Turbine “torture” for Greek islanders as wind farms proliferate
channelnewsasia.com
channelnewsasia.com
If you really want to, click this link: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fZE (but be gentle because I don't know how well the overpass APIs scale...)
Here you can see the northernmost turbine in the area, the one also closest to Petries, mentioned in the caption of the top picture:
https://i.imgur.com/8rBjHbp.png
That's here:
http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/mesure-distance_315118#1...
That's just about 660m away from the next village. That's starting to be uncomfortably close in terms of noise indeed. Way to make sure you'll have justified opposition right there. *sigh*
I'm not very sympathetic to the visual complaints -- car infrastructure already ruins many a landscape, I actually don't mind the turbines -- but the noise argument I agree with; proper distance (adapted to the geography) must be maintained.
Edited to fix overpass link
I'm not sure people realize but wind turbines are pretty darn loud (check at 2:55 in the video), that's exactly what they sound like at times. There's honestly zero excuse to build something that loud anywhere within audible range of peoples' homes.
PS: checked it out myself, from some light googling:
Road decibel levels are about 55 dB (averaged over a day) for about 30% of the EU population.
Wind turbines are supposedly 43 decibels if they are within a few hundred meters of a house. I guess it probably varies a lot depending on the turbine in question.
So, it's not like an additional similar noise to what they've been used to, just less polluting and dangerous for their cat. It's a new noise level they're forced to put up with.
Even if it compared it wouldn't make it much better, because those islands don't have any sizable traffic on roads - and almost insignificant near those villages.
So, its like suddenly they have to put up with road-level noise (if not worse), on their remote village in some remote island - and not even from their own cars.
At those distances it's like suddenly all around your village there's a airconditioner-level noise... Mighty annoying to people who have enjoyed mostly nature-level silence for all of their lives...
Not at all. Db is not linear, so "suddenly have to put up with" "about 1/4 of the noise." Would be more accurate.
An example difference of 12db is a muffled idling compact car versus a consumer lawnmower at 10'.
Yeah, I know what a difference of -Xdb is, as I do audio production work. Another example of 12db difference is a blender vs a vacuum cleaner. But despite it being -12db lower (or even a little more), I wouldn't stand to listen to the latter, still. So it's not just the difference that matters, it's the initial level.
The actual noise level they now have to put up with didn't exist in their village, and what did exist didn't have the specific sound / frequency distribution - so it's still annoying - maddening even, if you need to suffer because some others decided to put those things a few hundred meters near you.
Average noise level doesn't tell you the frequency spectrum; the low frequency noise from (aircraft, roads, power plants, etc.) is particularly unbearable, and inescapable even inside sound-insulated buildings, while the high frequency noise from (aircraft, turbines, 24/7 emergency vehicles, etc.) hits the 5KHz "crying baby" peak of sensitivity in human hearing.
[0]: https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1547&con...
That is statistics as blurred images :) Compare 55dB of, say, so-called "musical impressionism" to 43db of "hardcore techno"...
I mainly wanted to do a dB comparison so there's a reference to how this 'torture' compares to other, normal experiences. If they had made this point of fact explicit in the article, then maybe they would have went on to explain how the particular sound profile of the wind turbines was somehow worse (hopefully with evidence!) than it seems at first blush.
Since they didn't, it's pretty clear to me that the writer or editor has either woeful research practices, deficient intellect, or a private interest. My money is on the last one: lots of wealthy, well-connected people own holiday homes that lose value when people build turbines near them.
What?!?!?!? I clearly stated it: sound amplitude has nothing to do with it - that can be a source of torture, or may not: it is the shape and duration of the sound.
If you thought that this 'torture' can be compared to other experiences through a dB value, you are not entitled to write about deficiency.
Be informed: certain noise is a nuisance with one wearing white noise inside earmuffs over earpugs. That abates decibels, yet can make the effect even worse.
They have not «went on to explain how the particular sound profile of the wind turbines» because it's not needed at all, you do not normally need to convince the public: if you yourself do not believe that those things are a nuisance, go listen to one! And even if someone played "bearable", you know: that's your feeling, go live or just stay near one if you want; others have passed by them, remained in shock, and now avoid them, with some relative difficulty, because there are territories around the world that do not offer that much space left, which increases the fear as "deficient intellects" are all around and many voices has raised lately "let us multiply those turbines", which translates to some as "let us adopt silver bullet solutions which are popular: let us give the public what they want", "careful what you wish for" for "deficient intellects".
If a speaker is naive in thinking that the public can receive a message, that is not even 'intellect' at fault - it's 'outellect'. The inside may work very well, it's the outside that does not duly reflect expectations.
Moreover, it's obviously important to include, in an article about noise 'torture', that these noises are by no means loud noises, just so your audience get an actual picture of what's going on.
PS: I just realised, you thought my post was talking about you, and not the writer of the article! Apologies for offense caused: I was being rude about the journalist, not about you. Unless you are the journalist, in which case, offense absolutely meant.
But was the noise recorded near the turbine(s)? And considering the turbine(s) are 530 yards (almost 1/3 mile) away from the home, those shadows falling on the building could only occur briefly near sunrise and sunset.
Here are some decibel readings at an equivalent distance from a turbine site in England. 4 to 6 dB is a lot less noisy than the AHA video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKgN2G9d0dc
It seems to me that the key thing is that the latter were installed a long time ago and acceptance is baked into life. But if you think about it, utility poles with cables running everywhere are a more invasive eye sore. And listing all the problems with highways here would certainly hit the character limit.
There's a lot surrounding us in modern life that if you step back, you might see a problem. Wind turbines are new so they're under the microscope. But if they've enabled Greece to cut its coal power substantially, they're certainly worth it.
You think that people speak of torture lightly?
> What is the difference between wind turbines and ... utility poles festooned with cables
If you turn, you do not see the poles, but you hear the turbines.
> What is the difference between wind turbines and highways
1) Not many people seem to have called highways "unbearable".
2) Some linear segments of highways run into the wilderness, spoiling an area according to the distance to a line. Some clusters of wind turbines are placed in the wilderness as a cloud of broadcasters, spoiling an area according to the distance to an area.
3) There are little alternatives to highways.
Edit:
and:
> There's a lot surrounding us in modern life that if you step back, you might see a problem
So let us encourage the public to see evident problems immediately, instead of "discovering" them later, post facto.
Yes. It’s easy to find people who claim, for example, that’s it’s torture to wear a mask during the pandemic. This is especially common with NIMBYs who are trying to make their case sound more persuasive than “I don’t like change”.
That’s not to say that there aren’t valid complaints here but it’s important to remember the selection bias: people who don’t mind don’t seek out reporters to tell their story. There’s a long history of this — I’m reminded of the various “electro-sensitivity” hoaxes involving complaints about cell towers starting months before they were even powered on — so the first thing you’d want to ask is how broadly shared these concerns are, followed by the trade offs (living next to a windmill beats living next to a coal power plant, for example), and putting it in perspective (windmills kill birds, but so do windows and fossil fuel plants - both at much greater rates).
The idea expressed as «“I don’t like change”» seems quite an understatement, mixing acceptable change and intolerable conditions. It is as if saying "John is unhappy about the neighbour playing the drums in the night: he does not like change".
Why would the "breadth of sharing of the concerns" be an important factor? If something is intrinsically faulty that is not determined by the number of those who notice it. I am used to seeing people living in absolutely indecent conditions and them being just contented - this makes those conditions acceptable to them, but not good or acceptable in general.
Yes, note that I wrote an entire paragraph on that point. It’s simply that with this kind of dispute you cannot assume that everyone involved is an objective observer. That means things like seeing whether everyone in the area shared these views or if you’re only hearing from a minority.
I’m not familiar with this part of Greece but with US wind farms I’ve heard a notable generational divide: you’ll hear a complaint from someone older but their kids don’t mind because they don’t have 50 years of memories and are far more likely to think that a different view is a cheap cost compared to the impact of climate change on their future.
When some credible people, caveats aside - even a single one - tell you that "it is a torture", it probably is - the phenomenon rightfully takes the label of 'torture', as the state of things. Objectively. That some people do not perceive it as such, means little - especially in territories where people are used to dumb themselves down; it just means that some or many people can be masters in disregard. You may not mind about all sort of unhealthy situations: this does not mean they are good for you. And if some (e.g. among said «kids») «don’t mind», «because they don’t have 50 years of memories», this should be worrisome as it means that some have no idea of what is proper, never could gain such experience. And asking the majority about what is good or not makes little sense in today's world: what «you’re only hearing from a minority» is, if anything, more probable, not less (already in general, you would not ask in a plebiscite about the validity a medical diagnosis or an engineering detail; today the hiatus between "good sense" and "common sense" is staggering).
But: if with that «kids are likely to think that /a different view/ is a cheap cost», it is meant that "kids may be convinced that the issue with wind turbines is the visual modification of the landscape" - this is absolute insanity. The issue is with pollution, with the noise: if they do not know, they must be informed. See how little your "majority vs minority" matters? You'd rely on the judgement of people that could link "wind turbines" to "I preferred different details in the panorama"?!
The answer is; put these on platforms in the sea (see here the dutch projects [0]; countries like Portugal would seem perfect for this; biggest cities are on the sea, the country is thin and has sea the entire stretch and yet they throw this stuff next to nature parks in the mountains and Greece… these are islands we are talking about…) and put solar on desert/farmland. Or buy out people who live in the blast radius but I like the other options better.
[0] https://www.rvo.nl/onderwerpen/duurzaam-ondernemen/duurzame-...
The other part (and I'm speculating here) could be because the noise from wind turbines is non-constant - the noise of a highway can largely fade into the background, while a turbine makes periodic *whoosh* noises that are harder to get used to.
Assuming this is an honest question, both the frequency profile and decibel level are dramatically different. Frequency profile is the main factor of concern. People have considerable ability to adjust to white noise, but not noise dominated by certain harmonics. I'm too lazy to look up references right now, but you can search on effects of low-frequency noise. By the way, I'm not referring to infrasound, which is frequency below the hearing threshold, and whose health effects are less well established or studied.
The thing is wind turbines are not installed in towns and cities; they go in the countryside. And in Greece with its climate, add into the mix a significant tourism economy and many homes that are both single-glazed and with no a/c. Is it really so hard to believe that their grievance might not be justified?
I submitted weeks ago the study and divulgation "Exposure to Traffic Noise Linked to Higher Dementia Risk", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29686233
The results of the studies can be quite surprising.
All make noise, are eyesores or both. All also have benefits.
The residents have judged the benefits of highways and utility poles festooned with cables running everywhere outweigh the cost. They've also judged that the benefits of the turbines do not outweigh the costs.
who? when?
Honestly if you're that concerned, download the invidious codebase and host a local copy yourself. It's open source and free to use by anyone.
It is called, in some regions, a "silver bullet", a solution that may look plausible (or is presented as such), but that upon actual consideration involves difficulties, tradeoffs, and feasibility constraints which may be initially hidden.
The noise pollution involved by wind turbines is not into everyone's awareness.
It may be a minor inconvenience for those who live in some metropolitan areas («Noise is so pervasive here that even sirens are set twice as loud», or «I am looking for good noise protecting earmuffs for my newborn for when I will take her around outside» - signed, different friends of yours truly in the Big-C-City), but the unfortunate thing is that they tend to place wind turbines exactly in the conceptually opposite places - the middle of the wilderness, the "deliverance" places.
That is an inherent difficulty with wind turbines, because the most efficient places for wind tend to be the places of optimal sound broadcast.
