Wind Turbine noise samples from NY State

[TFStacy]

Without coal, nuclear and natural gas, we would be in a sort of "stone age" believe me. Energypresentation period info expounds. Also see my presentation at knowledgestream period org.

[TFStacy]

So believe me, folks. I have thought this through very carefully and thoroughly. I hope to offer a constructive dialog by my perspective...

So hydro... It really depends on the type, location and cost of the project, as well as the three metrics offered previously. Hydro+wind+transmission is a valid substitute for nuclear (zero emissions, base load resource), but is almost always far more expensive per kWH. Do visit energypresentation period info, too. Coal is vital. Value is clear...

[TFStacy]

OK, moving on. The metrics by which I endorse nuclear power:

tax dollars per kWH contribution to filling peak demand. If you do not understand this fully, please refrain from embarrassing yourself by replying to it. Maybe read some on masterresource or "The Energy Advocate" first.

Second metric: power density of land (project areas).

3: Is it a stand alone resource that fits the definition of base load or load following?

[TFStacy]

So many questions! They all deserve answers. V-8. Yes, I am OK with that. Radio turned on? Yes. I am OK with that. Spluttering noise of my coffee maker. - I'd prefer it quieter, but value received outweighs the nuissance + price. My money - my call. But wind also with my money - I get to examine the value proposition don't I? Is that not fair?

Going on, Ceiling fans and AC - I'm good with those, too.

Nuclear power? I am SO OK WITH THAT IT WOULD TAKE TEN POSTS TO EXPLAIN WHY! (cont.)

[TheRealXesc]

Also a little lame that you are filming a windmill far far away, and showing the noise it makes, and at one point you see in the corner of the camera that you are filming basically right underneath another wind mill, which sound you are actually hearing. You'd never live THAT close to any wind mill. Silly hippies

[TFStacy]

Your characterization is incorrect. First, the device we were filming is the one making the sound. Second, wind turbine noise propagates horizontally, and is loudest at a distance several wavelengths away from the device. This is often about 1/4 mile away. Please do your homework before discrediting yourself further.

[TFStacy]

The turbine you see beyond the house trailer is 900 feet behind that trailer.  We were about 200 feet in front of the trailer. So we were about 900 feet (300 yards) from that turbine.

[TheRealXesc]

OMFG... But you are ok with your V8 hammering away on the road, you are ok with your radio turned on, you are ok with a football game on the TV, you are ok with the spluttering noise of your coffee makers, you are ok with the fans in your frigging ceilings, your A/C humming way all day! Come on, be realistic - you probably also complain about nuclear power, and probably also that hydro power disrupt your fishing locations, and that solar panels glare, and coal plants smoke? Stone age, anyone??

[SaveWesternOHIO]

NOTE FROM TOM STACY: This article renewablesbiz dot co m slash article slash 11 slash 03 slash siemens-launches-new-gearless-­wind-turbine-low-moderate-wind­-speeds-0 (five minutes into the video)

The article clearly indicates that, while I was being rude to the woman at Fenner, insisting that turbines are "powered up" in low winds, I was indeed correct. Note the term in the article: "excitation power."

[onefish26]

I can't hear anything! It's not annoying! :-D Yes, I would be alright with the non-existent noise. I can hear birds over the sounds of the windmill!

[3785per]

Why cant they see that there something wrong vhith this .

[rextundra]

The wind energy ""problem" is science not the people pointing out the flaws with wind power. Wind can not replace base load power on the grid!!! So the coal plants burn coal every day.

[AvalonBronte]

Don’t worry folks, there’s plenty of oil, and if climate change is the price we have to pay for ‘saving our countryside’ from all those nasty horrible ingrowing toenail causing wind turbines, then so be it, the birds and the bats will just have to drown along with the rest of us, but least it will save the odd dozy red kite from bashing its head on one of dem windymilly thingummys…! ;-) )

[Northwesley]

@AvalonBronte huh? Actually, there is plenty of carbon based fuels, and thorium, and uranium (once we start looking for it again), and partially used nuclear fuel (mistakenly called "waste"), and hydrogen, and ..... However, you need to understand the global game that is going on... the more IWTs that go up, the more Gas Generators need to be built. Less nuclear means higher stock prices for Oil/Gas companies. If we build 100,000s of IWTs we're guaranteeing profit to Oil/Gas. Follow the $.

[Northwesley]

@AvalonBronte ... oh and given that I am NOT a climate change denier, tell me what happens as CO2 goes up? Things are changing - that's evident. However, the cause/effect/result chain is a subject of great debate within the climate science community. We don't know what happens - we don't have enough science yet. Read Scientific American this week - interesting article.

[TFStacy]

Climate change? So you think wind energy devices mitigate climate change LROL !!! Good luck proving THAT ONE !

[davehor1]

You have to keep the noise in context though, this is alot less than from a road, and no turbines are built this close to a house, unless somebody wants to have it next to the house.

This doesn't help the debate.

And they don't power them, they start them and other noises are braking as well

[Northwesley]

@davehor1 Please keep up with the science on this topic. In Ontario, the govt arbitrarily set its "setbacks" to 550 meters after consulting with the WIND industry (but not citizens). Nissenbaum's work (peer reviewed to be published in January I believe) is showing effects from infrasound starting beyond 4000 meters and increasing as they approach the IWT source. This isn't audible sound but it does appear to mess with the inner ear in some people....

