Entries in wind farm contract (66)
5/29/11 Oh, THAT'S what a wind lease 'gag-order' looks like AND Component failure timeline and other delights: From the wind industry's point of view: pesky O&M costs biting into profits
WHAT'S BLACK AND WHITE AND YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE?
Sorry. I signed a wind lease. I can't discuss it.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD: Better Plan has been collecting copies of wind leases for the last few years and has yet to find one that didn't contain a confidentiality agreement ---also known as a 'gag order'
Landowners who share wind leases are taking a clear risk, but more are coming forward anyway. One farmer who shared his contract said, "I don't care anymore. I just don't want this to happen to anyone else."
The section below is copied from a wind lease contract that came our way. The landowner who signed it agreed to allow noise, vibration, shadow flicker and any other disruption the turbines might cause to take place on his property. If he has problems with these things he can't talk about it because the gag order requires that he:
Not to talk about the contents of lease to anyone.
Not to talk about the construction or operation of the turbines.
Not not speak to reporters or anyone in the media or issue statements or press releases unless the wind company gives the landowner their written permission.
The landowner also had to agree that the gag order would still apply long after the turbines are gone. This line says it all: "This section shall survive the termination of expiration of this lease" It means this gag order is forever.
The landowner can talk to his lawyer or accountant and certain others about the contract but only after they agree to a gag order too.
STRAIGHT FROM THE CONTRACT:
(Landowner) shall maintain in strictest confidence, for the sole benefit of (wind developer) all information pertaining to the terms and conditions of this lease, including, without limitation, the construction and power production of the wind farm.
Without first obtaining written permission from the (wind developer), (the landowner) shall not issue any statements or press releases or respond to any inquires from news media regarding such matters.
(Landowner) shall maintain the strictest confidence, for the sole benefit of the (wind developer) all information pertaining to the terms and conditions of this lease, including, without limitation, the financial terms hereof.
This section shall survive the termination of expiration of this lease.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit sharing or disclosing information with any party's (lawyer) accountants or current or prospective investors, purchases, lenders or as required by law, provided that the party sharing or disclosing such information requires the recipient to maintain the confidentiality of such disclosed information
Wind Energy Update: Wind Farm O&M - Best Practice On Cost Containment Elusive
The constantly evolving wind turbine market means that new components must continually be demonstrated, with little assurance of their availability five years down the track in the event of component failure.
Posted on: Monday, 23 May 2011
SOURCE: "Wind Energy Update" VIA PR WEB
When it comes to turning a profit throughout the lifecycle of a wind farm, just a one percent improvement in operations and maintenance can make a huge difference to the bottom line, according to the latest Wind Energy Update Operations & Maintenance Report 2011.
(PRWEB) May 23, 2011
When it comes to turning a profit throughout the lifecycle of a wind farm, just a one percent improvement in operations and maintenance can make a huge difference to the bottom line, according to the latest Wind Energy Update Operations & Maintenance Report 2011. [Click here to download report]
The challenge, however, is how to achieve that one percent improvement in the face of operations and maintenance (O&M) costs that are double or even triple initial projections.
O&M costs under-estimated
On the basis of an exhaustive industry survey, the latest report finds that wind farm return on investment is around -21 percent. This underperformance is attributable to over-estimation of power production and underestimation of O&M costs say the report’s authors.
In the early days, the industry had costed out O&M at roughly 0.5c/kw over a turbine’s 20-year life. But as newer models and their respective components continued to flood the market, this has turned out to be far from the reality.
The report highlights that wind O&M costs can now be expected to increase on average 253 percent over the 20-year life of the various wind machines.
“Given that every wind turbine comprises an average of 8000 components, it is not surprising that higher-than-expected rates of component failure continue to plague the industry,” say the report's authors.
Understanding the root cause
The constantly evolving wind turbine market means that new components must continually be demonstrated, with little assurance of their availability five years down the track in the event of component failure.
Of even greater concern is that, if not properly addressed early on, component failures can persist through new product generations. It is therefore vital, despite pressure from competitors to continuously push the boundaries on nameplate capacities, that both the onshore and offshore industries adopt a backwards compatibility approach when evolving each model.
A thorough understanding of failure trends can also provide a basis for the best O&M practices for a given system, say the reports authors.
Sketching a component failure timeline, the authors characterise earliest wind turbine designs (1987-91) by their gearbox failures, while wind turbines built between 1994-99 are characterized by electronic power failures.
Turbines manufactured between 2000-2004, again exhibit problems with generators and gearboxes. More recent models are plagued with issues linked to retrofits.
But there is a silver lining. Some component suppliers to the OEM wind turbine market view the aftermarket as a new, long-term opportunity.
“Advances in turbine design may make certain parts obsolete, but with a typical projected turbine life of 20 years or more, the aftermarket will provide ongoing spares demand for these suppliers for some time to come”, says the report.
The report also notes that in the long-run, as the wind industry matures and begins to validate the success of condition and performance monitoring systems, as direct drive turbines replace gear-box driven turbines, and as the industry begins to collaborate on O&M, reductions in long-term O&M costs are the most likely scenario.
NOTE FROM THE BPWI RESEARCH NERD:
Spanish wind giant, Acciona, already has already signed on landowners and holds long term land easements for future wind projects in our state.
TURBINES DECLARED A NASTY NEIGHBOUR AS A SECRET BUYOUT IS REVEALED.
SOURCE: Sunday Herald Sun, www.news.com.au
January 30, 2011
By Peter Rolfe
Victorians who have endured health problems from a nearby wind farm have been gagged from talking in return for the sale of their land.
Spanish multinational energy company Acciona has been quietly buying farms adjacent to its site at Waubra, near Ballarat, as an increasing number of residents in the tight-knit community complain of the ill-effects of living near turbines.
Since the wind farm started operating in July 2009, about 11 houses in the area have been vacated by people complaining of noise problems.
Acciona has bought at least another seven houses, the purchase of two of which appear to have been prompted by the new State Government’s threat to shut down the farm unless noise and permit conditions were met.
Locals in the tiny town of 700, 35km northwest of Ballarat, say the sales took place on the proviso landowners would not talk about the price of the purchase or negative health effects they blame on the wind farm.
Residents who refuse to move have accused the company of trying to buy their way out of trouble.
Noel Deans moved from Waubra to Ballarat 18 months ago because he could no longer stand headaches, tinnitus and poor health he believes are caused by high-frequency vibrations from turbines.
“The word is they’re buying everyone out and buying some of the other properties nearby just to hush them up,” he said.
“They know that we can’t fight them. We can’t win.
“They make you suffer so that you just want to get out of there. They know that it gets to you emotionally and physically.”
Mr Deans refuses to sell his property because he does not want future generations to suffer like his family. He only returns to the farm when he has to — about once a fortnight — and says every time he does he gets head pain within five minutes that takes up to 10 days to go away.
Doctors’ certificates seen by the Sunday Herald Sun back his claims.
“Once (the vibrations) get inside the house it bounces off the walls and makes you feel sick,” Mr Dean said. “If you’re exposed to it outside it goes into your inner ear and affects your balance. It’s put tinnitus in my ears which stops me sleeping.”
He has met the company to discuss his concerns, but said they would only take statements, not answer his questions.
“I said ‘I don’t want you to buy me out. I want you to fix the problem’,” he said. “It’s hell on Earth living out there. That’s what it is.
“And there’s nothing we can do about it. It’s a bloody terrible thing.
“It’s knocked us around. We’re in limbo. We’ve lost two years of our life and we don’t know where it will end. I’ve put nearly 40 years into that place. It’s prime property that I was going to pass down to my son. What am I going to do? I can’t work there without being ill.”
Former National Trust chairman Randall Bell, now president of Victorian Landscape Guardians, said wind farm companies had a reputation for pulling out their chequebooks to make a problem go away.
“What they do is make people sign gag agreements which dictate that they can’t speak about the sales or their health,” he said.
“It’s a way of shutting people up.”
Acciona generation director Brett Wickham said there was no proof wind farms affected people’s health, and the plant, which employed about 70 people, was generally well accepted.
He said the most recent two houses bought by Acciona were purchased in September and October last year, when noise levels detected on the property were in breach of the company’s planning permit.
And he said confidentiality contracts used by the company were “standard practice for the industry”.
“Most of the landowners have actually sought confidentiality agreements as well,” he said.
“They are what they are.”
But Karl Stepnell, who moved his wife and three children out of Waubra after sleepless nights, heart palpitations, ear pressure and nausea that began when the turbines started turning, disagreed.
“They have bought a lot more houses than seven. There are empty houses all over the place,” he said.
“We’re all for green energy, but there have to be more conditions on what the wind companies can do.”
Planning Minister Matthew Guy, who has the power to shut down the wind farm if it does not comply with its permit, said the Government was watching closely to ensure that wind farm operators played by the rules.
“If they are not complying with their planning permit, I would close it down,” he said.
“Just as someone who doesn’t comply with a building permit or doesn’t pay a parking fine would be in trouble, so will they.”
A Senate inquiry into the possible adverse impacts of wind farms will be held later this year.
OUR 'What the--?' WIND VIDEO OF THE DAY:
BE ADVISED: Contents include man singing in French to pictures of wind turbines.
1/25/11 UPDATE ON HERE COMES THE JUDGE: All eyes on Ontario as safety of wind developer-friendly setbacks are challenged in court AND The latest on the Wind Farm Strong Arm: Date is set for wind developer's lawsuit against a rural community AND What is wrong with this picture? Our Big Wind video of the day
WHAT'S AT ISSUE WITH GOVERNOR WALKER'S WIND SITING BILL:
Pictured Above: Setbacks between 400 foot tall wind turbines and homes in a PSC-approved wind project Fond du Lac County Wisconsin. The yellow circles indicate the 1000 foot safety zone around each turbine.
Pictured Below: PSC approved Glacier Hills Wind Project under constrution in Columbia County. In this map from WeEnergies, red dots are turbine locations. Each yellow circle containing a small red square is a non-participating home.
When they permitted the wind project, the PSC admitted that there were too many turbines around some homes but instead of asking for fewer turbines in those areas they asked the wind company to offer to purchase the homes. They did.
The PSC wind rules allow safety zones to cross property lines and allow a wind company to automatically use a neighbor's land as part of that safety zone. This creates a no-build and no tree planting zone on the property of a non-particpating land owner who must to get permission from the wind company to build a structure or plant a tree on his own land.
Senate Bill 9 helps to correct this problem.
The PSC statewide siting rules are to take effect on March 1st, 2011. They have setbacks of 1250 feet between homes and a 500 foot turbine. The rules allow a wind company to use a non participating landowner's property as a safety setback zone.
Senate Bill 9 increases the setback to 1800 feet between turbines and property lines. If a landowner wants a turbine closer he can enter into an agreement with the wind company. This bill gives some choice and a little more protection to the rural Wisconsin families who have no choice about living beneath the turbines.
PICTURED ABOVE: a map showing the noise level predicted for residents in Invenergy's proposed Ledge Wind Project in Brown County. The yellow dots are homes. The black dots are wind turbine locations. The World Health Organization says nighttime noise should no louder than 35 dbA for healthful sleep. The deep blue areas indicate predicted turbine noise levels above 50 dbA. The purple areas indicate turbine noise levels of 50dbA.
SUPPORT SENATE BILL 9: WALKER'S WIND SITING REFORM
Better Plan encourages you to take a moment right now to contact Governor Walker's office to thank him for the provisions in Senate Bill 9, (CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE BILL) which provides for a setback of 1800 feet between wind turbines and property lines. Let him know you support this bill.
CONTACT Governor Scott Walker email@example.com
115 East Capitol
Madison WI 53702
It's very important that you contact these key legislative committee members and urge them to support this bill and vote to move it forward. Every phone call and email to these committee members matters.
Members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations.
-Chairman Senator Rich Zipperer (R) Sen.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov
(608) 266-9174 Capitol 323 South
-Vice Chair Senator Neal Kedzie (R) Sen.firstname.lastname@example.org
(608) 266-2635 Capitol 313 South
(608) 266-2502 Capitol 409 South
Senator Fred Risser (D) Sen.email@example.com
(608) 266-1627 Capitol 130 South
Senator Jon Erpenbach (D) Sen.firstname.lastname@example.org
(608) 266-6670 Capitol 106 South
Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities
Representative Mark Honadel (Chair)
(888) 534-0021 (414) 764-9921 (South Milwaukee)
Representative John Klenke (Vice-Chair)
(888) 534-0088 (Green Bay) new
Representative Kevin Petersen
(888) 947-0040 (Waupaca)
Representative Gary Tauchen
(608) 266-3097 (Bonduel)
Representative Thomas Larson
(888) 534-0067 (Colfax) new
Representative Erik Severson
(888) 529-0028 (Star Prairie) new
Representative Chad Weininger
(888) 534-0004 (Green Bay) new
Representative Josh Zepnick
(608) 266-1707 (414) 727-0841 (Milwaukee)
Representative John Steinbrink
(608) 266-0455 (262) 694-5863 (Pleasant Prairie)
Representative Anthony Staskunas
(888) 534-0015 (414) 541-9440 (West Allis)
Representative Brett Hulsey
(608) 266-7521 (Madison)
And be sure to contact your own legislators and encourage them to support the bill.
