The possible introduction of nine or ten 90-metrehigh wind turbines, each equipped with three 45-metrelong
blades, to the Waainek landscape has upset many of the potential neighbours.
The possible introduction of nine or ten 90-metrehigh wind turbines, each equipped with three 45-metrelong
blades, to the Waainek landscape has upset many of the potential neighbours.
Each turbine costs approximately R35-million to build and has a life span of 30 years. Noise, and the introduction of industrial structures to an area where many businesses, basing their appeal on a calming environment as in the case of the Mariya uMama weThemba Monastery or on the illusion of untamed wilderness (in the case of several surrounding hunting lodges and game reserves), are considered major disincentives.
The environmental impact assessment (EIA) presented by Coastal Environmental Services (CES) and the project manager of Innowind, Kevin Minkoff earlier this month became an opportunity for concerned residents to air a variety of grievances and worries.
Privately owned and French funded, Innowind has undertaken to identify and assess the environmental and social impacts, and make recommendations to mitigate negative impacts – but a critical minority who attended a recent meeting expressed dissatisfaction with the many uncertain variables raised by the proposed wind farm, and a lack of guarantees.
Why Waainek?
The process of “scoping” the Grahamstown area was completed by the end of November last year. Two other
sites, on either side of the N2 to East London were considered but Waainek was considered the best due to
accessibility, excellent wind resources and proximity to the municipal power grid.
Innowind is currently using the nearby MTN cellphone mast (which is 18 metres high) to assess wind quality and consistency. They would like to erect a 60-metre mast to measure the wind in conditions similar to those experienced by the turbines.
Expected benefits
A stable power supply for Grahamstown, particularly in winter, and the 26% share held by the Makana Winds of Change Educational Trust will be the major benefits of the wind farm. The trust will be administered by members of civil society, “unpaid, from different bodies, with different interests” said wind farm lobbyist Dr Garth Cambray.
Impact on the environment
The heritage assessment found that impact would be low; there are no archaeological sites in the area and the sandstone surrounding the sites was unlikely to yield palaeontological remains.
Noise assessment found that there were “sensitive receptors” (such as homes) within audible range of the turbines.
However, tests for sound and infrasound found that impacts were minimal and the turbines are positioned outside an internationally established 500-metre buffer zone. The EIA found that the area was not a “pristine terrestrial habitat”.
However, four species and a genus of flora of “special concern” grow nearby. Only one turbine falls within a sensitive area.
According to the EIA fifteen species of bat occupy the area and relatively high fatalities are expected, but these fatalities can be reduced by 50% with the reduction of the cut-in time of the turbines.
This can be done with a minimal loss to power generated. Generally one bird is killed annually by a turbine in a wind farm. To put this in perspective: 57 million birds are killed by cars in the US annually.
Eleven vulnerable species of raptor frequent the thermals surrounding Waainek, nine of which are near-threatened.
It is expected that these species may experience some displacement and loss of habitat. The visual impact assessment considered the “full range of visual, aesthetic, cultural and spiritual aspects of the environment that contribute to the area’s sense of place”.
Impact was found to be relatively low. However, CES acknowledged that this is a generalised verdict for the whole adjacent area and impacts on, for instance, the monastery are higher the 12 turbines originally proposed were reduced for this reason.
Criticisms On several occasions the process of feasibility assessment was criticised for “putting the cart before the horse”.
Nick Stavrakis, a concerned local and geologist, raised the “obvious slumping” occurring below the N2 bypass as evidence of how local underlying rock strata, (made of illite) liquefy under pressure and vibration.
Stavrakis added that although the proposed site appears to be a consistent ridge it could contain four to five different soil types.
These factors would make the site inappropriate for structures such as the turbines, he said. Minkoff said that while geological assessment would be part of pre-emptive studies they would not be undertaken yet, while public approval is still being sought, as they are very costly and the project must be given the go-ahead first.
Russell Field, from Cold Spring Farm, where he runs a buffalo breeding programme and hunting lodge, raised numerous concerns. Among them was the likely decrease in property values surrounding such obtrusive structures.
He also said that he expected a loss of business due to the destruction of the “wild experience” at his lodge. These sentiments were echoed by representatives from Amakhala and Shamwari game reserves.
Ecotourism ccounts for 65% of their business and they already have difficulty marketing the Eastern Cape as a wild area, difficulties which will increase once the wind farm is built, whether it is directly visible from guests’ accommodation or not.
Dr Ted Avis of CES assured those concerned that they are “obliged by law to take cognisance of resident’s issues”. “There is a need for compromise,” he concluded, “there will always be issues that are hard to resolve; what’s important is the willingness to resolve them”.
