The Sydney Morning Herald of Wed 14 May carried an article on page 7 headed 'Wind farm vow to power desalination'.

The article claims:

"The [NSW] State Government has signed a 20-year contract to create the largest wind farm in NSW to power its desalination plant.

This is part of its committment that the plant would use renewable energy, even though it will be a big electricity user.

The 63-turbine Capital Wind Farm in Bungendore, near Queanbeyan - funded by Babcock & Brown Wind Partners and Babcock & Brown Power - will provide all the electricity needs of the desalination plant, the Premier, Morris Iemma, said yesterday. ..."

and, towards its end,

"Sydney Water has also agreed to buy at least 180,000 renewable energy certificates - each for one megawatt hour of electricity produced from a renewable source - from the wind farm each year, worth about $9 million. This will underwrite its construction, Dr Schott said.

She would not reveal the price agreed to for the wind-generated electricity or the renewable energy certificates, other than to say they were "very close to market....and indexed to CPI"."

Do I read the article correctly to say the capital cost for the 63 turbines in the farm will be about $9 million? (That's around $143,000 per turbine - seems realistic.) Surely they do not mean $9 million for each of 20 years, $180 million in total?

Am I right in thinking that, at, say, $0.04 per KWH (the cheapest, off-peak, consumer electricity price) the 180,000 megawatt hours base load contract would be worth, at $40 per MWH, $7.2 million PER ANNUM, GUARANTEED, INDEXED, for TWENTY YEARS whether or not the wind blows? WOW! Not knocking renewable energy, but where can I get some of this privatisation?

But hey, why isn't that sale going to the existing publicly owned NSW electricity utility, which has off-peak capacity, currently unsold, to burn?

I wonder, will any interests by NSW parliamentarians in Babcock & Brown Wind Partners, the wind farm owners, show up on the registe

Forrest, I can’t get at all enthused about the details of a project like this, for as long as the fundamental purpose is so wildly off-track.

The problem is that the whole exercise of providing wind energy for desalination is geared directly towards supporting the absurdity of a continuous high rate of population growth for Sydney…NOT towards the development of a sustainable city.

Just to complete the last sentence of the opening post, which, for some annoying reason was truncated by my text editor: it should have read:

"....., show up on the register of pecuniary interests in due course?"

Ludwig,

I don't dispute the contention that the fundamental purpose of the Kurnell desalination project may be wildly off track. My observations on the proposed source of renewable energy being promoted for it are intended to cause viewers to question the sincerity behind the NSW government's policies, first, in using this particular method of desalination in this place, and second, in proposing to sell off its seemingly very viable electricity business right when such brilliant investment returns are starting to emerge.

For a capital investment of around $143,000 to be able to gross around $114,000 IN ITS FIRST YEAR selling its free renewable energy at only the off-peak electricity price of $40 per MWH seems to me an incredibly good rate of return for the investors. Granted there would be managment and maintenance costs, but wind farming is a well-established technology with few unknowns: the returns, basically guaranteed by the power of taxation through Sydney Water for 20 years, are so seemingly good that I question whether there is not a conflict of interest on the part of those in government who are making the policy decisions that are currently (at public expense) being promoted.

Is the proposed electricity business sell-off anything less than a 'tail wagging the dog' situation, and being undertaken simply so that some really spectacular returns can be made even better for only that small part of the market in which it is possible for a small (read retired parliamentarian) private investor to obtain a ring-side seat and get top returns? By 'privatising' the NSW public's electricity business (but not the actual assets) what, other than selling the right to hike electricity prices to the public, is the NSW government doing?

The only other thing its likely doing is increasing yet further the outstanding returns on that absolutely capital wind farm!

Dear Forrest,

From past knowledge and experience all projects of government funding and involvement tend to ultimately cost a lot more than the initial figures presented.

It would be great to see realistic costings projected up to the time of project completion. After all - most of these projects are funded by taxpayers (present and future). Until we can see an honest and realistic appraisal of the scheme, any discussion will remain pure speculation.

Wind farming may be a solution in the right direction, but the technical means currently in use are a blight on the landscape and more sympathetic and attractive wind farming methods have been suggested to the government that would add to the landscape in an attractive mannner.

Foxy “From past knowledge and experience all projects of government funding and involvement tend to ultimately cost a lot more than the initial figures presented.”

Agree. I have no problem with wind farms or other eyesores provided the numbers assumed stack up when everything is operational and the benefits are as good or better than expected.

Such things are commercial risks and we have a private commercial sector who are practiced in assessing commercial risk and deciding if “the risk” is too much to warrant taking. Those commercial risk takers operate in a world of assumptions and projections and can make the call objectively.

However, when we get “government funding” the political objectives and agendas overshadow the “commercial risk assessments” and the tax payer gets stuck with the excess (remembering that none of these things ever come in below budget).
Then the tax payer is like a “captive bank”, unable to reject or object to the excesses of the borrower / risk taker; because the borrower is the person who the majority of tax payers elected to look after what is supposed to be their best interests.

But the worst thing is, the political reputations, hung on the bad investment, then seek to bury the mistakes and divert funds from other projects which could have been really beneficial.

Cities are going to grow no matter what and will need ever more water.

The wind farm ideas are better than the Victorian Government's shocking plan to siphon off the Goulburn River to Melbourne. But can these ideas work?

What does an attractive wind farm look like?

The first thing to remember is that the desalination plant
will be a lot cheaper than moving Sydney.
Look at it as an insurance policy.
It might need to be enlarged or duplicated or even triplicate, but
if we are entering a dry period then it will be money well spent.

Now how you power it can be all sorts of arrangements.
Not knowing how long it takes to start up and shut down makes it
difficult to make suggestions, but it might be able to follow the the
wind speed at the wind farm site.

Low damns or not they should run it while ever the damns are below
say 90% and try and build up a good stock of water.
Just seems common sense to me.

Isn't it true that 100% = 65% in the mind of the Labor Party?

I have been led to understand Warragamba Dam can not be fully filled.

A mate of mine has a very large wind farm on his property and I would estimate the excavation work for one windmill would exceed $140,000. Go and stand next to one for an education. The metal alone would have to be in excess of $250,000. They also receive a surprising amount of maintenance which I would estimate to be at least fortnightly.

Those who think windmills are aesthetic should go back to design school.

They are also surprisingly noisy. whooshing sounds can be heard over a kilometre away. The wildlife like sitting in the shade they produce and my mate has NEVER sighted a dead bird at the base.

I support windmills and desalination if for no other reason than it is an insurance policy secondly the Labor Party has finally made a proactive decision. Won't it be nice when they manage to build railway stations while a housing project is built instead of 25 years later.

The Western Australians manage to build stations and housing at the same time.

The noise from the ones at Albany I have been told is very low indeed.
The noise level may be a function of blade design.

The economics of wind farms is not very good as they only average
about 25% of rated output. This blows the economics out the window
if you pardon the pun.
We should be hoping and praying that geothermal & solar thermal
can be made to work economically.

and or wind speed

Cowboy Joe is right in questioning the capital cost of the sort of wind turbines used on wind farms. See: http://www.rise.org.au/info/Applic/Windfarm/index.html

Dismally unclear 'journalism' by the SMH reporters!

It seems the terms of the contract is for Sydney Water (the owners?/operators? of the desalination plant) to take 180,000 MWH per year at an annual cost of $9 million for each of the 20 years the contract will run. This works out at $50 per MWH, and is equivalent to $0.05 per KWH; around about the present domestic consumer off-peak rate for electricity. Over 20 years, $180 million will be paid for 3,600,000 MWH of wind-generated electricity.

So despite the Herald's claim that Dr Schott (the Sydney Water CEO) would not reveal the price to be paid for the electricity, she did in fact do so, unless there is much more that we, the public, are not being told in this story.

The Herald article seems to imply that the Capital Wind Farm will possibly have more generating capacity than that required to supply the 180,000 MWH per annum that supposedly represents all the electricity required by Sydney Water to run the desalinator. The interesting thing, I understand, with respect to wind farms, is that actual rates of power delivery fluctuate, literally, with the wind! So if THIS wind farm is correctly able to be claimed to be generating the TOTAL power requirement for the desalinator, then it must be being operated in conjunction with a grid supply of significantly greater delivery capacity that actually guarantees the round-the-clock electricity supply Sydney Water says, in the SMH article, it requires.

If NSW sells off its electricity business, how will the Capital Wind Farm then be able to be sure at what price it can sell electricity to its still necessary new 'grid partner' in order to guarantee both continuous supply to its Sydney Water customer, and remain financially viable?

Or is there an existing NSW government/Capital Wind Farm grid interaction contract?

The unreliability of wind farms can be reduced by connecting to the
same grid wind farms that are separated geographically.
This increases the reliability but does not fix the problem.
A friend of mine who used to commission power stations said that 25% of
what is known as unreliable generators is the maximum that can be
allowed on the network. This 25% figure has also been stated in articles
that I have read elsewhere.
There was a widespread blackout in Germany that was blamed on a drop in the wind.
I have not been able to confirm that assertion.
Spinning reserves have to be kept on line to take up the load when the
wind drops. This spinning reserve costs money and burns fuel and is one
of the causes of poor economics of wind farms.

There is light at the end of the tunnel in that ultra capacitors might
be developed in the future to be big enough to iron out the wind variations.

"Do I read the article correctly to say the capital cost for the 63 turbines in the farm will be about $9 million? (That's around $143,000 per turbine - seems realistic.) Surely they do not mean $9 million for each of 20 years, $180 million in total?"

No.

Ok, I am involved with BnB and the 3MW turbines to be installed on my
farm will cost five million Dollars each.

EVERYONE SHOULD DO THEIR HOMEWORK ON WIND INDUSTRIAL SITES. THIS SITE OF NOW 69 TURBINES WILL COST OVER 300 MILLION DOLLARS. 3-4 MILLION DOLLARS EACH ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING TURBINE. I SUGGEST PEOPLE WHO HAVE A BRAIN GO TO THE COUNTRY GUARDIAN WEBSITE AND FIND OUT FACTS AND NOT FICTION ABOUT WIND TURBINE SITES. THIS PARTICULAR ONE AT BUNGENDORE IS NOW IN THE PROCESS OF DESTROYING LISTED BIRD SANCTUARIES AND REMNANT BUSHLAND (SUPPOSEDLY PROTECTED). THIS IS A MONEY GRAB AND NOTHING TO DO WITH EMISSIONS. WHO IS PAYING WHO IN THE NSW GOVERNMENT. 12,000 TRUCKS WITH CONCRETE WILL BE USED TO DELIVER THE BASES OF THE INDIAN TURBINES; I HAVE WITNESSED MANY BIRD CASUALTIES FROM 125 TURBINE METRE HIGH BLADES TURNING AT 200KLM A HOUR. HOPEFULLY NOW THAT THE MOTHER COMPANY BABCOCK AND BROWN IS GOING BUST THERE MAY BE SOME HOPE FOR THE COLLAPSE OF THIS DISASTER ZONE. I AM NOT SUPRISED AT THE GUTTER PRESS APPROACH BY THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD AS THEY CONSTANTLY GET THE FACTS WRONG ON THIS ISSUE JUST READ THE SO CALLED ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTER WENDY FREW. WHAT A JOKE.
OPEN YOUR MIND AND THINK READ ABOUT THE ISSUES SURROUNDING THIS TOPIC. WHAT ABOUT THE FIRES THAT ARE A REGULAR FEATURE OF TURBINES.THIS AREA IS THE MOST FIRE PRONE IN NSW AND VERY CLOSE TO CANBERRA I CAN JUST SEE ANOTHER 2003 FIRE HAPPENING.
LILLY