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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

"Effective action" is indeed the issue. Large-scale wind production is a colossal waste of resources that could be much more effectively directed.