Liberal corruption and incompetence.
Scotlands Conservative Politicians, Step Up To The Plate, & Stop Wind Subsidies!
Rural Scotland’s delight at wind farm subsidy axe
Campaigners say the SNP should be ashamed that only a Tory Government listened to their warnings about the impact of turbines on Scotland’s countryside.
Whitelee Windfarm on the outskirts of Glasgow Photo: PA
4:55PM BST 18 Jun 2015
Rural communities have reacted with relief and delight after David Cameron called time on the SNP’s wind farm march across Scotland’s countryside.
Anti-turbine campaigners praised the UK Government’s decision to exclude new onshore wind farms from claiming a key subsidy from April next year, 12 months earlier than expected.
They said the move, which is expected to stop the construction of many developments not yet given planning permission, was a welcome respite for communities “besieged by subsidy chasers” taking advantage of the SNP’s “open door” policy.
But they said it was to the “eternal shame” of the Scottish Government that it was only the Conservatives who had heeded the concerns of rural Scots, with one prominent campaigner stating: “Thank God for Westminster.”
SNP ministers were furious with the decision, even claiming they may challenge it in the courts, with Nicola Sturgeon describing it as “wrong-headed”, “perverse” and “downright outrageous”.
In a letter to Mr Cameron, she warned the wind farm companies may sue the taxpayer for compensation for planned schemes “rendered useless by this decision.” The industry claimed the move would cost consumers up to £3 billion.
However, the John Muir Trust, the eminent environmental protection group, said it was the “right time” to work out an energy mix that is affordable “without damaging our wild and natural landscapes.”
The funding for the subsidy comes from the Renewable Obligation (RO), which is funded by levies added to household bills. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said there will be grace period for projects already with planning permission.
Although energy policy is reserved to Westminster, the SNP government in Edinburgh has used its control over the planning system in Scotland to encourage the construction of thousands of turbines across the countryside.
Alex Salmond, the former First Minister, set a target of generating the equivalent of all Scotland’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020, with the vast majority coming from onshore wind.
Amid growing opposition from local communities, Scotland’s most senior planning officials even warned that the countryside risked becoming a “wind farm landscape”.
But the Scottish Government told council planners they had set aside too little land for wind farms and Scotland now hosts more than half the UK’s onshore turbines.
Nicola Sturgeon was outraged at the UK Government’s decision
Scotland Against Spin, a national alliance of groups and individuals which campaigns against turbines being built in unsuitable locations, said it was “delighted” the Tories had honoured an election manifesto promise to “end the ludicrously generous subsidies for onshore wind farms.”
Graham Lang, the group’s chairman, said: “ Speculative developers from across the world have flocked to Scotland because of the SNP’s open door policy to the wind industry. Scottish communities besieged by subsidy-chasers can at last look forward to some respite.
“Yet to its eternal shame the Scottish Government has ignored the clamour for reform from its own people. There is a terrible irony that the Conservatives at Westminster, not the nationalists at Holyrood, have finally stood up to the wind speculators and put the interests of communities and consumers first.”
Lyndsey Ward said she hoped the decision would stop the construction of 25 turbines near her home just outside of Beauly, in the Scottish Highlands.
She said she was “fairly disgusted” with the Scottish Government as Fergus Ewing, the SNP Energy Minister, had “parroted wind industry propaganda”. She added: “They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Thank God for Westminster.”
Campaigners against a plan to erect 18 410ft-tall turbines in rural Angus, above the Blackwater Reservoir, also welcomed the announcement.
Sue Smith, a spokesman for the Friends of Backwater and Glenisla Against Turbines group, whose husband Maj Gen Martin Smith is Commandant General of the Royal Marines, said: “The removal of obscene levels of financial gain which these subsidies offer should discourage land owners and turbine developers from exploiting irresistible opportunities to make a fast buck, at the expense of local communities and their environments.”
She also praised the UK Government plans to give communities the final say on large wind farm developments south of the Border and attacked the SNP for failing to introduce this in Scotland.
But, speaking at First Minister’s Questions, Ms Sturgeon said the decision was “utterly wrong-headed” and her government would “do everything in our power” to get it changed.
Mr Ewing said repeated the wind farm companies’ claims the move could cost consumers £3 billion, adding: “We have warned the UK Government that the decision, which appears irrational, may well be the subject of a judicial review.”
But Murdo Fraser, Scottish Tory energy spokesman, said: “This is a Conservative Government standing up for communities that the central belt SNP couldn’t care less about.”
He added: “The latest figures show that, with all the wind projects already constructed, those under construction or given consent, we have already met the SNPs 100 per cent target for renewable electricity.”
A DECC spokesman said: “If we’d allowed the RO to stay open longer, we could have ended up with more projects than we can afford – which would have led to either higher bills, or other renewable technologies losing out on support.”
Australian Senate Committee Recommends More Research on Infrasound, Produced by Wind Turbines!
18/06/15Australia
Interim Report from the Australian Senate inquiry
“This report records the committee’s concern with the issue of infrasound and low frequency noise emitted from wind turbines and the possible impact on human health.
Independent, multi-disciplinary and high quality research into this field is an urgent priority.”
Interim report
1.1 The Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines was established in December 2014. To date, it has received 464 submissions from a wide range of stakeholders. It has conducted public hearings in Portland in south-west Victoria on 30 March, in Cairns on 18 May, in Canberra on 19 May, in Melbourne on 9 June and in Adelaide on 10 June 2015. Further public hearings are planned in Canberra on 19 June and 23 June and in Sydney on 29 June 2015.
1.2 This represents a considerable volume of evidence relating directly to the committee’s terms of reference. The committee has received written and verbal evidence from State Governments, local councils, various federal government agencies, wind farm operators and manufacturers, country fire authorities, acousticians, medical experts and representatives from various associations and institutes. In addition, many private citizens have had the opportunity to voice their concerns with the planning, consultation, approval, development and operation of wind farms in Australia.
1.3 Access to all public submissions and public hearing transcripts can be found on the committee’s website.
The committee’s headline recommendations
1.4 This report presents seven headline recommendations. The committee believes that these recommendations are important and urgent given that legislation on the renewable energy target is due to be debated in the Senate shortly. The final report in August this year will provide supporting evidence and supporting recommendations. It will also address other terms of reference, including the merit of subsidies for wind farm operators and the effect of wind power on household power prices.
Recommendation 1
1.5 The committee recommends the Commonwealth Government create anIndependent Expert Scientific Committee on Industrial Sound responsible for providing research and advice to the Minister for the Environment on the impact on human health of audible noise (including low frequency) and infrasound from wind turbines. The IESC should be established under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000.
Recommendation 2
1.6 The committee recommends that the National Environment Protection Council establish a National Environment Protection (Wind Turbine Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise) Measure (NEPM). This NEPM must be developed through the findings of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Industrial Sound. The Commonwealth Government should insist that the ongoing accreditation of wind turbine facilities under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 in a State or Territory is dependent on the NEPM becoming valid law in that State or Territory.
Recommendation 3
1.7 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government introduceNational Wind Farm Guidelines which each Australian State and Territory Government should reflect in their relevant planning and environmental statutes. The committee proposes these guidelines be finalized within 12 months and that the Commonwealth Government periodically assess the Guidelines with a view to codifying at least some of them.
Recommendation 4
1.8 The committee recommends that eligibility to receive Renewable Energy Certificates should be made subject to general compliance with the National Wind Farm Guidelines and specific compliance with the NEPM. This should apply immediately to new developments, while existing and approved wind farms should be given a period of no more than five years in which to comply.
Recommendation 5
1.9 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government establish aNational Wind Farm Ombudsman to handle complaints from concerned community residents about the operations of wind turbine facilities accredited to receive renewable energy certificates. The Ombudsman will be a one-stop-shop to refer complaints to relevant state authorities and help ensure that complaints are satisfactorily addressed.
Recommendation 6
1.10 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government impose a levy on wind turbine operators accredited to receive renewable energy certificates to fund the costs of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Wind Turbines—including the funding of additional research—and the costs of a National Wind Farm Ombudsman.
Recommendation 7
1.11 The committee recommends that the data collected by wind turbine operators relating to wind speed, basic operation statistics including operating hours and noise monitoring should be made freely and publicly available on a regular basis. The proposed Independent Expert Scientific Committee should consult with scientific researchers and the wind industry to establish what data can be reasonably made freely and publicly available from all wind turbine operations accredited to receive renewable energy certificates.
Wind farms and human health
1.12 Why are there so many people who live in close proximity to wind turbines complaining of similar physiological and psychological symptoms? As with previous Senate inquiries, this committee has gathered evidence from many submitters attributing symptoms of dizziness, nausea, migraines, high blood pressure, tinnitus, chronic sleep deprivation and depression to the operation of nearby wind turbines. The committee invites the public to read and consider the evidence of people who have experienced these symptoms and who attribute their anxiety and ill health to the operation of turbines.
1.13 These health affects should not be trivialised or ignored. The committee was particularly distressed by renewable energy advocates, wind farm developers and operators, public officials and academics who publicly derided and sometimes lampooned local residents who were genuinely attempting to make known the adverse health effects they were suffering.
1.14 The committee is aware of people complaining of these impacts who have since left their family home. Some now live a nomadic and uncertain existence. In one case, the now deserted home had been in the family for five generations—since the 1840s. These are not decisions taken lightly. Having left the turbine vicinity, several witnesses noted that the symptoms had faded if not disappeared.
1.15 Some submitters attribute these illnesses to a ‘nocebo effect’—a result of expectations of harm rather than exposure to turbine activity. This claim has been made by Professor Simon Chapman, a sociologist by training and a professor of Public Health at Sydney University. He has labelled wind turbine syndrome ‘a communicated disease’, claiming that it ‘spreads by…being talked about and is therefore a strong candidate for being defined as a psychogenic condition’.
1.16 However, most people recognise that noise including low frequency noise could cause these impacts and emphasise that noise standards, properly enforced, are crucial to ensuring public safety. This view acknowledges that the noise from wind turbines creates annoyances which can manifest in sleep disruption. The clear remedy is to set noise standards (such as the New Zealand Standard) and enforce these standards. This is essentially the public position of the relevant authorities in Australia.
The need to investigate infrasound and low frequency noise from turbines and its effect on human health
1.17 The committee highlights the need for more research into the impact of low frequency noise and infrasound (0–20 hertz) from wind turbines on human health. A 2014 pilot study conducted by acoustician Mr Steven Cooper found a correlation between infrasound emitting from turbines at Cape Bridgewater in Victoria and ‘sensations’ felt, and diarised, by six residents of three nearby homes. By identifying a unique infrasound ‘wind turbine signature’, recording it as present in the homes, and linking it to ‘sensations’ felt by the residents, Mr Cooper’s research has received international attention.
1.18 It is clear that the extent and nature of wind turbines’ impact on human health is a contested issue. The nocebo effect, the existing standards for measuring audible noise and the NHMRC’s 2011 literature review have all been criticised by submitters and witnesses to this inquiry. The criticisms relate both to flaws in methodology and to inaccurate and incomplete findings.
1.19 Fundamentally, the lack of detailed, reliable data does not allow for a proper scientific conclusion to be drawn. The committee is struck by the considerable gaps in understanding about the impact of wind turbines on human health. These gaps have widely acknowledged key issues, both explicitly and implicitly:
- the NHMRC found in February 2014 that ‘there is currently no consistent evidence that wind farms cause adverse health effects in humans’. While maintaining this stance, in February 2015, the NHMRC recognised that the body of direct evidence on wind farms and human health is ‘small and of poor quality’. It concluded that ‘high quality research into possible health effects of windfarms, particularly within 1,500 metres, is warranted’;
- In June 2015, the German Medical Assembly forwarded a motion to the board of the German Medical Association for further research into the possible side effects of wind turbines. The committee has received advice from the German Medical Association that this motion proposes that the German Government provide the necessary funding to research potential adverse effects to health. The motion also argues that wind turbines should not be erected in the vicinity of residential areas until this research has yielded results. The Board of the German Medical Association has advised the committee that it will revisit the motion in July 2015;
- the position of several well-informed submitters that more research is needed, including;
- criticism of the composition of the NHMRC Reference Group, and in particular the lack of acoustical expertise. One witness, who was a formal observer of the Reference Group process, noted that only one member of the panel was an acoustician, adding: ‘No-one else on the panel had any idea of acoustics. They could not tell when they were being misled or information was being withheld’;
- criticism of the 2010 and 2015 NHMRC reviews which ignored studies in situ of people reporting serious adverse effects and the nature of the exposures to which they are subject. A submitter noted: ‘The NHMRC did examine some of these types of study but it was done as a secondary activity rather than the main focus and allowed it to base its conclusions predominantly on research settings that inevitably have weak power to detect material effects’;
- the importance of research that has a rigorous methodology, a level of independence and the outcomes of which are peer reviewed;
- the claim of one eminent acoustician that wind farm entities have stifled some genuine research into the possible effects of wind farms. A prominent international organisation well equipped to evaluate infrasound data and analysis declined his invitation to examine his own research into wind farm infrasound; and
- a submitter’s proposal for a thorough noise audit of all existing wind farms, using the methodology of Mr Steven Cooper, and incorporating the objective measurement of health effects (sleep quality, blood pressure, heart rate, stress hormones, etc) on neighbours, out to 10 kilometres from turbines.
1.20 Independent scientific research is needed into acoustic matters—such as whether each wind turbine has unique ‘signature’ and the effect of that signature on neighbouring turbines—and into health matters.
Some People are Extremely Susceptible to Motion Sickness AND Wind Turbines
Living Next to Wind Farms & Feeling Queasy, then you’re Probably No Happy High Seas Traveller
June 18, 2015 by
****
More than once or twice, STT has picked up on hard-hitting scientific research that shows that those who suffer the worst effects of incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound are generally prone to suffer seasickness:
Sick Again – motion sickness sufferers cop it worst from giant fans
Top Acoustic Engineer – Malcolm Swinbanks – Experiences Wind Farm Infrasound Impacts, First Hand
Adverse Health Effects of Wind Turbine Infrasound Explained
Now, a top Neuroscientist from Sydney University – Simon Carlile – is set to build on that body of research.
Wind farm effect on balance ‘akin to seasickness’: scientist
The Australian
Simon King
12 June 2015
The scientist who set up the Sydney University Auditory Neuroscience Laboratory — and who was asked to be involved in assessing the National Health and Medical Research Council’s targeted research examining the effect of wind turbines — says the growing body of evidence points to the low-frequency infrasound they create directly affecting the human nervous system.
Medical faculty associate professor of neuroscience Simon Carlile said it was time to properly examine the effects of low-frequency wavelengths and recognise that, like seasickness, they don’t affect everybody.
“In terms of the physiology, in terms of how we know the nervous system responds to this low-frequency noise, the evidence says ‘yes, the nervous system is activated at these frequencies’,” he told The Australian.
“But not in the traditional way you might think hearing works — it’s stimulating the system that’s involved in balance — the vestibular system. So there’s some good physiology, some good neuroscience, that this does exist and it’s been shown in animal models.”
But Associate Professor Carlile said its existence was only “one part of the story”.
“The other part is that some people are susceptible and some aren’t,” he said.
“It just means that when you look across 1000 people you can’t see a statistical effect across that population — because 90 per cent of them aren’t affected. Then the question is: why are some people affected and other people aren’t?
“And the answer to this could be because it’s not stimulating the ears — you can’t hear it at low frequency — it’s stimulating the vestibular system.’’
Associate Professor Carlile said that was similar to people who suffered seasickness.
“They get seasick because of the simulation of the vestibular system — and there seems to be quite significant variations of susceptibility to vestibular-induced nausea.
“A lot of the symptoms some people report around wind turbines are very similar to vestibular induced nausea or seasickness, like sleep disturbance.
“The nervous system is definitely sensitive to this stimulus.”
He said research could feed back to design: “This is going to be an important energy source and if we’re building tons of these things in the wrong places or building them in the wrong way then we’ve got big trouble.”
He felt the statistical and epidemiological approaches informing the debate had not been “hitting the mark. You have got potentially a wide range of individual difference on this: you’ve really got to be homing in on those differences.”
The Australian
Simon Carlile may well have the nouse to crack the precise mechanism that has turbine infrasound causing vertigo and nausea among wind farm neighbours. However, his claim that: “This is going to be an important energy source” has him straying well outside his area of expertise. As STT followers well know, wind power is not, and will never be a meaningful power generation source, simply because it will never be available on-demand:
What we have is a nonsense power source – on which billions of dollars in subsidies have been squandered – that causes wholly unnecessary suffering to thousands of people around the world.
While Carlile’s planned investigation is clearly worthy, those people who suffer the worst effects (eg, vertigo, nausea etc) form a subset of a much, much larger group that suffer from the most common adverse health effect – sleep deprivation:
Danish Experts: Sleep Deprivation the Most Common Adverse Health Effect Caused by Wind Turbine Noise
For every wind farm neighbour that suffers problems with balance or nausea, there are dozens more that suffer from what the World Health Organisation calls “environmental insomnia” – which it views as an adverse health effect in and of itself, and has done for over 60 years: see its Night-time Noise Guidelines for Europe – the Executive Summary at XI to XII which covers the point.
With researchers focusing on a small group of sufferers, there is a tendency to overlook the suffering of the many more who can no longer obtain a healthy night’s sleep.
Where people like Carlisle start talking about 10 or 15% of people affected with nausea and vertigo, that proportion – in the hands of the eco-fascists that run cover for the wind industry – quickly turns into a “tiny minority”, which is then used to feed that classic, malicious Marxist line about “the greatest good for the greatest number”. You know, the kind of argument that has wind farm neighbours tagged as “collateral damage” or “road-kill”; in an effort to justify the unjustifiable.
Civil societies (like ours once was) have used a bundle of common sense rules aimed at protecting the sanctity of sleep.
Humane societies have separated noisy activities since the time of the ancient Greeks – booting roosters, tinsmiths and potters out of Greek cities – and, in later times, organ grinders out of London.
In Australia today, roosters are banned in cities, suburbs and in most country towns. They have a body clock set earlier than most people and have a routine habit of waking up the whole neighbourhood. Faced with an errant rooster, authorities are quick to act against Foghorn Leghorn & Co on PUBLIC HEALTH GROUNDS.
****
Planning laws in most States prevent panel beaters from operating in built up areas before 8am and after 6pm.
And – either by operation of EPA regulations or planning laws – there is a total ban on the operation of chainsaws and lawn mowers in cities, suburbs and most towns. That strictly enforced prohibition operates, in Victoria, for example, Monday to Friday: before 7 am and after 8 pm; and on weekends and public holidays: before 9 am and after 8 pm.
So, if night-time noise isn’t a health problem, then why is it that there are strict rules about the permitted times for operating chainsaws, leaf blowers and lawn mowers – rules that keep roosters out of towns and cities – and rules that mean the plug gets pulled on rock bands and music venues at midnight in residential areas?
None of those long-settled rules required the ‘magic wand’ of peer-reviewed science; or the stamp of approval from the NHMRC. No. Those rules were the product of plain, old common sense – well rested individuals are happier and healthier, wherever they might plop down for some kip.
In short, sleep matters – and having turbines grinding and thumping away in the next paddock without let-up, all night long, deprives people of the ability to enjoy it – and that has consequences for everyone:
With a solid set of rules set up to benefit one class (all those not forced to live next door to giant fans) by prohibiting night-time noise from a variety of rather innocuous sources, the only question is why the same type of rule isn’t there to benefit the other class?
With everyone waxing lyrical about the Magna Carta’s 800 years of helping to keep tyrants honest – and ensuring that the little man got treated the same whoever he was – now is a fair time to ask, just what’s fair about having one set of rules for the 99% and no rule at all for the 1% forced to suffer sonic torture night-after-merciless-night?
Government’s Energy Insanity Has People Looking For Better Solutions….
Power move: ‘It’s going to change the world, and some parts of the world aren’t going to like it,’ King says of energy independence bill
AUTHOR:David Carkhuff
Strange bedfellows, indeed, but when it comes to power policy, politicians sometimes cross traditional party lines.
And sometimes they even take issue with traditional power lines.
Here’s a timely example: U.S. Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, who came under political fire from Republicans for his involvement with wind energy prior to his election, now counts Tea Party activists among his supporters when it comes to a piece of legislation that King is championing that would allow “individual power generation.”
The senator says the bill promotes individual sovereignty, and it doesn’t get a lot more Tea Party than that.
King contends that his Free Market Energy Act of 2015, introduced just last month, “would help foster the movement toward personal energy independence by protecting the right of consumers to connect their distributed resources to the larger electric grid without having to pay an exorbitant fee to the utilities.”
During a May 26 tour, King promoted the bill against the backdrop of the new Cumberland-based campus for the Friends School of Portland, a Quaker day school. The 15,000-square-foot building, when completed this fall, will attain “passive house” certification, the highest international standard for energy efficiency.
The new school will not rely on traditional fuels – such as oil, gas, coal or wood – but instead use distributed energy technologies, like solar electric panels from Portland’s ReVision Energy, to help produce as much energy as it uses, King noted.
The tour also pointed out more mundane but highly efficient construction methods.
Naomi Beal, chair of the building committee, explained that the school features air tightness and ventilation, with 6 inches of cellulose and exterior rigid insulation.
“It’s not super, super high tech. … Actually, the simpler system worked well for us,” she said.
Crews painstakingly taped every crease around doors.
“It’s very important that we seal every draft for passive house standards,” said Dave Merrill, Warren Construction project manager.
“We’ve got ERVs, energy recovery ventilators, throughout the building which take in exhaust air, extract the heat out of that, extract the cold air out and bring the heat in, so it’s actually transferring energy that’s already in the building and reusing that,” Merrill said.
“The ‘passive house’ standard is .6 ACH (air changes per hour), and we in our first try did it at .34, so we were almost half the value we needed to be and with only the skin of the building at that point in time,” he added.
King used the Friends School tour to underscore his argument that anyone should be allowed to create their own power plant.
“Right here in Maine, Friends School of Portland is deploying innovative technologies that will help it operate almost entirely independent of the electric grid. My legislation would ensure that people can do what FSP has done: take their energy future into their own hands,” he said in a statement.
King pivoted from the tour to a question-and-answer session with some of the nearly 100 pre-K through eighth grade students who attend the day school.
“We’re trying to make energy more democratic, with a small D, for people who make their own energy not only at their schools but at their houses. More and more people are doing that,” King told the students.
But King acknowledged resistance to his legislation. Oil, gas and coal producers will push back, he predicted.
“It’s going to change the world, and some parts of the world aren’t going to like it,” he said.
“Where there’s going to be a comprehensive energy bill this summer, I’m working really hard to see that this is part of it, but we have some very powerful opponents,” King said.
“What we’re proposing to do is leave the details to the state of how it would be implemented, but it would establish a right to self-generate, and for the fees that the utilities charge to be reasonable,” he explained.
“It’s stirred up quite a hornet’s nest,” King said.
Disruptions such as cyber attacks or ice storms would no longer threaten widespread outages under a decentralized power system, King said. The model flies in the face of American electrification.
“You have a big central place that makes electricity and sends it through the wires to the house, and you just take it. That’s the way energy has worked forever,” King said. “Now what we’re talking about, the big change is, you’re going to make your own energy at your own house, and maybe when you don’t need it, you’ll send it back, to everybody else. It’s like instead of one central plant, you’ll have a million plants.”
“Load-shedding”. As Countries Lose More Reliable Power Sources….this will result.
Rolling blackout
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
A rolling blackout, also referred to as rotational load shedding or feeder rotation, is an intentionally engineered electrical power shutdown where electricity delivery is stopped for non-overlapping periods of time over different parts of the distribution region. Rolling blackouts are a last-resort measure used by an electric utility company to avoid a total blackout of the power system. They are a type of demand response for a situation where the demand for electricity exceeds the power supply capability of the network. Rolling blackouts may be localised to a specific part of the electricity network or may be more widespread and affect entire countries and continents. Rolling blackouts generally result from two causes: insufficient generation capacity or inadequate transmission infrastructure to deliver sufficient power to the area where it is needed. |
Rolling blackouts are a common or even a normal daily event in many developing countries where electricity generation capacity is underfunded or infrastructure is poorly managed. Rolling blackouts in developed countries are rare because demand is accurately forecasted, adequate infrastructure investment is scheduled and networks are well managed; such events are considered an unacceptable failure of planning and can cause significant political damage to responsible governments. In well managed under-capacity systems blackouts are scheduled in advance and advertised to allow people to work around them but in most cases they happen without warning, typically whenever the transmission frequency falls below the ‘safe’ limit. Rolling blackouts are also used as a response strategy to cope with reduced output beyond reserve capacity from power stations taken offline unexpectedly such as through an extreme weather event.
Contents
Canada
In January 2014, the Canadian province of Newfoundland & Labrador renewed rolling blackouts to compensate for the cascading failure of the Holyrood generating station after a fire at the Sunnyside substation on Jan 4 following a blizzard. The rolling blackouts started before the storm on the 4th, rather were caused by extreme cold weather and a high demand for power at the time.[1]
On 9 July 2012, the Alberta Electric System Operator ordered power companies in the province of Alberta to institute rolling blackouts during a heat wave as six generating plants failed during peak demand in the heat of the afternoon. Because the shortage increased the amount consumers paid to generators, Members of the Alberta Legislative Assembly voiced concerns that price manipulation might have been involved[2]
In both cases the blackouts were rolled fairly rapidly, so that no area had to spend more than one hour without power.[1][2]
Egypt
Summer blackouts have been common in Egypt since 2010 but became more severe and widespread after the 2011 revolution. In April 2014, the Minister of Electricity and Renewable Energy said that the problem would take a few years to resolve.[3] The government is blaming on the unrest the country is experiencing for the blackouts. However, blame between the different ministries reveals their poor organization. Some also point to the fact that the infrastructure is old and lacks maintenance.[4]
Ghana
See main article at dumsor
In Ghana, rolling blackouts occurred in 2007-2008 and again after 2012. At the beginning of 2015, the dumsor schedule went from 24 hours with light and 12 without to 12 hours with light and 24 without.[5]
Italy
After the great 2003 blackout in Italy, a rolling blackout program PESSE (it:Piano di Emergenza per la Sicurezza del Sistema Electrico en: Emergency plan for national grid safety) was issued. It has 5 degrees of severity, any controlled blackout can’t exceed 90 minutes.
India
Due to a chronic shortage of electricity, power-cuts are common throughout India, adversely affecting the country’s potential for economic growth.[6][7] Even in the country’s capital of New Delhi, rolling blackouts are common, especially during the hot summer season when demand far outstrips supply capacity. Rural areas are the most severely affected; it is common for the 44% of rural households having access to electricity to lose power for more than 12 hours each day.[8] The states periodically and chronically affected by load-shedding are Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Odisha, Assam, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh,Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. The states of Punjab, Goa, Gujarat and Kerala are largely free of any load-shedding due to surplus power. Karnataka still occasionally experiences power cuts.[9]
Japan
Rolling blackout in Japan after the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake.
 |
Rolling blackouts began nationwide in Pakistan in early 2008 with the resurgence of democracy and presently continue in 2015.[12] It intensifies in the long summers, with many places around the country having no electricity for 20 hours per day. According to Pakistan Electric Power Company (PEPCO), Pakistan’s electricity shortfall is normally 2,500 Megawatts (MW) but reaches around 6,000 MW or more during the summer season.[13] The country’s electricity problems are so severe that violent riots sometimes take place in some regions, including Punjab, the country’s most populous province.[14] |
South Africa
There is a long history of rolling blackouts in South Africa, with multiple causes. In South Africa the major producer and distributor of electricity is Eskom, which provides over 95% of the country’s energy usage. During the 1980s Eskom mothballed three of their coal-fired power stations, as there was an excess of generation capacity at the time. With the demise of Apartheid in the 1990s came massive investment and economic growth. At the same time the government tried to deregulate the electricity supply industry by inviting the private sector to build new power stations to meet the rapidly growing demand for electricity. Eskom was at the time prevented from building new power stations (including de-mothballing the three existing power stations) or from strengthening the transmission network. The transmission network is especially important in delivering power from Mpumalanga, where the majority of the power stations are located, to other parts of the country such as KwaZulu-Natal and the Western Cape. With no bidders coming forward to construct new power stations, there was effectively no investment into new generation plants during the early 1990s, which eventually led to the shortage of capacity that was experienced in the 2000s.
In 1998, the Department of Minerals and Energy released a detailed energy review in which it explicitly warned that unless “timely steps were taken to ensure that demand does not exceed available supply capacity”, generating capacity would reach its limit by 2007.[15]
Country-wide blackouts 2007–2008
With the freeze on any new developments being placed on Eskom during the early 1990s, South Africa was faced with a situation where for the next few years the electricity demand kept rising, without any new power stations being built to keep up the necessary supply. By October 2007 the situation had deteriorated to such an extent that Eskom implemented rolling blackouts throughout the country. Blackouts occurred in most suburbs throughout the country for a period of two hours at a time.
The situation came to a head on 24 January 2008 when the national grid was brought to near collapse. Multiple trips at a number of different power stations rapidly reduced the available supply, resulting in Eskom declaring force majeure[16] and instructing its largest industrial customers (mainly gold and platinum mining companies) to shut down their operations and reduce consumption to “minimal levels”, just sufficient to evacuate workers that were still in the mines.[17]
In January 2008, with no short- or medium-term relief available to ease the power shortages, Eskom warned the public that the country’s electricity demand would exceed the supply until 2013 (when the first new power stations would be brought online).
Eskom also began recommissioning older power stations which had been mothballed in earlier decades.[18]
Country-wide blackouts 2014-2015
Load shedding was reintroduced in early November 2014. The Majuba power plant lost its capacity to generate power after a collapse of one of its coal storage silos on 1 November 2014. The Majuba power plant delivered approximately 10% of the country’s entire capacity and the collapse halted the delivery of coal to the plant.[19] A second silo developed a major crack on 20 November causing the shut down of the plant again. This was after temporary measures were instated to deliver coal to the plant.[20]
On 5 December, Eskom launched a major stage three load shedding in South Africa after the shut down of two power plants on Thursday 4 November 2014 due to diesel shortages. It was also reported that the Palmiet and Drakenburg stations were also experiencing difficulties due to a depletion of water reserve to the Hydro plants.[21] On Thursday 4 November, Eskom fell 4,000MW short of the electricity countries demand of 28,000MW. The power utility has the ability to produce 45,583MW, but could only supply 24,000MW due to “planned and unplanned” maintenance. One turbine at Eskom’s Duvha Power Station is also currently out of commission due to an “unexplained incident” in March 2014.[22]
Tajikistan
See also: 2008 Central Asia energy crisis
In January 2008 Tajikistan faced its coldest winter in 50 years, and the country’s energy grid began to fail. By February 2008 Tajikstan’s energy grid was near collapse and there were blackouts in most of the country. Hospitals throughout the country were on limited electricity use, and nurses and doctors were forced to keep newborn babies warm with hot water bottles. There were reports of newborns freezing to death. The UN reported that with so much energy required to keep warm there was a danger of people starving to death.[23][24]
Ukraine
Lack of coal for Ukraine’s coal-fired power stations due to the War in Donbass and a shut down one of the six reactors of the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant lead to rolling blackouts throughout Ukraine from early till late December 2014.[25]
United States
Texas
In February 2011, North and Central Texas experienced rolling blackouts due to 50 power plants tripping offline.[26] Temperatures ranged between 8 °F and 19 °F, the coldest in 15 years. The time of the power outages ranged from twenty minutes to over eight hours. Areas affected included Bell, Bexar, Brazos, Collin, Comal, Dallas, Delta, Denton, El Paso, Fort Bend, Guadalupe, Harris, Hays, Hill, Hidalgo, Hunt, McLennan, Montgomery, Navarro, Palacios, Smith, Tarrant, Travis, Webb and Williamson counties, as well as some counties in New Mexico, including Doña Ana, Otero, and Eddy Counties.[27]
The 2006 and 2011 blackouts were the only two to occur in two decades.[28]
California
Though the term did not enter popular use in the U.S. until the California electricity crisis of the early 2000s, outages had indeed occurred previously. The outages were almost always triggered by unusually hot temperatures during the summer, which causes a surge in demand due to heavy use of air conditioning. However, in 2004, taped conversations of Enron traders became public, showing that traders were purposely manipulating the supply of electricity to raise energy prices.[29]
On 13 December 2003, shortly before leaving office, Governor Gray Davis officially brought the energy crisis to an end by issuing a proclamation ending the state of emergency he declared on 17 January 2001. The state of emergency allowed the state to buy electricity for the financially strapped utility companies. The emergency authority allowed Davis to order the California Energy Commission to streamline the application process for new power plants. During that time, California issued licenses to 38 new power plants, amounting to the addition of 14,365 megawatts of electricity production when completed.
References
- ^ Jump up to:a b “Newfoundland outages worsen amid sudden ‘generation problems'”. January 5, 2014.
- ^ Jump up to:a b Gerein, Keith (9 July 2012). “Rolling electricity blackouts strike Edmonton and across the province”. The Vancouver Sun. Archived from the original on 18 July 2012.
- Jump up^ “Preventing summer blackouts in Egypt is ‘impossible’: Minister”.Daily Egypt News. April 13, 2014.
- Jump up^ “Egypt to see blackouts for three years at least: Experts”. Ahram Online. June 12, 2013.
- Jump up^http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=344788
- Jump up^ “Electricity and power shortage holding India back”. Free-press-release.com.
- Jump up^ Range, Jackie (28 October 2008). “India Faulted for Failure to Improve Power Supply”. The Wall Street Journal.
- Jump up^ [1][dead link]
- Jump up^ “Serving Mangaloreans Around The World!”. Mangalorean.Com.
- Jump up^ [2] – Tokyo Electric Power Company
- Jump up^ [3] – nikkansports.com
- Jump up^ “India offers Pakistan electricity to curb load-shedding”. The Express Tribune.
- Jump up^ “Unscheduled loadshedding irks people in Punjab”. The Nation. 2 October 2011.
- Jump up^ “Another day of outrage at outages across Punjab”. Dawn (Karachi, Pakistan). 18 June 2012. Archived from the original on 18 June 2012. Retrieved 18 June 2012.
- Jump up^ “Mail and Guardian – Govt chose guns over power stations”. Mg.co.za.
- Jump up^ “Eskom declares force majeure”. Moneyweb. 25 January 2008. Retrieved 12 February 2009.[dead link]
- Jump up^ McGreal, Chris (26 January 2008). “Gold mines shut as South Africa forced to ration power supply”. The Guardian (London). Retrieved12 February 2009.
- Jump up^ Old Eskom power stations revived, Fin 24, 2 February 2011
- Jump up^ “http://citizen.co.za/269093/video-majuba-power-station-seconds-silo-collapse/”. The citizen. 4 November 2014. Retrieved 6 December2014.
- Jump up^ “Eskom admits another coal-storage silo at Majuba is cracked”.Business day live. 21 November 2014. Retrieved 6 December 2014.
- Jump up^ “Tripped coal stations add to load shedding burden”. Business day live. 5 December 2014. Retrieved 6 December 2014.
- Jump up^ “This is a catastrophe: electricity expert”. Moneyweb. 6 December 2014. Retrieved 6 December 2014.
- Jump up^ Farangis Najibullah (13 January 2008). “Tajikistan: Energy shortages, extreme cold create crisis situation”. EurasiaNet. Retrieved2008-02-08.
- Jump up^ Situation Report No. 4 – Tajikistan – Cold Wave/C
The Futility of Wind, Becomes More Apparent….
Tougher scrutiny on wind farming after crossbench talks
- THE AUSTRALIAN
Closer look: Mary Morris, at the Waterloo wind farm north of Adelaide, conducted one of the only studies accepted by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Picture: Kelly Barnes
WIND farms could face greater Federal Government scrutiny after a last-minute intervention by Tony Abbott ahead of the Senate vote on the revised renewable energy target today.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister met four crossbench senators concerned about the cost and possible health impacts of the renewable energy technology.
After the meeting, Environment Minister Greg Hunt was asked to write to senators David Leyonhjelm, John Madigan, Bob Day and Jacqui Lambie setting out the new protections.
A spokesman for Mr Hunt confirmed last night that a letter was being prepared.
The government is hoping a written pledge will avoid amendments to the RET legislation, which is expected to be voted on in the Senate today.
The crossbench senators have raised concerns about a range of issues regarding wind-farm developments and the fact that the revised RET will strongly favour wind.
Mr Abbott has said the reduced RET was designed to limit the number of wind farms built.
A Senate inquiry into wind farms will today release an interim report into its hearings, which have taken evidence from the wind industry, acoustics experts and residents who claim to have been affected.
The wind industry maintains claims that the technology is inefficient or potentially harmful to nearby residents have been thoroughly investigated and discounted. But one farm couple who has been paid $1 million to host 19 wind turbines over five years told the Senate inquiry that the noise had been unbearable.
South Australian cattle grazier Clive Gare told a hearing in Adelaide he was initially excited about hosting renewable energy, but now believed “towers should not be any closer than 5km to a dwelling”.
“If we had to buy another property it would not be within a 20km distance to a wind farm. I think that says it all,” Mr Gare said.
The wind industry has said complaints about noise impacts had not been made by people who received lucrative contracts to host them. Wind farm company AGL has paid thousands to insulate the Gare property from the noise of the wind turbines, which are as close as 800m from the house, but Mr Gare and his wife, Trina, told the inquiry they were still impacted.
Mary Morris, who conducted one of the only studies accepted by the National Health and Medical Research Council, said she would welcome any undertakings by the federal government to increase supervision.
Ms Morris became involved in the wind farms initially to support people who claimed to be affected by the Waterloo wind farm in South Australia.
In a speech to the Senate on the federal government’s compromise RET bill, Senator Leyonhjelm said the revised RET would be “no more than a wind industry support fund”.
Jacqui Lambie received support from Coalition senators for a speech in which she criticised reliance on renewable energy.
“Apart from hydro, the only way to decarbonise energy is to move very quickly to nuclear,” she said. “And it’s about time we move to that option.”
Excellent Open Letter From Virginia Stewart Love, to Dr. Eric Hoskins, Re: Wind Victims
June 14,2015
Honorable Dr. Eric Hoskins
Minister of Health and Long Term Care
10th Floor, Hepburn Block
80 Grosvenor Street
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2C4
Dear Dr. Eric Hoskins,
It was with little to no enthusiasm that I read your response dated June 8th 2015, to the package and letter that I provided you with on September 16th, 2014 in Grey Highlands at the announcement of the New Markdakle Hospital. In fact the letter was not even penned by you but by J. Dhamrait in your Correspondence Services. After waiting 9 months for a reply I received a boilerplate letter that does not address any of the concerns of which I presented to you.
Mention of the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health, Arleen King’s report shows just how out of touch your Ministry is when citing a report that is 5 years old while ignoring the growing body of evidence which I included in my first letter to you; “Systematic Review 2013: Association between Wind Turbines and Human Distress” in which it was demonstrated “the presence of reasonable evidence that an association exists between wind turbines and distress in humans” as well as “A summary of some of the peer reviewed articles and conference papers, abstracts and other citations, regarding impairment of health in general and relating to industrial wind turbines. Industrial Wind Turbines and Health: Wind Turbines Can Harm Humans if too close to Residents”
Reference to the Health Canada Study, although positive did not address the Summary of Results of November 6, 2015 determined by objective and subjective measures which states “The following was found to be statistically associated with increasing levels of WTN:
- annoyance towards several wind turbine features (i.e. noise, shadow flicker, blinking lights, vibrations, and visual impacts).”
- A statistically significant increase in annoyance was found when WTN levels exceeded 35 dBA.”
In Ontario, the predicted noise models are 40 dBA but the allowable noise level imposed on people is up to 51 dBA with increased wind speed. As the Minister of Health, the finding of Health Canada at 35 dBA should be of concern to you. Health Canada and WHO acknowledge annoyance is an adverse health effect.
Further no mention was made of the findings dated April 9 2015 of the Council of Canadian Academies that the “Expert Panel finds that annoyance can be caused by wind turbine noise — a clear adverse health effect.”
Your response suggests that I might wish to share my concerns with the MOECC or the Ministry of Energy. It is because of years of doing exactly that with the result of boilerplate responses such as yours that I turned to your Ministry for help. I have filed 68 complaints with the MOECC since April 17, 2012 with no remedy or mitigation provided. Out of sheer frustration and growing cynicism I have now given up filing complaints but continue to document my adverse effects in a journal that has entries dating over 3 years. The Ministries mentioned above only serve to administer the GEA and are mandated to support more IWTs, at any cost, including imposing health risks on the rural population.
Are you aware that when you search the term “health” in association with affects of IWTs, the only hits relate to the impossible test imposed during ERT appeals – causality of serious harm? Most of the rural population and many in urban areas know this test cannot be met.
This is a health issue and I believed that as a Minister of Health and a physician, the principle of “do no harm” would be paramount and respected. My physician conducted a series of tests to get at the root cause of my symptoms. I included in my package to you a copy of a letter from him in which he had determined that “the main factor contributing to her symptoms is her proximity to the wind turbines.” Obviously his findings are not sufficient for invoking any mitigation and had you read the letter you would no doubt have not felt the need to council me to consult him as you would have been aware that I had already done so.
In a subsequent letter written to you on October 17, 2014 I wrote “As a physician I would hope that your political ideology as Minister of Health and Long Term Care would not override your moral conscience. Rural Ontarians deserve the same justice and humanitarian rights as those whom you advocate on behalf of in other parts of the world. The public interest should never take precedence over the human rights of others.”
The response from you to my plight and that of so many other people in rural Ontario has created a loss of trust and credibility especially when the public seems more informed than the Ministry of Health. That you can only respond with dated information when the evidence is clear, then one has to wonder how long this harmful policy will continue to be sustained.
This is an open letter, it will be shared along with your response attached with the very public that has lost all faith in the government of which you hold office.
Sincerely,
Virginia Stewart Love
Cc: Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Rona Ambrose, Federal Minister of Health
Premier Kathleen Wynne
Deputy Premier Deb Mathews
A short video on the climate scam, that everyone should see!!!
The Gag is Off, and This Wind Turbine Host, Tells the True Story!
SA Farmers Paid $1 Million to Host 19 Turbines Tell Senate they “Would Never Do it Again” due to “Unbearable” Sleep-Destroying Noise
June 15, 2015 by 4 Comments
****
Clive and Trina Gare are cattle graziers from South Australia’s Mid-North with their home property situated between Hallett and Jamestown.
Since October 2010, the Gares have played host to 19, 2.1MW Suzlon s88 turbines, which sit on a range of hills to the West of their stately homestead. Under their contract with AGL they receive around $200,000 a year; and have pocketed over $1 million since the deal began.
In a truly noble and remarkable move, the Gares gave evidence to the Senate Inquiry into the great wind power fraud during its Adelaide hearing, last week. Here’s their tragic story.
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Proof Committee Hansard
SENATE
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON WIND TURBINES
WEDNESDAY, 10 JUNE 2015
Mr Gare: Thank you for inviting me to present my submission today.
My submission deals with the impact on my health and lifestyle living in close proximity to a wind farm. Let me say from the outset that we were excited about the prospect of being part of the renewable electricity industry. I am a host to wind towers on my property, the nearest being about 800 metres away with three towers within approximately one to 1.5 kilometres away.
We were not made aware of the impacts of noise on our health or lifestyle. Fortunately, we had heard from others that they were quite noisy. Luckily, in our contracts we inserted clauses about the need for noise mitigation.
I do wonder why though the wind tower operators inserted the following clause in all the hosts’ contracts section 77C, which is on the memorandum of lease which I will table:
‘The landlord acknowledges and agrees that it is adequately compensated for any noise or inconvenience caused as a result of the permitted use of the site or the land and that it will not seek any further compensation from the tenant in relation to such matters.’
If the wind tower operators were confident of their impact studies, that clause would not be necessary.
After a short period of living with an operating wind farm, we had these products installed. I find that, because I work and reside in close proximity to the wind farm, I suffer sleep interruption, mild headaches, agitation and a general feeling of unease; however, this occurs only when the towers are turning, depending on the wind direction and wind strength.
My occupation requires that I work amongst the wind towers during the day which means I suffer the full impacts of noise for days at a time without relief. The impacts are that we are not able to open our windows because of the noise at night and we are not able to entertain outside because of the noise.
In conclusion, if we did not have soundproof batts in VLam Hush windows, our house would not be habitable. In my opinion, towers should not be within five kilometres of residences, and I would personally not buy a house within 20 kilometres of a wind farm. Thank you.
Mrs Gare: Good afternoon Senators, and ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for letting me speak to the committee today. I would like to open my statement with the following: developers and construction. In the beginning, I was excited about the wind farm and of course the financial security for our property and family.
The process began with high-pressure consultations, negotiations for weeks on end, numerous phone calls and face-to-face meetings with the developers. We seemed to be under constant pressure to agree to their wishes and, if we wanted any changes, it took a lot of negotiation.
We had to try and foresee any problems that may impact on our lifestyle for the next 25 years plus. With little or no previous information to go on, this was a very taxing time. Having gone through this, I would like to see that a person or persons – probably with a legal background and well-schooled in wind turbine information – be contactable for future wind farm hosts for advice and even to help with negotiations with the development companies.
Construction was also a very stressful and challenging time. The landowners are up against not only the power company but also all the big contractors and civil works companies. Any meetings with the above parties had to be attended by both of us with me taking notes so that we had some kind of record of what was said and what matters needed to be addressed at the time.
We had a lot of erosion problems from the pads and roadways, which we had to chase up with the power company to get them to address. During construction there were lots of problems with gates left open, boxing up mobs of cattle which then took a full day of redrafting and settling back into their paddocks.
We also had gates opening onto public roadways. We have a main bitumen road that goes past our property. This caused great angst as far as public liability is concerned, if our stock got out into the roads. We also had lots of rubbish scattered around the property. We witnessed one of our cattle eating a one metre by one metre piece of plastic sheeting.
Living with wind turbines.
Our house is solid sandstone, built for the late Charles Hawker in the 1920s, with concrete internal walls and a steel roof. The house is surrounded by a lot of vegetation and trees. I have brought some photos to show the Senate.
In the months after the towers started in October 2010, the noise was unbearable, especially when two towers became in sync. A loud thumping would radiate throughout the house. Even watching TV in the furthermost room from the towers, you could hear them. Sleeping was most difficult. I use, and still do, an earpiece radio every night, which helps block out the noise to a certain degree. If they are really going I have to up the volume.
After some time, due to a very slow installer, the house was finally insulated: sonobatts in the ceiling cavity; all our outside air vents blocked; a special American glass called Vlam Hush, which is two sheets of glass with a special gel between, were installed in every door and window of the house. This has improved the situation for me considerably, but at times the noise still penetrates into the house.
Ongoing issues.
Due to the house being sealed we have refrigerated air conditioning, because we cannot open windows because of the noise. A separate meter was installed on the wind farm operator’s advice, so that they could pay the cost of the air conditioning usage. That went in over 12 months ago and we are still chasing payment.
Another issue is the increase in our emergency services levy. The value of our property has increased by double, which has had a major increase in the levy. The power company pay council rates on the land that they lease, and we pay rates on the rest. We brought up the issue of the increased ESL with the power company, but they have not addressed it. We feel they should be responsible due to the increase in our land value. I have the value difference here: I think it is about $1.6 million increase. I quote from the contract, 6.1, rates and taxes, section B:
However, during each year of this lease the tenant must pay any increase in rates and taxes above the rates and taxes that were payable immediately before the start of the agreement to lease, if the increase is directly attributable to the works or the use of the site for the permitted use.
We also have ongoing problems with the cables which run across our property and connect into the individual towers to transport the power to a substation. There seem to be constant cable breakages, which have to be dug up and fixed. This, of course, happens all over the property. Having 19 towers, it has quite a big impact. Quite a large area is disturbed and then has to be recovered with sand or soil.
We have asked for compensation concerning this, as we have numerous cable breaks on the property with disturbance to our pastures, which interferes with our stock grazing. This was discussed at a meeting back in August 2014. We are still waiting for compensation, which is agreed by the wind operators. As you can see, they are not fast movers.
The land owners need to know their rights in regard to their property and how it is treated during and after construction of towers. Land owners with residences close to towers need to be made aware of the noise impact and there should be discussion of how close towers should be permitted to their premises. In my opinion, towers should not be any closer than five kilometres to a dwelling. If we had to buy another property, it would not be within a 20-kilometre distance to a wind farm. I think that says it all.
We have a son who will come home in a couple of years, and I have concerns for him and a family that he might have in the future, with regard to any health problems that may arise. Having lived with towers now for five years, in my opinion future hosts should glean as much information as they can and find out their rights so they can fully understand what they are taking on.
Senator XENOPHON: I would just like to ask some questions to Mr and Mrs Gare. I think the fact that you are hosts of wind turbines and you are giving evidence is significant. How many turbines are there on your property?
Mr Gare: Nineteen.
Senator XENOPHON: How long have you had them there?
Mr Gare: Five years.
Senator XENOPHON: And when did your start complaining about the turbines in terms of the adverse impacts?
Mr Gare: Straightaway.
Senator XENOPHON: Is it AGL that you are dealing with?
Mr Gare: Yes.
Senator XENOPHON: You may want to provide us with any documents in respect of this. How did they deal with the process? Once you raised the issue, what happened?
Mr Gare: We had it in our contract that if we found there was a problem they would put in noise mitigation products. We said: ‘You will have to do it. We cannot bear it.’ Because it was in the contract they went along with it, but I am sure, Nick, that they would not have if they did not have to.
Senator XENOPHON: It is a contractual relationship so it is under the terms of the contract. Are you able to say – and you may not want to – what level of payment have you been getting? If you do not feel comfortable saying how much you are being paid for the 19 turbines on an annual basis, you do not have to.
Mr Gare: All up, in total, about $200,000, so there is not a lot of advantage for us in coming here today.
Senator XENOPHON: When you experienced the noise, could you stay in the property or did you have to move out?
Mr Gare: If we did not have the noise mitigation products put in, we would have moved out.
Senator XENOPHON: Prior to the noise mitigation products being put in, how did it affect your sleep? Did you spend more time away from home?
Mr Gare: Fortunately, we have eastern rangeland country where I could go to get away from it. As I said in my submission, I am there 24 hours a day in amongst it. I had to go away to wind down. What was your question, sorry?
Senator XENOPHON: What period of time was it from the time the noise affected you until the time you had the noise mitigation – several weeks or several months? How long was it?
Mrs Gare: I reckon it took about 15 months or more. We had a very slow installer of the batts and things.
Senator XENOPHON: You are protected by parliamentary privilege when speaking out here today. Did AGL say to you: ‘Sometimes this happens. It is just one of those things’? Did they give an explanation as to the level of disruption? Did they say, ‘This has not happened before’?
Mr Gare: No. It was all glossed over right from the start. We were given no information.
One of their little tricks is to take people right up to the towers and say, ‘This is how noisy they are.’ But that is not so.
The further you get away from the tower the noisier they are. That is a funny thing, to a point I guess. When you are right underneath them and they are 80 metres up in the air there is very little noise. There is just a bit of wind noise. As you go away one or two kilometres it actually gets worse.
Senator XENOPHON: Before the noise attenuation or noise suppression in your home what was your quality of life like?
Mr Gare: Crap, to put it honestly.
Senator XENOPHON: You got a bit of sleep each night, didn’t you?
Mr Gare: With earplugs, yes. I wore earplugs constantly – only while they are turning, mind you, and providing they are in the right direction and have the right wind strength. Frosty nights are the worst because the sound tends to travel so much clearer and further on a frosty night. But earplugs.
Senator XENOPHON: Anything else, Mrs Gare?
Mrs Gare: No. Pretty much what Clive has said.
Senator XENOPHON: Do you sleep okay now?
Mrs Gare: No, they were waking me up on the weekend. You wake up to the thumping. This is with all the soundproofing in the house. As I said, I sleep with the radio on every night. If they are really cranked up I have to turn the volume up, so I will probably just go slowly deaf.
Senator DAY: I just want to clarify something. Frosty nights are normally not very windy.
Mr Gare: That is a funny thing. Our country is very hilly, and they put wind farms on top of hills. It can be blowing an absolute gale on the top of the hills and you can have frost in the valley.
Senator DAY: It is just that we have heard evidence that, even when the blades are not turning, they do have a similar infrasound impact on people because of the effect of the wind across the blades, across the aerofoil.
Mr Gare: Yes, but if there is that much wind the blades are turning, aren’t they?
Senator DAY: That is right.
Senator LEYONHJELM: If you had your time over again, would you host a wind farm?
Mr Gare: No, absolutely not. If I were a rich man, I would not have a wind farm on my property.
Senator LEYONHJELM: And you said it was $200,000 over five years approximately?
Mr Gare: No, 12 months.
Senator LEYONHJELM: Per year.
Mr Gare: Yes.
Senator LEYONHJELM: That is a fairly healthy income.
Mr Gare: Absolutely.
Senator LEYONHJELM: In spite of that, you would say that you would not have them.
Mr Gare: Absolutely, if I were a rich man, but unfortunately I am a farmer and there are not many rich farmers around.
Senator LEYONHJELM: What sort of farming?
Mr Gare: We are grazing, we can be cropping but we –
Senator LEYONHJELM: Sheep or cattle?
Mr Gare: Mostly cattle.
Senator LEYONHJELM: Has there been any effect on your cattle from the wind farms?
Mr Gare: No.
Senator LEYONHJELM: Okay, thank you.
Hansard, 10 June 2015
The evidence given by Gares will have ramifications for the wind industry, in Australia and beyond. To call it a major development in the ‘debate’ about the impact of incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound on human health, is mastery in understatement.
You see, the shills that run propaganda for the wind industry – including a former tobacco advertising guru – run the story that it’s only “jealous” wind farm neighbours who complain about wind turbine noise, “jealous” because they’re not getting paid; and that those who get paid to host them never, ever complain (see this piece of cooked-up propaganda piffle here).
The Gares pocket $200,000 a year for the ‘pleasure’ of hosting 19 of these things; and, yet, make it very clear that it was the worst decision of their lives.
To describe the noise from turbines as “unbearable”; requiring earplugs and the noise from the radio to help them get to sleep at night; and the situation when the turbines first started operating in October 2010 as “Crap, to put it honestly” – is entirely consistent with the types of complaints made routinely by wind farm neighbours who don’t get paid, in Australia and around the world.
The Gare’s evidence is also entirely consistent with the experience of David and Alida Mortimer, also paid to host turbines for Infigen at Lake Bonney, near Millicent in SA’s South-East (see our post here).
Despite AGL spending tens of thousands on noise “mitigation” measures, the noise from turbines continues to ruin their ability to sleep in their own home, as Trina Gare put it:
No, they were waking me up on the weekend. You wake up to the thumping. This is with all the soundproofing in the house. As I said, I sleep with the radio on every night. If they are really cranked up I have to turn the volume up, so I will probably just go slowly deaf.
With the aid of their pets at the NHMRC, the wind industry continues the fluff about there being no evidence of adverse health impacts caused by wind turbines (see our post here). However, the evidence given by the Gares – as to the routine sleep disturbance caused by turbine noise – is, in and of itself, conclusive proof of adverse health effects.
The World Health Organisation has viewed “noise-induced sleep disturbance … as a health problem in itself” for over 60 years – its Night-time Noise Guidelines for Europe – the Executive Summary at XI to XII which covers the point – says:
NOISE, SLEEP AND HEALTH
There is plenty of evidence that sleep is a biological necessity, and disturbed sleep is associated with a number of health problems. Studies of sleep disturbance in children and in shift workers clearly show the adverse effects.
Noise disturbs sleep by a number of direct and indirect pathways. Even at very low levels physiological reactions (increase in heart rate, body movements and arousals) can be reliably measured. Also, it was shown that awakening reactions are relatively rare, occurring at a much higher level than the physiological reactions.
The review of available evidence leads to the following conclusions.
- Sleep is a biological necessity and disturbed sleep is associated with a number of adverse impacts on health.
- There is sufficient evidence for biological effects of noise during sleep: increase in heart rate, arousals, sleep stage changes and awakening.
- There is sufficient evidence that night noise exposure causes self-reported sleep disturbance, increase in medicine use, increase in body movements and (environmental) insomnia.
- While noise-induced sleep disturbance is viewed as a health problem in itself (environmental insomnia), it also leads to further consequences for health and well-being.
- There is limited evidence that disturbed sleep causes fatigue, accidents and reduced performance.
- There is limited evidence that noise at night causes hormone level changes and clinical conditions such as cardiovascular illness, depression and other mental illness. It should be stressed that a plausible biological model is available with sufficient evidence for the elements of the causal chain.
STT tends to think the World Health Organization – after more than 60 years of studying the problem – might just know a thing or two about night-time noise, sleep and health. And, after more than 5 years of suffering, so do Clive and Trina Gare.
Notwithstanding a $200,000 annual pay-cheque, and thousands spent on noise ‘mitigation’, the Gares still can’t sleep properly; or otherwise enjoy their own home – their suffering continues.
Against that backdrop, it’s to be noticed that the lunatics that pass for our political betters keep advocating for ever decreasing set-backs for turbines from residential homes: in South Australia, it’s currently a derisory 1,000m; in Victoria, it’s just been cut by the recently installed Labor government to 1,000m, too – although their wind industry masters are pushing to cut that measly distance even further.
So, it is more than just significant to hear from people who’ve had to live up close and personal with these things for over five years, especially when over that period they’ve pocketed over $1 million for doing so – Trina Gare observing, in the same terms as Clive, that:
In my opinion, towers should not be any closer than five kilometres to a dwelling. If we had to buy another property, it would not be within a 20-kilometre distance to a wind farm. I think that says it all.
The other point that arises loud and clear is the developer’s use of bullying, lies and deceit in order to get the Gares into their contract in the first place – starting with lies about the impact of turbine noise, Clive pointing out:
One of their little tricks is to take people right up to the towers and say, ‘This is how noisy they are.’ But that is not so.
The further you get away from the tower the noisier they are. That is a funny thing, to a point I guess. When you are right underneath them and they are 80 metres up in the air there is very little noise. There is just a bit of wind noise. As you go away one or two kilometres it actually gets worse.
And that type of skulduggery was being pulled amidst the usual inordinate pressure applied to unwitting farmers by developers, described by Trina as a process that:
began with high-pressure consultations, negotiations for weeks on end, numerous phone calls and face-to-face meetings with the developers. We seemed to be under constant pressure to agree to their wishes and, if we wanted any changes, it took a lot of negotiation.
All tricks; all traps; and all to the developer’s advantage.
Standard tricks, like telling the potential hosts – on a one-on-one basis – the very same story: “that all of their neighbours had already signed up”. Words usually uttered at a point in time when the developer had not signed ANY contracts in relation to its proposed development at all. Pressure often being added by telling the targets that they needed to sign up quickly, because if they didn’t they would be holding up hundreds of $millions in investment, hundreds of jobs etc, etc.
Working on the adage of “loose lips sink ships”, on each occasion, the farmers being targeted were told that they mustn’t breathe a word about the contract being offered to any living soul: so much easier to perpetuate a lie when it can’t be tested by your target with a quick phone call to their neighbours.
In order to add a little more pressure to their targets – and to get their monikers on the contract being offered – the developer’s goons would tell the target farming family that, because everyone else had signed up, they would end up with turbines right up to the boundaries of their properties (sometimes within a few hundred metres of their homes); so they “may as well sign up anyway”, because that way they would at least get paid for hosting some turbines on their own property.
The thrust of the developer’s pitch being that: your life is going to be ruined by dozens of turbines on your neighbour’s property, so you may as well receive a few grand a year for your pending troubles.
The same set of lies would be told repeatedly; until such time as ink appeared on all of the contracts needed to get the wind farm project off the ground, and on its way to a dodgy-development approval. The ruse has been used in numerous cases in Australia, in the USA and elsewhere:
On the strength of what the Gares have told Australia’s Senate, STT can only offer this advice to any farmer considering entering a landholder agreement with a wind power outfit: DON’T.
And, if you’re in a contract, do whatever you can to get out of it NOW. We suggest you obtain competent, independent legal advice on avoiding the kind of suffering thrust upon the Gares.
No matter how much you get paid, your home, along with those of your neighbours, will become practically uninhabitable. Moreover, you are unlikely to remain friends with your neighbours.
The Gares got into their contract at a time when nobody in South Australia knew about how noisy and disruptive giant industrial wind turbines could be in quiet rural environments But, that’s all changed now. Plenty of rural communities are now suffering in precisely the same manner described by the Gares.
The Gares – along with plenty of others in the same position – were played by wind power outfits for dupes; as their evidence attests.
Admitting to a mistake takes honesty and personal integrity; admitting to a colossal mistake, even more so. However, to not only do so in public, but to your Parliament, exhibits moral decency – especially given the potential of that admission to operate as a sobering warning to others who have made, or who are likely to make, the very same error.
STT hears from its operatives at the hearing, that the Gares were warmly thanked for telling their story publicly. One who did so was STT Champion, Marina Teusner, from SA’s iconic Barossa Valley; and a voice of reason for the solid local group dedicated to killing off Pac Hydro’s threat of turbine terror for Keyneton (see our post here). Marina, in tears, embraced Trina Gare and gave her heartfelt thanks for what the Gares had just done.
As we said above, what the Gares have done is both remarkable and noble: these fine and decent people deserve the gratitude and sympathy of all; from those in their community, and well-beyond.
What they also deserve is that our political betters admit their mistakes; and immediately correct the errors that have led to the single greatest policy disaster in the history of the Commonwealth. After what the Gares have done, anything less is a monstrous insult.
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 