“Wind farm could keep people awake at night” – but Navitus Bay directors say turbines will not breach noise levels

Bournemouth Echo: NOISE LEVELS: An offshore wind farm NOISE LEVELS: An offshore wind farm

THE planned wind farm in Poole Bay could keep people awake at night across Bournemouth and Poole, according to an acoustics expert.

John Yelland said the noise from the massed turbines of the Navitus Bay wind park would likely exceed the government recommended limit along the coastline.

The physicist and engineer said the firm had failed to properly take into account the effects of wind shear – the increase in wind speed with height above ground – and the reflection of sound off the sea.

“The noise isn’t likely to be heard by the man on the street, if there is a problem it will affect people trying to sleep,” he said.

“The wind shear effect is at its maximum in the night, and background noise is low then too.

“It could be a problem for people trying to sleep.

“I support offshore wind farms but not when they are too close to people’s homes.”

Dr Yelland, who lives near Newport on the Isle of Wight, is a fellow of the Institute of Engineering and Technology, a member of the Institute of Physics and a member of the Institute of Acoustics.

Navitus Bay project director Mike Unsworth said the firm employed recognised industry standards to assess the potential noise impact, and had concluded that the turbines would not exceed the threshold recommended by the Institute of Acoustics.

“These standards have been employed for assessing potential noise impacts for many offshore wind farm schemes around the UK, many of which are located much closer to shore than the proposed development,” he said.

“In fact, of the 22 operational offshore wind projects in the UK, 16 are closer to shore.”

The Navitus project, with a maximum of 218 wind turbines up to 200m high, has already attracted opposition for its appearance and fears over its possible impact on tourism, bird populations, and navigation.

However, it has received support for its potential contribution to reducing the UK’s energy dependency and carbon footprint.

Angela Pooley, from East Dorset Friends of the Earth, said: “Even if this was the case we think it is a very minor issue and people should focus on the big picture, we need renewable energy.”

The science of sound

The Navitus Bay environmental report claims the turbines act as “spherical point sources”, so the noise they create travels in all directions, reduced by six decibels per doubling of distance.

However, Dr Yelland believes the effects of wind shear and reflection mean a “cylindrical” pattern of noise propagation is more appropriate.

By this measure the sound would travel further and be reduced by only three decibels per doubling of distance, meaning noise levels would exceed the 35 decibel maximum at detectors more than 12 miles away on-shore.

“This is not new information, a lot of work has been done on offshore wind farm acoustics by the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, commissioned by their government,” said Dr Yelland.

He said he had seen errors made by wind developers in their noise calculations and was “appalled by their academic standards”.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:28pm Mon 16 Dec 13

TWERLY says...

So if it exceeds the government recommended noise level limit along the coastline why is it being allowed to go ahead. if it was on-land then the planning departments would jump on it like a ton of bricks - look what happened at 61 Banks road Poole and THAT was all about 2 metres either way for a building!! Come on you authorities show these developers you REALLY have some balls for once!
So if it exceeds the government recommended noise level limit along the coastline why is it being allowed to go ahead. if it was on-land then the planning departments would jump on it like a ton of bricks - look what happened at 61 Banks road Poole and THAT was all about 2 metres either way for a building!! Come on you authorities show these developers you REALLY have some balls for once! TWERLY

1:33pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Townee says...

I think that the noise from Bournemouth airport at 5am is worse when the early morning planes take off, ask anyone who lives on the flight path. I don't and it wakes me up most mornings.
This is just another scare tactic by desperate people who don't want the wind farm in their back yard.
NIMBYS crawl back into you caves and leave progress to those who want it.
I think that the noise from Bournemouth airport at 5am is worse when the early morning planes take off, ask anyone who lives on the flight path. I don't and it wakes me up most mornings. This is just another scare tactic by desperate people who don't want the wind farm in their back yard. NIMBYS crawl back into you caves and leave progress to those who want it. Townee

1:52pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Afcbpete says...

Townee wrote:
I think that the noise from Bournemouth airport at 5am is worse when the early morning planes take off, ask anyone who lives on the flight path. I don't and it wakes me up most mornings.
This is just another scare tactic by desperate people who don't want the wind farm in their back yard.
NIMBYS crawl back into you caves and leave progress to those who want it.
Totally agree!! We live right beside the railway line, trains and workmen will be far noisier than the wind farm, and we're not complaining. It's there, it doesn't intrude, we live with it, and are quite happy too. People are just whingeing for the sake of it!!
[quote][p][bold]Townee[/bold] wrote: I think that the noise from Bournemouth airport at 5am is worse when the early morning planes take off, ask anyone who lives on the flight path. I don't and it wakes me up most mornings. This is just another scare tactic by desperate people who don't want the wind farm in their back yard. NIMBYS crawl back into you caves and leave progress to those who want it.[/p][/quote]Totally agree!! We live right beside the railway line, trains and workmen will be far noisier than the wind farm, and we're not complaining. It's there, it doesn't intrude, we live with it, and are quite happy too. People are just whingeing for the sake of it!! Afcbpete

2:24pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Dr Strangelove says...

Just build it. I don't know why its not twice the current size.
Just build it. I don't know why its not twice the current size. Dr Strangelove

2:36pm Mon 16 Dec 13

retry69 says...

"Clutching at straws" spring to mind :)
"Clutching at straws" spring to mind :) retry69

2:37pm Mon 16 Dec 13

bobthedestroyer says...

I'm sure it would all go away if the residents of Bournmouth, Poole and Christchurch were all given free electricity.
I'm sure it would all go away if the residents of Bournmouth, Poole and Christchurch were all given free electricity. bobthedestroyer

2:38pm Mon 16 Dec 13

bobthedestroyer says...

bobthedestroyer wrote:
I'm sure it would all go away if the residents of Bournmouth, Poole and Christchurch were all given free electricity.
Bournemouth
[quote][p][bold]bobthedestroyer[/bold] wrote: I'm sure it would all go away if the residents of Bournmouth, Poole and Christchurch were all given free electricity.[/p][/quote]Bournemouth bobthedestroyer

3:03pm Mon 16 Dec 13

mooninpisces says...

The article presents John Yelland as an independent noise expert. It doesn't mention that he's a prominent member of an anti-wind protest group on the Isle of Wight, and a serial objector to wind farm proposals.
The article presents John Yelland as an independent noise expert. It doesn't mention that he's a prominent member of an anti-wind protest group on the Isle of Wight, and a serial objector to wind farm proposals. mooninpisces

3:08pm Mon 16 Dec 13

retry69 says...

mooninpisces wrote:
The article presents John Yelland as an independent noise expert. It doesn't mention that he's a prominent member of an anti-wind protest group on the Isle of Wight, and a serial objector to wind farm proposals.
I think we guessed which way he is blowing from it, appears we now have the silent minority Vs the noisy majority.At least it is a new slant on what is becoming a laborious debate :)
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: The article presents John Yelland as an independent noise expert. It doesn't mention that he's a prominent member of an anti-wind protest group on the Isle of Wight, and a serial objector to wind farm proposals.[/p][/quote]I think we guessed which way he is blowing from it, appears we now have the silent minority Vs the noisy majority.At least it is a new slant on what is becoming a laborious debate :) retry69

3:25pm Mon 16 Dec 13

PokesdownMark says...

There are a number of existing wind farms off the UK. Do these produce noise nuisance? I've never heard of a case. Although many of the examples are smaller scale, there are a lot closer to shore.
If noise really was possibly a problem I would have expected the objectors to be able to produce actual examples with recordings and everything.
There are a number of existing wind farms off the UK. Do these produce noise nuisance? I've never heard of a case. Although many of the examples are smaller scale, there are a lot closer to shore. If noise really was possibly a problem I would have expected the objectors to be able to produce actual examples with recordings and everything. PokesdownMark

3:31pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Tictock says...

Another inflammatory Echo whingemongering against their current hate, Road, rail and general 21 century living exists. Nice to see the Echo upholding the rigours of a free unbiased press!

And as the lights go out across Dorset, the Echo rubbed it's hands with glee and said, 'What next?'
Another inflammatory Echo whingemongering against their current hate, Road, rail and general 21 century living exists. Nice to see the Echo upholding the rigours of a free unbiased press! And as the lights go out across Dorset, the Echo rubbed it's hands with glee and said, 'What next?' Tictock

3:34pm Mon 16 Dec 13

mark.s says...

This is fast becoming on of the ECHO's favourite topics, and the articiles always read as if written to be as 'crap stirring' as possible, for want of a better expression.
This is fast becoming on of the ECHO's favourite topics, and the articiles always read as if written to be as 'crap stirring' as possible, for want of a better expression. mark.s

3:46pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Moro99 says...

I can hear cars outside, day and night, it is relentless, please make it stop
I can hear cars outside, day and night, it is relentless, please make it stop Moro99

4:36pm Mon 16 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

The only sound many of us hear from these wind farms is a loud 'kerching' emanating from the promoters pockets which are filling with gullible taxpayers money.

Perhaps some people in favour of this project may care to check breaking news about how so many of the senior unelected (naturally!) EU 'green' policy makers have just been found to be up their necks in personally beneficial financial relationships with wind farm technology businesses and schemes........funny that.
The only sound many of us hear from these wind farms is a loud 'kerching' emanating from the promoters pockets which are filling with gullible taxpayers money. Perhaps some people in favour of this project may care to check breaking news about how so many of the senior unelected (naturally!) EU 'green' policy makers have just been found to be up their necks in personally beneficial financial relationships with wind farm technology businesses and schemes........funny that. muscliffman

4:44pm Mon 16 Dec 13

retry69 says...

muscliffman wrote:
The only sound many of us hear from these wind farms is a loud 'kerching' emanating from the promoters pockets which are filling with gullible taxpayers money.

Perhaps some people in favour of this project may care to check breaking news about how so many of the senior unelected (naturally!) EU 'green' policy makers have just been found to be up their necks in personally beneficial financial relationships with wind farm technology businesses and schemes........funny that.
LMFAO YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEE :)
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: The only sound many of us hear from these wind farms is a loud 'kerching' emanating from the promoters pockets which are filling with gullible taxpayers money. Perhaps some people in favour of this project may care to check breaking news about how so many of the senior unelected (naturally!) EU 'green' policy makers have just been found to be up their necks in personally beneficial financial relationships with wind farm technology businesses and schemes........funny that.[/p][/quote]LMFAO YIPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEE :) retry69

4:47pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Lord Spring says...

retry69 wrote:
mooninpisces wrote:
The article presents John Yelland as an independent noise expert. It doesn't mention that he's a prominent member of an anti-wind protest group on the Isle of Wight, and a serial objector to wind farm proposals.
I think we guessed which way he is blowing from it, appears we now have the silent minority Vs the noisy majority.At least it is a new slant on what is becoming a laborious debate :)
Some wind noise can be silent but deadly.
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: The article presents John Yelland as an independent noise expert. It doesn't mention that he's a prominent member of an anti-wind protest group on the Isle of Wight, and a serial objector to wind farm proposals.[/p][/quote]I think we guessed which way he is blowing from it, appears we now have the silent minority Vs the noisy majority.At least it is a new slant on what is becoming a laborious debate :)[/p][/quote]Some wind noise can be silent but deadly. Lord Spring

5:14pm Mon 16 Dec 13

retry69 says...

Lord Spring wrote:
retry69 wrote:
mooninpisces wrote:
The article presents John Yelland as an independent noise expert. It doesn't mention that he's a prominent member of an anti-wind protest group on the Isle of Wight, and a serial objector to wind farm proposals.
I think we guessed which way he is blowing from it, appears we now have the silent minority Vs the noisy majority.At least it is a new slant on what is becoming a laborious debate :)
Some wind noise can be silent but deadly.
Trust you to bring down the tone with such school boy humour,funny though :)
[quote][p][bold]Lord Spring[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: The article presents John Yelland as an independent noise expert. It doesn't mention that he's a prominent member of an anti-wind protest group on the Isle of Wight, and a serial objector to wind farm proposals.[/p][/quote]I think we guessed which way he is blowing from it, appears we now have the silent minority Vs the noisy majority.At least it is a new slant on what is becoming a laborious debate :)[/p][/quote]Some wind noise can be silent but deadly.[/p][/quote]Trust you to bring down the tone with such school boy humour,funny though :) retry69

6:17pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Red Grouse says...

"Navitus Bay project director Mike Unsworth said the firm employed recognised industry standards to assess the potential noise impact, and had concluded that the turbines would not exceed the threshold recommended by the Institute of Acoustics. "

"The recognised industry standards" referenced by Mike Unsworth are regfarded by a number of professional acousticians as a fudge which fail to protect residents freom wind turbine nuisance.

See: Mike Stigwood, MAS consulting, ‘IOA good practice guide, excess amplitude modulation and the failure of wind farm noise controls’, Acoustics Bulletin, November/December 2013, pp. 18-22.

Also: Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), ‘ A Critique of the IOA Treatment of Background Noise for Wind Farm Noise Assessments’, 2012.

The industry should ask themselves why there are increasing numbers of cases of proven noise nuisance at turbine arrays which have, supposedly, met the required standards, prior to construction.
"Navitus Bay project director Mike Unsworth said the firm employed recognised industry standards to assess the potential noise impact, and had concluded that the turbines would not exceed the threshold recommended by the Institute of Acoustics. " "The recognised industry standards" referenced by Mike Unsworth are regfarded by a number of professional acousticians as a fudge which fail to protect residents freom wind turbine nuisance. See: Mike Stigwood, MAS consulting, ‘IOA good practice guide, excess amplitude modulation and the failure of wind farm noise controls’, Acoustics Bulletin, November/December 2013, pp. 18-22. Also: Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), ‘ A Critique of the IOA Treatment of Background Noise for Wind Farm Noise Assessments’, 2012. The industry should ask themselves why there are increasing numbers of cases of proven noise nuisance at turbine arrays which have, supposedly, met the required standards, prior to construction. Red Grouse

7:47pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ophilum says...

This is what Ukip are saying on wind farms and they are quite correct it is costing us Billions and is a utter disaster caused by lying greens talking utter bilge.
"EU’s climate and energy policy is quite possibly the most expensive failure the world has ever seen" @RogerHelmerMEP http://www.ukipmeps.
org/news_828_EU-ener
gy-policy-Worlds-mos
t-expensive-failure.
html …
This is what Ukip are saying on wind farms and they are quite correct it is costing us Billions and is a utter disaster caused by lying greens talking utter bilge. "EU’s climate and energy policy is quite possibly the most expensive failure the world has ever seen" @RogerHelmerMEP http://www.ukipmeps. org/news_828_EU-ener gy-policy-Worlds-mos t-expensive-failure. html … Ophilum

7:50pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Ophilum says...

Ukip Have it about right when they say this sort of energy is the most disastrous in the whole history of man and the EU are it,s supporters come what may.

"EU’s climate and energy policy is quite possibly the most expensive failure the world has ever seen" @RogerHelmerMEP http://www.ukipmeps.
org/news_828_EU-ener
gy-policy-Worlds-mos
t-expensive-failure.
html …
Ukip Have it about right when they say this sort of energy is the most disastrous in the whole history of man and the EU are it,s supporters come what may. "EU’s climate and energy policy is quite possibly the most expensive failure the world has ever seen" @RogerHelmerMEP http://www.ukipmeps. org/news_828_EU-ener gy-policy-Worlds-mos t-expensive-failure. html … Ophilum

12:47pm Tue 17 Dec 13

a.g.o.g. says...

mooninpisces wrote:
The article presents John Yelland as an independent noise expert. It doesn't mention that he's a prominent member of an anti-wind protest group on the Isle of Wight, and a serial objector to wind farm proposals.
Why should it - his objections are Acoustic Science based and supported by his credentials in this arena. Had he none you would be scoffing at his temerity in voicing unqualified opinion for sure!

And if it is that Navitus has presented noise distribution from these turbines into a spherical field and not at least hemi-spherical plus the added effects of `wind shear` in accordance with`established principles` then these principals are simply wrong and must be reviewed.

The greatest amount of noise they generate is in those lower frequencies which are the most difficult to muffle as is evidenced by the sounds of distant thunder and, in our case, that of Condor on the not so near horizon, when it has the wind behind it especially.

Navitus could in similar wind conditions, be the equal of several Condor all arriving/leaving at the same time and what we need is a properly independent assessment as to what that might mean to (near) Waterfront Residential Life.
I would think fair - don`t you?
[quote][p][bold]mooninpisces[/bold] wrote: The article presents John Yelland as an independent noise expert. It doesn't mention that he's a prominent member of an anti-wind protest group on the Isle of Wight, and a serial objector to wind farm proposals.[/p][/quote]Why should it - his objections are Acoustic Science based and supported by his credentials in this arena. Had he none you would be scoffing at his temerity in voicing unqualified opinion for sure! And if it is that Navitus has presented noise distribution from these turbines into a spherical field and not at least hemi-spherical plus the added effects of `wind shear` in accordance with`established principles` then these principals are simply wrong and must be reviewed. The greatest amount of noise they generate is in those lower frequencies which are the most difficult to muffle as is evidenced by the sounds of distant thunder and, in our case, that of Condor on the not so near horizon, when it has the wind behind it especially. Navitus could in similar wind conditions, be the equal of several Condor all arriving/leaving at the same time and what we need is a properly independent assessment as to what that might mean to (near) Waterfront Residential Life. I would think fair - don`t you? a.g.o.g.

5:32am Wed 18 Dec 13

billslycat says...

Why are wind farms still being built? Industrial wind turbines require fossil fuel backup, mainly gas. Every MW of wind will need to be matched with a MW of gas capacity. This is for the simple reason that the wind is unreliable. Often, especially during the heat of summer at peak demand, wind does not blow fast enough to power the turbines, the blades will stand idle, and the gas plants will produce what's needed. At other times, the speed varies constantly, wind direction too, and the gas plants will have to constantly cycle up and down to compensate, burning their fuel inefficiently, using more than if being just the sole power source. Here are a few articles explaining how this works:
1) Energy blow as wind power fuels pollution
http://tinyurl.com/k
b43eyf
2) Wind isn't reducing carbon emissions
http://tinyurl.com/7
jmcyay
3) The dirty secret of Britain's power madness: Polluting diesel generators built in secret by foreign companies to kick in when there's no wind for turbines
http://tinyurl.com/n
fkflzx
4) Reality Check: Germany's Defective Green Energy Game Plan
http://tinyurl.com/m
wox2hj
5) Study: Wind Power Raises CO2 Emissions
http://tinyurl.com/k
3cp6lt
6) Subsidizing CO2 Emissions via Wind power: The Ultimate Irony
http://tinyurl.com/5
wwy7wq
7) Government Lab Finds Wind Energy Not Meeting Carbon Emission Goals
http://tinyurl.com/7
q5n9v9
8) Power struggle: Green energy versus a grid that's not ready
http://tinyurl.com/l
grnsbm
Building wind installations is more about enriching fat cats with taxpayer subsidies, not about going green. We should be subsidizing research into real global warming solutions, not spending billions on pseudo-solutions.
Why are wind farms still being built? Industrial wind turbines require fossil fuel backup, mainly gas. Every MW of wind will need to be matched with a MW of gas capacity. This is for the simple reason that the wind is unreliable. Often, especially during the heat of summer at peak demand, wind does not blow fast enough to power the turbines, the blades will stand idle, and the gas plants will produce what's needed. At other times, the speed varies constantly, wind direction too, and the gas plants will have to constantly cycle up and down to compensate, burning their fuel inefficiently, using more than if being just the sole power source. Here are a few articles explaining how this works: 1) Energy blow as wind power fuels pollution http://tinyurl.com/k b43eyf 2) Wind isn't reducing carbon emissions http://tinyurl.com/7 jmcyay 3) The dirty secret of Britain's power madness: Polluting diesel generators built in secret by foreign companies to kick in when there's no wind for turbines http://tinyurl.com/n fkflzx 4) Reality Check: Germany's Defective Green Energy Game Plan http://tinyurl.com/m wox2hj 5) Study: Wind Power Raises CO2 Emissions http://tinyurl.com/k 3cp6lt 6) Subsidizing CO2 Emissions via Wind power: The Ultimate Irony http://tinyurl.com/5 wwy7wq 7) Government Lab Finds Wind Energy Not Meeting Carbon Emission Goals http://tinyurl.com/7 q5n9v9 8) Power struggle: Green energy versus a grid that's not ready http://tinyurl.com/l grnsbm Building wind installations is more about enriching fat cats with taxpayer subsidies, not about going green. We should be subsidizing research into real global warming solutions, not spending billions on pseudo-solutions. billslycat

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree