While I am not a fan of wind power and share concerns about its economics, this article failed to demonstrate adverse health effects. The Danish research referred to seems to confirm that wind turbines do indeed emit some low frequency noise but no evidence is provided on any health effects.

Australian experience seems to show that farmers being paid to host wind turbines on their land have few complaints about noise or health effects. Such problems are more commonly raised by more distant residents (receiving no such payments), while visitors to wind farms generally notice little noise.

It seems to me therefore, that the main negative effect of wind farms is envy rather than noise intrusion.

A recent British House of Commons briefing note on wind farms (see
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-05221.pdf ) found minimal evidence of adverse health effects or that noise was a major issue. The UK has no statutory separation distance between wind turbines and housing, and the idea of such a separtion distance has ben rejected for England.

Interesting wind farms in Victoria which are based on the wider community drawing financial benefit (those within 50 km) rather than just the person whose property the farm is on do not face the same level of opposition!

What would be of greater interest would be finding out how the Netherlands has dealt with wind farms. The Netherlands is awash with wind farms and has been for a number of decades. Look into what their position is in order to find out what is happening.

Australia is increasingly governed by perception, posturing and self interest.

Phillip Adams once used the allegory of the election of an atheist to being Pope to the electorate’s voting in of governments that do not want to govern. Kerry Packer once forthrightly told parliament it was there to do things for him, not to him.

The saw “we’re spending the kid’s inheritance” sums up life values in modern day Australia.

My impression of the health effects of the wind turbines is that the problem is largely psychosomatic. This is very hard to measure. I suspect that most of the perceived health effects come from people who are philosophically opposed to the wind farms, hence the lack of health problems in farmers who are deriving a benefit from them.

I once lived in the city near a tram line and I am sure the noise was much greater than that emitted by a wind turbine. The only time we noticed any noise was the first tram in the morning. For the rest of the day they passed unnoticed. If living in a slightly noisy environment was a problem then in general, I would expect the majority of urban dwellers would have related health problems. This does not appear to be the case.

David

The health issues around wind farms are not the real issues. The real issues are that they are vastly more expensive than the generation they are replacing, and due to the unreliability of wind, they need to be backed up by base load generation, incurring further infrastructure costing.

Max, it “should” be health and economics that will unravel wind farms, but will it?

The Australian Senate Committee concluded that insufficient health effects research had been done, and of course it should be.

As for the economics, I’ve just posted the following on another thread; facts will of course be totally ignored by the dreamers.

Stuart Young Consulting on behalf of the John Muir Trust entitled “Analysis of Wind Power Generation, November 2008 to March 2010” (Actual data from wind generators grid connections)

1. Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
2. There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the wind farms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW).
3. The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
4. At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
Also, during the study period, wind generation was:
• Below 20% of capacity more than half the time.
• Below 10% of capacity over one third of the time.
• Below 2.5% capacity for the equivalent of one day in twelve.
• Below 1.25% capacity for the equivalent of just under one day a month.
The discovery that for one third of the time wind output was less than 10% of capacity, and often significantly less than 10%, was an unexpected result of the analysis.

Coal, $68 per Kw/h, Wind, $1,456 per Kw/h, Solar, $4,482 per Kw/h.

I think I'm in a better position then most to have an opinion on this. From my farm I can see over 200 wind generators. I have one one my farm which I put up.
Whether wind farms directly effect health is still to be demonstrated, however they have an affect on peoples health. They are very much like coal power stations look fine from a distance but you wouldn't want on next door.

The wind generator on my farm works okay, however we have found that it's a very good bat killer and so we are taking it down. Solar is much better once it is up and going as there is no moving parts and needs less servicing.

I think a better model for wind farms needs to be created, it's seems to me that city people don't want them where they can see em.
I also don't understand why we don't have more solar power stations.

@spindoc: Coal, $68 per Kw/h, Wind, $1,456 per Kw/h, Solar, $4,482 per Kw/h.

The report you quote is just an conservative flak machine harpooning the greens. Nonetheless I didn't realise it was complete bs until I read your last sentence. At first I though it was just a typo: you meant MW/hr. I presume you did, even so it makes little sense.

For what it's worth, if someone is paying you $0.40 per KW/hr for small scale PV solar, and you know what you are doing you will make a profit here in Brisbane. That would be $400 per MW/hr. Anybody could make money at the price NSW is (was?) offering which was 0.60 or some ridiculous sum. Large scale solar thermal does much better, getting under well $0.20 per KW/hr. And wind does better again.

Why you think anybody will believe the hare brained figures you presented when something like this is available be beyond me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources

Shadow spelt out the real problems with wind and solar. It isn't the raw cost per KW/hr. It that their unreliability means they can only be a small portion of the total.

I wonder if the weekend carbon tax announcement will include a special deal for wind power. If the tax is in the range $20 to $30 that won't be enough for the wind build to continue without subsidies and quotas. The industry has said it needs at least $40 carbon tax. Expect some special deal for wind farms despite both Garnaut and the Productivity Commission saying that the carbon price should be enough.

No real opinion on wind health issues except to point out nearby cows and sheep seem contented enough. The other big issue is standby costs for wind power. If we had plenty of counterbalancing hydro like the Denmark/Norway combination well and good. However we need mainly natural gas backup generation, a lot of it the quick start but higher CO2 open cycle gas turbine type. Because of this in some parts of the world it has been found gas only displaces half the CO2 proponents claim.

The correct thing to do with wind power is see how it survives just on $20-$30 carbon tax alone. Maybe it would be cheaper to do the entire job just on gas. One day gas will be very expensive but that could be a decade away so keep the wind farms under care and maintenance.

For me large arrays of wind turbine dotted over the countryside are objectionable from an aesthetic perspective. Some may find beauty in them, but I am sure most wouldn't. I have also read that large scale arrays of wind turbines may have adverse effects on local climate by their removal of wind energy. One study in USA concluded that they induced lower rainfall. Apart from that, wind won't be anything other than a minor player in energy supply because when its not windy, it's usually not windy over a wide area. In SE Australia, for example, autumn is the season of anticyclones: windless days and nights.

rsruart, I guess you could suggest the wind farm figures produced by the wind farm power generators in the UK is “complete bs”, and that the John Muir Trust got it all wrong. You might just have a bit of a credibility problem though.

The Wikipedia link was interesting though, but I’m not going into the differences between, “relative costs”, “Production”, “Consumption” or “factored before or after government rebates”. If you feel the need to put the John Muir Trust and the wind power generators themselves up against Wikipedia, that’s your call.

You are right on one thing though, the issue of per Kw, Mw, Teraw or Picow is significant and did give you a good diversion. The whole point was of course the relative cost differences, before government rebate/subsidies/feed in tariffs between coal, wind and solar and that wind is 20 times more costly then coal. That was the point.

In order to avoid this “definition’ distraction in future, perhaps we could agree a standard, multi-thread description?

My suggestions might include; $xx per DPB’s (dead polar bears) or $xx per MMPIC (meter melting polar ice cap) or $xx per MMHG (meter melting Himalayan Glacier) or $xx per MSLRAB (meter sea level rise at bondi). You can have “Maids a Milking”, Ducks a Laying” or “Partridges in Pear Trees” but it won’t change the numbers.

Wow, a moratorium on wind farms because of a fear of adverse health effects? This is a joke, right?

First, there is zero mention of what these adverse health risks might actually be. Let's put a moratorium on bird watching, navel gazing and flushing toilets too, until we can prove that there are no negative health effects.

Secondly, there are very significant and well-proven adverse health effects from the primary alternative, coal powered stations. There is more than just CO2 coming out of those chimney stacks. Believe me, I measure industrial air emissions for a living. I climb the things and take samples directly from the source. Even gas turbines emit their share of nasties.

Are you people saying we should stop wind farms because of unproven, unidentifiable and mystical health effects, but continue on with coal power with all it's known adverse health effects?

How about we tell the people who are complaining about the low-frequency noise from their neighbour's wind farms that we are going to replace them with a coal power station? I wonder how much they'll be complaining about the "aesthetic" affects and bothersome noise of wind farms then?

Most amusing of all is that it's many of those that refuse to accept AGW theory because it's not 100% proven who are jumping on this ridiculous square-wheeled wagon.

Where are conservationists when we need them? Hiding behind vested wind farm interests I guess?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwVz5hdAMGU

Spindoc has figures that don,t mean a thing. It sounds like one wind mill in one place. Is this health, worries universal around the world or an AU thing. If you can't get a wind mill in the area , how will you ever get a nuclear power station here. Move with the times and problem at hand, you just might get over it.

Rstuart,

Large scale thermal is marginal at Euro0.32/kWhr or about Aus50c and wind is about 20c presently (with large scale efficiency down to 15c), compared to coal at between 2c and 4c, and nuclear at 10c.

Shadow Minister,

I seem to be above your prices for everything bar solar thermal. I said it was $0.20 per KW/hr. That was meant to be conservative. It was based on a vague recollection of it being under 0.15 per KW/hr. Now you've prodded me I've looked it up:

http://theenergycollective.com/marcgunther/60684/solarreserve-worth-its-salt

In summary:

- It is a 110 MW plant.
- They received $737M in loan guarantees.
- They are contracted to sell power at US$0.135 per KW/hr in year 1
- rising by 1% per year for 25 years.
- the 1% annual rise is looks to be below the inflation rate.

Yes, it is above your figure for nuclear. But it doesn't taken too many Fukushima's and Yucca Mountains to make it look attractive.

Rstuart,

However, they are heavily subsidised, and otherwise could not achieve that price. The Euro 0.32 is for its sister plant in Spain, that is not subsidised other than it gets a guaranteed price AU 50c /kWhr that is commensurate with a small profit.

@Shadow Minister,

I went looking harder for subsidies. They only thing I could find beyond the the loan guarantee is a federal 30% tax credit that might be applicable, which of course only applies if they make a profit.

As you can see from the URL, this newsletter is published for and by people of your ilk:

http://www.platts.com/IM.Platts.Content/ProductsServices/Products/electricpowerdaily.pdf

It lists the investors in the firm. They look like people investing in a cause, so you could argue they are being subsidised by private money. But even so I don't think they are planing to wear a loss; just willing to forge profits for now. The $0.50 to $0.135 drop might be a hint on why.

If you look at that newsletter it isn't the only plant they are building either. The next one is a 150 MW plant:

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=1241

Even at $0.135 it's dammed expensive compared to coal of course, which hints at another subsidy. I think that would be the California law requiring electricity companies to have 3% renewable.

So while there are a range of things driving this, I can't find anything like the $0.36/KW.hr subsidy you suggest. Also, notice the $135/MW.hr figure is in line with the Wikipedia page I gave. It quotes a figure of $85/MW.hr from, drum roll ... a report written by our good friend and nuclear proponent Ziggy Switkowski. I assume that isn't for solar storage.

It looks to me the most likely reason for the price drop is them learning how do to it, and economies of scale. Ziggy has a graph in his report illustrating the effect. It's quite dramatic.

As I've argued with you before, the fact that nuclear can't build lots of small, cheap commercial plants to get itself moving down the cost / learning curve is a huge disadvantage. It will costs billions of dollars to build the first GEN IV plant, and it may not work. That is an enormous risk. So it keeps getting delayed, and meanwhile these smaller, nimbler technologies keep nibbling away at their costs.

Rstuart,

Look at this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_Tariff#Spain

These tariffs are based on costs. The feed in cost are about euro 30c/kWhr

As for the link you provided, the $737m low interest loan guarantee is a huge subsidy for starters, and the 110MW capacity is peak capacity not average, which means they typically only have to cover running costs plus a little for capital repayment.

If the same nature of loan guarantees were given for nuclear, the cost would rival coal or beat it.

@Shadow Minister: These tariffs are based on costs. The feed in cost are about euro 30c/kWhr

I wasn't doubting your European figures Shadow.

@Shadow Minister: If the same nature of loan guarantees were given for nuclear, the cost would rival coal or beat it.

Err, they are Shadow. From http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2010/02/16/obama-nuclear-loan.html :

"February 16, 2010 ... U.S. President announces $8.3 billion US in loan guarantees to build 2 plants in Georgia"

It's the only way they can get them built in the US. From http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=home&sid=a68a7ruN.hy8 :

"'For the plants that are not regulated, the loan guarantees are essential,' says Morgan Stanley executive director Caren Byrd, a nuclear finance specialist."

It's not all good news for the solar plant. It needed around $7/Watt.hr in guarantees, the nuclear plants around $4/Watt.hr. And I presume nuclear will be able sell its power on the open market without forcing someone to buy it at $0.135/KW.hr.

But - the playing field isn't level. Nuclear still externalises its risks. Firstly, we have this worrying comment from the US Congressional Budget Office on nuclear guarantees http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/42xx/doc4206/s14.pdf :

"CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent."

And that's just the loan repayment. If the company has gone broke the taxpayer ends up wearing the cleanup costs as well, and currently the long term disposal problem will be at the US tax payers expense.

There are ideas for nuclear plant designs that don't externalise those risks, like the SSTAR and the 4S. Start building them and we will see what the comparison is on a level playing field.

That was the disappointing thing about Germany's announcement for me. Fine to no new GEN II or GEN III plants. Buy the world sorely needs its Germany's to develop GEN IV.

Rstuart,

Your own figures show that solar is more expensive than nuclear nearly 2x. On top of this, this is per watt of capacity. If this is taken on average generation, the cost per watt of solar nearly doubles, whilst nuclear increases slightly.

Also in the same report (dated 2003):

Assuming the nuclear plant is completed, we expect it would financially default soon after beginning operations, however, we expect that the plant would continue to operate and sell power at competitive market rates. Thus, over the plant’s expected operating lifetime, its creditors (which could be the federal government) could expect to recover a significant portion of the plant’s construction loan.

@Shadow Minister: If this is taken on average generation, the cost per watt of solar nearly doubles, whilst nuclear increases slightly.

Not quite as you paint it Shadow. The capacity factor of this particular solar thermal plant is apparently 50% as you say (from: http://techpulse360.com/2010/07/21/can-solarreserve-top-brightsource/ ), but I gather the capacity factor of nuclear is around 80%, if you don't allow for things like Japan shutting down most of its nuclear generation recently for inspections.

@Shadow Minister: Your own figures show that solar is more expensive than nuclear nearly 2x.

That same techpulse360 article says the capital costs for solar thermal are around $8/KW, with negligible fuel costs. The 1.1 GW nuclear reactors mentioned above cost $9 Billion (from: http://www.energybiz.com/article/11/07/georgia-power-braves-nuclear-headwinds ). Guess what - that is around $8/KW.

As you say solar looses on the capacity factor. But it doesn't externalise costs the way nuclear does. My guess is the real costs are in reality much closer than you are prepared to admit.

By the way, these solar thermal still deliver their contacted supply if the sun don't shine, and this ability is included in their capital costs. From http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-storage-solarreserve-gets-737-million-guarantee-to-build-a-plant/ :

"The two-decades-old solar thermal plants in California's Mojave Desert "have not missed one hour of peak output in their lifetime," Morse told us once. "When Mt. Pinatubo blew ash into the sky, they just burned a little more gas."

Finally, much as you hate to admit it, right now adding capacity using wind is cheaper that either solar thermal or nuclear. See figure 11, in this IEEE Power & Energy magazine article: http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf

It shows the capacity weighted wind price has never been higher than the wholesale power price in the US. I know this has triggered a long list of "buts" in your mind. Read the article before replying. It's not a big ask - it is a perspective from your mob, the power engineers. The bottom line is that until we reach 20% or so of total capacity, wind is the cheapest clean way to add generation capacity. At good sites it is even cheaper than coal.

Health and economics. Nuclear, coal and so called natural gas on one side while renewables- solar, wind, geothermal like in Iceland, tidal like some countries are investigating-are on the other. i like what a commentator said about Australia being driven to stupidity by perception, posturing and self interest. Everybody in Victoria knows the landed gentry are behind the wind farms cause health problems line. Inconvenience, visual pollution, low level noise maybe.The anti wind farmer would have more cred if they had ever once supported city dwellers trying to prove the ill health link between high voltage power lines and cancer, a fact established in the scientific literature as far back as the 1950s. Still governments and their overpaid and over superannuated public servants deny it while the hospitals fill up with cancer patients.

The only useful purpose served by these rural anti-wind farmers is that their particular brand of nasty politics illustrates the steep learning curve Australians have ahead of us in the next twenty years. If you think that your biggest problem is to hang onto a picturesque view or contain the fallout from reduced real estate value, then you are in for a rude awakening. I find it very apt that one of the most famous songs of the twentieth century, Bob Dylan's 'Blowin in the wind' is a phophecy about who will survive the coming catastrophe of climate and economic collapse.

Rstuart,

Nuclear energy 91.2% (2010 average of USA's plants) 80% is a conservative figure.

From your link, solar storage has a 34% capacity factor.

"The California plant, outfitted with a 150-megawatt turbine, is designed to generate peak-period power for PG&E. Running an average of 8.5 hours a day, it should achieve a capacity factor of 34 percent by heating and storing salt in the mornings and using it to deliver power well into the evening."

This would make it more than 2x as expensive, as nuclear.

Solar is about $8 per watt not kW or $8000 per kW,

"Construction costs are very difficult to quantify but dominate the cost of Nuclear Power. The main difficulty is that third generation power plants now proposed are claimed to be both substantially cheaper and faster to construct than the second generation power plants now in operation throughout the world. The Nuclear Industry says its learned the lessons of economy-of-volume demonstrated by the French Nuclear Program, and that these will be employed for the new power plants. In 2005 Westinghouse claimed its Advanced PWR reactor, the AP1000, will cost USD $1400 per KW for the first reactor and fall in price for subsequent reactors. A more technical description is here. Proponents of the CANDU ACR and Gas Cooled pebble bed reactors made similar or stronger claims. However the first wave of new plants in the USA are expected to cost over $3500 per KW of capacity. Additional costs increase the price even more."

The total costs incl provisions for decommissioning and waste disposal bring this up to $6500 in the USA and lower elsewhere.