New Study Says Wind Turbines are Bad For The Health

[waldo]

If you noticed, it says "average". And that's the problem with wind power, it's not stable. Let's say you are provided with 3 meals a day on average. However, if all those meals came between July and Dec, you would probably be dead by then. You article even mentioned that "natural gas or coal plants are required to offset shortfalls", so you still have to have the capacity on standby.

I am not against wind power, just saying that it has its disadvantages.

apparently you don't understand electrical grids. No one with any understanding presumes wind is a stand-alone energy source... it's a part of the mix in moving away from a complete and total reliance on fossil-fuels.

[cybercoma]

It is not clear what controls one could put on a study to distinguish between nocebo effects and real effects.

It's quite easy actually. You create an index for the respondents' impression of the effects of living near wind turbines and control for it. If the marginal effects of believing that they cause adverse health effects is significantly related to respondents reporting that they have adverse health effects, then that suggests that there is a nocebo effect in play. Once you control for that effect, you look for the remaining association between living near and away from wind turbines and a respondent's health.

Edit: Just to add, the last study provided (see: http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2012;volume=14;issue=60;spage=237;epage=243;aulast=Nissenbaum) does actually control for participants attitudes. The sample that they have does indeed suggest that there's an association with poorer health the closer one lives to wind turbines. There's a significant problem with their study though and that's sample size. Their margins of error are huge and it's not readily apparent how this would relate to the population as a whole. Having only a handful of respondents means that the variation is limited and their conclusions, while interesting, need corroboration with many other studies or a few studies with a much larger sample size.

Edit 2: Looking at their findings and methodology, there are some serious problems with this work. Not surprisingly they've actually been in trouble in the past for their sloppy work. Consequently, here is an a letter to the editor of the journal where their study appeared. The letter is criticizing Nissenbaum's work here and details the issues with it far better than I could here.

http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2013;volume=15;issue=63;spage=148;epage=150;aulast=Ollson

Edited May 30, 2013 by cybercoma

[Archanfel]

apparently you don't understand electrical grids. No one with any understanding presumes wind is a stand-alone energy source... it's a part of the mix in moving away from a complete and total reliance on fossil-fuels.

I suspect it's you who don't understand electrical grids. Let me put it in a way you will understand. Let's say you got an electric car. Yes, it can potentially cut down your fuel usage. However, since it can only run 40 km, you can't use it on long drives. Therefore, you still need the gas car, which means you have to maintain it, buy insurance, change oil, have depreciation, pay stickers. Therefore, you have to have a carrying cost for both cars. Not only that, since both cars have to be built, you are not doing the environment any good either.

Same thing with wind turbine, the natural gas and goal plants still have to be maintained and staffed even if it's only running half of the time. And that's assuming you are not using nuclear (which Germans don't, but Ontario does). Nuclear stations can't be shutdown easily. You have to run it all the time because you never know when the wind will die down. There's also no easy ways to store energy, so all the excess power generated are wasted.

Really, you are not doing wind power any good by being ignorant.

[waldo]

Really, you are not doing wind power any good by being ignorant.

really, perhaps you should read what I actually wrote... and you even quoted!

[waldo]

This is what makes wind power uneconomic. Building capacity and not using it only saves the marginal cost of fuel but even then the savings are reduced because you burn more fuel starting/stopping the generators to compensate for wind power variability.

nonsense! Again, long established grid-management practices are relied upon... coupled with forecasting, appropriate scheduling and a reduction/management in actual variability through the placement of wind-farms across a larger geographic area positioning.

Poland has taken the step to ban wind power imports from Germany because is was costing Poland too much to deal with the variable flows.

no - the issue has nothing to do with formal imports... Germany provides those per arranged contract. However, there is a legitimate concern over 'loop flows'; although described as rare, they have occurred in one of Germany's 4 grid control areas... as I interpret, they have to do with occurrences when too much wind energy has been created (and not properly managed by German operators) and the excess has been flowing into Poland's internal grid. Germany has responded in the immediate by more stringent management practices... it has also upgraded the schedule on it's own internal grid modifications/development, one result of which will more properly manage 'loop flows'.

[Guest]

deleted post

Edited May 30, 2013 by bcsapper

[The_Squid]

Lol

If only I made it to Paris more often.... Holy shit....

[Archanfel]

really, perhaps you should read what I actually wrote... and you even quoted!

Really, you are not doing wind power any good by being ignorant. What you wrote proved that.

[waldo]

Really, you are not doing wind power any good by being ignorant. What you wrote proved that.

you've now called me ignorant twice, while offering a ridiculous electric versus gas car analogy. Based on what I actually wrote... the very words I used, why don't you take the actual statement and explain what prompts you, twice now, to throw down your 'ignorant' insult?

[Archanfel]

you've now called me ignorant twice, while offering a ridiculous electric versus gas car analogy. Based on what I actually wrote... the very words I used, why don't you take the actual statement and explain what prompts you, twice now, to throw down your 'ignorant' insult?

It's an opinion, not meant as insult. For example, I am ignorant of quantum physics, that's a fact, I don't consider that as an insult.

Why do you think my analogy is "ridiculous"? I hope you didn't meant that as an insult. The facts are pretty simple and you didn't really deny it although you chose to ignore them in your arguments

1. Wind power is unreliable and needs backup power generation, just like a electric car needs a gas car as a backup. Sure, you said wind power is not suppose to be a standalone system, but that doesn't change the fact.

2. The backup power generation cost money even if it's never run and does not use fuel just like the gas car has a fixed cost.

You denied either, yet you said I don't understand the power grids, accused me of not reading the article you linked and said my analogy is "ridiculous". So I can only conclude you are ignorant of how power grids work in Ontario. I'd rather think you were not being argumentative.

If you do understand how power grid work and acknowledge that wind power does have significant cost issues for both the utility and the end users, then I apologize and take it back. Then the argument becomes whether the benefits of wind power is worth the additional costs. That's for the ordinary users to decide.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Archanfel

[margrace]

Are the people objecting to wind mills willing to go back to horse and buggy. We bought our place because we fell in love with the wind mill in our backyard. Although this one has to be decorative, it doesn't get enough wind to use but we could probably run a generator off it if we had too. My husband does not have the technology to figure out how to use it but it certainly is a lovely thing on a sunny day when it sends rays of light into my kitchen. I love it. We are on the side of a hill but I would not object to having a big one on top of the hill. We just don't have anyone sufficiently interested in setting one up. But they would not object if someone did.

[waldo]

1. Wind power is unreliable and needs backup power generation, just like a electric car needs a gas car as a backup. Sure, you said wind power is not suppose to be a standalone system, but that doesn't change the fact.

no - what I said was, "No one with any understanding presumes wind is a stand-alone energy source... it's a part of the mix in moving away from a complete and total reliance on fossil-fuels." Thanks for finally acknowledging it. In that standalone context, wind power is unreliable. So my comment aligns with yours - I'm not changing your described "fact"! So what's your beef???

however, this your latest reference to backup power requires a qualification: in the context of most countries limited wind deployment... backup power generation specifically aimed to match the level of wind power generation is not required... it's already built into the system as excess spare capacity. A variable wind presents no differently than regular 'ebbs & flows' of supply vs. demand and the backup excess capacity intended to manage those 'ebbs & flows'. Alternatively, country depending, as I understand, it's only when the level of wind electricity generation approaches ~15-20% of the total electrical supply, that dedicated backup provisioning for wind must be built into the system. And, of course, very few countries have yet to reach this level of wind electrical generation. Equally though, a similar like analogy exists with any type of power plant... excess backup capacity is required to deal with, for example, outages due to failure and/or regular maintenance.

.

2. The backup power generation cost money even if it's never run and does not use fuel just like the gas car has a fixed cost.

I've just now qualified your misconceptions over wind back-up requirements.

.

You denied either, yet you said I don't understand the power grids, accused me of not reading the article you linked and said my analogy is "ridiculous". So I can only conclude you are ignorant of how power grids work in Ontario. I'd rather think you were not being argumentative.

clearly you don't bother reading what's been written, particularly in context. The article I linked was offered in response to a suggestion that wind provided no useful power. I highlighted the peak... and average... levels that were generated within Germany in 2012. Thereupon you 'wigged out' presuming to make a point on stability - buddy, if my intent was to highlight only the peak value, that's all I would have quoted... I most certainly would not have included, as I did, the average reference... nor would I have bold-highlighted it! I've spoken to the rest of your nonsense above.

and no, I did not "accuse you" of not reading the article... what I said was, "perhaps you should read what I actually wrote... and you even quoted!" The more I'm reading you, the more I'm interpreting that perhaps English isn't your first language - yes?

as for your suggestion of being argumentative - yes, I agree, that's exactly what you've been... when you don't read what's been written, when you ignore context, when you "accuse me" of something I didn't say, and when you liberally throw around the 'ignorant tag', you're simply being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. And since you attempted to expound on your use of the 'ignorant tag'... unless you qualify it (which you didn't, either time)... it's you calling something ignorant without qualification.

you need not bother responding... I have no further cycles to waste.

.

[Archanfel]

no - what I said was, "No one with any understanding presumes wind is a stand-alone energy source... it's a part of the mix in moving away from a complete and total reliance on fossil-fuels." Thanks for finally acknowledging it. In that standalone context, wind power is unreliable. So my comment aligns with yours - I'm not changing your described "fact"! So what's your beef???

however, this your latest reference to backup power requires a qualification: in the context of most countries limited wind deployment... backup power generation specifically aimed to match the level of wind power generation is not required... it's already built into the system as excess spare capacity. A variable wind presents no differently than regular 'ebbs & flows' of supply vs. demand and the backup excess capacity intended to manage those 'ebbs & flows'. Alternatively, country depending, as I understand, it's only when the level of wind electricity generation approaches ~15-20% of the total electrical supply, that dedicated backup provisioning for wind must be built into the system. And, of course, very few countries have yet to reach this level of wind electrical generation. Equally though, a similar like analogy exists with any type of power plant... excess backup capacity is required to deal with, for example, outages due to failure and/or regular maintenance.

.

I've just now qualified your misconceptions over wind back-up requirements.

.

clearly you don't bother reading what's been written, particularly in context. The article I linked was offered in response to a suggestion that wind provided no useful power. I highlighted the peak... and average... levels that were generated within Germany in 2012. Thereupon you 'wigged out' presuming to make a point on stability - buddy, if my intent was to highlight only the peak value, that's all I would have quoted... I most certainly would not have included, as I did, the average reference... nor would I have bold-highlighted it! I've spoken to the rest of your nonsense above.

and no, I did not "accuse you" of not reading the article... what I said was, "perhaps you should read what I actually wrote... and you even quoted!" The more I'm reading you, the more I'm interpreting that perhaps English isn't your first language - yes?

as for your suggestion of being argumentative - yes, I agree, that's exactly what you've been... when you don't read what's been written, when you ignore context, when you "accuse me" of something I didn't say, and when you liberally throw around the 'ignorant tag', you're simply being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. And since you attempted to expound on your use of the 'ignorant tag'... unless you qualify it (which you didn't, either time)... it's you calling something ignorant without qualification.

you need not bother responding... I have no further cycles to waste.

.

Well, I am going to respond anyway. First of all, thank you for the post and I do apologize. I should have qualified the "ignorant tag". I thought it was clearly qualified given the context of the discussion, I guess I was wrong. However, I do wish you wrote this post in the first place instead of your previous terse responses.

I think I was confused by your usage of the word "average" since average is meaningless here unless you have a large enough deployment. We are talking about Ontario, which does have a limited deployment. Now that you have clarify the context of your argument, I agree with you that more widely used wind power can alleviate the problem somewhat. However, the frequency of wind power "outages" can not be equaled to other types of power plants. No power plants have a failure rate that cause the power level to flunctuate wildly every day. Also, as I pointed out, nuclear stations, which are widely used in Ontario, are not suitable as backup for wind power. Even with wide deployment, you still have to consider the cost of power transmission over wide areas.

Therefore, within the context of Ontario power generation, I still maintain that wind power has severe disadvantages at this point. Do you agree?

Within the context of Germany, well, we are not in Germany, nor do we pay German taxes.

[TimG]

I agree with you that more widely used wind power can alleviate the problem somewhat.

Not really. Since weather tends to be correlated across large regions. i.e. when some of the turbines stop - they all stop and vise-versa. To get any benefit from averaging you have to deploy continental networks but we don't have and are not likely to have the massive inter-connectors that would allow the large amounts of power to flow between regions (the inter-connectors that exist allow some surplus power to flow between regions but the majority of power still has to be produced locally at any given time).

Within the context of Germany, well, we are not in Germany, nor do we pay German taxes.

The German example is also spurious because Germany depends on its neighbors to handle the variability in wind generation (i.e. the percentage of power generated by wind is much lower than claimed because the grid used to manage the fluctuations is much larger than Germany itself).

In many places wind turbines are simply disconnected from the network at peak times. In Texas, the turbine operators actually pay transmission companies to avoid this because they don't get subsidies if they don't sell power (the payment is slightly less than the money received in subsidies).

Personally, I thought your analogy to having to pay for a gas car even if you bought an electric extremely good. Despite waldo's protests it nicely illustrates why wind power is of limited use as a grid power source.

Edited May 31, 2013 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

We are on the side of a hill but I would not object to having a big one on top of the hill. We just don't have anyone sufficiently interested in setting one up. But they would not object if someone did.

You might think a little fifferent if you knew how big these things really are - the most popular are between 328 and 410 feet tall - the blades alone are 120 feet - over 10 stories wide and tall. Imagine a structure that's 30 to 40 stries tall - on top of that lovely hill out back. These are not windmills - they are industrial wind turbines - and they are monstrous.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[margrace]

Good lord how can anyone with eyes not know how big they are. I don't know where you live but the morning news in Toronto often scans over the big one there. Any dolt can see how big it is and how it towers over the surrounding buildings. I have yet to meet or talk to anyone who is against them. There appears to be a small group of people stirring up all the fuss about them.

Edited June 3, 2013 by margrace

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, they are plenty big.

[Sandy MacNab]

Yes it is. Wind cannot exist without a 100% backup from conventional power sources. These sources consume more fuel because they are constantly being adjusted to deal with variable wind loads and it would be more cost effective to run these backups at 100% and turn off the wind.

And, in order for the wind farms to be profitable (i.e. consumers don't have to pay the full load) they have to be government subsidized. The turbines also kill many birds and bats, a fact that some environmentalists and (dubious) animal rights advocates conveniently overlook. For those of us who also love the southern Alberta mountain vistas, the towers and turbines are a blight.

[scribblet]

The many issues re turbines are being white washed, there are problems around the world which are ignored by the likes of our Ontario gov't. People who are normally concerned about the environment and animals are so desperate to believe in these turbines they go into denial about the problems they cause.

They also ignore the fact that these turbines cause more damage than they relieve as their infrastructure demand negates anything they produce. In some areas they destroy the environment but not only that, the cost of supplementing these turbines with gas-fired generators is worse. Not to mention it's intermittent and very expensive.

What about the acres of cropland they destroy etc. etc.

http://london.ctvnews.ca/fire-destroys-top-of-wind-turbine-near-goderich-1.1220567#ixzz2PMKOsAMf

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/01/05/19203361.html

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/10463

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8807761/wind-farms-vs-wildlife/

[BubberMiley]

People who are normally concerned about the environment and animals are so desperate to believe in these turbines they go into denial about the problems they cause.

You aren't normally concerned about the environment? That says a lot.

It seems to me that people who are normally against anything they consider "green" are desperate to bring down any form of alternative energy. It seems more of a political opposition, however, than a practical one.

Edited June 3, 2013 by BubberMiley

[waldo]

Since weather tends to be correlated across large regions. i.e. when some of the turbines stop - they all stop and vise-versa. To get any benefit from averaging you have to deploy continental networks...

nonsense! Yes, continental networks, as being pursued by the EU, are the ultimate variability management approach. However, geographic smoothing across multiple wind farm outputs on a localized regional level provides significant value/gains in managing wind variability. Since you specifically mentioned Texas: The variability of interconnected wind plants

...analyzing the interconnected measured output of 20 wind plants in Texas. Reductions in variability occur at frequencies corresponding to times shorter than ∼24 h and are quantified by measuring the departure from a Kolmogorov spectrum. At a frequency of 2.8×10⁻⁴ Hz (corresponding to 1 h), an 87% reduction of the variability of a single wind plant is obtained by interconnecting 4 wind plants. Interconnecting the remaining 16 wind plants produces only an additional 8% reduction.

Edited June 3, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

The German example is also spurious because Germany depends on its neighbors to handle the variability in wind generation (i.e. the percentage of power generated by wind is much lower than claimed because the grid used to manage the fluctuations is much larger than Germany itself).

more nonsense. Per your similar just raised claim: see rare problem related to 'loop flows' attributed to 'improper management practices' within one of four grid management control areas... rare problem coincident with times where too much wind energy is being created.

Poland has taken the step to ban wind power imports from Germany because is was costing Poland too much to deal with the variable flows.

no - the issue has nothing to do with formal imports... Germany provides those per arranged contract. However, there is a legitimate concern over 'loop flows'; although described as rare, they have occurred in one of Germany's 4 grid control areas... as I interpret, they have to do with occurrences when too much wind energy has been created (and not properly managed by German operators) and the excess has been flowing into Poland's internal grid. Germany has responded in the immediate by more stringent management practices... it has also upgraded the schedule on it's own internal grid modifications/development, one result of which will more properly manage 'loop flows'.

[waldo]

And, in order for the wind farms to be profitable (i.e. consumers don't have to pay the full load) they have to be government subsidized. The turbines also kill many birds and bats, a fact that some environmentalists and (dubious) animal rights advocates conveniently overlook. For those of us who also love the southern Alberta mountain vistas, the towers and turbines are a blight.

the ole' renewable subsidies canard! In the past I've addressed the repeated raising of the same subsidy BS. Historically, fossil-fuels have received... and continue to receive... an inordinate degree of direct monetary and indirect (e.g. tax credits/grants) subsidization as compared to renewable alternatives.

Fossil fuel subsidies are 10 times those of renewables, figures show - New analysis shows that government support for fossil fuel industry is about 10 times that offered to renewable energy firms

without regard to taxation, consumption or production subsidies... per the IEA, just with R&D alone, the subsidies for fossil fuels and renewables are almost on par:

e.g.; renewable now cheaper than new-build coal & gas-fired plants

from Bloomberg: Unsubsidised renewable energy is now cheaper than electricity from new-build coal- and gas-fired power stations in Australia

[waldo]

The turbines also kill many birds and bats, a fact that some environmentalists and (dubious) animal rights advocates conveniently overlook.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8807761/wind-farms-vs-wildlife/

notwithstanding the significant existing and future climate change related impacts/deaths to wildlife, relative to all other manner of direct deaths attributed to birds, deaths related to wind turbines pale in comparison:

from the National Academies (National Research Council - 2007): Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects

Collisions with buildings kill 97 to 976 million birds annually; collisions with high-tension lines kill at least 130 million birds, perhaps more than one billion; collisions with communications towers kill between 4 and 5 million based on “conservative estimates,” but could be as high as 50 million; cars may kill 80 million birds per year; and collisions with wind turbines killed an estimated at 20,000 to 37,000 birds per year in 2003, with all but 9,200 of those deaths occurring in California. Toxic chemicals, including pesticides, kill more than 72 million birds each year, while domestic cats are estimated to kill hundreds of millions of songbirds and other species each year. Erickson et al. (2005) estimate that total cumulative bird mortality in the United States “may easily approach 1 billion birds per year.”

Clearly, bird deaths caused by wind turbines are a minute fraction of the total anthropogenic bird deaths—less than 0.003% in 2003 based on the estimates of Erickson et al. (2005).

a more timely 2009 study - one that calculates the number of birds killed per gigawatt-hour (GWh) generated for wind electricity, fossil fuel, and nuclear power systems... a study that estimates wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity, while fossil fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. Given the studies expressed uncertainties of the data used, it estimates that, "wind farms killed approximately 20,000 birds in the United States in 2009, while nuclear plants killed about 330,000 and fossil fueled power plants killed more than 14 million birds."

and given particular profiled attention to large raptor bird deaths, wind industry organizations have been actively working with wildlife groups/associations towards locating wind farms factoring bird migratory patterns... or 'raptor corridors'. Equally, technology advances have brought marketed radar detection options particularly targeted towards large migratory bird flocks and large raptors:

.

Edited June 3, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

You aren't normally concerned about the environment? That says a lot.

It seems to me that people who are normally against anything they consider "green" are desperate to bring down any form of alternative energy.

says a lot when something as "noteworthy" as a most rare (mechanical attributed) failure/fire to a single turbine must be trotted out! ... I wonder if it caused a power blackout on the grid!!! (/snarc)

http://london.ctvnews.ca/fire-destroys-top-of-wind-turbine-near-goderich-1.1220567#ixzz2PMKOsAMf

(apparently, even on a brazillionth-fold scale difference, no coal or gas-fired plants have ever had mechanical failure - never!)

Edited June 3, 2013 by waldo