MEDIA RELEASE Friends of the Earth
Thursday, 11 March 2011
Coalition’s 2km wind farm veto sets a risky precedent
The Coalition’s proposed right of veto for residents within 2 km of planned wind farms highlights worrying double standards on development, according to Friends of the Earth (FoE).
A spokesperson for the Victorian Planning Minister Matthew Guy told the Weekly Times that residents within 2 km of new wind farms would be able to veto a development if they couldn’t reach an agreement with the proponent.
“This new right of veto applies to wind farms, but not to coal mines, freeways or any other major developments in rural areas,” said FoE campaign coordinator Cam Walker.
“What other form of development can be stopped by a single home owner?” he asked.
“All we are asking is a fair go for the wind industry. If the government grants this right of veto over wind farms than why isn’t it applied to all major developments that may affect rural communities?”
“Otherwise, it will be harder to establish a wind farm in Victoria than a new coal mine.”
“Victoria has fantastic potential to develop a thriving wind power industry that can provide clean energy, jobs and opportunities for small business in regional Victoria.”
“The Coalition’s ill-considered pre-election promise to ban wind farm developments within 2 km of any house, and exclude the wind industry from tourism and growth corridors will send wind energy investment interstate and put jobs and businesses at risk.”
“Existing and approved wind farm projects are expected to generate $16 million for rural landowners and $4.6 million for local councils annually, but the growth of the industry will be stopped dead in its tracks if the Coalition’s anti-wind farm policy is fully implemented.”
“There is a very real risk that we will not see any new wind farm development applications approved in Victoria during this term of government unless the Coalition rethinks its arbitrary policy position.”
“Victoria can have a thriving clean energy industry that helps reduce greenhouse pollution and create jobs for the future, but it needs government support, not extra red tape,” Mr Walker concluded.
For further comment contact:
Cam Walker 0419 338 047
Media Assistance:
Louise Matthiesson 0417 017 844
Denis Wilson
March 9, 2011
Yes. A double standard.
In NSW and Qld you cannot stop a Gas Mining company entering your land to drill for gas, Frack the rock, poison the Groundwater. That’s legal and enforceable. But that’s the petrochemical industry.
Clearly renewable energy is much more dangerous!
What a stupid world in which we live.
Ben Courtice
March 10, 2011
Speaking of the petrochemical industry. How far from houses does a petrochem refinery have to be? A few hundred yards, it seems. If you don’t believe me, drive south along Millers Rd in Altona and as you cross the bridge over the railway line observe on your left… the refinery on one side of the track, homes on the other side. As you say, clearly wind turbines are far more dangerous!
Ingrid Hindell
March 24, 2011
It’s quite ridiculous, isn’t it?
Dave Burraston
April 3, 2011
Ingrid, not really, its quite sensible, and likely not enough, only time will tell.
Hint : Its a noise / health issue.
What makes you think “It’s quite ridiculous” ??
I’m sure you and lots of other people have walked up to an industrial wind turbine and had a little chat, or camped under the stars near one. However, this is not sound science. For some sound science I suggest you read Dr Daniel Shepherd’s Senate Inquiry submission 540 on industrial wind turbine noise :
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_farms/submissions.htm
“In the field of epidemiology the differential susceptibility of individuals are known as risk factors, and
assuming that individuals of a population can be represented by the average characteristics of the
population is known as the ecological inference fallacy. In terms of wind turbine noise these risk
factors are still under study, and one important risk factor is noise sensitivity.”
“By definition annoyance is a primary health effect, and so for some individuals I predict serious adverse health effects arising from their response to amenity loss. ”
Here is some more reading for you on the realities of industrial wind turbine noise :
http://www.acousticecology.org/srwind.html
there’s lots more where that came from. The bottom line is that 2km is a “minimum” and that this may have to be increased, possibly up to 5 – 10kms.
Hopefully when you’ve read up a little on the realities of the wind turbine noise issue you’ll see that it is isn’t ridiculous, its a public health issue, combined with a duty of care.
Every two years the wind industry, acousticians, MD’s, noise professionals, academics et al all get together for a big fun bun fight they call the International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise. In fact this years is only a few days away :
http://www.windturbinenoise2011.org/
Of course, if industrial wind turbine noise was not a problem, why do they have an international two yearly conference on it to try and work out the heck is going on??
Also, try Dr Alec Salt’s peer reviewed research :
http://oto2.wustl.edu/cochlea/wind.html
Wind Turbines are Hazardous to Human Health, Alec N. Salt, Ph.D.,
Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory,
Department of Otolaryngology
Washington University School of Medicine
Washington University in St. Louis.
A quick excerpt :
“Wind turbines such as those currently being constructed in rural areas generate high
levels of infrasound noise. This is very low frequency noise (sound waves of less than 20
cycles per second) that you cannot hear. Even though you cannot hear the sound, it is
easily detected by the ear at the levels that are produced and can have effects on the
body that profoundly disturb some individuals.
The situation is somewhat similar to ultraviolet (UV) light and the eye. We cannot see
ultraviolet light but we all understand that it can affect us profoundly, causing sunburn,
photokeratitis (also known as snow blindness or welder’s flash) and cataracts. For UV
light, there are simple ways that the damaging effects can be avoided using sunscreens
and eye protection.
For infrasound exposure in your home, there is currently NO WAY TO PROTECT
YOURSELF.”
His Caps. not mine…
PClarke
April 4, 2011
A 2km setback really is a silly idea. If there’s an issue with the noise standards, then change the noise regulations to suit. What’s so special about 2, 5, or 10km? Stick with science, not mumbo jumbo!
Dave Burraston
April 4, 2011
From my understanding it has something to do with :
a) the precautionary principle to protect public health
b) the scientific research I referenced above, which you refer to as “mumbo, jumbo”
c) limitations in the noise propagation models
d) inadequate noise standards (despite revisions)
If you are interested in the noise standards, you may be interested to know that Jason Turner of Sonus wrote the SA guidelines.
http://www.sonus.com.au/people.htm
Sonus, interestingly, are consultants to the wind farm developers :
http://www.sonus.com.au/project_detail_01.htm
A sad story plays out over in NZ. I would again refer you to Dr Daniel Shepherd’s Senate Inquiry submission 540 on industrial wind turbine noise :
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_farms/submissions.htm
p10 :
“That noise standards are not necessarily definitive is further demonstrated by the lack of agreement that can exist amongst experts on standards. The quarrelling surrounding the revision of the New Zealand standard for acceptable wind turbine noise (NZS6808) is testament to this (see, for example, the September 2010 Edition of the NZ Acoustical Society Journal, New Zealand Acoustics). ”
This then results in people, usually at distances of up to 2km or more having “noise pollution problems” e.g.
The West Wind and Te Rere Hau wind farms in NZ have generated many noise complaints. West Wind 906 complaints in 12 months, Te Rere Hau 378 complaints in 11 months. See Dr Bob Thorne’s submission (112) to the current Senate Inquiry :
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_farms/submissions.htm
He states there is a “significant body of peer-reviewed research readily available in the public forum to substantiate the potential for serious to moderate adverse health effects to individuals due to wind farm activity noise while living in their residences and while working on their farms within 2000 metres of large-scale turbines.”
Dave Burraston
April 4, 2011
This recently released book containing papers by Dr Thorne, Dr Shepherd and others covers many aspects of the wind farm noise issue, and is specifically designed to be accessible to the layman (or laywoman) :
http://www.atkinsonrapley.co.nz/books.html
chapter abstracts are here :
http://www.atkinsonrapley.co.nz/table_contents.html
Book outline :
Sound, Noise, Flicker and the Human Perception of Wind Farm Activity
Our first book has been released, it is a monograph entitled “Sound, Noise, Flicker and the Human Perception of Wind Farm Activity”. Please contact us by email to order a copy, or use the paypal link below.
The “Excerpts” link at left takes you to the first pages of all chapters.
The explosion of wind farms worldwide has brought with it a rising tide of resistance from residents near them. Complaints about noise and flicker, as well as health problems such as sleep disturbance, headaches, dizziness, anxiety and depression, are all strikingly similar. Developers are advised by experts that the noise levels are virtually undetectable and so low that sound cannot directly cause these symptoms and that these people are naturally anxious.
Why is there such a disparity between the perception of the issue from the two groups? Part of the problem is that the physics of sound and the human perception of noise are still not well understood by many. There is a great difference between being able to measure something and a person’s perception of it and the variation between individuals is never well accounted for by a statistical mean. This can split communities into the affected and the unaffected, the latter group who, due to no fault of their own, cannot understand the views of those who complain. Yet, for those adversely affected by the wind farm placement, there is no doubt about the intrusion into their lives.
This Review brings together the many threads that are needed to explain these issues as a series of Papers from experts dealing with issues of human perception of wind farm noise and flicker. The intent is to make this material accessible to the layman, so many of the papers have extended introductions to the subject areas.