Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Suzuki

GET UPDATES FROM David Suzuki

When It Comes to Health, Wind Power Blows Away the Alternative

Posted: 07/06/11 08:51 AM ET

Wind energy is increasingly being considered a viable and attractive power source. Many countries, including the U.S., Germany, Spain, China, and India, are putting policies into place to drive the development of their wind energy industries. In Canada, the amount of wind energy being harnessed for use in our homes, offices, and factories has grown quickly over the past few years, led by Ontario with its Green Energy Act.

However, a backlash has been growing in many places where wind power is being developed. In Ontario, one of the main criticisms of wind development has been its impact on human health, mostly because of the noise that wind turbines produce. Yet, the peer-reviewed scientific research indicates that the sound from windmills, which generally falls into three categories (audible sound, low frequency, and infrasound), has little to no impact on human health.

This is especially true if windmills are built far enough away from residences. For example, the required setback in Ontario is 550 metres. At this distance, the audible sound from windmills has been found to be below 40 decibels, which is around the level of sound you'd find in most bedrooms and living rooms. Studies from the University of Massachusetts similarly found that even if the sound were audible, annoyance would be minimal.

Critics have also pointed to low frequency sound and infrasound as the source of health impacts from wind turbines. These are sounds that are either difficult to hear or inaudible to humans. However, Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health did a review of the scientific literature and found no evidence that low frequency sound from wind turbines causes adverse health effects.

Research from Sweden and the Netherlands may shed some light on the opposition that windmills are facing, despite the lack of evidence for human health impacts. At or just under 40 decibels, 73 per cent of people could notice the sound and six per cent were annoyed. But those who did not like windmills or found them ugly were more likely to notice the sound and were more likely to be annoyed by it.

Though we should always remain open-minded about new and emerging research on any issue, the evidence seems clear that wind turbines built with appropriate setbacks do not constitute a health hazard. And wind becomes a more attractive energy source when you consider the health impacts of the main energy alternative, burning coal and other fossil fuels.

The Canadian Medical Association estimated that in 2008 Canada's air pollution was responsible for 21,000 premature deaths, 92,000 emergency room visits, and 620,000 visits to a doctor's office. Even if you look only at the health impacts of Ontario coal-fired power plants, the numbers are significant and startling.

When considering whether Canada needs to curtail the development of its wind resources or expand wind power in the way that Ontario's Green Energy Act proposes, we should heed the conclusion of Maine's Center for Disease Control. After dismissing the notion of a moratorium on wind development due to its health impacts, the Center's Dr. Dora Ann Mills concluded, "If there is any evidence for a moratorium, it is most likely on further use of fossil fuels, given their known and common effects on the health of our population."

As for the impacts on wildlife, that's another story. But most scientific research shows that newer technologies and proper locating can overcome most of the threats to birds and bats. One recent study also noted that "the number of birds killed in wind developments is substantially lower relative to estimated annual bird casualty rates from a variety of other anthropogenic factors including vehicles, buildings and windows, power transmission lines, communication towers, toxic chemicals including pesticides, and feral and domestic cats."

It's never easy to find energy technologies that will satisfy everyone, but with the world facing ever-growing negative consequences of burning fossil fuels, we must weigh our options. In doing so, wind power comes out ahead. If we ensure that care is taken to use technologies with minimal environmental impact and to locate turbines in areas where effects on humans and animals are also minimal, there is no good reason to oppose wind power.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation climate change policy analyst Dale Marshall.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

 
Wind energy is increasingly being considered a viable and attractive power source. Many countries, including the U.S., Germany, Spain, China, and India, are putting policies into place to drive the de...
Wind energy is increasingly being considered a viable and attractive power source. Many countries, including the U.S., Germany, Spain, China, and India, are putting policies into place to drive the de...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 68
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
03:40 PM on 07/09/2011
Sukuki is notorious in his hometown for being a key figure in the successful reelection bid of a notorious anti environment fascist government. With Suzuki's blessing they wasted $65B buying GHG spewing forest and river destroying run of the river power doubling the provinces debt and power rates buying power from stockbroker cronies in the private power business at 4 times the cost of surplus wind/hydro power from Washington state.

Wind power is Big Oil's favorite gas sales generator.

Here's a brand new wind farm in California $15B?Gw 23 cents a kwh at PGE's discount rate unsubsidized

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/12/pg-e-to-purchase-operate-246-mw-manzana-wind-project

Offshore Capewind is tariffed at over 25 cents a kwh and rising quickly to 34 cents over 15 years.

To these figures we can add 5 times sized transmission builds and gas backup which add over 15 cents a kwh to those figures.

Making these not so "green" alternatives green, using green storage instead the current low efficiency gas backup which produces more GHGs at a far higher cost than does gas alone with CCGT plant, adds a further buck a kwh.

Wind costs have bottomed out and are rising slowly.

Here's 3 cent a kwh new nuke power heading rapidly towards the one cent a kwh level $1B/GW Westinghouse and AECL predicted.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/china-leverages-learning-curve-cost.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rucio
09:10 AM on 07/08/2011
This argument comes down to: So what if giant wind turbines affect the neighbors, kill birds and bats, degrade the landscape — other sources of energy are so much worse.

This argument fails because wind turbines do not replace those other sources. Despite the headline of this piece, wind power is not an alternative. It does not meaningfully reduce the ill effects of other sources and only adds its own.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Katmandu01
06:55 AM on 07/08/2011
I've seen things seen wind mills in opeation on the north shore of Lake Erie and on Prince Edward Island. I've walked up to them and around them, even touching them and I couldn't find a dead bird anywhere. By the way, they were no louder than a washing machine. To the extent that bird mortality is a problem with wind turbines, the main culprits have been the older designs built in the Altamont Pass in California­. These types have smaller blades that move faster and are closer to the ground. Where these have been replaced by newer designs bird mortality has dropped off dramatical­ly.
http://www­.wind-watc­h.org/news­/2011/06/0­6/wind-pow­er-turbine­s-in-altam­ont-pass-t­hreaten-pr­otected-bi­rds/
As well there are some completely new systems coming out that move way beyond the current generaltion and are even safer for birds.
http://www­.popularme­chanics.co­m/science/­energy/sol­ar-wind/43­24331
Finally, yes there will always be some environmen­tal footprint with any energy generating technology­. The goal is to minimize that footprint and so much of fossil fuel extraction whether it be mountain top removal for coal mining in Appalachia or stripminin­g the boreal forest of northern Alberta to extract bitumen are far more destructiv­e of wildlife habitat than wind turbines. Of course wind is not a magic bullet. It needs to be considered along with a whole range of renewables including solar, tidal to name just a few.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Katmandu01
07:04 AM on 07/08/2011
Correction to opening sentence: I've seen wind mills in operation...
11:04 AM on 07/08/2011
Yup there was no wind blowing that day.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Katmandu01
09:10 PM on 07/08/2011
Wrong. All 30 of them were going full tilt.
07:33 PM on 07/07/2011
One key to local acceptance of wind turbines is sharing the wealth produced with the local community. There are several wind farms in Northwest Missouri all located on actual agricultural farms. Each farmer is paid a royalty for the energy produced from the turbines on their land. Nearly all of the electricity produced is purchased by an association of rural electric cooperatives and distributed throughout the state. Electric cooperatives already have electric lines and rights-of way throughout the rural USA. A modest amount of upgrade was required to connect the wind farms to the power grid. This model can be used throughout the country. Utility sized wind turbines are economical and will have to be a major component of our energy future, probably 60% or more. We need to begin major development of energy storage including hydro-regeneration, battery storage, and flywheel storage to take full advantage of wind and solar energy. Without effective storage we will never free ourselves from coal and nuclear power plants that provide base loads.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:55 PM on 07/07/2011
No, thanks.

Rooftop solar is owned by US, produces power right where it is needed (and during the critical peak hours), does not kill wilderness, monopolize energy, require SF6-spewing/eminent domain-causing Big Transmission and new roads, it improves property values, does not kill birds or bats, does not destroy viewsheds, and is completely silent. Economic benefits inure to US, not to Big Energy.

Solar PV is just better all around. Stop defending Big Energy and start working for REAL change. LOCAL solar in the built environment.
photo
rodjard
I Update my brain frequently
11:55 AM on 07/07/2011
Yes, Yes, Yes. Get the wind turbins and solar panels available to the general public.
Amazing things can happen when people have an incentive to use their imagination
to make things work better.
D-Driller
my micro-bio is empty
09:20 AM on 07/07/2011
This seems to be a very reasonable article. It could be that the spacing requirements may need to be extended, but Canada, like the US, has some pretty vast areas of uninhabited land that would work well for wind farms. Here in the US, conventional hydro has fallen out of favor and in fact there is a big push to take out many dams, but offshore tidal power could be a real boost, assuming the efficiency of the equipment is there - pretty expensive to put in offshore facilities. Using natural gas plants to take up slack during peak load times or when windpower output is low is also reasonable, particularly if it offsets dramatically the cost of putting in a nationwide smart grid -vs- more regional grids designed to handle power more efficiently, yet may be effected by regional weather conditions. Solar seems to have a LONG way to go as a general power source, and may indeed be best used on a 1:1 basis, with individual homes having panels on their roof, etc.
10:48 AM on 07/07/2011
The most efficient way to use wind power is to have turbines where there is a strong power need IF the wind regime is suitable. People need electricity + Wind resource is good = they have to see turbines in their view-scapes. It's called distributed generation... if possible, make the power where it's to be used.
Electricity flows like water and goes to the first user...it can't be put into a box and shipped away.

Don't like the look of turbines? Then we need to use less electricity and conserve more.

One way or another, this born-since-1945 generation needs to grow up... the entitlement party is over.

and... having turbines in vast undeveloped areas is great if you don't mind the huge grid cost and the subsequent rise in your bills.

Solar on an individual basis would be hugely useful...should have a mandatory % on all new construction. Five % of your bill is for always-on standby equipment (TV, microwave/etc).
07:51 AM on 07/07/2011
The other specious argument used by NIMBYS to put a more acceptable face on their opposition is that "good agricultural land is being used for wind farm development". Ridiculous. Animals can graze and crops can be grown within metres of a turbine. The complaint that wind energy will cost more... not less... than our other sources... is ...true!!! And why not? Much as none of us wants to pay more, we have this sense of entitlement in North America that things should cost what WE want them to cost, not what they truly cost... the result of a century of government subsidizing, whether it's energy or corn. God forbid we should use less electricity. Just ask those who are building 5000 square foot all- electric homes!

The problem is and always has been that those who oppose anything get the spotlight and use that spotlight to capitalize on the fear and ignorance of a general public who has other pressing issues to deal with.

And the NIMBYS find yet another way to hide their truth.
photo
rodjard
I Update my brain frequently
02:06 AM on 07/07/2011
Oh Canada, Oh Canada; Do not ever let your beautiful clear waters ever
be treated like the ditches that the U.S. waterways have become.

Figuring out how to Quiet down wind turbine noise can be done i am sure

The death penalty would not be too sever for anyone who would intentionaly
polute the St Lawrence Seaway.

I will bet that the elite who vacation inhabit the Thousand Islands and then
come back south to contribute to the polution that we have here won't let
that happen.
12:35 AM on 07/07/2011
It's all about siting.

Unfortunately, current market and subsidy incentives do very little to ensure that industrial wind developments are put in appropriate landscapes that are already denuded with respect to wildlife habitat and ecosystem conflicts - as well as human conflicts such as sound, sight, real estate depreciation, etc.

The same crooks that gave us the Enron model are promoting Wind anywhere and everywhere - building it hundreds and hundreds of miles away from use - and fostering markets and utility load demands that will inevitably result in the construction of natural gas plants - and in some cases proposals for coal plants - to bring more consistency to the supply.

Wind isn't all that good at accommodating peak demand. The wind blows and loads the grid generally during off-peak hours. When you subsidize Wind via direct subsidies and indirect (public land wildlife habitats, impact to imperilled species, etc.) - you create a whole lot of "cheap" energy off peak - a market incentive which skews a lot of things in negative directions.
photo
rodjard
I Update my brain frequently
02:26 AM on 07/07/2011
Somewhere in this troubled land the Sun is shining bright and
somewhere the wind is blowing throughout the night, and
somewhere rivers are flowing through turbins and dams.
Gridding them all together will make it all turn out all right.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dragontech
Looking for a good micro-brew
03:23 PM on 07/07/2011
I cannot understand the idea that the sight and sound of turbines equals pollution. Watching the cyclic meter of their vanes turning in the sunlight is a calming, hypnotic pattern that is a beauty to watch, and the quiet hum is certainly more pleasant then the raucous din of a coal fired plant and all the trains coming to dump the fuel at the plant. If I had a farm with land about, or even just a really huge yard, I'd be happy to have wind turbines there, especially if they were powering my home. Also, the revenue that farmers get from the rental of the land the turbines sit on, in most cases far outweigh any lose of arable land for crops, and the turbines have little to no impact on grazing land, so is definitely a win-win there.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
11:17 PM on 07/06/2011
User rooftop pv solar first. Waste bio char bio fuels second, then offshore wind, then rural wind. maybe some geothermal and underwater turbines.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Moose Luck 99
GEOENGINEERINGWATCH DOT ORG
09:52 PM on 07/06/2011
Turn unused office glass into solar windows that generate electricity and control light!

Pythagoras Solar Installs Solar Windows in Chicago Skyscraper ...
www.solarnovus.com/index.php?...solar...solar-windows...skyscrape... - Cached
Mar 21, 2011 – Pythagoras Solar, a provider of transparent, energy-efficient windows that generate solar power, today announced that it has been chosen by ...
â–º
Pythagoras Solar Installs First-to-Market Solar Windows in Iconic ...
www.solarthermalmagazine.com/.../pythagoras-solar-installs-first-to-... - Cached
Apr 4, 2011 – CHICAGO and SAN MATEO, Calif.- Pythagoras Solar, a provider of transparent, energy efficient windows that also generate solar power, ...
Pythagoras Solar installs solar windows in iconic Chicago ...
coalgeology.com/...solar...solar-windows-in...skyscraper..

Pythagoras Solar installs solar windows in iconic Chicago skyscraper for energy efficiency. March 21
Chicago Skyscraper Premieres Solar Windows

www.buildings.com/tabid/3413/ArticleID/12179/Default.aspx - Cached
Jun 1, 2011 – Chicago Skyscraper Premieres Solar Windows. Willis Tower's 56th floor now boasts about 20 square feet of transparent photovoltaic glass. ..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Moose Luck 99
GEOENGINEERINGWATCH DOT ORG
09:44 PM on 07/06/2011
The bat problem is cured in many places.
The turbines shut down at night when bats are out!
Also ultrasonic beeping systems for birds are being worked on.
09:27 PM on 07/06/2011
This man is seriously misaligned. How can someone make such a idiotic statement like this? Live withing half a mile of a wind turbine for two days, and then tell me they are healthy. How many human lives must be destroyed? And he calls himself a doctor.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
quillsinister
12:34 AM on 07/07/2011
A laughable comment, given the horrific consequences of oil and coal.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
IE Steven
07:03 PM on 07/06/2011
We may see something in October that will change this entire debate:
www.defkalion-energy.com