I think the primary influence on the generating mix should be an emissions target, not guaranteed market share for preferred technologies. With a CO2e cap we could feel more confident the different technologies stand or fall on their merits. If the cap was tough enough (say 300 Mt CO2e not 500+) I suspect all current wind power would be safe while much coal fired generation would have to go.

If this analysis is correct there is little point in South Australia with 30% penetration getting more wind power assuming interstate power exports are limited. There is something odd about public perceptions of energy costs; they hated $24 carbon tax but by implication support $59 abatement costs under the RET. A more recent poll showed half thought solar would soon become our main electricity source yet it was just 1.5% in 2013.

Value of wind turbines should include help they provide to reduce air pollution. However some wind turbines built in the ocean might slow ocean surface currents and consequently impact living ecosystems.

And then there is the question of whether or not it is CO2 causing climate change or whether the cause is warmth in unprecedented sewage nutrient proliferated ocean algae plant matter. Perhaps both are a cause.

"Previously unsuspected" is not good enough in 'the science' that is generating additional law and tax and costs that are taking up valuable time and throwing many lives and business into economic turmoil worldwide.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/algae-accelerate-arctic-warming-18929
and
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/19/5921

Be sure there is algae almost everywhere in the world ocean ecosystem and there is no science to establish that only Arctic algae blooms are (maybe) warmed during photosynthesis.

It is just amazing to me that warmth in ocean algae plant matter has not been measured and assessed in AGW - UN and IPCC linked science.

Yes Peter, and if we could just change the terminology/circular thinking/renewables, to carbon mitigating alternatives, we would have a virtual smorgasbord of ALTERNATIVE options to chose from!

I've heard recently, that much more reliable southern wave power could supply all our power requirements three times over; and for far less than coal fired power?

However, not as something one would use via a national grid, but via micro grids?

Given scales of economy, and using geothermal as a water pre-warming option, solar thermal could be considered?

As the set up costs are comparable to similar sized coal fired options; however, in the former the fuel is forever completely free!

The nuclear option needs to be on the table, given micro-grids and smaller modules (thorium or pebble reactors) being able to be factory built and trucked on site, and producing power in days not the literal years normal for current coal fired options!

Which by the way, have a much larger harm caused component in any fair comparison with the nuclear option, which becomes progressively safer!?

And if emission abatement was the genuine concern, then why isn't treating waste and turning it into the world's cheapest energy also on the table. And with it algae farming, and the ethanol industry that would spring from that. Albeit, one not needing to use food or arable land.

Finally, why aren't we at least trialing hydrogen production, where it may be possible to produce almost costless eternally sustainable fuel, by utilizing a vastly modernized version of cracking the water molecule; utilizing solar thermal options and endlessly available sea water; and therefore, for just cents per cubic metre.

We can not only power fuel cells with hydrogen, but conventional engines as well!

And adding innovations like using injected water, with every sixth power stroke, eliminate the need to carry radiators and energy consuming pumps. Compete with petrol in terms of range!

And given the water is turned to steam, add the power of steam to the engine?
Rhrosty.

When Peter Lang gives thought to how much of other people's money he wants spent; how turbines affect people; the recent findings that turbines have a 10 year life before expensive refurbishment; how the turbines can be covered so that native birds (part of our environment) will not be chopped to pieces, and how long before we see a price drop in power prices in South Australia (instead of regular, steady increases) where we have more windfarms than anywhere else (producing about a quarter of total electricity) yet pay the highest power prices in the country. When he does that, I might read his articles

Hey TTBN, did you actually read Peter Lang's article or just jump to the conclusion he is advocating more wind farms?

From what I see, Lang is stating the cost is not justified if the reason for installation is to reduce CO2 emissions. Please feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.

Also, your concern about the wind turbines killing birds is somewhat unfounded. More birds are killed by individually by cats, power lines, cars, flying into windows and flying cell phone towers than the number "chopped to pieces" by the turbines.

I don't know what kind of wind turbines you have down there is SA, but every wind turbine I've ever seen has very large slow blades. Way too slow to chop anything up, except maybe fog.

I have turbines near me no problem. Farming under and around no problem. Perhaps we should get rid of large transmission lines (EMR). Many studiess can prove that living close to these cause massive cell disruption within the body of all animals and plants.

CP,

Had you read my post on Peter Lang's criticism of Senator Leyonhjelm's article about people's complaints about noise transmitted by windmills, you would have known that there was little chance that I had any empathy with Peter Lang's stand on windfarms, and that I would be highly unlikely to read an article written by him.

You assumed that I either hadn't read his article, or I had "jumped to the conclusion the he is advocating more wind farms". I do not jump to conclusions about anything. And I did not read his article for the reasons given in my post today. I hope that answer is satisfactory. If it is not, we'll have to work something else out.

There are ample recordings of bird deaths caused by windmills. I am no crusader, and I have no problems if you doubt them. That is your right.

ttbn > if you refuse to read an article and then make comments on the content of the article, or decide you have no empathy with the author's position, you can only do so by assuming you know what the article says.

I'm sure birds have died by crashing into a wind turbines. What I question is whether the birds are being chopped into pieces, as you claim.

To be totally honest, when I read your comments on this particular thread, I got the distinct impression you really didn't know what you were talking about. I even wondered if you have ever seen a wind turbine operating.

Thank you for the comments

@ JF Aus, ""Previously unsuspected" is not good enough in 'the science' that is generating additional law and tax and costs that are taking up valuable time and throwing many lives and business into economic turmoil worldwide. "

Good point.

@ Rhosty, I agree cherry picking preferred technologies and types of technologies is unlikely to succeed. To make sustainable progress we need to deregulate. Competition and innovation will provide the products and services that are fit-for-purpose at least cost for the various markets around the world.

@ Conservative Hippie, “did you actually read Peter Lang's article or just jump to the conclusion he is advocating more wind farms?

From what I see, Lang is stating the cost is not justified if the reason for installation is to reduce CO2 emissions. Please feel free to correct me if I've got it wrong.”

Thank you for pointing that out to readers who jumped to conclusions without even reading the post.”

The justification for regulations and subsidies to incentivize wind power is that it reduces CO2 emissions cost effectively. However, the justification is flawed. As the Warburton Review points out: “The analysis indicates that there are many measures offering abatement at lower cost compared with the RET” https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/56-cost-abatement. What this post shows is that it’s worse than we thought. The CO2 abatement cost with the wind power in 2020 is likely to be around 60% to 70% higher than the estimates quoted in the Warburton Report.

From the post:
“The cost of CO2 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”
In short, wind power is a high cost way to avoid CO2 emissions and much higher than the Warburton Report’s estimates.

CH,

I can't say that I appreciate being told that I don't know what I'm talking about, but it makes clear to me the sort of person you are, and how you attempt to deal with anyone who doesn't agree with you. Your tactics do not work, and never will.

ttbn

You didn't know what you were talking about and unfortunately it appears you still don't.

I'm sorry being told the truth is so disturbing to you.

Peter, what does "cost-effectiveness" mean in the context of your article?

A "cost" implies that there is some unreplaceable resource being used that would otherwise be available for some other use. For example, time is a resource that is finite for each individual, therefore the notion of a "time cost" is entirely sensible when deciding between competing choices of activities. Similarly, the notion of an "energy cost" is sensible when considering how to use the output of a power station to supply new demands. The notion of "opportunity cost" is one dear to my own heart at the moment, since in choosing to study, I have lost the opportunity to use my time to earn money.

What is the "cost" of wind power that you feel is ineffective?

ConservativeHippie, I'm not too sure who has a problem with the truth. Perhaps you have a perception problem when you say, "I don't know what kind of wind turbines you have down there is SA, but every wind turbine I've ever seen has very large slow blades. Way too slow to chop anything up, except maybe fog".

