Skip to main content

Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbines be from homes?

Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbines be from homes?
Let's start with what one manufacturer considers to be safe for its workers. The safety regulations for the Vestas V90, with a 300-ft rotor span and a total height of 410 feet, tell operators and technicians to stay 1,300 feet from an operating turbine -- over 3 times its total height -- unless absolutely necessary.

That already is a much greater distance than many regulations currently require as a minimum distance between wind turbines and homes, and it is concerned only with safety, not with noise, shadow flicker, or visual intrusion.

In February 2008, a 10-year-old Vestas turbine with a total height of less than 200 feet broke apart in a storm. Large pieces of the blades flew as far as 500 meters (1,640 feet) -- more than 8 times its total height.

The Fuhrländer turbine planned for Barrington, R.I., is 328 feet tall with a rotor diameter of 77 meters, or just over 250 feet (sweeping more than an acre of vertical air space). According to one news report, the manufacturer recommends a setback of 1,500 feet -- over 4.5 times the total height. In Wisconsin, where towns can regulate utility zoning for health and safety concerns, ordinances generally specify a setback of one-half mile (2,640 ft) to residences and workplaces.

But that may just be enough to protect the turbines from each other, not to adequately protect the peace and health of neighbors.

When part of an array, turbines should be at least 10 rotor diameters apart to avoid turbulence from each other. In the case of the proposed 77-meter rotor span in Barrington, that would be 770 meters, or 2,525 feet. For the Gamesa G87, that's 2,850 feet; for the Vestas V90, 2,950 feet -- well over half a mile.

Jane and Julian Davis, whose home is 930 m (3,050 ft) from the Deeping St. Nicholas wind energy facility in England, were forced by the noise to rent another home in which to sleep. In July 2008 they were granted a 14% council tax reduction in recognition of their loss. It appears in this case that the combination of several turbines creates a manifold greater disturbance.

Since the human ear (not to mention the sensory systems of other animals or the internal organs of bats, which, it is now emerging, are crushed by the air pressure) is more sensitive than a giant industrial machine, doubling that would be a reasonable precaution (at least for the human neighbors -- it still doesn't help wildlife).

Sound experts Rick James and George Kamperman recommend a minimum 1 km (3,280 ft) distance in rural areas. James himself suggests that 2 km is better between turbines and homes, and Kamperman proposes 2-3 km as a minimum. German marketer Retexo-RISP also suggests that "buildings, particulary housing, should not be nearer than 2 km to the windfarm"; and that was written when turbines were half the size of today's models.

Both the French Academy of Medicine and the U.K. Noise Association recommend a minimum of one mile (or 1.5 km, just under a mile) between giant wind turbines and homes. Trempealeau County in Wisconsin implemented such a setback. National Wind Watch likewise advocates a minimum one-mile setback.

Dr. Nina Pierpont, the preeminent expert on "wind turbine syndrome", recommends 1.25 miles (2 km). That is the minimum the Davises insist on as safe as well. In France, Marjolaine Villey-Migraine concluded that the minimum should be 5 km (3 miles).

Source: www.kirbymtn.blogspot.com

Popular posts from this blog

EverPower Rebuttal

A FACTUAL RESPONSE TO EVERPOWER ’S FALSE CLAIMS Julia F. Johnson – February 15, 2012 This paper responds to published claims by Everpower that local opposition to wind energy is not based on fact. When someone is trying to sell you something, the old saying “Buyer Beware” should be remembered. In the case of wind energy, this caution is important and appropriate. Because the proposed Buckeye Wind project area is so densely populated, one of the most important areas of concern is loss of property value. Jason Dagger claims there is no impact on property value and he cites a property value study from the Lawrence Berkley Lab as proof. In truth, even the author of the study, Ben Hoen, himself , criticizes the way the wind industry uses the study to mislead landowners. In Hoen’s own words: “You know we are very cautious about what happens close to the turbines. We really don’t know what’s going on there... It’s a dicey situation and complicated, but I think homes t...

Editorial in the Urbana Daily CItizen

http://www.urbanacitizen.com/ news/editorial/5035999/ Turbines-imperiled-by- shifting-political-winds Turbines imperiled by shifting political winds After seven years of development, controversy and exhaustive legal examination, the two wind farms planned for Champaign County might soon be put on the scrap heap because of recent state legislation that discourages their construction. It’s too soon to say for certain because the proposed projects continue to be affected by ambiguity on many fronts, but EverPower’s comments to the Columbus Dispatch on Sunday sounded like the beginning of the end of Buckeye Wind. “It’s clear this development isn’t wanted here … and it gives us less confidence in where Ohio is moving forward,” Michael Speerschneider, EverPower’s chief permitting and public-policy officer, told the Dispatch . “We’ll take that message to heart.” After Gov. John Kasich signed legislation on Friday that stops increases in requirements f...

In Honor of Earth Day: A Guide to Refuting Pro-Turbine Arguments

Below, you'll find an excerpt from a great blog post that deals with everything pro-turbine folks like to claim as a valid argument in favor of industrializing residential communities (as in Champaign County) with a network of 500-foot towers that will send energy (when it is produced at all) out of our county. The whole post is well worth reading. Click HERE  to go to the source and read the entire post. Blight for Naught: Wind Turbines and the Rationalized Desecration of Nature “To those devoid of imagination a blank place on the map is a useless waste; to others, the most valuable part.” – Aldo Leopold  * This mountaintop removal is praised by wind geeks who claim to hate coal mines. Wind projects don’t remove as much material but they prominently industrialize ridges. Early explorers would have seen this as an enemy gauntlet, and modern gut reactions are similar. There should be a penalty for ruining unbroken vistas. Unsettling numbers of e...