I was disappointed to find that some people were handing around a petition against the building of the Crystal Brook Wind Farm at a recent working bee. The main objection, it seems, is NIMBY, they didn’t want them ‘all over our hills’. I wrote a new Net page in response. (http://ramblingsdc.net/WhySupportWindPower.html)
Why should we all be supporting wind power? Simply because the results of climate change are almost unimaginatively dire and wind-generated electricity is one way we can quickly and easily cut the CO2 emissions that are largely driving climate change.
yes2renewables.org 
Your page is excellent Dave, it’s loaded with handy information. Let’s hope the NIMBYs bother to read it – assuming they want to be informed.
Why shouldnt locals be able to keep things their way? im appalled at this sort of behaviour from out of towners who think they should be able to tell others how to live.
How about trying to tell your neighbours how to live and see how they like it you weak pricks.
I doubt any reasonable person would have any problem with locals keeping things “their way” so long as the reasons are based on evidence rather than selfishness or misinformation dolled up as fact.
In any case I’d be interested if you could point to any place in Australia that has remained unchanged? People enjoy their mod cons which frequently require electricity. The “locals” might have some credibility in their opposition to a wind farm if the area was also free of power lines conducting electricity to their properties, generated out of somebody else’s backyard.
Trying to tell a neighbour how to live is very different to windfarm opponents threatening those landholders who wish to host turbines on their property.
Try being a little objective next time Nath.
wow what comment to dave and blair I wonder what the response will be as they appear to be blowins?
certainly giving a clear cut message
Addy, given that many “out-of-towners” didn’t refrain from coming to the area I live in to demonstrate against wind farms, you might want to rethink your statement.
Fortunately common sense prevailed and the windfarm was constructed, it’s now a non-issue now that people see it operating and that all the dire predictions have failed to be realised.
It’s disappointing you and so many other people have allowed themselves to be manipulated by Chicken Little’s running around the countryside spreading lies and disinformation.
No doubt you and your smug climate change denialist buddies believe renewable energy is a waste of time and money but I’m willing to bet anything, you’re on the wrong side of the argument as time will show.
You’re entitled to your own opinions but you’re not entitled to your own facts.
Nath, I’m not an ‘out of towner’. What do you think I was doing at the working bee if I wasn’t a local? If built, the Crystal Brook Wind Farm will come within 4 or 5km of my home, and I will welcome it; partly for the greater good, partly because I like the look of wind turbines.
ah! the old chestnut “for the greater good”!
Yes addy. Is it a concept you are unable to understand?
this concept is the catch cry of the ill fated Rudd now Gillard gov’t that is seeing them hit all time lows in the polls Dave
Addy. I’m not terribly worried about popularity in the polls. I’m more concerned with what is right?, what is ethical?, what needs to be done for the good of the planet?
If you find that difficult to understand, might I suggest reading some philosophy? Peter Singer’s book, ‘How are we to live?’, would be a good place to start.
I find it rather strange that the implementation of a complex network of wind turbines would deliver the necessary stategic requirements of bass load energy to enable the up take of power requirements by heavy industry. Such a uniformed approach would create such issues as visual pollution whilst also enhancing the key aspect of health impacts upon neighbouring landholders
Addy, what health impacts? And visual pollution, really? What about phone towers, transmission lines, land clearing, road building? There is a common double standard where wind turbines are concerned.
As to “bass load energy” we prefer flexible, dispatchable-on-demand power such as that provided by solar thermal power plants with heat storage. Wind power, being much cheaper (at this early stage) is a very practical complement to such a flexible power source. And we hope that geothermal power will soon get to the stage where it is able to play some role as well, as a dispatchable-on-demand power supply. But solar thermal is capable of doing the job and it’s definitely available now.
Addy. The fact that wind power is only available when the wind blows means that no power grid could run on wind power alone. So what? As Ben pointed out, solar thermal is capable of providing power on demand. All power stations stop at times due to routine maintenance or breakdowns; the system copes, it is set up to cope. Pumped hydro is another way of balancing generation with demand.
If you are interested in the health impacts I suggest you read the piece that Dr Sarah Edelman, who’s a clinical psychologist, wrote in the comments to the Four Corners program. You can read it at “http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/WindHealth.html#Opinion_from_clinical_psychologist”.
Would you rather look at a coal-fired power station or nuclear power station than a wind farm? Or would you prefer to go without electricity?
very poor agruments Ben and Dave, to say would you prefer to look at ………….. what a complete take on such an issue
Wind energy appears to be caught in a vortex of pressures that is slowly destroying its integrity
and families are only to well aware of increasing power bills to stabilise this industry
Just keep on believing your own unfounded justifications Addy, just don’t be surprised when you’re carefully nurtured fictions unravel.
