NOTE: the Planning Minister has approved this project. Please check here for our response: https://yes2renewables.org/2011/05/18/minister-approves-chepstowe-wind-farm/
Future Energy is developing a three turbine wind farm at Chepstowe, approximately 30 km west of Ballarat, Victoria. The proposed wind farm will produce enough renewable energy annually to power over 3,400 average households.
In January 2011, the new planning minister, Matthew Guy, announced that he would ‘call in’ the project. This means that the Minister himself decides on the Development Application as he considers it to be of significant interest to the State of Victoria.
The Victorian Planning Department held hearings in February 2011 on the permit application for the project. A report will be prepared and sent to the Minister.
As of May 2011, there is still no final decision on the proposal by the Minister.
STOP PRESS: On May 18,2011, the minister approved this project.
You can find the Minister’s release and FoE’s response here.
As the first test of the Coalition Government’s new wind farm policy, the outcome of this case will have big implications for other proposed wind farms around the state.
Please write a letter to the Planning Minister and Premier urging them to approve the project.
For further information on the project, please check here.
.
LETTER TO THE PREMIER & PLANNING MINISTER:
Please cut and paste the letter below (making whatever changes you want) and email to the following addresses, with your NAME and ADDRESS:
matthew.guy@parliament.vic.gov.au
ted.baillieu@parliament.vic.gov.au
Please cc us a copy: foe@foe.org.au
To:
the Honorable Ted Baillieu
the Honorable Matthew Guy
Dear Premier and Minister,
I am writing in support of Future Energy’s proposed three turbine wind farm at Chepstowe, Victoria which has been called in by your office for planning approval.
Wind energy is a crucial source of renewable energy, and as such, an important part of the solution to climate change. The Chepstowe Wind farm’s three wind turbines will power the equivalent of 3,400 Victorian homes and abate around 22,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.
Wind is currently our most affordable source of renewable energy and a significant source of employment and income for rural Victoria.
Wind farms must be sensitively planned and take into account community concerns. I note in this case that each turbine in the Chepstowe proposal is more than two kilometres from dwellings and that the Department of Sustainability and Environment has confirmed that local bird populations will face only minimal risk.
If this wind farm is not approved, there is a real danger that your government is, in effect, locking us into continued reliance on electricity generation from fossil fuels like coal and gas, which contribute to greenhouse emissions and climate change.
I am concerned about the government’s proposed changes to the general planning provisions which restrict where wind farms can be located. While the Chepstowe proposal does fit within your proposed and highly restrictive guidelines, I believe that those guidelines are inappropriate overall.
Yours sincerely
yes2renewables.org 
To:
the Honorable Ted Baillieu
the Honorable Matthew Guy
Dear Premier and Minister,
I am writing in support of Future Energy’s proposed three turbine wind farm at Chepstowe, Victoria which has been called in by your office for planning approval.
Wind energy is a crucial source of renewable energy, and as such, an important part of the solution to climate change. The Chepstowe Wind farm’s three wind turbines will power the equivalent of 3,400 Victorian homes and abate around 22,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.
Wind is currently our most affordable source of renewable energy and a significant source of employment and income for rural Victoria.
Wind farms must be sensitively planned and take into account community concerns. I note in this case that each turbine in the Chepstowe proposal is more than two kilometres from dwellings and that the Department of Sustainability and Environment has confirmed that local bird populations will face only minimal risk.
If this wind farm is not approved, there is a real danger that your government is, in effect, locking us into continued reliance on electricity generation from fossil fuels like coal and gas, which contribute to greenhouse emissions and climate change.
I am concerned about the government’s proposed changes to the general planning provisions which restrict where wind farms can be located. While the Chepstowe proposal does fit within your proposed and highly restrictive guidelines, I believe that those guidelines are inappropriate overall.
Yours sincerely
Luke Mallaby
isn’t it rich to plant turbines near some else’s house, what a poor lot you really are!
[a note from Cam: this is one of 5 pretend profiles coming from the same computer. ie ‘Joanne’ doesn’t actually exist. Setting up a bunch of pretend addresses and then posting all over the website is a rather ‘poor’ bit of behaviour, I would have thought]
The proposed chepstow windfarm is nowhere near houses.
Save the Brolgas at Chepstowe as the proposed windturbines are going inbetween many Brolga nesting sites and will destroy the endangered native grasslands where lizards, moths, birds and bats live! The Chepstowe comunity does not want these turbines! Solar for all households would be great and people would not get sick!
Jen, I’m from the community of Chepstowe and can tell you that the majority of us do want the Chepstowe Wind Farm.
I’d be very worried about the flora and fauna if you could show any impact from a three turbine wind farm. Without any evidence, and with no one living near the site, why would anyone at Chepstowe care?
Domestic solar is nice, and part of the solution. But at more than 5 times the cost of wind power, it won’t replace wind power anytime soon.
If the turbines are more than 2km from the nearest home then there is no problem (as long as all other environmental conditions are met) afterall wind farm siting really is just a planning issue. The fact that they will do nothing to lower greenhouse gas emissions seems irrelevant to most on this site.
Peter, you state that turbines will do nothing to lower greenhouse emissions. Where do you get that crazy idea?
Alex, why cant you prove that they do reduce emmisons? common sense and emperical evidence suggests that this is not the case.
Sammy, first answer this question: Which of the following reduce emissions:
1) Turning off a light;
2) Installing a solar panel; or
3) Installing a wind turbine.
Then please explain why.
In reality it is none of the above because as long as most of our base load electricity is produced by coal the generaters will continue to produce electricity at the same rate. As they will if we rely on wind. Did you know that wind energy coming online intermittently can increase emissions low emission generation such as gas or hydro which can be quickly turned off on to suit wind patterns and coal keeps chugging on.
Peter, now we are getting somewhere. I see your confusion. Your mental model of the electricity sector is that the coal generators supply practically all of our power and are running flat out 100% of the time and any reduction in demand ends up as wasted energy (vented steam let off at Hazelwood perhaps?). That model is persistent and common, but fortunately very wrong.
Take a look at the real-time demand data for Victoria today. As I write this demand is about 7.1 GW. This morning it was 4.6 GW and will be back there again in 9 or 10 hours. That’s a swing of 2.5 GW. We often see more in summer. Our energy system is built to handle this massive volatility. Coal generators are limited in how quickly they can respond (this doesn’t seem to bother you?), but they do have some ability to adjust partially to this volatility. Fortunately their fuel-use efficiency is not significantly affected.
It is gas and wind that respond to the majority of the fluctuations and for this they earn very significant money off the market opportunities. These generators bid into the market at prices much higher than coal, and some have incredibly low capacity factors. For example, it is not uncommon for a gas peaker to have a 10% capacity factor, but be very profitable.
The reality is that energy demand fluctuates significantly and the system responds perfectly without any intervention by you the consumer.
With only about 0.5 GW of wind capacity in the market, the additional volatility is not significant, and with the phenomenal success of the Australian Wind Energy Forecasting System, the volatility is highly predictable to other market participants. Interestingly, most wind generators bid into the market at $0 or lower, which actually has the effect of lowering wholesale prices while the wind is blowing.
Every MWh put into the grid by wind or solar, or removed from demand by switching off lights, results in a MWh of energy that doesn’t have to come from other sources.
The MMA analysis that calculates a CO2 saving of 1.0 t/MWh takes into account the mix of fuel sources (coal, gas, hydro, etc) that are typically offset by wind generators. If you don’t agree with the MMA analysis, I suggest that you find some reputable sources to write a counter-argument. However, don’t cough up the Peter Lang paper, it has been debunked by AEMO’s Craig Oakeshott.
The amusing thing is that you’ll probably tell me that I have no idea how the market works and that you have been doing research privately for years and you’ve discovered that everything known by the folks supplying your power is wrong. Go for it.
Sorry, when I said “It is gas and wind that respond to the majority of the fluctuations” I meant to say “It is gas and hydro that respond to the majority of the fluctuations”.
a note from Cam:
guys, sorry but i really want to keep this conversation about the Chepstowe case.
Sammy’s post is now over here:
https://yes2renewables.org/the-soapbox/soapbox-wind-energy/
Can you start posting there for further (general) conversations about wind energy please.
Thanks
What a great day for the community at Chepstowe. It’s great to see common sense has prevailed and the development approved. Looking forward to seeing some turbines spinning soon.
Steve – yes indeed, its great news.
Statement from the minister here:
https://yes2renewables.org/2011/05/18/minister-approves-chepstowe-wind-farm/
Our release will be out shortly
EPIIIIIIIIIIIC WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Even though it’s a small project, it’s great to see it get the go-ahead. Let’s hope it’s just the start of many more to come
Chepstowe is wrong because it will kill Brolgas and other endangered birdlife as the turbines are placed so that they will suck in the birds! Why put three turbines in the middle of many Brolga nesting sites! Why do you have to destroy native flora classed very high for the sake of three turbines which will only benefit one landowner! The Majority of the Chepstowe Snake Valley Community do not want them! Why have certain people with held important evidence for the Brolgas? Chepstowe windfarm will destroy the environment!
You shouldn’t believe the propaganda Jen. Your Brolgas will be safe in comparison to the dangers they face from foxes, cats and other feral animals. You need to get some perspective.
As for one farmer benefiting, maybe if you had demonstrated some foresight and argued for a community owned wind farm, the entire community could have benefited, along with the Brolgas? You could have donated some of the income towards protecting habitat for your precious birds.
In addition to Blair’s comment: wind farms do need careful planning to ensure they aren’t smack bang in the middle of a vulnerable bird species’ flight path. They don’t kill many birds at all, it depends on things like the normal flight altitude of the species. Some reports of wind farms killing birds in the US are more to do with night-migrating species falling foul of lighting etc and running into structures, not the turbine blades themselves.
But Blair has a very good point that has been made to me before by farmers involved in landcare projects. If more farmers had the luxury of extra income – such as from hosting turbines – they would have a lot more leeway in their budgets to leave a paddock or a hill to native vegetation. That’s not to say that all would do it, but it’s a possibility worth promoting.
“Chepstowe is wrong because it will kill Brolgas” If people cared about the Brolgas they would lobby for an increase in fox control efforts.