The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Wind turbines and infrasound > Comments

Wind turbines and infrasound : Comments

By David Leyonhjelm, published 16/6/2015

Wind turbines emit infrasound and low frequency noise. It is also well established that inappropriate levels of infrasound, regardless of the source, cause adverse health impacts.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Senator David Leyonhjelm,

Thank you for posting your article on wind turbines, I am very pleased you are publishing your articles and explaining the issues with wind turbines. But I would like to ask: why is your focus almost entirely on the noise issue rather than on the economics?

I suggest it is the economics that will be the factor that eventually becomes the critical issue regarding the viability of wind power. It is the factor that will eventually bring the end of massive subsidies and other incentives that are propping up the wind turbines industry. Once voters understand the real cost to Australia's economy and to their hip pockets - now and how it will increase in the future - they will withdraw their support for them. But they do not understand yet. This is the key issue I'd urge you to focus on, rather than the noise, sleep and health issues.

For readers who want to understand the economic issues, may I suggest you begin by reading this analysis of the actual amounts of CO2 saved by wind power in the National Electricity Market: http://joewheatley.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/sub348_Wheatley.pdf

The fact that wind turbines save much less emissions than is thought means that the CO2 abatement cost with wind is much higher than virtually all estimates say. The CO2 abatement cost is likely to be about 60-70% higher by 2020 than stated by the economic analyses done for the recent Warburton Review of the Renewable Energy Target.

The cost of abatement with wind power in Australia in 2020, under the RET as currently legislated, is likely to be:

• 2 to 5 times the carbon price which was rejected by voters at the 2013 election

• 4 to 8 times the Direct Action average price at the first auction

• 6 to 12 times the current EU ETS price

• 100 to 200 times the international carbon price futures to 2020
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 16 June 2015 8:39:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What’s the cost of CO2 emissions abatement with wind turbines?

Answer: much higher than current estimates (such as in the Warburton RET Review).

The cost of abatement with wind power in Australia in 2020, under the RET as currently legislated, is likely to be:

• 2 to 5 times the carbon price which was rejected by voters at the 2013 election

• 4 to 8 times the Direct Action average price at the first auction

• 6 to 12 times the current EU ETS price

• 100 to 200 times the international carbon price futures to 2020

The Warburton RET Review estimated the cost of abatement under the LRET at $32-$72/tonne CO2 in 2020 (Section 5.6 – Cost of abatement’ – from estimates by ACIL-Allen, Frontier Economics and Deloitte) https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/56-cost-abatement.

But the actual cost is likely to be much higher because the estimates apparently do not take the CO2 abatement effectiveness into account.

Dr Wheatley estimated wind energy in the NEM was just 78% effective at abating emissions in 2014, and would be about 70% effective if wind power’s share was doubled.

Under the current RET legislation, wind energy would have to supply about 15% of electricity in 2020. At 15% share, wind is likely to be about 60% effective.

At 60% effective, the CO2 abatement cost would be $53-$120 per tonne CO2

The abatement costs estimated by the Warburton review for 2020, adjusted to include CO2 abatement effectiveness, and compared with the carbon tax price rejected by voters art the last election, the EU carbon price and the International carbon price futures to 2020 are listed in Submission 259 here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Submissions

The most important recommendation from Submission No. 259 is:

The CO2 abatement cost estimates in the RET Review should be re-estimated taking CO2 abatement effectiveness into account.

Once The Treasury, Department of Finance, Department of Industry and the responsible Ministers recognise the high cost of CO2 abatement with wind power, this could be the catalyst for change.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 16 June 2015 9:02:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Peter,

Are economics really more important than the suffering and harm done to flesh-and-blood people (and other animals)?

I could excuse government for a bad economy because foolishness is not a crime, but if it harms people in my name and I don't at least scream or do something about it, then I become an accomplice to torture.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 16 June 2015 9:13:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying the noise issues are not important. I am saying I believe it is the wrong place to be focusing attention if we want to stop the incentives to wind turbines - such as the RET legislation. the issue that will really drive change is the economics. There have been masses of studies on noise issues all over the world for a long time. The results are indecisive. It's very unlikely that Australia will suddenly get a breakthough study on this that will be so persuasive as to overturn - in a hurry - the mass of past studies and the entrenched positions.

But the one issue that governments and voters do take notice of are the economic costs and the costs to individuals an households.

The economic costs of wind farms will be felt and locked in for decades. These cost increases will harm Australia’s international competitiveness, the economy, jobs, wages and standard of living.

What I am suggesting is that this is what I believe economic rationalists should be focusing on explaining to the voters.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 16 June 2015 10:06:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, you article would be much more credible if you quoted some scientific papers on socalled infrasound instead of just anecdotal references. I am not saying these effects don't exist, I just want some evidence based on repeatable measurements.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 16 June 2015 10:49:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter, it is an argument, not a fact, that wind turbines save much less emissions than is thought. Since Wheatly's submission was made, the impending closure of a brown coal power station in SA has been announced. (Actually two power stations, but the other one had already been mothballed.)

I made a very short submission to that inquiry, to point out that the cost of wind (and solar) power is heavily dependent on the cost of finance. Cut the finance cost and the cost to consumers of switching to renewables will fall. Cut it more (with concessional loans) and the net cost will be negative.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 16 June 2015 11:55:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well you can still hear yourself think, which is just not the case adjacent to modern coal fired steam turbines, or diesels, which arguably have many more adverse health consequences for those living within earshot, or downwind!

And given enough reliable wind, more than compete with coal!

Me, I believe there's a good case for using some of the Tasman islands as wind farms, given the roaring forties and lack of affected or dense populations?

Even so, renewable sources terminology, ought to be replaced by carbon free alternatives; a few of which would cost less than half the cost of coal-fired power!

And therefore ought to also be on the table for some of these taxpayer funds?

Geothermal might be worth investigating as a source of already preheated water for a solar thermal application.

Solar thermal now competes with coal fired power as peak load or on infrastructure cost, given scales of economy, and new heat retaining technology! And beats the pants of it in terms of fuel costs!

Huge northern tides could operate new hydro schemes, particularly if they had a decent way of storing the energy, given the lack of activity at the bottom or top of the tide.

And we have yet to tap into steady currents like the east coast current that flows all the way to tassie.

Even so, there ought to be a requirement to make a best possible economic case, when lined up beside all other forms of carbon free or carbon neutral energy options; a couple of which kill Ole King Coal!?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 16 June 2015 1:42:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Lang doesn't mind saying that economics is more important than noise and human health. Oh, he tries to make amends when challenged by Y, but too late and not convincingly.

The fact that he had to ask the Senator why he concentrated on the noise aspect, and not the economics, when the Senator was clearly concerned about approaches on the health aspects of turbines, speaks volumes about Peter Lang and other environmentalists, turbine rent seekers and politicians. They have one track minds and little socialisation. Their 'progressive' minds have no space for humanity.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 16 June 2015 4:03:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn, Peter Lang isn't an environmentalist, turbine rent seeker or politician, so your statement that his question speaks volumes about Peter Lang and other environmentalists, turbine rent seekers and politicians is FALSE.

Many people have dismissed the health impact of wind turbines as an example of the nocebo effect. I'm glad the evidence otherwise is finally being seriously considered. Nevertheless, in the vast majority of situations there are no health impacts, and I remain strongly in favour of wind turbines.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 16 June 2015 5:50:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Noise is a very significant and undervalued consideration
My snoring for example most definetely caused tension in my marriage
And if it wasn't for all the moaning, I don't think my wife would ever have found me in bed with her sister.

Now if these small noises in our homes can have such devastating consequences
God knows what these giant turbines could do
Posted by YEBIGA, Tuesday, 16 June 2015 6:45:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Many people have dismissed the health impact of wind turbines as an example of the nocebo effect. I'm glad the evidence otherwise is finally being seriously considered.//

Infrasound is produced from all sorts of sources besides wind turbines. Diesel engines, for example. I drive a diesel. Why have we never heard about this threat to health until wind turbines started popping up?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 16 June 2015 6:56:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni Travis,

Who, apart from you, has made your claim about other sources of infrasound. I wonder why the almost manic proponents of windmills haven't jumped on that one! You don't say that you drive a diesel, 'therefore I know' about this', you just announce that you drive a diesel. Could be a cunning way of not having to prove what you say.

