...(Oh no; not “Slater and Gordon”)! Surely “Gag clauses” are an infringement on civil liberties and freedom of speech.
And the other seldom mentioned issue of wind farms; their invasive presence in the aesthetics’ of the rural landscape.

...They are a recent reminder of my refusal to visit Tasmania again. If ever the aesthetics’ of a landscape were deliberately ignored for the natural beauty it “WAS”, view the obsession with high tension power lines in Tasmania.

...And as for the compliant crowd in the bush that “go along” with the new obsession wind turbines, (to their now apparent "short term" monetary gains from suspect deals), I have little sympathy, as they now wear their “Guts for Garters”.

...OR: Capitalism gives birth to a new bunch of "suckers", take your pick!

Here we go, a company that mostly depends on coal and gas to generate electricity is using the old "wind power is bad for you" propaganda to try and slow or even stop wind farms.
Give it up, they are running all over the world with no problems and will be desperately needed as the dirty coal power stations are phased out.
All part of the sceptical science industry.
Astroturfers please jump now in to defend them.

Diver Dan, we here in Tassie we reckon that when anyone leaves to go to the North island, BOTH islands gain in intelligence. I would surmise that if some one stays away it would have the same effect?

Slater & Gordan, the number one personal injury no win no fee and class action lawyers in the country, support the view that wind turbines cause harm to land owners? I can't believe you bothered to even write that. Lawyers do not represent fact, just the opinion(s) of their client. If that is the only evidence you can find (someone looking for a payout by claiming harm from wind turbines) then you have a long way to go in advancing your argument to any sort of credible level

Greetings Robert lePage:

...But the deeper meaning in my post, (the "real cost", in economic terms), from keeping clear of Tasmania, is my aversion to homosexuals and dykes! Yep, that too!

Oh, Robert LePage:

Did I mention that "drop-kick" Lara Giddings? No? well there's another reason!

Robert LePage

Where did you get the idea that the article was inspired by fossil fuel companies? I don't see the connection? the coal and oil companies have never said anything about renewables because they have never needed to. They already have more business than they can handle and renewables have not affected the market at all.

As for the main premise of the article, there is no doubt the grass roots opposition to wind farms is growing - whether that is a good or bad thing is for someone else to judge. However, it does mean that the 20 per cent target for renewables by 2020 is going to be very difficult to meet..

Robert LePage:

Then there is my best mate "Tas", he's full of bullet holes (true story), he wont go back either; he rekons the cops are too dangerous! So there are a lot of reasons normal folk stay clear of Tasmania; Gees I having trouble spelling it!

Oh dear Max, You missed that other myth that says Climate change is NOT happening.

Another windfarms are bad article. Worse than coal?

In SA last financial year electricity generated by wind farms in SA amounted to 3,349 GWh, or 26% of the total supply. Natural gas was 50% and coal 24%.

Some desperate self interest by the Nimby's is the greatest threat.

Cheryl

Hate to burst your balloon on this one but the 26 per cent of power being generated by wind in SA is only because the state can buy and sell power from the rest of the Eastern states network. Wind still accounts for a very small portion of the wind overall (3 per cent) on the eastern state grid, so changes in SA's wind power load can easily be compensated for by importing power. Same thing happens in Denmark, incidentally, and Germany.

To do 26 per cent of the entire Eastern states grid would otherwise require serious changes to the network. Remember that you are talking about 26 per cent on average, so for long periods the load would be up past the 70 per cent mark and that would require lots of backup. Australia is too far from other grids to easily import power at crucial moments, so we will require backup gas plants - lots of them.

But till its proven safe how can such generators of low frequency noise be allowed. Once again wildlife is being sacrificed for air-conditioners.

He he he. Dear Max please look at Fig. 1 in the peer reviewed paper and tell me what's wrong with it. After explaining why half the 'effects' are 'significant' while the others are not please watch 'Dance of the p values. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez4DgdurRPg
please stop, my sides are hurting..