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

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.

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

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.

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.

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