ISSUES/LOCATIONS

Documents Home
View PDF, DOC, PPT, and XLS files on line
RSS

Add NWW documents to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

News Watch

Selected Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Bullet points for Draft Wind Farm State Code acoustics review  

Author:  | Australia, Health, Noise, Regulations

  • 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

(((( o ))))

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.

(((( o ))))

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.

(((( o ))))

Download original document: “Right To Information release 15-127

This article is the work of the author(s) indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter