The YPCG opposes the Ceres wind turbine project due to concerns over health, safety, property values, and its impact on agriculture and tourism. The document highlights the potential risks of aerial firefighting and devaluation of nearby properties, alongside questions regarding the adequacy of public consultation by developers. It argues that the promised benefits, such as employment and community support, may not outweigh the detrimental effects on the local community and environment.

1. YPCG Key Concerns
The hundreds of members of this group fully support
green energy initiatives, but we oppose the Ceres Project
in its current location for a multitude of reasons.
While development & employment in the region are
welcome, it cannot be to the detriment of the industries
of agriculture and tourism.
This would be the biggest wind turbine development in
Australia, and the health, safety & financial position of
thousands of YP residents would be jeopardised.

2. FIRE
 The CFS Chief, Greg Nettleton, has written in Jan 2013 that the CFS
“would adopt a position that it is unlikely water bombing aircraft
would operate in the immediate vicinity of a wind turbine farm if
the risks exceed safe operating conditions.”
 David Pearce, Manager of the CFS Aviation Service has stated that
“visibility in the vicinity of a fire is generally poor due to the
smoke” and that “any obstacle in the airspace where we’re
running aircraft is a problem for aircraft obviously”
 David Anderson, chief pilot & owner of Australian Helicopters
(who operate the MedStar emergency Helicopters) said “In
conditions where the visibility is reduced… we wouldn’t
contemplate working in the vicinity of the turbines”

3. Eyre Peninsula November2012

4. FIRE
 Should this development go ahead it will impede aerial water
bombing over 60,000 ha of heavily cropped land & adjoining
coastal settlements and towns
 Aerial water bombing is a tool deemed necessary in maximising
the CFS’ ability to protect life and property in the instance of a
fire.
 The primary role of the CFS is to protect life & property from fire.
 In light of the 2005 EP fire & its ongoing litigation, questions
arise as to who could be liable for loss of property or life within
or adjacent to the Development zones if the Ceres Project goes
ahead unopposed, despite this indisputable fact.

5. This photo of an aerial water bomber over
Curramulka was taken on Nov 19 2009 from within
the proposed turbine zone.
On 7 Dec 2012 a fire burned within a few kilometres of
the proposed wind farm, and 5 aerial water bombers
were vital in saving homes & controlling the fire

6. Health
 In 2010 the National Health and Medical Research
Centre did a rapid review on literature predating 2009
on health concerns for people living near turbines.
This review was considered inconclusive, & their
current recommendation is that “relevant authorities
should take a precautionary approach” to siting
turbines near people until further research is
undertaken.

7. Size matters
The proposed turbines will be 4 times the height of the Ardrossan
silos, 20 metres higher than
Adelaide’s tallest building

8. Land Devaluation
Councils in the UK have decreased the council rates of
properties within sight of turbines, in line with the
decrease in the value of the properties.
In Denmark, it is legislated that neighbours must be
compensated for the devaluation of their properties.
Elders Rural National Sales Manager has written that
the towers could lead to a 30% to 50% drop in the value
of near by properties.
windturbinepropertyloss.org has current information

9. Agriculturally Rich
• Less than 10% of South Australia
is cropped
• Central Yorke Peninsula is
arguably some of the highest
yielding, most reliable land in
the state
• Australian farmers feed 60
million people annually
• The world population is
forecast to hit over 9 billion by
2050
• Worldwide, land available for
agriculture is decreasing by 10%
per decade

10. Interference with prime cropping
land
 Land values reflect the productivity of the land, and high yields call
for higher financial inputs by farmers in the CYP
 This includes aerial spraying, baiting, fertilising & seeding. Aerotech
inform us that the proposed development would impact over 600
square km by limiting this tool.
 This is unprecedented in Australia, where WTDs like Wattle Point
(11.5 square km) have been smaller in size & number, and placed in
marginal cropping land, grazing country or on rocky/scrubby land.
 Prime cropping land is more densely populated with homesteads,
increasing the number of people directly impacted.
 There is an increased fire risk in land under heavy crop.

11. Turbine turbulence may well cause
excessive spray drift

13. Undersea or overhead?
 In the recent referral of the project to the Environmental Protection
& Bio-Diversity Conservation Act, Ceres STILL put forward 98
kilometres of traditional overhead 275kV single or double overhead
LATTICE tower transmission line as a likely alternative.
 Developer John McFarlane has stated this will cost $100 million less
than the undersea option. This would greatly expand the impact of
the project and further decrease its popularity with local residents.
 If the undersea cabling is used, it will be from the base of the cliff
below the observation point in Port Julia, despite this being
recognised by the developers as an area of cultural sensitivity.
 Regardless of the method of power export, it will enable further
turbine developments to become more feasible on other areas on
the peninsula

14. Maps provided by Ceres to the EPBC

15. Proximity to the coast
 The submitted map indicates that the developers plan to install
150m X115m turbines within
 2 km of Sheoak Flat residents
 2 km of Port Julia
 2.8 km of Pt Vincent residents
 4.5km of Black Point
 6.5km of Pine Point
 There will be a large converter station, shedding for
staff, hazardous materials storage & power
transformers 1.5km from Pt Julia, on the coast road.

16. Is greater spacing an advantage?
 The developers tout that with 600m spacing between turbines,
this is the “least densely populated wind farm in Australia.”
 Ironically ‘population’ actually refers to inhabitants, not
industrial machines, and over 1300 homes are in or within 10 km
of the turbines, making it one of the most densely populated in
Australia
 Because the development is spread over such a large area, more
neighbouring residents , businesses & tourist based coastal
areas are negatively impacted.
 The fact that the development is “spread over such a large
area” reflects the distances developers had to travel to find
farmers willing to be hosts. Surely a tighter group of turbines
would be more cost efficient & less invasive?

17. Beneficial or detrimental?
 “Ceres developement will bring an opportunity for local farmers
to diversify their income streams”
 But it will limit their neighbours opportunity to maximise their
crop yields & it will decrease land values for all land and homes
within sight of turbines
 It will speed up the NBN to the YP
 This is only a possibility, & only If the undersea cable is in fact
used. The NBN official website states that metro-comparable
internet is available to YP residents already, and that rollout to
the YP is due for completion by 2016 anyway.
 It will also prevent homes within & west of the turbines from
receiving digital television & radio signals from Adelaide.

18. Beneficial or detrimental
 “The development will generate large amounts of regional
employment, one full time employee per 4 turbines”
 Being an employer myself, finding just one genuine
jobseeker in the district is challenging.
 Employees may move in, but the number or residents who
move away because of the turbines has the potential to be
far greater.
 Tourism will likely be impacted at Pine Point through to Pt
Vincent; where the turbines will be both visible & audible.

19. Social Benefits?
 Including “The establishment of a dedicated fund to
support community programs”
 Residents are concerned that the possibility of
implied ownership of the funds & their consequential
purchases will further divide the community.

20. Public consultation…. .
 Developers are “required to consult with the public to
provide accurate, relevant information and to maintain
transparency in the project design”
 Their recent public meetings were limited to 25 people per
session, and these people were locked into the room.
 They were described by many as “a disastrous public
relations shambles”
 Very few genuine questions were answered in front of the
small groups; with most people either directed to read the
fact sheets, or with the developers requesting questions
to be sent to them by email.

21.  For more information on why there are many
residents, scientists, journalists & politicians opposed
to this development, and
For information on how to write a submission to the
DAC opposing the Ceres Project, please email
the12mile@netyp.com.au