The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Bluff and bluster: The campaign against wind power > Comments

Bluff and bluster: The campaign against wind power : Comments

By Mark Diesendorf, published 23/2/2005

Mark Diesendorf argues the campaign against wind power comes from those with vested interests.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. All
Mark,

Ask the people of Toora, Victoria, about the devaluation of their property due to noise, sunlight flicker, the constraints placed upon what they can do with their land and the unfettered access by the company operating the turbines.

You say that noise only occurs under unusual topographic conditions but surely noise will bounce around the valleys below the ridges on which are sited the wind turbines.

I really don't care what your computer models show unless you can explain every factor in those models, every assumption and every algorithm. These models are treated as gospel but they are usually very inaccurate. Commonsense says that wind is unreliable and that other resources and infrastructure are necessary.

Also, did you forget to mention that a recent German report said that the costs associated with a major expansion of wind power there could not be justified?

If you read other comments in these forums you will discover that the correlation between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide is very tenuous and that it is far from certain that CO2 has anything more than a very tiny influence on temperature. (Other climate factors have a far greater influence.) What does this do to your justification for building wind turbines ??

cheers
Posted by Snowman, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 1:48:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article people need to be more aware of the misinformation that pressure groups fling about.

And you study the climate and atmosphere where snowman. There is this pesky idea that some people have about evidence, but this never seems to bother you snowman. You call it common sense I call it stupidity just because a bit of misinformation happens to coincide with your uninformed opinion does not make it real. Anybody telling you the green house effect is not real is a ignorant fool. Without the green house effect the Earth would be much colder (at least 10 deg’s) then it is now. Snowman tell us in your apparent vast knowledge about the atmosphere what causes the existing green house effect and what could unbalance it? Could you provide a link to this German report?
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 2:45:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny,

Regards that "pesky evidence", you'll find that meteorological observations simply do NOT support the notion that temperature rises in line with carbon dioxide. Please take a look at http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm (and maybe go to http://mclean.ch/climate/data_sources.htm if you want to see the data for yourself.)

No-one has told me that the greenhouse effect does not exist because, as you say, the earth would be far cooler. What I do find from the research is that water vapour is a far more influential gas than carbon dioxide and that the latter has little or no effect. (If you want to dispute this last comment please provide the raw data so I can see for myself.)

The report about germany came from the UK's Telegraph...

Germany shelves report on high cost of wind farm-produced energy
By Tony Paterson in Berlin
(Filed: 30/01/2005)

A damning report warning that wind-farm programmes will greatly increase energy costs and that "greenhouse gases" can be reduced easily by conventional methods has been shelved.

The findings of the 490-page report, commissioned by the German government and due for publication last week, were so embarrassing that ministers have sent it back to be "re-edited". Jürgen Trittin, Germany's Green Party environment minister, said: "We do not want the findings of this report to be misinterpreted."

(nomore, I'll hitthewordlimit.)
Posted by Snowman, Wednesday, 23 February 2005 10:00:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diesendorf says wind turbines are very efficient, considering how much energy is extracted by three narrow blades. But those blades are typically 35-40 meters long, sweeping an area of 1 to 1 1/4 acres for each 1.5-MW generator. A large wind facility also uses 30-60 acres per megawatt of capacity, which is not efficient and can hardly be called environmentally benign, what with new roads, huge foundations, and clearcutting.

It is convenient to dismiss noise and other complaints by pointing to other, worse, things, but that does not make the problems go away. Diesendorf accuses opponents of not doing anything for the environment. On the contrary, for what we get out of it, large-scale wind power is a pathetic response to our energy and pollution problems. It is big and expensive, so it appears to be a serious response, but it turns out to be only window dressing.
Posted by Eric, Thursday, 24 February 2005 1:01:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have wind farms in West Aust at Albany & Esperance. There has been little clear felling that I can see The towers are built in areas of low lying scrub. It shouldn't be too difficult to create similar wind power farms in other locations

I'd rather put up with the small negative effects of noise and road construction just to avoid the effects of acid rain let alone the multitude of disadvantages associated with fossil fueled power stations.
Posted by Sandgroper, Thursday, 24 February 2005 9:43:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I live in the NE United States, where wind facilities almost exclusively target undeveloped forested mountaintops. If there were evidence that they do in fact help mitigate emissions, then a few might be worth the sacrifice. Unfortunately, we seem to be rushing to sacrifice much more than a few wild places and for no compelling reason. Even if they performed as well as their advocates claim, it would require vast tracts to make any difference, and electricity is the smaller part of our energy consumption.
Posted by Eric, Thursday, 24 February 2005 10:04:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it interesting that people are quite happy to believe that the vast majority of climatologist and atmospheric scientist are all completely wrong. The people who really know how the climate works are people who have either never studied it or have very limited experience. The link you provided is to a page written by a travel writer! Please explain to me we should listen to a travel writer instead of the climate scientist? The internet is a wonderful thing it allows us access to all sorts of information. However the internet can do little to improve the intelligence of the people using it. When I’ve got a plumbing problem I get a plumbing not a electrician and when I want to know about the climate I go to a climatologist not a travel writer.

Here is the link to the newspaper story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/nwind130.xml

Here is a link to a far more informed source on global warming.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/

Sonwman how far away is the nearest power station to your house?
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 24 February 2005 10:12:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny,

You are being mischievious by not mentioning my other area of expertise, namely as a computer consultant.

I've worked in analysis and logic for more than 25 years and I can tell you that many of the claims about global warming are simply not supported by the evidence (for which I refer you to my page of links to data sources).

Yours is the typical attitude of proponents of global warming - you don't look at the evidence presented by the sceptics but simply attack them for what they are. I consider that to be foolish and very immature because it is only the evidence that matters!

People with your attitude probably believed that white Europeans were the superior people and that no-one else was capable of achieving anything.

I see from a letter in today's "Australian" that Greenpeace is implying thet the Tsunami was caused by global warming. How about you go and ask them for evidence of this.
Posted by Snowman, Thursday, 24 February 2005 2:22:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’m a senior computer scientist with a one of the largest IT service provider’s in the world so whoopee duck.

I’m not a proponent for or against the global warming issue what My beef with you and other of your kind is your are not climate scientist. Most anti-global warming “experts” are economist! http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524861.500

In the end it boils down to this. If we do what the climate scientist are saying and reduce our output of green house gas and they were wrong we will have had a large but short term impact on the world economy. But if we don’t do what they are saying and they are right then we will have a very large long term impact on the worlds economy and it may even be a fatal one.

As for your comment about me thinking that white people are superior on this site you can look at peoples other posts have a look at mine.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 24 February 2005 9:27:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny,

If you are a senior computer scientist then should have the analytical skills to look at the data and draw your own conclusions. You will find that carbon dioxide has steadily increased since about 1953 and yet temperatures have bounced around. (see bottom of page http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm)

Does it really take a climatologists to say that the correlation is weak?

Try plotting temperature data from Greenland's ice-core? (see the top of the same page.) Does it take a climatologist to say that temperatures have been higher than today?

If you cannot do these things for yourself then I would regard you as rather incompetent.

Most sceptics of global warming are NOT economists, at least not those that I associate with. (New Scientist is very much pro-GW and distorts its reports accordingly.) I belong to a discussion group that is sceptical of GW. There is a mixture of practising and retired climatologists and meteorologists, a number of physicists, geophysicists, paleoclimatologists, geologists, paleobiologists, astrophysicists and so on. In fact I am not even sure that there are any economists among the 245 members.

I notice that you have never disputed the evidence that I produce. Why is this? Is it because you can't dispute it (at least not honestly)?

Have you in fact looked at the web pages that I've indicated?

Or is it that you are just like many pro-warming people and base your position on religious-like belief and don't want to know about anything that contradicts your position
Posted by Snowman, Thursday, 24 February 2005 11:05:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I read your whole website I like your photo’s. As for your climate pages well what can I say. You argues your point with the zeal of a “creation scientist” and use much the same tactics as them. You appear to be using the same simplistic logical reduction technics used to discredit evolution. I use my analytical skills to realise that I have deficient in knowledge of the subject to form a informed valid opinion I’ll leave it to the experts in that field. What knowledge I’ve got of this subject is this irrefutable.
The amount of Co2 gas is higher then it has been for at least 400,000 years.
The amount of energy radiating back into space has been decreasing since measurement began.
You’re a travel writer not a climatologist therefore it is certain that you don’t know what your are talking about.
That the number of scientist actively working in this field who don’t think global warming is caused by human activity is very small.
New Scientist last editor is a proponent of solar activity having a impact in this issue he held that view while editor.
This thread is about wind farms not global warming.

Who do you receive your funding from?
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 25 February 2005 10:44:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snowman,

The argument for or against climate change is off the topic. Even if we disregard the abundantly documented case linking greenhouse gases with global warming, coal and other fossil fuels are finite resources. Even if you are quite happy to pollute the earth until we have no choice left, an alternative must be found.

You say that the people of Toora have “constraints placed upon what they can do with their land”. Those people signed up to have turbines there with full knowledge of what portion of land they would be giving up to access roads and foundations. They are generously compensated for this; far beyond the profits they would have made farming those small areas. People I know in South Australia will be doubling their annual income (contracted for a minimum of 20 years) when a wind farm is erected on their property later this year.

You also claim the people of Toora deal with the “unfettered access” to their land by the wind turbine company. This is totally exaggerated, once again the people were made aware of the need for occasional maintenance before they signed up for the money.

You claim that “surely noise will bounce around the valleys”. It is true that noise does reflect off hard surfaces such as the ground. This does not mean however, that the noise will surpass strictly enforced guidelines at residences. Local developers do not want to generate more negative press by upsetting land owners. Both the CONCAWE and the ISO9612-3 methods commonly used throughout the acoustic analysis community were derived in conjunction with practical experimentation and were established on a conservative basis. This means that the data they produce is generally a worst case scenario.

My main argument with your article however, is that you have COMPLETELY missed the point of wind turbines. Unless you want to switch off the power supply to your house and workplace, you MUST agree that an alternative to coal fired power stations is needed. Wind power may not be perfect, but it’s the best alternative we have. What’s your brilliant plan, Snowman??

Alicia
Posted by Alicia, Friday, 25 February 2005 10:56:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark

Can you please tell us about any involvement you have had with AusWEA and which companies or organisations are funding your current research projects?

If you are accusing the anti-wind power groups of receiving'funding from industries that stand to gain from attacks on wind power' then your own situation needs to be made clear and public.

From my observations the so called 'anti-wind power' groups are merely people who have banded together as communities to protect themselves against an unethical and greedy industry who's prime aim to make money.

Until the introduction of the MRET scheme wind energy was not even a consideration because there was not financial incentive.

Solar is the most appropriate renewable energy for Australia.
Posted by landlubber, Friday, 25 February 2005 12:40:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny,

I examine the data but you accept the word of others - and you call me a creationist? Sheesh!

You argue that because I am an IT analyst I cannot learn anything. Double sheesh!

Are you one of these who confesses to having no knowledge of a subject but defends the views of the people you believe in (and believes you have the knowledge to criticise others)? Do you realise how stupid your position sounds?

I don't care if a million people say something. If they can't produce the evidence to support their assertions then I say their claims are bunkum.

I don't receive funding from anyone. Why do you believe that someone who opposes an opinion on the grounds of a lack of evidence must be funded?


Alicia,

Sorry but climate change is ON topic - see fourth paragraph of the article - however ...

Thanks for the clarifications about Toora landowners. What compensation do neighbouring properties receive for noise, flicker and devaluation of their land?

Is it true that the Wind Turbine industry had a significant role in the determination of the noise level standards and that the levels are in excess of normal industry standards for continuous operation?

Can you also confirm if a Wind Turbine company paid for a Victorian politician to go to Europe and visit several turbine installations before relevant bills went through state parliament?

I am yet to be convinced that we are in any danger of running out of coal, oil or gas and given that the carbon dioxide emissions in the last 6 years have not caused an increase in temperature where is the problem? Those industries only look to 40 years ahead and exploration for these has only covered a tiny percent of the globe. Nuclear fusion is probably the answer but that is yet to materialise.

Solar power is fine to a point - surely all hot water systems should be solar - but the huge arrays of cells needed to supply a decent amount of electricity would cost a fortune to install and maintain (eg. wash)
Posted by Snowman, Friday, 25 February 2005 2:48:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Problems with windfarms in Victoria have arisen out of improper planning, the gung-ho approach of the companies and the get stuffed attitude of the Bracks government. I have heard comments from company reps like "now that we have the State Government Wind Energy Guidelines we don't even have to talk to you we can just beaver away in our offices in Melbourne". Cold comfort to neighbouring landholders who stand to be surrounded by turbines as close as 400 metres from homes. There is evidence in South Gippsland of property devaluation. Ask any of the local Real Estate Agents what people say when they try to take them to a property for sale within close proximity of the turbines. Talk to the people trying to sell who time and time again had people from Melbourne interested in their property ring up and comment they supported green energy and wouldn't mind living next door to a windfarm, that is until they came down to have a look and quickly leave without even getting out of the car horrified at how big and how close to houses they are.
At Toora the windfarm has been exceeding the noise standards at nearby residences. The unfortunate homeowners have complained to Council who said it's not their problem go to EPA, they go to EPA and they say it's not their problem, they go to the State Government and they say go to the local Council as they are the responsible authority, it's their problem. Complaints to the company are ignored. THe local Council say they don't know what to do about it, even though they know the company is not complying, because they don't have noise experts and usually excessive noise is dealt with by the EPA. Hardly strictly enforced! The upshot is the people neighbouring the turbines have had to move out of their house and rent another further away to get some sleep. The company involved at Toora has not done the wind industry any favours by building these turbines just too close to houses.
Posted by nauswea, Friday, 25 February 2005 4:29:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Even if the target of 10% or 20% of Australian Electricity is generated by “renewables.” The question remains how will the remaining 80-90% be generated?

The Uranium Information Centre News Letter, January/February 2005 briefly summaries the E.ON report on wind energy. The E.ON report applies to an area of Northern Europe stretching from Denmark to Austria. Some of the points made are:

· In the year 2003 some 18.6 TWh of electricity was fed into the grid from wind turbines.
· Wind energy is about 4% of German’s total electrical generation. Compared with 28% of electricity or 157.4 TWh from nuclear generation.
· The grid operators paid Eur9 c/kWh for wind; more then double the normal cost.
· In the EON area during 2003, MAXIMUM wind power in-feed was 80% of installed wind capacity.
· In the EON area during 2003, AVERAGE wind power in-feed was 16.4% of installed wind capacity.
· In the EON area during 2003, for MORE THEN HALF THE YEAR it was less then 11% of capacity.
· Whenever demand was very high because of winter cold or summer heat, wind was unable to provide much help.
· Supply from wind can change rapidly meaning that backup sources which amounts to over 80% of wind capacity must be brought on line equally rapidly.
· Guaranteeing the stability of electrical supply (voltage and frequency) for wind feed has been a major challenge for E.ON. [I believe that in order to understand this area, informed engineering or physics help is essential].
The NewsLetter makes a few other points that are adverse to wind energy. But I am limited by space.
To return to my question the majority of power 80-90% must still be derived from burning fossil fuels (gas, oil, coal) or other renewables such as geothermal or hydro.
In many countries nuclear power generation has been very successful. Nuclear reactors have generally proved to be reliable, cost effective, safe from the point of view of human health and environmentally benign. Surely, one-day nuclear power generation will be part of the Australian energy mix.
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 25 February 2005 4:42:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is amazing to me that given the body of the evidence anyone can doubt the very high probability of extremely damaging climate change over the next 30 years. It is incredible that some cowboys are prepared to take such huge risks with the future of all of us. One of the probable effects of this disruption to our planetary weather and the continuing exploitation of resources will be water shortages. The suggestion that we move to nuclear power which requires huge amounts of water both in establishment and for cooling during operation is a nonsense. Some French Nuclear power plants had to reduce output or cease production during the 2003 drought.

Another effect of extreme climate change could well be disruption to our civilisation. How long do you think you can go on using more than the earth is capable of producing and spitting out pollution that damages or inhibits regeneration of the earth's biological systems?

You, like the rest of us are part of these biological systems and you are dependent on them. Pull your head out of the sand while there is still time to take effective action.
Posted by Nimue, Saturday, 26 February 2005 12:31:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Effective action" is indeed the issue. Large-scale wind production is a colossal waste of resources that could be much more effectively directed.
Posted by Eric, Saturday, 26 February 2005 1:12:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nimue,

As far as I know the body of evidence about extremely damaging climate change to which you refer simply DOES NOT EXIST !

The world is not warming rapidly. Temperatures in 1998 were warmer than today despite all the carbon dioxide we've added since then. Sure we have warming in some regions but those effects are largely localised. Polar warming is probably due to warmer water reaching the poles and the warm water causes both ice-melt and warmer local temperatures.

Glaciers have been melting since 1850 (some earlier) and this melting could be due to an increase in cloud cover. Cloud at night traps heat and keeps air warmer.

Depending on who you talk to sea level rise is either happening at about 1mm per year or it's an illusion caused by tectonic plates rising in some areas and falling in others. (Researchers have survyed the Maldives and the sea level there is falling, not rising.)

Computer-based predictions are inaccurate. They can't even accurately predict the temperature and rainfall we've had over the last 40 years.

Produce for me some evidence of this dangerous global warming that is (a) accurate and (b) cannot be explained by natural events and I will listen to your argument.

Until that time I will continue to say that the theory of global warming is wrong and that wind turbines bring no real benefit except perhaps in remote areas where connection to the electricity grid is far too expensive.

cheers
Posted by Snowman, Saturday, 26 February 2005 11:17:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Diesendorf’s response to the anti-wind power comments, Part I

Like many anti-wind power people, Snowman exhibits the greenhouse sceptic position, a stance that is profoundly anti-environmental. At the recent international climate conference in Exeter UK, scientific evidence was presented that global climate change could be occurring faster than originally anticipated and that the changes may be even more serious than envisaged in the standard climate models. Snowman does indeed have his/her head in the sand over climate change. No amount of evidence will change such obstinance.

To address some of the other comments:

• Unless sound is channelled in some way (e.g. across water at night), it decreases as the inverse square of the distance. In other words, at double the distance the sound is reduced to one-quarter.

• The best way for the people of Toora to devalue their properties is to say loudly and clearly that something is devaluing their properties. Properly designed overseas surveys of land values indicate that communities that avoid such foolish behaviour rarely experience any devaluation from wind farms.

• If it can be proven by objective measurements that noise emissions at some Toora residences are indeed above the licensed levels, I would support those residents in demanding that the Victorian government enforce the license.

• Snowman and company are one-sided on the issue of subsidies, ignoring the huge environmental and health subsidies to coal. The European Commission's ExternE studies find that taking into account just a small part of these subsidies would almost triple the price of coal power, making it much more expensive than large-scale wind power. A similar result is obtained from the International Energy Agency’s estimates of the future cost of capturing and underground burial of carbon dioxide from coal power. I haven’t seen the unpublished German report on wind power, and neither presumably has Snowman, so it seems premature to discuss it. Anyway such reports should be interpreted in the context of the billions of dollars of financial subsidies to coal production in Germany, amounting to the equivalent of over US$100,000 per coal miner per year.
Posted by MD, Sunday, 27 February 2005 5:04:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Diesendorf’s response, Part II

Anti-Green asks: With 20% of Australia’s electricity coming from wind in 2040 in the Clean Energy Future for Australia scenario study (see e.g. www.wwf.org.au), where does the rest of the electricity come from? The answer is that, after implementing a variety of electricity demand reduction measures and not replacing coal-fired power stations at the ends of their operating lives, electricity supply in our principal scenario for 2040 comes from natural gas (including cogeneration) 30%, bioenergy 28%, wind 20%, black coal 9%, hydro 7% and direct solar 5%.

Efficient energy use is necessary for levelling off the growth in demand (which is driven by economic and population growth), but energy efficiency is not sufficient for the substantial reduction in emissions required.

Solar electricity contributes to peakload, where it has higher economic value to offset its high price, but is far too expensive for baseload. There is no need for nuclear power, which is a dangerous technology and more expensive than wind power.

Concerning my possible involvement with AusWEA: As a principal research scientist in CSIRO in 1980s, I was co-founder and president of the former Australasian Wind Energy Association, a society that only existed during the 1980s. It was not an industry association, but rather a society for researchers and do-it-yourself wind power enthusiasts. That society has NO connection with the current Australian Wind Energy Association (AusWEA), which is indeed an industry association. I have never been a member, employee or consultant to AusWEA or to any wind power developer.

However, I’m an author of national and State studies on “A Clean Energy Future for Australia” that are managed and currently being published by WWF. These are formally reports to the Clean Energy Future Group, whose members include the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, WWF and AusWEA. I don’t know whether AusWEA has contributed funding to the project, but I don’t think it’s relevant, since there is no direct connection and AusWEA has not influenced the content of the reports. Indeed, I have recommended much more wind energy for Australia than AusWEA.
Posted by MD, Sunday, 27 February 2005 5:26:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My Wife and I went on a Sunday drive to inspect the start of a wind farm near our home. We can't wait for it to be up. Maybe if snowman and all the other know it alls are right it will drown out the noise coming from the steel mill down the road. :)
Keep up the good work Mark Diesendorf.
Posted by Kenny, Sunday, 27 February 2005 9:04:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark,

How little you know about the Exeter conference! Sceptics were not invited to present their arguments and they were prevented from asking their questions to the speakers, especially questions which threatened to expose the lack of evidence for the assertions. It was simply a one-sided farce so don't try to claim it as any noble event.

How dare you say "Snowman does indeed have his/her head in the sand over climate change. No amount of evidence will change such obstinance." !

Where is YOUR evidence for global warming? How do you explain that temperatures have not exceeded 1998 levels despite the increase in carbon dioxide over the last six years.

I have asked these questions on numerous occasions in these forums and no-one has provided an answer.

I see that you have written material for the WWF. Why did you not state this at the outset so that we would know not to expect much evidence to support your assertions.
Posted by Snowman, Monday, 28 February 2005 10:30:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MD. It is always interesting to read the opinions of people who deal in theory castigating those of us who have to live with the reality of zealot driven government policy.
Assertions that the people of Toora have somehow devalued their own properties by talking publicly about the negative effects of living next door to a windfarm is just as reprehensible as saying a rape victim is to blame for being raped. Agents have tried putting a positive spin into advertising and I said many of the people coming to view any properties often claim to support wind energy during the initial phone call but are horrified to see just how close these giant turbines have been built to houses and quickly leave. We have many documented examples of this happening. Even a property that is for sale with a turbine on it hasn't sold. 400 metres is just too close to a house. We live in the largest and emptiest continent on earth surely we can have worlds best practise and put into legisation setbacks of 1.5 - 2 kms from dwellings, particularly in hilly areas where the sound bounces around. This would help diffuse at least some peoples concerns.
Also yes it has been proven that the company has indeed exceeded the noise standards by an independent study financed by the local Shire Council using precious ratepayers money because the State Government wouldn't do anything about it.
As far as groups being funded by the coal industry, sorry but that is just rubbish. I know most of the people involved in various Guardian Groups in South Gippsland and not one of these groups has an affiliation with the coal industry. The only affiliation I know is the Prom Coast Guardians promoting the benefits of Solar power and have managed to get a small discount for their members for a Solar HWS, they also promote energy conservation and the use of low energy light bulbs. So much for the conspiracy theory. We are just ordinary people Mark fighting for a bit of social justice.
Posted by nauswea, Monday, 28 February 2005 10:35:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does it matter if we develop programs that are sustainable? Do we want to give our children and their children the same access to the earth's resources that we had or should we just let them fend for themselves? Do we have the ability to think and plan for a period past our own lifetime? I don't think it is in our genetic programming, but maybe it can be within our intellectual capacity.

Even if there are problems with wind power (which seem minor to me, but they are worth reviewing), wind is sustainable. Wind gives us the chance to delay running out of fossil fuels and gives our children a better chance to make their future. Are we willing to pay more for the wind power as a few % of total electricity needs, as an insurance policy for our kids, or should we tell them - tough luck?

The environmental comparison of huge unsightly open cuts and tonnes of overburden in mining coal, tonnes of ash, tonnes of SOx, NOx, and particulates in generating the power, versus wind turbine noise and access roads, seems like an easy choice. Add greenhouse, even easier.

If we want more sustainable energy and a better chance for our kids, wind power has got to be in the mix.
Posted by ericc, Monday, 28 February 2005 11:03:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark has got you pegged to a T snowman. Your the type of person who would argue the ship wasn't sinking as the water covered your head. Stick to travel writing.

nauswea please answer these questions.
Are wind farms loader then a train, airplane, highway?
Are wind farms uglier then a coal fire power station?
Are wind farms more dangerous then nuclear power station?
Would you rather have a nuclear power station where the turbines are now.
Do you think that a wind farm devalues a property more then a coal fired power station in the same location would?

Please try to answer the questions with answer not questions.

Please try to answer the questions with answer not questions.
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 28 February 2005 11:09:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that most people, including Snowman agree with the research being done into alternate energy sources. From a purely economic point of view it means more industries, more jobs, and advancement of scientific knowledge. The main problem seems to be hysterical beat-ups about the dangers we face from global warming etc.

Property devaluation, land clearing etc are all legitimate concerns when it comes to wind farming. I've never heard the noise that is generated but from descriptions I've read I hope the wind farming companies are putting money away to pay for the inevitable lawsuits for "psychological problems", real or imagined caused by the noise.
Posted by Cranky, Monday, 28 February 2005 11:24:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny, just because people oppose wind power stations in some locations doesn't mean they like or promote the use of coal or nuclear. Just because wind energy is renewable doesn't mean it hasn't any negative effects. To even talk about wind power vs coal power is silly. This issue is about location. These companies are choosing sites with their eye on the triple bottom line, profit, profit, profit. The fact people live there is irrelevant to them. Don't think for one minute these guys are environmentalists, believe me they are hard nosed business people using exactly the same tactics and ethics associated with industry.
For my part I would love to see an accelerated uptake of grid connected solar panels and solar HWS, particularly on the sea of rooftops in the suburbs. The capital cost at the moment is high and this is where the government should be directing subsidies or no interest loans to allow ordinary householders and tax payers to install solar panels and solar HWS's. Eventually the upfront capital cost would fall negating the need for further subsidies. This would have the benefit of actually reducing electricity use and saving people money on their power bills. Subsidies should also go to help low income people afford roof and wall insulation on existing houses. I agree with 5 star ratings for new houses, if people want to build a massive McMansion that requires a huge airconditioner then they should pay a premium for the power they use.
Coal fired power stations could be converted to natural gas, unfortunately this would result in massive job losses and large power bill increases. No politician wants to be responsible for either, for them it is much better to go with useless wind turbines because they are big and the average voter thinks the government is doing something about greenhouse gas emissions.
Posted by nauswea, Monday, 28 February 2005 12:28:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sounds as though someone in the wind industry has found an appropriate location to build a wind power station if where Kenny lives is within earshot of a steel mill.

The area must already be industrialised and is therefore unlikely to be of high scenic value. This means that background noise levels will be high unlike when peaceful rural locations are chosen.

Find the right location and opposition will fade away - I'm pleased that Kenny and his wife are happy to live near a wind farm - but it doesn't mean they should deny others their own view to the contrary.
Posted by landlubber, Monday, 28 February 2005 3:29:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark,

I do not expect to be about in the year 2040, so I will never be able to verify your prognosis for the energy mix in that year. None-the-less, I would bet that even in Australia nuclear power will be up and running by then. Please pay any winnings into my estate account.
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 28 February 2005 3:40:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many years ago we had a scare campaign called "Reds Under The Beds" orchestrated by a political system for poltical purposes and lately we have a similar camapign orchestrated by a Dr. Mark Diesendorf allegedly associated with Environmental Studies with the University Of New South Wales (UNSW). History does indeed repeat itself.

Dr. Diesendorf, a spruiker for the wind energy industry, has suggested that those who oppose the dumping of massive wind turbines on their doorstep may have ulterior motives and should be scrutinised for possible funding from industries that stand to gain from attacks on wind power. Really ?

Dr.Diesendorf forgot to mention that he was formerly President of the Australian Wind Energy Association (AusWea) .
As part of Dr. Diesendorf's wind energy campaign he has already targeted small vulnerable rural communities (via local newspapers) along the coast of Victoria.

Promontory Coast has also been targeted by the Bracks Government for wind turbine dumping and political purposes and Dr. Diesendorf has jumped on the band wagon . He has even repeated Victorian Energy Minister Theophanus's suggestion about links between opponents of wind turbine dumping in their region and the coal industry.!

Your readers are encouraged to obtain a copy of the Victorian Government's document "Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria" ; a document cobbled together for the most part in secrecy between the Victorian Bracks' Government and the wind energy industry.

For example during a recent Planning Panels Victoria Directions Hearing in the State of Victoria relating to a massive wind turbine dumping proposal in a picturesque rural setting; the "Indepenedent" Panel members felt sufficiently emboldened to declare without batting an eyelid that "it would be a waste of the Victorian taxpayers money for the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to be involved with noise issues relating to wind turbine installations".

And what of the environmental bona-fides of UNSW . Perhap Dr. Diesendorf can again explain to us the progress at UNSW in their implementation of solar hot water systems, photo voltaic generation concurrent with micro wind turbine generation at the University.
Posted by Cecil Breakwind - Smythers, Monday, 28 February 2005 6:06:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, finally, we find out that the one accusing the windfarm sceptics of being anti-environment is affiliated to big business in a big way.

It sure puts a damper on Mr. Diesendorf's credibility!
Posted by mark duchamp, Monday, 28 February 2005 10:05:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is all rather obtuse of you anti-wind farmers. No one wanted to answer the questions I put because in the end you are all "Not in my backyarders”. If it is not wind farms making intolerable noise (and flicker?) it's the glare off the solar panels. Or its the health problems of power lines or nuclear ok just don't put it anywhere near me.
It also may come as a surprise to some of all that power generation by any means on a industrial scale need big business to do it.
The wind farms that are going up are going up a hills that have had all their native veg stripped off them 100 years ago. So I think they will provide a interesting contrast and look much better then a steam driven power station.

So take a good hard look at your own selves and answer the question I post and then see if wind farms are still such a issue.

Just so you know where I’m coming from I’ve got a grid interactive solar power and a solar heater, I would like to put up a small wind turbine as well but my council will not let me
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 9:04:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking as one who is involved in the Renewable Energy/Alternative energy sector, (as opposed to my usual stance in advocating Biblical Principles for guiding social structure, but more on that later)

It seems to me, that the funding allocated to huge (and obviously to some annoying) wind systems, may be better spent in examining cheaper ways of manufacturing photo voltaic cells, where we have some of the best results for efficiency coming from UNSW (Martin Green).
Most houses could be SELF sustaining with a thought out approach to energy.
1/ No electric heating or cooking. (use gas)
2/ High Efficiency lighting.
3/ Building guidelines which maximize the use of natural energy for heating/cooling.

BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE boils down to responsible stewardship of the earth, and a caring approach to people's needs and interests.

Roof mounted solar energy is pretty much a solution to both of those issues as far as I can see from the posts so far. Most posts seem to just be pointing at the contributors vested interest/industry link etc. As for me, I'm into solar pumping, and charge controllers not roof top systems. Be that as it may, I don't disparage Wind energy , if such systems can be implemented without the furor or disturbance noted here, then all power to them.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 9:38:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Kenny -- I support your desire for a small wind turbine, as well as all the photovoltaic cells you want. That's alternative energy. Utility-scale wind power is a lucrative tax shelter for energy companies and a rush to claim the last undeveloped lands. All blessed by the greens.

To compare sprawling wind facilities to worse things is a diversion. On its own merits -- not the failings of other systems -- large-scale wind is a boondoggle.

A hundred years ago, Vermont's mountains were 70% clearcut. Today, they are 70% forest. Was that achieved only to give them over to the depredations of industry on the strength of dubious and unproven claims?
Posted by Eric, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 10:09:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Kenny, it took a while for you to post again, have you just clocked on at work? I guess instead of putting up a small wind turbine you could go for a 100 or more 120 metre ones then the council couldn't stop you.

More power to your collective pens BOAZ-David & Eric. The long term solution to our power problems will come by engaging the people at large not by enforcing draconian legislation on them.

Interesting about the revegetation. In South Gippsland our hills were cleared over 100 years ago thanks to yet another stupid government policy. Revegetation projects are now spreading throughout the hills with thousands of native trees being replanted thanks to a very strong Landcare network, most of whom are members of various Guardian groups. Those promoting windfarms in this area may not realise that wind energy agreements have a clause which prevents landowners from planting trees (disrupts the wind). We would rather see our hills covered in more trees than massive white elephants.

I guess there are two types of environmentalists, those who talk about it in city cafes and those out in the rural areas with dirt under their fingernails actually doing something about it.
Posted by nauswea, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 11:08:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wind Power advocates like myself and Mark Diesendorf need to take note of the comments in this forum and in the media. Many people who are close to wind farms don't like them.

My first thought was that a huge open cut coal mine is more of a "monstrosity" than any wind turbine could ever be, but the people have spoken. Open cut coal mines are hidden from the public. High berms are built and revegetated so that you can't see the mine from the highway and other public acces is restricted. Smart thinking by the mine managers. Out of sight, out of mind.

The nature of wind power is that the wind turbines must be exposed to the wind, so it is hard to hide them. The Dutch are used to them, where they used to help pump water out of the Polders where everybody lived and farmed, so windmills had a very positive feel. Not in Australia it seems.

My second thought was that people would understand that although there may be some noise from wind turbines, that is far better than breathing in the variety of air pollutants spewed forth night and day by coal fired power plants. And besides you don't really notice the air pollution. It might be slowly damaging your lungs, but it doesn't smell.

Last I thought that the land issue favoured the wind power. Coal mines and ash dams make a significant scar on the once beautiful landscape. A scar that is far larger and more damaging than a wind turbine. The difference is that the coal fired power companies own the land that they are destroying and the wind power companies only lease their land. The general view seems to be that it is not an issue to destroy your own land, especially if you block the view.

When we are trying to get wind power and any new technology going we need to consider these factors and try to make it work with the community. This is just another challenge.
Posted by ericc, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 11:41:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You fail to see the point, Ericc.

Windfarms are not a solution, period. Have you ever considered the random intermittency factor, and the subsequent need for 24 hour backup by polluting conventional plants spinning in reserve?

What we need are REAL solutions. And in effect, the huge subsidies to inefficient windfarms delay the efficient tackling of global warming through effective solutions: energy efficiency, clean coal technology, geothermal energy, wave and tidal power, solar energy, fuel cells and other new technologies (for one of them, see: http://www.iom3.org/news/windenergy.asp )

Did you know that large quantities of CO2 emissions could be saved by cleaning up the act of Australia's coal power stations? The "clean coal" technology is available.

The upshot is that there is no short-term gain for politicians in real solutions, or for Greenpeace, WWF and FOE. But there is plenty in windpower. Just look at the deals negociated between the RSPB and Scottish & Southern Power, for instance, or the logos showing on the Yes2wind webpage. Or the money to be received by town councils in payment of building permits, plus rental of the land (this is evident in Spain - I don't know the details of these transactions in OZ).

It is not about saving the earth, Ericc, it is about dirty old money
Posted by mark duchamp, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 12:32:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark hit the nail on the head. To compare wind to coal is silly and misleading. We could have thousands of turbines across this land and we will still have a greenhouse gas problem, nothing would have been saved however billions of dollars will have been spent. Coal fired power stations will still be chugging away while we are conned into thinking something is being done when in fact nothing has been done.

We haven't even touched on the issue of bird kills.

There are so many issues to do with misplaced wind power stations.

The huge amount of money being spent on these white elephants could be used to help people afford solar panels and solar HWS's. There are other sources of renewable energy other than wind. Geodynamics www.geodynamics.com.au are close to building their geothermal power plant in SA and claim to be almost 1/2 the cost of wind power. Geothermal can also be a base load power, something wind simply cannot. Why is it that people who are wind power zealots appear to have blinkers on and only promote one source of renewable energy.

I feel we as a community, if we can all be included in public policy making, can come up with a workable solution. However if governments, so called environment groups and big business keep trying this big stick approach we won't even get to the starting line.
Posted by nauswea, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 8:16:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mark duchamp - Why does wind power preclude the use of "energy efficiency, clean coal technology, geothermal energy, wave and tidal power, solar energy, fuel cells and other new technologies." We need all of these technologies and more to be sustainable.

I've never heard a proponent of wind power say that wind is the only answer. Mark Diesendorf doesn't say that. It seems only opponents of wind power say that. I can't see how excluding wind power will make all these other sustainable technologies take off.

Which of the new technologies is more efficient than wind? Geothermal / geodynamics is untried in Australia, but got a $5 million grant from the government (43% of the money they have raised). No existing plants use "Clean" coal, it got a massive grant from the government and old plants are scheduled to run until 2030. Energy efficiency works, but it does not generate electricity and often requires costly retrofits. Government buildings don't have to have a 4 or 5 star ABGR rating, so it must not be too important. Fuel cells don't generate electricity. Photovoltaics are much more expensive than wind. Tidal and wave power are untried on a large scale in Australia. All of these technologies are going to need grants and subsidies to get up compared to coal. We need them all to be even close to sustainable. Throwing wind power away just makes the job harder.

If 84% of our electricity comes from coal, isn't that the technology that wind and all other new technologies should be compared to?

When mark duchamp says that it is all about dirty money I agree. Sustainability costs money and most Australians would prefer to pay less for cheap unsustainable, high polluting coal fired power than expensive sustainable energy technologies. I hope that can change.
Posted by ericc, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 9:11:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My family has connections with a small rural village in NSW where it is very very windy. The pub talk amongst the local cockies is that they can't wait for someone to come along and offer to put a wind farm up on their dirt-poor drought-ravaged holdings, so they can make a bit of rent money on the side to see them through. They have no interest in the environmental issues and scorn the wind power sceptics as nothing more than whinging hobby farmers and know-nothing city slickers. These blokes have made their minds up on who the latte sippers and chardonnay swillers are in this debate.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 10:26:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My experience is that support for wind power development -- not to mention its immense profit and tax shelter possibilities -- are in fact your latte sipping chardonnay swilling city slickers. It's the rural people who are fighting them.

Sure, a small pay-off is attractive to those in struggling areas (I live in such a place myself), but only a sucker would think that it would be followed by anything else than a kick in the pants.
Posted by Eric, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 1:03:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eric Having two logons so you can post more just means you post twice as much crap. Your opposed to wind farms for no other reason then your opposed to them. Power has to come from somewhere if you don't want a wind farm near you what type of power gen will you tolerate near you. Don't say it isn't a valid question because it goes to the heart of most opposition to wind farms.
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 5:15:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snowman,

What is the name of your discussion group and how can i look in every now and then.

t.u.s
Posted by the usual suspect, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 7:37:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What do Dr. Diesendorf (allegedly a Senior Lecturer in Environmental Studies at the University of New South Wales), Mr.Lloyd Besson the current President of Auswea ,Greenpeace Australia and the Minister for Energy in the State of Victoria have in common.?

They have all sought,singularly or collectively ,to justify the dumping of massive wind turbine industrial installations by large multinational companies on the unfortunate inhabitants of South Gippsland in the State of Victoria, Australia

For his part Dr. Diesendorf has conducted a campaign via the local press in South Gippsland suggesting that "people in rural areas" do not understand wind energy. Meaning what? That he does? That we are all mugs and simpletons?

Dr. Diesendorf has now fled from the harsh realities and scrutiny of the local press in South Gippsland to the relative security of cyber space.

From his new platform he has now suggested that those who oppose the dumping of massive wind turbines on their doorstep "may have ulterior motives and should be scrutinised for possible funding from industries that stand to gain from attacks on wind power."

Perhaps Dr. Diesendorf can explain to your readers if he has used the resources of the University of New South Wales (provided by student fees and the Australian taxpayer) to fund his unfounded attacks on individuals in South Gippsland who are simply standing up for their rights. And is the Vice Chancellor of UNSW also in agreement with this self imposed task of ferreting out so called anti - wind sympathisers.?

What a shabby, pathetic, grubby mess we have here posing as environmental sophistry.

(On a different topic on his reference to Denmark and it's wind turbine industry Dr. Diesendorf failed to mention that Denmark is one of the worst offenders in the EC in meeting it's obligations under the Kyoto Protocols on greenhouse gas abatement.)

Finally from Environment management UNSW
"Three actions were deferred: due to the need to secure stakeholder agreement
joining the "GreenFleet" program for corporate vehicle fleets); or pending senior management approval (installation of photovoltaic and solar hot water infrastructure)."
Posted by Cecil Breakwind - Smythers, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 9:08:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny, the question is whether previously undeveloped or lightly developed (i.e., agricultural) areas should host 400-foot-high moving erections that require 30-60 acres per rated megawatt and generate only 20-40% of their rated capacity at the whim of the wind rather than in response to demand, so that much of their already disproportionally small production is wasted.

There is no evidence that wind power on the grid moves us anywhere towards replacing coal, let alone towards reducing carbon emissions (most of which do not come from electricity).

I repeat: it's a boondoggle.
Posted by Eric, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 11:41:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no doubt that Dr Diesendorf holds the position at UNSW he claims to hold and there is no reason that he shouldn't advance a view. Continued posts claiming that he doesn't and that he is somehow misusing university resources are in my view flaming and I will rule the next one a breach of Forum Rules.

Graham Young
Posted by GrahamY, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 11:53:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eric any new power station no matter type will inventible be built on previously undeveloped or lightly developed land.

Notice none of the anti-wind farmers will not actually say which type of power generator they would prefer. So no matter what misinformation or “expert” they mention their argument always boils down to "not in my backyard".
Eric I've looked back at your post and sure enough the only thing you do is tell us how bad wind farms are, no reference able evidence is given to back this view up and no alternative is given either. So Eric make a stand lets pretend that a new power generator is required in your area and it is going to be built 400m away from your house of the current industry rate methods of generating power which one would you prefer. Not answering this question will cement in everyone’s mind that you are simply a knocker.

Eric try posting some decent reference’s better still links to back your claims.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 3 March 2005 4:48:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If wind is to replace coal, why aren't the turbines being built on top of coal plants?

The first requirement of a new energy source is that it be a good source of energy. Wind is not. That is why the arguments to install them in anyone's backyard are not compelling. And only such a necessarily sprawling technology as wind turbines would give rise to your question. Even so, if they were such wonderful devices as claimed by the sales brochures I might not mind one nearby. But they aren't.

I hadn't cited evidence, because I assumed that people involved in this discussion were at least a little familiar with the arguments or knew where to look. (Just as Diesendorf neglects to show evidence of actual change (other than the profitable growth of a new tax-shelter industry) from wind power.)

So please, Kenny, refer to http://www.aweo.org for a hard look at large-scale wind.
Posted by Eric, Thursday, 3 March 2005 1:58:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ericc,

For starters, fitting up Australia's dirty coal-fired power plants with clean coal technology could save up to 60% in CHG emissions. Why is this not being pursued? The US are doing it.

Windfarms don't save ANYTHING on CO2 because conventional generating capacity must compensate for the ups and downs of the wind, 24 h a day, burning more fuel and emitting more gases in the process. UK's Institution of Chemical Engineers says so. Do you doubt their competence? Do you think Greenpeace and FoE are better qualified in engineering matters?

The money spent on these useless, bird-killing pieces of junk could help jump-start geothermal, wave, solar and other powers. Windpower is HINDERING the implementation of real solutions.
Posted by mark duchamp, Thursday, 3 March 2005 2:21:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We could go on and on about the stats and facts for ever by the look of it. What about the social, emotional and health issues of communities? There is an impact and it doesn't seem to be very positive. The ongoing jobs for locals seem thin on the ground and the areas chosen are well populated. Can you imagine the effect of other areas not going ahead? How demoralising for those still in the firingline and unheard. Would you buy a property next door? Would you quietly sit by while they put up these huge constructions next to your dream home? What would be your reaction be if you where left without peace and quiet in your home.
Posted by Snake Sunday, Thursday, 3 March 2005 2:48:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From Mark Diesendorf:

I spoke up about wind power because I see so much dishonest and misleading propaganda being disseminated by anti-wind power campaigners. Here I summarise their tactics, all demonstrated in the above comments on my article:

1. They claim that they are not opposed to wind power in general, but only wind farms at particular sites. But, in practice, they oppose all proposals for grid-connected wind farms.

2. Many of them present themselves as environmentalists or conservationists, while ignoring or denying the world’s principal environmental threat, namely the human-induced greenhouse effect, and in particular that coal-fired electricity is the biggest contributor to greenhouse pollution.

3. They complain about the subsidies to wind power, while ignoring the much bigger subsidies to the production and use of fossil fuels.

4. They complain of the profits of the wind industry, while ignoring those of the coal industry which are millions of times larger. Unless anti-wind power campaigners are willing to state publicly that they are opposed to the whole capitalist system, they stand open to the charge of hypocrisy in criticising the wind industry for trying to make a profit.

5. They claim incorrectly that, as an ‘intermittent’ energy source, wind power cannot substitute for coal power and therefore can neither reduce carbon dioxide emissions nor contribute to meeting peak load. Refuted in my next posting.

6. They create the false impression that wind power has huge adverse environmental impacts, by picking out rare cases and presenting them as if they were typical. Thus they mislead without actually lying. Bird and bat casualties and noise are generally treated in this way.

7. They falsely label those who speak up against their misleading arguments as industry office-bearers, employees or spruikers. I have already refuted the statement that I was formerly President of the Australian Wind Energy Association, in a previous posting.

8. They denigrate the qualifications and expertise of those who disagree with them.

So, I have to ask, if anti-wind campaigners really have a strong case, why do they use such dubious tactics?

Mark Diesendorf
Posted by MD, Thursday, 3 March 2005 9:02:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The myth that wind needs back-up from coal

Consider the mantra parroted by anti-wind farm campaigners, that coal-fired power stations have to be kept running all the time to back-up wind. The research by the former CSIRO-ANU wind energy research group (e.g. Brian Martin & Mark Diesendorf, Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 4, pp.155-161) and the work of the British researcher, Dr Michael Grubb (e.g. Energy Policy, vol. 16, pp.594-607) among others showed that wind power substitutes for base-load power stations. In most of Australia, these are coal-fired.

About 2000 MW of wind power can substitute for 660 MW of coal power. This means that an existing coal unit can be retired or a proposed new coal unit can be deferred or cancelled. Thus wind power has economic value in saving capital as well as fuel.

To maintain the reliability of the generating system in meeting peak demand, some additional peak-load plant (e.g. gas turbines) is required. Typically it would require one-quarter to one-third of the wind power capacity, depending on the geographic dispersion of wind farms.

For wind energy penetrations of less than about 20% of total generation on the grid, this additional peak-load plant does not run frequently and its capital cost is low. Therefore, it is like reliability insurance with a low premium. It reduces only slightly the large greenhouse benefits that wind power achieves by substituting for coal.

I'm aware that the international anti-wind campaign likes to cite a few recent studies that fail to obtain the correct results. In general these studies have made elementary mistakes resulting from their failure to read or understand the earlier published literature.

Even without knowledge of the mathematical and computer models used to obtain the correct results, a little reflection allows anyone to understand the absurdity of the mantra that coal-fired power stations have to back up wind. The power output of many coal-fired stations CANNOT be ramped up and down to follow the variations in wind power. However, peak-load plant can respond quickly enough to do that job.

Mark Diesendorf
Posted by MD, Thursday, 3 March 2005 10:09:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for coming back on the forum and making these points, Mark.

Many authors can't be bothered and it weakens the debate.
Posted by ericc, Friday, 4 March 2005 12:01:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, indeed, thank you, Mark, for refocusing the discussion. The numbers below correspond to those in the recent post. My response exceeds the 350-word limit, so please go to http://www.aweo.org/Diesendorf.html for the rest.

1. I agree that many such statements are disingenuous. In fact, however, it is true, especially in areas of special beauty. In turn, developers are typically more disingenuous, claiming their sensitive concern for proper siting.

2. While some people deny global warming, the strongest argument against large-scale wind power is their miniscule potential contribution to mitigation. That coal-fired electricity is the biggest contributor to greenhouse pollution is a misstatement -- coal is the biggest source in electricity generation, but electricity generation is the source of only a fraction of our greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Subsidies need not be an issue, if wind power actually delivered substantial electricity in return. And the wrongness of subsidies for fossil fuels doesn't make subsidies to wind right; it just underscores the possibility that these subsidies are misdirected as well.

4. The issue of profits is raised because of the small benefit and the sacrifice of rural and undeveloped land. Profits, along with tax sheltering, are criticized because they appear to be based primarily on exploitation and piracy.

5. Refuted at http://www.aweo.org/Diesendorf.html

6. As wind facilities are proposed in the mountains of eastern U.S., for example, where birds and bats are indeed killed, the latter in shockingly large numbers, by existing turbines, it is right to consider that similarly sited turbines will show similar results. Most developers, as Diesendorf does, instead simply deny it's a problem. Because noise affects people to various degrees, the industry ignores the growing testimony of another very real problem in the confidence that "most" people get used to it. And there are other environmental problems, as with any industrial complex.

7. The fact is that most pro-wind arguments are right out of the industry's sales brochures and, as here, never backed by data from actual experience.

