How Many Studies Will It Take Before People Believe Wind Farms Don’t Harm Property Values?
Nine major and statistically reliable studies covering roughly 270,000 property transactions by different respected and independent organizations in three different countries spread over fifteen years have found no correlation between operating wind turbines and negative property values (in fact, three found slight but statistically insignificant improvements). Another low reliability study — due to small available sample size — in Australia found no impacts as well.
By comparison, only two moderately reliable studies with some statistical significance found property value impacts, and they are both challenged in different ways. Five other often referenced studies are merely case studies with no statistical significance, done by appraisers who show strong evidence of bias, and in one case showing direct and documented evidence of ignoring the reality of the property they appraise.
The evidence for property value impacts is very weak in comparison to the evidence for lack of harm. The studies showing lack of harm are much more robust methodologically and statistically, with much greater rigour which prevents biased selections and comparisons. Property value impacts continue to be assessed at great expense, but every robust study finds that there is no correlation between sales prices and nearby wind farms, and the most recent studies show that there is no impact on rate of sales of properties near wind farms either.
Respect the concern
Whether it is a home or a vacation property, the vast majority of people who buy or own rural property have a variety of deep emotional drivers attached to it. For some older people, it is the unchanging home they have been in for decades, in the midst of a rapidly changing world. For others, it is a rural idyll, the fantasy of a hobby farm or country estate. For others, it is an escape from the vertical canyons, concrete, steel and noise of the city. For almost all of them, it represents a very large chunk of their money, with all of the attendant concerns that it might turn to dust as happened in the US with the subprime mortgage fiasco in 2008. It is worthwhile to respect the deep emotions involved in this subject. Anti-wind advocacy groups certainly do, and while some are directly motivated by fears of falling properties, many broader groups are using those fears to directly motivate grassroots organizations to form to fight wind turbines.
Property values show no long-term correlation to wind turbine presence
There have been several major reports released in 2013 and 2014 that substantially increase the strength of statistical evidence of no property value impacts from wind farms.
The most substantive is the 2013 update of the 2009 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study, described below in detail.[26] Pertinent points are extracted here:
We collected data from more than 50,000 home sales among 27 counties in nine states. These homes were within 10 miles of 67 different wind facilities, and 1,198 sales were within 1 mile of a turbine—many more than previous studies have collected. The data span the periods well before announcement of the wind facilities to well after their construction.
we find no statistical evidence that home values near turbines were affected in the post-construction or post-announcement/pre-construction periods.
This major study controlled for significantly more variables and concerns than previous studies and found no impact on property values from wind farms.
The LBNL also collaborated with the University of Connecticut on an assessment of property value impacts near wind farms in the US state of Massachusetts in 2013, publishing their results in January 2014.[24] They spread the net even wider:
To determine if wind turbines have a negative impact on property values in urban settings, this report analyzed more than 122,000 home sales, between 1998 and 2012, that occurred near the current or future location of 41 turbines in densely- populated Massachusetts communities.
The results of this study do not support the claim that wind turbines affect nearby home prices. Although the study found the effects from a variety of negative features (such as electricity transmission lines and major roads) and positive features (such as open space and beaches) generally accorded with previous studies, the study found no net effects due to the arrival of turbines in the sample’s communities. Weak evidence suggests that the announcement of the wind facilities had a modest adverse impact on home prices, but those effects were no longer apparent after turbine construction and eventual operation commenced. The analysis also showed no unique impact on the rate of home sales near wind turbines.
In January of 2014, a Canadian study assessing impacts of the Melancthon wind farms — at one point the largest in Canada — on home and farmland property values over another 7,004 property transactions was published.[32] The conclusions:
The results of the hedonic models, which are robust to a number of alternate model specifications including a repeat sales analysis, suggest that these wind turbines have not significantly impacted nearby property values. Thus, these results do not corroborate the concerns raised by residents regarding potential negative impacts of turbines on property values.
In 2013, the University of Rhode Island performed an assessment specifically of property transactions in that US state.[25] They covered 48,554 property transactions over thirteen years, both near and far from the twelve large and mid-sized wind turbines constructed in ten sites between 2006 and 2013.
Across a wide variety of specifications, the results indicate that wind turbines have no statistically significant impact on house prices. For houses within a half mile of a turbine, the point estimate of price change for properties within 1⁄2 mile relative to properties 3-5 miles away 3 is -0.2%. So our best estimate is wind towers have no virtually effect on prices of nearby properties.
The best study in this field prior to 2013 was funded by the US Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. They charged the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory[7], a government-funded laboratory managed by the University of California to study the concern. This report was delivered in 2009. [2]
The present research collected data on almost 7,500 sales of single- family homes situated within 10 miles of 24 existing wind facilities in nine different U.S. states. The conclusions of the study are drawn from eight different hedonic pricing models, as well as both repeat sales and sales volume models. The various analyses are strongly consistent in that none of the models uncovers conclusive evidence of the existence of any widespread property value impacts that might be present in communities surrounding wind energy facilities.
It is worth noting and debunking the arguments used against the study:
- It doesn’t agree with what is obviously happening around the person observing; statistics have never had much success in convincing someone who believes something and receives sufficient evidence to support their confirmation bias.
- The Lab is government-funded; the bona fides and independence of the LBNL are top-notch and questioning them indicates the rhetorical or intellectual disposition of the questioner.
- The study excluded 34 statistical outliers; statistical studies of any size do this to eliminate unrepresentative data and 34 exclusions on a sample size of 7,500 is miniscule. This study is accurate and has not been gamed.
The next study is the 2007 study by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) [10] in conjunction with Oxfords Brookes University [11], [12].
These are serious, respectable and trusted institutes as well; RICS traces its history to chartering in 1792 and is a pre-eminent standards setting body world-wide. The researchers assessed property transactions within five miles (8 kilometers) of three wind farms from 2000 to 2007. This provides geographical, distance and time-frame perspectives. They eliminated transactions where significant other factors would impact prices: a large open cast slate mine, very expensive properties, very cheap properties and sea view properties. This was to provide a clear view of specifically wind turbines’ impact on property values. This left them with 919 transactions, which is statistically valid.[5]
Their findings:
Despite initial evidence that there was an effect, when they investigated more closely, there were generally other factors which were more significant than the presence of a wind farm. Insofar as there was any impact on prices, the results seem to show that it is most noticeable for terraced and semi-detached houses, with there being a significant impact on properties located within a mile of a wind farm. The effect seems much less marked – if at all – for detached houses.
Regarding the terraced and semi-detached houses:
The view of the estate agents was that proximity to a wind farm simply was not an issue. What they did say, though, was that the properties close to one of the wind farms – St Eval – were, in fact, ex-Ministry of Defence properties, and so less desirable than similar properties.
To paraphrase, while people blamed wind turbines for property value decreases, other factors were much more significant, and detached homes, the dominant form of real estate near wind farms showed no price impacts.
Unfortunately, RICS has removed this survey from their available publications on their website and appear to not be standing by the results of their research.
The third older study worth assessing is the Renewable Energy Policy Project’s (REPP) 2003 study.
