Light Pollution at Swanbank, Ipswich, Qld

[thunderchildobs]

Please help fight light pollution.

The Swanbank power station at Ipswich, Queensland is polluting the night sky.
How bad is this flood lighting? Why do companies do this?
Apparently this is for aircaft safety.
Well the space shuttles and international space certainly will be able to see the power station towers.
Why are not the flood lights mounted on top and pointed down?
The TV station transmitters on Mt Cootha, Brisbane are lit by a number of red lights, that can easily be seen allover Ipswich and Brisbane.
Why cannot Swanbank do this?
If you do not care about light pollution, who is paying for the wasted lights?
The power station consumers?

How would the Swanbank management like it if we dump rubbish on their golf course , or in their kids favourite park or sports ground.
What gives them the right to pollute the night sky and destroy our astronomy?

Most urban astromoners unfortunately accept that there is light pollution in a city and there is a need for safety lighting, but there is no excuse for this at Swanbank.

I am a amatuer astronomer who enjoys looking at the stars at night.
From my backyard observatory I search for exploding stars (Supernovas).
I was officially credited with a co-discovery of a supernova in 1997.
The ever increasing amount light pollution is making it harder for
astronomers to make discoveries and enjoy the hobby.

The stars of the Southern Cross appear on the Australian flag.
Will this be the only place where people can see the stars?
Will the stars be removed from flag :) If people cann't see them, there
is no point having them on the flag.

If you wish to complain please email CSenergy at EnergyInfo@csenergy.com.au

or contact the Queensland Times (QT), Ipswich's local paper.
I had a letter to the editor based on the above published on December 7th.
letters@qt.com.au

(Sorry for rant, but I think most astronomers will understand:mad2: )

Brendan Downs brdowns@gil.com.au
Thunderchild Observatory http://www.home.gil.com.au/~brdowns/
phone 07-3812-2813

[iceman]

eww that's terrible.

Good luck with the fight, Brendan. It is certainly an astronomers' worst nightmare.

[Lee]

I think they have their own power supply.... :lol: sorry....

:welcome: though..... I just noted today that the park in my street just erected 4 very tall poles at each corner of the football field.... must be for flags.... I hope! Lucky I'm moving.....

[toetoe]

That is just ridiculous and nothing but an absolute abuse of power. Good luck to you Brendan and welcome to IIS.

[stephenmcnelley]

That is a great website incentive you have created Brendan, it visually expresses the plight of suburban astronomers and the future of amatuer astronomy in general in subtle ways.
I am lobying the instillation of hatted streetlights for this area to help decrease the incidence of upward streetlight loom. As for industrial lighting though we are hitting our heads against a brick wall, unless someone somehow can think of a way to approach developers and contractors in an equitable way that appeals to their sense of science and community.

[GrahamL]

wow thats pretty bad.. brisbane/ surrounds lightglow is pretty easily
seen from a dark site down our way 200 klms away
lttle wonder with stuff like this happening .. my folks live round balmoral
and the light pollution from industry / residential around the river there
almost completely wipes the sky of stars when the moons up

[jjjnettie]

I'll back you on this one Brendan.
It's bad enough having to put up with the light pollution from Brisbanes urban sprawl. We don't need more unnecessary lights.
Glad to see you finally joined up.
Welcome aboard.

[ballaratdragons]

Hi Brendan,

Most members in here would be aware of my current Proposal to council for Obtrusive Lighting Reduction in our town here at Snake Valley, but as you are a newbie here (welcome) you may not be aware of the fight you are in for.

To start with, I wish you all the luck under the sun coz the pic of yours shows how disastrous it really is.

Some of the facts I have found out along my path to the proposal I have submitted:

*there are no laws governing lighting, there are only regulations.
*the regulations are not enforced
*the regulations can be broken with a good excuse
*many organisations (and councils) only look at the safety aspect of bright lighting
*some organisations (and councils) may consider better lighting control if they can be convinced (with proven facts) that they can save on their power bill
*organisations (and councils) do not consider individual complaints or proposals.


Apart from getting local support (in large numbers), it is imperitive to involve the environmental authority and your state or district branch of the equivelent of our 'Central Victorian Greenhouse Alliance'. Their whole purpose is to fight against your (our) light pollution problem. Your local Environmental 'Greenies' group often has lots of contacts and clout too.

Also, a tip from experts in this field that are helping with our proposal: Don't call it 'Light Pollution'. Call it 'Obtrusive Lighting!'

I hope that helps for a start.

[h0ughy]

done my bit brendon, I sent them an email. I will be honest, I dont think the act and the LEP's have been tested legally with respect to light pollution. might be worth a try

[fringe_dweller]

forget it guys, we have lost the war - I have recently seen the vanguard of the barbarians at the gate/LP stormtroopers greatest weapon ever. recently in parks around adelaide I have noticed a new phenonemon sprouting magically and brightly out of the turf - the instant Solar Powered Streetlight - these double edged swords of demacles that came crashing down hit me where it hurts, and how
while on the face of it, we should all logically be rejoicing for the hope for the planet, and most people would naturally think this, reducing greenhouses fossil fuel use ect.
but what it also means is that they can now feasibly put lighting any damn place they want now - on top of Uluru, you name it! - coz the extremely cost prohibitive problem of either laying underground cable ( specially for vegetation/roots sensitive areas, like in parks) and utilities fee's installation ect. has been removed.
these units appear (from browsing the net and online council notes) to cost somewhere between 5K and 10 AU, I am sure bulk is cheaper of course.
Councils everywhere seem to be very excited abut them and are going at hammer and tong, from all appearances, EDIT: so in effect there will be more lights than ever, oh the irony! and believe me they are VERY VERY bright and gutsy, i did begrudgingly admit they at least directed the lights downward properly, i was surprised.

Its funny Brendan, my very first post here was also a rant about LP, as a result of the last 10 years booming economy/housing boom, spin off downside in the destruction of much of the last vestiges of real dark sky that was within easy reach locally.
I wish you luck! in that pic looks like the twin towers memorial laser display!! you could always just pretend they are aurora, like I have to do! ;)

I reckon most non-astromers hate the dark, and are greatly turned on by displays of luminance and pretty lights, as symbols of our domination over nature, and urban vanity/civic pride - winess the xmas carry on with houses!

[acropolite]

Power wastage by authorities is irresponsible to say the least. Unfortunately Australian standards, together with consultants (whose main interest is their % fee on construction costs) are an open invitation to excess. In my area I have a mercury vapour light every second house along the street, Five years ago there were 3 in total now there are 7 (soon to be 12). A roundabout recently constructed 1Km away (with no pedestrian traffic and no footpaths) has 10 sodium vapour lights where one (also unnecessary) covered the intersection it replaced. My night skies are rapidly disappearing as well. We can all write to pollies and councillors, but IMO the only solution that will work is some enforcable laws regarding light pollution. :tasdevil:

[glenc]

I sent this to EnergyInfo@csenergy.com.au
I am writing to complain about the badly designed lights that shine upwards from Swanbank power station. They waste money and energy, increase CO2 emissions and ruin the night sky for wildlife and astronomers. I live 150km south of Brisbane and even at that distance my northern horizon has an annoying light pollution glow. Swanbank's lights are one of the main reasons for this. If you must have bright lights please mount them at the top of the chimneys and shine them down. You only need moderately bright red lights however for aircraft safety.



I didn't email this but all we need is streetlights that are as bright as the full moon that shine down and not sideways. If pedesrians need more light than that they should carry a torch. Lights that shine in a drivers eyes are dangerous.

[acropolite]

I doubt that bright lights shining up would be any advantage to aviation traffic, as the bright light shining upwards would tend to affect the night vision of pilots overflying the area. It may be worth dropping a line to CASA pointing out that the lights may be a potential aviation hazard.

[thunderchildobs]

Thanks for the support and the emails.
With the short nights and summer storms, i won't have much chance to a lot of serious observing for the next couple months. On the positive side it does give time rant and complain to various levels of governments and their departments.

[h0ughy]

one question Brendon, now that your here, do you like it?

[stephenmcnelley]

:cloudy: :fight: :fishing: Have a laugh and enjoy..

[thunderchildobs]

Should have joined long time ago.

[h0ughy]

From: White, Lisa [mailto:LWHITE@csenergy.com.au] On Behalf Of EnergyInfo
Sent: Monday, 11 December 2006 6:10 PM
To: David Hough
Subject: RE: turn your lights off!!

Hi David

Thank you for your email. CS Energy installed the floodlights on the chimneys of Swanbank B power station to comply with recent regulations from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. When determining where to place the lights, CS Energy carried out a risk assessment of floodlights near the chimney bases versus warning lights placed up the length of the chimneys. The Swanbank B chimneys are each 137 metres high and over 30 years old. It was determined that installing warning lights could pose a safety risk for the personnel who would need to climb the chimneys to install and maintain the lights. The safety of CS Energy's people is our highest priority, so it was decided to instead install the floodlights near the bases of the chimneys. The floodlights were installed in such a way so they do not shine into the boilerhouse or local residents' homes. Please contact me if you require any further information.

Yours sincerely

Lisa White
Marketing and Communication Adviser
CS Energy
GPO Box 769
Brisbane Qld 4001
Ph: (07) 3222 9386
Fax: (07) 3222 9323
Mob: 0419 749 860
Email: Lwhite@csenergy.com.au
www.csenergy.com.au
-----Original Message-----
From: David Hough [mailto:h0ughy@tpg.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 8 December 2006 8:58 PM
To: EnergyInfo
Subject: turn your lights off!!
There is absolutely no logical reason why you should have lights facing up into the atmosphere like that. The night sky is for all people. And your light is polluting this environment. Either redirect the lighting down or turn these off. You don’t need to light the smoke stacks like that, aircraft warning lights installed along the full length of the towers would be far better and more noticeable. And you would probably blind the pilots to boot.

David Hough

[Lee]

Maybe if they used high intensity LED arrays up the stacks they'd need bugger all maintenance, and would use a lot less power as well....
Would they be bright enough for aviation warning lights???

[fringe_dweller]

wow, if the stacks are that decrepit - one wonders for the safety of the people that have to work there - personally I am guessing thats the most interesting way of basically saying - it was cheaper to do it that way - I have ever read :rofl: i want to be in the spin biz, I feel left out now :(

[thunderchildobs]

The local paper, the Queensland Times published another letter to editor from someone who is opposed the lights. That makes two against the lights, none for.

Thanks h0ughy for contacting CSEngery and posting their reply.

This is the reply I got from them on December 4th.

Thank you for your enquiry. CS Energy recently installed floodlights on the chimneys of its Swanbank B Power Station to comply with regulations from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. The floodlights were installed in such a way so they do not shine into the station's boilerhouse and surrounding homes. If you need any additional information, please let me know.

Regards

Lisa White
Marketing and Communication Adviser


It doesn't mention safety!!!!!

I guess they had more time to think about it by the time they got h0ughy's email.


All they need to install is a single (maybe two) street lights on top of the towers. As we all know street lights shine up and down and can be seen for miles. Just go to any lookout and see how far you can see the street lights.


Please complain to CSEngery EnergyInfo@csenergy.com.au
or email to the Queensland Times letters letters@qt.com.au

Brendan

[GrahamL]

They don't need to climb the towers at all.. bounce the light off ground
works for most all industries and it dosn't have to be from the top of the tower?.. you can light your work area really well , better than this lunacy .. without all that stray light going straight up.. so how do locals feel about that light comeing back down into there windows when theres a bit of low cloud?.

[thunderchildobs]

A negitve reply appeared in the QT today from someone critising someone else how is against the lights.

From the QT, SMS to ED, Decmeber 13, 2006

"To Robert Googe, re Monday's viewpoint 'Goodnight sky", I'd really like to see you climb the chimneys stacks at Swanbank power station. Get your facts right before you start whinning about topics that don't have respectable backing" J.S. , Ripley.

Funny that JS didn't state what was wrong with RGs Letter or what the "correct facts" should be. With rock solid arguments like this, I think we should give up now. RG didn't even mention climbing the chimneys.



Brendan

Please complain to CSEngery EnergyInfo@csenergy.com.au
or email to the Queensland Times letters letters@qt.com.au

[Sausageman]

I'm with you Brendan,
At Dinmore the light pollution is getting worse, and within a couple of years we will have a new highway joining the Warrego and Cunningham highways, it will pass within 100 metres of my place, which means more lights.

As I work in the aviation industry, I will check on the CASA regulations for high buildings, but I believe they only call for red lights or strobes, not floodlights shining upwards.
I think it sounds more like a beancounter's "cheapest option" criteria.

Another question comes to mind though, The cooling towers at Swanbank have been up for years, why is it only now that they have to comply with CASA regulations, have they been breaking the law all these years?, and if so, why has no-one been prosecuted.

Brendan, why don't you come out to our SETI site at Aratula at weekends.
PM me please and we can meet up and talk. Or phone me on 3816 1813.

Mike

[thunderchildobs]

Mike

Will contact you shortly.

Brendan

[thunderchildobs]

The Queensland Times published another letter critising the Swanbank lights.
That makes three letters against the lights published now.

Please complain to CSEngery EnergyInfo@csenergy.com.au
and email to the Queensland Times letters letters@qt.com.au

Brendan

[gaa_ian]

Sausageman, have you found out what the regulations are from CASA.
I suspect CS energy have misunderstood the regulations.
I would agree that the LED solution has great merit !
As an electrical designer, I believe CS energy is talking through their hat !
See this link for a low maintenance solution !
http://www.avlite.com/products/product.php?prod_code=AV60
we as an Astronomical community must not give up this fight !

[Sausageman]

I have found some references in CASA regulations, referring to two red strobe lights, but this falls into another category as Swanbank is within 15Km of RAAF Amberley.
As you can imagine, CASA regulations are very extensive, and finding the correct one is a daunting task. Also the RAAF have thier own regulations, which makes it doubly difficult.
I'm still working on it though.

Mike

[gaa_ian]

Good on you Mike, sounds like Bureaucracy gone mad !
I look forward to catching up with you at Camp :thumbsup:

[thunderchildobs]

I received a paper mail (not email) from CS Engery answering some questions which included a invite to visit Swanbank if I was interested. Of course I am. Tommorrow Wed 17th, I am having a private tour of Swanbank with the Site Manager which should be enlighting (ok bad pun). They gave me a CASA contact but haven't contact them yet. I was waiting on the site visit. Should post an update tommorrow night some time.

Please complain to CSEngery EnergyInfo@csenergy.com.au
and email to the Queensland Times letters letters@qt.com.au

Brendan

[thunderchildobs]

From my previous post, for the site visit
I will be asking questions like
-why the lights are pointed up
-why is so much light is missing the towers
- why cannot the lights have shields so that the lights only hit the towers
- why cannot used red flashing hazard lights
- can only one tower be lit
- can lights be placed onto top of near by buildings
- can the lights be better angle / position so that the lights better hit the tower
- what sort of lights / wattage is being used

I will also be bring some pictures that show the problem.

If anyone has some questions that I should ask I would like to hear me.

Please complain to CSEngery EnergyInfo@csenergy.com.au
and email to the Queensland Times letters letters@qt.com.au

Brendan

[Sausageman]

Brendan,
What I have found out so far is that CASA only require 2 red strobe lights that can be seen from any direction, and must be situated equal to or higher than the highest point of the towers. They must also flash simultaneously.
This knowledge has only been found from finding other buildings that have had to inform CASA of thier construction.
I have not as yet found the exact regulation.
As Swanbank is within 15Km of Amberley it also falls into another category for the RAAF, These regulations I have not yet discovered.
If you can find out the height of the towers, it could help me a lot.
There are specific regulations for buildings from 30 metres upwards.
If the cooling towers are taller than 43 metres then, (as far as I can tell), two red strobes are all that is required. But don't quote me until I can find out what the RAAF regulations are.

My understanding so far is that the towers are lower than the surrounding hills and do not not require floodlights at all.
Tall structures MUST report the height of the building so it can be logged onto maps and be programmed into aircraft systems for avoidance purposes.

I think that normally, all aircraft are forbidden to fly below 500 feet, except during take off and landing, including RAAF aircraft, and they have designated low flying areas for training, which does not include the Swanbank area.

Mike.

[thunderchildobs]

Hi Mike

The towers are 147m tall.

I was given the following as a CASA contact

Russell Dwyer
Brisbane District Airport Inspector
Phone 3632 4046

Brendan

[AstroJunk]

e-mailed to QT and CS energy:

I too must register my disgust at the unimaginative solution to a very real safety issue regarding the illumination of these towers.

I recently travelled to a (seemingly) Dark Sky observing site between Ipswich and Cunningham’s Gap and was simply aghast at the light being poured into the skies from this installation.

Light pollution on this scale is quite unnecessary and damaging to Queensland’s natural beauty, let alone the growing professional astronomical community in the area.

Please make time to properly consider the environment.

Yours faithfully,

etc, etc ....

[thunderchildobs]

Thank you
AstroJunk.

Brendan

[thunderchildobs]

AstroJunk,

Your letter was published in the Queensland Times today, January 25th.

Thanks

Brendan

[thunderchildobs]

The photos Swanbank and the comet, taken from exactly same spot on Denmark Hill, Ipswich, with the same camera settings.

Imagine the awful shame if the Comet McNaught was in the same part of the sky as the flood lighting. This lighting is what we should be fighting against.

Please complain to CSEngery EnergyInfo@csenergy.com.au
and email to the Queensland Times letters letters@qt.com.au

Brendan

[AstroJunk]

That's good, hope it helps get them to reconsider. I've not heard from CS Energy, so I assume that they are having to think long and hard about thier reply, which is a good thing too:)

[jjjnettie]

I've had no reply to the email I sent them.
But I guess they've added it to the tally of complaints.

[gaa_ian]

I have added my voice to the Chorus with this letter penned to CS energy today
" I am writing to express my dismay at the excessive & inappropriate use of lighting on the stacks at Swan bank Power station.
As a professional lighting designer I find the solution applied to this problem of stack visibility to be singularly unimaginative.
I would be very interested to see the Australian Standard or CASA regulation that deemed this was the only solution possible.
As a regular visitor to SE Qld a member of the rapidly growing Astronomical community there, I see this installation as extremely detrimental to the public outreach astronomy work done by members of this community, not to mention the potential for astronomy based tourism ventures in the region.
There are alternatives available that offer low maintenance solutions to your lighting need which are approved by CASA for clearance visibility.
Below is just one example:
http://www.avlite.com/products/produ...prod_code=AV60
Last but by no means least, this solution is a pure waste of energy & further contributes to greenhouse gas production.
I implore you to reconsider & I look forward to your reply."

[entilzah]

hi all heres to keeping up the fight against light pollution i myself am blessed with darker skys than most but i will admit over the years they are getting brighter. i remeber the last time i was in sydney overnight i was discussded to only see the brighter stars and longed for the dark sky of home.

[AstroJunk]

Hi Jonathan

Thank you for your email. CS Energy installed the floodlights on the chimneys of Swanbank B power station to comply with a recent regulation change from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. When determining where to place the lights, CS Energy carried out a risk assessment of floodlights near the chimney bases versus placing warning lights placed up the length of the chimneys. The Swanbank B chimneys are each 137 metres high and over 30 years old. It was determined that installing warning lights could pose a safety risk for the personnel who would need to climb the chimneys to install and maintain the lights. The safety of CS Energy's people is our highest priority, so it was decided to instead install the floodlights near the bases of the chimneys. The floodlights were installed in such a way so they do not shine into the boilerhouse or local residents' homes.

I appreciate your concerns over the issue. Please contact me if you require any further information.

Regards

Lisa White
Marketing and Communication Adviser
CS Energy
GPO Box 769
Brisbane Qld 4001
Ph: (07) 3222 9386
Fax: (07) 3222 9323
Mob: 0419 749 860
Email: Lwhite@csenergy.com.au
www.csenergy.com.au

[thunderchildobs]

This is a standard reply. I got one which is nearly identical back in December.

[ballaratdragons]

In other words, they are saying "Tough, live with it". :mad2:

[AstroJunk]

Dear Annoying Public,

See if we care.

Love and Kisses, Big Corporation.

PS Don't forget to pay your bills on time.

[gaa_ian]

:rofl: You Crack me up astrojunk :lol:
I hope that they will have to give a more Specific Answer to the Email I have sent them.
A reply from the Company PR person does not really cut the mustard, They will have to do better than that !
As for the "It's not safe to install anything else read "My manager did not want to spend the money that it would take to safely install decent lights & took the cheap option"
This is not over yet :mad2:

[ballaratdragons]

Go get em Ian!!!

Kill! Mangle!! Destroy!!!

Those reply emails are so weak.

[mojo]

Don't be discouraged. Sic 'em Rex!
Being a faceless corporation, "No" will always be there first response. You'd almost expect them to treat you with contempt on the first try.

If you can publicly out them with being irresponsible to the environment, needlessly adding green house gases and generally not being a very considerate member of your community, then you'd expect them to change their ways. ie. McDonalds couldn't get their "healthy" meals out fast enough, after the bad press.

What you really need is an MP coming up for re-election with a conscience about the environment. Although I don't know where you're going to get a politician with a conscience :)

[thunderchildobs]

To be more annoying, is to ask them questions that a PR person cannot answer.

Please give a detail description of the design and types of lights being used?
What level of brightness is needed to meet safety regulations
What angles are the lights position at
Are the lights shielded? If not why not?
What was the name of the company that designed the lighting solution?
What action is being taken to reduce the light pollution?

Brendan

Brendan

[thunderchildobs]

Light Pollution at Swanbank January 17th, 2007 Update

I sent a email to CSEngery the operates of Swanbank power station on 30/11/2006 concerning the floodlighting of the chimneys. To which they responded on 04/12/2006. A further email was sent on 17/12/2006 as I had some more questions. This time they responded with a letter. As part of the letter they offered to have a meeting to discuss my concerns. I took them up on their offer. The meeting was held on 17/01/2007 at Swanbank. The meeting was with John James, Site Manager Swanbank and John Green(?) Environmental Officer(?)

I explained to them why I was concerned the lighting of the chimneys from an astronomical view point.
* Good lighting involves the lights pointing down, being shielded and only
lighting the desired area.
* City based astronomers unfortunately accept that there will all ways be light pollution in a urban environment
* The light pollution needs to be controlled, mininised
* If one company is allowed to shine lights into the sky, then another will do it, and then another, so the sky will be wasted
* I explained to them my understanding of what could be happening., the lights are not properly aligned and not shielded.
* I showed them the pictures I have taken, showing the effects of the lighting.
* Astronomers understand the need for safety lighting, like everyone else we
would hate to see anyone get hurt by a plane crashing into the towers, or being injured by working on the chimneys.
* I asked why they couldn't use red flashing hazards as seen on many other tall structures ( like the TV towers on Mt Cootha)

John James then explained the situation from Swanbank view point.
* The lights will be gone by 2011/2012 when the towers are planed to be
removed. (Three other chimneys were recently removed).
* The chimneys are lit to meet CASA air safety requirements.
* CASA requires the top of the chimneys to be lit and be at a certain light (lux?) level.
* Hazard lights need to be placed at certain intervals and on all sides of the
chimneys.
* Access to the chimneys can only occur when the generators that use that
chimney is shut down. There are safety issues with gases and heat.
* Access to the chimneys is via single ladder that goes to top at about 140m, where there is platform. To access the other sides of the chimney requires someone to absail down the side of the chimney.
* A red hazard light has fallen from a chimney hitting a car.
* Swanbank has no particular desire themselves to have the chimneys lit other to meet CASA requirements.
* It costs Swanbank to install and run the lights, they would be happy to save the money by turning them off.
* Unnecessary lighting and other unnecessary power consumption causes the Swanbank to generate more power which in turns uses more water and
releases more greenhouse gases. The use of additional water is a concern due to the current drought in south east Queensland.

My view of John James's comments were that
* They were surprised to see how much light was missing the towers
* The lighting engineer meet the CASA requirements but failed to take into
account the way the light spread / scatters from lights.

John James then took me onto the site so that I could get a close up view of the lights and the chimneys. After the tour of chimneys we returned to the meeting and discussed the situation based on what I have seen.

On seeing the chimneys from their base and the height of that ladder, I can fully understand their safety concerns about having people climb the ladders.
My first impressions of the lights were somewhat disappointing. I had expected to see a series of large banks of lights like you would see the SCG or MCG. Instead around each chimney are four sets of two 2000watt lights mounted on a stand that could be used for netball. A total of eight pairs. Each light would be not larger than about 50cm(?). There is no shielding at all on the lights and the lights point nearly vertical.

On the bright side (bad pun) , sorry positive side there is no large expensive structure or mounting that would need to be modified. The lights sit on simple pivot mount. Loosening a couple of bolts would allow the angle of the lights to be changed. The current lights are in a surprisingly simple setup which any weekend electrician could have installed.

The solution to fix the lights would be have a some sort of hollow tube mounted in front of the lights. The tube would act as a light shield better directing the light onto the towers. The tube would then sit on top of a pole. I would image it would be relatively simple for a lighting engineer to work out what angle the lights should be at and the length of tube to get the correct lux levels and minimise the scatter.

A second part of the solution is that there are two pairs of lights that are located in between to the chimneys. It would appear that these are either redundant or could be set a lower light level because unless a plane is flying between the chimneys a plane would not see these side of the chimneys.

Is anybody a lighting engineer or has a friend that could help out?

John James said that
* He would talk to his lighting engineers about my ideas.
* He would to the light supplier to see if there light shields available
* That I should contact CASA to find out their view on the lights

For me
* I will be contacting CASA to get more information
* Follow-up with John James to see if he did talk to his lighting engineers,
* Follow-up with John James to see if the light supplier provide light shields
* I would like to talk to lighting engineer

There has been 4 letter published by the Queensland Times protesting against the lights. An Additional letter published said "Like to see to work on the towers and get your facts right". To which I responded by asking the letter's writer which facts were wrong and the source of his information. As far as I can tell, the letter's writer has not replied back.


Please complain to CSEngery EnergyInfo@csenergy.com.au
or email to the Queensland Times letters letters@qt.com.au

If you do write, please let me know

Brendan

[Sausageman]

[QUOTE=thunderchildobs;187331]Light Pollution at Swanbank January 17th, 2007 Update






This interpretation is not correct.

The actual wording is that the lights must be placed equal to or higher than the structure and be visible from all directions.

I also found this in Civil Aviation Regulations 1998.



Send them that Brendan. I think it constitutes a hazard.

Still looking for specific regs though.

Mike.

[AstroJunk]

Technically you're probably right, but I expect the CASA were part of the solution/problem in the first place - surely cs energy would have consulted them on their plans?!? So law or no law if the "authority" is not taking an interest, you would have to take out a civil action.

Any one got deep pockets?

[gaa_ian]

Well done Brendan :thumbsup:
You have certainly got their attention & you have opened up a useful Dialog. That will be by far the most effective way of dealing with the issue.
I would be interested to see a picture of the lights they are using ?
It may well be, that if they chose an "Architectural Light" rather than an "Industrial Light" they would get a much better result. Using less Energy, with a much lower "Upward waste light Ratio" these thing can be calculated by the supplier of the lights, a computer program is used to do this.
I will be very interested to see the lighting Engineers responce.
The usual way light fittings are chosen on large industrial sites is "what do we have in the warehouse", "are they the biggest ones", "yep, install them" ;)
I know this from first hand experience :screwy:

[gaa_ian]

As a further update to this issue I have received & sent the following reply, to the Email I sent to CS Energy:
"Hi Lisa
Thanks for your reply
My Apologies for the broken link, this one works (i have tested it)
http://www.avlite.com/products/showcase.php
Look at the "Hazard Beacons"
These lights offer a "Maintenance free" light, at least in relation to the residual life of your stacks, which I understand is through to 2012.
I appreciate your concerns for the safety of your workers, I too work in an environment where EHS is put first.
I would suggest that however, in this instance the Safety issues could be reduced to an acceptable level by the application of appropriate control measures, for a one off installation of "hazard lights", without the need for further maintenance during the the remainder of the stacks life.
I believe this is an important environmental measure, that requires further investigation.
The first engineering solution applied to a problem is not necessarily the best one.
Regards



EnergyInfo <EnergyInfo@csenergy.com.au> wrote:

Hi Ian

The hyperlink you sent me did not work, so unfortunately I was unable to read about the product you suggested. CASA wrote to CS Energy's Swanbank Power Station requesting that both chimney stacks at Swanbank B be lit in accordance with their "Manual of Standards (Part 139)". This request followed a change to CASA requirements and a new assessment of the stacks, which found they presented a hazard to aircraft transiting to and from Archerfield Aerodrome.

When determining where to place the lights, CS Energy carried out a risk assessment of installing floodlights near the chimney bases, versus obstacle lights placed up the length of the chimneys. The Swanbank B chimneys are each 137 metres high and over 30-years-old. It was determined that installing obstacle lights would pose a safety risk for our personnel who would need to climb the chimneys to install and maintain the lights. As the safety of CS Energy's people is our highest priority, we decided that installing floodlights near the bases of the chimneys was a safer option. CASA also endorsed this decision as a more practical option in the circumstances.

Swanbank Power Station hired a lighting designer to install the floodlights to CASA’s standards and Australian Standards for lighting. The lights are carefully positioned to shine directly on the stacks and avoid the rest of the station and neighbouring homes. The lights also have sensors to ensure they automatically turn on and off in response to changing dusk and dawn times. As the stacks are very high vertical structures, some lighting is almost vertical and shines onto both the stacks and sky. We have used the best lighting technology currently available and will continue to look for ways to ensure the light is kept to a minimum while still complying with CASA’s standards.

I appreciate your concerns over this issue and hope I have answered your questions.

Lisa White
Marketing and Communication Adviser
CS Energy
GPO Box 769
Brisbane Qld 4001
Ph: (07) 3222 9386
Fax: (07) 3222 9323
Mob: 0419 749 860
Email: Lwhite@csenergy.com.au
www.csenergy.com.au "

Don't give up on this issue SE Qld :mad2:, if you allow 1 business to apply this kind of lighting solution, others will follow ! :doh:

[thunderchildobs]

I dont think so. Then why is the sky bright?



I dont think so. I have seen the lights, and there mounting and complete lack of shielding. I would hate to see the worst technology.

Please complain to CSEngery EnergyInfo@csenergy.com.au
or email to the Queensland Times letters letters@qt.com.au

If you do write, please let me know

Brendan