If wind is to replace coal, why aren't the turbines being built on top of coal plants?

The first requirement of a new energy source is that it be a good source of energy. Wind is not. That is why the arguments to install them in anyone's backyard are not compelling. And only such a necessarily sprawling technology as wind turbines would give rise to your question. Even so, if they were such wonderful devices as claimed by the sales brochures I might not mind one nearby. But they aren't.

I hadn't cited evidence, because I assumed that people involved in this discussion were at least a little familiar with the arguments or knew where to look. (Just as Diesendorf neglects to show evidence of actual change (other than the profitable growth of a new tax-shelter industry) from wind power.)

So please, Kenny, refer to http://www.aweo.org for a hard look at large-scale wind.

Ericc,

For starters, fitting up Australia's dirty coal-fired power plants with clean coal technology could save up to 60% in CHG emissions. Why is this not being pursued? The US are doing it.

Windfarms don't save ANYTHING on CO2 because conventional generating capacity must compensate for the ups and downs of the wind, 24 h a day, burning more fuel and emitting more gases in the process. UK's Institution of Chemical Engineers says so. Do you doubt their competence? Do you think Greenpeace and FoE are better qualified in engineering matters?

The money spent on these useless, bird-killing pieces of junk could help jump-start geothermal, wave, solar and other powers. Windpower is HINDERING the implementation of real solutions.

We could go on and on about the stats and facts for ever by the look of it. What about the social, emotional and health issues of communities? There is an impact and it doesn't seem to be very positive. The ongoing jobs for locals seem thin on the ground and the areas chosen are well populated. Can you imagine the effect of other areas not going ahead? How demoralising for those still in the firingline and unheard. Would you buy a property next door? Would you quietly sit by while they put up these huge constructions next to your dream home? What would be your reaction be if you where left without peace and quiet in your home.

From Mark Diesendorf:

I spoke up about wind power because I see so much dishonest and misleading propaganda being disseminated by anti-wind power campaigners. Here I summarise their tactics, all demonstrated in the above comments on my article:

1. They claim that they are not opposed to wind power in general, but only wind farms at particular sites. But, in practice, they oppose all proposals for grid-connected wind farms.

2. Many of them present themselves as environmentalists or conservationists, while ignoring or denying the world’s principal environmental threat, namely the human-induced greenhouse effect, and in particular that coal-fired electricity is the biggest contributor to greenhouse pollution.

3. They complain about the subsidies to wind power, while ignoring the much bigger subsidies to the production and use of fossil fuels.

4. They complain of the profits of the wind industry, while ignoring those of the coal industry which are millions of times larger. Unless anti-wind power campaigners are willing to state publicly that they are opposed to the whole capitalist system, they stand open to the charge of hypocrisy in criticising the wind industry for trying to make a profit.

5. They claim incorrectly that, as an ‘intermittent’ energy source, wind power cannot substitute for coal power and therefore can neither reduce carbon dioxide emissions nor contribute to meeting peak load. Refuted in my next posting.

6. They create the false impression that wind power has huge adverse environmental impacts, by picking out rare cases and presenting them as if they were typical. Thus they mislead without actually lying. Bird and bat casualties and noise are generally treated in this way.

7. They falsely label those who speak up against their misleading arguments as industry office-bearers, employees or spruikers. I have already refuted the statement that I was formerly President of the Australian Wind Energy Association, in a previous posting.

8. They denigrate the qualifications and expertise of those who disagree with them.

So, I have to ask, if anti-wind campaigners really have a strong case, why do they use such dubious tactics?

Mark Diesendorf

The myth that wind needs back-up from coal

Consider the mantra parroted by anti-wind farm campaigners, that coal-fired power stations have to be kept running all the time to back-up wind. The research by the former CSIRO-ANU wind energy research group (e.g. Brian Martin & Mark Diesendorf, Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 4, pp.155-161) and the work of the British researcher, Dr Michael Grubb (e.g. Energy Policy, vol. 16, pp.594-607) among others showed that wind power substitutes for base-load power stations. In most of Australia, these are coal-fired.

About 2000 MW of wind power can substitute for 660 MW of coal power. This means that an existing coal unit can be retired or a proposed new coal unit can be deferred or cancelled. Thus wind power has economic value in saving capital as well as fuel.

To maintain the reliability of the generating system in meeting peak demand, some additional peak-load plant (e.g. gas turbines) is required. Typically it would require one-quarter to one-third of the wind power capacity, depending on the geographic dispersion of wind farms.

For wind energy penetrations of less than about 20% of total generation on the grid, this additional peak-load plant does not run frequently and its capital cost is low. Therefore, it is like reliability insurance with a low premium. It reduces only slightly the large greenhouse benefits that wind power achieves by substituting for coal.

I'm aware that the international anti-wind campaign likes to cite a few recent studies that fail to obtain the correct results. In general these studies have made elementary mistakes resulting from their failure to read or understand the earlier published literature.

Even without knowledge of the mathematical and computer models used to obtain the correct results, a little reflection allows anyone to understand the absurdity of the mantra that coal-fired power stations have to back up wind. The power output of many coal-fired stations CANNOT be ramped up and down to follow the variations in wind power. However, peak-load plant can respond quickly enough to do that job.

Mark Diesendorf

Thanks for coming back on the forum and making these points, Mark.

Many authors can't be bothered and it weakens the debate.