Tiny German village a model in country's energy revolution

This is a fantastic story that appeared on the CBC website, and was written by Karen Pauls. It demonstrates the idea of community energy at it's best. Judging from the comments the article received, there appears to be wide spread support here in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/03/07/pauls-berlin-energy.html#socialcomments

____________________________________________________________________

Feldheim, population 145, generates all its own heat and light

The tiny village of Feldheim is at the leading edge of Germany’s renewable energy transition, proving to thousands of foreign politicians, scientists and activists every year that it is possible to live and be economically viable without fossil fuels.

Located 60 kilometres south of Berlin, this community of 145 people uses wind, sun and manure to heat and light its 37 homes.

“We are really 100 per cent neutral as far as the emission of carbon dioxide is concerned. We have our heat and electricity 100 per cent from renewable energies, so not a single drop of oil is used,” says Barbara Ral, a biologist who runs tours and does education on behalf of the community.

Today, she is showing around a journalist and 40 civil servants from Thailand.
“We’re now inside the windmill," Ral explains at one point in the tour. "There are 43 windmills in the wind farm. The village needs only one windmill, so the others sell energy to the public grid."

Feldheim is the only community in Germany that solely uses renewable energy and has its own power grid, although the federal government has credited several other “bioenergy villages” for heading in that direction.

It’s part of a major change in the country’s energy strategy, which accelerated after the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan two years ago.
In response, Germany closed eight nuclear plants and Chancellor Angela Merkel said the rest would be phased out by 2022. Already, nearly 25 per cent of Germany’s electricity comes from renewable resources. The share of nuclear currently stands at about 17 per cent.

The government said it would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels) and by 80 per cent by 2050. Germany is the first industrialized nation in the world to attempt emissions reductions to this degree.

“The current debate right now is the question of whether it’s a cost versus an investment,” says Petri Hakkarainen, a senior fellow at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, Germany.

“Today’s generation is doing this for their children and grandchildren, so it’s a classical question of short term versus long term, and to what extent should this generation pay for the next generation. That’s what makes the German debate so exceptional, that so far, Germany is willing to do exactly that.”

Feldheim hasn’t always been a model community. Back when Germany was still divided into east and west, it was a communist collective farm. Not much changed after Germany was reunited – that is, until 1995, when a company called Energiequelle installed the first five wind turbines on nearby fields.

By 2008, the community had built a biogas factory to be used for heat. It’s fueled by a mix of unused corn and pig manure grown by area farmers. A furnace that burns wood chips left over from felled local trees serves as a backup heat source in the winter.
In 2010, Feldheim residents worked with Energiequelle to build their own power grid. The community also established a metal-working factory that builds the bases for photovoltaic cell panels.

The community's biogas plant uses corn and pig manure to produce methane, which produces power through a generator, and heat which is used for hot water. (Karen Pauls/CBC)

All of this has created jobs, and residents pay 25 to 30 per cent less for electricity than most Germans – a deal that is locked in for the next decade, says Energiequelle spokesperson Werner Frohwitter.

“There was no plan in it at the beginning, it was all by chance,” he says. “When the system came into being, we didn’t realize Feldheim would become a mecca for renewable energies, but now people come to tiny little Feldheim to see an energy system possible without fossil fuels or big power companies.”

Individual buy-in

Getting buy-in from average citizens is what will make Germany’s ambitious energy transition a success, says Hakkarainen.

“It’s a defining part of the Energiewende [energy transition or revolution] – having people involved and not just large utilities in charge of electricity – very much your average Joe, everyone has a chance to contribute to this,” he says.

While there is broad public support for this transition, the devil is in the details, says Hubertus Bardt of the Cologne Institute for Economic Research.

“There are lots of challenges to make it right. It may be technically manageable, but we also have to make sure it’s economically manageable,” he explains.

For example, oil and gas companies are worried about their share of the market.

Meanwhile, energy-intensive companies still have to compete on world markets and can’t always pass on the increased price of electricity to their customers. As a result, some may choose to leave Germany, taking jobs with them, Bardt says.

And average citizens are understandably unhappy when they see extra costs on their electricity bills.

“There is some fear the cost and security of the electricity supply might be endangered for a period of time. We have to … think about who bears the burden between now and one day in the future when it all pays off,” Bardt says.

“In the worst-case scenario,” he says, “we have the Energiewende, but no viable industry.”

Hakkarainen agrees there’s a lot at stake.

“If Germany were to fail in all of this, it would set a bad example for everyone else – if Germany can’t do it, how could anyone else?”

Replicating success?

These Thai civil servants are some of the thousands of foreigners who visit Feldheim every year. (Karen Pauls/CBC)

Back in Feldheim, the Thai civil servants are raving about what they’ve seen and the possibilities for their own country.

“This is a model we should learn about and try to adopt and adjust to our Thai community,” says Karen Permpoonwiwat of the King Prajadhipok’s Institute in Bangkok.

Thongchai Tangpremsri agrees, although he says it may take a while to make it happen back home.

“We’re not a rich country compared to Germany. It’s step by step. We look at windmill[s], but in Thailand it’s really hard to find a place for the windmill. Solar energy is good because in Thailand, we have sunlight, but at the moment, the price of solar cells is high,” he says.

Werner Frohwitter concedes Feldheim is a very small experiment, but he’s convinced this kind of system can work for any community up to 10,000 residents. His company hopes to prove that in the next decade, by hooking up the nearest town to Feldheim’s power grid.

“There’s still a long way to go, but Feldheim shows it is possible that you can have an independent energy supply system without nukes, carbon emissions and without oil,” he says.

Infrasound report: Wind turbine syndrome is everywhere and nowhere

This article was written by Ketan Joshi, and was reprinted from,

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/infrasound-report-wind-turbine-syndrome-is-everywhere-and-nowhere-10437

“This study concludes that the level of infrasound at houses near the wind turbines assessed is no greater than that experienced in other urban and rural environments, and is also significantly below the human perception threshold.”
_____________________________________________________________________

When I was eight years old, I was on the verge of being eaten. Terrified, I buried myself underneath the blankets, and nervously listened to an unearthly howling directly outside my bedroom window. I realised soon that the noise I had heard was the wind passing through the eaves of my family’s aged London terrace house, a noise that had sounded eerily sentient. My fear was simply related to a lack of data – those few extra seconds of dogged listening eased my concerns. We are evolutionarily wired towards the sensation of threat – a sensation that is overridden by taking time to pause, and listen closely.

Objections to the installation of wind farms have, in the past four years, played on this aspect of our nature. Claims have arisen that inaudible, infrasonic noise emissions have a direct effect of human physiology, bypassing our conscious percept and wreaking biological devastation. For this hypothesis to hold true, two basic principles need to be demonstrated conclusively:

– Infrasound emitted from wind farms has to be markedly higher in amplitude than infrasound produced by other sources;

– This amplitude has to be causally linked to a direct and demonstrable pathological effect on human physiology.

The South Australian Environmental Protection Agency (SA EPA) recently took some time to investigate the first premise: that wind farm infrasound measures higher than that from other sources in the environment. If the premise were found to be true, then wind turbine syndrome might well be a reality. If it were found to be false, then it serves as firm evidence that ‘wind turbine syndrome’ is deeply improbable.

The Salt Hypothesis
Alec Salt, a professor at the Washington University School of Medicine, has formulated a theory, regarding the response of the human ear to varying levels of infrasound – the second of our two hypothetical requirements. Salt suspects the outer hair cells (OHCs) of the human ear produce a response, when subjected to a certain infrasound stimulus, and tested his theory with the in-vitro OHCs of guinea pigs.

Importantly, his work focuses on amplitude – specifically, he nominates 60 dB(G) as the trigger value for the OHCs to begin their ‘physiologic reaction’- the response championed by opponents of wind developments as the primary cause of ‘wind turbine syndrome’. If this amplitude were discovered to be unique to wind farms, it would be a vindication for those calling for a moratorium on wind energy.

The EPA Discussion
The authors of the EPA paper are unequivocal in their consideration of infrasound:

“The key effect of infrasound can be a high level of annoyance when the level exceeds the hearing threshold, i.e. it must be perceptible to have an effect. No physiological effects have been found to occur below the level of perceptibility.”

Infrasound can actually be perceived, once it reaches a certain amplitude. This threshold increases as you move down the frequency range, towards zero. The authors propose a conservative criterion of 85 dB(G), based on several different assessment criteria. Importantly, this accounts for individual differences in perception thresholds for infrasound.

They use the ‘G-weighting’, a mathematical tool for ensuring that absolute measurements of sound pressure level are adjusted for the way the human body responds to sound in the infrasonic range. This is what the ‘(G)’ means in ‘dB(G)’. The Australian Acoustical Society consider this weighting to be appropriate as per international standards, as they assert in an unpublished letter to The Australian.

Infrasound Measurements – Urban Locations
The EPA, in conjunction with Resonate Acoustics, reported on the levels of infrasound at various locations in urban locales (four offices and three residences).
One important finding is that the presence of human beings is a significant source of infrasound. The authors state, with regards to Location 1 (an office on Carrington St):

“The primary factor affecting the measured infrasound levels at Location 1 appears to be occupation of the office, as evidenced by the marked rise in the measured levels at approximately 4pm on Saturday and 2pm on Sunday when staff were noted to enter the office.”

The same conclusion was reached for Location 6, a house in Firle – human activity seems to be a demonstrable and significant contributor to the generation of infrasonic sound emissions.

Another important finding is the significant contribution of air-conditioning units to measured infrasound levels. Location 3, the EPA office in Adelaide exhibited “some of the highest levels measured at any of the urban and rural locations”. Traffic also resulted in infrasound levels that were “10 to 15dB(G) higher than that at night time”.

These are major problems for groups that claim infrasound has an as-yet undiscovered toxicity for the human body, at levels above 60 dB(G). There are 22,917,973 humans and 16,741,664 cars in Australia. Two-thirds of dwellings own some form of cooling – that’s around 7.6m x (2/3) = 5,066,000 air conditioner units. This means there are roughly 44.7 million unique sources of infrasound in Australia.

Infrasound Measurements – Rural environments
Wind farms are almost always placed in rural environments. The EPA measured the infrasound levels in four different locations that were host to a wind farm. Wind farm shutdowns were used to determine the contribution of the wind farm to infrasound levels at these locations. Their findings are unremarkable.

It would seem that the wind farms do not contribute significantly to measured infrasound level in rural dwellings – during the shutdown of the Bluff wind farm, the measured infrasound actually increased.

Distance has long been a creative component of the anti-wind lobby’s claims. Sarah Laurie has stated that “residents report the effects of the low frequency noise out to 10km”, but also offers 30 kilometres as the effective range of ‘wind turbine syndrome’. Motivated anti-wind enthusiast George Papadopoulos claims it can be perceived up to 100 kilometres away from wind turbines.

The EPA measured levels at a house 10 kilometres away from an operational wind turbine and found that “infrasound levels at the house are not related to wind farm operation, but rather are representative of the ambient infrasound environment at the farmhouse”.

They also measured infrasound levels at a house 30 kilometres away from a wind turbine. They simply concluded that “local wind speed (and localised turbulence) is a primary cause of infrasound levels at a location, and have a similar effect on both outdoor and indoor levels of infrasound”.

Frequency Analysis
The EPA also use their data to look at specific frequencies in the infrasonic range, between 0.25 Hz and 20 Hz (the previous sections present ‘measured infrasound’ as a single dB(G) value, over time). They do not use the G-weighting in this section. Their conclusions are similar.

“The results suggests that indoor infrasound levels at rural residences near to wind farms are no higher than those at rural residences away from wind farms, nor than infrasound levels at residences within urban areas.”

“There is minimal contribution from either the Bluff Wind Farm or the Clements Gap Wind Farm to sound pressure levels in the infrasonic region at the houses located approximately 1.5 kilometres away.”

Location 8, 1.5 kilometres away from the nearest wind turbine, showed ‘the lowest infrasound levels measured at any of the 11 locations included in this study.’
Interestingly, they did find some curious results when examining the contribution of the wind farm to low-level peaks that occur when the blades pass the tower, though they note, “sound pressure levels at these blade pass frequencies are no greater at residences adjacent to wind farms than at other locations”.

The Aftermath
The EPA’s conclusion is simple:

“This study concludes that the level of infrasound at houses near the wind turbines assessed is no greater than that experienced in other urban and rural environments, and is also significantly below the human perception threshold.”

This study is important, but not revelatory. The logical consequence of these findings, the anti-wind lobby are correct in their assertions, is that wind farms, human beings, traffic, air-conditioners and the wind itself are constantly triggering our outer hair cells, resulting in a catastrophic and constant worldwide apocalypse. There is no refuge from the dangers they preach – wind turbine syndrome is everywhere, or it is nowhere.

On the February 4 this year, Radio National’s Timothy McDonald interviewed Sarah Laurie about the research. Laurie asserts the following:

“The report itself, the authors only measured down to 10 hertz by using what we call the G-weighting. They ignored the frequencies between 0 and 10 hertz. And they’re the frequencies that many of us believe are the problem frequencies. So they didn’t actually measure those.”

As we saw earlier, the authors of the report measured down to 0.25 Hz. They state this range on 20 separate occasions in the report. Additionally, there seems to be no evidence of Laurie’s assertion that she is mainly concerned with frequencies between 0-10 Hz prior to the release of the EPA study (she states ‘0 – 200 Hz’ as the frequency range of greatest concern to the Waubra Foundation here, and makes a similar assertion in a letter to Prime Minister Julia Gillard, here).

Another curious response is the claim that the authors ought to have used linear, un-weighted measurements, rather than the G-weighting (presented amongst the wretchedly unpleasant sneer ‘Clean Energy Stasi’). This claim would presumably not sit well with Dr. Alec Salt, who unambiguously demands infrasound measurements utilise the G-weighting.

Regardless, the EPA included un-weighted measurements of sound pressure level (dB) across the infrasonic frequency range as part of their ‘Frequency Analysis’ section – see the figure below for an example, taken from page 57.

These responses seem to be free of logic or rigour. This is no hindrance for a movement that is borne of anger, emotion and excess rather than rationality. Where we ought to see logic, we see manic, frothing comparisons to genocidal regimes, peppered with unchecked falsehoods.

After nearly three years of heatedly calling for more research into the health effects of wind turbines, the anti-wind lobby may well consider being careful what they wish for. The Waterloo Wind Farm in South Australia is currently the subject of a similar study by the EPA, determining the levels of infrasound at nearby residences attributable to the wind farm.

Anonymous, cruel-tongued anti-wind bloggers and tabloid current affairs shows have already declared the mere commencement of this study as undeniable proof of a problem with wind energy – a logical fallacy that neatly summarises their loathsome, love-hate relationship with scientific inquiry.

For many centuries, areas untouched by empirical investigation have proven rich, fertile ground for spreading fear and anxiety. A deficiency in evidence has often been obscured by emotion, noise and anecdote. As our knowledge grows, those who dwell nervously in these dark spaces find themselves cramped and uncomfortable.

Ketan Joshi is a research and communications officer at Infigen Energy

An Australian Senator speaks out

An Australian Senator, (who is also a Dr), speaks to the Australian senate on the fear, uncertainty and doubt that is the hallmark of the anti-wind movement. The URL will provide the video, while the text version is printed below.

Please feel free to copy and forward this to anyone you wish. Your local Mp and MPP may be a good place to start.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWH3MBM3u6I&feature=player_embedded

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (09:51): I must admit to some disappointment that we are today debating a bill about wind farm noise. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Windfarms) Bill has its origins in concerns about the supposed health effects of living next to wind farms. As Senator Milne noted in her contribution to the debate, an enormous variety of symptoms have been attributed to wind turbines. The list starts with headaches, nausea, loss of sleep and fatigue, and goes as far as things like terminal cancer. Indeed, allegations have been made that animals keel over dead as a result of wind turbines. As a doctor, many of these symptoms are familiar to me, and they do have much in common with many other conditions that are associated with modern life. I do not doubt for a moment that these symptoms are real, but the cause is much more complicated than the substance of this bill implies.

What we are debating today are matters of scientific fact—are wind farms noisy, how much acoustic energy do they introduce into the environment, does that energy have a direct impact on the human body that can lead to health problems. These are not political questions; they are questions of empirical fact. I will come back to the facts of the health impacts of wind farms in a moment, but I do need to emphasise the importance of science in this debate. Science is the pursuit of truth; the pursuit of knowledge. As a scientist by training I have always respected, indeed have been in awe of, the scientific method and what it has achieved for the human race. The results are all around us. In a few generations, in the blink of history's eye, we have seen air travel, electric power and instantaneous global communication all move from the miraculous to the routine.

My medical training instilled a deep respect for the scientific method as a way of sifting truth from falsehood. Nowhere are the benefits more plain than in medicine. There is a deep respect for this method amongst medical practitioners and researchers. After all, it is not that long ago that medicine concerned itself with balancing the humours and bloodletting. Nowadays a fairly routine trip to the hospital might involve a trip, for example, to a PET scanner. For a PET scan, unstable atomic nuclei are introduced into the body so we can build up a three-dimensional image based on the gamma rays that are emitted. It is just incredible. Few of us would probably stop to consider the centuries of painstaking work that made this possible, but it is reflected in the longer, healthier lives that we lead here today. Many or even most of us would not be alive were it not for the scientific advances of previous decades and centuries.
In other words, science works. Its fruits are on display and cannot be denied. Indeed, we take them for granted. We cannot come up with cogent explanations for the workings of the mobile phone. I use an aeroplane frequently, and I will fly home tomorrow. I trust the phone and the aeroplane, and many other things, because they are built on sound and well tested scientific principles. Science deals with facts in a way that is fundamentally different from politics. Science is not about going into bat for a particular position, about finding some evidence to tailor some predetermined desired outcome. Science is a process; it takes into account the biases inherent in human nature and systematically eliminates them from the final result. Science is not a journey to some predetermined outcome but a commitment to follow the evidence wherever it leads. That is quite foreign to the way public policy is generally made in this place.
It is paradoxical that our lives have become more dependent on science and technology while, at the same time, the status of science in the public debate is eroding. This is a fairly recent phenomenon. It was not that long ago that the polio vaccine, penicillin and even the atom bomb were branded as new reminders of how science is changing everyday lives and the future of our world. As constant scientific and technological innovation has become a part of background life, the significance of science has faded. As a result, scientists now occupy just another voice in the public debate. On a good day they are given equal billing with another lobby group or vested interest, and this is a dangerous thing when we are debating a matter of scientific fact such as whether wind farms are harmful to human health.

Scientists are not always the best people to participate in policy debates—they are often inexperienced and not skilled in the media, and they can be drowned out or outfoxed by those who are much better equipped for these tasks. Cashed-up lobby groups have the skills and resources to distort debates, and it can be difficult for scientific experts to overcome this. We have seen before the dangers inherent in this way of doing things. The tobacco lobby were extraordinarily successful in muddying the waters around science. They did not need to prove that tobacco was safe, that there was no link between smoking and lung cancer—all they had to do was instill in the public mind the idea that the question was not yet settled and then let inertia and commercial interests do the rest. The same thing is happening with climate change—think tanks, pet academics, fake grassroots groups; they have long been sowing doubt about the seemingly undeniable reality of climate change. They are not struggling for cash or access to the megaphone. Powerful and wealthy industries have a commercial imperative to delay action on climate change, and it is frightening to see how successful they have been.

This bill, which I contend is largely the product of such mischief by vested interests, is one small example of the phenomenon that is now playing out all over the world—and critically here in Australia.

Senator Edwards: What vested interests?

Senator DI NATALE: The irony is that these lobby groups are compelled to cloak their campaigns in the language of science.

Senator Boswell: Just like you.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Fawcett ): Order! I remind the chamber that Senator Di Natale has the right to be heard in silence.

Senator DI NATALE: Because of their extraordinary success, science and the sciences do command public respect. We still see scientists as disinterested experts we can trust. Politicians and lobby groups do their best to cash in on that. Science suffers from some of its worst abuses when it is misused and twisted to give a veneer of scientific respectability to a specific policy or ideology. This is pseudoscience, and it is rife in the public debate.

Sorting real science from pseudoscience can be difficult for the public at large, and it is a challenge that the media are often not up to. It takes a lot of time and hard-won expertise to do that. After all, an anecdote is very, very powerful. We all know about the power of the personal story. Personal stories are really of little worth when it comes to settling scientific questions, but they do have the power to sway a debate. They make for a juicy and readable story or a compelling TV moment, and the quest for balanced reporting makes it all too easy to give equal time to both sides of the debate. Especially in scientific matters where it may not be apparent where the consensus lies, it is easier to throw in quotes from competing experts. But, in reality, there are not two sides to every story—at least not two equal sides. In a debate like climate change, giving the impression that there are two sides accomplishes precisely what the vested interests want. The science is undermined because it looks like the question is open and the debate is still a live one.

As policymakers, we have to consider a variety of factors. Science is just one of them. Public values, priorities for scarce resources, and even election commitments all need to be taken into account, but we should be honest about it. Hand-picked evidence, friendly experts and data taken out of context are not science. That is just keeping up appearances. The role of science in policy making is to find out what works. When used honestly, it is not just another tool that one can use to buttress a predetermined ideological position.

Scientists look for evidence that disproves their theories. They know that, if they do not, others will do it for them, and they will look foolish and lazy. No slogan, no matter how well received by a focus group, will help a scientist if her peers have failed to replicate experimental data. An inconsistency in theory cannot be dismissed based on good polling. In other words, integrity is critical in science. When used properly, science brings integrity back into public policy.

On the substance of this bill: what does the science tell us about wind farms? Wind farms are a mature technology. There are over 200,000 of them operating in the world today. That is enough for us to have some confidence in the effects they have on health. According to the NHMRC's public statement on wind farms and health, there is no scientific evidence that indicates that wind turbines have a negative effect on human health. The level of noise caused by a wind turbine at 350 metres, well short of the typical distance of houses from any turbine, is barely discernible from the ordinary background noise in a quiet bedroom. Measurements of the infrasound—that is, sound of a frequency too low to be detectable by human ears—show that levels near wind farms are lower than a typical urban environment. Of course, wind turbines are not completely silent. Experiencing the peace and quiet of the Australian countryside is one of my chief pleasures in life. Everyone should be entitled to a quiet environment and a good night's sleep. However, noise issues are already regulated, and wind farms are not exempt from these laws.

So, on the one hand, we have good evidence that wind farms produce noise at low levels, often undetectable to the human ear, and we have a situation where science can suggest no mechanism whereby such noises could impact the human body. On the other hand, we have a considerable body of stories from people who are suffering severe health impacts from their proximity to wind turbines. What is going on here?
The special interests that are hell-bent on disrupting the scientific debate in our papers and on TV are also having an effect on people's health. When outfits like the Waubra Foundation spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about the safety of wind turbines, this scares people. It is a terrible thing to have to worry about your health and that of your family. I shudder to think of how anxious I would be if I thought a facility was being built next to my family's farm that would pollute the environment and make us ill.
The symptoms attributed to the so-called wind turbine syndrome, including headaches, nausea, tinnitus and loss of sleep, appear to be the invention of a single person. Those symptoms are not unknown. There are many historical examples of illnesses such as these associated with the rise of modern technology. In the 19th century, the symptoms we are discussing here today were given the label 'neurasthenia'. In 1880, George Beard attributed the causes of neurasthenia to a collection of things, including wireless telegraphy, science itself, steam power, newspapers and the education of women.
However, these symptoms did not disappear as we got used to the innovations that caused that anxiety back then. More modern examples include high-voltage power lines, wireless phone towers, fluoridated water and, indeed, vaccination. All of these have been associated with the symptoms of fatigue, anxiety, headache and so forth. In every case, the best science has failed to find a causative link between these issues and adverse effects on human health. Indeed, with things like wireless internet or power lines, it is often possible to prove that the symptoms continue as long as the sufferer believes that they are being exposed to the source, even when the source no longer exists. In medical science this is known as the nocebo effect: the belief that something causes you real harm.

These problems, known as psychogenic illnesses, are well documented in the scientific literature. Psychogenic conditions may be on the rise. A growing distrust in science is manifesting itself in a suspicion of conventional medicine and technology. The advent of the internet—which is, incidentally, another one of science's great achievements—has widened access to information and misinformation. Anyone concerned about health impacts can find no shortage of information to fan the flames of their fears. Wind turbines would appear to be but the latest example of this phenomenon.
Simon Chapman, who has made some valuable contributions to this debate and has investigated the situation, has found that only a small minority of wind farms have attracted health complaints.

In evidence he gave to the inquiry into this bill he found that, while nobody in Western Australia has ever made such a complaint, it is where anti-wind-farm activism is present that complaints occur. Complaints about health tend to follow publicity about health effects. In short, there is no substantial evidence that wind farms impact on human health. But the literature on psychogenic illness is very compelling in this case.
Further evidence that has been tendered to the inquiry into this bill points out that people who have financial interests in a wind farm near their properties exhibit none of these symptoms. They are also rare in non-English speaking populations, such as in Denmark, where they have many more wind turbines but less access to the English literature on the supposed ailments associated with wind power.

I want to be clear about this: I do not doubt the testimony of those who are experiencing these symptoms. I believe that those symptoms are genuine and do lead to suffering. When somebody says they are experiencing pain or are in discomfort, we should not deny them that experience. Those symptoms are real. What I do contest is the source of these symptoms. The evidence is very clear that the acoustics of the turbines do not have a measurable impact on human health but, of course, the anxiety created by wind farm opponents does. Stress and worry have enormous consequences for health and well being. Once the seeds of fear have been sown, it is very difficult to undo the health consequences. I therefore heartily condemn those who continue to spread this misinformation. It is the spread of misinformation that harms, not the wind turbines themselves. A bill such as this only exacerbates that fear and aids those who want to hinder the development of wind power for other commercial reasons.
This bill focuses on the supposed negative health effects of wind farms which, as I have pointed out, have no scientific basis whatsoever. Yet it completely ignores the health benefits, which are well documented in the scientific literature. Australia is heavily reliant on fossil fuels, including coal, for power generation. Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal. As such, it seems absurd that we are spending time debating whether the noise from distant wind turbines can injure people and not debating the terrible and well-documented effects that coal has on human health.
At every stage of the process, from the mining of coal to the combustion of coal and the transport of coal, there are measurable impacts on our health. Coal fired power in Australia burdens the community with a human health cost—including from lung and heart conditions—of over $2 billion annually. Reducing the burning of fossil fuels for electricity and transport can reduce the incidence of these conditions of heart and lung diseases, including lung cancer. In Australia, air pollution is estimated to kill more people every year than the road toll. That does not even take into account the health impacts of climate change; extreme weather; heat waves; flooding; the spread of vector borne diseases like dengue fever and Ross River fever, and the increase in incidences of diseases like gastroenteritis, all of which the World Health Organisation have stated will increase as a result of runaway climate change. The effects of climate change have already been responsible for the deaths of many Australians.

This bill is a case study in the need for evidence based policy. Those who suffer from 'wind turbine syndrome' are not suffering because turbines are dangerous. They are suffering because they have been poorly served by those who claim to be acting in the public interest but are really acting for vested interests. Scaremongering about the health effects of wind power is irresponsible. It causes enormous anxiety for some people and it threatens to derail a promising and necessary industry for this country. For those reasons, I cannot support the bill.

Well said Senator, well said.

An enviromental lawyer speaks out

"After nearly two years of vigorous anti-wind litigation in Ontario, anti-wind activists have failed to satisfy any court or tribunal that wind energy development in accordance with government standards will cause serious harm. Many wind projects have been approved, and wind-based electrical generation is growing fast. However, the same concerns keep being raised, and we know of no Ontario wind farm that has obtained its approval without the cost and delay of litigation." Dianne Saxe

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=221970&linkedin=665268

When the antis complain about the cost of wind power ($0.115/kWh), they never talk about how they are driving up the cost of doing business in Ontario by using SLAPP legal techniques. Not to mention driving the divide among the people of Ontario.

Wind works

Chances are, if you read the paper, you've come across some comment that claims wind energy doesn't work.

Well here's some headlines that have recently been published by various electrical operators from around the world:

"The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) reported that wind generation on its system reached a new high of 3,934 megawatts (MW) at 12:38 a.m. PST yesterday (March 4). For the full day, wind generated nearly 6 percent of the electricity on system."

"Three more wind electricity generation records were notched recently, in Texas, Colorado, and the Pacific Northwest, as the increased generating capacity installed last year continues to make its presence felt.
Wind generation provided nearly 28 percent of the electricity demand in ERCOT at the time and easily surpassed--by 814 MW, or nearly 10 percent--the previous record of 8,667 MW set on January 29 by 814 MW."

"On February 16, a new record for wind output was set on the main utility system in the Pacific Northwest, the Bonneville Power Administration power system. Wind energy output peaked at 4,402 MW at 4:05 PM, breaking the previous record of 4,344 MW that was set on January 29."

"Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which operates the utility system serving most of the Lone Star State and saw a record January 29, when wind generated a new high of 32.1 percent of electricity supply on the system. The hourly wind generation peak for the day was 8,667 megawatts (MW) (8.667 GW), setting a new record as well."

" Spain, which accomplished something new and extraordinary in January, when wind power provided more of the country's electricity supply than any other energy source. The Spanish wind energy association as saying wind generated 6 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) during the month, or approximately 25 percent of the country's electricity. The association also commented that the Spanish economy has "gained 3 euros for every 1 euro invested in incentives for wind farms" and that using fossil fuels to generate the same amount of electricity would have cost $406 million."

"The UK, where wind generation on Sunday peaked at a new high of 5 GW. That amount of power was 12 percent of the country's instantaneous demand, or enough to power 10 million homes. The article quoted RenewableUK Deputy Chief Executive Mat Smith: “This new record proves that Britain is generating an increasingly significant amount of clean electricity from wind. The quantity of low-carbon energy that wind is feeding into the grid is continuing to surge upwards. We’re set to generate 15 to 20% of the UK’s electricity from wind by 2020."

"Shanghai. November 8. INTERFAX-CHINA – Daily wind power output in northwest China has reached a record of 110 gigawatt hours, according to data released by Northwest China Grid Co. Ltd. on Tuesday."

China, "Wind has overtaken nuclear as an electricity source in China. In 2012, wind farms generated 2 percent more electricity than nuclear power plants did, a gap that will likely widen dramatically over the next few years as wind surges ahead. Since 2007, nuclear power generation has risen by 10 percent annually, compared with wind’s explosive growth of 80 percent per year."

Clearly, regardless of what the pundits would like you to believe, wind produces. And in Ontario, wind developers only get paid their $0.115/kWh when they produce power, hence, no power, no money. Period.

At $0.115 wind is cheaper then new hydro at $.122 - $.132/kWh, and much cheaper then new nuclear at $0.15+. So don't be misled when the pundits compare legacy costs from projects completed in the 70s' to the cost of new wind production. New nuclear, and new hydro can't compare with those prices, why should wind be expected to?

FUD

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt fills the comments section of virtually every news article regarding wind energy. That's normal, opposition usually rallies the allies so that public outcry looks larger then it really is.

When large independent institutions look at the questions though, their findings do not support the rhetoric.

Lawrence Berkeley National Labs did a real estate study on over 7,000 homes in proximity to wind parks, and it doesn't support the anti wind comments.

The Australian EPA published a study on wind farm infrasound, and it doesn't support the anti wind view either.

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health, and I quote, "convened a panel of independent experts to identify any documented or potential health impacts of risks that may be associated with exposure to wind turbines, and, specifically, to facilitate discussion of wind turbines and public health based on scientific findings". Guess what, it doesn't support.....there's a trend forming here.

These people, willingly or otherwise, are spreading the misinformation brought forth by the likes of the Koch brothers, the American Traditions Institute, and the always imaginative US Tea Party.

Don't take what they, or I, have to say at face value, go and read the reports, and make your own decision.

http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wind/impactstudy.htm

http://emp.lbl.gov/publications/impact-wind-power-projects-residential-property-values-united-states-multi-site-hedonic

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/advanced_search.php?k=infrasound&x=25&y=20

PK threatens to SLAPP me!

Another note from my new friend Paul K;

Actually DL, why don't you just direct everyone to our site?
(Site address removed)
Give folks a chance to see a side the corporate psychopaths in the wind industry don't want you to know about?
Civil disobediance seemed fine when the left instigated it, but now when it's against them, they squeal like kindergarten children.
By the way, we hold no membership in Wind Concerns Ontario. Unless you can provide the proof of membership or a receipt indicating such, I'd be careful about what accusations you make.

*As pointed out in previous posts, this gentleman's site states he and his wife joined an "anti-turbine group", now he's telling me to stop promoting that fact? (Again, if it's not WCO, then which anti group is it? That question has been posted before, but the only response has been...."I'd be careful about what accusations you make." )
My suggestion, if you don't want people to know, don't post it on your web site.

SLAPP - "strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defence until they abandon their criticism or opposition. The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate."

It's unfortunate that people like this, who pretend to know the truth, and who try to force that truth onto others, when pushed on what they say and do, revert to more threats in order to solve the issue at hand.
It's unfortunate that they don't live up to the standards they demand from others. Sad really. And it's driving a wedge through rural Ontario.