Yorke Peninsula CERES Turbines Submission

Apologies for long, late, repetitive post, and sorry I didn't post before submissions closed today. However, late submissions may be accepted if you feel inclined. Cheers.

The Secretary

Development Assessment Commission

Fax: (08) 8303 0753

Email: dacadmin@sa.gov.au

Submission: Suzlon/Repower/CERES Yorke Peninsula Wind Turbine Industrial

                    Development

To the Members; Dear Madams/Sirs,

I respectfully oppose the Development Application and ask that the CERES Turbine proposal be refused for many reasons. I am generally opposed to Wind Turbines as an appropriate ‘alternative energy resource’ for several basic reasons.

1)   They guarantee 100% reliance on other forms of generation that must be ‘instantly’ accessed when the wind stops blowing; weather based generation is spasmodic and un-predictable causing massive spikes and drops in supply completely unrelated to demand. What does Adelaide do for electricity during a week long windless heatwave? Import brown coal electricity from Victoria. Solar thermal, geo-thermal, hydro, home solar panels, etc, are all more reliable and appropriate.

2)   Generating electricity 100s if not 1000s of kilometres from where it is used means huge losses during transmission. With the above structure, exporting to Victoria from Yorke Peninsula Turbines and then from Victorian brown coal power stations to Adelaide, there are huge losses that are environmentally unacceptable and costly; a cost that gets passed onto consumers, whom are also paying for all the associated infrastructure.

3)   Without massive taxpayer funded subsidies, Turbines are completely un-economic and will never return a genuine profit. Consumers are paying the companies to erect and run them, paying for the infrastructure via the most expensive energy charges on the planet, and then also paying for other things like $110million for the Heyward Interconnector that is to facilitate the above import/export of electricity.

4)   In South Australia the (Interim) Development Plan Amendment of October 2011 is unquestionably Fascism. The DPA 2011 removes private citizen’s rights to oppose in any way Turbine development, and denies any access to the Courts and/or appeal. This is the dictionary definition of Fascism. It was titled ‘Interim’ but was immediately implemented and hundreds of Turbines were approved under that legislation.

5)   Changes to ‘Visual Amenity’ provisions for the finalised DPA 2012, legislates to remove the clause that stopped the Acciona Allendale Project and led directly to the IDPA 2011. These changes set VA provisions as acceptable at 1km from non-host homes, to be addressed by the ludicrous and already discredited ‘screening’ of massive 100m+ high Turbines with plants. This is legislation deliberately designed and applied to remove the single legal right that citizens still had.

6)   Set back distances from non-host homes of only 1km allow often non-resident land holders to ‘host’ (for $1000s) Turbines right on boundary lines. This has an impact on land values, and compromises development and cropping, etc, of non-host properties.

There are also many well-known safety issues with disintegrating Turbines, fires in and/or near Turbines, etc, that the Labor state government openly acknowledge with special legislation for increased set-backs for the safety of tourists at lookouts, etc, and for ‘Visual Amenity’ issues in the Barossa, etc, but chooses to completely ignore when it comes to Turbines only 1km from peoples homes elsewhere in the state.

Literally, more than 2 hrs drive from Adelaide and it’s a completely different state; and not just on Turbine legislation.

7)   Non-host land values are affected without compensation, and this is being increasingly identified in several recent Court findings and Council ratings where land values have been lowered with specific reference to proposed Turbine development.

8)   Health issues with ‘subsonic’ or Infrasound are still only just being acknowledged by authorities like the Environmental Protection Agency who have previously dismissed this as an absolute non-reality, but are now (after relentless pressure from Turbine opponents and other concerned citizens) doing very limited testing of one small site (Waterloo).

I have no confidence at all in the efficacy and/or professionalism and/or independence of the EPA: they are a government agency doing government business; and that means Yes to Turbines no matter what. There must be genuinely independent testing done immediately and over many months, not a fortnight like the EPA’s study.

9)   Turbines are deadly to birds, particularly raptors like Wedge-Tail Eagles, Kestrels,etc. The recently approved Millicent Turbine Development allegedly has EPA approval to kill over 800 Ibis every year. Acciona employ a Ranger to monitor bird deaths at their Waubra site.

10)  Dealing with fires in/and or around Turbines is literally impossible; the Country Fire Service acknowledges that they cannot reach/fight fires in the smallest Turbines, and safety issues of disintegration, burning gear oil, etc, mean that crews are not allowed closer than that minimum 1km distance. I believe it may now be further.

Those same safety issues plus turbulence and visibility issues makes Aerial surveillance and/or bombing completely un-usable; I believe that pilot’s have refused to fly near Turbines. This greatly impacts on the safety of people living amongst or near Turbines, ground crews, etc, and completely compromises the CFS’s ability to combat any fire.

In such a massive development a huge fire could develop with no way at all of fighting it, and given prevailing conditions (Northerlies, etc) any such fire would threaten the entire Southern half of Yorke Peninsula. On ‘Catastrophic Fire Days’ virtually the entire Peninsula would have to be evacuated.

11) The above issues also impact Aerial crop spraying, again affecting neighbours who cannot safely access large areas of their own property.

12)  Set-back distances of 1km removes a non-hosts ability to develop their own property, particularly where Turbines can be currently built right on boundaries if there’s not already a structure across the fence, eg, if you had planned to build a shed, or house for the in-laws, etc, in the top paddock but a Turbine is placed across the fence, you cannot build a house in the ‘shadow’.

The legislation is effectively ‘Compulsory Acquisition’ of neighbouring property on behalf of Turbine developers and hosts, without compensation for the affected non-host residents. It is outrageous. Set-backs should be minimum 5km from a host boundary so as to allow for safety and development on associated properties.

13)  I also have grave concerns about the Board structures and personal associations of many of the companies and developers; in short, I believe that Turbines are a wholly in-appropriate generation source and the associated subsidies are effectively a rort.

14)  Specific to CERES Yorke Peninsula, there are also serious concerns to be investigated as to the financial position of Suzlon and subsidiary Repower, and their conduct and position on other projects, and their genuine motivations for this project. It appears that Suzlon may be using this project to ‘prop-up’ other companies and/or projects.

I request that the Commission review these financial conditions for themselves.

I am opposed to Turbines in their entirety and see very little genuine application for them in a Renewable Energy solution to current problems.

I am just listening to reports that Goyder Council have ‘approved’ the Stony Gap Project that the Council’s own Development Assessment Panel had rejected. The company (Energy Australia?) was able to appeal the decision whereas had the DAP originally approved the project, residents would not have had any way to appeal.

The companies get an appeal but citizens don’t. This is outrageous and unacceptable legislation. Then the Council goes off and contradicts their own DAP by reaching an ‘out of Court’ agreement. Democracy be damned.

I request that the Commission (a) refuse the application for CERES and (b) call for a moratorium on all developments and applications pending appropriate investigation and resolution of the above multiple issues.

Yours truly,

Nick Fletcher                                                          18 April 2013