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.
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?.
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.
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.
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/produ...prod_code=AV60
we as an Astronomical community must not give up this fight !
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your letter was published in the Queensland Times today, January 25th.
Thanks
Brendan
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
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."
