Windfarm Guidelines

ETSU-R-97 guidelines were commissioned in 1996 by the DTI. Turbines were a fraction of the size they are now. The `Noise Working Group’ who prepared them recommended they be reviewed in 2 years. They remain unaltered and Government are encouraging the siting of giant industrial wind turbine generators near large residential areas.
`UK Noise Association’ guidance recommend a windfarm set back distance from homes of 1 mile, further in some circumstances. The DTI (BERR) have ignored this. A report by Barbara J Frey BA, MA and Peter J Hadden Bsc, FRICS recommend 2 MW turbines be set back 2 km from homes and that 2.5 MW turbines intended for this development be sited further. See www.windturbinenoisehealthhumanrights.com. Various health professionals like Nina Pierpont MD, PhD and Dr Amanda Harry M.B.Ch.B.P.G.Dip.E.N.T. recommend 1.5 miles (2.4 km) or more. You are within this distance.
Mr Dick Bowdler Bsc. CEng. CPhys. FCIBSE. MCIArb, eminent member of the DTI’s `Noise Working Group’ published a report in July 2005 entitled `ETSU-R-97 guidelines. Why it is wrong’ The DTI's (BERR) mission is `prosperity for all by working to create the best environment for business success in the UK. There is no brief for the protection of the environment or citizens from nuisance or loss of amenity’. (D Bowdler 2005). Health Page 25 of the report by Frey and Hadden (mentioned under `Guidelines’ above) describes potential serious ill health affects. They say there could even be health issues beyond those prescribed distances. It describes the affects of inaudible `low frequency’ and `infrasound’ waves on the human body. Web site www.lowertheboom.org/trice/infrasound.htm provides disturbing `low frequency’ and `infrasound’ information. `Infrasound' hugs the ground and travels over long distance, passing through solid objects including buildings and living tissue.
The `World Health Organisation’ have concerns about it. At certain pitches it can even explode matter. A scientific report on potential adverse health problems from dangerous inaudible `low frequency’ and `infrasound’ waves from industrial wind turbine generators has been prepared by pathologist Nuno Castelo Branco MD and a multidisciplinary team of scientists working under Professor Mariana Alves-Pereira, Dept of Environmental Sciences & Engineering, New University of Lisbon, Caparica, Portugal.
The results are said to irrefutably demonstrate that industrial wind turbine generators produce acoustical environments that can cause physiological cell damage known as VAD (vibroacoustic disease) in nearby home-dwellers. This research has been ongoing since 1980. The report is the result of some 27 years work, which includes industrial installations, a port grain terminal and industrial wind turbine generators. Industrial wind turbine generators produce the highest

ILFN levels

Noise

The guidelines admit that turbines produce `chomping’ and `thumping’ sounds described as `amplitude modulation’. Giant industrial turbines sometimes produce uneven clapping sounds, noticeable down wind at night. This has caused sleep deprivation to many windfarm neighbours and is described as sounding like a train which never arrives. Combined with vibrating glazing and & low frequency resonance within rooms, turbine nuisance is proving unacceptable within 2 to 3 kilometres of homes. Current guidelines make it almost impossible to pursue legitimate `statutory nuisance’ claims against windfarm operators.
Mr Dick Bowdler (mentioned under `Guidelines’) recently resigned from the DTI’s `Noise Working Group’ after the DTI withheld crucial survey information from the NWG and withdrew authority for further investigation into `amplitude modulation’. The NWG believe further investigation necessary to assist in sustainable design of new generation giant turbine wind farms Residents
Some, like the Davises of Deeping St Nicholas, Lincolnshire have had to abandoned home. Many more similar incidents are listed in the report by Frey and Hadden and documented by Nina Pierpont and Dr Amanda Harry (all mentioned under `Guidelines’). Accidents Caithness Windfarm Information Forum list 327 known accidents which they say is far from all inclusive. Turbines have toppled, suffered blade shear, lightning strike and fire from lightning or worn parts. The fire authorities have had to let them burn out owing to their height. Many turbine workers have died. Turbine blades weigh up to 10 to 12 tons. Sheared off blades can travel 500m in storm force winds. One man was cut in half by falling ice from a rotor blade. There have been 3 deaths in Germany offic.ially attributed to driver distraction as a direct result of wind turbines.

Problems for Local Schools

Potential low frequency vibration/infrasound health problems affecting children at nearby schools.
1. Possible adverse affect on studies and performance.
2. Intermittent turbine noise dependent on wind direction
3. Distraction and `shadow flicker’ by giant turbine rotors

Costing the Earth - BBC programme lifts the lid on the subsidies levied on energy consumers, which underpin ineffective wind turbines.

This is the BBC News overview of the programme.:

Wind Rush

Wind power is the fastest growing renewable energy sector in Britain. The government is investing massive amounts of money in its future. But experts interviewed on Costing the Earth claim the power of the wind to deliver electricity is being overestimated by companies keen to cash in on big subsidies.
In order to fight climate change we have meet targets set by the EU which wants 20% of our energy to come from renewable sources like the wind by 2020. The government has admitted its struggling, but says it is determined to meet its obligations. Companies which hit green energy targets are rewarded under the government’s Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme or ROCs.
On paper wind power is a great proposition. We are the windiest nation in Europe – but despite the government having subsidised the wind industry to the tune of half a billion pounds so far - as yet its failed to deliver half of one per cent of our electricity needs.
Michael Jefferson Policies Chairman of the World Renewable Energy Network and former Chief Economist with Shell believes the industry is encouraged to exaggerate not only wind speeds but the amount of potential wind energy a farm can supply. He worries there are many badly sited poorly performing wind farms in England.
Engineering consultant Jim Oswald has analysed the figures submitted to the electricity watchdog Ofgem on every wind farm's load factor - the amount of wind generated across the year. The recommended load factor for a viable and efficient wind development is 30%, but he says the average across Britain is 28%. He says the problem lies with the volatility of the wind and although Britain is the windiest country in Europe, it’s not consistently windy enough to generate a regular energy supply. Sometimes we have high winds and often no wind at all and there is no way of storing wind energy. He also says that many wind farms are being built in places where there will never be sufficient wind power to generate enough electricity. He has serious concerns that with no long term strategy for upgrading our electricity infrastructure over the next decade an over reliance on wind power could result in major power failures and increase our electricity bills by up to 50%.

Wind Farms - A Few Facts

Wind Farms produce electricity without the harmful emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. Advocates say that carbon dioxide emissions in particular are linked to global warming. Those who oppose wind farms emphasise that if the UK were to be filled with wind turbines there would be no discernable benefit because the major contribution to greenhouse gases comes from China, India and the USA. Others argue that the issue is better addressed by making homes more energy efficient (thereby reducing carbon dioxide production in power stations) or by applying new technology to existing power stations and by ‘cleaning up’ road transport.

Whether viewed as a structure of beauty or a blot on the landscape there is no disputing the fact that wind turbines are very large structures for the relatively small amount of electrical energy that they produce. Not many years ago few wind turbines existed in the UK since they were uneconomic to build and electricity companies only invested in means of creating shareholder value. However, all that was to change! In the UK the government established, via the Utilities Act 2000, a requirement that 5% of electricity should be provided by renewable sources by 2005, rising to 10% by 2010.

The most readily available ‘renewable source’ is the wind turbine and the government suggested that wind would supply 75% of the Act’s requirement. Also in the year 2000, in support of ‘fast tracking’, the government required all regions to prepare renewable energy assessments and to set regional renewable energy targets. In 2002, recognising that wind turbines were uneconomic to build and that the process needed accelerating, the government created a subsidy called the ‘renewables obligation’ which incentivised developers. The result was a ‘dash for wind’- nothing better than a certain return on investment to get developers into high gear. The actual mechanism of the ‘renewables obligation’ is complex and has been described by the industry as deliberately obscure. The end result is that developers are paid around twice the price for the energy from wind compared to coal, gas or nuclear power.

What is not often understood is that this subsidy ‘for life’ is funded by a levy on everyone’s electricity bill, whether they agree with wind farms or not and irrespective of whether or not they have a ‘green tariff’. Despite the large subsidy and the ‘dash for wind’ the strategy struggled and developers started to squeal because objections during the planning process caused schemes to be turned down. There were demands for a fast track system. The government had intended that most of the wind farm capacity should be off-shore but it is much more costly to build off-shore which reduces the profitability of all but the larger schemes. On-shore one of the strengths of the ‘anti’ lobby was The Countryside Act 1968 which restricted industrial developments, usually to already industrialised areas.

The hold up was eased in England in 2004 when Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22) was adopted which, whilst only ‘advisory’, presumes in favour of wind farms unless there are strong arguments to the contrary. The Committee of Public Accounts in 2005 said that the new guidance ‘would increase the chance of the 2010 target being met but only by reducing local communities’ influence on the planning process’. On 16th February 2004 in response to an MP’s question, Yvette Cooper, MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the ODPM replied ‘…….decisions will continue to be made with due regard to planning policies and only after very careful consideration of all the relevant issues, such as, for example, the visual impact of the project and the views of the local population. I would also like to reassure your constituent that there is no intention to overrule the democratic processes in local planning.

Wind Farms & Technical Information

Wind farms - a few facts
Politics and Economics

Wind Farms produce electricity without the harmful emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. Advocates say that carbon dioxide emissions in particular are linked to global warming. Those who oppose wind farms emphasise that if the UK were to be filled with wind turbines there would be no discernable benefit because the major contribution to greenhouse gases comes from China, India and the USA. Others argue that the issue is better addressed by making homes more energy efficient (thereby reducing carbon dioxide production in power stations) or by applying new technology to existing power stations and by ‘cleaning up’ road transport. Whether viewed as a structure of beauty or a blot on the landscape there is no disputing the fact that wind turbines are very large structures for the relatively small amount of electrical energy that they produce. Not many years ago few wind turbines existed in the UK since they were uneconomic to build and electricity companies only invested in means of creating shareholder value. However, all that was to change! In the UK the government established, via the Utilities Act 2000, a requirement that 5% of electricity should be provided by renewable sources by 2005, rising to 10% by 2010.

The most readily available ‘renewable source’ is the wind turbine and the government suggested that wind would supply 75% of the Act’s requirement. Also in the year 2000, in support of ‘fast tracking’, the government required all regions to prepare renewable energy assessments and to set regional renewable energy targets. In 2002, recognising that wind turbines were uneconomic to build and that the process needed accelerating, the government created a subsidy called the ‘renewables obligation’ which incentivised developers. The result was a ‘dash for wind’- nothing better than a certain return on investment to get developers into high gear. The actual mechanism of the ‘renewables obligation’ is complex and has been described by the industry as deliberately obscure. The end result is that developers are paid around twice the price for the energy from wind compared to coal, gas or nuclear power. What is not often understood is that this subsidy ‘for life’ is funded by a levy on everyone’s electricity bill, whether they agree with wind farms or not and irrespective of whether or not they have a ‘green tariff’.

Despite the large subsidy and the ‘dash for wind’ the strategy struggled and developers started to squeal because objections during the planning process caused schemes to be turned down. There were demands for a fast track system. The government had intended that most of the wind farm capacity should be off-shore but it is much more costly to build off-shore which reduces the profitability of all but the larger schemes. On-shore one of the strengths of the ‘anti’ lobby was The Countryside Act 1968 which restricted industrial developments, usually to already industrialised areas. The hold up was eased in England in 2004 when Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22) was adopted which, whilst only ‘advisory’, presumes in favour of wind farms unless there are strong arguments to the contrary.

The Committee of Public Accounts in 2005 said that the new guidance ‘would increase the chance of the 2010 target being met but only by reducing local communities’ influence on the planning process’. On 16th February 2004 in response to an MP’s question, Yvette Cooper, MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the ODPM replied ‘…….decisions will continue to be made with due regard to planning policies and only after very careful consideration of all the relevant issues, such as, for example, the visual impact of the project and the views of the local population. I would also like to reassure your constituent that there is no intention to overrule the democratic processes in local planning.’

Technical Comments
A 2.5 Mw wind turbine is about 125m tall (410ft.) which is as high as a thirty storey building. The structure weighs about 325tonnes. The turbine will start to operate at a wind speed of about 10mph and increase its output up to about 35mph, above which the output will be constant. Wind turbines often freewheel at low wind speeds giving the impression that they are producing energy when they are not. The ‘load factor’ which is the percentage of the energy which is produced compared to that which would be produced if the turbine could run continuously, is about 25%. (DTI data). A 2Mw wind turbine with 25% load factor will support around 1,000 homes.

It is misleading to say that wind farms generate no carbon dioxide. Because wind farms operate intermittently then the more wind farms there are, the more running-spare capacity of conventional power plant is needed to smooth out the variations. This action increases the carbon dioxide from the conventional plant. Wind farm developers usually quote a simple displacement value of carbon dioxide for the installed capacity of the wind farm which is therefore optimistic. Some scientists state that only half of the carbon dioxide is actually saved that the British Wind Energy Association claim.

The speed of the blade tip of a large wind turbine is in the range 150 – 190 mph.Opponents have said that a single wind turbine requires a foundation the size of a large swimming pool. This is an exaggeration. In normal circumstances a 2.5Mw turbine requires a base of 250 cubic metres of concrete, about 40 large wagon loads. The Went Edge is however a significant geological fault and it is possible that any turbine placed on the Westfield Lane site may require enlarged foundations. A wind turbine would not normally be sited within 1,000m of dwellings. In Scotland there is new Planning Guidance which supports a separation distance of 2,000m between the edge of a town or village and large scale wind farm developments.

The UK Noise Association recommend that they are not built within one mile of residential dwellings. Noise measurements in rural communities where ambient noise levels are low are very difficult to translate into potential for complaints. Developers will say that their noise assessments meet Department of Trade and Industry guidelines but these guidelines were drawn up over ten years ago before any experience was gained with the huge machines now being built. Low levels of background noise are not particularly relevant to actual noise complaints. With wind turbines it is the intermittent ‘blade pulsing’ or so called ‘whooshing’ which has proved so objectionable and yet this noise is barely determinable by average noise measurements. Noise is measure in decibels (dBA). A useful measure is that an increase of 3dBA is a doubling of the sound pressure level.

With large developments there are some precedents where the developer funds a local authority Environmental Impact Assessment to be used in parallel comparison with the developer’s own. This is a positive step since some assessments carried out on behalf of developers include carefully chosen wording to allay people’s concerns.
The ‘load factor’ which is the percentage of the energy which is produced compared to that which would be produced if the turbine could run continuously, is about 25%. (DTI data).A 2Mw wind turbine with 25% load factor will support around 1,000 homes.
mocratic processes in local planning.

Westfield Lane, Darrington – some observations

Given the close proximity of Darrington and Wentbridge to the proposed site, it is quite a shock that Banks Renewables Ltd. propose as many as six 2.5Mw turbines due to their huge size. There is a big difference in the size of different turbines. The larger turbines may have a large physical presence which will raise objections of visual intrusion in both Darrington and Wentbridge but smaller turbines may not be as visible from these villages. This is significant since the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors carried out a survey in 2004 which showed that there was a 20% reduction in house prices if wind turbines were visible from a property. However, even smaller turbines will be visible from East Hardwick, Carleton and West Park. On the question of noise, the turbines at each end of the development would be close enough to Darrington/Wentbridge to be audible at certain times. The sound which a lot of people find so objectionable is an aerodynamic sound produced at certain times by the blades of the turbine. The Internet is full of comments from people being kept awake at night by noise from the new larger types of turbines.

Wind turbines also produce sub-audible infrasound. In parts of Europe there are people claiming to have been made ill by this inaudible pulsing. This effect has been measured by Keele University using seismic transducers buried in the ground many kilometres from the base of wind turbines. Several doctors in the UK are now reporting patients being affected from low frequency sound when turbines are located within a mile of domestic dwellings. One point which may be of specific concern to people in Darrington is the effect of so called ‘flicker’ from the sun’s rays. Because the proposed development is due south of the village there are times of the year when the blades of the turbines may cause this effect which can be a severe nuisance.

The Department of Trade and Industry web site says that ‘Blade flicker’ diminishes to an acceptable level over a distance of ten rotor diameters from the turbine, which in the case of the Westfield Lane proposal is 900 meters. The web site states that this should not be a problem because ‘habitable dwellings are not normally to be found within this distance’. Not normally that is except for Darrington, Wentbridge, Carleton and West Park! If the development does proceed in one form or another then the local communities must make the best of ‘sweeteners’ which are invariably offered by developers. Sometimes these are offered before a planning submission is made. A current proposal by a Dutch firm in publicity material for a 26Mw Nant Bach wind farm at Conwy in North Wales states ‘will make available £60,000 a year as a community funding’. Put into context however this apparently tempting offer is only 2% of the subsidy that this developer will receive for this project.

Site Area

26 hectares of which 3 hectares will be occupied by the wind turbines and their associated infrastructure when the wind farm is operational (11.5% of the total site area).

Number of turbines
6 (originally 8 turbines

Rated output of turbines
2 Megawatts

Dimensions of turbines
Tower height approximately 80 metres, total height to tip 125 metres.

Length of new access tracks
3.6 kilometres.

Duration
25 years plus two year construction and decommissioning.

Jobs
Approximately 20-30 on site during construction and extra jobs in transport and services. Approximately one operation and maintenance job.

Traffic
A maximum of 164 vehicle movements per day during construction is anticipated. The number of daily loads will vary considerably over the construction period. This maximum would only occur during a single month. Average daily vehicle movements calculated over the construction period would be around 78