Here We Go Again! What really constitutes pollution?
Sunday, August 31st, 2008A $50 MILLION wind farm will be built about 12 KM from the Twelve Apostles, one of Victoria’s top coastal attractions. This wind farm will include 15 turbines that are 110m tall. It was approved by the state planning tribunal with strict environmental guidelines. Oh dear! We have “visual pollution!”
I was on the Development Planning Advisory Committee that held the public hearing into wind farms in South Australia. It was a fascinating experience listing to a stream of people who stated that while they supported wind farms in principle they couldn’t have them anywhere near where they lived. I agree that they should not be placed adjacent to housing because of the noise and possible flicker effect but in the right place they are a wonderful energy benefit and I think they look very elegant.
I personally cannot see a problem with them being 12km from a visual attraction. In my view they look much better than roads, vegetation clearing, houses, farm sheds and many other things that are acceptable.
Newfield resident Philip van Rijthoven has a cattle farm bordering the wind farm, one of 69 properties within 3km. He said people in Victoria’s west were nervous about being overrun by wind farms. I am not sure that a cattle farm is so visually natural or what he is doing to manage or counter the methane his cattle produce. What is pollution in this case?
Monash University energy expert Patrick Moriarty said building wind farms in environmentally sensitive areas should be avoided but a change might be forced in the future. “If we have to move to 100 per cent renewable energy, it’s not going to be easy,” Dr Moriarty said.
Technorati Tags: pollution, wind farm, turbines, environmental guidelines, Development Planning Advisory Committee, renewable energy