Updated Saturday 2nd February 2013
For the latest on this fraud click on "HOME"
This map will help you to more accurately place the faults relative to the wind farm.Click to enlarge
Manawatu was very lucky in 2004 - 2005
The earthquake threat to Palmerston North
NZ's biggest earthquakes since 1848
Palmerston North's flood risk - potential for 3,500 houses to go under
The level of deception the city has faced
For the latest on this fraud click on "HOME"
Corruption permeates the proposed Turitea wind farm disaster, approved right on a fault line, and towering over Palmerston North. The image at the top of the page is the view from the centre of Palmerston North.Thousands of properties on the marine terrace on the other side of the Manawatu River are right under the wind farm. The wind farm is in the city's water supply and last remaining native forest, home to endangered and protected falcons.
- Mighty River Power will shortly be partly publicly owned under an asset sales programme. No private investor in his right mind is going to countenance owning inefficient, noisy, obtrusive, extremely expensive, unpopular wind farms in residential areas to satisfy the whims of politicians wedded to thermogeddon.
Genesis Energy are more astute and intelligent than Mighty River Power. Genesis Energy is proposing the 600MW (or possibly 858MW) Castle Hill Wind Farm well away from rural residential property and they have squared off with all affected parties beforehand to ease the RMA process.
To all recreational users of Kahuterawa and Greens Roads and the Kahuterawa Recreational Area, including Scotts Road.
Your enjoyment of these areas will come to an end when Mighty River Power starts using Kahuterawa and Greens Roads to construct its wind farm.
An endless stream of trucks will make the roads too dangerous for 3 to 5 years.
It is highly likely the end of Kahuterawa Valley will be used to link a resurrected Motorimu wind farm with the Turitea wind farm.
Preserve your recreational amenity by emailing: turiteacallin@mfe.govt.nz or by writing to:
Freepost Call-in
Turitea Wind Farm
Ministry for the Environment
PO Box 10362
The Terrace
Wellington 6143
A warning to local land owners
hosting Turitea wind turbines,
this will certainly happen here.
"Meanwhile, lawyers acting for Mr Hodgson have advised his neighbour that the businessman may sue him for loss of amenity and reduced property value if the wind farm goes ahead."
Christchurch hit by a 6.3 earthquake 22/2/2011
Massive destruction, a terrible tragedy.
Well here you go, the board approves the Turitea wind farm right next to two huge fault lines, we told them, but they didn't listen.
The Pahiatua fault line is New Zealand's San Andreas equivalent. While opposed to this particular wind farm costing up to 1 billion NZ, we take no pleasure in expecting at some time to see 61,125m turbines snap off like so many carrots. Check the link below for NZ's active faults
What the Board of Enquiry wilfully ignores. These are the known active faults. Click to enlarge.
Manawatu was very lucky in 2004 - 2005
The earthquake threat to Palmerston North
NZ's biggest earthquakes since 1848
Palmerston North's flood risk - potential for 3,500 houses to go under
The level of deception the city has faced
Spot the wind farm on the Pacific Ring of Fire?
The big picture
Has Contact Energy left Mighty River Power at the bus stop by getting the jump on significant geothermal developments?
Looks like Mighty River Power is coming to it's senses and pursuing Geothermal, something it has undoubted expertise in - NZ Herald 11/3/2011Why was Mighty River Power mucking around with the Turitea wind farm, which should never have proceeded in the first place, instead of pursuing more viable and reliable options such as geothermal?
Is mighty River Power too arrogant to bail out gracefully while it can still save face?
Has PNCC counsel inflamed the situation by stating he was "over the moon" with the draft decison?
Why did mayor Naylor inflict this fiasco and expensive burden on rate payers and nearby residents by voting to change the purpose of Turitea Reserve to allow wind turbines? Why not ask him?
Jono Naylor
1/ HAVE THE RATEPAYERS OF PALMY BEEN RIPPED OFF?
2/ HOW MUCH WILL PNCC EARN FROM THE REDUCED TURITEA WIND FARM?
3/ HOW MANY MEGA BUCKS HAVE BEEN SPENT ON THIS?
3/ HOW MANY MEGA BUCKS HAVE BEEN SPENT ON THIS?
4/ WILL MIGHTY RIVER POWER SUE PNCC NOW THAT ITS PLANS HAVE BEEN THWARTED AFTER RECEIVING THE RED CARPET?
5/ HAS LEGAL COUNSEL FOR PNCC COVERED OFF THIS POSSIBILITY?
6/ CAN PNCC SUE IT"S LEGAL COUNSEL IF THEY ARE SUED BY MIGHTY RIVER POWER?
7/ Can severely affected residents sue PNCC for not heeding the Local Govt Act as far as the loss of their social, cultural and economic well-being is concerned?
6/ CAN PNCC SUE IT"S LEGAL COUNSEL IF THEY ARE SUED BY MIGHTY RIVER POWER?
7/ Can severely affected residents sue PNCC for not heeding the Local Govt Act as far as the loss of their social, cultural and economic well-being is concerned?
Locals at Westwind at Makara report that recently a substation has blown up and has had to be replaced. Turbine bearings are also having to be replaced. Didn't we all tell the Board of Enquiry this would happen!!
Update Feb 18, 2011
Draft Report and Decision on the Turitea Wind Farm Proposal – Extension of Time for Making Comments on the Draft Report
In accordance with the directions in the Memorandum from the Board, comments on the Draft Report and Decision are to be received by 5pm on 12 May 2011.
Please email your comments to turiteacallin@mfe.govt.nz. or post them to:
FreePost Call-In
Turitea Wind Farm
Ministry for the Environment
PO Box 10362
The Terrace
Wellington 6143
The draft report is available on the Turitea webpagehttp://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/
Caroline van Halderen
Project Co-ordinator
Turitea Wind Farm Call-In
0800 836 666
Map of revised wind farm layout.
Looking to sell before people realize the 10 years allowed for constructing the wind farm has severely devalued your property?
These local real estate companies are keen for your business.
Search Results
Real Estate Agents Palmerston North | Watson Integrity | Property...
Watson Real Estate Agents offer a unique approach to property in thePalmerston North, Feilding and greater Manawatu regions.
www.watsonproperty.co.nz/267 Broadway Avenue, Palmerston North
(06) 353 7274
finda.co.nz (3)3 reviews
Place page
Property Brokers sell more real estate in the lower North Island ...
Property Brokers sell more real estate in the lower North Island and Canterbury combined than any other company. Buying, selling or leasing commercial real ...
www.propertybrokers.co.nz/ -236 Broadway Avenue, Palmerston North
(06)356 5122 1 review
Place page
Real Estate Agents Palmerston North
Real Estate Agents Palmerston North: Understanding the market and the unique nature of rural real estate and business is the key to delivering the very best ...
www.bayleys.co.nz/...north.../real-estate-agents-palmerston-north.html239 Broadway Avenue, Palmerston North
021 372 422 Place page
JVL Real Estate - residential, rural, lifestyle and commercial ...
JVL Real Estate has made an impact in the region as a young, innovative company ... Feilding, Palmerston North, Palmerston North Lifestyle, Rural, Sections ...
jvl.co.nz/166-176 Broadway Avenue, Manawatu-Wanganui
(06) 356 8283 1 review
Place page
Remax Go For Sold
REMAX Real Estate Palmerston North | Feature property for sale, PN Surrounds, 2112, State Highway 56. Rateable Value $573000, 4 Beds 2 Bathrooms 2 Garage
www.remaxpn.co.nz/Palmerston North
(06) 355 4324
finda.co.nz (3)3 reviews
Place page
Professionals Unique Realty Mreinz
Palmerston North Office (Head Office) 210 Broadway Avenue, PO Box 2024,Palmerston North Principal: Max Vertongen AREINZ Phone: (06) 350 0007
www.uniquerealty.co.nz/210 Broadway Avenue, Palmerston North
(06) 350 0007
finda.co.nz (1)1 review
Place page
Palmerston North Real Estate - LJ Hooker Palmerston North - LJ ...
LJ Hooker Palmerston North specialising in Real Estate Palmerston North. Thinking of buying property in Palmerston North, selling property in Palmerston...
www.ljhooker.co.nz/palmerstonnorth
Ray White Real Estate Palmerston North
Palmerston North estate agents, Enquire now about our huge selection of Houses - Homes - Life style blocks and businesses for sale and for rent in and ...
www.rwpalmerstonnorth.co.nz/
Palmerston North Property - New Zealand Real Estate Agents
Palmerston North and surrounding districts real estate for sale featuring photo... Agency: Professionals-Unique realty MREINZ. licensed real estate agent ...
www.palmerstonnorthproperty.co.nz/agents.php
Why won't they live next door?
"In 18 years of daily researching and campaigning against industrial wind turbines,
I have never heard of a proponent of this destructive industry
who has chosen to buy a house in the vicinity of a wind farm.
All I receive are requests from people who want to know where they can buy a house
which is not threatened by a wind farm."
Angela Kelly, Hay-on-Wye, Wales
Herald Sun Feb 12, 2011
THERE is "no doubt" wind farms have a negative effect on the value of adjoining properties, according to a senior rural real estate agent.
Elders Rural Services national sales manager Shane McIntyre said the towers were seen by most of the market as "repulsive" and could lead to a 30 to 50 per cent drop in the value of the land.
In an email to a member of the anti-windfarm group, the Landscape Guardians, seen by The Weekly Times,
Mr McIntyre said a proliferation of wind towers adjacent to a property had the same effect as high-voltage power lines, rubbish tips, piggeries, hatcheries and sewage treatment plants.
Mr McIntyre said a proliferation of wind towers adjacent to a property had the same effect as high-voltage power lines, rubbish tips, piggeries, hatcheries and sewage treatment plants.
This meant, he said, that "if buyers are given a choice, they choose not to be near any of these impediments to value".
For the source of the above click link below
Some local reactions to date.
Friday 11th February
The draft decision is out. 61 turbines have been provisionally approved, 43 turbines have been declined.
Click the links below
This is how NZ operates behind the scenes.The landscape, property values and the wellbeing of the community are subservient to outright corruption. A big thank you to the Christchurch Press. At last some real investigative journalism.
*
But wait, there's more - Noise standards paving the way for billion-dollar wind-farm developments across the country are biased and should be ripped up, academics say.
*Who’s who on wind panel - BLATANT CORRUPTION
*
But wait, there's more - Noise standards paving the way for billion-dollar wind-farm developments across the country are biased and should be ripped up, academics say.
The Press News
By PAUL GORMAN - The Press Last updated 05:00 18/08/10
The wind-energy industry exerted undue influence in setting new noise levels for the country's wind farms, opponents of the standard say.
Meeting minutes and voting papers of the Standards New Zealand committee on wind-farm noise, released under the Official Information Act (OIA), show:
Six of 12 members were either wind-farm consultants, worked for a power company or were members of the Wind Energy Association, which partly funded the committee.
Concerns of AUT University public health senior lecturer Dr Daniel Shepherd about committee membership and the standard were dismissed as irrelevant by its members and as having "nothing of substance" they needed to deal with.
Strong opposition from committee member Professor Philip Dickinson to the standard, including his view that several statements in the draft standard were "blatantly false".
The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority's (Eeca) wish for a medical review of the proposed standard was overruled because the committee felt it was difficult to identify someone suitably qualified to do it and because of "what would be achieved by it".
A wind-farm expert working with wind-farm developer Meridian Energy, Malcolm Hayes, was allowed at a meeting, but anti-wind-farm lobbyist and author Nick Jennings was not.
The minutes show that as early as its first meeting, on July 10, 2008, committee members shied away from tougher turbine guidelines for power companies after Dickinson suggested 30 decibels (dBA) should be the maximum amount of turbine noise allowed to be heard inside a bedroom.
"A level of 35dBA was mentioned as a significant restraint for operators of wind-turbine generators to achieve under higher wind speeds, "the minutes said.
Two ballots were held, and three members who opposed the standard in the first vote supported it in the second, although one who initially supported it ultimately decided to abstain.
Committee chairman Stephen Chiles, who is advising Meridian on its proposed Project Hurunui wind farm in North Canterbury, told The Press the revised code was more stringent than its 1998 predecessor. The committee reviewed but did not change the lower limit from 40dBA of sound audible at a dwelling, or background noise levels plus 5dBA, although did lower it to 35dBA for areas of high amenity value.
District plans generally allowed for 40 to 45dBA at night, "but a handful in rural areas allow for a limit of 35", he said.
Greta Valley businessman John Carr requested the committee papers as part of his campaign against the planned Project Hurunui wind farm and other proposed developments in North Canterbury. He said the OIA documents showed the new standard had been "tainted".
A truly independent committee should be formed to produce a new standard. Until such time, no district council or the Environment Court should consider any consent application from a wind energy company." Dickinson, the Massey University representative, voted against the standard in both ballots.
In comments on his first vote, he said the standard underestimated the sound residents would hear from turbines. Several statements in the draft standard were "blatantly false", he said.
In the second ballot, Dickinson called the standard "totally unacceptable" and labelled parts of it "arrogant and misinformed" and "totally false".
"If the standard progresses to be adopted in this form, the university will demand there be a short statement after the committee representation, saying: `The Massey University representatives did not agree to this standard as written, considering it to be ethically and scientifically wrong'."
The paragraph was not included in the published standard. Instead, it said while Dickinson did not support it, he recognised "the revised standard is an improvement on the original".
Shepherd wrote to the committee in August 2008 questioning committee membership and saying health expertise was under-represented in favour of acoustics.
"It is understood some of the members of the review committee are acoustic consultants working for wind-farm developers. It is also understood that in forming the panel, a number of scoping group members have been excluded because their opinions do not align with those organisations sponsoring the standard.
"The inclusion of individuals enjoying financial arrangements with the sponsoring organisations and the exclusion of those not aligned with the sponsor immediately exposes the standard to critical evaluation that it cannot credibly defend."
Minutes show the committee said there was "nothing of substance" in Shepherd's comments.
After receiving no reply, Shepherd wrote again more than a year later saying it was disappointing little had been done to correct the standard's "substantial deficiencies".
"One issue that still remains is that committee members have not sufficiently declared, nor has Standards New Zealand sufficiently acknowledged, conflicts of interest."
In October 2009, Shepherd finally received a reply saying the committee was aiming for a standard with "reasonable balance".
Chiles defended the committee process as "very robust".
"The types of questions that John Carr and others are raising now were anticipated. We were fully aware that everything we did would be under intense scrutiny," he said.
"All those bodies who have an axe to grind will be represented on the committee. You also have to have wind-farm operators with the technical knowledge to write a meaningful standard. It's a consensus-based process."
Hayes had been invited to attend a meeting because he was a "world-leading expert", but Jennings was a layperson who had picked up on a body of research on vibro-acoustic disease, supplied the committee with a bundle of papers and wanted to present that. "We didn't see the need for a layperson to take us through the process."
Ruth Paul , who represented the Executive of Community Boards, changed her vote from "no" to "yes" after working with Wind Energy Association chief executive Fraser Clark and Meridian employee Paul Botha on a lower turbine noise limit of 35dBA for quieter areas.
*Who’s who on wind panel - BLATANT CORRUPTION
Stack the noise standard
Committee and bring in
"Yes" men to get what you
Want.
The secret is out! Chiles refused to divulge this information to the Board of Enquiry when asked.
Committee and bring in
"Yes" men to get what you
Want.
The secret is out! Chiles refused to divulge this information to the Board of Enquiry when asked.
I refer to the letter published in last
week’s edition by John Adams titled No
support for Fraser Clark’s view.
He stated he was unable to find a
list of the committee members for the
new noise standard Acoustics-Wind
Farm Noise NZS6808-2010 published in
February.
The list is:
Stephen Chiles, chairman, URS
New Zealand Ltd. Represented the
NZ Acoustical Society. Now advising Vested interest
Meridian Energy Ltd on Hurunui Wind,
North Canterbury.
Nevil Hegley, consultant.
Nevil Hegley, consultant.
Representing Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Authority. Has consulted Vested interest
for Mighty River Power and Genesis
Energy.
Malcolm Hunt, Malcolm Hunt
Associates. Represented NZ Institute of
Environmental Health Inc. Prepared the Vested interest
environmental noise effects report for
Mt Cass wind farm, North Canterbury,
on behalf of Mainpower.
Miklin Halstead, Marshall Day
Acoustics. Represented the NZ
Acoustical Society. The business has Vested interest
acted as consultant to a number of the
wind energy companies.
Paul Botha, Meridian Energy Ltd.
Represented the NZ Wind Energy
Association. Now working on Vested interest
Meridian’s Hurunui Wind, North
Canterbury.
Fraser Clark, NZ Wind Energy
Association. Replaced James Wellar.
Represented NZ Wind Energy
Association. Chief executive of NZ Vested interest
Wind Energy Association. James No acoustical training
Wellar is a wind resource analyst from
Tasmania who has consulted to wind
energy companies.
Philip Dickinson, Massey University.
Represented Massey University. The only dissenter
Professor of Acoustics and Human &
Health, Massey University. The most qualified
George Dodd, University of
Auckland. Represented University of
Auckland. Head of Acoustics Testing
Service.
Matthew Borich, Wellington City Noise Control Officer
Council. Represented Local Government
NZ. Compliance specialist advice
officer.
Vern Goodwin, Southern Monitoring
Services. Represented Ministry of
Health and Resource Management Law
Association.
Rachel Treston, Ministry of
Environment. Replaced Barbara Rouse.
Represented Ministry of Environment. No known acoustical training
Senior analyst, resource management
tools team.
Ruth Paul, chairman Makara and
Ohariu Community Board. Represented
executive of community boards. No known acoustical training
It was noted in the standard that
Dickinson did not support it.
The committee was funded by the
Wind Energy Association and Energy
Efficiency Conservation Authority.
Wind Energy Association and Energy
Efficiency Conservation Authority.
John Carr
Greta Valley
North Canterbury
Letters here, pages 20 and 22.
Note the discrepancy in the whitewash from NZ Standards on page 22 where the 12 members of the committee came from 11 organisations. No mention that one organisation provided two members for the committee. Guess which one.
Professor Dickinson a dissenting acoustics expert on the panel has trashed Clark and his merry band of burglars.
"Dickinson said the prediction for wind farm noise in the NZ standard will always under-predict the noise by 20 decibels, adding that the ISO standard for this noise was written for application in buildings, not specifically for wind farms.
However, the final word goes to Rapley, who suspects that the country's noise standards have been made as "blindingly, scientifically stupid as practically possible to make it as confusing as possible to regulate, which allows people to make it as noisy as they want".
Letters here, pages 20 and 22.
Note the discrepancy in the whitewash from NZ Standards on page 22 where the 12 members of the committee came from 11 organisations. No mention that one organisation provided two members for the committee. Guess which one.
Professor Dickinson a dissenting acoustics expert on the panel has trashed Clark and his merry band of burglars.
"Dickinson said the prediction for wind farm noise in the NZ standard will always under-predict the noise by 20 decibels, adding that the ISO standard for this noise was written for application in buildings, not specifically for wind farms.
However, the final word goes to Rapley, who suspects that the country's noise standards have been made as "blindingly, scientifically stupid as practically possible to make it as confusing as possible to regulate, which allows people to make it as noisy as they want".
11 comments:
Power firm redesigns wind
farm
12:08 13/10/2009
Some turbines will be cut from Mighty River Power's Turitea Wind Farm proposal.
The power company confirmed yesterday that its redesigned wind farm would be
smaller than the 121 -turbine plan previously promoted. The layout would also change.
However, the magnitude of likely changes is yet to be confirmed.
The redesign, unlikely to be completed before Christmas, would be more than a tweak
of the original application, Mighty River Power lawyer Karen Price told the Manawatu
Standard yesterday.
A board of inquiry hearing has been considering the company's proposal to build the
wind farm at Turitea Reserve on the Tararua Ranges.
At the resumption of the hearing in Palmerston North yesterday, Judge Shonagh
Kenderdine signalled the board would probably not have supported the original
application, without significant changes.
She also praised the quality of submitters' evidence.
Mighty River Power's redesign process had caused an outcry among submitters
worried about spending more time battling the power company.
Millricks Line resident Alison Mildon told the board she was frustrated about using time
and money on "a moving feast".
"We are exhausted. I'm not quite sure how we are expected to continue making a
contribution to this process."
Turitea Rd resident Brielle Rosa said she hoped Mighty River Power would invest some
of its $159.6 million record profit in creating a "more considerate" wind farm proposal.
Dr Rosa called for an increase in distance between turbines and homes.
Tararua-Aokautere Guardians representative Kevin Low said the group wanted "a
substantial and meaningful modification [to the proposal]".
Palmerston North City Council lawyer John Maassen said the planned farm should be
"substantially reduced in scale".
"My concern is that this proposal was so extreme, I have some reservations about
Mighty River Power's understanding of what is required."
Ms Price said the company was making changes in response to the concerns of
submitters and the board.
One of Palmerston North's leading businessmen is worried the proposed wind farm will
change the feel of the city.
Simon Barnett, founder of hockey goalkeeping gear maker OBO, said at the hearing
yesterday that he believed Manawatu had reached its "tipping point" for wind farm
tolerance.
"In this case, the cumulative effect is just too much, it's one step too far," he said.
The impact of the proposal was broad – almost half of Palmerston North's streets faced
the ranges, he said.
A "harsh, industrial feeling" could invade the city, he said.
Ngahere Park resident Ann Watson, a primary school teacher, was worried about the
effect on future generations.
"Our children might never know how beautiful our hills once were."
WIND POWER
* 121 turbines on a possible 126 sites. An alternative layout would use 111 turbines.
However, Mighty River Power is in the process of redesigning the layout.
* Each would stand a maximum of 125m tall, from base to tip of the blade.
* The wind -farm site would be about 10km southeast of Palmerston North's Square,
stretching mostly along a 14km ridge in the northern Tararua Ranges, with turbines in
and around the Turitea Reserve.
* Driving down Fitzherbert Ave towards Massey University, turbines would be visible
along the skyline.
* The turbines would range in output from two to 3.5 megawatts.
* Substations and towers connecting cabling to carry the power to the national grid
would also be built.
* Economic estimates from Mighty River Power suggest the wind farm could inject
about $500 million into the region, along with 250 jobs.
* 702 submissions were received by the Environment Ministry, with about 66 per cent in
opposition, and 20 per cent in support. The rest were neutral.
After listening to days of argument against the planned Turitea Wind Farm near Palmerston North, supporters of the project have now had their say.
Farmer Kathy Love yesterday told the board of inquiry considering the proposal that the wind farm would be a "pretty benign development".
She described the Tararua Ranges as a "big, raw, energetic landscape".
"I think it can take turbines quite happily," she said.
A hearing on the Turitea proposal wrapped up for the year yesterday, after seven weeks of expert evidence and public submissions.
It is likely to resume about March, by which time Mighty River Power will have completed a redesign of the farm's layout.
Mrs Love, who would receive a rental from Mighty River Power for a series of turbines on her property, said the landscape was already industrial in that it was used for New Zealand's biggest industry – agriculture.
The farm land was "marginal". Turbines could reduce the need for subdivisions if farming was to become unviable, she said.
Landowner Joseph Poff said most Palmerston North people supported the project – they had not been swayed by a negative campaign run by a few people, he said.
Mr Poff, whose submission was accompanied by what sounded like the jingling of coins from the public gallery, said the proposal was "the biggest no-brainer in the history of Palmerston North".
Mr Poff said he could sometimes hear nearby Te Rere Hau turbines from his property, but annoyance depended on "whether you choose to be bothered by that sound".
Renewable energy from wind farms was part of the solution for climate-change related problems, he said.
Mrs Love said the project attracted antagonism because people feared change.
Failing to use the wind resource would be a "criminal waste".
Turitea Reserve would also benefit from money generated by the project – this could be used for better pest control, she said.
Husband John Love said the couple had a strong environmental record – retiring 75 hectares of native bush and contributing to fencing to keep stock out of the reserve.
A series of submitters yesterday said it would be wrong to allow the "industrialisation" of a nature reserve. Palmerston North resident Brent Barrett suggested the meaning of "reserve" had changed to: "If you rock up with some cash, we'll be happy to see you."
Tararua wind farms 'a cancer'
Wind turbines are like "a cancer" spreading along the Tararua Ranges, Palmerston North city councillor Michael Feyen has told a board of inquiry.
Yesterday he called for the rejection of Mighty River Power's Turitea Wind Farm proposal, arguing the public had not been adequately informed. He opposed wind-farm development south of the Pahiatua Track because "the ranges, to me, were looking like a wind turbine junk yard".
Mr Feyen, hurried along by the board about a dozen times, also said the city's drinking water was at risk from sediment caused by the project.
Two other city councillors, Chris Teo-Sherrell and Bruce Wilson, presented their views on Tuesday.
Mr Teo-Sherrell detailed to the board his efforts to cut his personal carbon footprint, before arguing the Turitea proposal should not go ahead. Climate change was not yet so serious that it warranted degrading "special places". Residents near the proposed farm should not be unwilling participants in an experiment, he said.
Mr Wilson was worried about the cumulative visual effect of "yet another wind farm". He conceded the Tararua Ranges were not as outstanding as other landscapes in New Zealand, but they were "our outstanding landscape".
Mr Wilson said that he was "ashamed" of various turbine styles and sizes on the Tararua and Ruahine Ranges.
Palmerston North could be the "sacrificial lamb" that prompted councils throughout the country to tighten up the guidance issued in district plans, he said
WIND GOES OUT OF DEBATE - FOR NOW.
Last updated 12:00 17/10/
Manawatu can take a breather; the pause button has been pushed on one of the area's most significant and contentious projects.
GRANT MILLER reviews the Turitea wind farm debate.
Graceful or ugly? Noisy or necessary?
The environmental sustainability movement's best friend or a threat to Palmerston North's drinking water supply?
Wind turbines – a point of interest on the landscape or visual pollution?
Mighty River Power's proposal to build a wind farm about 10 kilometres southeast of The Square in Palmerston North has been thoroughly debated.
Impassioned people on both sides of the argument have even choked up while airing their views.
The hearing, before an Environment Ministry-appointed board of inquiry, went for seven weeks – enough time for at least one submitter to knit several garments.
It has now wrapped up for the year, however, and is expected to resume around March, by which time Mighty River Power will have adjusted its proposal.
The power company initially wanted consent for up to 121 turbines on the Tararua Ranges. An alternative layout would see 111 turbines.
They would be up to 125 metres tall from base to the top blade tip.
About half would be in the Turitea nature reserve, the source of most of Palmerston North's drinking water. The rest of the turbines would be on private land.
The announcement of the redesign, unlikely to be finished by the end of the year, came six weeks into the hearing.
That prompted several submitters to comment that they were no longer sure what they were speaking against.
CONTINUED
The board, however, has made it clear that it considers changes during the hearing to be an acceptable way of arriving at the best possible outcome in law – the sustainable use of resources.
The number of turbines now sought by Mighty River Power isn't known.
It's also unclear exactly where they would go and their size is also yet to be confirmed.
Submitters occasionally used David and Goliath language to describe their battle with the State-owned power company.
Over the seven weeks, commissioners, lawyers, court staff, noise experts, landscape architects, ecological experts, social researchers, engineers and even the press were paid to be in the room.
Submitters, on the other hand, were spending time away from work, some of them using up annual leave – something they pointed out when Mighty River Power effectively extended the process by embarking on its redesign.
The power company's concession – one of the most significant developments from the hearing so far – followed stinging criticism of the planned farm's visual impact.
Mighty River Power didn't initially say so, but the redesign, led by landscape architect Stephen Brown, became a large exercise.
The company is yet to provide an indication of the scope of likely changes.
However, Mighty River Power lawyer Karen Price said the farm would be smaller than originally proposed. It would involve fewer turbines and no turbines would be closer to houses. Overall, there would be reduced effects on the environment, she said.
Palmerston North City Council lawyer John Maassen sees that as justifying the council's costly and heavy degree of involvement in the hearing.
The council is effectively the anchor tenant, after it changed the purpose of Turitea Reserve, allowing renewable energy to be generated there.
A contractual partner, it has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Mighty River Power as the project has cleared hurdles.
But, its enthusiasm has dropped from gale-like support to possibly a mild breeze.
Having had the decision taken out of local hands by Environment Minister Nick Smith, the council took on the role of sceptic and protector of Palmerston North.
The city council, which initiated the project, apparently did not foresee the scale of Mighty River Power's vision.
At the start of the hearing, Mr Maassen described the proposal as "in your face" and "manscape grafted onto landscape".
One landowner in favour of the project, Joseph Poff, was irritated by the city council's shifting attitude. It had started out supportive, became neutral and was now technically neutral but "really opposed", he told the board.
So, where to from here?
The design team for Mighty River Power cannot consider all the issues until later this month.
Once the new layout is confirmed, other experts will evaluate the impact of changes.
For all those who missed out on the message from Lord Monckton why CO2 emission reduction will not work:
“Global CO2 emissions at present are 30 billion tons/year (EIA), causing atmospheric concentration to rise by 2 ppmv/year (NOAA). So 15 billion tons emitted will increase atmospheric concentration by 1 ppmv/year. The UN (IPCC, 2007; see also BERN climate model), on scenario A2, which comes closest to the pattern of actual emissions today, says its central estimate of CO2 concentration in 2100 will be 836 ppmv. So the UN thinks we’ll add (836-368) = 468 ppmv to the atmosphere during the 21st century. Multiply that by 15 billion tons/ppmv and the UN is implicitly projecting that, in the absence of any mitigation, the world will emit (468 x 15 bn) = 7 trillion tons CO2 this century. It also projects (IPCC, 2007) that this extra CO2 will raise global temperature by around 7° F. So we need to forego 1 trillion tons of CO2 emission per 1° F warming forestalled. Divide 1 trillion by 30 billion and one concludes that we’d have to close down the entire world carbon economy for 33 years just to forestall a single Fahrenheit degree of warming. Since the UN has exaggerated the warming effect of CO2 sixfold (Lindzen & Choi, 2009), make that 200 years. Therefore, there’s no point in mitigation because the cost is extravagantly disproportionate to the benefit.”
The effort equals the emptying of the Pacific Ocean with a tea spoon.
It won’t influence our climate in any form whatsoever.
Global Warming is a NON ITEM, a NON EXISTING PROBLEM.
Those who state otherwise are criminals, idiots or politicians with an agenda.
The presentation of the figures based on the Mockton calculation tells you how pathetic those people are who tell you to switch your light bulbs, turn down the themostat of your heating system by one degree, organize a warm sweater day, tell you to buy a “green” car, use “green” energy, windmills, solar energy, bio fuels and sequester CO2 and store under ground.
What’s more serious, it tells you how stupid our politicians are who claim they are going to control the temperature of the planet by 2 degree Fahrenheit!
As the Communists stated during the cold war;
“The Capitalist West will sell us the rope we are going to hang them with”.
Well, the AGW Hoax will be that rope if we sign up to Copenhagen.
CONTINUED
Read about some more references and arguments at this response from Climate Depot at allegations from PM Kevin Rudd who stated that skeptics are too dangerous to ignore and that we are holding the world to ransom.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3689/Australian-PM-warns-skeptics-are-too-dangerous-to-ignore-and-are-holding-the-world-to-ransom–Climate-Depot-
So it’s fine for the endangered human caused global warming climate change alarmists to yell “look it’s Ida, extreme weather” caused by human caused global warming climate change yet when it’s pointed out that October is the 3rd coldest in 115 years on record it’s just weather? Double standards on the “it’s weather no it’s climate vs. it’s climate no it’s just weather”?
Climate extremes cause weather extremes! Is that a fair statement? Or is it that weather extremes cause climate extremes?
Climate is weather averaged over decade long times scales… extreme climate depends on your time window and your statistical prowess poker face.
Climate is weather. Without weather there would be no climate. Two sides of the same coin flipping about with randomness generated internally within the system. (See Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science, chapter 2 for how this newly discovered form of randomness operates for even very simple systems to show highly complex and extremely unpredictable behaviors).
Climate is weather. Extremes in weather are just the planet going about it’s business. As such extremes in weather mathematically show up in the decade long time scales to varying amounts.
How do we really know where each change in climate really comes from? Assigning this fraction of a degree to that cause and that fraction of a degree to this other cause ad infinitum makes no sense as that isn’t how Nature plans it out not that Nature plans it out.
CONTINUED
Now it seems that it’s a heat budget thing with heat into a system (the planet) and heat out (of the planet) by various means. We have various forms of light and electromagnetic radiation touching and being absorbed by the planet with some reflecting off or changing and reflecting off. We have movement of the planet in it’s ever changing always unique orbit of Sol, not to mention other gravitational influences such as the moon and even other planetary bodies. We have cosmic rays and other high energy particle streams impacting the planet or going right on through. Cosmic rays from near and distant stars as we orbit the galaxy so close. We have chemical reactions and volcanoes and oceans mixing and moving and we have the hot and molten inner layers plus the rotating core providing our magnetic fields fluctuating always churning and interacting. Not to mention the bizarre lumpy gravity fields that distort the seemingly squashed spheroid of the planet into what can best be described as a total gravity mess beaten up all bent out of it’s idealized shape we can see from space. We’ve got so many processes and forces at work that we think we can apportion a fraction of a degree to this or that.
It would be really funny if it wasn’t so serious a conversation about doom and gloom. The climate change soothsayers have taking a bite out of sanity and are running a con game that has at it’s core irrational correlations that are weak at best and fraudulent at worse and outright lies in the extreme.
I would love to see an article by one of the major scientists on ALL the elements impacting the climate summarized, glossarized and indexed by the various “fractions of degrees” that they allegedly contribute and how to the climate and to the all important weather.
Climate is a mathematical abstraction. Weather is real and is happening now, the only moment in time that actually exists. The past gone. The future is an illusion. All there ever is is now and that means weather rules the climate not the other way around.
You missed the ‘Climategate’ storm
Published: 2009/12/03 06:37:11 AM
Is there any good reason why Business Day is not covering the story dubbed “Climategate” which has arisen from the publication on the internet of thousands of computer records hacked from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia?
Christopher Booker, writing in The Telegraph, has called it the “worst scientific scandal of our generation”.
Prof Phil Jones, head of the CRU, has been forced to stand down from his post. The New York Times has published a story warning of the perils that arise when scientists “spin” their findings. And some Australians think the scandal contributed to the defeat this week of that country’s emissions control law, an event that may precipitate an election in which climate change will be a major issue.
Briefly, the hacked records seem to show that a group of leading scientists calling themselves The Team colluded to exaggerate the dangers of global warming, conspired to keep contrary opinions out of peer-reviewed journals, and massaged their data to produce evidence of warming. Prof Jones has admitted to writing an e-mail in which he confesses to having used “a trick” to “hide the decline” in recent temperature records.
It seems that he and other members of The Team may have destroyed data when a Freedom of Information suit threatened them — an action that would in England be a criminal offence.
It is of interest that the CRU is the main source of temperature data from around the world, and therefore a pivotal institution in the debate on climate change, and that the reputation of Prof Jones is said to have brought his university some billions in grants.
Surely all this deserves extensive and detailed coverage in Business Day lest, as a country, we rush into expensive carbon reduction schemes on the basis of science that may have been fraudulent?
Ken Owen
Claremont
Some CO2 facts.
100,000 ppm (10%) is lethal.
50,000 ppm (5%) produces intoxicating effects.
30,000 ppm (3%) is the ceiling for working environment and submarines.
10,000 ppm (1%) is caution limit for working environment and submarines.
1-2,000 ppm (0.1-0.2%) most plant life adapted to this range.
1,000 ppm (0.1%) concentration in average classroom/conference room after one hour use.
389 ppm (0.0389%) current atmospheric concentration. Most of the plant life you see around you is stunted at these levels.
DocWat (18:35:55) :
US Weather Bureau Report
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as
81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
(Sorry, I neglected to mention that this report was from
November 2, 1922 as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post.)
Post a Comment