[Northwesley]

Look up Randall Denley's article in the Ottawa Citizen today. It deals with why my provincial government is behaving the way they are towards their rural citizens on the IWT file. I see very little bias or "anti-tech" in his commentary. There are two fundamental issues with IWTs. 1) They are not achieving economic or environmental benefit and b) They affect the lives of some percentage of people who live too close to them. "Big Wind" should fix both of these issues.

[SaveWesternOHIO]

@Northwesley

Please contact me at "TSTACY at savewesternOH dot or g" at your convenience. Thank you.

[Northwesley]

You've probably read today/yesterday that the biggest IWT developer in Denmark just announced that they will not build anymore onshore facilities due to heavy resistance and complaints from adjacent residents. Offshore only from now on in Denmark, apparently. So much for "Its been working in Europe for 20 years!".

[Northwesley]

Facts: The percentage of people disturbed by IWT sound is greater than 0% and less than 100%. Big WInd has the data on the number of complaints, the number of settlements made, the number of houses purchased but will not provide actual case data to anyone (legal settlements are privileged of course). Instead they hold the position "that there is no evidence of IWTs causing harm to people" and when evidence is tabled, they instantly marginalize it.

[bannor99]

@Northwesley Again, these are bad business practices - which has been done by thousands of companies in hundreds of industries - food, pharma, oil, even clothing.

[Northwesley]

@bannor99 Its a sincere pleasure to debate with you on these. No adjectives, no personal slurs.... I wish more posters practiced "good posting". I absolutely agree, IWT Companies aka: Big Wind aka: Big Energy don't have a monopoly on bad business practices but I site this evidence b/c so many posters believe "green is good" and these companies try to get moral support by hiding their business practices behind "green" slogans and mantras. Its profit and pursuit of govt subsidies. Period.

[bannor99]

@Northwesley Likewise. Far too many companies practice "greenwashing" - it's to be expected when the profit motive is the overriding principle. In the case of green energy, these are (I hope) fixable problems. I'mclear on how gov't subsidies are disbursed but surely there are good ways to hand over the cash? And, why should it be free money? Long-term, low-interest loans should be good enough. Treat it like a mortgage.

[bannor99]

I guess folk who live in the country are more easily disturbed; as a life-long city dweller, that sound wouldn't affect me at all. They should take a walk in my neighbourhood if they want to know what noisy is really like.

[Northwesley]

@bannor99 Howzitgoing? A lot of city dwellers that I know say exactly the same thing. I think its probably best that you reach out to one of the many people who have posted videos on what improperly sited IWTs have done to their lives. Have a direct and personal conversation with them as I have. You might have a different opinion and perhaps you will be less inclined to marginalize the impact of having an industrial power plant go up in your back yard.

[bannor99]

@Northwesley I'm not trying to marginalize them but we all have things that annoy us. Last weekend, I went for a 1-hour bike ride to visit friends and at the end of it was choking on exhaust, dust and dirt from construction. I didn't take public transit as I normally would because it was too hot and crowded on the buses and subway stations ( although the train cars are usually air-conditioned).

[Northwesley]

@bannor99 And I can't help but notice that the claim management processes used by certain energy companies who are doing the shale oil drilling in the US are pretty much identical to that used by Big Wind. People with poisoned groundwater get nowhere unless they go "nuclear" (pun intended). Companies deny, deny, deny and only compensate when forced to. Of course, its the same companies as the IWT builders in many cases.

[bannor99]

@Northwesley You're talking about bad business practices - that doesn't invalidate the usefulness or practicality of the technology. I've never denied there are issues but I feel strongly that 1.) they can be more easily resolved that the issues around coal, petroleum or nuclear and 2.) the annoyance factor is overblown ( no pun intended)

[Northwesley]

@bannor99 I agree with you. Proper siting, respect for affected residents, transparent impact reporting are all much easier to address than solving the nuclear waste problem. Think about how much easier it would be for Big Wind if they actually conducted themselves with exemplary business practices? Why don't they? I suspect because it saves them money to only settle claims from the most persistent of affected residents. Deny. Delay. Marginalize. That's the strategy consistently used.

[Northwesley]

@bannor99 Finally, I wish I knew if the "annoyance factor" was overblown or not. Why can't we actually determine how many people are affected and to what extent? Is that too much to ask government and Big WInd? If its marginal, then clearly, cost effective compensation programs could be put in place... don't you think? If its extensive then siting regulations would need to be improved. This isn't complicated.

[Northwesley]

@bannor99 You've probably read today/yesterday that the biggest IWT developer in Denmark just announced that they will not build anymore onshore facilities due to heavy resistance and complaints from adjacent residents. Offshore only from now on in Denmark, apparently. So much for "Its been working in Europe for 20 years!".

[bannor99]

@Northwesley I've tried multiple searches for that story and can't find it. What site has the announcement?

[windblowing]

Worst quality video I have ever seen.

[noacronym]

Why do you people keep voting for Liberals and Democrats, and then constantly have to fight the foolishness the whackjobs do?