What's New

(This section is in diary form commencing 2003)

"Makara Guardians is not anti wind, but there is increasing information that wind power has significant disbenefits, as indicated in the range of information below, this emphasises our belief that siting of the wind power stations needs very careful consideration and consultation, and it is important that they are not located in areas where they will introduce ecological and social problems".

Professor Bellamy of Britain is now supporting the protection of Quartz Hill from industrialisation by wind turbines.  He is the Patron of a charitable trust that was established in 2003, the Quartz Hill Reserve Charitable Trust ( see website www.quartzhillreserve.org.nz ), which has as one of its objectives the protection of the landscape, in pertpetuity, for the enjoyment of the public. 

2003

At Gebbies Pass, Christchurch, the single wind turbine was turned off in 2003, not long after it was erected, because the noise it emitted exceeded its resource consent. The local people were assured it would not be noisy.

November 13th 2003

Country Life magazine 

READERS’ 10 MOST HATED EYESORES IN THE UK?

WIND FARMS HEADED THE LIST.  

March 29th 2004

  The well respected German. ‘Der Spiegel’ Magazine 29 March, 2004 published an article:
    "The madness about wind turbines: from the dream of environmentally friendly energy to highly subsidized destruction of the country side".

September 20th 2004

                                        REF

              RENEWABLE ENERGY FOUNDATION

 PRESS RELEASE;
20 September 2004

NEW RESEARCH EXPLAINS WIND TURBINE NOISE PROBLEMS

In a major new article published this month in the Journal of Sound and Vibration, (1) G. P. Van den Berg, a physicist at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, (2) believes that he has at last explained the mystery of why modern wind turbines can cause noise problems for residents at distances of a mile or more.

For his article, "Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound" (Journal of Sound and Vibrations, 277 (2004), 955-970),Van den Berg measured sound around the Rhede wind-farm (an installation of 17 turbines), on the Dutch/German border.  "Residents living 500m and more from the park have reacted strongly to the noise; (and) residents up to 1900m distance expressed annoyance" particularly at night.  Yet, conventional wind industry calculations have assumed that turbines would present no noise problem over 500m.

After exhaustive measurements, Van den Berg discovered that the methods used by wind turbine developers, in the UK and elsewhere, to predict noise are seriously flawed because of their assumption that wind speeds measured at a height of 10 metres are representative of wind speeds measured at the greater heights of modern turbines (often 100 metres and above).

The importance of this analysis is further exacerbated when measured at night, when though wind speeds may fall at ground level (to near zero), they remain fast enough at 60 metres (and above) to turn the turbine blades.  In fact, his measurements show, wind speeds at night are up to 2.6 times higher than expected.

Even in the day background noise is not good at covering the rhythmical thumping caused by the blade as it passes the tower.  Consequently, against expectations, the turbines were turning at night and the noise propagating down into an area at ground level where there was no background noise to mask it and consequently residents were experiencing sound levels 15dB higher than expected.  Though turbines were making as much noise as normal, it was carrying much further, and especially at night when it was particularly troublesome.  Fascinatingly, Van den Berg has found that the error is smallest within 400m of the turbine but is greater at distances up to a mile away.

Van den Berg concludes, "The number and severity of noise complaints near the wind park are at least in part explained by the two findings of this study; actual sound levels are considerably higher than predicted, and wind turbines can produces sound with an impulsive character."

"The relatively high wind speeds at turbine hub height at night also have a distinct advantage; the electric power output is higher than predicted and benefits the operator of the wind turbine."

Van den Berg also believes that infrasound is very probably a significant feature in the audible noise problem. (3) He has pointed out that although inaudible, the low blade passing of wind turbine blades, frequency modulates clearly audible higher frequency sounds and thus creates periodic sounds (with the effect strengthened at night).  Further he observes that groups of several turbines can interact to amplify this effect.  The renewable Energy foundation (REF) has commissioned G. P Van den Berg to produce further research.

CEO Campbell Dunford, commented, "As Van den Berg has said, we are all very much in favour of renewable energy, but it is extremely important that the truth about any turbine noise problems is made public.  Many developers are currently proposing putting substantial groups of large turbines within 500m of residential areas.  Experiences across Europe suggest that there are problems with turbine noise, and Van den Berg’s recent work offers some possible explanations.  This is important and should be investigated as a matter of urgency."

END

For further information on the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), please contact  Margareta Stanley at DBA on 020 7930 8033 or visit www.ref.org.uk or e-mail
info@nchl.demon.co.uk

 
(1) www.elsevier.com/locate/jsvi

(3) At the 11th International Meeting on Low Frequency, Noise and Vibration and its Control (Maastricht)

November 1st 2004 

PRESS RELEASE
> 1st November 2004
>
> Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) joins Europa Nostra
>
> Founded in 1963 and based in the Hague, Europa Nostra brings together more
> than 220 heritage NGOs throughout the European continent (representing over
> five million members) and co-ordinates their policy and strategy at an
> European level.
>
> Europa Nostra (www.europanostra.org), the leading European heritage
> organisation, elected the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) to Membership at
> their recent Autumn Conference. At the same meeting the Council of Europa
> Nostra extensively revised its statement on wind turbine power stations in
> the light of current experience.
>
> This new stance reaffirmed their support for renewable energy, including
> wind-power, but said wind turbines must be sited in appropriate places. In
> addition, it notes that greater efforts should be made to promote a
> diversity of forms of renewable energy, and that policies must address both
> demand and supply, with an emphasis on energy efficiency and conservation.
>
> Europa Nostra's Council stressed, "Many countries have provided heavy
> incentives for development of wind power, relaxed planning legislation and
> failed to make a balanced assessment of its merits".
>
> Additionally it was felt that, "the impact on tourism, wildlife and
> landscape was not being sufficiently taken into account, with consequent
> damage to the natural heritage".
>
> REF welcomes Europa Nostra Council's balanced and judicious approach to this
> matter.
>
> REF Chairman, Noel Edmonds, said, "Europa Nostra, the leading European
> heritage organisation is showing real leadership on wind turbine
> development, and draws on extensive continental experience in recommending a
> balanced approach to renewable energy rather than the developer-led drive
> towards one, low value, technology. REF is proud to be a member of Europa
> Nostra and fully supports its aims."
>
> END
> For further information on the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), please
> contact Margareta Stanley at DBA on 020 7930 8033 or e-mail
> info@nchl.demon.co.uk or visit www.ref.org.uk
>
> For further information on Europa Nostra, please contact Charlotte O'Connor,
> Europa Nostra Communications Officer on 0031 70 302 4055 fax. 0031 70 361 78
> 65 or emailco@europanostra.org.
> DECLARATION BY THE COUNCIL OF EUROPA NOSTRA CONCERNING WINDPOWER AND THE
> COUNTRYSIDE
>
> 1. The Council of Europa Nostra, Pan-European Federation for Heritage,
> meeting at The Hague 2004 on September 30th 2004, debated the environmental
> and heritage implications of the rapidly increasing use of wind-power for
> electricity generation, and reached the following conclusions.
>
> General considerations
>
> 2. The Council recalled Europa Nostra's statutory commitment to the
> protection and enhancement of the heritage in all its aspects (immovable and
> movable, built and natural) in the wider context of the cultural landscape.
>
> 3. The Council fully recognised, and shared, the serious international
> concerns which exist about climate change, as reflected notably in the Kyoto
> Protocol, as well as the need for all countries to have energy policies
> which take these into account. It intends to consider progressively the
> impact on the landscape of all forms of renewable energy.
>
> 4. The Council held that energy policies must be comprehensive,
> addressing both demand and supply problems, and in the latter category
> considering all forms of energy supply and must in particular focus on a
> reduction in the emission of greenhouse gasses, notably CO2.
>
> 5. The Council considered that many national energy policies do not
> sufficiently address the demand side, save energy, and promote energy
> efficiency.
>
> 6. The Council believed that greater efforts should be made to promote
> all forms of renewable energy.
>
> Considerations specific to wind-power
>
> 7. Whilst the Council fully supported the drive for renewables,
> including wind-power, it considered that wind-turbines must be sited in
> appropriate places.
>
> 8. The Council also considered that many countries have so far tended
> to focus too heavily on wind-power, whether on or off shore. They have
> provided heavy incentives for its development, relaxed planning legislation,
> and failed to make a balanced assessment of its merits and demerits, with
> the consequence that vast areas of beautiful landscape throughout Europe are
> now dominated by groups of ever larger wind-turbines - every one of which
> constitutes a small power station - and are thus being effectively
> industrialised, with consequent serious damage to the natural heritage.
>
> 9. The Council held that, in many European countries, a situation is
> being created in which social, economic, tourism, historical, cultural,
> wildlife, and landscape impacts are being insufficiently addressed in the
> decision making process relating to wind-power.
>
> 10. Against this background the Council took the view that, in relation
> to on-shore wind-turbines, or groups of wind-turbines, the decision making
> process of public authorities should include wide consultation; should be
> based on an understanding of the significance of local landscape character
> and values; and should for any project always take into account the
> following considerations:
>
> a) The impact on the local community.
>
> b) The results of a careful and objective analysis of the
> claims made by the developer, with regard to the saving of greenhouse
> gasses.
>
> c) The degree of visual intrusion, relating this to the
> character and quality of the surroundings, bearing in mind that modern
> wind-turbines are eye-catching because they are very large (over 100 metres
> high and growing), usually prominently placed.
>
> d) The supplementary damage to the landscape, sensitive
> habitats, water courses, and other aspects of the environment, caused by the
> construction process, including the provision of access roads, additions to
> electricity networks, pylons, and building necessary for electricity
> generation and transmission.
>
> e) The degree to which restoration of the site to its original
> condition at the end of the working life of the wind-turbines can be
> guaranteed.
>
> f) The impact on, and proximity to, sites designated
> internationally, nationally, regionally, or locally as protected areas.
>
> g) The impact, on communities in the vicinity of wind-turbines,
> of noise and infrasound nuisance, light interception, and/or reduction in
> property values.
>
> h) An assessment of the need for back-up capacity when the
> wind-turbines are inactive (i.e. for much of the time), which will usually
> be gas, thus affecting the claimed benefits of the project in terms of
> greenhouse gas production and real production costs.
>
> i) The need to treat 'repowering' (i.e. replacing existing
> wind-turbines with larger ones) on the same basis as the original project.
>
> 11. As regards off-shore wind-turbines, or groups of
> wind-turbines, some but not all of the above considerations apply.
> Furthermore, as a general rule, the further out to sea a wind-turbine can be
> placed, the less it is likely to give rise to objections.
>
> In adopting the above, the Council of Europa Nostra agreed that this
> declaration should be sent to the European Union, the Council of Europe,
> Governments of all European States, and as widely as possible among regional
> and local authorities.

December 2004

Makara Guardians has a letter published in the Christmas edition of "The listener", and wins the prize for the letter of the week, see below:
Letter to "The Listener":
"We comment on two points made by Keith Turner CEO of Meridian Energy on Chris Laidlaw’s "Sunday Group", National Radio broadcast Sunday 28 November 2004.
First we commend Dr Turner for his acknowledgement that it is economic to build wind turbines in remote areas of New Zealand, so they do not have to be obtrusive, or be built where the local community does not want them.
Dr Turner also stated that "wind turbines don’t make noise today".
This statement is at odds with an article entitled "Sunlight flicker annoys residents", published in the Manawatu Standard, Monday 29 November 2004 where residents of Ashhurst are also quoted as having problems with noise from the Te Apiti turbines.
So, why the apparent discrepancy?
Noise perceived by those living some kilometres from wind turbines, and particularly downwind or in valleys below, is caused by the pressure wave that is generated each time a turbine blade passes the tower.
For a single turbine these broad band pressure fluctuations are not excessively intrusive, but when several turbines operate in proximity the pulses move in and out of phase, to create a doubling and tripling or more in the sound level, depending how many are grouped together.
The noise heard directly underneath, especially when a turbine may not be generating but only freewheeling (as happens when the wind is very strong or very weak), is no indication of the noise heard by those living some distance away. For these people the noise irritation will be worse at night, and for those living in a rural environment where background noise levels are exceptionally low, the noise is even more intrusive.
One lesson we can learn from ‘Te Apiti’ is that the distance between wind turbines and residents should be greater than the distance from Te Apiti to Ashhurst.
 
Jenny Jorgensen
For Makara Guardians Inc

April 2005 

Gebbes Pass turbine is completely destroyed by a rapid wind change.  (It has since been rebuilt but is still causing noise problems for the local people).
 
Update on the Makara situation:

After a marathon of hearings, January and February 2005, on the proposed new rules for the Wellington District Plan, the Wellington City Council has unanimously voted in favour of Quartz Hill being returned to the overlay of identified ridgelines and hilltops that are to be given higher protection in Wellington City.
This result is heartening. Many hundreds of Wellingtonians supported our view that Quartz Hill was an important landform and the landscape should be protected. Submitters included the Wellington Branch of the Green Party (see below for oral submission), ‘Forest and Bird’ Society, Tararua Tramping Club, Mud Cycles, The Makara Pony Club, Action for Environment, Southern Environmental Association, Mike Crozier, Professor of Geomorphology at Victoria University, Dr Graeme Stevens, author of "The Rugged Landscape", and Quartz Hill Reserve Charitable Trust.
 
Many hundreds of Wellingtonians also submitted against the proposed Wind Energy Facility rules. These were in a chapter headed ‘Renewable Energy Rules", but the only rules in this chapter were wind power rules. Solar was completely ignored.
The Renewable Energy Rules were passed at the same time as Quartz Hill was protected. However, these rules have been significantly strengthened in favour of protecting the landscape and protection of amenity values.

However, the renewable energy rules remain of concern to us. First they were not renewable energy rules, they were only wind energy facility rules and they completely override the Rural Area Rules. Solar was completely ignored. In our opinion the Council could have made it mandatory to install intergrated solar water heating in all new buildings. In the rural area particular regard must be given to the quiet night time environment.

Our society has therefore filed an appeal in respect of the wind energy rules to the Environment Court. Meridian Energy has joined our appeal as a S.274 party.

Meridian Energy has filed an appeal to the Environment Court seeking removal of the inclusion of Quartz Hill and also the ridgeline above the Karori Golf Club course in the overlay. The Society has joined Meridian Enery's appeal as a S.274 party.

We expect both appeals to be heard by the Environment Court in 2006.

Green Party Oral submission to DP 32,33
26th January 2005

Thank you for the opportunity to address you.
Paul Bruce will go over the main issues and
Dave MacArthur will address some specific points in more detail

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DP change 32 – Renewable.

Councillors may be aware of a number of diferent reports emerging over recent months that indicate an increasingly pessimistic outcome from climate change if there is not a dramatic move away from carbon based fuels within a very short space of time. The upper range of predicted temperature change this century is similar to the warming that ended the Permian period 250 million years ago with the extinction of 95% of species. Lastest statements from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), indicate that the critical level of additional greenhouse Kyoto emissions needed to precipitate that change could be reached within a decade.

There is an urgent need to address climate change and security of supply issues through reduction in waste of valuable energy forms and the substitution of carbon based fuels by renewable energy resources.

DP Change 32 addresses these issues, but with an over emphasis on wind farms to the exclusion of other equally important areas of efficiencies and solar energy. Wellington no longer has a locally controlled body which sells energy services to the rate payer, and thus it is even more essential that this district plan reflects the RMA requirement to support energy efficiencies not just bulk side generation.

We urge that DP 32 include:

(new recommendations)

a: Provision that any investment in bulk energy renewable resources be matched by an equivalent amount invested in demand side efficiencies and urban based solar energy

b: Wind farms should not precede in locations where there is strong community opposition, such as the Quartz Hill and the Makara area.

(Repeated points yet to be addressed by Council officers (same no. as in submission 631))

That DP 32 include

1: Advocy for solar energy

Specific measures on how advocacy for sustainable and energy efficient building design principles, and aspects such as orientation to the sun, minimisiation of shade affects, collection of roof water might occur, and how developers that don't incorporate solar design, energy efficiency etc will be penalised.

2: Improvements to existing buildings and dwellings.

The formation of a public trust in partnership with the Regional Council and EECA, which would provided free energy audits and a source of finance for improvements.

3: Inventory of solar energy

In order to control and protect the existing solar energy available to the city, carry out a solar audit of the solar-based generation capacity of built area.

5 Security of water supply

Enhance security of water supply to rate payers, by supplying at discount rates, rain water collection tanks for grey water use. This reduces energy requirement and at the same time diminishes initial storm water flow following localised heavy rain downpours.

District Plan 33

Our submission on DP 33 (682) opposed the rezoning of land in Appendix 4 as Outer Residential area for a number of environmental reasons, some of which are addressed in the Council Officer's Report.

The Report did not address how Council will ensure that new low density subdivisions will not impact adversely on energy efficiency, on public transport use and on whether new buildings will be solar rated. Without such provisions, Wellington risks locking itself into unsustainable consuming developments which become poverty ghettos following further increase in oil prices.

1: We urge that resource consent requirements for major extention or new building/dwelling include
o solar rating for orientation
o energy efficiency
o availability of public transport
o recyling
o water collection

2: Wind farms should not precede without local community support as this will
inhibit the possibility of further investment elsewhere.
We specifically refer to Quartz Hill and the Makara Guardians opposition to
wind farm development in that area. The local Makara community is united in its determatination
to seek sustainable solutions which in this case does not include wind farms and their resolve should be
respected, especially as they do show a commitment to living at one with their environment.

Further points are addressed in the hand written copy (faxed).

Paul Bruce
Dave MacArthur
Green Party Aotearoa New Zealand
Tel 04 972 8699
Paul.Bruce@greens.org.nz

IN THE MATTER                        of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER                        of Proposed Plan Change 32



EVIDENCE OF TERRY HURST IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND FURTHER SUBMISSIONS OF MAKARA GUARDIANS INCORPORATED


My name is Terry Hurst, I am 61 years old and live in South Gippsland, Victoria , Australia.

In the early sixties I attended Melbourne University studying science, transferring to teacher’s college for two years but for family reasons did not complete the course.
I commenced working for Unigate in 1964 in the Toora milk factory and after several years was placed in control of the laboratory where I stayed until 1980 when I took over the family dairy farm near Toora.  In 1999 my wife and I decided that the returns were too low and the life too hard so we sold the dairy farm and moved to what we thought was to be our retirement  farm at Silcocks Hill, Toora (more of that later). Since selling our dairy farm I have relief milked for the same farmer five nights a week and have worked in the Artificial Breeding industry during the days.

I am not an expert on the wind industry in any sense, (I was told years ago that x was the unknown quantity and a spurt is a drip under pressure), but an ordinary citizen who has been thrust into trying to protect his rights against seemingly impossible odds, having to fight (in the initial stages) against a giant power company, (The Stanwell Corporation), which is the energy arm of the Queensland Govt), the Victorian State Government, our local Shire Council and seemingly most of the local community. So I have had to learn a lot in a fairly short time. I had no idea that this was going to be a life sentence. Things have changed somewhat over the last few years, our local council has had many new members and now opposes any more windfarms in our area and better education of the downside of the wind industry has resulted in vastly different community attitudes.

I have found that when trying to get your point across to anyone not familiar with the wind industry you seem to start from well behind for two reasons. Firstly, the industry has done a pretty good job in painting itself "Green" (which it is anything but) and happily takes the high moral ground and secondly the public perception is that because the wind is free, so must the power generated from it be cheap.

Sadly, the enormous cost of the machinery needed to convert the wind into electricity prevents the power being cheap – in much of the world it is at least double the cost of the base load power and the industry can only survive by legislation setting such margins.
Also sadly this distortion of the market attracts industry and individuals out to make a quick dollar and many of those in the industry (at least in Australia) seem to only have this motive in mind whilst hiding behind a mantle of being "Green".

From my experience, there are only two types of people in favour of wind generated electricity on a grand scale, those who have a vested interest and stand to profit from the industry and those who have not taken the trouble to investigate the industry properly.
The industry simply will not stand up to a proper scrutiny.

Turbines are very inefficient. Worldwide figures give about 24% efficiency on quoted capacity and figures obtained over several months from the Stanwell website  for the Toora and Ravenshoe (in QLD) windfarms gave 26% efficiency. The turbines at Toora are designed to "operate for a wind speed  starting at 4 metres/sec and are automatically shut down a speeds in excess of 20 mps. Optimum power output is at 8 mps" (Quote from VCAT ruling 739. 31st May 2001.)

Of course 8 mps winds do not happen all that often and less than 4mps winds occur around 39% of the time  (Stanwell’s own figures, Noise Monitoring, 19/6 to 19/7/2003, and late June early July is a pretty windy time of the year at Toora) so one would expect to see the turbines idle for much of the time. Not so, as the Toora site manager explained, Stanwell defines "operating" as generating power, not turning and they look better for the tourists when they are turning.

Smoke and mirrors stuff.

The turbines also appear to be high maintenance machinery as it is not often that all twelve are operating and the Vestas people (the manufacturers) seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time at Toora. Another feature (which may only happen at Toora) is that the turbines are shut down at the first hint of a thunderstorm in the area. Whether this is to protect expensive electronic equipment or because of communications – the turbines are controlled from Queensland- I do not know.

There is no question that the community becomes very quickly divided when wind power companies enter the area.  Landowners with suitable sites for turbines are approached and if interested are persuaded to sign secrecy documents. So usually the first clue that neighbours have of having wind towers next to their properties is when the companies apply to the appropriate authorities for erection. It is only after all the prospects have been "signed up" that the companies begin their "Community Consultation", usually employing slick PR firms from the cities to do the job. Country communities have a tradition of helping out in tough times and working together for the community good so many people find themselves at odds with former friends who have found the lure of easy dollars in tough rural times hard to resist. This is a tragedy as the survival of small country communities in trying times such as we now have in rural Australia will depend on people pulling together and anything that divides communities has no place, I believe.

In my experience, most people do not want to live next to wind turbines. They are not desirable neighbours for several reasons – in my opinion they are unsightly and companies usually want to erect them in some of our windiest spots, which also are some of our most beautiful. They are noisy and there is no doubt that they cause the devaluation of neighbouring properties and ensure that selling becomes very difficult indeed.

First the noise – prior to the erection of the wind towers at Toora we were assured by Stanwell that there would be no noise. Our house was situated almost midway between two towers, one to the SE at 780 m and one at 750 m to the WNW.

And they are noisy. Not all the time, mostly in light winds (strong winds seem to carry the noise away) but much of the time a thrashing, pulsing noise greeted us as we went outside and in certain conditions (often at about 3 in the morning) the sound would invade our house, wake us up, and then prevent us from getting to sleep again, often for several hours. Not a loud noise by noise monitoring standards but because of its regularity and frequency (one pulse per second as the blades pass the pole) it soon fits in with one’s heartbeat and become very annoying, Chinese water torture style. I often equated the noise to the annoyance one’s heart beat causes in an infected ear. Because it is a people unfriendly noise I am very suspicious of the application of any noise standards (which are engineering figures that do not take people into account) and I believe that wind towers should never be proposed if there is a possibility of them causing problems for anyone already in the area, regardless of distances involved.

The sound seems to be very much dependent on the surrounding terrain and can travel large distances down valleys . One of my farmer friends living over 2km from the nearest turbine said of the noise coming in his bedroom window one afternoon "if it was a dog I would have shot it".  Former neighbours of ours at Silcocks Hill Rd living 400 m from a turbine have been forced to abandon their home and move away. The house is now unoccupied and they have been told by estate agents that it is virtually unsaleable.

Types of noises – there are many:

 Infected eardrum noise already mentioned.
 High pitched generator hum
 Distant rock band noise.
 Several jet planes doing circuits noise.

We had to sell our property, more of that later, and we have moved from living adjacent to the turbines to a farm 7 km away in a straight line. The prevailing wind does not blow towards us from the wind farm, and we do not hear any noise now.

I have no doubt that there are detrimental health effects for some people.  Of course living with the sort of stress that turbines cause is no good for anyone but as well I have no doubt that migraines can be triggered in people susceptible to them either from the noise, vibration or the shadow flicker that sometimes occurs. Constant stomach upsets also seem to be part and parcel of living with turbines, they disappear when you move away.

Shadow flicker, as we experienced it, would be a huge problem for properties lying between the setting sun and a wind farm. We had some experience of it, and was most unpleasant. We had to shut our curtains.

There is also no doubt given my experience as to the devaluation of neighbouring properties. As a starter, during the period of construction of the Toora wind facility our local shire devalued our property by 7% while at the same time increasing other rates by an average of 18%. This to my mind is an effective devaluation of 25%.  Refer to rate notices attached. (A similar devaluation happened at the neighbours’ who abandoned their home mentioned above.)

Difficulty in selling. Once it was established we were to have a wind facility for a neighbour we decided to sell out and move. We had placed a deposit on another property (ex family) which was well away from any proposed windfarms so we decided to build there. For this to happen we first had to sell our Silcocks Hill farm. We did not think this would be a problem as there was the beginnings of a land boom in the area and we had a very desirable property, a highly liveable 16 sq open plan house with great views  (including sea views) down the back of some hills with Port Welshpool in the background. We also had 106 acres with good water supply and shedding of which 35 acres was natural bush and the rest productive pasture. We had a valuer friend suggest $265000 as a reasonable price. We gave the property to three local estate agents as well as internet companies and ads in the Weekly Times, the premier rural newspaper in Victoria.

Interest from the local agents was minimal, about four people in 12 months. We finally had one admit that the idea of living next to a windfarm put almost everyone off and I think that they were a bit scared of future litigation and did not push the place very much. The Weekly Times ad resulted in at least one enquiry every week but of course for some the place was not what they wanted and many others showed great interest until they either enquired about the earthworks on the neighbouring hills (on being told that a windfarm was being built many of them swore, got in their cars and drove off) or went away to have a think, never to be heard of again.  Very soul destroying, particularly as vastly inferior properties to ours with much higher prices seemed to be snapped up as soon as they went on the market. And of course anyone who has sold a property will understand that a considerable amount of time goes into it, prettying the place up, showing people around etc. We had many well wishers suggest that perhaps once the towers were erected and people could see and hear the it would make the place easier to sell. It did not, if anything the situation became worse.

After about 12 months we contacted Bruce Falk, who was working from Leongatha (about 50 km away) and who seemed to be getting good success with sales. Bruce suggested that the property should be easy to sell and decided to use the wind towers as a selling point and to increase the selling price by $100000 which he said often attracts a certain type of buyer.  Bruce probably brought two prospects a week. We tried to make a positive of the windfarm but most people’s interest disappeared when they realised just how close and how large the turbines were. In the next six months we did have one offer ($200000) which we rejected.

During this 18 month period the average property price in the district rose by probably 50% so it was with great reluctance (and a little gratitude) that we accepted an offer of $265000, our original asking price. My guess is by the time we did sell the place we would have got another $100000 without the wind towers next door.

The situation has not improved. People living in the vicinity of the proposed Meridian  wind facility near Foster who have decided to leave have been told that their properties will be very difficult to sell if selling is at all possible. This statement is attributed to Andrea Adams of SEJ Real Estate, Foster, south Gippsland.

People like us who are selling out for lower prices, are being called " wind farm refugees".

  It is no consolation that slowly much of the community realises it has been duped by the wind power companies (many to the extent of apologising to us) and that there is a growing opposition across the state to inappropriate developments.

I believe that if wind towers are deemed to be necessary (and I do not think that they are) they should be sited  where they will have no possibility of affecting the lives of people already in the vicinity.

I have attached statements from some of my neighbours that evidence how local people, those who are free to speak out and who have not signed confidentiality agreements, are feeling about the wind towers:

Stephen and Jayne Garito (this is the statement they provided to a recent planning hearing)
Julie McGrath
Don and Helen Harris


Old neighbours Graeme and Joy Whatley have told me that they hear the turbines most of the time, and they have to keep windows closed to sleep if wind is from the northwest.  It is quite annoying.  They live 1.5km from the turbines.

I have attached a letter from the real estate agent who eventually sold our house,
Bruce Falk of Pat Rice & Hawkins

  Terry Hurst
 
June 2nd 2005

Despite the recent protection of Quartz Hill and as a complete surprise for the Makara Community, Meridian Energy ignores this recognition and unveils its plans for 70, 3MW , V90 Vestas wind turbines on Quartz Hill and Terawhiti Station. This was carried out covertly and in our view in a deliberately deceptive manner on the part of Meridian Energy, in terms of the people who would be most affected, the Makara Community.
The turbines proposed would be more than three times the height of the Brooklyn turbine each with a blade swept area 15 times that of the Brooklyn turbine. Massive, (125 metres high) designed overseas for off-shore use.  The turbines are as close as they can be to the Makara community. Some turbine blades even encroaching over peoples boundary fences without the owners  permission. There are no turbines proposed in the unpopulated remote parts of Terawhiti Station.
Forty of the turbines are proposed on the recently protected hilltops and ridgelines.
The turbines would be less than 2km from some 125 houses. Noise is a problem for some Ashhurst residents who live 2.4 km from the Te Apiti turbines, and we understand that on the farm at Te Apiti one farmer is trying to get Meridian Energy to pay to have his house double-glazed as he cannot stand the noise.
There has been no consultation at all with the Makara Community, the Makara Ohariu Community Board, or Makara Guardians Incorporated. One of our committee telephoned Meridian Energy after Quartz Hill was returned to the protective overlay and asked if Meridian Energy was going to apply for a consent at Quartz Hill. The reply from Adam Muldoon was "no".
The community was advised of the proposal after Meridian held a special unveiling for the media and the local councils.
Meridian Energy has released considerable PR campaign material including a DVD, which implies to all who view it that Meridian has consulted with all main stakeholders, and it has consulted with the community.
At a subsequent meeting with some local residents Meridian admits that the photomontages in its glossy brochure are inaccurate, and do not realistically show the full visual impact of the turbines. It says better photomontages can be seen at its information days, but what of the hundreds of people and organisations, including the press, who are unaware that the material they have read and relied upon is misleading?

June 12th 2005

Meridian holds an information day at Makara on 12th June 2005.
Members of Makara Guardians decide they will all arrive together so that everyone can hear what is said and especially Meridian’s answers to questions, as by now we are not trusting anything they say to be true. Some 150 people arrive at the Hall.
Meridian refuses to let us into our own Hall that we know will fully accommodate us (they said it would not hold us all, and they only want to let in 10 or so at a time). Meridian refuses to allow some chairs to be sent outside so the elderly can sit down. It is a cold winter’s day and now around 4-15pm. One older resident has to leave, as she cannot stay without sitting. Just one chair was finally provided for one elderly lady.
We ask our questions, so holding a meeting outside the Hall. Meridian could not answer some of the questions. We leave a list of questions we want answered under the Official Information Act, so that we can fully assess the plans they have proposed. Many answers are completely unsatisfactory.
We ask how Keith Turner can say on National Radio that there is no noise from wind turbines when Meridian’s employees are now saying we will hear noise.
Meridian says they have received no complaints from Ashhurst, but when challenged admit that they have.
Meridian says house prices would not fall, but someone pointed out that Valuation New Zealand says they will.
Meridian admits that contrary to the statement made on National Radio that its proposal would power the entire region, it would not.
And so it went on.
Meridian has lost all credibility with the Makara Community.
The outside meeting went on for about an hour and a half.

We send a press release to the media:
Makara Residents press release : Sunday 12th June 2005
Today’s information day held by Meridian in the Makara Community Hall on its proposal to build a wind farm in the Makara area, was the first and only such meeting scheduled for Makara. Since Meridian has never previously consulted with the residents on the wind farm proposal they announced on 2nd June, this was an important occasion for Makara families.
For more than an hour, access to the hall was denied to the group of more than 150 residents who turned up on a cold winter’s day. A discussion was held outside the hall in the cold, with Meridian refusing requests for seating for the elderly. Responses by Meridian officers to a range of questions conflicted with their previous statements and publicity material. Together with Meridian’s statements on national radio that there was to be no negotiation on their concept, this meeting has left residents distrustful as to Meridian’s statements, and unconvinced by their arguments.
At the heart of this issue is the appropriateness of a proposal to site one of the world’s largest windfarms, using turbines higher and wider than any building in Wellington and of a type yet to be commissioned for commercial production anywhere in the world. At risk are the scenic and recreational values of Quartz Hill and the surrounding area, and the physical effects on the 120 plus homes situated downwind within 1500m of these turbines.
Makara residents are certainly the most immediately affected by this proposal. They have become sensitized to the issues by years of attempting to ensure that inappropriate wind farm proposals are not imposed on the area. However, the issues are of concern to all Wellingtonians, since this may be the first of several similar projects for the Wellington region.
A large proportion of the Makara community clearly demonstrated today that they consider Meridian has to date failed in its duty of care to them, by pursuing its aims without any real attempt at proper regard for affected parties.
 
We send an article to the Dominion Post:

Meridian Energy released a wind-farm proposal for the Makara area (including Quartz Hill and Terawhiti Station) on Thursday 2nd of June 2005. This proposal, if successful, would utilise prototype wind turbines that have never yet been commissioned for commercial use on land, to create the largest wind-farm in New Zealand. Some 55 square kilometres of iconic recreational land, much of which has received the highest protection available under the District Plan would be converted to industrial use. It would place more than 40 wind turbines, larger in height and width than any building in Wellington, less than 1500 metres away from over 120 homes. Despite Meridian’s statements to the contrary, Makara residents were not consulted before the release of the proposal. Now Meridian has stated on national radio that the proposal is not negotiable. Is it any surprise that the Makara residents are concerned?
Meridian has stated on National Radio that there will be no noise from the turbines, yet Meridian staff have now acknowledged to local residents that there will be. Meridian also stated on 2ZB Radio that only 20 — 30 people in Makara were opposed to the proposal, yet an overwhelming 800 plus submissions seeking protection of Quartz Hill were received by Wellington City Council on recent plan changes. Furthermore, over 150 Makara residents showed up to the only information day allocated to Makara (12th June 2005), and were denied access as a group. To add insult to injury, whilst standing outside on a cold winter day, the residents’ request for chairs for the elderly was refused by Meridian staff.
Makara Guardians, and Makara residents in general, have never been "anti-wind". Meridian and its fellow travellers have tried to place this label on us to publicly discredit our views. The residents of Makara are not some special breed of New Zealander, we represent a typical cross-section of society, but one which has been subject to unrelenting pressure by Meridian’s drive for power and profit. While we have become sensitised to the issues by events of the last eight years, they are ones which affect all New Zealanders, and to which any group might respond similarly. Recent articles in the Dominion Post by Jeanette Fitzsimons and Dr George Hooper which seek to label us as some unreasoning ‘Nimbys’ miss the point that, like any community, Makara residents have the right to be concerned at a major proposal which will prejudice the environmental, scenic and recreational values of an area of value to all Wellingtonians; as well as impose unwanted physical impacts on residents.
The proponents of wind power play on feelings of fear and political correctness by over-emphasising such factors as the stated power ’crisis’ and the environmental acceptability of wind-power, while understating its shortcomings and impacts. These exercises in sophistry tend to ignore that wind-power does not meet growth in demand. Other power stations still have to be built to provide power when the wind cannot turn the turbines, and other thermal or hydro turbines always have to be spinning in readiness for when that occurs.
The beauty of wind power is that it can be harnessed anywhere from Cape Reinga to The Bluff. The power it generates goes directly into the grid. Power from the Makara proposal is destined for the grid, not especially for Wellington City. The same amount of power could be generated at some of New Zealand’s many unpopulated windy sites, without imposing on significant communities as in this instance.
What is needed are national standards which can identify areas which are not appropriate for such developments. In this matter, Jeanette Fitzsimons (10 June 2005) has over-ridden the considered view of her own Wellington Green Party who recently told the Wellington City Council Plan Hearings that:
"Wind farms should not proceed in locations where there is strong community opposition, such as Quartz Hill and the Makara area" and " the Makara community is united in its determination….and their resolve should be respected…"
While Meridian seeks to brainwash everyone with its slick PR campaign, it has failed in its duty of care to the residents. We think it needs to be brought under proper public control. People should take the time to look behind the gloss and think about what Meridian has omitted to say. When they do, we are confident the public and the government will come to the same conclusions as the Wellington Branch of the Green Party.
Wind power in NZ is still in its early stages. We should learn from mistakes made in Europe that have created a massive public backlash against land based wind power stations. At the moment it looks like Meridian is planning to repeat the same mistakes in NZ. Makara is not an appropriate site for this proposal. Go blow your dandelions elsewhere, Meridian.
 
Makara Guardians Inc
 
June 14th 2005

Ngati Tama ( Selwyn Katene) officially adds their voice as an objector to Meridian’s proposal at Makara.

July 2005 

Meridian Energy  applies for resource consents for the wind power station at Makara that it calls "Project Westwind".

July 22nd 2005

We write to the Commerce Commission:

The Commerce Commission                Attention : Patricia Painter
44-52 The Terrace
Wellington

22 July 2005

RE: MERIDIAN ENERGY LIMITED A STATE OWNED ENTERPRISE UNDER THE STATE OWNED ENTERPRISES ACT 1986    Number: 111878

Will you please investigate a possible breach under the Fair Trading Act 1986; there is some urgency as Meridian has filed its resource consent application.

Meridian Energy Limited (Meridian) has made public statements that are incorrect and misleading. These statements have been part of an extensive campaign by Meridian to secure support from the public for its proposal to erect 70 wind turbines, each 125 metres high, in Makara; if it can gather significant support then its proposal will more likely gain consent. Meridian is passing out pre ticked (in support) submission forms on Wellington Streets and it is also using the media, see the Dominion Post article enclosed, to increase the number of submissions to Wellington City Council that favour its proposal. If the proposal gains consent then Meridian stands to gain considerable profit.

INCORRECT STATEMENTS AS TO NOISE
On radio, transcripts enclosed, with the passages highlighted, the Chief Executive Officer of Meridian, Dr. Keith Turner states:
(at Te Apiti) "and 750 metres away, you know, I dare anybody to say I can hear that turbine making a noise."

"It’s quite a myth that wind turbines are noisy."

"(The Makara community) won’t hear (the turbines)though"

We enclose a statement made by residents of Ashhurst, who live a minimum of 2.4km from Meridian’s Te Apiti wind turbines. There is certainly noise that is annoying for these people to such an extent that the noise from the turbines keeps them awake and prevents sleep.  One man wears ear-muffs to bed when the wind is an Easterly, but even this does not drown out the "low disco beat". Complaints have been lodged with Palmerston North City Council and Meridian. Meridian is well aware of the noise problems, which were admitted when Meridian employees were questioned at a public meeting in Makara on 12th June 2005.

We hold quite a number of similar statements from other residents affected as far as 3.5km from the Te Apiti turbines.  We are not making these statements public yet as we have been told that Meridian employees have been acting in an intimidating and threatening manner to those who speak out.

GROSSLY MISLEADING STATEMENTS AS TO THE POWER THE PROPOSAL WOULD SUPPLY
On a DVD that was made specifically for the launch and unveiling of Meridian’s proposal, (the DVD), one employee states that:  "(The development) will power up Wellington City, Lower Hutt and Porirua".
This is totally incorrect and an impossibility. Wind power is uncontrollable, is intermittent, and cannot be stored, and it must be backed up at all times by conventional power stations. With a 210 MW installed capacity at Meridian’s quoted 47% load factor and maybe 85% power factor, the proposal would provide approximately 800 gigawatt hours per year of electricity.(Dr  Bennett, CEO Austral Pacific Energy). The Wellington Region uses around 4000 gigawatt hours per year of electricity in total,(MED Annual Report), so at best, the proposal could only supply around one fifth of the region’s power needs. This figure takes no account for downtime for turbines that need repair and maintenance, something that is clearly of major significance; for instance all the gear boxes in the original TrustPower turbines in the Manawatu have either been replaced or will be  required to be replaced soon.

A copy of the DVD is enclosed.

On radio, transcript attached and the words highlighted, Meridian’s Chief Executive Officer, Dr Keith Turner states Wellington will be self sufficient in power, (as a result of his company’s proposal at Makara). This is impossible, for the all the reasons above. If it is not very windy or the wind is too strong (over 90 km/hr) then the development would provide no power at all. The power curve for the turbines proposed by Meridian, the V90, is enclosed. In addition, any power would go into the grid, so would not specifically provide power for Wellington City.

CONSULTATION
Again, in the DVD, Meridian talks about consultation and says it is "(committed to) open consultation…(that) takes place months before (we) go public..(it is) early, open and honest consultation". The DVD implies that it has consulted with the Makara community.
The fact is that Meridian did not consult with the Makara community before it went public, it did not consult with any of Wellington’s environment groups; Action for the Environment, the Southern Environmental (Wellington) Association, Makara Guardians, the Conservation Board or Action for the Environment. It did not consult with the local Community Board. The DVD is totally misleading on consultation.

MISLEADING STATEMENTS AS TO SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION
In its literature, and in the DVD, all widely distributed, it states that over 80% of Wellingtonians support wind power in the City. This statement is based on a small poll that was conducted by Meridian’s consultants. The parameters of the poll and the report are enclosed. We are of the view that the survey can be questioned and that it is not a reliable survey that support the statements made by Meridian. For instance:
∑ The sample of people representing the area that was described as being affected, 150 people included Kelburn, Northland ,Karori etc, only 15 came from the area that would really be affected, the rural area (Ohariu Valley, Makara and ‘Telecom Village’ (which is totally owned by Meridian Energy) and only 10 of those owned their own property. Just 650 Wellington people in total were surveyed;
∑ Up to 44% of respondents had either never been to the area that they are providing opinion on or they knew little about the generation of electricity.  This must bring into question the integrity of the survey and validity of the data;
∑ Solar was never included as a renewable energy source, if it had been, clearly wind power would not have attained the percentage level it did;
∑     The questions and prompts were clearly set and the demographic spread of the respondents arranged to produce the outcome desired by Meridian Energy for its resource consent application.
We also note that in the UMR Wind Energy Research summary dated July 2004, enclosed, in the Topline Summary bullet point 2, on page 3, it is noted:

"Support for such a proposition is strengthened if people are aware that the wind farm is capable of supplying Wellington’s energy needs",
and although solar is noted as being favoured, see page 6, it is omitted from the final survey undertaken by UMR for Meridian.
The survey and its parameters and a letter from Meridian in response to our request, are enclosed for your information and consideration.
Over 1300 submissions were received by Wellington City Council on the recent proposed plan changes.  Around 88% of these submitters either requested protection from development for Quartz Hill, or specifically opposed the wind energy facility rules that would assist Meridian in obtaining approval for a development at Quartz Hill. There is in fact considerable and independent evidence of public opposition to a wind power development at Makara. Meridian is fully aware of this as it took part in the legal process. A copy of the summary of submissions is enclosed, those who either opposed the wind rules that would assist Meridian or wanted Quartz Hill specifically protected are highlighted in green.

On radio, transcript attached and the words highlighted, the chief Executive Officer of Meridian, Keith Turner, stated that "only 20 to 30 people" (object to the proposal). You will see from the above facts that this is totally incorrect.

Dr Keith Turner then equates the number of houses that he says would be supplied with power to the number of people who support the proposal, again totally misleading, and incorrect.

THE USE OF PHOTOMONTAGES TO EVIDENCE FUTURE VIEWS
It is difficult to provide a realistic view of what a development on the horizon will actually look like because the way the human eye sees objects on the horizon is different from the image captured by a camera.

One of Meridian’s photomontages of the Te Apiti turbines is attached.  If you travel to Ashhurst you will see that the eye sees the actual Te Apiti turbines very differently.  To the naked eye, they are between one third and one half larger than the turbines in Meridian’s photomontage. Meridian is not telling the public this important fact.

It is now generally understood, overseas, that large-scale commercial wind turbines will cause considerable visual pollution. In the UK in November 2003, wind "farms" were voted the most hated eyesore in the countryside (Country Life Magazine November 2003). The public needs to be provided with accurate information so that it can truly assess the impacts before a development is approved or supported.

CONCLUSION
We believe that Meridian has overstepped the mark and gone beyond "puffery" in its quest to sell its proposal to government and the public. It is quite clear, having spoken to residents of Ashhurst that there will be considerable and annoying noise for the Makara Community. At Makara there are some 125 houses  between 750 metres and around 1.5km from Meridian’s proposed turbines, and almost all residents are downwind from the proposed site, from the prevailing NW wind. If the public is not given the true facts, then the public cannot fairly assess whether it should support Meridian’s proposal or not.

Yours sincerely,


John Mills
For Makara Guardians (Representing the overwhelming majority of the Makara Community)

August 2005

Conservation Week display at Wellington Catherdral.

The Society presented a display part of which follows:

 MAKARA GUARDIANS INC

Some people have responded to our original display that sent the message: "wind turbines need to be sited in appropriate places" by saying, "well we have to have power, and we need to reduce CO2 pollution so where else could such a wind power station go (other than Makara)", or "we need to be able to turn on the lights."

We respond:

Meridian Energy’s Westwind
Proposal at Makara

DID YOU KNOW THAT:

THE TURBINES PROPOSED AT   MAKARA BY MERIDIAN ENERGY ARE 125 METRES HIGH? (SEE GRAPHIC FOR THE HEIGHT COMPARED WITH "MUM, DAD AND THE KIDS");

THAT MERIDIAN HAS LINED UP ITS TURBINES SO THAT THEY ARE AS CLOSE TO THE RESIDENTS AS THEY CAN BE, AND THERE WAS NO CONSULTATION AT ALL WITH THE COMMUNITY;

THE PEOPLE OF ASHHURST DESCRIBE THE NOISE FROM THE TE APITI TURBINES AS "A LIVING HELL" ;

THAT ASHHURST IS AT LEAST 2.4KM FROM THE 55 TE APITI TURBINES;

THERE WILL BE CONSIDERABLE NOISE FOR ALMOST ALL MAKARA RESIDENTS, ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT;

  SOME 125 MAKARA HOMES ARE FROM 750 METRES TO AROUND 1700 METRES FROM MERIDIAN’S PROPOSED 70 TURBINES, THE TURBINES ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN THE TE APITI ONES AND THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED NEAR PEOPLE;

OVERSEAS THERE HAS BEEN FOUND A LIKELY LINK BETWEEN ILL HEALTH AND TURBINES BECAUSE OF THE UNRELENTING NOISE AND VIBRATION; MAKARA RESIDENTS AND CHILDREN WOULD BE GUINEA PIGS AS THE TURBINES PROPOSED HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED SO CLOSE TO HOMES AND PRIMARY SCHOOLS


DO YOU THINK THIS IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND WHEN: 

THE AMOUNT OF CO2 "SAVED" IS NIL IF THE WIND POWER SAVES WATER IN THE LAKES AS HYDRO IS ALREADY CO2 NEUTRAL;

POWER GENERATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF OUR POLLUTION, THE VAST BULK OF POLLUTION COMES FROM TRANSPORT AND FARM ANIMALS;

WELLINGTON IS AT THE MOST SECURE PART OF THE GRID AND THERE IS NO THREAT TO SUPPLY;

THE POWER FROM THIS PROPOSAL GOES INTO THE GRID AND IS NOT SUPPLYING WELLINGTON;

NEW ZEALAND HAS GOOD WIND FLOWS (SEE THE WIND CHARTS) THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, WHICH IS SPARSELY POPULATED WITH A GRID FROM THE BLUFF TO CAPE REIGNA;

NEW ZEALAND HAS SIGNIFICANT SOLAR RESOURCES THAT ARE BEING VIRTUALLY IGNORED, SOLAR WATER HEATING HAS BEEN COST EFFECTIVE FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS, IF WE PUT INTEGRATED SOLAR WATER HEATING IN ALL NEW BUILDINGS, THE LOSERS WOULD BE POWER COMPANIES, HOWEVER, THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD BENEFIT.

 THE THEME OF THIS  CONSERVATION WEEK IS THAT:

"EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED"

WE QUESTION WHETHER MERIDIAN IS PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT AS IT IMPLIES WITH ITS EXPENSIVE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN OR IS THIS ALL ABOUT PROFIT, BECAUSE:


 THIS PROPOSAL WILL "DISCONNECT"    THE MAKARA  ENVIRONMENT BY:

PULLING COMMUNITIES APART;
(SOME PROFIT WHILE CAUSING NOISE NUISANCE AND LOSS IN PROPERTY VALUES FOR OTHERS)

LIKELY SILTING OF STREAMS/SEA BED - MASSIVE EARTHWORKS
   (1.7 MILLION CUBIC METRES)
SO COMPROMISING ECOSYSTEMS;

KILLING BIRDS;

REDUCING A HIGHLY VALUED COASTAL LANDSCAPE AND QUARTZ HILL A LANDFORM THAT IS REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT TO AN INDUSTRIAL/NOISY LANDSCAPE;

INTRODUCING, DUST AND CONSTRUCTION WHICH WILL POLLUTE OR COMPROMISE THE COMMUNITY’S WATER SUPPLIES, AND TRUCKS THAT WILL ENDANGER CHILDREN, CYCLISTS, WALKERS AND HORSERIDERS WHO USE THE ROAD;


INTRODUCING INTOLERABLE NOISE THAT COULD LEAD EITHER TO A COMMUNITY HAVING TO ABANDON THEIR HOMES, OR TO THEIR ILL HEALTH.

CONCLUSION:

WHEN ALL THIS IS AVOIDABLE BECAUSE THERE ARE PLENTY OF WINDY SITES IN NEW ZEALAND WELL AWAY FROM PEOPLE AND IMPORTANT RECREATION AREAS,
THIS PROPOSAL CANNOT BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF OUR ENVIRONMENT.

NEW ZEALAND IS BLESSED WITH ABUNDANT WATER, SUN, WIND AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES.

IF WIND POWER IS TO BE HARNESSED IN NEW ZEALAND THEN TURBINES MUST BE SITED WITH GREAT CARE, NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE NOISE, BUT BECAUSE OVERSEAS WIND TURBINES HAVE BEEN VOTED THE MOST HATED EYESORE IN THE COUNTRYSIDE. WE CAN LEARN FROM THIS.

PLEASE THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU SUPPORT MERIDIAN’S PROPOSAL.

MERIDIAN IS NOT TELLING YOU THE FULL STORY.

Health

A report published in August 2005 (see below) in Britain supports our expert’s advice that there are likely health problems with low frequency noise, and so far, in the UK, the problems have been found to occur up to several kms from turbines.  Generally, the larger the turbine the greater the distance travelled by low frequency noise. Research is currently being carried out in the UK in respect of these problems  and results should be available in 2006. 

   SOME ACOUSTIC EFFECTS OF WIND TURBINES

                                A statement by

         DAVID MICHAEL MANLEY

PhD  BSc (Hons)  MIEE   MIOA   F Inst P      C.Dip AF      FICDDS  C.Eng         Chartered Acoustician,  Physicist and Engineer
                             Member:  UKNA  COMMITTEE

I am Dr. David Manley, Chartered Physicist, Acoustician and Engineer.
Much work has been done by me near windfarms to evaluate the acoustic effects.  It is found that people living within five miles of a windfarm cluster can be affected and if they are sensitive to low frequencies, they may be disturbed.

I am currently working in conjunction with Dr Amanda Harry a practising physician in this subject and she has over fifty examples of people affected by LF windfarm noise.
 
What is happening is the high velocities of the large turbines wind foils cause aerodynamic noise modulated by the regular dynamic pulse when the wind foil passes the base of the turbine.

It has been found that an extensive seismic signal passes through the earth and may well at night affect peoples sleep.  It is admitted by fellow acousticians that much more research in this subject is needed and that none has been done since 1996 by the DTI.  At many inquiries windfarm promoters will not accept there is an acoustic problem.

We are getting much data from Europe as well to paint a more accurate picture and feel that no more windfarms giving an alternative to power stations should be built.  I gave two talks as an invited ‘Speaker’ at the recent successful Saddleworth Conference. These talks were about the evidence of "hot lines" from clusters of turbines which will at times cause much higher LF signals than first thought.


DAVID M. MANLEY

September - November 2005

Hearings were held by Wellington City and Regional Councils on the Resource Consent applications.
Some of the evidence we submitted follows:

NOISE:

IN THE MATTER OF The Resource Management Act 1991
AND
IN THE MATTER OF An application by Meridian Energy
for resource consents for Project
West Wind at Makara
Evidence by way of a Noise Report critique by Philip Dickinson
I am Philip Dickinson and I have a Ph.D., from the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research in the University of Southampton, specialising in sound generation and propagation over ground. For more than 50 years I have studied acoustics and have represented both New Zealand and Australia on International Acoustics Standards committees on numerous occasions across the world. For 10 years until 1996, I was the Principal Scientist and Senior Advisor on Noise Issues to the Department/Ministry of Health and was responsible for the translation of the Noise Control Act into the Resource Management Act:1991. I was a member of the team that produced NZS 6808:1998 Acoustics – The assessment and measurement of sound from wind turbine generators. I am a Fellow of the Acoustical Society of America, and was a founding Member and Fellow of the Institute of Acoustics in the United Kingdom.
As a free community service, in answer to a plea for help by the residents of Makara, following their being unable to find anyone to advise them, I have examined the noise report presented by Connell Wagner Limited with the section on noise written by the Hayes McKenzie Partnership from the United Kingdom.
My judgement of the Hayes McKenzie noise report is that it is well written, but the information it gives is highly questionable, erroneous in some places, and under-predicts the noise likely to be received by the local residents by an order of magnitude i.e., by more than 10 decibels. This is totally unacceptable for a project of this magnitude. Although I believe wind turbine generation is the way forward, and that theoretically the Wellington area could be an excellent place to have such a wind farm, I recommend that:
 A resource consent be denied until an acceptable noise report is produced clearly showing that there will be no affect on the ambient noise level for the local residents.
My reasons for this judgement:
1 The background noise measurements do not cover, nor represent, the background sound for the majority of residents. With a project of this size (70 wind turbines) there is no reason why each of the residents’ homes (160 or so) should not be covered individually. Unless this is done, one must assume
that the developers will choose for the background sound measurements whatever locations give them the best results for their purpose. 

2 The sound power level information given in the Hayes McKenzie report does not match the base levels used in some recent Australian wind farm developments for those same wind turbine generators. For example in their report, Hayes McKenzie use an A-frequency weighted sound power level of 101 dB for the Vestas V80 Wind Turbine Generator at 8 m/s wind speed (10 m above ground level) - for the wind farms in Australia the sound power level is given as 105 dB. So if V80 wind turbine generators were used, the noise levels given in the Hayes McKenzie report, according to the information used by the Australians, underestimates the levels expected at the residents’ homes by 4 dB from this information alone. (I understand the Australian information is in line with an internationally acknowledged Det Norske Veritas (DNV) type certificate produced for the Dutch Government, but have been unable to locate a copy in time for this hearing.) 

3 Whereas Project West Wind purports to be adding 210 MW to the local transmission circuit, the use of 70 V80 2 MW wind turbine generators would only generate 140 MW. So it would appear the developers are misleading the Council either by substantially overstating the value of the project, or by their really planning to use the more powerful, and noisier, Vestas V90 wind turbine generators. 

4 The Vestas V90 3 MW wind turbine generators are certificated by DNV to give a sound power level of 109.2 dB (A) at a wind speed of 8 m/s. This alone will produce 8 decibels more noise at the residents’ homes than the 101 dB sound power level used in the Hayes McKenzie report. Copies of the DNV are to hand and Council’s own Environmental Health Officers will attest that sound power levels describe the sound at source irrespective of location or environmental conditions. So if the sound power level is understated by 8 dB so will be the noise received by the residents. 

5 Irrespective of the questionable base information being used, Hayes McKenzie have not followed NZS 6808:1998 exactly in their noise report. They have used the formula for spherical spreading of the sound. This is:
LR = LW – 10log(4πR2) - ��úLa
or LR = LW– 20logR –11 - ��úLa
Where LR is the received A-frequency weighted sound level at distance R
LW is the A-frequency weighted sound power level at source R is the distance from the source in metres
and ��úLa is the absorption in the air
New Zealand Standard, however, stipulates that hemispherical spreading is to be used for the prediction, and the formula to be used is:
LR = LW– 10log(2πR2) - ��úLa (Eq 1) NZS 6808:1998 page 8
or LR = LW– 20logR - 8 - ��úLa

Where ��úLa the absorption in the air is to be taken as = 0.005r dB.
The worked example in Appendix A of NZS 6808:1998 clearly shows how the levels are to be predicted using this formula. The difference between the two equations (that used and that in the Standard) is (11 – 8) or 3 dB. Thus from this use of an incorrect formula the levels to be used to compare with the background levels at the residents’ homes as per NZS 6808:1998, have been under-predicted by 3 dB. 

6 There is another reason, however, for having and using a Standard, and that is so that everyone undertakes whatever the Standard covers in exactly the same way, and the whole process is completely transparent. In this case NZS 6808:1998 may not give the most up to date, the most accurate, or the most convenient way to predict the noise propagation from a wind turbine generator but the process is completely transparent and if each person uses the Standard to predict the noise from a certain wind turbine generator at a certain wind speed and at a certain location, then each person should arrive at the same figure and the process of their doing so will be easily followed through each step of the way.
Hayes McKenzie haven’t done that. Instead they have used a computer model - and computer models can produce whatever the operator wants them to. One can input the model with the answer you want to get, and the model will dutifully fill in the intervening path characteristics to give that result from the source data used. If the intervening path characteristics cannot be changed sufficiently to give the answer required, then the model can show what has to be done to the sound source to achieve the answer. For example: For a noise source such as a wind turbine generator, one can place the source where you would like it to be, put the required limiting value at the receiver and work out what intervening path and ground impedances are required, and where they are required, in order to give that limiting value. One way of doing this is to assume some hard reflecting surface at certain fixed positions along the path so that the phase of the reflected waveform will interfere with that of the direct wave, partly cancelling it out to make less sound. At other positions along the path, of course, the reflected wave could add to the direct wave, so one would not put a hard surface there. Nevertheless, you would tell people that you have used a hard ground surface and so, if anything, you have over-predicted the noise that will be received. If the input data is too high to do this, the computer model will show how much too high and you can adjust accordingly, perhaps even by adding small barrier effects. Using a lower sound power level input than certificated for the model of wind turbine generator that appears most likely to be used, adds weight to my feeling that all is not as it seems, and the Hayes McKenzie report should be treated with the utmost caution.
Hayes McKenzie may be totally trustworthy in what they have input to their computer model, but there is no guarantee that some manipulation hasn’t been made, nor any way in which one can follow the process throughout to verify that the result is genuine. There was a Standard to be followed giving a methodology that anyone could check. They chose not to do that, and so one cannot accept their figures with any confidence.
 
7 Added to these points of contention, Hayes McKenzie in their noise report have incorrectly used an informative note in NZS 6808:1998 as a normative part of the Standard. Appendix A of the Standard shows precisely how to calculate the predicted combined sound level from a combination of wind turbine generators, to compare with the measured background noise levels. Nevertheless, Hayes McKenzie have taken the information given in Note (2) of section 4.4.2 of the Standard, to reduce their predicted levels by a further 2 dB. The information, however, is simply an explanation why the assessment is to use the background level plus 5 dB and not the background plus 10 dB as recommended in other Standards. It is not there to be used in the normative part of the Standard to predict the received levels.
So if the V80 wind turbine generators are to be used, the developers are not only misleading the Council in the value of the development, but they are also misleading the Council, and the local residents, by underestimating the noise that will be received by the residents possibly by more than 9 dB. i.e., the residents will receive at least 8 times more noise than predicted. If the V90 3 MW wind turbine generators are to be used to give the projected increase of 210 MW to the local transmission circuit, the predicted noise levels at the residents’ homes may be underestimated by more than 13 dB – and, by the way, that is nearly 19 times the noise predicted or an error of over 1800%.
As the project stands: The residents would receive noise from the wind turbine generators well in excess of maximum recommended in NZS 6808:1998. Indeed the levels would exceed the maximum recommended by the World Health Organization (45 dBA at night), and as such should be considered a possible health hazard. 

8 There is one further point: Clause 4.4.4 of NZS 6808:1998, states that "Nothing in this Standard prevents the Territorial Local Authority from specifying an alternative compliance level (at residences or noise sensitive areas) on a site-by-site basis, taking into account individual circumstances and characteristics (e.g. distance to WTG(s), other sound sources, amenity values, etc.)." The levels given are an upper limit, so Wellington City Council should choose a lower level for compliance – a level that will ensure the environment of this area (and under the Resource Management Act:1991 this includes people and communities) will not suffer any loss of amenity, and public health will not be compromised. Such a compliance level should be that the noise from the wind turbine generators is to be inaudible at any residence. And there is no reason why this should not be the condition. 

Thus it is recommended the Council does not accept the Connell Wagner Report on Project West Wind - Assessment of Environmental Effects, and the included noise report by Hayes McKenzie. 

 It is further recommended that a resource consent be declined. 

Philip J Dickinson Ph.D., FASA
Professor of Acoustics
Massey University Wellington
October 16 2005


AN ASHHURST RESIDENT:

 IN THE MATTER  of the Resource management Act 1991
                          
                                   AND

IN THE MATTER  of Project West Wind Resource Consent Hearing.


SWORN STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF GEOFF KEALL


Re: Te Apiti Wind Farm.
In 2003 I attended a Resource Consent hearing in Woodville. The hearing was held in order for the Tararua District Council to consider Meridian Energy’s Resource Consent application for the Te Apiti Wind Farm.

What is unfortunate is that the major impact of the Meridian Energy Te Apiti Wind Farm would be felt by the residents of Ashhurst.  Several residents attended the hearing to speak to their submissions against the visual, noise and road safety concerns of the project.

At that time we felt our presence at the hearing was a complete waste of time because Ashhurst residents are not of material concern to the Tararua District council (TDC )– we do not vote at their local body elections so they are simply not motivated to consider our concerns above those of their voting community. (All submissions against came from residents of Ashhurst).  However the TDC hearing was the only forum we could put our case to as they have jurisdiction over the area concerned.

Ashhurst’s 3000 residents are closest to this huge wind farm, my home of 13 years is 2.5km from the nearest turbine.  These are the largest wind structures ever built in New Zealand and closely rival the largest production wind farms in the World.  The structures sit amongst the backdrop to Ashhurst, a backdrop that forms one of the most prominent land forms in the North Island, the Manawatu Saddle, incorporating the Manawatu Gorge.  This landform can be seen from all points of the compass when travelling from the Rangitikei (SH1 near Marton) to the Manawatu Hawkes Bay and Wairarapa and is comparable to only four or so others in the World.  Unfortunately this landform is now lost to the human eye due to the dominating form of 165 massive turning blades.

The size of these structures is illustrated by taking a full size Boeing 747, attaching it 70m off the ground to a tower then rotating it around it’s centre (Boeing 747 Wingspan, 59.8 m. Length. 70.7 m).  This gives a total height of 106m, taller than the BNZ Tower in Wellington City, (now the State Insurance Building at 1 Willis Street).  The propeller blade has a rotation span of 70m. this alone is equivalent to the total height of the lattice towered original Tararua Wind turbines.

To say the residents of Ashhurst are 100% behind the Wind farm is creative PR;– favourable spin is a skill in which Meridian Energy is particularly well versed.   Numerous residents have expressed disgust at the monstrous devices that demand their gaze every day.

The wind farms have proved to be extremely annoying.

The following is a personal account of the impact.

Visual Effects , the turbines are large and of a scale that distracts from the beauty of this landscape.  A landscape that is the backdrop to my home and it’s dominant view.  Where ever I go within and out of my property my attention is constantly distracted by the continual movement of the turbine rotors.  The turbine size is not in keeping with the scale of the surrounding landscape as tabled by Meridian Energy in its resource consent submission to the Tararua District Council in November 2003, with the Te Apiti Wind Farm application.

In no place within my property can I retain concentration without it being bought back into the present via the reality of external movement, whether this be sitting at the dinner table, in the lounge or outside gardening – contemplative thought is nearly always interrupted by turbine motion. This is when turbines are 2.4 kms away. If they were closer it would, in my opinion, be even more intimidating.

Education, Ashhurst School (350-400pupils) is also on Salisbury St and has an uninterrupted view of the Wind Farm.  The playground is in direct line of site of the turbines that bisect the horizon.  From a planning point of view this is unacceptable.  The children must concentrate and play in an environment that is not conducive to the activity of learning.  My youngest son still attends this school.

Turbine noise is a problem, easterlies bring varying degrees of audible sound annoyance.  The sound can be likened to a train or jet that never arrives and is not unlike that which could be attributed to a heavy industrial manufacturing facility.  The sound has been very distinct during the unusual spate of easterly winds this year. On 1st February we noted school children riding their bikes to school being distracted by the noise in that they are unsure what the noise was and where it arose.

Low Frequency Sound Since August 2004 I have developed a continuous and annoying hum in my right ear.  This hum is not unlike the sound made by a idling motor vehicle parked out on the street.  This hum diminished when we left Ashhurst for three weeks at Christmas.  I have never experienced tinnitus until now.  The sound can be nullified with the drone of different frequencies, whether these be man made or mechanical.  I suggest this is a harmonic effect caused by node and antinode interactions and proves that the noise within my ear is caused by an external vibration.  Likely cause is sound vibration from the turbines carried via the alluvial rock on which my home sits. My home is one of the few concrete slab foundations in Ashhurst.

I have heard recently that supporters of Project West Wind have implied that there are only one or two people upset with the Wind Turbines in Ashhurst.  This is entirely incorrect; there are numerous residents who are not happy with the wind farm or the noise. 

I have contacted the PNCC and Tararua DC call centre on those occasions when the sound of the Wind turbines have interrupted my and my children’s sleep, those times when the turbines have exceeded the terms of their consent.  The CEO of Meridian has recently implied that the noise is coming from the local rock crusher (However I assure you the rock crusher does not operate at 11.30pm) – check out the complaint logs.  Due to the lack of action to my previous complaints by Meridian Energy, as part of my most recent logged call (21 October 2005) I requested feedback as to what was being done to resolve the noise issues.  As a result of this request Mike Brown of the TDC was sent all complaints by the PNCC, Mike in turn has organised for Mr Mike Goldsworthy of Meridian Energy to meet with me to discuss my issues on 15 November 2005.

Earlier on that evening of the 21st October I rang our local City Councillor, Cr. Marilyn Craig to advise that I was sick of getting no response from council with regard my noise complaints.  When I raised turbine noise exceeding the Resource Consent limits I was surprised at her agreement with me – she replied that for the first time she had heard the turbine noise we had spoken of and mentioned a new understanding of "The Jet Engine that Never Arrives" description of the noise.  She added she was awoken in the night and actually got out of bed to open her window to check out the noise.

Unfortunately Cr M Craig represented Genisis Energy’s Awhitu Peninsula project at the recent Environment Court hearing and is a vocal advocate for project West Wind in Meridian Energy’s promotional DVD.  She will speak in favour of this project at the Resource Consent hearing.  To reconcile her latest revelation, that we can hear an annoying turbine noise in Ashhurst at night, she advised me that at the hearing she would speak only of her general experience at her home.  Cr Craig also said that as she had been an advocate on the Meridian Energy team from the outset it was very difficult to "get off the bus" so to speak, that is, change sides.
She then asked me if I’d considered shifting – from the house I’ve lived in for 14 years and raised my four children in! Or maybe build a very high block fence – but I bought here for the expansive views of the Ruahine Ranges (pre 106m turbines) and to offer my children a similar environment to that which I was raised, in Pahiatua.

Re: West Wind.
How long can Meridian Executives and the media perpetuate their myth that wind turbines don’t pose a noise hazard outside their immediate area?  After experiencing the downwind noise nuisance at 2.5km I can’t imagine how professional and impartial planners can allow turbines of the proposed size in such close proximity to residents, or closer still. In my opinion this defies common sense.

I have seen my lifestyle eroded and have received nothing but abuse from the officers of Meridian Energy.  I believe that It would be sad to see future wind farm projects scuttled through inappropriately sited wind developments such as West Wind that reach the production stage only to be closed down.  If this project is to proceed and succeed then all residents within a 3km radius need to be given the option of relocation and full compensation or (at their option) be offered a portion of the profits as compensation for the consumption of their environment by a State Owned Enterprise.

It appears to me that Meridian is attempting to take over the Makara residents’ environment and a significant part of their lands at no cost to itself, under the guise of being green. 

Ashhurst offers one of the few occurrences in the World of a significant population in close proximity to a large scale electricity generation wind farm facility.  The opportunity therefore exists to undertake objective research of the impact of such a facility on a population prior to further ad hoc development founded on subjective and "partial" expert opinion.  For example what is the impact on the human population of 55 1.65MW generators with regard to magnetic field distortion? What is the impact of seismic vibration?  What is the impact of low frequency noise? What is the impact of constant uncontrollable repetitive noise on human health?

SWORN BY: Geoff Keall  …………………….. IN THE PRESENCE OF:            
AT                 on the   day of                     2005

A MOUNTAIN BIKING ENTHUSIAST:

IN THE  MATTER OF:                                                   The Resource Management Act 1991
 
AND

IN THE  MATTER OF:                                                   an application by Meridian Energy Limited for
                                                                                          Resource Consents to establish a Wind
                                                                                          Energy Facility at Quartz Hill/Terawhiti
                                                                                          Station, Makara

Evidence of Michael Wilton in support of Quartz Hill Reserve Charitable Trust’s submission in opposition

My name is Michael Wilton, I live in Karori and I own and operate the mountain biking shop, Mud Cycles, on the Main Road Karori.

I was a founding member of the group that led to the creation of the Makara Mountain Bike Park on Makara Peak.

A copy of the trails now available to ride on Makara Peak is attached.

I submitted against the recent Wellington City Council Wind Energy Facility Rules and I understand that these are now under appeal to the Environment Court.

I also submitted on the Wellington City Council ridgelines and hilltops rules seeking protection of Quartz Hill in particular, and I was pleased to see that the Council agreed to include this landform in the protective overlay for important hilltops and ridgelines for the City.

I understand that Meridian Energy has appealed this inclusion. That is disappointing.

I have travelled extensively overseas and I have seen what I view as the devastation of the landscape by wind turbines.  Wellington is well placed to protect its important landscapes from a similar fate because there is plenty of wind in New Zealand as a whole, and the country is sparsely populated by world standards.

Makara Biking Park is not just nationally important, it is now internationally acclaimed and we get a number of cyclists who visit from other countries who have deliberately sought out this park.

The views from the tops out across Quartz Hill are stunning and add considerably to the experience. 

A wind turbine strewn landscape will detract for this experience.

The Applicant implies that there will be no detraction and recreationists might be allowed on the land after it has been desecrated.  There is no binding agreement to allow this.  However, even if there were, what is the point then?  The attraction for me and for many others is the natural open space and the vistas.  All that would change.  After speaking with cyclists and others who live overseas, I am convinced that wind turbines in this landscape would be a detraction for overseas visitors in particular, certainly not an attraction.

Wellington is a great City with great potential to be the mountain biking capital of the world, and to have biking marathons in a truly natural open space environment.  This will bring more visitors as well as residents who want to live in a city with such recreation facilities near homes.

I am not against wind power, but as it is possible in New Zealand to do so, wind turbines should be placed well away from recreation areas and people.  Otherwise, noise and vibration, and visual dominance would destroy the natural surrounds. It is especially important to protect the recognised and well-used recreation areas for the capital city.

The Applicant, Meridian Energy sees Makara as an ideal resource but fails to value the opportunity cost of this as a recreational asset over its energy source rating.

Is it the Council’s intent to discourage visitors, because this will be the result if this proposal goes ahead.

As a founder of the Makara Mountain Bike Park, I would be disappointed with a wind farm as a view from the top of this "international park"

Michael Wilton
Mud Cycles 

JOINT EVIDENCE:

Some evidence in opposition to the application by Meridian Energy for a wind power station at Makara was presented by both Makara Guardians and Quartz Hill Reserve Charitable Trust (the Trust).  The Trust was formed by Wellington people who are concerned about the future of the area, in 2003.  The Trust was been formed with the objectives of protecting the landscape, geomorphologic significance, public access and amenity values of the area and to try to purchase the land for the purposes of a publicly available natural and scenic park for the region. 

More and more people are realising that this opportunity will be lost, if Meridian Energy's wind power station goes ahead.

FURTHER SUBMITTERS:
Many other submitters agreed with the Society that the landscape would be utterly spoilt if Meridians proposal should proceed. Many other environmental groups also opposed Meridian's proposal in its entirety. These submissions can be viewed at Wellington City Council's offices.

WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL RESPONSE AT THE HEARINGS:
The Wellington city council principal planner  admitted in answer to questions from the panel that there would be significant adverse impact both for the community and for the coast if Meridian's proposal proceeds. Hilltops would be completely flattened and considerably lowered in places so that 10 metre wide roads could be built to drag a 400 tonne crane all around the land. The proposal would require 1.7 million cubic metres of earth movement.

December 2005

The Society has produced a poster based on evidence it presented to the hearings panel on Meridian Energy proposal at Makara:

The turbine positions and scale have been prepared and determined by a registered land surveyor from filed observations and calculations.

To view, go to the waterfront opposite the seagull lighthouse/slide in the children’s play area at Frank Kitts Park, and look across to Mt Victoria to appreciate the size of Meridian’s proposed turbines.

DISBENEFITS OF WIND POWER:

The Dominion Post March 2005; NZ Herald 29 October 2005; The Dominion Post 4 November 2005

As recognised by a number of submitters, large scale wind power development in New Zealand has now shown that the national grid will require strengthening, not a reduction, to support wind power. (a reduced need for the grid was assumed as a benefit for wind power in the recent Environment Court decision, for the Genesis Energy application at Awhitu, but this is not the case for large scale develoment).

Transpower has been repeatedly warning that wind generated power is putting pressure on New Zealand’s already strained national grid, see above newspaper articles. Given the cost of strengthening the grid to accommodate the uncontrollable, fluctuating and unpredictable nature of wind power, there are cheaper options to wind power, as has recently been found following a study in Germany:

ENERGY POLICY – DER SPIEGEL JANUARY 2005.

Windy Calculations

by Frank Dohmen and Michael Sauga


The results of a study commissioned by the federal government into the expansion of wind force have caused quite a stir: The "green" electricity propagated by the Red-Green coalition will indeed be considerably more expensive for the consumers than previously thought. Everything had, in fact, already been regulated. Over months, representatives of the federal government, the large energy producing groups and the wind-power sector had carried out energetic discussions in order to end the smouldering dispute as to whether a further expansion of wind power made sense or not.

A scientific study was to be set up. A work under the direction of the federal government’s own Agency for Energy (dena), which would be able to answer major questions free from the influence of any ideology: Is the amount of additional wind power planned by the federal government feasible at all? What costs would arise? Which technologies must be used in order to feed in the green electricity? What would be the effects of the wind power on the supply of power in Germany?

Well known scientific institutes such as the Deutsche Windenergie-Institut (DEWI: German Wind Power Institute) or the Energiewirtschaftliche Institut zu Köln (EWI:Institute of Energy Economics at the University of Cologne) were involved, and high calibre external consultants were entrusted with the checking of the results. When the representatives of the power industry and the wind power sector met last Monday, it should merely have been a matter of formalities: the approval of a summary that would then be presented to the general public.

The meeting led to a confrontation, however. Instead of approving the largely complete investigation, participants of the meeting have reported that the representatives of the wind power sector demanded an editorial revision. Without this, they let it be known to the group, they would not agree to the publishing of the study.
Probably with good reason: Because what the scientists had brought together on 490 pages regarding wind power and its expansion is hardly flattering for the ecological prestige project of the Red-Green coalition. The discussion regarding the study, which has been made available to DER SPIEGEL, could bring additional turbulence to the wind power sector, which has already suffered some setbacks.

It was also hardly helpful when the Green Federal Minister for the Environment, Jürgen Trittin, joined with the representatives of the wind power sector in warning against "misinterpretations" of the results, even before their publication. The figures and the statements raise delicate questions, even if meticulous attention has been paid to ensuring that every side can still publicly represent its position while referring to the expertise.

According to the study, a further financial and technical strong-arm effort would be required in order to be able to even input the quantity of green electricity planned by the federal government into the German electricity network by the year 2015.

845 kilometres of powerful high-voltage routes will have to be built in the next few years, at a cost of 1.1 thousand million Euro, in order to be able to integrate the wind parks that will be shooting out of the ground throughout the federal republic.
Despite substantial investments into improved techniques, the risks for the supply of
power cannot be completely excluded.
The quantity of climate-damaging CO2 gas that would be saved by wind power could be achieved more cheaply with other measures.
The costs that the consumers would have to pay for green electricity are considerably
higher than previously assumed. According to the study, the "net additional costs" for the increase of the amount of wind power electricity planned by the federal government from 2003 to 2015 alone amount to between 12 to 17 thousand million Euro. The investment for the network and the support of existing inventory is not even included in this.


The statements made in the study are a blow to the wind power sector in a situation that was already critical. Throughout the country, the resistance of the affected population against the increasing "Verspargelung" of the landscape (turning the German countryside into asparagus fields) is growing. And even those who wanted to profit from wind power are becoming increasingly disappointed. Capital investors have had to accept that the profit forecasts of wind park operators and installation builders have sometimes turned out to be questionable.

Some companies who, only a short time ago, were celebrated as the "great white hope", havehad to accept sharp setbacks in the meantime.
In addition, an increasing number of scientists, politicians and company managers are warning about a possible false path in the energy policy.

"We are risking a blackout in the supply of power if we continue with the promotion of renewable energy in this way " said the President of the Federal Association for Industry, Jürgen Thumann, last week. This kind of criticism could be further nurtured by the dena investigation.
Because, according to the data collected by the scientists, the amount of wind power in Germany will be dramatically increased in the coming years through the statutory promotional measures of the Red-Green coalition. From around 23 terawatt-hours (in 2003), the amount of wind power electricity will rapidly increase to more than 77 terawatt-hours by the year 2015. This would represent more than 16 percent of the electricity consumption in Germany.

In addition to further "asparagus poles" in the country, the so-called Offshore Installations in the North Sea and the Baltic will contribute to the planned increase. But the connection of the wind parks apparently involves hidden risks.
In the year 2003, according to the study, the incalculable wind electricity has already led to substantial safety risks. In the winter months in particular, with their strong winds, "large-area voltage and network failures could have occurred", which would have led to considerable "risks for the reliability