The Maturation of Wind Energy Opposition
An international movement against wind energy is maturing – across the globe today there exist over 1,000 anti-wind groups. The origin of the opposition is, in some instances, fossil fuel and nuclear backed interest groups and, at other times, local community members with genuine concern. Regardless of the source, this burgeoning trend must be dealt with effectively, transparently and compassionately. The alternative: once-trusted company names and brands become vilified, inspiring antagonism and encouraging locals to unify against wind energy projects. This article is the introduction to a series of topical columns which will dig into the causes of anti-wind sentiment and the maturing of opposition against wind energy development, including groups, popular arguments and their proposed countermeasures, as well as an introduction to the spectrum of solutions wind energy professionals can tap to quell what may otherwise become an unmanageable storm of hostility.
By Tiff Thompson, Principal, NIMBY Consulting, USA
{access view=!registered}Only logged in users can view the full text of the article.{/access}{access view=registered}The concerns of groups opposing wind energy range from outrageous to plausible. To its credit, the wind energy industry has spent time and money examining the health impact of wind energy facilities, to find, predominantly, the common thread of ‘subjectivity’ influencing individual disturbance. Most recently, the Public Health Division of Oregon’s Health Authority released a finding of no conclusively significant hazards in wind energy facilities, Ontario’s provincial government found that low frequency noise and infrasound from wind turbines are not causally related to adverse health effects, and a Massachusetts-commissioned Department of Environmental Protection report found no negative health ffects to individual living near turbines. Regardless, a community up in arms about a local development bodes ill for all involved.
The Origin of Opposition
Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and growing at a rapid rate, much anti-wind energy sentiment is backed by arguments of climate scepticism, arguments often planted in public interest groups by competing, non-renewable energy lobbies threatened by the presence of Renewable Portfolio Standards, proposed cap and trade legislation, and looming climate treaties. Other arguments frequently cited against wind energy include visual intrusion, noise, ‘wind turbine syndrome’, electromagnetic interference, harm to birds and other wildlife, diminishing property values and distrust of wind energy developers. While the driving force behind anti-wind groups is often funded by the deep pockets of non-renewables, at the local level the driving force is often plain citizen concern. For those waging arguments out of genuine fear, the prospect of an industrial-scale wind turbine within visible distance from their homes appears more important than seemingly distant implications of climate change.
Extreme Setbacks Proposed as Solutions
Many opposing groups call for compromises in turbine siting, the most popular being extreme setbacks of turbines from homes and other buildings. Early in 2011, in Waterloo, South Australia, residents gathered at the Parliament, arguing for a 5-kilometre setback from all homes. On the web, a number of petitions call for 1 to 5 mile (about 1.5 to 8 kilometre) setbacks from property lines, residences, schools, places of business, health care facilities, public roads, paths and recreation areas. Dr Nina Pierpont, author of Wind Turbine Syndrome and authority to many anti-wind groups, argues that ‘2 kilometers, or 1.24 miles’ is the shortest setback from residences that communities should consider. Most developers know, however, that finding landowners these days with multiple, contiguous sections of property greater than 1 x 1 mile is becoming incredibly rare. That is to say, setbacks over 1 mile will effectively kill any wind project, even in the most rural settings.
Technological Advancements
The issues cited against wind are many, but not often valid. The wind farms typically referenced in oppositional arguments are, indeed, poorly sited and often the first the industry erected. Fortunately, we have seen numerous advancements in quieting turbines, detecting birds, and even curtailing or de-rating the operation of the machines to avoid flicker. To date, mechanical noise prevention is being made possible via vibration isolation, vibration suppression and techniques for fault detection. Furthermore, developments in reducing aerodynamic noise are emerging. Varying the rotation speed of blades and increasing the pitch angle has been useful in reducing noise. Strategies such as these, while successful at reducing noise, unfortunately also cause significant power loss. Alternative solutions are in development: one example of many is blade modification – adding serrations to reduce noise without any power loss.
The Subjectivity, Science and Psychology of Wind Energy Impacts
In peer-reviewed studies, wind energy annoyance has been statistically associated with wind turbine noise, but found to be more strongly related to more subjective measures, such as visual impact, attitude to wind turbines and sensitivity to noise (Knopper and Ollson: ‘Health effects of wind turbines: A review of the literature’, Environmental Health, 2011). Much of the scientific review of wind energy disturbance has made a strong connection between subjective measures, such as trust, community engagement, goodwill and fairness, and the acceptance and support of a local wind farm. And recent Dutch research presented in a New South Wales hearing by Dr Stephen Palmer, Medical Officer of Health, Regional Public Health Office, noted that landowners who receive financial benefit from wind turbines on their properties seem to sleep better than those without any monetary compensation. The notion that subjectivity is largely in play in individuals’ perception of wind energy is incredibly useful for developers in the planning process, as it encourages active community engagement during early development stages.
Development In and Among Communities
Extreme resistance movements often occur when projects are not first vetted in the community, leading to locals’ surprise, as well as feelings of belittlement, subordination and indignation. When a community draws battle lines, they are not usually based on the project, but rather on the community’s collective, reactive emotions.
At this stage, the developer has already lost credibility. Logical appeal alone will not calm this level of distress, foremost because the source of concern is emotional – fear and distrust – backed by misinformation. Developers must enter communities being conscious of the brokering of a public–private partnership founded upon trust, accountability, mutual benefit and feelings of ownership. One successful means of this type of partnership is via a cooperative ownership approach – a model that may prove attractive to smaller developers, but less palatable to large balance sheet financed firms.
A Toolkit of Solutions
Fortunately, the spectrum of solutions for developers facing opposition is vast. The range of options corresponds directly with the level of opposition being faced. In its early stages, distrust of wind energy developers and misinformation can be handled with a soft approach and through many routes. While budgets, schedules and return on investment are indispensably important to a project, the main issue for a community will be a project’s imposition upon their treasured views, way of life and community. If handled improperly, opposition digs in and community division arises. With opposition entrenched, a tougher and more narrowed approach to issue resolution is often necessary, though less appealing to all involved, as well as more costly, resource intensive and lengthy.
The Community-Conscious Approach
Starting the greenfield development process off correctly can save developers time, energy and money that might otherwise be invested in defending their project. Although seemingly counterintuitive, imperative for successful development is the citizens’ increased influence over, participation in, and control of what happens in their specific geographic environments. To understand the power of the individual (and consequently, the collective) evaluation process of wind energy facilities will greatly behoove all developers. Via understanding the value of local and individual subjectivity, the developer who addresses community concerns explicitly and aggressively up front will ‘reduce the health impact from noise produced by wind turbines’, as noted by the Oregon Health Authority in their recent Health Impact Assessment of Oregon wind developments.
Boots on the Ground
The ‘face’ of the company, those individuals in the fields shaking the landowners’ hands, must be educated, mature and emotionally intelligent. Those trained in the appropriate means of presenting a project, explaining leases, listening to concerns and fielding questions will be successful. Landowners and community members must feel they have a trustworthy ‘go-to’ who will provide them with enough sound information to make their decision comfortably. Since a project is something that both the community and the wind farm owner must deal with for 30 plus years, a firm foundation based upon trust, goodwill and active involvement in the public process is indispensable.
In Summary
Although it is possible for a developer to win the war with a community in dissent, it is easier and more pleasurable to start off on the right foot, working closely with the locals, engendering trust and bringing their involvement into the siting process. The typical top-down approach to development, where the community is the last component taken into consideration, may kill a number of future projects, though it ought not to be yours. The danger in the maturation of wind energy opposition is its contagiousness. Its spread will lead to the shrinking of a developer’s lead-time to make an earnest introduction. By asking for a community’s partnership in advance of development, both parties might peaceably live with and benefit from the project for some time to come.
Biography of the Author
Tiff Thompson, Principal at NIMBY Consulting, is an expert in community-based strategy for wind energy developments. She has developed over 8,000MW of wind energy throughout the central and western USA – procuring over 350,000 acres (140,000 hectares) of land – and trained fleets of field agents in site acquisition and legal contract interpretation. She has a Master’s degree in Rhetoric and Political Culture from the University of Maryland and a Master’s in Depth Psychology from Pacifica Graduate Institute.{/access}
An international movement against wind energy is maturing – across the globe today there exist over 1,000 anti-wind groups. The origin of the opposition is, in some instances, fossil fuel and nuclear backed interest groups and, at other times, local community members with genuine concern. Regardless of the source, this burgeoning trend must be dealt with effectively, transparently and compassionately. The alternative: once-trusted company names and brands become vilified, inspiring antagonism and encouraging locals to unify against wind energy projects. This article is the introduction to a series of topical columns which will dig into the causes of anti-wind sentiment and the maturing of opposition against wind energy development, including groups, popular arguments and their proposed countermeasures, as well as an introduction to the spectrum of solutions wind energy professionals can tap to quell what may otherwise become an unmanageable storm of hostility.By Tiff Thompson, Principal, NIMBY Consulting, USA
{access view=!registered}Only logged in users can view the full text of the article.{/access}{access view=registered}The concerns of groups opposing wind energy range from outrageous to plausible. To its credit, the wind energy industry has spent time and money examining the health impact of wind energy facilities, to find, predominantly, the common thread of ‘subjectivity’ influencing individual disturbance. Most recently, the Public Health Division of Oregon’s Health Authority released a finding of no conclusively significant hazards in wind energy facilities, Ontario’s provincial government found that low frequency noise and infrasound from wind turbines are not causally related to adverse health effects, and a Massachusetts-commissioned Department of Environmental Protection report found no negative health ffects to individual living near turbines. Regardless, a community up in arms about a local development bodes ill for all involved.
The Origin of Opposition
Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is occurring and growing at a rapid rate, much anti-wind energy sentiment is backed by arguments of climate scepticism, arguments often planted in public interest groups by competing, non-renewable energy lobbies threatened by the presence of Renewable Portfolio Standards, proposed cap and trade legislation, and looming climate treaties. Other arguments frequently cited against wind energy include visual intrusion, noise, ‘wind turbine syndrome’, electromagnetic interference, harm to birds and other wildlife, diminishing property values and distrust of wind energy developers. While the driving force behind anti-wind groups is often funded by the deep pockets of non-renewables, at the local level the driving force is often plain citizen concern. For those waging arguments out of genuine fear, the prospect of an industrial-scale wind turbine within visible distance from their homes appears more important than seemingly distant implications of climate change.
Extreme Setbacks Proposed as Solutions
Many opposing groups call for compromises in turbine siting, the most popular being extreme setbacks of turbines from homes and other buildings. Early in 2011, in Waterloo, South Australia, residents gathered at the Parliament, arguing for a 5-kilometre setback from all homes. On the web, a number of petitions call for 1 to 5 mile (about 1.5 to 8 kilometre) setbacks from property lines, residences, schools, places of business, health care facilities, public roads, paths and recreation areas. Dr Nina Pierpont, author of Wind Turbine Syndrome and authority to many anti-wind groups, argues that ‘2 kilometers, or 1.24 miles’ is the shortest setback from residences that communities should consider. Most developers know, however, that finding landowners these days with multiple, contiguous sections of property greater than 1 x 1 mile is becoming incredibly rare. That is to say, setbacks over 1 mile will effectively kill any wind project, even in the most rural settings.
Technological Advancements
The issues cited against wind are many, but not often valid. The wind farms typically referenced in oppositional arguments are, indeed, poorly sited and often the first the industry erected. Fortunately, we have seen numerous advancements in quieting turbines, detecting birds, and even curtailing or de-rating the operation of the machines to avoid flicker. To date, mechanical noise prevention is being made possible via vibration isolation, vibration suppression and techniques for fault detection. Furthermore, developments in reducing aerodynamic noise are emerging. Varying the rotation speed of blades and increasing the pitch angle has been useful in reducing noise. Strategies such as these, while successful at reducing noise, unfortunately also cause significant power loss. Alternative solutions are in development: one example of many is blade modification – adding serrations to reduce noise without any power loss.
The Subjectivity, Science and Psychology of Wind Energy Impacts
In peer-reviewed studies, wind energy annoyance has been statistically associated with wind turbine noise, but found to be more strongly related to more subjective measures, such as visual impact, attitude to wind turbines and sensitivity to noise (Knopper and Ollson: ‘Health effects of wind turbines: A review of the literature’, Environmental Health, 2011). Much of the scientific review of wind energy disturbance has made a strong connection between subjective measures, such as trust, community engagement, goodwill and fairness, and the acceptance and support of a local wind farm. And recent Dutch research presented in a New South Wales hearing by Dr Stephen Palmer, Medical Officer of Health, Regional Public Health Office, noted that landowners who receive financial benefit from wind turbines on their properties seem to sleep better than those without any monetary compensation. The notion that subjectivity is largely in play in individuals’ perception of wind energy is incredibly useful for developers in the planning process, as it encourages active community engagement during early development stages.
Development In and Among Communities
Extreme resistance movements often occur when projects are not first vetted in the community, leading to locals’ surprise, as well as feelings of belittlement, subordination and indignation. When a community draws battle lines, they are not usually based on the project, but rather on the community’s collective, reactive emotions.
At this stage, the developer has already lost credibility. Logical appeal alone will not calm this level of distress, foremost because the source of concern is emotional – fear and distrust – backed by misinformation. Developers must enter communities being conscious of the brokering of a public–private partnership founded upon trust, accountability, mutual benefit and feelings of ownership. One successful means of this type of partnership is via a cooperative ownership approach – a model that may prove attractive to smaller developers, but less palatable to large balance sheet financed firms.
A Toolkit of Solutions
Fortunately, the spectrum of solutions for developers facing opposition is vast. The range of options corresponds directly with the level of opposition being faced. In its early stages, distrust of wind energy developers and misinformation can be handled with a soft approach and through many routes. While budgets, schedules and return on investment are indispensably important to a project, the main issue for a community will be a project’s imposition upon their treasured views, way of life and community. If handled improperly, opposition digs in and community division arises. With opposition entrenched, a tougher and more narrowed approach to issue resolution is often necessary, though less appealing to all involved, as well as more costly, resource intensive and lengthy.
The Community-Conscious Approach
Starting the greenfield development process off correctly can save developers time, energy and money that might otherwise be invested in defending their project. Although seemingly counterintuitive, imperative for successful development is the citizens’ increased influence over, participation in, and control of what happens in their specific geographic environments. To understand the power of the individual (and consequently, the collective) evaluation process of wind energy facilities will greatly behoove all developers. Via understanding the value of local and individual subjectivity, the developer who addresses community concerns explicitly and aggressively up front will ‘reduce the health impact from noise produced by wind turbines’, as noted by the Oregon Health Authority in their recent Health Impact Assessment of Oregon wind developments.
Boots on the Ground
The ‘face’ of the company, those individuals in the fields shaking the landowners’ hands, must be educated, mature and emotionally intelligent. Those trained in the appropriate means of presenting a project, explaining leases, listening to concerns and fielding questions will be successful. Landowners and community members must feel they have a trustworthy ‘go-to’ who will provide them with enough sound information to make their decision comfortably. Since a project is something that both the community and the wind farm owner must deal with for 30 plus years, a firm foundation based upon trust, goodwill and active involvement in the public process is indispensable.
In Summary
Although it is possible for a developer to win the war with a community in dissent, it is easier and more pleasurable to start off on the right foot, working closely with the locals, engendering trust and bringing their involvement into the siting process. The typical top-down approach to development, where the community is the last component taken into consideration, may kill a number of future projects, though it ought not to be yours. The danger in the maturation of wind energy opposition is its contagiousness. Its spread will lead to the shrinking of a developer’s lead-time to make an earnest introduction. By asking for a community’s partnership in advance of development, both parties might peaceably live with and benefit from the project for some time to come.
Biography of the Author
Tiff Thompson, Principal at NIMBY Consulting, is an expert in community-based strategy for wind energy developments. She has developed over 8,000MW of wind energy throughout the central and western USA – procuring over 350,000 acres (140,000 hectares) of land – and trained fleets of field agents in site acquisition and legal contract interpretation. She has a Master’s degree in Rhetoric and Political Culture from the University of Maryland and a Master’s in Depth Psychology from Pacifica Graduate Institute.{/access}
