Comments on: Allendale East wind farm opposed

By: mick

mick — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:25:56 +0000

It really doesnt matter where the windfarm is. The SA regulations just like the vic ones fail to take into account low frequency noise and infrasound.
Yes you are correct that the SA regulations are better in relation to audiable noise. But they need to be better, the world health organisation state that when there is a high percentage of LFN that the audiable noise should be no greater than 30db. The real problem is the developers who claim there is no LFN at all, and then go on to say there is no evidence of turbines causing these problems.
If they were honest about it and sited the turbines well away from homes you would find there being way less complaints about wind farms.
LFN travels much further than audiable noise, and is not stopped by objects in the same way as audiable noise is, this means that distance is the only way to stop these problems.
while our government basically offers a free handout to developers you will continue to get people with no experience in the electricity industry who know absolutly nothing about generation proposing turbines in silly places.

By: JaydenC.

JaydenC. — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:17:15 +0000

Umm once again Toora is in Victoria. I’m yet to hear complaints about SA wind farms with the supposedly more thorough South Australian regulations.

By: mick

mick — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:06:52 +0000

Jayden, you say the coal lobby are set to destroy our childrens future, but what of us and now? do we deserve to live with intermittant power supply? do our families and friends deserve to be exploited by greedy big business (often the same companies as are involved in coal. ie international power) making them sick with infrasound. And pushing up the cost of power for no benefit to the enviroment or to those who can least afford it.
The waubra windfarm has drawn many complaints, it is owned by Acciona the same company trying to snivel its way in here, yes its one windfarm, but its certainly not the first one to create infrasound and drive people from their homes, just look at what happened in Toora vic a few years before this, surely the lessons should have been learnt then?
Wind energy is not stopping us burning coal, i just dont see the point in us paying extra for it , when it appears not to be giving a benefit.
If wind energy companies want subsidy via the MRET scheme then they must be open and transparent and provide hourly results of power output at all windfarms, its totally wrong to get public money and not let us know what we are getting for it.
Its unfortunate that more emphasis wasnt put on base load technology in the MRET, because as it stands its going to ge used up by windfarms which are total duds.

By: JaydenC.

JaydenC. — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:45:04 +0000

Umm has anyone noticed that Waubara is ONE windfarm? Has anyone noticed that Waubara is in Victoria, and this very article says standards for turbine noise etc. are more thorough in SA than they are in Victoria? Is anyone complaining about any windfarms in SA? Because I’ve only heard complaining about Waubara.
Some people have other issues with wind energy, okay, fine. But I think a lot of people need to set their target straight. Don’t campaign against green energy and green jobs; if the problem is noise etc., campaign to have the turbines a safe distance away from dwellings!

As for wind energy in general, I think people get caught up in thinking once the turbines go up, that’s it, it’s wind energy forever and ever. Wind is just a (legitimate) part in the solution.
We face a period now where we simply MUST reduce emissions, there is no argument here, it must be done. Problem is, renewable base-load technologies like geothermal aren’t yet fully developed. People are working on that as fast as possible, and it’ll come, but in the meantime we must act as best as possible with the technologies we have. Wind and solar are here for us now; currently around a fifth of all South Australia’s energy comes from wind. In a decade or two when the turbines come to the end of their useful lives, geothermal technology should be well and truly established and running full steam ahead.

Emma, I don’t believe Accionia actually set out saying “right, let’s destroy this little town” but anyway, what of all the coal lobby, set out to destroy your children’s future for their own financial gains?

By: Hamish Cumming

Hamish Cumming — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:35:27 +0000

Re.Adam Naiova on October 17th, 2009 11:51 am
Coal fired powerstations take approximately 8 hours to ramp up or dow. (Power station engineers interview ABC) So generally wind farms are ignored.
South Australia boasts 20% power generating capacity from the wind. But look at Tenth ACCC Regulatory Conference July 2009. AEMO’s David Swift presented how the total peak supply from wind power in SA. was only3% of their rated capacity for summer or winter. If You calculatethat out, it is costing us taxpayers $120,000 per household that the wind farms are supposedly powering. (ou could take 2 or 3 houses completely off the grid for that with solar.) And that is without the massive, tradeable renewable energy certificates (REC’s) companies will be getting for producing virtually nothing. Acciona will be claiming close to $600,000 per turbine per year REC’s(Quoted from Energy and Earth Resources DPI Victoria Sept 2009, and using Acciona’s claimed GHG abatements also Sept 2009.) , Acciona can probably resell them for $1M per turbine per year to aluminium producers or other industries..
Not a bad money earner funded by tax payers for a company that is not really producing anything tangable. (Peter Masters AEMO watching is correct, No coal saved means no GHG saved. a very expensive con…)

By: Emma

Emma — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:42:26 +0000

Accionia are set to destroy Allendale East as has been done by it at Waubra. The truth about adverse health effects on the residents at Waubra is out and Acconia (Brett Thomas) is doing EVERYTHING to try to silence those speaking out any further. I don’t believe participating landowners at Waubra are legally prevented from speaking out or evening suing. The contract they have signed (view a copy at http://www.spacountryguardians.org.au) is scandolous. Completely uncommercial and all drafted in Acconia’s favour. You’d be mad to sign it. Acconia are just bluffing the Waubra farmers who are hosting the turbines. These farmers need to get independent legal advice on their contracts. And fast!

By: peter masters

peter masters — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:38:39 +0000

Jayden, coal is renewable, it just takes longer to renew, so therefor it is renewable energy.
That said coal does not renew at a sustainable rate, but at the moment its the only way we have to produce reliable energy, unless we go down the nuclear rd.
Nuclear energy should be put on the agenda here, its clearly less polluting and works all the time,
Unless geothermal can be developed in a major way in quick time, we will continue to play around the edges with wind which to date has done nothing to put a dent in the use of coal, which is what we should be aiming for.

By: peter masters

peter masters — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:24:22 +0000

Adam, what you say may be correct in theory when it comes to coal power generators. but in practice not one coal generator has slowed down production at any stage when the wind has been blowing in victoria, at least.
I have been watching the output on the AEMO website and not once since the waubra windfarm has started and has been working, has any of the coal generators slowed done, or like Acciona claim stopped!
The so called offsetting is a con, nothing is offset, coal is still being burnt at the same rate.
The whole business of green energy leaves alot to be desired, the way it is set up will never reduce emmisions. While a green power generator can produce power at 2am when its not needed and then sell it at 10am, 5 days down the track is a total joke.
Wind power developers on a whole are a dishonest bunch, like a above poster says let those who still support windpower connect to it and see how long the food in the fridge lasts.

By: Adam Naiova

Adam Naiova — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:21:50 +0000

Barbara: ‘Here’s an idea — connect the power which is generated only by wind turbines to consumers who think it’s a good thing. Then we will see how they manage with an intermittent electricity supply.’

Barbara, I like most other people who are in favour of wind-power I understand that wind-farms are more intermittent than coal-fired power stations.

However, the power produced by wind-farms OFFSETS power that would otherwise have to be generated via coal-fired power stations (and I include here natural gas-fired power stations and so forth, etc).

Therefore, it reduces the total AMOUNT of coal-generated electricity required by the power grid.

Now, as I am sure you and other anti-windfarm people will rush to point out, a coal-fired power station cannot be operated by ‘flicking a switch’ on-and-off, whenever insufficient power is produced by windfarms.

This is totally correct. Coal-fired power stations need start-up time, so will generally need to be kept operating most of the time.

However, what people who make this point fail to take into account (or intentionally omit perhaps?; they tend to have a casual approach to scientific facts!), is that coal-fired power stations do not operate on a ‘binary’ basis, ie it is not a case of either 100% OUTPUT or 0% OUTPUT.

Coal-fired power stationsoperate at varying levels of capacity.

So therefore, during windy times, when wind turbines are producing high levels of power, the coal-fired power stations can operate at lower capacity than they would have to without wind-farms.

When there is less wind, they will operate a higher capacity.

Therefore, whilst there will still be a need for coal-fired power stations, there will be less CO2 emissions overall, as the coal-fired power stations will need to operate at full capacity for far less time than would be the case without wind turbines.

This is a similar way to how home-owners are able to generate electricity by placing photo-voltaic solar cells on their roof.

On sunny days, the cells will produce enough power to provide electricity for the house PLUS to feed surplus electricity into the grid.

However, at night and on cloudy days, the solar cells will produce either none (at night) or insufficient energy for the house and the house will draw on the grid.

Therefore, as more houses install these, they are little by little reducing CO2 emission, even though there is still a need for a back-up supply from coal-fired power stations.

Now, I realise solar installations are far less controversial than wind-farms, however with regard to the mechanism via which CO2 emissions are reduced, they operate similarly.

Any thinking person can understand this point and anyone who cannot, does not have even a basic understanding of how an electricity grid operates.

By: Barbara

Barbara — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:50:42 +0000

Here’s an idea — connect the power which is generated only by wind turbines to consumers who think it’s a good thing. Then we will see how they manage with an intermittent electricity supply.