back to article Acoustic trauma: How wind farms make you sick

Industrial wind installations are creating a serious health issue, and comprehensive research is urgently needed, says a former Professor of Public Health. "There has been no policy analysis that justifies imposing these effects on local residents. The attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Gordon 10

    Very dubious

    It's all too easy for the nimbys to hijack a mild issue and twist it tina reason to stop a local installation.

    At the moment I see this as in the same league as the mobile phone mast tin foilers - subject to lots of independent research being done on the issue.

    For instance is it really worse than a mildly busy road or even the persistent squabbling of birds in my local wood that regulalrly wakes me up.

    Colour me unconvinced.

    1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
      Boffin

      It is worse

      I'm pro wind farm but have to admit that at most sites I've visited the noise generated can be much like tinnitus, a constant annoying noise (there but difficult to describe or pinpoint) which just gets on your nerves and cannot be shaken off. Once you notice it you become acutely aware of it.

      I'm sure for some it is mainly psychological but that doesn't mean there's not a problem. It doesn't matter how many experts say it doesn't exist when you can 'hear it'.

      Some people have an uncanny knack of knowing when its going to rain or get cold well before others can tell. I've heard CRT coils humming at many kHz which others can't hear, a knock on the side stops it so I'm sure it's not imagined. Just because one doesn't notice something oneself it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't real. Who would have though pet dogs can sniff out cancer?

      1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
        Boffin

        Interstingly, though

        The human brain is very good at filtering out constant sensory noise, to the extent that if you stare at an object without moving your eyes at all (actually quite difficult), you will cease to see it, and you often won't notice that high-pitched CRT squeal until it is pointed out to you. Tinnitus is what you get when this filter stops working. This is also why you are not acutely aware of things like the pressure of the clothes you are wearing on your skin (assuming you are wearing any), or your own body odour.

        Sat in the office at the moment, if I listen, I can hear the fans in my PC, the air conditioner across the room and various other buzzes and hums from the machines around me. I am only aware of this if I make a conscious effort to be.

        The issue at stake here is whether the noise from wind farms is loud enough, or varies enough, to be noticeable without having to listen for it. I remain to be convinced one way or the other.

        1. Juan Inamillion

          @Interstingly, though -slightly OT

          Tinnitus - no it's not when a 'filter stops working', which implies it's not blocking an external sound. It's sounds that are generated in your head that aren't 'filtered'. No one really knows what causes these sounds to be generated let alone how to stop them, although there has been some success with feeding the sound (at very low levels) into the ear from an external device, in order for the brain to learn how to ignore it.

      2. Jess--

        CRT noise, ask any tv engineer

        most people who grew up with crt tv's have a hearing dead spot at 15khz which is the frequency that the HT supply of tv's used to run at, they simply dont hear the constant whistle from the screens.

        most tv engineers that I know can hear the whistle (probably because we have trained ourselves to hear it) often to the point of being able to hear from the front door of a house whether there is a set running anywhere in the house

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Thumb Up

          TV sense

          Wow, now I know why I can sense if there's a TV on in the house. I thought it was a special esp like ability I had!

          1. Naughtyhorse

            hmmm

            i seem to have said something contesious

            just got a downvote on every post i ever made

            how purile

            (go on downvote me again)

            lol

      3. Naughtyhorse

        oh no you didnt!

        The coils dont make the noise, its the line output transformer.

        an thats at about 17kHz, so easily audible to the young and or asthmatic (really!) or anyone with good hearing.

        'Uncanny knacks' of all flavours tend to have more to do with the knackees failure to understand probability more than anything else :-)

    2. Ru
      Paris Hilton

      Quick, register sonosmog.com

      This seems a teeny bit more justifiable than electrosmog, but I doubt it is quite as clear cut as the report's author likes to make out. Holding windfarm builders accountable for their actions seems like a splendid thing to do, however.

      In the meantime though, I'm sure there's good money to be made selling magnetic earrings to ward off the deleterious effects of Sonosmog (tm pending) exposure.

    3. PyLETS
      WTF?

      @Gordon 10

      +1 vote on this as I generally agree this is likely to be a very mild and mitigatable issue. Low frequency noise does carry further than higher frequencies. I'd agree with more independent research being needed to help host communities improve planning of these sites, but I suspect few applications should be rejected on noise grounds. Sound also carries very differently depending upon atmospheric conditions, neighbouring trees which will tend to muffle sound and the local topology which may dissipate or concentrate sounds of different frequencies. For example, a wind farm on the top if a rounded hill is likely to radiate energy away from the ground, while one facing a rounded valley is likely to use the latter as a parabolic echo concentrator. Fortunately the hilltop site is much more likely to have the high wind averages making siting the windfarm there more productive than somewhere facing a rounded valley with dwellings at or near a parabolic echo focus.

      1. Mark 65

        @pyLETS

        "but I suspect few applications should be rejected on noise grounds"

        I'll get working on the application for the industrial wind farm right where you live then. Or is it ok only if it's someone else's issue? If they built the house near the site that's tough shit but not if they built the site near the house.

        Windfarms are climate theatre given their all-round uselessness, but that's a heated discussion for another time.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Go

          What Noise

          I'd happily have a Modern Wind Turbine Farm next to me. I've stood underneath one and to be honest I really can't see what the fuss is about. There is no noise! Especially once you move away from them.

          I wish people moaned as much about electric lawnmower noise, or car tyre noise or some of those other things that actually make a lot of noise that is irritating in every day life....

    4. Chris Pollard
      Trollface

      Put them all near motorways

      Motorways already generate lots of noise pollution so just stick yer turbines near those.

      1. Naughtyhorse

        i was wondering about that

        motorways much worse, noise, flashing lights and air polution. of course only poor people live there, and didnt pay a premium for living in absolute monastic silence.

        nimby's!

        fuck em

        that said windfarms are a joke, and we'll be pulling them all down in a few years anyways

    5. Giles Jones Gold badge

      Wildlife

      The noise will affect wildlife too. Birds already have changed their song to suit noisy conditions and birds who migrate will then have a different sound to those in a non-noisy environment. The end result is birds not being attracted to either other.

      These turbines are best situated off shore.

    6. LaeMing
      Unhappy

      Also, it comes down to if it is more/less of an issue than the alternative.

      I am prety sure if you replaced 'wind farm' with 'coal plant' throughout that report the only difference would be the socioeconomic bracket of those directly effected. Which isn't to say it isn't a problem, but how much air-show the problem gets is definitely related to who it is a problem for, as well as the problem's current novelty value.

  2. Marky W
    Mushroom

    But, but, but...

    How will we save the planet now? (see icon for hint)

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This makes sense

    I previously doubted the concerns I'd heard about because I like the soft sound of the turbines. Even last week, I said I'd like to have one near my house. The distance between the regulations and the WHO recommendations now gives me concern.

    Now, I'm a NIMBY.

  4. Debe

    Maybe im just completely deaf.

    I lived about 3 fields away from a wind farm for years. And personally I don’t think they ever disturbed my sleep or cause me any kind of psychological trouble, forgot the things were there most of the time.

    Whether they generate enough energy to warrant their existence is an entirely separate matter.

    1. Naughtyhorse

      common misconcenption

      Wind farms are not about generating energy.

      they generate something altogether more valuable

      subsidy

      1. Ian Yates
        Headmaster

        @Naughtyhorse

        Pah! I thought you were going to say "they *convert* energy"

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Debe
        Unhappy

        Deaf?

        What? Who said that?...

  5. Refugee from Windows

    LF Thumping

    You get a lovely low frequency thump as the blade passed the mast for these things, which carries for quite away. The sort that resonates in your innards it seems, no wonder some people feel well. They were thinking of using such as sonic weapons for crowd control at some time.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    IT Angle

    AM?

    ante meridiem?

    Amplitude Modulation?

    Asset Management?

    Agile Modeling?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    so

    how do these windfarm related health issues compare to other technology-related heath issues - such as living next to a busy road, for example?

    Obviously all problems are bad, and it's not good to introduce new problems without sufficient reason - but in order to judge the windfarm issues it would be good to have a benchmark (even if imperfect) for comparison.

    1. MacroRodent

      Or other power sources...

      Conventional power plants aren't quiet either. I used to live about a kilometer from one coal plant that seemed to get especially activated for peak loads, and howled like a banshee on cold winter nights...

      Hard to see what the fuss is about windmills. Anyone living in a city gets more noise, and often of unpredictable kind. Worse than a low-frequency hum.

      1. Liam Johnson

        Anyone living in a city gets more noise

        Though it's got to be a bit of a bugger if you move off to the country for the quite life and someone builds a wind farm in the next field.

        Or a bypass for that matter.

      2. ChilliKwok
        Meh

        You're neglecting the area and impact

        A regular power station occupies < 1km2 and is typically located in industrial areas which may already have some noise. The equivalent windfarm(s) occupy > 1000km2 and are typically located in previously tranquil areas.

        1. Naughtyhorse

          errr...

          few issues.

          a) 1km^2 bloody small power station

          b) typically located in industrial areas - do me a favour! apart from the power station they are typically in the middle of nowhere.

          c) mahoosive windfarm, so that means offshore then! :-)

          1. ChilliKwok
            Meh

            Land area

            a) Seabank 1.1GW gas-fired power station near Bristol measures about 600x600m = 0.4km2

            Even a giant like Drax 4GW power station occupies only 1.7km2.

            b) Seabank is located in an industrial area close to Bristol. Drax is close to tut pit near Selby.

            c) We're discussing onshore windfarms here. Offshore are twice the price and even more economically suicidal.

          2. Nuke
            FAIL

            @ Naughty Horse

            Naughty Horse said :- 1km^2 [is a ] bloody small power station

            FYI, Wylfa, nuclear PS in Anglesey, is on a 20 hectare site (= 0.2 km^2) and produces 980 MW. Say medium sized.

            Just one I am familiar with.

    2. Peter H. Coffin

      Siting

      Indeed, the solution is to site windfarms along motorways. The noise had got to be quieter than a few hundred thousand Diesel horsepower roaring past per hour.

      (Frankly, I find the faint noise and elegant motion of wind turbines soothing and encouraging. Once the property around them has been sufficiently devalued, I'll happily move there.)

      1. ChilliKwok
        Meh

        Numbers Don't Add Up

        If you placed wind turbines all round the M25 and all up the M1 - using the optimum spacing of 8 x 100m rotor diameters - you would only have room for 500km / 800m = 625 turbines.

        Assuming each turbine is 3.6MW rated capacity and 25% average power output due to wind variability = 625 turbines x 3.6MW x 25% = 562MW total average power output.

        This is less than half the output of a single 1GW gas-fired power station such as Seabank near Bristol, which only occupies 0.6km2 and reliably generates electricity 24/7 - not just when the wind blows.

        3.6MW turbines cost £3M each so that's £1.8Bn total. By comparison a plant like Seabank costs £0.5Bn to build.

        The trouble with wind is that any way you slice it, the numbers just don't add up. That's why our forefathers had the good sense to abandon wind for fossil fuels 230 years ago.

        1. h4rm0ny

          Re: Numbers Don't Add Up

          You're right I think. Although I understood the mode output of turbines to be less than 3.6MW. But comparison to gas-fired power stations isn't ideal because although it is a *much* cheaper way of producing the electricity, it is something based on a diminishing resource which we need to get away from. A better point of comparison would be a modern nuclear reactor. Because the safety costs are so much, I don't think it comes in as cheap as the gas power station, but it's long-term and it's powerful and it still kicks wind turbines all over the place for cost, maintenance, life-span and power-output.

          1. ChilliKwok
            Meh

            250 year's supply not enough for you?

            According to the IEA the world has 250yrs supply of shale gas in deposits distributed all over the world. At a stroke, shale gas has wiped out two of the eco-doom-mongers favourite arguments: Namely 'peak oil' and 'dependency on undesirable regimes'. What arguments are left? Climate change? None since 1998. And with the sun entering a quiet phase - and Svensmark's theory of solar/cloud interaction gaining support - well, it's not looking good for Vestas in the medium-to-long term.

            Re: Nuclear. The good thing about natural gas plants is if there's an accident you may get a fire, an explosion, a few broken windows - maybe even some casualties on site - but you don't get a Chenobyl/Fukushima incident and the costs associated with of contamination of huge areas of land.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Mushroom

              What's a Chernobyl / Fukushima incident?

              As the events that took place in these locations you mention have almost nothing in common.

  8. anti-addick
    FAIL

    Who funds El Reg?

    Who pays you El Reg? I mean, you are so anti-green it's incredible. I guess it would make you real happy if we just burned every molecule of hydrocarbon we could find on the planet including all the animals.

    If you don't ever give a balanced view, how can you be taken seriously?

    1. waldoPepp
      Angel

      All hail the mighty Clarkson

      I suspect these hacks have spent too much of their youth listening to the populist rants of Jeremy and his fellow pricks.

    2. Scott 19
      Thumb Down

      ABC?

      You joined El Reg comments just to post this comment? strange, what is the motivation I wonder?

      Not a CWM then?

    3. Sam Liddicott

      like you?

      That was not a very balanced view you gave; I wonder if you could recognise a balanced view.

      Further, it is not the job of media to give a balanced view all on one report, it is their job to report.

      It is your job to get the balanced view for yourself, and not to accept every idea and product that has been painted green with advertising money.

    4. Richard 12 Silver badge
      WTF?

      !? El REg is paid for by advertisers.

      They're not public service, they are under no obligation to give any kind of balanced view.

      That said, this research is probably bogus for the same reason the EMF research reported today is bogus.

      However, anti-addick, you are either an idiot or genuinely want to wear a hair shirt.

      Wind farms simply *cannot* provide enough reliable electricity for you to continue living your lifestyle. Source: National Grid study of wind farm penetration.

      Do you accept that you can't have the heating, lighting, ventilation, computing, transport and food that you currently enjoy on demand because of the rolling blackouts that will become both *necessary* and *commonplace* if wind really does reach the current target penetration?

      I don't. I do not want to be spending such ridiculous amounts of my tax money supporting something that can only cause me pain - both financial due to the extremely high cost and personal due to the blackouts. (Note that blackouts can and do kill people.)

      Wind farms are simply not fit for being used as a significant generating source, and it doesn't matter how good we get at making them, they still won't be. To avoid rolling blackouts, we have to have at least 5 days of backup power available because the entire country and all our neighbours can be in the doldrums for that long.

      National Grid say that the target wind penetration can lose 15GW of generation in a couple of hours. At the moment such a loss is *impossible* - even disconnecting Drax (4GW) wouldn't do that!

      They also think that the only way to maintain current service levels with such a lot of wind is to have gas plants running 'hot' 24 hours a day, ready to sync at a few minutes notice.

      That's a lot of wasted CO2 - burning loads of hydrocarbon to keep the backup plants hot, just to cover for when the wind gets too strong or too weak.

      If you genuinely want to be Green, then you should be *against* wind.

      It can't provide our current demand without burning *more* hydrocarbon than at present.

      Now, if we want to move to electric vehicles (any kind) instead of burning hydrocarbons in our cars, trains, buses, lorries etc , we're going to need *more* electricity than we currently have.

      So, how do you plan on doing that?

      Nuclear power is the only currently feasible way of generating enough sustainable low-to-zero carbon power. The French know this, and we actually buy a lot from them.

      Sure, in the future we might find more compact and efficient ways to store large amounts of electricity, and other ways to generate large amounts of environmentally-friendly electricity predictably and on demand.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It's interesting, I suppose,

      that ElReg usually gets quite excited about science/tech stories, almost invariably in a positive way. Unless there's some kind of "climate change" or "fossil carbon" angle (here, an anti-windpower one).

      I eagerly await the time that someone designs a 500m tall biodegradeable super windmill made of nanofibreceramics that launches laser-firing rocket-powered drones, while providing

      a sensible and technology-aware way to sell media-product online. I think the poor dears might suffer a meltdown. :-)

    6. PyLETS
      Linux

      Internet journalism and astroturfing

      Unfortunately if we have no way of knowing who pays the piper we have to guess. I'm all in favour of content paid for by subscribers who read it, e.g. as lwn.net have succeeded in achieving, though us readers had to persuade the content providers to stay in business on this model, once they realised advertising was never going to pay enough.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hmmm

    Sounds like wind turbines could be almost as dangerous as the (in)famous Bristol Hum!

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Quiet countryside

    Suspect that the people complaining about this are the sort of people who move out of cities into the country for the "quite life" and then start complaining about the cows and sheep in the fields being too loud and why should the farmers be allowed to drive tractors past their house etc etc.

    My wife and I both grew up in the country but now live in the city and we're not going back! Its always hilarious to see this sort of person on programs like Location^3 demanding absolute tranquility in their country idyl (sound from a road a mile away is normally enough to eliminate a property) ... and then also demand a villagae shop/pub/school within walking distance!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Facepalm

      Don't forget...

      ...horses on the lanes, the lack of gritting, mud on the lanes that gets the 4x4 dirty, potholes, houses being flooded (because they are built on flood plains), lack of facilites (then go to Tescos 10 miles away to buy the food), leaves on the pavements, church bells ringing and the list goes on, road closures for festivals / fetes.

      Yup all these tend to appear in out local magazine from time to time.

      However the responses are usually pretty good.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Not to mention

      Not to mention the smell - the worst smell I have to deal with living in a city is the local brewery, which I can live with... it's not like the sceptic tank or cow sheds near where I work in rural Shropshire.

      Funny how the terms "noisy", "dirty" and "smelly" are usually applied to cities whereas I generally find the opposite to be true.

      1. Rosco

        The sceptic tank?

        I had no idea that Shropshire was such a hotbed of militant disbelief. What are they so sceptical about that they need mobile weaponry to force the point?

    3. Nuke
      Thumb Down

      @ AC - Quiet Countryside

      It is one thing being in the countryside and complaining about country noises like tractors.

      That is not the same as complaining about industrial noises (or eyesores) brought into the countryside. Electrical generation is not a countryside activity. WInd turbines are industrial installations that have little or no relation to the land around them. If they are put in the countyside it is only because the planners have followed a line of least resistance.

      At least conventional power stations offer a lot more output per unit of disturbance and ugliness.

  11. graemehunter

    There really isn't a problem here

    all he has to do is go away, take his massive amount of evidence, and actually prove it. If he's telling the truth, he'll prove it, if he isn't, then he won't. Until then it's probably not really worth writing about his theories.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    What a load of bollocks

    I think they should investigate the sound of rustling trees for "substantial health risks from the existing exposure".

  13. Ben Bawden
    Thumb Down

    Does the Reg even know what evidence is?

    "There is a huge amount of evidence, and it's incredibly convincing,"

    Empirical studies are rare

    Well which is it? This sounds exactly like the people complaining of "electrosmog" with zero evidence to back it up. Andrew Orlowski clearly has an axe to grind, but he really needs to be more balanced.

    "Our current knowledge indicates that there are substantial health risks from the existing exposure" - evidence please!

    1. Naughtyhorse

      theres no evidence to support this

      but it's a scientific fact

      you gotta love brasseye!

  14. ACcc
    FAIL

    Dr Michael M Nissenbaum, a radiologist

    Hmmm. Am I wrong to think he's stepping somewhat outside his bounds of expertise on this, or has he been mislabelled?

    1. The Flying Dutchman
      Meh

      compare global warming debate...

      ... where research published by climate scientists is routinely dismissed by, um, economists and the like...

    2. Some Beggar

      There must be well over a million physicians in the US.

      I reckon if you look hard enough you could find one to make a statement supporting pretty much any old bollocks you care to dream up. Almost every crank diet book or dubious health potion in the US is supported by a Rubens O'Dubious M.D.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Health Risks from Heathrow

    It's hard to show any evidence that noise even from major airports like Heathrow cause any health risks. So I've no idea how you can show that wind farms cause problems.

    I agree that it's a good idea of have independent scientific reviews of such things, but I'm not sure if this guy has done anything independent or anything scientific.

    If you live near a constant noise source you quickly filter it out: this is also true for those living near Heathrow. And wind turbines are much quieter and their sound is less offensive than jet engines.

    1. JohnG

      Heathrow and noise

      If you live within a certain distance of Heathrow, the airport operator has to subsidise sound reduction measures for your house e.g. on my house, secondary double glazing. At least, that was the situation when I lived there about 10 years ago.

  16. Nada
    FAIL

    Never forget...

    "There is a huge amount of evidence, and it's incredibly convincing,"

    The plural of anecdote is not data.

  17. Max Pritchard
    Holmes

    Emperor's new clothes

    "The attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement, and represent either gross incompetence or intentional bias,"

    I've seen this before somewhere... oh yes.

    If you can't see the emperor's new clothes, you are "unfit for your position, stupid, or incompetent."

    I put it to you, sir, that you are not wearing a stitch. However I will fight for your right to walk around nekkid if you wish. Watson, my pipe.

  18. dannymot

    How windfarms make you sick ... go on then, how?

    What are the convincing facts?

    I have a pretty good grasp of the science related to acoustics and health factors. I was hoping to be able to comment on any findings. So where are they?

    We live and work amongst roads, railways, airports, music venues, factories, offices and wind farms. We have plenty of specialists in acoustics in the UK and a ton of data.

    So where is the substance?

    1. Mark 65

      I know how

      Windfarms make you sick when you realise how much extra you pay for your electricity to subsidise the pointless shite and visual blight that they are. They are a direct wealth transfer from the tax-payer to rich lobby-ist Eco-scum - people that couldn't give a toss about the environment but will ride the gravy train until the end of the line.

  19. TheOtherHobbbes

    Good to see

    the Reg getting slaughtered for posting raving nonsense of this sort.

    The rest of us use science. You should try it some time.

    Oh, and Richard 12 - you have no idea what you're talking about.

    Firstly, no one is suggesting replacing every last TW of current capacity with wind. There will - eventually, once people stop being stupid about it - be a long term goal of replacing last TW of current capacity with renewables. But there's more to renewables than just wind. And it includes huge potential savings with improved national and international distribution improvements.

    Secondly, you and all the other Luddites really should learn the difference between capacity factor and intermittency. The two are *not* synonymous, and wind's 25-30% capacity factor does *not* mean that wind only generates useful power 25-30% of the time.

    Finally, as prices of non-renewables continue to rise because of outright depletion - also known as "running out of stuff you can't afford to run out of" - the economic performance of all renewables gets more and more competitive.

    There are reasons big investors are putting a lot of money into renewables, and ignorant stupidity isn't one of them.

    Meanwhile in the UK, blackouts are going to be less significant than simple inability to pay. But that's because of our enlightened competitive (read - oligopolistic and exploitative) deregulated energy market, and not because of lack of capacity.

    Still - leaving pensioners sitting in the dark is what it all seems to be about at the moment. Which is a shame when we could be doing something that actually solves problems, instead of creating more of them.

    Incidentally, some renewables people support short-term nuke building. I'm not one of them, because I don't think nukes are *politically and managerially* viable without extra-strong management and regulation, neither of which we have.

    Without those, you tend to get people taking shortcuts they really shouldn't. And perhaps even a nasty accident or two.

    1. Christoph Hechl

      there is one thing i just don't get

      You really presented most of the points i would have liked to make myself.

      But two things i would like to add:

      Is it possible, that noone has noticed in the UK, that all of what you call the "Greeny" and "treehugger" ideas have over the past two decades become a multi-billion Euro business in Germany, that feeds hundreds of thousands of people? And by that i don't mean, by cheating people out of their money, but by doing real and valuable work. Since we export lots of that technology, i really don't mind if you keep your critical point-of-view for a while longer.

      Second:

      Why on earth do i never ever hear anything, not even the slightest thought about the problems and costs of long-term storage of nuclear waste from any of you? It is hard to get solid data about the safety of those storage facilities and whenever you get them they are bad news. This is a cost factor, that will remain for much longer than any civilisation has ever existed and the dangers are practically completely unexplored. I am personally not concerned about accidents at nuclear power plants. the reason why i am opposed to nuclear power is simply because the risk and costs of the handling of nuclear waste are far too high and mostly can not be calculated at all.

      1. CD001
        Joke

        meh

        ----

        Why on earth do i never ever hear anything, not even the slightest thought about the problems and costs of long-term storage of nuclear waste from any of you?

        ----

        And this is why god gave us Cornwall - it's radioactive anyway, a little more won't hurt ;)

    2. Naughtyhorse

      25-30%

      you are right,

      if only wind could generate as much as that.

      I have no objection to renewables, but wind and solar are too unreliable to use as a generation 'staple'

      you need equivalent spinning reserve or pumped hydro for evey kw of wind, cos the wind sometimes stops (or changes speed by more than a few percent which renders wind turbines unuseable - same thing really) either that or a _radical_ reform of the operator licensing conditions for dno's

      Big business is in wind for the subsidy. end of!

      just look at the 100's and 100's of solar farm plans that suddenly got pulled when the subsidy went away a couple of months back.

      blackouts - not because of lack of capacity - that is incorrect. just look at the sudden upswing of interest being shown in black start strategies by the DNO's just now, why do you think that is happening? thats a lot of money to invest in something you dont think is going to happen.

      if the regulation is broke - fix it. sure it's hard, if it was easy then everyone would be doing it.

      we clearly have to do something, having the lights go off would be a massive desaster, i just dont believe wind is the answer, it's politically more acceptable than nuclear, and as far as the politicians are concerned (remember what blair was like) when the strategy bites us all on the ass, they will be out of office and therefore, not their problem.

      them solving their problems != them solving our problems

    3. Richard 12 Silver badge
      FAIL

      Unlike you, I actually read the National Grid's report.

      "Operating the Electricity Transmission Networks in 2020 - Update June 2011"

      I suggest you read it. It is most enlightening (pun intended)

      I would say that it's quite likely that they know far more about generation and how the Grid works than you do.

      They think that having the 2020 target of 30GW of installed capacity of wind will result in several events each year where 15GW is lost in two hours. When that happens, if we don't have the warm spares, then we get a very large blackout.

      15GW is a hell of a lot of power to lose in two hours. That's half our current coal plants, or all our current nukes and wind dying simultaneously.

      They also think that they'll have to pay the wind plants to stay off a lot of the time - they are actually already doing this to avoid breaking the distribution.

      Now, in their estimation, they reckon it'll cost around £286 million just to manage wind variability, and somewhere between £565 and 945 million for the operating reserve requirement.

      That's on top of the cost of the wind plants themselves.

      Finally, they know that this will require "demand management", using smart meters and other similar devices.

      Translated into English, that means they are already planning on rolling blackouts. "Gone Green" appears to mean "Sometimes, Gone Dark"

      As to your anti-nuke stance - hate to tell you this, but since the dawn of civilian nuclear power there have been exactly four nasty accidents in the world, only one of which actually killed anybody *at all*.

  20. DrXym

    WTF?

    Unless you live in a sealed mineshaft. It's very likely you are subject to lots of background noise from one source or another. Cars, the rumble of lorries, wind & weather, cows, the sea & rivers, trees & leaves rustling, central heating systems, the washing machine, next door neighbours, pipes, birds like crows pecking on the the roof, binmen, aircraft, overhead pylons, tractors, drunk people in the street etc. etc.

    It seems a little peculiar to identify one source of noise and proclaim psychological harm especially in the absence of research which you demand in the same breath. It sounds a teensy weensy bit like someone putting the cart before the horse. If this professor has been in the pay of tobacco firms as someone suggests it certainly does make one wonder about his motives this time around.

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
      Boffin

      Sealed Mineshaft?

      If you lived in a sealed mineshaft, you may well find yourself prone to more low level low frequency noise than you'd get from wind turbines, due to the resonant properties of tunnels.

      I have to say I am getting more than a little worried about what appears to be very selective reporting by El Reg on certain environmental issues. Any time a crank puts out a paper that 'disproves' AGW, suggests that renewable energy is all bunk, or claims that fly ash from coal fired power stations solves global economic recession, we get a massive upselling of this, but the balanced viewpoint from the serious hard-working and credible scientists is sadly missing. For shame!

      1. Charles 9

        Another issue.

        The denser a medium, the easier it is for sound to travel. That's why sound travels better in water...and even better still through solid rock. Even more so with low-frequency sound (infrasound, for lack of a better term). Elephants and whales have actually been recorded using infrasound for communication through earth/water precisely because it carries so far. Funny thing about wind turbines: they're fixed to the ground, so any infrasound they make will likely travel through the shaft and into the ground very easily. Perhaps that's what all the row's about: not sound from the air but sound from the ground.

  21. Ebeneser
    Meh

    Couple of issues

    Windfarm developers are relying on ancient/flimsey shallow data and no one is prepared to fund a proper study. The wind farm developers won't fund a study as they're happy with the weak research they already have, which means I guess that govenment environmental agencies need to do this.

    I can think of lots of reasons why this isn't happening, which include lack of cash / government lobbying (Elliot Morley anyone?) and the fact that a study may only serve to reenforce existing rules - which basically makes it a waste of money.

    Chances of anything being done about this ... zero.

  22. Ian K
    Mushroom

    Can we have the "Reg Headstone" icon back, please?

    It comes in real handy for fact-lite articles like this one.

  23. ChilliKwok
    Meh

    Some facts for the pro-windies

    To equal the output of a single 1GW gas fired power station requires:

    1000MW / ( 2MW per turbine x 25% average output due to wind variation ) = 2000 wind turbines.

    Each turbine requires a spacing of 8 x 100m rotor diameters in all directions for turbulence = 0.64Km2 per turbine = 1280 km2 land area rendered uninhabitable to humans due to noise and flicker.

    Each turbine requires about 200 tonnes of steal for the tower, 1 tonne of Chinese rare earth metals for the magnets, 100T of concrete for the foundations, plus 10s of miles of pylons to carry the leccy from windy areas to the cities.

    That's half a million tonnes of steal, 200,000 tonnes of concrete + pylons.

    The capital cost of the turbines is about £1.5m each = £3 billion total. Neglecting the costs of connecting them to the grid and providing backup power generation.

    By comparison a 1GW gas power station costs about £400M to build and takes <1km2 of land.

    But it's not really a case of either or since you need the gas power station anyway to provide backup for when the wind is blowing too slow or too fast (ie. most of the time).

    Still - at least it saves some CO2 right? Well, not really since the backup power station is forced to run in an inefficient mode where it is continually ramping up and down to match the wind speed.

    So in summary, about 10x the capital cost, 1000x the land area, 1000x the materials, all to unreliably and intermittently generate the same power as one gas-fired power station - which you need to have anyway to provide backup. Oh, and they're an ugly eye-sore and blight on the landscape too.

    But apart from all the above - they're really great!!

    1. Mark 65

      Indeed

      I recently spoke to an acquaintance who runs a large part of the power generation infrastructure for a large electricity generator as his opinion of wind power was "it's total shit and the money is better spent elsewhere"

    2. ChilliKwok
      Meh

      Spelling

      Freudian slip with the spelling of "steel" - I just paid my windfarm-subsidy-inflated electricity bill.

    3. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
      Boffin

      Some balance...

      "To equal the output of a single 1GW gas fired power station requires:"

      - I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting all new power generation capacity should come from wind. Personally, I'm pro-nuclear, but some other renweable power sources are geothermal, tidal, solar, etc.

      "Each turbine requires a spacing of 8 x 100m rotor diameters in all directions for turbulence = 0.64Km2 per turbine = 1280 km2 land area rendered uninhabitable to humans due to noise and flicker."

      - Which is why they are normally placed in lines, so 800m in one direction per turbine. Also, fields in the middle of nowhere generally aren't considered habitable for any but the least developed humans. They're good for sheep though.

      "Each turbine requires about 200 tonnes of steal for the tower, 1 tonne of Chinese rare earth metals for the magnets, 100T of concrete for the foundations, plus 10s of miles of pylons to carry the leccy from windy areas to the cities."

      - steal [sic] is cheap. As for the magnets, where did you get 1 tonne of neodymium per magnet from? That sounds unlikely to say the least. Pylons are also required to move electrons from other power sources, unless you're an afficionado of the theories of Nikolai Tesla...

      Some of your other points are fair, particularly those about providing backup. However, fossil fuelled power stations are only going to get more expensive over time as the fuel runs out, whereas renewables will get cheaper as they scale up and the technology matures.

