Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

OT: Moorabal/Lal Lal wind farm 25-Aug-2009 At 1:16:37 PM evanbb

Message

Okay, here we go. I'll try hard to avoid getting snarky.

On 24/08/2009 pete05 wrote:
>Since the waubra windfarm started not one coal generator has slowed down
>or been turned off, despite the claims made that it would reduce emmisions
>by 650 000 tons per year.
Ignoring the fact that there's no way you could tell if any coal generators had slowed down, this is explained by growth in energy demand, as lacto has indicated above. All of the figures I reference here will be from ABARE, and probably available on their website. I have a copy of the 2009 report on my desk, (doesn't everyone?) so sorry, no direct links. Their homepage is www.abare.gov.au

Anyway, growth in demand has been at or above 2% since 1992. Says a lot.

>The wind farm at waubra has caused a massive upheaval in the community,
>with numerous familys with and without turbines on their land being affected
>by low frequency and audiable noise.
There's no way to dispute this, and possibly few ways to prove it? All I can add really is that noise does come from other things apart from windfarms as well. Like roads, trains, airports, neighbours. Not saying that their mistaken, just that noise is not a concern limited to windfarms. This should of course be included in planning laws. Like it is with everyone else.

>The contact the landholders signed, signs away all their rights in regard
>to the noise being generated.
I'd be very interested to see this proven.
>Low frequency noise has been measured at over 80db, despite claims from the owner >that there would be NONE!
I strongly doubt the owner claimed there would be no noise. Physical impossibility and all that. He might have said it will be inaudible at XX distance.

>Strangly enough only one windfarm has ever been knocked back by the planning
>panel, and the person responsible lost their job soon after!
This is complete bullshit.

Bald Hills was knocked back by the Minister, and he lost his job by being voted out. The concern there was a 1/1000 year chance of an Orange Bellied Parrot being killed. This has since been approved.

Also rejected:
From 2005 http://www.petroleumnews.net/storyview.asp?storyid=56913§ionsource=s0
Cape Bridgewater and Cape Nelson (Vic)
Kemiss Hill (SA)

There are probably others, but I can't find a list anywhere. Presumably there's some people at DEWHA (Env, Water, Heritage and the Arts) who would know. Might not be public information?

>I feel the main problem is the lack of accountability,
What sort of accountability are you after?

>wind farms are highly subsidised by the MRET scheme,
This is quite wrong. There were no direct subsidies under MRET for a start. The whole scheme set a nationwide benchmark for energy sourced from renewables, which it is the retailers responsibility to purchase. This was set in GWh, and aimed to max out at 9500GWh. Since demand continues to grow, this percentage of overall renewables has slipped from 12% to 8%.

Now, wind makes up a very small part of this; ~2.5%. So, if you count 2.5% of an 8% encouragement to purchase wind power as 'highly subsidised', your definition of subsidised and mine differ greatly.

>surely they should publish electrical output data, so that we can see if our money is >being spent wisely?
Well, they sort of do. Bulk generation for all types of generation is published through ABARE. Individual farms however, will, (and should in my opinion) keep their generation stats private, as this information is commercially sensitive.

>I have no issue with the look of windfarms, this issue is used by the
>developers to dumb down the argument, I do have issue with dodgy contracts
>that put all liability on the landowners like the one at waubra does, with
>a lack of transparency, with noise issues that have the potential to cause
>illness, with protected areas being covered in turbines and with a government
>that refuses to listen to communitys affected by these proposals.

Well, for starters, it takes 2 to sign a contract. I bet the land owners with dollar signs in their eyes had the opportunity to read the contract before signing it. What do you mean by lack of transparency? You want all commercial contracts to be available to the public? God, imagine it. No protected areas will have wind farms installed; violates planning laws. Hence 'protected'. I acknowledge that these are all potential problems of wind farms, but the same could be said for all generation options. How close would you live to a coal power plant? It is, and always will be a question of balancing the pros and cons. At the moment, wind is the cheapest by a mile and if you agree that we need to reduce GHG emissions, then you've probbaly got to support them.

Oh, and thanks for taking the time to join the forum and wade into what was a long dead discussion. I had a pretty clear diary through the middle of the day, and researching this almost looks like work.

>
>