PREPARED BY
K. BRUCE NEWBOLD
[email protected]
(Director)
&
MARIE MCKEARY
[email protected]
(Research Facilitator)
MCMASTER INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH (MIEH)
www.mcmaster.ca/mieh
2
2010
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the Town of Wasaga Beach Council for contracting with
the McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) at McMaster University,
Hamilton in order to develop the following document and for taking the initiative to
examine and respond to a complex issue in a proactive manner on behalf of their
constituents.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
3
Wind Energy Power Plants (Wind Farms)
Review and Analysis
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wind energy power plants, also known as wind farms are power plants comprised of multiple
wind turbines. As demand for electricity grows, wind turbines can be added as needed. The
power collected at wind farms is fed into the existing electricity grid where it is combined with
electricity from other power plants and delivered to utility customers. Wind farms generate extra
income for municipalities and local landowners. Agricultural and other land uses can often
continue undisturbed. Wind energy is a major source of power in over 70 countries globally.
There is a huge and growing global demand for emissions-free wind power, which can be
installed quickly, virtually everywhere in the world. Over the past ten years, global wind power
capacity has continued to grow at an average cumulative rate of over 30%. According to The
Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) Canada’s current (as of December 2009)
installed capacity is 3,319 MW and for the first time ever 2009 saw wind developments
operating in every province. Ontario is a major site of wind development in Canada with six of
the thirteen largest wind farms based here.
Although wind energy consumes no fuel, emits no air pollution and may share its land space
with other activities, it has elicited global opposition to its use and development. Within the
arena of public opinion wind energy would appear to meet with favor but development at the
local level has met with fierce opposition on the basis of primarily health concerns, aesthetic
values, environmental/ecosystem fragility and even economic risk in terms of both tourism and
real estate value depreciation. The following report, prepared at the request of the Town of
Wasaga Beach by the McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) will examine the
‘controversy’ surrounding this electricity generating energy source, through an examination of
the expressed concerns and the current evidence to be found in the scientific literature.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
4
Wind Energy Power Plants (Wind Farms)
Review and Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title ……………………………………………………………………………Page Number
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………5-7
WIND FARMS – BACKGROUND ………………………………………………………………….8-13
WIND FARMS - GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION ………………………………………………14-18
DEVELOPING WIND POWER …………………………………………………………………….19-23
WIND FARMS – THE OPPOSITION ……………………………………………………………....24-28
PUBLIC HEALTH AND WIND FARMS …………………………………………………………...29-37
WIND FARMS – NOISE ……………………………………………………………………………...38-46
WIND FARMS – SHADOW FLICKER …………………………………………………………….. ..47
WIND FARMS - AVIAN MORTALITY ………………………………………………………………48-50
WIND FARMS – BATS …………………………………………………………………………………51
WIND FARMS – REAL ESTATE VALUES …………………………………………………………..52
WIND FARMS – INTERVIEW DATA ………………………………………………………………53-60
CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………..61
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………………….62-69
APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………………………………..70-75
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
5
Wind Energy Power Plants (Wind Farms)
Review and Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The report is divided into a number of sections in order to guide the reader through the pertinent
issues and concerns. The first section of the report begins with an introduction to the topic by
offering background information on the creation, usage, and development of wind energy power
plants from a technical, environmental and economic perspective. This section also examines
the global picture in order to contextualize the Canadian level of usage, as well as, allowing for
an analysis of the growing opposition world wide. The controversy created by opponents would
seem not only to be a global concern but also the claims made are similar across countries and
continents. Although there are similarities there are also factors which are unique to the
Canadian experience, namely that the appearance of wind energy on the Canadian scene is very
recent. This fact is important in that some studies have suggested over time the opposition will
be less vocal. Globally, wind power has enormous potential which currently is being utilized at
only a fraction of its potential. There are numerous reasons for this underutilization but from the
perspective of the report a critical variable necessary for its success is the existence of a
‘supportive’ legislative framework.
Thus the second section of the paper examines legislation globally and more importantly outlines
the critical variables which impact either negatively or positively for wind development. It
would appear in order to be attractive to developers the legislative frame needs to be centralized,
not varied across municipalities, and there needs to be economic incentives. Unfortunately, in
the case of Ontario, instituting a provincial standard facilitated investiture levels but also elicited
local opposition due to the viewed loss of a ‘democratic voice’ with regards to the process. We
will also offer some examples of actions taken at the municipal level in response to health
concerns and local control issues. This section will compare Ontario and Canadian standards to
the global field, in particular with regards to setback requirements and noise regulations both of
which are the targets of opponents.
The third section is based on summaries of key research findings including National and
International studies which have attempted to explain/illustrate the critical variables which
characterize both the support and the opposition to wind energy development. There are a
number of critical themes identified in the literature including: 1) community acceptance is based
primarily on procedural legitimacy in siting decisions. Thus the process of and speed of
development must offer avenues for the involvement of the community. Developers must be
open and responsive to community concerns from the initial planning phase through to the
completion of the project. The top down model of governance may fracture the community and
even increase the level of opposition; 2) is the perceived aesthetic fit between the wind farm and
the local landscape. This factor rests on individual values and expectations with regards to space
and is more difficult to address or mitigate since beliefs are personal and strongly held. Often
this debate appears under the disguise of a rural/urban dichotomy or the fragility of the natural
environment paradigm.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
6
Wind Energy Power Plants (Wind Farms)
Review and Analysis
Introduction (continued)
The fourth section entitled ‘Wind Farms – the opposition’ is an in depth examination and
description of the opposition, both the foundation of its anti-wind position and its level of
organization and subsequent impact in successfully stalling wind energy development. Three
major frameworks which constitute the foundation of the anti-wind position include: 1) ”Loss of
Democracy” – the lack of control over the development process. This position actually
strengthens opposition’s position and validates claims of bureaucratic indifference, at best, and
prioritizing economic benefit over individual health, at worst; 2) “Dangerous to Health”
framework embraces numerous health concerns and opponents believe these health risks are
being ‘hidden’ from them or that science has insufficiently studied their claims; 3) “Aesthetic
Paradigm” examines the negative impact of wind development on local tourism, the lowering of
property values and the ‘attack’ on the rural landscape which will be transformed into an
industrial wasteland. This framework also evolves and supports claims of environmental and
ecosystem damage which will have a negative change on the natural environment through the
loss of habitat or a direct impact on the mortality of wildlife. We will also reveal the strength of
the opposition in terms of organizational structure.
The next five sections (5-10) are an in-depth analysis of the relationship between wind farms and
human health status. Section five views the evidence for risk to human health status through the
eyes of Public Health units. In many municipalities Public Health units are viewed as the
‘sentinels’ of community health and thus the organization is often thrust into the debate with the
responsibility of mediating between the goals of economic prosperity and protection of the
population. It is often a burden carried by public health while lacking both the mandate and
often the resources to achieve success. Whether the health unit commits scarce resources to
investigate the issues or ‘calls’ on their provincial ministries for assistance, they often become
the ‘lightening rods’ for the fear and frustration experienced by community members.
Sections (6-9) review each of the specific claims made by the opposition including; noise,
shadow flicker, impact for avian population, impact for bat population and finally, the economic
cost to real estate. Section six on ‘Noise’ divides the issue into a variety of noise types,
including both low frequency noise (LFN) and infrasound. It also reviews mitigation and
regulations globally, in order to contextualize the findings. Finally, we will present evidence that
noise concerns may actually be ‘masking’ other concerns and motives, for example, economic,
social values and the visual impact of wind turbines. In conclusion, the evidence to date, does
not support claims of health and hearing damage attributed to the operation of wind turbines.
However, there may be a health impact from stress and anxiety arising from negative attitudes
toward turbines and their ‘invasion’ of personal and geographic space.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
7
Wind Energy Power Plants (Wind Farms)
Review and Analysis
Introduction (continued)
The seventh section focuses on shadow flicker and its impact on photosensitive epileptics, in
particular the ‘triggering’ of seizures. Although individuals not diagnosed as epileptic have
experienced headaches and other physical symptoms. There is a debate within the literature on
whether or not the rotation of the turbine, which results in shadow flicker may ‘trigger’ a seizure.
This section also examines the percentage of the population possibly at risk. We will also
outline possible mitigation and remediation measures.
The eighth and ninth sections view the evidence with regards to bird and bat mortality and
habitat damage. In terms of avian mortality turbines seem to have a lower direct impact than
other man-made structure, for example office towers. However, the long term impact on habitat
and migration is currently unknown. The negative effect of wind turbines on bat mortality is
scarce and a very new field of study, although the risk appear to be associated with atmospheric
pressure drops. The section outlines suggested mitigation attempts but none have been
rigorously tested for efficacy.
The final section draws on the only empirical, Canadian study written to date (there have been
some anecdotal studies) which reviews the evidence with regard to property values and wind
energy development in local communities. Although the value of one’s property is an economic
and not a health risk it has been utilized by opponents and can have a secondary health impact in
terms of stress and anxiety.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
8
Wind Energy Power Plants (Wind Farms)
Review and Analysis
WIND FARM DEFINITION/BACKGROUND
Wind farms, also known as wind energy power plants, are power plants comprised of multiple
wind turbines. As demand for electricity grows, wind turbines can be added as needed. The
power collected at wind farms is fed into the existing electricity grid where it is combined with
electricity from other power plants and delivered to utility customers. Wind farms generate extra
income for municipalities and local landowners. Agricultural and other land uses can often
continue undisturbed.
Wind power transforms the kinetic energy of the wind hitting the blades of a turbine into
electrical energy that can be harnessed, much like the older technology of windmills. To make
the energy production economical, most wind turbines are grouped together to form wind power
plants, or wind ‘farms’. The individual turbines are interconnected with a medium voltage
collection system and a communications network. At sub stations, this medium voltage current
is increased in voltage with a transformer for connection to the high voltage transmission
systems. A large wind farm may consist of a few dozen to several hundred individual wind
turbines, and cover an extended area of hundreds of square miles (square kilometers), but the
land between the turbines may be used for agricultural or other purposes. The wind energy farm
can also be located offshore to take advantage of strong winds blowing over the surface of an
ocean or lake.
The main components of a wind turbine are a tower, three propeller-like blades, a rotor, a shaft,
and a generator. Newer, larger turbines allow increased efficiency and slower blade movement
helps reduce the possible impact for raptors and other birds. The towers are usually made of steel
and the blades are made of fiberglass-reinforced polyester or wood epoxy. Depending on the
selection of the turbine make and model, the tower and blade combination may be as high as 128
metres. The general lifespan of wind turbines lies between 15 and 20 years. To generate
electricity, a wind turbine performs three key steps: 1) energy from the wind turns the turbine’s
blades around a rotor; 2) the rotor spins a shaft; and 3) the shaft spins a generator to create
electricity. The concept behind wind energy is similar to that of hydroelectric electricity.
Turbines are placed in currents of wind, as the wind passes the turbine blades, the rotors are
turned and electricity is generated.
Compared to the environmental impact of traditional energy sources, the impact of wind power
is relatively minor. It consumes no fuel, emits no air pollution (unlike fossil fuel) and while may
cover a large area of land it is compatible with other land uses i.e., agriculture. Wind Power
Density (WPD) is used to select locations for wind energy development. The WPD is a
calculation relating to the effective force of the wind at a particular location, frequently
expressed in term of the elevation above ground level over a period of time, taking into account
velocity and mass. The wind farm needs at least 10 mph/16Kmh in windspeed in order for it to
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
9
be practical. The best locations are where you have a constant flow of non-turbulent wind with a
minimum chance of sudden bursts. There must be access to the power grid since the further
from the grid the more it will need transmission lines to span from the farm or transformers will
need to be built on the premises depending upon the types of turbines being used.
Wind is a variable power source and thus often needs to be used in conjunction with other
electricity sources. Hydro and wind would appear to be the best ‘fit’. Wind is generally stronger
in winter when hydropower ebbs. If wind power should be utilized at levels exhibited by world
leader Denmark (20% of its power from wind) the best fit would not be nuclear since it does not
have the ‘on/off/ capability needed to compensate for wind shortfalls. Co-incidentally most of
the resistance to wind is found in Ontario, a province which relies on nuclear as its top energy
source. Thus relying heavily on wind electricity can require an increase in fossil-fuel capacity,
especially if hydro is not available.
Opponents often argue since wind is erratic and it often needs to be backed up by stable energy
to make sure the grid has a steady flow of power, thus it needs an increase in fossil fuel capacity
and should not be considered a renewable energy source, i.e., ‘Green energy’.
Wind International (see Appendix 2)
Wind energy is a major source of power in over 70 countries around the world. There is a huge
and growing global demand for emissions-free wind power, which can be installed quickly,
virtually everywhere in the world. Over the past ten years, global wind power capacity has
continued to grow at an average cumulative rate of over 30%, and 2008 was another record year
with more than 27 GW of new installations, bringing the total up to over 120 GW. The United
States passed Germany to become the number one market in wind power, and China’s total
capacity doubled for the fourth year in a row. Wind energy has grown into an important player
in the world’s energy markets, with the 2008 market for turbine installations worth about
€36.5bn. The wind industry also creates many new jobs: over 400,000 people are now employed
in this industry, and that number is expected to be in the millions in the near future.
Germany has the second largest number of wind farms after the USA with an installed capacity
of 20,622 MW 1 as of 2006. Next is Spain with 11,615 MW and by the end of 2010 this spot will
be taken by the UK which will have a total of 12,277 MW.
China has grown its wind power the fastest. It has an installed capacity of just over 6,000 MW
placing it fifth in the global marketplace by the end of 2007. There are large wind resources in
the northern part of the country with vast windswept plains constituting China’s wind belt. Wind
power development is increasing incomes and tourism in these formerly remote regions.
In the U.K. the planned 322 MW wind farm south of Glasgow will be the largest in Europe and
will have 140 turbines. In 2006, the British Government gave planning consent for the world’s
largest offshore wind farm, the London Array. It will be built 12 miles off of the Kent coast and
will include 341 turbines.
1
One MW = provides enough electricity to 300-1,000 households
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
10
Since an important limiting factor of wind power is the variability of wind power generated by
wind farms (in most locations the wind blows only part of the time), thus there has to be a backup capacity of conventional generating capacity to cover periods the wind is not available.
Europe has proposed the creation of a ‘supergrid’ to connect national grids together across
Western Europe, ranging from Denmark to England to Ireland and to France and Spain. Thus
the wind will always be available for harvest somewhere. Such a ‘supergrid’ would reduce the
need for backup capacity.
Offshore Wind Power
Europe, as of 2008, leads the world in development of fixed-bottom offshore wind power, due to
strong wind resources and shallow water in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea and limitations on
suitable locations on land due to dense populations and existing developments. The U.S.A. and
China are also large markets for wind power beginning with on shore and then building
offshore. The Netherlands built the first wind farm and exported to the Dutch power grid in
2007. Denmark has many offshore wind farms. Denmark was the first to install offshore wind
farms and was the world leader for years until U.K. gained the lead in 2008. The U.K. plans to
use offshore wind to generate enough power to light every home in the U.K. by 2020.
North America
U.S.A.
President Obama is spending $4.5 billion on a ‘Smart Grid’ to allow renewable energy producers
better access to electricity markets. The U.S.A. had the second largest installed capacity after
Germany until 2008, when it finally surpassed Germany. The U.S. produced 21,000 MW of
wind energy capacity at the end of 2008. Currently, the largest wind farm in the U.S. and the
world is the Florida Power and Light’s Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center, located in Taylor
Country, Texas which operates 421 turbines.
Canada
According to CanWEA, Canada’s current (as of December 2009) installed capacity is 3,319 MW
and for the first time ever 2009 saw wind developments operating in every province. Of the 13
largest wind farms in Canada, 6 are in Ontario, making it the leader, followed by 3 in Quebec
and the other four are in PEI, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Ontario,
Alberta and Quebec are leading the growth of wind energy, provincially, in an effort to meet
environmental targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
Ontario
Ontario, as of April 21, 2009, was the leading province in wind energy production at 782 MW
(megawatt) annually (See Appendix 1 for a list of current wind energy projects in Ontario and a
description of their potential power). In Ontario, the amount of power capable of being
generated by wind turbines has leapt from 15 MW in 2003 to more than 1,100 MW in 2009
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
11
making Ontario the Canadian leader. The result is enough electricity to power over 300,000
homes. Ontario currently has the largest wind farm in Canada. The Melancthon Eco Power
Centre, located in Melancthon Township near Shelburne, has 133 wind turbines for a total
capacity of 199.5 megawatts (MW). Wind Power facilities provide economic benefits. Wind
farms are taxed by local municipal governments and therefore add to the local tax base. As well,
wind farms create both direct and indirect jobs, including jobs related to manufacturing,
construction, operations and maintenance. Wind Farms can also be developed in Ontario on
Crown land through the Ministry of Natural Resources, including on and offshore potential sites.
Under the MNR’s ‘Wind power Site release and Development Review Policy’ proponents can
place an application for Crown land for both testing and development purposes.
In 2010, the Ontario government and a consortium of Korean Companies (Heavy Industries Co.world’s second largest shipyard) led by Samsung signed an agreement to build dozens of solar
and wind farms in Ontario which could create 15,000 jobs. The first farm, under the Samsung
agreement (with excellent wind potential) will be 200 turbines on the Northshore of Lake Erie
and stretch about 25 KM from Port Maitland to Nanticoke. Fifty of the 200 proposed turbines
will be on forest/scrub lands belonging to Six Nations (near Dunnville) and Chief Bill Montour
does not want royalties but seeks to play a active part in the project either for the assembly or
maintenance of towers necessary for the turbines. This progress in the area of wind development
will still leave over fifty per cent (50%) of Ontario electricity created by nuclear energy.
 Prince Wind Energy Project was Brookfield’s first wind development as well as the
first commercial wind farm in Northern Ontario. It began operation in November
2006 and became Canada’s largest wind farm with 126 wind turbine generators and a
combined installed capacity of 189 Megawatts (MW). Construction began Sept 2005
and was completed 15 months later in November 2006. The Brookfield Renewable
Power Fund indirectly owns it and before construction did extensive consultation with
local community and other stakeholders, including environmental assessments in
order to protect the natural, socio-economic and physical environment. It generates
enough energy annually to provide for 60,000 homes. In total the project cost $400
million and has a power purchase agreement with the Ontario Power Authority.
Quebec
Quebec is the second highest producer of wind energy at 531 MW annually as of 2009.
Alberta
Alberta is the country’s third leading producer of wind energy at 500 MW annually as of 2009.
The city of Calgary is spending $250 million over 25 years to have all of its operations run by
green power starting in 2012. The agreement has been signed with Enmax Energy under which
municipal operations, from city hall to pools, will be powered by the wind. They estimate the
switch from coal-fired power plants to renewable energy will cut the city’s greenhouse gas
emissions by about seven million tones over 10 years. Calgary’s C-train system already runs
entirely on power generated from the wind. The agreement will cost taxpayers $10 million a
year for 25 years.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
12
P.E.I.
P.E.I. has met with a large amount of opposition regarding the development of wind energy due
to the tourism-dependent scenery. Wind turbines compete with rural historical attractions. Thus,
although opponents frame concerns within a health paradigm there are certainly economic and
aesthetic concerns.
 Summerside P.E.I. residents concerned about noise, lower property values and health
risks from proposed wind farms were overruled when council voted in March 2009. It
will be a 12 MW wind farm with four turbines. It is a $30 million dollar project funded
in part with $4.5 million contribution from the federal government. According to
opponents the vote came ahead of an environmental impact assessment by the P.E.I.
government and over the objections of many residents from that part of the city.
B.C.
B. C. has been slower to utilize wind power since it has an abundance of cheap hydro power and
thus it is difficult for wind to compete. However, Bear Mountain which provides the North East
with electricity is slated to come on-line late 2009 with an approval process which has taken two
years. Also the Haida First Nation is part of an innovative project to place wind turbines
offshore in the Pacific.
Wind Farm Industry Associations
There are a number of key industry associations which service to inform, educate, market and
actively assist in the continuing development of wind power. As well as address the concerns of
the opponents of wind power.
GWEC (Global Wind Energy Council)(http://www.gwec.net/) is the global wind industry trade
association, providing a credible and representative forum for the entire wind energy sector at the
international level. Their mission is to ensure that wind power establishes itself as one of the
world’s leading energy sources, providing substantial environmental and economic benefits.
WWEA (World Wind Energy Association)(http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php) is the
international non-profit association embracing the wind sector worldwide, with members in 90
countries. WWEA works for the promotion and worldwide deployment of wind energy
technology. The association provides a platform for the communication of all wind energy
actors worldwide. It advises and influences national governments and international
organizations. Finally, it provides international technology transfer
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
13
CanWEA (Canadian Wind Energy Association)( http://www.canwea.ca/) is a non-profit trade
association that promotes the appropriate development and application of all aspects of wind
energy in Canada, including the creation of a suitable policy environment. Established in 1984,
CanWEA represents the wind energy community — organizations and individuals who are
directly involved in the development and application of wind energy technology, products and
services. Members are Canada’s wind energy leaders. They are wind energy owners, operators,
manufacturers, project developers, consultants, and service providers, and other organizations
and individuals interested in supporting Canada’s wind energy industry. The industry position is
that there are currently no peer-reviewed scientific studies which support the claim that wind
turbine noise causes adverse health effects (April 9, 2009).
AWEA (American Wind Energy Association)(http://www.awea.org/). With over 2,500
members and advocates, AWEA is the hub of the wind energy industry. AWEA promotes wind
energy as a clean source of electricity for consumers around the world. AWEA is a national
trade association representing wind power project developers, equipment suppliers, services
providers, parts manufacturers, utilities, researchers, and others involved in the wind industry one of the world's fastest growing energy industries. In addition, AWEA represents hundreds of
wind energy advocates from around the world.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
14
WIND FARMS AND GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION
Across Canada, electricity generated from wind is already powering almost 1 million homes and
businesses in a clean, reliable and efficient manner. With Canada’s unparalleled wind resource,
there are still opportunities to maximize the economic, industrial development, and
environmental benefits associated with wind energy for Canada.
Wind is a natural resource but the production of electricity and electric utilities are provincially
mandated and controlled. Thus, in order to develop to its maximum potential their must be a
supportive legislative framework in place. The uncertainty of the variety of regulations which
exist at the municipal level makes the development situation unattractive for investment in
Canada. It takes time to gain approval for projects and developers must not only demonstrate the
impact on the local environment but have often faced small but vocal minorities of anti-wind
farm activists. Developers must demonstrate the impact on local wildlife is minimal. The
position of the industry is they would like to see the Environmental Assessment process consider
not just the initial impact but the long term benefits of wind energy (especially to climate change
and gas emissions) thus presenting a more balanced picture regarding the harnessing of wind
power. Many of the hurdles listed below exist due to inconsistent regulations in different
municipalities and provinces.






Regulation hurdles.
Environmental assessments.
Municipal by-laws.
Requirements of electric utilities.
Demands of community activists that differ from province to province.
Lack of consistency across provinces since electricity is provincial.
Federal
April 21, 2009. Canada’s Primary Federal Initiative $1.58 billion ecoEnergy program subsidizes
green electricity 1 cent for every kilowatt hour of electricity produced for first 10 years of a
project. However, this government support and the economic commitment it illustrates to the
development of wind power in Canada, has recently experienced a major setback, to which the
industry has responded with concern.
03/04/2010 Federal Budget Fails to Extend Support for New Wind Energy Development: Canada’s ability to
compete with the U.S. for new investment and jobs reduced www.CanWea.ca
Ottawa, ONTARIO-MARCH 4, 2010 -- The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) today expressed its
serious disappointment with the federal government’s failure to expand and extend its very successful ecoENERGY
for Renewable Power Program in the 2010 federal budget. Despite its expressed desire to harmonize climate change
and clean energy policies with the United States, the federal government is now clearly moving in the opposite
direction with respect to efforts to attract wind energy investment and jobs. “The failure to extend and expand the
ecoENERGY program will slow wind energy development and reduce our ability to compete with the United States
for investment and jobs at a critical time in our economic recovery,” said CanWEA President, Robert Hornung.
“While we remain committed to working with the federal government to find ways to attract new investment in the
world’s most rapidly growing source of electricity, we are shocked and disappointed that it has chosen not to extend
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
15
a cost-effective program that facilitated record levels of investment and job creation in Canada’s wind energy sector
in the midst of the recession of 2009.” Between now and 2020, it is projected that $1 trillion will be invested in
wind energy projects globally, creating more than 1.75 million jobs. If Canada wishes to capture a growing portion
of this rapidly expanding global economic opportunity, and is seeking to maximize the economic and environmental
benefits of wind energy development, the federal government will have to recommit to supporting wind energy
development until a carbon market provides value for wind energy’s environmental benefits.
Provincial
The Liberal Government in Ontario supports the development of wind energy as part of their
new renewable energy projects with the goal of weaning the province from coal fired power
generation by 2014.
Ontario’s Green Energy Act (GEA – September 2009) was introduced, accepted and enacted into
the law in 2009. It was hoped it would create provincial standards for municipal zoning and
setbacks (the distance between turbines and neighbouring properties, roads and wildlife areas) in
order to streamline the process for developers and prevent opponents from using irregularities in
local bylaws to stall projects. Prior to the implementation of the GEA, setback regulations varied
greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction – anything from as little as 200 metres up to more than
1,000 metres. By putting in place both a new feed-in tariff procurement process, and a
streamlined environmental assessment process the GEA creates a certainty and stability for wind
energy development in Ontario.
The goal of the Ontario Green Energy and Economy Act (GEA) was to make the province the
international hub for manufacturing and exporting green energy technology to other provinces
and states. The act includes a feed-in Tariff program with an amount paid to providers of green
power. They earn about 13.5 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity produced which is double the
amount consumers pay. Ontario’s new regulation keeps wind turbines 550 meters from homes
as minimum a ‘setback’ distance, if installing between 1-5 turbines emitting the lowest allowable
noise level. A greater distance is required for larger groups of turbines. Outlined below are the
pertinent sections of the GEA posted on the Ontario Ministry of Environment’s (MOE) web site
( http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca):
A wind turbine located on land, with a nameplate capacity less than or equal to 3 kW of power does not
require an REA. These turbines can generate enough energy to power your dishwasher and fridge. Wind
facilities, on land, generating more than 3 kW but less than 50 kW require an REA, however, the
requirements are scaled down to reflect the low impact nature of the facility. There are no minimum
setback requirements. These facilities are sometimes called “small wind” and could support from 2 to 38
households, or supplement a small commercial operation.
Wind facilities generating 50 kW and over require an REA and need to meet noise requirements and/or
setbacks depending on the sound power level (a measure of a turbine’s “loudness”) of the turbines used.
These facilities could supplement larger scale industrial needs or more households than “small wind”
facilities. Most wind facilities with wind turbines over 50 kW must meet a minimum 550 metre setback from
residences and other noise receptors. Where ambient noise resulting from road traffic exceeds 40 dBA, a
noise study can be done to determine the appropriate setback. Noise setbacks will not apply to
participating receptors where some part of the facility (e.g. turbine, road, transmission lines) is located on
their property through a written agreement. Where the sound power level of the turbine is less than 102
dBA (decibels), the 550 metre setback does not apply, and the project will be evaluated on a site-specific
basis.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
16
Large scale turbines must meet a setback equal to the height of the wind turbine, excluding the length of
any blades (approx. 80m) from property lines, except where the land owner enters into an agreement with
the applicant to permit the turbine to be located closer to the property line. The property setback can also
be reduced to the length of any blades of the turbine, plus 10 metres (approx. 50m) the applicant submits a
report as part of an application for an REA that demonstrates to the Director that the proposed location of
the wind turbine will not result in adverse impacts on nearby business, infrastructure, properties or land
use activities and that appropriate preventative measures are in place (e.g. mechanical controls). For
Class 3, 4 and 5 wind facilities the setback from roads and railways is set at blade length plus 10 metres,
measured from the edge of the rights of way.
There are special rules for wind facilities that include turbines in contact with surface water, other than
wetlands. These facilities require an REA and are required to submit an off-shore wind facility report as
part of the application. The Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources continue to
work on a coordinated approach to off-shore wind facilities which would include province-wide minimum
separation distance standards for noise.
The Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, George Smitherman, believed the GEA would allow
more projects to go ahead in a streamlined way, based on guidelines set out by the province,
rather than a patchwork of municipal rules. “It’s creating province wide standards from
Kincardine to Kingston, so there is a provincial law that’s the same. It will enhance
opportunities for companies…and bring more of these projects to life.” Regarding criticisms
about the removal of local control and the impact it could have on communities, Smitherman has
stated the Ministry of Environment (MOE) would be open to hearing about setbacks and health
concerns.
Opponents believe the Green Energy Act (GEA) removes from local councils the power of
approval for renewable energy projects and places it with the MOE. Municipalities are
examining other options to have a ‘voice’ in the process. For example, although the planning
approval is now given to the MOE municipal approval is still required for the building permit.
The opposition believes the ‘sweeping legislation’ of the GEA will allow the province to ignore
local concerns as it pursues its ambitious renewable energy goals. “The proposed legislation
also sets provide wide guidelines for the location of energy projects and kills municipalities
power to block them.” Prior to the Act many municipalities already had existing legislation
governing wind turbines and some were stricter than the GEA. For example, Amherstburg,
Ontario had a 600 metre setback instead of the 550 metres enacted by the province.
Municipal
In this section we offer a few examples of the response at the municipal level in Ontario to wind
energy development. One of the recurring commonalities is the concern and demand for
provincial guidance regarding the relationship between wind power and health concerns.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
17
Amherstburg, Ontario
Amherstburg residents opposed a $25 million wind turbine project by developer Gen Growth.
The dispute lies between the town’s tougher zoning by-law and the new guidelines of the
Ontario’s Green Energy Act. The problem is the ‘setback’ rules. Amherstburg Council requires
a 600 metre setback from turbines and homes, which is the biggest setback in Essex County,
whereas the provincial Green Energy Act proposes a 550 metre setback and came into affect
September 24, 2009. The mayor, Wayne Hurst, also has expressed concerns that the province
should be providing clear answers to residents about potential noise and health impacts from
wind turbines based on Ontario studies.
Prince Edward County, Picton, Ontario
On January 20, 2009 the Council for the Corporation of the County of Prince Edward adopted
the following resolution with regards to wind farms. The county also sought support from other
municipalities and Native territories in Ontario. Below are some pertinent excerpts from the
resolution.
WHEREAS Prince Edward County is an island municipality located in Lake Ontario just west of Kingston
and has been identified for significant wind farm development, both onshore and offshore; and
WHEREAS discrepancy exists on the health effects potentially created by the presence of industrial
wind turbines; and
WHEREAS this discrepancy on the potential health effects is proving to be destructive and divisive to
the social and cultural fabric of rural communities; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the County of Prince
Edward requests that the Federal and Provincial government agencies responsible for public health,
energy creation and energy management complete the following:
1. Dedicate resources to the necessary scientific research to consider the impact of
a) low frequency noise, and
b) electrical and electromagnetic disturbances
in areas of industrial wind turbines with the intent to confirm/deny public health implications; and
2. Create and provide authoritative regulations and guidelines for the locating of wind turbines to
municipalities and wind energy developers; www.pecounty.on.ca/pdf/Oct709FCMSupport.pdf
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
18
Oxford County, Ontario
The Council of Oxford County adopted the County of Prince Edward resolution and wrote a
letter to Prime Minister Harper dated February 18, 2009:
“While the County has been considering an enabling policy framework for alternative and renewable energy
development, including wind energy generation, as part of its process to align the County Official Plan with the
Provincial Policy Statement 2005, this initiative has been met with considerable resistance by community
residents concerned about the public health implications of wind turbines. Specifically, the determination of
appropriate separation distances between wind turbines and sensitive receptors is challenging and
controversial. These concerns extend beyond Oxford county and, hence, have generated this request for the
upper order of government to provide the necessary research and guidance to address them in order to
properly facilitate the development of alternative and renewable energy facilities.”
Grey Bruce Board of Health, Ontario
On March 20, 2009 the Board of Health adopted the County of Prince Edward resolution and
wrote a letter to Prime Minister Harper dated on March 27, 2009:
“The use of wind turbines has increased within Grey and Bruce Counties. Our local residents and
municipalities have expressed health concerns related to this use in which we feel there is insufficient research
and evidence. Our resources being allocated to respond to these matters continues to grow to the detriment of
higher priority issues.”
Simcoe-Grey, Ontario
Simcoe-Grey MPP Jim Wilson asked the McGuinty Government in Question Period today
whether it will respect the wishes of over 50 Ontario communities who have asked the Liberals
to put a moratorium on new wind development. Under the Liberals’ Green Energy Act, the
McGuinty Government is foisting wind projects on municipalities without any local say:
“These communities have had enough of the Premier and his buddies in the political elite
forcing their pet projects onto the backyards of people in rural Ontario without any say from the
local community,” said Wilson in Question Period. “What gives your government the right to
ignore the concerns of the voters in rural and small town Ontario?” National Wind Watch,
March 25, 2010.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
19
Developing Wind Power: Support vs Opposition
The following section is based on summaries of key research findings including national and
international studies which have attempted to explain/illustrate the critical variables which
characterize both the support and the opposition to the development of wind energy. This
section will be followed by an examination of the potential health risks/concerns of wind energy,
in particular, the role of public health units, and we will attempt to identify the gaps in the
literature in terms of current evidence.
Bohn, C. & C. Lant. (2010) “Welcoming the Wind? Determinants of Wind Power
Development Among U.S. States.” The Professional Geographer 61(1):87-100.
The article examines the determinants of wind power development among thirty-seven U.S.
states where data on wind potential are available and wind turbines have been constructed
allowing examination of state-based policies especially the political process for siting wind
farms. Although wind energy is the fastest growing electricity source in the U.S.A. it still only
supplies less than 1% of the energy demand. Findings reveal that the primary determinants of
wind energy usage are not physical but human geographic factors, i.e., population distribution,
electricity demand, accessibility to transmission lines, state-based energy policies BUT most
importantly community acceptance. Community acceptance is based on procedural legitimacy
in siting decisions and perceived aesthetic fit between wind farms and the local landscape.
Siting and permitting procedures that minimize opportunities for local opposition show a
statistical advantage in wind energy development.
Wind energy is a clean, affordable, renewable, potentially abundant, domestic source of
electricity. The U.S.A. took the lead in development in the 1980’s, however, since then it has
met with generally negative local response, especially due to the perceived impact on the
aesthetic qualities of the landscape. In the 1990s, Europe took the lead especially Denmark
(2006 = 21.4 % of its energy: also the majority of turbines are manufactured in Denmark),
Germany, The Netherlands, and Spain. Since 2000 the United States has rejuvenated with
installed capacity increasing at an annual rate of 24% but overall only 0.8% of all U.S. produced
electricity. Tax credits have encouraged the increase due to off setting the disadvantages of the
cost of electrical transmission due to remote locations and intermittent supply and thus subsidies
to fossil fuel and nuclear generation. In Europe, local cooperatives have been a major factor in
the growth of wind energy especially in Denmark and Germany while in the U.S. 90% of wind
power capacity is owned by independent power producers.
Findings of the research include the important role played by siting procedures. Those which
allow for local opposition can be a negative to growth. Aesthetic issues are a dominant factor in
determining local receptivity to wind farm proposals as opposed to broad public support of wind
energy in general. The authors examined permitting processes for all 50 states and grouped them
into three primary models based on the differences in degree between local versus state authority
and the complexity of the requirements. The three siting and permitting models developed were:
the (1) standard local decision making model utilized by most states; (2) simplified state-based
model utilized by Oregon and Washington (where you can apply at the local or the state level
and if denied at the local can appeal to the state whose decisions are binding); and (3) minimal
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
20
permitting requirements model utilized by Texas (which has no regulations governing wind farm
siting). Wind farm developers hold meetings with land owners to establish lease agreements.
No permits are required.
Variance in installed wind energy from state to state was affected by a number of variables,
however, electricity demand and accessibility to transmission had the greatest impact. The siting
process also influenced development with models 2 and 3 allowing for greater advancement.
Regression analysis shows that simplified permitting and siting procedures (i.e., Oregon or
Texas) that minimize opportunities for local opposition, have resulted in increased wind energy
development. Overall, actual physical wind energy capacity has very little influence. “Economic
and policy factors therefore determine which small portion of this natural potential has actually
been developed.” P.95
Other studies have found similar results in terms of wind energy adoption in Denmark, Spain,
Germany, Scotland and the Netherlands, England and Wales where level of development is
controlled much more by national traditions as expressed in planning systems, financial support
mechanisms, landscape protections organizations, and patterns of ownership of wind power than
by physical factors. However, wind energy is never developed where resources are poor. The
authors examined five (5) case studies of local opposition in the U.S.A. and compared these
findings to the European experience in order to illustrate the impact on wind development.
Case Studies
Altamont Pass, California is one of the older and largest wind farms in the U.S. constructed in
the early 1980’s was also an important raptor migratory path for hundreds of golden eagles. The
Center for Biological Diversity filed a court case in 2006 to demand action, by shutting off
turbines most commonly involved in bird incidents, during high migratory periods and by
moving some turbines – an expensive solution. The case was denied but new permit restrictions
arose that forced the prior solutions plus replacement of older lattice-style turbines with newer,
solid construction turbines whose technological improvements have greatly lowered bird and bat
mortality, as well as, noise impact.
Cape Cod, Massachusetts. A 2001 proposal for an offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound is
currently stalled due to community opposition. The opponents are well financed and well
connected within the Cape Cod community and frame their argument within the potential for the
negative visual impact, the danger to birds and disturbance of waterways. The decision will
have a precedent setting impact for future off shore development in the U.S.A.
Glebe Mountain, Vermont. Siting wind projects in Vermont has been a battle since their first
and only wind project developed in 1997. The Searsburg Wind Facility continues to be
contested regionally and nationally and a proposal to expand it was voted down. Other proposed
sites have met with major opposition even costing a longtime board member his position in the
community. This illustrates one of the findings of the research was that local opposition has its
largest impact during the planning phase.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
21
Hoosac, Massachusetts. A recent appeals case was brought against the Hoosac Wind Farm by a
local nonprofit environmental group and two citizen’s groups. The basis for the case is wetland
protection violations despite the fact that the state had earlier granted a wetland permit. The
project has been placed on hold due to the appeal and the original permits have been withdrawn.
It is interesting to note the proposed 30 MW facility was received favorably by the county and its
voters when proposed in 2003.
Redington, Maine. Currently Maine has only one large-scale wind farm, which came online in
early 2007, located on top of Mars Hill Mountain near the Canadian Border. A number of
wildlife, conservation and natural resources groups have argued that the mountain tops are home
to rare and endangered species and that the turbines would be too near the Appalachian Trail.
Overall, the authors conclude the dominant issues proposed by anti-wind opponents are the
visual impacts on local landscapes combined with other environmental concerns. Also that
opposition appears to be local in origin and concentrated in scenic mountainous or coastal areas
of New England and California, and finally opposition efforts can occur throughout the planning
and implementation process.
European Experience
The research also examines the European and U.S. experience for comparative purposes. The
authors found that in terms of local opposition, in both Europe and the U.S. the acceptability of
specific wind farm proposals by local communities depends on perceived procedural legitimacy
in locational decision making (fairness, transparency, opportunities for input) and aesthetic
compatibility between large wind turbine farms and the local landscape.
“Where it is lacking, local opposition can occur if the public questions the
procedural legitimacy of locational decision making for individual projects or has
strong aesthetic objections to wind farms, given the specific geographical
environment in which they are proposed.” (pg 98)
However, in Europe the higher fossil fuel prices, greater level of commitment to reduce green
house gas emissions, and a Renewable Energy Feed in tariffs (REFIT) that guarantees access to
the grid at a price that ensures investors a reasonable rate of return have accelerated wind energy
development.
Also, community involvement in owning wind turbines is greater, especially in Denmark and
Germany where a high level of local investiture has created energy experts who lobby for
favorable policies toward wind power. Thus local control over siting actually increases
development. The authors also found a North American example of this phenomenon regarding
Fenner Wind Farms in New York. It received a strong outpouring of support from the
community, in fact, the townspeople voted to adjust the zoning regulations to expand the wind
farm beyond the proposed size. The developers cultivated this level of support from the local
community through a number of avenues, for example utilizing simulated photos to assist the
local population in visualizing the wind turbines at completion.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
22
Community involvement was not as evident in the Netherlands where 80% of proposed wind
energy projects have been opposed, or in England and Wales where National Campaigns to
protect rural England/Wales, focus on preservation of rural landscapes and opposition to 60% of
the proposals.
Finally, the authors found that a favorable attitude toward wind energy in general did NOT
guarantee community acceptance of specific wind farm proposals.
Dimitropoulos, A. & A. Kontoleon. (2009) “Assessing the determinants of local acceptability
of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands.” Energy Policy
37:1842-1854.
The purpose of the study was to identify, analyze and evaluate the factors or determinants which
give rise to local communities’ resistance towards plans for wind power investment and
development within their vicinity. Research focused on local societies in small to medium Greek
Aegean Islands. The authors chose this locale for a number of reasons: 1) Greece has shown an
even greater determination in meeting the Green Paper’s renewable energy target of 20% of all
energy sources by 2020 via a focus on wind farms; 2) the weather conditions in the Aegean
islands are known to be associated with exceptional wind power potential; and 3) local resistance
to large-scale wind power investments has been particularly acute in some islands and has
received wide spread coverage in local and national Greek media. Thus the emphasis is not put
on an examination of the general public preferences regarding wind but on evaluating the factors
which might influence local acceptance of wind farms.
“Our analysis suggests that the most important determinants of the local acceptance of wind
power installations, among the ones examined, consist in the conservation status of the area
where the wind farms are to be installed and the governance characteristics of the planning
procedure. The physical attributes of wind farms are found to be of less relative importance
from a community welfare point of view.” (pg. 1843)
The authors conclude that their findings are in agreement with numerous studies which
emphasize that, “…cooperative, conciliatory and transparent decision-making processes are
likely to increase the local acceptance of wind power projects.” (pg. 1844) Other studies claim
the direct or indirect ownership of wind power installations by local cooperatives, farmers,
companies or citizens is very likely to enhance the local acceptance of wind farms and is among
the most important factors assisting Denmark and Germany to become world leaders. Thus
developers, decision makers and communities need an open communication process, “…and
allowance for the participation and involvement of the local people in the planning and decision
making procedures could considerably contribute in the prevention of local resistance towards
wind power investments.” (pg. 1844)
The authors caution that unless the top-down model of developing new wind installations is
replaced in favor of a more participatory model there will be unnecessary external costs imposed
on the advancement of the technology, which may ultimately lead to its under-exploitation..
Evidence reveals there is often national support in favor of wind power but the divergence seems
to be the opposition often met at the local level. Some studies have attributed the divergence to
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
23
the NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) syndrome but the authors state this approach has been heavily
criticized as oversimplified and may in fact ‘mask’ many other more significant determinants of
community opposition
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
24
WIND FARMS “The Opposition” (Anti -Wind Activists)
Despite the positive benefits of wind power (climate change concerns, fossil fuel dependency,
economic opportunities especially in rural areas, etc.), the literature and media cite numerous
cases in which local communities actively and strongly oppose the installation of wind farms and
have managed to mobilize political forces to the point of imposing additional costs onto the
development of the wind farm, or have severely delayed or even cancelled the project entirely.
This opposition may be local in focus but global in its occurrence. Examples can be found in
both North America and Western Europe, even though there is government support, public favor
and even national energy commitments to reduce other avenues of power generation in favor of
renewable energy. However, one of the differences between North America and Europe, in
terms of the development of wind power is its recent appearance in the former. Some studies
speculate ‘newness’ is part of the problem since wind energy hardly existed in Canada until a
decade ago.
There are numerous Canadian examples where anti-wind opposition has successfully
‘cancelled’/stalled numerous wind farm projects. EPCOR Utilities Inc. in October 2008
cancelled a $300 million wind farm in Goderich after years of delay the company said it could
not wait any longer for provincial and municipal approvals which had been stalled by a handful
of protesters. Toronto Hydro experienced protests against an offshore wind farm on the
Scarborough Bluffs.
In North America protesters have been known to greet officials with signs and placards reading
“Wind farms make people sick”; “Welcome to Hell”; “Save our skyline”; “Health before
Politics”. They often converge on the sites of new developments even if they do not live in the
local area. There are a number of national/international highly organized and effective coalition
groups which educate, inform, advocate and organize protest around the development of wind
power, for example, ‘Wind Concerns Ontario’. The debate is often framed within the ‘loss of
democracy’ or ‘health concerns’ paradigm. “The Green Energy Act, Bill 150 removes the rights
of Ontarions including the right to protect their health.” Protestors question how much wind
generation is actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions and raise concerns about the visual
impact on the landscape and the loss of local control over projects. A typical example is listed
below.
“We’ve been telling the government about the problems, but nobody is listening…everyone
shares very similar concerns around health issues and how their quality of life has been
impacted.” (protester regarding Enbridge wind turbine project near Underwood, Ontario.)
Opponents have focused on the health, aesthetic, and ecosystem/environmental impact, as well
as technical inefficiency or failure and institutional factors (community involvement/control eg.
Green Energy Act as undemocratic). Some of the residents who support wind farms and will be
paid a royalty in exchange for use of their property, label the opponents as either newcomers or
non-residents. These divergent opinions can cause dissension and antagonism within the local
community and even among neighbours.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
25
Health Paradigm
One position adopted by opponents is the claim that wind power has a negative impact on human
health. They also believe the authorities are ‘hiding’ the evidence, at worst or simply refusing to
investigate the situation, at best. Overall the health complaints/concerns include but are not
limited too: noise/sleep disruptions, headaches, loss of cognitive abilities, shadow flicker, safety
concerns. There are some very vocal medical experts who lead this position. The most vocal
opponent in terms of health concerns is Dr. Robert McMurtry, a former Dean of Medicine at the
University of Western Ontario, has conducted his own research studies and also calls for the
province to conduct more formal studies. His research findings reveal that individuals who live
near wind turbines experience headaches, sleep disturbances, depression, sore eyes, itching, ear
problems, heart pounding, high blood pressure and irritability.
In 2008, Dr. Nina Pierpoint, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine,
published a book called “Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment”
(www.windturbinesyndrome.com) describing symptoms reported by people who live near wind
turbines in the United States. Her findings are similar to Dr. McMurtry’s although other
researchers refute both their findings based on lack of scientific legitimacy.
In a report by K. Stelling and C. Krogh (2009) entitled, “Summary of Recent Research on
Adverse Health Effects of Wind Turbines” the authors state that contrary to the claims of the
industry, there is a growing body of peer-reviewed research substantiating these health claims.
The report attempts to catalogue the most recent. Although the authors claim there is a body of
research they quote and rely extensively on one study, authored by a British physician,
Christopher Hanning, a world famous specialist on noise, sleep disturbance and its effect on
health. He ran the Leicester Sleep Disorders Services. His report can be found at
http://www.windaction.org/documents/22602. He concludes,
” In weighing the evidence, I find that, on the one hand, there is a large number of
reported cases of sleep disturbance and, in some cases, ill health as a result of exposure
to noise from wind turbines, supported by a number of research reports that tend to
confirm the validity of the anecdotal reports and provide a reasonable basis for the
complaints. On the other, we have badly designed industry and government reports
which seek to show that there is no problem. I find the latter unconvincing.”
The report accuses the Ontario government of ignoring ‘widespread requests’ to have a
moratorium on wind farms until more health studies investigate the complaints. “Many requests
have also been made for realistic cost/benefit accounting but the Government has not disclosed
the real cost or actual benefit of wind power.” Finally, the report accuses the government of
ignoring voices critical of the Green Energy Act. “Of the 300 applications to present
information to the Standing Committee on Government Affairs reviewing the legislation, less
than half were allowed to speak.”
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
26
“In short, Bill 150, the Green Energy Act, designed to facilitate rapid installation of
industrial wind turbines across Ontario was railroaded through the legislature in so
short a period of time that no meaningful public discussion was allowed to take place –
an unprecedented situation for a bill that amended so many other acts and removed
democratic rights from local communities.”
National Wind Watch, October 31, 2009
Local wind farm opponents vowed yesterday to keep pushing for independent studies into the
effects of wind turbines have on people. Ontario legislators rejected Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound
MPP Bill Murdoch’s call to halt industrial wind farm development until the province’s top
doctor can assure the government turbines don’t harm people living nearby.
Environmental Paradigm
A number of environmental and conservation groups have expressed concerns regarding the
impact of wind development for ecosystems, migratory birds, bats, water tables/wells, wildlife
and even wind systems. Opponents also argue the technology is fraudulent and not in reality
‘green’ due to its co-dependence on alternative sources of power, (due to the variability of wind)
and thus it does not reduce but increase the use of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions.
Economic/Aesthetic Paradigm
These two are interrelated and outline the negative impact on local tourism, aesthetic concerns,
the lowering of real estate values for surrounding properties, and the stress of the ‘industrial’
nature of the machines. The debate is often framed as rural vs industrial (urban) settings, for
example, “Wind farms tear apart the very fabric of rural Ontario.” Interestingly, enough a
councilor in Ardrossan, Scotland stated the majority of the locals believe that the Androssan
wind farm has enhanced the area and that the turbines are impressive looking and bring a
calming effect to the town.
Opponents to the Wolfe Island Project, one of the largest of the Thousand Islands located where
Lake Ontario ends and the St. Lawrence River begins its flow to the Atlantic, state the
development will impact tourism by spoiling “panoramic sites” and a “pristine rural landscape”,
the urban vs rural dichotomy. . Since the original proposal sent to council was for 24 turbines
which ultimately, became 86 turbines, activists argue, “It’ll completely industrialize the island.”
However, the reality is the site was once a farming community which today relies on tourism for
the area attractions and it has become a major retirement community and the Island continues to
grow every year. Thus the land has already historically changed, in terms of usage, due to an
influx of ‘new’ inhabitants (mostly retirees) who rely on ‘tourism’ dollars to support their
business.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
27
Opposition Groups-Organized
Below are a few examples of the organized coalitions and some of the groups they represent.
Society for Wind Vigilance http://www.windvigilance.com/page002.aspx
The Society for Wind Vigilance is a volunteer based advocacy federation which leads in
educating and informing education on the adverse health effects of human exposure to wind
turbines. Their ultimate goal is to mitigate the risk of adverse health impact through the
advancement of independent third party research and its application to the siting of industrial
wind turbines.
Wind Concerns Ontario http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/
Membership includes 28 communities as of March 2010. Wind Concerns Ontario is a coalition
of 42 citizen groups promoting awareness of the true impacts of industrial wind power
facilities across Ontario.
Wind Concerns Ontario is a province-wide advocacy organization whose mission is to protect
the health, safety and quality of life of the people of Ontario from industrial wind turbines. Wind
Concerns Ontario is a coalition of over forty groups promoting awareness of the true impacts of
industrial wind power facilities.
Wind Concerns Ontario provides a strong, unified voice of opposition to the unchecked rush of
locating thousands of massive industrial wind turbines across the province which are too close
to human habitation and are without the benefit of full environmental assessment.
The list of the 42 Citizen Group Members of WCO (taken from website)
Alliance for the Protection of the Northumberland Hills
Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County
Beckwith Responsible Wind Action Group
Blue Highland Citizens Coalition
Bruce Peninsula Against Industrial Wind
CALEWT – Citizens Against Lake Erie Wind Turbines
CKWAG – Chatham Kent Wind Action Group
Clearview WAIT (Warning About Industrial Turbines)
Concerned Caledon Citizens
CREW – Citizens for Responsible energy from Wind
CORT – Coalition of Residents Tiny Township
CPAI – Coalition to Protect Amherst Island
East Garafraxa Coalition
ECWAG – Essex County Wind Action Group
EZT Wind Concerns – East Zorra-Tavistock Township
Dawn Euphemia Sydenham Wind Action Group
Friends of Arran Lake
Grand Valley Wind Action Group
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
28
HEAT – Huron East Against Turbines
Innisfil Windwatchers
Keep Whitney Wild
Madawaska Valley Wind Action Group
Manitoulin Coalition for Safe Energy Alternatives (McSEA)
Manvers – Gone with the Wind
Melancthon-Amaranth Citizen’s Group
Middlesex Wind Action Group
Norfolk Victims of Industrial Wind Turbines
Northern Ontario for No Wind
North Gower Wind Action Group
Nor’Wester Escarpment Protection Committee
Oppose Bellwood Wind Farm
ORW – Ontarians for Responsible Wind in Georgian Bay
Oxford Wind Action Group
Preserve Grey Highlands
Ripley Area Victims
Save our Skyline (S.O.S.) – Renfrew County
Toronto Wind Action
Wainfleet, Niagara Wind Action Group
WAG for Bruce County
West Grey Residents Against Industrial Turbines
WIRE – Wolfe Island Residents
Young HEAT – Huron/Perth
Global Opposition Groups
Europe
The European Platform Against Wind Farms (EPAW) www.epaw.org. They list membership
which is drawn from 19 countries in Europe.
UK
Country Guardian (UK group) is over 20 years old www.countryguardian.net
USA
Industrial Wind Action Group www.windaction.org
National Wind Watch www.wind-watch.org
Industrial Wind Energy Opposition www.awco.org
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
29
Scientific Evidence regarding Wind Farms and HealthConcerns
PUBLIC HEALTH AND WIND FARMS
Since a majority of the voices of opposition frame their concerns regarding wind energy (farms)
within a health paradigm and many municipalities view public health units as the ‘sentinels’ of
local health concerns the staff often find themselves ‘caught’ in the midst of the controversy, or
becoming the ’lightening rod’ for the frustration felt by the opposition groups. As previously
mentioned, anti-wind activists are often alienated by the legislative process/or the lack thereof
(especially the Green Energy Act) which they believe eliminates their voice from the democratic
process and limits their ability to protect their health. .
Institut national de sante publique du Quebec (available in French only) [Quebec national
Institute of Public Health] translated key findings by CanWea http://www.canwea.ca/windenergy/talkingaboutwind_e.php
The report was produced in order to provide regional public health authorities with the most
complete information regarding the potential health impact of wind turbines. The areas outlined
in the report include: the social and community effects related to the implementation of wind
farms; sound (infrasound and low frequency sound); the shadow flicker effect or moving
shadows; annoyance; and electromagnetic fields. The methodology employed by the authors
consisted of an exhaustive literature search and review covering the time period of January –
December 2008 and utilizing all major databases (Pubmed, EBSCO), internet search tools,
conference presentations, documents from Quebec, International and National government
agencies. The following is a summary of the report findings for each of the areas of concern:
Sound
 The levels of sound generated by wind turbines do not have any direct impact on the
auditory health of individuals living nearby, such as hearing loss or auditory fatigue.
 The sound levels generated by wind turbines do not seem to have negative health effects
other than sleep disturbance and annoyance. However, the absence of sufficient evidence
for some effects implies that we should remain attentive to future research and literature
reviews.
 Accounts from residents imply that wind turbine sound could disturb the sleep of people
living nearby. Scientific evidence has yet to be established.
 The annoyance caused by wind turbine sound has been linked to sound levels and other
factors, specifically wind turbine visibility and the attitude of individuals toward wind
energy who are subsequently exposed to them.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
30
Infrasound low-frequency sound
 Infrasound produced by wind turbines does not seem to constitute an annoyance or threat
to the health of residents.
 Low-frequency sounds can be masked by wind sound when there is turbulence.
 The low-frequency sound produced by modern wind turbines is of moderate intensity
and, at normal separation distances, would be near the detection limit.
 There is no evidence to conclude that low-frequency sound has any health effects when it
is below the human detection limit.
 It is not possible to conclude that the low-frequency sound produced by wind turbines
constitutes an annoyance to residents. Nevertheless, it is important to consider that
complaints may be attributed to it, keeping in mind that the intensity modulation of midfrequency sound could be perceived by the human ear as low-frequency sound, although
it is not.
Shadow Flicker effect and moving Shadows
 Moving shadows produced by wind turbines do not cause convulsive seizures.
 These moving shadows may constitute an annoyance under certain conditions. However,
knowledge still must be acquired with respect to exposure limits and criteria to be applied
to reduce the possibility of annoyances.
 Modeling makes it possible to anticipate this phenomenon. Thus mitigation measures are
available.
Electromagnetic fields
 Wind turbines themselves do not cause health problems related to electromagnetic fields.
 Transmission lines incur a slight degree of uncertainty since they may cause significant
electromagnetic fields for nearby populations. There may be a greater-than-normal risk
for children developing leukemia after prolonged exposure to the magnetic fields in the
immediate proximity of electrical transmission lines.
 For individuals wearing pacemakers, the American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists recommendations regarding exposure to electromagnetic fields may
be exceeded.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
31
Conclusion
After an examination of the literature the ‘Wind Turbine Committee’ of the L’ institut
concluded that the main health concern arising from the implementation of wind farms is
annoyance, which they defined as “ a feeling of displeasure associated with any agent or as a
determined condition known or believed to adversely affect” an individual or group.
More importantly the report concludes:
Finally, from a sustainable development perspective, the TNCSE wind turbine committee believes that it is
important to reduce each annoyance to levels deemed acceptable for protecting community health, wellbeing and quality-of-life. Involving the public as early as possible in wind project planning and
implementing processes [which] will make it possible to take these annoyances into consideration and
reduce them as effectively as possible. Transparency of communication appears to be essential to the
social acceptability of projects and to decreasing the social impact.
Ministry of Health and Long Term Care
Dr. Arlene King, Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario issued a memorandum to all
Medical Officers of Health and Environmental Health Directors regarding wind turbines, on
October 21, 2009.
The memorandum states that the Public Health Division, in collaboration with the Ministry of
Environment (MOE) and Energy and Infrastructure (MEI) and with the Ontario Agency for
Health Protection and Promotion (OAHPP), has reviewed the concerns expressed by some
regarding the health impacts of wind turbines, specifically wind turbine farms.
As of September 24, 2009 the regulations call for a minimum setback and ensure the “noise level
does not exceed 40 decibels at the receptor, approximately the noise level experienced in a quiet
office.”
Finally, in response to public concerns, the ministry staff in collaboration with Dr. Ray Copes,
Director of Environmental and Occupational Health at OAHPP, reviewed the literature on the
potential health impact of wind turbines. The literature review revealed that while there are
anecdotal reports of symptoms such as sleep disturbance, headaches, dizziness, anxiety,
concentration and learning problems, and tinnitus, “…there is no scientific evidence, to date, to
demonstrate a causal association between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects.”
“The review concluded that there is no evidence of noise-induced health effects at levels
emitted by wind turbines; sound produced by wind turbines is sometimes found to be annoying
to some people which may result in stress and sleep disturbance.” (Presentation of findings is
available at http://www.oahpp.ca/whatsnew.php.
The memorandum concludes with, “to further address public health concerns about wind
turbines, the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MOHLTC) is collaborating with the
Ministry of Environment in its efforts to secure an academic research chair to study the
potential health effects of renewable energy projects, including wind turbines.”
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
32
Copes, Ray & Karen Rideout (2009) “Wind Turbines and Health: A Review of Evidence”
National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health Presentation (NCCEH,
September 10. Prepared for the Agency for Health Protection and Promotion.
www.oahpp.ca
As of the date of the presentation there were ninety wind farms in Canada and 2,369 MW (1%)
of energy used (source Can WEA). The health concerns identified include: sound (level,
intensity, low frequency, and variation), EMF exposure, shadow flicker, aesthetics, icing,
structural flicker, occupational health and safety, and environmental impacts.
SOUND
Sound produced by wind turbines can be both aerodynamic and mechanical in nature.
“Infrasound” and low frequency noise are the most controversial in terms of health concerns.
Aerodynamic modulation which is the uneven nature of wind turbines (the “swoosh
swoosh”noise) is perceived as more annoying than steady “white noise.
LFN
Low frequency noise (LFN): is sound in the frequencies of < 200 Hz and at low levels (<100
dBA) is not noticeable in the environment. LFN at higher levels is common in some night clubs.
Potential health effects from chronic exposure to very high levels of LFN include: vibroacoustic
disease defined theoretically as full body pathology causing widespread homeostatic imbalances.
There are no published data that confirm the claims of adverse health effects of
low-frequency sounds of low pressure (i.e., below 20 Hz and 110 dB). The World Health
Organization in their 1999 report on community noise considered inaudible LFN to be of no
concern. However, sleep disturbance from any cause may have a potential health impact.
Infrasound
Infrasound is in the frequencies below 20 Hertz and human hearing is most sensitive between
1000 and 20,000 Hertz, although frequencies below 20 Hz can be audible at high enough
intensities.
Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF)
Potential sources of EMF include: grid connection lines, wind turbine generators, electrical
transformers and underground electrical cables. There is no consensus within the scientific
community regarding the potential health risks from magnetic fields. Some literature reveals a
weak association with childhood leukemia. The concern with EMF is not exclusive to wind
turbines.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
33
Shadow Flicker (SF)
SF occurs when turbine blades rotate in low angle sunlight and create large moving shadows
with intermittent light reduction indoors. The occurrence of SF is dependent on a number of
variables such as sun angle, size of turbine, height, direction, distance from turbine (the closer
the more pronounced), and turbine density. The condition lasts for only short period of time
(about 30 minutes) at both sunrise and sunset. There are reports of dizziness and disorientation
but no evidence of health effects. Individuals with epilepsy are rarely light sensitive (5%). The
sensitivity occurs at 16–25 Hz. According to the Epilepsy Foundation: flicker frequencies >10
Hz may trigger epileptic seizures but blade passage frequency for typical modern wind turbines
is 0.5 to 1 Hz. Thus there is little or no threat from turbine SF.
Icing
Glaze ice, occurs when liquid precipitation or fog/cloud contacts cold surfaces (<0°C) and is
smooth, hard, transparent, and highly adhesive. Significant formation occurs when the
temperature is just below freezing, there are high winds, and large diameter water droplets.
However, this type of ice formation tends to fall shortly after forming; and usually falls straight
down. It is most likely the form of ice found in lowland coastal regions.
Rime ice is formed when cloud contact with cold surfaces at colder temps, usually at high
elevations. It is white, opaque, and granular and adhesion is weaker than glaze ice. It can
sometimes be thrown but usually breaks into smaller pieces
The recommended mitigation measures are to stop the turbines during icing conditions either
manually or automatically.
Ottawa Public Health
Dr. Isra Levy, Medical Officer of Health (MOH), received a directive from council on July 2009
to conduct a comprehensive review of available peer-reviewed literature regarding wind turbine
related health issues, in particular from Northern European countries, and report its findings to
the Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee of council within 6 months. Council also
requested that this review examine all potential routes of exposure, including possible health
effects due to noise resulting from wind turbines. On July 14, 2009, the MOH sent a letter to the
Deputy Minister of the MOE to give notice of the motion and request information on how the
MOE planned to proceed with the request to coordinate a peer-reviewed medical literature
review. The response from the MOE was the assurance of the establishment of a funded
academic research chair in renewable energy technologies and health with the mandate to
conduct literature reviews on renewable energy health impacts. Thus the public health units
response to council was that, “Ottawa public health will continue to follow the work of experts
and provincial ministries tasked with studying this emerging issue.”
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
34
Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit
Dr. David Colby, the Acting Medical Officer of Health, presented a report (dated June 1, 2009)
to the Mayor and Council of the municipality outlining the position of the public health unit with
regard to the potential health risk of wind turbines. Dr. Colby stated in his address,
“I will explain the position of the Health Unit that there is currently no
substantial basis to conclude that wind turbines are directly eroding the health of
people.”
 The health unit based their arguments on the following evidence: most of the so-called
studies documenting adverse health effects were self reported accounts or survey based
focusing on health issues that are nonspecific and common irrespective of wind turbine
exposure, e.g., insomnia, hypertension, anxiety, etc. They believed there were no studies
at present which met rigorous scientific criteria, i.e., randomized controlled, baseline
studies.
 The health unit believed the media ‘pick up’ of these unscientific studies, “created an
impression in the public before a rigorous analysis has confirmed that there is either
excess morbidity or an association with wind turbines.” “Similar surveys in the past
have tended to distort and overestimate the prevalence of many things from ‘cancer
clusters’ to sexual practices (Kinsey’s infamous sex surveys).”
 In fact, the most prominent spokesperson for the anti-wind turbine activists, former
University of Western Ontario (UWO) Dean of Medicine, Dr. Robert McMurtry, has
admitted there are no controlled studies with regards to the health impact of wind
turbines, and he has called on the Province to conduct such a study.
 In terms of the possible health impact. The health unit stated ‘Wind turbine syndrome’
and ‘Vibroacoustic disease’ may sound legitimate but neither is listed in the ICD manual
and most medical experts are skeptical regarding their existence.
 SOUND is the largest health complaint. There are three kinds of sound emitted by wind
turbines: 1) infrasound (oscillation frequencies less than approximately 10 Hz); 2) low
frequency sound of approximately 10-200 Hz; and 3) the fluctuating aerodynamic ‘swish’
from the turbine blades which is also low frequency approximately 500-1000 Hz.
 Infrasound can be found in natural sources, like ocean waves and wind, which surround
us and are below the audible threshold. The infrasound emitted from turbines is at a level
of 50-70 dB and thus below the audible threshold.
 Low Frequency Noise: cannot be distinguished from background noise due to the wind
itself. Perceptible LFN can be produced by turbines if unusually turbulent conditions
exist but the actual sound level depends on the distance of the listener. The higher the
frequency and the higher the temperature, the greater the sound attenuates with distance.
Terrain and humidity are also factors. However, there is no evidence this level of noise
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
35
could be harmful to health. If so, city dwelling would be impossible due to the similar
levels of ambient noise levels normally present in urban environments.
 Fluctuating aerodynamic sound (swish) 500-1000 Hz: is the sound of the blades
disturbing the air. This is the source of most noise complaints since it is harder to
become accustomed to fluctuating noise than to noise which is constant. The MOE has
set noise limits for wind turbines but some individuals sensitive to noise may still find
them irritating or even stressful. Others may experience no difficulty. Although there is
no evidence of direct impact for health there may be indirect effects from ‘annoyance
induced stress’. The sound levels of the new turbines at 750 metres are comparable to a
kitchen refrigerator.
 Shadow Flicker: Modern wind turbines rotate at a frequency of 1-1.75 Hz. Shadow
flicker is estimated to affect 5% of individuals suffering from epilepsy and usually only at
2.5-3 Hz’s. Thus turbines are below the threshold.
 Dr. Colby believes the biggest issue may be the placebo effect. The large volume of
media coverage alleging adverse health effects may create an anticipatory fear in some
which then may lead to a negative experience due to suggestibility. “In this way, antiwind farms activists may be creating with their publicity some of the problems which they
describe.”
“In summary, there is no scientifically valid evidence that wind turbines
are causing direct health effects, although the body of valid evidence is
limited. It is unlikely that evidence of adverse health effects will emerge in
the future because there is no biologically plausible mechanism known by
which wind turbines could cause health effects. There are wind turbines
in urban environments, including Toronto, that have not been causing
problems.”
.
 Dr. Colby concluded his findings with a description of his personal experience of the
wind turbine controversy. His experience is certainly a ‘warning’ for other public health
units.
“From the outset, when requested by Council, the Health Unit and I have
attempted to provide a balanced, evidence-base and scientifically valid
appraisal of this whole situation to Council. As a result, anti-wind farm
activists have attacked me personally on internet sites, accused me of
being financially influenced by wind turbine manufacturers (untrue) and
even made complaints about my conduct to regulatory bodies. Letters to
the Chatham Daily News have castigated me for neglecting the health of
Chatham-Kent citizens with the kind of inflammatory phrases spoken, it
seems to me, in the language of people with a higher regard for their own
convictions than for the facts.”
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
36
Grey-Bruce-Owen Sound
Dr. Hazel Lynn, Medical Officer of Health, found herself under direct attack at a Port Elgin town
information meeting from anti-wind opponents who called themselves the “Norfolk Victims of
Industrial Wind Turbines.” The meeting was attended by 120 people and had been organized by
the health unit to provide wind turbine information to residents. The keynote speaker, Dr. Ray
Copes, a director at the Ontario Agency of Health Protection and Promotion, was ‘heckled’ by
the crowd several times after his one-hour presentation. Residents were upset with Copes’s
characterization of health impacts caused by turbines as an ‘annoyance’ and his claim there is
currently no evidence linking illness to wind turbines. Dr. Lynn’s response to the crowd was to
state that she was,
“…aware ‘suffering’ is being attributed to turbines, but has no power to make or influence changes to the Green
Energy Act. The health unit cannot perform in-depth studies on health claims either. Dr. Lynn criticized the Act at
the public meeting, saying ‘we need more choices’ since it strips local municipalities of the authority to make
decisions about turbine setbacks.” http://kincardine.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/grey-bruce-health-unit-in-owensound-health.
West Grey Council
On January 2010, West Grey Council adopted a motion which calls for a moratorium on wind
power until further studies on its effects on health and property values are available. The motion
was circulated to all Ontario Municipalities (source The Sun Times-February 2010).
Niagara Region Public Health and Social Services Committee (PH/SS)
Niagara Region staff in their report to the Public Health and Social Services Committee
regarding wind turbines adopted the position that wind power has been used for decades,
globally, with very little human impact and that the technology continues to be refined in
response to public concerns. “Existing Regional and proposed provincial setbacks between
turbines and residences are conservative and consequently the potential, in Niagara, for adverse
health effects is considered negligible. Nevertheless, Niagara Region Public Health has written
to the Ministry of Health and Long term Care requesting the development of a provincial public
health position on the issue.” The committee has also adopted the County of Prince Edward
motion on wind turbines. The MOHLTC responded to their letter by stating their concerns
would be forwarded to the newly formed Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion.
Meanwhile, Niagara Region Public Health staff were requested by the PH/SS Committee to
provide a report summarizing the current public health position on wind turbines. The report
PHD 36-2009 (dated September 1, 2009) identified and investigated four major health concerns
1) turbine blade and structural failure; 2) icing issues in northern climates; and 3) sound
emissions and noise concerns; and shadow flicker. A summary of their findings is outlined
below.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
37
Turbine blade and Structural failure
According to the National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health there were 68,000
wind turbines installed globally within the last 25 years and to date, there is no record of injury
to the public caused by a wind turbine.
Icing issues in Northern Climates
With regards to icing issues, two types of icing may form on turbine blades in Southern Ontario.
Glaze ice may form during liquid precipitation when temperatures are around 0 Celsius and this
kind of ice usually falls straight down shortly after forming. The other type of ice is Rime ice
which results from cloud contact with cold surfaces at colder temperatures, and usually at higher
elevations. It can be thrown from rotating blades but usually breaks into smaller pieces.
Research from both NCCEH and Europe conclude a safe distance from both types of ice would
be 200-350 metres which falls well within the setback rules in place in Ontario.
Sound emissions and Noise concerns
There are two specific sources of sound/noise from wind turbines: Aerodynamic noise generated
by the rotor blades as they rotate in the wind and the noise of mechanical operations generated
by the motor and noise from within the turbine unit itself. Staff concluded there is no definitive
evidence that wind turbine sound has a harmful effect on the human ear.
Audible sound from wind turbines measured at 350 metres is approximately 35-45 dBA
compared to urban noise (58-62 dBA), rural noise (20-40 dBA) and a jet airplane at 250 metres
(105 dBA). Infrasound is usually inaudible to humans. The ‘whooshing’ noise is often
associated with the ‘downwind’ turbine models of the 1980s. The newer ‘upwind’ rotor blades
minimize low frequency infrasound.
Shadow Flicker
There is no evidence that shadow flicker from wind turbines can trigger epileptic seizures. The
flicker generated by wind turbines has a frequency of 0.5 to 1.25 Hz which is well below the 530 Hz the American Epilepsy Foundation states may trigger epileptic seizures.
Conclusion
Staff conclude that, “. . . relatively little scientific evidence exists to refute or to give credence to
claims of adverse health impacts. Nevertheless, the Region’s recently approved wind energy
policies, the proposed regulations under the Green Energy Act, and the technological
improvements implemented in recent years provide a large measure of comfort that the potential
for adverse health effects resulting from properly designed and operated wind farms is
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
38
negligible.” Overall, the suggested mitigation measures include the use of computer modeling
when siting/planning wind turbines and legislated setback measures.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
39
WIND FARMS AND NOISE
Ramani, R. (Aeiolos Engineering Corporation) (2007) “Wind Turbine Facilities Noise Issues”
Accoustic Consulting Report prepared for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
# 4071/2180/Ar155Rev3, December
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment commissioned its own report regarding wind turbines
and noise concerns, researched and prepared by the Aeiolos Engineering Consulting firm. The
purpose of the review was to assess the appropriateness of the Ministry’s approach to regulating
the noise impacts of wind turbines. In order to support the review the Ministry retained an
acoustical engineering firm to offer expertise on the recent scientific findings, especially on low
frequency and wind profiles on wind turbine noise impacts. Currently the Ministry has all
proponents of a wind farm development apply for a Certificate of Approval and this includes a
noise assessment report using Ministry guidelines in order to obtain a Certificate of Approval
(Air and Noise) under Section 9 of the Environmental Protection Act.
The consultants reviewed the literature regarding metrological effects on wind turbine noise
generation, assessment procedures for wind turbine noise levels, the unique characteristics of
wind farm noise and the human responses to wind farm noise levels. Overall, the results revealed
that local terrain conditions can influence metrological conditions and can affect the expected
noise output of the wind turbines; assessment procedures of sound power levels and propagation
models applied in different jurisdictions are quite similar in their scope; wind farm noise does
not have significant low-frequency (infrasound) components; and modulation effect can impact
annoyance. Thus from a review of the literature the only health effect found related to wind
turbine noise was annoyance.
The consultants also reviewed the noise policies from different Canadian provinces, states in the
U.S. and a few other key countries. They conclude the main differences between the regulations
seemed to be: 1) in the acceptable noise limits; 2) in the evaluation of receptor noise levels from
the cumulative operation of the turbines in the wind farm; and 3) some jurisdictions have special
legislation concerning wind turbines, while others apply general noise level recommendations.
The report refers to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for community noise
based on significant research and framed within a noise and health paradigm, which set the limits
for outdoor living areas at 50 dBA for moderate annoyance and 55 dBA and over for serious
annoyance. For indoors, WHO recommends the noise level stay below 35 dBA for moderate
annoyance and below 30 dBA to avoid sleep disturbance at nighttime. Finally, for nighttime
with an open window, the suggested limit is 45dBA to avoid sleep disturbance. The consultant
findings conclude that Ontario assessment processes are similar to other jurisdictions.
The table below lists some of their other findings including, Canada, U.S.A., Denmark,
Germany, U.K. for comparative purposes.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
40
Noise Guidelines
Day/Urban/1ndustrial
If wind speed lower than 8 m/s in an
Urban environment, the hourly
equivalent sound not exceed 45
dBA
Night/Rural/Sensitive
If wind speed is lower than 6 m/s
the hourly equivalent sound level
not exceed 40 dBA
Alberta (the permissible sound
level PSL depends on the location
of the nearest residence
If no dwellings within 1.5 km the
limit is a fixed 40 dBA
The daytime adjustment allows for
the addition of 10 dBA to the PSL
from 7 am to 10 pm
If there are places of residence the
PSL must be calculated and the
sound level limit ranges from 40-56
dBA depending on the receiving
property
B.C.
Enforces a fixed limit of 40 dBA
during all daylight hours and the
limit is to be measured at the
exterior of the nearest permanently
occupied residence
Quebec (no specific guidelines to
wind turbines but to noise in
general with different limits
depending on the land use of the
receiving property and the residual
level of noise in the area)
For dwellings on industrial land a 50
dBA night and 55 dBA day limit
applies
For sensitive area the noise limits
are comparable to Ontario although
variation for day vs night
Oregon
Assumes a standard ambient
background of L50 of 26 dBA and
thus the noise limit is not allowed to
increase the ambient noise levels by
10 dBA in any one hour, thus
having an assumed limit of 36 dBA
The limit applies to both day and
night. However, also includes set
backs of a minimum of 350 m for a
consenting owner and 1000m
between the nearest wind turbine
and the property of a nonconsenting owner.
Michigan
Sound level should not exceed 55
dBA at any property line unless with
written consent
New York
No standard for wind but relies on
local governments to develop their
own
U.K.
The principle of the limits is that the
wind farm is limited to 5 dBA above
the wind dependent background
noise level, subject to a minimum
value at low wind speeds.
In daytime range is between 35-40
Night 43 dBA
Denmark (fixed with no
consideration of ambient conditions
and day and night are equal)
For those close to residential areas
the fixed limit is 40 dBA
Wind farm in open country the
outdoor limit is 45 dBA at the
nearest neighbouring property
Germany (4 classifications of areas
and set times, as well as night and
day variations)
Industrial Area 70/65
Mix Industrial/Residential 60
Residential Area 55/50
Areas with Hospitals, health resorts,
etc 45
Industrial Area 70/50
Mix Industrial/Residential 45
Residential Area 40/35
Areas with Hospitals, health resorts,
etc 35
Australia (define fixed limits and
are the strictest reviewed)
35 dBA
Ontario
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
41
The ultimate findings of the report specified, “The Ministry of the Environment’s procedures to
assess wind farm noise levels follow a simple procedure that is sound for most situations.”
Pedersen, E. et al. (2009) “Response to noise from modern wind farms in The Netherlands.”
Journal of Acoustic Society of America. August 126:2 pp 634-43
The authors believe that community noise is recognized as an environmental stressor which can
result in decreased well being and possible non-auditory adverse effects on health. The main
sources of community noise in the developed world are transportation and industry, with air
transport being the most annoying. The authors acknowledged there is a lack of published field
studies specifically focused on wind turbines. In fact as of the publication of their research
(2009) there were only four such studies which described various degrees of the relationship
between turbine sound levels and annoyance (most of which were European, specifically
Denmark, Sweden and Germany).
The authors caution that the size and heights of wind turbines have increased since the studies.
Also the studies focused on single wind turbines while wind farms are more common today. In
analyzing the previous studies they conclude the sound of wind turbines can be differentiated
from other sources in several respects: 1) they emit noise from turbulence at the trailing edge of
the rotor blades; 2) sound power level varies with wind speed at hub height; and 3) sound varies
rhythmically and more rapidly as the sound is amplitude modulated with the rotation rate of the
rotor blades. Amplitude modulated sound is more easily perceived than is constant-level sound
and has been found to be more annoying. Also sound which occurs unpredictably and
uncontrollably is more annoying than other sounds. The authors conclude from previous studies
that wind turbine noise could be predicted to be easily perceived and – in some environments
(especially open rural areas) annoying, depending on both sound levels and visual aspects.
The authors conducted their own 2007 field study with 725 respondents. Their findings reveal
that wind turbine noise can be more annoying than transport or industry at comparable levels –
due to the sound properties i.e., swishing sound or temporal variability and lack of nighttime
abatement. They recommended nighttime conditions should be critically considered when
developing noise limit legislation.
The study also found a relationship between ‘sight and hearing’. High turbine visibility
enhances the individual negative response. ‘Seeing’ turbines from the residence significantly
increased the risk of annoyance. Also annoyance strongly correlated with a negative attitude
toward the visual impact of the turbines on the landscape. Respondents used terms such ‘ugly,
repulsive and unnatural.’
Findings also revealed that people who benefit economically from turbines had a significantly
decreased risk of annoyance – despite exposure to similar sound levels. Since the findings were
similar to those in a Swedish study researchers believe they are generalizable
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
42
Pedersen, E. & K. P. Waye. (2007) “Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health
and well-being in different living environments.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Vol. 64:pp.480-486.
The aim of this Swedish based study was to evaluate the prevalence of perception and annoyance
due to wind turbine noise among people living in the vicinity of one or more turbines, and to
study the relationship between noise and perception/annoyance with a focus on differences
between different living environments. The typical sound power levels of a modern wind turbine
range from 98-104 dBA at a wind speed of 8 m/s, which results in 33-40 dBA at a dwelling 500
m away, although this will be affected by meteorological and ground conditions. Sound pressure
levels (SPLs) of this low magnitude are not a problem for other sources of community noise such
as road traffic and aircraft; however, two factors increase the risk of negative perception of the
sound from wind turbines: the sound character and the localization. The sound refers to the
‘swishing’ sound of the rotor blades and such sounds are more easily perceived than steady and
even sound. In terms of localization, in a rural environment the turbines are prominent and the
blades are moving in a fairly still environment and thus are likely to draw visual attention. The
authors found a dose-response relation between A-weighted SPL and annoyance due to wind
turbine noise.
However, findings also revealed it is a relationship which is moderated by the respondents’
attitude to the visual impact of the turbines on the landscape. Thus the prevalence of noise
annoyance may be influenced by the variation in visibility of the turbines on different
landscapes, for example flat landscape vs hilly ground. The study revealed that personal values
also influenced noise/annoyance, for example those who considered the countryside as a place
for economic growth were indifferent to noise exposure versus those who believed it should be
peaceful and quiet. The latter individuals may be overrepresented in the countryside. “It could
therefore be hypothesised that exposure from wind turbines would be more negatively appraised
in an area that is perceived as unspoiled than in an area where several human activities take
place.” (pg. 480)
Methods: The researchers chose 7 wind turbine areas in Sweden that represented a variety of
landscapes with regard to terrain and urbanization. A survey was distributed which ‘masked’ the
true nature of the study followed by A-weighted SPL calculation for each individual response to
estimate noise exposure from wind turbines. A total of 1,309 surveys were distributed and 754
completed (57.6% response rate). The majority of the respondents were older with a mean age
of 51 years.
Findings: Several parameters had an influence on perception and annoyance: terrain, degree of
urbanization, subjective background noise level, employment, housing, visibility, noise
sensitivity, length of time at current address, attitude to the source and personal values regarding
the living environment. The authors found in terms of dose-response that perception of noise
from wind turbines increased by 30% for each dBA increase. Those respondents living in a rural
area with complex ground were more likely to notice the sound than others.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
43
Annoyance was related to weighted SPL, including living in a rural area, living in an area with
low background noise, being noise-sensitive, having renovated the dwelling, having a negative
attitude to wind turbines and in particular to their visual impact all positively associated with
annoyance. The type of terrain had no impact in an urban setting but it did in a rural setting, in
fact, a complex terrain had substantively greater impact on the risk of annoyance. Theories used
in studies of residential environments have revealed that people choose environments that
harmonize with their self-concept and needs and that they remain in places that provide a sense
of continuity. Thus when a new environmental stressor occurs, the individuals relationship with
her or his place of residence is disrupted, which could predispose individuals for an increased
risk of annoyance. Annoyance can be viewed as an adverse health effect. “In our study no
adverse health effects other than annoyance could be directly connected to wind turbine noise.”
Pg. 485
Finally, viewing one versus multiple wind turbines increased not just the odds of perceiving the
sound but also the odds of being annoyed, which suggests a multimodal effect of the audible and
visual exposure from the same source enhancing the negative response. The aesthetic effect is
that respondents who think of wind turbines as ugly are more likely to appraise them as not
belonging to the landscape and therefore feel annoyed also by the noise. Being employed was
associated with a higher prevalence of negative perception possibly due to individuals who leave
the house for work are more observant of stressors that could interfere with their psychophysiological restoration needs when at home.
The study revealed the most effective coping strategies were discussing and seeking information
as these were most successful in lessening the strain. This finding should be acknowledged in the
planning of wind turbines by giving people living in the intended wind farm area relevant
information and possibilities to communicate with the developers and authorities.
Pedersen, E. & H. Halmstad. (2003) “Noise Annoyance from Wind Turbines – a review.”
Report 5308 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. August.
The report was prepared by Eja Pedersen from Halmstad University, at the request of the
Swedish Environmental Protections Agency as a basis for reviewing the regulations and
guidelines on noise from wind turbines in Sweden. The methodology consisted of reviewing
articles searched for in relevant databases (Medline, etc.) and journals, proceedings from wellknown conferences, internet search and direct contact with researchers and developers regarding
health aspects and noise regulations. The report examined the two main types of noise from
wind turbines, both the mechanical and the aerodynamic noise. The aerodynamic emits from the
rotor blades passing the air and has a swishing character with a modulation that makes it
noticeable from the background noise. This part of the noise was found to be the most annoying.
There was a correlation between sound pressure level and noise annoyance. Annoyance was also
influenced by visual factors. Noise annoyance was found at lower sound pressure levels than in
studies of annoyance from traffic noises. There is no scientific evidence that noise at levels
created by wind turbines could cause health problems other than annoyance.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
44
In an international review of the regulation literature, the author found, regulations on noise from
wind turbines are based on different principles. Some states, eg. Denmark, have special
legislation concerning wind turbines, while others, like Sweden, have used recommendations
originally developed for a different noise source. The noise level regulation could either be
absolute (Germany), or related to the background noise level (France). The background noise
level could be standardized, measured or related to wind speed.
The noise can be separated into broadband noise and beating noise. Broadband is characterized
by continuous distributions of sound pressure and the beating is amplitude modulated. The latter
seems to be more annoying when the sound pressure varies. In an international review of the
literature and scientific studies author found the proportion annoyed by noise from wind turbines
was small (6.4%). Other variables had an impact on the noise other than sound pressure,
specifically, daily hassles, perceived effects of wind turbines on the landscape (i.e., visual
intrusion), age of the turbine site (longer it had been operating the less annoyance), and stress
caused by the noise.
The authors found no studies which explored cardiovascular and psycho-physiological effects,
performance reductions effects and effects on social behavious specifically with regard to noise
from wind turbines. Although a number of studies have examined the above in terms of other
sources of community noise, including road traffic, and aircraft.However, even in those studies
the evidence to support the relationship between annoyance and some indicators of sleep
disturbance is weak. In conclusion, “there is no scientific evidence that noise at levels emitted
by wind turbines could cause health problems other than annoyance. However, sleep
disturbance should be further investigated.” Pg.19
Leventhall, H.G. (2004) “Low Frequency Noise and Annoyance.” Noise and Health
Vol.6(23):59-72)
A British noise and vibration consultant, Leventhall reviewed the relationship between Low
Frequency Noise (LFN) and annoyance. The study is not specific to wind turbines but does
focus on one of the major complaints regarding wind turbine noise. LFN occurs within the
frequency range of 10 Hz to 200 Hz and has been recognized as a special environmental noise
problem for sensitive people. There is the possibility of learned aversion to low frequency noise,
leading to annoyance and stress which may receive unsympathetic treatment from regulatory
authorities. He estimates approximately 2.5% of the population may have a LFN threshold
which is at least 12dB more sensitive than the average threshold, corresponding to nearly
1,000,000 persons in the 50-59 year old age group in the EU-15 countries. The author believes
this may be the group which generates many complaints.
Although some countries have noise specific criteria for LFN he does not believe they deal
adequately with fluctuations. The author defines annoyance as a complex of responses which are
moderated by personal and social characteristics of the complainant. Personal moderators
include sensitivity, anxiety about the source of the noise, personal evaluation of the source,
coping capacity. Social moderators included evaluation of the source, suspicion of those who
control the source, expectations, and history noise exposure. In the conclusion it is suggested hat
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
45
the current assessment methods do not adequately address LFN and that application of noise
quality concepts especially fluctuations and roughness may be a way forward.
Leventhall, G. (2006) “Infrasound from Wind Turbines – Fact, Fiction or Deception.”
Canadian Acoustics Vol. 34(2):29-36.
Leventhall, a British noise and vibration consultant defines infrasound as, “acoustic oscillations
whose frequency is below the low frequency limit of audible sound (about 16 Hz). The author
concludes that infrasound occurs at levels higher than the levels produced by wind turbines and
there is now agreement amongst acousticians that infrasound from wind turbines is not a
problem. Findings support there is little low frequency noise. The overriding noise from wind
turbines is the fluctuating audible swish, mistakenly referred to as infrasound or low frequency
sound by those with limited knowledge of acoustics but it is entirely in the normal audio range
and is typically 500Hz to 1000Hz. He believes the main source of distress is the repeating sound
of the blades interacting with the tower. He concludes it is this noise which requires attention,
both to reduce it and to develop optimum assessment methods. However, in the conclusion the
author cautions, “. . . the needs of sensitive persons may influence decisions, [but] limits are not
normally set to satisfy the most sensitive.” Pg.34
Bellhouse, G. (2004) “Low Frequency Noise and Infrasound From Wind Turbine Generators:
A Literature Review.” Report prepared by Bel Acoustic Consulting for Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Authority, New Zealand, June 30.
After conducting an international review of the literature the author concludes, that although
there is the possibility of effects on people exposed to noise in the low frequency noise and
infrasound range of frequencies, the effects would only ever occur when the sound is audible
(above the hearing threshold). The evidence available is that the level of emissions of low
frequency noise and infrasound from wind turbine generators is so low that it is inaudible. There
is no reliable evidence to indicate any effects on people when infrasound is present at an
inaudible level (below the hearing threshold.). “There is no evidence to indicate that lowfrequency sound or infrasound from current models of Wind Turbine Generators should cause
concern.” Pg.3
Howard, J. et al (2009) “Why so much noise about Wind?” Globe and Mail, July 13.
Four physicians from the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE)
respond to concerns/controversy regarding wind turbine noise and health impact. “We would
like to set the record straight on the main health-related objection to turbines: noise.” Although
they acknowledge that turbine blades and moving parts do create noise, the question is “how
noisy is too noisy”? The authors believe that in Ontario the health of the public is protected from
wind turbine noise by government guidelines. The MOE has set maximum allowable levels
based on the best available information. “These guidelines restrict turbines noise levels to
similar of those of a quiet room in surrounding homes.” At the time of writing the MOE was
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
46
considering increasing the minimum setback from 400 to 550 metres (since publication the new
setback guidelines have been accepted) although the authors do not believe the increase is
necessary. In fact, believe it is overly restrictive considering the 50 metre setback required for
Ontario highways, “which are significantly more dangerous to public health and the
environment, and often noisier.”
Regarding infrasound the authors state the best research shows the infrasound generated by wind
turbines “. . . can only be detected by the most sensitive equipment, and again this is at levels far
below that at which humans will detect the low-frequency sound.” Although a group of,
“. . . Ontario MDs have made assertions to the contrary, insisting that anecdotal evidence from
studies with non-representative samples constitute binding and thorough research. Fortunately,
others in the province’s medical profession have been less susceptible to these arguments. Thus
overall, they believe, “there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to suggest that wind turbines
are themselves harmful to human health.”
CanWEA and AWEA Expert Panel Review Report (2009)
http://www.canwea.ca/wind-energy/talkingaboutwind_e.php
The Canadian and the American Wind Associations established a panel of international experts
to conduct a review of all current peer-reviewed scientific literature available on the issue of
perceived health effects of wind turbines, specifically with regard to sound produced by wind
turbines. The objective of the panel was to provide an authoritative reference document for those
making legislative and regulatory decisions about wind turbine developments. The report was
released December 2009 and according to the media release is the most thorough of its kind ever
produced by a group of medical or scientific professionals. The seven member panel included
experts in the fields of medicine, audiology, acoustics, environmental and public health from
Canada, U.S.A., United Kingdom and Denmark. “There is no evidence that the sounds, nor the
sub-audible vibrations, emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects on
humans.”
North American Wind Power (May 2007) www.nawindpower.com
In 2006, a jury handed down a ‘take nothing’ verdict in one of the United States’s first nuisance
lawsuits against a wind farm. A group of eleven landowners filed a suit against FPL Energy
(FPL) asserting that the Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center created nuisance conditions. There
were no federal, state or local noise regulations that applied to this facility. Noise from the wind
turbines was cited by the plaintiffs as one aspect of the nuisance condition. Epsilon Associates
Inc. consultants were hired to conduct a study to determine the sound levels associated with the
wind turbines at the plaintiffs’ houses. The results were presented as part of expert witness
testimony during the trial. The wind farm is located on approximately 47,000 acres 20 miles
south west of Abilene, Texas. It consists of 421 wind turbines. The distance from each
plaintiff’s residence to the nearest wind turbine ranged from 0.32 miles to 2.7 miles. Twenty
four sound locations were selected with a minimum of one measurement location per plaintiff.
The noise associated with the wind turbines consisted primarily of an aerodynamic “whoosh”
and, to a lesser degree, mechanical noise from components in the nacelle, typical of modern
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
47
upwind design turbines. The consultant report found that even under peak wind turbine power
output conditions, the highest combined sound levels from both the wind turbines and the wind
itself were below daytime and evening guidelines for outdoor living areas at all locations. Under
peak wind turbines power output conditions, the highest combined sound levels from both the
wind turbines and the wind were below sleep disturbance guidelines outside bedrooms with the
windows open at all locations except one. The case went to trial in December 2006 and the jury
found in favor of FPL Energy.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
48
WIND FARMS AND SHADOW FLICKER
Harding, G. et al. (2008) “Wind turbines, flicker, and photosensitive epilepsy: Characterizing
the flashing that may precipitate seizures and optimizing guidelines to prevent them.”
Epilepsia Vol. 49(6):1095-1098.
The authors review the scientific evidence regarding light (especially flicker) and seizures.
Sunlight is a precipitant of photosensitive seizures, whether reflected from waves, or interrupted
as the subject travels past an avenue of trees or railings. The interruption of light by helicopter
blades has caused seizures. Television is a common precipitant of seizures and guidelines now
prevent the broadcast of programs with flicker at rates exceeding 3 flashes per second, the
frequency above which the chance of seizures is unacceptably high.
Findings reveal that wind turbines are known to produce shadow flicker by interruption of
sunlight by the turbine blades. Known parameters of the seizure provoking effect of flicker, i.e.,
contrast, frequency, retinal area stimulated and percentage of visual cortex involved were applied
to wind turbine features. The proportion of patients affected by viewing wind turbines expressed
as distance in multiples of the hub height of the turbine showed that seizure risk does not
decrease significantly until the distance exceeds 100 times the hub height. Since risk does not
diminish with viewing distance, flash frequency is therefore the critical factor and should be kept
to a maximum of three per second, i.e., sixty revolutions per-minute for a three-bladed turbine.
Large wind turbines usually rotate at between 30 and 60 revolutions per minute (rpm). Many are
three-bladed and operate at a constant speed, and at 60 rpm produce flicker at a rate of 3 Hz.
Turbines that rotate faster or have more blades will produce flicker at frequencies for which the
chances of seizures are unacceptably high. When several turbines are in line with the sun’s
shadow there is flicker from a combination of blades from different turbines, which can have a
higher frequency than from a single turbine.
There are numerous variables to the creation of shadow flicker including hub height and the
diameter of the blades, the height of the sun and the direction of the blades relative to the
observer, the time of day, time of year, wind direction, and geographical location. Shadows can
be cast on the windows of nearby buildings, affecting the internal illumination giving rise to
flicker that cannot be avoided by occupants. Authors recommend that wind turbines should be
sited where buildings were not in East-NE or WNW directions from the turbine (northern
hemisphere recommendations).
Authors conclude:
Flicker from turbines that interrupt or reflect sunlight at frequencies greater than 3 Hz pose a
potential risk of inducing photosensitive seizures. At 3 Hz and below the cumulative risk of
inducing a seizure should be 1.7 per 100,000 of the photosensitive population. The risk is
maintained over considerable distances from the turbine. It is therefore important to keep rotation
speeds to a minimum, and in the case of turbines with three blades ensure that the maximum speed
of rotation does not exceed 60 rpm, which is normal practice for large wind farms. The layout of
wind farms should ensure that shadows cast by one turbine upon another should not be readily
visible to the general public. The shadows should not fall upon the windows of nearby buildings.
The specular reflection from turbine blades should be minimized.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
49
WIND FARMS AND AVIAN MORTALITY
The fatality rate from wind turbines has been estimated at, on average 1.29 birds per tower per
year versus 2.19 birds per tower from other sources. Thus the impact on the global bird
population is minor compared to mortality from communications towers, building, and vehicles.
(www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds/html). The National Wind Coordinating Committee
(NWCC) completed a comparison of wind farm avian mortality with bird mortality caused by
other man-made structures in the U.S. The NWCC not only conducted its own study, but
analyzed all of the research done to date on various causes of avian mortality, including
commercial wind farm turbines. They report that "data collected outside California indicate an
average of 1.83 avian fatalities per turbine (for all species combined), and 0.006 raptor fatalities
per turbine per year. Based on current projections of 3,500 operational wind turbines in the US
by the end of 2001, excluding California, the total annual mortality was estimated at
approximately 6,400 bird fatalities per year for all species combined."
This report states that its intent is to "put avian mortality associated with windpower
development into perspective with other significant sources of avian collision mortality across
the United States." The NWCC reports that, "Based on current estimates, windplant related
avian collision fatalities probably represent from 0.01% to 0.02% (i.e., 1 out of every 5,000 to
10,000) of the annual avian collision fatalities in the United States." That is, commercial wind
turbines cause the direct deaths of only 0.01% to 0.02% of all of the birds killed by collisions
Drewitt, A. L. & R. H. W. Langston. (2008) “Collision Effects of Wind-power Generators and
Other Obstacles on Birds.” Annals New York Academy of Science 1134:233-266.
Direct mortality occurs at wind farms for numerous reasons, from birds striking rotors, towers,
nacelles, guy cables, power lines, and meteorological masts. There is also evidence of birds
being forced to the ground by turbulence created by the moving rotors. Authors of the study
state that estimates of avian mortality should be treated with caution since the research often
focuses on ‘found corpses only’.
“Despite the comparative wealth of literature, there are still relatively few peerreviewed published papers on the subject of bird collisions at wind farms, and many
uncertainties remain as to the level of effect, notably the likelihood of an impact on
population.” (pg 238)
The lowest collision rates are associated with grassland and moorland sites, while the highest are
associated with mountain ridges and wetlands. Findings revealed the highest risk turbines were
those situated on steeper windward slopes and in canyons, and also on ridge saddles. Overall,
collision rates are highly variable and dependent on bird species and wind farm location.
Authors conclude, wind farms, should be located away from wetlands and other areas where
large numbers of vulnerable birds concentrate to nest, feed, or roost, known migratory or daily
flight routes, and especially areas that support scarce and threatened species.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
50
The study does suggest some mitigation measures although most have not yet been tested for
efficacy. Temporary shutdown or feathering of turbines during periods of particularly high bird
activity especially in migration bottlenecks, such as mountain passes, migration staging areas,
and near breeding or wintering concentrations, including wetlands. However, turbine shutdown
is controversial, given that it may reduce energy output for a wind farm unless it coincides with
low generation periods. Other possible mitigation measures outlined are turbine spacing,
provision of corridors between turbine clusters to facilitate flights, and orientation of turbine
rows parallel to the main direction of flight. Increasing the visibility of rotating blades to birds
has been proposed, notably using the Hodos scheme of alternating black and white stripes along
the blades. The use of ultraviolet paint or lighting has also been suggested.
Environmental Bioindicators Foundation, Inc. (2009) “Comparison of Reported Effects and
Risks to Vertebrate Wildlife from Six Electricity Generation Types in the New York/New
England Region.” Report 09-02 commissioned by New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority, March.
http://www.nyserda.org/programs/Environment/EMEP/new.asp
The report examines the impact of all six forms of electricity generation (coal, oil, natural gas,
nuclear, hydro and wind) on wildlife for comparative purposes and concludes,
Wind has the Lowest to Moderate Potential risks but has high risks of bird and
bat collisions with wind turbines during operation. No population level risks to
birds have been noted. Population level risks to bats are uncertain at this time.
Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons of
Avian Collision Mortality in the United States is a resource document of the NWCC. August,
2001.
http://www.nationalwind.org/search/default.aspx?F_keywords=avian+collissions+with+wind+tu
rbines
The National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) Avian Subcommittee was formed in 1994
to provide a forum and dialogue among researchers, environmentalists, wind industry
representatives, and federal, state and local officials to better understand avian wind interaction
issues.
It has been estimated that from 100 million to well over 1 billion birds are killed annually in the
United States due to collisions with human-made structures, including vehicles, buildings and
windows, powerlines, communication towers, and wind turbines. Although wind energy is
generally considered environmentally friendly (because it generates electricity without emitting
air pollutants or greenhouse gases), the potential for avian fatalities has delayed and even
significantly contributed to blocking the development of some wind plants in the U.S.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
51
Results indicate the following estimated annual avian collision mortality in the United States:
• Vehicles: 60 million - 80 million
• Buildings and Windows: 98 million - 980 million
• Powerlines: tens of thousands - 174 million
• Communication Towers: 4 million - 50 million
• Wind Generation Facilities: 10,000 - 40,000
The study examines wind information to date. The report summarizes the findings of the current
studies and concludes, “At those wind resource areas where studies have been conducted, an
average of one to two birds kills per turbine per year is at the high end of the range of fatalities
recorded during studies of operating wind farms”. Evidence shows an initial avian site
evaluation conducted in tandem with the assessment of the wind resource of a potential wind
plant can identify whether wind power development at a particular site is likely to cause a
significant number of bird fatalities. The weight of evidence to date indicates that locations with
high bird use, especially by raptors or protected species, are not suitable for wind farm
development. It would appear that compared with other avian species, raptors appear to be
disproportionately vulnerable to collisions with wind turbines. Currently, the only known U.S.
wind development location that has experienced significant avian mortality is California’s
Altamont Pass (only wind farm located with high, year round use by raptors). The evidence
indicates that wind turbines are unlikely to present a local or regional population threat to
migrating birds. Most migratory flights are conducted at levels above today’s typical turbine
heights, except during inclement weather conditions with poor or zero visibility.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
52
WIND FARMS AND BATS
CBC News. (August 25, 2008) “Pressure drop causing wind turbine bat deaths, say Calgary
researchers.” http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/08/25/bats-wind.html.
Retrieved February 2010.
Hundreds of bats are found dead each year around wind turbines which have suffered internal
trauma from a sudden drop in air pressure at the turbine blades, according to a University of
Calgary research team looking especially at fatalities at the Summerview Wind Farm in Pincher
Creek, Alberta. Bats can detect turbines through their sonar-like echolocation ability but that is
no protection from pressure drops. An atmospheric pressure drop at wind-turbine blades is
undetectable and thus an unforeseeable hazard for bats. The condition known as barotraumas
affects bats more than birds because bat lungs are balloon-like and can over-expand, bursting
surrounding capillaries while bird lungs are more rigid and tube-like and better able to withstand
sudden changes in air pressure. The spinning of a wind turbine’s blade tends to increase air
pressure as the wind comes to the blades, and then lower it dramatically in the blade’s wake.
The researchers noted that modern wind turbines can turn at speeds of 55 to 80 metres per
second, resulting in a pressure drop in the range of 5 to 10 kilopascals. Thus it is internal
hemorrhaging and not external injuries which lead to fatalities.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
53
Wind Farms and the Impact on Real Estate (Property) Values
Canning, G. & L.J. Simmons. (2010) “Wind Energy Study – Effect on Real Estate Values in
the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, Ontario.” Consultants report prepared for Canadian Wind
Energy Association (CanWea) by Canning Consultants Inc, & John Simmons Realty Services
Ltd., February.
www.canwea.ca/.../talkwind/PropertyValuesConsultingReportFebruary42010.pdf
CanWEA commissioned a consulting firm to conduct a two month study (May/June 2009) for
the purpose of analyzing the impact on real estate values arising from the installation and
operation of wind turbines. The consultants were to execute a market-based empirical study into
the effect of wind turbines on local residential real estate values. The location selected for the
study was the municipality of Chatham-Kent. Chatham-Kent was chosen since it matched the
three study criteria of: 1) a sufficient volume of sales of properties that have taken place in close
proximity to a wind farm following its completion; 2) there had been a sufficient volume of sales
of similar properties in the same general area but not in proximity to a wind farm (beyond the
viewshed-defined as a point within the study area whereby a sale property had a view of one or
more wind turbines); and 3) there is sufficient access to registry offices sales records and local
area real estate board listing information. Thus the study was comparative of properties within
and without the viewshed of the turbines. The report was required to enable the addressee to
consider the impacts on the market value of nearby residential properties and their marketability,
on behalf of the Association members.
Although some real estate value studies have been undertaken, there have been a limited number
executed in Canada. The report considers only market based evidence, and applies a widely
recognized and accepted approach to statistical evaluation of data sets in order to evaluate the
effect on real estate values. There were 4 unrelated data processes used in the study of property
sales and the only consistency was that each evaluation methodology found that is was highly
unlikely that any type of causal relationship existed. The authors also conducted a literature
review and although not an exhaustive search, studies from U.S.A., Australia, England and one
in Ontario were reviewed and found to be mainly anecdotal or survey based. “To the best of our
knowledge, no reports have been produced within Canada presenting a comprehensive analysis
of market data, such as that presented herein.”
The authors also investigated the possibility not only of sale disruption but increased marketing
times. The consultants cautiously state, “even though the review of the evidence conducted for
this study did not disclose any probative evidence to suggest that proximity to a wind turbine had
an influence on the length of listing time, this issue would require a more comprehensive (and
independent study to reach a firm conclusion).
Overall, the findings of the report demonstrated the following,
“In the study area, where wind farms were clearly visible, there was no empirical
evidence to indicate that rural residential properties realized lower sale prices than
similar residential properties within the same area that were outside of the viewshed of a
wind turbine.”
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
54
INTERVIEW DATA –QUALITATIVE
The preceding report, completed at the request of the Township of Wasaga, is an in-depth
analysis of the major issues and concerns elicited by wind turbines and wind farms. The authors
have reviewed academic, scientific, government, internet (including developer and organized
opposition websites), grey material, and media coverage in order to contextualize and compare
the current wind farm situation in Ontario as well as provincial, national and international
experiences. We have identified and framed a multiplicity of complex issues under two key
paradigms entitled “Dangerous to Health” and “Loss of Democracy”.
As a concluding note to the analysis, the authors were asked to interview a number of key
individuals from Ontario localities where wind farms were located. Ontario is the leading
province in wind energy production as of April 2009, and contains 6 of the 13 of the largest wind
farms in Canada. Key individuals were identified by the authors through a content analysis of
media coverage, official position papers and reports. This was followed by a geographic analysis
of chosen sites based on the following variables of turbine size, number of wind farms, presence
of wind farms over time, etc. The goal was to gather a range of perspectives from municipal,
provincial and health officials. Wind farm developers and wind activists were not included since
their perspectives are available on official websites. Some of the individuals contacted were
reluctant to be interviewed. The authors were not surprised by this finding since controversial
issues draw high emotion and animosity can often become personal. For example, the quote
below is taken from an official letter sent to the Board of Health in Chatham Kent County
written by the Acting Medical Officer of Health, Dr. David Colby:
From the outset, when requested by Council, the Health Unit and I have attempted to
provide a balanced, evidenced-base and scientifically valid appraisal of this whole
situation to Council. As a result, anti-wind farm activists have attacked me personally on
internet sites, accused me of being financially influenced by wind turbine manufacturers
(untrue) and even made complaints about my conduct to regulatory bodies. Letters to the
Chatham Daily News have castigated me for neglecting the health of Chatham-Kent
citizens with the kind of inflammatory phrases spoken, it seems to me, in the language of
people with a higher regard for their own convictions than for the facts.
The authors successfully interviewed a number of individuals and achieved the stated goal of
collecting a range of perspectives. Interviewees were all public officials who were offered
anonymity and the data is presented in this section in aggregate form. This decision not only
protected the interviewees from further controversy but ultimately, better served the original goal
of the research, in that the qualitative data served to ‘qualify’ and enhance the literature findings.
The following section will contextualize the qualitative data within the frame of the report.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
55
Some of the key findings from the interviews are outlined below:

The health impact of wind farms and wind turbines.

Public Health position regarding the current state of scientific evidence on
their adverse health impact.

Role of Legislation: in particular, the Ontario’s Green Energy Act (GEA)
2009.

Strategies for achieving local endorsement.

Aesthetics.

Urban versus Rural controversy.

Controversy – viewed over time.
Public Health/Adverse Health Impacts
A major paradigm which frames a number of the wind farm issues is referred to in the report as
the “Dangerous to Health” paradigm. This framework is often the focal point utilized by
stakeholders to address their opposition to wind technology. As stated earlier in the report, in
many municipalities (small and large, urban and rural) the Public Health unit is viewed as the
‘sentinel’ of population health and thus the organization is often given a critical role within the
debate. The health unit is often ‘thrust’ involuntarily into the role of mediator among the
fractious participants. Residents expect them to ‘solve’ the health issue but ultimately, the issues
are more complex and in reality are economic, psychological and social concerns.
Since some residents believe their health concerns have been ignored or due to lack of faith in
the authorities believe pertinent information is being withheld from them, the health unit
becomes the ‘lightening rod’ for their fear and frustration. In agreement with the scientific
findings the respondents interviewed did not believe that wind farms were a health risk, at this
point in time. Respondents referred to the same health concerns covered in the report, i.e., noise
(LFN and infrasound), shadow flicker, the economic cost to real estate, etc. In general
respondents agreed with earlier findings, “. . . in conclusion, the evidence to date, does not
support claims of health and hearing damage attributed to the operation of wind turbines.” (pg 5)
Respondents also agreed the ‘health’ issue arose largely from the stress experienced by
opponents who felt ‘overwhelmed’ and powerless to control their situation and unable to
exercise autonomy. “However, there may be a health impact from stress and anxiety arising
from negative attitudes toward turbines and their ‘invasion’ of personal and geographic space.
(pg 5).
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
56
Some of our interviewees described public meetings where participants reported health concerns
which were too vague and ambiguous to be directly connected to wind turbines but instead could
be associated with multiple sources. In one interview a parallel was drawn between the
symptoms described and workplace stress, which is often connected to lack of power and
autonomy in the workplace. Another interviewee raised concerns that our current measurement
techniques were not sophisticated enough to examine the correlation between wind farms and
sound. Respondents did see a ‘health’ impact at the community level due to the disruption and
divisiveness of the issue. For the ‘neighbours’ who did not negotiate to install the wind farm
they experienced the ‘cost’ without the ‘benefit’.
Another interviewee believed a moratorium should be declared until more independents studies
were produced versus ‘studies’ conducted by either the pro or anti stakeholders. While
interviews were being conducted, Dr. Arlene King, Chief Medical Officer of Health of Ontario,
held a media conference and released a report (The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines,
May 20, 2010) which reviewed the current scientific evidence with regards to the adverse health
impact of wind turbines.
The report was prepared by the Chief Medical Officer of Health (CMOH) of Ontario in response
to public health concerns about wind turbines, particularly related to noise. She was assisted by
a technical working group comprised of members from the Ontario Agency for Health Protection
and Promotion (OAHPP), the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) and several
Medical Officers of Health in Ontario with the support of the Council of Ontario Medical
Officers of Health (COMOH). The report presents a synopsis of existing scientific evidence on
the potential health impact of noise generated by wind turbines.
The review concludes that while some people living near wind turbines report symptoms such as
dizziness, headaches, and sleep disturbance, the scientific evidence available to date does not
demonstrate a direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects. The
sound level from wind turbines at common residential setbacks is not sufficient to cause hearing
impairment or other direct health effects, although some people may find it annoying.
Thus, Dr. King by adopting an official position on behalf of Ontario Public Health Units will
offer some ‘safeguards’ for these smaller public health units, especially in rural areas, who have
been ‘caught’ without the resources to respond to the concerns of municipalities nor to conduct
their own research.
Ontario Green Energy and Economy Act (GEA)
As discussed earlier in the report, legislation is a critical variable in the success or failure of wind
farm adoption. Success for wind farm developers requires the existence of a ‘supportive’
legislative framework. The legislative framework needs to be centralized and not varied across
municipalities and economic incentives need to be offered. Thus for developers the passing of
the GEA (Bill 150) was a ‘good’.
Ontario’s Green Energy Act (GEA), and related amendments to other legislation, received Royal
Assent on May 14, 2009. Regulations and other tools needed to fully implement the legislation
were introduced through the month of September 2009, as part of a ten step plan to bring the
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
57
GEA to life. The landmark Green Energy Act will “boost investment in renewable energy
projects and increase conservation, creating green jobs and economic growth to Ontario”.
Unfortunately, in the case of Ontario, the institution of a provincial standard although it
facilitated investiture levels also elicited local opposition. The opposition increased due to the
viewed /perceived loss of a ‘democratic’ voice with regards to the process and the loss of locally
based autonomy to negotiate on behalf of the municipality. Research has shown that the ‘top
down’ model of governance’ may fracture the community and increase the level of opposition.
This perceived loss of autonomy leads to protest and the opposition has increased in some areas
to the point of ‘shutting down’ projects.
Although the Ministry of Environment (MOE) has a clear and transparent process with regard to
applications it is very much a unimodal information based process and not a bi modal negotiation
since the decision making is still in the ‘hands’ of the province. The process is described below
(CMOH, 2010).
The Ministry of the Environment requires applicants for wind turbine projects to provide written
notice to all assessed land owners within 120 meters of the project location at a preliminary stage
of the project planning. Applicants must also post a notice on at least two separate days in a local
newspaper. As well, applicants are required to notify local municipalities and any Aboriginal community
that may have a constitutionally protected right or interest that could be impacted by the project.
Before submitting an application to the Ministry of the Environment, the applicant is also required
to hold a minimum of two community consultation meetings to discuss the project and its potential
local impact. To ensure informed consultation, any required studies must be made available for public
review 60 days prior to the date of the final community meeting. Following these meetings the applicant
is required to submit as part of their application a Consultation Report that describes the comments
received and how these comments were considered in the proposal.
The applicant must also consult directly with local municipalities prior to applying for a Renewable Energy
Approval on specific matters related to municipal lands, infrastructure, and services. The Ministry of the
Environment has developed a template, which the applicant is required to use to document project-specific
matters raised by the municipality. This must be submitted to the ministry as part of the application. The
focus of this consultation is to ensure important local service and infrastructure concerns are considered
in the project. For small wind projects (under 50 kW) the public meeting requirements above are not
applicable due to their limited potential impacts.
All of these sentiments were echoed in our interviews. Our respondents were mixed in terms of
their opinion of the GEA and whether it was a positive or negative with regards to both
community acceptance and the impact of wind farms on a community. The following is a
summary of findings, from interview data, regarding the legislative framework, in particular the
GEA, both negative and positive.
Anti
 One respondent stated that municipalities/communities need the ability to negotiate for
‘all the community residents in terms of land use’ without having their ‘hands tied’ by the
Green Energy Act.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
58
 Others stated we need ‘to ‘free’ municipalities from under the power of the
‘undemocratic’ GEA in order to be able to negotiate local land usage for the benefit of
the locals.
 Much of the controversy could be dissipated if control of the location of wind farms was
returned to the municipality.
 Some believed the impact of the GEA goes further in actually lowering the opportunity
for community support. Those who initially supported the idea of the technology have
now become opponents due to the lack of control and autonomy over the choice of
where, when, and economic incentives.
 Health concerns are voiced but the greater issue is actually the lack of choice in a
democratic society. “People are more connected to their local municipality. The
province is a far away entity”.
 The frustration felt by the current opposition is increasing and if we wait too long to
return municipal control individuals will be entrenched in their positions. Some
interviewees believed there was a potential for violent opposition, including property
vandalism, if the situation was not addressed. He/she believed the ‘window for
acceptance’ was narrowing quickly.
Pro
 Some respondents believed since the issue was not local, i.e., electricity provision, then
the legislative framework should also be based at the provinical level. The local level
cannot ‘solve’ the issues and the local town council will then be ‘caught’ in the middle of
polarized citizens.
 Others stated since the Province had ‘set the stage’ with their commitment to wind
technology then provinical politicians should ‘take the political risk and fall out’. There
was a local risk of wind farm development becoming a legal issue. Thus local councils
could be caught in a ‘minefield’.
 Local councillors may be unable to adopt a position due to economic conflict of interests
(investiture in the wind energy technology).
Endorsement
Earlier sections of the report found, based on the national and international literature, that
community acceptance is based primarily on procedural legitimacy in siting decisions. Thus the
process and speed of development must offer avenues for the involvement of the local
community. The qualitative data findings are in agreement with the above and respondents
offered a number of suggestions which could be implemented and come to fruition at the
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
59
municipal level. Some respondents also drew attention to the importance of working with ‘good’
corporate partners who ultimately, wish to be ‘good neighbours’.

One interviewee referred to the U.S.A. where some states have a policy of
financial incentives not just for the primary leaseholder but for those on
neighbouring properties.

It is useful to offer economic incentives in the form of employment for local
residents and not just outsiders.

In many rural areas where farmers are preparing to retire it becomes an option to
stay on the farm through alternative sources of economic viability.

Some corporations in an attempt to be ‘good neighbours’ have developed
charitable foundations which sponsor activities and donate gifts to
communities, i.e., ice arenas.

One of our respondents suggested organizing landowners and collaborating with
the larger community in order to ‘share’ the planning decisions and the
benefits.

Another suggestion was to ‘set’ the wind farms on municipal property and
institute a tax levy for ‘use of the land’ thus contributing to the shared tax
base of the municipality and ultimately, investing in the whole
community.

