calculation. I still have a hard time seeing how your tax money is being misued.

» login or register to post comments | email this page