The war against renewable energy

[Upton Sinclair]

Th real reason is that energy policy in this country is controlled by the Greenhouse Mafia

t's an odd scenario when the Coalition becomes the main opponents to a new, profitable business. Long seen as the small government, pro-business party, the Coalition has engrained itself in the business community and business interests.

Yet, with the election of the Victorian and New South Wales Liberal Governments, it has become increasingly apparent that the Liberal's pro-business pedigree is only extended to certain business operations – normally the dirtiest ones to boost.

It all started with new regulations in Victoria in 2011. Passed through both houses of the Victorian Parliament in 2010, these rules set strict new regulations on the development of wind farms in the state. Based on the idea of 'community concerns' about wind development, the regulations state that any person who lives within 2km of a proposed wind turbine will now have the ability to veto the project, with very little discourse for wind operators. The bill has the potential to cost Victoria $3 billion in wind investment and means that it would now be easier to get approval for a coal power plant in Victoria than a wind farm.

Despite outcry from the Victorian environmental and business community, on the eve of Christmas the New South Wales Coalition Government followed its Victorian counterparts in adopting similar regulations. The New South Wales Government boasted that these were the "toughest wind farm guidelines in Australia and possibly the world". As Barry O'Farrell said, if he had his way, there would be no more wind farms ever approved in New South Wales.

It seems odd doesn't it? Since when would a "pro-business" Government turn so angrily against a booming industry based on, often difficult to prove, concerns of a few NIMBYs in the area? What happened to their pro-business pedigree?

Looking into the events deeper it soon becomes clear that these regulations have nothing to do with health concerns, or worries about community consultation, but everything to do with a war against renewable energy that is being waged to bring the industry down.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3776760.html

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Meanwhile, CSIRO has exposed the anti-wind lobby as being an astro turfing campaign and that the NIMBY's are a very small but vocal minority whose views are allowed to dominate the media (reminds me of climate deniers really):

THE Australian Environment Foundation is slamming a CSIRO report which claims wind farm support is higher than reported in the media.

The report, Exploring community acceptance of rural wind farms in Australia, released earlier this week, looked at nine wind farms across South Australia, NSW and Victoria and analysed 49 articles from 19 newspapers in the second half of 2010.

The report found more reasons for wind farm opposition were reported than reasons for support and that rural residents who backed the developments did not seek media attention or political engagement to express their views.

Australian Environment Foundation executive director Max Rheese said the report was "unbalanced research masquerading as science".

"Our view is that the report is based on a biased and inadequate review of the available peer-reviewed literatures, much of which does not support wind energy on economic, environmental or health impacts," Mr Rheese said.

"The report is littered with errors and the material referenced in the report presents a one-sided view of the robust community debate about the adverse impacts of wind farms."
The Foundation said of the 27 interviews conducted over the eight selected wind farms, only three farms had commended operations.

The group was also concerned the report made no reference to nine peer-reviewed studies since July 2011 linking wind turbine operation with adverse health effects from low-frequency sound.

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2012/01/19/432725_national-news.html

 

[Grin]

Obviously the coalition (working on behalf of big polluting multinationals in return for donations) thinks there's political mileage to be made in pandering to the ignorance of flat earthers. Probably because they're the easiest to manipulate into voting against their own interests through the employment various fear campaigns.

I admire you for trying to reason with these rock apes US.

I just point and laugh at them.

 

[Dry Rot]

Th real reason is that energy policy in this country is controlled by the Greenhouse Mafia

Yes, a very objective source from reading up on his background.

In any event, are those who claim to be affected by windfarms just full of crap according to you?

Or are they secret agents of coal miners?

 

[Bosun]

Seems to be just at Wind turbines, not at renewable energy as a sector. First article is on turbine placement and veto rights for citizens, what's the issue?

A good mate of mine works for Vesta's and sent me an excellent article on current capability, improvements the industry is aiming at while still admitting the shortcomings in effectiveness of wind power. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Grin, any chance you can enter a discussion without your usual cliche crap? Just once?

 

[rayven]

I know some people who have campaigned against wind farms but have been protesting for 3 deacdes and nearly into 4 about global warming.

Listening to thier argument is interesting. Wind farms are patches on a broken system of energy delivery and reliance/demand.

To some communities in far flung places they provide a service and are enviorementaly more viable than current practices ,but for the demands of citys and communities reliant on electricity, they offer nothing. The tree's they knock down and the eco systems they change to build these things to provide power in all but peak times is robbing peter to pay paul.

over 36 and these things are useless, summer heatwaves is where all the electricity usage is at....



Then there's the OH+s aspect to them..

Only good for 20 years, then they need dismantling...but normaly they don't dismantle them, they are left there to rot away...to much cost in disposing of the rubbish.

so some of those against windfarms have quite a complicated and far ranging amount of subject matter that forms there views.

Not something that can be expalined in an article from news ltd....that people seem to think gives them license to demean and denigrate and marginilise.

 

[PottSie2]

But the greens oppose further dams that would provide water storage and renewable energy because it might kill a few frogs, but are happy to support Wind Power even though they kill 10's of thousands of birds.

Yeah, nah, your article is not biased .......

 

[Clay Davis]

Yes, a very objective source from reading up on his background.

In any event, are those who claim to be affected by windfarms just full of crap according to you?

Or are they secret agents of coal miners?

The prevalence of NIMBYism in this country is massive. Try to get something as simple as cutting a tree down on your own property past a council in an inner city suburb. It's awful on both the pro-environmental and opposite side of politics.

 

[PottSie2]

Obviously the coalition (working on behalf of big polluting multinationals in return for donations) thinks there's political mileage to be made in pandering to the ignorance of flat earthers. Probably because they're the easiest to manipulate into voting against their own interests through the employment various fear campaigns.

I admire you for trying to reason with these rock apes US.

I just point and laugh at them.

Flat earthers
Rock Apes

Yes ... this is the level of debate that grin brings ....

and BO.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

In any event, are those who claim to be affected by windfarms just full of crap according to you?

Pretty much. What, you think "wind farm syndrome" is real?

A multidisciplinary panel has concluded that the sounds generated by wind turbines are not harmful to human health, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) announced today.

Comprised of medical doctors, audiologists, and acoustical professionals from the United States, Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, the panel undertook extensive review, analysis, and discussion of the large body of peer-reviewed literature, specifically with regard to sound produced by wind turbines. The expert panel was established by AWEA and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) to review all current literature available on the issue of perceived health effects of wind turbines.

“The panel’s multidisciplinary approach helped to fully explore the many published scientific reports related to the potential impact of wind turbines on people’s health,” said Dr. Robert J. McCunney, one of the authors of the study and an occupational/environmental medicine physician and research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). “There is no evidence that the sounds, nor the sub-audible vibrations, emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects on humans.”

"The objective of the panel was to provide an authoritative, scientific reference document for those making legislative and regulatory decisions about wind turbine developments,” said AWEA CEO Denise Bode. “This study is another indication that wind is one of the most environmentally benign sources of electricity available.”

Top findings include:

• The sounds emitted by wind turbines are not unique. There is no reason to believe, based on the levels and frequencies of the sounds, that they could plausibly have direct adverse physiological effects.”
• If sound levels from wind turbines were harmful, it would be impossible to live in a city given the sound levels normally present in urban environments.
• Sub-audible, low frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines do not present a risk to human health.”
• Some people may be annoyed at the presence of sound from wind turbines. Annoyance is not a pathological entity.
• For more than thirty years, people have been living near the more than 50,000 wind turbines operating in Europe and the more than 30,000 in North America. The vast majority of people have had a positive experience living near wind turbines, with no ill effects.

http://archive.awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_CanWEA_SoundWhitePaper_12-11-09.pdf

 

[Dry Rot]

Pretty much. What, you think "wind farm syndrome" is real?

Dunno, but your sources are hardly objective

the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA)

Reminds me of a mate who likes quoting studies by telcos that mobile phones are safe...

 

[Upton Sinclair]

But the greens oppose further dams that would provide water storage and renewable energy because it might kill a few frogs

Actually, there only very limited potential for any new, large-scale hydro schemes in Australia and water resources are scarce enough already. The real potential is for retrofitting existing dams.

, but are happy to support Wind Power even though they kill 10's of thousands of birds.

Source for the "10's of thousands" figure?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Dunno, but your sources are hardly objective



Reminds me of a mate who likes quoting studies by telcos that mobile phones are safe...

Whatever. The methodology is open and publicly available. I find this mistrust of science puzzling considering it is one of the most open and transparent social institutions we have, everything gets written up in precise detail and published openly for other researchers to test, contrary to popular opinion it is actually quite difficult to use the scientific method to dupe other scientists with. I'm always puzzled as to how people see conspiracies lurking in the shadows when there are so few shadows available.

 

[Dry Rot]

The prevalence of NIMBYism in this country is massive. Try to get something as simple as cutting a tree down on your own property past a council in an inner city suburb. It's awful on both the pro-environmental and opposite side of politics.

Don't disagree, but I suppose there is a line with some issues which it is no longer NIMBYism and is a concern.

The **** wits I really hate are the folk who purchased a home down the road from the Lucas Heights reactor, and then complain about it!

 

[Dry Rot]

Whatever. The methodology is open and publicly available. I find this mistrust of science puzzling considering it is one of the most open and transparent social institutions we have, everything gets written up in precise detail and published openly for other researchers to test, contrary to popular opinion it is actually quite difficult to use the scientific method to dupe other scientists with. I'm always puzzled as to how people see conspiracies lurking in the shadows when there are so few shadows available.

So your trust extends to similar studies conducted on behalf of tree loggers, telcos, mining interests etc?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Don't disagree, but I suppose there is a line with some issues which it is no longer NIMBYism and is a concern.

The **** wits I really hate are the folk who purchased a home down the road from the Lucas Heights reactor, and then complain about it!

Or buy in trendy neighbourhoods near live music venues then try to get them shut down

 

[PottSie2]

I'm guessing Upton and Groan would be happy to have a rare-earth processing plant setup in your suburbs to produce this 'clean' energy thingy ?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec09/china_12-14.html

I'm mean, what's good for Chinese farmers would also be good for the peoples champions right ?

 

[Dry Rot]

Or buy in trendy neighbourhoods near live music venues then try to get them shut down

Agreed - big problem in Surry Hills, Sydney. I know folk who would boast that they got in early in a suburb which was down at heal but would be on the rise. Now they complain about drunken homeless and support centres like the Salvos who have been there for years.

 

[medusala]

Actually, there only very limited potential for any new, large-scale hydro schemes in Australia and water resources are scarce enough already.

The Franklin.

Its always amusing to hear green zealots banging on about the looming AGW armageddon and then two seconds later extol the evils of hydro, nuclear, shale gas, carbon capture, GM food etc.

As for the war, its nothing of the sort.

It is simply called economics.

 

[PottSie2]

Actually, there only very limited potential for any new, large-scale hydro schemes in Australia and water resources are scarce enough already. The real potential is for retrofitting existing dams.



Source for the "10's of thousands" figure?

Water resources aren't scarce at all, we go through droughts and floods all the time. The whole reason Vic went down the desal path was because of Green alarmism stating "The rains are gone ... never gonna come back again".

They did. The mitchell has flooded 3 or 4 times since 2007 or so.

Now I like the desal, just not the way Labor rushed into it, but then their union mates made a killing out of it, so I guess mission accomplished.

As for source ... just go to wiki. it's actually in the hundreds of thousands.

 

[Clay Davis]

Don't disagree, but I suppose there is a line with some issues which it is no longer NIMBYism and is a concern.

The **** wits I really hate are the folk who purchased a home down the road from the Lucas Heights reactor, and then complain about it!

From everything I've read the concerns re windfarms are baseless.

 

[medusala]

From everything I've read the concerns re windfarms are baseless.

Which concerns? Economic or other? Is there not evidence to suggest they kill a lot of birds?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Water resources aren't scarce at all, we go through droughts and floods all the time. The whole reason Vic went down the desal path was because of Green alarmism stating "The rains are gone ... never gonna come back again".

They did. The mitchell has flooded 3 or 4 times since 2007 or so.

You do realise that climate change scenarios span decades, not years, right?

As for source ... just go to wiki. it's actually in the hundreds of thousands.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Which concerns? Economic or other? Is there not evidence to suggest they kill a lot of birds?

Depends how you define lots really. Comparatively speaking, wind farms cause eff-all avian fatalities compared to the innumerable other causes. Potsie told me to go to Wikipedia so I did:

wind farms are responsible for 0.3 to 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. The study therefore states that fossil fuel based electricity causes about 10 times more fatalities than wind farm based electricity, primarily due to habitat alteration from pollution and mountain-top removal for coal mining. In Denmark, where wind turbines generate 9% of electricity, wind turbines kill about 30,000 birds per year.[32]​

 

[medusala]

Maybe someone should start a war on hypocrisy aka the people vs Bob Brown.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376543308399048.html

On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

Yet there is one group of energy producers that are not being prosecuted for killing birds: wind-power companies. And wind-powered turbines are killing a vast number of birds every year.

Depends how you define lots really.

If tens of thousands of starlings die noone cares. I think the issue is that numerous eagles and other rare birds have been killed.