Page 372 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As well as benefits to the neighbouring community and the health facility, another positive gain from the data centre being moved is that the horse paddocks, horse trails and walking trails will be retained. I do hope that, now a fairly thorough environmental study of the area has been done, local landcare groups and paddock users will work towards rehabilitating some of the upper area on the hill and extending the buffer to the endangered woodland adjacent to the site. It is hoped that the government will find a more suitable use for the original site in a broadacre zone in close proximity to residential houses and a buffer zone for an endangered grassy woodland nature reserve.
I am interested in how the noise modelling will be transferred to the new site, as I do have concerns about noise levels in any scenario where bypass stacks are used. Any scenarios which do not use absorption chillers emit more noise at a range of frequencies and there would need to be new modelling done to assess the impacts on the surrounding businesses and industries.
Certainly I believe that modelling in the EIS was inadequate, especially when it came to cumulative modelling of ambient construction and operating noises but also in modelling the effects on local Macarthur residents living behind the ridge. It is certainly a vast improvement that, with the new site, they would no longer need to worry so much about construction noise levels exceeding designated noise zone criteria and the fact that local residents would have had to put up with construction noise starting at 7 am each day.
Even with the project being moved to another site, it is very important that the recommendations of the health impact assessment are taken into account. These recommendations and those of the social impact assessment will need to be followed closely.
There are concerns with the plume study. The plume modelling shown in the EIS was cause enough for concern. However, there were some major flaws with it and, when done properly with a good base starter, we will have a better idea of what the real health impacts of the gas turbines will be. We have been advised that the proponents will undertake another plume study, which we are keen to see soon, and hope that it will bring us closer to an accurate understanding of the pollution characteristics of this development.
Legitimate concerns have been raised regarding the lack of data and smaller sized particulates that are emitted by gas-powered generators. And I will be keeping a close eye on the data being collected on the 2.5-micrometre particulate pollution. Particulates of this size go deeper into the lungs and are potentially a more serious health risk than the larger 10-micrometre particles that were assessed in the original plume studies.
Although it is agreed that gas is a transitional fuel, renewable energy, including solar, was written off without sufficient analysis. And for future power stations it needs to be looked into. Given that we now have a new department of climate change and that we are about to embark on a project of new solar energy farms in the ACT, perhaps this is something that can be looked at into in the future.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .