• 20 mins DOE Seeks To Boost Usage Of Carbon Capture Tech
  • 1 hour Taxpayers Likely To Pick Up The Growing Tab For DAPL Protests
  • 4 hours WTI At 7-Month High On Supply Optimism, Kurdistan Referendum
  • 10 hours Permian Still Holds 60-70 Billion Barrels Of Recoverable Oil
  • 15 hours Petrobras Creditors Agree To $6.22 Billion Debt Swap
  • 19 hours Cracks Emerge In OPEC-Russia Oil Output Cut Pact
  • 23 hours Iran Calls On OPEC To Sway Libya, Nigeria To Join Cut
  • 1 day Chevron To Invest $4B In Permian Production
  • 1 day U.S.-Backed Forces Retake Syrian Conoco Gas Plant From ISIS
  • 1 day Iraq Says Shell May Not Quit Majnoon Oilfield
  • 4 days Nigerian Oil Output Below 1.8 Million BPD Quota
  • 4 days Colorado Landfills Contain Radioactive Substances From Oil Sector
  • 4 days Phillips 66 Partners To Buy Phillips 66 Assets In $2.4B Deal
  • 4 days Japan Court Slams Tepco With Fukushima Damages Bill
  • 4 days Oil Spills From Pipeline After Syria Army Retakes Oil Field From ISIS
  • 4 days Total Joins Chevron In Gulf Of Mexico Development
  • 4 days Goldman Chief Urges Riyadh To Get Vision 2030 Going
  • 4 days OPEC Talks End Without Recommendation On Output Cut Extension
  • 4 days Jamaican Refinery Expansion Stalls Due To Venezuela’s Financial Woes
  • 5 days India In Talks to Acquire 20 Percent Of UAE Oilfield
  • 5 days The Real Cause Of Peak Gasoline Demand
  • 5 days Hundreds Of Vertical Oil Wells Damaged By Horizontal Fracking
  • 5 days Oil Exempt In Fresh Sanctions On North Korea
  • 5 days Sudan, South Sudan Sign Deal To Boost Oil Output
  • 5 days Peruvian Villagers Shut Down 50 Oil Wells In Protest
  • 5 days Bay Area Sues Big Oil For Billions
  • 5 days Lukoil Looks To Sell Italian Refinery As Crimea Sanctions Intensify
  • 6 days Kurdistan’s Biggest Source Of Oil Funds
  • 6 days Oil Prices On Track For Largest Q3 Gain Since 2004
  • 6 days Reliance Plans To Boost Capacity Of World’s Biggest Oil Refinery
  • 6 days Saudi Aramco May Unveil Financials In Early 2018
  • 6 days Has The EIA Been Overestimating Oil Production?
  • 6 days Taiwan Cuts Off Fossil Fuels To North Korea
  • 6 days Clash In Oil-Rich South Sudan Region Kills At Least 25
  • 6 days Lebanon Passes Oil Taxation Law Ahead Of First Licensing Auction
  • 7 days India’s Oil Majors To Lift Borrowing To Cover Dividends, Capex
  • 7 days Gulf Keystone Plans Further Oil Output Increase In Kurdistan
  • 7 days Venezuela’s Crisis Deepens As Hurricane Approaches
  • 7 days Tension Rises In Oil-Rich Kurdistan
  • 7 days Petrobras To Issue $2B New Bonds, Exchange Shorter-Term Debt
Alt Text

The Two Nations Leading The Wind Power Race

UK and China have joined…

Alt Text

Why Tesla Is Interested In Offshore Wind

Interest in offshore wind is…

Alt Text

Tesla’s New Frontier: Batteries And Wind

Electric car builder Tesla and…



MasterResource is a blog dedicated to analysis and commentary about energy markets and public policy.Precisely because energy is the lifeblood of the modern economy –…

More Info

Wind Energy Lies and Turbine Noise Pollution

“When will the environmentalist community writ large wake up to the unintended micro consequences of their increasingly futile macro policy of forced energy transformation?”

Herkimer County, New York, is the latest location to register wind turbine noise complaints. The source? Iberdrola’s Hardscrabble wind facility (37 turbines) that went online earlier this year.

Studies are underway to determine if the project is operating outside legal sound limits, but the larger question is “Why?” Why, with over 1,300 MW of wind installed in New York today and an extensive body of evidence showing turbine noise is causing deleterious impacts on people living near the towers, was Herkimer County fooled into thinking it would be spared?

The answer is simple: Herkimer County residents were lied to.

Yes, we could use softer words to explain the situation. But given what sound experts already know about turbine noise, the time for niceties has passed.

Predicted Turbine Noise at Hardscrabble

Prior to erecting a wind facility, project owners usually engage acoustic engineers to prepare models that predict sound level increases a community can expect from an operating project at certain reference points. These engineers rely on the CADNA/A software tool for their models. CADNA/A is based on ISO 9613-2, the international standard developed for sound prediction.

The CADNA/A tool generates predicted sound levels at various distances from the turbines. Developers present the sound levels as contour lines overlaid around the turbine sites. Each contour shows a sound level in decibels with the lines closest to the turbines having higher decibel levels.

The sound predictions developed for Hardscrabble showed that during periods of low wind conditions, non-participating residents closest to the turbines could expect to experience noise increases of less than 6 dBA over the presumed existing level of 35 dBA. During high wind conditions, modeled data showed property owners would experience slightly higher levels but most increases would still be under 6 dBA.

Prior to construction, Iberdrola insisted the facility would meet the New York state noise guidelines for most situations and would be in full compliance with local regulations that limited noise to 50 dBA.

CADNA/A and the ISO 9613-2 Standard

Acousticians hired by the wind industry insist the ISO standard is an appropriate method for modeling wind turbine sound provided the correct input parameters are used. But what they do not admit is that the ISO 9613-2 standard, on which CADNA/A is based, was never validated for wind turbine noise. In fact, the standard is mainly applicable to situations concerning road or rail traffic, industrial noise sources, construction activities, and many ground-based noise sources. It does not apply to sound from aircraft in flight, to blast waves from mining, military, or other similar operations. And it was not designed to predict turbine noise.

The ISO Standard limits use of its methods to noise sources that are close to the ground (approximately 30 meter difference between the source and receiver height) and within 1 kilometer of the receiving location. A wind turbine with a hub height of 80+ meters exceeds the ISO height limit by 50 meters. Meteorological conditions are also limited to wind speeds of approximately 1 meter/second and 5 meters/second when measured at a height of 3 meters to 11 meters above the ground.

Only when all of these constraints are met by the situation being modeled can the predicted noise levels be assumed to be accurate within a +/- 3 dB range.

The constraints placed on the ISO standard having to do with wind speed, direction and weather conditions indicate just how limited the models are for anything other than simple weather conditions — NOT the types of conditions that wind turbines need to operate.

The way sound spreads outdoors can be affected by temperature differences in different layers of the wind that cause sound waves to bend up or down at the boundaries just like water bends light. If a noise source is above a boundary then sound that would have gone down to the ground surface might bend up and dissipate. If the noise source is below a boundary layer then sound that might have dissipated upwards is bent down and added to the sounds that would normally be directed downwards. The current science of meteorology does not have precise ways to know what is happening right near any particular turbine.

Heinrich A. Metzen of DataKustik GmbH, maker of CADNA/A confirmed this fact in an e-mail where he stated:

“long range propagation including atmospheric refraction is not part of the standards used for (normal, “standard”) noise calculations. It is known that atmospheric refraction may cause sound to be refracted downwards again and contributing strongly to the level at long distances. The atmosphere in the standards existing is just homogeneous above height.”

Since there are no accepted algorithms to predict these refractions, sound propagation models cannot evaluate conditions that have vertical or horizontal turbulence even though we know they can add significant sound at the receiving location when present. As a result, predicted sound levels are understated.

Countries in the European Union are developing their own models for predicting turbine noise propagation because of their concerns with limitations of the ISO standard. Unlike the ISO 9613-2 standard, these newer models have been validated for turbine noise by peer-reviewed independent studies.

Iberdrola Knows Better

The first post-construction sound study in Herkimer revealed noise levels reaching 60 to 65 decibels, nearly 20 decibels above what was predicted for homes in the area. Iberdrola’s Paul Copleman told the press that the excessive noise levels were largely due to the wind rustling leaves and cannot be “attributable to the wind farm.”

Seriously? Any guesses on the number of complaints filed over noisy leaves before the turbines were sited?

Use of a model that understates real-world operational sound levels is very likely the root cause of the problem at the Hardscrabble facility.

Acoustic experts who work for the wind industry, including Iberdrola, are well aware of the limitations of the ISO modeling. They are well aware that the standard is intended for ground-based sound sources and has never been validated for predicting wind turbine noise. They also know that literature on turbine noise dating back nearly a decade has shown that these models underestimate wind turbine noise levels. But here in the U.S., wind industry acousticians still use the CADNA/A tool without qualification.


Herkimer County residents are now suffering the consequences of an environmentally intrusive, government-enabled industrial project. Moreover, they were lied to.

When will the environmentalist community writ large wake up to the unintended micro consequences of their increasingly futile macro policy of forced energy transformation?

By. Lisa Linowes

This article was provided by MasterResource

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Anonymous on October 20 2011 said:
    Author, they will have to learn the hard way. The really pathetic thing though, at least here in Sweden, is that there are not very many lies. Instead there is an overdose of ignorance in these matters, and this ignoance leads to a whirlwind of misunderstandings.The TV audience is going to have to learn the hard way, and this is going to take time. The point is though to keep publishing articles like this, and to make sure that they are widely circulated.
  • Anonymous on October 20 2011 said:
    I agree the turbines could have been placed elsewhere but a few noisey turbines and now were spreading negative information all over the web. Lets not forget that replacing oil and get gets rid of the real pollution that ruins our world.
  • Anonymous on October 20 2011 said:
    I agree with Fred that it is important to highlight problems with big wind that people can relate to. The debilitating noise, and the hazard of blade separation are two dangers to local residents. In some areas, the turbines are shut down after dark to protect the bats. Efficient? Heh!Industrial engineers despise the waste of materials to produce the giant machines which too quickly break down and turn to rust. Electrical grid engineers hate the intermittency and unpredictability of wind power output -- like "throwing a hand grenade into the power grid control room," as Ted Rockwell puts it.Utility managers hate the excess costs of backing up these unreliable monstrosities.Truth tellers hate the lies told by wind advocates, who pretend that these loud and ephemeral hunks of matter will actually help with either climate or energy.And so on, in a list too long to print here.
  • Anonymous on October 22 2011 said:
    I encourage wind turbines but, come on, we need to accept and use the European standards, because they already did the job and studies.
  • Ron on November 05 2013 said:
    A little info from someone who stands in the wind sites on a daily basis. First off, before you use noise as an issue, get out and stand beneath one. Less noise than vehicles you drive everyday to work. As far as jobs go, according to Forbes, the wind industry accounts for 75,000 jobs during our employment issues. Blade separation? Really? I've been on 4 sites with no blades separating. And if they did, it's a tough choice between blade separation and oil spills accompanied with tons of CO2 from the stacks. And of course, let's keep complaining about gas prices. Has anyone heard of the law of supply and demand? The oil companies may be able to control the thinking of this author and Congress, but not mine.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News