John, it actually means that the cost of delivering electricity goes up. Victoria has vastly superior wind resources than most of the NEM region. So these regulations effectively mean that more expensive wind projects in NSW go ahead to meet the renewable energy target, when chepaer/better ones in Victoria get shelved.

Anyone prepared to link to WattsUpWithThat can be safely ignored.

Ever live down-wind of a coal-fired power station, George? What about those health effects? The ones that are actually supported by evidence? Rather than those documented in shabby, unscientific "epidemiological studies"?

If you want a fair side-by-side comparison of coal v wind, I don't think it will be much of a contest in terms of undesirable side-effects. Unless of course you feel compelled to include NIMBYisms such as "wind turbines are ruining my view (of the heavily modified agricultural landscape intersected everywhere by highways)".

Nicholas, surprisingly I have spent 4 weeks of my life a few kms away from a coal plants. Frankly, it was a sooty experience.

On the other hand I also make many trips past the Cullerin Range Wind Farm. Can you explain why on overcast windy days I feel my sinuses and ears painful and as though they are under pressure? Can you also explain why my head, under these same conditions, feels as though I have a vice clamped down on it? Mass hysteria perhaps? I don't live close to wind turbines, but do live close enough to hear their horrible nocturnal rumble.

You could spend the rest of year mining through research, but unless you wish to get the point, then is it no surprise you choose to rubbish anything that suggests wind turbines are causing health problems.

Thank you for telling me what I have heard a thousand times over and over.

As an academic you should recognise that NO study has specifically looked at the "hypothesis creating" research of Sarah Laurie.

The current "17 international reviews" that Chapman keeps flashing look more like papers, back in a timezone, trying to prove that thalidomide didn't cause deformities because no one had published any such research... YET.

Whilst solar thermal "could" be used to back up wind, but that isn't happening is it? (special emphasis on "could" - shame we don't see things the same way with wind turbines and health!) See: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/answer-to-nsws-power-problems-is-blowing-in-the-wind-says-report-20120819-24gjh.html .

We have the largest wind farm in the southern hemisphere not far from where I live. I've spoken the with the people who live on the wind farm and those near it, none have had any problems. Noise is not an issue unless you are right next to them (within 50m) and not more than wind blowing trees at +100m. http://files.gereports.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/larg-wind-turbine.jpg

Shadow flicker is only an issue where turbines have been poorly placed relative to houses.

The high frequency noise thing has been widely debunked, as has the turbine illness. People who complain of this also seem to have a high correlation to people who missed out on having the wind farm on their place.

There are plenty of faces who have appeared on TV over the last year complaining of ill heath since the wind turbines went in. Shame you missed out speaking to them.

Don't know how you came up with the "high freqency noise thing". Do you mean people are complaining of ultrasound? I haven't heard of that claim before.

Well, that's the reality of wind turbines: CSG for backup, and not solar thermal. Why? Because the proponents of wind turbines keep arguing they provide the cheapest source of renewable energy. But in the words of Origin Energy's CEO: “But the problem with the renewable energy, most likely wind and solar and more wind than solar, is it’s what we call somewhat contradictory ‘interrupt of the base load’. So, this provides energy, but it doesn’t provide firm capacity in the system”.

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/kgb-origins-grant-king?utm_source=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Climate%2BSpectator%2Bdaily&utm_source=Climate+Spectator&utm_campaign=523fec4728-CSPEC_DAILY&utm_medium=email

That's also the reality of what is happening with wind turbines and health. One sits in their office and read papers, speculates, theorises etc. Instead one really needs to speak to those complaining of ill health and their doctors. The rest of the discussion is otherwise a waste of time.

I will listen to Simon Chapman as soon as Sydney University installs wind turbines on its campus to power itself, as an example to others.
Wouldn't this be a wonderful example?

As the sun sinks into the horizon, and the sky turns from bright red ...
I wonder how far shadow flicker extends from wind turbines located on the tallest hills in the locality, and for how long. And on a seasonal basis how many degrees are involved?
Are there any mathematically literate renewable energy proponents out there?

George, I meant the low freq sounds, which I'm sure you are aware is what I meant. As I said, unsupported and widely debunked.

"Complaining of ill health since the wind turbine went in" I also noticed that storks bring babies. http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb21/motologie/mitarbeiter_seiten/ls/storks.pdf
Essentially what you are claiming is a myth brought about mass hysteria. http://media.beyondzeroemissions.org/wind_turbine_sound_FactSheet.pdf
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4028112.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_hysteria

Well then Tim, here's your link to literature that discuss wind turbines and low frequency noise: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/your-health/wind-farms-and-human-health/catalogue-literature-already-available-reviewers

I also draw your careful attention to the research down by Alec Salt. http://oto2.wustl.edu/cochlea/wind.html

There's a lot of wind industry myths out there. I think one of them is a hysterical claim that all anti-wind people are right wing, coal miners popping up all over the place like mushrooms. Next time the pro-wind industry guys tell you something is "debunked" start asking LOTS of appropriate questions.

http://etwasluft.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/beach-rage-syndrome.html

If infrasound causes illness then pity the poor beachside dwellers, who have to put up with similar - or higher - levels of infrasound!

George, Sarah Laurie hasn't done any research. Get your facts straight. All she has done is interview a few people, collected some anecdotes and proposed a non-existent health condition as a result.

She has not conducted any double-blind tests or done anything remotely objective to test her claims. She is little more than a glory seeker who is going about worrying people unnecessarily. So much for the Hippocratic oath she is supposed to abide by.

George says, "Can you also explain why my head, under these same conditions, feels as though I have a vice clamped down on it? "

Too easy, you are an hypochondriac.

Again Blair, why should I bother even responding. Have you read the glorious FOI requests by the FoE? Even the NSW Department of Health recognised DR Laurie's research, but of being of the lowest level.

In case you are not aware, evidence starts from the lowest levels then makes its way up to more rigorous tests of research.

And by the way DOCTOR Laurie, has got over one hundred cases on her list... a bit more than just a few.

It's weird that people raise the issue of shadow flicker [which can only affect a specific point on the landscape for half an hour or so in any case, and only then when you are either east or west of the turbine] while they remain unaffected on those days when clouds scud overhead producing alternating sunny and shadowy periods.

It's hard to believe that people can be affected by shadow flicker when it doesn't affect cattle or sheep, or even horses.

the sun moves through the sky at a rate of 15 degrees per hour. A wind turbine occupies at the most about 11 degrees of the sky (a 100m diameter turbine at a distance of 500m, much closer than is usual). So a house won't be affected by shadow flicker from a given turbine for more than 45 minutes, and this is the very worst case scenario.

David, I think we should be talking of the blade tip (150m or so), not tower height...

I think we should also be talking about whether wind turbines are mounted on hills.

We should also discuss that some homes are only a few hundred metres away.

And we should also be discussing whether wind turbines are present on both sides of the house.

You didn't even read these papers did you. I'll quote from the first paper, a literature review, and its conclusions.
"The evidence available is that the level of emissions of low frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbine generators is so low that it is inaudible. There is no reliable evidence to indicate any effects on people when infrasound is present at an inaudible level (below the hearing threshold)."
You have just cited research that supports my original statements, congratulations!
The next point is that Alec Salt's work is only talking about potential. Sound is energy, frequency is just one part of the characteristics of the sound. So for infrasound to have any impacts it has to be carrying audible levels of energy, thus energy decay of sound waves as you move further from the towers means that any low frequencies have also lost energy. Background noise will also play a part in removing the energy as the sounds become muddled and energy mixed. Thus, unless you are really close to the towers, infrasound is not going to have an impact.

More evidence that you don't know what you are talking about as David has so eloquently demonstrated.

You didn't read the papers and you're calling me selective? Or do you just cherry pick parts of the papers and ignore the overall conclusions and science of the articles?

These two new links you have provided are not peer reviewed. They are also just studies to see if they can detect infrasounds. The actual energy levels measured were below levels that would cause problems. The next point is that the claims of ill health were not linked to the energy levels experienced, thus it would seem that the more rational explanation is that of mass hysteria, as you would expect a dose response to be measurable or at least some indication of a dose response and susceptibility.

George, the blade tip height will increase the length of the shadow, as will having turbines on top of the hill. This might mean that more houses are subject to shadow flicker. However, neither of those aspects are related to the maximum length of time a house is subjected to shadow flicker. This time is determined by how long it takes the path of the sun to cross the area swept by the blades. The diameter of the blades and the distance to the turbine are the key properties.

"Even the NSW Department of Health recognised DR Laurie's research, but of being of the lowest level."

In other words, worthless.

Which is completely irrelevant as I've already pointed out that wind turbines should be far enough away from a house (80-100m) that levels won't reach 60 dBA. The levels at 100m are >50 dBA.

What is so hard about this for you to grasp? I'm not saying that infrasound doesn't exist or isn't an issue, but I'm saying that it is irrelevant because the energy levels will be below the levels of concern due to the distance from the towers and thus the people complaining of illness are suffering mass hysteria because of talk about impacts of infrasound rather than actual impacts from said same.

Yep Tim - let's assume you are right when you say "... the energy levels will be below the levels of concern due to the distance from the towers and thus the people complaining of illness are suffering mass hysteria..."

But from a policy standpoint - from a political perspective ... the level of concern is perceived subjectively rather than based on physics and evidence. The Noise level is not necessarily health threatening but worrying about it and resenting it is definitely a health hazard. And being dismissed and ignored or abused just makes everything worse and turns critics into opponents. The important point to accept is that we don't set the level of concern - they do.

My concern is with the terminology we are using here: "irrelevant", "mass hysteria", "complaining of illness"... it is, at best a grudging willingness to consider these criticisms.

Please be careful when dealing with critics - trench warfare has never been particularly productive... no matter how right we are.... perhaps especially when we are right.

I'm referring to "mass hysteria" the psychological condition in which people give themselves the symptoms of an illness because of fear. Essentially George and his ilk are perpetuating a myth of harm which then causes a reaction. That reaction would not be there from any real effects, but people like George make sure every hypochondriac and axe grinding anti-wind person out there suddenly develops "illness".

I understand your point and I agree. This discussion here has devolved due to the argument of perception rather than evidence and science. This is why I've started using the terms you've outlined.

Angela Merkel has vetoed lots of windfarms by saying go-go-go on 20 new coal fired power plants.

I love the Germans, they make things interesting, whatever century you are living in.

Gerard Dean

Nurse! Nurse! Gerard is on the computer in the rec room again.

Germany produces 26% of it's electricity from renewables. Up from 14% in 2007.
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/26/germany-26-of-electricity-from-renewable-energy-in-1st-half-of-2012/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

Germany produces 26% of it's electricity from renewables. Up from 14% in 2007.
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/26/germany-26-of-electricity-from-renewable-energy-in-1st-half-of-2012/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

Germany is not relevant to Australia since Germany has a population of 82 million vs Australia: 23 million.

Clearly and IMO it's all to do with a sustainable population and the consumption of resources by that population so I suggest we first adopt the Precautionary Principle and think parochially rather than globally. After all charity begins at home.

Already Quarry Australia's carbon footprint per capita is shameful. Exporting fossil fuels while expanding the population = disaster. Put the fossil fuel industry out of business and we can increase the population. FF exports won't reduce though, nor will vehicles on the road. It's a sham really - we're all talk, no action. See ya at the Doomsday Ball.

I think you are well aware they are to replace the nuclear plants they are taking out of service.

The point remains that Germany has installed a very large amount of renewable energy generation in the last five years (equivalent to half of Australia's total electricity supply) and has reduced their greenhouse gas emissions from energy by 23% in the period 1990 - 2010.

http://unfccc.int/files/ghg_emissions_data/application/pdf/deu_ghg_profile.pdf

I agree entirely Peter ... in fact I'd go a bit further and say that if it is, as I and much evidence suggest - a psychological symptom brought on by stress, sadness loss or feelings of powerlessness, then it is actually far more serious.

It is a political and social and economic issue and that requires a much more sophisticated, considered and considerate response.

The key to this response is to provide direct cash in the hand benefits to everyone affected - to supply whole towns with cheap renewable power in return for hosting a turbine. So everyone "owns" it. They get the benefits both "ethical" and financial.

This is the approach adopted in rural Germany where locals are falling over themselves to get their own renewables in place and there is little if any evidence of turbines injuring folks. Over time their power will come virtually free.

But our grid system tends to militate against this localised networking. Not too hard to fix though.

Sorry George I was just chatting to a Peter elsewhere and brutally re-named you - inadvertent I assure you.

George, your double standards are breathtaking. What about the psychological issues of those faced with CSG developments in their backyards, or coal mine expansions? You're extremely selective concern doesn't ring true.

Given that you pedal homoeopathy to the gullible, it's not surprising that you have fallen victim to WTS nonsense and happily believe anybody who promotes it while studiously ignoring the abundant evidence that shows windfarms are benign. Discerning fact from fiction isn't your strong point.

As I have pointed out to you elsewhere, there are two operating windfarms near where I live that should be adversely affecting around 2500 to 3000 people if all the anti-wind BS was actually true. The fact that nobody living near the turbines has become ill because of them further dilutes your claims.

Not necessarily a health risk George - but definitely an intrusion and annoying and that can become a health risk. Hence the comments above re offshore, vertical and "owned"... the "owning" bit seems to be quite crucial regarding who is and who is not affected by the noise. But I reckon any noise is a nuisance at best and should be absolutely minimised or eliminated myself.

Discretion? Can't see much of that on offer when this issue is discussed at all.

I am actually agreeing with you if you read what I am saying very precisely: "Not necessarily a health risk George - but definitely an intrusion and annoying and that can become a health risk."

There is little scientific evidence to support a physical effect caused by turbine noise directly - but the social, psychological, visual and economic context can see people reporting adverse health effects.

So please don't tell me to fuck off and leave things to the experts...or I'll unleash the engineers on you. They reckon they're experts too. Geologists are even worse, tapping away with their little hammers day and night.

I've actually had a bit to do with this sort of stuff both personally and professionally and would like to have a sensible and civilised discussion about it.

Arguing about whether or not WTS exists or not is a diversion and will be solved by science. I reckon it is sufficient that people report symptoms and are annoyed by noise - as the German study suggests. The question really is: what is to be done about it?

"Did I ever say that the harm from CSG or coal is acceptable?"

No, but you have a curious fixation on wind turbines while ignoring the many genuine health concerns that do affect people.

"Do you have basis to your claim: that I "pedal homoeopathy to the gullible"."

http://www.redlandbayhomoeopathy.com.au/public_health__don_quixote.php

Now it could be that there is another person with your name who flogs homoeopathy and who has a hatred of wind turbines but when it looks like a quack, quack like a quack - well you know what I mean. Unless you can demonstrate you are in fact giving away your services, then you are flogging nonsense to the gullible.

"Have you heard of Dr Iser?"

Yes, he's my GP. I have asked directly if he has any conclusive evidence linking wind turbines with ill-health and he said no. He does think there is a link between wind turbines and anxiety which there clearly is in a very small number of people. He has called for an objective assessment which is much more than Sarah Laurie has called for.

I don't know anything about the other doctor you mentioned. I have very grave doubts about your claim that they are a "victim of my personal investment in the Hepburn wind turbines." I'm sure if I was directly responsible for anything, the person concerned would have bothered to get in touch with me. As they haven't, I suspect you are engaging in another one of your fantasies.

A note to other readers:

If you examine some of the other links on George's website, you'll discover he's also an anti-VAX crank and devoted acolyte of Meryl Dorey, self appointed leader of the anti-vaccine movement in Australia.

I'll leave it to the readers to discern for themselves who has the most tenuous grasp on reality. I subscribe to the scientific method, George subscribes to woo

Lennert...

Whatever happened to the RSI epidemic that swept through the offices of the 1980s and 1990s?

I'm not saying RSI didn't exist - even if it couldn't be spotted using then available technology. It was very real and very difficult and painful for those afflicted. I was working as a journalist at the time and it looked like those little fibreglass braces just came with the job.... everyone was sporting them. And then it stopped. We learned how to do things differently, take breaks, change hands, rotate about a bit - we took people seriously. And it stopped.

The shock of the new? The interraction between change and stress and the attendant feelings of alienation and imposition? Psychosomatic symptoms? But none the less real.

There was a similar outbreak of an "psychosomatic" disorder amongst workers in the textiles or sewing industry much earlier on in the century. Can't recall the details now - but if anyone's interested I'll track it down.

The point is that folks react to change very differently - depending on where it comes from, how it is done and how the benefits are distributed.

Out in the bush we don't see much change - and what we have seen hasn't been all that pleasant - it's been about rationalisations, cuts, shrinking and economic "rationalism". No wonder we're suspicious and cautious.

The physics of sound and swooshing does not - will not - give us the complete picture on how folks react to change and stress.

Peter, your reference to RSI is an object example of a nebulous condition with no clear cut, apparent cause.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, we have people claiming smart meters are making them ill and mobile phone towers were alleged to cause illnesses.

I'm sure the people concerned are sincere but despite their claims, no hard evidence has ever been found to support their arguments and I'll wager, the same will be found with wind turbines.

It doesn't help that proponents of magical thinking such as George and Sarah Laurie pander to people's concerns without assessing all the evidence objectively and worse, making them feel even more helpless.

George, your embarrassment is understandable but more shameful is your economy with the truth.

Peter and Lennert, I think you need to consider the findings of the RMIT research into wind farms: "Wagg, C., Butler, M., MacDermott, S.T., Johnson, M., & Scholfield, K. (2011) Hearing voices: A narrative analysis of the Senate Inquiry into the Social and Economic Impacts of Rural Wind Farms. Conference Proceedings: Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia (SEGRA). Geelong, October 2011. "

One of the conclusions reached was p13.: "Many of those who are
currently living in close proximity to wind farms reported health
problems and had concerns with the cumulative impact of multiple
developments. They were also concerned about the level of community
tension associated with the developments. Those anticipating the
development of wind farms to begin in the near future were typically
concerned for property value, landscape amenity and the noise and
visual intrusion of the towers."

It goes to show that the health "scare campaigns" aren't working very effectively. Most people just don't believe "infrasonic wind turbine hell" exists until they "go there". Better liason with communities isn't going to solve the health issue - it will just help mute it for a little longer because of "good will" between locals and developers.

That CSIRO peper I linked to earlier on is actually rather excellent. Absolutely essential reading actually if you want a clear layout of a very unclear problem.

What threw me last night was the way they'd presented their findings up front - a traffic light arrangement suggesting that cost is an absolute barrier for example- which is a bit gimmicky to be honest.

Have to be careful reading focus group analysis. It requires interpretation and a very considered response designed to address concerns expressed. These concerns are based on the circumstances as they exist and within that context make sense. And the response to addressing these concerns can be direct - through consultation, education and participation for example. But other concerns might need a more structural adjustment either in the proposal itself or in pressing for changes in the economic and policy settings that give rise to them. The red light opposition points fall into this latter category I think.

Anyway I'll read it again and get back to you but I think for anyone remotely interested in renewables and wind power and in recovering or improving the regulatory framework, then this study is ESSENTIAL READING.

For a lot of us it is rather unusual to be on the other side of the table - to be a proponent of a development - we're usually in the body of the hall demanding answers and raising concerns. The worst thing we can do is behave like crude developers - ignoring or dismissing significant local opposition.

It would make great sense in my view if the proponents of wind power engaged a seriously heavy-weight PR outfit actually... to use the tools of the oppressor as it were - and develop a more co-operative and community-based approach.

Sun's up - I've gotta do some work.