Halifax council Tuesday moved one step closer to implementing a wind turbine policy, by agreeing to increase the distance between turbines and nearby houses.
The most contentious issue is related to the large, industrial turbines that are used in commercial wind farms—those over 60 metres tall. Residents in Jedorre have been particually concerned, as a wind farm has been proposed near that community.
City staff had originally proposed a mandatory setback of 500 metres, but after two heavily attended public hearing had increased the distance to 750 metres. That wasn’t enough for councillor Steve Streatch, who represents Jedorre; Streatch made a motion to increase the distance to 1,000 metres—a full kilometre—and council readily agreed. A few dozen Jedorre residents who came to watch the proceedings seemed pleased.
The ordinance will completely ban large turbines in the urban area, although smaller turbines will be allowed with varying setbacks depending on height. In practical terms, the setback distances preclude urban turbines almost everywhere in the urban area, with the exception of business parks.
A staff report shows that the most advantageous ares for large turbines is a narrow strip of land along the ocean front where winds average more than 6.5 metres per second at 80-foot altitudes. With the 1,000-foot setback requirements, large turbines will be allowed on only about 23 percent of that land.
The turbine zoning ordinances still have to go back for rewriting, and council insisted that public input session be added to the permitting process. The completed rules should be in place this fall.
This article appears in Aug 18-24, 2011.
So do any of the naysayers – residents and councilors – even know *why* they object to these things? It can’t be the noise; I’ve been up close to many large wind turbines in most all operating conditions, and motor vehicle and chainsaw and lawnmower noise is much more objectionable. I don’t see any of these characters arguing for road setbacks or super-stringent noise rules on small engines. Ergo, it’s not the noise.
So what is it? The aesthetics? Can’t be – you have people bitching about wind turbines who live in cookie-cutter subdivisions, where there’re no aesthetics at all. Do they think it’s a safety issue? Maybe blades will spin off or the towers will fall over? Nahhh…people can’t be that stupid.
So what exactly are the objections about?
People aren’t usually operating chainsaws 24 hrs/day… the noise and disruption caused by these things is permanent, constant and it is there. If you really have been that close to them you would certainly understand. It’s very much a NIMBY problem. I think you would have/understand the objections yourself if it was YOUR space being threatened. Don’t be an ass. Put yourself in someone else’s shoes.
Here is one good reason to stop wasting money on windmills :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011…
@ralmn: I have been that close to them, close enough to touch on a number of occasions, but that’s missing the point. The distance that matters for planning is something more realistic, like 300 or 500 metres. And at that distance a modern, large wind turbine is creating less constant noise than most urban or suburban dwellers experience most of the time. In fact, as I write this in Dartmouth where I live, with no particularly uncommon noises happening at the moment, I am subjected to more continuous noise than one of these rural folks will ever be subjected to by a few turbines 500 metres away.
Typically speaking, at reasonable ranges from a turbine, you’ve got to be outside the suburbs to even hear these things.
Reputable, independent, peer-reviewed studies continue to find that wind turbine noise is generally quieter than highway noise, that these “mysterious” infrasound frequencies produced by turbines are in fact common in the environment, and that there are zero demonstrated health problems associated with wind turbine noise.
Let’s be very clear on this. We’re talking about sounds and sound-levels that in and of themselves simply cannot be problems. They wouldn’t even be noticed in urban or suburban areas. And even to hear them in rural areas you need certain circumstances. If you lived in the boonies and your house had lots of trees around it, in leaf, and a wind picked up, you wouldn’t even notice a turbine 500 metres away.
But you could certainly convince yourself that you noticed it. And then you could convince yourself to be annoyed by it. Therein lies much of the problem.
Yeah, nuclear testing is always a big problem around these parts!
I’ve often wondered why they don’t make flotillas of them and put them out at sea?
They do put them out at sea, but it’s not near as common because it’s much more expensive to do so. Putting them at sea makes maintenance much more difficult and the turbines have to be built to withstand wave action and corrosion from the salt water. And putting them at sea doesn’t even guarantee there won’t be opposition. It’s taken more than 10 years to get Cape Wind off the coast of Massachusetts approved because of local opposition.
from Dr James Hansen, prominent in the field of climate science and one of the most outspoken scientists warning of the dangers of climate change :
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/201…
“The bigger problem is that people who accept the reality of climate change are not proposing actions that would work. This is important, because as Mother Nature makes climate change more obvious, we need to be moving in directions within a framework that will minimize the impacts and provide young people a fighting chance of stabilizing the situation “
and
“Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.
This Easter Bunny fable is the basis of ‘policy’ thinking of many liberal politicians. Yet when such people are elected to the executive branch and must make real world decisions, they end up approving expanded off-shore drilling and allowing continued mountaintop removal, long-wall coal mining, hydro-fracking, etc. – maybe even a tar sands pipeline. Why the inconsistency?
Because they realize that renewable energies are grossly inadequate for our energy needs now and in the foreseeable future and they have no real plan. They pay homage to the Easter Bunny fantasy, because it is the easy thing to do in politics. They are reluctant to explain what is actually needed to phase out our need for fossil fuels. Reluctance to be honest might seem strange, given that what is needed to solve the problem actually makes sense and is not harmful to most people. “
Realist – please post links to the peer reviewed studies of windmill noise.