Home
Wind home


On this page...

Heartland Farmers' low standards
Where do we stand?
Introduction
Wind turbines and agriculture
Clean wind or filthy coal?
No debate
50MW or 700MW?
Climate science denial
Full page advertisement
Who are the HF?
Climate change or renewables?
Heartland Farmers Net site
HF Facebook page
The Callous Wind
More money
Aerotech
Lawyer's threats
Turbines and agriculture in Iowa
Health and wind turbines
Bizarre claims
Ethical standards
International support for wind
Sources of HF information
What type of people oppose Ceres?
Index
How will they be seen?

Heartland Farmers; Yorke Peninsula

A page of the Wind Power Ethics group*

Based on South Australia's Yorke Peninsula this group is opposed to the proposed Ceres Project wind farm.

Some people don't want to have to look at wind turbines, and wind power does have some valid problems, which the Heartland Farmers could have used in their opposition campaign, but instead – like most other anti-wind power groups – they have built lies on exaggerations quite shamelessly.

 

Harmless

Wind turbines are no more threat to people or agriculture than are the traditional windmills that have pumped water all over Australia for a hundred years.
 

Personal attack

Opponents of the Ceres Project have little in the way of convincing arguments to support their opposition. Instead they have resorted to character assassination, see Ceres wind farm – the debate. If readers are interested in the facts on the author of these pages they should read About Me.
In March 2013 they added threats to the list, and fallacies continue to be published on a Facebook page, see here and here and by October 2014 they had resorted to libelous statements made under a false name.

The Heartland Farmers' main objection to the wind farm is that it will significantly impact the local agricultural industry, but they have never provided any convincing evidence in support of this claim, and agriculture and wind power coexist comfortably overseas.

Little good can be done by lying, little harm by telling the truth. This page is my effort to show everyone the truth where the Heartland Farmers have obscured it. Many links and references are given to supporting evidence for the statements made on this page. Unlike the Heartland Farmers, I have shown that my statements are supported by the science.

It is unfortunate that I had to write this page, but action on reducing Australia's very high rates of greenhouse gas emissions is urgently needed and it was necessary that someone show that the Heartland Farmers were not providing an honest evaluation of the Ceres Project. Wind turbines can and do replace coal-burning power stations and the World Health Organisation tells us that air pollution, much of it from burning coal, kills seven million people each year.

Written 2013/02/25, modified 2017/04/18 – ©
Contact: email daveclarkecb@yahoo.com (David Clarke) – Google search Ramblings
If any reader feels that something I have written on this page is false please give me evidence supporting your claim.
Wind home
Index


Pages on related subjects...

Wind energy opposition

Why accept climate science

Any person who opposes or supports Ceres can post on Ceres: the debate Facebook page (within the limits of decent behaviour).

Ceres: the truth

David Ridgway

Roger Sexton

Lie of the month

About these pages

Free land on YP!

The writer of this page, David Clarke, has no finacial connection to the wind power industry

Heartland Farmers' low standards

 
Power generation, SA, May 3-15, 2016
Nem generation, SA
Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) data, graph by Giles Parkinson
Heartland Farmers will publish anything that puts a bad light on the wind power industry, no matter whether it is true or not.

In May 2016 they published a copy of Glyn Hartley's letter to the Yorke Peninsula Country Times. Glyn wrote that the storm winds of early May 2016 would "produce little or no power from wind turbines". He could not have been more wrong as shown in the graph on the right (the graph is explained on another page on this site).

South Australian's electricity bills are slightly higher than in other states

 
Power costs in Australia
Power costs
From ABC Fact Check
Continuing with the Heartland Farmers' low standards, Naomi Bittner wrote a claim on the HF Facebook page that we, in South Australia, were paying three times as much for our power as is paid in other states – implying that this was due to our wind power. In fact, as shown by an ABC fact check, SA's power bills are only marginally higher than other states. (See the graph on the right.) It also showed that the ACT, which is soon to have 100% renewable power – much of it wind power – has the cheapest power in the nation.

The reference that Ms Bittner used in support of her claim did not say that South Australians were paying three times as much as people in other states, it referred to the average spot wholesale price on Christmas Day of 2015 being three times higher in SA than in other states – which has very little relevance to the price that South Australian retail consumers pay.

By the way, the main reason that electricity in SA is more expensive than in other states is that most of it is generated by burning expensive gas while the other states have cheap (and highly polluting) coal.

Alan Jones too

Another fact-check, this time from The Conversation, was primarily aimed at an absurd claim made by Alan Jones, but is also very relevant to the absurd claim made by Naomi Bittner.

Jones said on the ABC's Q&A that wind power costs $1502 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). In fact, even allowing for Jones having meant megawatt-hours (MWh) rather than kWh he was still hugely in error. Recent (2015-16) contracts written by the ACT government have named wholesale prices from $77 to $92/MWh.

 
Wind home
Top
Index

Where do we stand?

 
TCW's low opinion of her own intelligence
Screen shot of Facebook page
TCW's low opinion of herself
TCW has called me a fool many times yet she continues to argue!
From the Ceres Debate Facebook page
Where do we stand with the Heartland Farmers and the 'debate' about the Ceres Project at the end of 2014?

 

HF caught in another lie

Heartland Farmers have tried their hardest to scare people who live near a wind farm or proposed wind farm with their claim that water bombing aircraft cannot opperate near wind turbines – although they never provided any convincing evidence. The fire at Waterloo in January 2017 fully exposed the lie. Follow the link and see photos of water bombers flying between wind turbines.
The principal opponents of the Ceres Project are Naomi Bittner, Tania Stock and someone who hides behind the name of The Callous Wind (TCW). Ms Bittner is not willing to participate in an open debate. TCW is continually arguing, but has a very low opinion of her own intelligence, as shown by her comment on the right. She also frequently lies; for example she wrote on 2014/12/26 that the Ceres wind farm, if built, would totally destroy her quality of life; there is not the slightest bit of credible evidence to justify this claim. Ms Stock, if she is not TCW, is notable by her absence from any part of the debate on the Internet.

I am ready, at any time, to participate in an open and structured debate, in which all claims must be substantiated by evidence, but the Heartland Farmers are apparently not.

Contrary to the claims of the HF in regard to the Ceres Project:

  1. It will not significantly impact the agricultural productivity of the area;
  2. It will not significantly inconvenience or harm neighbouring farmers;
  3. It will not significantly lower property values;
  4. It will not harm anybody's health;
  5. It will not significantly impact on-ground or aerial fire-fighting ability.
Strong evidence is available to substantiate all these statements as is shown in what follows on this page.

Possible course of action

The person or people who hide behind the TCW name have libeled and defamed Giles Parkinson, Mike Barnard, Tim Flannery and me several times. Libel is, of course, against the law and defamation can easily result in compensation payments of several hundred thousand dollars.

Naomi Bittner and Tania Stock are now members of the Yorke Peninsula council; I could demand that they supply me with the real names of those who have used the TCW name. Should they refuse to do so, I suspect a case could be made that, as people who are concealing the name of a law-breaker, they are not fit and proper people to hold public office.

I suspect that Ms Bittner and Ms Stock have themselves used the name at times. Would this mean that they are also guilty of libel and defamation? (There seems some evidence that Ms Bittner used the name at least once.)



Turbine and message
Wattle Point Wind Farm, close to the proposed Ceres wind farm

 
Wind home
Top
Index
And of course, wind turbines are fully compatible with agriculture, massively reduce greenhouse gas emissions, make little noise, save lives by displacing coal-fired power stations that kill millions of people each year with their air pollution, and harm no one's health.

See also, the advantages of having a nearby wind farm



Do these wind farm opponents live in a dream world?
Cartoon
This bumper sticker was placed in my mail box.

Save Yorkes? From what?

 
or climate change?
2014 Spring temps
This Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) map shows that temperatures in SA in the Spring of 2014 were between 2 and 4 degrees above average. According to NASSA and NOAA 2014 was the hottest year on record world-wide.

Climate change will be infinitely more damaging to Yorke Peninsula than the Ceres wind farm, and the wind farm will abate a couple million tonnes of greenhouse carbon dioxide each year.

In early 2015 the BoM reported that 2014 was the third warmest year on record in Australia; 2013 was the warmest.

A wind farm and
  • The loss of about 90ha of farm land? (The total area of Yorke Peninsula is about 600 000ha.)
  • Save the people in the vicinity of the wind farm from having to see wind turbines?
  • Save those who live within a couple of kilometres from having to hear turbines once in a while?
As shown elsewhere on this page and on this site, there will be no significant impact on neighbouring farmers, there will be no health impacts, there will be no loss of land values. And, of course, there will be many advantages to the local community in hosting a wind farm.

If Yorkes needs saving, it is from the impact of climate change, which will be huge; and the wind farm will help to slow climate change by replacing polluting coal. (Yorke Peninsula also needs to be saved from the misinformation pushed by the dishonest wind farm opponents. This page is an effort to do that.)

The people of nearby Edithburgh and Snowtown are quite happy with their wind farms.

 
Wind home
Top
Index




Introduction

 

Why the opposition?

Considering the lack of harm that the wind farm will cause any local people I have been somewhat at a loss to understand the determination of the opposition by the small Heartland Farmers group.

Having discussed the matter with several people who live in the area of the proposed wind farm it seems to me likely that a large part of the ill-feeling is due to envy. At least one, and quite probably more, of the very few people who are strongly opposed to the wind farm will be financial left out if it goes ahead. They had the chance to have turbines on their property, but demanded an unrealistic amount of money, and missed out.

If the Ceres wind farm is built, these people will see their neighbours getting into a better financial position than they themselves and they don't like it.

 

Evidence

Supporting arguments and evidence for most of my statements on this page can be found by following the links provided on this page. Most of the links connect to other pages of mine. Should you want to go direct to original and independent sources go to my page Wind Links, or use this link for matters concerning health and wind turbines, or this for matters concerning wind tubines and noise.
The Ceres Project wind farm will, if it is built, be of great benefit to the Yorke Peninsula, to Australia, and to the world as a whole. As the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere it will increase tourism in the region. It will bring employment to many, increased business to contractors, food and accommodation providers, increased income to a number of local farmers and through the community funding, valuable opportunities for development for the whole community.

The Heartland Farmers seem either to believe that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change and ocean acidification are not happening or they don't care about them, and they deny that the Ceres wind farm will slow them. (The Ceres wind farm, if built, will generate nearly two million megawatt-hours of electricity each year, which will abate something around two million tonnes of greenhouse carbon dioxide annually.) They ignore the fact that the wind farm will increase health (and reduce deaths) in Australia by reducing the air pollution from fossil-fuelled power stations.

Fallacies (lies, if you like) used by the Heartland Farmers in their campaign include:

  1. They claimed that agricultural production on 600 square kilometres of land, most of which is adjacent to the wind farm, will be impacted. In fact, since the agreement between REpower and Aerotech, it seems that there will be no adverse impact at all on the operations of neighbouring farms.
  2. They claimed that "Many crops, such as canola, can only be sprayed by air, as they grow too tall for ground rigs to drive over without doing damage." Apart from minimal damage due to wheel tracks, this is simply false.
  3. They claimed that land values in the vicinity of the wind farm would be reduced by "from 30% - 100%" (this was later modified to "from 30%"). In fact the bulk of the available evidence is that land values are hardly affected by nearby wind farms.
  4. They exaggerate the ristriction to the movement of fire-fighting aircraft.
  5. They refer to adverse health effects from wind turbines, which are entirely unfounded.
  6. They claim that there will be a "danger to farmers working under turbines hosted by neighbours", but do not explain what this danger might be nor, in any way, justify the claim.
  7. They claim that there will be a "danger to road users" due to shadow-flicker from the turbines. There has never been any evidence that shadow-flicker from wind turbines harms anyone's health and, of course, shadow-flicker happens all the time when one drives along Yorke Peninsula roads with a low sun; because of the road-side vegetation.
  8. The Chair of HF has claimed that wind turbines "can shift spray drift from one paddock to another" without offering any explanation or justification.
The Heartland Farmers ignor the statements by the NSW and WA farming organisations that suggest that farmers have nothing to lose and something to gain from wind farming. (See NSW Farmers Guide to Wind Farms and WA Farmers Federation on wind power). They ignor the fact that farming and wind power development are highly compatible as shown by developments in the USA.
 
Wind home
Top
Index





Aerial spraying of a cereal crop in Mid North South Australia
Crop spraying
Heartland Farmers would have us believe that a pilot who can fly safely like this, avoiding Stobie poles, trees, aerials and SWER lines stretching hundreds of metres between poles and only a few millimetres thick, cannot safely go within 3km of a big, conspicuous, wind turbine. Pull the other leg! (More on aerial agriculture below.)
At the end of 2012 there was 274GW of installed wind capacity world-wide; the equivalent of about 100 000 modern turbines. So far as I have been able to find out there has only ever been one collision between an aeroplane and a wind turbine.
YouTube has video clips of crop dusting planes flying within a few metres of wind turbines, see here and here.

 

Agreement between REpower Australia and Aerotech

REpower is the company proposing Ceres, Aerotech is by far the predominant aerial agriculture contractor on Yorke Peninsula. The agreement announced today (2013/07/27), by which Aerotech planes will spray very close to the wind turbines, has a huge impact on the arguments the Heartland Farmers have been using to try to stop the Ceres wind farm.
 

Information sources

Note that Heartland Farmers reference articles in places like the popular press (especially the Murdoch press, which is biased against renewabe energy) to justify their statements. Heartland Farmers do not reference papers from respectable peer-reviewed journals.
 

Confusion over identity

I have been confused over the identity of the people involved with the Heartland Farmers; how can one know who is who when they have not used their real names – until 2013/04/01. For a time the person who hides behind the name The Callous Wind was writing under the Heartland Farmers name. In a comment on Ceres wind farm – the debate Naomi Bittner stated that she is the person behind the HF name. Thank you for your honesty Naomi.
The active core of HF seems to consist of only two or three people. The group managed to get about ten people to go to Parliament House for a demonstration on 2013/03/14 and a total of some 200 people have gone to local meetings that the group have organised.

The main objection that HF have to the Ceres wind farm is their claim that wind power is incompatible with agriculture. One need only look at the United States experience to see that wind power and agriculture are highly compatible, the three top US states in agricultural production are also the three top states in installed wind power.

HF say "There are many areas of South Australia which are suitable for wind turbines and are not suitable for agriculture." Like so much of what they say, there is a grain of truth in this, but they conveniently ignore the fact that these areas are more remote and therefore costs increase enormously. For example, building the necessary transmission lines to southern and western Eyre Peninsula (the Green Grid Project) would cost $4.5 billion dollars. (The whole Ceres Project, by comparison, has been costed at $1b.)

People like Heartland Farmers have had some success in getting others to believe the lies spread by the anti-wind power lobby because many just don't know the truth. They might be told by their neighbours that a nearby wind farm will be a disaster and they tend to believe it. I appeal to anyone reading this with an open mind to do a bit of research and find out the facts for yourself. Visit a wind farm; think about it rationally and unemotionally. (Reading Wind Farms, The facts and the fallacies, from The Australia Institute could be a start.)

Magna est veritas et praevalebit:
Truth is great and shall prevail

On this page I have listed many false statements made by the Heartland Farmers. In some cases, arguments have been given on this page in support of the fallacy of the claims, in many cases I have referred to arguments and evidence given on other pages on my site or elsewhere, usually on the Internet (follow the links). If readers believe that in some cases I have given insufficient evidence for what I have written they should contact me by email at the address given at the top of this page.

Comparing Ceres to nearby wind farm projects

Why is the Ceres Project receiving such a different public reaction to that of Wattle Point and Snowtown wind farms?
 
Wind home
Top
Index





Wind turbines are compatible with agriculture

 
Turbines on agricultural land in Germany
Turbines and agriculture
Image credit: Earth-The Operator's Manual
 
Wind turbines and houses in the tulip fields of North Holland
Turbine and house
Photo credit Normann Szkop
Note how close the turbine is to the house
The original photograph can be seen on Flickr
 
Canal, turbines and houses
Photo credit Normann Szkop
Four houses and two turbines close together
The original photo can be seen on Flickr
One of the main arguments of the Heartland Farmers is that wind turbines are not compatible with agriculture. The photos on the right show that argument is nonsense.

The top photos shows many turbines in agricultural land in Germany, the next two show turbines in highly productive tulip fields in The Netherlands.

One need only look at the US experience to see that agriculture and wind power are very compatible. The top three US states by value of agricultural production are also the top three states by installed wind power.

StateAgricultural production $mInstalled wind power MW
California31 8355 549
Texas16 49812 212
Iowa14 6535 137

The figures for agricultural production above were obtained from Stuff about states, dated 2004 (I was unable to find more recent data), and the figures for wind power were from Wikipedia, dated the end of 2012.

 
Top
Wind Home
Index
Iowa is in the heart of the US Corn Belt and is sometime called, at least in the United States, the "Food Capital of the World". It has the highest concentration of wind power, in terms of Watts per unit area, of any US state. In 2012, 24.5% of Iowa's electricity was generated by wind power.

 
Wind home
Top
Index





Wheat yields to fall with climate change

An article published in the prestigious journal Nature reported that global wheat yields are likely to fall by 6% for each one degree rise in temperature. The paper is summarised by Fiona Harvey writing in Grist, 2014/12/23.

Plainly with temperatures likely to rise by a minimum of 2 degrees this will have an incomparably bigger impact on the productivity of Yorke Peninsula than will the proposed wind farm.

The area of Yorke Peninsula is about 600,000ha. If we suppose that half of this is arable that it 300,000ha. If Ceres is built about 90ha will be lost for grain growing, 0.03%; totally negligible compared to the 12% loss if the temperature rises by the expected 2 degrees minimum.






Clean wind or filthy coal?

On 2014/11/11 Energy China Forum reported that:
"In 2012, 670 000 people died across the country because of issues which are related to the exploitation of coal. That is not only a tragedy, it is also expensive. Professor Teng told the South China Morning Post that damaging the people's health and the environment comes at a cost of about 260 yuan (over $40) for each ton produced and used."
Wind-generated electricity replaces coal-generated electricity.

Wind turbines in an early morning mist at Jamestown, South Australia
Wind turbines at Jamestown

 
Morwell coal mine fire, February 2014
Hazelwood fire
Image credit 350.org
In Australia we have a choice, clean, green renewable energy, including wind power, or filthy polluting coal mining and fossil fuelled electricity.

Burning coal is one of the main causes of climate change, ocean acidification and air pollution that kills millions each year.

While there are groups like the Heartland Farmers, who are willing to do anything they can to stop renewable energy developments in their area, the people of Morwell and the rest of the coal-mining areas will be stuck with their polluting coal-fired power stations and occasional even more polluting coal mine fires.

It seems that the Heartland Farmers are happy to have incompetently run coal mines with their illness-causing pollution and greenhouse gasses in Australia – so long as they are somewhere else – but they are dead-set against wind turbines near them that will harm no one.

More on the coal mine fire on The Conversation and by Ketan Joshi.

 
Wind home
Top
Index





There is no debate

An open and informed debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the Ceres project would be useful. The Heartland Farmers, on their Facebook page, do not allow postings or comments from anyone who disagrees with their point of view.

 

Trolls banned

In October 2015, after allowing the Ceres opponent who hides behind the name The Callous Wind two years to provide arguments against the wind farm, I had had enough of his/her abuse, name-calling, in some cases libellous aspersions. She and another who also admitted using a false name (and never wrote anything relevant to Ceres) were banned from the Ceres Debate Facebook page.

Should they wish to post under their real names they will be given another chance.

I repeat here a challenge to decent people who are opposed to Ceres to post their arguments on the Facebook Debate page. Where are they? What are their valid claims? Why are the principals behind the Heartland Farmers unwilling to take part in a fair, open and reasonable debate?

In an attempt to start an open and intelligent debate I have created the Ceres: the debate page on Facebook. This did not work! With very few exceptions all that was posted by those opposed to the wind farm were attacks on the credibility of those in favour of wind power (not on the evidence they presented), name-calling, and rude remarks (such as "Who would talk to this thing?")

If there are as many people opposed to the Ceres Project as the Heartland Farmers claim, and there are many good reasons for it to not be built, where are those who are willing to stand up and put a cogent, rational and civil argument?

There are some valid wind power problems, but it would seem that the people who oppose the Ceres Project do not think that these are sufficient grounds to support a debate. If so, they are probably correct.

By now the majority of the opposition, or at least those who are reasonably well informed, realise that there is no evidence for:

  • the claim that wind farms cause illness;
  • the claim that wind farms reduce land values;
  • the claim that wind farms and agriculture are incompatible;
  • the claim that wind turbines make aerial fire-fighting impossible;
  • the claim that large areas of Yorke Peninsula agriculture will be adversely affected by the wind farm.
It would seem most of the valid reasons for objecting to the project would be based on aesthetics; some people don't want to be able to see wind turbines or ever to hear them. But I suppose that the objectors do not consider these to be sufficient grounds to support a debate.
 
Wind home
Top
Index





50MW or 700MW?

Tania Stock, one of the most prominent members of the Heartland Farmers, was quoted on Adelaide Now (2014/02/17) as stating:
"SA's 1203MW of capacity has struggled to produce even 50MW of power during periods of peak demand..."
(Ms Stock quite probably got her false information from a similar statement by Graham Lloyd in The Australian.) That it is false, or at best grossly misleading, is well demonstrated by a post by Ketan Joshi written on 2014/02/07.

In fact, as Mr Joshi showed, south eastern Australia's wind farms were generating about 710MW at the time of the peak electricity demand for the week of the recent January heatwave; much of this was coming from SA's wind farms. (There may have been one very short period of high demand during which SA's wind farms were generating around 50MW.) Mr Joshi's post includes a graph showing that the average output of SE Australia's wind farms, which all feed into the same power grid, generated an average of around 800MW for the week of the heatwaves.

The Heartland Farmers have previously made this, or a very similar, claim and Ms Stock repeated it in the Stock Journal on 2014/07/03. Mr Joshi pointed out to them the first time they made the claim that it was false. The fact that Ms Stock has repeated a statement, knowing it to be false or at best, grossly misleading, makes it a lie rather than simply an error made in ignorance.

In the Stock Journal on 2014/07/03 Ms Stock claimed that the lack of generation of wind farms in periods of high demand "means that there needs to be an equal amount of capacity in fast start up peaking power plants". Wrong again. There has been no increase in the peaking power capacity in SA in the last 11 years, during which all the wind farms were built.

 
Wind home
Top
Index





 
Edited 2015/02/04

Climate science denial

So far as I know:

  • Almost every government in the world accepts the reality of anthropogenic climate change (ie. climate change caused by Man, ACC);
  • Every scientific institution that has any interest in climate accepts ACC;
  • About 98% of climate scientists accept ACC;
  • About 99% of articles published in peer-reviewed climate science journals accept ACC;
  • Not a single respected university, anywhere in the world, teaches that ACC is not happening.
(This is written in more detail elsewhere on these pages.)

The Yorke Peninsula Heartland Farmers seem to think they know better.

The Heartland Institute is a climate science denial think tank based in the USA. It seems there is a link between the Heartland Farmers and the Heartland Institute.

 

A means to an end?

If we accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change, as do the vast majority of climate scientists, we have to accept that we must reduce our use of fossil fuels. We can do so by changing to renewables, like wind power. I ask the question, is Dr Bittner thinking that by denying climate change she can more effectively and convincingly make people believe we don't need wind power?
 

An informative page on Climate Change

NASA (the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration) have a page that gives a summary of the evidence for anthropogenic (man made) climate change. It talks about sea level rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining Arctic ice, glacial retreat, extreme events and ocean acidification.
 

Even the Abbott Government accepts ACC

Received in a letter from Senator Simon Birmingham, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, "The Australian Government accepts the science of climate change...".
On the Heartland Farmers Facebook page, in a posting dated 2013/09/16, Dr Naomi Bittner repeated a story published by the so-called Environment Editor of The Australian, Graham Lloyd. It was headlined, "We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC".

In fact, as The Australian admitted on 2013/09/23, they had themselves "got it wrong"; there was no error on the IPCC's part; Graham Lloyd had made another blunder. See Media Watch for more details.

The Australian admitted that they had got it wrong. Will we see an apology on the Heartland Farmers Facebook page?



On 2013/04/21 the person who calls herself The Callous Wind (TCW) and is closely aligned with the HF said in a comment left on the Yes2Renewables Net site "I'm not even going to start on Climate change Mr. Clarke, for every argument promoting it, there is an argument denying it, even the scientists can't agree." Of course this is quite false, there is an almost 100% consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening and is largely caused by the actions of Mankind.

In an email to me on 2013/07/19 TCW said that "I would be fairly safe in saying that the HF group would agree with me" in regard to climate science. A day later I asked her how she felt about the ocean acidification that the burning of fossil fuels is causing. Basically she said that she had not known about it previous to my question, but now she doubts that it is of any significance.

On 2013/07/19 I asked Naomi Bittner, who seems to be the main spokesperson for the HF, whether she accepts the fact of anthropogenic climate change and how the group in general stand on the point. By 2013/09/02 I had not received a reply.

The Angry Summer
Angry Summer
Image credit Climate Council
Coincidentally this image was released on the same day that I received the following question from the self-appointed mouthpiece of the Heartland Farmers who hides behind the name, The Callous Wind. She asked me: "Where is all this global warming you are talking about?"

The Australian Spring of 2014 was again reported by BoM to be the hottest on record, and in December 2014 it was reported that 2014 was looking like being the hottest on record world-wide.

 
Wind home
Top
Index





 

What is important?

My opinion is of little importance. It is the facts and the research that matter, and the reasoning that can be based on them.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, truth is not. Truth is absolute.
 

Motivation – some speculation

As with most wind farm opposition groups Heartland Farmers are looking at the project from a very selfish point of view. They don't seem to care that the wind farm will help in the fight to slow climate change and ocean acidification, nor that wind turbines save lives by displacing polluting coal-fired power.

Heartland Farmers seem to be motivated by:

  • Selfishness;
  • Envy: the HF members are not likely to get direct, personal financial benefit from the project and they envy their neighbours who will;
  • A short sighted view;
  • NIMBYism: they want the wind farms built somewhere else.
Interestingly, at least some of the members of HF were offered turbines on their land, but as they were demanding unreasonable levels of payment they missed out. Is it any wonder they are now upset?

Why is it that when people object to a wind farm they throw away truth and ethical standards? Is it because they cannot find any facts to justify their disapproval of the project; so they resort to lies? I find it terribly sad that people can be so selfishly short-sighted and care so little for the future of the world, and of their children and grandchildren.

 

Is the Ceres site appropriate?

In mid 2013 there are a number of wind farms feeding power into the Port Augusta to Adelaide transmission lines. Another 90 big 3MW wind turbines are due to start coming online in the Snowtown 2 Wind Farm in October. Other proposed wind farms that will feed into the Port Augusta to Adelaide lines include: Hornsdale, Lincoln Gap, Stony Gap and Barn Hill.

Ceres will feed power direct to Adelaide by a dedicated undersea cable rather than adding any more load to the heavily committed northern transmission lines.

 

NSW Farmers Guide to Wind Farms

NSW Farmers have released a Guide for farmers. Under 'Impact of farming activities', this document states "Host landholders generally find that wind farm development does not significantly impact farm operations." The document is generally positive about wind farms; in stark contrast to the statements coming from Heartland Farmers.
 

WA Farmers Federation on wind power

In an article on the Flat Rocks Wind Farm the ABC On-line News, 2013/07/23 reported:
The WA Farmers Federation says the idea of broadacre farmers using a small portion of their land for wind turbines to generate extra income is something producers in other regions should also be considering.

President Dale Park says it's "inherently a good idea".

"I think it's a great chance for farmers to offset the variability that we have in climate these days," he said.

"If we can have a system where we can profit from the wind we get, for instance, we should be grabbing it with both hands.

"To the best of my knowledge, there are no health concerns and there are plenty of communities in WA that have got wind farms and haven't got a problem."
 

Youth of the year speech

A refreshing view on wind farms from someone who lives 3km from a wind farm and has no axe to grind. Very different from the point of view of the Heartland Farmers.

I repeatedly notice that it is predominantly older people who are opposed to wind power, young people see the need for renewable energy.

Full page advertisment

Heartland Farmers (HF), placed a full page advertisement in the Yorke Peninsula Country Times on 2013/02/12. The advertisement contained a number of exaggerations or false statements – contrary to these claims:
  • Little land will be taken out of production (HF say "we cannot afford to lose thousands of hectares of Australia's most valuable food crops"). In the case of Macarthur Wind Farm (140 turbines) 54ha are taken up by roads and 8ha by hardstands; a total of 62ha. Scaling this up for the 199 turbines of Ceres gives 89ha. (HF claim that 60 000ha of farmland will be impacted. The total area of Yorke Peninsula is approximately 600 000ha.)
  • The claimed impact on aerial agriculture is one of HF's main arguments against the Ceres Project. I asked the person who hides behind the annonymity of the name 'The Callous Wind' and who is a strong supporter for the HF whether they had ever asked why it was that their aerial agriculture contractors could not go closer than 500m when flying parallel to a line of turbines. She replied with "it is not for us to question how Aerotech Australia run their business". So, it seems that the HF would prefer to deny Yorke Peninsula a billion dollar project that will bring more than three million dollars a year to their neighbours and the local economy, than to pose a question to Aerotech Australia. (I did contact Aerotech and asked for clarification; see elsewhere on this page.)
  • There may be some increases in costs, but these will be slight for only a few Yorke Peninsula farmers and nil for most. HF have not explained what, apart from limitations to aerial farming, would increase their costs.
  • There will be no 'health and safety' costs to the wider community.
  • The Ceres project will have an entirely negligible impact on the cost of "food items like bread".
  • The Ceres project will not significantly "jeopardise crop yields"; how could it? (There will be tiny losses due to vehicle tyre tracks if spraying is done on-ground rather than aerially – see the photo elsewhere on this page.)
There will be some genuine costs to residents:
  • Roads will make some paddocks on hosting farms smaller, having an impact on the use of farm machinery;
  • Fire-bombing aircraft movement will be somewhat restricted in the near vicinity of the turbines; this will be greatly dependent on the visibility at the time. On the other hand, the roads will act as fire-breaks and will provide better access for fire-fighters (the CFS have pointed out that fire-bombing aircraft to not put out fires, ground crews do that; aircraft assist);
  • There will be some places where aerial agricultural operations will not be possible; ground based spraying etcetera will have to be used in some cases – I believe that on-ground spraying can be cheaper than aerial;
Not surprisingly, HF did not mention the Community funding which, according to the Ceres Project Net page, will be worth a total of $150 000 per year to the local community. (While this is a very large total, it is probably a bit less than average for Australian wind farms in 'per turbine' terms ($754). If HF were constructive, instead of being destructive, they could lobby for a larger community fund.)

By the way, the wind turbines will probably reduce the number of fires started by lightning; they conduct the lightning safely to earth.

 
Wind home
Top
Index





Who are the Heartland Farmers?

This is something of a mystery. There is loose talk of 200 people, but this is nothing but wishful thinking; probably 200 people have attended meetings about the Ceres Project. There is a photo of 15 people on the HF 'About' page. Nowhere does there seem to be a list of group membership or committee membership. So we must suppose there is not official membership and no official committee.

The public faces of the HF, the people you see in photos in the local newspaper, are those of Naomi Bittner and Tania Stock.

On the Internet, Naomi Bittner is busy with their Net page and the HF Facebook page (from which I am banned), but Tania Stock is nowhere to be found.

Neither Ms Bittner nor Ms Stock are willing to engage in an open debate on the pros and cons of the project, supported by evidence, using their own names. In fact there is not one member of the HF, or any other person opposed to the Ceres Project, who is willing to take part in an open and honest debate. An economist, Roger Sexton, has made public calculations about the project that were in error by a factor of 60 000, but he has refused to discuss anything.

Crude attempts at public debate have been made by one or more people hiding behind a false name: 'The Callous Wind'. It seems that this false identity may be used by Ms Stock and Ms Bittner when they want to make statements that they are not willing to put their names to. They have never denied using the false name.

Ms Bittner indulged in a very short debate on Facebook over a period of a couple of hours on a single occasion.

 
Wind home
Top
Index





Climate change or renewables?

 

Professor Anthony McMichael

Prof. McMichael wrote in 'The Conversation' of the impact that climate change is likely to have in Australia, 2013/07/22. Among many other problems that climate change will bring, Prof. McMichael mentioned reducing farm yields.
It can be calculated that the Ceres wind farm, if built, will reduce Australia's CO2 emissions by about two million tonnes per year.

On 2013/07/23 I received the following in an email from a person calling herself The Callous Wind (TCW); it shows an interesting mix of good education in the use of language (such as that expected of a veterinarian, Ms Bittner for example) and appalling ignorance or massive bias in regard to renewable energy:

"After reviewing all of the facts put forward by various parties, I have come to the conclusion, that 199 Turbines on Yorke Peninsula, are going to have absolutely no effect whatsoever in abating climate change or ocean acidification."
Of course the statement is quite false; either the author had very poor reviewing skills or it is another lie.

As noted elsewhere on this page, the HF seem generally to deny climate science and TCW herself thinks that ocean acidification is nothing to worry about.


Fossil sand dunes south of Port Broughton
Fossil sand dunes
This photo was taken between Port Broughton and Alford. It shows what is now farm land, but what was, back in the last ice-age, about 12 000 years ago, drifting sand dunes. If we do not take climate change seriously and move away from burning fossil fuels toward renewable energy, such as wind power, much of Yorke Peninsula may return to drifting sand dunes. (My apologies for the poor quality of this photo.)


 
Google Earth image of the same area



The image on the right is from Google Earth and clearly shows a number of fossil sand dunes that cross the Port Broughton to Kadina road.

Even now farmers have to take care how they look after this land. If groups like Heartland Farmers get their way and stop the world from taking serious action on climate change it is quite possible that much of Yorke Peninsula will revert to drifting sand.



 
Heartland Farmers seem not to care about this!
Our new normal
Infographic credit: Get Up
Heartland Farmers claim to be worried that the wind turbines of the Ceres Project will cause decreased yields of grain crops on Yorke Peninsula; although they don't explain convincingly how that will happen.

Climate change will greatly and adversely impact grain yields, grain growers, Yorke Peninsula, South Australia, Australia, and the World, but Heartland Farmers don't show any signs of caring about that.

HF claim to be concerned about fire danger. The higher temperatures and stronger winds that come with climate change will greatly increase fire danger.

If the Ceres Project wind farm is built it will be a big step in the battle to reduce Australia's contribution to climate change. The Garnaut report showed that Australia's CO2 emissions were 28 tonnes per person in 2006, compared to less than seven tonnes per person for the world average. Australia, and all Australians, have an ethical responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The small group behind HF are trying to stop a renewable energy development that will abate the CO2 emissions of 70 000 Australians for 25 years – because they will suffer some inconvenience and possible minor loss of profits. Can you imagine anything more selfish than that?

HF apparently don't care that, if they are successful in stopping the Ceres Project, they will be responsible for damaging the world in which their grand-children will have to live. They make a big thing of being "fourth and fifth generation farmers", yet their action will damage farming world-wide in future years.

They should be proudly supporting the wind farm and thereby being involved in saving the world from the damage that climate change and ocean acidification will bring, instead they choose to be selfish, short-sighted and self-defeating in the long-term.

 
Wind home
Top
Index





A posting on Stop These Things, under the section "These People Don't Get It"

 

The facts, the research

The person who wrote this post should read the report from NSW Farmers, referenced above; far from having their farming operations 'severely impeded', the neighbouring farmers will be slightly inconvenienced.

There is neglible evidence that wind farms harm property values in the long term. If property values have fallen in the short term it is probably because of the rantings and predictions of disaster from people such as the members of Heartland Farmers.

The posting on Stop These Things was under the name "The Callous Wind". (It is common for these people to lack the courage to use their own names.) She was suggesting that I (David Clarke, the author of this page) be added to "These People Don't Get It".
"I thought perhaps this bloke could be added to these pages, he doesn't get it at all. I am a member of the Heartland Farmers Group, who are opposing the Ceres Wind Turbine Project. He has decided to denigrate very good people, fourth and fifth generation farmers, who suddenly find themselves in the middle of an industrial electricity generating complex, which will severely impede their farming operations, not to mention the hundreds of seaside property owners who are finding that the value of their properties will drop. Two sales have fallen through all ready, because of the Wind Turbines."
I have not denigrated 'good people', I may well have denigrated several unscrupulous liars. By the way, I will be pleased to be included in "These People Don't Get It", I'll be in good company.
 
Wind home
Top
Index





Heartland Farmers Net site

 

Please don't tell the HF about this grubby little secret!
A comment on a blog

"The one thing the Wind Lobby are keeping very quiet about is all that windy waste. There's still no 100% safe way to contain it, and it will continue to blow around for hundreds of thousands of years.

If the Romans had had wind power, we'd still be dealing with it today."

Heartland Farmers created a Net site about the end of February 2013. Similarly to their advertising in the Yorke Peninsula Country Times the Net site contains gross exaggerations and lies. The following are comments on some of the content of the Net site on 3rd March 2013. (They may well correct some of their worst excesses after reading this page.)
HF states "If turbines are erected on farms in Central Yorke Peninsula, farm yields will drop considerably at the expense of energy production."
They do not justify this statement apart from mentioning tyre-track damage, which would lead to slight decreases in yield. (See NSW Farmers guide to wind farms and the photo below.)

 
High-clearance spray rig
High-clearance spry rig
Note that this has well over a metre clearance.
HF states "Many crops, such as canola, can only be sprayed by air, as they grow too tall for ground rigs to drive over without doing damage."
While I am far from being an expert on cropping I find this statement very questionable. High clearance spray units can clear crops over a metre tall (I've only measured one unit: 1.3m), taller than most of the canola crops that I can recall seeing. Cereal and legume crops are generally well under this.

A photo of flowering canola being sprayed by a rig such as this can be seen at Anita Anseeuw blogspot.

HF states "Our aerial agriculture providers have informed us that they cannot manoeuvre without restriction within 3 km of the turbine blades so every paddock within the proposed development, and any paddock that is even partially within 3km of a turbine will no longer have aerial applications available as a tool for that farmer." (My emphasis)
Give this claim a bit of thought. Firstly, the second (italics) part of the sentence does not logically follow from the first part, but the implication is that an agricultural aircraft cannot work anywhere within 3km of a turbine! Does this make any sense? 3km is a very long way. Agricultural aircraft work around obstructions all the time: power poles and wires, trees, radio masts; why on earth could they not work within 3km of a highly conspicuous wind turbine? Appendix V of the Ceres Development Application, which discusses aerial spraying is not easy for the non-specialist to understand, but a distance of 50m is mentioned in the case of aircraft flying parallel to a line of turbine towers. Even the largest distanced mentioned is about 1700m, far short of the 3km claimed by HF. So far as I have been able to find out, no aircraft, anywhere in the world, has ever crashed due to a wind turbine.

I have been informed that some aerial operations, such as mouse bating and urea spreading, are best done from relatively high altitudes, so could be carried out above the wind turbines.

 

Stop Press 5th March 2013

Oh! Bad luck. It seems that since reading this page about their claims, HF are only promising land price cuts "from 30%". But still, that's a very nice discount for anyone who might want a nice property on Yorke Peninsula!
 
Prices of houses sold at Edithburgh since 2004
Edithburgh house sales
Data from realestate.com.au
Edithburgh is 2.6km from the nearest turbines of the Wattle Point Wind Farm, completed in 2005. No sign of declining property values here. More data on land values near wind farms can be seen elsewhere.
HF state "impacts on property values, diminishing values from 30% – 100%"
This would have to be their most outrageous statement that I have seen so far – property values going down to zero because of wind turbines! In fact it won the prize for the lie of the month for March 2013. There is no convincing evidence that wind farms harm property values in the long term. If property values have fallen in the short term it is because of the rantings and predictions of disaster from people such as the members of Heartland Farmers.

HF claims "danger to farmers working under turbines hosted by neighbours"
They don't say what these dangers might be; nor why these farmers should be under turbines on their neighbour's property.

HF claims "danger to road users; there will be hours of shadow-flicker along our arterial roads each day"
Most of the roads on Yorke Peninsula are lined with remnant native vegetation. Whenever one drives on a sunny day on YP roads while the sun is low one is subject to shadow-flicker. I've not heard that it is a problem.
So-called risks to health and to birds are dealt with elsewhere on this site.

Do the people who write this stuff have no ethical standards? Is no misrepresentation of the facts, no lie, no exaggeration, too much for them?

The ridiculous exaggerations continue

A person who is involved with the opposition campaign uses the name "The Callous Wind". On 2013/03/09 The Callous Wind left a comment on The Problem With Ceres page; "...most people on the Peninsula will hear [the wind turbines]". (Yorke Peninsula is about 170km long.)

The greatest distance from which I have ever heard a wind turbine is 2.5km (correction, on 2013/07/07 I managed to just hear some turbines 3.0km away), and then only in near ideal circumstances. Anita Butcher lives in Mount Bryan 3km from the Hallett Hill Wind Farm and was a competitor for Youth of the Year in early 2013. As a part of the selection process competitors gave a speech on a subject of their own choice. Ms Butcher chose wind farms. She said in her speech: "I can honestly say that I have hardly heard a noise coming from the wind turbines."

I ask that the people of Yorke Peninsula who are interested in the facts visit Snowtown and listen for the sound of the turbines from various distances. It is quite possible to get within a few hundred metres of the turbines from several public roads including Shadwells Gap Road and another that branches off the highway about 3.5km north of Snowtown. (The more northerly road probably has the better surface.)

 
This section added 2013/03/25

Facts win arguments, not personal attacks

Oh, The Callous Wind (TCW), you are so predictable! You have not found valid evidence to counter a single one of my arguments exposing the Heartland Farmers' lies, but when someone makes an ad hominem personal attack on me, you grab it with both hands.

 

Why not respond directly?

If any readers are wondering why I do not respond directly by making a comment on the HF or STT Net sites – I have done so, but my comments were not posted.

Aesthetic objections are valid objections

On the top of this page I gave a link to valid problems with wind power. Aesthetics is one of the problems I have listed.
The man who writes Stop These Things (STT) went looking for dirt on me. He found that I had lodged an objection to a communications tower to be erected in Crystal Brook by Telstra. As can be seen if one follows the link given in the STT page, what I wrote was:

"I believe the antennas would be better placed outside Crystal Brook, perhaps on top of Cemetery Hill, because that would provide a better coverage of the district and tall towers do not improve the appearance of a town."
TCW decided that this was sufficient justification for her claim on the Heartland Farmers (HF) Net site that "This man [David Clarke, the writer of these pages] now has no credibility whatsoever". Do any readers follow her logic?

And all the while, TCW and the writer of STT hide behind anonymity, giving the impression that they don't have the courage to put their names to their writing.

 
Wind home
Top
Index





Heartland Farmers Facebook page

The HF have a page on Facebook where the misleading statements continue.

At the top of the page we see the label "Open group" and beneath this the statement "We will happily add people to the group upon request". I requested to join the group early on 2013/08/19. Two days later I had not been accepted as a member; I had received no response at all. In fact, the page contained no comments from wind power supporters. It seems that the actual membership policy is very different to the stated membership policy. (I saw on 2013/08/29 that the statement about happily adding people on request had been removed.)

"We farmers are not opposed to wind turbine projects"

The sentence above is near the top of the HF Net site's "About us" page (they go on about the location of the proposed Ceres wind farm being problematical). Anyone looking at their Facebook page can see that they are opposing all wind turbines, wind farms and even renewables in general; see the posting by Naomi Bittner headed "HEALTH AND SCIENCE: Europe pulls the plug on its green future" which is largely about solar power.

"Renewables company"

On 2013/08/20 the fifth post on the page was by Naomi Bittner and started with
"aww, so sad.
Even the renewables companies acknowledge that Australia doesn't need any more turbines..."
Dr Bittner goes on to write about the decline in residential electricity demand causing a slow-down in Energy Australia's (EA) business; electricity consumption from the grid has significantly declined due to an increase in residential solar PV and as a reaction to higher retail electricity prices.

It seems Dr Bittner does not realise that EA is not a renewables company; it is primarily a fossil-fuel company (more than 2100MW) with some renewables (177MW of wind). EA owns and runs one of the largest, most polluting power stations in Australia, Yallourn in Gippsland, Victoria.

Intensity of sound

A few more posts down there is another post by Dr Bittner. This time she writes:
"umm... words fail me...
vic health state "There is no evidence that sound which is at inaudible levels can have a physiological effect on the human body." NSW health are going to utilise the physiological effects of low frequency sounds to warn us of nearby emergency vehicles..."
She apparently sees this as a contradiction.

Dr Bittner, this is to do with a physical property of sound called intensity. (It is one that wind farm opponents seem to have a lot of trouble with.) The infrasound from wind turbines is at very low intensity (the Vic Health study showed it was not above background levels), while the sound from NSW fire appliances would be hundreds or thousands of times more intense.

The greatest threat to agricultural productivity in Australia is from climate change.

Dr Bittner recognises that climate change is a threat, but she wants the answers to be found somewhere else. She said on the HF Facebook page:
"Arid, unpopulated, inland zones need to be explored first for their suitability for mining and renewable industries. Fertile lands need to be secured to sustain the nation, now and as the population grows. This is even more vital should a changing climate further diminish our lands' productivity. Every acre will count. Protect our state's biggest earner to protect our future"
Does Dr Bittner know that the best wind resources are near our coasts rather than in the inland? Does she realise that building high capacity power lines cost around a million dollars per kilometre? The Ceres project will take something like 90ha out of agricultural production but will avoid about two million tonnes of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere every year. It will be protecting agricultural productivity, not threatening it.

Science shows that climate change will heavily impact crop yields. For example see "Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios"; Global Environmental Change; by M.L Parrya, C Rosenzweigb, A Iglesiasc, M Livermored, G Fischer; Science Direct.

 
Wind home
Top
Index





The Callous Wind

This person (or people) lacks the courage and common decency to use their own name. Why would she do this except that she wants to tell lies and not be held accountable?

I have found her (I believe it to be mainly one person, and that person female) to be remarkable in a number of ways:

  • She has no respect for honesty and the truth;
  • She claims to live near the proposed wind farm, but gives no evidence for the claim;
  • She uses the word "we" without providing any evidence that she speaks for anybody other than herself;
  • She can be shown to be wrong over and over again, but it doesn't concern her; she just goes on to the next dubious claim;
  • She has no grasp of the value of sound evidence or critical thinking.
  • Her 'evidence' comes from YouTube or Stop These Things, never from respected peer-reviewed sources;
  • She seems to have no concern for anything (such as the future of the planet with climate change damage or the huge environmental and health problems caused by the coal industry) other than getting her way;
  • She habitually uses insults, name-calling and personal attacks (she has claimed that I am being payed by the Ceres proponents; characteristically without evidence and quite falsely);
  • She is happy to make baseless claims (such as the wind farm will 'totally destroy her quality of life' if it is built) without justification or further explanation;
  • She refers to people who agree with her (such as Sarah Laurie) as 'nice', yet she herself seems to make a point of being nasty. How can someone who behaves in a consistently nasty way really admire others who she claims to see as being nice? If she sees being nice as a virtue, how can she make a point of being nasty? Or does she really have no concept of 'niceness' or 'nastiness'?
I believe the great majority of the recent postings from TCW to have come from one person, partly because it is hard to believe there could not be two such people on Yorke Peninsula!

In support of these statements I refer readers to the following notes and Ceres: the debate

TCW Facebook page

 
Why should climate science deniers be called climate science deniers?
CC denial
One of life's mysteries!
There is some interesting reading on the TCW Facebook page.

A quote from the About section, February 2015:

"Because we opposed the Ceres wind farm, members of our Community have been called liars, unethical, NIMBY's, climate change deniers, you name it, by certain sections of the pro wind lobby, one in particular."
This is itself a lie! The problem was not that the Heartland Farmers opposed the wind farm, it was in the way that they opposed it. In fact they were called:
  • liars because they tell lies. (Just one of these is the claim that 60 000ha will be impacted by the wind farm. The actual impact will be a very small fraction of that.)
  • unethical because they tell lies in order to oppose a renewable energy development that is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  • NIMBYS because they want the wind turbines to be built elsewhere (NIMBY: Not In My Back Yard).
  • climate change deniers because they deny climate change science. (The image on the right was published by TCW on her Facebook page.)
Had the Heartland Farmers stuck to the truth they would have had far less criticism.

Libel

 
Libelous and defamatory statement
Libel
From Facebook, Ceres page, October 2014
It seems that 'The Callous Wind' is a name that members of the Heartland Farmers use when they want to post insulting, abusive, libelous or defamatory material in the hope that they cannot be held accountable.

Of course this is quite unethical and not behaviour one would hope for from people who are local government representatives. I wonder if it would give them any protection if it came to a court case?

Everything I have written on my Ramblings pages was true to the best of my knowledge at the time I wrote it, and the very few things that I wrote that were later discovered to not be true have been removed. I have tried to clearly show what is opinion and what is fact. At the top of most of my pages I have a request for anyone to correct me if I have got something wrong.

While members of the HF have many times called me a liar they have very rarely made any specific claims that something I wrote was wrong, and have never supplied convincing evidence in support of such claims.

Jo Nova and The Callous Wind both caught out in fallacies

In December 2014 in the Facebook site Ceres Wind Farm: The Debate TCW referred to an article by prominent climate science denier, Jo Nova in an effort to discredit an announcement that the Australian Spring just finished had been the hottest on record. The 'hottest Spring' announcement was based on data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM).

 
Ms Nova's graph
Jo Nova's graph
The graph on the right was on the Net page of Jo Nova's that TCW referred to.

Ms Nova stated that she obtained the data she used in the graph from the University of Arizona at Huntsville (UAH) who had interpreted it from satellite observations. (There is an interesting examination of this data set on Wikipedia.)

Anyone with any knowledge of science would be aware that several sets of measurements of a complex system, using entirely different methods of data collection, will come up with slightly different results. One would certainly expect satellite temperature data to differ somewhat to data collected by thermometers on the Earth's surface.

What does Jo Nova's graph show us? That, according to satellite data, this last Spring might have been the forth hottest in the last 35 years rather than the hottest. Even using Ms Nova's graph, seven of the hottest springs in the last 35 years have occurred in the last nine years. This seems strong evidence for climate change, rather than against!

I pointed this out to TCW.

 
Screen shot from the 'Ceres Wind Farm: The Debate' Facebook page
Facebook exchange
She responded with the first statement on the right.

I pointed out to TCW that, contrary to her claim that "there has been no overall shift in temperature in 18 years", Jo Nova's graph showed a particularly strong warming trend in that period. (I was writing as Ceres wind farm - the debate.)

To this TCW responded that 0.4°C was insignificant. (In fact, Jo Nova's graph, which TCW used to justify her claims, shows a temperature rise of more than 0.4°C in the last 18 years). NASA's Net site showed that temperatures have risen 0.8°C since 1880, so even 0.4°C in the last 35 years would be far from insignificant.

In summary:

  1. TCW referred to Jo Nova's page to discredit BoM's statement that the last Spring was the hottest on record. Jo Nova's page did not discredit BoM's statement.
  2. Jo Nova's graph contradicted TCW's statement that temperatures had not risen in the last 18 years.
  3. TCW's claim that a 0.4°C rise in temperature in 35 years is insignificant is plainly quite false.

The conversation continued:

TCW: 1000hrs, 2014/12/06

"Worry about it if you want, it is not going to affect you, .8 of a degree in 134 years is hardly catastrophic climate change, that is of course if NASA is telling the truth. We know the IPCC certainly isn't.

The temperature could well drop .8 of a degree over the next 134 years and there is every indication that it might.

But carry on, if it makes you feel good."
Ceres wind farm - the debate, 1650hrs, 2014/12/06
"TCW; you are entirely missing the main points. All the evidence (including Jo Nova's graph) is showing that the rate of warming is increasing.

And unlike you, I am not concerned for myself, I am concerned for those who will have to live with the consequences of this disaster."





A threat?

The following is a vaguely threatening posting by the person who hides behind the anonymity of the name 'The Callous Wind'. It is from the abusive, insulting and childish anti-wind power Net site Stop These Things.

The Callous Wind on April 26, 2014 at 10:12 pm

Well said STT.

While we do not condone violence or vandalism, I can see things like that happening here, if construction starts on Ceres,

There has already been some pushing and shoving with one of the proponents, neighbours angry at their turbine host neighbours, for not showing them any consideration when signing up for turbines.

 
Of course it will not significantly impact anybody's quality of life and most of the credible evidence is that property values will not be adversely impacted.
You can not treat a Community with contempt, like they did at the meeting you mentioned and then construct an industrial power generating facility, that is going to impact on many people's quality of life, reduce their property values, as well as interfere with their business operations and not expect tensions to rise.

 
Desparate? Why should anyone be desparate? No one is going to be harmed.
Many things in the way of reprisals, have been discussed in jest, already, but in situations like this, desperate people do desperate things.

 
This is clearly aimed at me. Note that TCW does not use facts, just vague threats and unfounded claims. No TCW, I will not 'take my blog down', I will keep on providing the people of Yorke Peninsula with the facts about wind farms.
One particular blogger needs to tread very carefully as well, he continues to antagonise and denigrate members of our Community in his blog, on the internet, he needs to remember that he does not live very far away and he has publicly advertised his address. If I were him, I would take that blog down and move house, because if Ceres goes ahead, it could just come back and bite him in the arse, as they say, 'karma can be a bitch!'

 
Perhaps TCW should not be so strident in her condemnation of her neighbours, then she might find that she can have a more pleasent relationship with them? When the HF hired lawyers to send threatening letters to turbine hosts it would not have done anything to reduce tension and bad feeling. All caused by the wind industry? I don't think so.
I have never in my whole life time, seen anything like this, the stress, the tension, people avoiding each other, Communities divided, all caused by the wind industry.

TCW.

If the Ceres Project goes ahead the worst that any of the local people will suffer is:

  1. They will see wind turbines;
  2. If they live within one or two kilometres they will occasionally hear turbines;
  3. If they have neighbouring farms they might be slightly inconvenienced occasionally; they may have to go about aerial spraying adjacent to turbines in a different way.
On the other hand, there will be a huge economic boost to the district, jobs, increased business, work for contractors, money for community development, drought-proofed farms, etc.

There was no stress and tension when the Clements Gap Wind Farm was built near my home in Crystal Brook, there was none at Snowtown when either the original wind farm or stage two were built, and, so far as I know, there was none at Edithburgh when Wattle Point Wind Farm was built. If there is local anxiety around Ceres it is due to people like the HF group and TCW stirring up fear with their misinformation campaign.

 
Wind home
Top
Index





Email from TCW

First email

On 2013/03/14 I received an email from 'The Callous Wind'. (At the time I had the impression that she was writing on behalf of the Heartland Farmers – she wrote of 'the general consensus', 'Heartland Farmers are not against the building of wind turbine projects' and 'HF is growing by the day'. TCW has since written that she is not a spokesperson for HF.) In what follows I have overlooked the personal insult and sexual innuendo in TCW's email and stuck with the relevant points.

 
Emissions intensity on the Australian NEM
Emissions intensity
Graph credit – Professor Mike Sandiford, University of Melbourne; data from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)
She made several more false claims:

  1. "Wind energy is proven to be totally inefficient"
    It is hard to know exactly what TCW means by this, but I have shown that there is no meaningful way in which wind turbines can be called inefficient on another page. And after all, a wind turbine such as are to be built at Ceres consumes no fuel yet generates an average of about a megawatt of power; can that be called totally inefficient?

    And then wind turbines are currently generating about 26% of South Australia's electricity; can that be called totally inefficient?

    People like TCW hear that wind turbines are inefficient, think "that sounds good" and then repeat it ad nausium without bothering to find out whether there is any truth in it.

  2. "and has shown little or no carbon savings to date"
    Look at the graph on the right. It shows emissions intensity (EI) from the four large states in the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM) and the average for the whole of the NEM, including Tasmania. (Tasmania's EI is off-scale at the bottom of this graph.) It is important to understand that this does not show total emissions, it shows emissions as tonnes of CO2 emitted per Megawatt-hour of electricity generated.

    Note the very large decline in South Australia's EI, far greater than any other state; due almost entirely to South Australia having introduced far more wind power per capita over this period than any other state.

     

    Justification of statements

    Notice that TCW does not justify her statements. I can sympathise with her on that; finding data and research that justifies one's statements can be a lot of work; I have read and written reams of stuff in order to justify my statements. It's a lot easier just to write something and hope that someone will believe it.
     

    Breakthrough

    On 2013/04/21 TCW suggested some quite reasonable alternative sites for wind farms on the Yes2Renewables Net site. This was, so far as I can remember, the first serious attempt that she has made at discrediting my arguments rather than discrediting me.
  3. "A few wind turbines built or not built on Yorke Peninsula is not going to make one iota of difference to climate change"
    TCW, tell the two million or so Australians who have put solar PV panels on their roofs that they are not making one iota of difference to climate change; I think you might get some arguments. And then remember that the Ceres Project will generate as much clean-green electricity as around 500 000 rooftop solar systems and will abate around two million tonnes of greenhouse gasses each year.

  4. "There are plenty of sparsely populated areas in South Australia, not that far from the grid, where wind turbines can be placed."
    Perhaps you should list these on your Net site TCW? I'm sure many in the wind power industry would love to know where they are. I'd love to know! If such sites existed that's where the wind farmers would go.
If anyone in the HF group can demonstrate that the they are telling the truth and I am not, let them show evidence of it.

She finished by claiming that they had odds of 200:1 against me. If that's 200 liars against one person telling the truth, so be it; sounds like a fairly equal contest. In fact, I can't imagine that the 200 would have such low standards as TCW, and I wonder how many of the 200 would still be with TCW if they were to read this page?

"Magna est veritas et praevalebit."

 
Wind home
Top
Index





Email 2 from TCW

On 2013/03/15 I received another email from 'The Callous Wind' on behalf of HF.

 
Wind turbines and houses in the tulip fields of North Holland
Turbine and house
Photo credit Normann Szkop
Note how close the turbine is to the house
The original photograph can be seen on Flickr
 
Canal, turbines and houses
Photo credit Normann Szkop
Four houses and two turbines close together
The original photo can be seen on Flickr

Abandoned homes?

 

Abandoned homes at Waterloo

Mary Morris, a vocal wind farm critic from the Waterloo area, sent me a map showing the locations of several 'abandoned homes' in the vicinity of that wind farm. None of them were closer than three kilometres from the turbines. I have never even heard wind turbines from that distance! Is it surprising that I am unconvinced? Note that while few houses change hands in the vicinity of Waterloo, the record available from realestate.com.au shows no indication of falling prices.
TCW repeated the claim made by other wind farm opponents that people have been forced from their homes by wind turbine noise. I have dealt with this claim at some length elsewhere on this site, so will not repeat that here other than to say that it is highly questionable that, beyond a very few exceptional cases where turbines were very close to homes, that anyone has ever abandoned their homes in Australia due to wind farm noise.

Note how close the homes are to the wind turbines in the photos on the right. Yet people in Europe generally seem quite comfortable with nearby turbines.

Having visited nearly all the wind farms of SA, Victoria and NSW, and having slept under turbines a number of times, I know the sound levels involved. (Evidence from my own ears; I have also taken many readings of sound levels near turbines.)



More money

The Callous Wind wrote:
"It may interest you to know that some of the Heartland Farmers were offered turbines and they refused them, they were thinking of their children and grandchildren. Oh yes, I forgot, you heard they wanted more money, you are right, they did tell the developer he should pay them twice as much per turbine, than what he was offering, because land here is worth twice as much per hectare, than what is in most areas where turbines have been placed."
In the case of Macarthur Wind Farm, as stated elsewhere on this page, about 0.44ha per turbine were taken out of production. I don't know, but believe something around $15 000 per turbine per year is being offered to the hosting farmers on Yorke Peninsula. If the Heartland Farmers are making more than $34 000 per hectare per year ($34 million per year on a modest 1000ha farm) they are doing much better than most farmers!

I wonder how much the land in the photos on the right is worth per hectare? I suspect it would have a far higher price than land on Yorke Peninsula. Note how little land has been taken out of production by the presence of the turbines.


 
Wind home
Top
Index



Email 3 from TCW

Email received from The Callous Wind 2013/05/31...

Mr. Clarke,

 

Comments by the author, David Clarke

I have pointed out the misinformation and lies told by TCW and HF in their selfish fight against the Ceres wind farm.
 
TCW and HF have never shown that a single one of my statements is false. They specialise in making sensational statements without supporting arguments or evidence.
 
Be assured TCW that I will continue to expose people like you and STT, who make false claims in an attempt to stop the renewable energy projects that we must have if we are to limit the climate change that will damage our planet. Please continue to write abusive nonsense like this; it is showing the world the sort of person you are.
 
Intelligent debate would make an interesting change. So far HF and TCW have not shown any reasoned arguments or evidence in support of their claims.
 
Why should I want you to stop TCW from "pursuing me across the Internet"? practically everything she writes gives me more evidence of her dishonesty and the foolishness of her 'arguments'.
There are a few things you probably need to know. You chose to stick your nose into our fight against the Ceres Project, you have denigrated very good people including ourselves, across the internet and still doing it, because they dared to oppose your views. Had you not done that, The Callous Wind never would have come into existence.

The Callous Wind was set up to counter your extreme one eyed views and criticism of all and sundry, particularly us. The Callous wind is no one person, it can be anyone.

Let me get one thing absolutely clear, I have told you on numerous occasions [twice] that The Callous Wind is not Tania. Tania would never engage anyone in this manner, so just get it into your thick head that it is not Tania, she has nothing to do with The Callous Wind whatsoever.

I can assure you I am much older than Tania and through the course of my life, I have encountered ignorant little pricks like you, on many occasions.

If you continue to denigrate anyone associated with Heartland Farmers or anyone here on Yorke Peninsula, who is opposed to The Ceres Project, The Callous Wind in conjunction with STT, will continue to pursue you across the Internet. If you are not happy with this arrangement, take the Heartland Farmers page and anything associated with Heartland Farmers off your blog and the Callous Wind not bother you again. If you want to promote The Ceres Project, that is your prerogative.

We are also open to intelligent debate but having intelligent debate with you, does not seem to be an option, it's your way or the highway.

We also assumed from your blog that you are having fun, well The Callous Wind certainly is, so it is up to you Mr. Clarke.

TCW.

 
Wind home
Top
Index





Aerotech

One lie, or at least a distortion of the truth, that did not originate with Heartland Farmers, but that they have been very happy to elaborate on and use, is the claim that agricultural aircraft cannot be used within 3km of wind turbines.

 

Agreement between REpower Australia and Aerotech

The agreement announced on 2013/07/27, by which Aerotech planes will spray very close to the wind turbines, seems to me to suggest that those who control Aerotech have accepted the fact that a wind farm really has very little effect on agricultural aircraft.
 

No air crashes due to wind turbines

While there are perhaps 200 000 utility scale wind turbines in the world (274 000MW, the equivalent of about 100 000 modern wind turbines), so far as I have been able to find out no aircraft has ever crashed into, or because of, a wind turbine.
 

Why aerial agricultural operators don't like wind farms

Aerial agricultural operators cannot spray among wind turbines, largely because of the space they need to turn at the end of each run. This means that aerial contractors loose work to on-ground operators when wind farms are built. It is in the self-interest of aerial agricultural contractors to oppose wind farm construction.
Aerial spraying of insecticide and herbicide can only be safely done when there is little or no wind. At other times the spray will drift off-target. When there is little or no wind, wind turbines will not be operating and so will not create turbulence.

Heartland Farmers have claimed on their Net site that "any paddock that is even partially within 3km of a turbine will no longer have aerial applications available as a tool for that farmer." While this statement was a fabrication by HF, it seems to have been based on a claim by Aerotech; a company that provides aerial agricultural services on Yorke Peninsula and elsewhere.

I contacted Aerotech on 2013/04/22 and asked whether they had informed the Heartland Farmers that they were not able to operate any closer to wind turbines than 3km and, if so, how they justified this claim. I received a reply on 2013/04/24 from Aerotech's Managing Director, Sam McCabe. He did not answer my question, but stated:

"At this stage Aerotech does not have a firm policy on operating near wind farms. We have suggested that it may be up to 3km dependent on wind direction."
There is no reason to believe that wind turbines, at times of low wind when they are not operating, present any hazard to aircraft differing from things like power poles, radio masts, tall trees, etc. Of course agricultural aircraft need to have room to turn at the end of their spraying runs, and wind turbines at the end of runs would be obstructions, but the aircraft can fly perfectly safely within 50m or so of turbines during runs. Why is Sam McCabe implying anything else? Why is he unwilling to justify his 3km claim?

YouTube has video clips of crop dusting planes flying within a few metres of wind turbines, see here and here. It is done elsewhere, why not on Yorke Peninsula?

 
Wind home
Top
Index





What constitutes evidence?

As I wrote above, if Heartland Farmers can demonstrate that they are telling the truth and I am not, let them show evidence of it. From her second email it seems that TCW has little or no idea of what constitutes valid evidence.

First, some examples of things that are not evidence:

  • Anecdotes;
  • Postings on anti-wind sites such as Stop These Things which show a callous disregard for the truth;
  • Statements from disguised anti-wind power and anti-renewables lobby groups such as: the Waubra Foundation, Australian Landscape Guardians, Australian Environment Foundation and the Insitute of Public Affairs.
  • Silly statements by HF such as the one about shadow flicker from operating wind turbines being a danger to road users (see under HF Net site on this page);
  • Statements by HF about how noisy wind turbines are (I have visited many wind farms for myself, have measured the sound levels from various distances, have listened, and have slept beneath turbines a number of times to experience the sound first hand).
I could go on, but I'm sure that the reader will get the picture by now.

Some examples of valid evidence:

  • The NSW Farmers Guide to Wind Farms (what reason would they have for bias one way or the other?);
  • The study just today (2013/03/15) released by Professor Simon Chapman and discussed on The Conversation showing that health complaints from wind farms are very much related to scaremongers telling people that if they live near a wind turbine they should be sick;
  • The study by psychologist Fiona Crichton and others and published by the American Psychological Association a few days ago (see APA PsycNet) showing that people who are under the impression that they will become ill due to infrasound, and are then told that they are being subjected to infrasound, are likely to experience adverse symptoms;
  • The South Australian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report showing that infrasound levels near wind turbines was no higher than elsewhere; January 2013;
  • The evidence of my own eyes and ears;
  • More generally, material published in respectable peer-reviewed science journals.
If readers are interested in more of what I consider to be evidence they can get an impression by looking up a few of the hundreds of links on my Wind Links page.
 
Wind home
Top
Index





 
Altered 2014/02/28

Lawyer's threats

Another move by Heartland Farmers was to get a team of lawyers to write threatening letters to the wind turbine hosting farmers.

No one likes to receive a threating letter of any kind; but perhaps one from a law firm is more unsettling than most. As a self-funded retiree who is trying to expose the lying that people like the Heartland Farmers do in regard to wind farms I am a little worried about litigation myself (see Mr 9-in-1).

In the Ceres case the lawyers are threatening action on noise nuisance and loss of productivity on behalf of neighbours. The lawyers are saying that if the turbines are built the neighbouring farmers will sue them.

This is rather curious considering that Heartland Farmers have admitted that some of those same neighbours would have agreed to have wind turbines on their land if they could have got more money out of the Ceres proponent. The 'loss of income' claim is also highly questionable considering the arguments on this page that any loss of income will be very small.

It should also be mentioned that there are already strict limits in law on noise from wind turbines. If the turbines were within those legal limits, and of course they must be, the neighbours would have no cause for complaint.

This seems to me to be just another unethical move for the HF group who are intent on getting their way, to the disadvantage of almost everyone else. They don't mind how they do it, but they are determined to win and if frightening their neighbours helps them, that's just bad luck for the neighbours.

Counter claims?

Since the turbine hosting farmers will not be able to use aerial agricultural methods, but the neighbouring farmers will, might the hosting farmers be able to sue their neighbours for the noise nuisance from the aeroplanes? Aeroplanes are far, far noisier than are wind turbines.

Suing me for libel?

The person who calls herself The Callous Wind told me that her group had considered suing me for libel. No doubt their lawyers told them that it couldn't be done because I was writing nothing but the truth. Perhaps their lawyers also said that what I was writing was in the public interest (when one group spreads lies, the public have a right to know the truth). (Also see Mr 9-in-1.)
 
Wind home
Top
Index





 
Updated 2016/04/18

Wind power and agriculture in Iowa

 
A utility owned by famous investor Warren Buffett plans a 2GW wind farm in Iowa; April 2016, RenewEconomy. If built this will increase Iowa's installed wind power by a further 2000MW.
The US state of Iowa is in the heart of the US Corn Belt and is sometime called the "Food Capital of the World".

Wikipedia, 2013/05/20, stated that the total installed wind power in Iowa was 5137MW in 2012 (at the same time the total for the whole of Australia was about 2600MW) and that Iowa had the greatest wind power capacity per square kilometre for any US state. The area of Iowa is less than two-thirds that of Victoria.

A very high concentration of wind power combines successfully with a highly intensive and productive grain industry in Iowa; why could the same not happen on Yorke Peninsula?

The three US states having the highest agricultural production also have the most wind power, demonstrating again the compatibility of wind power and agriculture.

 
Wind home
Top
Index





 
Edited 2015/02/26

The missing 195

In the first email I had from Heartland Farmers back on 2013/03/14 the anonymous writer claimed that "with the odds at about 200:1" against me, I was not a great threat. They were claiming that they represented around 200 people.

Since then it seems that I have been up against two or three people. (I said 'up against' rather than 'debating' because there has been no debate; HF have not even attempted to support their lies with evidence.) There are a few more who have been writing ill-informed letters to the Yorke Peninsula Country Times. The other 195 or so people, if they exist, have been very quiet.

I can believe that there are 200 people on Yorke Peninsula who are concerned about the Ceres Project. What I cannot believe is that there would be anything like 200 who would have the low standards of ethics and honesty needed to support the fallacies on the Heartland Farmers Net site or in the full page advertisement.

When some people conduct a campaign as nasty and negative as that of the HF of course it is going to worry a lot of people.

Also see Who are the Heartland Farmers?, on this page.

 
Wind home
Top
Index





 
Updated 2015/02/22

Health and wind turbines

 

More on wind turbines and health

There is a page giving a detailed account of wind turbines and health elsewhere on this site, including many references to peer-reviewed science papers on the subject.

Recent evidence that wind turbines do not harm health

In November 2014 two items became available:
  1. The South Australian Environment, Resources and Development Court released a judgement which included "There is no basis for the refusal of development plan consent to the proposed development on the grounds of health effects."
  2. The Canadian department dealing with health, Health Canada, released a report showing no impact of wind turbine noise on sleep, illness, stress or quality of life.
Contrary to claims by the HF the National Health and Medical Research Council reported that "There is no reliable or consistent evidence that wind farms directly cause adverse health effects in humans." (February 2014, and again in February 2015).

These reports followed a study of all the available and credible evidence on the subject of wind turbines and health lasting several years. There are, of course, a number of other reviews of the evidence that have come to the same conclusion, and none published by any credible organisation or journal that has come to the contrary conclusion.

The HF supporter who calls herself The Callous Wind chooses to ignore this and quote anecdotes from people who believe that they have been made ill by wind turbines. Researchers have long recognised that anecdotes are the form of evidence having the lowest level of credibility.

Many, probably most, of those people who claim to have adverse health affects from turbines do honestly believe what they say to be true, and they should be treated sympathetically, but all the evidence is that they are suffering from a form of epidemic hysteria.

People can believe many things that are not true; especially when it comes to their health. Millions of people in more primitive societies are convinced that they have been made sick by things like "the evil eye", "pointing the bone", curses, sorcery and witchcraft. If you Google "alien abduction" you will get about 1.7 million hits; this does not prove that people are being abducted by aliens.

 
Wind home
Top
Index





Bizarre claims

"Shift spray drift"

Naomi Bittner, Chair of the Heartland Farmers, is quoted on one of David Ridgway's pages as saying: "We know that these turbines can shift spray drift from one paddock to another and, if the spray is not compatible with that crop in the other paddock, it will kill it."

I emailed Dr Bittner on 2013/07/29 asking that she substantiate her claim; I received no reply.

The blades of modern wind turbines don't come any closer to the ground than about 30 or 40m. When a farmer (or an aerial spraying contractor) is spraying, using chemicals that will be toxic to adjacent crops, they have to be very careful that as little as possible of the spray drifts anywhere. Most spraying has to be done when there is little or no wind; in which case nearby turbines would not be operating at all. How spray could get up 30 or 40m above the ground to be picked up by a wind turbine and then 'shifted' to another paddock, if the spray operator is doing his job properly, is unimaginable.

"Woolworths not buying sheep from wind farms"

On 2014/02/26 the person who hides behind the false name The Callous Wind spread the rumour:
"that Woolworths will not buy sheep for meat, that have been grazing under wind turbines."
Typically, she provided no evidence in support of this bizarre claim.

Ceres wind farm and CO2

On their Net site the Heartland Farmers have repeated the claim made by Dr Roger Sexton that it "would take as many as 3,580 years for a wind-driven power station to recover the CO2 emissions from its construction".

I have shown that Dr Sexton's calculations were in error by a factor of 60 000!

 
Wind home
Top
Index





Ethical standards

Another page on this site discusses ethics. Ethics, or moral philosophy, is all about questions like:
  • How should we live?
  • What is the correct course of action in various situations?
  • How should we balance our own needs and desires with the sometimes conflicting needs and desires of others?
  • Should we tell the truth?
Burning fossil fuels produces atmospheric pollution that kills people and causes climate change and ocean acidification. Changing to renewable energy allows us to retire polluting coal-fired power stations.

Some people don't like the idea of having wind farms built near them, but, if we are to move away from burning fossil fuels quickly and without excessive expense, some people are going to be inconvenienced. Is the inconvenience to a few people in a part of Yorke Peninsula really too much to ask in return for a wind farm that will generate enough clean electricity to abate two million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year? Especially when one considers that others will be advantaged, and indeed, I would argue that most people on Yorke Peninsula will be advantaged.

Finally, there are ethical ways of conducting a campaign and there are unethical ways. The ethical standards of many anti-wind power organisations are quite low, but I don't know of any that have quite such low standards as the shamelessly lying Heartland Farmers.

 
Wind home
Top
Index





International support for wind power

On 2014/04/15 Dave Germain and Naomi Bittner had a letter published in the Yorke Peninsula Country Times. Among other things it made the claim that a number of nations, including the United Kingdom and China, were "alert to the economic folly of subsidising" wind power. That this is false is simply shown. First, concerning the UK, is an article published online in edieEnergy on 2014/04/23.

 

Germany set for record in 2014

As reported in RenewEconomy Germany is set for a record installation of on-shore wind power in 2014; possibly as much as 3 500MW – more than in the whole of Australia.
The article's headline was "Government backs eight new renewable energy projects". It continued:

"The UK government has announced that it will financially support eight renewable energy projects that could generate enough electricity to power more than three million homes. Once built, all eight projects, of which five are offshore wind farms and three biomass projects, could add a further 4.5GW of low-carbon electricity to Britain's energy mix (around 4% of capacity), according to the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC)."
To put this in perspective, 4.5GW is the eqivalent of over a thousand wind turbines such as those proposed for Ceres.

Second, The Global Wind Energy Council reported in their Annual Market Update, 2013, that in China,

"... annual installations [of wind power projects] are expected to continue to grow over the next few years. The Chinese government has also set a new ambitious target of 200 GW by 2020 and if the past is any indication, the target will certainly be achieved, and likely exceeded."
At the end of 2013 Australia had a total of 3 GW of installed wind power.
 
Wind home
Top
Index





What sources do the HF rely on for their information?

It is telling to look at the sources of the information that the Heartland Farmers use on their Net page when they attempt to discredit wind power. Alan Jones, Stop These Things and The Australian seem to be prominent. None of these are reliable sources of accurate information.

It is even more telling to look at the sources that they don't use. They have very little to say about reports from bodies such as the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, The Lancet (probably the most prestigious medical journal in the world), any of the Australian state departments of health, Health Canada, the Australian Medical Association, or anything at all published in respectable peer-reviewed journals.

All of these sources have provided information that has discredited claims made by wind power opposition groups.

 
Top
Wind home
Index





What type of people are vocal in opposing Ceres?
Part of the answer can be read on the 'Ceres: the debate' Facebook page

Rather than me giving an answer to this question I direct the reader to the Ceres wind farm – the debate Facebook page. Reading the comments will answer the question.

While I have no doubt that some honest people are opposed to the project, they are not vocal. They don't take part in the debate on the Facebook page, elsewhere on the Internet, or in the local newspaper.

The very small Heartland Farmers group have admitted that at least one of them was happy to host turbines, but because the amount of money on offer was insuficient they became opponents of the project.

The disregard for the facts that those who are opposing Ceres have is plain to anyone reading this page, the Ceres page and the Facebook page. What is surprising is that they don't seem to mind being shown to be wrong over and over again.

Also see Who are the Heartland Farmers?

 
Wind home
Top
Index





Index

50MW or 700MW?
Abandoned homes?
Aerial agriculture 1
Aerial agriculture 2
Aerial agriculture 3
Aerotech
Agreement between REpower and Aerotech
A sincere thank you to HF
Bizarre claims
Callous Wind
Ceres: the debate Facebook page
Ceres site appropriate?
Clean wind or filthy coal?
Climate change or renewables?
Climate science denial
Dream world
Email from TCW
Email 2 from TCW
Email 3 from TCW
Ethical standards
Facts win arguments, not personal attacks
Full page advertisment
Health and wind turbines
Heartland Farmers Facebook page
Heartland Farmers' low standards
Heartland Farmers Net site
House prices at Edithburgh
International support for wind power
Introduction
Jo Nova and The Callous Wind
Iowa – wind power and agriculture
Lawyer's threats
Libel
Low standards of Heartland Farmers
Missing 195
More money
No debate
NSW Farmers guide to wind farms
Possible course of action
Shift spray drift
Sources of HF information
Stop These Things; a posting
Suit for libel?
Stock, Tania
TCW Facebook page
The Callous Wind
The exaggerations continue
Top
WA Farmers Federation on wind power
What constitutes evidence?
What type of people oppose Ceres?
Wheat yields to fall with climate change
Where do we stand?
Who are the Heartland Farmers?
Wind turbines and agriculture
Woolworths not buying sheep from wind farms!


Home
Wind home
Top
Wind home
Top