hi all
this is the place for general debate/ conversation about wind energy – pros/ cons/ conspiracy theories, love stories, angst, and all the rest of it – anything that relates to the general field of wind power.
We can start sub themes if needed, to make it easier to track debate on an issue that interests you – eg efficiency of the technology, subsidies, wind farms and fire risk, etc.
If you want to start a debate on a specific sub topic, the best bet is to email me first so I can set up a sub page.
Thanks, Cam
Gerard
May 8, 2011
The following information from the National Grid is demonstrates the futility of wind as a reliable energy source.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
in respect of analysis of electricity generation from all the U.K. windfarms which are metered by National Grid, November 2008 to December 2010. The following five statements are common assertions made by both the wind industry and Government representatives and agencies. This Report examines those assertions.
1. “Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year.”
2. “The wind is always blowing somewhere.”
3. “Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.”
4. “The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.”
5. “Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.”
This analysis uses publicly available data for a 26 month period between November 2008 and December 2010 and the facts in respect of the above assertions are:
1. Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
2. There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW).
3. The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
4. At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
5. The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.
OTHER FINDINGS have emerged in the course of this analysis in addition to the Principal Findings which related to the testing of five common assertions. These Other Findings are listed below.
1. During the study period, wind generation was:
* below 20% of capacity more than half the time;
* below 10% of capacity over one third of the time;
* below 2.5% capacity for the equivalent of one day in twelve;
* below 1.25% capacity for the equivalent of just under one day a month.
The discovery that for one third of the time wind output was less than 10% of capacity, and often significantly less than 10%, was an unexpected result of the analysis.
2. Among the 124 days on which generation fell below 20MW were 51 days when generation was 10MW or less. In some ways this is an unimportant statistic because with 20MW or less output the contribution from wind is effectively zero, and a few MW less is neither here nor there. But the very existence of these events and their frequency – on average almost once every 15 days for a period of 4.35 hours – indicates that a major reassessment of the capacity credit of wind power is required.
3. Very low wind events are not confined to periods of high pressure in winter. They can occur at any time of the year.
4. The incidence of high wind and low demand can occur at any time of year. As connected wind capacity increases there will come a point when no more thermal plant can be constrained off to accommodate wind power. In the illustrated 30GW connected wind capacity model with “must-run” thermal generation assumed to be 10GW, this scenario occurs 78 times, or 3 times a month on average. This indicates the requirement for a major reassessment of how much wind capacity can be tolerated by the Grid.
5. The frequency of changes in output of 100MW or more over a five minute period was surprising. There is more work to be done to determine a pattern, but during March 2011, immediately prior to publication of this report, there were six instances of a five minute rise in output in excess of 100MW, the highest being 166MW, and five instances of a five minute drop in output in excess of 100MW, the highest being 148MW. This indicates the requirement for a re-assessment of the potential for increased wind capacity to simulate the instantaneous loss (or gain) of a large thermal plant.
6. The volatility of wind was underlined in the closing days of March 2011 as this Report was being finalised.
* At 3.00am on Monday 28th March, the entire output from 3226MW capacity was 9MW
* At 11.40am on Thursday 31st March, wind output was 2618MW, the highest recorded to date
* The average output from wind in March 2011 was 22.04%
* Output from wind in March 2011 was 10% of capacity or less for 30.78% of the time.
The nature of wind output has been obscured by reliance on “average output” figures. Analysis of hard data from National Grid shows that wind behaves in a quite different manner from that suggested by study of average output derived from the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) record, or from wind speed records which in themselves are averaged. It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to provide any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future. There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy requirement.
David Clarke
February 19, 2012
Many of these points do show some of the limitations of wind power, but the fact remains that it is one of the few forms of sustainable energy available to us – and we must move away from buringing fossil fuels. Wind power is not “The answer”, it is a part of the answer. We need all the help we can get to slow climate change. It’s pretty bloody obvious that, for the present we need gas-fired generation to ‘fill the gaps’, but solar with heat storage and pumped hydro could be developed to help out.
Wind power (like democracy) is not perfect, but it’s better than the alternatives.
I cannot comment on the capacity factor for UK wind farms, but for eastern Australian wind farms it is 34% (AEMO figures summarised on ramblingsdc.net/Australia/WindPower.html#Power_generation_of_wind_farms). SA has the biggest fraction of wind power in Australia and, while electricity consumption is increasing, our greenhouse gas production rate is decreasing (ramblingsdc.net/Australia/WindSA.html#Wind_farm_generation_data). Small steps in the right direction.
Alex Grew
May 8, 2011
Who cares? Every MWhour generated was essentially CO2 free. Owing to the well documented high predictability of wind energy, the grid operators had plenty of time (many hours) advance notice so were able to efficiently fill in with other less carbon-efficient sources.
If the 3226 MW of wind had not been built then every MWhour would have been generated with coal and gas.
Wind in the UK has been a great success and with a 17-fold increase in offshore wind due by 2017, it’ll play an even greater role in the UK’s decarbonisation.
sammy davidson
May 9, 2011
I care Alex, because wind is not highly reliable and it is not doing anything to reduce emmisions because of this.
So are you saying that the grid operators shut down the coal fired generators when it was windy enough? or did they leave them running because its very difficult to start them quickly enough is the wind stops suddenly?
If we need extra energy wouldnt it be better to use something that works all the time, not just when its windy?
Blair
May 26, 2011
Sammy, you are being intellectually dishonest to say wind energy isn’t reducing emissions. Power demand has to be constantly balanced by generators. As has already been explained to you, coal generators have to vary their output over a 24-hour period by a sizeable amount so your inference that coal-fired power stations produce power efficiently is nonsense.
Including wind in the mix makes no difference to the inefficiency of coal powered plants but it does mean that every megawatt produced by wind is one less that needs to be supplied by coal.
If inefficiencies and emissions concern you so greatly, you should be arguing for more renewables rather than less. It’s interesting that you appear to have no problems with coal-fired power being sent long distances, losing energy along the way but you argue against wind energy which is generally used in the region it’s produced in.
Centralised power production will always be more inefficient than distributed energy production. You really should acknowledge that fact.
Alex Grew
May 9, 2011
Sammy, like a fundamentalist you completely ignore my reasoned statement immediately above yours and override it with your emotion. You are clearly upset with how some developers have treated your community, and perhaps you have reason to be, but you are letting your anger get in the way of understanding how the electricity network operates and wind energy’s role within it.
Electricity demand is highly variable — check it out at http://aemo.com.au/data/GRAPH_30VIC1.html
Fortunately you don’t have to worry about this variability — a large group of market participants work through a highly efficient market to ensure that there is always enough energy to power your computer so you can post messages claiming that the variability can’t be managed.
The variability of wind power is much lower in MW terms and is well predicted by the Australian Wind Energy Forecasting System.
If you want any of your issues to be taken seriously, you’ve best drop your message that wind power doesn’t reduce emissions.
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw: “Those who say it can’t be done should move aside for those who are doing it.”
Blair
May 26, 2011
Thanks for the link Alex, very interesting and informative. It certainly explodes the myth of renewables affecting the efficiency (or lack of) coal-fired power.
sammy davidson
May 9, 2011
Sorry Alex, no emotions, just reasoned facts.
I have the facts right in front of me. Since you speak of AEMO you will know that when every wind farm is running the use of coal has not, does not or will not slow down, This is a fact that cannot be disputed to date.
Yes demand fluctuates, but how does the generation of wind power move with this? the wind does not blow or stop when demand is created. There are times when wind is blowing during high demand and times when it is not. It does not correlate.
I couldnt care less if you take me seriously or not, but you must or you would ignore my comments. The only place wind energy has ever reduced emmisions is from closed grid systems such as on king island or in the cooper pedy where they can shut off the diesel engines when the wind blows. For the rest of us its a non event. If you can provide emperical evidence to the contrary id love to see it!
Ben Courtice
May 27, 2011
Belatedly responding to sammy davidson. Do you mean to say that coal power stations have a simple on/off setting with no variability at all in their output? I understand well that they can’t be very rapidly switched on or off, nor have their output changed very quickly.
This is another reason why we would like to see coal power plants replaced with something that is not just clean but more efficient.
And this is the bigger issue: we want to stop burning coal. You have to build sufficient replacements before you stop burning the coal! So over time, wind turbines are most definitely reducing carbon emissions.
And no-one that I know is pretending that wind (or wind plus pumped hydro) is going to provide all the electricity needed. Solar thermal power plants, biomass from waste, geothermal where appropriate, and other tech like wave and tidal and so on as it becomes commercialised, all these are important.
In particular, the Beyond Zero Emissions report Zero Carbon Australia 2020 (stationary energy plan) has a scenario in which a 40% wind/60% solar thermal with storage mix could supply all Australia’s energy needs, taken with serious energy efficiency measures and a small amount of crop waste for backup generation on low wind & sun days.
I’m not expecting to convince those with their own axe to grind, but it’s important that the alternatives are understood by anyone else reading this blog.
Alex Grew
May 9, 2011
Sammy, which of the following reduce emissions:
1) Turning off a light;
2) Installing a solar panel; or
3) Installing a wind turbine.
The answer, of course, is all three. But based on your form, you would clearly disagree. Can you explain to me your answer and explain just how the fossil fuel generators in the network “know” the difference?
(The point: renewable energy doesn’t have to follow demand or supply to reduce emissions.)
Cam Walker
May 9, 2011
hi all
given Sammys obvious obsession with this site, and complete unwillingness to be anything less than fundamentalist and mis infomed about wind energy and basic things like the grid, I am going to save my time and just engage with reasonable people who are posting in future.
Sammy is too lazy to actually produce his / her own info, choosing instead to attack other peoples work. This gets really boring after a while. Meanwhile, its good to see the informed debate going on elsewhere, Cam
Alex Grew
May 11, 2011
I’m also going to ignore Sammy until he shows signs of being a thinking man. He can’t back up statements like “Wind energy is a joke” and “It really doesnt work as stated”. And he can’t answer simple questions like the one I wrote above. He’s wasting everyones time.
It is a fact that the “black” (e.g. energy) portion of wind energy trades on the open market at near the average price of baseload. If Sammy was right then the black portion would trade at a small fraction of the average market price. Sammy wants wind to fail so much that he makes up lies. Must be hard for him to see the phenomenal success of wind energy world wide and see the bipartisan (tripartisan?) support for the Renewable Energy Target in Australia, which he erroneously thinks is designed to specifically support wind energy. (Hint: under the RET the cheapest form wins, and for the moment, thats wind. It wont always be.)
There are plenty of places on the web for deliberate lies and misinformation. This is not one of them.
Gerard
May 14, 2011
Ed Miliband’s pursuit of windpower as even part of our energy mix is sheer lunacy. Wind power is a complete disaster says Michael J. Trebilcock, Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto. Here is a summary of the key points he made in his Toronto Post article dated 8th April 2009.
1. Denmark, the worlds most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant.
2. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind powers unpredictability.
3. Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmarks largest energy utilities) tells us that wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
4. The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that Germanys CO2 emissions havent been reduced by even a single gram, and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.
5. Recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character.
6. Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Take the Danish experience:-
a. Danish electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe;
b. Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.
c. Aase Madsen, the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it a terribly expensive disaster.
7. In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green:-
a. Firstly – the environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately. (From Ed Milibands comments on Newsnight tonight, he is one of these).
b. Secondly – the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever the relative impact of such projects on greenhouse gas emissions.
Both groups have one point of convergence – their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (particularly wind turbines).
Gerard
May 14, 2011
Sorry I should of mentioned this is from the UK, however the points made remain valid wherever politicians make the disastrous environmental decision to allow wind turbines.
Alex Grew
May 15, 2011
Gerard. The fact that you have mischievously omitted is that Denmark burns less fossil fuel than they would if they didn’t have wind energy. The carbon intensity of Denmark’s electricity sector reduces with every new turbine, solar panel and bioenergy plant they connect to the grid.
Already, global investment in renewables has surpassed fossil fuel investment, however there will remain a role for limited new fossil fuel generation for some time. Over the coming decades you’ll see carbon emissions per MWhour decrease as the penetration of renewables increases.
Gerard
May 15, 2011
Hi Alex, I was not being mischevious at all the fact that Denmark relies on Swedens nuclear power generation as its backup source is the (only) reason why it works.
Cam Walker
May 16, 2011
This is a post from SAMMY, which is now being directed from the CHEPSTOWE conversation (check there for earlier debate: http://yes2renewables.org/2011/03/09/please-support-the-chepstowe-wind-project/). Thanks, Cam:
Alex, what you say is partially correct, but for it to be true the wind has to be blowing. if its not all of what you say is false.
Its much more likly that a gas peaker will be used than wind if you go by statistics, infact much more so, as the probability that any given windfarm will be running at full capacity during peak load times is very low. Yes it is possible, but peak demand matching up with full wind capacity is only reliant on luck for the 2 to coincide perfectly.
The other thing is, where does the wind energy go in times of non peak demand? is it used? like you said coal generation does not have much capacity to move up or down, so this being the case what happens during this time?
Gerard
May 16, 2011
This is worth a look at the impacts of wind turbines on peoples lives http://www.abc.net.au/tv/watchnow/ scroll down on right hand side to see to clip on wind farm syndrome. Whether you believe wind farm syndrome exists or not these good honest hardworking people have been impacted on. This is why we need a buffer distance. A buffer distance seems to work for Mr Holmes a Court according to the Habitat Magazine article “I can see the turbines from my lounge room,” Simon said. “They are small, sitting on a hill four kilometres from my home.
They have changed my view and I like it.” Perhaps the buffer distance should be 4kms not 2.
Blair
May 26, 2011
Two of the loudest opponents of the Toora wind farm, upon receiving compensation (buyouts for their houses) chose to live within 2 km of the same wind farm rather than leave the area as they had previously claimed. Wind farm syndrome is really a euphemism for envy. I’m curious to know why you choose to believe wind farm opponents who invoke unproven syndromes Gerard?
Cam Walker
May 16, 2011
Yes, and its worth noting the comments of the producers of this piece (taken from here: http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/wind-turbine-syndrome )
“It was not purporting to be an investigative story into the scientific reality, or not, of wind turbine syndrome”.
“This story was not anti-green, not anti-clean energy, not an attack on wind power. The Hungry Beast presenter introducing the story was supportive of wind power and said:
“Green Energy. We’re all for the idea. We certainly need solar, water and wind power to replace diminishing fossil fuels.”
Gerard
May 16, 2011
I did not say it was anti green or even anti wind you can let your conspiratorial mind go there if you want. Wind farms will always be a planning issue. At 4kms away from a turbine I think Simon is probably at the right distance not to be impacted on others deserve the same.
Blair
May 26, 2011
Gerard, if you really believe windfarms are detrimental to health, come to one of Australia’s oldest (and probably noisiest) windfarms at Toora and I will introduce you to a number of residents who live within 500 m of the nearest turbines and who have absolutely no problems with them. Like the many visitors to the wind farm, they do not understand why people make such a fuss about the turbines.
Cam Walker
May 16, 2011
Some people live close to turbines and have no problems. Some people seem to have problems, even if they live a few kms away. I even met one woman who has ‘wind farm syndrome’ from a turbine that wasn’t even built yet. People seem to react in different ways.
So why on earth would you set a completely arbitary set back distance (in this case 4k) and then say everything is fine (‘the right distance’). Such a position is just not based on any kind of fact or evidence. And what about the lost opportunity to the many people who would no longer be able to benefit from having turbines closer than 4km if we were to impose such a rule?
Brent
June 27, 2011
Cam – I work in the construction industry and what is being called “wind farm syndrome” sounds identical to the health impacts on people who have had their homes and land resumed to make way for infrastructure. Regardless of what I think of wind farms (support them!) I am sure that there are people suffering mentally and physically from the stress and loss of their sense of being in control of their lives and I feel for them. This however has nothing to do with “infra-sound” ect. I work in construction and noise monitoring and control is a large part of inner city projects. A wind farm at 1.5K at 2am is far quieter than a highway 200 m away – but not if you are not getting $ for the turbines.
Gerard
May 16, 2011
Cam, my preferred option is a buffer distance based on a multiple of height to blade tip – 20X or 2km whichever is greater. Retexo the German marketer of wind turbines recommends that turbines should not be placed closer than 2kms from a home. I would prefer to 4ks away like Simon is and see turbines in the distance but I would settle for a buffer distance of 2ks. As for your woman withWTS caused by a turbine that wasn’t yet built what can I say about the crowd you hang out with.
2cherry
May 16, 2011
Recalling the currently issued government requirements on the placement on windfarms, I consider them to be more than satisfactory given I recorded no wind noise from roughly 50m away from a turbine and the ‘shadow flicker’ barely extended beyond this periphery. As for reflective glint, this was negated by the non-reflective paint used on the turbine arms. I can appreciate the visual impact of the turbines, as they are undeniably massive, but in comparison to the eyesore factor presented by open cut coal mines, it’s a small price to pay. People are, understandably, always going to be apprehensive about change, whatever it’s manifestation. The townsfolk I spoke to at Waubra who were gracious enough to give me their time mentioned they had similar objections with roadworks through the area a few decades ago. I think personal preference, however, really has to sometimes be framed with the greater good presented by the technology kept in mind.
Gerard
May 17, 2011
2cherry I also have no problem with a 2km buffer from turbines which is the current policy of the Victorian government ( I would prefer 20x hbt as stated above) Audible noise can be an issue depending on topography and atmospheric conditions as far as 2-3km. As far as shadow flicker goes it depends on the time of day and season a 165m turbine can cast a rotating shadow approximately 3kms long in winter. In response to the visual impact being less than unsightly open cut mine I would agree that a hole in the ground is unsightly however the open cut mines in the LaTrobe Valley have been there since 1920 and if you bought land there you know the existing conditions in Macedon Ranges or any other area where turbines have been proposed people have paid a premium for their land based on cuurent rural activities and not an industrialised landscape of turbines.
If turbines were a viable alternative to coal I would still maintain that a 2km buffer is only fair and reasonable however seeing that they will never will be and that they will have no impact on emissions then a 2km buffer to satiisfy those that need a symbolic gesture to mitigating climate change should be a minimum requirement.
Alex Grew
May 17, 2011
Gerard, you really are in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that turbines will have no impact on emissions.
Peter Johnson
May 17, 2011
Read May 4 entry Point 4. The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that Germanys CO2 emissions havent been reduced by even a single gram, and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery. There are lots of cuckoo clocks in Germany!
Alex Grew
May 17, 2011
Peter. While German total emissions may not have reduced, yet, their emissions intensity undoubtedly has. Quite disingenuous of you to quote the above statistic without acknowledging that demand is increasing at the same time. You’ll only see a net emissions decline if renewable roll-out is at a faster pace than energy demand.
sammy davidson
May 22, 2011
Alex, can you please come forward with some evidence that proves wind turbines are stopping emmisions from coal? I have searched long and hard and the only time i can find a turbine stopping emmisions is in a closed grid system like found at King Island or Cooper Pedy.
There is absolutly no evidence of any reduction in the use of coal, infact a new coal fired power station is planned to be built in the latrobe valley.
The wind industy has claimed this for years, and under the previous government it was pushed using taxpayers money, but there is still no evidence to back it up.
Alex Grew
May 22, 2011
Sammy. Firstly read http://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/Greenhouse_abatement_from_wind_report.pdf
Then answer the question I specifically addressed to you above on 9 May.
sammy davidson
May 24, 2011
Sorry alex, but that doesnt say anything. The previous government told us wind energy worked at 35% capacity to, but it clearly didnt, so why would we believe anything they say here?
Alex Grew
May 24, 2011
Sammy. It’s hard to take your ranting seriously.
The website windfarmperformance.info gives capacity factors for the major wind farms in Australia. The weighted average for the listed Victorian wind farms (comprising 75% of those in Victoria) for 2010 was 34.3%.
The MMA report is based on several scenarios, in the range of 33% – 35%, which as you can see above is a very good prediction. It turns out that neither MMA nor the previous government lied to you about their capacity factor assumptions. Putting your obsession with capacity factors aside (which really are close to meaningless), the basic principle of abatement per MWhour would have been essentially the same at 20% or 45%.
Now, please answer the question I asked of you on 9 May.
gordon sholl
May 26, 2011
Hi guys everyone now knows wind energy is a flop and that wind turbine contracts are a scam!
Cam Walker
May 26, 2011
[note from Cam, this was another post from GORDON SHOLL, just re-posting it in the right thread]:
“Lovely to see Waubra Nth wind farm stopped in its tracks because of “no wind”, yet its only 2 kms …”
Cam Walker
May 27, 2011
[and another post from GORDON SCHOLL, who is clearly having some trouble understanding where to post items on this site. I would be interested to know if anyone actually has some info on land prices around Leonards Hill]
Oh Dear!
Leonard Hills, K’Boora, Musk Vale residents are all but awaiting the terrible sounds of spinning blades, the word around the traps is their not happy! Landvalues have been knocked down…
Cam Walker
May 30, 2011
[a note from Cam:
The following was a post from Robert Moran, it seemed better fitted over here in the 'general debate' area.
Sadly its full of the usual shoddy thinking that many 'antis' use. I don't think I will worry about responding to the issues raised, they have had considerable airing elsewhere on the site previously].
Post from ROBERT MORAN:
For all you forees (wind/solar), With over 100,000 wind turbines world-wide, how many gas, coal, or nuclear plants have shut-down. Answer – zero, as they all must operate at 60 80% capacity so they can be switched on the second the wind slows or stops which is very common. These gas and coal generating plants can’t be shut down as they typicaly take days to restart. Are you going to wait a couple days before you can turn on your television. Ans. no.
How much land (including trees, plants and wildlife habitat, has be bulldozed to provide access roads and pads for these turbines. Answer 2,500,000 acres or nearly 4000 square miles.
What are some of the other things wind machines do besides convert energy here in California? Fires, erosion, watershed problems, destruction of habitat, landslides, avian cusinart , noise and sleep deprivation, ground vibration, loss of dark skies due to flashing red strobe lights, loss of private land going to global corporation, destruction of natural scenic views with these 500 foot metal monsters, and many more.
Instead of getting propaganda from government or wind machine companies why not search wind scams and see the alternative view and question which has the most validity.
Ask who are the big beneficiaries of this wind and solar production. You may be unpleasantly surprised.
For every force, there is an equal and opposite force. Let us not forget friction.
Prediction: with in 5 to 10 years, we will wake up to find we have participated in the largest world-wide monetary scam in history by listening to these snake-oil salesman. Neat thing about it, it all will come out of our wallets, not theirs.
sammy davidson
June 2, 2011
I think we already know we are being scammed! thats why theres so many antis isnt it cam?
Blair
June 3, 2011
@Sammy, so long as you continue to use electricity to post your unfortunate and misinformed commentary, you aren’t really in much of a position to criticise the use of wind power or any other energy producing methods.
Demand for electricity is growing so if you really want to practice what you preach, live your life electricity free. Of course you won’t because the cosy mod cons of modern life allow you to practice your hypocrisy.
Notably you provide no practical or realistic solutions or alternatives, just constant carping. You’d make a really good creationist, like you they prefer misinformation, obfuscation and outright distortions of fact to try and make a point.
Alex Grew
June 3, 2011
I’m still looking for an anti-windy that can string together a cogent argument. Still looking…
gordon sholl
June 5, 2011
Sad to see “put down” comments from some members of this forum. The latest “word” going around is that wind companies are now well aware that the issue of noise can no longer be locked away, the cat’s out of the bag. The majority of victorians now are well aware of the wind turbine scam!!!! contracts suck, wind turbines drive power bills up to support this dud of an industry and that wind companies are shelf companies out for a quick buck……….
Cam Walker
June 5, 2011
hi Gordon, am still interested in your earlier statement:
“Landvalues have been knocked down…” around Leonards Hill.
Wonder if you have any info you can post on that?
We do info stalls all over the state and my experience is that the significant majority of Victorians support wind energy.
gordon sholl
June 5, 2011
I see a doctor has built a new house right next to the leonards hill turbine site and they are very very concerned what they have done to themselves, oh dear how foolish. I wonder if Hepburn Wind will be doing an Acciona and buy out everyone to shut them up? Quorn Hill winery is the latest rippa of a situation, Acciona have messed up there!!
Cam Walker
June 5, 2011
great work, Gordon, another non-answer to a direct question about property values.
Seems you have missed your calling, you’d make a great politician. Seems that you are simply not interested in backing up all your alarmist claims and broad-sweeping comments with any actual facts.
So I will pick up on another of your statements:
“wind companies are shelf companies out for a quick buck”.
This is another one I hear from some of the antis. Why is it so bad for wind companies to seek to make a profit? I assume you buy electricity thats produced in the Latrobe Valley if you don’t like wind. So, do you think the operators of Hazelwood and Loy Yang are alturists, making power simply for the community good? Get real, the energy sector is big business. Why is it wrong to make money off renewables, yet you’re happy to pay your bills and help the profits of the coal companies?
Personally, my preferred model is community energy – thats why I like Hepburn Wind so much. But you’re living in complete delusion if you think renewable energy companies should not be able to seek profits for their investment and work.
gordon sholl
June 5, 2011
Cam how much are you being paid to be the front man for you renewables group? I sure it’s not for free!!
Landholders at Waubra with turbines are now starting to scream for noise compensation and land value compensation, surely Cam you would have already known this if your in the know!!
Cam Walker
June 5, 2011
attacking me and my motivation doesn’t answer the questions I have put to you, Gordon – which are based on claims that you have made on this site:
- what evidence is there that property values are being ‘knocked down’ at Leonards Hill,
- why is it wrong for people to make money from producing renewable energy?
These seem like rather simple questions to respond to. Please prove to me that you’re not just full of hot air, come back to me with some real responses.
gordon sholl
June 6, 2011
Talk to the locasl Cam and the real estate agents, the majority of people don’t want to live next to wind turbines. The line from the Clean energy council doesn’t cut it any more. The Boss of elders real estate in Victoria had some good comments on landvlaues and wind turbines a few months ago!!!
Cam Walker
June 6, 2011
Gordon,
you’ve made specific claims about Leonards Hill (which I assume were actually based on some real information) and – when pushed on the issue – fob me off to ‘real estate agents’ and refer me to those statements from many months ago from someone who worked for Elders, which had nothing at all to do with Hepburn Wind.
I rest my case, Your Honour, Gordon has shown yet again that he is full of hot air and has absolutely no substance to his claims. Broad rants are easy, real information is obviously too much like hard work.
gordon sholl
June 6, 2011
Cam you seem very upset and quite angry. I find this very threatening and feel most uncomfortable talking to you about the information that I have heard. Perhaps if you got down out of your ivory tower and actual spoke to the people on the ground you would know how unhappy people at Leonards Hill are about the Holme a Court turbines. Why don’t you have them in your backyard and see how your neighbours would feel.
Cam Walker
June 6, 2011
I’m not upset or angry, but am quite bored with people who make grand claims then fail to back them up. You have made various claims on this site, then constantly backed away from providing specific info when asked, constantly going vague when put on the spot. If you feel threatened by me asking direct questions I apologise. But I think its fair to be held to account when you make claims like your suggestion that the Leonards Hill turbines will negatively impact on land values: you have ignored one question I have asked (about renewable energy and profit) and then mis interpreted the other (your original claim – and the one I was asking you about – was about property values, not whether people were happy or not about turbines). Please make a claim and back it up, or stop making them.
As an aside, I had a great yarn the other day at Leonards Hill as I was heading through. Happened to bump into 2 locals who were entirely happy with the turbines.
sammy davidson
June 6, 2011
Blair, im quite happy living the way i do, with reliable electricity at a reasonable price, but im stuffed if ill sit quite while carpetbaggers are out trying to plant turbines that do nothing to provide reliable electricity.
Why dont you shut yourself off from the grid and rely on a turbine? although i doubt if you could get one built in gippsland these days due to the opposition to them.
Your not providing realistic solotions either, just a scam, so why should i have to?
Alex Grew
June 6, 2011
Sammy, Problem is living the way you do, the way we all do, is not sustainable. Most of us care about the kind of world that we leave our descendants, and beyond reasonable doubt, this means we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Wind energy is a significant part of a multi-faceted solution. It’s not the only means, no one pushes that barrow, but it is the lowest cost option we have at our disposal to start decoupling energy from CO2 emissions. I bet I lost you at the first sentence. Keep pushing your barrow, if you will, but fortunately for all of us, the momentum for positive change is growing locally and globally and is unstoppable.
gordon sholl
June 6, 2011
I wonder if Cam walker alas Bertie Moofer I heard on the grape vine isn’t some of the out commentors????
The rubbish that this guy peddles is outrageous. To say 2 people at Leonards Hill are happy is pathetic, we all know the 2 hillbillies getting the turbines have no regard for the community at Leonards Hill
I see in WA there’s a push to stop more wind turbines as they disrupt the grid, oh dear! Time to go solar and geothermal on this site and dump the scam the wind energy is!!!
Cam Walker
June 7, 2011
hi Gordon
could you please explain what you mean by this statement?
“I wonder if Cam walker alas Bertie Moofer I heard on the grape vine isn’t some of the out commentors????”
Its a fairly incoherent sentance, but given it mentions me I would appreciate you spelling out what it is that you’re saying here.
And nice of you to show such respect for the people of Leonards Hill, calling them hillbillies is charming indeed. Just for the record, the people I spoke with aren’t the land owners
Peter Johnson
June 6, 2011
The whole issue of wind turbines and property value really is a no brainer. Given a piece of rural land with hills and dales and bucolic bliss is valued at x dollars. If you were then to place 2,3 or more turbines 155m tall as close as 800m from your back door on your neighbours property the value would obviously be less just because the potential buyers of the land would be reduced. Even if you loved turbines (lets face it many people do until they are actually impacted) the peaceful rural aspect or the sight of gargantuan turbines on your boundary will reduce your land value anybody who says differently is a fool or has a vested interest.
Ben Courtice
June 7, 2011
“Time to go solar and geothermal” – as I just commented on the article posted yesterday, Spain’s new solar thermal Gemasolar plant is the perfect complement to wind energy, distributed wind power will fluctuate slowly as weather fronts etc pass through its “catchment”, and solar thermal power stations with storage can rapidly despatch energy in much the same way as an open cycle gas turbine power plant, the type that is used for sudden energy use spikes in peak usage.
gordon sholl
June 7, 2011
A note from Cam:
Gordon’s email address is not working. So its not clear if he is a real person. It could well be that he is another of the anonymous trolls that use multiple email addresses to try and spam this site.
Gordon, if you are real, please confirm with an email to my address: cam.walker@foe.org.au
thanks, Cam
sammy davidson
June 7, 2011
Alex, you obviously love wind energy, and thats your right, but who is going to pay for it?
You want it to be part of the solution, i presume to ending the use of fossil fuels, but at what cost?
The problem is we can have say 4 coal generators, or we can have 4 gas generators,or we can have the gas plus 10000 wind turbines, 1 million solar panels and a few other assorted generators, the thing is, the 4 gas generators alone will do the job at a cost. Someone has to pay for the rest and its the public and businesses that will.
You would actually save more emmisions if you just ran straight gas turbines than mixed them with the others, this is a well known fact in the industry. Im sure someone will come up with a made up “fact” from the wind industry that says otherwise though.
Alex Grew
June 7, 2011
Sammy. The LRET will deliver just short of 20% clean energy by 2020. It is already legislated and we already know who will pay for it: consumers. How much will we pay? One LGC spread over 5 MWhours (i.e. 20%), which works out to be one cent per KWhour. No one will notice this, or even 5 times this in the context of 10 years of inflation and network upgrades. If you don’t like the LRET you won’t find a friend in either the Libs, Nats, Labor or Greens.
Your comment that gas turbines alone would generate less emissions than a mix of wind, solar and gas is unsupported by industry. Craig Oakeshott of AEMO has written a paper that has effectively debunked Peter Lang’s nonsense paper. Who’s on record to support your incredible claim?
gordon sholl
June 7, 2011
I find it disappointing that Cam believes he is above all the people who choose to comment on this site. Some people in Daylesford have suggested that Cam has been on other websites using the very same tactics he claims some are using ont this website. I find it difficult to follow as Cam’s comments have been closely alined to that of one bertie on another very popular website discussing wind farms and wind energy.
Also Cam if you would feel free to print this, I have heard today that the Federal gov’t acknowledges the issue of health associated with wind turbine noise and there are strong calls for a 10km setback. If this gain momentum where does that leave the people of Leonards Hill?? And by the way I only suggested the people with the turbines were hillbillies not the all the othe people of leonards hill
Note from Cam: thankyou for finally responding to my question, Gordon. For the record, i only ever post under my own name, as i am very happy to be held to account for my opinions. I have certainly never posted under other names. The poor behaviour on this site has come from ‘antis’, and this is not a claim, it is a fact: we have sprung at least 12 pretend profiles so far, set up by people who feel so un able to carry on legitimate conversations that they have to try and bolster their case by making up imaginary friends. That speaks volumes about their tactics, not mine.
And as for ‘being above other people’ … what are you talking about?
sammy davidson
June 8, 2011
I heard today that the National health board or whatever they are called is asking for researchers to study the effects of wind farm noise. In one location basically everyone in the whole town was suffering, surely this cannot just be imaginary as many on here have claimed in the past? This included many with wind turbines on their land.
This will surely lead to legal action being taken by those around wind farms if anything comes of it, which on the evidence looks highly likely, especially given the turnabout by the Health board from their previous position on health and wind farms.
Im sure ill get shouted down again by the same voices, but im on a website so what would i expect!
gordon sholl
June 8, 2011
Oh dear can it get any worst for the wind companies, the legal implications will be huge………….
Ben Courtice
June 8, 2011
Keep dreaming, dudes
Peter Johnson
June 14, 2011
Interesting statement for someone from the Socialist Left – talk about dreaming!
Ben Courtice
June 14, 2011
I think the correct response at this point goes like this:
Peter Johnson
June 8, 2011
What? No comment or reply on land values?
gordon
June 9, 2011
the boss of elders stated the situation about wind turbines and neigbouring property values, and the situation is there to be seen at waubra, yet some people on this forum refuse to get their heads out of the clouds. Try banging a turbine next to your home and see what its worth, especially a 120 mtr high spinning heap of ……
Cam Walker
June 9, 2011
happy to look for the property value info as soon as Gordon explains why its ok to make a profit off burning coal but not ok to run a wind farm
Peter Johnson
June 9, 2011
I think my comment on turbines or no turbines is self evident
gordon sholl
June 9, 2011
I never said its find to burn coal and not make a profit from a wind farm. What I have said is that the industry is a sham and should not be supported by consumers when it can’t survive on its own. The trouble that turbines have casued in small rural settings will take generations to be repaired, and the wind comapnies don’t give a damn. if these things were so great why don’t they buy the land and put the turbines on, instead of this sham of a contract called a “lease”. the overseas examples just shows what will ahppen.
How would you like it if you property was devalued over night by a wind turbine instillation and you we told “its for the greater good!”
Cam Walker
June 9, 2011
great, thanks, Gordon. If you can cope with renewable energy companies making a buck please just get out of the way and let the 21st century get on with the work at hand.
Of course renewable companies need help at present because without a carbon price there is no level playing field: coal kills people and drives climate change, but creates cheap energy. Have you ever heard of a little thing called Externailities?
gordon sholl
June 9, 2011
Cam great to see you want a Carbon Tax, another people who would love to see the end to local manufacturing and industry. Anyone who has been in these industries knows the implications first hand. The only dills to bring in a carbon tax is new Zealand, that’s speaks volumes about their “basket case” economy!!
Better still bring in a carbon tax and that will be goodnight to the Greens, their wonderful policy will be their undoing just like the Democrats and the GST.
And the argument about pollution per capita is rot, if Gillard really wanted to stop carbon production stop exporting coal and see how this country would be the next day. The majority of Australians don’t support a carbon tax and know wind energy is a scam, so looks like you need a new gig don’t here at “deluded central”, this website show swing over to wind power too, 2/3 of the time it wouldn’t be on line!
Cam Walker
June 9, 2011
awesome Gordon, more witheringly incisive commentary: ‘wind doesn’t blow all the time, so 2/3 of the time the website wouldn’t be on line’. I love the goldfish ’3 second memory’ of many of the antis. WHEN has anyone ever advocated for 100% wind? Never. You might have heard of that wonderful idea called the energy grid and the concept of multiple sources of energy input? wind, solar, hydro, etc.
And yes, of course NZs troubles started when they enacted a price on carbon. You might like to Google ‘neo liberal policy impacts on NZ economy’ and see what comes up.
gordon sholl
June 10, 2011
Great reply Cam, the good old line of a “mix” of renewables, sure I’ll go for solar, hydro and geothermal, but wind is an expensive joke that doesn’t work. if you call yourself an environmentalist, why then do you advocate the mess at waubra, rolling hills trashed with a forest of bird blenders and miles upon miles of power lines and poles, not to mention the infrasturcture of terminal stations and this is for the benefit of the environment. Why then is Acciona buying out numerous proerties to shut people up about health issues?
Why is it that the waubra school has lost over half of its numbers in the last 18 months, why has the hotel, shop, etc shut?????
Leeroy
June 10, 2011
“Waubra Primary School is surrounded and supported by a loyal and involved community of families, businesses and a clean energy windfarm.” http://www.waubps.vic.edu.au/index.htm
Alex Grew
June 10, 2011
Gordon, you do know that solar and geothermal are far more expensive than wind, don’t you. I assume you also realise that there are almost no large scale hydro opportunities left in the country. The reason why so much of the (technology neutral) eRET is being filled by wind is that it is least cost, and it works.
Cam Walker
June 10, 2011
Gordon likes (some) renewables but doesn’t want to pay for them. I think the theory is to either ask the fairies to make them at night, a few at a time, or else ask Santa to bring them all at Christmas
sammy davidson
June 10, 2011
Its odd that there is no mention of the current health reviews on this website, are they not seen as positive news?
I know that it is very positive news to many in rural areas, but i guess some urban dwellers dont care.
I bet if they come to the conclusion that there are no health effects you will all jump up and down with glee!
And yes Peter your analogy of the land values is exactly right, competition drives prices and given the choice 99% of people would prefer a view without spinning blades or noisy turbines, so if 2 properties are for sale at a similar price and one has a wind farm close by and the other doesnt then the one with the wind farm will suffer. Acciona energy now appear to own a very high number of properties around the waubra wind farm that do not have turbines on them, especially given they only owned one property without turbines while the windfarm was in construction. I wonder why they need all this vacant land??
Cam Walker
June 10, 2011
hi Sammy, hopefully we will pull together a report on the NHMRC forum from earlier in the week. Its been a busy week on other fronts, so not had the time to get around to it as yet.
If people are keen you can find a report on their website: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/
gordie
June 12, 2011
Yet another delude comment, thanks leeroy. Strange how no one on this site had the guts to reply to Val Stepnalls comments or even offer to go to waubra where she lives to see first hand what has happened. Any wonder wind turbines are hated so much in rural Australia.
Also heard the turbines at Leonards Hills like the rest, noisy
gordie
June 13, 2011
Oh dear Cam, Simon, David, Blair, etc where’s your response to my question? why don’t you go to Val Stepnell’s home and see first hand what you people advocate!!
I hear that many people in the Hepburn Shire are very please with what transpired out west between Smeaton and Clunes, so many people appreciate what those good folk did out there.
Cam Walker
June 13, 2011
hi Gordie,
the last 2 times i have been to Waubra I have met a mix of people for, against, and ambivilent to the wind farms.
Sure, they are hated by some but loved by many others – for the jobs, the payments to land owners, the money that flows to local businesses and Councils, and the fact they produce low carbon energy and don’t use vast amounts of water. People often say to me that they like that fact that you can continue to farm while getting cash for hosting turbines (granted you can’t fly a crop duster through them). These are the resounding messages that i hear. This is in contrast to the rusty wheel of the handful of chronic whingers on this site, just 5 or 6 people, who can’t be bothered to set up their own site but feel the need to endlessly rant, as Mark Diesendorf has noted: “They look for molehills in renewable energy systems and blow them up to mountains”. (maybe endlesslywhingingaboutwind.com.au would be a good domain, although thats probably too much like hard work, much easier to complain about someone else’s work than do your own).
No technology is perfect, but i would say wind is a much better option than coal
gordie
June 13, 2011
Still haven’t replied about Mrs stepnell’s comment have we!!
Prof Diesendoffer lacks any credabitlity when it comes to wind energy….
I find it strange that landholders with turbines are the one’s crying for more money and are not happy with the situation.
The issue of noise looks to be a large nail in the wind turbine coffin
Cam Walker
June 14, 2011
just spotted a great piece in the Guardian:
Don’t let the trolls get you down
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/13/internet-trolls-improbable-research
According to the article:
A troll is someone “who constructs the identity of sincerely wishing to be part of the group in question, including professing or conveying pseudo-sincere intentions, but whose real intention(s) is/are to cause disruption and/or to trigger or exacerbate conflict”
Sound familiar?
August
June 14, 2011
Did anyone else notice Gordi’s comment: “Also heard the turbines at Leonards Hills like the rest, noisy”. Gordi, the Leonards Hill turbines are not yet operational, yet you complain about non-existant noise and then have the cheek to say that Diesendorf has no credibility. You had better get another fake name!!
Gordon Sholl
June 14, 2011
How pathetic, August, come on get real!
Looks like this forum lacks the the ability to address real issues and only resorts to put downs…
Senate inquiry into wind farms not looking good for the turbine mob…
Turbines at Leonards Hils have been proclaimed to operational as per latest article in local paper August or is that another name for one of the five people backing turbines at this site. Also obviously your not a local but think its fine to jam turbines next to soemone else’s home
Cam Walker
June 14, 2011
I love this. Gordie/ Gordon keeps coming up with the goods:
He knows the Leonards Hills turbines are noisy because he read it in the paper (even though they aren’t actually operating yet).
And yes, there are only 5 people ‘backing turbines at this site’. I suppose the 1,300 people who have invested in the project were all made up email addresses?
Gordon Sholl
June 14, 2011
Well done Cam, I suppose you also think these 1300 are daylesford locals who are prepared to face legal action over noise and property devalution on the neighours to this turbine site, and who far do you live from the turbines at leonards hill?
Also heard there’s trouble brewing up at Castlemaine, the @#@@ is about to hit the fan!
Cam Walker
June 14, 2011
well Gordie/ Gordon,
I must say its been fun engaging with you, but i really should take the advice from that Guardian article on internet trolls:
“”Trolling can be frustrated if users correctly interpret an intent to troll, but are not provoked into responding”
ie, i don’t think i will engage anymore. Enjoy your whingeing
Gordon Sholl
June 15, 2011
Its very poor how Cam hasn’t replied, or anyone else for that matter about Val Stepnell’s comments, or about putting turbines next to the good people of leonards hill’s homes, or about if they are locals from daylesford investing in the holmes a court turbines????
Gordon Sholl
June 15, 2011
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9128
oh dear The wind fans will love this one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John Sullivan
June 15, 2011
The Leonards Hill Telly-Tubbies are not yet fully operational, however they are being tested. I drove past them a few days ago and could easily hear the noise.
Interesting that Simon Ha’C is known to be very nervous about possible future health claims due to turbine-induced health conditions.
If you speak to the Daylesford locals today (as against pre-Telly-Tubby installation) many will express dismay at how big they are (“Oh God – I didn’t know they were going to be THAT big!”).
Also interesting how the regular Telly-Tubby enthusiasts who post most often on this site seldom live anywhere near a turbine.
Even more interesting is how those same people criticize climate realists for playing the man, not the ball, but are extremely quick to engage in the same tactics when they’re losing the argument.
Who said hypocrisy was dead….. it’s alive and well and living in Telly-Tubby Land.
Gordon Sholl
June 15, 2011
Great to have a bit of banter here at turbine central. I find it strange that some on this forum attack so called anti wind farm people and say they do this and they do that, yet when the heat is on there is no one willing to debate the turbine issue, especially people like Cam who think its find to slap a turbine next to some poor buggers home and cry its for the greater good!!!!!!!!
sammy davidson
June 15, 2011
Id like to see hepburn wind open up the books and let us all know where their shareholders come from. As well as show the wind speed data which has curiously been missing since day one.
I suspect that a very low percentage is local, i also suspect that the other so called community wind farms will have a tough time raising money as basically everyone who is a believer has subscribed to hepburn wind, and many will not be able to cough up more cash.
How about opening up the books for all to see? maybe im mistaken, prove me wrong?
Cam Walker
June 15, 2011
Sammy
stop obsessing about wind for just one minute, and ask yourself – who are the shareholders of International Power, who own the dirtiest coal fired power station in the developed world. How many of them live in the Latrobe Valley, where their Hazelwood power station spews pollution everyday? Ask them to open their books and let you know where their shareholders come from …
sammy davidson
June 15, 2011
International power is a british company cam, they also own a wind development site just out of geelong, so i guess this makes them good in your eyes? I think they also run a wind farm in SA? I may be wrong.
I do know one of their executives told me a few years ago that they were only going into wind because it would make them some money with the mret handouts, he basically laughed when questioned on it effectivness to provide electricity.
Cam Walker
June 16, 2011
“International power is a british company”
well, derrr, thats the point Sammy. But i’m sure they deeply care about the people of the Valley…. And I’m sure they have a Community Support Fund, like Hepburn Wind does…..
James Riley
June 16, 2011
It’s really great to see how Cam, Ben & Co evade the nitty-gritty of questions put here.
Nothing like trying to deflect a question by asking another or simply changing the subject.
Of course credit where credit is due. At least Cam and the other Windy City Wonders answer with something (albeit meaningless), unlike Al Gore who is too scared to answer any questions put to him (unless they’re from audience stooges).
Gordon Sholl
June 16, 2011
Come on Cam looks like this forum you run is losing credability, especially when you refuse to answer the most basic questions, eg. how far do you live from the leonards hill turbines? is it alright to place turbines near people’s home and cry its for the greater good?? why do you not answer questions about turbine noise??
I think its high time that this website ran a forum about the negative effects on wind turbines and how wind energy should be dumped from this website. The silent majority support renewable energy but not wind energy that’s expensive and a health hazard!!
and the following report in the Australain newspaper was most damning of wind turbines especially the following statements;
Medical expert Max Whisson, who had a career in fundamental medical research related to the nature of cancer and the control of the development of tissues, believes the world is “likely to face a very serious plethora of fatal diseases as a result of current wind farm operation”.
“We have all been disastrously misled by focusing on noise,” Dr Whisson said. “This has led laboratories around the world to completely miss the catastrophic effects of lower frequency vibration.”
Come dump wind turbines now!!!!!
Gordon Sholl
June 16, 2011
Oh dear how can the wind companies stem the bleeding?
wind energy is on the way out! more damning details;
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/06/15/hidden-costs-of-wind-power/
have a listen to this one…………………………
James Riley
June 16, 2011
Aw, c’mon Gordon – get a grip. Cam & Co will never admit there are health problems associated with turbines, any more then the turbine makers themselves will. There’s too much MONEY to be made (but only by the greedy lessors, turbine makers, Green governments and promoters posing as environmentalists).
The COST to nearby landholders (reduced value), nearby residents (worse health) and the community at large through the inevitable huge increases in power bills as more power companies are forced to buy heavily-subsidized, grossly-inefficient power from wind & solar will only be realised when the power bills hit home.
Just like the Carbon Tax, renewable energy is a pie-in-the-sky scheme which will only serve to increase prices overall to the consumer.
Cam Walker
June 16, 2011
hi guys,
as i mentioned earlier i’m not going to engage with the whingeing too much, but a direct question does deserve a direct answer.
Gordon, i live in Castlemaine. Sadly, as yet, there are no turbines providing energy for our town. I lived for several months probably 750 m from turbines and found no problems with that, in fact i loved being able to see where (some) of my energy came from. It was a mixed farming area, with a fair bit of farm noise, the turbines blended in after a while. Likewise, in the city i get used to trams & traffic. You may not have noticed but its the 21st century out there. Seeing turbines everyday made me mindful about where my power came from. A very different relationship to energy than just flicking the switch and drawing energy from the Latrobe Valley’s coal mines (out of sight, out of mind….). Where does your power come from?
Gordon Sholl
June 16, 2011
Proud to say the majority comes from coal, providing Australians real jobs, but also a small percentage from my solar that heats the hot water and provides some small amounts of power. I wonder Cam what did you do when the wind was blowing, you should have a listen to that last post I mentioned. This site should move forward and drop the ineffiecient outdated wind turbines that are a commmunity cohesion killer.
And to say that you don’t engage in whinging is lame, I have seen comments by yourself and others bagging tactics used by concerned rural people to stop wind companies in their tracks. Then to make it worst you name called this good country folk……………….
Cam Walker
June 16, 2011
“Proud to say the majority comes from coal”
yeah, well that kind of explains a lot. Gordon, I hope you enjoy the rest of the 1950s. Might be time to “drop the ineffiecient outdated” technology of burning fossil fuels?
sammy davidson
June 16, 2011
Cam, id be quite happy for international power to open up the books, just as i would for hepburn wind to.
Although in this case id be much more interested in seeing where hepburn winds shareholders live, as it is meant to be a local project and somehow i doubt there are to many locals involved from the word on the street. Given international power operate wind farms and have planning approval for one just outside of geelong. You continaually berate them, but your friend mr shapiro has been paid by them to plan a wind farm, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
August
June 16, 2011
From the Economist, May 26th:
The idea that some shadowy group or other is running things for their own benefit, not that of the ordinary working man, is, after all, the constant solace of the unsuccessful. And a national disaster such as Pearl Harbour, the assassination of President Kennedy or the September 11th attacks, he plausibly notes, is likely to call forth particularly wild conspiracy theories, since the alternative explanations, of incompetence or inherent vulnerability, are simply too painful to bear.
mick
June 17, 2011
sadly it appears that Micks email account is not real … another anonymous troll?
Mick, feel free to email me: cam.walker@foe.org.au to get posting rights back
Gordon Sholl
June 17, 2011
How low can Cam go?? August where’s that name come from? fairy land, and yes Mick is real he’s a keen community member in the Hepburn Shire, how rude!!!!
If any cross Cam he claims their not real!!!
The wind turbines fans are few and far between, any wonder this forum should be now calling for the dumping of wind fenergy from this site.
What will their next low act be?? probably to jump in bed with the dodgy West Wind Germans
NOTE FROM CAM: Gordon, keep going with racial name calling and you will find your posting rights removed. No exceptions on that one
Cam Walker
June 17, 2011
Post from Kathy Russell:
There are way too many uneducated comments on this website to know where to start…from Blair criticising the residents at Toora for speaking out – to Tim thinking wind energy will reduce his electricity prices !!
Does Blair realise Stanwell purchased and demolished Les Osbornes house at Toora as it was deemed uninhabitable due to the vibration and noise? The operators at Toora purchased Steve Garito and Jayne Thackeray’s house for the same reason. The operators at Toora also bought the house of turbine host – Robyn Anderson. There are others still in trouble around that facility – they had a right to speak out.
Does Tim realise that Wind Energy is a major contributing factor to his rising electricity prices? The subsidy to make wind energy viable from an investment perspective is what is called a Renewable Energy Certificate (REC). Every MWh of Wind Energy which makes it into the grid earns its owner one REC. It is mandatory that retailers purchase these REC’s. The current Labour Gov’t voted in a stable price of $60 per REC. The Wind Farm owner receives this $60 REC price ON TOP of the spot price in the Electricity market at the time their energy is received into the grid. So then you have the retailer trying to recoup spot price plus $60 from Tim the consumer…that’s why your electricity prices are going up Tim. For the Wind Companies it is a license to print money.
It is NOT a myth that Wind power is very unpopular. I was invited to the NH&MRC forum in Canberra last Tuesday June 7. There is a growing body of case evidence that wind turbines DO have a direct negative impact on human health and wellbeing. The precautionary principle states if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm, then in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action. Therefore there should not be further development of wind turbines until the research is done.
Ignorance and the moral high ground is not an excuse for this stupidity any more.
Gordon Sholl
June 17, 2011
Love Kathy’s comment, some real substance there…..
Obviously a real post toooooooooooooooooo……………………
from Cam: yes, most refreshing to have a post from an anti who’s not ashamed of their views and prepared to say who they actually are!
martin jones
June 17, 2011
It appears that there’s some ill feeling in this forum, this is something that I have witnessed over the last few weeks thus I feel it deserving of a comment.
Please keep the comments factual so we can enjoy this forum as I’m most concerned about our environment and the cost of power
Martin
sammy davidson
June 17, 2011
Oh come on Cam, you keep moving everyones posts and then editing them, are you a closet communist dictator?
I think you will find Mick is a real person, he is a very well known aggitator in the daylesford area.
And prehaps you could give us the exact location on the planned turbines near sutton grange?
Linda Kenna
June 18, 2011
Wind farms cause division in small communities. I have witnessed long standing friendships dissolve, neigbors forced against each other and even families divided. All this before a permit is even granted. Wind farm developers come into small communities and destroy them. This is a fact. Linda Kenna
martin jones
June 18, 2011
The environment should be the number concern, its sad to see such division in the community in the Daylesford area, please lets all join together for the betterment of our region and start moving forward. The obivious solution is solar energy.
gordon sholl
June 18, 2011
Ah Martin you look to hedging your bet, but I must admit that solar is the go and toss turbines is a must. another good article at http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/06/17/3247144.htm
love the old outdatde farmer who doesn’t give a bugger for his neighbours and tries to talk with a rotten plum in his mouth whil st sleeping because he thinks he can get out of this hole!! what a dill, another fool who has signed a dodgy wind turbine contract……………..
Ben Courtice
June 18, 2011
Martin, I just spent 2 days out northwest of Melbourne talking to people and handing out leaflets, and some people have questions and reservations but I didn’t meet a single outright anti-wind person. Community division is played up by the minority that doesn’t like wind farms, and as far as public perception goes, the squeaky wheel gets the oil I think. Opponents ought to have every right to voice their opposition, but the volume and stridency of the complaints doesn’t always match with the amount of support they have.
martin jones
June 18, 2011
That’s a fair comment Ben, everyone is entitled to their opinion. There’s appear to be some division although over at the Macdeon Ranges, a silent majority in the renewable group there don’t support wind but support solar and geothermal, which I find interesting. Is this a reflection of why there appears to be a growing concern over the siting of wind turbines near homes? I’m not sure, that’s why I ask this question.
I do know many people who support a low carbon environment, but do don’t back wind energy. Maybe the way to go is solar, especially solar on all homes
Cam Walker
June 18, 2011
Martin, I think its also about using what works in each place. Solar thermal probably won’t be a great energy source in places like Daylesford or the Macedon Ranges, but its good country for wind. We certainly need solar hot water on all houses so as reduce demand for electricity. But the landscape & local climate will need to determine – to a degree – what renewables we use for the electricity we do need. And thats going to be a great thing: as opposed to our current approach, where we have been complicit in turning the Latrobe Valley into a great ‘sacrifice zone’ for our energy needs while the rest of the state uses energy without sharing any of the burdens that come with producing that power.
In contrast, the whole renewables ‘journey’ is about taking responsibility for meeting our energy needs.
Alex Grew
June 18, 2011
Solar on rooftops costs 4 – 6 times as much as wind, and geothermal in Australia is still a future technology. Who would you suggest pays for the premium for large scale solar Gordon?
Community division? Sure there are a small number of places in Vic where a small portion of the community is anti-wind, but there’s plenty of evidence of widespread support for wind. It’s the least cost renewable source by a long way and it works.
Get over it guys, it’s not wind farms that divide communities, but the anti wind folk who use it as a tool.
John Sullivan
June 19, 2011
The entire renewables argument is driven by the false premise that carbon dioxide is a pollutant; it’s not – it’s a necessary trace gas required for plant and human life.
Kill the carbon con and you kill the need to force unreliable / expensive technologies on a suffering consumer population.
Coal, hydro, gas and nuclear (oh, shock, shudder) all work very well, are reliable and capable of producing power far cheaper than wind & solar.
Power bills are skyroceting in large part due to Labor/Greens insistance the power companies needlessly produce a percentage of “green” power.
The claim green/renewable power is cheap is totally false, and more and more people are coming to realise that fact.
Cam Walker
June 19, 2011
Its quite astonishing how many of the hard core antis are really just climate skeptics/ deniers, when they finally come clean. It expains a great deal about their ideological obsession with wind energy. It also means I find it impossible to take their claims about renewables seriously.
August
June 19, 2011
John, any substance that creates an unsafe environment for life is a pollutant. Sure CO2 is essential to life, as are cobalt, sulphur, iron and iodine. However too much of any of these and we move outside the safe limits for life. The present level of CO2 is likely higher than at any time in the past 20 million years, and it is increasing at a rate unprecedented during the time humans have been on the planet. We are headed for a 2C rise in average temperatures, perhaps as high as 4C, largely due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2. A 2C warmer world will be very uncomfortable, a 4C warmer world will be intolerable. In this context it is quite right to view CO2 as a pollutant.
Your assertion about power bills skyrocketing due to green power is utter rubbish. The AEMC reports that all renewables schemes (LRET, SRES and feed in tarrifs) represent less than 5% of the current electricity bill and are expected to stay at that level for the remainder of the decade. Wind power is funded by the LRET, which currently contributes less than one-tenth of a cent per kilowat hour, not even half a percent.
Please go and read http://www.aemc.gov.au/Market-Reviews/Completed/Future-Possible-Retail-Electricity-Price-Movements-1-July-2010-to-30-June-2013.html before you hit us with such rubbish again.
gordon
June 19, 2011
If think it a bit rich for Ausgust and co to think its fine to slap a wind turbine next to someone else’s house and then claim ots for the greater good. It high time these turbine fans had some honesty and integrity. How about putting it next to their home and see how they’d like
Ben Courtice
June 19, 2011
That’s a fairly poor case of putting words in someone else’s mouth, Gordon. Your rhetoric is getting a bit over the top. We’re not advocating “slapping a wind turbine next to someone else’s house” we’re talking about putting them in appropriate locations (such as in many areas in central and coastal victoria) with appropriate community consultation and planning. And I’d happily have one around my home suburb; there is someone locally lobbying for a community owned wind turbine next to the West Gate bridge but I doubt it will go ahead because Melbourne has such a poor wind resource. Just like it has a poor coal resource.
Speaking of energy sources slap next to houses, I’m guessing you don’t live in the Latrobe Valley and so don’t think so much about how they have 7 times the national average deaths of lung disease? Due to asbestos and coal mining, of course. Those coal mines aren’t exactly pretty, either.
James Riley
June 19, 2011
“Appropriate locations” to whom?
Wind companies (= $$$) – Yes
Left/Green Government (= $$$) – Yes
Turbine manufacturers (= $$$) – Yes
David Shapero (= $$$) – Yes
Nearby home-owners – NO
And the environment? Well, the poor old environment won’t benefit one bit despite that which windies constantly tell us.
Cam Walker
June 19, 2011
i love the endless conspiracy theories from the antis.
My favourite from James’ post:
the ‘Left/Green Government’ want wind turbines. James, you may not have noticed that the Coalition is actually the government now days here in Vic, and we have never had a Green party government. Maybe you missed that one, its hard to keep up with the latest news i suppose … and i’d hate to let the facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
(And of course, he left out many groups from his formula: like landowners, local businesses, the workers who get jobs, the Councils who get extra income, and the people in the surrounding area who are proud to be supporting the development of green energy)
gordon
June 19, 2011
Ah so Ben lives in Melbourne but thinks it ok to plant turbines next to the good people at leonards Hill and then join the Hep Wind spin and be one of a majority of outsiders who claim their local. the Hepburn Wind experience will only end in tears. The atitude of people dumping on others is unbelieveable…………
The best spin has been from the greens leader Barber, his claims of green power in parliament was a fools dream.
The people at Snake Valley overwhelmingly are against the two turbines there too if anyone has been to public meetings there. Shapiro didn’t even have the guts to turn up, whilst at Ballan the people there are against the turbines Shapiro wants and he failed to turn up to a public meeting at greendale, again showing a complete lack of regard for the locals.
Wind turbines a fools dream!!!!! ah I wonder where those Wind Power pty ltd guys are now??
Another piece of goss, a leading Origin person at the hearings in canberrra the other day stated the Acciona have wrecked the wind industry in this country by building the ill fated waubra wf, a complete mess and public relations nightmare……..
Ben Courtice
June 20, 2011
Your first point is rather self-defeating. I suppose you would be happy if one day the Latrobe Valley decided they had enough of coal and closed down the power stations? If you think a few disgruntled locals (which they certainly have in the valley, over coal) always have the deciding vote that would only be consistent.
I don’t have any special info about Waubra, I have heard a wide range of opinions as to whether it had appropriate consultation, but just by making that point you tend to undermine your general case against wind projects. i.e. the exception proves the rule, as they say.
This is a very poor argument. Like most antis, Gordon really throws everything even the kitchen sink, without consideration for consistency. Yawn.
sammy davidson
June 20, 2011
What is appropriate consultation? if you asked david shapiro or those other blokes from wind power it would have been they tell the residents what they are going to do and dont give a stuff about what anyone else thinks.
If real consultation was employed half of the problems wouldnt exist, people around wind farms were taken for fools by these blokes, some of them wernt, some were. When questions were asked and they couldnt or wouldnt answer alarm bells rang and people got pissed off with being treated with contempt.
They were given a very easy ride by the government of the day who also didnt give a stuff about rural people, they even paid their wages for them while they tried to get their projects up.
The wind industry has not done itself any favors when it comes to involving the community and having them onside with their denial of all problems and inability to consult and treat people with respect, had it not acted like this many of the people posting on here today including myself may not care less.
gordon
June 20, 2011
Come on consultation, yet what a joke, just like all wind proposals the neighbours are last to know. Any wonder the wind power dills got the boot out at Smeaton, their tactcis seemed the best take no rot from dills and outsiders. The spa country guardians appear to have led the way for all other groups. If you fight they don’t like it, it you roll over they say your weak, so you might as well put up a good fight
gordon
June 20, 2011
oh dear looks like trouble is brewing over at Allendale east, not good for wind turbine fans
gordon
June 20, 2011
http://www.theage.com.au/money/winds-of-change-can-be-costly-20110618-1g8sg.html
oh on more bad news for wind turbines, can it get any worst??
This site should move forward and dump wind the dirty so called renewablethat the silent majority dislikes…
next their won’t even put my posts up as there hasn’t been any response to fair open questions about the ill fated wind turbine industry
Ben Courtice
June 20, 2011
Gordon, Friends of the Earth had a far less rosy view of the Productivity Commission report, which you can read on this site (if you ever bother to read anything we have printed) at http://yes2renewables.org/2011/06/10/support-for-renewables-essential-to-avoid-future-reliance-on-gas-fracking/
In a nutshell, the productivity commission argues that expensive renewable energy is displacing cheap gas, we argue that this is not a bad thing as cheap gas is increasingly coal-seam gas fracking, a highly polluting industry that is a genuine disaster for farming areas (unlike wind farms). Not to mention that gas is merely *less* greenhouse-gas emitting than coal, and even that’s disputed for fracking.
Peter Johnson
June 21, 2011
Renewables are good thing and necessary if we are to reduce our emissions. However it is wind that most people have a problem with and usually this is do with siting (this is why we must have a 2km buffer and Ben I fully support a 2km buffer for open cut mines as well). Ben and Cam talk about using 21st century technology. Wind is 12 century technology and it was as unreliable then as now. It is the reason we moved to fossil fuels in 19th century because they were reliable and they could power our industrial age in a way that wind could never do even if you build turbines as tall as a 50 storey building and our affluent lifestyles. I know you they say they are part of the mix and in grid isolated systems where they directly replace diesel powered gerneartion this is true.
Wind turbines are and will remain unreliable operating at about 20% of their nameplate capacity and they should and will be confined to history.
Cam Walker
June 21, 2011
hey Peter,
the wheel was probably invented some time around 8,000 B.C. in Asia … but we keep evolving the technology, because the basic physics are good. Same with wind power …. it keeps getting more efficient.
In contrast, the cost of fossil fuels (asthma, lung disease, air pollution, climate change, etc), which were not apparent in the 18th and 19th centuries, are plain as day now.
Peter Johnson
June 22, 2011
Unlike the wheel wind power is limited by nature. That is why it has not evolved beyond its 20% efficiency which is the reason it went out of fashion the minute we found more reliable base load power. Cam the modern incarnation of wind turbines will also fall from favour when people rediscover their limitations and when get beyond the green rhetoric.
Leeroy
June 21, 2011
why have a wind farm in your district when you can all grow and sell the same potatoes to the one factory…
August
June 21, 2011
That’s very, very funny.
Cam Walker
June 21, 2011
This was a post from Gordon Scholl. I assume he means ‘war of the worlds’:
Oh Dear, looks like the turbine fans have had a real kick in the @$@#, Acciona beaten at Allendale East in SA. Oh well its great that the landscape won’t been turned into another dud area like waubra which looks like something out of world of the worlds. turbines on the nose and on a down hill slide
gordon
June 21, 2011
Ha, yet no reply from the powers that be, when the truth is real the issue goes cold on this site. i wonder how the powers that be here feel about the result over in SA, but of course they should already be aware of this and again say that wind is supported there. Well the majority of locals didn’t want 46 dud wind turbines swooshing outside their homes for the next 20 years whilst driving everyone’s power bills higher for no net gain. toss these turbines and back real renewables that have community support and and appreciated
gordon
June 21, 2011
Thanks Cam great to have some back up in the typing/text department, perhaps you should focus your energy on renewables that don’t get people so up set that they make a few typos whilst banging in their message. Again set up a section backing the dump of wind turbines on this site!!!
August
June 21, 2011
Gordon, Remind us again why you hate turbines with a passion? I understand that some developers of yore were dickheads, and this pissed many off, but what exactly is it about wind farms that *you* despise?
gordon
June 21, 2011
I don’t despise wind turbines, I don’t appreciated people from ouside rural locations thinking ist fine to slap them next to someone else’s home without having the ability and diginity to ask them first. The wind turbine contracts are a joke and only a broke fool would sign one, if they were a good investment the wind companies that are only shelf companies would buy the land they place them on. No wind company will be there when they have to decommissioned and after 10 yrs or so this technology will be so out dated that it will be considered a joke. The wind companies consultation process is a sham and they don’t care about the communities they go into. Waubra is a first rate basket case, even the people with the turbines now regret what they have done. Then there’s the pathetic amount of power they produce, hopeless. The Greens see wind turbines as a symbol of what they think is good yet they know that deep down this is an ill fated path.
Great to see the good people of Allendale East roll Acciona hey August, now that’s a coummunity voicing it opinion on its area.
I wonder how many people will be attending the gisbourne meeting to voice their dislike of wind turbines???
I also wonder what happen to Steve Buckle, Andrew Newbold and the rest of those dills? And by the way David Shapiro’s tracks record speaks for itself, especially at Waubra and Ballan
Ben Courtice
June 22, 2011
All this talk about “20% efficiency” is very misleading. It means an average 20% of the maxiumum capacity of the wind turbine. It is also an inaccurate figure: 30% average is quite common, the average is determined by the average wind speed in the area, not by anything inherent in the turbine design.
So wind, a free resource, is providing electricity. It will provide far more than that average when the wind is blowing, less when it’s still. The wind is variable. This is not news. Modern despatchable power like solar thermal can compensate for the variability. It’s been modeled and studied. You know, some peaking gas plants only run a few days a year when the electricity price on the market is high. That would make their “efficiency” in these terms much, much lower!
And of course in these terms, a coal power station – which wastes most of its energy as heat – is highly “efficient” because it is so inflexible you have to run it at a high capacity. It’s a terrible abuse of the word efficient.
Peter Johnson
June 22, 2011
Ben I said reliable in terms of base load power. As far as efficiency goes I like what you said about wind that it supplies power when the wind blows and less when it is still you should of said Nil when it is still. The Wonthaggi wind turbines operate at about 19% capacity on average down to 16% in winter and this is one of the windiest places in Victoria. Wind is an unreliable source of power it is the reason mankind moved on from using windmills. When you talk about the equivalent of taking 30,000 cars off the road you really mean 6000 cars. A ridiculous analogy for an outmoded technology.
gordon
June 22, 2011
More spin and hot air Ben, wind turbines are a complete failure and will never be properly considered in any mix. The cost of these things and their proximity to the grid makes them absolutley hopeless.
The only renewable that this site seems to push is the broke down wind turbine barrow, time to listen to the majority of the community and look at the three other renewables that don’t destroy community cohesion.
Also I would like to see how covering the hills with turbines, powerlines, substations, roads etc is environmentally friendly, more like the only supporters of wind are the dills trying to mill a quick buck out of this scam
sammy davidson
June 22, 2011
I find it odd that wind with a free fuel source provides electricty up to 3 times more expensive than that produced by coal which must be mined at considerable expense. Are we being ripped off by wind companies who want more than their product is worth? You would think the costs involved with coal would make it much more expensive, but its not.
I am of the same opinion as gordon above when it comes to wind energy being pushed relentlessly by some on this site, when clearly there are better options.
I to hate the fact that people from outside areas try to push this on communities that clearly do not want them, or at least do not want them close to their homes. The last government did this in a disgraceful manner, no wonder they got kicked out.
I personally do not have a problem with the look of turbines, but if i was surrounded by them on all sides and close to my home i would.
All these things are a result of poor planning and dickhead developers who acted like cowboys, and yes Steve Buckle, Andrew Newbold( the would be hawthorn footy club president) and Shapiro are all to blame with their blatant disrespect for anyone around their proposals. A simple change in planning procedure would have made this all a non event.
Cam Walker
June 22, 2011
I tried to email Sammy but his email address bounced.
So thought I would post this quick note:
This website didn’t start with a focus on wind, it was originally more on geothermal and solar. The wind focus has grown from the small but noisy antis that have relentlessly posted on the site (Mick, Gordon, Sammy, Gerard, etc). If you want to start talking about geotherm/ solar/ hydro/ etc we are happy to follow your lead. Your choice. While you keep banging on about wind we will feel compelled to respond.
So, what do you reckon? Time for a truce? – we can get back to talking about wind as one small part of this website … to our small fan club of antis, the ball is in your court.
And Sammy, you may want to check the results of the state election more carefully: the very few places where the ALP held out against the swing was in electorates like Rippon, where there was a loud campaign waged by the antis – but this campaign disappeared without trace where it mattered – in the polling booth. And the Coalition never even mentioned its wind policy in metro electorates. To say the ALP were kicked out over this issue is clearly and patently wrong.
gordon
June 22, 2011
Oh Dear, poor Cam doesn’t fully understand the tactics used in the state election by pressure groups, well here it is. Yes a campaign in Ripon against no Helper, whilst also campaigns in a number of other ALP rural seats, yes Helper survived, but that was alright, the aim was to waste Brumby’s time, money and campaigning in this rural seats…..result Alp lost Seymour thanks to pressure groups there Lib gain, ALP forget its heartland..eastern suburbs…result ALP lost election because it was side tracked…..tip look at the bigger picture, no helper a nothing, brumby gone, wind turbines and other important issues flogged…ALP shattered whilst Greens vote collapses
Cam Walker
June 25, 2011
thanks Gordon for getting back to me.
He has indicated that he will ‘endeavour to make sure that I offend no one’ and requested the same of others. A very reasonable request.
pete
June 24, 2011
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/blow-or-wind-farms-as-senators-push-probe-into-noise-and-health-fears/story-fn59niix-1226080926531
What a great article, but probably won’t be shown or discussed, looks like the gig is up for wind energy in this country
Note from Cam.
Hi Pete, thanks for the post. Of course we all know the Australian is anti-wind so you need to take their reporting with a grain of salt.
Even the generally right wing Herald Sun gave a very different angle, with the heading ‘Wind farms’ noise found to be safe’
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/wind-farms-noise-found-to-be-safe/story-e6frf7jx-1226080854043
Might be a little early to announce the demise of the wind industry in Australia!
john
June 24, 2011
Disappointing that this site is now bloking any comments from Hepburn Shire’s Gordon Sholl, Cam asked him about the Vic election result, got a fair comment and refuses to now post any comments. Sounds like a bad sport, the Courier had a great article tooooo
From Cam.
Poor old Gordon, getting his mates to write in. He has consistently refused to meet the basic rules of debate on this website, which are outlined here: http://yes2renewables.org/about/
I have emailed him several times and he refuses to respond to my requests or tone down his comments. It is therefore his choice to be ‘blocked’ or ‘bloked’ as he puts it.
And in an embarrasing development, ‘John’ appears to be the same person as ‘Pete’, whos comments I just approved. So you both get banned now. How tragic, using imaginary friends to try and bolster your arguements.
John Sullivan
June 24, 2011
While some contributers may get a little over the top at times (haven’t we all?) it seems all too much like censorship and a familiar denial of freedom of speech to block a frequent poster simply because you don’t like the tone of his writing.
Certainly if one resorts to outrageous personal attacks or profane language it should be cut. Champions of free speech such as – dare I say his name in this sphere? – Andrew Bolt – gives everyone a fair go regardless of their point of view.
Bolt (or his legal minders) simply cut the offending section and publish . That’s fair enough, but to completely ban a writer for the reasons claimed smacks of “banning because you’re losing the argument”.
Al Gore is well known for refusing to engage in debate on climate change for fear he may get a question he can’t answer.
David Shepiro often fails to front at wind farm public meetings for the same reason.
I thought this blog was above that type of childish tactic and “robust debate” as the pollies say was welcomed.
Maybe you should be like the chicken mob at Mount Alexander Sustainability Group and turn off comments altogether. They’re so scared of real debate they didn’t want the press advertising their wind farm forum next week.
Cam Walker
June 24, 2011
hi John,
thanks for the comment.
I would just point out its a pro-renewables & pro-wind website we have set up here. We want dignified debate. We have therefore set some parametres: http://yes2renewables.org/about/
I think you’ll agree that we have the right to set the tone of debate on our own website. If you want to call that ‘childish’, ‘censorship’ or a ‘familiar denial of freedom of speech’, than i’d suggest thats a little bit over the top.
Ben Courtice
June 24, 2011
Who’s afraid of real debate? We held a community forum in Gisborne last night and invited the Landscape Guardians along as well, one showed (good on him) but only one out of 75 people as far as I could tell!
peter masters
June 24, 2011
Cam and others, if you set up a website dedicated to a highly emotive and subjective topic then you should expect there to be comments from all quarters, trying to block people and censor their comments looks pathetic, and is typical of the wind industry who have never been up for a real fight, but prefer to hide behind untruths and spin.
I bet you wouldnt try this to someone’s face and if you did would deserve a good dressing down, the internet is public and open to everyone and everything, sometimes unfortunaty!
To be honest i cant believe that there are people who really think wind works as a energy source, its great for raking in the handouts as origin energy would tell you these days, but useless for much else.
Cam Walker
June 24, 2011
hi Peter
thanks for your comment.
I think you are confusing something called the internet, which is, as you say “public and open to everyone and everything” and a thing called a website…
As Ben mentioned, we held a forum last night in Gisborne.That was a good – and respectful – place to have a real face to face conversation. People spoke to each other as human beings. Good on Todd for at least showing his face and talking.
In contrast, this section is full of random and often quite personal rants. I suspect that many people would not actually have the courage to say those things ‘to someones face’. Courage at the key board doesn’t count for much in the real world. The ‘anti’ gang who seem to do nothing but sit at home and type angry posts are now full of moral outrage at my dreadful ‘censorship’ on our website. Get over it guys, and move on. I no longer feel compelled to approve every ‘wind energy doesn’t work’ rave, and am especially tired of relentless negativity. You should really have a listen to yourselves some time. If it bugs you so much, then please feel free to set up your own website.
I was struck last night by how positive the people were at Gisborne. Looking for solutions, holding a vision of something better and doing something about it. In contrast, many of the posts here are like whiney mosquitos, and focused on sledging. If my kids spent their time slagging off other people whilst hiding behind pretend names I would be disappointed. In the case of grown adults it seems to me like a major failure of the spirit.
In addition, there are so many ‘ghost’/ troll posts from pretend profiles (multiple profiles with non existent email addresses from the same IP address) put up on this site. This is such a pathetic tactic. In all my years of campaigning I have never seen such a sad attempt by one group to appear bigger than they are.
Yours, feeling much liberated for my little rave, cam
peter masters
June 24, 2011
well done cam, take the moral high ground, everyone else is just a anti and there opinions dont count….
Cam Walker
June 24, 2011
Peter, sadly you kind of prove my point. I wasn’t saying i was right and those who disagree are wrong/ don’t matter. Quite the opposite.
I was saying that i prefer a respectful debate without dishonest tactics and sledging. Unless these basic parametres are there I am no longer willing to try and engage as i see it as just a waste of my time.
However, in a fairly standard approach thats often happens on this site, you haven’t bothered to actually listen to what i was saying, but gone off on a tangent to try and confirm your preconception.
Learning some reflective listening skills would probably be a worthwhile thing to do.
Ben Courtice
June 25, 2011
I like discussing the issues with people who don’t like wind farms, or just have concerns, or whatever – but discussion is a 2-way process, people. Haven’t seen a lot of that from some particular individuals.
Several of the anti-wind campaigners here use the same methodology as climate deniers (I know not all anti-wind people are climate deniers). That is, repeat the same series of arguments in an almost predictable cycle, over and over, without any real regard for how consistent these arguments are with each other, even; it’s like a campaign to wear your opponents down, not a rational discussion.
Then, claim victory and say your opponent is dishonest or hiding from the truth, if they won’t refute the same old rubbish for the nth time. Or scream persecution because they stopped publishing your comments. I think this might be what Cam refers to as relentless negativity? There are probably other less kind ways to describe it.
If we could get a contrast, look at the landscape guardians website. Not much discussion there. Not a face to be seen. What a shadowy group! Who’s afraid now? At the Spa Country Guardians there is at least a forum. The standard of “debate” there is to ridicule wind supporters saying they are “bordering on delusional” or “an off tuki trout” or “dill” (that last word started to be used here just before one wind opponent was banned). It is not a discussion just a bar-room brawl.
martin
June 25, 2011
I feel that this site is becoming a very negative environment and that free speech isn’t being allowed. Although Gordon’s comment were hard hitting I think that they were in context and maybe the prowers that be should welcome such debate as to whether or not wind energy is welcome in the rural landscape. I also feel that Ben maybe too focused on a group called the guardians and not on the “ball”, is wind energy the renewable we need. I recently spoke to a few people at Daylesford and they were quite upset about the focus of some renewable groups being to far toward wind energy and not solar.
I’m am now starting to questioned the real benefits of wind the more I read here on this website
Cam Walker
June 25, 2011
This is Gordon’s election post, its back up somewhere in the Soapbox, but will re post here so its easier to find:
–
Oh Dear, poor Cam doesn’t fully understand the tactics used in the state election by pressure groups, well here it is. Yes a campaign in Ripon against no Helper, whilst also campaigns in a number of other ALP rural seats, yes Helper survived, but that was alright, the aim was to waste Brumby’s time, money and campaigning in this rural seats…..result Alp lost Seymour thanks to pressure groups there Lib gain, ALP forget its heartland..eastern suburbs…result ALP lost election because it was side tracked…..tip look at the bigger picture, no helper a nothing, brumby gone, wind turbines and other important issues flogged…ALP shattered whilst Greens vote collapses
Alex Grew
June 25, 2011
I guess the anti wind zealots might do better to visit spacountryguardians.org.au where they could engage in deep and rewarding conversation with a most delightful, enlightened and positive crowd!
gordon
June 25, 2011
If the forum is met to be fair to all, namely calling should be stopped. I myself must stick to the issue and that is it fair to place wind turbines next to someone else’s home????
The Australian way isn’t to knock down or walk over people. some really interesting stories and articles can be seen at these links;
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/noise-level-blow-for-wind-farm/story-fn59niix-1226081608169
http://www.thecourier.com.au/news/local/news/general/farmer-wins-wind-farm-battle-against-acciona/2205595.aspx
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201106/s3252563.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/24/3252459.htm
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/report-airs-ill-feelings-over-wind-farms/2205677.aspx
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/06/24/3253213.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/06/24/3253249.htm
I think the evidence is mounting and looks like there are serious concerns, one’s health is most important and must be protected
August
June 25, 2011
The Courier article is interesting in that it omits to say the most interesting thing about the Allendale case: the panel rejected the adverse health and property value claims presented to it. Sarah Laurie admitted under cross examination that she was not a qualified expert, whereas Dr Wittert was able to show that, if anything, Laurie’s data from Waubra shows that people’s blood pressure reduced when the turbines were not turning.
I can’t wait for the research. Real scientists will start looking at real data. But will the antis accept real science if it doesn’t agree with their world view?
gordon
June 26, 2011
August its nice that you discredit anyone with a health issue, I wonder if you discredited other people with issues of health concerns, ie smoking, etc. It a sad day when one thinks it fine to let a few suffer and say its for the greater good. It is clear to see why this issue is gaining momentum, if the wind industry was credible they would assist in calling for independent studies. I see in Denmark a study done by Danish University researchers on health issues and wind turbines.
The comments of “antis” is nothing more than a put down!!!
Brent
June 27, 2011
Gordon – your reluctance to back up your comments and provide sources when asked makes it easy for people to write you off as nothing more than an “anti”. If you really are genuine in your opposition to wind power why not be willing to provide sources for your information. After all If your data is genuine, relevant and sources are provided you will be able to get people to agree with you.
August
June 26, 2011
Gordon, please re-read my comments. I have never discredited the claims of anyone with a claimed health issue. I completely accept that the people claiming heath issues have genuine and serious health issues.
However, I have read the panel reports, court transcripts, state inquiries, NHMC paper and senate inquiry report, and all are unanimous in reporting that that no link has been shown between low frequency noise from turbines and ill health.
We do know that there are people who are definitely suffering deeply from stress around the whole issue. I think we owe it to them to ensure that the debate is calm and reasoned and sticks to the facts, rather than name calling and bullying. If you read over the discussions on this website, others and online newspaper articles you’ll rarely see wind supporters show any agression, but the vast majority of messages by the antis are agressive and divisive.
peter masters
June 26, 2011
I have read those papers to august, and yes anyone would have come to that conclusion. But upon reading other papers and talking to local people, some of whom i have known all my life and some who actually have wind turbines and are getting paid for them the story is much different. I know plenty of people who were supportive of the waubra wind farm, they did not object or protest, infact they through it was a good thing, now the story is different.
The problem is there has been no research to validate anything in the papers, so they are really quite meaningless.
Brent
June 27, 2011
Hi Peter – why not gather the data yourself? As for calling the papers meaningless I am afraid that you either did not read them or did not understand them.
gordon
June 26, 2011
That’s a typical response August, the tabacco companies used the same line until they were exposed by the people on the ground. The gov’t has a vested interest in wind energy too, so that’s why the situation is as it is, we need independent research, now.
And the comments about aggression are completely over the top, did you see any aggression at the senate hearings, I didn’t. When wind supporters were asked tough questions they cry agreession and then head for the hills, pathetic.
I suppose you class Sarah Lawrie as agreessive and dangerous??? Richard Paltridge won in SA I suppose he was aggressive and dangerous too since Acciona got rolled. If people don’t want win they are branded, completely unfair and poor
Leeroy
June 26, 2011
Sarah Lawrie, aggressive and dangerous? No, by her own admission just an unregistered General Practitioner sharing a post office box with the Landscape Guardians.
Blair Donaldson
June 27, 2011
Makes you wonder why Sarah Lawrie is unregistered yet makes claims on health in relation to wind farms? The wet blanket brigade must be really getting desperate when they have to rely on drumming up self appointed, unrecognised “experts” to support their case.
Where is the science that supports them, that’s what I’d like to see? Objective, peer-reviewed science. We’ll never see it because Tim Leroy and company aren’t interested in objective assessments or the science, just promoting their buddies in the fossil fuel and nuclear industries – standard operating procedure for climate change denialists.
gordon
June 27, 2011
Great to see the lid being lifted on the wind industry, no only dodgy contracts with landholders that are terrible, but now the issue of health near turbines is that the forefront. Its sad to see supporters of wind never live near turbines…the wind insustry is on its knees well and truly especially thanks to Acciona dn their ill fated waubra wind farm
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/gallery-e6frfhqf-1226066936556?page=1
this cartoon sums up he wind industry…..
also lovely to see SA’s Rann spitting chips over Allendale East result, ha ha ha go solar
gordon
June 27, 2011
I think that the people running this site should tell this forum why they are against any health studies into wind farms!!! They are making a heap of cash out of being the money piece for the wind companies, shame shame shame!!!
Cam Walker
June 27, 2011
We have never opposed research into wind farms and health. We have publically said that we are happy to support the Senate Inquiry recommendation that there be further (definative) research.
Gordon seems incapable of checking his facts before opening his mouth. He has constantly displayed poor behaviour on this site, and as such he is a very poor reflection of anti-wind sentiment.
Leeroy
June 27, 2011
I’m happy for my taxes to be spent on a full life cycle, long term health impact assessment of all our electricity generation methods
Ian
June 28, 2011
As someone who knows a few people who attended the Gisbourne meeting, it was fantastic such a forum was held, this enabled a caring and friendly environment. I firmly feel that people who have turbines in their rural setings should be proud to know they are faciliating the start of a renewable future. The small minded people crying health issues are out of step and shouldn’t make an issue of this. Wind turbines will cover the vast majority of rural vic and will be near homes whether people like it or not. And on the cost of power bills going up, this is for the benefit of all in a low carbon economy, and if industry closes up in this country so be it.
go wind turbines! they are a symbol of green power!!!
Brian Brown
June 29, 2011
The issue of wind turbines and health appears to be at the forefront of any wind energy news, especially with the recent senate hearings. The question being floated around about friends of the earth being a front for wind companies is rather disappointing, even if the people running these groups receive money from wind companies what does that matter. At the end of the day people must become more accepting of large scale wind developments in rural areas and of course its about profit figures.
I am also looking forward to lower power bills in my b&b in Daylesford thanks to the committments made to the local community by Hepburn Wind, well done here come the benfits
Ben Courtice
June 30, 2011
Just to continue a discussion that began on the Gisborne page, replying to Peter Johnson:
Peter says that one needs 5 times as many wind turbines to supply the desired amount of energy because they operate under capacity, and that we are lying about wind farm outputs.
The confusion here is Peter’s not ours. It is common to refer to a wind farm by it’s rated maximum output, but the industry and this website both recognise that average output is much lower. Sadly, Peter refuses to look at the actual data and keeps using the figure of 20%. The website http://windfarmperformance.info/ gives a much larger figure for wind farm capacity: on average, 30-35% for southeastern Australian wind farms. 30% is the figure I usually use so, going by this site, I’m downplaying it too.
Tassie’s Woolnorth wind farm does best at 37.7% capacity, but the much-maligned Waubra wind farm is at a respectable 35.2% capacity still. This data is from the Australian Energy Market Operator.
Alex Grew
June 30, 2011
You’ll notice that recently built wind farms are performing better than the older ones. Wind companies are getting better at finding good wind and turbines are getting better at harvesting it. Anyone talking about 20% capacity factors is making a fool of themselves.
Peter, you have claimed industry lies about capacity, yet you’ve been caught out.
So that’s 1-0 in the windies’ favour in the lying stakes. If you can point to an example of industry lying, I’m happy to even up the score. (Competition rules: it must be verifiable, not hearsay or your opinion.)
Cam Walker
June 30, 2011
Note to readers of this site:
This afternoon we have had another batch of multiple posts from the same person.
It is endlessly embarrassing that a number of anti wind advocates keep resorting to this tired old tactic. Make up multiple profiles in order to try and boost your argument.
This afternoon’s culprit appears to be one of our regulars. Having given up on the ‘FoE takes money from wind companies’ message, the new message is ‘renewable supporters no longer support wind’.
Thanks for that – we look forward to tomorrows contribution.
peter masters
July 1, 2011
Doesnt the Wonthaggi wind farm only operate at around 20% capacity? It did until wind power removed its details from their now defunct website when it caused them embarasment a few years ago, so im not sure who was lying??
Cam Walker
July 1, 2011
Peter,
You keep ignoring my request to tell me what wind companies “set up ‘enviromental groups and pay wages’ to be their mouthpiece”.
Serious claim I would have thought. You make the allegation, but don’t want to back it up with facts. Nor have you requested further info about our funding. Seems you’re big on making allegations, but not that interested in facts?
Todd Andrews
July 1, 2011
@ Alex Grew (June 30, 2011)
In response to Alex’s ’1-0 in the windies favour’ comment.
Alex you asked for an example of the ‘windies’ lying (or manipulating the truth), I was witness to it at the New Gisborne meeting. The representative for ‘Doctors for the Environment’, Dr Merryn Redenbach, introduced her rebuttal of Dr Pierponts study by indicating that she (Dr Pierpont) wasn’t a Medical Doctor but a Bird Doctor (Ornithologist). It had the desired impact on the crowd. Despite the fact that Dr Pierpont got her first Degree (and Doctorate) in Ornithology, she has also been a Pediatrician (the same as Dr Redenbach, I believe) for 20 years with a Medical Degree from the John Hopkins University of Medicine. Academia would preach that the first step in reviewing someones works is to study their qualifications and credentials. Dr Redenbach obviously didn’t or she chose to ignore them for impact. Either way it is unacceptable in reasoned debate and academic discussions……….along with quoting Wikipedia (for others in this forum)!
If any doubt exists as to the accuracy of my statement, ABC have the tape.
Alex Grew
July 1, 2011
That was silly of Dr Redenbach. While Pierpont is not an epidemiologist, and her methods have been shown to be unscientific, she is definitely a doctor. Redenbach should have been pulled up hard and she should retract her claim.
So, let’s chalk it up as 1-all for a second. That’s a draw.
Oh, hang on, my mistake.
The antis are on record as claiming that wind farms are pushing up energy prices significantly, that no wind farm achieves 35% capacity, that Wonthaggi averages less than 20% capacity, that they kill lots of birds, that they use lots of water, that they threaten ground water, that they emit significant levels of infrasound, that they send out stray voltages, that they consume more power than they generate, that they don’t offset CO2, that generation is unpredictable, that people have been gagged to not discuss health, that they pose a significant fire issue, that they make the grid unstable, etc.
Does that makes it 15-1 in favour of the windies?
And here’s the difference: I reckon every windy here would agree that Redenbach was wrong. Try getting the antis to agree that the above anti arguments are, as Tony would say, crap.
Ben Courtice
July 2, 2011
If Todd told the whole story, he would have mentioned that when he pulled Dr Redenbach up on Pierpont’s qualifications in that meeting, she openly responded that he was correct. So the correction has been made.
Cam Walker
July 1, 2011
Don’t forget that great letter in last weeks Weekly Times. That writer didn’t even believe that the turbines are connected to the grid! (its all a scam, of course).
Cam Walker
July 1, 2011
This is a bit funny but mostly tragic.
Someone is starting to post comments under my name on newspaper websites, claiming to be against wind energy. Judging by the poor spelling its fairly obvious who it is, someone familiar to all regulars on this site, who has a propensity to set up lots of pretend profiles/ imaginary friends on this site – and it seems also on the Spa Guardians site as well.
Great campaign strategy: If you can’t win an argument, pretend to be some one else….
Alex Grew
July 2, 2011
OK, so if Reddenbach has already publicly acknowledged her mistake, and there are now claims the turbines aren’t even connected to grid, then I the score now stands at 16-0, in the windies’ favour.
peter masters
July 2, 2011
OK Cam, since you demand i tell you, Firstly you should disclose all donors to your Group, and i will research their links to the wind industry.
This site is basically a wind industry cheer leader, as are some others, I would find it extremely strange that none of them recieved any funds from any industry sources.
The wind industry and its supporters have done nothing but lie to the public, they are yet to prove they have been able to reduce the usage of fossil fuels and never will. They lie about the number of homes powered, they lie about noise, about fire, and about cost.
The good thing is most people have some semblance of common sence and can see through the crap
Cam Walker
July 2, 2011
Peter,
I would point out that you raised the issue of income and front groups, not me. I already listed our ‘institutional’ supporters from the last financial year. Here they are again.
Reichstein Foundation
Melbourne Community Foundation: Ballandry Fund, S& J Rothfield Family Fund, Wynn Family Fund
Bigididge Pty Ltd
Helen McPherson Smith Trust
Victoria Law Foundation
Fouress Foundation
- and just for the record, none of these funded our pro renewables work, they provided support for our other work. The funding for our renewables work came from 4 individual donors and about 10 people who gave small amounts (eg $40 – $100).
But you have made a specific claim that wind companies set up front groups – what wind companies “set up “enviromental groups and pay wages” to be their mouthpiece”? Either retract your claim or prove it. Don’t be like Gordon – making big claims, but unable to deliver the goods when challenged on the facts.
My experience of working and living in rural Vic is that most people aren’t fussed either way. There is a small group of active antis, a small group of active windies, and most people just don’t have energy issues at the front of their mind on a day to day basis. Yet in our many, many conversations with people at stalls and events, it is clear to me that the majority of rural Victorians support renewables, including wind, once the issue is raised.
Leeroy
July 4, 2011
Dr Pierpont –
Husband – Anti-wind activist, (Submission 58) about as civil as many of wind’s opponents
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_wind_farms/submissions.htm
http://nosydenhamwindfarm.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/how-to-fight-big-wind.pdf
Medical doctor – yet no physical examinations carried out
Study group – 10 families or 30 odd individuals who hate wind farms
Peer reviewed – by her ‘friends’
30-1
Blair Donaldson
July 4, 2011
There is no change we’ll ever see any peer-reviewed research from the anti windfarm mob – mainly because there is none. The best they have is anecdotal claims from people adjacent to wind farms which curiously ignores those landholders who can live quite close to wind farms without any problems whatsoever.
Ben Courtice
July 4, 2011
I do wonder what the anti-wind people want to get out of a study into health effects. I think the real agenda of many is already obvious as they start calling for a moratorium on wind until this (non-funded, purely recommended, possibly never-gonna-happen) study is undertaken.
I support conducting a study, but rather than poking around for evidence of infrasound health effects I think a study into noise levels and epidemiology around wind farms – ie to see where and how people are suffering from noise or stress or whatever, and some study into what’s causing it and what might alleviate it. Just getting that basic data reliably collected and made public might give some indication of how serious the much-touted health issues are and what’s really causing them. Then the appropriate actions could be taken to help those who really are ill. This would make much more sense than balnket bans and moratoria.
Blair Donaldson
July 4, 2011
A good read:
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/shock-new-0
Cam Walker
July 6, 2011
so, @peter masters
interested to hear what you dug up on our funders as you “researched their links to the wind industry”, and their obviously evil plans for world domination? Its funny to see the antis who just can’t let go of the ‘FoE takes money’ lie and keep peddling this mis information. If you can’t win an argument on its own merits, tell a lie often enough and hope that something will stick. That sounds as solid a strategy as the tragics who set up endless pretend profiles on websites like this to try and bolster their cause.
I also remain interested in your claim that wind companies set up front groups….
Cam Walker
July 9, 2011
This is the continuation of discussions going on over here.
http://yes2renewables.org/2011/07/07/wind-farm-opponents-get-confused/
so Peter, you keep peddling a lie (that we get industry money) because you can’t be bothered to look into the issue – or take my word for it. Are all your positions so equally well researched?
It seems you have a set opinion, and you don’t want facts to get in the way.
Peter Jones
July 9, 2011
Cam, Peter should just believe FOE do not get any money from the wind industry and move on. Peter they are true believers. Focus your attention the many faults and problems of the wind industry there are enough there to not jump at shadows. The wind industry in Victoria should just accept the 2 km setback as being fair to all this would reduce opposition to turbine placement to the noisy few who oppose them outright.
Cam Walker
July 24, 2011
an interesting piece on the landscape guardians from Sandi Keane at Independent Australia:
From their intro blurb:
“Environment correspondent Sandi Keane brilliantly exposes the Tea Party style practices and behaviour of anti-windfarm campaigners and their links to powerful vested interests”.
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/environment/the-ugly-landscape-of-the-guardians/
I have to say, after doing my trip through Yass – Crookwell – Boorowa last week, I was very concerned by the number of people who said they were not prepared to speak out publically about their support for wind energy because of fear of being ‘harrassed’ or ‘bullied’ (their words).
Blair Donaldson
July 25, 2011
Harassment and bullying is what the guardians excel at, I’ve witnessed it first hand when an invite only meeting was gatecrashed by the local Guardian rabble. They aren’t interested in facts, any distortion is justified so long as they can con gullible media or those people who are not adequately informed about wind energy technology.
The guardians only have limited support in the community, I agree with you Cam, most people prefer to keep quiet because they cannot be bothered with the aggravation dished out by guardians.
Cam Walker
July 25, 2011
I can’t resist passing on this comment which was just posted on the FoE Facebook page:
Lorna wrote: “the “landscape guardian” name is imported from middle England. Mostly they are about keeping the Tory-voting bits of England looking like an episode of Mrs. marple. My parents (in Scotland, which is different from england) live close to a rapidly-growing wind development. If people there were geting sick, I’m SURE I would have heard something about it.”
Ben Courtice
September 13, 2011
[this comment is not from me but from a "Jim" who posted it on another post- it has been moved here as it is a more general debate. ]
* * *
“I’m a liberal who believes in climate change, and there’s no way I’d want to live near a wind energy plant. Those things are dangerous! For each unit of energy produced, they kill 4 times as many people as a nuclear plant would.”
* * *
[As moderator, I'll just append my own comment rather than adding an extra post:]
I believe in evidence. Sure there’s overwhelming evidence that humans are causing climate change.But where is the evidence for this ridiculous claim? Where are people being killed by wind turbines? Here’s the latest sad news on nuclear deaths, from today’s Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/fears-of-radiation-leak-after-explosion-at-nuclear-plant-in-southern-france/story-e6frg6so-1226135212350
Blair Donaldson
December 1, 2011
With due respect to “Jim”, he doesn’t need to “believe” in climate change, he only needs to understand, then accept or reject the evidence supporting the model. “Belief” belongs more to the realms of untestable, supernatural entities or ideas.
Cam Walker
December 3, 2011
Just continuing the CSG – wind investors issue that Peter Masters has raised. Its only a few months ago when he raised the claim that FoE was funded by wind companies and said:
“Firstly you should disclose all donors to your Group, and i will research their links to the wind industry”.
I did so and he said in effect he couldn’t be bothered to do the research. But he didn’t bother to retract his claim or apologise.
Seems like the same pattern going on here: raise a claim which could impact on someone elses reputation, but not follow it up. A classic tactic, certainly, but not a very honourable one.
Peter, there is no doubt that AGL and Origin both invest heavily in CSG. I am not aware of others. But maybe you should do the research, given you made the claim?
Cam Walker
December 3, 2011
Meanwhile, back at the ranch … i thought this was pretty funny. I couldn’t access the actual video but the story is great.
Duck Hunters Oppose Wind Farm Because it Kills Ducks
Some commentary from the article:
“Yes, wind turbines kill birds. But only a very small number of them, and scientists are hard at work to further improve technology that might prevent these deaths in the future. Cats and sport hunters kill many more birds every year than do wind turbines — which is why this Daily Show bit about duck hunters fighting a proposed wind farm on the grounds that it will kill ducks is particularly amusing”.
“The spot is funny because of the rampant absurdity, of course, but it also goes a length towards exposing the NIMBY-ism that’s truly behind the resistance to the wind farms — not concern over the birds”.
You can find the post here (comes from Treehugger): http://www.treehugger.com/culture/duck-hunters-oppose-wind-farm-because-it-kills-ducks-daily-show-video.html
Blair Donaldson
December 13, 2011
Then, thanks for the end of year, light-hearted “funny bit”, that is a classic story
Ben Courtice
January 3, 2012
(moved to soapbox by moderator)
Blair Donaldson wrote this comment in response to comments at http://yes2renewables.org/2011/12/23/nsw-follows-victorias-backwards-move-on-wind-energy/:
It’s a pity you have never seen a windfarm Winston, had you done so, you would realise your statement, “wind turbines that destroy the environment and do nothing to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels,” is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.
Where is your outrage and concern for the spreading number of coal mines and coal seam gas fields that really do destroy the environment? Your double standards are breathtaking.
Ben Courtice
January 3, 2012
(moved to soapbox by moderator)
Winston wrote:
Wind turbines take up so much space because they are only placed on hilltops or ridgelines and need to be “spaced out” so they get clean air as apposed to turbulent air.
I have been researching the proposed Flyers Creek Wind Farm for some 11 months now so I have some idea of what i’m talking about.
Each of the 44 turbines would have over 2.5 tonnes of “rare earth magnets” which are sourced from China. These mines are some of the most toxic places on earth . Over a hundred of cubic metres of concrete are required for the base , then we need the steel for the towers , 21 tons of non-recyclable fiberglass and resins for the blades . Oil , hydraulic oil , heating , cooling , electricity fro the grid to turn/rotate and start the turbines . 20km + underground cabling , 38km overhead power lines , 30 km new tracks/roads , removal of trees and pasture to widen existing roads . 500+ oversize track loads to transport components (once there in Australia) .
Eventually you end up with 44 turbines . each taller than the Sydney Harbour Bridge , in a once beautiful rural area , chewing up the native birds and bats , noise and health effects of those living close to the turbines , all waiting for the wind to blow so they can harvest all the taxpayer/electricity user subsides available to them ( yes, the majority of income is from subsides , not the sale of electricity) .
Ben Courtice
January 3, 2012
(moved to soapbox by moderator)
Winston wrote:
Blair , my “outrage and concern for the spreading number of coal mines and coal seam gas fields that really do destroy the environment” is there but I thought this topic was on Wind Farms .
You could cover NSW in wind turbines and you will still need EVERY Coal and Gas Turbine plant .Provided you want electricity of course .
Ben Courtice
January 3, 2012
(moved to soapbox by moderator)
rob wrote:
wind farms are being installed all over the world some countries like denmark are getting 25% of their power and this figure was for 2008
Poor old Winnie seems to be a good old aussie whinger he should go live at CHURCHILL POWER STATION
Ben Courtice
January 3, 2012
(moved to soapbox by moderator and edited to remove abusive comments)
Winston wrote:
Denmark actually get around 10% of their electricity from wind. Another 10% or so is exported to Sweden and Norway , sometimes at negative prices ( again wind farm companies don’t care much about price they get for the electricity as most income is from subsidies ! ) . Norway ans Sweden use this electricity to pump water back up into their hydro dams and then when Denmark needs power ( ie when the wind isn’t blowing) sell the hydro power back to Denmark at full market price .
Denmark even with , or because of , wind energy , has the 2nd highest electricity prices in the EU and the biggest CO2 footprint per KW of electricity produced , Denmark has also now banned any future on-shore turbines and is cutting back on subsidies for existing ones . Not exactly a great success story.
I fully support a workable renewable energy system but face the facts , Wind is a scam.
Ben Courtice
January 4, 2012
(I have moved this comment by someone called Marie here to the soapbox – Ben)
Marie wrote:
Anyone who is for industrial turbine complexes must be so happy with the tax they use to subsidise these costly inefficient environmental damaging monsters. They cause C02 emissions with their construction and they have to hook into the grid if no wind or too windy at a cost of around 3 times what they get for selling. What happens when China runs out of the special mineral used in their construction? DO the research. If the government stops the subsidies I doubt there will be many more around. Try waste to energy which is far better for the environment and helps reduce emissions and is far better than inefficient, costly ‘environmental monsters.’ Try living near not under them for a while and see how you like it. They are not windmills as some of you seem to think. Why have turbines caused whales to beach because of the infrasound that turbines produce. Infrasound is not a sound you hear but you feel as a vibration. Too many thousands are now coming forward to complain. Why is Japan, Canada and parts of the USA hving moritoriums? Because of what has happened to people and livestock. Dont you think they destroy anything? We just do not need anything more to kill birds, bats, flora and the environment.
Ben Courtice
January 4, 2012
(Another comment from Marie, moved here to the soapbox – Ben)
Marie wrote:
If you were friends of the earth you would be against turbines after all they are not windmills but industrial engines. They have to have backup 24/7y because the generators have to keep going. Why do you not advocate waste to energy? Some countries are turning their backs on turbines and looking for waste to energy or geothernal. Why because they have found that turbines are not efficient and are costly. DO the RESEARCH. They destroy the environment, flora and fauna not to mention animals (try Japan, USA, Canada and the UK.). People are now suing companies e.g. Davis versus Fenland who settled out of court and also a farmer in the US. Once one is successful more will follow. Quinn versus AGL in South Australia see results if that case. I believe we have to stop crippling the earth but we also must stop using e.g. turbines as they are not windmills but environmental vandals.
Blair Donaldson
January 4, 2012
Marie, if your concern for the Earth is sincere, why aren’t you railing against the use of fossil fuels and all the damage they do?
Ben Courtice
January 4, 2012
Regarding rare earths:
“At present most wind turbines do not use rare earths, however the increased reliability from neodymium magnets, particularly in the offshore wind sectors, has led to 9 out of 10 new wind turbine models to employ neodymium magnets.”
http://www.frontierrareearths.com/demand_developments.php
and
“For context, some of the biggest turbines can each use two tons of rare earths.
(…)
“General Electric says it has developed a higher-performance wind turbine magnetizer coil, completely free of rare earths, and Toyota is working on an EV motor that doesn’t need rare earths at all. But, both are still in the experimental phase and not yet market-ready.”
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/15/chinas-rare-earth-monopoly
For the record, there’s nothing wrong with using rare earths per se, the problem is the existing mining and extraction processes have been very dirty, and unnecessarily so.
Ben Courtice
January 4, 2012
[post from Blair, moved here from the discussion at http://yes2renewables.org/2011/12/23/nsw-follows-victorias-backwards-move-on-wind-energy/#comment-5221%5D
Blair wrote:
Denmark 2008:
Production from coal 17,457 GW hours
Production from wind 6928 GW hours
Total production from all energy sources, 36,391 GW hours.
Wind energy as a percentage of total generation, 19%
http://www.iea.org/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=DK
As for rare earths, you missed the point. They are used in many areas of manufacture and on the matter of wind energy, once the turbines are constructed, the energy source is free whereas turbines powered by fossil fuels require enormous, ongoing amount of a nonrenewable fuel stock that also produces many hazardous pollutants. Something you conveniently ignore in your pious rant condemning rare earths.
I’m not pretending wind energy is the answer to everything, I’m fully aware of its shortcomings but unlike you, I’m prepared to look at all the technologies. The fact of the matter is electricity produced from fossil fuels has undergone little technological change while wind energy is comparatively new and is still developing.
If you seriously believe the Australian Energy Market Operator is truly objective, you’re dreaming. It has plenty of form in supporting fossil fuels over renewables.
Winston
January 4, 2012
Hi Blair , I agree with your figures from Denmark but think a little more scrutiny of those figures is deserved . Production (as above) 2008 6928GWH , installed capacity in 2007 was over 27,000 GWH , so even with Denmark having some of the best wind resources in the world , wind farm capacity still below 30% .
These figures are also the production figures not usage figures . Denmark for the same period (2007) exported 11360GWH ( a fair amount of that Wind , sometimes at negative prices) and imported 12815GWH . This situation is caused by partly depending on an unreliable inefficient energy source , ie wind.
Like you ” I’m prepared to look at all the technologies” but i’ve looked at Wind and in my humble opinion Wind is not the answer or even a part of it . If we stop wasting money on wind and instead spend it on R&D and other renewable energy sources that can provide power on demand , we will all be better off.
I wasn’t aware the AEMO wasn’t objective in its figures . I suppose the reason why is the problems an intermittent source of electricity causes to grid stability . If it wasn’t for the government mandate of the purchase of wind power , no Energy Market Operator in the world would buy it if they didn’t have to
Blair Donaldson
January 5, 2012
Winston, you can’t have it both ways. If you are really concerned about energy sources, the environment and climate change or any of the above, you can’t simply dismiss wind and fail to provide other viable alternatives.
Your failure to mention any other renewable sources let alone any alternatives in general, highlight your feigned concern.
So just how long should we spend unstated amounts of public and private funds researching other technologies until you’ll be satisfied with the solution? It’s akin to arguing that no cancer treatments should be used on patients until we have a certain cure. And why is it okay for somebody to spend money on R&D but not on subsidising a renewable technology that is evolving as time goes on? Why is it okay for the public to subsidise polluting, inefficient coal-fired electricity but not electricity from renewables?
It’s not a perfect world, it is time you realised that, you might be comfortable sitting around like a shag on a rock waiting for some fully developed technology to magically appear – it would be the first – but I’m more realistic.
The grid stability issue is a diminishing issue because of the increasing use of peaking plants using gas and the not unimportant fact that the entire eastern Australian grid is interconnected. You are also ignoring infrastructure upgrades which allow for better management.
Ben, I have no quibbles with AEMO’s figures, only some of their comments (as reported in some Murdoch papers) but to be fair, I should perhaps allow for the anti-renewable slant journalists from that stable promote.
Ben Courtice
January 5, 2012
I’m not sure why AEMO got dragged into this. We’ve utilised AEMO data here, whatever their shortcomings may or may not be as an organisation they seem to have reliable data. For South Australia’s electricity supply figures over 5 years this graph illustrates it pretty well:
http://yes2renewables.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/sa-energy-breakdown_from-aemo.jpg?w=594&h=416
It shows that in the period that wind energy has grown to 20% of generation in SA they have used less power from interstate; and the same report showed their gas backup capacity has not risen by more than their peak demand, ie. their wind generation is not requiring an equivalent amount of backup to be built. I explained this more in this article:
http://yes2renewables.org/2011/12/21/the-merit-order-effect-how-renewables-enter-electricity-markets/
Funny how Winston’s comments actually prove the opposite of what he’s trying to say. He says that wind in Denmark is used to store hydro power in Sweden and Norway then that hydro power is used when the wind drops off in Denmark. How the countries/utilities charge each other for these services is another matter but this kind of energy storage is a great system, the impact of building hydro dams aside.
Reports have indicated that a modern electricity grid should have no problem integrating up to at least 20% wind capacity, which is something that has been done in South Australia, Denmark, Spain and elsewhere. Going above 20% more sophisticated management and backup is needed. We never argued that wind power was going to provide baseload: it is one cheap and useful source of renewable energy that is ideally complemented by solar thermal storage capacity, or perhaps geothermal or biomass/waste combustion or hydro, or maybe in the future, wave power.
Winston
January 6, 2012
Blair , i’m not trying to have it both ways . I have never said that I have the answer , just that Wind in not and never will be the answer . As for other viable alternatives, I thought maybe you or someone else on this site might be able to provide some alternatives, or is this site really yes2wind rather than yes2renewables….
The Federal Govt has set up the Clean Energy Fund with a $10 billion budget for R&D etc and money spend on such things can help deliver new and workable forms of renewable energy.
Humans have been trying the harness wind energy for thousands of years and as soon as a better technology is available wind has been relegated to the history books. Reinventing the horse and cart is not going to replace the car
Blair Donaldson
January 6, 2012
The only reason wind energy technologies were replaced in the past was because cheap, dirty fossil fuels became available. Now the dangers of using fossil fuels are becoming known along with their increasing scarcity and increasing costs (to health and the pocket), wind and other renewables are once again being relied on to fill the widening gap.
You also need to do some homework on Denmark and its wind resources. You could fit about 4 Denmark’s in Victoria. Australia has far better wind resources and because those resources are widely dispersed, wind energy is far more viable here – well it would be if shortsighted politicians and a few noisy folks who have managed to convince themselves they are suffering psychosomatic illnesses rejoined the 21st-century and accepted the findings of modern science.
Winston
January 6, 2012
Ben , my comments about Denmark are really drawing an analogy with what the Denmark system is and what we would have in Australia is we went down their path , although Denmark is in a far better situation than Australia is , with their better wind resources and close neighbors who are able to buy their cheap/junk/excess wind power electricity . Sweden and Norway must think Wind Energy is the greatest thing since sliced bread . No turbines in there country , no subsidies to pay , 11000 GWH + of cheap electricty which can be resold at full market price . etc . If only Australia had neighbors so close by who could help such our economy dry if we go down the path of wind.
Blair Donaldson
January 8, 2012
Wind farms in Sweden, it took about 30 seconds to find.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Sweden#Wind_farms
So it would seem that Sweden does think wind energy is the greatest thing since sliced bread
Winston
January 9, 2012
Well on overall output of installed generation , they seem to think Nuclear is some 400 times better than Wind
Ben Courtice
January 6, 2012
What source can you provide to show that Denmark has better wind resources than Australia? Other than having more turbines! And what makes you think there are no turbines in Sweden and Norway? I know that Sweden at least has quite a lot; the proposed Markbygden wind farm in Lappland (far north Sweden) will have about 1000 turbines if fully constructed. Neither country has anything like the geographic spread of Australia’s wind resources.
Wind is not “The Answer” but it’s an important element of a renewable energy future. You really ought to look into it a bit more carefully.
Ben Courtice
January 12, 2012
http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2012/01/10/renewable-energy-passes-nuclear-as.html?page=all
“Renewable energy sources — wind, water, solar and others — passed nuclear generation as a share of U.S. power in September, according to the Energy Information Administration.”
Blair Donaldson
January 16, 2012
Winston, we’re still awaiting your authoritative sources?
Wonder why it is that the guardians demand openness and accountability from windfarm proponents and operators but they consistently fail to practice what they preach?
hillbilly33
January 19, 2012
I ask all to forget their politics/views on wind power, man made global warming, shoot or denigrate the messenger etc., and just deal with what is happening here in Tasmania as a responsible and caring human being. For a good summary of the story:
Google :
PA Pundits. Search for- Wind Power Australia – The Musselroe Wind Farm Travesty in Tasmania
For a snapshot or template if you like of what is about to be unleashed in an environmentally fragile designated Conservation Area next to a National Park supporting signiicant populations of native wildlfe and plants, endangered raptors and other birdlife and encompassing some of the most visually beautiful areas in Australia or the world for that matter:
Google Cefn Croes Photo-Gallery
Please!
David Osmond
January 19, 2012
Hi Hillbilly, the article you refer to concerning Musselroe Wind Farm is confused about what the Capacity Factor means. A Capacity Factor of 28% does not mean that the Wind Farm is only generating 28% of the time, or 7 hours a day. It means that on average, it generates 28% of its nameplate capacity, or 47MW (ie 0.28 * 168MW for Musselroe). Of course, the wind farm is not always producing that much power, it is producing anywhere between 0 and 168MW, but on average it is 47MW. In terms of time, most wind farms are producing electricity about 18 hours a day.
hillbilly33
January 19, 2012
Hi David. I suggest you post your comment at the PA Pundit website. I know Tony will be happy to clarify or debate any technical details with you. Apart from that, you’re quite happy and comfortable with the desecration and environmental destruction that is going to take place in this pristine area?
If so, I’m sorry you never had the chance to see this magnificent area as I have many times, you might then have a dfferent point of view. What is even sadder is that future generations will never have the chance to see or experience the soul regenerating natural peace and beauty either!
On thepower side, you don’t think that if the rather disappointing amount of power this Plant will intermttently add to the grid was really needed, perhaps another gasfired plant sited on an industrial zone, covering far less area and producing the same amount of power 24/7/365 wih a far longer life span might have been a better option for this tourist State?
Cheers.
Blair Donaldson
January 24, 2012
HillBilly33, how can you possibly call the location of the Musselroe windfarm a pristine area when it is not in its natural state? It’s quite evident from Google maps that it’s been a farming region for some time. Aren’t you guilty of gilding the lily?
Presumably you are concerned about climate change? If so, and if you oppose sensible efforts to mitigate it via the use of renewable energy sources in the areas where is it most practical, your “pristine areas” will be detrimentally affected. So, at what point do you acknowledge that sometimes we need to carry out actions that will provide greater, long-term benefit?
Please don’t misread my comments to suppose I’m categorically stating that wind farms alone will solve our energy problems. We will need a variety of alternative energy systems but they will have to be situated in regions where they are most productive.
David Osmond
January 19, 2012
Hi Hillbilly, I’ll try to post at that site later.
I am not familiar with the Musselroe site, but will readily believe you that the site has magnificent beauty. However, in my experience most wind farms are beautiful in their own way, and are well down the list of things we build that desecrate and destroy natural beauty.
I would hardly describe the average power needs of 50,000 homes a disappointing amount of electricity. With regards to Tony’s article, he rightly point out that while this wind farm may produce on average the requirements of 50,000 homes, it doesn’t necessarily produce the power when those homes need it. However, the same could be said of the Bayswater Power plant. This base-load power station produces a near constant supply of electricity, whereas the 50,000 homes require a lot more electricity during the day and evening than during the night. The power from Bayswater therefore needs to be supplemented by power from a peaking generator (and intermediate plants) in order to match demand, in much the same way as the power from a wind farm needs to be supplemented by power from a peaking generator. Moreover, like the wind farm, the Bayswater Power station is also not available 100% of the time (your 24/7/365 power station is a myth!). The electricity network requires capacity to function when any power station is not available. The problems of matching supply and demand with 20% of our power coming from wind (or other intermittent renewables) are not much greater than matching supply and demand without wind, and are indeed much more readily achieved in Tasmania with its large amounts of hydro power.
cheers,
hillbilly33
January 19, 2012
Hi David. What can I say? For one of the few times in my long life I’m literally gobsmackedI
” most wind farms are beautiful in their own way”.? I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder! It’s obvious you’ll be in “wind farm heaven” for the next few years until the bubble bursts when the taxpayer funded subsidies run out. I hope you’ll still see beauty when Australia is littered with rusting and abandoned wind plants as in California at Tehachapin, Altamont Pass and San Gorgonia and in Hawaii at Kamaoa and at least five other sites in the Hawaiian Isles.
You’ll perhaps pardon me if I don’t share your vision but continue to use what few years or months I may have left to fight to preserve the natural beauties of the environment everywhere but in particular at Musselroe Bay Conservation Area.,Tasmania!.
I thank you for your courtesy and giving me a great insight into the current thinking and mentality that has evolved in a gullible public. I do see further comment is pointless in the environment here but still genuinely wish you well. ‘Bye.
Blair Donaldson
January 24, 2012
Where is your evidence that there will be rusted and abandoned windfarms in Australia? As far as I’m aware, all windfarm projects in this country are required to be upgraded or dismantled at the end of their life.
Gerard
January 24, 2012
Blair, most of the problems that wind farm developers are having now with buffer distances and such are the result of the excesses of the cowboys of the past where they were able to ride roughshod over communities with the support of Labor state governments. To quote Steve Buckle ‘there are no rules’ what he meant is they could do what they wanted without considering neighbours and they did. Perhaps things have gone to far the other way but it is reaction to the tactics of the past. As far as “all windfarm projects in this country are required to be upgraded or dismantled at the end of their life” you know as well as I do that it is very easy to sell a company in its last year of operation to a $2.00 shelf company that goes broke when it is time to dismantle – this has happened in the States which is why there are rusting inoperable hulks across the landscape. In an ideal world people and companies operate with honour, unfortunately we do not live in such a world.
Blair Donaldson
January 25, 2012
Gerard, I know and have spoken with Steve Buckle, I know several of the landholders who will host turbines at the Bald Hills windfarm and I know a couple of other landholders who oppose the windfarm. I also know the majority of locals support the project.
I suspect your quote attributed to Steve is taken out of context but nevertheless, it’s a blatant lie to say land holders were not consulted and neighbours were not considered.
There were certainly a number of information meetings held even though they were disrupted by landscape guardians intent on big–noting themselves and attempting to intimidate others at the meeting. I know their form because I experienced the same standover tactics firsthand when they gatecrashed an invitation only information evening held by our group.
You may be interested to know that a nearby landholder and vocal windfarm opponent has family ties to some well-known members of the Liberal party. Do some homework and find out for yourself, here’s a hint to start you off. Michael and Mary Wooldridge.
Gerard
January 25, 2012
Blair I know the consultation process you speak of very well having having experienced the Windpower/Buckle approach – to quote Steve again and also not out of context ‘they (nearby residents) will just have to get a life and get over it’. The entire consultation process consisted of telling us what we were getting. Excesses will always provoke excess in the opposite direction. As always the middle ground is where we need to be. Your lack of response on the $2.00 company going broke is quite telling as it indicates that you admit it would be a possibility. By the way, US wind farm contracts also have a clause that turbines at the end of their useful life must be removed or upgraded. Yet there are rusting, creaking industrial sculptures all over California. No government can afford to remove these blights on the landscape. Again Steve Buckle said that at the end of the turbines useful life farmers could remove the turbines and sell the metal for scrap, hardly a responsible approach!
Blair Donaldson
January 25, 2012
Gerard, “By the way, US wind farm contracts also have a clause that turbines at the end of their useful life must be removed or upgraded. Yet there are rusting, creaking industrial sculptures all over California.”
That might be the case for turbines built in the sixties and seventies in the US but it is not the case for modern windfarm projects built in Australia. In any case, the value of the materials alone makes removing the turbines worthwhile.
Your cynicism is showing.
Gerard
January 25, 2012
Is it any wonder my cynicism is showing, after being lied to by wind farm developers that are supported by decent people (like yourself) that in other circumstances would be highly critical of their tactics. The same scrap metal market prices exist in the US yet these rusting hulks are just too expensive to remove as will be the case with turbines in Australia when the carpetbaggers have moved on to their next money making scheme.
Blair Donaldson
January 28, 2012
The problem Gerard is that bitter experience has taught me that the vast majority of windfarm opponents are any combination of selfish, unmitigated liars, envious or simply troublemakers who are not too fussed about Ignoring the facts and letting their own contradictions get in the way of their persecution complex.
I can only take people as I find them and I found Steve to be very informative and helpful on every question I put to him. Also, the landholders he dealt with, at least those who will be hosting turbines had no problems with him .
Unsurprisingly, the only issues come from those who were at first supportive of the turbines (because they thought they would be hosting some) but later found out the project wouldn’t require their land and suddenly, their attitude changed regarding the project and their opinions of Steve.
Your claims simply do not stack up, if wind turbines didn’t work, were fragile and unreliable (insert other misconception) there wouldn’t be the investment in them that exists around the world. And before you invoke the fallback excuse of subsidies, why not address the fact of gross subsidies for existing fossil fuel generators? Increasing fuel costs, increasing permit costs etc?
By comparison, once a turbine is constructed, it’s energy source costs nothing.
dos74
January 21, 2012
HillBilly, thank you for referring me to Tony’s blog site. Allow me to comment here some of the claims made by Tony:
- He claims the Musselroe wind farm will only produce electricity for 7 hours a day. The actual value is more likely to be at least 18 hours a day. Woolnorth Wind Farm has averaged over 22 hours per day during the first 11 months of 2011. Admittedly he has added a postscript trying to explain how he arrived at the 7 hour figure, by assuming that the turbines only ever produce at maximum power. However this assumption is completely unrealistic, and there is no denying that the article, on several occasions, falsely implies that the wind farm will only provide electricity for an average of 7 hours per day.
- He claims that no wind farm in Australia on January 19 of this year had a capacity factor greater than 40%. The Starfish Hill wind farm had an average capacity factor of more than 70%
- He claims there is a theoretical limit of 38 or 39% for the maximum capacity factor of a wind farm. See my point above about Starfish Hill, plus I pointed out 5 Australian wind farms which have managed average Capacity Factors of more than 40% during the first 11 months of 2011.
- He describes as “almost laughable” my claim that South Australia sourced more than 20% of its electricity from wind power, and claims it is more like 3-4%. The AEMO document I referred to indicates that during 2010/11, wind power generated 2,994 GWh, compared to total production of 14,198 GWh, giving a result of 21.1%.
- He objects to statements that wind farms can provide the average energy requirements of X many houses. And yet, nearly all the reasons for his objection apply also to the Bayswater Coal Power station, which he refers to, and which also claims to provide the energy requirements of 2 million homes on its own web site.
May I suggest that you take more care in deciding who or what to believe on the web. I wish you all the best in your fight to preserve our environment. I shall be doing the same. I hope you choose your battles wisely.
David
Ben Courtice
January 25, 2012
IF you take the whole spectrum of comments from wind power critics, you find a lot of contradiction.
On the one hand, each turbine allegedly contains over a ton of expensive rare earth minerals in its generator (not true of most older turbines, but newer generation turbines by companies like Goldwind do use a lot of rare earths).
On the other hand, they are left as scrap at the end of their useful life. Well, that’s quite a long time. Also, given the price of rare earths, it would be an astoundingly generous gift to the landowner hosting the turbine.
In all likelihood, at the end of the useful life of the turbines in a given wind farm, they will all or mostly be replaced with newer (and perhaps more productive) models to continue providing electricity to the grid.
Cam Walker
February 13, 2012
Here’s the latest installment of our regular column: ‘where are the Landscape Guardians when you need them’.
Given how keenly attuned the Guardians are to any threat to our landscapes, surely they are enraged by the fact that big trucks carrying mineral sands and woodchips are ripping up our roads and causing negative impacts on the areas being cut and mined.
WIN TV reports:
“Five million tonnes of woodchips are expected to pass through the Port of Portland this year, half a million tonnes more than in 2011. Cr Gilbert Wilson, Mayor, Glenelg Shire says the Port of Portland is a great asset for Vic and Australia. Mineral sands are the biggest part of their business and in the past two months it has been storing raw material from SA. A shipment for the Macarthur Wind Farm is delivered every four to five weeks”.
Oh hang on, the ‘guardians’ only care about wind energy, not the real threats to our landscape. Sorry, my mistake.
Ron
August 4, 2012
Gippsland could use a few “Guardians” around those bloody big smokestacks. Could we all chip in a few bob and pay their bus fare down there?
Ron
August 4, 2012
I’ve read a lot of comments on this page about wind farms buying up properties around their facilities. Firstly, I would like congratulate the wind farm industry on being willing to do this to create a buffer around their businesses.
I’m a little unsure how the coal industry handles this problem; have they bought buffer zones around hose massive holes in the ground they make or the huge chimneys spewing poisonous gasses. Does the coal industry negotiate a lease with landholders when they want to move onto a new property, or do they just take it over with mineral rights.
Get your heads out of your collective butts people, any energy system is going to have negative impact on the environment. So I guess we have to balance some localised noise pollution from companies who are willing to buy a buffer zone around their business to lessen its impact or we go for one which creates worldwide (but quieter) pollution which any reputable scientist or reasonable thinking person recognises as leading us to the greatest world wide environmental disaster since the dinosaurs were wiped out.
I noticed this “Gordon” bloke carrying on about community subsidisation of the wind farm industry. Can someone please tell me how much the coal industry gets in subsidies, including exploration, the economic benefits of having Government legislation on your side, not having to worry about impact on your neighbours, etc. Gordon, you seem to mention economic costs a lot, I’m sure you can give me an answer to this (although he doesn’t appear to have posted recently and was never that forthcoming with Cams requests for facts and figures).
Ron
August 4, 2012
One question I have about the figures I’ve read here. When you say that a wind generator averages 30-40% of its capacity and generates for about 18 hours a day, does that mean 30-40% for 18 hours or is that 30-40% over 24 hours?
Jason
August 6, 2012
Capacity factor is often misunderstood.
Capacity factor = actual production / maximum rated production. It measures the amount generated vs the amount eh equipment is rated for. Wind farms typically have a range of 30-40% as you say, so will generate that percentage of their name rate over a year.
In that time period, some days are windy and at maximum production, some days are not and production is low. The capacity factor smooths these elements out.
In comparion, coal typically has a capacity factor of 85%, as they run consistenly at full powerr. Gas peaking plants on the other hansd have a factor of 5%, as they only run when the spot price is high.
The capacity factor can be used to estimate the energy output from a wind farm.
Ron
August 6, 2012
Thanks for clarifying that Jason, if it’s calculated over the full 24 hours that is considerably more power output than if it was over 18 hours.
i.e. Challicum Hills wind farm
52500000w by 30% for 18 hrs = 31,500kw
52500000w by 30% for 24 hrs = 42,000kw
Ben Courtice
August 8, 2012
See: http://windfarmperformance.info/
This website tracks the hour-to-hour performance of the larger wind farms (>30MW I think) across Australia. While a coal power plant can commonly run up to 85% or more, they often don’t due to age or lack of demand. Bayswater, the country’s biggest (in NSW) ran at 59% last year.
Gas “peak” power plants (open cycle gas turbines) can have annual capacity at around 5% to 10% because they only switch on during peak events such as hot summer afternoons. They make up for this by charging extremely high prices (thousands of dollars as opposed to normal prices under $100). Because the market is set up so that everyone gets this high price for the period that it’s being charged, this delivers windfall profits to everyone, particularly the big coal generators.
Investment in demand reduction (insulation, more efficient aircon, etc) as well as solar panels significantly reduces these peak events. It slashes the profits of the coal generators. It also reduces demand overall, which has indeed been falling for the last couple of years, boding ill for the privatised electricity market — who wants to be invested in a shrinking market?
More about the ramifications of this:
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/contracts-closure-tale-two-power-stations
Richard Mackie
August 21, 2012
I find it interesting that wind turbine capacity factor is continually misquoted as efficiency. In fact modern wind turbines are remarkably efficient. They extract about 50% of the available energy in the moving air and turn it into electricity. Quite an achievement given that there is a theoretical maximum efficiency called the Betz limit of about 59%. (You can’t extract all the energy as that would involve stopping the air and it would have no where to go).
Capacity factor is actually a result of the design of a wind turbine. To illustrate, think about the extremes. If you have very big blades and a very small generator, the smallest puff of wind would push the generator to full power and you will have a very high capacity factor – maybe 80% or something. But not much electricity will be produced because the generator is so small. Therefore a wind turbine’s capacity factor is a result of an economic optimization of the turbine design – nothing to do with efficiency.