Right: Hazelwood power station in Gippsland. Built in the 1960s, the coal-powered generators are claimed by the Greenpeace organisation as the most polluting of their kind in the developed world.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of reducing Australia's commitment to wind turbines
1. Wind turbines pose a potential human health risk
Some individuals living in the vicinity of wind turbines report experiencing adverse health effects including annoyance and/or sleep disturbance and/or stress related health impacts and/or reduced quality of life. In some cases the adverse effects have been severe enough that families have elected to abandon their homes.
In the United States a 2012 board of health resolution made a formal request for '...temporary emergency financial relocation assistance from the State of Wisconsin for those Brown County families that are suffering adverse health effects and undue hardships caused by the irresponsible placement of industrial wind turbines around their homes and property.'
Those who believe that wind turbines can adversely affect human health claim that the turbines do not have to cause a disease state directly, such as the noise from turbines contributing to hearing loss. Rather they claim that other more subtle impacts can indirectly cause reduced health.
A report produced by Inter.Noise 2012 stated, 'Wind turbines produce sound which can become a risk to human health when it is perceived to be noise. Noise of a moderate level acts via an indirect pathway and can have health outcomes similar to those caused by high noise exposures on the direct pathway. Specific health effects in the indirect pathway include: interference with communication; sleep disturbance effects; cardiovascular and psycho-physiological effects; performance reduction effects; effects on social behaviour and annoyance.'
The same report further concluded, 'Wind turbines produce sound which can become a risk to human health when it is perceived to be noise. Noise of a moderate level acts via an indirect pathway and can have health outcomes similar to those caused by high noise exposures on the direct pathway.
Specific health effects in the indirect pathway include: interference with communication; sleep disturbance effects; cardiovascular and psycho-physiological effects; performance reduction effects; effects on social behaviour and annoyance.'
2. Wind turbines cause environmental damage
It has been claimed that wind turbines pose a risk to a range of wildlife, especially to birds and bats.
In September, 2005, the United States Government Accountability Office stated, 'Once thought to have practically no adverse environmental effects, it is now recognized that wind power facilities can have adverse impacts-particularly on wildlife, and most significantly on birds and bats.'
Again in September, 2005, the same body concluded, 'At wind power-generating facilities in Appalachia and California, wind turbines have killed large numbers of migratory birds and bats. Wind power facilities may also have other impacts on wildlife through alterations of habitat. Habitat destruction and modification is a leading threat to the continued survival of wildlife species in the United States.'
On May 6, 2013, Robin Williams, on ABC's Radio National's Ockham's Razor, broadcast the views of Twitcher (birdwatcher) Sue Taylor. Taylor claimed, 'The Altamont Pass wind farm in northern California was established in 1982 and has 5,400 wind turbines. Sadly, it was constructed in a major raptor migration corridor with the highest concentration of Golden Eagles in North America. Consequently, the turbines killed from 880 to 1,300 raptors each year, mainly Burrowing Owls and Red-tailed Hawks, but also up to 116 Golden Eagles.'
Referring to the Australian situation, Ms Taylor stated, 'In Australia, I believe that the birds most affected by wind turbines are raptors-birds of prey-and these birds often require an enormous range. In some locations a pair of Wedge-tailed Eagles needs a hunting range of 100 square kilometres. That makes finding an appropriate place for a wind farm difficult, to say the least. The Tasmanian subspecies of Wedge-tailed Eagle is classified as vulnerable, and is of concern at every Tasmanian wind farm.'
Location of turbines has been revealed to be a key factor in influencing the impact they have on bird populations. This has been found to be equally crucial in determining the impact wind turbines have on bat numbers.
In February, 2015, the European Journal of Wildlife Research published findings regarding the large number of bat deaths caused by wind turbines in Germany. Some of the turbines concerned are in bat migration routes. According to the research each wind turbine causes the death of approximately 10 to 12 bats per year if no mitigation measures are put in place...
This led the researchers to conclude that if all the wind turbines in Germany were put into operation without any mitigation measures, nearly 250,000 bats would die per year. Of these numbers, approximately 70% can be attributed to bats migrating between summer and winter habitat.'
3. Wind turbines are aesthetically unappealing
It has been claimed by critics of wind turbines that they are aesthetically unappealing and represent a form of visual pollution. There are also those who claim that the noise they make is offensive.
In an interview given to Sydney radio host, Alan Jones, in June 2015, the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, stated, 'When I've been up close to these wind farms, there's no doubt, not only are they visually awful, they make a lot of noise.'
The year before, in May 2014, the federal treasurer, Joe Hockey, stated in an interview given on Macquarie Radio, 'If I can be a little indulgent please, I drive to Canberra to go to Parliament, I drive myself, and I must say I find those wind turbines around Lake George to be utterly offensive. I think they're just a blight on the landscape.'
Opposition to the visual impact of wind turbines appears to have grown as the size of the structures has increased.
On November 30, 2006, Dr Andrew Lothian, Principal, Scenic Solutions, Adelaide, South Australia, released a report titled, 'Visual Impact Assessment of Wind Farms in South Australia'.
In the report Dr Lothian stated, '[There has been] a massive increase in the size of turbines, and hence the visual impact they have on the landscape. Typical turbines in 1990 stood 65 m high (hub height and rotor) but ten years later in 2000 were over twice that height - 135 m high. A 135 m turbine with a rated power of 1.5 MW has fifty times the output of a 1980 turbine of 45 m height. With the greater scale, their visual impact has grown accordingly.'
Dr Lothian also noted the aesthetic sensitivity to wind farms increased when they were located in areas that were popularly regarded as having a high level of visual appeal. Dr Lothian explained, 'Wind farms had greatest negative effect on landscapes perceived as highly scenic and progressively less effect on landscapes rated as lower in scenic quality.'
In addition to those in Australia, there have been numerous commentators in Europe who have criticised wind farms for their damaging visual impact.
In 1994, an article published in The Economist described wind farms in Britain as a 'new way to rape the countryside' and Sir Bernard Ingham described a wind farm in Yorkshire as 'lavatory brushes in the air' in 2001. In 2004, Ann West, vice Chair of Country Guardian, described them as 'industrial-size blots on the landscape'.
In 2002 landscape publications in Germany described the destruction of scenic beauty by wind farms as a 'catastrophe' and warned 'the beauty of our landscape is in danger'. The German Association for Landscape Protection (BLS) is generally opposed wind farms.
4. Australia renewable energy targets have been set too high
The Coalition federal government considers that renewable energy targets increasing the proportion of Australia's energy derived from wind or solar have been set too high and may be undesirable.
The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has stated that he regrets Australia having made any commitments toward achieving particular renewable energy targets (RET) and that those we have set are too high.
In an interview with Sydney Radio talkback host, Alan Jones, Mr Abbott explained that the target was initially created in 2001 by John Howard and subsequently strengthened by Labor to 'at least 20 per cent by 2020', calculated at the time as being 41,000 gigawatt hours of electricity.
Mr Abbott further explained that that target of 41,000 gigawatts hours per year to be derived from renewable energy sources can now be reached without setting a target of 20 per cent for the percentage of the country's energy production that comes from wind or solar power.
In addition to reducing the percentage of power production to come from renewable energy sources, on June 24, 2015, the Australia Parliament passed legislation amending the targets so that they are now set at 33,000 gigawatt hours rather than 41,000 to reflect lower overall energy demand.
In the Alan Jones interview given two weeks before the Parliament amended these targets Mr Abbott indicated that changes before the Federal Parliament to reduce the RET were designed to prevent wind farms from further spreading across the Australian landscape.
Mr Abbott stated, 'I would frankly have liked to reduce the number a lot more but we got the best deal we could out of the Senate.
And if we hadn't had a deal, Alan, we would have been stuck with even more of these things [wind turbines].'
The Government appears to consider renewable energy targets an inflexible tool which does not readily allow for either increased efficiencies in energy production or reductions in demand which may render a particular target outdated.
The Government and the non-renewable energy sector also appear concerned that too high a RET may damage the international competiveness of some Australian industries, especially coal and petroleum industries or those industries reliant on these power sources.
The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) has stated, 'Australia's LNG (liquefied natural gas) exporters are among the most trade-exposed of all Australian exporters. They cannot pass increased costs on to consumers and any loss of competitiveness would benefit Australia's international LNG competitors or suppliers of alternative energy sources that emit higher levels of greenhouse gases.'
APPEA has further stated, 'The ongoing negotiations to secure political support for Renewable Energy Target (RET) reforms must deliver sensible outcomes for Australia's oil and gas industry.'
5. There are other means of producing clean energy
Opponents of wind farms claim that there are other ways of producing clean energy than via wind turbines.
One of the key alternative renewable energy sources is solar power. The cost of solar photovoltaic modules has fallen 80 per cent over the past decade and one in six Australian households now uses them to generate their own electricity (up from one in 100 households in 2009).
The current federal government has taken the view that Australia's renewable energy focus should be on large-scale industrial production of solar power rather than wind power or home-based solar generation.
In June 2015, the federal environment minister, Greg Hunt, stated, 'What we're doing there is very significant and we're increasing the focus on large-scale solar. There should be a support for large-scale solar, which I think many Australians, if not all, if not the vast majority, would strongly support.'
Australia is also exploring ways of capturing the carbon dioxide emitted during coal-fired power generation. CSIRO researchers are investigating carbon capture and storage, and intense gasification technologies.
The CSIRO is also developing DICE (direct injection carbon engine) as a way of producing energy from coal more cleanly. DICE is essentially a diesel engine which uses a liquid slurry of water and brown or black coal (and bio-char if available) to create energy.
The CSIRO's head of the Advanced Carbon Power division, and principal scientist working on DICE, Louis Wibberley, has claimed that it would be 'absolutely possible' for DICE to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent.
In addition there are those who claim Australia should investigate nuclear power as a means of producing clean energy.