One does not have to be a total cynic to wonder where are your references to back up a hitherto unheard claim.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 16 June 2015 7:26:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//One does not have to be a total cynic to wonder where are your references to back up a hitherto unheard claim.//

My references? Right here, ttbn:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=infrasound
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 16 June 2015 7:33:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps it would be germane for those such as David to read
www.epa.sa.gov.au/files/477912_infrasound.pdf

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 17 June 2015 9:56:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni,

You've got the quantity, but not the quality. How about you point out where you got the one about diesel engines, to save me from having to wade through all that stuff? Did you really go through all those sites? I've scanned them, and found natural causes (weather e.g), whales, elephant calls and so on. A lot of stuff on the web is rubbish, and it's all too easy for you to chuck that much information at someone. Some of the sites say where infrasounds are heard, but they do not say what causes them. If you want to prove a point, you have to do better than that, Toni
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 17 June 2015 10:01:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

The S.A EPA is a government organisation which gives the goverment the answers it wants to hear. Wind farms are big business in S.A - a state second only to Tasmania in the rust bucket stakes. 13 years of Labor incompetence has lost businesses and jobs hand over fist. While the latest national unemployment figures have shown a slight drop, South Australia's unemployment has RISEN by 0.6%. We are losing two coal mines, and one power station. The government is desperate, and it will never admit that wind farms are causing distress in small country towns. They want more of the damn things. The leader of the Greens made a grand gesture last year by camping for a night under a turbine to 'prove' the noise wasn't a problem. That night was windless, but he never went back for another try, and still has the same pig-headed denial that turbine noise is a problem. That's the way things work here. And the EPA is a dud - a Labor lackey.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 17 June 2015 10:21:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those who haven't yet mastered the use of search engines:

http://jcaa.caa-aca.ca/index.php/jcaa/article/download/2036/1783

http://www.nvda.net/files/Infrasound_508.pdf

http://www.tsi.lv/sites/default/files/editor/science/Publikacii/ReStat_08/32.pdf

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Willingale-Bernie-1980-infrasound-and-locomotives.pdf
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 17 June 2015 10:30:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well some of the infrasound could be muted or funneled away inside large towers. Like say a power station cooling tower on steroids.

Built of metal and surrounded by heat retaining thermal double glazing; which would also soundproof them; the retained heat would travel skyward, possibly turning dozens of fans; and even more so in a dead calm!

And no better place for them than our vast empty arid inland.

And given we're never ever received so much as one single complaint from that anti-turbine community about cooling towers, one might expect solar thermal towers to result in a similar outcome. And not a single blade in sight or object to!

And arguably the only thing that could beat them as a source of rising hot air, would be the nations parliaments!?

Now if we could just harness that, we'd likely solve the energy shortfalls of the globe?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 17 June 2015 11:37:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Toni,

Thankyou for taking the trouble to oblige someone who hasn't "yet mastered the use of search engines".

I note that the diesel engine was a 9 cylinder plant used to generate electricity. You must drive one hell of a car!

The studies done are the basis for your original post. They might be right. They might be wrong. The problem with the internet is that ayone can put anything they like on it without the reviews and critcism learned papers are subjected to.

However, I cannot say that they are wrong, anymore than you can say they are right without strenuous investigation. But, the fact remains that people are having problems with windfarms that they did not have before the windfarms were there. And, there is also the fact that nobody keen on windfarms has brought up any of these studies to back their cause. I find it very strange that windfarm tragics have not jumped at this chance to use the information if it is true.

Could it be because it is only windfarms, not whales, elephants and 9 cylinder diesels on a remote island that are the issue for many rural Australians?
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 17 June 2015 4:43:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//I note that the diesel engine was a 9 cylinder plant used to generate electricity.//

'The' diesel engine? You did read all those links I went to such trouble to provide you with, didn't you? They didn't all study the one same diesel engine.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 17 June 2015 6:45:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Senator,
It might be worthwhile asking someone to examine the waveshape
of the ultrasound. It almost certainly would not be a sinewave but
some more complex signal which could simulate heart pulse shape or
some other function.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 17 June 2015 7:08:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Infra sound is safe, probably just like asbestos. Lets see a generation away and who do we sue. I suggest a lien be placed on the Flannery's, Phil Addams and other noisy sources so damages can be paid.
Posted by McCackie, Thursday, 18 June 2015 4:09:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The link below list some of the sources of infra-sound sound which leads me to the conclusion that just about about every body encounters infra-sound every day.

I would therefore recommend the government put the following regulations be put in place post haste:-
No building be allowed within 2 Kilometers of the beach, airport, zoo, road, mountain, or water fall, and an infra-sound shelter should be mandatory on properties so that people can shelter from thunder storms, meteor showers, and Auroras.

For those concerned about the economics clearly the saving in medical expenses from what must surely be a huge public health problem would be so great that it would in effect become cost negative.

http://meteor.uwo.ca/research/infrasound/is_whatisIS.html
Posted by warmair, Friday, 19 June 2015 2:19:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Warmair,
It does seem unlikely that low frequency sound could cause any
sickness, but I have wondered about the possibility of a nervous system
interference possibility.
During a TV program about it they showed some video of a windfarm.
I compared the rate at which the blades passed the tower.
At the same time I felt my pulse and they were very close to the same rate.
The sound of a windturbine has a major component as the blade passes the tower.
If the body is subject to some pressure variation of the sound, is it
possible that a nerve signal that approximates the shape of a pulse
could interfere with the nervous system ?
If it affected the middle ear could it cause a seasickness like effect ?

It is a theory, but probably worth looking at.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 21 June 2015 6:58:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//The sound of a windturbine has a major component as the blade passes the tower.
If the body is subject to some pressure variation of the sound, is it
possible that a nerve signal that approximates the shape of a pulse
could interfere with the nervous system ?//

An interesting conjecture. You should do some research and some experiments and then write a seminal paper which gets published in Nature.

//If it affected the middle ear could it cause a seasickness like effect ?//

Who knows?

//It is a theory, but probably worth looking at.//

No, it really isn't. It is a very weak hypothesis at best. I consider it random conjecture. To advance it to the level of theory you'll have to do a lot more testing and have it critically reviewed by a lot of fellow scientists.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 21 June 2015 7:38:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,

These submissions to the Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines by Dr Hanning, a UK noise and sleep apnoea specialist, may be of:

Dr Hanning’s Submission is No. 55 here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Submissions

Testimony by Dr Hanning is here: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommsen%2F4b5a8680-2178-4492-97ea-9fb2994d6673%2F0016;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2F4b5a8680-2178-4492-97ea-9fb2994d6673%2F0000%22

Additional documents 25 and 26 here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Additional_Documents
Posted by Peter Lang, Sunday, 21 June 2015 8:32:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What turns the blades when there is no wind?
Is it desirable to keep the machinery turning over to keep it well lubricated?
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 21 June 2015 8:45:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//What turns the blades when there is no wind?//

Gnomes. There is no such thing as physics, it's all done by gnomes.

//Is it desirable to keep the machinery turning over to keep it well lubricated?//

I dunno about you, but I like to 'keep the machinery turning over' at least twice a day ;)
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 21 June 2015 9:45:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Tony I am not a scientist just someone who understands the
possible implications of some technologies.
I just put it up in the air to see if someone catches it.
Just working it backwards, presume the sickness is real, at such low
frequencies the impact probably might be on nerves and some do convert
very small signals into larger signals in the nervous system, after
all that is what they are designed to do.

Perhaps those that do feel sick should rotate their beds by 90 degrees.
They might then receive a smaller signal.
I know, you think this all nonsense and it could well be.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 21 June 2015 11:03:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've heard that sensitivity to the sound of windmills shows up only in the areas where landholders are not getting paid to accommodate them. Windmills are the latest witch hunt to be sustained by expensive “Inquiries”. Here are some of the Abbott Government’s other witch hunts: Rudd doing his job as PM by steering us clear of the Global Financial Heist. Gillard doing her job as a lawyer 20 years ago. Shorten doing his job as a union official. Professor Triggs doing her job as a Human Rights commissioner has caused a witch hunt but not yet a formal “inquiry”. Could be the witch-hunters fear her answer.

There’s several commissions of inquiry that hopefully Labor might institute when it gets the chance. One is the abuse of the position of Speaker by Bronwyn Bishop. Another is to make Abbott come clean over whether or not he has occupied a seat in parliament illegally in defiance of Section 44(i) of the Constitution. A formal inquiry (with witnesses under oath) into lying in an election manifesto might also bear fruit.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Tuesday, 23 June 2015 9:31:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy