Creamer Media’s Engineering News Online
Magazine in Store Now!
Advanced Search
 
 
powered by
GOLD 1104.90 $/ozChange: 3.44
PLATINUM 1604.50 $/ozChange: 0.50
R/$ exchange 7.41Change: -0.02
R/€ exchange 10.17Change: -0.01
 
 
Mackenzie-Hoy is a consulting acoustics and electrical engineer – machoy@iafrica.com
 
ELECTRICALLY SPEAKING
Bring on solar power; wind turbines are noisy and blot the horizon
2 COMMENTS  |  
ADD A COMMENT PRINT
 
 
14th August 2009
TEXT SIZE
Text Smaller Disabled Text Bigger
 

The British Wind Energy Association says: “Well-designed wind turbines are, generally, quiet in operation and, compared [with] the noise of road traffic, trains, aircraft and construction activities . . . the sound of a wind turbine generating electricity is likely to be the same level as noise from a flowing stream 50 m to 100 m away or the noise of leaves rustling in a gentle breeze.”

Makes you want to weep, dunnit ? However, Dr Nina Pierpont, of the US, writes: “Industrial wind turbines produce significant amounts of audible and low-frequency noise. Dr Oguz A Soysal, professor and chairperson of the Department of Physics and Engineering at Frostburg State University, in Maryland, mea- sured sound levels over half a mile away from the Meyersdale, PA, 20-turbine wind farm. Typical audible (A-weighted) decibel (dB) levels were in the 50 to 60 range, and audible plus low-frequency (C-weighted) dB were in the 65 to 70 range. A level of 65 dB to 70 dB is the loudness of a washing machine, vacuum cleaner or hair dryer.”

Well, can we believe Pierpont and Whatsit? Well, he’s not wrong: we (staff from my practice, with nothing to do after hours) measured industry noise at night under low and medium wind conditions. We found, in front of the boundary fence of an industrial plant we measured, a sound pressure level of 52 dBA. Then, 1 500 m away, we measured the same noise at the same value (52 dBA), implying that the noise is hardly attenuated by distance. This is an extraordinary result and it took calculations for us to appreciate that the combination of a temperature inver- sion (where the ground is colder than the air) and the wind had caused the plant noise to travel significantly further than usual.

We further discovered that our findings were actually quite well known – the phenomena is not new. So we can certainly accept that Dr Whatsit took measurements which are correct. (On the other had, we could have inferred this – he has a BSc, an MSc and a PhD).

A report by Frits van den Berg, of Amsterdam, indicates that residents are more disturbed by wind turbine noise than by road, rail and indus- try noise. Specifically, wind turbine noises of about 50 dBA cause severe annoyance to about 14% of the exposed residents, who do not benefit economically from the turbine. Only 6% are disturbed by 50-dBA noise associated with road, rail and industry. This may be because residents are upset by the turbine itself or it may have some other cause – the modulation depth of the blade noise or the variation in sound level which may occur at a blade passing frequency of about 1 Hz.

There is another matter. For any fan, the blades spin at a certain number of revolutions each minute. If the fan has, say, three blades and spins at 20 rev/min, then the noise from the fan can be expected to peak at 3 × 20/60 = 1 Hz. Now consider the fan blade: a 1 500-kW wind turbine has a ratio of tip speed to wind speed of about 5. This means that the blade tips will be doing about 300 km/h in a fair wind (say, 30 knots). Common sense tells us that this is noisy and so do manufacturers – the sound power level of a 1 500-kW wind turbine at 30 km/h (say, 15 knots) is 104 dBA.

The situation certainly seems to be that wind turbines can be disturbing in terms of noise. However, there is the factor that those who “love the planet and all upon it” are not disturbed by the noise they hear. Those who hate the visual intrusion resent the aural intrusion with equal ferocity. The point is: Should we just put up with it? I argue not, or at least not in South Africa. We are not particularly wind rich, certainly not at all inland. We are very sun rich – even if we can’t use the full 1 000 W/m2 which is available from sunlight, it is still a far cry from wind, which can give us only about 250 W/m2 on average. Bring on solar power, I say. It doesn’t blot the horizon, and it’s quiet, real quiet . . .

Edited by: Martin Zhuwakinyu
 
 
 
 
 
Hide Comments  
 
Readers Comments
 
image image
As I recall, the WHO clearly states that the C weighting, not the A, should be used to measure the level of any sounds having substantial low-frequency content, as these monstrosities certainly do. All the evidence, from everywhere in the world -- Australia, England, Scotland, Germany, Italy, everywhere -- is that these eyesores drive people and livestock crazy, clear the countryside of wildlife, utterly destroy any tourism, and generate no useful electricity, while enriching financiers and fat cats at taxpayer and ratepayer expense. They require about a thousand times the land area per nominal wattage of a conventional plant, thus totally destroying the environment in the name of environmentalism. (Kafka, call your office.) So, of course, they are very popular and the wave of the future. How nice.
image image 
image
Craig Goodrich on 17 Aug 09
image image
The author appears well qualified to discuss noise, but this article fails to add any real world research to back up his bias and assumptions regarding not generating real power and destroying tourism, the noise being an issue, etc. People who have agreed to have turbines on their land can still use 98% of it for other uses, including farming and grazing. Turbines tend to be in pretty rural areas, where you don't have houses within ear shot. So is his attitude regarding the noise based on the fact if you stood there at the fence it would be annoying? What about if you stood at the gate of a coal fired plant, would that be healthy and pleasant experience long term? And what of the alternatives like solar? How much government subsidy and capital investment he derides would be required to generate anywhere near meaningful power? And what about the obvious - at night there is no power! In locations where companies invest millions to construct wind turbines, there is wind nearly 24x7x365, that's why they were put there in the first place! Unlike the author, I have worked in the wind energy business and these turbines can be feathered in higher winds to control blade tip speed (something he did not research or neglected to mention). How many people living near the turbines have actually complained about the noise? Or are they sour grapes from not getting $ from having one on their property? As for the eyesore thing, many people like them, and would you rather have a coal burning plant in your backyard view or a wind turbine? The installations also contribute huge sums to the local tax roles for a minimum of 30 years. In smaller rural communities this can be huge boon to the local schools. This sort of ivory tower article is annoying and myopic. As a Frostburg Graduate I would expect more insightful and better thought out work coming from faculty there.
image image 
image
Dirk Goldbeam on 23 Aug 09