Transparency in the process was a critical variable. Thus a number of town
meetings should be held throughout the planning and development process
to allow citizens a ‘voice’. Also, the greater the number of public
meetings the more opportunities people have ‘to vent’ their concerns and
have them addressed.
Aesthetics
Another overriding theme found in the literature was the aesthetic impact of wind turbines,
especially the visual impact, of the turbines on the rural landscape. Many of the respondents
discussed the aesthetics of wind farms from a number of viewpoints. One respondent compared
the development of the technology and its impact on local communities to the rise of and impact
of large commercial farms in rural areas (especially pig farms). In the beginning, a number of
health concerns were voiced around nutrient management (control of nitrate production) at these
facilities but the dominant aesthetic concern was the ‘smell’. The respondent saw a parallel to an
‘invading’ technology which divided neighbours and had a strong olfactory impact versus a
visual impact on the environment and its residents. Over time commercial farms were accepted
by the population. The respondent believed the same result would occur with wind farms since
from a practical viewpoint, “Folks need to be able to eat and to turn the lights on.”
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
60
Other respondents focused on the importance of the planning process for the placement of wind
farms. They referenced a recent visit to Spain where wind turbines tended to be placed in a
linear fashion and she/he found this to be less visually jarring than the ‘pin cushion’ effect found
in some Ontario communities.
Urban versus Rural
The literature frames part of the controversy as a rural versus urban issue. At its most simplistic
level this position refers to NIMBYISM. Our data revealed a number of aspects of this variable.
Some of the interviewees ‘agreed’ the interests of rural versus urban was at the root of the
controversy. The rural populations were being forced to ‘endure’ the technology in order to
supply the necessary energy to the urban centres. However, the urban populations did not have
to ‘live/see’ the source. One respondent termed it the “Toronto Mentality”.
Others cautioned about generalizing that all rural communities react in a similar manner. He/she
emphasized the importance of ‘knowing’ your community. There has been less controversy in
some rural areas which already have energy producing technology, whether it is nuclear or hydro
electric facilities. It is suggested they may share a more collectively ‘urban’ viewpoint. This
population may also be employed by the technology and directly benefit. They may also be a
group which is involved in the science and technology industry, i.e., engineers, thus may be more
‘comfortable’ with the change to the landscape.
On the other hand, some of the individuals involved in the nuclear industry do not support wind
technology, either because it is a competitive industry, or believe its level of efficiency in terms
of supply does not equal the cost and investment required. Thirdly, other technology is viewed as
more efficacious, for example hydro, cleaner fossil fuels. Some interview respondents pointed
out the loss of ‘good’ farmland due to the transplantation of ‘ugly’ wind turbines. Other
interviewees pointed out the technology could bridge the urban/rural split through ‘shared’ land
use; a position taken in many parts of Europe.
Controversy (over time)
Earlier in the report, and in the qualitative data, a recurring theme was the length of time, size,
and number of wind turbines, found on wind farms. The community endorsement was also
examined within the context of local support/opposition versus activists being ‘shipped’ into
local landscapes and politics in order to build support for their movement and vent their
frustration.
 Some interviewees stated the ‘silent’ majority, who were local citizens, were often in
favor of wind farms but afraid to ‘speak out’ publicly due to the ‘animosity’ expressed at
town meetings. Sometimes the most outspoken were individuals from surrounding or
distanced communities.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
61
 In some cases there was initial controversy but once the wind turbines had been built it
died down. Maybe because fears were not realized (i.e., quieter than anticipated) or the
population simply became resigned. However, in other communities the population
continued to protest against their development. In fact, the ‘health’ concerns have
extended to accusations the vibrations have an adverse affect on the cows and the
earthworms. One interviewee discussed individuals were concerned that oil could leak
from the turbine and ‘pollute’ the aquifer making the ground water ‘unsafe’.
Alternatively, the oil could threaten to de-stabilize a nuclear waste repository and
threaten the population. These concerns show the extreme level of fear some individuals
feel with regard to the technology. However, this extreme anxiety had been associated
with the early stages of many technologies (e.g. nuclear, hydro). Unfortunately, at this
extreme level it is difficult for local representatives to reassure individuals with scientific
evidence.
 Others pointed to the size of the turbines and number of units installed as an important
variable in the acceptance or dismissal of the technology. Thus less than 10 units the
population may accepting but 200, 300 or 400 units raised the ‘emotions’ of the
community.
 Protestors move from different localities searching for a ‘voice’ to vent their fears and
frustrations and to build their ‘ranks’. Those individuals often believe their voices have
been ‘shut out’ by the province. .
 One interviewee in a position of authority shared she/he had received only one health
complaint in 15 years of wind development.
 Transmission was also raised as an issue. Thus not only the visual impact of the wind
turbines themselves but the power line corridor built to transfer the electricity to the grid.
In some areas the corridor is visible, above ground and has garnered concern and protest
 One of the other issues raised in the literature is decreasing real estate values due to the
presence of wind turbines. One interviewee stated that when selling a farm property the
more income generating possibilities on the farm the greater the selling price. Thus in
his/her experience rural communities property values have risen.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
62
Conclusion
The preceding report has attempted to review and analyze the debate surrounding the
development of wind energy in Canada, specifically in Ontario. Although the debate has many
faces this report focuses on the health concerns referred to by the opposition. Those health
concerns also ‘mask’ many of the other issues involved in the controversy, including aesthetic
and economic claims. Wind energy power plants are a new phenomenon on the Canadian
landscape and although they may have major environmental and public health benefits compared
to other electricity production, their existence has also met with opposition, ironically framed
and founded on similar claims. There are mitigation measures available including, the institution
of an open and transparent development process which has achieved success and ultimately, may
on a secondary level address some of the antagonism elicited within local communities.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
63
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Background
AWEA American Wind Energy Association http://www.awea.org/
Brookfield Renewable Power Website, “Prince Wind Farm” retrieved February 2010,
http://brookfieldpower.com/content/renewable_resources/wind-505.html
CANWEA Canadian Wind Energy Association http://www.canwea.ca/
CBC news (November 18, 2008) “Summerside approves wind farm.”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2008/11/18/pe-summerside-wind.html.
Retrieved February 2010.
CBC news (March 6, 2009) “The global race to harness wind.”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/24/f-energy-wind-table.html.
Retrieved February 2010.
CBC news (March 26, 2009) “Wind farm approved over residents concerns.”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2009/03/26/pe-summerside-wind.html.
Retrieved February 2010.
CBC news (April 9, 2009) “City commits $250 M to switch operations to wind power.”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/04/09/cgy-green-power-enmax-wind.html.
Retrieved February 2010.
GWEC Global Wind Energy Council http://www.gwec.net/
Ontario’s Environmental Registry http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca
The Ontario Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure Website “Wind Development”
http://www.mei.gov.on
The Canadian Press (September 28, 2009) “Samsung mulls Ontario wind farm.”
http://www.cbc.ca./canada/money/story/2010/09/28/samsung-solar-wind-farms461.html.
Retrieved February 2010.
The Canadian Press (January 19, 2010) “Samsung deal to bring wind, solar farms to
Ontario:sources. http://www.cbc.ca./canada/toronto/story/2010/01/19/samsung-solar-windfarms461.html. Retrieved February 2010.
Wikipedia “Wind Farm”. http://en.wikipedia.org/Windfarm. Retrieved February 2010
WWEA World Wind Energy Association http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
64
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Legislation
03/04/2010 Federal Budget Fails to Extend Support for New Wind Energy Development:
Canada’s ability to compete with the U.S. for new investment and jobs reduced www.CanWea.ca
Bohn, C. & C. Lant (2010) “Welcoming the Wind? Determinants of Wind Power Development
Among U.S. States.” The Professional Geographer 61(1):87-100.
CBC News (June 10, 2009) “Ontario proposes tough new wind turbine rules.”
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/06/10/ontario-wind-turbines.html.
Retrieved February 2010
Cowan, J. (February 24,2009) “Wind Farm Opponents fear sweeping Ontario legislation.”
National Post http://www.financialpost.com Retrieved February 2010.
Shoreline Beacon (April 2009) “Wind Farm helps end coal use: Smitherman.”
http://www.shorelinebeacon.com
The Canadian Press (April 24, 2009) “McGuinty willing to consider standards for health effects
of wind turbines.” http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/04/24/ont-wind.html.
Retrieved February 2010.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
65
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Developing Wind Power: Support vs Opposition
Bohn, C. & C. Lant (2010) “Welcoming the Wind? Determinants of Wind Power Development
Among U.S. States.” The Professional Geographer 61(1):87-100.
Dimitropoulos, A. & A. Kontoleon (2009) “Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of
wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands.” Energy Policy
37:1842-1854
Toke, D., S. Breukers and M. Wolsink (2008) “Wind power development outcomes: How can
we account for the differences? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 12(4):1129-47.
Wolsink, M. (2000) “Wind power and the NIMBY myth: Institutional capacity and the limited
significance of public support.” Renewable Energy 21(1):9-64.
Wolsink, M. (2007a) “Planning of renewable schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on
landscape issues instead of decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful
accusations of non-cooperation.” Energy Policy 35:2692-2704.
Wolsink, M. (2007b) “Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and
fairness instead of ‘backyard motives’.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11:11881207.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
66
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Opposition (Anti-Wind Activists)
CBC news (November 6, 2006) “Vibrations at Pubnico wind farm no threat: study.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2006/11/06/pubnico-wind.html.
Retrieved February 2010.
CBC news (April 2, 2007) “Wind farm debate cuts through Ontario community.”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007/04/02/wind-wolfe-070402.html.
Retrieved February 2010.
CBC news (October 21, 2008) “Residents’ concerns delay vote on wind farm.”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2008/10/21/pe-sside-windmills.html.
Retrieved February 2010.
CBC news (April 14, 2009) “Wind turbines causing health problems, some Ont. Residents say.”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2009/04/16/tech-090414-wind-turbines.html.
Retrieved February 2010.
CBC news (April 23,2009) “Formal Study needed into health effects of Wind Turbines, doctor
says.” http://www.cbc.ca/canada/health/story/2009/04/23/wind-medical.html. Retrieved February
2010.
Country Guardian (UK) www.countryguardian.net
European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW) www.epaw.org
Gallant, Paul (April 21, 2009) “Going green without disrupting the environment.” CBC news.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/04/16/f-energy-wind-power.html.
Retrieved February 2010.
Hamilton, Tyler (October 30, 2008) “Wind Farm opponents turn up heat.” The Star.com
retrieved February 2010, http://www.thestar.com/printarticle/527170.
Industrial Wind Action Group www.windaction.org
Industrial Wind Energy Opposition www.awco.org
Jay, Paul (March 7, 2007) “Wind Resistance A ‘green’ energy choice pushing for widespread
acceptance.” http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/energy/wind-residtance.html.
Retrieved February 2010.
National Wind Watch http://www.wind-watch.org/news/
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
67
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Rennie, G. (January 25,2010) “A’burg opponents to wind turbines want answers.” The Windsor
Star http://www.windsorstar.com Retrieved February 2010.
Shoreline Beacon (April 2009) “Wind Farm helps end coal use: Smitherman.”
http://www.shorelinebeacon.com
Society for Wind Vigilance http://windvigilance.com/page002.aspx
Stelling, K & C. Krogh (2009) “Summary of Recent Research on Adverse Health Effects of
Wind Turbines.” http://www.windaction.org/documents/23709
The Canadian Press (April 23, 2009) “Formal study needed into health effects of wind turbines,
doctor says.” http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/04/23/wind-medical.html.
Retrieved February 2010.
The Sun Times (February,2010) “Wind Farm opponents message: Go Away.”
http://www.markdalestandard.com Retrieved February 2010.
Website “Wolfe Island Residents for the Environment”. http://www.worlfeislandresidents.ca
Retrieved February 2010.
Wind Concerns Ontario http://windconcernsontatio.wordpress.com
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
68
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Wind Farms and Public Health
Copes, Ray & Karen Rideout (2009) “Wind Turbines and Health: A Review of Evidence”
National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health Presentation, September 10. Prepared
for Agency for Health Protection and Promotion. www.oahpp.ca
Dr. Arlene King, Memorandum, Ministry of Health and Long Term Care
www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/.../WindTurbinesMOHLTC.pdf
Dr. David Colby, Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit http://www.chatham-kent.ca/default.htm
Dr. Hazel Lynn, MOH, Grey- Bruce- Owen Sound Public Health Unit
http://www.publichealthgreybruce.on.ca/
Dr. Isra, Levy, MOH, Ottawa Public Health http://www.health.gov.on.ca/
Institut national de sante publique du Quebec (available in French only) [Quebec national
Institute of Public Health] translated key findings by CanWea http://www.canwea.ca/windenergy/talkingaboutwind_e.php
Niagara Region Public Health and Social Services Committee
http://www.niagararegion.ca/government/council/agendas-minutes/comservreports.aspx
The Sun Times, February 2010, www.owensoundsuntimes.com
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
69
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Wind Farms and Noise
Bellhouse, G. (2004) “Low Frequency Noise and Infrasound From Wind Turbine Generators: A
Literature Review.” Report prepared by Bel Acoustic Consulting for Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Authority, New Zealand, June 30.
CANWEA Canadian Wind Energy Association http://www.canwea.ca/
Howard, J. et al (2009) “Why so much noise about Wind?” Globe and Mail, July 13
Leventhall, H.G.. (2004) “Low Frequency Noise and Annoyance.” Noise and Health
Vol.6(23):59-72)
Leventhall, G. (2006) “Infrasound from Wind Turbines – Fact, Fiction or Deception.” Canadian
Acoustics Vol. 34(2):29-36.
North American Wind Power www.nawindpower.com
Pedersen, E. et al (2009) “Response to noise from modern wind farms in The Netherlands.”
Journal of Accoustic Society of America August, 126(2):634-43.
Pedersen, E. & K. P. Waye (2007) “Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self-reported health and
well-being in different living encironments.” Occupational and Environmental Medicine Vol.
64:pp.480-486.
Pedersen, E. et al (2007) “Living in the vicinity of wind turbines – A grounded theory study.”
Qualitative Research Psychology Vol.4:49-63.
Pedersen, E. & K. P. Waye (2004) “Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise: A dose
response relationship.” Journal Acoustic Society of America Vo. 116:3460-3470.
Pedersen, E. & H. Halmstad (2003) “Noise Annoyance from Wind Turbines – a review.” Report
5308 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. August.
Ramani, R. (Aeiolos Engineering Corporation) (2007) “Wind Turbine Facilities Noise Issues”
Accoustic Consulting Report prepared for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
# 4071/2180/Ar155Rev3, December
Wolsink, M & M. Sprengers (1993) “Wind Turbine noise: A new environmental threat?”
Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on the Biological Effects of Noise, ICBEN,
Nice, France. Vol. 2:235-238.
Wolsink, M. et al (1993) “Annoyance from wind turbine noise on sixteen sites in three
countries.” Proceedings of the European Community Wind Energy Conference, Lubeck,
Travemijnde, pp. 273-276.
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
70
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Wind Farms and Shadow Flicker
Harding, G. et al. (2008) “Wind turbines, flicker, and photosensitive epilepsy: Characterizing the
flashing that may precipitate seizures and optimizing guidelines to prevent them.” Epilepsia Vol.
49(6):1095-1098.
Wind Farms and Birds
Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons of
Avian Collision Mortality in the United States is a resource document of the NWCC. © August,
2001.
http://www.nationalwind.org/search/default.aspx?F_keywords=avian+collissions+with+wind+tu
rbines
Drewitt, A. L. & R. H. W. Langston (2008) “Collision Effects of Wind-power Generators and
Other Obstacles on Birds.” Annals New York Academy of Science 1134:233-266.
Environmental Bioindicators Foundation, Inc (2009) “Comparison of Reported Effects and Risks
to Vertebrate Wildlife from Six Electricity Generation Types in the New York/New England
Region.” Report 09-02 commissioned by New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority, March. http://www.nyserda.org/programs/Environment/EMEP/new.asp
Wind Farms and Bats
CBC news (August 25, 2008) “Pressure drop causing wind turbine bat deaths, say Calgary
researchers.” http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/08/25/bats-wind.html.
Retrieved February 2010.
Wind Farms and the impact on Real Estate Values
Canning, G. & L.J. Simmons (2010) “Wind Energy Study – Effect on Real Estate Values in the
Municipality of Chatham-Kent, Ontario.” Consultants report prepared for Canadian Wind
Energy Association (CanWea) by Canning Consultants Inc, & John Simmons Realty Services
Ltd., February.
www.canwea.ca/.../talkwind/PropertyValuesConsultingReportFebruary42010.pdf
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
71
APPENDICES
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
72
Source: Canadian Wind Farm Association (CanWea) website
http://www.canwea.ca/index_e.php
NAME
DATE
ADDRESS
COMPANY
TURBINES
TOTAL
INSTALLED
INSTALLED
CAPACITY
(MW)
Clear Creek
Wind Farm
2008/11
Norfolk
County,
Norfolk
AIM Powergen
6 X Vestas
1.65 MW
9.9000
Cruickshank
Wind Farm
2008/10
Kincardine
Enbridge
5X Vestas
1.65 MW
turbines
8.2500
Cultus Wind
Project
2008/07
Norfolk
County,
Norfolk
AIM Powergen
6X Vestas
V82 1.65
MW
9.9000
Dunnville
Wind
Turbine
2006/10
Dunneville
Rosa Flora Limited
1X
Fuhrlander
0.6000
600 kW
Ex Place
Turbine
2003/01
Toronto
Toronto
Hydro/Windshare
1
Lagerway
750 kW
0.7500
Erie Shores
Wind Farm
2006/05
Port Burwell
Macquarie Power &
Infrastructure Income
Fund
66X GE 1.5
MW
99.0000
Ferndale
Wind Farm
2002/11
Ferndale
Sky Generation
1X Vestas
1.8 MW
5.1000
2006/10
2X Vestas
1.65 MW
Frogmore
Wind Project
2008/07
Norfolk
County,
Norfolk
AIM Powergen
6 Vestas
V82 1.65
MW
9.9000
Huron Wind
2002/11
Tiverton
Huron Wind
5X Vestas
1.8 MW
9.0000
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
73
NAME
DATE
ADDRESS
COMPANY
TURBINES
TOTAL
INSTALLED
INSTALLED
CAPACITY
(MW)
Kingsbridge
1 Wind
Power
Project
2006/04
Goderich
EPCOR
22X
Vestas 1.8
MW
39.6000
Melanchton
1 Wind
Planet
2006/03
Shelburne
Canadian Hydro
Developers Inc.
45X 1.5
MW GE
67.5000
Melanchton
Phase II
2008/11
Melancthon
Township
Canadian Hydro
Developers Inc.
88X GE
Energy 1.5
MW
turbines
132.0000
Mohawk
Point Wind
Farm
2008/10
Mohawk Point
AIM Powergen
6X Vestas
1.65 MW
turbines
9.9000
Ontario
Wind Power
Wind Farm
2009/04
Kincardine
Enbridge
110X
Vestas
1.65 MW
(V-82)
181.5000
OPG 7
Gomberg
Turbine
2001
Pickering
Ontario Power
Generation
1.8 MW
Vestas
1.8000
Pickering
Turbine
2001/10
Pickering
Ontario Power
Generation
1X Vestas
V80 1,800
kW
1.8000
Port Albert
Wind
Turbine
2001/12
Port Albert
Private
1X Vestas
V47 (660
kW)
0.6600
Port Alma
Wind Farm
2008/11
ChathamKent
Kruger Energy
44
Siemens
2.3 MW
Mk11 Wind
Turbines
101.2000
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
74
NAME
DATE
ADDRESS
COMPANY
TURBINES
TOTAL
INSTALLED
INSTALLED
CAPACITY
(MW)
Prince wind
Farm
2006/11
Sault Ste.
Marie
Brookfield
Renewable Power
126X GE
1.5 MW
189.0000
Proof Line
Wind Farm
2009/12
Lambton
Shores
Sky Generation
4X 1.65
MW
Vestas
turbines
6.6000
Ravenswood
2008/01
Lambton
Shores
Sky Generation
6X Vestas,
1.65 Mw
9.9000
Ripley Wind
Power
Project
2007/12
Kincardine
Suncor Energy
Products Inc.
/Acciona Energy
38X
Enercon 2
MW
turbines
76.0000
Spring Bay
Wind Farm
2007/02
Spring Bay,
Manitoulin
Island
Schneider Power
2X
Enercon
E48 800
KW
1.6000
Tiverton
Wind
Turbine
1995/10
Tiverton
Ontario Power
Generation
1X Tacke
TW-600
CWM (cold
weather
modified,
600 kW
0.6000
Wolfe Island
EcoPower
Centre
2009/06
Pickering
Ontario Power
Generation
86
Siemens
2.3 MW
Wind
Turbines
197.8000
Wind Farm
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
75
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
76
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010
77
McMaster Institute of Environment & Health (MIEH) 2010