What do the big and small parties really think of wind farms? Renew 22 August 2013 If elected, what will your stance on wind farms be? • Lynette Styles (One Nation) IF we accept as intelligent people that an emissions trading scheme should be abandoned in favour of renewable energy targets (RET), we need to look at the practical solutions for creating energy without harm to the environment and without high cost to the consumer. Creating energy by wind farming has both positive and negative elements. Proponents argue that wind farming is cost effective, noiseless and has no impact on the environment. Opponents argue that the visual impact of turbines obliterating the skyline in rural areas is a blight on the panorama and causes health issues, although scientific studies have disputed the theory. My stance on wind farms is that there should be no turbine installations in areas where the natural beauty of the rural landscape is visually impaired and causes detriment to neighbours. If wind turbines are ideally suited to the area of installation and there is little challenge to the rural ambiance, my stance is to support wind farming as the practical solution to energy creation. • Zaza Chevalier (Greens) CLIMATE change, caused primarily by reliance on polluting fossil fuels for energy, is the greatest challenge facing humanity this century. Wind farms are only part of the solution in creating a renewable energy future. The Greens support the development of community and local government control of rural wind farms as a means to equitably share profits and improve siting, but recognise the important role of projects initiated by developers and public utilities. We would reform the planning and regulation of wind farms to: * Improve community involvement in siting decisions. * Respect the rights of neighbours on noise and visual amenity. * Encourage profit sharing with neighbours, communities & Local govt. * Institute a clearer process for handling noise complaints. We would support the creation of planning guidelines based on site specific noise and amenity impact assessment and controls and genuine consultation and negotiation with neighbours who would be directly affected. Also allow for buffer distances between existing residences and wind farms often times the blade diameter with the ability for the buffer to be waived as a result of the negotiation with neighbours, (for example, for an 80 metre blade machine the buffer would be 800 metres). Wind energy planning guidelines need to be fair and clear and provide certainty to neighbours and proponents. • Angus Taylor (Coalition) I AM and have long been an advocate of renewable energy, and have been concerned about climate change for many years. I am also personally committed to Australia’s emission reduction targets. However, like many mainstream economists and the Productivity Commission, I have grave concerns about the magnitude of subsidies being paid to wind companies, over and above the costs of reducing carbon emissions through other means. Wind should compete with other means of reducing carbon emissions, on a level playing field, to avoid unnecessary increases in electricity prices. The coalition has committed to a full review of the Renewable Energy scheme, and this review must ensure we contain electricity prices while reaching our emissions reduction targets. I will also be a voice for farmers and communities who are seeking to get a fair deal and fair treatment in the face wind developments. Wind farm companies – which typically make tens of millions of dollars in government sponsored subsidies each year from a single wind farm – should be contributing much more to community projects than they currently do. Communities and landowners deserve a fairer share. • Michael Pilbrow (Labor) I AM a supporter of renewable energy, including wind farms, and the Government’s Renewable Energy Target. Like other Australians, I am pleased that my family has access to energy so we can turn on lights and heaters, watch TV and work/play on the computer. It is vital that we find and develop a range of sources of renewable energy for our future. As well as wind power, solar, hydro and geothermal have good potential for Australia. The wind farms in this area generate electricity for many thousands of homes. They also create many jobs for businesses and workers in Goulburn – wind farms are important to the Goulburn economy. I understand there are many concerns in the community about wind farms and I have taken time to visit and listen to people with such concerns. It is vital that consultation about the siting of wind farms is genuine, and compensation is delivered not just to landowners, but also to neighbours and the wider community. One thing’s for certain: if Mr Abbott wins the election his cuts mean there will be less investment in renewable energy projects, and that will hit Goulburn in terms of jobs and impetus for the local economy. • Adrian Van Der Byl (Christian Democrats) SCIENCE requires evidence. Politics require debate and consensus. When you confuse these two issues you end up with white elephant wind farms. Unfortunately the reason for the existence for these present windfarms has arisen from a scenario where political debate has been used to validate climate science, rather than scientific evidence itself. When you visit a wind farm near Crookwell, the first thing you read about is their purpose in reducing CO2 levels, which is a futile exercise. The concept of clean energy is a misnomer, because CO2 is not a pollutant, nor is it dirty. The reality is that wind farms require huge subsidies and associated with it fraud related to Renewable Energy Certificates, Australia loses huge sums of money. It is time to change the business model under which they operate. It is time that the towers of these wind turbines stand or fall on their own business model rather than a model which involves the taxpayer and the United Nations which serves to redistribute our wealth according to climate policy. To sum it up: Let these towers stand on their own business model, not the taxpayer. • Bruce Nicholson (Katter Australia Party) I WAS at Gullen Wind farm with Adrian last week and WOW. I think it was 14 erected and 59 to go. What an eyesore this will be when finished. I’m told they have a lifespan of 20 years and in this time would struggle to produce enough electricity to cover the cost of building them without subsidies. Haven’t been able to verify this information yet but if true it asks the question. Why? There are also the issue of farmers and people living nearby getting sick. I’ve never met a farmer who would B/S about being sick. I think the opposite is true, so when a farmer tells me that a wind farm is making him sick I believe him. Until they can produce proof that wind can pay for itself without Billion Dollar subsidies and that it is safe to live nearby, I will be opposed to them. • James Harker-Mortlock (Independent) I AM not opposed to wind turbines per se. They provide an alternative source of renewable energy and they can provide also employment, principally in their construction phase. However, turbines need to be in the right place and funded the right way. Currently, many turbine projects are located in the wrong place, funded primarily through government subsidies via the Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme of the federal government. The RET is supported by both the ALP and the Liberal parties. I cannot see much point in the RET as it stands. The RET fails to achieve its principal purpose of reducing carbon emissions yet creates major distortions in the energy market place and adds significantly to the cost of living. I would want to see the RET abolished if elected to Parliament. Once the RET is abolished the principal financial driver of the wind turbine industry would disappear. Perhaps the RET could be replaced with other measures, such as active government involvement in building alternative energy plants, such as concentrated solar power stations. I see solar as a far more passive renewable energy source than wind. It is somewhat of a mystery that solar is not pursued more activity. Solar is rapidly catching-up and overtaking wind. Another problem with wind is that it is an inefficient technology with turbines generally operating less than 30 per cent of the time. In regard to the current scene, wind turbine projects these fall into two groups – existing and proposed. I believe that governments should introduce legislation (not just policy guidelines) ensuring that property owners (i.e. hosts) rights are protected (this could include standard minimum terms in contracts with developers), neighbours are compensated for any loss caused by the proximity to a turbine project (such as nuisance and loss of property value) and local communities are fully compensated by developers for the costs associated with turbine projects, such as damage to local roads. There would also need to be stringent requirements in regard to the development ensuring the protection of the local environment, adherence to maximum noise level allowances, requirements to upgrade local roads, etc. These rules should be applied to both future and current projects. Any current projects which do not meet these requirements would need to be modified in order to continue to operate. This would include payment of compensation to neighbours and to communities impacted by developments currently in operation or being constructed. • Jason Cornelius (Palmer United Party) IF elected to the seat of Hume I will consult with the farms and my other party research team in what we can do for the farmers. • Lindsay Cosgrove (Citizens Electoral Council) WIND farms are a complete waste of time and money. Wind power is an intermittent, unreliable, high cost, and low energy density power source. A wind farm of 100 wind turbines cannot even produce enough energy to manufacture one wind turbine. Wind power requires a lot of land area, is highly dependent on government subsidies, and has been associated with health risks. For days at a time wind farms across Australia have shown zero power generation, simply because the wind doesn’t blow. Wind power proponents claim that this doesn’t matter because if the wind is not blowing in one location, it will be blowing elsewhere. However, the actual power generation data shows this to be one big lie. Weather systems often extend over 1,000 km and no wind means no power. This means that no matter how many billions of dollars we fritter away on wind farms, we still need to maintain existing coal and gas generation infrastructure. The CEC wants to build nuclear power plants. The latest technologies are meltdown-proof, and waste is not an issue as 96% of it is recyclable for further nuclear fuel. The remaining 4% can be used in medical applications. So nuclear is a truly renewable resource.
Posted on: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:11:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015