8. Nobody needs to give the pro-wind camp lessons on denigrating those who disagree with them.
Posted by Eric, Friday, 4 March 2005 2:20:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eric and Mark are members of a "not in my backyard anti-progress" pressure group. they have childish arguments and when asked for links to backup their claims they provide links to other site containing they ranting. Their continued resistance to answer real questions with answers show these people are incapable of rational thought in this area.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 4 March 2005 9:15:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny,

We all are for saving the planet, and NIMBIES even more so than others. And those pointing their fingers at NIMBIES should think twice: it was said at the Rio conference: the first and most important step towards an environmentally sound future is for everyone to look after his own backyard.

Indeed, individual people watching over their backyards are the best watchdogs against the devastating power of a corrupt political world, self serving bureaucracy and industrial interests awash with taxpayers' subsidies that enable them to buy their way out of trouble - like windfarm promoters killing eagles illegally with their machines, when their nests are not mysteriously burned when a windfarm permit is requested (it occured in Scotland).

I myself own no house, no property, nothing. But I love to walk the mountains of Spain, Scotland, or Australia. From where I am today, I can see the mountains of the Costa Blanca, many of them covered in snow after the cold spell we just had. 4 species of eagles survive in that rapidly shrinking wilderness, which has been classified as "Important Bird Area", plus falcons, kites, vultures, eagle owls, ospreys and a variety of migrating birds. This prompted me to fight for the protection of these mountains from the insatiable appetite of developers.

So I guess you would call me a NIMBY, eh?

And what should I call you, Kenny? - A land-wrecker? A money-grabber? A windfarm fanatic? A brainwashed global warmer?

You tell me, and I will be glad to oblige.

Note: you are the one who started this silly name-calling argument, so don't you start accusing me now of ad hominem.

And don't you dare "childish" me ever again. If you want to have a proper discussion on this very serious matter, I suggest you start behaving in a civilized and courteous manner.
Posted by mark duchamp, Friday, 4 March 2005 12:59:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MD we could ask you a similar questions. If you are totally convinced you are right why do you stoop to such tactics as suggesting those fighting windfarms have ulterior motives? Is this not denigration?
You suggest we are somehow funded by industries who may gain from our stance. This is rubbish. What evidence do you or anyone else have? None, because there is none. If you cannot prove such allegations will we get a public apology from you on this forum.
You suggest we cannot possibly be environmentalists, but of course you take the high moral ground on the environment because you are pro windfarm, end of story. What have you done personally for the environment Mark, with your own hands?
How many trees have you personally planted in the past 12 months Mark?
What have you done personally to improve bird habitats Mark?
What have you done personally to combat erosion, salinity, revegetation?

Kenny, your responses verge on abuse and your questions are childish so quite frankly you are not worth my time.
Posted by nauswea, Friday, 4 March 2005 6:12:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just so there is no confusion in the minds of people just joining this forum: "MD" is Mark Diesendorf, the pro-windfarm author of the article we are debating here.

And when Nauswea criticizes "Mark", or "MD", she is not talking about me, of course.

Mark Duchamp
Posted by mark duchamp, Saturday, 5 March 2005 1:18:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Although I think that the problems of energy security, increasing demand for energy and air pollution are too serious to exclude wind power from our mix of sources of electricity, I don't think it is right to ignore the concerns of NIMBY's or anybody else who has concerns about the noise, visual impact or any other aspect of anything that is goint to be built. I don't want to build a society that has energy security at the loss of individual freedom. I'd rather have the individual freedom to comment and argue to my government, than have plentiful cheap, clean electricity.

That being said if a farmer leases his land for a wind turbine, or the wind farm buys the land and the development is approved after going through all the environmental requirements, they must have the right to build and maintain the wind farm.

Cats, cars, office buildings, transmission towers, transmission lines and communication towers kill far more birds than wind turbines. It seems like it is implied that the only birds that ever die are killed by wind turbines. Loss of habitat, loss of nesting locations and changes in biodiversity also need to be considered in the health of bird populations. The pollution and land used for the generation of coal fired electricity has a far greater impact on these factors than wind farms. Still it is worth including in the analysis of any new wind farm development, the potential impact on birds just as it should be considered for transmission and communications towers.
Posted by ericc, Saturday, 5 March 2005 11:31:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to me that his 'debate' has turned into nothing more than a ‘slanging match’ between the opposing sides of the debate. Much of this can be blamed on the inflammatory statement contained in the article, “Anti-wind power groups that exaggerate environmental impacts and technical limitations should be scrutinised for possible funding from industries that stand to gain from attacks on wind power”.

Throwing mud and casting doubt on the motives of those with a different view is hardly food for proper academic discourse and is bound provoke an angry response from those who oppose the siting of wind power stations in inappropriate locations.

This goes to show just how divisive and problematic the whole wind power issue is. Can anyone else think of any other issue that has caused such heated and vitriolic comments between total strangers? The promotion of solar energy certainly does not.

The pro-wind power people will not concede that there are problems related to the siting of wind power stations or that there are problems with the efficiency of the technology. The recent German report (Energy Policy – Der Speigel January 2005) states “The quantity of climate-change damaging CO2 gas that would be saved by wind power could be achieved more cheaply by other means”. The fact that the wind industry tried desperately to have this report suppressed is a clear indication that there are genuine grounds for concern.

I suggest that this topic has run its course and until there is more substantiated evidence posted there is little to be gained by its continuance
Posted by landlubber, Saturday, 5 March 2005 1:21:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now where was I . I don't recall questioning Dr. Diesendorf''s qualifications or his right to make a comment It's the sense and sensibilities of his comments,such as they are, that are of interest. His use of Open Forum as a soapbox to launch a witchhunt under the veneer of academe is another matter and deserves the blowtorch.

On Noise. The State of Victoria uses the noise standards NZS6808 concocted in New Zealand in association with the wind energy industry. By the way NZS6808 is non compliant with WHO noise recommendations and again there is no calibrated wind turbine noise test range in Australia or NZ. Did someone mention ISO9001?

Sorry Doctor, leave the computer model under the bed on this one.
It's back to the drawing board. Noise emissions from wind power stations are due to a complex mix of structural vortices combined with intermodulation products generated by high blade tip speeds and turbine mechanical noise. Influenced also by wind direction, seasonal and diurnal/nocturnal temperature variations. Adverse effects down range may be greater than those closer in to the turbines. See Toora measurement transgressions.

Still on noise. From the chairman of a recent "Independent " Planning Victoria Tribunal on noise. "Infra sound is audible sound below 16Hz" and this is supposed to be a serious investigation into a monster 50 turbine wind power station .Whose laughing?

Property Devaluation. Sorry Doctor. Wind power stations are right up there with sewage farms as items for disclosure on land sales. Failure to disclose is NAUGHTY as vendors recently found to their considerable costs in a LAW COURT in Cumbria.

Accountability. I say hook up the high speed real time electronic correlators,quantifiers and data processors to the wind power stations and bring the wind industry,their sulking courtiers, consorts and political cronies kicking and screaming into the modern real world.

Required Reading. Visit the Darmstadt Manifesto on The Exploitation of Wind Energy in Germany issued at the Press Club in Bonn Germany in 1998 by Prof. Dr.Lothan Hoischen and signed by over 100 Environmentalists, Engineers and Scientists.

Landlubber. Concur. It's now a la-la world.
Posted by Cecil Breakwind - Smythers, Sunday, 6 March 2005 6:53:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr. Diesendorf
Is it possible for you to provide a web reference to the performance of some selected wind farms?
I would like to now the variation of output in terms of capacity (percentage of nominal power rating), power output (MW) and energy in (TJ). Can you supply data which shows measures of average with confidence intervals, the maximum and minimum outputs achieved. Could the data be arranged so as to indicate daily, weekly, seasonal and yearly variation?

Can also provide reference to scatterplots showing correlation of output from wind turbines with ambient temperature? We know that power demands for air conditioning, heating etc is temperature dependant.

Lastly, I am not interested in the non-sense unit of power to supply so many households
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 7 March 2005 2:10:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thankyou Mark Duchamp and Cecil Breakwind-Smyth (love the name) for adding your technical expertise to this Bluff & Bluster article, it has been most welcome to read responses from people who know what they are talking about. I think we have established well and truly where the bluff and bluster is coming from and it is not from the anti windfarm side but from the windy zealots.

Anti-Green we can tell you the output of the Toora windfarm on a typical 40 degree day, zilch, zero, 0. There is rarely any wind on these days. We can also give you the output from the same windfarm a couple of weeks ago during 'the storm' when the summer temperature plummeted here in Victoria, zilch, once again at a standstill. They don't work when the wind blows too strong. Actually they don't work that often at all, often they just sort of stand there like twelve sentinals to stupidity and irrelevance.

As landlubber quite rightly stated we can probably leave this forum be now. There will always be people who desparately want to believe windfarms are the answer and won't listen to any view other than the one that supports their own, none so blind as he who will not see.
Posted by nauswea, Monday, 7 March 2005 3:28:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Diesendorf has not disappeared into cyberspace as one of your correspondents thought. He has now turned his attention to small rural communities in the Southern Tablelands of NSW whose villages have been targetted for huge wind-farms.

In a post dated Feb 27, Mark Diesendorf said he had “never been a member, employee or consultant to AUSWEA”.

In that case, why until recently did the web-site of the “Sustainability Centre” Pty, of which he is the Director, list AUSWEA on its clients and collaborators page?

This was pointed out in a local newspaper and I immediately printed out a copy of the web-page just in case the reference to AUSWEA disappeared – just as well, because the reference to AUSWEA has now been deleted.
Posted by only me, Monday, 27 June 2005 10:05:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nauswea is mistaken or deliberately misleads. I live 9kms from the Toora windfarm and visit it regularly, precisely to see how well it operates in different weather conditions. It operates about 90% time, although not always at peak generation capacity I suspect. I doubt nauswea and others who have quoted the Toora wind farm even live in the region. If they did they would know summer equals regular onshore easterly winds and winter provides regular southerly through to north-westerly winds. In short, it's one of the best windfarm areas in southern Oz.

Toora residents do occasionally hear blade noise on calmer nights when the wind comes from the NW but it's nowhere near the noise of highway traffic passing through the town - or the sounds from the old milk factory that once operated there.

Properties continue to be bought and sold, the claimed devaluation's don't mirror the reality and seem more designed to support a self serving blanket opposition to wind farms generally.

Here, whinging about wind farms appears to come mainly from urban retirees and other comparatively recent arrivals to the area, precious types with a 'Bugger you Jack I'm alright' mentality.
Posted by Blair, Sunday, 16 April 2006 1:24:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for this Blair. It is good to hear from someone who has been close by.
Posted by ericc, Sunday, 16 April 2006 6:55:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Blair's frequent trips (by car, presumably, since the constant wind would make it difficult to bicycle) to the Toora facility 9 km away probably cancel whatever environmental benefits he thinks the wind power represents.

On a serious note, it is true that New Zealand presents an exception to the general poor performance of wind turbines, with very high average output (40% of capacity is not unusual). On the other hand, it remains intermittent and variable and thus has a low capacity for replacing other sources, just as everywhere else.
Posted by Eric, Sunday, 16 April 2006 10:01:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks ericc, local evidence suggests wind farm opponents repeat specious science, aren't interested in contrary evidence, objectivity or applying the same criticisms to their (rare) prefered alternative energy source. They frequently quote Altamont Pass in their criticisms - contemporary evidence does not trouble them. They oppose mainly because they don't want a wind farm in their field of view.

At the Toora wind farm there are several people who live near its boundary, one of these people bought their property after the wind farm was constructed and cannot undertand what the fuss is about.

To Eric, yes I visit by car because my quadriplegia precludes me from peddling a pushbike. How do you travel any distance? When visiting the Toora wind farm I'm often accompanied by visitors to the region. They too have not understood why some folks oppose wind farms.

Effects of the Toora wind farm to date - Tourism has not decreased (many visitors specifically come to the see the wind farm), birds haven't been killed, blade flicker is a non-issue, blade noise is noticable in certain conditions.

The biggest joke: recently the Lake Bonney turbine fire was breathlessly reported locally as 'proof' turbines would be a major fire threat. No anti-wind energy person appears to have considered the fact that if farmers cannot get turbines built at the proposed Dollar windfarm, 5kms away, many of those farmers will sell to blue-gum plantantion groups. I understand every farmer has been approached.

So instead of safe turbines they'll get a monoculture that blocks that same views our precious wind farm opponents accuse wind turbines of destroying, a large fire hazard, the loss of approx $150,000 additional spending in the region, population decrease and a probable commensurate loss to the local Council in property rates. Brilliant!

Wind farm opponents suffer from many things but honesty, objectivity and a grasp of reality do not feature among them.
Posted by Blair, Monday, 17 April 2006 3:27:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Blair may not have noticed that I did not question his claims about the Toora facility. I am on the other side of the world, and I don't know the particular circumstances and environment there. Nonetheless he insists that all opponents deny contrary evidence and are simply interested in fighting obstructions to their vistas. And he implies that because he sees industrial wind working out for the best where he/she lives, such an experience, let alone conditions, must be the case everywhere else as well. More than Altamont, which nobody in this forum has mentioned, Toora -- if Blair's claims are true -- may be an exception.

I did, however, suggest that despite the apparent acceptance and productivity of the Toora facility its effect of reducing other sources is minimal. That is the sorry fact that industrial wind promoters refuse to acknowledge.
Posted by Eric, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 12:06:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I am only referring to wind farm opponents in this region. I certainly do not imply that wind works well everywhere, I know that is not the case. Anybody familiar with this area knows that wind is one commodity we do not lack here.

The fact of the matter is that some opponents of wind in this area will refuse to except it can provide part of the answer to our energy needs. It would not matter how efficient, how clean or how reliable wind energy might prove to be, they will oppose it regardless.

I grew up on a farm the that was later compulsorily acquired by the Victorian state Govt. so a large dam could be built on it to provide cooling water for the Hazelwood (coal fired) power station, in the the Latrobe Valley. Approx. 90kms north of here.

I would much prefer to see a series of ridge tops with wind turbines on them than see a large black hole in the ground where there was once productive farmland.

It's strange logic that condemns a wind farm because it alone can only have a minor impact on total electricity production. You might just as well apply the same argument to fuel efficient cars, individually they make practically no difference to overall fuel usage, but nobody seems to be arguing that we'd be better off without them.
Posted by Blair, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 10:25:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The trade-off you describe would indeed by worthwhile if it in fact occurred. There is no sign, however, of less use of coal or any other fuel because of wind turbines on the grid.
Posted by Eric, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 11:51:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On Nov 11th 2005 death by accident and two injured on Suzon Wind Energy Corp, Murray County.

Chandler, Minn death from fall off a 200m wind tower.

[Email on Know Nukes signed Nuke Bob. date 31 March 2006].

Does anybody know of the safety record from wind energy. Expressed as deaths/TJ of generated electricity. So I can compare with other power generating sources as published on the UIC web site.
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 12:06:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eric try telling all the members of community owned wind farms in Germany and Denmark that they're making no difference to fossil fuel usage.

Wind farms in Australia have only started to be developed in any number in recent years. Your criticisms are premature.

I'll be interested to see if anti-green can get figures for coal miner deaths in China and Russia for starters. Last I heard, annual fatalities were in the thousands.
Posted by Blair, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 4:21:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Data from UIC briefing paper 14.

Some coal mining accidents in China.

Place year Number killed Comment

Hongton,Shanxi 1991 147
Henan, China 1996 84
Datong, China 1996 114 Methane Explosion
Henan, China 1997 89 Methane Explosion
Fushun, China 1997 68 Methane Explosion
Huainan, China 1997 89 Methane Explosion
Huainan, China 1997 45 Methane Explosion
Guizhou, China 1997 43 Methane Explosion
Liaoning, China 1998 71 Methane Explosion
Shanxi 2000 40 Methane Explosion
Muchonggou,Guizhou2000 162 Methane Explosion
Jixi 2002 115 Methane Explosion
Gaoqiao 2003 234 Gas well Blow out with H2S
Henan 2004 148 Methane Explosion
Chenjiashan 2004 166 Methane Explosion
Sunjiawan 2005 215 Methane Explosion
Fukang 2005 83 Methane Explosion
Xingning, Guangdong2005 102 Coal mine flood.
Donfeng 2005 164 Methane Explosion
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 5:05:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is precisely Germany and Denmark of which I speak. They do not show reductions of other fuel use in response to substantial wind power "penetration".
Posted by Eric, Wednesday, 19 April 2006 2:03:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As you've probably realised Eric, I believe wind farms do have a place in our energy mix and can add to the viability of rural areas. You, nauswea and others are welcome to your opinions and selective arguments. I suspect time will show who is most in touch with reality. Until then we can agree to disagree.
Posted by Blair, Wednesday, 19 April 2006 11:50:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Data from UIC briefing paper 14 [continued].

Some coal mining accidents in Russia and Parts of old Soviet Union.

Place year Number killed Comment

Donbas, Ukraine 1980 68 Methane Explosion
Tbilisi, Russia 1984 100 Gas explosion
Dobrnja, Yugoslavia 1990 178
Spitsbergen, Russia 1996 141 Coal mine
Kuzbass, Siberia 1997 67 Methane Explosion
Donbas, Ukraine 1998 63 Methane Explosion
Donbas, Ukraine 1999 50+ Methane Explosion
Donbas,Ukraine 2000 80 Methane Explosion
Kuzbass 2004 47 Methane Explosion
Donbas, Ukraine 2004 36 Methane Explosion

Summary- Comparison of accident statistics.

The order in following list is Fuel,immediate fatalities 1970-72,Who?and Deaths Per TWy electricity.

Coal 6400 workers 342
Natural gas 1200 workers &public 85
Hydro 4000 public 883
Nuclear 31 workers 8
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 19 April 2006 2:04:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Time, Blair, has already shown the failure of industrial-scale wind power.
Posted by Eric, Wednesday, 19 April 2006 11:09:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the figures anti-green, I'm glad I'm not in the fossil fuel business in the former Soviet territories or China. The numbers make nuclear look good.

I found this link http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update42.htm on pollution from coal usage in the US. I don't know how reliable or objective the Earth Policy Institute is but if the figures are accurate I'm even more convinced renewables are the way to go wherever possible.
Posted by Blair, Thursday, 20 April 2006 9:31:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why aren't we discussing offshore wind power? Many of the "cosmetic" problems could be eliminated. And why aren't the people of this wealthy nation insisting that governments properly regulate pollutant industries to cap their lethal emissions. Strangely, communities actually believe that environmental departments, along with their masters, are safe-guarding the environment and community health whilst in fact they are destroying it! Emissions are on the increase and governments are obsessed only with economic success. More profits for pollutant industries, more profits for governments! The Kyoto forum is a cop-out for Australia and we must look first at the parochial practices of governments in this country. While they have been finally forced to ackowledge that greenhouse gases are actually a concern, they fail to advise on all the other uncontrolled, carcinogenic chemicals spewing out from stacks whilst rubbing their hands in glee!! Whilst we the citizens, are prosecuted for breaking any law (no economic argument allowed), successive governments have permitted the destruction of our eco systems and the degradation of community health! And the status quo will be maintained whilst sincere, discerning community members fail to identify the culprits. Capping of all hazardous air pollutants would enable us to immediately breathe fresh air which has not been privatised through greed!!
Posted by dickie, Friday, 4 August 2006 1:17:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If bird societies won't oppose windfarms that are set to kill eagles or other endangered birds (ornithologists are making money from the wind rush), who will?

- Ramblers!

Here are excerpts from an article in the Observer, UK:

RAMBLERS DEMAND AN END TO SPREAD OF WIND FARMS

Victory in Scotland prompts full-scale attack on energy policy

Rob Sharp
Sunday September 17, 2006
The Observer

The Ramblers' Association is set to announce its opposition to the construction of onshore wind farms across the country. The move is a major blow for the government, which is struggling to maintain its pledge to increase the amount of electricity generated by renewable energy sources.

The decision to try to block large wind farms in Britain follows the association's role in persuading the Scottish Executive to stop construction of a group of turbines in Perthshire on the grounds that the development would damage the environment.

........

Having drawn blood north of the border, the Ramblers are set on following this up in England and Wales. In a policy document to be published next month, the association - which has almost 140,000 members and whose president is Labour peer Chris Smith - pledges its commitment to pushing the government towards other forms of non-fossil energy, including nuclear power. The move is a radical departure from the stance of groups such as Greenpeace, which welcome wind farms and criticise plans to increase use of nuclear power.

.....

COMMENT:

It's about time people realized windfarms will turn the great outdoors into an industrial junkyard.

BTW, a poll in Spain showed that 60% of tourists to a national park would not visit a place where wind turbines dot the landscape.
Posted by mark duchamp, Monday, 18 September 2006 1:47:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There appears to be some debate over the effectiveness of windfarms reducing greenhouse gases. And to reiterate a question I asked in a previous post, why is there no debate on offshore windfarms such as the German projects?

Well let's now have a peek at the nuclear industry and the insidious, lethal effects it has on human and animal health and the environment.

Globally there are about 440 nuke power plants which supply only 17% of the world's energy requirements. When you consider the entire nuke process, from uranium mining to an operative power plant, the emissions of greenhouse gases (and other radioactive and hazardous waste compounds), are sufficiently excessive to make one's hair stand on end.

By 2002, American citizens had already forked out 18 billion dollars for the Yucca Mountain waste repository in Nevada - proposed opening in 2010 and dubious at that! By 2002, 6 billion dollars had been spent with costs rapidly blowing out!

We are all aware of the ramifications of decommissioning a nuclear power plant and the legacy that nuclear imposes on our great grandchildren's great grandchildren. However, to decommission a windfarm is totally environmentally safe and all materials can be recycled.

To my knowledge, with the exception of Holland, no windfarms have yet been decommissioned in Europe. I recommend that we proceed down this path (warts and all), with a serious look at other sustainable energies, particularly solar energy.

Should nuclear energy proceed, I trust the "clean and green" proponents of NE will still be around to witness the establishment of more than 3,000 nuclear plants scattered around communities and the massive increase in radioactive waste and greenhouse gases, since this is the number of plants required to make any dent in the world's current energy needs.

And even then, how does one propose influencing the coal industry to shut its doors?
Posted by dickie, Monday, 18 September 2006 7:50:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's amazing the way the anti wind zealots will find or invent all sorts of excuses to condemn wind farms while conveniently ignoring all the problems of nuclear or coal powered generation.

The "look" of a wind farm apparently troubles them far more than nuclear waste hazards, the health effects of coal fired power stations, the financial handouts these energy dinosaurs extract from government's to produce their artificially low-priced electricity or the fact that they are transferring economical and the ecological time bombs to generations to come.
Posted by Blair, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 9:43:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is not amazing but rather all too typical is such characterization of the entire opposition to industrial wind power by one imperfect aspect of it and then using that example to divert attention from the actual argument at hand.

I completely agree with blair about coal and nuclear. Their problems are well known, and opposition to them is already well organized and long established. Industrial wind development is relatively new. It does not distract from the facts about coal and nuclear to also point out the shortcomings of big wind.
Posted by Eric, Tuesday, 19 September 2006 9:31:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eric, I'd submit that most of the people who have contributed to this forum have attempted to learn at least a little about wind energy, and, they would accept wind energy is not perfect or the complete solution to our energy needs.

The disappointing thing about this discussion is that valid concerns about wind energy are not always applied with equal vigour to existing power sources or other renewable alternatives. If you can name a technology that was perfect from its inception and has not evolved at all, please enlighten us all.

You do not promote practical, available, renewable alternatives that can compete with wind (other than hydro, which in Australia has limited growth potential anyway, unlike wind). You do not acknowledge wind energy is an evolving technology and you consistently portray wind energy proponents as people who ignore its shortcomings.

It's the typical ploy of wind energy opponents and very transparent.

I hope wind, solar, wave and other renewable technologies provide increasing percentages of our energy needs and I'll be encouraging their development. Wind energy is growing around the world. Get over it.
Posted by Blair, Wednesday, 20 September 2006 4:38:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the things that stands out about wind is its apparent inability to replace other sources. That is a big shortcoming. At least other sources -- renewable and otherwise -- produce useful electricity for the grid, so there is something against which to weigh the costs. As for the growth of the wind energy business, religious fundamentalism is growing around the world, too. That in itself does not make it right or true. The fact of the issue at hand is that the industry has yet to show any evidence of actual benefit from wind power on the grid. Their massive erections seem more like the giant statues on Rapa Nui, a desperate but very wrongheaded effort to fend off environmental disaster.
Posted by Eric, Thursday, 21 September 2006 12:57:21 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Eric for demonstrating so completely, the points I made previously.
Posted by Blair, Thursday, 21 September 2006 5:41:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Allan MacRae is an engineer from Canada. This is what he wrote on the subject:

Unfortunately, wind energy just does not work economically, except perhaps in certain remote locations. The key is the abysmally low "Substitution Capacity", for example, it is now 8% in Germany, and is projected to drop to 4% by 2020. Substitution Capacity is the percentage of conventional electric power generation capacity that can be permanently idled by adding wind power capacity to the grid. So they will have to build 100 MW of wind capacity to idle just 4 MW of conventional generation.

