Ceres wind farm: the truth

The project has met with significant resistance from a few very vocal people. How much of the opposition is justified? If it goes ahead what are the pros and cons? I created a page on Facebook in an attempt to produce an open debate; hoping for arguments for and against the project. It was a disappointment. There was name-calling, insults, libellous accusations from several people, some of whom hid behind false names; but apart from a very short session with Naomi Bittner, the woman behind the Heartland Farmers, there was nothing that could be called debate.

More European support for wind power, February 2015 Wind power installations outstrip gas and wind In 2014 the European Union installed more than twice as much wind power as coal and gas power combined. UK government approves world's biggest offshore wind farm Approval has been given for up to 400 turbines to be built on the Dogger Bank at a cost of 6-8 billion pounds. It is important to note that, per megawatt, off-shore wind farms cost about twice as much as on-shore. See Renew Economy

The article's headline was "Government backs eight new renewable energy projects". It continued:

"The UK government has announced that it will financially support eight renewable energy projects that could generate enough electricity to power more than three million homes. Once built, all eight projects, of which five are offshore wind farms and three biomass projects, could add a further 4.5GW of low-carbon electricity to Britain's energy mix (around 4% of capacity), according to the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC)."

Second, The Global Wind Energy Council reported in their Annual Market Update, 2013, that in China,

"... annual installations [of wind power projects] are expected to continue to grow over the next few years. The Chinese government has also set a new ambitious target of 200 GW by 2020 and if the past is any indication, the target will certainly be achieved, and likely exceeded."

"In response to the two letters criticising the Ceres proposal (YPCT 19th March) I suggest the two questions that should be asked are: what good will be achieved and what harm will be done?

The good: it will be a huge boost to the local economy and it will reduce Australia's greenhouse gas production by about two million tonnes per year.

The harm: it will be very visible, it will cause some inconvenience to neighbouring landholders, and people within one or two kilometres of turbines will hear them at times.

On health, the National Health and Medical Research Council, after an investigation lasting several years, has said "There is no reliable or consistent evidence that wind farms directly cause adverse health effects in humans". The Australian Medical Association and the Public Health Association have released similar statements.

Both letter writers claimed that it would be illegal for a neighbouring landholder to build a house within 1.3km of a turbine. I doubt that there is any such law.

One letter mentioned the overnight shut-down of a number of turbines at Hallett 2 Wind Farm due to noise problems, but did not mention that the problem was a temporary one in the gearboxes and that it was fixed in a short time.

I could continue, particularly on the claims about shadow flicker, but I must keep this letter short."

The Yorke Peninsula wind power opponents have consistently pushed the bizarre claim that shadow flicker from wind turbines will be a big problem to road users. This is a complete red herring.

Yorke Peninsula roads have many trees along their sides. At any time when the sun gets sufficiently low in the sky to cast a shadow of wind turbine blades on a nearby road there would also be shadows of trees. The flicker of tree shadows for drivers travelling on the roads would be almost infinitely greater than the occasional flicker from a wind turbine blade.

He wrote:

"The correlation between climate change and carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels has not yet been conclusively proven."

Also see why accept climate science?

He also wrote:

"A wind farm of this scale on some of the best and most reliable farming land in Australia is, put bluntly, ridiculous."

Germany is the world's biggest producer of rye and second biggest producer of barley; it has less than 5% the area of Australia and more than ten times the installed wind power.

The US state of Iowa has less than two-thirds the area of Victoria, but more wind power than the whole of Australia; it is the second biggest agricultural producer in the USA; the three top US states in agricultural production are also the three top states in wind power. Wind power is very compatible with agriculture.

Evidence for these statements is on another page on this site.

The Callous Wind on April 26, 2014 at 10:12 pm   My comments on TCW's claims Of course the Ceres Project will not significantly impact anybody's quality of life and most of the credible evidence is that property values will not be adversely impacted.   Desperate? Why should anyone be desperate? No one is going to be harmed.   The bit about the "one particular blogger" is clearly aimed at me. Note that TCW does not use facts, just vague threats and unfounded claims. No TCW, I will not 'take my blog down', I will keep on providing the people of Yorke Peninsula with the facts about wind farms.   Perhaps TCW should not be so strident in her condemnation of her neighbours, then she might find that she can have a more pleasant relationship with them? When the Heartland Farmers hired lawyers to send threatening letters to turbine hosts it would not have done anything to reduce tension and bad feeling. All caused by the wind industry? I don't think so. Most of the bad feeling is caused by people telling lies about wind farms. "Well said STT. While we do not condone violence or vandalism, I can see things like that happening here, if construction starts on Ceres, There has already been some pushing and shoving with one of the proponents, neighbours angry at their turbine host neighbours, for not showing them any consideration when signing up for turbines. You can not treat a Community with contempt, like they did at the meeting you mentioned and then construct an industrial power generating facility, that is going to impact on many people's quality of life, reduce their property values, as well as interfere with their business operations and not expect tensions to rise. Many things in the way of reprisals, have been discussed in jest, already, but in situations like this, desperate people do desperate things. One particular blogger needs to tread very carefully as well, he continues to antagonise and denigrate members of our Community in his blog, on the internet, he needs to remember that he does not live very far away and he has publicly advertised his address. If I were him, I would take that blog down and move house, because if Ceres goes ahead, it could just come back and bite him in the arse, as they say, 'karma can be a bitch!' I have never in my whole life time, seen anything like this, the stress, the tension, people avoiding each other, Communities divided, all caused by the wind industry. TCW"

If the Ceres Project goes ahead the worst that any of the local people will suffer is:

1. They will see wind turbines;
2. If they live within one or two kilometres they will occasionally hear turbines;
3. If they have neighbouring farms they might be slightly inconvenienced occasionally; they may have to go about aerial spraying adjacent to turbines in a different way.

There was no stress and tension when the Clements Gap Wind Farm was built near my home in Crystal Brook, there was none at Snowtown when either the original wind farm or stage two were built, and, so far as I know, there was none at Edithburgh when Wattle Point Wind Farm was built. If there is local anxiety around Ceres it is due to people like the HF group and TCW stirring up fear with their misinformation campaign.

Recorded and projected growth in renewable energy Image credit Scientific American, July 10, 2013

"Renewables, particularly wind power, around the world have had their day, it has been nothing but an expensive experiment, that has failed dismally and the major powers are reverting back to gas and coal."

The graph on the right shows recorded and projected growth in global renewable energy.

Total electricity consumption is decreasing in Australia, yet wind and solar continue to grow. A new 90 turbine wind farm at Snowtown has recently been completed.

The Renewable Energy Policy Network 2013 report:

"Globally, wind power accounted for about 39% of renewable power capacity added in 2012, followed by hydropower and solar PV, each accounting for approximately 26%. Renewables made up just over half of total net additions to electric generating capacity from all sources in 2012."

China alone built 16 GW of new wind energy in 2013 (Australia has a total of 3 GW).

I could go on, but surely that is sufficient to show how wrong TCW is. (More below)

For a time she was banned from the 'Ceres wind farm – the debate' Facebook page for continually posting insulting, irrelevant, and sometimes libelous accusations.

I suggest that readers have a critical look at the Callous Wind Facebook page. They should note the insulting language used, and the obvious bias in the great majority of the postings. They could see the lack of any references to peer-reviewed or other sources with high credibility and the lack of reasoned logic from the anti-wind people who are involved.

Why should climate science deniers be called climate science deniers? One of life's mysteries!

From the 'About' section of TCW's Facebook page, February 2015

"Because we opposed the Ceres wind farm, members of our Community have been called liars, unethical, NIMBY's, climate change deniers, you name it, by certain sections of the pro wind lobby, one in particular."

• liars because they tell lies. (Just one of these is the claim that 60 000ha will be impacted by the wind farm. The actual impact will be a very small fraction of that.)
• unethical because they tell lies in order to oppose a renewable energy development that is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• NIMBYS because they want the wind turbines to be built elsewhere (NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard).
• climate change deniers because they deny climate change science. (The image on the right was published by TCW on her Facebook page.)

In the future, people who are considering writing letters to the YPCT, and perhaps elsewhere, should look to their honesty, and anyone who is interested in the truth will have a place they can turn to.

As I have said in other places, if anyone can find anything on these pages that is false, please tell me, giving evidence, and I will fix it.

"Paddock protest"

I suggest that Ms Oldland, as a Senior Journalist, should have given this article some balance and fairness by pointing out that a number of the claims made by Mr Twelftree were questionable. General Principle 1 of the Australian Press Council is for Accurate, fair and balanced reporting. Ms Oldland failed to provide balance and fairness in this article.

One important point that could very easily misunderstood was a quote within a quote. Ms Oldland quoted Mr Twelftree as claiming that Country Fire Service chief Greg Nettleton has stated, 'in some circumstances aircraft will not be utilised [for fire fighting] because risks caused by vertical obstructions exceed safe operating conditions'. Supposing that Mr Nettleton did say this, the implication here is that he was referring specifically to wind turbines, but he may well have been referring to vertical obstructions in general. The policy of the CFS in regard to aerial fire fighting has been given by CFS aviation manager David Pearce as reported elsewhere on this site.

Mr Twelftree made several other claims about the CFS and aerial firefighting which Ms Oldland should have questioned. It is a pity that Ms Oldland did not contact the CFS for comment on the claims made by Mr Twelftree.

Ms Oldland also quoted Mr Twelftree as saying "Local agronomists have told me I can expect a reduction in yields of 10 to 80 per cent if this important tool [aerial spraying] is unavailable or restricted". No justification was given for this extreme claim. As pointed out elsewhere on this site there is good reason to believe that agriculture and wind power are highly compatible and that the impact of the proposed Ceres wind farm on agriculture has been widely overstated. Light aircraft and wind turbines have been discussed elsewhere on these pages and some of the points raised by opponents debunked on my Heartland Farmers page.

Power generation, SA, May 3-15, 2016 Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) data, graph by Giles Parkinson

On May 17^th Glyn Hartley of Port Hughes had a letter published in the Yorke Peninsula Country Times forecasting disaster following the closing of the Port Augusta coal-fired power station. (It stopped operating on the morning of Monday 9^th May.)

The graph: more technical The dark brown represents coal-fired power, the various shades of light brown and orange represent power coming from several types of gas-fired generators. The ragged line at the bottom of the graph records power being imported and exported through the interstate interconnector power lines.

Among a number of dubious technical claims Mr Hartley wrote "The recent gale-force winds and overcast skies would have produced little or no power from wind turbines or solar panels". The graph on the right shows that, contrary to Mr Hartley's claim, wind generation only slowed a little during the worst of the winds. Most of South Australia's electricity was generated by our wind farms in the week before and the week after the strong winds.

The graph may not be easy for non-technical people to understand. The important thing is that the amount of wind power generated at any one time is given by the height of the green section. It can plainly be seen that there was a huge amount of wind power generated in the few days before the closure of the Port Augusta Northern Power Station (the dashed line).

Unfortunately the graph does not show solar power.

The coal-fired power station was closed down because it could no longer operate at a profit. South Australia has a number of gas-fired power stations that can usually handle the state's power needs when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.

It is true, as Mr Hartley stated, that the interstate interconnectors can and do fail at times. It is just as true that the generators at the coal fired power station failed from time to time, and they had to be closed-down for maintenance at other times. All forms of generation fail at times.

Tellingly, Mr Hartley did not mention climate change or ocean acidification. If we are to avert environmental disaster, we must close down our coal-fired power stations. Most people recognise this fact and consequently the world coal industry is in terminal decline.

Median prices for Cape Bridgewater/Cape Nelson – commissioned 2008/09   Median prices for Challicum Hills – commissioned 2003   Median prices for Codrington – commissioned 2001   Median prices for Toora – commissioned 2002   Median prices for Waubra – commissioned 2009   Median prices for Wonthaggi – commissioned 2005   Median prices for Yambuk – commissioned 2007

Mr Gric was responding to an earlier letter by Bill Gresham; that Mr Gric wrote Bill Graham rather than Gresham was an early indication of how little concerned he was with the facts.

Mr Gric went on to state a half truth. He wrote about several cases in which authorities have recognised declines in land values near wind farms. This is called cherry picking of the evidence. Mr Gric ignored a lot of evidence of cases where there has been no decline in land values. (Although land values can be expected to decline when people like Mr Gric and the Heartland Farmers talk them down by predicting impending disaster.)

In places like Snowtown, where everybody is happy with the local wind farm, why should land values decline? It is to be expected that they would increase because of the increased earning potential of the land, increased employment, increased affluence of the turbine-hosting farmers, and the generous community development grants that are being provided by the wind farm operator.

The graphs on the right were produced by Victorian Greens MP Greg Barber. Each is in an area where a wind farm has been built. The graphs clearly show that there are no long-term declines in land values associated with wind farms. Greg got the data from propertyvalue.com.au.

Mr Gric wrote "Fact is turbines produce lots of infrasound and are under investigation by SA's own Environmental Protection Authority" (EPA). The second part of that statement is true, the first part is false. The EPA published a report titled "Infrasound levels near windfarms and in other environments". This report stated:

• "Infrasound levels at houses adjacent to wind farms ... are no higher than those at houses located a considerable distance from wind farms."
• "... there did not appear to be any noticeable contribution from the wind farm to the G-weighted infrasound level ..."

1. Some turbines were turned off at night for a short period while problems with tonality in the sound were sorted out;
2. The problem was with audible sound, not infrasound.

It contained several errors of fact. Mr Hayles claimed that "the developers are paid huge subsidies by your government to build [the turbines] ($500,000/year/turbine)". So far as I know there is no direct subsidy.

The wind turbine operators do get paid a bonus for the renewable energy that they generate in much the same way as anyone who has solar panels on their roof get a payment for the renewable energy certificates (RECs) that their panels will generate over their expected life time. The price published by the Renewable Energy Regulator to the present (2013/04/11) for 2013 was $38.69 per megawatt-hour (MWh; this is equal to $0.039/kWh) of electricity generated. If built the Ceres wind turbines will each generate about 8760MWh per year. The certificates for this are worth a total of about $340 000.

What we pay for wind farm electricity Assuming that Mr Hayles' $150 000 is what the Ceres proponents expect to get paid for the power they generate (and that Mr Hayles didn't just pull the figure out of his hat) we can work out approximately how much of our power bill goes to the wind farmers. $150 000 for 8760MWh works out at $17.12/MWh or $0.017/kWh. Adding this to the payment that the wind farmers will get for their RECs, $0.039/kWh, we get a total of $0.056/kWh going to the wind farm operator. So, if we pay $0.25/kWh for our electricity, about 22% of this would be going to the wind farm operator, the rest goes to middle-men.

Mr Hayles went on to write "I've omitted to say the power providers will tell you each turbine will or may produce about $150,000 energy/year." What the energy is worth depends on whether you look at the wholesale price that the wind farm operators will get, or the much higher retail price that we consumers pay. The wholesale price varies depending on demand and supply. What you and I pay for our electricity is something around $0.25 per kilowatt-hour (kWh; there are a thousand kWh in a MWh, so the retail price is around $250/MWh). So, given that a typical Ceres wind turbine will generate about 8760MWh per year that comes to $2 190 000 per year; a smidgen above Mr Hayles value. (I don't know where Mr Hayles got his $150 000, but it may be an estimate of what the Ceres operators will be paid for the electricity they will generate – before RECs.)

Mr Hayles also repeat the old lies about turbines causing illness and reducing land values.

He claimed that the construction of the wind farm would cause destruction of native flora, which is curious considering that by far the greatest part of the project will be on land that has been farmed and/or grazed for decades. He made the common claim about wind farms destroying fauna, presumably referring to birds. The world's bird protection organisations are in favour of wind power because they know that climate change is a far greater danger to birds. For example, the British Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has proposed a wind tubine at its headquarters.

Mr Hayles repeated the ill-founded claims that the Heartland Farmers have made about the impact of the Ceres Project will have on agriculture, and commented on fire hazards.

Yorke Peninsula Country Times, 2013/10/29, Development Assessment Commission hears wind farm submissions

Notes in response to the Yorke Peninsula Country Times article on the Development Assessment Commission hearing at Ardrossan, 2013/10/24

Don't mention climate change

The Ceres project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by well over a million tonnes per year. This will slow climate change and ocean acidification. It will reduce the number of serious illnesses and deaths caused by air pollution from coal-fired power stations. There was no mention of these factors in the YPCT article.

In the YPCT article

• It seems that Steven Griffiths (member for Goyder) said something that he attributed to Greg Nettleton. This was not clear in the article. Contrary to what was published in YPCT, ABC News published the following on 2012/12/11... "The Country Fire Service (CFS) says wind farms do not pose any special hazards when it comes to fighting fires from the air." (More at Aerial fire-fighting and wind turbines)
• Black Point Progress Association President Barry Noble spoke of "massive government-arranged subsidies". Barry, these 'subsidies' amount to about 1¢ per kilowatt-hour paid to the wind farm operator as a bonus for the emissions-free electricity they generate. We consumers pay around 25¢/KWh for our electricity. (The Black Point Progress Association has a record of misrepresenting the facts on wind power, see Dr Roger Sexton.)
• Dr Max Lees spoke about the 'danger' of turbine blade fragments being thrown up to 500m. The break-up of a rotating turbine is an extremely rare event. It has never happened in Australia (as of November 2013). An anti-wind power Net site (Caithness Windfarm Information Forum) records an average of about 20 blade-failure events per year world-wide (not necessarily in utility scale wind turbines). There are around 250 000 utility scale wind turbines in the world. Assuming that all 20 blade failure events recorded by Caithness were in utility scale turbines, we can calculate a probability of one turbine in 12 000 suffering from blade failure in any one year. That is, a probability of blade failure of 0.000083 in any one year, or 0.00000023 on any particular day.

  So far as I have been able to find out, no one has ever been injured by a piece of a blade thrown from a utility-scale wind turbine. Yet Dr Lees felt that this was "a significant risk to public safety".
  
  Dr Lees repeated the claim that there will be a "danger to road users" due to shadow-flicker from the turbines (previously made by the Heartland Farmers and others). There has never been any evidence that shadow-flicker from wind turbines harms anyone's health and, of course, shadow-flicker happens all the time when one drives along Yorke Peninsula roads with a low sun; because of the road-side vegetation.

Nick Perry wrote about health issues, but neglected to mention that while there have been at least 19 scholarly reviews of the health literature, not one of them has concluded that wind turbines harm anyone's health. (See Wind and health reviews)

Nick wrote about wind turbines and noise. He could also have reported that the SA Environmental Protection Agency did a study on infrasound near wind farms and stated "Infrasound levels at houses adjacent to wind farms ... are no higher than those at houses located a considerable distance from wind farms." (See Wind turbine noise: infrasound)

Bangor Fire of Jan/Feb 2014 We can expect more fires like this if there is no serious action on climate change

Climatologists tell us that we must expect more exceptionally hot days and seriously increasing fire danger if nothing is done about anthropogenic climate change.

Of course there will be many other problems if we do not give up burning fossil fuels and change to renewables.

Catchy, simplistic, but true

The above statements apply to utility scale wind turbines (about 3MW) operating in mainland Australia.

The vocal opponents have admitted that there were some who were happy to host turbines, but because the amount of money on offer was insuficient they became opponents of the project.

The disregard for the facts that those who are vocally opposing Ceres have is plain to anyone reading this page, the Ceres Facebook page and the Heartland Farmers page. What is surprising is that they don't seem to mind being shown to be wrong over and over again.

Also see Who are the Heartland Farmers?

There is no convincing evidence that wind turbines cause health problems.

People can live perfectly happily near wind turbines as shown by the people of Snowtown (near the 138-turbine Snowtown WF), Edithburgh (near the 55-turbine Wattle Point WF) and my own home town of Crystal Brook (near the 27-turbine Clements Gap WF).

Wind turbines do not make much noise (audible or infrasound).

Wind farms do not significantly impact property values.

Wind farms do not cause social conflict. People who oppose wind farms and either invent or repeat unfounded complaints about wind power – producing anxiety and fear in the community – do.

There are many benifits to having a nearby wind farm.

So why do some of the people of the Yorke Peninsula oppose the proposed wind farm?

• Some people wrongly believe that wind turbines do cause the 'problems' listed above;
• Wind farms do cause some environmental problems;
• Some people believe that they have a right to not have to look at or ever hear wind turbines (and this is justifiable, to some extent).