Main objection to Yorke Peninsula wind farm shown to have no substance

Image

A 199-turbine wind farm has been proposed for South Australia’s Yorke Peninsula.  The location is ideal, being in a reliable wind area and only 70km from Adelaide (the link will include a 50km cable beneath St Vincent Gulf).

A group calling itself the Heartland Farmers and a South Australian politician, leader of the Liberals in the Legislative Council, David Ridgway, have been the most publicly active opponents of the project.  What is probably their main objection to the Ceres wind farm is the claim that it will impact the surrounding farmland by stopping access to aerial spraying, top-dressing, mouse bating, etc.

HF have claimed that 60 000ha will be impacted.  Mr Ridgway has gone even further with 80 000ha.  In fact the total area taken out of production due to the roads and hardstands of the wind farm will be about 90ha.

These outrageous claims have been ‘justified’ by claiming that agricultural aircraft cannot operate safely in the vicinity of wind turbines, a claim that has never held much credence for several reasons:

  • While there are something like 200 000 utility scale wind turbines in the world, so far as I have been able to find out, no aircraft has ever crashed due to either collision with a turbine or turbulence from turbines.
  • Apart from their height, wind turbines are essentially no different to the many other obstacles that agricultural pilots have to cope with: power poles and lines, trees, radio masts, etc.
  • Agricultural aircraft can a do operate near wind turbines; see the following YouTube clips.
  • Aerial spraying can only be done when there is little or no wind, and then, of course, the wind turbines would not be operating.

The claims that wind farms are incompatible with agriculture are also seen to be ridiculous by the US experience, where the three states with the highest agricultural production are also the three states with the most installed wind power.

What should be the nail in the coffin for the claims of HF and Ridgway came on 2013/07/26 when an agreement was announced between the CERES proponent REpower and the main (or perhaps only) aerial agricultural contractor on Yorke Peninsula, Aerotech.

“The coordination agreement ensures neighbouring landowners to the CERES Project can continue to undertake fixed wing agricultural spraying without change to service, quality and cost.”   Under this agreement REpower will stop the turbines (should they be operating at all) and turn them parallel to the direction of flight of the aircraft whenever aerial spraying is to be done.

However, it seems that those who oppose wind power developments rarely give up their opposition.  If one of their arguments is shown to be without substance they just move on to the next.  True to form, both HF and David Ridgway have now claimed that wind turbines ‘shift spray drift’ from one paddock to another.  Neither have explained how this could possibly happen.

65 thoughts on “Main objection to Yorke Peninsula wind farm shown to have no substance

  1. Written by a climate change alarmist and voluntary spokesperson for the Ceres Project, who has shown over time, that he has no credibility whatsoever. The only way he can get is message across, is to denigrate anyone who does not agree with his views. If you read his blog, you will see what I mean.

    This agreement has no teeth, it is not legally binding, it is with only one contractor and the affected farmers or the pilots flying the planes, knew nothing about it, The agreement is only with the present company, YP Windfarm Investments, who’s only intention is to gain approval for the Ceres Project and then on sell it. As far as the new owner is concerned, the agreement will be null and void.

    Once again, Mr. Clarke goes off shooting from the hip and he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about!

    TCW.

  2. TCW, turning off the turbines seems an eminently sensible solution to the problem. Do you see any flaws in this approach and any reasons why other aerial operators wouldn’t be in favour? What do you see as the residual risks to aerial agriculture?

  3. Ah, Mark Horner, I knew you would be one of the first ones to pipe up. If the Ceres Project goes ahead, it will come to within two kilometers of my back door, I am not about to let that happen. I can assure you, I have no vested interest in this whatsoever, I value the lifestyle I have and I am not about to let 199 turbines ruin it. I am also supporting the farmers who are going to be severely impacted by this project. The majority of the community is against it, as is the local council, that is why we are standing up for our rights. There are other reasons, like the developers treating the whole community with contempt and constantly telling lies, I could go on, but time prevents me.

    Mr. Clarke has taken it upon himself to become involved in this fight, even though he lives 200 kilometers away. He has abused us, denigrated us, he peppers the local paper with letters and he reported a very well respected, local reporter, for unbalanced reporting, which distressed her greatly. He has lied about us writing ‘poison’ pen letters to the hosts, but could not produce any evidence, all in all, he is a very obnoxious little man.

    So Mark Horner, unless you actually live close to wind turbines, you, like Mr. Clarke, can not really speak with any credibility, and I suggest in future, before you make anymore accusations, you do a little more research. If you do live close to turbines, I would be very interested in hearing your experiences.

    TCW.

    1. There are several statements there that are not true TCW; as you well know. In particular the bit about my reporting the local reporter; we have corresponded about that and you know I did not report her. It is not worth saying anything more to you; you make it up as you go along.

  4. A very sensible compromise has been reached which will take perhaps a fraction of a percent off of generation over a year for the cleanest, safest form of generation available, and Callous ironically — but not in an amusing way — does exactly what they assert Dave Clarke is doing, denigrate the individual without any leavening facts, references or sense of balance.

    When someone calls someone else a climate alarmist, it can only mean one thing. That they are firmly in the a-scientific camp that doesn’t agree with 98% of actual climate scientists that climate change is real, caused by humans and a very serious threat to their ‘lifestyle’.

    I’m so glad people like Callous are so dominant among the tiny fringe that are against wind. Anyone sensible listening to them will very rapidly want to distance themselves from the person and their views, as being both reprehensible and antithetical to a reasoned discussion. Callous might want to stick to the comments section of virulently anti-wind blogs such as stopthesethings, where their intemperate words and views find support in the echo chamber of other self-interested cranks like them.

    1. TCW, I live near a wind farm so I’d like to suggest before you make any more Ill informed accusations, you practice what you preach and experience the same – or at least visit a few wind farms in different weather conditions – with an objective mind.

      In the 10 years the wind farm has been operating, the surrounding population has increased by just under 200 people, property prices have risen around 30%, tourism has been unaffected and of the two people who complained about the project finally accepted very generous payouts, one has chosen to build a new house only a stones throw from the wind farm boundary, the other has moved out of the area – and I think you’ll find nobody misses him. Before the wind farm project was mooted, he was a recidivist critic of just about any idea promoted by other community members.

      The biggest irony is that his father was at one time, the manager of the butter factory right on the edge of Toora. The factory worked 24 hours a day, at the end of each shift an extremely loud siren would sound that could be heard kilometres away, large mallets were used on the dryer to shake milk powder down into the silos, again, the sound from these things could be heard all over the town. Then there were the screeches from the pressure release valves firing off, the constant sound of milk carriers going through the town, briquettes being dumped into the hoppers to feed the boilers et cetera. There is no reported case of anybody becoming ill from these noisy intrusions onto the local community. The factory was also covered with asbestos. To the best of my knowledge there has been no reported incidents of asbestosis and I hope that remains the case.

      The demographic information presented above can be found by looking at the past two series of census data.

  5. Nick, it is a sensible solution, if it works, unfortunately we have very little faith in the proponents of the wind turbine project. Up until now, they have shown a callous disregard for the farmers and the community as a whole and now, at the 11th hour, when their backs are against the wall, they come up with this deal, can you understand why we might be just a tad suspicious, we also think money changed hands.

    They have quite openly said that they are going to on sell this project, so what happens then, will the new owner abide by this agreement? There are also farmers who will have turbines on three sides of their properties and this will not help them at all, because at one point, the planes will be flying into the turbines. The pilots are local people and friends of the farmers involved, they knew nothing about this. The developers have also said they will need 24 hours notice to turn the turbines off, spraying is time critical and this time of the year, it is very hard to predict the weather 24 hours ahead. Very often it can be windy in the morning and drop out in the afternoon, when it presents ideal spraying conditions, but the farmers can’t ring up and ask for turbines to be turned off then. It is all very untidy Nick.

    If the turbines aren’t turned off, the aerial contractor has a self imposed flying limit of 500 meters flying parallel to the turbines and three kilometers flying into the turbines. A large number of these turbines are to be placed right on the neighbour’s boundaries, which then makes huge chunks of the neighbour’s land, unable to be sprayed by planes, as well as spreading snail bait, mouse bat and urea.

    This wind turbine project has received Crown Development Status and one of the requirements of that is, it must not impact on the neighbours whatsoever, but it is going to have a huge impact on the neighbours. It should be refused development approval on this alone.

    TCW.

    1. The wind can quite accurately be forecast 24-48 hours ahead. I’ve used specialist forecast tools to great success over several years. The wind farm is likely to have access to these tools and should be able to provide better wind forecasts to the aerial sprayers and neighbors than what they’re getting now.

  6. Well, What do you know, the iniquitous Mike Barnard. I seem to remember that name, of course, you are a regular on STT as well. Is it also the same Mike Barnard, who got kicked off the King Island Facebook page for pestering the living daylights out of the King Islanders,, the same Mike Barnard who has denigrated Dr. Sarah Laurie across the internet, the same Mike Barnard who doesn’t even live in this country. Don’t you start lecturing me on denigrating people, sunshine, you and Clarke were hard at it long before I became involved with wind turbines.

    This is our fight, you don’t live here, so butt out and in case you hadn’t noticed, the global catastrophe that you and Clarke are predicting, seems to be fizzling out and the 97% are dwindling as well. You just stick to ranting in your doomsday blog!

    TCW.

  7. Mr. Clarke, I know my statements don’t fit with your version of the truth, they never have. I obviously have the terminology wrong in regards to the Country Times reporter, however, the end result was the same, she was very distressed, Maybe you would care to enlighten us on what you really did do, we have a fair idea.

    TCW.

  8. hello mr callous wind just reading your posts you talk about the rights of the hfarmers and everyone else what about the land holders rights to host turbines i have heard all the retoric for 4 years now and you lot still bang on about how bad they are how about a bit of positive information wouldn”t go astray

  9. You are right, Matt, the hosts do have the right to host the turbines, as long as they do not affect the wider community and the neighbouring farmers. This project will affect a large majority of the community and all of the neighbouring farmers. There are approximately 35 hosts who want it and well over a thousand people who don’t, including the local Council who have voted unanimously against it.

    TCW.

  10. You are right, Matt, the hosts do have the right to host the turbines, as long as they do not affect the wider community and the neighbouring farmers. This project will affect a large majority of the community and all of the neighbouring farmers. There are approximately 35 hosts who want it and well over a thousand people who don’t, including the local Council who have voted unanimously against it.

  11. TCW, you maintain that the project will affect the large majority of the community. How do you anticipate that they will be affected by the project?

  12. Nick, personally, I am concerned about the noise, we live and work in a peaceful rural area, I do not want to be hearing wind turbines 24/7. This project runs within two kilometers of several coastal communities and the people there have the same concerns, they did not choose to live by the sea and then have to listen and look at wind turbines,199 of them. There is the problem of wind turbine syndrome. Now I know Barnard and Clarke will tell you it is all the nocebo effect, but there are too many reports coming in from Australia and all over the world, of people experiencing problems and being forced to leave their homes, for them to be ignored. I also know people in this situation. These things have to be taken seriously and it is too late after the turbines are built.

    There are aerial spraying issues which Clarke will tell you have been solved, they haven’t. There are fire fighting issues, the last few major fires here were put down using planes, so that the ground crews could move in and control them. The planes will be unable to be used in the wind farm area, approximately 18,000 hectares because of visibility problems. The coastal communities are on the south eastern side of this area and will be very vulnerable if a fire breaks out. either from the wind farm, or harvesting operations on a hot north windy day.

    The other main contributing factor in this whole debacle, is that the community has been treated with total contempt by the developers, right from the start, this has been very instrumental in the opposition of the Ceres Wind Turbine Project. They even called the police to one of the so called information meetings, because a few of us got a bit vocal, there was no hint of violence whatsoever, they have lost the confidence of the whole community.

    The bottom line Nick, is the community does not want it.

    TCW

    1. TCW; I am not replying for your benefit, because you are not interested in the truth, but those who don’t know you may believe you.

      First, on noise. At 2km you will rarely hear the turbines. If you listen closely on a very quiet morning, no traffic sounds at all, and the turbines are working, you might just hear them. (http://ramblingsdc.net/wtnoise.html)

      Of course Wind Turbine Syndrome is a figment of the imagination of people like Sarah Laurie. (http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/DrLaurie.html)

      Aerial spraying issues are covered above. On aerial fire-fighting, David Pearce, spokesman for the CFS said “We would treat the wind farms exactly the same way as we treat powerlines that are reasonably high, also radio masts, television towers or even high structures.” (http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/WindProblems.html#Aerial_fire-fighting_and_wind_turbines)

      Perhaps you could tell the readers what evidence you have that the community, as a whole, does not want the wind farm TCW. We know that some in the community don’t want it, but I don’t think the whole community would accept that you are speaking for them.

    2. TCW, you appear concerned about the potential for hearing wind turbines at a distance of 2km. This is unlikely. The easiest way to verify this would be to travel to Wattle Point and experience a wind farm for yourself. You also talk of “…too many reports coming in from Australia and all over the world, of people experiencing problems and being forced to leave their homes, for them to be ignored.” How many reports are you aware of and where are they documented? Exactly how many people have been forced to leave their homes and where are they?
      If you simply don’t like wind turbines that is fair enough; however propounding erroneous issues is, to my mind, irresponsible. And for those living by the seaside, presumably they have chosen to live there for the views of the seaside, rather than the inland?

      1. A while back I went to Challicum Hills and sat for a while at the base of a turbine. (Had I been better prepared, I would have taken a decibel meter).
        In the event, I came to an assessment of the noise level at the base and then walked away – taking note of the subjective effect of the sound.
        The sound radiation is subject to the inverse square law so it was not surprising that the turbine blade sound was not perceptible after a distance of a couple of hundred metres!
        I am aware that there are some environmental conditions under which sound propagates further than that but in general terms the sound is not a problem.
        This view is endorsed by both the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Victorian Health Dept.
        Both these institutions have determined that there are no adverse health effects of wind turbines. That’s good enough for me.
        If individuals want to express their dislike for the turbines that’s fine.
        It is a matter of personal choice.
        If anyone wants to put a turbine or two on my 20 acres and pay me for it, let’s go!

  13. Nick, for a moment there I thought you were showing a little more intelligence than Clarke and Barnard. I am familiar with Wattle Point, the Ceres turbines are twice the size. It is too late once they are built, anyone who says 199 turbines will not make any noise, are off with the pixies. They might be a little quieter when they are new, but what about in ten years time when they are worn and the maintenance on them is let go.

    You use the internet, you don’t have to search very far to find information on people suffering and leaving their homes,because of wind turbines.
    ,
    http://www.youtube.com/user/StopTheseThings?feature=watch

    has quite a few videos of people in this situation. Some members of our group have met these people, they are normal everyday Australians, like you and I and through no fault of there own, they find it very hard to stay in their homes because of the noise and infra sound, emitted by the turbines. If you choose to ignore this, like Clarke does, that’s fine, but don’t ridicule people who have had first hand experience and are trying to solve this problem.

    As for the Ceres Project, I was always of the understanding that we lived in a democratic society, where usually, at elections, the majority has their way, this does not seem to be the case with wind energy supporters. The bottom line is this, the community does not want the Ceres Project and I have listed some of the reasons why they don’t want it, there are more. We are not answerable to every outsider that comes along and tries to put their two bobs worth in. Don’t take my word for this, you come here and talk to the people.

    TCW

    1. TCW, the facts are:
      – Wattle Point has Vestas V82 turbines which have a rotor diameter of 80m and a tip height of 110m
      – Ceres is proposing turbines with a rotor diameter of 104m and a tip height of 152m
      – The Ceres turbines are approximately 1/3 bigger, not twice the size as you assert
      You claim you are familiar with the Wattle Point wind farm. Have you been there to experience it yourself? Alternatively, there are several wind farms on the Hummocks Range with larger turbines which would not be far out of your way on a trip to Adelaide.

      I am not ridiculing these people; no doubt their suffering is genuine. However these reports remain anecdotal. What I am suggesting is that the levels of infrasound near wind farms are imperceptible, they cannot be perceived by the human ear in a way that would cause annoyance. I am not aware of any literature that establishes that wind farm infrasound at neighbours homes is above the hearing threshold.

      A simple way of understanding the annoyance associated with infrasound is to drive in your car at 60km/h with the rear windows down. You will then be experiencing infrasound at approximately 100 dB(G) and, yes, it is quite annoying. Infrasound emissions from wind farms are orders of magnitude lower than 100 dB(G) and are at levels that cannot be perceived.

      Yes, we do live in a democracy and you have the right to vote as you wish. Obviously you are not answerable to the likes of me. However you have chosen to engage on a public forum and I am disagreeing with your assertions. Should you have evidence to the contrary you should produce it. In the same way I have challenged Dr Sexton to make his information publicly available.

      As I said in my previous post, there are people that do not want the wind farm and they are entitled to their view. This is subjective. The assertions you are making are not based on objective fact; they are also subjective.

  14. .Nick, I have no argument with what you are saying, but the facts are , the community do not want this thing, they never did. Three people decided it would be a good Idea, offered money to a few gullible hosts,then proceeded to treat the whole community with contempt. The people of the community have made their decision, they don’t want it.

    TCW.

    1. TCW; As so many times before, I’ll ask you for evidence. Has there ever been a pole of the people of the Yorke Peninsula in the region of the proposed wind farm? I don’t know of any. On what do you base your claim that “the community do not want this thing”?

      In the past you have said that you do not speak for the Heartland Farmers; yet you seem to feel that you can speak for all the people of the region! You would probably know of the CSIRO survey of November 2011 that showed “strong community support for wind power” in Australia.

      If the community is so against the wind farm, can you explain why it is that you are the only person who has taken the trouble to speak out here? Surely even the other members of the Heartland Farmers must be very half-hearted in their opposition.

  15. “TCW; I am not replying for your benefit, because you are not interested in the truth, but those who don’t know you may believe you.”

    Mr. Clarke, the truth is not only evading me, it seems to be evading everyone else here, who knows about what you did. Of course you won’t admit to such a low disgusting act, spineless little nerds like you never do.

    “Of course Wind Turbine Syndrome is a figment of the imagination of people like Sarah Laurie.”

    I think we have all worked out where the figments of imagination are coming from. Dr. Laurie is twice the person you could ever hope to be.

    “TCW; As so many times before, I’ll ask you for evidence. Has there ever been a pole of the people of the Yorke Peninsula in the region of the proposed wind farm? I don’t know of any. On what do you base your claim that “the community do not want this thing”?”

    Mr. Clarke, I live here, that is a pretty good start, it is a lot more than you do. However, do not take my word for it, if you want a poll, ring up your mates at the Country Times, ask them to run a poll in the paper. Better still, why don’t you come down here and conduct one yourself, seeing as you are so hell bent on being involved, I suggest you bring some security with you though, because you will need, you have made yourself very unpopular in this area.

    TCW.

    1. TCW; Regarding the YPCT reporter, Jenny Oldland and the “low disgusting act” that you are accusing me of. You seem to know her, I don’t know why you can’t ask her? Anyway, as you are making so much of it I’ll explain for the benefit of the general public. Ms Oldland wrote a front page article that I considered to be unfairly biased against wind power. I complained to the editor, pointing out that the Press Council required that newspapers should write using fairness and balance. The Editor agreed that the article could be called biased, but that the paper, on the whole, gave a balanced coverage. I left it at that.

  16. Dear CW
    I can perfectly understand you are upset at the prospect of a wind farm near to your home and that emotions are running high. However, I think it is unfortunate that you feel the need to make ad hominem attacks and idle threats.

    You appear to be emulating your nom de plume, which I believe does you a disservice.

    At the end of the day this is a development matter that will be arbitrated by the relevant authority based on its planning merits. I feel your emotional energy may be misspent railing against external observers.

  17. Nick, don’t come the “ad hominen attacks” thing with me, I think you are much smarter than that.

    I am only responding to what Mr. Clarke has done to us, he never gives up, it is none of his business, but he keeps sticking his nose in and I can assure you, there are many people here, who would like to punch it. If you read his blog, he constantly calls people liars, unethical,NIMBY’s, us included, he never lets up. He upset a local reporter here, who is a lovely lady, to the point where she was very distressed.

    While I take your remarks on board, Nick, I think the may be better addressed to Mr. Clarke. I am not threatening Mr. Clarke, he constantly writes to the local paper, as well as abuse us all over the internet, so consequently, he has made his views very widely known. I can assure you Mr. Clarke has made himself very unpopular in this area.

    TCW.

  18. Mr. Clarke, Thank you for the explanation.

    Nick, I concur with you completely, but once again as I have said before, this should be addressed to Mr. Clarke. His wind opposition pages on his blog, are full of ad hominem attacks on those who do not agree with his views, we are only responding to these attacks. If he were to remove the attacks and name calling from his blog, and stick to putting forward his arguments, we would not have a problem with that. He has been doing this a lot longer than we have.

    TCW.

  19. There were three surgeons having coffee after a big opperation and one said I like working on electritions because every thing is colour coded, the second one said, I like working on accountants because every thing is numbered, the third one said I like working on wind weasels & greentards because it doesn’t matter if you get their anass mixed up with their mouth, because the same comes out of both ends.

      1. It is about time you selfish lot started thinking about the people who are suffering big time from the low frequency noise & infersound, as it is playing hell with their lives, in the way of disturbed sleep which, is affecting their health.

        Nick Valentine you can talk class with all your lies, as it is all about money (real class isn’t it).

    1. Bruce; Those who are supporting wind power are largely doing so because they want to get some serious action on climate change – far from a selfish motive. Those who are opposing wind power, like TCW, are doing it because they don’t want nearby wind turbines; she has said so herself – a far more selfish motive. There is no evidence that anyone is suffering from “infersound” (sic) from turbines or from “wind turbine syndrome”; look at the scientific literature (http://ramblingsdc.net/windreviews.html). It is very easy to call someone a liar, if you do not have to give evidence to support your statement.

      Name-calling is pretty typical behavior from wind power opponents.

      1. You accuse me of being selfish for not wanting a 199 turbine wind farm at my back door, while you live in the middle of a town, kilometers from any wind turbine, does the word hypocrite mean anything to you?

        The day you move and live within two kilometers of a large wind farm, is the day we may give you a little credibility, until then, you and your blog have none.

        TCW.

  20. “It is very easy to call someone a liar, if you do not have to give evidence to support your statement.”

    The evidence is there, you choose to ignore it!

    “Name-calling is pretty typical behavior from wind power opponents.”

    Pot calling the kettle black, Mr. Clarke, just re-read your blog.

    TCW.

    1. TCW. You suggested I should re-read my blog. You said “If you read his blog, he constantly calls people liars, unethical,NIMBY’s, us included, he never lets up.”

      The word ‘liar’ occurs twice on my Heartland Farmers page (http://ramblingsdc.net/Australia/HeartlandFarmers.html); twice in 9200 words. Not exactly constant. The word liar is a descriptive term; if someone frequently tells lies they are properly called a liar. There is plenty of evidence on my HF page supporting my claim that the HF are liars. I could list them again here, but there is little point.

      On the other hand, ‘wind weasles’ and ‘greentards’ is simple name-calling.

      You wrote “No worries, Duped. He can’t be getting many hits on his Blog Of Lies, so he has to publish more bullshit to try and generate some interest.” on another post on this site. My site has been averaging 11000 hits a month for the last five months; I am content with that.

  21. “The word liar is a descriptive term; if someone frequently tells lies they are properly called a liar. There is plenty of evidence on my HF page supporting my claim that the HF are liars. I could list them again here, but there is little point.”

    And there my friends, we have an ‘ad hominen’ attack on the good members of Heartland Farmers. If it comes from Mr. Clarke, it is right, if it comes from anyone else, it is an ‘ad hominen’ attack and he wonders why we attack him.

    There are many instances in your blog that are wrong and things you have not updated, but you will not change them, because they do not support your climate change doomsday views. Your blog is fast coming obsolete, even more so once we have the election. The wind industry is imploding already, of course you would not admit to that.

    11,000 hits, well, bully for you, we all know hits do not mean very much, I hit on sites all the time, but I rarely spend much time on them. Most of those hits would take one look at something like the Heartland Farmers page, go WTF and move on.

    TCW.

    1. Why are you so ready to parrot fiction and pedal demonstrable lies rather than try and find some middle ground that would satisfy most reasonable people? Your concerns are essentially baseless given what has happened here in South Gippsland. The Toora wind farm has been operating for 10 years without any problems and no health issues. It exposes the fraudulent claims made by the L Ron Hubbard of the anti-wind brigade, Sarah Laurie. Around 500 people live within about 1.2 kilometres of the wind farm with no concerns.

  22. Blair Donaldson, Mike Barnard’s mate, who also got kicked off the King Island FB page, for annoying shit out of them. It’s about time you, Barnard and Clarke got a new script, we are all sick of hearing the same old crap. Times have moved on, it seems the only place the lies and fiction are coming from, is the pro wind mob, so get your heads out of the sand and start looking around, a percentage of people here and around the world are experiencing problems with turbines and they deserve to be heard. If there are no health issues with the Toora wind farm, that’s good, but there are health issues with many other wind farms, both here in Australia and around the world..

    The majority of the Community here in our area. do not want the Ceres Project for many reasons, some of which I have outlined in previous posts. This area is totally the wrong place for a wind turbine project and it is not going to happen. There are many other areas where they can be put where they will not affect anyone.

    TCW.

    1. What you failed to mention was that everything I posted was factual and unlike you, I live next to a wind farm so I know what I’m talking about.

      Getting booted off an anti-wind page is hardly proof that your breathless claims are credible, it just demonstrates yet again that you and your fellow complainers are not interested in facts, only yourselves. Anyway, I still have a number of contacts from KI so I know what’s happening there, it seems the anti-wind propaganda promoters are losing credibility by the day.

      The only thing you have right is that time has moved on.

      Your failure to acknowledge the wind industry has accepted some people believe they are affected by turbines, has address concerns and that it’s happy to see further research done highlights your double standards.

      If you bothered to find out anything about wind energy you would know exactly why the Ceres project is a sensible proposal and the area is ideal.

      Given the ridiculous claims made by wind energy opponents here prior to 3 of the 4 projects getting the go-ahead, I very much doubt the majority there opposed the project. Opponents have a well-known history for embellishing certain claims to prop up their very dodgy excuses.

      Eventually you will have to accept that the science is not on your side. We are ones with facts and evidence, all objectively assessed. You on the other hand are promoting pseudoscience and distortions. It’s not a good look.

      1. “Your failure to acknowledge the wind industry has accepted some people believe they are affected by turbines, has address concerns and that it’s happy to see further research done highlights your double standards.”

        Perhaps you would care to enlighten me, I have seen very little of it, the wind industry usually does all it can, with the help of it’s disciples, to denigrate anyone who dares speak out.

        “If you bothered to find out anything about wind energy you would know exactly why the Ceres project is a sensible proposal and the area is ideal.”

        First of all, it is none of your concern, just like King Island, but if you bothered to acquaint your self with the facts as to why we are opposing this project, you could speak with authority, but you haven’t, so butt out!

        “I very much doubt the majority there opposed the project.”

        Don’t take my word for it, come and find out for yourself.

        “Eventually you will have to accept that the science is not on your side. We are ones with facts and evidence, all objectively assessed. You on the other hand are promoting pseudoscience and distortions. It’s not a good look.”

        There is one problem, all your science, facts and evidence is not playing out in reality. the wind industry around the world as well as here in Australia, is imploding, because it is unsustainable.

        I gave up worrying about looks, a long time ago, in fact I never did worry about it.

        TCW.

  23. Blair cannot be accused of lying he just does not tell the whole truth. It never ceases to amaze me why so called greenies support the developers of wind farms. The same greenies in Melbourne would oppose a developer that wants to build a multi storey building because it changes the character of a neighbourhood. Even though it may be the best thing for the environment due to urban consolidation. What do they think a150m tall turbine does?

    1. What “whole truth” are you talking about Gerard? I make a point of sticking with the facts, it’s a far more powerful weapon than your invented scary stories and nonsense claims. Your silly little straw man argument perfectly highlights the emptiness of your argument. If you want people to respect your views on wind farms, try reasoning like an adult who has some regard for the truth.

  24. Gerard; It’s really very simple. Greenies support wind power because we know that fossil fuels must be replaced with renewables if future generations are to have a world that is not very inferior to the one that we all enjoy at present.

    1. Right, I think I have got it now. We have to destroy the landscape (and peoples’ lives) to protect the landscape and our lives.

      1. Gerard, no, you still haven’t got it. We change to clean, renewable technologies to protect the landscape and our lives. Maybe if you tried being a little less obsessed with yourself, you’ll see the bigger picture?

    2. That is why the country is in such a mess, they let the ‘greenies’ have a go, if they stay there, the country will be completely broke and there will be nothing left to enjoy.

      Who is going to pay for the renewables Mr. Clarke, the wind industry is imploding already, because it is unsustainable?

      TCW.

      1. If the greenies are really running the show, why is it that Conservative cranks can hold up clean energy projects for purely ideological reasons? There is a major flaw in your argument.

  25. Blair character assassination is your modus operandi not mine. Earlier you said that the middle ground should be reached. That is exactly what a buffer distance does, however you refuse to budge from your position. Everybody else has to move except you Blair and your fellow windies.

    1. Gerard, if somebody chooses to parrot lies and misinformation after being presented with testable evidence that refutes their claims, it’s hard to take them seriously or have much regard for that person. You just refuse to accept the science does not support the claims made by wind farm opponents. Sure I have called some people idiots for making the claims they have but the justification is there for all to see.

      Where have I stated I oppose a buffer? Once again you are presenting a lie as fact.

      For the record, I have said on a number of occasions that I think a sensible distance between homes and turbines should exist – but that those same buffers should be based on science and apply to all developments including coal mines and CSG. I also think landholders adjacent to those hosting turbines should receive some income. Finally, I think all projects should pay a pro rata amount into a community fund on an annual basis for the life of the project so that everybody in the region can benefit.

  26. The setback ruling is pure politics, spare me the crocodile tears. There are 2 houses that I know of within 800 m of the Toora windfarm, the residents of both properties have no problems at all with the turbines. Jan 4 2012 Blair Donaldson

    The setback ruling is pure politics, spare me the crocodile tears. There are 2 houses that I know of within 800 m of the Toora windfarm, the residents of both properties have no problems at all with the turbines. May 26 2011 Blair Donaldson

    There is no change we’ll ever see any peer-reviewed research from the anti windfarm mob – mainly because there is none. The best they have is anecdotal claims from people adjacent to wind farms which curiously ignores those landholders who can live quite close to wind farms without any problems whatsoever July 4 2011 Blair Donaldson

    Blair the evidence on this site alone disputes your support for buffer distances.

    1. Blair; I wouldn’t bother trying to argue with those two. When you show them that they are wrong on one point, they simply ignore that and go on to a different point. Your time would be more valuably used elsewhere.

      1. David where am I wrong? I have only ever argued that a buffer distance is the appropriate way of dealing with what is planning issue whether it be CSG, mining or wind farms. It is you and Blair and other windies that want to impose your vision on others. There are places for all if they are sited fairly and in a consultative manner.

      2. Hi Dave, I realise Gerard and TCW aren’t interested in being honest or presenting claims based on testable evidence, my responses are directed to other readers who are interested in the general discussion and want objective information. I’ve got 10 years of experience living near a wind farm, whereas Gerard and TCW have none.

    2. Your point? None of my earlier comments are contradictory. A 2 km buffer is excessive when highways, mines and CSG plants can exist within 100 m of homes. Whether you like it or not, people are living quite happily next to wind turbines without any adverse health effects or other issues.

      1. The point Blair is that you should be lobbying for a 2km buffer from CSG sites and mining. But that would spoil your plan to industrialise the landscape with turbines. You personally know that people are happy living next to turbines. You really are delusional!

      2. Gerard, unlike you, I prefer to base my decisions on sound science rather than self-interested anecdote, blatant lies and misconceptions.

        For the same reason I expect doctors and pilots to be well-qualified, I expect laws to be based on evidence rather than what makes you feel good.

        Yes I do know quite a few people who are happy living next to the wind farm here. Why don’t you contact the local bookshop in Foster, the owners live at Toora and have turbines covering around 200° of their property boundary, they bought the land and built their house after the wind farm was constructed and are totally unfazed by them.

        The one thing that does annoy them is the row of cypress trees on the eastern side of their house blocking their views of the inlet.

        You have demonstrated you are prone to falling victim to propaganda, making uninformed comments while ignoring those of us who know what we’re talking about. That says a lot about your arrogance, lack of regard for the truth and your gullibility.

        Given the amount of infrastructure needed to support modern communities today, I hope you understand if I chuckle at your insane comment about industrialising landscapes.

  27. Gerard, they are getting desperate, because they know their backs are against the wall, the wind industry is about to self destruct, which will leave them looking pretty stupid, not that they need any help with that.

    Pot calling the kettle black, Mr. Clarke, you never answer anything that goes against your one eyed views.

    Your time is coming Mr. Clarke and very quickly, one month to the election, goodbye Greens!

    TCW.

    1. If you buy next to a wind farm you know what to expect. It is like buying a house near an airport, railway line, highway….. etc. If you’re a bargain hunter and you accept your lot that’s ok. It is those that have turbines imposed on them that is at issue. Like the movie The Castle there is no accounting for some peoples taste or tolerance. Like the Castle, your dreamin’ ( I guess that backs up the delusional state).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s