Right: Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has praised coal as humanity's benefactor while condemning wind farms as noisy and visually polluting.
 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 increasing Australia's commitment to wind turbines
1. There is no reliable evidence to demonstrate that wind turbines pose a risk to human health
The worldwide consensus of opinion appears to be that to this point there is no clear evidence to indicate that wind farms have an deleterious effect on human health.
The most recent research is Australia is consistent with this view. On February 11, 2015, The National Health and Medical Research Council issues a report on 'Wind farms and human health'. The report concluded 'After careful consideration and deliberation, NHMRC concludes that there is currently no consistent evidence that wind farms cause adverse health effects in humans.'
The Council investigated the health effects of wind farms in 2009 and came to a similar conclusion. 'This review of the available evidence, including journal articles, surveys, literature reviews and government reports, supports the statement that: There are no direct pathological effects from wind farms and that any potential impact on humans can be minimised by following existing planning guidelines.'
The Clean Energy Council of Australia has stated, 'There are nearly 250,000 wind turbines across sites all over the world - many of them close to people's houses.
Reviews conducted by leading health and research organisations from all over the world, including Health Canada, the Australian Medical Association and Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council, have found no direct link between wind farms and health effects.'
The Clean Energy Council went on to note, 'Opponents of wind farms have claimed that "infrasound", or sound that is too low-frequency for humans to hear, can cause negative health effects. However, there have been multiple scientific, thorough, peer-reviewed studies on wind farm noise that have found that infrasound from wind farms is not a problem.'
The Clean Energy Council has also given a detailed overview of the findings made in Canada regarding the impact on human health of wind farms.
The Council states, 'Health Canada, Canada's national health organisation, released preliminary results of a study into the effect of wind farms on human health in 2014. The study was initiated in 2012 specifically to gather new data on wind farms and health. The study considered physical health measures that assessed stress levels using hair cortisol, blood pressure and resting heart rate, as well as measures of sleep quality. More than 4000 hours of wind turbine noise measurements were collected and a total of 1238 households participated.'
The Health Canada study findings were summarised as follows. 'No evidence was found to support a link between exposure to wind turbine noise and any of the self-reported illnesses. Additionally, the study's results did not support a link between wind turbine noise and stress, or sleep quality (self-reported or measured).'
2. Traditional forms of energy production pose a significant and proven risk to human health
Supporters of wind turbines note that their favoured technology has never been demonstrated to harm human health while coal, gas and oil have demonstrable ill effects.
The Australian Climate Council has produced a briefing paper titled 'Health Effects of Coal'.
The briefing paper states, 'Every aspect of coal's lifecycle - mining, transportation, combustion and the disposal of waste - produces pollutants that affect human health.'
The paper claims that the closer populations live to coal-generated power stations the greater the likelihood of ill health. 'Health impacts from coal emissions on miners, workers and local communities can be severe. For example, the risk of premature death for people living within 50 kilometres of coal burning power plants can be as much as three to four times that of people living at a greater distance.'
The paper lists some of the diseases which can be attributed to pollution caused by coal-based power generation. 'Health risks from coal include lung cancer, bronchitis, heart disease and other health conditions.'
Overseas studies have supported these conclusions. In the United States, 50,000 deaths each year have been attributed to air pollution from coal-fired power generation. There are 18,200 premature deaths, about 8,500 new cases of chronic bronchitis, and over four million lost working days each year due mainly to respiratory and cardiac disease in Europe. In Australia, coal-emission related health impacts cost $2.6 billion each year.
Leigh Ewbank, Friends of the Earth's renewable energy spokesperson has stated, 'It's astonishing that the minister responsible for our national response to climate change is complicit in efforts to demonise wind farms. The NHMRC, Victorian Department of Health, and Australian Medical Association have already given wind energy a clean bill of health. The public health impacts of coal are well-documented, yet the Abbott government is proposing to regulate clean and safe wind energy on health grounds. It's the stuff of satire.'
In Victoria, brown coal production occurs in the Latrobe Valley at the Hazelwood, Loy Yang and Yallourn power plants. In 2014, when embers from a nearby forest fire took hold in the Hazelwood mine, the public health costs associated with coalmining became apparent for many Australians. The fire burned for 45 days, releasing toxic smoke, carbon monoxide and ash across surrounding towns. Thousands of residents were affected and complained of blood noses, headaches and sore eyes. Others with existing health conditions experienced a worsening of symptoms.
3. Any environmental hazards posed by wind turbines are relatively minor and can be mitigated
Supporters of wind farms note that wind energy has far less environmental impact than the fossil fuel powered generation that it replaces. They also claim that any negative environmental impacts wind farms may have can largely be overcome if the turbines are located or sited carefully.
A wind farm, when installed on agricultural land, has one of the lowest environmental impacts of all energy sources. It occupies less land area per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity generated than any other energy conversion system, apart from rooftop solar energy, and is compatible with grazing and crops.
An indication of the small impact wind farms can have on bird populations is found in a 2013 Canadian journal article. The Canadian journal, Avian Conservation & Ecology, published a research paper titled 'Canadian Estimate of Bird Mortality Due to Collisions and Direct Habitat Loss Associated with Wind Turbine Developments'. The authors used data from carcass searches from 43 wind farms and concluded that on average about 8 birds were killed per turbine per year.
It has also been claimed that the environmental damage caused by wind farms is far less than other energy sources.
Benjamin Sovocool, wrote a paper titled The Avian and Wildlife Costs of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power for the peer-reviewed Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences. Sovocool compared bird deaths from nuclear and fossil fuel power stations with bird deaths caused by wind turbines. His paper was a synthesis of findings from many studies and was dated June 30, 2012. He provided figures of 0.27 avian fatalities from wind power per gigawatt-hour of electricity generated, 0.6/GWh for nuclear power and 9.4/GWh for fossil-fuelled power stations. This data suggests that fossil-fuelled power stations are 30 times more hazardous to birds than wind farms.
It has further been noted that the environmental damage caused by climate change which burning fossil-fuels has helped to cause is a far, far greater threat to the environment than wind farms. For example, the June 2011 issue of Scientific American included a study about fire hazard linked to climate change. It stated that the area burned by wild fires in the United States in the average year, given a one degree rise in temperatures, is expected to be up to six times as large as at present. Similar results can be expected in Australia.
Supporters of wind farms also note that whatever adverse environmental impacts they have can be largely controlled.
The United States Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has stated, 'As with all energy supply options, wind energy development can have adverse environmental impacts, including the potential to reduce, fragment, or degrade habitat for wildlife, fish, and plants.
Furthermore, spinning turbine blades can pose a threat to flying wildlife like birds and bats. Due to the potential impact that wind power can have on wildlife, and the potential for these issues to delay or hinder wind development in high-quality wind resource areas, addressing siting and permitting issues are among the wind industry's highest priorities.'
A similar set of procedures is employed within the European Union. The intention is not to place wind farms in locations where they are likely to cause significant environmental damage.
To reduce bird fatalities, several strategies are employed. Restricting construction activities to non-breeding periods can help reduce the negative effects of bird disturbance. Structural design improvements are also effective in reducing bird mortality. For example, enlarging the blades and slowing the rotational speed of wind turbines can lower the bird fatality rate.
4. Conventional power sources, such as coal-fired power stations, are generally far less visually appealing than wind farms
Supporters of wind farms have claimed that even for those who find them unattractive, wind turbines are far less visually unappealing than fossil-fuelled power generators.
In an opinion piece published in Perth Now on June 26, 2015, West Australian radio and newspaper commentator Nat Locke stated, '
Referring to Prime Minister Abbott's complaint that wind turbines are 'ugly', Locke stated, 'With all due respect, is he mental? Has he ever been to a coal-fired power station? Has he ever hung around a diesel-fuelled generator? If it was a beauty pageant, they'd be no Megan Gale, put it that way.'
Locke went on to claim, 'I've gazed at rows of them along European ridges and have honestly found them considerably more visually appealing than, say, a nuclear power station.'
Locke further noted that it should not be the aesthetic judgement of one or more individuals which determines whether Australia proceeds with a potentially important power source such as wind turbines. Locke stated, 'And if we're going to use the criterion of "Does Tony like the look of it?" when making important decisions for our country, we could be in a spot of bother. I would have hoped that some slightly more valid criteria could be considered. Like, does it make economic sense? Is it sustainable? Will it create jobs?
An article published in The Guardian on June 26, 2015, examined the reactions to residents living near the Collgar wind farm near Merredin in Western Australia, one of the largest wind farms in the southern hemisphere. The articles author, Calla Wahlquist, states, 'There is no objective measure for visual awfulness but it's hard to find anyone in Merredin who thinks they're ugly. People certainly think they are less ugly than Muja power station, the coal-fired generator that sits at the Collie end of the industrial power corridor.'
Some commentators have suggested that those who condemn wind farms as ugly are privileged and out of touch with the visual pollution which is for most people the price of living in an industrialised society. Most people, it is claimed, have had to endure far greater visual disturbance than that caused by wind farms.
In an article published in The Age on June 13, 2015, economics editor Peter Martin stated, 'Everything about the electricity industry is ugly, and dangerous; from the mega stations that spew out smoke and ash in the Hunter and La Trobe Valleys to the high voltage cables and substations that spark fires and ominously hum, to the poles and wires that interfere with trees on their way to our homes. But windmills, near farms?'
Martin concluded, 'It takes a special kind of hysteria to get worked up over windmills. Or a special sense of entitlement...'
5. Wind turbines are one of the most efficient and non-polluting sources of energy
The efficiency and non-polluting nature of wind turbines are among the factors that make them such an attractive alternative energy source.
A wind farm generates the energy used in its construction in just 3 months of operation, yet its operational lifetime is 20-25 years. Greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution produced by its construction are small and declining. There is very little emission or pollution produced by its operation. In substituting for base-load (mostly coal power) in mainland Australia, wind power produces a net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.
A fact sheet produced by Australia's Clean Energy Council in June 20011 states, 'Wind energy is currently the most cost-effective renewable energy resource in Australia.
It involves the generation of electricity from the naturally occurring power of the wind. Wind turbines capture wind energy within the area their blades pass through. The blades in turn drive an electrical generator to produce power for export to the electricity grid.
Unlike conventional sources of electricity generation, like coal, no water is required for wind farm operation and no greenhouse gases are produced.'
The fact sheet further states, 'A single wind turbine can produce enough energy to supply up to 2,000 average households each year and save around 1 tonne of greenhouse gas for every megawatt produced...
Wind farms are efficient because they do not produce wasted heat. Coal power stations can only extract 25 per cent of the energy in their fuel compared to 50 per cent in wind. Wind turbines also do not use any water to generate electricity, whereas a large coal-fired power station such as Hazelwood in Victoria uses at least 11 billion litres of fresh drinking water each year...
Wind energy is currently the most cost-effective source of renewable energy in Australia and it continues to reduce in price - it has already dropped by 80 per cent in 25 years'