Though location wise, one big point would be: "Alongside the motorway? Ok, consistent. // In the middle of paradise? (...Speechless.)"
To place wind turbines where busy infrastructure already is would facilitate energy transport.
I'm afraid that even in most urban areas, the low-frequency noise would stand out from typical background noise and have noticeable health effects on the community.
There is a growing literature on the health effects of low-frequency noise, and also on (mostly losing) battles of communities against nearby wind farms.
Especially since most cities get much quieter at night.
Surely, that societies have a clear idea that noise pollution must be a concern would be duly and civilized -
but, that territory impairing infrastructure is placed in the few quiet places remaining, is a special kind of madness in itself.
Also considering that urban areas in many territories already are a huge compromise in terms of quiet, so you will want to keep the few unpolluted places remaining as a reserve...
Unfortunately, the topic of windmills is getting politized, and complaining against the negative effects is now being ridiculed and tried to antivaxxing and luddism.
> > There is a growing literature on the health effects of low-frequency noise, and also on (mostly losing) battles of communities against nearby wind farms.
If even Trump couldn't prevent a wind farm near one of his Scottish properties, it's indeed mostly battles being lost:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/joe-biden-just-broug...
While nimbism may play a large role, the negative health effects reported by many people like you should not be neglected.
And I just don't understand why the damage to the wildlife is almost never mentionned.
>> has to be a lie - they haven't died from lack of sleep
C'mon guys, you can't be serious?!
Off shore wind farms are a nice idea until they block your entire view of the sea.
Wind should be a small scale solution for remote locations.
It doesn’t seem to me that any implementation of it on an industrial scale can be achieved without an environmental disaster of a different kind.
Small Nuclear Reactors and fusion really can’t come fast enough.
Some people don't notice a constant infrasound at all, others start getting a "dreamy" feeling and a constant feeling of ... something weird. Both of which are really hard to quantify and measure.
There are even studies that kinda sorta link "haunting" with sources of infrasound.
I personally love the look of wind farms, but maybe the noise would make me equally as upset as the people in the article.
You may be unable to tell in advance. There comes a point in which you break and what was "not even perceived", not just "tolerable", before, becomes unbearable later.
You have to consider the constant exposure, and the fluctuation of your resistance, and consider the effect of the burden in the times of lower resistance. The issue is not with the stress of the weight lifted when you are vigorous, but that which will be when you will be weak.
But when it sticks and you're at your second decade of 24/7 eeeeeeeeeee in your ear, at times it gets to you really bad and you just want to claw your eardrums off.
This should be enough to enlighten all those who think that "noise is not an issue".
> and for anyone else suffering it can get easier to deal with given time
Unfortunately, no. It may «get easier to deal with given time» - it's not granted, seeing the history of some sufferers.
If it was inherently harmful we wouldn't be able to open a window on any windy day.
Or perhaps there's something hypnotic due to the frequency being so constant?
It's easy to handle anything for a while, like a crying child during a 30 minute bus ride. But when the same noise is extended over a 14 hour flight with no way to escape, you'll start to feel it.
Some people handle auditory interruptions better than others. Infrasound, to my knowledge, hasn't been really studied in a cross-field type of way. It's always just engineers doing measurements with meters and drawing graphs. There are very few studies on the psychological effects of man-made infrasound.
[0] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201...
I wonder why no one ever seems to suggest that?
There may be a misunderstanding there, if my reference to people minimizing the idea of the impact of noise because they live in the screams already, is taken as a suggestion that wind turbines should be placed on every roof. The messages were, (1), that noise is a problem even if you think it does not bother you, and, (2), if you had unpolluted places and you ruin them, you destroy your alternatives left. Noise pollution should be fought, period.
The expression «It may be a minor inconvenience for those who live in some metropolitan areas» was rhetoric, as in "Some people used to noisy environment may tend to minimize the issue [but that kind of infrastructure is often placed there where living things go look for quiet]".
So the optimal wind turbine is (a) extremely large and (b) at sea or near the coast. You get things like this with 100m blades: https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind...
There is also a little bit of a safety issue. The possibility of losing a 100m blade or part thereof is low, but you wouldn't want that in a city.
(I appreciate the "I don't want that near me" view, but that means that person wants it near someone else? Or some other solution that nobody wants to be near either?)
edit: This was just an observation in response to ""I don't want that near me" view, but that means that person wants it near someone else?"
There's a huge imbalance between the major consumer (cities) and people in the countryside (where the turbines end up).
there are also video compilations of wind turbine failures, tons of raining debris in a metropolis is not a good idea so construction and quality control standards would have to improve which would make it even more expensive.
There are several other prototype wind power generation designs that would also probably be suitable for building-top use. Here's a 17 minute video looking at several of them [2].
- Land in cities is far more expensive than the land where wind farms are currently built, so the electricity costs would be higher.
- Cities are already densely built up so it would be much more difficult to get the long turbine blades delivered for installation, raising costs again.
- Cities have worse wind resources because the built up environment impedes smooth, fast air flow. Turbines built in the middle of cities would generate less electricity over the course of a year, raising cost per kilowatt hour for a third time.
You can't build efficient (megawatt scale) turbines on top of buildings, and little turbines are basically gimmicks that don't supply significant energy. Rooftop solar power generates more energy at lower cost than little rooftop turbines.
Just this year a large wind farm has been built on that BLM land. The nearest turbine is over five miles away, so you can't hear them. But each one has a bright red light at the top, I guess to warn aircraft. Even so far away, with about 20 of those lamps visible it destroys the night darkness, not just for sensitive astronomy, but even for a good night's sleep.
I just feel lucky that I'm on the other side of the subdivision and can't see them. That was a close escape. But a few lights are encroaching on my previously pristine view in the far distance as civilization approaches. But I probably have a few years left of dark nights, unlike my West-side neighbors.
I don't get this _at all_. I happen to live in Sweden, you know the dark, cold place.
We have extremely short summer nights, and I can guarantee you that the SUN is so much brighter than your puny lights that its just silly. Nobody (well, almost) complains about that here. There are even many different solutions to, you know, block light from coming indoors. Or are you really sleeping outdoors? It just sounds so much like hyperbole.
No doubt for a lot of people light isn't a problem with sleep at all, particularly for younger people.
That sounds like a measurable decrease in quality, but to be fair you're starting from a highly unusual baseline.
And I don't mean to be uncharitable, but when it comes to sleep effects (reported by others, apparently), I suspect that the light emitted from tower-mounted aircraft lights at a distance of five miles has a greater effect on their psychological perception than on their photon receptors.
The light "pollution" of a full moon is surely larger than the tower lamps. And more variable over the night (the moon moves, towers do not).
Of course it's neither a point nor a source, but in the night sky it acts like one.
In dark locations, the moon can be bright enough to cast shadows indoors.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/08/french-couple-...
It's disappointing that even if you manage to avoid the noise hellscapes of large cities, which perhaps might not be completely unexpected, you may still be stuck in a picturesque rural or small-town noise hellscape of loud wind farms that prevent you from sleeping at night. Basically noise becomes inescapable.
(edit: moved to top level as intended)
Re-powering can probably give much more power output but with a fraction of the current number of turbines. I'm not sure how large and modern turbines fare against older and smaller ones, I sadly get a feeling that they're not much better or maybe even worse. I think blade tip speed needs to be high for high efficiency and that sounds like it can be noisy.
I found the value of 105 db at the source for a modern turbine, which would mean at a distance of about 700m the noise would be negligible. Possibly Greece doesn't have high enough standards for turbines and this is the result of a lowest-bidder kind of scenario?
Sure, it's so that planes can see it at night. But planes flying at night also need to avoid mountains, and they have no flashing light.
Just require planes to have updated maps, and turn the light off.
For example, Military SAR / police / medical helicopters fly very low to the ground in cities. They often fly on sight, below any legal flight limit. Urban structures are all they need to avoid, and sometimes they must fly very close to them. As it's very hard to see a tall, unlighted structure at night before it's too late, this would be very difficult without any kind of signal lights from the structure itself.
In the the Netherlands, in the rich city of Noordwijk, some people claimed that the tourists would stay away before the placement of wind turbines near the coast. The wind turbines came. The tourists stayed.
Didn't Trump sign some laws that would prevent wind turbines near his Florida property?
#NIMBY
Mr. Tepix, people accept situations and practices you would never believe.
And with your comment you were not even referring to Average Joe, Median Jack and Typical Maude, not even Random Randall: your mention was exactly of Selected Sam. "Those who remained, remained". "Meant was, in the same amount": the pool is vast.
...Can you believe this very post received anonymous mark of downvotes, Mr. Tepix? When you lay your consideration on people, record their wild behaviour for something that teaches you about people, not about norm.
No, they make noise, and they're resented, and any excuse is made to slang them.
It does not work like that.
This close acquaintance of mine had an accident, and he spent every night in years not really sleeping, but bearing attention to the damages borne in the accident, which remained too loud to allow his conscience to go in normal sleep. He spent his nights listening to the pain. People would guess a largely wrong age looking at him, or would say he looked horribly - but he survives today.
Billions of people live with a constant background of city noise. These folks on the island have a new noise, to be sure. And some resent it, that's clear. And they may even get themselves worked up over it.
But billions don't do those things and live a good life. Because noise is something our minds are exquisitely adapted to filtering. Unlike pain or hunger, our brains ignore sounds all the time, all day long, everywhere we go.
So I think, again, that the 'windmills make sound' argument is specious.
No, Mr. Altmaier. In that story, I wrote pain and I meant noise (and I wrote it that way because the poster's point was about sleep). You have no idea. You must have no experience.
The filter you are talking about works only on good health, and it bears stress during functioning, and it has limits. If you were under the physical weight of a heap of rugby players on top of you, your body resists, but do you think it would be healthy? And do you think your body would resist forever?
The human system has a tolerance like flexible solids: under some load they adapt with elasticity, under some more they accumulate microfractures, under some they break.
Millions of people live in degraded conditions and they just ignore them: it does not mean that they live «a good life» - they do not live a healthy life. They may manage to keep themself contented - through sheer tolerance, which oftentimes passes through dumbing down their perception.
The human system is given feedback features to know what is healthy and what is to be avoided. If you believe that people are impermeable to noise, just go to watch somebody subject to protraced stimula and see them react - after one second, or one minute, or one hour...
Returning towards the substantive topic: you die of certain lack of sleep, not of any lack of sleep - the mentioned acquaintance has not properly slept for years, and it was incidentally because of internal noise that he had to listen to instead of sleeping because it was too loud, and he survived, though not really happy about the fact.
That billions of people gladly live in cities, under constant background noise, does not prove that the constant specific noise from a wind turbine can be bearable in general or for individuals.
For your apparent position, you would have to argue that the said «filter» works for all noises. But mind you: you should also defend the position that it works so for people in general in all relevant situations (e.g. industrial noises at sleep time), and that such situation is a healthy situation, not just tolerated or simply unfelt.
Do not miss anyway the point about the location: wind turbines are not located in cities, the latter being entities that some avoid slightly less than strip malls... There is an issue when you or I or Jack live that moment in which "I have enough, I will fling off for today, purge time", and we go to the countryside and it's engines all around, go to the hills and it's dogs all around, go to the mountains and it's wind turbines all around, so we go to the caves because mass is soundproof and it is dark and damp and cold and the buzzing of insects... It's about preservation of properly liveable places.
And about your last statement specifically, "background noise [being or] not the same as pain": if your body-mind system fights it with an effort, if it bothers your conscience, background noise is the same as pain - otherwise, not even pain is the same as pain. So, it must depend on the specifics.