Mixed Greens: SA wind farm rejected by council

The Regional Council of Goyder Development Assessment Panel has refused approval of a 41 turbine TRUenergy wind farm at Stony Gap in South Australia, due to noise-related community health concerns. ABC News reports that the council’s decision to reject the Stony Gap proposal – the first time a wind farm application has been rejected at council level under the state government’s legislation, passed last year – was made on Wednesday night, after an “extraordinary” meeting that lasted almost six hours, and saw 15 people speak against the Stony Gap development – which was to be located about 5km south of the township of Burra – on the grounds they would be directly affected by it.

TRUenergy has reportedly commented that it is disappointed with the decision, which might pour cold water on the energy company’s plans to add six turbines to its already operating 37-turbine Waterloo wind farm – located just seven kilometers away from the Stony Gap site. TRUenergy says that at 123MW – enough to power 51,650 households a year – their Stony Gap proposal was on a notably smaller scale than that flagged by the project’s original operators, Roaring 40s. “We’ve certainly scaled back and minimised the footprint of the overall wind farm,” TRUenergy’s Clint Purkiss said, back in January.

One person who is notably pleased by this development is South Australian independent Senator Nick Xenophon, who issued a statement today saying the Goyder council’s decision should be applauded, and warning other councils to note that the South Australian Environmental Protection Authority’s Wind Farm Noise Guidelines 2009 does not account for low frequency noise. “I am personally aware of numerous affected land holders who are taking legal advice about pursing substantial damages claims …against those who have created, authorised or permitted the generation of excessive noise so as to prevent those persons from the usual enjoyment of their homes and properties,” he said. “Last night’s decision was a significant turning point in this debate and ultimately a win for common sense.”

In other news…

First Solar’s profit has jumped 81 percent after it factored in revenue from selling power plants, validating a strategic shift to building solar farms using its thin-film modules. Bloomberg reports that the US solar giant’s income was reported at $US111 million, or $1.27 a share, compared with $61.1 million, or 70 cents, a year earlier. Sales climbed 80 percent to $957.3 million, largely from selling utility-scale power projects to companies such as Exelon Corp. and Enbridge Inc.

The ACT Australian CleanTech Index has hit a new all-time low, recording a 2.6 per cent loss in July and once again underperforming both the S&P ASX200 Index and the S&P Small Ordinaries Index. Market capitalisation of the index’s 72 stocks hit a new low of $A5.7 billion, down from a peak of $16.3 billion in July 2007. The biggest loser was Sims Metal Management, which lost over $260 million in its value recording a 13.6 per cent loss over the month. Biggest winner: Carnegie Wave Energy, with a 53 per cent gain on news of signing a PPA for its Garden Island project.

After almost three years of negotiations, the Philippines’ energy regulator has approved an initial feed-in tariff of 9.68 Philippine pesos ($A0.22) per kilowatt hour for renewable energy, after petitioning by the country’s Renewable Energy Board. This will be the FiT for all solar installations, regardless of the size of the system or technology used.

Comments

6 responses to “Mixed Greens: SA wind farm rejected by council”

  1. Alex Avatar
    Alex

    Yes to Nick Xenophon re: Scientology, a big NO regarding the Pseudoscience of the anti-wind farm lobby. This is what happens when you have a scientifically illiterate populace. I would be very interested to see any science that shows a plausible link between a decline in a person’s health and low frequency noise, especially given how many Australians CHOOSE to live by the ocean and make no complaints about the way their health is affected by the rumble of crashing waves.

    1. John Avatar
      John

      Alex you are right on the ball. Not only the ocean but our own bodies are rich sources of low frequency noise. The Bionic Ear/Eye engineer Peter Seligman has written eloquently about this issue in his senate committee submission. What we are seeing is an example of the Nocebo response. The politicians jumping on the “wind turbine syndrome” band-wagon should consider the alternative: real health- and environment-destroying effects of fossil fuel power generation.

  2. Gary06 Avatar
    Gary06

    This decision is the first sign of connection with the response from residents living with turbines. Reliance on legislation to protect uncertainties of noise and vibration intrusion into residential areas is an absolute failure. A purely reactionary; not precautionary process. The cost in terms of heart and vascular disease alone is challenging the survival of the health system itself, yet causes of such health problems are ignored by the Minister. When authorities such as the EPA and public health section of Health are not investigating or collecting any evidence to evaluate community concerns, the health symptoms are a burden for residents. Nick is right to reference directly the inadequacy of the EPA noise policy. Injury from vibration below A weighting is predominant, but not included in the guidelines. The vitality the SA Government is wishing for, will never arrive while our regulators ignore the risks and health incidence.

  3. George Avatar
    George

    This is dumb and dysfunctional.

    If we stop wind farms based on an assumption that low frequency noise that we can’t hear ( or reliably measure ) can somehow cause health impacts ( when we know of know mechanism by which such ill health can be mediated ) and yet we allow new coal fired power plants to be built near schools and communities, which undoubtedly produce pollutants which have a demonstrable and indisputable ill-heath effects, and when there are epidemiological studies confirming these community health impacts, then we have undoubtedly lost the collective plot.

    Much the same applies to coal seam and shale (unconventional) gas extraction and fracking, which also releases toxic compounds into our soil and water and atmosphere.

    What is super cautious Nick X doing about that ?

    1. George Papadopoulos Avatar
      George Papadopoulos

      I think there have not been any coal plants built for years…

  4. Gary06 Avatar
    Gary06

    Understanding the uncertainty and political nature of this topic, it is encouraging there is interest in the poorly understood effects of fallout from industrial turbines. For the sake of relating the complexity of low frequency noise, vibration and shock waves that eminate, I offer some relevant academic articles. One only has abstract reference here. I do have the articles, and more, if you cannot recover them;

    Responses of the ear to low frequency sounds, infrasound and wind turbines, Alec N. Salt and Timothy E. Hullar, Hear Res. 2010 September 1; 268(1-2): 12–21. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2010.06.007; http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC2923251/pdf/nihms214369.pdf
    Stress, NPY and vascular remodelling: Implications for stress related diseases, Lydia E. Kuo and Zofia Zukowska, Peptides. 2007 February ; 28(2): 435–440; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1868452/pdf/nihms18343.pdf
    Hearing with Your Body – The Influence of Whole-Body Vibrations on Loudness Perception, Sebastian Merchel, Anna Leppin and Ercan Altinsoy, ICSV16, Kraków, Poland, 2009; http://www.ias.et.tu-dresden.de/ias/fileadmin/user_upload/akustik/Forschung/altinsoy_alt/26_1_.pdf
    Stress, subjective experience and cognitive performance during exposure to noise and vibration

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.