When generating useful power those turbine blades, sweeping an area the size of a couple of football fields, are moving at about 180 MPH at the tips. Yes that's right, about 290 kilometres per hour. Even falcons have trouble flying that fast.

Of course the worst factor of wind farms, if they do actually reduce CO2 at all, which is still doubtful when considering their full life cycle, is that it is not something we should be doing, at any cost.

Any increase in atmospheric CO2 is a good thing. The earth has been tying up it's CO2 for millennia, & our flora is living with a deficit of this essential plant food, & any increase will do nothing but good

My short post explains the relevance and headline outcome of Dr Wheatley's analysis of CO2 emissions avoided by wind in the NEM in 2014, and my analysis of the implications of wind power's CO2 abatement effectiveness being less than most people realise and that it decreases as wind power increases. For those who would like a fuller understanding of the analyses and results of Wheatley's and my submissions, please refer to Submissions No 259 and 348 here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Wind_Turbines/Wind_Turbines/Submissions
The site is a bit slow to load, so be patient. The first page shows only the first 20 submissions. Click on the symbol to go to the last page. then scroll to the bottom of the page and select "show 500 submissions". Then check the boxes for No 250 and 348 to download them. For those genuinely interested, you may learn a lot from these.

I welcome your questions and constructive critiques.

"Depending on wind conditions the blades turn at rates between 10 and 20 revolutions per minute. Considering the length of the blades, at average wind speeds of 13 to 15 mph, the tips are traveling at 120 mph. At maximum wind speeds, the blade tips are spinning at an estimated 180 mph."

I question whether birds are killed from being knocked out of the air or actually being chopped to pieces as ttbn claims? If the birds are getting chopped up then I fully apologise for my ignorance.

As an aside, compared to wind turbines birds are dying in much bigger numbers from other man-made causes (figures from the USA):

Feral and domestic cats - Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines - 130 to 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial)- 100 million to 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides - 70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles - 60 to 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers- 40 to 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines - 10,000 to 40,000 [source: ABC

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

It appears from reports I have read that wind farms in Spain are a dismal failure.
Now that should be a good source of data on the subject.

Peter, have you calculated the ERoEI of Australian wind turbines ?
Those in the roaring forties should give world best results.
Take everything into account, maintenance, concrete, etc etc and
some even include council rates. Although that is contentious.

CP,

Gee, I thought I was quite nice to you when I answered your question, but here you are, still telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. If other people's opinions upset you enough to make you unpleasant to them, perhaps discussion is beyond you, and you should go somewhere that you can let rip and get rid of aggression properly. Most posters here seem able to agree to dsagree. Perhaps you think that you can convert people. Not with your attitude you won't. It is possible to get along with people you don't agree with. You don't seem to have learned that yet.

Bazz,

There are many different issue regarding wind energy, renewables in general, ERoEI, GHG abatement, carbon pricing, etc. It is not possible to try to address all issues and answer all questions about all these on one blog post. So, on this post it would be most productive to confine the comments and questions to the subject of this post.

If you want info on ERoEI, there are previous posts on On Line Opinion on that subject and also here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

If you want an excellent summary explaining the limits of renewables ability to supply much of global energy demand, see this (posted recently): http://euanmearns.com/the-difficulties-of-powering-the-modern-world-with-renewables/

I've also posted many links on previous threads to other aspects of renewables, energy, GHG abatement, carbon pricing etc.

Can I urge commenters to stay on topic.

Thanks Peter for the links.

How is tidal electricity going these days?
It would seem that wherever there are tides that generation should be possible.

Peter, I have just finished reading those links.
I had previously read and used the first link.
The second one (Energy Matters), was new to me and was very interesting.

It was more or less like I expected the difficulties of matching an
intermittent supply to a varying demand would be like, in fact worse.
The concluding opinion on finance was not a surprise to me either.
In fact don't you think that the declining investment is wind and solar
in Europe is in reality a reflection of a poor ERoEI ?

Bazz,

I suspect the declining investment in wind and solar in Europe is a reflection of the fact they are not close to being economically viable, even with the huge incentives they receive. The incentives are damaging the countries economies. Furthermore, wind and solar do not meet the key requirements of the electricity system. I suspect wind and solar have been a massive costly experiment and the world is waking up to this. The incentives have been tolerated up to now because of the hopes for a bright future promoted by the RE advocates. But as their proportion of electricity generation climbs above a few percent, the costs are starting to be felt. people are starting to realise the true costs. The masses cannot be fooled for long.

"250 onshore windfarms will be scrapped as taxpayer subsidies are axed

LARGE swathes of the British countryside are to be spared the blight of windfarms by the axing of taxpayer subsidies, Energy Secretary Amber Rudd has revealed." John Ingham, Daily Express, 23 June 2015

Consider the total worldwide cost of CO2 abatement if CO2 abatement was never required.

The cost of the RET adds approximately 4% over all to the retail price of electricity. The problem in Australia is that electricity consumption is falling, therefore all added renewable power to the grid is virtually bound to displace existing coal generation. This in simple terms means that the actual cost to the economy is, the loss incurred as a result of mothballing existing coal fired stations, plus the cost of building renewable power systems. The problem is unavoidable unless we choose to only add renewables when the existing coal units reach the end of their design life or more power is required. Unfortunately if all countries take this path we have no hope of keeping CO2 levels below levels that the scientists tell us will create significant climate problems.

On the plus side replacing coal power with renewables has numerous advantages beyond just reducing CO2 emission. The health benefits are considerable, extracting coal is dangerous and incurs serious health risks, Coal dust is very bad for the lungs, and burning it releases numerous toxic chemicals. The environmental costs are high even before you consider the effects of increasing levels of co2 in the atmosphere. Coal fired stations also use large qualities of fresh water which could be redirected for domestic and agricultural use.

In Australia by virtue of the fact that adding extra capacity to the system causes downward pressure on wholesale electricity, prices have not risen as fast as might be expected. During peek periods very high prices are paid to for the last available megawatts of power, for example wholesale prices have in the past risen by well in excess of ten times the normal price. In fact it is these spikes in the wholesale price that accounts for much of the profit of coal fired power stations.

Direct action as proposed by the current government may or may not be able to achieve a net reduction in CO2 emission but it is necessary to tackle the problem head on and that means transitioning to a low carbon economy and phasing out coal power.

warmair,

Your comment does not deal with the issue raised in the article - i.e. the CO2 abatement cost with wind power is very high and cannot be justified. Therefore, inecentives for wind power cannot be justified and should be scrapped.

If you cannot show a significant flaw in the analyses, and if you are intellectually honest, you will acknowledge that incentives for wind power cannot be justified and should be scrapped.

Your statement "The cost of the RET adds approximately 4% over all to the retail price of electricity." is disingenuous and irrelevant. It is disingenuous because the impactr on retail costs is nowhere near the full cost increase being caused by the RET. It is irrelevant because the costs will be much greater as the RET forces higher penetration of wind power and as the penalties of $96/MWh kick in around 2018 or so.

http://www.wattclarity.com.au/2015/06/the-ret-joyride/

Peter
Dr Joseph Wheatley uses actual data from the power generators, to try and determine the real savings made in CO2 emissions by using wind power. He then calculates that wind is only 78% effective based on the idea that wind power represents 4.5 % of the power generated but only reduces carbon emissions by 3.5%. This argument has a major flaw, that is impossible to know what generation source would have been used had the wind power not been added to the grid, or as the quote below says:

“The CO2-e emissions reductions achieved will depend on the emissions-intensity of the fuel source that would have otherwise been used. This counterfactual scenario cannot be observed, so the level of abatement can only be estimated, not measured.”

http://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/22-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-electricity-sector

A significant flaw in the Wheatly submission is the fact that he choose 2014 as the year for his data. 2014 is problematic because the carbon tax was removed half way through the year in July. Prior to the removal of the tax there was a greater economic incentive to use hydro and gas, but after it was removed the incentive to use coal was greater. What this implies is that wind power is now replacing more coal emissions now that the carbon tax has been removed. This was predicted even before the carbon tax was introduced and is one of the reasons, why wind generation was expected to become less effective as it share of the market rose and as the carbon tax increased. If it makes you feel better I agree the carbon tax was probably lowering emissions cheaper and faster than adding additional wind farms. It also means that your assumption that the effectiveness of of wind power would decline to 60% is no longer valid.

http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/documents/australia-repealed-its-carbon-tax-%E2%80%94-and-emissions-are-now-soaring

In terms of cost wind power systems are still declining in relative cost and becoming bigger and more efficient, all of which suggests that wind power will become financially more attractive not less. Apart from hydro, wind remains the cheapest source of renewable energy in Australia.

Warmair,

I think you may have misunderstood the analyses.

>“based on the idea that wind power represents 4.5 % of the power generated but only reduces carbon emissions by 3.5%. This argument has a major flaw, that is impossible to know what generation source would have been used had the wind power not been added to the grid, or as the quote below says:”

It’s not an “idea”. It’s a calculation from empirical data. Do you have a better estimate? If so what is it? Please provide the basis of your revised estimate. You may not be aware that the method is the same as used for Ireland which is published in the peer reviewed journal ‘Energy Policy’. So far, no substantial criticism has been made. You can do the analyses yourself. “co2calc contains the details of the emissions model and the simple statistical analysis” http://joewheatley.net/category/wind-energy/page/2/

The 2p014 year was chosen for the analysis for obvious reasons: it is the most recent year of data, which is important since wind penetration is increasing. For these reasons 2014 is clearly the preferred year to use; an earlier year would have been criticized for not being the latest data.

The fact that the carbon tax stopped in 2014 is irrelevant. It has little if any effect on the dispatch in 2014. If you believe it has, please quantify the magnitude of the effect on dispatch and the changes in the generation per 5 minute intervals.

Your quote from the Warburton Review is fully understood by Wheatley, as you would know if you’d actually read his report carefully, which it seems you haven’t.

Your comments suggests you failed to understand that the economic analyses done for the Warburton Review did not take CO2 abatement effectiveness into account. That is what my post points out - and quantifies the effect on the projected CO2 emissions avoided and the CO2 abatement cost with wind generation. I’d urge you to re-read the post, Wheatley’s report, and my submission to the Select Committee.

Unquantified assertions and innuendo cannot be taken seriously.

I am reading Warmair & Peter's posts and I am struggling to get a grip
on it all.

Warmair said;
This argument has a major flaw, that is impossible to know what
generation source would have been used had the wind power not been
added to the grid, or as the quote below says:

Surely, only a coal fired power station would have been available if
wind was not used ?

Peter said in relation to eroei;
I suspect the declining investment in wind and solar in Europe is a
reflection of the fact they are not close to being economically
viable, even with the huge incentives they receive.

But isn't poor eroei the cause of wind being uneconomic ?
After all if they had a higher output for the same cost and material
used to install and maintain would they not have a better eroei and economy ?

Bazz,

I can''t explain the Wheatley analysis in 350 words. You, warmair and others will need to read it, digest it and think about it (and Wheatley's analysis for Ireland, and my Submission to the Senate Select Committee on wind turbines. I am happy to answer specific questions and explain.

Regarding ERoEI, it is important for the long term sustainability with a high penetration of renewables - i./e renewables are not sustainable for the reasons previously discussed. But at low penetrations, ERoEI is no the cause of the high cost of intermittent renewables, IMO.