There is plenty of evidence and research to show that increasing power bills are primarily due to the need to upgrade infrastructure because of a lack of investment over recent decades.
But of course you would know that if you had bothered to learn anything about the subject.
Addy, don’t try the increased power bills line around here. The LRET, which supports the development of large scale renewables (wind for now), is costing you and me just 0.15 cents per kWh. That’s not even 1% of your energy bill. By 2020 that’ll increase to about 1c. Not much to create 9000+ jobs (more than the domestic coal industry) and kickstart our transition to a safe climate. Alan Jones and the Australian might be able to fool Joe Public, but you are not fooling anyone here.
Whos going to pay for gillards “clean energy future” ? would that be the taxpayers? so yes it does and will add further to the costs of electricity.
The simple fact that if we are going to deploy renewables means that there is a greater mix of production and therefore much more capital outlay that has to be payed for.
The price of electricity is not the only factor, it is the cost of the generating infrastructure which companies will want to recoup.
Lets not be simplistic here, private enterprise is about profit and the renewables industries are always crying out for greater assistance in way of pricing mechanisms to make them more profitable, prices will not be coming down anytime soon.
Beyond Zero Emissions’ plan for zero emissions electricity (including no more gas heating, electrified public transport etc) costs $37bn per year for ten years. That’s a huge amount of moolah, right? But over 30 years conservative estimates of increases in oil, gas and carbon tax costs would actually have their plan coming out cheaper than business as usual, because it plans to rapidly phase out oil and gas use, in particular. That’s without factoring in costs of random climate-related disasters, too, I believe.
The self important Dave Clarke has not reproduced Dr Edelmans 4 Corners Anxiety comment piece in its original form, so for him to refer to its reproduction on his ramblings site is rather misleading.
Dr Edelman made some revealing edits. Perhaps Dave Clarke (or Dr Edelmans) could tell us why if he is ‘more concerned with what is right… what is ethical’. See the link for Dr Edelmans original article, without her subsequent self censoring. http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=37&t=1&ps=50&dm=1&pd=2&am=14899#m14899
Russtafarian. I repeat what I wrote when you made this same comment on another thread. Dr Edelman’s original post, on the Four Corners site, referred to a post by Prof. Wittert, also on the Four Corners site. That post by Wittert was not on my page, so readers whould not have known to what Dr Edelman was referring.
She disagreed with a statement that Prof. Wittert wrote. So what?
No conspiricy involved I’m afraid. Sorry to disapoint you.
the same david that opposed a cell site nimby!!!!!!
In response to Stop These Things; what I wrote to the council was “I believe the antennas would be better placed outside Crystal Brook, perhaps on top of Cemetery Hill, because that would provide a better coverage of the district and tall towers do not improve the appearance of a town.” Mr Stop These Things (who lacks the courage to use his own name), I think you’ll have to do better than that if you want to dig up dirt on me. http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/stopthesethings.html
What is NIMBYism about?; ramblingsdc.net/Australia/WindProblems.html#NIMBY
The game is up Mr. Clarke, you can’t have it all your own way, it seems your ‘NIMBY, ‘truth’ and ‘ethics’, all have different meanings to every one else’s view of them. A NIMBY is a NIMBY whether it is related to wind turbines, or mobile phone towers and no matter how many excuses you come up with, you are a NIMBY. I don’t know what your problem is, mobile phone towers don’t emit any noise or infra sound, unlike wind turbines seem to do, as we are finding out more and more every day.
http://stopthesethings.com/2013/03/24/cape-bridgewater-sonia/
http://stopthesethings.com/2013/04/04/cape-bridgwater-melissa-and-rikki/
As I have said before, you and your blog have no credibility whatsoever.
I have dealt with your pathetic personal attack at ramblings/Australia/HeartlandFarmers.html#Facts_win_arguments_not_personal_attacks, it is not worth any more attention than that.
On that same page I have pointed out many of your lies. In return you have not provided any evidence in support of your false claims; all you can manage is an ad hominem attack. Heartland Farmers cannot provide any honest arguments showing that their predictions of disaster to the local grain industry will follow building of the Ceres wind farm. On the other hand, if the world does not move away from burning fossil fuels toward renewable energy, such as the Ceres wind farm, the grain industry on Yorke Peninsula will definitely suffer.
In regard to your links to Stop These Things:
1. Sonia’s situation is sad, she is obviously suffering. But, while I am certainly not an expert on psychology or health, it seems to me to be a classic case of psychogenic illness brought on by fear and anxiety (see http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2013-07740-001/ by Fiona Crichton et. al.)
2. Melissa and Rikki. They were recorded sitting in their home speaking and at the same time measuring sound levels. During these segments no sound from the turbines could be heard at all, yet Melissa was reading up to 68 to 79dBc and attributing it to the wind turbines. If these levels of sound were coming from the turbines they would have been clearly audible on the video recording. I don’t know what Melissa’s sound level meter was reading, perhaps it was the breeze blowing over the microphone, possibly low frequency sound from the breeze blowing around the house, but it seems impossible that it had anything to do with the wind turbines.
I have recorded sound levels within 100m of wind turbines many times. Under wind conditions of anything less than a gale I have not recorded higher sound levels than about 55dB
It seems that it is perfectly acceptable for Mr. Clarke to call people liars, NIMBY’s, unethical, hypocrites, anything you like, in various locations on the internet, but if anyone including myself, questions Mr. Clarke’s integrity, it is a pathetic personal attack. It seems Mr. Clarke is easily offended, well then, maybe the internet isn’t the place for him to air his views.
Mr. Clarke has chosen to denigrate everyone involved in the opposition of the Ceres Wind Turbine Project for reasons only known to himself. This is not opposition to wind turbines, this is opposition to where they are being placed, they must not be put in prime agricultural land and right alongside numerous coastal communities where a few thousand people live and come for recreation. It is also opposition against the violation of people’s basic human rights. This project was the brain child of three people, the community has never been consulted, the proponents then managed to get 36 property owners on side by offering them buckets full of money. These projects must not impact on their neighbours, this project is going to have huge impacts on it’s neighbours, which immediately makes it non compliant with all of the planning rules. The District Council has opposed this development, because of the totally incompetent development submissions the proponents presented and nearly the whole community opposes it.
Not only that, at the few meetings that the developers did hold, they treated the community with absolute contempt, that is why we are opposing this development. Now if Mr. Clarke has a problem with this, then that is his prerogative, but quite frankly, it is none of his business, he has not acquainted himself with the facts and he doesn’t even live here.
He also has the audacity to insult people like Sonia Twist, Rikki , Melissa who appear in the videos above and many who others around the country who are having genuine problems living near turbines, dismissing their problems as the nocebo effect. He quotes the Fiona Crichton study, which has been dismissed by STT for the the sham that it is.
Mr. Clarke then wonders why we question his credibility, well, I am sorry Mr. Clarke, as your title suggests, the NIMBY has struck at Crystal Brook.
The Callous Wind; I certainly did not intend to insult Sonia Twist, Rikki or Melissa. I don’t believe that I did insult them. Perhaps you should read what I wrote again.
Fiona Crichton’s study was published in a peer-reviewed science journal. If you think that the fact that someone on STT dismissed it has any significance you don’t understand science.
You have written a number of unsubstantiated claims about how the Ceres wind farm will harm the grain industry and the people of Yorke Peninsula. I have provided arguments and evidence showing, I believe, the fallacies in your claims. So long as you are unable or unwilling to provide evidence that there is any factual basis to your claims I will continue to call them lies. (http://bit.ly/13UaBjo)
Why do you not address my arguments TCW? I suggest it is because you cannot.
Mr. Clarke, for some reason or other, you seem to think I am the voice of Heartland Farmers, while I am an active member of Heartland Farmers, I am by no means their representative, they are doing very well on their own and the views I state are mine alone. I have my own reasons for opposing the Ceres Project, as do all of the members of Heartland Farmers Group, where we have come together for a common cause.
As for addressing your arguments, that would be a total waste of time, because whatever is said, you would contradict it and call it lies, I don’t have the time and it would achieve nothing, we are concentrating on the DAC and the Government, where it counts. We are now finding out on a daily basis, that it is not us telling the lies, but people like you Mr. Clarke, are the ones telling the lies. There are reports coming in every day of people suffering from sleep deprivation and many other problems, where they are in close proximity to wind turbines, both here and around the world. You also said turbines don’t make any noise Mr. Clarke, that is not the impression I get here, I do not want to be listening to this 24 hours a day.
Sounds like another lie to me Mr. Clarke.
I don’t understand science Mr. Clarke, because what you are telling me the science is, bears no relation to what is happening in the real world, hence the Fiona Crichton study. She is a university student, never went near a wind farm, never spoke to any people affected by wind turbines, subjected some students to 10 minutes of infra sound, others to 10 minutes of sham infra sound, after watching a video on wind farms and then declared that people suffering from wind turbine syndrome are really only suffering from the nocebo effect. You call that science, come on Mr. Clarke. The real science is being undertaken by the EPA at Waterloo.
Perhaps you could answer a question for me, Mr. Clarke. How much are the Ceres mob paying you to run the Heartland ‘hate’ page on your blog?
The Callous Wind; My apologies on being under the impression that you were a spokesman for Heartland Farmers. You have much the same attitudes as they do, and of course, since none of you give your real names it is easy to develop the wrong impression.
I have covered most of what you have written elsewhere. You seem to be very selective in the science that you accept, but since you like the EPA you could read this report:
“http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/xstd_files/Noise/Report/infrasound.pdf” “Infrasound levels near windfarms and in other environments” released in January 2013
If I was being paid by any of the wind farm businesses I suspect that some of the antis would have ‘dug up the dirt’ on me by now. They are certainly trying their best.
Apology accepted Mr. Clarke. I use TCW for several reasons, most of which you would not be aware, if I were to give you my name, you would only vilify me all over the internet, as you have done with Sarah Laurie, Mary Morris, Heartland Farmers and others.
I don’t know what gives you the impression that I like the EPA, quite the opposite actually, if that report was accurate, why are they conducting new tests in Waterloo over the next two months, obviously that report is inconclusive, you know that, why do you keep quoting it. Hopefully they will also get Dr. Alec Salt and Steven Cooper to conduct tests as well.
‘On the grapevine
I heard on the grape vine on 2013/04/11:
A house has very recently been sold at Black Point for around a million dollars – so no indications of a land price crash there;
A local farmer has just bought another farm that is to have turbines built adjacent to it – he is plainly not concerned about the impact of nearby turbines;’
I see your Ceres snitch has been hard at work Mr. Clarke, it is a pity they didn’t give you all of the facts, it makes you and your blog on the Heartland Farmers ‘hate’ page look rather foolish. Not knowing the particular house that was sold, that is a rather ambiguous statement. Most of the newer house and land packages at Black Point are valued up around $1.3 million, so that could represent a 23% loss.
The local farmer who bought the farm, just happens to be a host, he does not live anywhere near there, and he bought the land hoping the turbines he is having on his land will pay for it, unfortunately for him, it is not going to happen, certainly not in the immediate future, anyway. You should check the facts, Mr. Clarke.
‘The other 190 or so people have been very quiet.’
They are the ones that are hitting on the Heartland Farmers ‘hate’ page every day, to see what crap you have been writing about them.
TCW; I have not vilified Sarah Laurie, Mary Morris, Heartland Farmers. I have pointed out their errors and lies in relation to wind power; I believe that I have every right to do so, even a moral responsibility to do so, considering the harm that they are doing. I suggest you look up the definition of vilify.
You said on 11th April; “The real science is being undertaken by the EPA at Waterloo.” You said on 13th April; “I don’t know what gives you the impression that I like the EPA, quite the opposite actually”. Is that consistent?
Vilify – to speak ill of; defame; slander
Defame – to attack the good name or reputation of, as by uttering or publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious
You need to get yourself a new dictionary Mr. Clarke, deny it if you will, but that is exactly what you have been doing to Sarah Laurie, Mary Morris and Heartland Farmers, to the extent that defamation proceedings against you, have been considered. You have no right to vilify any of these people, who are putting themselves out there, to be ridiculed by people like yourself, when they are just trying to help other people, who are experiencing problems, which they never ever had before, until wind turbines were placed alongside of their properties. If that is your idea of moral responsibility, well then Mr. Clarke, you are a very sad man.
I see you completely ignored my response to the Ceres snitch’s grapevine information and your response relating to property sales here on Yorke Peninsula. That is fairly typical of people like yourself, when they are challenged. By the way, where is the Ceres snitch, the Heartland Farmers ‘hate’ page has been very quiet lately? While we are talking property values, you put up a convenient graph of property prices in Waterloo. I guess you haven’t heard about the four blocks of land the Council tried to sell in Waterloo, they were offered $1 for one block.
‘You said on 11th April; “The real science is being undertaken by the EPA at Waterloo.” You said on 13th April; “I don’t know what gives you the impression that I like the EPA, quite the opposite actually”. Is that consistent?’
I’m not sure what you are on about there and what consistency has to do with it, Mr. Clarke. I do not not have much time for the EPA and some of their decisions relating to other areas, but they are the responsible authority charged with the testing at Waterloo and they will be held accountable. There is also independent testing being done at the same time.
I thought perhaps I should address another one of your furphy’s, Mr Clarke. You go to great lengths on the Heartland Farmers ‘hate’ page, about aerial spraying. I quote;
‘Heartland Farmers would have us believe that a pilot who can fly safely like this, avoiding Stobie poles, trees, aerials and SWER lines stretching hundreds of metres between poles and only a few millimetres thick, cannot safely go within 3km of a big, conspicuous, wind turbine. Pull the other leg!’
The only leg you are pulling, Mr. Clarke, is your middle one!
I have no doubt there are pilots who can fly between the blades when they are turning, but all of that is totally irrelevant. Aerotech Australia, who are the only aerial spraying contractors for this area, have stated that their safety parameters are 500 meters flying parallel to wind turbines and 3 kilometers flying towards wind turbines. So say what you like Mr. Clarke, you are totally out of your tree on that one.
I think we can challenge most of your other arguments as time goes on, not that it will achieve anything.
I mean, sand dunes at Port Broughton for Christ’s sake, what has that got to do with the Ceres Wind Turbine Project?
Had you considered asking why your aerial spraying contractor can’t go closer than 500m when flying parallel to a line of turbines? I can’t imagine any good reason. The sand dunes at Port Broughton point relates to climate change; I would have thought that was obvious. Perhaps you are aware that adopting renewable energy is a way of slowing climate change?
Mr. Clarke, it is not for us to question how Aerotech Australia run their business. They have planes worth well over a million dollars each, loaded with chemical, the safety of their pilots would be paramount, so they are not going to take unnecessary risks flying close to turbines, because David K. Clarke of Crystal Brook says they should be able to. Besides, there is no information to my knowledge, on the turbulence around wind turbines, which could affect both the safety of the planes and spray drift.
I’m not even going to start on Climate change Mr. Clarke, for every argument promoting it, there is an argument denying it, even the scientists can’t agree. As I have said before, 199 turbines on Yorke Peninsula are going to make very little difference to Climate Change. The farmers burning off their paddocks would probably put more Co2 into the atmosphere in one year, than the Ceres Wind Turbine Project would ever save. I am not saying they can’t be built, they are not going to build them here, there are plenty of areas in marginal country where they can be built. Has anyone actually worked out, how much Co2 is produced in the manufacture, transport and erection of wind turbines and how much power they actually have to produce to negate their own Co2 emissions?
‘”There are plenty of sparsley populated areas in South Australia, not that far from the grid, where wind turbines can be placed.”
Perhaps you should list these on your Net site TCW? I’m sure many in the wind power industry would love to know where they are. I’d love to know! If such sites existed that’s where the wind farmers would go; it would be so much easier than having to deal with people like you.’
I’ll get in first on this one, Mr. Clarke. Try north of Adelaide, south of the proof range, behind the dump, it is close to Adelaide, marginal country, plenty of wind. The top end of the gulf, north west of Port Wakefield, marginal land, plenty of wind, close to the grid. North of Port Augusta, station country, close to the grid. There was even a wind turbine project proposed for Silverton, someone must have thought there was enough wind out there, if so, that means the whole north of the state could have wind turbines.Everyone of those makes more sense than the Ceres Wind Turbine Project, because putting the cable under the sea, is going to cost $100,000,000 more, than building a transmission line around to Halbury, go figure, Mr. Clarke.
You must be feeling particularly proud of yourself, Mr. Clarke.
http://stopthesethings.com/2013/04/26/the-campaign-of-hate-against-sarah-laurie/#comments
You seem to have run out of puff, Mr. Clarke, either that, or you have gone into hiding. You should be hiding in shame, after what you have done to Sarah Laurie.
I haven’t run out of puff; it was more that I didn’t think you had made any points worth responding to and was otherwise occupied.
Your point about alternative locations are quite reasonable, TCW. I congratulate you on what I believe to be the first point that you have made against my arguments based on reason and truth rather than sarcasm, abuse and lies.
On Sarah Laurie; I know nothing about a campaign of hate, and certainly have not been involved in one. I am not particularly proud of pointing out many of her errors, but someone needed to do it. Dr Laurie is doing a great deal of harm to many people and to the fight against climate change.
Unlike you and the others in Heartland Farmers, who were willing to oppose a $1.3 billion development that will bring in $3 million per year to the local people of Yorke Peninsula rather than question the statement from Aerotech about not flying within 3km of turbines, I did question them. Their Managing Director, Sam McCabe was either unwilling or unable to provide any justification for this statement. (See ramblingsdc.net/Australia/HeartlandFarmers.html#Aerotech).
Finally, I am not surprised to find that you deny climate science. If you had made any effort at all to inform yourself you would have discovered that a huge majority of climate scientists are agreed (see ramblingsdc.net/Australia/Greenhouse.html#What_is_the_science_telling_us)