“Experts” Sent In To Convince Public Of Wind Park Safety Met By Derision And “Jeering Laughter”

As wind projects continue to get planned throughout Germany, concerns over their effects on nature, wildlife and human health are growing more than ever.

The online Sächsische Zeitung (SZ – Saxony News) reports how one locality in Germany held a public forum on the subject of low-frequency infrasound earlier this year. Infrasound generated by wind turbines is low-frequency at a range that is not audible to the human ear (< 20 Hz), but the air pressure waves are in fact registered by the inner ear. For a fair amount of people these pulsing pressure changes can trigger a variety of physical discomforts, and over the long term to severe health risks, a growing body of literature shows.

The SZ writes that some 160 citizens showed up to get more information on the subject from 5 experts from the state, most of them there to downplay the health issues of infrasound from wind turbines.

For example, Andrea Bauerdorff of the Federal Ministry of Environment claimed that a health impact from infrasound “could not be expected according to the latest scientific knowledge“.

Physicist Bernhard Brenner of the Bavarian Ministry for Health and Food Safety claimed: “With pure infrasound there really is nothing to worry about“. But many in attendance weren’t buying it, as the SZ wrote that Brenner’s comments were met by “jeering laughter from the wind power opponents“.

Another state expert, psychologist Johannes Pohl, admitted that infrasound was a problem for a “tiny part of the population” (6 or 7 percent of those living close to wind turbines) but then blamed “psychological factors” for it.

Thankfully there was one expert who took a far more critical view: state physician Thomas Carl Stiller, who according to the SZ “received again and again applause from the win energy opponents“. Stiller noted that wind turbines posed “a risk of cancer from the carbon fibers in the event of a fire, social polarization, optical blight” and warned that humans are “not able to adapt to infrasound“. He told the audience that long-term infrasound was shown to cause damage to ears, lungs and heart in laboratory rats.

Did the information forum bring the opposing sides closer together? Not at all, the SZ writes, summarizing:

Citizens initiatives against wind energy doubted the studies and the intent of the scientists behind them, […]. One conclusion remained at the end that almost everyone could agree on: The literature is far to thin. Meanwhile the construction of wind energy will continue to be driven without obstruction.”

 

88 responses to ““Experts” Sent In To Convince Public Of Wind Park Safety Met By Derision And “Jeering Laughter””

  1. AndyG55

    Perfect place for this.

    South Australian black-out report now out

    Blackouts were due to LACK OF SYSTEM INERTIA, ie solid reliable spinning mass in the system

    http://joannenova.com.au/2017/03/aemo-report-blames-renewables-sa-blackout-due-to-lack-of-synchronous-inertia/

    1. sod

      “Blackouts were due to LACK OF SYSTEM INERTIA, ie solid reliable spinning mass in the system”

      the blackout was caused by a storm. and that storm forced multiple power sources to go down. Among them were wind plants, which had a specific, artificial low number of frequency problems that they would take. This number has been raised and the same will not happen again.

      INERTIA will come from wind power from now on.

      1. Sunsettommy

        They had big storms there before, but never the big blackouts,until wind power came along.

        1. sod

          “They had big storms there before, but never the big blackouts,until wind power came along.”

          sure. this was the first blackout ever in Australia.

          1. Stephen Richards

            It was a relatively small storm. Winds around 60Km. In france 1999 we had 2 storms at 3 times that velocity in 1 week. Pylons were downed in their 10s but electricity was back up in less than a week. We recently saw a storm of 120kms with minor loss of locally of power.

            You have a need to be different even if it means you are wrong.

          2. Graeme No.3

            No, it wasn’t the first but it was the worst, a whole State blacked out. And they had to restart the gas fired stations before the turbines would work.
            Although the next one (or was it the one after, can’t remember) was far longer but not everybody was effected. That one, Dec. 28, WAS due to a storm.
            In any case I suggest you stop believing anything the Premier Jay Weatherill says, he is front page news nationally shown up as an outright liar (on several occasions).

      2. AndyG55

        The report says otherwise, sob

        STOP MAKING CRAP UP.

      3. John

        “the blackout was caused by a storm”
        No no no.
        The wind farms shutdown due to the fact that when there’s finally enough wind they can’t handle it.
        That made the inter-connectors overload, so there was no backup power. Which you always need it seem.
        The power lines collapsed later during the storm.

        Get your facts right and stop lying, you green.

        1. sod

          “The power lines collapsed later during the storm.”

          no. your timeline is wrong. please read the report, i gave the link below.

          1. AndyG55

            WRONG as usual sob.

            The grid collapsed because there was not enough frequency inertia.

            You don’t have the intelligence to read the report and comprehend.

            So stop making up LIES.

          2. SebastianH

            Just read the report AndyG55!

            There is a detailed timeline on page 6. Tl;dr: the grid collapsed because of storm damage and a series of protective measures following that event.

            Two tornados damaged a transmission line 170 km apart, the resulting voltage dips caused some wind farms to reduce power to protect themselves. That caused a rapid increase in power transmission through the Heywood Interconnector and 700 ms later the Interconnector went offline to protect itself. SA became islanded and generation was below load which caused the blackout.

            One of there conclusions:

            Wind turbines successfully rode through grid disturbances. It was the action of a control setting
            responding to multiple disturbances that led to the Black System. Changes made to turbine
            control settings shortly after the event has removed the risk of recurrence given the same number
            of disturbances

            They plan to increase inertia during rare events like these and add more frequency control in order to be able to maintain an islanded system for some time.

            What they already did since this event:

            Changes by several wind farms in SA to the settings for the protective feature for multiple voltage
            disturbances.
             Introduction of restrictions on Heywood Interconnector flow to ensure the rate of change of
            frequency in SA for the unexpected loss of the Heywood Interconnector alone does not exceed
            3 Hz/sec.
             Requirement for a minimum number of on-line synchronous generators in SA.

          3. AndyG55

            Sorry you don’t have the knowledge or comprehension to figure it out, seb

            You have made it very obvious many times that you haven’t the slightest clue how electricity supply systems work, no reason to expect you to comprehend now.

            There is no doubt that if there had been sufficient system inertia to hold the frequency, the system would not have collapsed.

            “Sustained power reduction of 456 MW of wind generation gradually manifested itself as both transient and voltage instability, and voltages across all SA substations rapidly dropped before the system separation.”

            “When two areas of a power system, or two interconnected systems, lose synchronism, the areas must be separated from each other quickly and automatically to avoid equipment damage and to minimise the risk of spreading the disturbance.”

            [b]”The key differentiator between the 28 September 2016 event and other three events is that there was significantly lower inertia in SA in the most recent event, due to a lower number of on-line synchronous generators. This resulted in a substantially faster RoCoF compared to the other events, exceeding the
            ability of the UFLS scheme to arrest the frequency fall before it dropped below 47 Hz.”[/b]

            Game, set and match, bozo !

          4. AndyG55

            let’s repeat that little bit in caps so you can read it….

            THE KEY DIFFERENTIATOR BETWEEN THE 28 SEPTEMBER 2016 EVENT AND OTHER THREE EVENTS IS THAT THERE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER INERTIA IN SA IN THE MOST RECENT EVENT, DUE TO A LOWER NUMBER OF ON-LINE SYNCHRONOUS GENERATORS

          5. AndyG55

            “exceeding the ability of the UFLS scheme to arrest the frequency fall before it dropped below 47 Hz”

            LOW INERTIA AND THE RESULTANT DROP IN FREQUENCY CAUSED THE STATEWIDE BLACKOUT.

            That is why… “They plan to increase inertia during rare events like these and add more frequency control in order to be able to maintain an islanded system for some time.”

            The easiest way to do that is thorough FOSSIL FUEL power stations.

            Any other suggestion how they will increase system inertia and control the frequency, seb?

          6. AndyG55

            Soon to a Germany near you, sob/seb.

            ENJOY !! 🙂

      4. sod

        Please read the report. Jo Nova provided a link:

        https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Market_Notices_and_Events/Power_System_Incident_Reports/2017/Integrated-Final-Report-SA-Black-System-28-September-2016.pdf

        The part about wind farms starts on page 42.

        What happened is simple: AEMO (australian energy market operator, who wrote the report) relied on bad weather informations and made bad decisions. They did not know basic stuff about wind plants (“ride through” mechanisms) and then made false claims about wind power, based on their lack of understanding.

        The report is utterly clear: the “unrelyability” of wind power did not cause this blackout. period.

        but there are good news: australians anre turning to solar power and batteries (50 increase at the start of this year) and will add a huge battery (100 MWh).

        1. AndyG55

          roflmao.

          They NOT turning to wind and solar in anything more than tiny bites around the edges. You are again living in a FANTASY world of your own fevered imagination.

          Thanks to the South Australia debacle most rational Australians now realise that wind and solar are an overly expensive non-option.

          Only the most moronic far-left politicians still think its a worthwhile option.

          100mw huge?

          roflmao.

          dDon’t you know that the aim of that battery is to give them just enough time to bring the gas fired power stations up to speed.

          The TOTAL RELIANCE on fossil fuels will always be there, so why bother with the economic stupidity of a second UNRELIABLE system.

          The subsidies and feed-in mandates that hold the wind and solar scam together, will not last much longer.

          And when the playing field is levelled, wind and solar will disappear like the useless farce that they are.

          1. SebastianH

            The TOTAL RELIANCE on fossil fuels will always be there

            No it wont.

            And when the playing field is levelled,

            If it really were level than all costs would be covered with the price of each kWh coming out of a power plant (doesn’t matter which power source). That’s never been the case and will most likely never be the case.

          2. AndyG55

            There will always be a total reliance on fossil fuel to fill the MANY gaps that wind and solar will always have

            You cannot get around that FACT.. without LYING your assets off.

            Everything in your meaningless life is TOTALLY RELIANT on that fossil fuel electricity generation.

            And there is nothing you can do about it, except YAP.

  2. SebastianH

    Isn’t that a perfect example of bias the wind power opponents displayed there?

    They are skeptic about everything that is against their core convictions, but cheer whenever someone says something that is in accordance with their views. In effect nothing can really change their opinion about wind power.

    Of course this behaviour is also observable in hardcore proponents of wind power. Same goes for any other controversial topic these days. The middleground doesn’t exist anymore :/

    1. DirkH

      “Another state expert, psychologist Johannes Pohl, admitted that infrasound was a problem for a “tiny part of the population” (6 or 7 percent of those living close to wind turbines) but then blamed “psychological factors” for it.”

      So, Sebastian, you are against building extra bathrooms or changing the rules for bathroom usage just because an even smaller part of the population claims to have an invented “gender”?

      I remember vividly how the Slimestream Media ACROSS THE EMPIRE was screaming BLOODY MURDER about it! And you don’t give a shit!

    2. AndyG55

      roiflmao.

      Come of it seb… its not as if you don’t suffer from brain-numbing AGW bias. !

      You fabricate and twist, and worm and squirm, to the very depths of your unsupportable, anti-science, cult-like belief.

    3. AndyG55

      “The middle-ground doesn’t exist anymore”

      Certain not in your far-left AGW-embittered ideology, that is for sure, seb.

    4. tom0mason

      Seb,
      “Isn’t that a perfect example of bias the wind power opponents displayed there?”

      No!
      Like most things from green technology, most sensible people understand that these device were foisted on them not because they are particularly innovative and offer great advantages over conventional methods of power generation but arrived on the scene due to political bullying and lies. Windfarms are not sustainable or even a reasonable method to generate electrical power for grid connected system. Indeed as the German experience continues to show windfarms are a hazard for clean, reliable power for the nation.

      Windfarms were politically forced on the public, through ill-thought out green politics, without proper scientific research into there pro and cons of all areas of there use.

      Only the true advocate for the green agenda, such as yourself, could see the positives for adopting this wasteful technology. The adoption of windfarm technology by an industrialized nation is regressionary step leading to de-industrialization and overall reduction in wealth. The green’s core conviction is to destroy industry through deceitfully policies of subsidized wastefullness.

      1. SebastianH

        See, you are a prime example of someone with an opinion that can’t be changed by whatever I’d be able to come up with. Probably even if there were a paper that windmills cure cancer, you would still consider them a bad thing ..

        1. tom0mason

          Seb

          Do you believe that taking a stable and relatively easy to maintain grid supply of thermal generation, nuclear, and hydro, and transforming it into a less stable grid with lots of highly reactive wind generators (that demand lots of maintenance), with necessary massive investment in additional expensive control systems from supply to customer, is a step up in progress, or a regressionary step?
          My opinion is based on the facts, yours appears to be based on…?

          1. DirkH

            Wait, the point is, the existing power infrastructure is not TRANSFORMED; we build ANOTHER infrastructure on top of it which produces electricity SOMETIMES and at 10 times the cost.

            Added bonus: That new infrastructure produces gigantic amounts of infrasound! And kills birds!

          2. sod

            “Wait, the point is, the existing power infrastructure is not TRANSFORMED; we build ANOTHER infrastructure on top of it which produces electricity SOMETIMES and at 10 times the cost.”

            This is simply false. we are shutting down coal and nuclear plants. This is a fact.

            The cost of wind and solar is LOWER than that of new coal. again, just a fact.

            and the “sometimes” electricity was pretty strong over the last couple of days. on the 27.03. we ad 11 GW of solar at 9:30 am, climbing to a peak of 27 GW.

            http://www.sma.de/en/company/pv-electricity-produced-in-germany.html

            while you are denying reality, the world is changing fast!

          3. AndyG55

            And what did they use when wind was low.

            What did they have to turn to.

            But the manic subsidies are forcing the REAL power systems to work very uneconomically, so eventually they will close.

            Then what will UNRELIABLES use for back-up when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine?

          4. SebastianH

            Then what will UNRELIABLES use for back-up when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine?

            Gas power plants. Germany would need roughly 2-3 times the amount of gas power plants as backup. They would be working only 10-20% of the time, the rest would be direct or indirect (batteries) usage of renewable energy. That’s rather easy to simulate.

          5. AndyG55

            So, total reliance on fossil fuels.. ok… just like I said.

            …. and do you really think the gas power stations are going to run economically when they have to ramp up and down.???

            Who pays to keep them idle and not working for 80-90% of the time…. like you ?

            Who would ever bother building a gas power station under those circumstances, unless paid massive subsidies to match the massive subsidies of intermittent, unreliable wind non-energy. Forcing up prices even further.

            You have again show your total cluelessness about anything to do with power generation and/or economics.

          6. AndyG55

            “Germany would need roughly 2-3 times the amount of gas power plants as backup.”

            ROFLMAO….

            Why not just build the gas plants, then.. and forget about the extra cost and environmental destruction of the wind turbines.

            How stupid do you have to be to build two separate supply systems… DOH !!!!

          7. AndyG55

            And who do you think would be so dumb as to build a gas fired power plant knowing it was only going to operate 10-20% of the time. DOH !!!

            They would have to have rocks in their heads.

            btw, How’s your order for the EV going.. or are you sticking with the merc.

          8. SebastianH

            According to https://energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm Germany has around 28 GW installed gas power plants. They generated 46350 GWh of electricity last year which equals 19% utilisation.

            Why not just build the gas plants, then

            Because other power plants still exist and renewables only provide for 33.5% of the electricity yet? It’s not economical for a nation that needs to import gas to get 66.5% of its electricity from natural gas.

          9. sod

            “So, total reliance on fossil fuels.. ok… just like I said.”

            no. the fossil fuel part is shrinking dramatically (to about 66% currently).

            “…. and do you really think the gas power stations are going to run economically when they have to ramp up and down.??? ”

            yes. But the real question is, will the full grid be economically viable? Harder question, but the answer is still YES.

          10. AndyG55

            Wrong again sob.

            Fantasy imaginings is all you are left with.

          11. AndyG55

            “will the full grid be economically viable?”

            Good to see you advocating for the removal of all solar and wind subsidies, and feed-in mandates.

            That is when it will become economically viable.

            But that will also see the demise of wind and solar, won’t it, sob .

            Without the manic subsidies and feed-in mandates, they would NOT EXIST.

          12. AndyG55

            Tell us all, sob….

            What would you do without those fossil fuel power plants.

            They are carrying the supply network,

            Holding it together.

            At times supplying basically ALL of Germany’s electricity.

          13. AndyG55

            And unless they are shut down, they will continue to be capable of supplying ALL of Germany’s electricity, 100% of the time.

            That is something that wind and solar CAN NEVER DO. !!

            Get back to us when wind and solar can guarantee to supply even 5% of Germany’s power 100% of the time.

          14. SebastianH

            5% of the power supply daily? Hourly? Every minute? Millisecond?

            Renewables never went below 14% this year for daily power generation. Wind and solar might have been below 5% on that one day. Even though, we can just build 20 times the capacity and it should be able to supply 100% all the time 😉 That’s obviously not the prefered solution, And.

            Without the manic subsidies and feed-in mandates, they would NOT EXIST.

            Who knows … Wind power is very cheap these days and PV is also near 7 eurocents per kWh now. When they are finally cheaper than building new conventional power plants (which is already true for coal with filting the exhaust and nuclear power) feed-in mandates aren’t necessary anymore.

            Or do you think a utility company would prefer burning fuel while they have a way to generate electricity that has zero € variable costs per kWh?

          15. SebastianH

            Found something for you … a paper from Standford about 100% renewable energy for all sectors in the U.S. and how it could be done: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf

          16. AndyG55

            I mean NEVER drop below 5%

            So are you pushing to get rid of feed-in mandates, and wind subsidies, so the REAL cost of renewables becomes the guiding market factor after RELIABILITY?

            When you do that you will start to NOT look like a moronic hypocrite.

            And glad to see you linking to yet another FANTASYLAND paper.

            It dehances your reputation even further

        2. AndyG55

          “See, you are a prime example of someone with an opinion that can’t be changed by whatever I’d be able to come up with.”

          The stuff you come up with is uniformly and totally, unsupportable, anti-science, anti-informed JUNK.

          That is why.

          Like the basis of the AGW scam. You still haven’t been able to produce a single paper showing that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

          … but you STILL have that totally IRRATIONAL and anti-science belief.

          And now you need to produce a paper to support your latest FANTASY.. windmills cure cancer.
          Why would any sane, rational person even bother saying something like that !!!

        3. AndyG55

          And who do you think would be so dumb as to build a gas fired power plant knowing it was only going to operate 10-20% of the time. DOH !!!

          They would have to have rocks in their heads.

          How’s your order for the EV going.. or are you sticking with the merc.

          1. AndyG55

            landed in the wrong place, sorry !

  3. Curious George

    Who cares for a tiny part of the population (6, maybe 7%). We care about 0.8% of the population who are confused as to which bathroom to use.

    1. DirkH

      Damn you beat me to it.

  4. crosspatch

    Would someone remind the politicians in Germany that Japan is now restarting her nuclear reactors and that it is probably safe for Germany to do the same? Just today a court ruled that it is safe to operate two more plants in Japan.

    http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-High-court-lifts-Takahama-injunction-2803174.html

    1. John F. Hultquist

      While the reactors in Germany have been in limbo, have they checked to see if they have problems similar to those in France?
      carbon segregation

    2. Curious George

      Frau Merkel is a politician first, physicist second.

  5. John F. Hultquist

    #1: We have wind towers on 2 sides of us, but about 20 kms away.
    I think I should find out how to check for infrasound.

    #2: 6% of 7.49 billion people is a big room full of people!

  6. tom0mason

    Infra sound has real effects on humans as church organ builder understood that very low (below hearing) sound spur emotional responses (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3087674.stm).
    In nature low frequency sounds cause alarm, trigger the ‘flight or fight’ stress responses, as animals and birds understand low frequency sound as a sign of danger — the sound of earthquakes, avalanche, landslides, eruption, etc.
    It is well known that low frequency sound elicit feeling of sadness, anxiety and feeling unwell. From another BBC program on film production, sound designer use it in horror films —

    While we may not be able to hear infrasound, it has been demonstrated to induce anxiety, extreme sorrow, heart palpitations and shivering.

    Naturally-occurring infrasound has been associated with areas of ‘supernatural activity’, as well as being produced prior to natural disasters such as storms and earthquakes.

    Producers of the 2002 French psychological thriller ‘Irreversible’ admitted to using this technique.

    Audience members reported feeling disorientated and physically ill after just half an hour of infrasound, leaving before the most shocking visual sequence on screen.

    In the 2007 horror Paranormal Activity, audiences also reported toweringly high fear levels despite a lack of action onscreen. It is believed this was caused by the use of low frequency sound waves.

    “It doesn’t affect everyone equally,” adds Ball, “but it does seem likely that in cinemas we will see, or at least feel, more of it in the future.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/0/24083243

    As it is known that infra-sound is unsettling to humans causing marked anxiety, and that continuous states of anxiety is detrimental to human health, so how long before the research show how damaging, maybe the insurance industry should fund the research…
    “Human physiological response to low sound‐pressure level infra‐ and low‐frequency noise ” shows that this kind of sound has deleterious effect on people and animals. http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.2026245

    So, is the precautionary principle at work here? I think not.
    Have we build these windmills and are still to find out the full effects on peoples live? I think so.

    1. Mindert Eiting

      Of course, anxiety, extreme sorrow, heart palpitations and shivering are caused primarily by looking at the German landscape.

    2. sod

      The effect of infrasound must be compared to the effect of air pollution.

      1. DirkH

        What air pollution is exactly avoided by ADDING infrasound generating wind turbines to the existing power plant infrastructure?
        Surely the Diesel engines of the construction and maintenance crews ADD pollution. Not that I’m worried about that, as the BIGGEST source of air pollution getting into the average warmunist lung is the Marihuana combustion products. Neither are you, as you would otherwise stop smoking it.

      2. sod

        Electricity production was 33% renewables last year.

        Oh the facts.

        1. Stephen Richards

          and 77% everything else.

          1. AndyG55

            Despite the massive market and political imbalance against coal, it has barely dropped.

            And that slight drop has been basically compensated by gas.

            At least Germany still has a nice solid percentage of real energy to provide grid frequency stability… for now.

          2. DirkH

            Give the Green CDU some time.

          3. SebastianH

            The typical failure to use math that climate skeptics display so often? 😉

        2. tom0mason

          Sod,
          How much of the ‘production’ was usable?
          No doubt much of this ‘product’ had to be wasted as windfarm production happened when there was not the customer load around to use it, eh?

          Or maybe you can supply the figures.

          1. DirkH

            Up to 32 billion already. Growth is 15% a year. A BOOMING business, pun intended.

          2. SebastianH

            Germany’s windfarms do not yet produce more electricity as is needed. The highest renewable share yet was around 69%.

            I forget the exact numbers but we are forced spend 25 billion each year to produce electricity that’s worth only 2 billion on the market.

            That doesn’t sound right. If renewables generated 33.5% of electricity in 2016 and that was woth only 2 billion €, then 100% of the electricity was worth just ~6 billion €. This is equal to a kWh price of 1.1 eurocents (550 TWh were produced in 2016).

          3. AndyG55

            Germany wind farms will NEVER be able to produce power “when needed”.

            That is the problem. INTERMITTENT and UNRELIABLE.

            They will always require near 100% back-up to be available from some other source.

            And that mean you PAY, and PAY !

            What you say, seb, withdrawn the wind and solar feed-in mandates, and subsidies, and let real market forces decide.

            But you KNOW what would happen, don’t you.

            LIE to yourself again, seb.

        3. Graeme No.3

          And the reduction in CO2 emissions was 2.6% since 2001 (in fact the level has risen in the last 2 years).
          And how much of that reduction was achieved by burning wood or household rubbish? Which magically don’t emit CO2 under EU rules.

          1. sod

            “And the reduction in CO2 emissions was 2.6% 2

            the reduction in CO2 is low, because we are moving out of nuclear power (a good thing).

            “Which magically don’t emit CO2 under EU rules.”

            you do not understand the basics. wood burning might indeed be about CO2 neutral. Learn the basics, PLEASE!!!!

        4. AndyG55

          A little task for you seb.

          Find, say, 10 minute data, for a month, and calculate what percentage of nameplate wind was able to deliver 95% of the time.

          I did this once for whole of UK, and came up with around 4-5%.

          UNRELIABLE !!!

      3. AndyG55

        Yes, all REAL air pollution should be minimised, and certainly NOT CAUSED ON PURPOSE.

        CO2 is not air pollution, is case you didn’t know.

        The utter WASTE on the anti-CO2 scam could have been used to make huge inroads to battling REAL air pollution.

        Instead we have useless wind turbines that decimate avian wildlife, cause HUGE pollution in their manufacturing, destroy natural environments, and cause health issues for anyone within miles of them.

        It really is the absolute height of stupidity, wouldn’t you agree, sob !

        1. sod

          Stop making false claims.

          Electricity production was 33% renewables last year.

          Oh the facts.

          1. AndyG55

            No false claims there sob.

            Which claim is false?

          2. tom0mason

            From what I read of the production figure more than half of that ‘production’ happened when there was not sufficient customer load to take it, thus it must have been wasted.

            I dare say you can supply suitably massaged figures to prove my reading wrong — but I doubt it!

            So is it cost effective? No sod, no

          3. sod

            “From what I read of the production figure more than half of that ‘production’ happened when there was not sufficient customer load to take it, thus it must have been wasted.”

            that is wrong. The Agora graph is your friend:

            https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/topics/-agothem-/Produkt/produkt/76/Agorameter/

            (or are you trying to claim that Germany actually had 66% renewables and half of it vanished somehow?)

        2. AndyG55

          TOTALLY reliant on fossil fuel backup, and only in a country that has devastated its countryside.

          I hope your know that if you go much further, system collapse is almost inevitable.

          https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/

          I hope your basement loses its power and the electronic locks that keep you in, can’t open so granny can’t feed you for a couple of days.

  7. tom0mason

    Also of note is this old (1984)research document is ‘Some Individual Difference In Human Response To Infrasound’ by D.S. Nussbaum and S. Reinis for Institute for Aerospace Studies —
    http://en.friends-against-wind.org/doc/Human_response_to_infrasound-University_of_Toronto-1985.pdf

    Conclusions

    1. Most inividuals tolerate 8Hz at 130 dB for 30 minutes without ill effect regardless of distortion level employed.

    2. A minority of inividuals were annoyed and physically affected by our experimental stimuli.

    3. In sensitive inividuals, the infrasound with high admixture of higher harmonics was primarily associated with headache and fatigue. The purer, low-distortion stimulus was primarily associated with dizziness and nausea, often beginning a number of hours after exposure.

    4. Sensitives were readily distinguishable from non-sensitives on the basis of their objectively detected characteristics of physiolocial and phychological responses to infrasound.

    5. Presence or absense of TTS was independent of subjective response to the stimulus.

    6. Considering infrasound as an intermittent rhythmic stimulus and/or an effective vestibular stimulus leads to hypotheses which possible account for our results.

    7. These ‘informational’ hypotheses may resolve apparent discrepancies in the infrasound literature.

    Finding much more up-to-date and relevant papers on this subject is very difficult, is nobody researching this area? Maybe there is no funding…

  8. tom0mason

    If you put the words ‘sustainable’ and ‘environmentally friendly’ around an industrial project then you can get away with destroying the countryside with virtually no argument, in fact governments will fall over themselves to give you the money to do it (as long as they get a kickback).
    Windfarms are an excellent case in point.

    The rampant uptake of windfarms has ensured that once unsoiled regions of the world are littered with these industrial plants. Industrialization of the countryside that builds thousands of great concrete foundations, builds access roads to transport heavy trucks and equipment, and later the attendant maintenance crews; industrial sized electrical connections, switchgear, etc., with all the hazards they bring now despoil what once was beautiful natural vistas of countryside.
    All this industrialization disturbing nature’s haven, and worse still killing large numbers of birds and bats thus ensuring an unnatural tip in the local balance of nature to the all the scavenging species.
    And then there future to look forward to. When these whirling monsters fail (and they will) will there really be enough money in the pot to restore the area to its former beauty?

    Consider for a moment if a gas fracking company tried the same thing…
    Would they be granted access to site a small fracking plant on unspoiled countryside? Could they be granted free reign to deposit lots of small generators at site and wire-up the forest to the towns? Of course not. It’s not green, its apparently not sustainable, the greens advocates would shout over the whir of windmills, not realizing that is what they have already done with windfarms.

  9. habitat21

    News from the UK:

    TRUTHFUL RENEWABLE ENERGY COSTS SHOULD BE RELEASED
    The Global Warming Policy Forum is asking Government to release the uncensored report on the total system costs of renewable energy, published last Friday. All quantitative cost estimates had been deleted from it.

    John Constable said that it was reasonable to suspect deliberate suppression of embarrassing estimates. He said that the entire report should be released now, so that the public can assess the true cost of renewable energy.

  10. Scientists Not Served Here; Real Scientists Need Not Apply – CO2 is Life

    […] spent on fighting climate change is a dollar not spent on building roads, hospitals, schools, bridges, and dams. The misallocation of resources has real consequences for society, especially given that societies […]