    4. Christoph Hechl
      FAIL

      wow, lets compare this to some other numbers i just made up

      A 2MW wind power station is named that way because of its typical output, not because of the theoretical maximum. Go to website of Vestas (worlds largest manufacturer) and just check the measured numbers. Since i have access to the Service data of 14 stations, i can assure you, that a well planned station will even exeed that value. Their most advanced stations produce 3 MW btw (typically in offshore parks)

      1 to of rare earth metals, that have to be from China? Source? Unless you can provide one, i will continue to beleive, that you just made that up.

      1. ChilliKwok
        Meh

        Rated Power vs Average OutputsSource for Rare Earth Requirement Per Turbine

        The quoted capacity of a wind turbine is the power output in optimum wind speed conditions.

        Due to wind-speed variation the average power output of onshore wind turbines is only 25% of rated power, maybe 35+% for offshore.

        This is known as the "capacity factor" - try googling it if you don't believe me.

        Power varies as the square of wind speed - so power rapidly drops off as the wind slows - and rapidly cuts to prevent damage in a gale. Hence the 25% onshore capacity factor.

        As for a source on the 1 tonne per turbine rare-earth requirement. Try here:

        http://seekingalpha.com/author/eamon-keane/instablog

        1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
          Boffin

          So, your source says:

          "Jack Lifton suggests 1 ton NdFeB/MW however I have not seen a source for that. This source suggests 567kg/MW."

          Note that this is the weight of the magnet, not the rare earths in it, the type of magnet in question has a chemical structure of Nd2Fe14B, Neodymium has an atomic mass of 144.242, Iron 55.845 and Boron 10.811, a little maths tells me that the portion of the mass of the magnet that comes from 'Chinese rare earths' is 26.68%, so the mass of neodymiujm required is actually 151Kg per MW.

          Okay, this is still a biggish number, but it is an order of magnitude less than the one you plucked from the air.

          Also, the thing about rare earth metals isn't that they are rare, but that they aren't commonly mined. The name is a bit of a misnomer really. If the demand goes up, so does the supply, as it becomes economical to find and extract them. China by no means controls the world's supply, if fear of the Chinese is what is driving your dislike of wind turbines.

          1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

            Wow, downvote on a technical post

            Someone really must not like facts today.

            Just to provide a little evidence for my assertion that rare earths aren't actually rare (and Neodymium in particular); the natural abundance of Nd in the Earth's crust is 38 ppm (parts per million), a little less than copper (50ppm), twice that of lithium (20ppm) which is what pretty much all modern rechargable batteries are made from, and 17 times as abundant as tin, one of the main constituents of bronze, for which we named a period in human history.

            So my point is this; China produces most of the world's neodymium at present for a number of reasons:

            Firstly, they have decent sized deposits of Neodymium bearing minerals, but so do several other countries.

            Secondly, they can produce the metal cheaply because labour costs in China are low (but rising).

            Thirdly, they aren't too bothered about the environmental consequences of mining, whereas other coutries may not be so gung-ho any more.

            Finally, there historically hasn't been a large demand for Neodymium so it didn't make sense for lots of people to be mining it. As the market for high-power ceramic magnets grows (as it has been for several years due to the demand for these things in hard disks), so will the supply as it becomes economical for more people to dig it out of the ground. The stuff won't run out any time soon, and if anything, the price will fall as economies of scale take off.

            The arguments about the cost, mass and availability of neodymium for the permanent magnets in wind turbines are fallacious. Yes, I agree that the things are expensive but expect the price to fall as, perhaps by a significant amount. My doubts remain as to whether wind power will ever supply a significant amount of our electricity, but in fifty years time, I'm willing to bet they'll still be around (assuming we are), and coal won't.

            1. ChilliKwok
              Meh

              I'll take that bet

              - although I won't be around in 50 years to collect:

              At the moment coal provides 25% of world energy, and wind <0.3%

              In fifty years I guarantee that coal-fired energy use will still be at least 10 x wind-energy

              1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

                @ChilliKwok

                I'll be glad to take your money.

                From Wikipedia*:

                "Collective projections generally predict that global peak coal production may occur sometime around 2025 at 30 percent above current production in the best case scenario, depending on future coal production rates."

                This is around fifteen years from now. At this point, the price of coal will increase due to scarcity, and people will stop using it as a result if they have a reliable alternative.

                *Yes I know, it's Wikipedia, but it is from a cited source within the Wiki article.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    Given the choice...

    ...I'd rather be living near a wind farm than Fukushima.

    1. KjetilS
      Mushroom

      Given the choice...

      ... I'd rather be living *inside* one of the plants at Fukushima than near a wind farm, and that has absolutely nothing to do with noise levels.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Mushroom

        Strange choice

        You'd really like to be sloshing around in a bunch of leaked coolant?

  25. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    Busy roads

    So what about people who live near motorways and other busy roads. They get constant noise during the night too. Do they get much sleep? It seems like they do because there doesn't seem to be many complaints from them.

    Constant noise is something you get used to very quickly. I live right next to a railway line. I sleep through goods trains passing by. The first few months of moving in I got woken up, but after that I totally ignored them. And it's not because it's that constant as there are only 2-3 trains an hour on the line.

    1. JohnG

      Busy roads, etc.

      When a new road is proposed somewhere quiet, it is not uncommon for locals to object to the anticipated noise and pollution - which seems fair enough if it will negatively impact their lives and the value of their properties. If you choose go to live somewhere where there is already some noise, pollution or similar annoyance, that's a different matter.

      The assumption of many seems to be that, as wind turbines are "green", there cannot be any problems with them.

    2. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
      Stop

      "Constant noise"

      I know it's a classic; but it really is about "wrong type of noise".

      The thwup-thwup-thwup of turbine blades are IMO no worse than the shoom-shoom-shoom of cars on a road, the gentle crashing of waves. Those are repeatable sounds with variation of sound within them rather than continuous and constant, often high or very low frequency. It's such continuous, ever present, sound that is not quite there but is, the "I know it's there" even if someone else doesn't hear it which makes for the psychological stress which impacts health and well being (and sanity).

      Unfortunately, if someone has never experienced it they really don't know what it's like nor understand how truly annoying it is and likely won't even believe it exists. Like tooth abscesses; people won't understand ever wanting to pull their own teeth out until they get one.

  26. Alex King

    Balls

    OK, we'll put a nice coal-fired station or waste incinerator half a mile up the road from you instead. All means of power generation have their downsides - wind has fewer than most. There is no perfect power source, and they have to go somewhere.

    Speaks volumes that this guy is a former professor, and is now a self-appointed expert.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not just noise

    See if you would like this kind of thing in your house:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbIe0iUtelQ

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MD_xGWBRvA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLFzFtXHWAg

    Of course I will expect the apologists on here claiming it doesnt matter/not a problem/close your blinds (!). The issue as highlighted is that the big energy cos and govs want these everywhere, of course the gov published a report saying it wasnt a significant health risk, of course noone is going to die from strobing but it will reduce quality of life, which doesnt matter.

    Again the companies claim they will shut turbines down if they become unbearable, but of course despite numerous complaints in the UK this rarely happens. When they do the timings are set back to normal after a period of everything being fine.

    Of course these people could just move.... oh thats right there properties are worthless now.

    Awaiting the down votes.

    1. JohnG

      Ice throwing

      I would be more worried about ice throwing. There was a house in Germany or the Netherlands trashed by a large chunk of ice that fell through the roof, after being hurled from the local wind turbine.

  28. Peter X

    Charge more for distance from power source?

    I guess no one really wants to be living near any kind of power generation facility, but we all want electricity. So maybe the solution is to charge people more the further they are from a power source?

  29. Alan Brown Silver badge

    Wind turbine noise

    I find it mostly harmless, but some mitigation of the noise made when the blades pass the tower would go a long way towards reducing complaints (probably a matter of appropriate shaping of the tower...)

    Several manufacturers have put winglets on their blades and that's made a huge difference to the blade tip nose that many complained about.

    FWIW most land-based windfarms are next to useless anyway - Not enough wind and can't be made large enough. The only exceptions are ones in exceptionally windy sites, such as the Tararua and Te Apiti windfarms in New Zealand (both sited on a saddle between 2 3000+ foot mountain ranges which funnels the wind to an average 35km/h (20mph) for a nice power boost)

  30. Black Road Dude
    FAIL

    Wind farms what windfarms???

    I have been living near a wind farm in Blyth Northumberland for years and I have never heard any noise given off by them. Its funny the people who seem to be against windfarms because of noise or visual impact are usually people who have never lived near one before and really dont know what they are talking about. Every one I have talked to has never heard anything from them and also likes the look of them. Im not saying the viability of wind is 100% but the sound and look of the things is a non issue. Its just the usual local crowd scared of something new and using any argument they can to keep them away.

    Has anyone walked under a power pylon lately now thats an awful buzzing noise i would not want to live under.

  31. bill 36

    a journalist with an agenda?

    well, well, well.

    Who would have thought that such an animal existed?

    And why should he not bring to our attention a theory that wind farms are a health issue? From a crackpot scientist or not. It doesn't matter but it's important to know that someone is watching what the energy companies are doing.

    I'm all for renewables and recycling but also realistic enough to know that we cannot do without nuclear and i don't mean the type we have at the moment.

    I encourage everyone to watch this. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13040853

    If a Nobel prize winner says it safe, surely it's safe to assume that it is.

    As for the waste, stick it on top of an Arianne rocket and fire it straight at the sun.

    1. Ian K
      FAIL

      "Stick it on top of an Arianne rocket and fire it straight at the sun."

      A few facts:

      * A 1GW nuclear plant produces about 27 tonnes of high level waste a year.

      * A single Arianne launch can take at most 10.5 tonnes into geostationary orbit. Can't be arsed to work out the relative energy costs to reach the sun, but I'd be surprised if it's less.

      * About 4% of Arianne launches fail, sometimes very explosively at high altitude.

      Are you sure you want to stick with that idea?

  32. Stuart Halliday
    Thumb Up

    Not just wind

    Surely wind power is just one of four different renewables we have?

    Tidal, hydro & thermal are available to us.

    Let's use all 4.

  33. Arms Control Poser

    Scrolls I have unrolled

    "Yet the ancient study, completed in 1996 and now so old it's actually in the national archive"

    This is a remarkably silly criticism. The National Archives (formerly known as the Public Record Office) contains much more recent documents than this report. It's just a place where all sorts of public documents are stored. The word 'archive' doesn't imply anything about the age of its contents, or whether or not those contents are still meaningful.

    I couldn't help noticing that the critique from Dr. Hanning is unreferenced. Could this be because, according to Google, it's not in any kind of scientific publication, but instead a document put out by a pressure group? It's certainly worth taking someone with his credentials seriously, but the Reg's presentation of this material is, overall, a bit of a dodgy dossier.

  34. AlgernonFlowers4
    FAIL

    Global Warming is a much bigger problem

    than the noise from these giant fans that we have to run in order to keep cool!

  35. The Flying Dutchman
    Boffin

    Sidenote: The Nocebo Effect

    Any reasonably informed person will probably be familiar with the placebo effect, which entails that in some cases a therapy that does exactly nothing will improve the condition of a patient because of the patient's belief that the therapy will be beneficial.

    The exact opposite is the Nocebo effect: convince an otherwise healthy person (s)he's being exposed to your noxious agent of choice, and the person might actually fall ill.

    Many of those who publish stuff on teh intarwebs about the supposed nefarious effects of cellular phone towers, nuclear power stations(*), fluoride in drinking water and so on and so forth, might be dismissed as mere wingnuts, but they might be causing more actual harm than the nefarious influences they so forcefully decry.

    (*) Living next to a nuclear power station does not present significant problems since the radiation it emits is practically nil unless serious shit happens.

  36. Ian McLaughlin
    Stop

    you see some awful crap on the intertube sometimes

    I used to live next to a train line. After a few weeks I didn't notice the noise because it was predictable.

    1. The Flying Dutchman
      Happy

      been there...

      One might actually wake up in the middle of the night with one of those huge cartoon-style question marks hovering above one's head, because that long freight train that usually passes at 3:30AM for some reason *didn't* run that night... ;-)

  37. George Kapotto

    "There is a huge amount of evidence, and it's incredibly convincing,"

    ...that coal fired generating plants produce massive amounts of pollutants and harm people in excess of 2000 metres from the power plant itself. I think much research should be done and strict regulations should be put in place before we come to rely heavily upon coal. Imagine if the secretive coal lobby hijacked national policy and started spewing nonsense messages about the merits and safety of their product while casting aspersions on the alternatives.

    Thank goodness we haven't fallen prey to the blandishments of profit motivated industrialists.

    1. ChilliKwok
      Meh

      Big Green vs King Coal

      I beg to differ:

      Thanks to exhaust scrubbers our coal plants are the cleanest in the world. Air quality tests show particulates at an all-time low. Strict regulations are already in place and much research has already been done on power plant emissions.

      Your paranoia about an all-powerful coal lobby is sadly misplaced. Wind power is heavily supported by all three main political parties and the EU. In the UK the wind-lobby has secured an £18B/yr tax-payer subsidy for the next 20 years. The beneficiaries are the same "evil capitalist" corporations like EDF and EON who also run conventional power stations. They are quite happy to collect huge taxpayer subsidies for expensive inefficient "green" energy. There's also a multi-billion pound carbon credit trading industry, and a multi million pound green pressure group industry, not to mention huge ranks of government funded scientists and bureaucrats, all riding the climate change gravy train.

      So sorry to inform you that the "profit motivated industrialists" are all working for Big Green now. Not King Coal.

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge
        Unhappy

        You know what's even more funny?

        The same corporations who are building the wind farms are the ones who are building and running the gas plants that take up the slack when we have the wrong kind of wind.

        They get to take us for a ride in every direction - huge subsidies for wind electricity, payments for *not* running their wind, increased prices for their gas, and payments to keep their gas warm and ready to sync.

        What fun, eh?

  38. Sammy Smalls
    Mushroom

    Go live next to a nuclear power station.

    They're pretty quiet.

  39. 100113.1537

    Go speak to the Danes

    Has anyone asked why Denmark has closed more on-shore windfarms than they have opened in the last 5-10 years? Noise complaints.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/7996606/An-ill-wind-blows-for-Denmarks-green-energy-revolution.html

    Yes, a DT article, but they quote the head of Denmark's wind power agency.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Oh lets not

      they also banned marmite for health reasons. So please lets not start using them as our yardstick for clear and rational thought.

    2. Rickenbacker
      Megaphone

      I'm a Dane, I will speak...

      "Danes pay some of Europe's highest energy tariffs": True, but not necessarily because of wind power. Denmark charges VAT on energy at 25% (UK charges a reduced 5% rate) and has had a Co2 tax on energy, any energy, not just electricity, for many years. A source would be good, but I can't be bothered to find it right now, but on windy days wind power drives the price of all electricity down.

      "Denmark's ruling Left Party": Sort of makes the article better that the lefties are reducing subsidies, doesn't it? Well, the "Left" party is actually a centre-right party which for historical reasons is called the left party (because they used to be to the left of the "Right" party, which has now become the conservative party and which today is probably slightly to the left of the Left party. I know, its complicated...)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venstre_%28Denmark%29

      "The subsidy cuts are almost certainly the main reason behind Dong's move out of onshore wind": I know the journalist wrote "move out of ONSHORE", but if subsidy cuts is a problem for DONG, why are they still at it?

      http://www.dongenergy.com/anholt/EN/Projektet1/Pages/default.aspx

      The reason DONG is turning against onshore farms is that they can build much larger farms offshore. Denmark doesn't lend itself to big onshore farms, there are just too many houses dotted around, so most "farms" consist of no more than 5 wind turbines (see my other post about the rules governing the placement of onshore wind turbines).

    3. Alex King

      Sillygraph

      The Telegraph has long been anti-turbine (hardly surprising given its typical readership). I remember one article (in the news, rather than the comment section) kicking off with "Nobody wants to live near a windfarm".

      Well I do. I want one here, next to my house. They can build it on top the nuclear power station I'd be happy to have too.

  40. Peter Mc Aulay

    "The louder transient noise of AM"

    If your wind farm involves antimatter you're doing it wrong.

  41. AdamWill
    Paris Hilton

    I'm so confused

    Wait - so now we're to be concerned about unproven health impacts of new energy-generation technologies? Is this the same Mr. Orlowski who's all ra-ra for fracking - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/25/shale_gas_mp_agenda/ - or do you have multiples on staff?

    Paris, cos this is the first time I've had a glimpse into what it's like to live in her head...

  42. Hawkmoth
    Stop

    there's noise and then there's worrying yourself sick about noise

    There was an interesting paper given last year by a doctor from Mass. General and Harvard Med. about the cause of health problems associated with wind turbines. There was a story on it in the Falmouth [Mass.] Enterprise newspaper in 2010. Dr. McCunney suggested that it isn't the sound that causes the problems but the stress that people give themselves when listening to the sound and worrying about it. This affect has been put forward before for other sorts of environmental "health" concerns: people are making themselves sick worrying about getting sick...sort of a reverse placebo effect, I guess.

  43. Rickenbacker
    Alert

    Lived in Denmark close to a small Wind farm

    Noise? hardly any, in fact only when there was no wind in my own garden, the wind turbines were on a hill and where therefore still able to run. No, the noise didn't bother me.

    Flicker? Yes, for about 1 hour or so for 3 days during winter (when the shadows where the longest) and only on winter days that were not overcast.

    Do I like wind turbines? Yes

    Do I think you should be able to put up wind turbines anywhere you like? No

    All that is required (from a potential noise/flicker point of view) is to have some sensible rules. In Denmark, the developers have to create an "Assessment of Environmental Impact" report. There are rules as to how close to houses the turbines are allowed to be and they are based on the noise patterns of the wind turbines that are to be put up. The report has pictures of the surrounding landscape with wind turbines rendered onto the pictures so you will be able to see what the impact on the area will be from various locations.

    Source: My dad created some of these reports.

  44. beige
    WTF?

    Odd.

    As someone who lives pretty much underneath a big collection of Wind Turbines I can honestly say I've never felt any kind of unusual health-related side effects since they were set up a few years ago. To be honest, most of the time I don't even know they're there.

    That may be anecdotal evidence, but it does make me question exactly what classes as a "serious health issue".

  45. Pat Volk
    Black Helicopters

    Dubious indeed

    I should've gotten a doctorate in epidemiological studies.. Anybody read the paper? There's no info in it, just a defense of the methodology. People have felt so strongly they have left their homes, so there must be an effect. Spent 40 pages explaining why it scientific not to turn to science.

    How about finding some students for a few quid who can replicate the results? How about isolating the specific part of the turbines that are causing the symptoms? Have any of these folks heard of science? Reproducability?

    Nothing is free, or green. Windfarms have environmental impact, just like everything else. But prove it already. Don't say it's impossible to prove, but it happens because people complain about it. Plausible to me, but dammit, prove it.

  46. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    Give me a coal fuelled power plant any day!

    See, I knew all this green energy malarky was too good to be true, you go nuts if you live within 2km of a wind farm and start running around hearing things.

    That'd never happen alongside a good old fashioned (like Ma used to make) coal fuelled power plant. Hmmm, smell those lovely burning fossil fuels, makes me dream of lonely coal miners wives and pasties.

    Turning on my serious head for a moment, I can hardly but think that this is a case of "cotton wool'ism" (I just made that up)

    FFS, people live next to airports, motorways, RAF bases - what about them and their health risks?

    What about people who live near the sea? Surely all that constant white noise of waves is bad for the health. Perhaps, however, living near the sea counteracts that in terms of health.

    Oh dear, I thought I'd heard it all.... ah wait, this wouldn't be a NIMBY funded research project would it? ... hmm, thought so.

    Keep that good old wind power going, only another 60,000 wind farms to go and we'll have at least 20% of the power we need!

    The switch on my serious head seems to have malfunctioned. I'm going to bed, but can't sleep for all the noise of the wind farm 20km down the road.

  47. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    loss of wind gets more notice (and is briefer than) likely loss of nuke

    Does anybody actually read this far or are posts, like this one, write-only posts? I did read the first 50, where I saw this one needing a response:

    "To avoid rolling blackouts, we have to have at least 5 days of backup power available because the entire country and all our neighbours can be in the doldrums for that long."

    You need that reserve just as much, if not more, for nuclear.

    I'm no big fan of wind but when the wind drops, it doesn't drop instantaneously. You get hours, if not days, of notice of a national loss of wind potentially causing the loss of a few tens of GW of wind power. That's when they call up the customers on interruptible contracts (the hint is in the name) and say "2 hours from now, as per the advance warning we issued 22 hours ago, your electricity goes off". Sadly, that's nothing like enough GW to cover the necessary, so something else is needed too. But something else is also needed in the nuclear case.

    When a nuclear power station goes offline for safety reasons, and all its siblings shut down too for precautionary reasons, you usually get no notice for the first and not much for the siblings. You barely get time to call the customers on interruptible contracts. The risk of lights going off is non trivial (check out what happened when Sizewell and Longannet shut down within minutes of each other not too long ago). When that happens, the stations involved stay shutdown till the problem is identified and (hopefully) fixed. Which is more likely to be five months than five days. For the same loss of a few tens of GW of power. It's happened in the past with nukes, it will happen again, and we've (mostly) survived.

    If we can survive the unplanned loss of a few GW of nuclear for five months we can survive the predicted days ahead loss of a few GW of wind for five days.

    1. Some Beggar
      Thumb Up

      I definitely didn't read this far through the comments.

      [dancing girls and fire eaters and dwarfs with cocktail trays on their heads]

    2. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Scale, my dear boy, scale

      We are not talking about 'a few' GW here - we're talking about a regular, unplanned loss greater than *any loss that has ever happened*.

      With the predicted wind penetration by 2020, we should *expect* to lose 15GW several times a year.

      When Sizewell B and Longannet 1 (coal) shut down, we lost ~1.5GW - a tenth of what we *will* lose regularly with the huge wind penetration.

      National Grid did indeed screw it up - and yet you trust them to handle ten times the loss regularly?

      Incidentally, Sizewell B was back up the next day - it failed ~11:30 27th May 2008, back up 28th May. Try getting some information before making foolish kneejerk statements.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Up

        Not just scale, predictability

        I have my info thank you.

        The point about Sizewell/Longannet is that it illustrates that *unplanned* outages can have much more impact than the predicted loss of the same quantity of capacity. In this particular case Sizewell may have been back in service the next day, but there are plenty of times where a multi-plant nuclear outage has been months rather than days, leading to overall availability figures in some years of around 70% (maybe worse, I forget, DUKES will know).

        The usual response to this is "what do you expect with a fleet of outdated nukes".

        To which the response should be "same as you expect with a fleet of brand new nukes. The traditional bathtub curve. New introductions have teething problems, old ones have wearing out problems, and for a few years in the middle you might get lucky".

        So, I say again, I'm no big fan of large scale wind (because of its intermittency) but if we can survive an unpredicted five week/five month multi-GW nuclear outage then surely we can survive a predicted five day wind outage of the same capacity? If we can't then someone has some thinking to do (which I suspect is the real truth).

        In passing, I'll also mention that I've not yet seen any sensible solutions to how a massive increase in new nuclear capacity manages to match the daily demand cycle (from memory, UK demand wanders between say twenty-odd GW overnight minimum and around 50GW cold weather max, with maybe 20GW variation on any given day [1]. Nukes can't follow the daily demand cycle for reasons of physics or won't follow for reasons of economics, so what exactly does the load following in the massive-nuclear picture? Massive numbers of electric vehicles recharging overnight and being used as inverters during the day?

        "Nuclear power is the only currently feasible way of generating enough sustainable low-to-zero carbon power. The French know this, and we actually buy a lot from them."

        Do you class a 2GW interconnect [2] as "a lot"? It's a lot better than nothing, that's true.

        A massive nuclear programme is not feasible (order to online) in the next ten years though, which is going to be very unfortunate for us.

        There's much more to this picture than a massive new UK nuclear fleet can solve in a timely manner.

        [1] http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Realtime/Demand/Demand8.htm

        [2] http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Interconnectors/France/

        1. Richard 12 Silver badge

          There haven't been any unplanned long nuke shutdowns in the UK

          There have been several *planned* shutdowns of that length - year or so notice.

          Some of those did last longer than originally planned - however, that's still a *planned* shutdown, just with a couple of week's notice instead of a year or so.

          So, we swap a few weeks notice for a couple of hours? Good plan.

          The French have some pretty good load-following designs. Nowhere near as great as gas, to be fair, but similar to coal.

          My main bugbear is that we're rushing towards disaster, supposedly on a Green agenda - and the disaster isn't even Green anyway!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Thumb Up

            "The French have some pretty good load-following designs."

            "The French have some pretty good load-following designs."

            Links welcome. Are we talking about something proven, or something under construction (surely not Flamanville-style EPRs, one of the two designs being proposed in the UK?) or something which is basically slideware?

            If they really are promising to be significantly load following, how have the sorted the following economic conundrum?

            The major part of the cost of a nuclear power station is the construction cost (and the cost of financing). The fuel and operational costs are small by comparison. So that means that the lfietime costs are largely fixed up front. The less electricity they generate over the lifetime, the more they have to charge for it - if they're only onstream 50% of the time, they have to charge twice as much for the electricity (ignoring any life-shortening thermal cycling effects).

            The more expensive their electricity is, the less competitive they become economically.

            Of course it's easy to sort this if you don't mind the taxpayer paying (as in France). Personally I have no big problem with a bit of taxpayer funding if it goes to the right people and helps keep the lights on etc, helps improve energy efficiency, etc. But those who claim that nuclear power is cost effective without subsidy need their reality detectors adjusting, as do those that claim nuclear has a big part to play in the next decade or two in the UK. If we did want it to play a big part in the next decade, we should have started ten years ago, and not sold off our nuclear expertise to the highest bidder.

            Of course what we really should have done was listened to the UKAEA's Energy Technology Support Unit thirty years ago (renewable energy and energy efficiency advice from the UKAEA? what a concept). Too late now though.

            Instead, we left the whole area of security of energy supply to the fools we call the market. 'The market' wasted irreplaceable natural gas because it was cheap and profitable (till we all run out of gas). 'The market' ignored CHP and energy efficiency, in favour of whatever's cheapest this quarter.

            Leaving it to the market hasn't worked, and isn't going to.

            1. Richard 12 Silver badge
              Unhappy

              The French must be OK at it, as 75% of their generation is nuclear.

              I find it hard to believe that they have demand fluctuations tiny enough for 75% to be running at constant output, even allowing for their relatively large export market. That said, the remainder is mostly hydro which is extremely good at load-following.

              On the 'no-subsidy' front - the people who want to build the new UK nukes don't think they need a subsidy to do so, and clearly believe that they'll make a useful profit from doing so. Otherwise, they wouldn't have bid for the contracts.

              EDF have rather a lot of experience of building and running nuclear plants - they've built and run more than the UK ever has, so I would tend to trust their cost estimates. (Sure, in France they're subsidised, but they'll at least know what the totals were.)

              So do EDF need their reality detectors adjusting? I'm just going by what they have signed up to do in the UK - zero subsidy to build four EPR reactors. However, I gather that the intended turn-on date of 2017 is still 'dependant on financing', which does not sound good right now.

              That said, totally agree with you on the energy-security front. It's not in the generation companies interest to build much 'spare' capacity, they make more money if energy is scarce than if it is plentiful. Regulation of that market has been rather poor so far.

              Finally - something most of the pro-Wind Greens don't appear to understand is that large-penetration of Wind is going to waste one heck of a lot of that irreplaceable gas, simply to avoid a black start situation, let alone rolling blackouts. We should also be expecting noticeable demand-management as well - more commonly known as rolling blackouts.

              Add increased electric transport penetration (like we're supposed to be trying for), and our future energy security looks even bleaker.

              So the thing is, if you're right then we are utterly screwed, so I'm really hoping that you're at least partially wrong and that nuclear power generation does play a big role in the near future.

  48. Samuel deHuszar Allen

    Dude, seriously?

    I know there are no perfect solutions and it never hurts to improve models, but tinitus and mild sleep disruption vs black lung, ground water contamination, heavy metal poisoning, super-fund levels of radioactive goodness, etc, etc.? If that's their argument, I wouldn't have guessed they were against wind farms versuses other energy production strategies.

    Those scientists should go camping by the Columbia River in Washington Statae down by the old Hanford nuclear reactor and then make a determination about how 'critical' the noise is from wind farms.

  49. John X Public
    FAIL

    Ranting For Balance

    ... is like fuc^H^Highting for peace.

    Unbalanced emotive ranting about 'Big Eco-business' is not helping anyone. This article is unmitigated garbage because of its total failure to add anything but heat and noise to the debate.

    Personally I don't think highly of wind generation as a power source but if you are going to argue against it you are just harming your case by resorting to dodgy claims like this.

    I don't want to be unkind, nor do I want to waste my time, but a brief survey of Dr Phillips' online material suggests 'crank' to me (tobacco apologism is never a good sign). Looking at his paper it seems long on lecturing (is there a prize for using 'Orwellian' in a 'scientific' paper) and short on actual evidence. Not quite classical epidemiology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak) IMNSHO.

    Perhaps El Reg should balance this junk-journalism by a publishing well reasoned assessment of the total cost of nuclear power, including the long tern cost of waste disposal. Here is a starting point for you:

    "In recent years, the federal government has spent about $2 billion annually on the Hanford project" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site#Cleanup_era

  50. Anonymous Coward
    Boffin

    In the mind?

    Four Corners had a story on this topic a few weeks ago: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2011/s3274758.htm

    The story discusses wind farms at Waubra in regional Victoria. A number of farmers in the area receive substantial rent payments from electricity generators in exchange for the use of their land.

    One interesting observation in the program was that none of the farmers receiving payments reported health problems. They were all happy. It was only some of their neighbours who were reporting health issues caused, they believed, by the wind farms.

  51. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So why was my post randomly deleted after having already been approved?

    Last time I checked it had 8 upvotes (and only 1 downvote). And I know I didn't imagine that because it's still in the Google cache. I can cope with outright rejection, but when a post has been accepted, and generally approved by upvotes, I'd be grateful if a reason were given for spontaneous deletion. I also notice a disappearance of the comment from someone I forget the handle of who said "is this the same Carl Phillips that was fired from the university of Alberta...?". Is this because of potential libel, or did it just make Carl unhappy? I can't work out which bit of the house rules I broke.

    1. Some Beggar

      C**** *** ****** ** *** *******.

      ***'** *** ******* ** **** **** ****** ***. ** ******* *** ***** make-up.

      /********

      1. Some Beggar

        I really can't approve of moderators with a sense of humour.

        It'll break the whole internet.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Watch out!

      I already had a post querying the deletion of Solomon's post on p1 deleted. I await the deletion of my second query with bated breath.

      This whole business seems a bit unsatisfactory.

  52. Some Beggar
    FAIL

    Fourth time lucky?

    (I honestly don't know how to rephrase this such that it won't fracture the seemingly porcelain sensibilities of the author. Do I need to put a nice smiley and some kisses at the end?)

    This really is shoddy.

    A bland assertion by a former _associate_ professor with no qualifications or publications in medicine or any relevant discipline but with an admirable record of pro-tobacco lobbying. And a statement by a radiologist (a radiologist??) based on interviews with thirty of his neighbours with self-diagnosed sleeping trouble.

    Well that's plenty evidence for me. Down with windfarms! Boo! Hiss! Boo!

  53. Alan Brown Silver badge

    Noceboes

    It's amazing how the mind works.

    When I was working at a telco we started getting complaints about how the radiation from our mobile phone masts was affecting people as soon as the aerials went up...

    ...which was normally well in advance of the actual radio gear being installed, let alone switched on.

    Nonetheless, having worked in an environment with a lot of low frequency noise (SW transmitting station, loadsa BIG fans) I can appreciate that noise levels which look ok on paper can result in adverse reactions on people (Every single person who worked in particular section of the station would end up sleeping 15+ hours/day. That was traced to subsonic noise effects and a nodal peak in that area which was 20dB louder than any other place in the building.)

    It's a subsonic pulse which kills bats downwind of turbines, so the potential for trouble is not just a figment of someone's imagination (again, moving offshore would solve this problem - no bats 5 miles out to sea)

This topic is closed for new posts.