Some people don't notice a constant infrasound at all, others start getting a "dreamy" feeling and a constant feeling of ... something weird. Both of which are really hard to quantify and measure.
There are even studies that kinda sorta link "haunting" with sources of infrasound.
I personally love the look of wind farms, but maybe the noise would make me equally as upset as the people in the article.
But when it sticks and you're at your second decade of 24/7 eeeeeeeeeee in your ear, at times it gets to you really bad and you just want to claw your eardrums off.
This should be enough to enlighten all those who think that "noise is not an issue".
> and for anyone else suffering it can get easier to deal with given time
Unfortunately, no. It may «get easier to deal with given time» - it's not granted, seeing the history of some sufferers.
You may be unable to tell in advance. There comes a point in which you break and what was "not even perceived", not just "tolerable", before, becomes unbearable later.
You have to consider the constant exposure, and the fluctuation of your resistance, and consider the effect of the burden in the times of lower resistance. The issue is not with the stress of the weight lifted when you are vigorous, but that which will be when you will be weak.
If it was inherently harmful we wouldn't be able to open a window on any windy day.
Or perhaps there's something hypnotic due to the frequency being so constant?
It's easy to handle anything for a while, like a crying child during a 30 minute bus ride. But when the same noise is extended over a 14 hour flight with no way to escape, you'll start to feel it.
Some people handle auditory interruptions better than others. Infrasound, to my knowledge, hasn't been really studied in a cross-field type of way. It's always just engineers doing measurements with meters and drawing graphs. There are very few studies on the psychological effects of man-made infrasound.
[0] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201...
I wonder why no one ever seems to suggest that?
So the optimal wind turbine is (a) extremely large and (b) at sea or near the coast. You get things like this with 100m blades: https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind...
There is also a little bit of a safety issue. The possibility of losing a 100m blade or part thereof is low, but you wouldn't want that in a city.
(I appreciate the "I don't want that near me" view, but that means that person wants it near someone else? Or some other solution that nobody wants to be near either?)
edit: This was just an observation in response to ""I don't want that near me" view, but that means that person wants it near someone else?"
There's a huge imbalance between the major consumer (cities) and people in the countryside (where the turbines end up).
- Land in cities is far more expensive than the land where wind farms are currently built, so the electricity costs would be higher.
- Cities are already densely built up so it would be much more difficult to get the long turbine blades delivered for installation, raising costs again.
- Cities have worse wind resources because the built up environment impedes smooth, fast air flow. Turbines built in the middle of cities would generate less electricity over the course of a year, raising cost per kilowatt hour for a third time.
You can't build efficient (megawatt scale) turbines on top of buildings, and little turbines are basically gimmicks that don't supply significant energy. Rooftop solar power generates more energy at lower cost than little rooftop turbines.
There may be a misunderstanding there, if my reference to people minimizing the idea of the impact of noise because they live in the screams already, is taken as a suggestion that wind turbines should be placed on every roof. The messages were, (1), that noise is a problem even if you think it does not bother you, and, (2), if you had unpolluted places and you ruin them, you destroy your alternatives left. Noise pollution should be fought, period.
The expression «It may be a minor inconvenience for those who live in some metropolitan areas» was rhetoric, as in "Some people used to noisy environment may tend to minimize the issue [but that kind of infrastructure is often placed there where living things go look for quiet]".
There are several other prototype wind power generation designs that would also probably be suitable for building-top use. Here's a 17 minute video looking at several of them [2].
there are also video compilations of wind turbine failures, tons of raining debris in a metropolis is not a good idea so construction and quality control standards would have to improve which would make it even more expensive.
I'm afraid that even in most urban areas, the low-frequency noise would stand out from typical background noise and have noticeable health effects on the community.
There is a growing literature on the health effects of low-frequency noise, and also on (mostly losing) battles of communities against nearby wind farms.
Surely, that societies have a clear idea that noise pollution must be a concern would be duly and civilized -
but, that territory impairing infrastructure is placed in the few quiet places remaining, is a special kind of madness in itself.
Also considering that urban areas in many territories already are a huge compromise in terms of quiet, so you will want to keep the few unpolluted places remaining as a reserve...
Unfortunately, the topic of windmills is getting politized, and complaining against the negative effects is now being ridiculed and tried to antivaxxing and luddism.
> > There is a growing literature on the health effects of low-frequency noise, and also on (mostly losing) battles of communities against nearby wind farms.
If even Trump couldn't prevent a wind farm near one of his Scottish properties, it's indeed mostly battles being lost:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/joe-biden-just-broug...
While nimbism may play a large role, the negative health effects reported by many people like you should not be neglected.
And I just don't understand why the damage to the wildlife is almost never mentionned.
>> has to be a lie - they haven't died from lack of sleep
C'mon guys, you can't be serious?!
Especially since most cities get much quieter at night.
That is an inherent difficulty with wind turbines, because the most efficient places for wind tend to be the places of optimal sound broadcast.
Though location wise, one big point would be: "Alongside the motorway? Ok, consistent. // In the middle of paradise? (...Speechless.)"
To place wind turbines where busy infrastructure already is would facilitate energy transport.
Off shore wind farms are a nice idea until they block your entire view of the sea.
Wind should be a small scale solution for remote locations.
It doesn’t seem to me that any implementation of it on an industrial scale can be achieved without an environmental disaster of a different kind.
Small Nuclear Reactors and fusion really can’t come fast enough.
It is called, in some regions, a "silver bullet", a solution that may look plausible (or is presented as such), but that upon actual consideration involves difficulties, tradeoffs, and feasibility constraints which may be initially hidden.
The noise pollution involved by wind turbines is not into everyone's awareness.
It may be a minor inconvenience for those who live in some metropolitan areas («Noise is so pervasive here that even sirens are set twice as loud», or «I am looking for good noise protecting earmuffs for my newborn for when I will take her around outside» - signed, different friends of yours truly in the Big-C-City), but the unfortunate thing is that they tend to place wind turbines exactly in the conceptually opposite places - the middle of the wilderness, the "deliverance" places.