Senator David Leyonhjelm,

Thank you for posting your article on wind turbines, I am very pleased you are publishing your articles and explaining the issues with wind turbines. But I would like to ask: why is your focus almost entirely on the noise issue rather than on the economics?

I suggest it is the economics that will be the factor that eventually becomes the critical issue regarding the viability of wind power. It is the factor that will eventually bring the end of massive subsidies and other incentives that are propping up the wind turbines industry. Once voters understand the real cost to Australia's economy and to their hip pockets - now and how it will increase in the future - they will withdraw their support for them. But they do not understand yet. This is the key issue I'd urge you to focus on, rather than the noise, sleep and health issues.

For readers who want to understand the economic issues, may I suggest you begin by reading this analysis of the actual amounts of CO2 saved by wind power in the National Electricity Market: http://joewheatley.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/sub348_Wheatley.pdf

The fact that wind turbines save much less emissions than is thought means that the CO2 abatement cost with wind is much higher than virtually all estimates say. The CO2 abatement cost is likely to be about 60-70% higher by 2020 than stated by the economic analyses done for the recent Warburton Review of the Renewable Energy Target.

The cost of abatement with wind power in Australia in 2020, under the RET as currently legislated, is likely to be:

• 2 to 5 times the carbon price which was rejected by voters at the 2013 election

• 4 to 8 times the Direct Action average price at the first auction

• 6 to 12 times the current EU ETS price

• 100 to 200 times the international carbon price futures to 2020

What’s the cost of CO2 emissions abatement with wind turbines?

Answer: much higher than current estimates (such as in the Warburton RET Review).

The cost of abatement with wind power in Australia in 2020, under the RET as currently legislated, is likely to be:

• 2 to 5 times the carbon price which was rejected by voters at the 2013 election

• 4 to 8 times the Direct Action average price at the first auction

• 6 to 12 times the current EU ETS price

• 100 to 200 times the international carbon price futures to 2020

The Warburton RET Review estimated the cost of abatement under the LRET at $32-$72/tonne CO2 in 2020 (Section 5.6 – Cost of abatement’ – from estimates by ACIL-Allen, Frontier Economics and Deloitte) https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/56-cost-abatement.

But the actual cost is likely to be much higher because the estimates apparently do not take the CO2 abatement effectiveness into account.

Dr Wheatley estimated wind energy in the NEM was just 78% effective at abating emissions in 2014, and would be about 70% effective if wind power’s share was doubled.

Under the current RET legislation, wind energy would have to supply about 15% of electricity in 2020. At 15% share, wind is likely to be about 60% effective.

At 60% effective, the CO2 abatement cost would be $53-$120 per tonne CO2

The abatement costs estimated by the Warburton review for 2020, adjusted to include CO2 abatement effectiveness, and compared with the carbon tax price rejected by voters art the last election, the EU carbon price and the International carbon price futures to 2020 are listed in Submission 259 here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Submissions

The most important recommendation from Submission No. 259 is:

The CO2 abatement cost estimates in the RET Review should be re-estimated taking CO2 abatement effectiveness into account.

Once The Treasury, Department of Finance, Department of Industry and the responsible Ministers recognise the high cost of CO2 abatement with wind power, this could be the catalyst for change.

Dear Peter,

Are economics really more important than the suffering and harm done to flesh-and-blood people (and other animals)?

I could excuse government for a bad economy because foolishness is not a crime, but if it harms people in my name and I don't at least scream or do something about it, then I become an accomplice to torture.

Yuyutsu,

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not saying the noise issues are not important. I am saying I believe it is the wrong place to be focusing attention if we want to stop the incentives to wind turbines - such as the RET legislation. the issue that will really drive change is the economics. There have been masses of studies on noise issues all over the world for a long time. The results are indecisive. It's very unlikely that Australia will suddenly get a breakthough study on this that will be so persuasive as to overturn - in a hurry - the mass of past studies and the entrenched positions.

But the one issue that governments and voters do take notice of are the economic costs and the costs to individuals an households.

The economic costs of wind farms will be felt and locked in for decades. These cost increases will harm Australia’s international competitiveness, the economy, jobs, wages and standard of living.

What I am suggesting is that this is what I believe economic rationalists should be focusing on explaining to the voters.

David, you article would be much more credible if you quoted some scientific papers on socalled infrasound instead of just anecdotal references. I am not saying these effects don't exist, I just want some evidence based on repeatable measurements.

David

Peter, it is an argument, not a fact, that wind turbines save much less emissions than is thought. Since Wheatly's submission was made, the impending closure of a brown coal power station in SA has been announced. (Actually two power stations, but the other one had already been mothballed.)

I made a very short submission to that inquiry, to point out that the cost of wind (and solar) power is heavily dependent on the cost of finance. Cut the finance cost and the cost to consumers of switching to renewables will fall. Cut it more (with concessional loans) and the net cost will be negative.