A pro wind energy group named CAIRE (Citizens of Amherst Island for Renewable Energy) has published a web site, whywind.org. As part of this web site there are Myths about wind energy that are proposed and then answered. For each of the 10 myths several documents are listed, along with "key findings" from each of the documents to support their argument. Each document was linked to in their web site (thank you!) and thus it was easy to actually read each document.

For each myth, I just list the subject (in order to save space) of the myth followed by the key findings of their references, followed by a link to the reference itself. Comments and additional quotes from the documents were then added. I urge any interested reader to look through the articles and compare what they said with what CAIRE said they said. Looking at CAIRE's web site while reading this rebuttal would make things easier, but it is possible to read just this to get a sense of how these myths are proposed and then dismissed. Note that everything in italics is taken from a document CAIRE referenced.

Myth #1 - noise. The web site has a link to just one noise study, and relates that the "key findings" are:

Their key points:
-There is no evidence that wind turbines generates the level of noise that causes health problems.
-It is difficult to distinguish the sound of the turbine from the rustling of the corn stalks.

Unfortunately an actual reading of the article indicates that the key findings are quite different. From the article's conclusion: Community noise assessment and control is a land compatibility issue which must be carefully addressed

Why carefully addressed? Again, from whywind's quoted study: WHO recommends that ambient noise levels be below 35 dB for optimum sleeping conditions. These recommendations are significant because of a Dutch study that showed noise from a 30 MW wind farm becomes more noticeable and annoying to nearby residents at night. This study noted that although the noise is always present, certain aspects of turbine noise, such as thumping and swishing, were not noticeable during the day, but became very noticeable at night. Residents as far as 1900 meters from the wind farm complained about the nighttime noise.

And this was a 30mw farm, several times smaller than the proposed AI farm.

Myth #2 - Infrasound. The web site lists 3 studies, along with appropriately sunny "key findings" from each.

Their key point:
-Their is no reliable evidence that infrasound below the audio perception threshold produces physiological or psychological effects.

The actual conclusion of this paper starts: Modern, utility-scale wind turbines are relatively quiet; still, when sited within residential areas, noise is a primary siting constraint. The article itself was a comprehensive overview of noise issues. Of the 20 pages of text in the article, only 2 mentioned infrasound, and only a determined cherry picker would have picked that one sentence as a "key finding." Even that cherry-picked key finding isn't very comforting. The article does mention: The primary human response to perceived infrasound is annoyance, with resulting secondary effects. So annoyance is ok, as long as there's no reliable evidence for health effects.

Their key point:
There is an insignificant level of infrasound from wind turbines and normally little low frequency noise. Turbulent air inflow conditions cause enhanced levels of low frequency noise, which may be disturbing, but the overriding noise from wind turbines is the fluctuating audible swish, mistakenly referred to as “infrasound” or “low frequency noise

So there may be a "low frequency noise, which may be disturbing" but it's not infrasound, and even that may be less than the fluctuating audible swish. If this is the best quote they can find from this article, they must really be desperate. And an actual reading of the article shows that the main point of the article is indeed that the interest in infrasound diverts attention from the larger problem of audible noise.

From the article's conclusion:

The problem noise from wind turbines is the fluctuating swish. This may be mistakenly referred to as infrasound by those with a limited knowledge of acoustics, but it is entirely in the normal audio range and is typically 500Hz to 1000Hz. It is difficult to have a useful discourse with objectors whilst they continue to use acoustical terms incorrectly. This is unfortunate, as there are wind turbine installations which may have noise problems.

It is the swish noise on which attention should be focused, in order to reduce it and to obtain a proper estimate of its effects. It will then be the responsibility of legislators to fix the criterion levels, However, although the needs of sensitive persons may influence decisions, limits are not normally set to satisfy the most sensitive.

Their key point:
Sound at Infrasonic frequencies is not present at perceptible levels near the wind turbine generators. Infrasound is not an issue - Sound of the wind turbine generators is continually audible at the residence, but much of the time is not appreciably above the numeric criteria derived under the guidelines of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

2c)noise.ca, Noise.ca web site

As above, this is not a very comforting statement, coming as it is from wind power's proponents. It does admit that sound is continually audible at the house. So what if it's under the government limits? It's a nuisance, and the homeowner has no recourse, except selling and moving. It should be noted that the author of this article, Brian Howe, works for the Canadian Wind Energy Association. Also it should be noted that the link isn't to a document at all, rather it's the web site for some wind noise consultants, advertising their expertise at mitigating noise from wind farms.

Myth #3 - Birds. The site lists 6 studies, with the following key findings. Generally these studies mostly say that there are other larger killers of birds. No doubt that is true, and no doubt it misses the point. The concern is what will happen to our own world-class bird-watching area. What happens globally might be an issue, but nothing we do on AI will materially affect that one way or another. To find out what might happen on AI itself requires a study, and a proper study takes years.

As an aside, it might also be useful to recall that it is only our intuition that makes us think wind power in total will have any effect on global warming. Given the promenence given to this argument, you'd think whywind.org would have some studies showing a CO2 decrease as a result of wind power.

Their key points:
-For every 10,000 birds killed by human activities including fatalities by collisions with man made structures, less than one death is caused by a wind turbine.
-Green house gas emissions pose the most significant long-term threat to birds.
-American house cat poses a much greater threat to birds than wind turbines. Housecats are estimated to kill 10.6% birds each year in the U.S. compared to less than 0.01% birds that die from a collision with turbines.

All those are true statements from the article. However, the gist of the article was really about how variable the numbers are, and losses from turbines were not a major part of this article.

Their key points:
-Wind plant related avian collision fatalities probably represent between 0.01 percent to 0.02 percent of the annual avian collision fatalities in the U.S.
- Data collected indicates an average of 1.83 avian fatalities per turbine for all species and 0.006 raptor fatalities per turbine per year.

But there's also this:Wind projects have been delayed and sometimes stopped at new wind sites across the country due in part to avian collision concerns.

Or this: The primary reason is that there are far fewer windplants and that many of the windplants are located in areas with relatively low bird and raptor use.

Or this: For example, in the Netherlands, where turbines are often sited near coastal areas, estimates of collision rates have been as high as 37 birds per turbine per year.

Their key points:
-While bird collisions do occur (with commercial wind turbines) the impacts on global populations appears to be relatively minor, especially in comparison with other human-related causes of mortality.
-Previous studies suggest that the frequency of avian collisions with wind turbines is low, and the impact of wind power on bird populations today is negligible. Our study provides little evidence to refute this claim.

This is an industry study that is more of the same.

Their key point:
-A 1986 study found that 69 million birds flew though the San Gorgonio Pass during the spring and fall migrations. During both migrating seasons, 38 dead birds were found during that typical year, representing only 0.00006% of the migrating population.

Notice that the quote above is from an earlier study that is not linked to and thus cannot be verified. From this document itself comes:These [variables within the operating wind plants] can be important in site selection and layout of a new wind plant.

Their key points:
-When you look at a wind turbine, you can find the bird carcasses and count them. With a coal-fired power plant, you can't count the carcasses, but it's going to kill a lot more birds.
-As the threats of global warming loom ever larger, alternative energy sources like wind power are essential.
[UPDATE - The quotes CAIRE and I sited above and below have changed, as Audubon has modified the content. The new page makes for an interesting comparison of how they've changed over time.

3e)Audubon, Web Site

Left out were the two sentences immediately before the key finding above: Modern wind turbines are much safer for birds than their predecessors, but if they are located in the wrong places, they can still be hazardous and can fragment critical habitat. In cases where the birds affected are already in trouble, such as sage grouse in windy parts of the plains states, the turbines could push them closer to extinction.

Their key point:
-The UK's leading bird protection body, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), says that the most significant long-term threat to birds comes from climate change. According to the RSPB, "recent scientific research indicates that, as early as the middle of this century, climate change could commit one third or more of land-based plants and animals to extinction, including some species of British birds." Compared to this threat, "the available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds," it concludes.

Note that, again, the quote above is from another article, not the document in the link. Coming back to the linked article, there's this:Birds can be affected by wind energy development through loss of habitat, disturbance to their breeding areas and by death or injury caused by the rotating turbine blades.

Myth #4 - Property values.The site lists 4 studies, all of which (of course) claim that wind farms do not lower property values.

Their key points:
-The Statistical analysis of all property sales in the view shed and the comparable community provides no evidence that wind development has harmed property values within the view shed.
-For the great majority of projects the property values actually rose more quickly in the view shed than they did in the comparable community. Moreover, values increased faster in the view shed after the projects came online than they did before.
-In the minority of cases where property value decreased, the values decreased slower in the view shed than in the comparable community.

Note the "view shed" provisio. They define the view shed as any property within a 5 mile radius. At AI we are more concerned about properties within a 1/2 mile audio radius. What about them? This study agrees that:It would be desirable in future studies to expand the variables incorporated into the analysis and to refine the view shed in order to look at the relationship between property values and the precise distance from development.

Their key points:
-Three times the number of residents say that their local windfarm has had a broadly positive impact on the area (20%) say that it has had a negative impact (7%). Most (73%) feel that it has had neither a positive nor negative impact, or expressed no opinion.
-People who lived in their homes before the site was developed say that, in advance of the windfarm development, they thought that problems might be caused by its impact on the landscape (27%), traffic during construction (19%) and noise during construction (15%). However, only 12% say the landscape has been spoiled, 6% say there were problems with additional traffic, and 4% say there was noise or disturbance from traffic during construction.
-People living closest to the windfarms tend to be most positive about them (44% of those living within 5km say the windfarm has had a positive impact, compared with 16% of those living 10-20km away). They are also most supportive of expansion of the sites (65% of those in the 5km zone support 50% expansion, compared with 53% of those in the 10-20km zone).

This study contained no mention of property values, instead documenting the generally positive attitudes of those living around several of Scotland's projects. For even that purpose this study may not be very applicable to our situation, and several critical issues were left unmentioned, like who participated in the project and how the benefits were distributed. The study area included residents within a 20km radius, which would be like asking people in Napanee if they minded a wind farm on AI. The study seemed to worry most about visual problems, probably because so few homes were within audio range. Notice, in the findings above, the lack of comment, either way, about ongoing noise from the turbines. Of the sites studied, the largest was about half as big as AI's. Most of the sites had few houses within the closest circle, which they drew at 5km (compared with our 1km), and the site with the largest number of houses in the inner circle also had the lowest approval rating, 49%.

Their key point:
The report finds no measurable effects of windmill visibility on property values. This absence of evidence holds even when concentrating on homes within a mile or on those that sold immediately following announcement in 2001.

As above, this study strictly measured visual aspects, and used a 5-mile radius for the study. Perhaps Madison County residents had the appropriate circumstances. There are in fact appropriate places for wind farms. But this study also warned that:Without proper analysis of this subject and a thorough understanding of effects on communities surrounding existing facilities, upcoming projects will be either needlessly delayed or inappropriately approved.

Their key points:
-The study of property sales from 1998 through 2006 indicates no differences in property values in the wind farm areas as compared with other similar areas
-In Kewaunee, Wisconsin, an analysis of the area in and around two wind farms that have been operational since 1998 indicated that there were no measurable differences in home values in the target areas close to the wind farms and the contol areas outside of the wind farm vicinity. The study utilized 87 residential and farmland sales transactions in the target and control areas.
-In Mendota, Illinois, an analysis of a wind farm that has been operational since 2003 concluded that there was no measurable difference in the home values between the target and control areas. This study utilized 69 residential and farmland sales transactions in the target and control areas. In addition, the report indicates that residential development is continuing in close proximity to the 63-turbine wind farm with the Lee County Board recently approving a 100-unit subdivision near the wind farm. Sales in the subdivision are proceeding with homes within 3,000 feet of the wind farm selling for $530,000 to $540,000.

4d)Poletti, A Real Estate Study - White Oak [4 megs!]

This study was commissioned by the developer, and used data from other sites to make a prediction about the new one. It references the REPP study (almost everyone references it) and adopts many of the same techniques. The main scheme was to define a control area and a target area and compare prices. It did not compare before and after prices. The actual criteria for determining the areas was not revealed, but the maps showed the target area to be quite large, using about the same distance - 5 miles - as the REPP study did.

Myth #5 - Safety.This is one of the myths the wind industry itself is working hard at creating, and then destroying. No known members of CPAI doubt the turbines themselves can be made and operated in a safe manner. There's a possible exception of throwing ice, but even that is a minor concern. There's two documents in this section, and it is assumed they are accurate.

Myth #6 - Viewscape.There's two documents in this section. Perhaps some of the articles from myth #4 could have been noted here instead. Certainly there's a point to their assertion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the residents who live on AI do so in part because they like the current environment.

Their key points:
-Almost half (48%) of the respondents who came to the area reported doing so for the scenery (as opposed to 10% who said they came for music festivals, the next most reported reason).
-40% of tourists interviewed were aware of the existence of wind farms in the area and when asked whether this presence had a positive or negative effect. 43% maintained that it had a positive effect, 43% felt it made no difference, Less than one in ten (8%) felt that it had a negative effect
-This means that the majority of tourists who knew about the wind farms, came away with a more positive image of the area because of their presence.

This document was published by two wind power trade organizations. Regardless, it is not clear how the viewpoints of tourists applies to the situation at AI, where the residents will be living with the turbines. It is often fun to visit someplace that you wouldn't want to live in.

Their key points:
-Use one CL-864 medium intensity red flashing light
-Only few turbines located in the perimeter no more than 2,700 ft from each other to be lit
-Inside the perimeter only turbine at highest absolute height to be lit

It is not certain why this document was included, perhaps to allay fears that there would be lots of lights. Given the shape of AI and the predominant winds, almost every tower closest to the shoreline homes would be the ones with lights and these lights would certainly degrade any nighttime star viewing. As the document itself states:

The clarity of night sky is of importance not only for the many people who casually or seriously maintain personal astronomical observatories, but also to our spiritual well being. Unfortunately, by inappropriate use of lighting, we are progressively degrading our view of the night sky. Thus, the designer should pay particular attention to minimizing the adverse impact of lighting applied to windfarms.

And there's also this:Evidence from studies at tall structures also shows that the lights they carry attract night-migrating birds, which become confused by the lights and can collide with the structure, its support wires, or with other birds, often with fatal results.

Before approval and construction of new wind energy projects proceeds, potential risks to birds and bats should be evaluated through site analyses, including assessments of bird and bat abundance, timing and magnitude of migration, and habitat use patterns. Wind energy project location, design, operation, and lighting should be carefully evaluated to prevent, or at least minimize, bird and bat mortality and adverse impacts through habitat fragmentation, disturbance, and site avoidance.

Myth # 7 - Intermittency.It is not clear exactly what myth CAIRE is trying to combat here. There are 8 documents listed for this section and their main point is intuitively valid. If enough wind power is available (20% of the total seems to be a reasonable level) then in total it becomes reliable enough (the wind is always blowing somewhere) to be considered a consistant source of power. [UPDATE - just to let everyone know I can learn new things. I analyzed the IESO data and I was surprised how variable the output was across the province, to the point where the IESO isn't buying the GE report's conclusions.] That's fine; it doesn't affect the AI discussion.

Myth # 8 - Expensive, subsidized and very profitable.The objections to a wind farm on AI do not center around economics, so this is yet another example of a wind industry standard marketing pitch that has nothing to dowith AI. There were 2 documents in this section.

Their key points:
-Wind power has provided good value in wholesale power markets in recent years, and has generally been priced at or below the cost of conventional fossil generation.
-The cost of turbines has risen since 2002, reversing the decline in total wind project costs and driving up the cost of generating wind power. The full effect of this cost increase will continue to play out in coming years as recent turbine cost increases flow through to wind power prices.
-Wind project performance has increased over the last several years, driven in part by higher tower heights, improved project siting, and technological advancements.
-The wind market is in a period of transition, as electric utilities have shown increased interest in wind project ownership, and merchant wind power plants and sales to power marketers have become more common.

All of that is true, but there are some unmentioned details.Focusing Just on Wind Projects Built in 2006 tells a More Cautious Story. Wind projects built in 2006 were only marginally competitive with wholesale power prices in 2006.

Installed Project Costs Are On the Rise,After a Long Period of Decline.

To be fair, on the plus side, the document states that operational and maintenance costs are declining as newer and better turbines are placed in service.

Their key points:
-In the non-fossil category, nuclear industry received more than 96 percent of almost $151 billion in subsidies identified.
-Photovoltaics and solar thermals received the second largest subsidy at a total of $4.4 billion, wind received a total of $1.2 billion while hydropower technology received at least $1.6 billion.

The above is all true, and certainly new energy technologies generally need subsidies. However, what is left unsaid is how much energy these subsidies ended up creating. Nuclear power generates 200 times more power annually than wind. As a result: subsidies to the development of commercial, fission-related nuclear power results in a subsidy cost of 1.2¢/kWh. This compares with a subsidy cost of 51¢/kWh for solar and 4¢/kWh for wind.

Myth #9 - Wind Power Internationally.CAIRE claims that contrary to reports, wind energy is not being stopped in other countries, especially European ones. They list two documents to support this contention. The first of these is a flyer from a European wind trade organization, for which they list a long series of presumed quotes from the document. Unfortunately, the findings don't match what is in the document, so maybe they mislinked something. In any event, neither their findings nor the actual document mentions anything one way or the other about future intentions.

The second document is another trade publication, this time from Germany.

Their key points:
-Wind energy installations in Germany can expand from about 17,000 MW today to 36,000 MW in 2015, and 48,000 MW in 2020
-Wind energy annual production can triple by 2015, providing 14% of the German net electricity consumption.

Notice the word "can"? This is simply a promotional brochure, nothing more.

Myth #10 - contains a variety of myths, most of them minor and missing are their key findings. But one of the myths concerns CO2 emission. They didn't present this as a myth to be dismissed, but no matter. Since global warming is an important issue it was good to see that CAIRE actually put something about it on their web site. They point to a document that was produced by the Sierra Club, decrying the shutdown of Ontario's nuclear plants and how coal would be used to make up the shortfall. It contained no reference to any measures of CO2 savings due to wind, so why it was included here is a mystery.