THE LATEST ON THE ONTARIO WIND LAWSUIT:
UPDATED JANUARY 24, 2011
ONTARIO LAWYER CHALLENGES CREDIBILITY OF LEADING WITNESSES IN CHALLENGE TO WIND FARM LAW
Read it at the Source: Ottawa Citizen
January 24, 2010
By Lee Greenberg
TORONTO — An Ontario government lawyer attacked the credibility of three star witnesses in a key legal challenge to the province’s new green energy legislation.
Sara Blake said Dr. Robert McMurtry and two other physicians, who cast doubt on the safety of wind turbines, are not reliable witnesses.
The three are named as experts in the case brought against the government by Prince Edward County property owner Ian Hanna. Hanna and his fellow anti-wind campaigners believe turbines emit low-frequency noise that lead to a range of health problems, including sleep deprivation, stress, chronic depression and even cardiovascular disease.
The case is the first major test of new regulations introduced in September 2009, four months after the province passed its Green Energy Legislation. According to those new rules, wind turbines will have to be placed a minimum of 550 meters from the nearest home.
That “setback” is at the centre of Monday’s court challenge.
Hanna and his backers say the government failed to fully examine the medical studies on the health affects of turbines. The government denies the claim.
Blake says McMurtry, an orthopedic surgeon and former medical school dean who also has advised the federal government on health policy, is neither an expert on the issue of noise emissions nor is he impartial.
He and the other two doctors cited in the court challenge all took an interest in wind turbines because they were being built near their homes, the prosecutor said. (McMurtry, who is the brother of former Ontario chief justice and attorney general Roy McMurtry, owns property in Prince Edward County and is the founding member of an anti-wind group there).
Blake said McMurtry expresses opinions in a deposition that he is not qualified to give.
“This is pure advocacy,” she told a three-member panel at Osgoode Hall in Toronto Monday. “He is not an expert ... It is the belief of a passionate person.”
She also cast aspersions on the study of Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, who concluded people living within 1.1 kilometres of a wind farm in Maine suffered numerous health affects, including hearing problems, increased psychiatric symptoms and overall increased use of prescription medication.
The study is not published and is not peer reviewed, she said.
Eric Gillespie, the lawyer for Hanna and the anti-wind advocacy group behind him, contends that the rule placing turbines 550 meters from the nearest house was made without sufficient scientific evidence.
But under questioning from the three judges hearing the case, Gillespie acknowledged the science is inconclusive on the health effects of turbines.
He also takes issue with the fact that a planning expert — and not a public health expert — reviewed the science on the impacts of turbines.
“On a matter of human health it is not enough to have a land use planner say we considered it,” he said in court.
Gillespie also withdrew a request for an injunction on all new wind farms in Ontario. He is asking the court to strike down regulations laying out the 550-meter setback. It is unclear what sort of temporary regulations would emerge if he is successful in the request.
It is unknown when — if at all — the court will issue a decision on Monday’s one-day hearing.
While the three judges listened to arguments, they are also considering an argument by the attorney general that the case should be sent to an environmental tribunal.
The Green Challange
SOURCE: Owen Sound Sun Times
January 24, 2011
Ian Hanna has asked an Ontario court to strike down part of the province's Green Energy Act, enlisting doctors who argue human health was compromised when the act created a buffer of only 550 metres between wind turbines and homes.
* If Hanna prevails, the burgeoning wind industry could grind to a halt until medical studies are done.
* The lobby group for the wind industry has intervened in the case.
* The Ontario government dismisses medical claims as irrelevant and says Hanna doesn't have a legal basis for a challenge.
* Three judges in Toronto will hear evidence Monday and Tuesday.
- - -
Several doctors are saying turbines emit low-pitched sounds that disrupt the body's normal rhythms and cause ailments including:
* Problems with concentration and memory
* Rapid heart rate
- - -
'The right thing to do'
Last week Free Press Reporter Jonathan Sher spoke with the Prince Edward County man who sought the judicial review, Ian Hanna, and his Toronto lawyer, Eric Gillespie. Below are excerpts of their conversation:
Q Prior to getting involved with wind turbines had you been involved with environmental issues or activism?
Hanna: No to both questions.
Q You never led petitions before, subscribed to newsletters on environmental issues or tried to interject yourself into public debate?
That's absolutely correct.
Q What things attracted you to move to Big Island from the GTA?
The idea of a more rural atmosphere appealed to us. The openness, the stars, the birds. You have to come here sometime and walk outside on a summer's afternoon. It's just unbelievable.
Q What about adverse health effects of wind turbines?
People appear to be emotionally drained, unable to really function on a calm, natural basis. We know people can't sleep properly at all when they are close to industrial wind turbines . . . They appeared to be very tortured by the effects.
Q Why did you continue to pursue the case even though your home and Big Island no longer in harm's way?
Because it's the right thing to do. I have three children who if I gave them nothing else . . . I think I at least gave them the strength or assisted them with gaining the strength to stand up for what they believe in and for what's right.
Q How has the legal action been financed?
We put every cent we could put in to it so far and if we have to put more, we'll find it . . . 100% of the money that's been contributed has come from people just like us, other families all over Ontario . . .
Q How much has been raised so far? Ballpark?
Close to $200,000
Q How are you feeling as you head toward the hearing in Toronto?
I'm excited, I'm confident, I'm grateful for the incredible capable way it's been handled . . . and to be really fair I'm exceedingly sad and disappointed . . . It's all been based on facts and realities and truths coming from just regular people like myself who have no axe to grind with anybody beyond the fact that we're frightened by the potential of this, yet, the other side has done one thing and one thing only: They've circled their wagons.
WIND ON TRIAL
A burgeoning billion-dollar industry and the political fortunes of Dalton McGuinty's Liberals may turn on a legal challenge by a single man whose day in court arrives Monday.
Ian Hanna lives far away from the corridors of power in Queens Park and Bay Street in a century-old farmhouse on Big Island in Prince Edward County. But Monday he finds himself in the epicentre of a debate that could shape the economic future of the province and the political fate of the ruling Liberals.
It's a fight over wind turbines that have been rising across Ontario with ever greater frequency, an industry the Liberal government has subsidized with plans to double its energy capacity in this year alone.
But those plans in Queens Park -- really the heart of the Green Energy Act -- were placed in judicial crosshairs 15 months ago. That's when Hanna, 58, challenged a provision that creates a buffer of only 550 metres between turbines and homes.
Several doctors have lined up behind Hanna's challenge, saying turbines emit low-pitched sounds that disrupt the body's normal rhythms and cause ailments including headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, rapid heart rate, irritability and problems with concentration and memory.
Those concerns have been dismissed as irrelevant by lawyers representing the Ontario government, who instead will try to convince three judges in Toronto that Hanna doesn't have a legal basis for his claim -- that there is no provision in the Green Energy Act itself or elsewhere that allows a citizen to challenge a regulation.
The dismissive approach concerns Hanna's lawyer Eric Gillespie.
"That's been a significant concern for all the experts that are part of this process on behalf of Mr. Hanna. These are medical doctors from Ontario, the United States and England, all of whom have seen what they believe to be first-hand sufficient evidence to say that industrial wind turbines do pose a very real risk to residents," Gillespie said.
Gillespie is an environmental lawyer who cases include one that landed a $36-million award since appealed.
The government's decision to object solely on procedural grounds worries the wind industry that over the next 20 years has planned about $20 billion in investments that would be subsidized by Ontario taxpayers.
A lawyer for the Canadian Wind Energy Association declined to comment about Hanna's case but did provide a copy of its written arguments.
An Ontario Environment Ministry spokesperson defended the Green Energy Act.
"Our process is based on science, modelling and jurisdictional comparisons. It will be protective of public health and the environment," Kate Jordan said.
JUDGE SETS ECOGEN, PRATTSBURGH HEARING
SOURCE Bath Courier, www.steubencourier.com
January 23, 2011
By Mary Perham,
Prattsburgh, NY — A court hearing has been set for Jan. 27 to learn more details about the events behind a year-long lawsuit between the town of Prattsburgh and a wind farm developer.
The hearing will resolve some issues and lead to a final decision in the dispute between the town and the developer, Ecogen, according to state Supreme Court Justice John Ark.
Ark wants sworn testimony from former town officials, including Attorney John Leyden and Supervisor Harold McConnell, Ecogen representatives and other town officials.
Questions appear to pinpoint Ecogen’s contention that it has been ready to set up 16 turbines for more than two years and questions Ecogen’s claim it had “vested rights” by late 2008.
Ecogen also claims board members have stymied the builder’s efforts to proceed with the project.
“Which is funny, when they’re on record telling the Town of Italy, Prattsburgh has been very cooperative throughout,” said Prattsburgh’s attorney Ed Hourihan.
Hourihan said the town is pleased to see the judge has narrowed the issues to “specifically pin down Ecogen’s ever changing position. Since this litigation has started, Ecogen had changed its position so many times its hard to tell what is the truth.”
Hourihan said he will question the witnesses and can present evidence proving any testimony is incorrect.
Last fall Ark said he was close to a decision in the case, but urged Ecogen and the town to meet and find an out-of-court compromise.
Town officials offered to provide other sites for the proposed turbines, but Ecogen maintained the December 2009 agreement was binding and refused to compromise.
An offer to meet with Prattsburgh by Ecogen’s parent company, Pattern, apparently fell through last month, current town Supervisor Al Wordingham said.
Wordingham said he called Pattern representative John Galloway just before Christmas to follow up on several phone conferences and a plan to meet.
“He told me he had some internal issues to resolve,” Wordingham said.
Galloway has not returned his final call, Wordingham told residents at the town board meeting Monday night.
“And we still don’t have their final site map,” Wordingham said.
In related action, the board held a public hearing on extending their moratorium on tower construction another six months. Several residents said they supported the moratorium, although they thought six months was too long.
The board will vote on the moratorium during their regular Feb. 22 meeting.
FROM OUR 'WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?' VIDEO FILE-- Or Why aren't those turbines turning?
AND: What they're finding out about big wind in Taiwan
1/8/11 Video of the Day: Spend some time on a wind turbine AND Baby, it's cold outside: Um...why aren't the turbines turning? AND Wait, I thought the Dutch loved wind turbines.
VIDEO OF THE DAY:
Click on the image above to spend some time with workers on a wind turbine. Warning: contains some profanity.
A local farmer who wishes to remain nameless said, “The people who stand to make money are for and those who stand to lose out are against: it’s as simple as that. ... I used to be good friends with my neighbor, but that friendship’s been damaged beyond repair.”
Scroll down to see who said it and what country they were from
IT'S NO USE WAITING FOR TURBINES TO KEEP US WARM AS THE SNOW RETURNS
SOURCE: The Daily Mail, UK
January 8, 2010
By David Derbyshire, environment editor.
Britain’s wind farms almost ground to a halt during the coldest spells in December, it has emerged.
As temperatures plunged below zero and demand for electricity soared, figures reveal that most of the country’s 3,000 wind turbines were virtually still, energy experts say.
During some of the chilliest weather, they were working at less than one-hundredth of capacity, producing electricity for fewer than 30,000 homes.
The National Grid was forced to compensate for the still, cold conditions by cranking up conventional coal and gas-fired power stations.
December was the coldest month in more than a century – and yesterday, as some in northern England, the Midlands and Wales were hit with more snow, residents will have been switching on the heating again. But critics have warned that the UK is becoming too dependent on wind for power.
There are 3,153 working turbines in 283 wind farms across the UK, capable of generating more than 5.2 gigawatts of electricity – enough to power almost three million homes, the wind industry says.
Over the next decade, another 10,000 turbines will go up to meet Europe’s climate change targets. By 2020, the Government says 30 per cent of all Britain’s electricity will be generated by wind.
But at best, turbines work at just 30 to 40 per cent of their capacity. And in cold winter snaps, often caused by vast, slow-moving high-pressure systems over Northern Europe, winds drop to almost nothing.
Helen Chivers, of the Met Office, said cold spells were often accompanied by low winds. ‘It is fairly common in winter to have these high pressure systems that bring cold, still conditions over Britain.’
uring December’s cold snaps, the windfarms’ output repeatedly fell sharply, National Grid data shows.
On the coldest day, December 20, the average temperature was minus 5.6C. But just as demand for electricity to heat homes was rising, the winds failed.
That evening the recorded output from the UK’s wind farms dipped to 59 megawatts.
Wind experts say the National Grid only detects half the output of wind farms and that the real figure was 120MW – still only one-fiftieth of maximum capacity.
The following day, when the average temperature was minus 5.2C, turbines were recorded as generating just 20MW. The real figure was probably around 40MW – the equivalent of just 20 turbines at full capacity – powering fewer than 30,000 homes.
Winds dropped again after Christmas. On December 30, the recorded output from wind turbines fell to 25MW at 6.30pm.
John Constable, of the Renewable Energy Foundation, which argues against wind farm expansion, said: ‘When you get a high pressure system at this time of year it can cover most of the UK.
‘The whole of the UK is becalmed just when it gets really cold and when demand for electricity goes up. Regardless of how much wind you have installed you need to have the same amount of conventional stations ready to switch on if the wind fails.’ The wind industry insisted wind was reliable – and that still spells are rare. Nick Medic, of Renewables UK, said if the wind does drop, we can import energy from overseas, or use energy stored in dams.
Yesterday, up to 4in (10cm) of snow fell in some upland areas, Leeds Bradford Airport was closed for several hours and dozens of schools in Yorkshire were shut.
However, a band of rain followed the snow and the Met Office said it was expected to have disappeared by morning. A relatively dry weekend was forecast.
WIND TURBINES DIVIDE DUTCH
SOURCE: RADIO NETHERLANDS WORLDWIDE
January 8, 2011
Dutch protestors tilt at windmills
When the Dutch start complaining about windmills, you know times have changed. We’re not talking about the picturesque landmarks snapped by hordes of tourists every year, but 86 towering wind turbines that will constitute the Netherlands’ biggest wind farm to date. The government has just given the go-ahead for the plan despite fierce protests from local residents in the scenic fishing village of Urk.
De Telegraaf focuses on those opposed to the plan, with the headline “Urk furious at construction of ‘iron curtain of windmills’”. “It’s an absurd plan,” blusters one campaigner. “It’s a prestige project for the minister and a disaster for Urk’s cultural and historical image.” They plan to take their objections to the highest authority in the land, and the European Court if need be.
De Volkskrant reports that the issue has split the community. A local farmer who wishes to remain nameless reveals: “The people who stand to make money are for and those who stand to lose out are against: it’s as simple as that. ... I used to be good friends with my neighbour, but that friendship’s been damaged beyond repair.”
1/5/11 Tattoo of the day: She REALLY digs wind turbines AND PSC lays welcome mat for wind developers on backs of rural Wisconsin residents AND Document links to the papers presented at the first international symposium on wind turbines and health impact
This new tattoo is only 30% efficient CLICK HERE FOR SOURCE
STRONG GUST FOR WIND FARMS?
A new rule could make it easier to build wind-energy projects in Wisconsin
January 4, 2010
By Craig Reber
A wind-siting rule that took effect in Wisconsin on Jan. 1 could open the door to wind farms in southwest Wisconsin.
The rule provides a path for obtaining a permit to build a wind farm -- as long as the project developers abide by the guidelines established by the state Public Service Commission. If a township or other municipality opts to regulate a wind-energy power system, its ordinances can't be more restrictive than the PSC's rules.
Basically, the PSC's rules trump any local ordinances.
In southwest Wisconsin, the new rule could pave the way for the development of the proposed White Oak wind project by Wind Capital Group that includes parts of Smel-ser, Hazel Green and Paris townships. The project has been on hold for more than two years.
"We believe that passage of the PSC's rule will certainly set the conditions in place that make development of wind facilities much more possible in Wisconsin," said Tom Green, Wind Capital senior manager of project development. "In reviewing the new rule and applying those rules to their plans for White Oak, they will have a better idea moving into the future of the viability of the project."
Ron Brisbois, Grant County Economic Development director, said the new law will allow communities to plan and give wind developers the freedom to create wind-farm strategies.
"That was what everybody was waiting on," Brisbois said of the White Oak project and another in northern Grant County. "This should allow them to move forward to secure financing and implement the design of the full layout of where the turbines will go."
"It's important," said Joe Alt, of rural Cuba City and a participant in the White Oak project, discussing the new rule. "It's definitely going to help get a wind farm going."
The White Oak project has its opponents, and the Smelser Township supervisors enacted a moratorium on wind farms in 2009. Foes said siting has and always will be the main concern of numerous Smelser Township residents. Some sought an 1,800-foot minimum setback requirement to minimize what they call the "noise, safety and health risks" to their families and their houses. Others cited concerns about falling property values because of the size and location of the towers, usually as high as 400 feet.
"We're just sitting in neutral right now," said Smelser Supervisor Arnie Rawson, who voted for the moratorium and who hadn't seen the new wind-siting rule as of Monday afternoon. "We are very open-minded on it, but we have to be careful to weigh in both sides."
Gabe Loeffelholz, Smelser Township chairman and a former state legislator, said there still are residents in favor of the moratorium. He isn't one of them.
"I don't know what lies ahead," Loeffelholz said, "but whether it's ethanol, solar power, or wind turbines as an alternative source of energy, I say go for it."
That's what former Gov. Jim Doyle and state lawmakers did previously. In October 2009, Doyle signed a bill (2009 Wisconsin Act 40) that called for state regulators to come up with statewide rules for wind farms that specified the conditions a local government entity could impose on the installation or use of a wind-energy system. The state Wind Siting Council formulated the rule after numerous public meetings, hearings, discussions and fine-tuning.
Earlier this month, the commission adjusted the requirements on two issues of critical importance to the wind industry: setback distances and compensation to neighboring residents, called a "Good Neighbor" payment.
Initially, the rule did not specify a definite setback distance between turbines and residences neighboring the host property. Now, municipalities cannot establish a setback distance on non-participating residences that is less than 1,250 feet.
Alt said the new rule allows for the owners of non-participating residences within a half-mile of a wind turbine to receive monetary compensation from the wind system owner.
"It's fair to everybody," he said.
If the wind farms move forward, Brisbois said both the participating townships and Grant County will receive revenue. Participating landowners will receive a new source of farm income from the leases on the wind turbines.
"This is an opportunity that not a lot of townships in Wisconsin have," he said. "It's somewhat unique. You can't just plop down a wind farm anywhere. You have to have the wind and the substations."
Author: Society for Wind Vigilance
Abstracts from the international symposium held October 29-31, 2010, Picton, Ontario, Canada, by courtesy of the Society for Wind Vigilance, Ontario. Click on a title to download the complete presentation. Or click here to download them all in a 16-MB zip file.
FRIDAY 7:00-9:30 pm
Session I: No Rules, No Caution, No Accountability
NO GLOBAL STANDARDS
[ view online ]
Abstract: The rapid expansion of the wind energy industry globally has resulted in governmental authorities at different levels responding to opposing pressures to create or modify regulations and planning guidelines for the siting of utility scale wind turbines. Siting guidelines for health, safety, cultural and natural heritage were reviewed and compared. The results indicate wide ranges of siting standards are being adopted. Government authorities have employed a variety of criteria, resulting in significant variation in the spatial separation between wind turbines and sensitive areas as well as the intensity of the development. Separation distances in many jurisdictions are less than those recommended by health professionals suggesting some in the population are at risk. Current trends in government planning and regulations are discussed.
John Harrison, PhD
IT’S PURE PHYSICS
[ view online ]
Abstract: The setback of wind turbines from homes and other sensitive receptors is determined by national and local regulations. These regulations specify a maximum noise level at the receptor and make use of sound propagation models. The models account for spherical spreading of the sound generated by the turbine, refraction of sound by wind speed and temperature gradients, absorption of sound energy by the atmosphere and the ground, and reflection of sound by the ground. In practice, the resulting setbacks result in considerable annoyance, sleep deprivation and consequent health problems for a significant proportion of people living among the turbines. The talk will review deficiencies in the regulations and limitations in the modelling.
Rick James, INCE
HOW WE GOT HERE
[ view online ]
Abstract: What was learned in the 1980′s was forgotten in the 1990′s and set the stage for the Wind Turbine Boom of the 2000′s. But the pillars of the position, that wind turbines are safe for use near people’s homes, are falling. An overview of the key arguments presented by the wind industry’s trade associations and their representatives who support their position will be discussed.
SATURDAY 8:30-10:00 am
Session II: What Clinicians Need to Know
KEY NOTE SPEAKER:
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD
DEFINING A SYNDROME
[ view online ]
Abstract: Wind Turbine Syndrome. Consider that no government, and certainly no health agency, anywhere on the face of the earth believes in it. Nor does the wind energy industry, which ridicules it as preposterous, telling sufferers they’re hysterical and making up their symptoms. Primary care physicians generally look the other way and plead ignorance or indifference. The media, meanwhile, treats it as an entertaining sideshow. How does one perform credible clinical research in the face of such massive and systematic denial, cover-up, and apathy? Where the research population is often silenced by “confidentiality clauses” or the fear of alienating neighbors and relatives — and potential buyers — should they reveal that their homes are acoustically toxic and, frankly, uninhabitable. Welcome to the past six years of my life. This morning I’m going to explain how I navigated this surreal landscape, employing the instruments of population biology, clinical medicine, and ethnography — along with the services of a first rate guardian angel.
Alec Salt, PhD Cochlear Physiology, MSc, BSc Biology
INFRASOUND: YOUR EARS HEAR IT BUT THEY DON’T TELL YOUR BRAIN
[ view online ]
Abstract: The ear is far more complex than a microphone. It actively amplifies high frequency sounds, so you hear them better, and likely works to actively cancel out infrasonic sounds, so that you don’t hear them. So, it is wrong to regard the ear as insensitive to infrasound. Indeed, measured electrical responses from the ear with infrasound can be larger than those for sounds in the acoustic range and these responses may alter function in a variety of ways. They may also be transmitted to the brain by subconscious pathways that do not represent “hearing”, but affect some people in other ways, such as by causing the sensation of “fullness” or perhaps disturbing sleep. It is therefore physiologically possible that prolonged exposure to the moderate levels of infrasound generated by wind turbines could have detrimental effects on people, mediated by unheard physiological changes in the ear. This work supported by NIDCD/NIH, grant number DC01368, 2005-2010.
SATURDAY 10:30-12:00 am
Session III: Cause and Effect
Arline Bronzaft, BA, MA, PhD
CHILDREN: CANARIES IN THE COAL MINE
[ view online ]
Abstract: Research linking loud sound to hearing loss in youngsters is now widespread, resulting in the issuance of warnings to protect children’s hearing. However, studies attesting to the adverse effects of intrusive sounds and noise on children’s overall health and psychological well-being have not received similar attention. This, despite the fact, that many studies have demonstrated that intrusive noises, e.g., from passing traffic or overhead aircraft, adversely affect children’s cardiovascular system, memory, language development and learning acquisition. While some American schools have received funds to abate noises from intrusive aircraft, many schools still expose children to the noises from passing traffic and overhead aircraft. Additionally, homes and schools expose youngsters to the impacts of interior noises as well. Discussion will center on the harmful effects of noise on children, what has been done to remedy the problem, and what needs to be done further to lessen the impacts of noise, including low-level vibrations.
Christopher Hanning, BSc, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FRCA, MD
THE TORMENT OF SLEEP DISTURBANCE
[ view online ]
Abstract: The most common complaint of those exposed to industrial wind turbine noise (WTN) is sleep disturbance. Many of the other symptoms, fatigue, headache, nausea, memory problems and tiredness are probably secondary to sleep disturbance. Sleep is by the brain and for the brain. It’s principal purpose seems to be the consolidation of memory. Loss of sleep, in the short term, causes daytime sleepiness, fatigue, problems with memory and thought processes and, in the longer term an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. There is now a large body of evidence proving beyond any reasonable doubt that sleep is disturbed and health impaired by wind turbines at distances up to 2km, at noise levels claimed to be safe by the industry.
SATURDAY 12:30-1:30 pm
Session Working Luncheon
A JOURNEY OF DISCOVERY
[ view online ]
Abstract: Over the past decade, the global wind sector has experienced phenomenal growth thanks largely to the industry’s ability to portray itself as “green.” But that growth will be difficult to sustain for several reasons: the industry has overstated its ability to deliver meaningful savings with regard to carbon dioxide emissions; it faces a growing backlash from landowners irritated by noise and flicker caused by the turbines as well as from ratepayers who are learning the high costs of “green” energy; and finally, the industry must compete, particularly in the US and Canada, with low natural gas prices for the foreseeable future.
SATURDAY 2:00-3:30 pm
Session IV: Research and Motion
Michael A. Nissenbaum, MD
DELETERIOUS HEALTH EFFECTS ARE UNDENIABLE
[ view online ]
Abstract: In the Real World: Adverse Health Effects Related to Industrial Wind Turbines – Controlled Studies at Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, Maine. Following reports of adverse health complaints among residents of Mars Hill, Maine, a pilot study was undertaken to provide information to the Public Health Subcommittee of the Maine Medical Association in the first half of 2009. This represented the world’s first controlled study of adverse health effects related to industrial wind turbines. Adverse effects are real, and significant. The findings from this pilot study will be discussed. Since the pilot study was completed, a larger, more detailed and standardized controlled study has been undertaken at Mars Hill and Vinalhaven, Maine, utilizing validated questionnaires. Preliminary findings from these will be presented.
Carl V. Phillips, PhD
THE ABSENCE OF HEALTH STUDIES PROVES NOTHING
[ view online ]
Abstract: The claim that there is no evidence of negative health effects from wind turbines near residences is clearly false since there are ample credible reports of people experiencing problems. Many of these offer compelling case- crossover data, with individuals experiencing changes in symptoms when changing the exposure. But to the extent that we do not have as much data as would be ideal – which is certainly the situation – the problem is the failure to carry out the optimal studies. Obviously the lack of evidence resulting from the lack of studies is not informative. We should demand affirmative evidence about what risk exists, and make decisions that admit and consider whatever is found. Industry should pay for independent research but failing that, creative solutions are called for. I hope to develop a self-administered research tool for collecting case-crossover data that could be used by any interested community.
SATURDAY 4:00-5:30 pm
Session V: The Consequences – Violation of Social Justice
Carmen Krogh, BSc Pharmacy
A GROSS INJUSTICE
[ view online ]
Abstract: “I trusted the wind energy companies.” “I can’t believe the government is doing this to me.” Those experiencing symptoms feel victimized by the very systems that would normally protect them. The lack of social justice hurts deeply. Many families are affected by the industrial wind turbines sited too close to their homes. In some cases Ontario families have abandoned their homes to protect their health. Some have had to sign non-disclosure agreements as a condition of a buy out of their homes by the wind developer. Their grief is exacerbated by the emotional toll, disturbed living conditions, loss of enjoyment of their homes and property, and financial loss and the negative impact to the health of their families.
Eric K. Gillespie, LLB
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE LAW
[ view online ]
Abstract: The advent of large-scale industrial wind turbine (IWT) projects has brought with it many legal challenges but also opportunities. Families, communities and municipalities are more aware of the risks posed by IWTs. At the same time, legal options are starting to be pursued that may lead to local resolutions of issues, or potentially provincial, national or even international changes. These legal strategies include (i) private litigation brought by individuals, (ii) public interest litigation raising broader issues; (iii) by-laws, resolutions and other steps taken by local government, and (iv) administrative hearings outside of the court system. All of these areas will be reviewed, using Ontario as a case study but with examples of how communities around the world are also responding.
SUNDAY 8:30-10:00 am
Session VI: Social Marketing – Disinformation
Dale Goldhawk, Broadcaster
MEDIA AND PRE-EMPTIVE STEREOTYPING
[ view online ]
Abstract: I believe that advocacy journalism, used sensibly and carefully, backed up by proven facts and presented with passionate conviction, can influence and even change public policy. I am in my 43rd year as a journalist and have seen it happen countless times. And it happens at any stage in a war against policy, dumb laws and stubborn champions of bad ideas. Advocacy journalism was a major triggering factory that stopped a dump site project, even after the hole had been dug, getting ready for the garbage that never came. And this was a project where we were told it was a “done deal” and that nothing could be done to stop it. There are no done deals with projects that are counter to the best interests of people — and that includes wind turbines. Advocacy journalists would do well to remember the prescriptive words of Mohandas Gandhi: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Ross McKitrick, PhD
COAL KILLS: WHERE ARE THE BODIES?
[ view online ]
Abstract: This presentation will look at the evidence regarding the health effects of coal-fired power generation in Ontario. The Ontario government maintains that the risk is large enough to necessitate shutting down the two major coal-fired generating stations in Southern Ontario and replacing them with, among other things, wind turbine installations. I will explain the nature of the Lambton and Nanticoke generating facilities and the network of thermal power plants in the northeast corridor of which they are a part. I will also explain their air pollution control features and the potential effects on Southern Ontario air quality from eliminating these plants, as estimated in the province’s own cost- benefit analysis. I will then discuss observed air pollution trends in Ontario since the 1960s and show that the claims that current air pollution levels result in thousands of cases of illness and death are not supported in up-to- date, peer-reviewed literature.
Brett Horner, BA, CMA
ANNOYANCE: A CLINICAL MISNOMER?
VOW (VICTIMS OF WIND)
Conclusion: Government Policy for Renewable Energy implementation overrides adverse health concerns. Until 3rd-party human health research is conducted to determine safe setbacks and noise levels from industrial wind turbine facilities, including risks of electrical pollution, further development should cease and existing sites mitigated or decommissioned.
Barbara Ashbee and contributors globally
POLICY AND POLITICAL PROCESS: The Consequences
These comments are a compilation drawn from personal communications and interviews of those suffering ill health from the onset of industrial wind turbine operations. Their frustration and loss of social justice is apparent. Any compassionate member of society cannot help but be moved.
Elizabeth E. Wheatley, PhD
AN INTEGRATIVE CURRICULUM FOR THE WINDS OF CHANGE: Advancing Critical Thinking About the Michigan Wind Rush
[ view online ]
The Global wind industry is colonizing more and more of rural, wild, and coastal America with its expansive fleet of colossal, propeller-style wind turbines. Michigan has emerged as a favored target among wind developers for further deployment of industrial wind zones, given its legislative mandates for ever-increasing production of “renewable” energy, its vast swaths of agricultural land, extensive coastlines, and the absence of statewide health or safety regulations pertaining to wind energy generation. This presentation summarizes a university-level integrative curriculum designed to inspire and encourage undergraduate students’ critical thinking about the implications of wind energy development for Michigan citizens and communities. The curriculum addresses cultural, political and economic forces shaping wind energy development in Michigan, compares various forms of electricity generation methods and their impacts on humans, animals, and ecosystems; and reviews the emerging evidence of adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines in light of sociological theories of reflexive modernization as well as “popular” epidemiological struggles over socially contested environmental disease. The curriculum is a work in progress and is offered in two parts. Each part of the curriculum is offered as one of several themes addressed in two courses I teach: Part I: Social Problems; and Part II: Sociology of Health Care.
Lorrie Gillis, Protocol Administrator, and Carmen Krogh, BScPharm
THE RELATIONSHIP OF INCREASED MOOD ALTERATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES: Implications and Social Justice (WindVOiCe – Wind Vigilance for Ontario Communities)
[ view online ]
Industrial wind turbine projects became operational in rural Ontario, Canada, in 2005. Within a short period of time, residents near the projects reported noticing adverse health effects. By 2008, reports of health problems became more common and had been associated with the advent of Industrial Wind Turbines. In some cases Ontario families have abandoned their homes to protect their health. Government vigilance and long term surveillance programs for industrial wind turbines do not exist in Canada. Volunteers in various affected communities organized and funded an Ontario-based vigilance health survey to capture and document the array of adverse health effects being reported. Reports are now being received from other jurisdictions. Wind Vigilance for Ontario Communities (WindVOiCe) is a community-based self-reporting health survey based on the principles of Health Canada’s Canada Vigilance Program designed to monitor suspected drug reactions. This survey is ongoing. WindVOiCe respondents report altered quality of life. Sleep disturbance is the most common health complaint. Other symptoms include but are not limited to inner ear problems, cardiac concerns, and headaches. Respondents report in the comments section of the survey, anger, frustration, and loss of cognitive functions such as inability to concentrate, ‘foggy thinking’ and short term memory loss. Depression anxiety and stress are common. The symptoms of adverse health effects reported are consistent with other surveys and research conducted by clinicians such as Harry, Pierpont, Nissenbaum. Parents have responded on behalf of their children and indicated adverse reactions such as vomiting, nausea, nose bleeds and headaches. In the comments section of the survey, some respondents describe their emotional toll. They describe disturbed living conditions, loss of enjoyment of their homes and property, and financial loss due to the negative impact to the health of their families which further contributes to increased stress levels. Informal discussions with respondents indicate some family members grieve deeply. These include those who suffer adverse health effects, those who had to abandon their homes, and those who had to sign non-disclosure agreements as a condition of a buy out of their homes by the wind developer. They feel victimized by the very systems that normally would protect them. The lack of social justice hurts deeply.
THE PROBLEMS WITH ‘NOISE NUMBERS’ FOR WIND FARM NOISE ASSESSMENT
[ view online ]
Conclusions: Personal perception of a sound is investigated through assessment of personal noise sensitivity, personal perception of the characteristics of the sound and observable adverse health effects. Noise includes vibration in any form that can be “felt” by a person. There is, in my opinion and despite the differences in opinion as to cause, considerable agreement between the parties – residents, clinicians and acousticians – as to observable health effects from unwanted sound. There are clear and definable markers for adverse health effects before and after the establishment of a wind farm and clear and agreed health effects due to stress after a wind farm has started operation. It is the mechanism of the physical or mental process from one to the other that is not yet defined or agreed between affected persons, clinicians and psychoacousticians. There has, however, been considerable work recently (May-June 2010) on the possible mechanism between infrasound and adverse health effects.
Christopher Hanning, BSc, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FRCA, MD
WIND TURBINE NOISE, SLEEP AND HEALTH
[ view online ]
Summary: Section 1 sets out my expertise in sleep medicine and physiology, my brief from CFA, the scope of the report and source material. Section 2 reviews the basic physiology of sleep. Noise can disturb sleep by causing awakenings, which are remembered and arousals, which are not recalled but are more likely. Both disrupt sleep making it unrefreshing. Research on the effects of wind turbine noise has concentrated on remembered awakenings and has thus underestimated the effects. Inadequate or poor quality sleep has many health consequences apart from daytime sleepiness and fatigue. These include obesity, poor memory, increased risk of diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. Vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly may be at greater risk. Section 3 reviews research on wind turbine noise, sleep disturbance and health. These include the major contributions of van den Berg and Pedersen and the dose-response relationship derived from their data. Also considered are the Salford study and the Hayes McKenzie Partnership study commissioned by the DTI. Recent major reports by WHO and RIVM are reviewed, both of which mandate lower night time noise levels than are permitted by ETSU-R-97. Predicted external turbine noise should not exceed 35dB to avoid disturbance to sleep and 40dB to avoid risks to health. Experience of existing wind farms mandates a setback of at least 1.5km in order to avoid disturbance to sleep. It is concluded that there is compelling evidence that wind turbine noise can and does disturb sleep and impair the health of those living too close and that current guidance is inadequate protection. Section 4 reviews the means of mitigating wind turbine noise to prevent sleep disturbance. It is concluded that external turbine noise levels of less than 35dB(A) or a setback of at least 1.5km of the turbines is necessary to prevent unacceptable levels of sleep disturbance and potential risk to health. Section 5 reviews UK planning guidance and argues that the evidence presented constitute material considerations. Section 6 presents the conclusions of the report. Section 7 lists the documents cited in support of this paper.
SUBMITTED SLIDE SHOW
Author: U.S. Institute of Medicine Committee on Sleep Medicine and Research
It is estimated that 50 to 70 million Americans chronically suffer from a disorder of sleep and wakefulness, hindering daily functioning and adversely affecting health and longevity. The cumulative long-term effects of sleep deprivation and sleep disorders have been associated with a wide range of deleterious health consequences including an increased risk of hypertension, diabetes, obesity, depression, heart attack, and stroke. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on Sleep Medicine and Research concluded that although clinical activities and scientific opportunities in the field are expanding, awareness among the general public and health care professionals is low, given the magnitude of the burden. The available human resources and capacity are insufficient to further develop the science and to diagnose and treat individuals with sleep disorders. Therefore, the current situation necessitates a larger and more interdisciplinary workforce. Traditional scientific and medical disciplines need to be attracted into the somnology and sleep medicine field. Renewed and revitalized commitments to the field from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), academic health centers, private foundations, and professional societies are essential to ensure appropriate public and professional awareness, education and training, basic and clinical research, and patient care. Finally, the fragmentation of research and clinical care currently present in most academic institutions requires the creation of accredited interdisciplinary sleep programs in academic institutions.
- The National Academies
- Committee on Sleep Medicine and Research
- Board on Health Sciences Policy
- Independent Report Reviewers
- Organization of Academic Health Centers
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Sleep Physiology
- 3. Extent and Health Consequences of Chronic Sleep Loss and Sleep Disorders
- 4. Functional and Economic Impact of Sleep Loss and Sleep-Related Disorders
- 5. Improving Awareness, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Sleep Disorders
- 6. Ensuring Adequate Diagnosis and Treatment: Access, Capacity, and Technology Development
- 7. Opportunities to Improve Career Development in Somnology
- 8. Bolstering Somnology and Sleep Disorders Research Programs
- 9. Building Sleep Programs in Academic Health Centers