While the oldest, it also assessed the largest pool of data, more than 25,000 property transactions in the USA. They looked at every home within 5 miles (8 kilometers) of ten large (>10 MW) wind developments that came online between 1998 and 2001. They gathered sales data for the control regions near the wind turbines but outside of the 5 mile (8 kilometer) boundary to ensure that they could assess differences accurately. They gathered six years worth of data covering the years leading up to and following the wind farms’ online dates. [22]
It is worth noting that while this is by far the largest study with the least statistical adjustment of data, the creator of the study, REPP, is an organization whose public and stated goal is to accelerate the use of renewable energy. [13] As such, while the study design is arguably very good and sample size the largest, it is the easiest to discount due to the source.
What did they find:
- For 8 of the 10 of the wind projects, property values increased faster inside the five mile limit than outside of it over the six years.
- For 9 of the 10 wind projects, property values increased faster within the five mile limit after the wind projects came online than they had before.
- For 9 of the 10 wind projects, property values increased faster within the five mile limit after the wind projects came online than in the comparable communities.
Not only did this massive study not find negative impacts on real estate values, it found exactly the opposite: wind turbines have a positive impact on real estate values.
Another study is also worthy of inclusion: “Wind Farm Proximity And Property Values: A Pooled Hedonic Regression Analysis Of Property Values In Central Illinois” by Jennifer L. Hinman in partial fulfilment of a Master in Applied Economics with Illinois State University in 2010. Her study evaluated 3,851 residential property transactions from January 1, 2001 through December 1, 2009 from McLean and Ford Counties, Illinois around the 240-turbine, Twin Groves wind farm (Phases I and II) in eastern McLean County, Illinois.
Ms. Hinman’s study found no correlation between a working wind farm and decreased property values, in fact saw more rapid price increases nearer to the wind farm as was observed in the REPP report. Her study most clearly shows that there is a statistical correlation between fears about a wind farm before it is erected, temporarily depressing property values, and that this temporary dip is rapidly eliminated once the wind farm is in operation.[18]
Ms. Hinman also did a literature review and found the same results: all major statistically valid studies find no negative correlation, but very small studies at or just above the level of the anecdotal do find negative impacts.
A New Hampshire, USA study published in December 2012 assessed another 4,600 property transactions and found:
While this study does not exclude the possibility of isolated cases of property value impacts attributable to the Lempster Wind Power Project, this study has found no evidence that the Project has had a consistent, statistically‐significant impact on property values within the Lempster region. This is consistent with the near unanimous findings of other studies—based their analysis on arms‐length property sales transactions—that have found no conclusive evidence of wide spread, statistically significant changes in property values resulting from wind power projects.[23]
Two correlation graphs from this study paint a clear picture.
Note that distances are in kilometres.
Basically, there’s no variance on home prices due to distance from wind turbines, and a huge correlation to size of dwellings.
A preliminary Australian study indicates that this is also true south of the equator. While the sample size of sales transactions is low, they found that 40 of 45 sales transactions had no evident reduction in value in close proximity to wind farms and that properties that were in sight of wind farms found no reduction in value. [17]
They also did a literature survey and summarized additional references with similarly devastating results for studies showing negative impacts:
What is the evidence that shows negative impacts?
There is one statistically valid, methodologically sound, peer-reviewed study which contradicts the preponderance of evidence above. Martin Heintzelman and Carrie Tuttle did a study of 11,331 property transactions over 9 years in three counties in Northern New York, 461 of which were within three miles of wind turbines.[19] They found that two of the three counties had significant property value decreases while the third had positive indicators. For context, this study is relatively equivalent in terms of organizational respect and depth to Ms. Hinman’s study from Illinois State University; credible but not from a world-class organization such as the Berkeley Lab or RICS.
A significant failing of the study that makes it difficult to trust compared to other studies is the short time frame of the data for the two counties with negative impacts. Their wind farms became operational in 2008 and 2009, basically in the last year of the data set. The county with positive impacts went live in 2006, in the middle of the data set, providing a much richer analysis space. There are several other significant differences between the two counties that showed negative results and the county with positive results as well.
- The two counties with negative impacts (Franklin and Clinton) had significantly fewer transactions — 210 between them — than the county with some positive impacts (Lewis) which had 251 transactions.
- The two counties with negative impacts had significantly higher resales of properties than the county with positive impacts, 75 to 65.
- The two counties with negative impacts are adjoining to one another with the third county two hours drive away, effectively in another community conversation region and making it possible for other local impacts to be masked; three completely separate or three completely co-located regions would have eliminated this oddity.
- The two counties with negative impacts had fewer wind turbines on average than the county with positive impacts (221 between them to 194 in Lewis).
This region also has a robust set of anti-wind activist groups. The 2011 anti-wind documentary, Windfall [20], is from upstate New York, and Lisa Linowes, a long term anti-wind advocate with ties to astroturf-supporters such as the Heartland Institute and the Koch brothers [21] was the sole technical advisor to the movie and has been active in the area.
Despite the largest county with the longest history of wind energy and the most transactions having positive indicators for property values, the authors focused their conclusions dominantly on the negative counties. The authors state in their preamble that they did not believe it possible that wind turbines didn’t negatively affect property values. They found the results they expected, ignoring the significant oddities in their results. This study can only be considered of moderate reliability due to the challenges with it.
A German study is worth assessing briefly. It cover 1,405 transactions near a wind farm of nine wind turbines in Germany. It found lower property values near wind farms, regardless of whether the wind turbines could be seen or not. It is weak as it does not have control values from other areas, does not assess other potential causes of hedonic impact and has a limited transaction base. At best it is an interesting outlier from the preponderance of evidence of only moderate reliability.[27]
There are four anecdotal sets of property value appraisals by property value appraisers in Canada and the USA that are often mentioned. They use variously case studies, paired sales analysis and an apparently invented statistical method in one case. They cover a few dozen property transaction with little in the way of methodological rigour or control. They all show strong evidence of pre-existing bias in their statements. Given the tiny sample sizes and poor methodological rigour, they cannot be considered reliable as evidence.[28-30]
One Australian study by a property appraiser, Peter Reardon, follows in the footsteps of weak anecdotal assessments in Canada and the USA, looking at three sales near wind farms and pairing them with properties elsewhere. It has the typical weaknesses of poor methodology and rigour, but a statement from a purchaser of one of the two properties which apparently suffered property value impacts came into my hands via a correspondent. It’s worth looking at what they say about the property that they purchased. Netting it out, it was grossly overpriced for reasons having nothing to do with the nearby wind farm, and everything to do with the property itself.
As you know the property had been on the market since September 2010 at no time did we see it advertised at $320,000
We spoke to the agent when it was priced at $299,000 which we thought was grossly over valued even for a lifestyle block let alone a grazing block, having as you stated not only one but two 330KV lines transversing the block along with the associated easement restrictions (some 50 double sided pages of conditions and and terms), it is divided by the duel carriage Hume Higway and two truck parking bays (north& south), with the associated noise and litter problems, it has no 240V power access on the block (and we know what that costs). That’s the lifestyle detractions of the block.
Now Grazing- the block has over 30% water logging and drainage problems, covering both sides of the highway-in fact many times we saw the agents vehicle parked on the edge of the road- presumably inspections by “foot” The block had poor boundary fencing on the southern side, the carrying capacity of the block is app. 2.5 DSE per Ha.
We therefore came to the value of $205,000 (2500 per Ha.) This was allowing some $8000 for “proximity” to the Highway- having purchased her brother’s property some 12 months before at app. $2400Ha.(carrying capacity of6 DSE per Ha.) (no agent involved in this transaction! )
We had to increase this offer by some $20,000 to secure this deal. I think Real Estate Agents are no different in the country to their city cousins- raising unrealistic expectations of the value of property especially in a difficult market. It would seem that people want sub-division prices for undeveloped land, not allowing for development and approval costs
Having also sold the mentioned 80Ha block on the Collector Rd we know the demands of financing lifestyle blocks in recent years. This block does have 240V power available as per Council Sub-division regulation.
Summary
The examples listed in the question and others [1], [4] represent real people telling the truth as they see it, which is to say, from a limited perspective in both space and time. What they are observing is accurate but restricted.
- Some people do not buy homes when they understand that wind turbines might be going up near by
- Some people do sell or try to sell their homes when they hear that wind turbines are going up
- Property prices do dip under those conditions: this is a real occurrence, supported by the Illinois statistical study.
What are the fears that are driving this?
- Fear of health is one, with the psychogenic Wind Turbine Syndrome and it’s equally fictitious cousin Vibro-Acoustic Disease. Note that these are not real diseases, but they are promoted by both the originators of the concept and by anti-wind advocacy groups as being real, and they are creating a health hysteria in English-language countries around wind energy.[8], [9], [13]
- Fear of property value decreases, which this article is assessing.
- Fear of wind turbines collapsing, throwing blade parts or causing fires. These are so massively unlikely that no rational analysis would include them, but they are highly evocative. [15]
These are real fears of unreal things. They are strongly promoted by anti-wind advocacy groups. It is strongly arguable that anti-wind advocates drive down property prices in the run up to wind farms becoming operational just as they are creating the psychogenic health hysteria, “Wind Turbine Syndrome.”
References:
[1] http://friendsofwind.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/USA-2010-Hinman-Wind-Farm-Proximity-and-Property-Values.pdf
[2] The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis
[4] http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2012/wind-turbines-constitute-a-taking-of-private-property-value-mass/
[5] http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/estates/kenly-farm/images/RICS%20Property%20report.pdf
[6] http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/do-wind-turbines-affect-property-values/
[7] http://www.lbl.gov/
[8] “Wind turbine syndrome” is more wind than syndrome
[9] Wind farms don’t make people sick, so why the complaints?
[10] http://www.rics.org/
[11] http://www.brookes.ac.uk/
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Brookes_University
[13] http://www.repp.org/aboutus.html
[14] Humans evolved with infrasound; is there any truth to health concerns about it?
[15] Wind farms causing fires? All smoke, no flame
[16] http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/WindfarmDiseases.docx
[17] Preliminary assessment of the impact of wind farms on surrounding land values in Australia / prepared for NSW Valuer General [by Robert R Dupont and Joshua Etherington], 2009, English, Archived website edition: http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/37246622?q&versionId=48424067
[19] http://clarkson.academia.edu/MartinHeintzelman/Papers/1155349/Values_in_the_Wind_A_Hedonic_Analysis_of_Wind_Power_Facilities
[20] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1581829/
[21] http://checksandbalancesproject.org/2011/08/12/lisa-linowes-and-the-disinformation-of-industrial-wind-action-group/
[22] http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/wind_online_final.pdf
[23] Impact
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book
Our Latest EVObsession Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
This article is another perfect example of “Gaslighting”
http://quixoteslaststand.com/2014/03/01/gaslighting-by-the-wind-industry/
What a bunch of crap. Would you live here, Mr. I’ve Got All My Graphs? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=692093047503557&set=gm.787712644591594&type=1&theater
That looks fairly close to me.
But a week ago I was driving past a wind farm so I decided to see what they sounded like. I pulled off on one of the access roads and got out.
At about a quarter mile I couldn’t hear anything.
At about 100′ I could hear a soft “swooshing” sound that wouldn’t have been detectable were there any trees like yours around. The noise of wind blowing through the trees would have totally masked the sound.
I suspect you are working hard to hear any sound you can from that turbine and have wound yourself up so tight that even the slightest sound upsets you.
The big issue for you and Larry, I suspect, is that your view has changed. You enjoyed a bucolic setting but you owned only the part to your property line. Someone else did something on their property that decreases your enjoyment of your property, but that is simply how the world works.
If you don’t own your view, you don’t own your view.
Bob apparently not only do you have a closed mind, but you don’t hear so well either. You pulled off and listened, so now your an expert about the sound generated by wind turbines. How my view changed is the least of it, being kept up from the noise and not being able to sleep is much more of a problem. If you think there is no problem, come stay at the House on the Hill and let’s see how you feel, but talk is cheap isn’t it?
I don’t ,I’ve near turbines, but I don’t automatically label people as NIMBYs or “too sensitive” as you appear to. Here’s an experience someone has 24/7, 365 days a year. I don’t believe you could stand it any easier than those “too sensitive” people.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=632221546834996&set=vb.504757246248094&type=2&theater
And how close is the person standing who recorded this?
How loud did they crank up the volume? There’s no reference sound.
Bob, LFN is measured with equipment that picks up frequency’s not measured in the decibel range. Paul Schomer , Alex Salt, jerry Punch and D. Hessler (who works almost exclusively for wiind companies all have thus technical expertise. They all note that LFN (inaudible) noise is the main culprit . You can find a number of their peer reviewed papers on line so can read them all or choose one or two as time permits.
Make up your mind, Mary. Is it inaudible noise i.e. infrasound or low-frequency noise which is audible?
They are different you understand?
Schomer and Salt are concerned — erroneously — about infrasound impacts. Schomer believes that a couple of studies in which people on flight simulators being shaken and having their visual cortexes stimulated in unusual ways is at all relevant to infrasound from wind turbines which is completely imperceptible.
http://barnardonwind.com/2013/09/23/from-flight-simulator-induced-nausea-to-infrasound-a-remarkable-leap/
Salt has only published actual studies on guinea pigs at very high levels of infrasound in which minor physiological changes of no apparent negative impact occurred, and then written a bunch of unpeer reviewed hogwash about how that means human ears will change and this will be negative. The leap between the two is extraordinary. His most recent paper puts forward five separate and equally unlikely hypotheses unsupported by data for this non-impact.
http://barnardonwind.com/2013/02/20/humans-evolved-with-infrasound-is-there-any-truth-to-health-concerns-about-it/
Punch believes in the Portuguese Vibroacoustic Disease BS, which is about as thoroughly debunked as it is possible for a fictitious disease to be. That he accepts it and similarly poor quality material indicates his level of incredulity for negatives is very low, while his level of credulity for the alternative hypotheses of no harm is very high. Serious bias and information distortion in other words.
http://barnardonwind.com/2013/10/04/vad-venal-arrogant-distortion/
Hessler isn’t flakey and agrees with pretty much everyone else including WHO that 40 dB is a very reasonable level of noise with no negative impacts.
“Hessler Associates has summarized their experience with wind turbines to date in a peer-reviewed Journal[1] and have concluded that adverse impact is minimized if a design goal of 40 dBA (long term average) is maintained at all residences, at least at all non-participating residences. To the best of their knowledge, essentially no annoyance complaints and certainly no severe health effect complaints, as reported at Shirley, have been made known to them for all projects designed to this goal.”
http://www.windaction.org/posts/35724-low-frequency-and-infrasound-at-the-shirley-wind-farm-in-brown-county-wisconsin#.U0uDg8a_AhI
So you’ve got flakey a-scientific stuff in three cases and one reference who doesn’t actually agree with you.
What was it you were saying?
And was it infrasound or LFN you meant?
Mike Blow-Hard:
Here is a some science/medicine:
http://www.frequency.com/video/low-frequency-noise/160110655/-/5-18118
Mary, we don’t call each other names here.
I’m taking that comment down. If you’d like to respectfully address Mike then re-post.
And, again, I’ll suggest that asking people to look at videos is not a good communication method.
Right, we certainly wouldn’t want to watch a physician present at a medical conference where the science showing physiological changes in response to low frequency noise from wind turbines might cause anyone to rethink the issue. That might impact the financial/industrial narrative and we don’t want to jeopardize the billions of dollars being indiscriminately thrown at wind developers who indiscriminately site turbines to maximize profits. That would be a TERRIBLE idea.
I’m not impressed by anyone getting up behind a microphone and talking.
Published research in a reputable journal is what gets my attention.
(And “peer-reviewed” is worthless if the “peers” are unqualified.)
VAD isn’t peer-reviewed as applied to wind energy in any way, shape or form. It’s already a laughable scam attempt when applied to air crew, and applying it to wind energy based on a conference presentation with exactly 1 (one) case study of a small boy whose only diagnosis of VAD was from the only person who actually diagnoses VAD in the world is not credible in several different ways.
Repeating the comment from where Mary posted the video link above:
This inane video is by the sole person still pushing vibroacoustic disease, one Mariana Alves-Pereira. VAD has been thoroughly debunked by several significant studies, all of much higher rigour than the bizarrely incompetent work done by Alves-Pereira and her predecessor / mentor Nuno Castelo-Branco. They have been working — fruitlessly — for years to get this non-disease declared a workers compensation payable condition to maximize the fairly minor cash cow they created in inventing the disease in the first place. Alves-Pereira has been trying to extend the non-disease into wind farms from air crew. Here are the papers debunking VAD assembled into a single post with excerpts and links.
http://barnardonwind.com/2013/10/04/vad-venal-arrogant-distortion/
Here is an analysis of an interaction I had with Alves-Pereira on an occupational health board in which this untenured, part-time teacher at the 15,000th most significant university in the world tried ad hominems, conspiracy ideation, appeals to (non-existent) authority, fright tactics, bold-faced reversals, mirrored accusations and a variety of other argumentative tricks to win the debate, without ever actually responding clearly, coherently and accurately to the substance of the vivisecting studies. These are the tactics of pseudoscience and con artists. That anti-wind activists such as Mary quote Alves-Pereira says a lot about both of them.
http://barnardonwind.com/2013/10/13/pseudoscience-debate-tactics-a-vad-case-study/
I don’t live near turbines, but I don’t automatically label people as NIMBYs or “too sensitive” as you appear to. Here’s an experience someone has 24/7, 365 days a year. I don’t believe you could stand it any easier than those “too sensitive” people. I know I sure as hell couldn’t.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=632221546834996&set=vb.504757246248094&type=2&theater
Again, how close was the person standing?
How accurate is the recording? There’s no way to tell how loud the sound actually is. Someone could have cranked it up very high.
Inadible noise is the issue so getting out to see if you hear anything is pointless.
Watch out and don’t bump into any of those invisible turbines.
Looks like a one of these photos taken with a telelens that makes objects look closer to each other than they really are.
The problem with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study and others is the sample is too large and dilutes the impacted properties so it appears sales are not impacted very much .Homes 5 miles away have no business being included in the study and skews the figures so homes impacted seems less. We have people in our neighborhoods who have left and can’t sell their homes as no one wants them as the noise alone is horrendous. IWT’s use as much resources as they make and wreck the environment, not only for manufacture, but placement as well. I watched in horror as the mountain was ripped apart for the IWT project. Now the watershed flashes after it rains and hardly any water in the streams after a few days. The wildlife are imapcted as well. I found 4 dead bats on one trip, right next to the towers and if I really looked I’m sure others had been killed. All this and very little electricity makes it to the grid and Billions of taxpayers funds have been given to multinational corporations. Mike Barnard, we have an invitation for you and others that think IWT’s are harmless and good for the envirnonment, come stay at the House on the Hill, and see for yourself what’s like to live with a IWT project as neighbors. I’m sure you will decline with some excuse as it’s easy to shoot your mouth off about things you have no personal experience in and instead you spread misinformation for the pro wind industry that is making Billions from tax subsidies for mostly useless projects. People are suffering and you are contributing it to it. Any decent person should be ashamed of that!
The claim that wind turbines stop rain is new one to me.
Note to Larry and Ellen: you problem is that wind power is cheap and effective, not that it’s useless. If you think that claiming so reinforces your legitimate amenity objections, you are wrong: it weakens them by branding you as cranks. You should also accept the solid research findings that most people don’t feel the same about the amenity loss as you do. If they did, it would show up in property prices, and it does not.
I’ve read Larry’s comment through twice now and nowhere does he say that wind turbines stop rain. This is the problem with people who are pro-wind. They take something that is said and twist it all out of shape to make it into nonsense. Then they run around making claims like, “anti-wind people think wind turbines stop the rain”, when no such thing was said.
Another favourite is, “anti-wind people claim turbines give them herpes”. Again, no such thing has ever been said, but it’s used against the people who are most severely impacted by wind turbines to make them sound insane.
That is the “Progressive” ( Communist ) way, as taught by Alinsky, they will not debate facts, just ridicule and demean the other side.
Just checking, but I call for respect for the concern in my article, provide full references and analyses of both pro- and con- studies and reach a fact-based conclusion which is evident to anyone with a moderately open mind.
Meanwhile, Linowes, Valewood and Lorusso are having fun with personal attacks on me.
What was that you were saying exactly?
Mike I’ve gone back and reread my posts to you and have no idea where you are getting the idea I’ve made fun of you. I’m saying your claims are completely false as the study you claim as evidence is flawed to say the least. I personally know people who had to leave their home as they couldn’t live there with the noise and infrasound. Now you can say it’s in their minds, but the reality is they can’t sell their house at any price, and they can’t afford to just write it off. My offer to you or anyone else that thinks health issues are in peoples minds, to come stay at the House on the Hill. Otherwise I will consider you as full of wind and no substance. People are suffering and you don’t seem to care, but talk is cheap and my neighbors are suffering, including myself. You check it off that we are imagining it, yet tell others to keep and open mind. Put your actions where your mouth is! My challenge to you is come stay at the House on the Hill.
“I’m sure you will decline with some excuse as it’s easy to shoot your mouth off about things you have no personal experience in and instead you spread misinformation for the pro wind industry that is making Billions from tax subsidies for mostly useless projects. People are suffering and you are contributing it to it. Any decent person should be ashamed of that!”
If you can’t see the personal attacks in that, Larry, you really need to consider remedial reading comprehension.
Mike, you might consider staying at the House on the Hill before you say things like people are imagining, or reading about possible health issues and not really from wind turbines. You have absolutely no experince and are only mouthing what you have read. Truth is you are shooting your mouth off and spreading misinformation and worse. You refuse to accept that people are being affected negatively, including loss or property values. If there is no truth to that than why is a town in Vermont lowering property valuation for taxation of homes located too close to wind turbines? They must imagining it as well, right?
So what about my offer Mike, or are you too busy and know everything already? Very tired of pro wind pointing there fingers at us, calling us NIMBY’s and worse. Al Gore wannabes, who don’t really practice what they preach, and have no problems pointing fingers. But then talk is cheap, walking the walk is another thing. The way your talking it suggests you don’t use fossil fuels, but I could be wrong about that? Actually I’m an IMBY, as it is in my backyard. The neighbors from Hell do wake me up and I’m not able to sleep at times from the noise. Some of my neighbors have it much worse, but people like you don’t need to consider that as it’s all in our heads right?
You’ve made that point, Larry. There is no reason to restate it.
You have been asked to furnish some supporting evidence for your claims. How about spending time responding to requests rather than continuing to repost the same stuff?
My evidence is you staying at the House on the Hill so I can see how it will be in your head too! I posted figures to debunk your drivel about 3-8 moth payback for wind turbines and you deleted them. Truth hurt or does it scare you? I can repost them as the figure are here and it’s all public record as far as the numbers. Not 8 months, at least 14 years Bob for payback of Hoosac Wind!
Larry, your post was taken down for violating community standards. That was clearly explained to you.
You were invited to repost your statement in a civilized manner.
Hoosac Wind developer Iberdrola (CEO from Spain came to opening ceremonies) recieved $94,000,000 in tax incentives for a project of 19 GE 1.5 MW wind turbines. $94,000,000 /12 months + 7,833,333.30 per month cost. Divided by 730.48 hours per month average = cost of $ 10723.48 per hour. Those are the figures of what it cost taxpayers. Here is what the project is producing at best. 7.123 mWh to grid at $103 mWh = $733.87 at 25% of rated capacity of 28.5 based on similar projects in New England. (http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/maine-wind-sites-production-for-entire-year-2012) The figures are public record of what Ibredrola received from subsidies. The fact is Hoosac Wind will take at least 14 years to break even, not including transmission infrastructure costs born by rate payers. Your estimate of 3-8 months is not even close to reality at Hoosac Wind.
Larry, 3 to 8 months is the time it takes wind turbines to return the energy used to build them. Energy, not dollars.
Hoosac may take 14 years to pay itself off. Someone would have to go through your numbers to see if they are correct.
We really don’t talk about time to repay cost when we compare technologies. We assume a 20 year payoff of capital at a standard rate of interest, include other expenses, and calculate the LCOE (levelized cost of electricity). And when comparing technologies we use average costs, not cherry-picked outliers.
Bob to coin your term, please provide the facts that wind turbines replace the energy used in manufacture, transportation, and installation in 3-8 months. I’m sure you will include numbers for things like concrete, site preparation, and transportation from China for Hoosac Wind as that is the country of manufacture. 19 GE 1.5 turbine energy consumption, and 5 miles of roads. Also the 15 miles of transmission lines and substation to deliver the electricity to the grid. We can leave out for now fuel used to balance the loads onto the grid and just keep it simple at the direst energy consumption for Hoosac Wind to prove your claim of 3-8 months for energy consumption. To be accurate I think maintenance and decommisioning should be included as those use resources as well and I’m sure you want to be factual and acurate.
You first, Larry.
Put up or shut up.
Your the one who has made a claim that wind turbines payback the energy used to create turbines in 3-8 months. The burden of proof is for you to provide the evidence instead telling me to shut up. I already went through the hoop before only to have you say you were talking about energy, and not finances. I’m waiting too see this!
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148111002254
see for example:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148199001238
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096014810900055X
Bob, some of us need to be concerned with finances and don’t live in an ivory tower. We will see how many turbines being built today are around in 20 years. A fair amount of turbines in the Northeast have been experiencing various types of failures. Guess who will be left holding the empty bag?
http://www.frequency.com/video/low-frequency-noise/160110655/-/5-18118
Please, Mary, don’t drop links without a summary of what they contain.
And I’m not watching a video to see if somewhere in it my issues might be addressed.
You are pushing an idea. You currently have a forum to present and defend your position.
Seriously, Bob, you think this is just some random link? I would have expected that from Mike Barnard but not from you. Watch the damn video, Bob. Then comment. You might have learned something.
No, Mary.
I’ve spent too much time watching worthless videos. If you have a point make it.
I’ve provided comment on the video for context.
This inane video is by the sole person still pushing vibroacoustic disease, one Mariana Alves-Pereira. VAD has been thoroughly debunked by several significant studies, all of much higher rigour than the bizarrely incompetent work done by Alves-Pereira and her predecessor / mentor Nuno Castelo-Branco. They have been working — fruitlessly — for years to get this non-disease declared a workers compensation payable condition to maximize the fairly minor cash cow they created in inventing the disease in the first place. Alves-Pereira has been trying to extend the non-disease into wind farms from air crew. Here are the papers debunking VAD assembled into a single post with excerpts and links.
http://barnardonwind.com/2013/10/04/vad-venal-arrogant-distortion/
Here is an analysis of an interaction I had with Alves-Pereira on an occupational health board in which this untenured, part-time teacher at the 15,000th most significant university in the world tried ad hominems, conspiracy ideation, appeals to (non-existent) authority, fright tactics, bold-faced reversals, mirrored accusations and a variety of other argumentative tricks to win the debate, without ever actually responding clearly, coherently and accurately to the substance of the vivisecting studies. These are the tactics of pseudoscience and con artists. That anti-wind activists such as Mary quote Alves-Pereira says a lot about both of them.
http://barnardonwind.com/2013/10/13/pseudoscience-debate-tactics-a-vad-case-study/
I love visiting wind farms. I’ve done it in three or four countries now in North American, Europe and the eastern hemisphere.
The wind farm wouldn’t stop me from visiting you, I wouldn’t visit you because you appear to be a completely disagreeable person who is incapable of presenting useful information in a polite manner as part of a conversation. Ad hominems and frothing aren’t my idea of fun. If they were, I’d watch Fox News.
There you go again Mike…you prove my point.
Just because Larry disagrees with your mis information does not make him a disagreeable person…it is you that make things personal…talk about not sticking to the topic what has Fox News got to do with this story?
By the way, I have learned from experience that “visiting” wind projects has nothing whatsoever to do with having to “live” adjacent to a wind project. My friends live adjacent to a wind project; I enjoy going to their home EXCEPT when the wind speeds, wind direction and weather makes their home an acoustically toxic environment. To add to the toxic acoustics (audible and low frequency) there is also the environmental pollutant known as Shadow Flicker that transforms their neighborhood into a neurological nightmare… the strobing bombards the optical pathways with swirling and intense shadows from ground to above the tree tops! Just to set things straight, Mike, neither the acoustic environment (dB(a) levels) nor the strobing would be allowed in Europe to this degree! We, here in Massachusetts, have allowed conditions that even the Europeans would NOT allow for
in many communities!
Mike, you should stick to the topic and stay away from the red herrings that you engage in.
My take is that Larry is questioning (you say attacking) your professional opinions NOT you personally. It sure seems to me you spread mis information and you consistently marginalize those who are suffering from living too close to these industrial power plants.
We live in a country (state and community) that is based on the rule of law. The industrial wind development here in Massachusetts has violated many laws (Nuisance, Trespass) and also the state constitution (Private Property Rights stolen with no just compensation).
Sorry, Mike…I agree with Larry and understand his passion (his humanity) and your misguided insistence that we all must sacrifice runs counter to the laws of our land that are intended to protect us all from tyranny!
So, your views and insistence that there is no harm either real estate wise of health wise is pure green-washing.
I knew a bully once who was so brave and brash, then when questioned cried to all that it was he who was being made fun of (personal attacks)…psych 101 calls that a reaction formation… Not calling you psychotic rather you remain steadfast in denying reality.
By the way the Mass CEC Real Estate “study” is garbage in garbage out. Here is one example: Home in one community on the market for over nine months…no sale, no inclusion in this study…no accounting for homes residents are unable to sell to the big ole monstorous and ominous turbine in their backyard…a turbine that has stolen their quality of life in VIOLATION of several laws!
Actually the herpes claim seems to be real.
It’s one of the problems investigated in the research performed to see if there was any detectable health problems arising from proximity to wind turbines.
Along with both weight loss and weight gain.
http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/NZ-Conf1.pdf
Now your making fun of us Bob, didn’t your Mom teach you decent manners? Now Stephen Colbert is your source for facts on Wind Turbines, I’m impressed!
Colbert has a good segment on wind turbine syndrome.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/420904/november-07-2012/wind-power-s-health-hazards
Stephen reports that wind turbine syndrome is a ‘communicated’ disease: it spreads via the nocebo effect by being talked about, and is thereby a strong candidate for being defined as a psychogenic condition [a condition that originates psychologically].”
And he talks about how herpes is one of the claimed problems caused by wind turbines. (Worth a listen.)
Cheap…lol you are the Joker! Iberdrola of Spain recieved $94,000,000 in tax subsidies for a 28.5 MW rated capacity wind project. That comes to $4.94 million per turbine or $3.29 per MW of rated capacity. They will be lucky to achieve 25% or 7.125 MW output not including power to run the turbines, hardly cheap and if we include the fossil fuels used to manufacture, transport (China) and prepare and install, and maintenance we are talking expensive even including the subsidies. The we have the intangible loss of a large wilderness habitat. Neighbors who can’t sell their homes or people reluctant as values are substantially lower now. People who mover here for the quiet rural area want to move now, but can’t. Here’s my offer, you think I’m a crank, well come and stay at the Hill House if you are so sure and prove it with your actions instead of your mouth or are you just another big mouth and a computer cowboy?
No claim here that wind turbines stop the rain but they are noisy and cause me sleep deprivation. If your not just blowing wind you will take me on my offer to stay at the House on the Hill and prove I’m wrong, but ha ha, you are a chicken and full of cheap talk. I wouldn’t doubt your a shrill for the wind industry and I would really enjoy meeting you!
Research paid for by MassCEC, quasi agency funded by ratepayers, (currently have war chest of $200,000,000 used for pro wind activities) includes properties up to 5 miles away. Including properties that far deluted the closer properties and reduced the percentage of properties affected. If you have 10 grams of salt in 1 liter of water. and then add the liter of water with salt to 4 liters of water there is the same amount of salt, but the percentage has been reduced from the percentage before. Same with the study on property values. including properties 5 miles away that are not impacted has no place on the study and only gives the illusion of being less impacts. Not included in the study is properties that can’t be sold because are too impacted and no one wants them and the properties that people don’t put on the market knowing they won’t be able to get close to value before the projects were built. I know homes in my neighborhood who do fall into what was not included in the study. For the reasons stated the study is flawed and doesn’t reflect what is actually going on in the market place. Continue to cling to studies that prove nothing as you don’t seem to be concerned with facts!
“IWT’s use as much resources as they make”
Wind turbines return the energy it takes to build them in 3 to 8 months.
“All this and very little electricity makes it to the grid”
In 2013 wind farms supplied 182,993 million kWhs of electricity to the grid. 4.7% of our total supply.
“Billions of taxpayers funds have been given to multinational corporations”
No taxpayer money has been given to multinational corportations. Some international businesses have earned money. GE, for example.
These anti-wind people are so dishonest….
4.7% of your total supply for how many billions in subsidies, compared to other sources of energy? I’d say that most anti-wind people are far more educated and informed on this issue than someone who hasn’t had their lives negatively impacted by these things.
There’s two groups of people who still support wind energy. Those who make money in some way from this source of generation and those who are easily duped by the word green and live no where near any of these monstrous machines.
We know which category Mike Barnard falls into. How about you Bob? How close do you live to one of these 500 foot tall wind machines?
Over the first 15 years of these energy sources’ subsidies, oil and gas got 5 times what renewables got (in 2010 dollars) and nuclear energy got 10 times as much. (Most of the renewable subsidies went to corn farms for ethanol, not wind, solar and other renewable electricity technologies.)
Between 1918 and 2009 oil and gas received average annual subsidies of $4.86 billion. (92 x $4.86 billion = $447 billion)
Between 1947 and 1999 nuclear received average annual subsidies of $3.50 billion. (53 x $3.50 billion = $185.6 billion)
Between 1980 and 2009 biofuel received average annual subsidies of $1.08 billion. (29 x $1.08 billion = $31 billion)
Between 1994 and 2009 renewables received average annual subsidies of $0.37 billion. (15 x $0.37 = $5.6 billion)
http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/What-Would-Jefferson-Do-Final-Version.pdf
Renewables received 92% less per year than oil and gas, 89% less than nuclear and 76% less than biofuels. And for many fewer years.
How have those subsidies paid off? In the last 30 or so years the cost of wind-electricity has dropped from $0.38/kWh to $0.04/kWh. More than a 6x drop. The price of solar panels has fallen from around $100/watt to just above $0.50/watt. Almost a 200x drop.
As we all know the price of fossil fuels and nuclear just keeps going up. (Aside from a short term drop in the price of natural gas.)
Bob, you do realize there is a difference between a tax deduction and subsidy right? And your figures about renewable subsidies are off by Billions!
These pro wind people have no qualms about using figures that have no basis in reality. Bob, $94,000,000 on just one project alone in tax incentives to Iberdrola and they have many more in the US. First Wind is another example of a corporation receiving massive subsidies for their projects. But I’m sure your not going to let facts get in the way of promoting wind power at all costs, and certainly do not consider the toll on the neighbors when placed too close. And certainly don’t recognize the environmental consequences of placing these projects in pristine habitats.
Show us some proof that my subsidies are off by billions, Larry.
From now on I’d like you to back up all your claims with facts.
Tax deductions are subsidies.
Tax credits are subsidies.
Below market sales/leases are subsidies.
Market guarantees are subsidies.
Assumed liability is a subsidy.
Coverage of external costs is a subsidy.
There are many ways to subsidize other than handing over a bundle of cash.
As a DBA, I’m allowed to deduct expenses from from income and pay taxes on profit after expences. That’s not the same as a subsidy or grant. I receive neither subsidy, or grant as a DBA in my line of business. Now if I were a wind developer, not only would I be able to deduct my expenses of doing business, but also various tax subsidies and incentives in addition to my expenses for wind projects I built. Further wind projects don’t pay taxes to the towns as we do for property. Be interesting to see now that PTC hasn’t been renewed what how many new projects will be proposed.
As a “DBA” there are times during which the federal government allows you to purchase equipment and use an accelerated depreciation schedule. That is a subsidy.
If you were a business of any size there would be other subsidies which you could take advantage.
I’m not sure where you get the general statement that wind farms do not pay local taxes. The red states have fallen very much in love with wind farms because their locally paid taxes are breathing life back into small towns that were dying away.
Bob I got the idea from the facts that Iberdrola has a “special” deal with the towns of Monroe and Florida MA of yearly payments of $250,000 total to the towns. Keep in mind the Florida has a commercial tax rate of just over 8% and the payment of $125,000 is hardly a spit in the bucket compared to paying yearly taxes at 8% of $94,000,000. First thing they has to do is buy a fire truck and even then it can’t deal with a potential fire at the project. Not much breath in that as the breath is very small. Meanwhile the residents continue to carry the burden of taxes for town services with very little help from Iberdrola. Funny about them facts eh?
Larry, I don’t know if a particular town gave a particular wind farm some sort of special deal. Quiet frequently towns and states give tax breaks to attract businesses. Just look at what happens with professional sports arenas.
Bob I do know what the deals are here in New England and not one project that has been installed pays the tax rate that all other must pay. You can use the Hoosac Wind “deal” as typical of the other deals.
Perhaps governing bodies in New England realize that they are behind when it comes to clean energy and job creation.
Perhaps they are investing for the future via tax forgivenance.
Wow 3 permanent jobs at Hoosac Wind. Supervisor and the other 2 pick up dead birds and bats. Employment is surging due to Hoosac Wind…not, and you are too funny Bob
OK, Larry, you’ve had a platform to make your charges. But if you don’t back up your claims when requested you will go away.
Now please review the comments and respond to requests. Any further non-responsive posts from you will be deleted.
You da Man Bob…yes master I’ll go hide in the corners until you let me speak. Can I have bone too?
Again a deduction for equipment, even accelerated is for a cost of doing business that is subtracted from income so that the DBA is paying taxes on the profit. The reason I keep repeating myself as you seem to have a problem accepting facts so I repeat in the hope you will see the error of some of your statements. There is hope for even the hopeless!
Sorry, Larry. You don’t understand that accelerated depreciation is a “special deal”, therefore qualifies as a subsidy.
Let me remind you that you are skating on very thin ice with your insults.
I realize that you are very upset because someone spoiled your view. It appears that you have let that disappointment push you to the point where you have become irrational.
Bob as I’ve repeatedly mentioned in the past the spoiled view is the least of it. A pristine wilderness has been ruined with associated impacts. But the real shame is contrary to your short visits to wind turbines, IWT’s make lots of noise and produce infrasound, and it doesn’t take a study to know that noise will make sleep difficult if not impossible. Now refusing to believe that’s what wakes me or my neighbors doesn’t change the facts. It happens enough for me that it does take a toll and often I don’t feel rested when I get up in the morning and don’t sleep well. Before the project started to operate I used to sleep very well.
Larry, we have numerous studies showing that the infrasound stuff is bunk.
If you are having trouble sleeping because someone built a wind farm in your view then you might want to get some professional help dealing with reality.
Not according to many experts and MassDEP is looking at changing measurements to include infrasound. You can come and visit anytime to put your actions where you mouth is, but you might learn something.
Get the study same place the bogus property value study commissioned by MassCEC? It’s not the view that keeps me up Bob, it’s the noise.
Bob I used to be a bigger DBA, but now I do more things for myself and try and enjoy life. If only the neighbors from Hell would be quiet I’d be happy all around.
Not having to pay for damages (external costs) is also a form of subsidy.
A new development in southern France which grew up around the base of existing wind turbines, including schools and hospitals.
And yes, I took the video on a very windy day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFBE6onRvlk&hd=1
Actually, there are only two kinds of people in the world: the ones who lump everyone into black-and-white categories, and those who don’t.
In the former category, we tend to find conspiracy theory buffs of every stripe, paranoid psychotics, compulsive Fox/Limbaugh fans, hypochondriacs and devotees of every wacky and miracle cure that comes along, religious zealots. In general, people who refuse to change their preconceptions no matter how much scientific evidence is brought to bear.
The fact that wind whiners list every illness known to Man (well, maybe not malaria) as being caused by turbines, is reason enough to ignore their claims.
Where I live, there are large wind farms on both sides of town, and though I don’t live next to one, I’ve walked among them as well as being close to other turbines, and I agree with Bob that in close proximity, the noise they make is trivial compared to wind blowing through trees (or even by one’s ears outdoors), traffic, and any of countless other sounds in modern society.
No, I don’t make any money from wind power, although the wind farms contribute to local employment and tax revenue. I like seeing them out there producing clean energy, and it’s reassuring that we’re doing at least something to move away from well known damages from fossil fuels. I think wind turbines are kind of beautiful and spectacular, like the modern equivalent of clipper ships under sail. Don’t my views and preferences count, too?
Bob,
You have done this dance before of misinformation. Recently a deal in Massachusetts was reached where the WHOLESALE price of wind power of yet permitted or constructed wind projects woiuld sell for 8¢ kWh. The PTC would bring the final price to 10.3¢ kWh, which is more than National Grid is charging for RETAIL. Currently WHOLESALE pricing on the New England grid averages 4-5¢ kWh. Iberdrola a SPANISH corporation recieved $94,000,000 in tax incentives for Hoosac Wind. That being a multinational corporation Bob, and Iberdrola has numerous projects in New England. They don’t pay one dime of taxes on their projects. What a joke, 3-8 months payback, that is beyond dishonest, and an outright lie! $94,000,000 (not including infrastructure substation and 14 miles of transmission lines) means in 12 MONTHS, the project would need to average $7,833,333.30 per month to break even. Average of 730.484 hours per month comes to $10723.48 per hour and at $103 mWh ($80+23=103) means the project would need to generate 134 MW per hour. Simply IMPOSSIBLE Bob! The rated capacity is 28.5 MW for Hoosac Wind with average of 7.125 MW (at 25% actual output) X $103 = $733.875 per hour which suggests it will take at least 14.61 years for the project to break even. You can take you lies and shove them in a really dark place as you are full of excrement and beyond dishonest!
No all caps stuff Larry. Don’t shout.
And do not insult others.
This comment is coming down. You are free to repost in a more civilized manner.
It would be fun to cross- examine Mr. Barnard in a formal hearing, where knowledge matters. Since he’s not an expert on any of the wind topics he writes about, that will never happen.
Mr. Barnard’s claim to fame is repeating wind industry propaganda that has already been debunked in study after study. Of course, you’ll never see him mention that in any of his articles.
List the studies, Valewood.
List only studies from reputable , peer-reviewed publications. Nothing from anti-wind crackpot web sites.
Nice one Bob, don’t like how my figures don’t work about claims of wind turbines payback in 3-8 months so you delete my post. Very creative, and wouldn’t expect anything less!
I think at this point I have to say “prove it”. There is not a single credible study that has found any causal link between wind farms and illness and none that point to depreciation in real estate values. Not one. You can’t prove it because proof to support your belief system simply does not exist.
I’m willing to believe that there are a very few incidents where property values have been lowered by turbine placement.
But this small group of anti-wind people attempts to make large mountains out of very small molehills.
Health effects? These same people are driving themselves crazy if that counts….
LOL, Short drive methinks! : )
If I understand this correctly, Valewood is suggesting that an article containing every pro- and con- study, full referenced to originals so that people can look for themselves, with the pro- studies being run by extraordinarily competent, reliable and independent organizations, is repeating propaganda.
Fascinating perspective. Dead wrong, but fascinating.
You would be bringing a rubber knife to a gun fight. I place my bets on Mr Barnard.
Ms. Linowes probably knows what happens to anti-wind types who attempt to do this. So far I’ve run across fourteen presumed experts on the anti-wind side that have been rejected as experts outright or had their evidence dismissed completely.
http://barnardonwind.com/2014/02/05/anti-wind-experts-dismissed/
This is in the 47 cases to date related to wind energy and health world wide, all but one — related to a municipal turbine on a sewage treatment plant of all things — which have found what the 20 literature reviews have found: no health impacts from wind turbines.
http://barnardonwind.com/2014/02/23/wind-energy-health-concerns-fail-the-test-of-law-repeatedly/
Of course, Ms. Linowes fails to mention a couple of things about herself — she’s founder and executive director of an anti-wind group that seems to consist of her and, well, her — and she has very interesting connections and ideas of what constitutes a robust source of information.
http://checksandbalancesproject.org/2011/08/12/lisa-linowes-and-the-disinformation-of-industrial-wind-action-group/
The lack of expertise is on the anti-wind side. The disinformation and disdain for facts is on the anti-wind side. That’s why they keep losing in court and why public health professionals ignore them for the most part.
“It would be fun to cross- examine Mr. Barnard in a formal hearing, where knowledge matters.”
You do realize you’d get your teeth kicked in as badly as the Discovery Institute, right?
You don’t need a peer-reviewed study (which these days are only as good as the money paid out for them) to use your common sense. You have two rural properties, alike in almost every way. One has an unobstructed view in every direction. You can sit outside at night and hear nothing but crickets. You can sleep in your bed with the windows open so the gentle night breezes can come in.
The other property is surrounded on all sides by 500 foot industrial machines with blades as long as a 747, swishing and thumping all night long, with their blinking red lights and accompanying shadow flicker and ground vibrations that come right through the foundation of your home. Closing your windows doesn’t help. Blinds don’t help.
It doesn’t take a great deal of brain power (and pro-winds have little enough as it is) to know that the house with the unobstructed view and quiet nights is going to get more money than the home that has turbines as far as you can see in every direction. If you believe otherwise, you are a complete fool.
Common sense told us man would never fly.
Bring data, not BS.
How many 500 foot industrial turbines do you have surrounding your home Bob? Meaning no more than 550m away.
The typical spacing of large wind turbines is 10-15 rotor diameters on the highest density axis (dixit Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine#Wind_turbine_spacing). With a 100m rotor diameter, that translates to 1- 1.5 km. I question whether it is possible in practice to be “surrounded on all sides” by turbines.
Yes, James. It is. 550m is the setback distance in Ontario. All you have to do is drive through the Chatham Kent area of this province. It looks like an industrial wasteland. Turbines in every direction as far as you can see.
Why don’t you use Google satellite view and show us some examples of houses surrounded by wind turbines?
Non-responsive, Vale.
Bring data, not more verbiage.
If you post data that contradicts Bob he will delete it as he doesn’t like when the facts don’t backup his false claims.
Larry, if you’re going to engage in attacks rather than supplying the information requested you will be banned.
Understand?
Bob Wallace,
I’m sorry to butt in here off topic, but I’d like to ask you for a piece of information. On a thread about a month ago you told someone to “read the Budischak paper”, apparently having to do with battery energy storage. I’d like to read that paper but couldn’t find the link in that thread. Could you help with that?
Thanks in advance. Tom Flood
It’s here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1NrBZJejkUTRYJv5YE__kBFuecdDL2pDTvKLyBjfCPr_8yR7eCTDhLGm8oEPo/edit
Actually what Cory and his group did was take the “you can’t run a real world grid on nothing but wind and solar” and show that it is possible. And affordable.
They used four years of minute to minute demand on the largest wholesale grid in the US and hourly wind and Sun data and found the optimal amounts of storage and overbuilding to meet demand 100% of the time.
They found that they needed a small amount of natural gas (about seven hours a year) to keep the price reasonable.
If you give it a read pay attention to the fact that solar and wind are already cheaper than what they were predicting in 2030.
Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time
https://docs.google.com/file/d/1NrBZJejkUTRYJv5YE__kBFuecdDL2pDTvKLyBjfCPr_8yR7eCTDhLGm8oEPo/edit
Also remember that with load shifting, adding other renewables and power trading with adjacent grids the price would fall further.
Thanks very much for the link and the preview. I’ll read it carefully.
Here are video testimonials from a whole bunch of people in different countries who like being surrounded by wind turbines just fine.
http://barnardonwind.com/2013/12/09/in-their-own-words-people-living-among-and-near-wind-farms-on-video/
You don’t need a global military base presence to protect wind assets…. was just a matter of time for peer reviewed studies to emerge….
MrEnergyCzar
Mike Barnard you continue on your charted course at the helm of the Ship Of The Fools, all named herein.
You have nothing but heavily subsidized “studies”.
MY QUESTION TO YOU: “How Many Studies Will It Take To Prove Wind Farms Don’t Harm Property Values and Don’t Harm People?
You and your shipmates, are obviously having a very difficult time proving your case.
XXX
First, no all caps please.
Second, if you think wind turbines are hurting property value then it is your responsibility to produce the data to prove your case.
Bob,
I have the data.
And, look, Bob, no caps and, just how many studies will it take to prove wind farms do not harm property values and do not harm people?
Marie
Mike Barnard you continue on your charted course at the helm of the Ship Of The Fools, all named herein.
You have nothing but heavily subsidized “studies”.
My question to you: “How Many Studies Will It Take To Prove Wind Farms Don’t Harm Property Values and Don’t Harm People?
You and your shipmates, are obviously having a very difficult time proving your case.
XXX see more 0 You must sign in to down
Then publish the data. Prove your point.
Bob, just keep digging and you and Mike will eventually arrive at where I am. Oh, a good Appraiser might help and an independent Epidemiologist. Keep looking.
Mary, you made a claim.
Back it up or go away.
It is Marie
and
away, I am