Wind Power Destroyed Quality of Life – Residents Raise Alarms About Sleep Problems, Intrusion, and Unfair Compensation

Behind the talk of green transition and fossil-free electricity are people whose daily lives have been fundamentally changed. In villages near the large wind farms in Jämtland, locals describe how the silence has disappeared, how their sleep is disturbed, and how the landscape has taken on the character of an industrial site. Meanwhile, criticism is growing against a compensation system perceived as both unfair and detached from reality. Samnytt has interviewed several affected residents.

Munkflohögen is a small village in the Berg municipality of Jämtland, surrounded by forests, wetlands, and expansive hills. Here, in a sparsely populated area with great distances between households, a large-scale wind farm area has developed, with numerous turbines scattered throughout the landscape. What was once characterized by tranquility and unspoiled nature has now changed with the expansion.

When Mikael Gälliner bought his house, there was no indication that a wind farm would be built in the area. Today, he lives with about 20 turbines in front of him—and many more within a few kilometers. For him, the main issue isn’t the view but the noise.

– When I bought this, nobody mentioned that a wind farm would be built here, he tells Samnytt.

He describes how the noise from the turbines, especially under certain weather conditions and times of the year, directly interferes with everyday life. The autumn is said to be the worst. That’s when sleep is clearly affected.

– You get poor sleep. The days it’s bad, that’s just how it is, he says.

It has nothing to do with electricity prices. You’re disturbed by it no matter where it is in Sweden, so the compensation should be the same throughout Sweden.

Mikael Gälliner, Munkflohögen

For Gälliner, the issues are intensified by his hearing loss. He explains that noises are harder to block out.

– We who are hard of hearing seek out sounds, he says.

At the same time, government proposals for financial compensation to nearby residents have sparked strong reactions. In brief, it involves annual payments—about 38,000 SEK in southern Sweden and around 19,000 SEK in the north.

Among locals, several describe it as an attempt to “bribe” acceptance for a reality that’s already been established. The criticism concerns not only the amounts but the principle: that compensation is tied to electricity prices and geography rather than how people are actually affected by noise, changes to their living environment, and falling property values.

For those already living with wind power, the proposal also feels belated—and in some cases does not even apply to them.

How is this affecting you financially right now?

– The wind power development has affected the house’s attractiveness and has in practice made a future sale harder, answers Mikael Gälliner. He continues:

– The day my wife and I want to sell, it will be difficult to sell.

At the same time, he feels that residents already living with the turbines are left out of the current political compensation discussion.

The proposals for financial compensation to neighbors have sparked debate, but Gälliner argues the amounts are insufficient and the reasoning behind them is wrong.

– 19,000 SEK is just a drop in the ocean, he says, and is particularly opposed to the compensation being higher in southern Sweden than in the north.

For him, it’s a matter of principle—if compensation is to make up for people being disturbed by wind power, it should be based on the actual intrusion, not regional electricity prices or other market conditions.

But isn’t electricity more expensive in southern Sweden?

– It has nothing to do with electricity prices. You’re disturbed by it no matter where it is in Sweden, so the compensation should be the same throughout Sweden.

He is also calling for more noise measurements and greater responsiveness from authorities and stakeholders. According to him, he has long tried to have measurements conducted on his own property, but without success.

– There should be more noise and disturbance measurements for people living nearby, he says.

The first time I went up there, I experienced a silence I’ve never heard before. It felt powerful, so quiet was it. That silence is gone now.

Bengt Hagström, Munkflohögen

It isn’t just the noise that has changed people’s experience of the place. According to Gälliner, the area around the turbines has also taken on a different character. In winter, there is a risk of ice formation on the blades, and he points out signs warning people that entering the area is at their own risk.

– You get the sense that it is an industrial area, he says.

At certain times of the year, he and others avoid parts of the land that they used to roam freely. It’s not just the noise or the flashing lights, but the whole sense that the landscape no longer feels free and natural.

“I moved here for the peace and quiet”

Bengt Hagström, who also lives in the area, offers a more reflective but still critical perspective. He moved from Gothenburg to Jämtland precisely for the tranquility and stillness the place offered.

– I moved up here for the peace and quiet, both among people and out in nature.

Bengt Hagström, Munkflohögen. Photo: Facsimile Facebook.

He especially remembers, after moving from Gothenburg, the first days in the area and the almost surreal silence he encountered.

– The first time I went up there, I experienced a silence I have never heard before. It felt powerful, so quiet was it. That silence is gone now.

However, Hagström doesn’t take the role of categorical wind power opponent. On the contrary, he says that if wind power is to be built, it makes sense to place turbines where few people live. He’s also clear that he supports nuclear power, which he considers clean.

Everyone wants electricity, he notes, and electricity supply is part of welfare. But that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be objections.

But if the company breaks even, should we not get anything? And if it runs a deficit, should we pay instead?

Bengt Hagström, Munkflohögen

He believes that today’s approach to compensation misses the central issue—how much a person is actually affected in their daily life.

– I think the compensation should be for the intrusion into my daily environment.

According to him, it’s misleading to base compensation solely on distance from the turbines. Two people can live relatively close to the same installation but be affected completely differently, depending on the terrain, vegetation, sight lines, and how the sound travels.

– It’s not the distance that determines how much you hear, he says, noting that Mikael Gälliner, although perhaps not the closest neighbor, is more affected because the sound reaches him differently.

For this reason, Hagström argues, compensation should be more closely based on actual impact and assessed more individually. He states that he himself doesn’t experience the same degree of disturbance in his daily life, while others in the village do.

At the same time, Hagström shares the criticism that compensation is proposed to be higher in southern Sweden than in the north. He calls the reasoning strange and believes it confuses two separate matters—the value of electricity and the value of a person’s living environment.

– It’s the same intrusion. Regardless of how much profit—or loss—the wind company makes, the intrusion is the same.

Demonstration against wind power in Ramsjöhult. Photo: Facsimile Facebook.

Some say all wind power companies show negative results in Sweden?

– But if the company breaks even, should we not get anything? And if it runs a deficit, should we pay instead?

Hagström also points out that wind power has brought more than just a changed horizon. During periods of ice formation, people avoid certain parts of the nature area.

Another issue that has raised questions locally was an incident in which a turbine blade broke off. According to Bengt Hagström, the event received very limited attention.

– There was a small notice in the Östersund newspaper for maybe a day, then it was gone. Dead silent, he says.

He feels the incident quickly vanished from public discussion, despite the fact that it concerns the safety of a facility close to people and nature.

– It felt very hushed up. Either the public was completely uninterested—or someone doesn’t want negative attention around this, he tells Samnytt.

Homes Changed at the Core

It’s in the meeting between these two perspectives that the lines of conflict become clear. One describes a daily life with disturbed sleep, lost calm, and a house that has lost value.

The other accepts that electricity must be produced—but highlights the real issue: that the intrusion on people’s lives is not always measured or compensated in a way that reflects the true impact.

Together, they demonstrate something rarely captured by the sweeping statements about the energy transition. Behind every wind farm development are people who do not live in an energy plan, but in a home that has been fundamentally changed.

The issue, therefore, is not just where wind power should be built, or even if it should be built at all—but how the consequences for those who live nearby should be weighed and handled.