- Acoustics problem[s] associated with wind-farms are due to the infrasonic and low frequencies harmonics and their interaction between several turbines. Those generate annoyances and to higher intensities health effects.
- By using both a time average and frequency weighting, by definition, all those harmonics disappear and as such no assessments ofthe impact of those harmonics can be made.
- To assess those harmonics, it is necessary to use unfiltered data and no time average.
- The low frequencies and infrasmmd effects cannot be assessed by dBA. By design, the A filtering process takes away low frequency and infrasound. Low frequencies and infrasound need to be assessed by dBlin which is unfiltered data according to frequency.
- Annoyance has not been considered in either guideline[.]
- Wind masking has been applied as if it was masking noise of similar frequencies[,] and this is not the case.
- The distance of 1500m as a buffer will not be sufficient for the current size of wind turbine. This distance had originated years ago for much smaller size turbines and at the time was probably a correct distance.
- The noise criteria proposed in the draft wind farm s[t]ate code [will] most likely not protect residents for their health and well-being and will not protect their environmental values.
- It is uncertain and unlikely that the noise criteria proposed in the draft wind farm s[t]ate code will protect animals such as farmed animals for their health and well-being from low and infrasonic noise exposure.
From: Dr Antoine David, PhD, MEng, MAAS, Technical Specialist (Noise), Technical Support Unit, Regulatory Capability and Customer Service, Department of Environment and Heritage Protectsion
Sent: Wednesday, 26 August 2015
To: Paul Roff, Manager, Environmental Planning, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
CC: Corro EHP ESR RCaCS, Lindsay Delzoppo, Lawrie Wade, David Cook
From: Tony Roberts, Deputy Director-General, Environmental Policy and Planning, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
Sent: Monday, 7 September 2015
To: Paul Roff, Lawrie Wade (Planning Support)
We have reviewed the draft code (noting that it is based on independent technical advice) and have no concerns.
From: Paul Roff
Sent: Monday, 24 August 2015
To: David Cook, Manager, Technical Support and Community Response, Regulatory Capability and Customer Service, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
Cc: Carro EHP ESR RCaCS, Lindsay Delzoppo, Antoine David, Carro EHP EPP DDG, Lawrie Wade
I also have been asked to prepare a response to this letter. Lawrie Wade tells me there was a previous letter stating out position that wind farms should not be an ERA. The reply letter needs to restate out opposition to Wind Farms being an ERA.
Download original document: “Right To Information release 15-127”
This material is the work of the author(s) indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this material resides with the author(s). As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send queries to query/wind-watch.org.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding