The Scone Advocate published an article submitted by the Upper Hunter Landscape Guardians, regarding the proposed Kyoto Energy Park - an amalgam of renewable energy technologies that has been in development for quite some time.
The website has been dead for nearly a year, with no updates on the development process. The letter (justifiably, I feel) raises questions around the lack of updates on the project.
Unfortunately, the letter also focuses on suspected health effects from wind farms, and misrepresents some studies in an attempt to create the impression that there are substantial and confirmed health effects from wind farms.
"A recent study in Germany, probably the leading country in the development of renewables has shown that whilst Germany has installed wind power capacity for about one quarter of its energy needs, only five per cent of its energy is sourced from wind due to its unreliability."
Wind turbines are not designed to
generate power at their full capacity, 100% of the time. This has absolutely
nothing to do with unreliablilty (or inefficiency, another regularly cited
claim) - it's simply the way you have to design a machine that is set to
capture a variable resource. Your bike has multiple gears, because the
landscape you ride on varies. Are you going to throw your bike away, because
you're not in the highest gear all the time?
I couldn't find this mystery
'recent study'. Most anti-wind lobbyists make a habit of never citing their
sources. So, let's look at 2011's statistics, from Wikipedia.
Installed capacity at the end of 2011 was 29,075 MW. Total generation was 46,500
GWh, which accounted for ~7.7% of total electrical demand in Germany. (The
European Wind Energy Association puts this
figure at 10.6% - it's likely they sourced demand figures from a different
location). An average Australian home consumes about 6.57 MWh
per year, so, wind power, in Germany, in 2011, powered the equivalent of 7.077
million homes. Oh dear. That's quite a lot.
In fact, the latter months of
2011 saw wind power penetration reaching record highs in Germany.
Again, this is probably the reason they refrain from providing
references.
"The National Health and Medical Research Council has stepped up its inquiries into wind farm noise."
Nope. The NHMRC is simply
continuing a literature
review of evidence surrounding the issue of wind farms and
health.
"Dr Sarah Laurie of the Waubra Foundation has furnished evidence that the previously identified buffer zone of 2km from a turbine to avoid health impacts is probably inadequate under certain topographical and environmental conditions."
Ah, a refreshing morsel of accuracy. Sarah
Laurie claims that wind farms can affect human health up to 30
kilometres away. Incidentally, that's about the distance between the
Capital Wind Farm and the Australian Parliament House. Why Laurie and the UHLG
aren't more concerned about the national emergency this ought to precipitate is
perplexing.
"Health Canada has announced a study into the health effects from wind turbines on neighbours."
Very true, though of course, that fact alone does not implicate wind turbines as causally related to health issues, which seems to be what they're trying to imply.
The study, detailed here,
will be performed over two years. Anti-wind groups, deeply concerned with the
issue of wind farms and health, are strongly supportive of the study, and have
expressed their public backing.
Oh, wait, no
they haven't.
No comments:
Post a Comment