So,what is your opinion on the new proposal for wind energy.I believe it should never be done close to the AP.Wind energy is great thing,but not when is gonna be too close to the AP and possibly affecting wildlife.hk
I don't know. Algonquin could make it very efficient. Put a farm anywhere on Cedar Lake and you'll have enough wind to power Ottawa...
Kidding
Tenzing
"I was never one to obsess about the past. Too much to do in the future."
tedjp
99.251.0.163
Re: wind energy
November 30 2008, 6:50 AM
There's enough wind in Ottawa wasting our tax dollars already.
Racoon
99.240.173.93
Progress
November 30 2008, 9:07 AM
Every wants to go to heaven ..
JUST NOBODY WANTS TO GO NOW
Nobody wants a nuclear plant or dump as well in their backyard
and the same can be said about Wind Turbines and/or Hydro Towers
Sadly we have become over dependant on electricity and
such things will start to dominate the skylines throughout
Canada as elsewhere in the world. Quite a few in China
were seen in the Yunnan Province last month
BTW: Yunnan is known as the mountaineous/picturesquepart of China.
I really didn't see these as a detracting factor but then again I don't
live there and have to deal with side effects
Lets hope common sense prevails
Rac n
PaPaddler
68.44.59.36
Re: Progress
November 30 2008, 10:53 AM
I live roughly five miles from the second most infamous nuclear power plant (after Chernobyl, it is Three Mile Island or TMI) and just this past week I was duck hunting not thirty yards from the island. During that hunt I was graced with the opportunity to witness:
three Whitetail Deer, one of them a four point buck;
two beaver;
a symphony of owl calls including Great Horned and Screech owls;
a host of waterfowl including Gadwall, Black Ducks, Mallards and Canada Geese
a kingfisher making a diving catch of a smallmouth bass then returning to its perch and repeatedly whacking the fish's head against the tree branch in order to render it motionless to swallow it;
finally, a host of smaller songbirds including Chickadees, Titmice, Downy Woodpeckers and Pileated Woodpeckers plus many others I couldn't identify at a distance.
These opportunities can exist hand-in-hand with cleaner sources of energy such as nuclear, wind and solar. Sure, the vision of steam rising from the tall cement cooling towers of a nuclear plant aren't what I would consider "attractive" but are a small price to pay for a clean source of energy. To me, it is a greater eyesore to see the wanton waste of debris on roadsides, in our forests, along our waterways and in the yards of some homes where there is a complete lack of care for our environment. Sure, in a couple million years we'll all be gone and our garbage will have decomposed but in the interim we're plagued with the detraction of ill-informed or non-caring individuals who litter our landscape.
{PaPaddler steps down from soapbox}
Preacher
70.24.172.85
Re: wind energy
November 30 2008, 4:19 PM
I think this is a perfect example for those of us who believe in and preach ahem a reasonbly green mandate to put our monies where our mouths are. If it's the right place to put the turbines, then it's the right place.
I'm not an extensions biologist and would defer to the experts on the environmental impact. My gut feeling is that the impact would be minimal, we've had windmills and exactly this scale of windmills in use for decades now. In fact, we've had windmills for centuries. They've just gotten bigger. Over in Europe they're not uncommon. Down in Pennsylvania we passed a few ridges and they didn't look horrific.
No form of energy is cost free, wind is one of the best practically available.
I haven't hear any reasonable environmental issues regarding this project.
I have a real problem with some people complaining about poluting the landscape. Cottagers & folks who move to the country to get away from already polluted landscapes. These people, in my abrasive opinion, have already chosen polluting the landscape as a lifestyle choice.
69.17.189.31
Wind farm industry and people don't mix ...
November 30 2008, 5:04 PM
The key issues I'm warning about are peoples' HEALTH being impacted when "wind farms" are placed within rural-residential areas.
When the developers can convince government and civic leaders alike that dB(A)-filtered noise levels and 400 meter set-backs are all there are .. well, they get to laugh all the way to the bank .. while people living within 1 or 2 kilometers of the turbines are driven sick, crazy and/or out of their homes.
I know its sounds crazy. I first thought it did too, until I read all the accounts from across the world and checked the science. It's not "green-and-friendly". It's just more "slick-big-business-misrepresentation" with the encouragement of government subsidies.
"A subset of society should not be forced to bear the cost of a benefit for the larger society."
Quite the libertarian and divisive declaration. I disagree. This is unavoidable. There is always a cost and someone must aways bear that cost. Sometimes it's us, sometimes it's them. That's what it means to be a society and a culture. If Whitney wants to demonstrate that it can survive without the rest of the nation, it can live by this motto. I bet they need the jobs, infrastructure and safety nets paid for from regional, provincial and federal resources.
Wind Turbine Syndrome needs more research to be taken seriously. Not saying it should be completely dismissed. It should be put in perspective. Brand new theory must be put through the mill to discover the truth of the matter. From what I saw less than 100 people have been hand picked for the studies.
I want to see better science before I suggest a coal plant instead of a wind farm for Whitney.
69.17.189.31
Good science is here .. read it!
December 1 2008, 8:52 AM
"I want to see better science before I suggest a coal plant instead of a wind farm for Whitney."
Wow Preacher. I'd hate to think you actually read the real science and still came up with that comment. Besides, who's suggesting a coal plant for Whitney? Only you!
Regardless, we all know that the the North Arm of Opeongo is the logical choice for a wind farm...LOL
Sal
64.42.217.69
Re: Good science is here .. read it!
December 1 2008, 1:38 PM
The Lake Huron Shoreline is now dotted with windmills and they are having some problems up in that area. They have held meetings and the one thing that has come out of those meetings was ( if we knew then what we know now ) we might not have leased our land out to them. Coming to a farmer who needs money badly and letting him know you will give him thousands of dollars to lease his land to put the windmills up is an easy sell. Now they are having health issues and other issues as well. Not sure if you can get your hands on some back issues of the Kincardine New or not but it is very interesting reading about the issues.
As far as having windmills, right now they supply 1 % of our hydro needs, they say by 2025 they hope to have 30% of our hydro supplied by them so they are coming, just not sure where they all will be going.
They have had them up in the Shelbourne area and I have not heard about to many problems in that area.
Preacher
70.24.172.85
Re: Good science is here .. read it!
December 2 2008, 8:08 AM
I did an independant searche for Wind Turbine Syndrome. I could not find anything that didn't have Nina Pierpoint's name on it, and pretty much only Nina Pierpoint's name. One scientist with an unproven theory isn't enough. The theory needs to be tested and proven and supported by independant sources.
I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm saying without good science behind it there isn't much that's going to sway my opinion.
99.240.173.93
Hmms.. Perhaps Thermal generated
December 2 2008, 8:32 AM
Wow... It's getting cold outside but it
is definately heating up on the forum
Thankfully all seem to be staying within resonal thermal limits
( no excessive overheating and/or extensive negative venting)
so for now at least,
thermal generated electricity from AA forum is not an option
MOTD:
Dare to chance the rapids
But
Be prepared to dance the tides of change
Rac n
*Rac n*
69.156.53.225
wind farms
December 2 2008, 8:54 AM
pros and cons comparison I am sure it half of one and half of another. Some go mad some dont, health problems etc, the same sort of arguments can be made for coal burning, and nuclear power or living to close to transmission lines. I think we need to turn to more sustainable energy sources than the ones we have. Wind farms are going to be a part of this transition, as well as hydro electric but in that case we dam more rivers and destroy watersheds. I dont think anything we do as a species will be without some sort of sacrifice, including the thought of living without power as someone else stated.
From 2km away, hopefully I dont hear them, if I do it will be a paddling day. they are sort of captivating if you dont see them everyday, almost a futuristic oddity.
Did you know that Ontario has more nuclear reactors than any other place in North America?
69.17.189.31
Please read this ...
December 2 2008, 9:03 AM
Rather than looking for rationalization to discount the concerns of a group by discounting one woman, I'd hope one would rather examine all the pertinent information.
Toward that end, please read the document by George Kamperman of the Acoustical Society of America ( http://asa.aip.org ), the Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA (http://www.inceusa.org ) and the National Council of Acoustical Consultants ( http://www.ncac.com ).. and by Richard R. James of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA ...
Glad to read you're optimistically hoping for a 2 kilometer setback from windfarms' turbines. The trouble has been, that over the past decade or so in many rural residential areas, wind farm corporations have been convincing government reps that 400 meters is an adequate setback, by making incomplete presentation of the actual facts involved.
It's only recently that increased awareness is occurring of the effects on health. We can expect that the "Green $$$$ Interests" will resist change in the way that wind-power gets harvested.
My opinion is that we already have enough scientific information at hand to warrant a halt on the construction of wind farms, until redesign of turbine supports eliminates production of harmful low frequencies of air wave pressure (which were previously unaccounted for by the selective dB(A) filtered testing), until legitimate air wave pressure reduction science is applied to achieve all the medically recommended air wave pressure reductions and until the resulting redetermined greater medical setback requirements are enacted.
I don't want to get into a political, philosophical, or scientific argument here, so I am just going to present a link to a report submitted to Chatham-Kent Council earlier in the year. It may take a few seconds to load...even with high-speed.
The twist on it all is that they have the ability, technology and know how to build these farms off shore in the ocean or great lakes similar to setting footings for an oil platform. Problem is like you said $$$$, its still cheaper to tear down forest for roads then to go offshore.
Thats what gets me about all of this alternate energy, the technology is there, years beyond what we are seeing but someone has to make a penny every step of the way.
2km doesnt seem much, but how hard can it really be to quiet things down? Seems it would be finacially better to make the turbines more efficient so that all that low pressure resonance and noise is eliminated. Just wasted energy if your into physics.
we could go on forever on this one, seems like a simple fix to me though.
Barry Bridgeford
69.17.189.31
Selective science with blinkers on isn't science ...
December 2 2008, 10:20 PM
Well "anonymous" supplied us with a great example of what is in my opinion "self-serving tunnel-vision masquerading as science".
For those of you who's computers bog down with a 6.5 meg pdf file, here's the section of the report dealing with "Sound and Noise Concerns" ...
At first read, it may seem logical. But the devil's in the details, or more accurately in the lack of them.
The report indicates that there were five health and safety issues that were recommended for scrutiny .. Turbine Failure, Icing, Sound Emissions and Noise Concerns, Shadow Flicker and Construction Injuries.
It's of particular interest that direction was given to address the "concern" about sound and noise, rather than sound and noise themselves. Right from the outset, the direction appears somewhat skewed.
The report says that over decades there hasn't been any definitive evidence supporting harm to the human ear. The commentary then goes on to admit that wind farms do produce low frequency infrasound but that it isn't at a level audible to the human ear. The report manages to avoid that this is the nature of low frequency infrasound. It is inaudible!
The report's rational appears to rest narrowly on the fact that, as it says, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment defines noise simply as "unwanted sound". The report's logic in limiting itself to just audible sound are well served by the OME's own direction to employ the dB(A) filter in taking dB readings, thereby disregarding the very low frequency pressure waves that are the cause of health concerns.
The whole process purposely excludes inaudible low frequency air pressure waves as being outside the realm of "noise" concerns. Doctor Pierpont's findings are dismissed by name. In essence, it seems to me that the report's underlying position is "if you can't hear it, it can't hurt you and if you can't hear it, we won't talk about it".
This strikes me as a "closed-cycle of self-serving rational". I'm guessing that it's typical of what's gone on in dozens of jurisdictions all over the world already. God help all those people who are yet to be impacted by wind farms with this same type of structural supports' resulting low frequency air pressure waves.
This message has been edited by BarryBridgeford from IP address 69.17.189.31 on Dec 2, 2008 10:23 PM
76.10.155.246
Re: Selective science with blinkers on isn't science ...
December 3 2008, 7:31 AM
Sorry, but I didn't mean to post as "Anonymous" - I thought when you logged in and posted a message, your name would appear.
Foxco
205.211.96.100
Re: twist
December 3 2008, 2:02 PM
Again, I don't doubt that this issue merits further study, but to place a moratorium on it due to some questionable science is not a good enough reason....
Here are some of the highlights of a "Wind Turbine Study" google...
1. In the USA, a high profile objector (Nina Pierpont of Malone NY) placed an advertisement in
a local paper, consisting entirely of selected quotations from a previously published technical
paper by van den Berg (Van den Berg 2004). Claims of infrasound are irrelevant and possibly harmful, should they lead to unnecessary fears. Canadian Acoutsics Journal
2. The research work undertaken by G. P. van den Berg didnt provide scientific evidence to support the few major hypotheses postulated concerning the wind turbine noise characteristics. Dr. Ramani Ramakrishnan for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
3. There is no reliable evidence that infrasound below the perception threshold produces physiological or psychological effects. Dr. Anthony Rodgers, University of
Massachusetts at Amherst.
4 "All in all, based on Canadian and international studies, infrasound generated by wind turbines should not be considered a concern to the health of nearby residences" HGC Engineering Study, Nov 2006.
Of course, I could be wrong. Again, further study is needed. We need to investigate all the possible ways to wean us from our fossil-fuel addiction.
August 25, 2008 .. Extreme pressure changes near blades injures bat lungs, U of C study finds.( http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/aug2008/batdeaths ) Sounds like low frequency pressure waves to me. And this is when the blades are turning slowly. And how far will these pressure waves go when the wind is higher?
It all reminds me of the old tobacco industry tactics. The big tax payer subsidy $$$$$ must be as attractive to some big business operators as the nicotine addicted market was to the tobacco processors.
I'm suspecting that the low frequency pressure waves may not have been an issue with the smaller turbine units. It could be a direct effect of the oversized "mega-turbines'" blade lengths actually producing lower frequency LONGER pressure waves in higher INAUDIBLE amounts. Bigger isn't always better!
Developers of megawatt wind turbines are committed to producing evermore efficient rates of energy production. They strive to produce larger and larger wind turbines, the larger blades of which gather more rotational lift force from the wind, and the greater lengths of which produce greater torque (leverage) on the generator shafts .. both imparting greater energy to the generators. As a result, the industry has pursued the belief that "bigger is better".
Here are some examples of wind turbines' increasing sizes and specifications ...
A rotor-blade's contour is shaped to effectively produce "lift", similarly to an airplane's wing. This works by producing a low pressure area "above" (downwind of) the rotor-blades' leading edge. As each blade travels in front of the support column, the pressure variants that produce this low pressure area find their way to the high pressure area surrounding the column (produced by the wind being displaced around the obstacle of the column itself).
These low pressure variants impacting upon this column of high air pressure result in the projection of a pattern of further pressure variation, determined by both the tapered shape of the rotor-blade and the difference in the rotor-blade's speed between its hub-end and tip-end.
Over the years, as wind turbines have been manufactured in bigger sizes with longer blades, the production of longer pressure waves from this area of pressure variation has increased .. in greater amounts and at longer frequencies. Since there is little or no atmospheric absorption of extremely low-frequency pressure waves, they are able to travel well beyond the higher frequencies of audible sound.
Wind turbines should also be tested extensively, without any filtering-out of low-frequency pressure waves. Only by so supplementing the incomplete dB(A) testing process will the process be no longer limited to consider only "nuisance noise". Instead it will be broadened to include "all dangerous, unhealthy and nuisance pressure waves".
Additional note: The industry's biased method of averaging decibel readings over a period of time in determining setback distances should be disallowed. Rather, it should be required that pressure waves' individual cyclical high points of amplitude modulation should all be kept below maximum limits when determining setback distances.
We live on Lake Erie about 25 kilometers from the Nanticoke hydro plant. We know how bad it is and we have a windmill farm 20 K down the lake the other way. I have driven by them many times in the summer and would rather have them all along the lake than the coal plant. I've never heard one complaint about the windmills.
thermal generated electricity from AA forum is not an option ![[linked image]](http://www.algonquinadventures.com/messageboard/SoundNoiseConcerns.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.algonquinadventures.com/messageboard/TurbineSizes.jpg)
