New Zealand Going Under

America has finally woken up. (funny way to start a blog on New Zealand).  As of early October, 2011 she is talking about bringing back manufacturing from overseas and providing jobs for Americans.  This has nothing to do with virtue amongst the American Corporatocracy.  They haven't finally started to think about the good of the country that spawned and nurtures them.  They haven't suddenly put the good of their fellow citizens above their own highly inflated salaries and bonuses*.  No, the reason is far more prosaic although I'm sure they will try to claim the moral high ground.  The truth is that the Chinese Yuan is beginning to rise with much more 'up' inevitable in the near future and the wages of Chinese workers are rising, by latest reports, at about 15% per year.  American firms see the writing on the wall.

*Their latest ploy is to join with a small country overseas and, while staying in America physically, pay taxes overseas. Have a look at one of Elizabeth Warren's Youtubes to see a full description.

By the by, did you ever wonder what happened to that fabulous dream we had a few decades ago that we would all soon be working 30 hour weeks with 5 week annual vacations plus all the other holidays throughout the year.  What happened to the story that with automation, fabulous goods would become less and less expensive and we would all be living in the lap of luxury.  Well to some extent it came true.  Look at this fabulous invention, for instance, thanks  to Steve Jobs, that you are using to read this blog.  Look how the price has come down from it's first inception.  However, the futurists, as they usually do, forgot one part of the puzzle.  You have to have a job in order to buy things.  In a perverse way, some of us have lots of free time.  We are on welfare.  As long as our needs are modest and we have somewhere to live, all our time is our own.  If we can earn a little money under the radar we are 'sweet'.  Not a pretty picture.  But this is supposed to be a blog about New Zealand.

New Zealand is just as prone to corporate greed and government short sightedness as any country in the world.  We are always decrying our low productivity, complaining about the lack of jobs and even more so, about the lack of worthwhile jobs.  Our diaspora is somewhere around a million of our best and brightest and most enterprising people.  We wonder why our young and not so young people search for a better life overseas.  Lets look at how we are operating New Zealand Inc. and how we could operate.

Our Lumber Industry
New Zealand has the basis of a great lumber industry.  We have slightly more land than the UK and a population of 4.3 million (UK - 62m) so we have lots of land on which to plant trees............ and we have   lots of trees planted.  Our main species is the Monterrey Pine, Pinus radiata and with our fabulous growing conditions, the cycle is from 17 to 25 years.  You should see the growth rings on  our pine logs.  They are typically  a cm or two wide.  We plant them, prune them (lifts) to ensure clear, value added wood and replant as soon as the trees are cut.

 Then we send raw logs overseas!!!  Our lumber mills have closed in droves.  In the mean time, Canada is undergoing a boom in value added timber products.  Question:-Where does she sell her ply wood, milled timber and even fully made up struts?   Answer:-  To the same markets where we send our raw logs!!!   How come Canada can get it right and we can't.

Mean time, our lumber mill workers are either packing super market shelves or leaving for Australia and points North.  A skilled lumber mill worker will have a productivity, measured as the value of what he produces divided by the hours he works.  Lets call his productivity 'X'.  When he changes jobs and starts to pack super market shelves, his productivity will drop to 0.1X.  If he goes on welfare his productivity is minus 0.1X.  No wonder our productivity stats are low.  We are trashing all the high productivity  jobs.  No wonder our tax take is down.

Could this trashing of one of our primary industries be due to the nature of our much vaunted free trade agreement.  Note that when China felt herself in danger of not having enough Rare Earth Metals, her free trade agreement didn't stop her from curtailing their sale*.

* If you think this is an exaggeration, let's send a trade delegation to China to buy their REM concentrate.  We will refine it here and sell, either the refined metals or the electronic equipment made from these Rare Earth Metals. Since we have the inside track, overseas companies will be pushing and shoving to set up here in New Zealand.  Any idea what China will say when we invoke the Free Trade Agreement in order to buy her REM concentrate. I'm sure she will put it very politely.

We have just had a disastrous earthquake.  This could be and element of our salvation with respect to the lumber industry.  Let's put a major research effort into the building of wooden buildings from composite wood-epoxy beams which laugh at earthquakes.  Then let's export made up beams and other wooden building materials to other earthquake areas.  Let's not export the technology.  That is a short term gain for a long term loss.

Our Fishing Industry
Our fishing industry is another example.  We allow foreign fishing boats to fish our waters.  They must land their fish in New Zealand (at least we got that right)**.  Recently there has been a great bro ha ha (sp?) about the terrible conditions of Indonesian fishermen on Korean boats that are doing our fishing for us.  As usual we are looking at the right hand while the left hand does the trick.  Why do we allow foreign fishing boats anywhere near our fish stocks.  Does anyone think that these Korean paragons of virtue will treat our fishing stocks better than they treat their Indonesian fishermen***.  In the mean time, our people are out of work.  Out of work, on welfare, not paying taxes, not shopping at local businesses (who therefore pay less taxes) and ultimately looking for work overseas.  Once again, the same story as with our lumber industry.  People out of work, negatively productive, fleeing New Zealand, breaking up families and not paying taxes.  No wonder we have to borrow money.  We have to borrow to make up for the lost tax take and to pay welfare to the out-of-work Kiwis.

*Incidentally, much of our fishing industry is owned and operated by Iwi (Maori Tribes).  Here we have the unedifying sight of Maori bosses putting their own people out of work so that they can get higher salaries and bonuses and so that the Iwi can make larger profits. The bosses then get mana by passing on a dribble of this larges to their members.  Maori were given large concessions to fish our marine waters.  They sell these concessions to companies who aggregate them into worthwhile bundles and sell them on to foreign fishing companies.  One of the reasons for giving these concessions to the Maori was so that they would employ Maori in the fishing industry.

** I got that one wrong.  It has now been revealed that much of our fish is processed overseas.

***This same boat was later found to have dumped a hold full of our fish in order to have room for a more valuable catch she made.
  
12 June 2017  I just learned that one of our salmon farm businesses, King Salmon is Malaysian owned by a company with very a very questionable record on human rights and sustainable fisheries practices.
   

Fisheries policy - let's change tacks.
Whale Poo

Rolling Stock Manufacture
We are going back into rail and Electrified rail at that. GREAT MOVE.  We have seen what is rolling down the turnpike at our stalled car (Kiwi Inc.) and have made a very sensible decision.  Then we go and buy our rolling stock overseas despite having a local industry that is perfectly capable of manufacturing them!!!  Are we nuts*.  See:
cost-of-manufacturing-overseas

* Incidentally, a news item on National Radio sometime in Sept 2012, following the closure of yet another industry, suggested that for every  job lost in a primary industry, another 4 ancillary jobs are lost.  I have no idea if the 4:1 ratio is in the ball park but the principle is sound.  Imagine how many jobs would be created, just by producing our own rolling stock in New Zealand, not to mention all the other industries mentioned (and not mentioned) in this blog.Imagine how many spin off industries would result from us having to upgrade our manufacturing capacity to build these modern rail cars and engines.

Sale of our Land
We are at the beginning of a boom in agricultural markets overseas as other countries continue to grow their GDP, Increase their middle class,* trash their environment mine their water and send their soils downstream to the sea.  The way the world population is growing and, far more important, the way they are increasing their "standard of living", the future for an agricultural country is bright.  Then we sell our farm land to overseas interests!!!

*  In Asia.  On the contrary, much of the western world is trashing their middle class.

No argument about selling land to someone who wants to come here as a permanent resident, buy and operate a dairy farm, join the local volunteer fire brigade, send his kids to our schools and be part of the community.  Why, though, do we sell blocks of land to vertically integrated overseas companies that will take the profits overseas.  If they were bringing some vital technology here there might be some justification but to the contrary, In so many branches of agriculture and especially in dairy, we are the experts in the field.

The worst example of this is the recent sale of the Crafer farms.  These are a block of 10 or 12 dairy farms that the receivers peddled overseas.  They insisted on selling them as a block which pretty well eliminates individual Kiwi share milkers who want to become dairy farmers from purchasing them.  Instead they sold them to a Chinese dairy business.  Are we nuts!!!

The government has argued that this selling of our farms (and our houses) to overseas concerns does not raise the price.  The liquidators of the Crafer farms obviously thought otherwise.  If they thought they could have got more money by selling them individually to  local farmers they would have done so.  After all, they work on commission. 

Sat, June 3, 2017.  I just read in today's press that our major parking company in Christchurch is a Hong Kong company.  This is beyond a joke.

Energy Policy
I'm not going to type  all this again.  We show very little imagination or creativity.  Have a look at these links:

1.  The government, with very little expense, could make the uptake of solar electric much more financially feasible.  Panel prices are coming down and correct government action could set us well on the way to energy independence. Absolutely no subsidies needed.
Solar-electric-government-role

2.  Having solar panels is financially identical to having a pension  right now,  long before we retire.  There is a good argument for allowing access to our KiwiSaver to finance them
Kiwisaver-and-solar-panels

3.  Much nonsense has been talked about the unsuitability of renewable energy because of its intermittent nature.  This totally ignores such coming innovations such as demand balancing, electric cars, new types of batteries and smart grids. It further ignores the function of the grid to pass power from places with wind to places without and areas where the sun is shining to areas where it is not.
Excess-energy-what-to-do

4.  We mustn't fall into the German trap.  Their uptake of solar electric has been fantastic but there are fish hooks.  There is a better way.
Double-metering-its-insidious

5.  Same as "4"
German-fit-system-brilliant

6.  The steady replacement of our fossil fuel powered domestic fleet with Electrics has many benefits.  The function of government is to set the stage, not to actually do anything.  Again, no subsidies needed.
Legislation-for-electric-cars

7.  Wind farms are been shot down all over the country.  Some of the concerns may be justified, Most are pure nimbiism.  The government should sort out this mess.
Enabling-wind-farms

8.  Get real guys.  Wind energy is clean, competitive in price and highly compatible with our Hydro rich energy mix.  Let's get on with it.
Wind-energys-no-good


Our policy on Climate Change
We could be far more innovative here as well.  We must be completely selfish here and look after New Zealand.  We can't do anything of significance about world climate change ourselves.  If we stopped all our emissions of greenhouse gasses, it would have no effect on the world output.  We could:

a) set an example as we have often done in the past,
b) guard our clean green image,
c) future proof New Zealand against a likely collapse of the ecology and economy of our major trading partners and
d) reduce our financial obligation under Kyoto
global-warming-anthropogenic-or-not
forget-climate-change

Note that our lumber industry should get carbon credits, not a carbon charge.  The trees we grow are taking Carbon dioxide out of the air and because our forests are young and growing (not mature forests in which net CO2 uptake is zero) they take up a lot of carbon.  Very close to 50% of the dry weight of wood is carbon.  In-so-far as part of this wood is built into long lasting furniture and buildings it is a long term sequestration of  carbon.  Then instead of using the highly polluting lignite coal to manufacture urea, we could equally well be using all the wood waste.  This would bring more carbon credits to the lumbering industry and the ability to sell green urea.  We could even burn this wood in such a way to leave charcoal and enrich our soils, especially in the far north with it.
Urea from wood waste 
The value of Charcoal in the soil.



Carbon Tax
Our Cap and Trade policy to control our carbon emissions is designed to make the banks rich**, most of them not even Kiwi owned. Australia has just introduced a carbon tax system and the banks are lining up, rubbing their hands together vying for the business.   If much of the commentary is correct, Cap and Trade will not even be effective.   Jim Hansen has proposed a far better system called Tax and Dividend which has every chance of being effective and will protect the citizens of any country that adopts it, from the temporary increase in the price of just about everything which will be caused by switching to renewables.  Best of all, from the point of view of the political party that proposes it, it would be a real vote catcher.
Jim Hansen's climate change solution

Why are our political parties so reluctant to propose Hansen's Tax and Dividend instead of cap and trade.


**By the by, if we do insist on making the banks rich, with whatever carbon tax system we put in place or, for that matter, if we insist on the disastrous policy of selling our family silver,,,,, give both jobs to KiwiBank.  Are we really that intent on making Ausi banks rich.  Does someone (Everyone??) in government own shares in Ausi banks???  Give the job to KiwiBank who would then increase her capitalization and her ability to make loans and her revenues  would stay in New Zealand to the benefit of all. 



Our Agriculture
We could be producing green urea (sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it?). Instead we are proposing to use our lignite which is the dirtiest form of coal.  Even worse, the company that is proposing to do this is an SOE for heaven sake!!!  A government company.  Note that Urea only contains the nutrient, Nitrogen but we could also be producing high quality whole (with all the nutrients) fertilizer for our farms at a very low cost.  We could also have truly green dairy farms. 
fertilizing-new-zealand-natural-way
wood-waste-and-urea
indoor-dairy-farms

Selling off our SOE's (state owned enterprises)
The government is now talking about selling off 49% of our State Owned Enterprises to make up for the money we are borrowing.   This is like a trucking company selling off it's trucks to make the end-of-year books look better. I have a "problem or two" with this.  It is unbelievable that she is selling off assets which are reported to return dividends of 20% (I don't believe this either) instead of borrowing money at 4%.

1) We, the citizens of New Zealand, already own these companies.  The SOE's are the property of every Kiwi.  They don't belong to the government except in the sense than every member of parliament owns just as much of them as every other Kiwi. Selling us our own SOE's is like stealing empty bottles from behind a convenience store and trying to sell them back to the owner.  (at the age of 9, I tried this, was caught and this was the end of my career in crime).  Where in the legislation does it allow these very temporary directors of Kiwi Inc. to sell off the family silver.

2).  All Kiwi's will have to pay more taxes because  of the reduced dividends coming in from these SOE's

3) Who will buy them.  Clearly Kiwi's who have some spare cash.  They will then get the dividends*.  The rich Kiwis who have bought shares will have some income to make up for the increased taxes.  Poor Kiwis will be simply out of pocket.  The bottom line.....  Money coming out of the pocket of poor Kiwis into the pockets of rich Kiwis. A typical  money-merry-go-round that we have, in the past, associated with America, not with New Zealand.

*incidentally, it is very clever on the part of government.  They sell us our own property, we get the dividends and then we pay tax at our marginal tax rate on these dividends.  The government gets a third of the dividend back even though they no longer own the shares.  Very cute.

4)  As soon as the buyers of these shares need money or when the shares have gained some value, they will sell them.  Who will buy them.  Who has lots of American dollars because of their low wages.  You guessed it.  And they don't necessarily buy up our SOE's directly.  There are front companies and front companies for front companies and......  you get the picture.  Same result.  We end up with 49% of our strategic assets owned overseas.  We end up being tenants in our own country.

5.  Apparently, shareholders which own 25% or more of a company have quite a few rights in controlling a company.  I am not familiar with the inns and outs of this situation but it would appear that owning 51% of a company does not give the control that is implied by the Key government.

KiwiSaver
And finally KiwiSaver.  It has the potential to be the most important innovation in our history (OK, that may be a little exaggerated --- but only a little).  KiwiSaver is Kiwis investing in their own economy, the dividends coming back to Kiwis to be spent in Kiwi businesses which pay taxes to the Kiwi government etc.    The benefits are far more extensive than sketched above. See:
KiwiSaver - Good for new Zealand

But it is a terrible investment....... and not to put too fine a point on it - a scam.  The poorness of the investment is obvious when you see the bribes that the government had to offer to get people to invest in it.  To provide these bribes, the government has to a)borrow more money,  b)lower services or  c)hike taxes.  The present government has done all three.  Sure, the present world economic situation has a lot to do with our economic woes but KiwiSaver bribes are a contributing factor.  Money is simply taken out of Kiwi Pockets in order to bribe other Kiwis to save.  Government debt is increased while private debt is decreased.  A zero sum game as far as our overall New Zealand debt is concerned.  No wonder our credit rating has gone down from AAA to AA.  It would be so easy to fix it.  (See the above link).  Simply stop all the government and employer contributions (another scam) and let us invest before taxes.  Go all the way and tax our real (above inflation) dividends rather than our nominal dividends.  This way KiwiSaver becomes a viable investment in its own right.

Why should the rules around KiwiSaver be different from the rules around other investments??(that is a retorical question).  Because we are asked to put a large proportion of our disposable income into an investment fund for all of our working life for the good of New Zealand.  This is not an investment such as we would make when we buy shares or a rental house and should not be treated the same way by the government.  It is not an investment that we can cash up when we decide to.  Surly we deserve a fair return on this sort of investment.  And imagine the money coming into the economy as Kiwis retire and have a decent pension fund.  Instead of being a burden, retiring Kiwis become a positive asset to the economy.

New Zealand is a great innovator.  We lead the world in so many ways but we could do so much more.

Enabling Wind Farms

submitted to the New Zealand government in 2010 in response to a request for submissions on her energy policy

Enabling Wind Farms

Abstract
Because of the nature of our (New Zealand's) existing electrical generating infrastructure, the addition of wind turbines is more effective in New Zealand than for most other countries of the world. However, the construction of wind farms is being blocked at every turn by concerned citizens. Some of their concerns are pure Nimbiism and dislike of change but some of their concern may be justified. The government needs to honestly and thoroughly investigate such concerns associated with existing wind farms and then prepare and disseminate a paper on their findings in clear, easily understood language. If some of the concerns are genuine, the government must then help with the necessary research to solve these problems. Such an approach will ease the introduction of wind farms which are so essential for the future well being of New Zealand.

Background
Much is made by many commentators of the need for more research into ways of producing renewable energy. There is of course truth in their assertion. However, it draws attention away from the fact that one of the best forms of renewable energy, namely wind turbines, is already well up the technological learning curve. Wind energy is already very competitive, cost wise, with other energy sources. As you look to the future with the steady increase in the cost of fossil fuel and our Kyoto commitment, wind generated electricity will rapidly become the most viable option. As with many of the problems which face us today such as population increase, water degradation, green house gases and so forth, the problems are not ones of technology but of vested interests. The technological solutions are obvious.

Wind farms, because of their intermittent generating characteristics need huge storage batteries to balance their output. New Zealand is rich in such batteries. They are called hydro-electric dams. Every KWh produced by wind leaves water in the dams to be instantly used when the wind decreases. Here in New Zealand, because of the availability of already developed hydro power, wind turbines are more economically viable than for most other countries in the world. This is especially so since the generation capacity of our hydro generators is well above the sustainable energy generation capacity (determined by the amount of water flowing into the dam). This means that a dam can be drawn down, producing energy at a far greater rate than it's sustainable rate when necessary, and allowed to accumulate energy (water) when the wind is blowing strongly. This balances a similar, though not identical characteristic of wind turbines.

A one MW wind turbine is not expected to generate one megawatt continually throughout the year. Sites are rated for the availability of wind (capacity factor) and at a 30% site, over the year or years, you would expect to generate on average 0.3MW of power. However, this means that when the wind is at the optimum speed, a full MW is being generated for every nominal (nameplate) MW of generating equipment. Under these conditions, water (energy) can be left to accumulate behind the hydro dams. I repeat, a MW of wind generating capacity in New Zealand is worth more than the same capacity in almost any other country of the world.

Despite the obvious benefits of wind farms, at every turn there are fanatical objectors. The objections fall into a number of categories. These are

*Aesthetic. While some people, such as myself, find wind turbines things of beauty both for their elegant form and for what they represent, others do not.

*Shadow Flicker. This is the effect when the sun is directly behind a wind turbine from the point of view of an observer.

*Glint. Glint refers to the reflection of sunlight off the blades of a turbine and may occur when the sun is to the side or behind the observer.

*Noise. This includes audible noise transmitted through the air and low frequency sub-audible noise, primarily transmitted through the ground.

Lets have a look at each of these and then see what the government could do to ease the introduction of wind turbines.

The solution

Aesthetic
There is not a lot that can be done about this problem. In Europe, where electricity is expensive where the cost of electricity is subject to fossil fuel price fluctuations , where there are many potentially dangerous nuclear power plants and where air pollution is far worse than in New Zealand, many people see wind farms, at the very least, as the lesser of a number of evils and at best, things of beauty. We are somewhat spoiled in New Zealand. (See appendix 2)

Shadow Flicker
Shadow flicker occurs when you, the wind turbine and the sun are perfectly lined up. Unless you are very close to the wind turbine, a situation that is avoided by wind farms, the change in the intensity of light is very small and occurs for at most a few minutes on a few days per year. What the government can do in this regard is to publish as part of a paper on wind turbines, a well thought out explanation with suitable diagrams explaining the absurdity of worrying about shadow flicker. (see Appendix 1)

Glint
Glint can occur as different parts of the wind turbine reflect the sun to the observer. It is virtually eliminated by using matte paints on the turbine blades and by using light absorbing colors. Having the wind turbines a reasonable distance away from the observer also reduces any significant glint. Here the government must check out any reports of glint, determine if they actually exist, measure their intensity and duration and publish the results. If glint is indeed discovered from some wind turbines, a small research effort could be mounted to find an appropriate paint which will solve the problem.

Noise
The air born noise of a modern wind turbine which are constructed with acoustic isolation of the internal machinery from the nacelle and acoustic isolation of the generator from the blades along with the correct shaping of the blades makes it virtually impossible to separate air born turbine noise from the sound of wind through the trees at anything beyond a kilometer. In most instances you must be well within a km to hear a wind turbine. The effects of low frequency sound which propagate through the ground must be taken more seriously.

If an individual turbine does indeed produce low frequency sound and if it transmits the sound to the ground, such vibrations can propagate. Depending on the geology of the area, these vibrations can be propagated in unexpected ways. It is within the realm of possibility (just) that these vibrations could come up under a house, for instance, to the annoyance of the occupants. So what must the government do to address this problem.

All reported cases of low frequency sound from existing turbines should be investigated. This would involve
a) scanning the frequencies, if any, which are being transmitted from a turbine to the adjacent ground,
b)making measurements at the site of the complainant to see if any of these frequencies are showing up at the location in question,
c) stopping one or more turbines to see if that stops the vibrations (the same frequencies could be from a different source) and
d) applying dampers to any offending turbines and going back to "a".

Conclusion

What is needed is for the government to sponsor a small research project that examines any reported cases of annoyance from wind turbines and determines if they are justified. If any of these complaints prove to be justified, the government should lend a hand to find solutions.

(Appendix 1) Shadow flicker
Shadow flicker is a red herring. If you are any distance at all from the turbine, shadow flicker is virtually nonexistent. I will use the example of my house here in Waipara which is 5000m from the Mt Cass ridge to the East. The diameter swept out by a 3mw wind turbine is typically 90m. 90m at a range of 5000m makes an angle of 1.03 degrees of arc. From the observers point of view, looking at the horizon, the sun comes up at a different place each day. The amount it moves each day is 1/4 degree. Therefore, each wind turbine you can see from your house will have the sun behind it for 4 days as the sun 'travels' south and 4 days as it travels North. A total of 8 days per visible wind turbine.

The sun rises at 15minutes of arc(1/4 degree) per minute of time. If there was any flicker from a wind turbine at that range, it would last for just over 4 minutes. In my case, that would be 4 minutes just as the sun comes over the horizon early in the morning. However, as you will see in the next paragraph, there is practically no shadow flicker at that range.

A wind turbine blade for a 3mw turbine is typically 3.5m wide at its widest part. If the sun was a point source at an infinite distance, it would send a solid shadow 3.5 meters wide to Waipara. The sun is not a point source. It has a width of 32minutes (half a degree) of arc. Light from the edges of the sun fills in the shadow such that a full shadow (umbra) extends 350m beyond a 3.5m wide blade and by that distance the width of the full shadow is zero. At a distance of 5000m beyond the wind turbine, the shadow of the blade has spread out over 46m. Stated another way, the sun intensity will vary for the above mentioned 8 days of the year for 4 minutes in the early morning on those 8 days from full strength to 93% strength. Unless you are very close to a wind turbine, shadow flicker is virtually non existent and even if you are close, it will occur only for the short time that you, the turbine and the sun are perfectly lined up. Some simple graphics in the proposed government paper would explain this to the layman.

(Appendix 2) Aesthetics
One legitimate aspect of the aesthetic fear is the belief that if a wind turbine is visible from a property then the value of that property will decrease. The government should carry out a detailed survey both here and abroad to see if such properties have decreased or increased more or less than other properties in the same area that do not have a view of wind turbines. This would form part of the government report. An item on National Radio a couple of years ago indicated that the price of properties with a view of a wind turbine had actually increased more than the average in Europe.

William Hughes-Games
wlhgmk@gmail.com

Wind turbine Effects

Some of the detrimental effects reported for wind turbines are hugely exaggerated and misrepresented while some may have some truth in them. Lets have a look at a few of them.

Visual Pollution
I suspect there are more of us that like the look of wind turbines, both for their elegant shape and for what they represent than the contrary. Certainly a lot of people in the crowded areas of the world with air pollution, heat waves and a fear of their coastal cities being flooded by rising sea level, look with great favor on wind turbines. Here in New Zealand, we are somewhat spoiled. We sometimes seem to believe that we are immune from the effects of climate change and that overpopulation will never darken our shores.  Good luck to us.

Shadow Flicker
Shadow Flicker is seen when the sun, the wind turbine and the observer are in a direct line and the sun is interrupted as the blades turn. I'll use my own situation here in Waipara, New Zealand as an example. You can apply the principles to your own area. There are plans to build a multi-turbine wind farm on the ridge to the East of Waipara. The ridge is 5000 meters from the town. We are located at 45degrees south and, as the year advances, the sun rises over the ridge at different locations. In the summer it rises roughly 25degrees south of a direct line to the ridge and in the winter at about 25 degrees north of a direct line to the ridge. Throughout the year, then, there will be days when my house is exactly lined up with the sun and one of the wind turbines early in the morning when the sun rises. Here we come to the first point.

The sun 'moves' a quarter of a degree per day south  between the summer solstice and the winter solstice and a quarter of a degree North each day, between the winter solstice and the summer solstice. With a wing span of 90m at a range of 5000m, the wing span of the turbine, from where I see them, is just over 1 degree. If there is any shadow flicker it will occur for 4 days as the sun moves south and 4 days as the sun moves north. A total of 8 days per year for each wind turbine which is visible from my house.

As mentioned, the arc of a 3mw turbine is just over 1 degree. The sun rises 15 degrees per hour or 15arc minutes per minute of time. Since the sun travels 15minutes of arc per minute of time, the flicker will last, where I live, for just over 4 minutes starting a few minutes after my apparent dawn and will only occur on those days when I am perfectly lined up with the sun and the turbine in question. Sofar, we  have a possibility of shadow flicker for 4 minutes at dawn for 8 days of the year for each wind turbine I can see from my house.

Lastly, what about the intensity of the shadow. If the sun was a point source and ignoring refractive edge effects, there would be a hard shadow cast at my house. However, the sun subtends 32 arc minutes(just over half a degree). As you move away from an object that shades the sun, there is a cone of darkness behind the object (umbra). When you get to a distance such that the object in question subtends 32 arc minutes, the object will just cover the sun. Further away, you will be able to see more and more of the sun on either side of the object. Stated another way, light from the opposite sides of the sun fills in the shadow behind the object. If you are familiar with eclipses here we are talking about the umbra and preumbra. Doing the same calculation that we used above, it turns out that a 3.5m wide blade (width of a typical blade of a 3mw generator at its root) will just cover the sun at 364m. Using the same calculation to see over what distance the shadow of the blade will be spread at my house, it turns out to be 46m. A 3.5m shadow is dispersed over 46m. Doing a little more math, we see that the intensity of the sun will decrease and increase 7%.

In short, there will be a 7% change in light intensity which will occur on those 8 days during the year when I am perfectly lined up with a turbine. It will last for 4 minutes and will occur at my apparent dawn. lets see if the rest of the arguments against wind turbines have a little more substance.

Glint
Glint occurs when the light from the sun, which is behind or to the side of the observer, is reflected off a blade into the eyes of the observer. If glint actually occurs, it should be relatively easily solved by using matte paint of a dark color.

Noise
Noise is the only one of the objections that seems to have the possibility of some validity.

The two bladed Gebes Pass turbine was noisy initially. Apparently the blades were broadcasting generator noise like a loud speaker. The solution was to put a sound absorbing coupling in the drive shaft. Most of the noise disappeared . Tonal noises have also being observed in early wind turbines. Bias cut gears (taken from automotive gear shifts) and isolation of the generator from the nacel solved this problem.

Blades swish as they travel through the air. This problem has been addressed by making sure that the trailing edge of the blades is sharp and that wind turbines are built with the blades upwind of the tower. Further work will undoubtedly further reduce this source of noise. If a house is close enough to a wind turbine to hear air born noise, one solution which has been found to be effective is to double glaze windows. Such retrofits should, of course, be undertaken by the wind farm.  It has been noted that when the wind is blowing, the swish of the wind through the trees to a large extent masks any swish from the blades.

A further decrease in noise is connected with the number of blades. Three bladed turbines are quieter than 2 bladed turbines.

Low frequency noise is another question. Frequencies below the 20cps detectable by the human ear can be disruptive to animals and if intense enough, can disturb humans. Such frequencies are hard to exclude from a building as they are not absorbed by conventional sound deadening materials and they can propagate through the ground. For instance, it has recently been found that Elephants communicate over long distances using 'infra sound' which they detect with their feet. Sound waves in the ground travel in peculiar ways. For instance, an earthquake, which in simply high intensity low frequency sound, can leave a nearby town unscathed and destroy one further away from the epicentre. There exists the possibility, however remote, that a dwelling could be effected by vibration from a wind turbine. Fortunately the solution is not difficult.

The first stage is detection. Instruments exist that can detect sound below the auditory frequency range of humans. First a reading is taken on the foundation of each turbine as it is commissioned to see which, if any, frequencies it is generating. Then at the location where it is believed that these vibrations are occurring, similar readings are taken. If there is any indication that vibrations are being transmitted from the wind farm to the location, all the turbines can be feathered to see if this stops the vibrations. Then the turbines can be started up one by one, to detect the offending unit or units.

Assume for the sake of the argument, that one or more turbines are found to be sending vibrations to a house. There are at least two possible solutions. The first solution is to determine where on the offending supporting tower the inter-nodes are located. Dampers are than attached at this (these) locations.

Alternately, the same sort of devices which are used to isolate buildings from earth quake vibrations can be used to isolate a tower from the ground. These consist of lead filled rubber pads.

The bottom line of all this is that humanity in general and New Zealand in particular is desperately in need of cutting its dependence on fossil fuel to the absolute minimum. That doesn't mean that people must put up with annoyance from sources of renewable energy including wind turbines. If legitimate problems arise from the installation of wind turbines, they must be addressed and solved. However, they must be genuine problems and not nimbiism.

What is needed here is a thorough, honest research effort by government to examine complaints adjacent to existing wind farms. Let the chips fall where they may. This must not be a cover up but a genuine examination to see if there are legitimate reasons for complaint. If it is found that, for instance, infra sound is being transmitted to a nearby house, work needs to be done to determine how to mitigate the annoyance. Once the work has been done, it must be widely published and used by wind farm developers. If it has been found that wind turbines cause legitimate annoyance, they must take the measures which have been found to mitigate the annoyance.

The uptake of wind farms is far too important for the future well being of New Zealand to allow Nimbiism to halt their development.  They are far too important to allow genuine concerns go unsolved.