This is all explained in the excellent report
E.On Netz Wind Power Report 2005
http://www.eon-netz.com/EONNETZ_eng.jsp

For more information please see Figure 7 - "Falling substitution capacity".

Wind Variability and Grid Operability are related problems. The E.on report further states on page 8: Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year at 6,024MW,it fell to below 2,000MW within only 10 hours,a difference of over 4,000MW.This corresponds to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired power station blocks.

The rapid growth of wind power can be attributed entirely to excessive, foolish government subsidies. Once the complete stupidity of these subsidies becomes apparent, governments will cease paying them and many wind farms will go bankrupt.

end of quote

What will farmers do, with a bankrupt windfarm on their property?

Mark
Posted by mark duchamp, Monday, 25 September 2006 3:49:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am amazed at the mentality, "if we cannot have all renewable energy we will have none. My son lives in remote Australia, and has just installed solar power, now his diesal generator only runs for up to 4 hours per day instead of 24. On your premise he should have stuck with burning up diesal 24 hours.
I live with noise in one of the windyest parts of Australia, often woken at night, other times the roar of the waves. It would be a delight to occassionally wake to a turbine and know atleast it is doing some good for future generations.
I ask you all to open your minds and learn about modern renewable energy, not that of 30 years ago. Grandmother
Posted by Grandmother, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 2:15:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a difference between a small system tightly tied to diesel back-up and a bank of batteries to supply a home and the large multi-turbine facilities meant to supply the grid, where -- except in the rare cases of substantial pumped hydro -- there is no large-scale storage to smooth the highly variable wind-generated power.
Posted by Eric, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 9:12:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A thing that intrigues me about the pronouncements by politicians etc. about wind power projects is that everyone quotes "Installed Capacity" ratings. I've never heard anyone talk about the actual Load Factor attained by any of the existing Wind Farms in Australia.

In the UK it is about 27%.

On the general matter of Global Warming, which may or may not be actually happening at this stage of the World's existance, but has certainly happened several times in the geological past.
There are ample records of ice ages, world wide, which have certainly subsequently melted and they did so without any contribution whatsoever from human generated Carbon Dioxide. Are we wasting time and money on this "Carbon Capture" nonsense?
Posted by BritBasher, Saturday, 28 October 2006 10:09:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You're right, Britbasher. Anthropogenic global warming is on the run:

US Senate press release, Oct 18 2006

"Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism.

....Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming...

Allegre's conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a “consensus” about manmade global warming.

....new climate science research continues to unravel the global warming alarmists’ computer model predictions of future climatic doom and vindicate skeptics.

60 SCIENTISTS DEBUNK GLOBAL WARMING FEARS
Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.

“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

GLOBAL COOLING ON THE HORIZON?
In August, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun’s output. See: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html

ETC."

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
Posted by mark duchamp, Saturday, 28 October 2006 2:01:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well good on all you dole-bludging do-gooder greenie anti-wind farm campaigners that somehow manage to keep having plans for new wind farms canned. Now we're getting 25 new nuclear reactors. That's much better, isn't it? Or maybe we should just build a few more coal fired power stations to add to the 80% of our power that is already generated by coal. Look at the big picture and think what you're doing!
Posted by dolebludgersgetlost, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 9:06:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We will need to build nuclear or coal-fired power stations REGARDLESS of how many windfarms we have:

- for the days without wind.

- to balance wind intermittency. This must be done 24/7
and consumes the very fossil fuels that the wind turbines are saving.

The E.On Netz report, from Germany, is eloquent in this regard.
Posted by mark duchamp, Thursday, 23 November 2006 1:46:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can hardly wait for mark duchamp and eric to tell us all how wondereful it will be to live next door to a nuclear reactor. What's the bet these two advocates of selective evidence don't actually live adjacent to a reactor themselves?
Posted by Blair, Thursday, 23 November 2006 2:10:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You haven't read my previous post, obviously: windfarms won't free us from the necessity of building nuclear reactors.
Posted by mark duchamp, Thursday, 23 November 2006 2:16:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nuclear reactors are fine. I don't see what everyone has against them. Except for the waste, they produce clean energy. If property near the reactor sites is going to drop in value, put my name down for some, in fact, if wind farms are going to de-value property, then I'll have some of that too.

I think up to 30% of power fed into the grid can be from wind turbines. That's 30% less from fossil fuels, which surely must be good.
Posted by dolebludgersgetlost, Thursday, 23 November 2006 6:38:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark is right. Because wind power production fluctates so wildly, a substantial amount of other plants have to be kept on standby -- burning fuel so that they are ready to switch to generation as needed. Thus, replacing generation with electricity from the wind does not mean replacing the burning of fuel. In fact, the extra burden of balancing the wind generation requires other sources to run less efficiently, increasing their emissions.

And as far as the wind can not be depended on for even a minimum level of steady power, it will not touch the base load provided by nuclear and large coal plants.

If you want to see less coal, less nuclear, and less greenhouse gas emission -- as I do -- then looking at wind turbines is a waste of time and money.
Posted by Eric, Thursday, 23 November 2006 11:09:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The USA have more nuclear reactors (103) than any other nation.

Why then are they the largest polluters per capita on the planet?
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 23 November 2006 11:41:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK, let's get a few things straight in this debate.
Firstly, even climate change sceptics (eg: John Howard, Rupert Murdoch, Michael Chaney) now say that any prudent person/business/government would be irresponsible not to insure against the chance that human-induced climate change is real.
That means regardless of whether you believe the prophets of doom - who include the vast majority of the world's respected climate scientists - you would be mad not to cut greenhouse pollution big-time, ASAP.

The second thing is that if you want to cut greenhouse pollution, you have to start today. NOT 15 years from now when, if you believe the likes of John Howard & Ian Campbell, nuclear waste will no longer be an issue & "clean coal" will have magically appeared and become both economically & environmentally viable.

So, that leaves us needing to start taking action now, while also providing enough electricity to power our aircons & plasma TVs. How do we do that? By using the only viable, proven pollution-free power generation systems available at a reasonable cost.

Guess what, that means - among other things - wind power. Get used to it. I'm sure the people of the late 19th century didn't enjoy train tracks being put all over their land or coal mines being dug into their hills, but they got used to it & benefitted from the results.

So, stop complaining unless you have a better solution.

If you want to make a diffference, get involved in the process to make sure that new wind farms are as well planned & suitably sited as possible. Otherwise, bugger off & find some other "cause" to whinge about.
Posted by Sven Laptop, Wednesday, 29 November 2006 12:02:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I agree that one issue is to ensure the best siting of wind power facilities, the debate remains whether wind power in fact helps us in cutting greenhouse gases. So far, there is no evidence that it does.
Posted by Eric, Wednesday, 29 November 2006 12:26:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly Eric, there is plenty of evidence that wind reduces greenhouse gases, and don't come back with the arguments about back-up, because if you ask NEMMCO (the company that runs the electricity grid serving most of Australia's population), you will find that over the last 5 years while the amount of installed win energy has risen from almost nothing to more than 800MW, the amount of spinning reserve (back-up) was actually been reduced.

Secondly everyone agrees that Australians are constantly demanding more electricity and that trend is likely to continue. In that case, doesn't it make sense for as much of that power to come from zero-pollution sources as possible? Otherwise we just burn more coal, which won't exactly help our greenhouse production levels, will it?

Finally, as for arguments about intermittency, the more wind farms we have (within reason) with a good geographic spread, the more we can count on wind always contributing to the grid. When was the last time the wind didn't blow anywhere in south-east Australia?

Add the advances in wind forecasting to the mix & we will know up to 48 hours in advance what inputs we can expect.

So stop with the excuses, let's get on with making a difference, using wind power & any other energy source that can prove its worth.
Posted by Sven Laptop, Wednesday, 29 November 2006 1:08:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
eric the reason you can't see any evidence of wind farms reducing greenhouse gasses is because your head is in the sand and/or you're ignorant about electricity production and disribution . If Denmark wasn't getting 20% of its power from wind farms it would be obtaining it from a fossil or nuclear source - both of which do emit greenhouse gasses. Even our precious federal government's handpicked, pro nuclear committee's report on nuclear power in Austraia admitted that nuclear power is responsible for ongoing greenhouse gas emissions.

Why do you agree that proponents should ensure the best siting of wind power facilities if you don't believe wind works?
Posted by Blair, Wednesday, 29 November 2006 1:12:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's face it, the biggest benefit ANYONE gets out of installing wind farms are the people who make and sell the darned things! As a source of electric power generation they can never meet our ever-increasing base load demands, so it is either fossil fuel or nuclear until someone figures out how to make the thermal fusion process work!
As for global warming, if it really IS happening, what is the proof that mankind generated CO2 is even a contributary cause, let alone the main culprit?
There is ample geological evidence of severe Ice Ages in the past. The last big one, 20,000 years ago, left the Northern part of the globe covered with ice up to 2 KILOMETRES thick. Well, it melted eventually, so there must have been "global warming" then, but it certainly didn't involve any great burning of "fossil fuels" or anything else by the Neandertals!
Are we wasting time & money chasing reduction of CO2 emissions which may have damn all to do with the problem of POSSIBLE global warming?
Posted by BritBasher, Wednesday, 29 November 2006 4:33:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BritBasher, nobody who's bothered to learn even the basics about renewables would argue wind power alone can solve our electricity needs. Energy demand could be satisfied if serious energy conservation together with design efficiencies and ALL practical, available renewables, and gas were deployed. What's stopping these developements are the backward thinking of Government (in Aust. anyway) any the negative attitudes of people like eric and duchamp and some nimby landholders who think they're to precious to have to look at or live near a wind farm, also they're jealous because they didn't have the luck or foresight to buy land suitable for wind farms. If it wasn't for the long term waste probs of nuclear power I'd support it too.
Posted by Blair, Wednesday, 29 November 2006 5:19:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Blair is on the right track with conserving power. We have energy saving lights (CFLs) readily available and very reasonably priced. The old incandescent globes should be taxed off the shelves or banned. And how about freeway street lights? Each of those suckers burns a couple of thousand watts. Add all the freeway lights up and you have a lot of MWs. How about turning them off after 10pm when traffic dies down. Cars all have headlights and seem to cope fine on the interstate roads.

As for putting power stations on stand-by to help out when there is no wind, where did that stupid idea come from? Power stations produce power all the time and are just regulated up or down, depending on demand. With wind turbines producing some of the power on a grid, coal fired power stations would just not be powered up as much, thus producing less emissions.
Posted by dolebludgersgetlost, Wednesday, 29 November 2006 7:25:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Enter the Golden Age where wind power will be complemented by solar power. R&D is proceeding where hydrogen solar power will not be dependent on fossil fuels and companies researching and developing thin-film solar technology claim that it will be competitive with grid electricity (www.redherring.com).

More emphasis should be placed on gas fired plants for the interim period (where carbon emissions are reduced by 50%) whilst better developing wind and solar technologies.

The only strategy our anal retentive leaders have is to continue polluting the planet by mining uranium, in their quest for nuclear power and their maniacal zest for profits!
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 29 November 2006 7:55:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sven L, please provide evidence that fuel purchases by utilities decrease due to wind power on the grid. Denmark does not "get" 20% of its electricity from wind. The correct statement is that wind produces 20% of the electricity generated in Denmark. It is well known that most of it has to be exported to Sweden, where it displaces hydro, as it would on any system that has enough hydro. Without hydro, the rest of the grid just has to work harder to balance the inconstant wind. If there's enough to require reducing relatively efficient base load plants, then other plants have to be run more than they would have been without wind. The extra switching and ramping also increases their emissions. In other words, the lack of effect on fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions is not hard to understand.

Forecasting is indeed always improving, but it can provide only a general picture, not the minute to minute fluctuations.

Insisting on sensitive siting can hardly be construed as an endorsement -- it's simply dealing with reality. If the juggernaut's coming to town, whether one likes it or not, one ought to none the less ensure that its damage is minimal.
Posted by Eric, Wednesday, 29 November 2006 11:10:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK Eric, you want evidence, how about the report titled "Assessment of greenhouse gas abatement from windfarms in Victoria" by Maclellan Magazanik & Associates, July 2006, which showed that on average each megawatt hour of electricity from wind power means 1 tonne less greenhouse gas is produced. It also showed that Victoria's existing wind farms are reducing our greenhouse gas output by 250,000 tonnes per year on average.

Sure, it's not a simple sum like 1 MWh from wind equals 1 MWh less from brown coal, but it makes a significant difference & if Australia can be bothered, we can improve the system so that zero-emission sources of electricity like wind are given priority in the grid, rather than the dinosaur coal burners.

And don't give me that rubbish about power stations suffering for the addition of wind. The electricity grid is designed to cope with infinite changes in supply & demand. Is it the wind industry's fault if the coal industry can't keep up?

Or maybe you would rather we just kept digging stuff out of the ground & burning it until there's nothing left to burn.

It's time to do things differently to the ways they've been done in the past. Even if you don't believe in global warming, do you really think it's a good idea that we pump so much crap into the skies every day?

As for Denmark, let me get this straight - you're saying that because the elctricity crosses a border it no longer counts?

Come on, let's look for benefits, not nit-pick for problems.
Posted by Sven Laptop, Thursday, 30 November 2006 2:57:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is not evidence. It is an assertion. It is untested and not even based on existing evidence.

There are 2 points about Denmark's dependence on international connectors: 1) the wind penetration is effectively 1 or 2% not 20%; 2) the system seeks hydro to balance to the wind, thus minimizing even any theoretical reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Posted by Eric, Thursday, 30 November 2006 10:26:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Europe-wide blackout of November 4th was largely a result of windpower. First, the windfarms tripped automatically when frequency dropped a notch. Then, automatically again, they tripped back into the grid when frequency was restored, thus causing more problems.

Here is a quote from the conclusion of the UCTE interim report on the causes of this major, unprecedented power outage in Europe:

"Generally, the uncontrolled behavior of generation (mainly
wind farms and combined-heat-and-power) during the disturbance complicated the process of reestablishing normal system conditions."

Another quote:

"During the disturbance, a significant amount of generation units tripped due to the frequency drop in the system which resulted in the increased imbalance. Most of this generation is connected to the
distribution grid (especially wind and combined-heat-and-power)."

And another:

"However the automatic restarting of a considerable amount of wind generation in the North part of Germany was not immediately compensated by a corresponding amount of decreased generation in
thermal or hydro power plants."

It thus appears that windpower acted like a loose cannon. And here is a final quote:

"One actual example of changing generation patterns is due to the rapid development of wind generation characterized by a short term predictability: within a few hours, the production of wind
farms can change from minimum to maximum and conversely."

www.ucte.org/news/e_default.asp

click here for the report:

30.11.2006 - UCTE releases detailed Interim Report on the disturbances of 4 November – sequence of events, root causes and critical factors identified
Posted by mark duchamp, Thursday, 7 December 2006 7:51:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK Mark Duchamp, let me get this straight: you're saying that wind farms caused the big European blackout, but you back up the claim with quotes that only say ONE complicating factor of RE-STARTING the system was the result of wind AND OTHER SOURCES.

Let's get serious here - you're not criticising wind energy, you're criticising the electricity distribution system which, like the coal-based generators, is so old that it's in desperate need of being updated.

So why don't we concentrate our energies on improving the infrastructure so that ALL forms of electrcity generation, especially the non-polluting ones, can be easily accommodated.

Unless of course you have some kind of vested interest in seeing clean energy shut out of the picture altogether ... which might explain why you bother writing to small regional newspapers on the other side of the world claiming to be an expert in their issues.....

Sound familiar, Mark?
Posted by Sven Laptop, Tuesday, 12 December 2006 12:21:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem remains that management of the grid can not include telling wind turbines when or how much electricity to produce (you can't tell the wind when to blow). It can only shut them down when they start to surge, but that is generally opposed as it would reduce their already very low capacity factor.
Posted by Eric, Wednesday, 13 December 2006 12:49:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sven Laptop, Tuesday, 12 December 2006, said:

"Let's get serious here - you're not criticising wind energy, you're criticising the electricity distribution system which, like the coal-based generators, is so old that it's in desperate need of being updated."

The age of the power lines has nothing to do with the fact that wind power acted like a loose cannon during the German grid crisis. Electrical engineers, last year in the E.On report, said that they had no solution for windpower's uncontrollability.

You also said: "So why don't we concentrate our energies on improving the infrastructure so that ALL forms of electrcity generation, especially the non-polluting ones, can be easily accommodated."

Windpower is indirectly causing more C02 emissions through the fossil fuel plants operating to back it up as it fluctuates erratically. It is not, therefore, a "non-polluting energy" - though C02 doesn't fall into the polluting gas category. It is essential to plant life.

You concluded: "Unless of course you have some kind of vested interest in seeing clean energy shut out of the picture altogether ... which might explain why you bother writing to small regional newspapers on the other side of the world claiming to be an expert in their issues.....

Sound familiar, Mark?"

A personal attack? Gee wiz, you must be feeling threatened... Why? Do YOU have a personal interest in windfarming?

I bother about Australia because I love its land and its birds, because I go there a lot, and because I have friends there. I visited the Bald Hills site in South Gippsland, and would surely hate to see a windfarm ruin that beautiful region and chop its birds to bits. All that to produce a trickle of intermittent electricity at a great cost to the taxpayer.
Posted by mark duchamp, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 3:49:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It good to know you love Australia, Mark. It's just unfortunate you don't have the same love for objectivity and checking your facts. Why didn't you tell the punters who read this forum that much of Bald Hills is not in its pristine state, having been cleared for farming. And that the oft cited wetland there that some birdies (and birdo's) love so much, is mostly artificially created.

Beauty is in the eye of the the beholder Mark. Accept that and accept that we cannot continue as we have done in past. Wind energy is part of the solution even if you do not want to see it.
Posted by Blair, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 4:47:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, according to you, if a landscape has been touched by man - e.g. agriculture - it's OK to go all the way and turn it into an industrial zone? - On that basis, how about transforming your garden into a junkyard?

And you're wrong again when you say that wind energy is part of the solution. In fact it's a cure that is worse than the ailment.
Posted by mark duchamp, Thursday, 21 December 2006 4:06:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Duchamp

Claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant is quite silly! While carbon does enhance plant growth and is necessary to sustain life on earth, the anthropogenic excesses of CO2 that we are emitting into the atmosphere is indeed polluting and increasing GHGs.

You need to know that other damaging hydrocarbons catalysing to CO2 are very damaging. For instance, CO elevates methane and ozone in the atmosphere before converting to CO2.

Poor combustion, which is prevalent in many stack industries, produces CO and chlorinated dioxins and furans, particularly when burning waste oil, which our federal government encourages as part of its "recycling" programme! While sodium chloride, the salt of the sea, is a natural part of the environment, chlorine is man-made and highly destructive to all life forms on the planet.

We are already adding to the natural releases of CO2 from volcanic eruptions etc. by digging up fossil fuels, burning it and overloading the system.

Atmospheric CO2 persists for about 200 years but the lag between the release of CO2 and its impact on climate is between 50 to 80 years, therefore, only the foolhardy would ignore the extreme anthropogenic emissions we are creating today (and with the inherent uncertainties), for future generations tomorrow.

I do not believe that wind power turbines are yet dismantling in Europe (with the exception of Holland) and wind power turbines in Esperance Western Australia have been established since 1987 with great success and expanding. Albany WA, has the largest windfarms in Australia, established in 2001 and estimated to prevent 77,000 tonnes annually of atmospheric carbon. Smaller ones such as that in Denham established in 1998 and Exmouth are deemed successful. I am yet to read of any of these communities objecting to living in close proximity to these turbines.

I believe the barrow you are pushing has everything to do with the extremely dangerous and polluting uranium mining and the insidious ramifications of nuclear energy. Perhaps you should just own up and peddle your propaganda on a more appropriate site.
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 21 December 2006 8:10:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The turbines in Albany have been up since 1987 and they're still "estimating" its benefits? As you say, global warming is too important to continue pursuing such a dubious "solution."
Posted by Eric, Thursday, 21 December 2006 10:31:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can wind power be used to power a desalinisation plant in such a way that when the wind blows the pumps are turned on and the water is pumped through the membranes and then the clean water is pumped to a reservoir for use as needed? That would seem to limit the variability problem.

A similar system could be used to generate hydrogen and then the hydrogen could be stored and used whenever it was needed.

Are there other ideas out there that limit the impact of the variability of wind?
Posted by ericc, Friday, 22 December 2006 7:16:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eric,

The problem is cost. Windpower is already twice as expensive as conventional energy, and even more if you consider that it needs 24/7 backup. Now, if you use it for hydrogen production, experts tell us that 75% of the energy will be lost in the conversion.

No country can afford to become so uncompetitive. Its economy would collapse, with many millions unemployed.

This is, of course, what anti-capitalists would love to see happen.
Lenin said: "Victory for socialism in capitalistic countries requires only targeting their sources of energy"

And to explain Kyoto:
Die Welt-Interview of 19 February 2006 with Rudolf Hickel, German economics professor: “Capitalism is a highly resistant affair that can only be forced to its knees through environmental controls
Posted by mark duchamp, Friday, 22 December 2006 2:22:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ericc, the Emu Downs wind farm is the chief source of power for the Kwinana desalination plant south of Perth, western Australia. See - http://ffggippsland.blogspot.com/search?q=desalination

You might be interested to know that a Canadian company has developed a mass storage battery that is modular and scalable and looks to be a very promising method of using wind generated electricity more effectively. See - http://www.vrbpower.com/index.html

Have a safe and happy Christmas and New Year everyone.
Posted by Blair, Saturday, 23 December 2006 3:34:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now, would you explain this to me: Emu Downs windfarm is located 200 kms north of Perth. Kwinana lies 43 kms south of Perth. If the desalination plant is sourcing its power from the windfarm, it needs well over 243 kms of direct, new power lines connecting the wind turbines to the plant. Have these power lines been built? Or is this whole thing just another snow job?

As for your new batteries, I read this kind of alice-in-wonderland-story every year. Let's see them work before we build more bird-killing, fire-prone, water-contaminating, environment-damaging, tourism-unfriendly, property-value-killer windfarms.

Happy new year, all.

Mark
Posted by mark duchamp, Sunday, 31 December 2006 12:15:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two websites and associated podcasts that might be interesting to those who wish to keep up-to-date on energy related news and developments -

http://theWatt.com
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/

Unlike Mr. Duchamp the hosts of these sites actually know what they are talking about. The pros and cons of all energy types are discussed along with the latest technical developments.

And for those who are yet to hear the good news, 2006 ended very well for South Gippsland because the federal environment minister finally allowed the Bald Hills wind farm project to precede. A victory for common sense.
Posted by Blair, Sunday, 31 December 2006 1:56:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Watt is a fair site for news and comment, but Renewable Energy Access is an industry PR service.

Blair's (inadvertent?) typo raises the question: What exactly will the Bald Hills wind farm project precede? It should also raise questions that that question has never been answered with regard to other facilities: i.e., what is fuel consumption per demand after the wind facility vs. fuel consumption per demand before?

As far as I've been able to determine, it remains essentially unchanged.
Posted by Eric, Monday, 1 January 2007 7:17:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nuclear plants cost a fortune and take a very long time to bring to the production stage, apart from the problem of finding somewhere to store the waste. It would be at least ten years before the first nuclear station comes on line. We cannot afford to wait if we are to reduce global warming.


Wind Power from a line of wind turbines between Perth and Adelaide solves many of these problems. It would probably take a year to do a survey and plan the location. During this time, it should be possible to attract a company to start production of the turbines within Australia. If the building of the towers starts at either end, we can connect each turbine to the grid as soon as it is completed. This gives the company doing the building, can look to early returns from the sale of power even while there is still a lot of work to be done. The cost of producing the turbines because of the mass production required, should make for reduced costs and also have the facility available for future developments.
I cannot calculate if the wind power output will equal the nuclear power output, but with literally thousands of turbines, maybe in ranks of 8 to 10 or more, it should be possible to come close to the power,or even greater than, the output from nuclear, without all the problems.
With the costs spread over a period, the requirement for working capitol will be far less than for the nuclear alternative. Especially as there will be early and increasing returns from the sale of power and no continued cast for storing/transporting waste.

This is much more friendly than the nuclear alternative. There is almost no cost when the windmills are de-commissioned and replaced after a century or so.
We need positive action right now and not in ten/twenty years time.

David Gothard Fairfield, Victoria
Posted by David Gothard, Thursday, 1 March 2007 3:54:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy