Macedon resident rejects Liberal candidate’s wind farm/bushfire fear mongering

IMG_3516The Coaltion’s anti-wind farm laws have been front page news in the hotly contested seat of Macedon.

In June, Yes 2 Renewables and the Macedon Ranges Sustainability Group issued an open letter calling on 2014 election candidates to reveal their position on planning laws that ban community wind farms in the seat, and whether they’d support a renewable energy target for Victoria. (Find out what the candidates had to say in the issues here).

In the Macedon Free Press coverage of the candidates’ positions, Liberal Donna Petrovich asserted that wind energy is a bushfire risk.

This isn’t the first time this bizarre argument has been mounted by a Coalition politician. At the hight of the Morwell coal mine fire crisis, National MP Darren Chester claimed wind turbines “regularly catch fire” in an exchange with veteran political journalist Paul Bongiorno. The claims do not stand up to scrutiny.

Liberal candidate Donna Petrovich standing with PM Tony Abbott during the 2013 federal election campaign

Riddells Creek resident Lyn Hovey responded to Ms Petrovich’s wind farm/bushfire fear mongering in a letter to the editor published in The Macedon Free Press:

Blue in the face

You can say I support sustainability and the renewable energy target till you’re Liberal blue in the face. But actions and policies tell the real story.

Donna Petrovich (Macedon Free Press Page 1, 5/8/14) pushes the hot button of wind turbines being a fire hazard.

According to the Victorian Government, lightning strike is responsible for 26 percent of wildfires and 46 percent of the area burned, 25 percent of bush fires are deliberately lit. Other causes of fire are burning off, campfires, matches and cigarettes, machinery, and escaped back burning. Wind farms are not listed among the sources of ignition.  Wind turbines are fitted with lightning protection devices.

World data shows that wind turbines are a very safe technology in terms of fire hazard.  Our current energy mix, oil and gas have thousands of fire accidents per year as well as contributing to the extreme conditions we had last summer.

Where was our fossil fuel apologist when the coal fields were burning?


  • Sign our petition calling on Premier Napthine to scrap the anti-wind farm laws that killed off a community wind farm near Woodend.
  • Please support our campaign with the Macedon Ranges Sustainability group by getting involved or making a donation.
  • Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter.
The Hepburn Wind community wind farm operates near Daylesford. A proposal of a similar scale is prohibited near Woodend.
The Hepburn Wind community wind farm operates near Daylesford. A proposal of a similar scale is prohibited near Woodend – just 40 kilometres away.

155 thoughts on “Macedon resident rejects Liberal candidate’s wind farm/bushfire fear mongering

  1. I’d like to see the evidence Donna Petrovic bases her opinion on but I suspect she hasn’t got anything that’s credible.

    She should just be honest and say her opposition is purely ideological.

  2. She has to toe the party line. It’s well-known the Libs have been white-anted and compromised on every level by the Landscape Guardians and fellow travellers, the local smiley face of fossil fuel apologists with links to the IPA and far-right climate denialist groups in the US.
    Anything but centralized and privatized generation, with $B network upgrades as dessert? That’s socialism!

  3. Any idiot will tell you Wind turbines don’t catch fire you only have to google wind turbine fires and images to know that.

    1. Chris, your wind farm paranoia has caused you to lose all sense of perspective. In comparison to other causes of fire and the ability to fight it, wind farms are a nonissue. You really should do some homework instead of trying to make mountains out of molehills.

      If fires worry you so much, why aren’t you bitching and whingeing about the fires caused by opencut coal mines and their tendency to catch fire?

      And then we have power lines, vehicles, cigarette butts and arsonists among many other, more serious causes of fire. As usual, you ignore the real problems.

      1. I have never said coal mines don’t catch fire!!!! But wind turbines do also so who is in denial!!!!!!!!

      2. We have been over this before Chris, no matter how you want to dress it up, you’re still wrong. You and Gerry make a lovely double act but unfortunately you have nothing substantial to say apart from creating an burning straw men. But then again, it’s all you have to justify your opposition to clean energy.

      3. And I have never denied that on rare occasions, a turbine catches fire. What you deliberately choose to ignore is the comparative frequency of rare turbine fires versus other causes which occur many thousands of times more often. You have no objectivity and you demonstrate no wish to learn.

  4. Wind Farm developers lie and the CFA Policy needs to be revisited in light of the latest research. Fires are major cause of wind farm failure, according to new research. One of the leading Universities in the world Imperial College London reports that research suggests that incidents of wind turbines catching fire are a big problem that is not currently being fully reported. What else are wind farm developers lying about? See the link for a summary of the research –

    1. You still trotting this article out Gerard? There are no lies. Only facts.I quote from the article “By comparison, with other energy industries, fire accidents are much less frequent in wind turbines than other sectors such as oil and gas, which globally has thousands of fire accidents per year.”

      So there are 117 fires annually in 200,000 wind turbines. Or in 0.06% of wind turbines globally per annum. So what is your point of referring to this new research?

      Where does it state in your article that they cause bushfires?

      How many bushfires have been caused by wind turbines in Australia?

      1. Hi Pat. The trouble with the mythical 117 fires is that it’s all based on conjecture. It’s assumed only 10% of fires are reported – it could be more, it could be less – we don’t really know.

      2. You see Blair wont even accept that there are any turbine fires at all .WHO IS IN DENIAL!!!!!!!!!!!

      3. Thanks for the chuckles Gerard, you’re a real joker. Don’t know who the Pat is you are referring to but then again, my paranoia isn’t anywhere near as well-developed as yours. I think you would do well to screw your tin hat down a bit tighter.

      4. Dear oh dear, poor old Chris, I didn’t realise you had issues with comprehension as well. If you read back you will see I acknowledge that turbines do catch fire – but that it happens rarely and in comparison to other sources of ignition, is of minor consequence.

    2. It’s easy to tell you aren’t very informed about what constitutes good research, if you were you would see the many flaws in the ICL paper. You could start with the assumption that only 10% of fires are reported and the extrapolation of the real number of fires. Talk about pulling numbers out of your nether regions. But I understand your desperation to jump on anything that seems to be justification in your tiny mind.

      You are seriously comparing an alleged 11 fires per year in wind turbines with the thousands caused by the fossil fuel industry. And you expect people to take you seriously?

      If you bothered reading the whole article instead of just the headline, you might have noted the following sentence, “By comparison, with other energy industries, fire accidents are much less frequent in wind turbines than other sectors such as oil and gas, which globally has thousands of fire accidents per year.”

      1. Again Blair, you do not get it. We are talking about the potential to cause a bush fire in one of the most bush prone areas on earth. Sure oil and gas facilities catch fire more often. A/ there are more of them and B/ there are no gas or oil using electricity generation in the Macedon Ranges. You should give up on the name calling to cover your incompetence. Where is the CFS Policy that you say you have?

      2. Again Gerard, you’re still missing the point. The few turbine fires in comparison to the number of turbines demonstrates how inherently safe turbines are in comparison to other forms of electricity generation. Your tendency to exaggerate doesn’t do you any credit. Your tendency to make false comparisons makes me question yours sincerely. Your tendency to create straw men shows the evidence isn’t on your side. Try not to choke on your hypocrisy accusing others of name-calling. You have provided plenty of examples of your double standards in these threads.

        You don’t live anywhere near windfarms so stop pretending you know what you’re talking about. Chicken Little would be proud of you.

  5. Ms Petrovich Environment credentials are zero. This is the Lady who was the Victorian Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Environment and owned mining, oil and gas shares, just a bit of a conflict. Whilst Parliament secretary her government destroy the habitat of the Leadbeater Possum over in toolangi not to mention tourism.

  6. @Gerard, et al

    Let’s assume (for the moment) wind turbines catch fire all the time, all over the place.

    What needs to be done to contain those fires such that they have zero (nil) affect on the surrounding bush?

    Is it the contention of the naysayers that there is no (zero) possibility of technology and processes containing fires with zero effect on surrounding areas?

    It has been said once or twice, I believe, that if you are not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

    What are your solutions for having eco-friendly, fire-safe wind turbines?

    Or is it that you have a vested interest in current fossil fuel production that disallows you imagining clean, fire-hazard-free wind turbines?

    1. AH the old vested interest line.For there to be a solution you first have to accept that they do catch fire sometimes and we are not quite there yet.But I agree after containing the hundreds of litres of burning hydraulic oil falling from hundreds of feet in the air on a windy day it will be controlled at somestage.But we cant go there yet because the vested interests refuse to accept they catch fire.

      1. “But I agree after containing the hundreds of litres of burning hydraulic oil falling from hundreds of feet in the air on a windy day it will be controlled at somestage.”

        It is interesting that you avoid the question. I did not suggest you or Gerard are of your views due to vested interests. It is however a possibility, one that you have not discounted.

        Secondly, it is rather odd reasoning that you cannot immediately, and unilaterally begin by offering solutions.

        I don’t believe anyone said there were never any fires. So again, what is your solution to the problem, in your mind.

        Be part of the solution, or expose your reasoning for seeking to thwart those who might be wanting clean, renewable energy.

    2. Or is it that you have a vested interest in…….please look at your post before you tell me you didn’t say it.

      1. I may gone to a different school than you. The question “Or is it …” does not state, it merely questions.

        A simple question: what do you want … a future in which clean, renewable energy provides all our needs, or one that is comprised of fossil fuels?

        That is a question, as to your vision, of what is desired. It is not one that necessarily contains any solutions, but it will give readers on this blog, a heads-up as to who you’re batting for.

  7. ”so stop pretending you know what you’re talking about” you mean like you pretend, you fraud. Where is the CFS policy you said you had. Talk about pretending!!

      1. The onus of proof is on you. You are a fraud. I admit I cannot I can’t find the CFS policy – mainly because it doesn’t exist, except in your fertile imagination. Where is it Blair?

      2. Keep dreaming Gerry, you’re the one promoting fraudulent claims and exaggerated excuses to oppose wind energy. The CFS are working on an updated version of their current framework right now. I don’t know when the review will be completed but they do have a basic policy and a more detailed one is in the pipeline.

  8. You are wasting your time Gerard.Blair never has had the policy and it just proves the guy will never admit he was wrong at any cost.It is deny deny all the way that is why nobody can reason with him .

    1. I agree Chris, he is a fantasist and his ego does not allow him to admit he never had the policy. makes you wonder what else he makes up. When you spend all day doing your ‘research’ on google like Blair does it’s bound to have an impact on your mind. You cannot even produce the basic one because it does not exist, if it did you scotch the implication that you a fraud.

  9. Having read the conflicting replies on this thread, as per my question to Chris (above) what do people want?

    What is the vision, of those responding here?

    Is it a future in which all our needs are met via renewable energy (fairly easily achievable, with current technologies) or one that is … not fuelled by renewables?

    If the latter, why? Why would you want a future in which our skies and environment are polluted by coal, or CSG, etc? What’s in it for you to envisage that future? How do you personally gain, by envisaging that future?

    As to the specific details of how (what clean-energy technologies, in what proportion) that’s a secondary issue … one that is, at some point, quite necessary, but at present somewhat specious given the (seeming) contrary agendas that would work directly against a clean-energy future.

  10. The Victorian Country Fire Authority (CFA), in its 2007 publication Emergency Management Guidelines for Wind Farms, notes that the potential for fire from wind turbines is inherently low. The low fire risk is due to a number of factors:
    Each wind turbine is connected to a control centre which will shut down the turbines if there is a risk of overheating
    Wind turbines are a passive technology and have few flammable materials
    Although wind turbines attract lightning, the built-in lightning protection systems safely dissipate the electricity into the ground, and
    Wind turbines are located in cleared areas, limiting the chance of fires spreading if they do occur.

    1. The two turbine fires in South Australia (which also have the same technology) firefighters had to wait for it to extinguish itself as they could do nothing but observe from a distance. One of the fires was only reported from a passing ship at sea. If such a fire occurred in Macedon Ranges on a 40+ degree day with a howling northwester it would be disastrous. We now know that developers have lied about the potential of fire in turbines therefore it is important that the CFA develop new guidelines in light of the latest research. Blair says he has a copy of the CFS policy however he cannot produce – it appears to be figment of his fertile imagination.

      1. Except that turbines likely would not be working on a +40° day with a howling north-west in any case, and, power lines could be isolated. On extreme weather days in South Australia, whole sections of the grid are powered down to reduce fires. You keep creating horror stories without any foundation Gerard while conveniently ignoring the real dangers of fossil fuels. You have no sense of perspective, comparative dangers or any regard for the truth.

      2. Gerard

        As per above, assume turbines catch fire all over the placer, all the time.

        What’s your vision for the future? Does it involve wind turbines that are suitably engineered to avoide fires?

        Or do you envisage a future powered by fossil fuels?

        As for all this nonsense over a CFS: create a new one, or start a new body that oversees all issues related to wind turbines with sufficient funding to ensure a clean-energy future.

        Or is there something I’m missing here .. like a preference for fossil fuels?

  11. Gerard,

    re your ” it is important that the CFA develop new guidelines in light of the latest research” … could you suggest some guidelines?

    I’m curious … are they to be onerous, impossible restrictions to ensure they become uneconomic?

    Again, what do you want, for the future? A clean-energy future?

    It’s a simple question to which one could give a very simple answer. Like, you know, “Hey, that’d be cool, I really would look forward to a clean renewable-energy future?” In fact I surprised myself, at how easy that was to type.

    1. Gerard

      Perhaps you’re like those ‘dudes’ in the USA — “Diesel drivers in rural America have been modifying their trucks to spew out black soot, then posting pics to the Internet. They hate you and your Prius”.

      I don’t drive a Prius, but you can still hate those who don’t drive a Prius as well. Why discriminate?

      Again, what do you want, for the future? Fully clean renewable energy (achievable now, with present technology). Or something else?

      And if the latter, why? How do you personally benefit from a fossil fuel future?

      1. I am not against clean energy im all for it but don’t feel it is achievable at this stage and I mean true clean energy. Not the rubbish that wind turbines don’t need backup are saving emissions when they don’t take into account the footprint of making and foundations.So there you have it.So steve do wind turbines catch fire???? Have you looked at google images of wind turbine fires?????

      2. “True clean energy”? Would you care to define what that actually means?

        The embedded energy in a wind turbine is repaid in under 12 months. You really haven’t bothered to become very informed about anything to do with renewables and your objections to it seem to be more based on self-interest and magical thinking rather than any credible evidence. Your casual dismissal of the effectiveness of wind energy highlights the point.

        Have you looked at Google images of fossil fuel fires? Most likely not. But in any case, so what if there are some images of turbine fires on Google. It proves what exactly?

      3. re your “don’t feel it is achievable at this stage and I mean true clean energy.”

        So is that what you want? That is not achievable “at this stage”? And what does “at this stage” mean. For the next 100 years?

        Could you be more specific?

        For example, let’s all wonder out into the middle of Australia, with … say, a hundred square kilometres of solar panels, pump in some sea water, and … you know, export enought “solar gas” to fuel the world.



      4. Gerard,

        I think your reply qualifies as “disengenous”. You’ve not stated what you want. Do you want a clean-energy future? Yes or no?

  12. Whooops, no spell checker. That should have read “disingenuous”.

    btw, re your “… (I) don’t feel it is achievable at this stage”. You are aware presumably that your feelings largely follow your beliefs. So then, why are you of the belief that we … metaphorically, can’t “put a man on the moon”?

    Is it your contention, that should we do an Apollo program for solar, we could absolutely NOT be fully clean-energy powered, in a similar time scale (within a decade?)

    What is your evidence that such a program could not, and would not, produce a fully clean-energy powered future?

    1. Gerard

      “Blair the truth and you never cross paths” — Don’t leave me out. Assume I’ve never stumbled across the truth. Assume that if I did, I would pick myself up and hurry on, as if nothing happened.

      Assume I’m a dummkopf. Talk to my like I’m a 7, sorry, 5 year old.

      What do you want? Clean energy future, or not. Simple question. Even a 5 year old will understand your answer, should you give one.

      1. Ah, so because Blair has been porking, sorry telling porkies, that dissuades you from answering a simple question: Do you want a clean energy future, like California is heading toward (somewhat quickly, establishing a flushing industry employing heaps of people), or that we should just keep a diggin and apumpin more ‘stuff’ out of the ground?

        Which is it?

        Assume I’m like Blair (nay, worse — I tell porkies all the time, all over the place). Which is it, a clean energy future (e.g. like California) or same ol’ same ol’ ?

  13. Chris and Gerard

    Presumably you watched that “ever-so-biased” 4Corners report on renewables? And how there are now “more employees today in the solar industry in the US than there are in auto manufacturing and … in coal mining.”

    My question to you: What have got against an industry that could do the same here (not so hard anymore, given the soon-to-be defunct auto manufacturing sector).

    btw, California has mandated 33% of energy source to be renewable by 2020. And that by setting such a target they’ve had an explosing (no pun intended) in investment and innovation.

    Meanwhile … back in here in Oz Quarry, we keep diggin and a diggin..

    1. Instead of talking pills and other b-shit how about you answer my questions which relates to the OP at the top or are you with Blair all question and no answers.??????

  14. btw, the link to the 4Corners program “Power to the people” (including transcript) is

    From the transcript

    DAVID HOCHSCHILD: As a result of that law, we’ve seen a massive increase in investment and innovation in the renewable energy space, and today, California has the largest wind project in the world, the largest geothermal project in the world, the largest solar thermal and solar PV projects in the world, and the largest manufacturing operation in the state of California today is an electric car factory.

    So we’re seeing enormous momentum as a result of that.

    STEPHEN LONG: Were you surprised by the pace of the growth of renewable energy?

    DAVID HOCHSCHILD: You know it’s actually not a surprise because history has shown quite clearly, when you establish a long-term target and provide that certainty for the market, you get investment and you get innovation and it drives down costs.

  15. Gerard,

    Unlike me, I expect you work in the mining/fossil fuel sector, and/or have shares in same.

    Okay that said, let’s consider how you can divest (shares), and/or be employed in an industry that is on the right side of history, rather than all this silly argy-bargy over which policy hasn’t had the i’s dotted, and t’s crossed, or how some big thingy on a hill might catch fire and whatnot.

    Call it crowd sourcing, creative ideas for you to get on the right side of history, helping great-grandkids everywhere with a chance, all the while helping establish an industry that can (and does, eslewhere) employ heaps of people.

    Yay. Way to go Gerard (and Chris).

    1. Steve,

      (And other readers), I contacted the CFS early this year to find out what the guidelines (policy) was for dealing with fires around windfarms.

      The person I spoke to said they had no thorough or complete template to work off, they emailed the existing “policy” as it currently stands for dealing with any fires. It’s basically entirely dependent on terrain, weather, infrastructure, unit availability etc.

      As a result of this thread, I called Rosemary Wrightson, the administration supervisor of the SA country Fire service to see if there had been any update on the current position. She told me that a more formalised, detailed and thorough policy is currently being prepared. I understand its supposed to be ready prior to this coming summer.

      1. Blair

        That’s all well and good, but Gerard and Chris will naysay renewables till the cows come home.

        You might close the gate on the issue of turbine fires, but they’ll find other things to focus on, like how … I don’t know, low-frequency turbine vibration reverberating through the ground is causing people’s teeth to fall out, 40 kilometres away.

        And they’ll dig up some dodgy study supporting that. Despite having stumbled over the fact of the efficacy and viability of renewables, they’ll quickly pick themselves up and somewhat sheepishly scurry off, acting as if nothing ever happened.

      2. Steve,
        I have given up trying to reason with Gerard and Chris. My comments are directed at other readers to highlight the fictions and excuses peddled by the aforementioned denialists. As you can see by their ridiculous comments, real-world conditions and facts are irrelevant to their imaginary world.

        Chris bangs on about billions being lost to China and Denmark, apparently ignorant of the plight of companies such as Keppel Prince at Portland who are pleading for the ridiculous anti-windfarm laws in Victoria to be overturned and for the RET to be retained so they don’t have to stand down about half the company workforce. Nor does he seem to be aware of the lost investment and jobs that could have been created here in Australia had private and government investment been directed at developing the solar industry.

        Instead, a young Chinese research student completed his studies at the University of New South Wales and returned to China taking ideas and Australian developed technology with him to set up a company with Chinese government support that has helped him become a billionaire and produce good quality panels at our expense – all thanks to the shortsighted, denialist idiocy displayed by Chris.

        As if that was not enough, there is also the solar thermal technology that failed to gain any support here that has been transferred to the US by an Indian entrepreneur – more jobs and export potential lost, again, thanks to the fossil fuel promoting BS, climate change denial craziness of Chris, Gerard and their fellow troglodytes.

        Their ignorance and hypocrisy knows no end. Chris’s ill informed comments about the Great Barrier Reef seal the case against him.

        So they are either wilfully uninformed or are somehow involved in the fossil fuel industry and willing apologists for it. Their pretended concern for a few people living near turbines is just a con job.

      3. With Steve’s verbal diarrhoea, it is like Blair is having a conversation with himself – we know that he has an active imagination. Cam once ran a check on IP addresses of antis, perhaps he needs to do the same with windies.

      4. Gerard,

        Your denial and distortions become more pathetic as each day passes. I can assure you that Pat, Steve and myself are separate entities – but you go on believing we are one and the same if it helps your tiny mind.

      5. ” all thanks to the shortsighted, denialist idiocy displayed by Chris.”

        Sad to say, “we” Australians have shown decades of form, in that regard. We once led the world in computer research (CSIRO, in the 1950’s). But our illustrious prime idiot at the time dismissed their relevance (computers) and kiboshed funding.

        So, how do we change, as a nation, from one with its head up its arse, to a progressive, entrepreneurial nation that leads the world in something other than our ability to dig and pump stuff out of the ground?

        Seriously, it behoves us to consider that question, rather than simply ignoring the likes of Chris, who, as you’ve pointed out, is (wilfully?) ignorant in regards to the Great Barrier Reef (and the wider issues of RET, industry policy, and the subsequent (lack of) entrepreneurial activity and job creation should it be abolished).

        That Chris could assert the Barrier Reef is in better shape than 20 years ago, despite clear and ample evidence to the contrary telegraphs how deeply we’re up against it, culturally speaking.

        In the 4Corners report, the former Chief Scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science who having seen the worsening state of the Great Barrier Reef, lamented, “I just wish this happened some other time but not in my lifetime. Mm. I should have, would rather be dead before this time, yep.”

        Yep, indeed. A nation of small-minded, unimaginative diggers, plundering and pillaging, for the sake of a few quick bucks.

  16. btw, Gerard and Chris

    “Hmmm, I work in the fossil fuel industry, but I want a clean-energy future.” Computing … computing … does not compute. warning. warning. Brain overload.”

    It’s called “cognitive dissonance”. I think there’s a pill for it.

    1. To answer your question Blair it proves that they do catch fire and quite often which is not what you and your vested interest mate Steve seem to accept. Anyway seems the RET is a goneburger do you think??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

      1. @Chris

        So they catch fire. And … ?

        What do you want? I see by your reference to RET you’re in the fossil fuel/csg/coal mining sector.

        Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. Now we know your agenda. You’ll naysay regards renewables till the cows come home.

        I do wish you’d take your pills and chill a bit, regarding renewables.

      2. trouble is, Chris, pills and the like, blunt imagination. And it seems to me, you’re nary a surplus of that.

        Just noticed your reference to me being Blair. Crikey, I may not know if I’m arthur or martha but I know I’m not Blair (no, I haven’t had a sex-change, I just like getting in touch with my feminine-side, you know, like, using imagination, the creative process, rather than same ol’ conservative approach of just diggin more stuff out of the ground).

        But look if it helps you sleep at night, by all means believe I’m Blair, or some such.

        Still haven’t answered the question: what do you want? a clean energy future or not (the horse has bolted, btw, in regards to your RET remark).

        Nothing like the smell of fresh diesel in the morning, eh, Chris. lol

    1. Chris, sure it’s an odd-on bet that the RET will be kiboshed.


      Which will accompany increased electricity prices.

      “Government modelling shows power prices will fall if RET stays”

      But look, that’s okay. People have it too good, iyo. Make the peasants pay more, keep them poor. Easier to manipulate. We don’t need no new industries that will employ people gainfully, and contribute to a clean energy future.

      No sirree!

      Yee hah.

  17. Chris

    I get it. You’ve got a coal mining job, helps you raise a family, pay the mortgage, pay for your coal-rollin diesel, and your shootin license.

    So yeah, the RET is gone, and you’re happy. Job secure.

    Whoops. Maybe not.

    Plus other similar. E.g. India (one of our expected major coal customers) recently doubled (that’s twice in the old language) the tax on coal, and is going to invest billions in renewables.

    Double whoops. Coal going going … actually, staying staying … oh dear.

    Besides, Chris, it won’t make much of a hill-of-beans difference if the RET goes, ultimately. Within about 4 years, it’s economically viable to go off-grid (solar/batttery).

    SO when they kibosh the RET, and the electricity prices escalate, watch out for the stampedge (off the grid).


  18. Actually, Chris, kiboshing the RET will be a blessing in disguise. WIth the increases in electricity prices, there’ll be an enormouse mountain of people just champing at the bit to go off grid.

    Getting rid of the RET will just hasten the stampede. People know they’re being gouged. And they’ll vote with their feet, as soon as.

    btw, if you’ve got shares in coal, or csg, be smart. Divest, get out, quick.

  19. I have roof top solar and an electric car so you need to get real Steve im doing my share of the lifting !!!!!!!!!!!!!!.$2o billion lost if it goes but haven’t seen how much of that goes to wind turbine makers in China and Denmark. Why not the real cost to Australia and cut the propaganda.

  20. Hello, Chris, I’m not if you understand .. but California has mandated at least 33% of energy must be renewables by 2020, and now employ more people in said industry than auto manufacturing and coal.

    So, if we don’t have manufacturers here, in Oz, it’s because of the lack of clear mandates (and the uncertainty over the RET) that exactly causes our need to import technology from Denmark and China.

    You would be familiar, I take it, that one of leading solar students, ex UNSW went over to China and established one of the biggest solar manufacturing companies.

    Here, “oh no, we don’t do that sort of thing around these here parts.”

    Yee hah.

    So you drive an electric car. Good on you. And you want the RET gone. Good on you. We don’t need a manufacturing base in Australia. We can just sell, uhm, tourism? Whoops. Barrier reef gone. Uhm, err, uhm. Where are those pills when you need ’em.

    1. Barrier reef gone???? what planet are you on!!!! idiot you listen to far to much bull–it.The reef is in a far better state than it was 20 years ago.And as long as you burn fossil fuel to get around you are a hypocrite!!!!Take your own pills fool.goodbye

      1. “The evidence of coral reef vulnerability and the predictions of climate change underpin the Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009 conclusion that climate change is the dominant threat to the future of the Reef. ”

        Yeah, I know. Governments put out all sorts of bs.

        I mean, what would the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority know?

        Fools, the lot of them.

        Hey Chris, why not write to them, tell em all to get proper job, in the mining industry — they can all drive to their jobs in electric cars, so they get to feel good while they plunder the planet.

        Yee hah.

      2. Dear me. “We can just sell, uhm, tourism? Whoops. Barrier reef gone” as in, said retrospectively (from the future) when it is gone.

        Like, derr.

        Jeez, Chris, try and keep up, willya.

  21. btw, I suggest all and sundry to read the transcript of the 4Corners report as to why an Australian who had a great idea in regards to solar, but had to go to California, and start a company there that is now employing 500 people, and turning over hundreds of millions.

    you know, the same state that now has “the largest wind project in the world, the largest geothermal project in the world, the largest solar thermal and solar PV projects in the world, and the largest manufacturing operation in the state of California today is an electric car factory.”

    Here’s a thought: “Hey if they did it, maybe we could have converted our auto-manufacturing into renewable energy manufacturers? Shown those Danish a thing or two?”

    Nah, it’s too hard. We’re too small a country to compete globally.

    Denmark: population: July 2014 estimate 5,639,719

    Yeah, but they’re smart because the eat a lot of fish.

    You eat fish, Chris?

    1. Clean energy manufacturing? Nah. Impossible. We’ll never get a man on the moon. This is the 1950’s after all.

    2. Hey, how’s that … 4Corners about to air a report on the Great Barrier Reef. Hope the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority pepes aren’t watching. I mean, Chris the marine experts says there’s no problem.

      Yee hah.

  22. As we speak (right now 4Corners)

    “another dire warning” … “disturbing new revelations.”

    “Ignore, ignore, ignore,” says Chris.

    Yee hah.

    1. I’m not familiar with the nature of dickness, so I’ll respectfully defer to your obviously superior knowledge, experience and finesse regarding this matter.

  23. Chris

    In regards to your assertion “The reef is in a far better state than it was 20 years ago.”

    Dr Charlie Veron, fmr Chief Scientist, Australian Institute of Marine Science, “…the Great Barrier Reef is (sic) changed beyond recognition in my time … I would go to places now that used to be flourishing corals that now are pretty much dead.”

    And more similar.

  24. btw Chris, don’t get too close to a wind turbine, ’cause your teeth will fall out. I hear tinfoil hats won’t help, sorry to say.

    1. Fill your boots steve Donaldson you are on fire.You just keep up appearances and keep filling up that car of yours.

  25. “A Marine Park Authority report, released last week, shows a serious decline over two thirds of the reef in the last five years.” (4Corners).

    Chris, in regards to your opinions, billions would run a mile to not hear them, even cats and canaries and things, would look at you askance. But heck, what’s important is that you believe you, for sure as heck, no one else does. Well okay, maybe Gerard, who’s only forte (if you could call it that) is typing tired old clichés like “verbal diarrhoea”.

  26. Chris and Gerry,

    We are still waiting for you to describe your alternatives to fossil fuels? You know, those “true” renewables? You have yet to provide a single positive comment or demonstrate a scintilla of thought that addresses the need for renewables to counter climate change. Do you fossil fools have anything positive to offer?

    1. I enjoy the irony of the front page story of snow on Macedon. Something we were told according to the models we would not see again. However climate change does exist and climate will continue to change. Turbines are a symbolic gesture – geothermal, biomass, solar panels, and especially solar hot water and heat pump are useful forms of renewables. If you want to replace coal with reliable base load electricity there is really only one option (something that I don’t necessarily agree with) and that is nuclear. Wind power just doesn’t cut the mustard never has, never will.

      1. “Renewable energy can provide baseload power – here’s how”

        “A just published AWEA white paper, “The Clean Air Benefits of Wind Energy,” finds that wind energy is a widely-available, affordable, reliable, and rapidly scalable source of carbon emissions reductions. The paper, for the first time using the publicly available EPA AVERT modeling tool, quantifies on a state-by-state basis the emissions reductions attributable to the current fleet of wind turbines in the U.S.”

        The American Meteorological Society, Stanford University’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering have found that

        “Interconnecting wind farms through the transmission grid is a simple and effective way of reducing deliverable wind power swings caused by wind intermittency. As more farms are interconnected in an array, wind speed correlation among sites decreases and so does the probability that all sites experience the same wind regime at the same time. The array consequently behaves more and more similarly to a single farm with steady wind speed and thus steady deliverable wind power.”

      2. Thanks Gerard for demonstrating to one and all that you are beyond doubt, completely and utterly ignorant when it comes to the matter of weather and climate change. You obviously have no understanding of the difference between the two.

        As for your denial of reality regarding the ability for wind energy to provide substantial quantities of electricity, well, the facts simply don’t support your claim.

        “Wind power just doesn’t cut the mustard never has, never will”

        Yeah right. The South Australian’s, the West Australian’s, Germans and Spanish would completely disagree with you and your myopic viewpoint.

        You really should stay in kiddies forums, they are probably more your style. You’re out of your depth with the grown-ups.

    2. Read Suzuki’s book Blair.Its called[ It’s a matter of survival] it all in there.I like the piece where he said the planet is overburdened by people yet the guy has 5 children himself.It’s a great read you should get it.Now the CFS policy??????????.we will see who is the liar.!!!

      1. I have listened to Suzuki on many occasions and he has never specified a date or a short time period as you claim. You’re exaggerating as usual. Why can’t you be honest, just once?

        He has made the very relevant point that we cannot keep developing infinitely in a finite world and he has clearly explained that he does his best to cover his carbon footprint by buying offsets. Another effect you are either ignorant of or have deliberately avoided mentioning.

  27. [in regards to the threat to the Great Barrier Reef from greenhouse emissions].

    Dr Charlie Veron: It’s incredibly serious. What we are doing now is pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate which has never happened remotely before. Now, this will acidify the oceans and that’s… that’ll be the end of it for corals. It’s very, very serious.”

  28. Yo Chris, Gerard and affiliated cock-a-maimies, if you’re short of a photo to pin on your dart board, Rifkin (who is somewhat erudite in spelling it all out, even for dumb-heads), might qualify:

    Jeremy Rifkin, economist and author “The Third Industrial Revolution”:

    “Australia is the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy. There’s so much sun, there’s so much wind off the coast . . . it makes absolutely no sense: when you have an abundance of renewable energy why would you rely on a depleting supply of fossil fuel with all of the attending consequences to society and the planet. It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever.”

    “We are right now on the cusp of a third industrial revolution.”

    “We have enough of these renewable energies distributed in every square inch of Australia and the world to power our species needs till kingdom comes, at near zero marginal cost, without pollution to the planet.

    So what kind of cock-a-maimy thinking, if I may say this, keeps us in these old polluting dinosaur energies and technologies of the 20th century, when we could be in the new energies of the 21st century and have unlimited amounts of renewable energy.”

    [4Corners, “Power to the people” ]

  29. Yo Gerard, affiliated and recidivist cock-a-maimies, and assorted delusional dumbheads (dummkopfs) deficient in a worthwhile, wise and wonderful weltanschauung.

    “Courts worldwide reject anti-wind experts and their evidence”

  30. Yo Gerard, and your gobsmackingly gullible guild of recidivist and retarded cock-a-maimies.

    In regards to your “Wind power just doesn’t cut the mustard never has, never will.”

    “Wind provides 25% of demand in W.A.”

    [Source: ]

    but wait, there’s more

    “South Australia wind energy jumps to 43% in July”

    “South Australia’s wind farms produced enough electricity to meet a record 43 per cent of the state’s power needs during July, and on occasions during the month provided all the state’s electricity needs.”

    1. You know as well as do that these figures and outputs are backed by dirty coal (probably brown) and wind farms can only be in the system when suitably backed by a permanent reliable electrical supply. Wind turbines remain a symbolic gesture of the green movement. Disconnect from the grid and see how support for wind power diminishes. Over to you for a diarrhoea diatribe. Just don’t expect a response to your rant.

      1. You really need to do something about your paranoia and denial of reality. Your comments and not even rational particularly as there is plenty of evidence that directly refutes your claims. Germany, Denmark, Texas, California & South Australia proved the point that you are wrong.

  31. Yo Gerard, and the demonstrably delinquent denizens of cloud-cuckoo land, along with the aforementioned gobsmackingly gullible guild of recidivist and retarded cock-a-maimies.

    Global onshore wind installs headed for 53,000 MW a year

    As one commenter points out in about 3 years combined power output by windfarms will be greater than that of the entire nuclear power industry.


    1. In three years Steve I will mark it down in the calander.I remember a man called David Suzuki telling all the great barrier reef will be gone in three years that was in 2001.Tim flannery said there will be no ice left in the ross sea by 2009.That was why the ship of fools got stuck do you remember or is your memory not that long.Thats what smoking that stuff does to your brain Steve quit that dope its not good for you.2017 wind will produce more than nuclear cant wait.

      1. You are telling more lies again Chris. I very much doubt that Flannery said what you claim – but you can easily prove that by providing the relevant links – or that Suzuki said what you claim – but you could also provide the links to back up your claim. I suspect you have distorted what was actually said as you tend to do. You’re simply not a credible witness and your childish ranting makes you sound like a petulant dummy spitter. But please, prove me wrong by providing the links…

      2. The UBS report, “predicts that most large scale centralised plants could be gone within a decade. “Not all of them will have disappeared by 2025, but we would be bold enough to say that most of those plants retiring in the future will not be replaced.””

        A decade?

        Goodbye coal, nuclear, gas.

        Yippee ki-yay

        You beauty.


  32. (Currently) “There are over 430 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with over 370,000 MWe of total capacity.” [ ]

    “As reported here last month . .. wind power would increase from from 319.6 Gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2013 to 678.5 GW by 2020.”

    There are some new nuclear stations planned or being built. Hence the commenters projection of about 3 years for wind to overtake nuclear.

    Then, increasingly, stranded assets (including coal stations).

    Suggest you divest, quick smart, before the stampede.

    1. Yo Steve you should move to Spain.There has been some big investment in wind 198 Billion Euros worth.You would do well to get your trotters in that bowl.

  33. Im waiting for the stampede!!!! AH its killing me. Look Steve there is an ice berg floating over the great reef………………………

  34. 370,000 MWe (+) vs 678.5 GW.

    Besides basic arithmetic, which you ought to begin learning (1 + 1 = ), also basic English.

    I’m not Im, and it’s not its.

    And basic marine geography and hydrology: obviously, you’re all tip, no iceberg, since any substantial ice-bergs would not float over a reef, given their proximity to the surface, and the depth of the iceberg.

    Probably best you start with the basic arithmetic (e.g. dividing 370,000 by 1,000) and comparing the result against 678, and seeing if you can ascertain which is bigger.

  35. Correction. I misspoke regarding nuclear energy. I don’t know where the 3 year figure came from, but on the analysis below, it’ll be less than 3 years for wind to overtake global nuclear power production.

    “Globally nuclear capacity has diminished and is expected to continue to diminish over the next few years as France shuts off 33% of its fleet in favour of mostly wind energy,

    Germany shuts off its fleet, Ontario intends to move from 55% to 42% supply from nuclear according to its draft long term energy plan and aging reactors globally reach end-of-life with no economic refurbishment possible. In empirical terms it doesn’t matter what anybody claims is possible: wind energy is growing rapidly while nuclear is going backwards. That’s reality.”

  36. Recapping:

    Gerard in regards to your “If you want to replace coal with reliable base load electricity there is really only one option (something that I don’t necessarily agree with) and that is nuclear. Wind power just doesn’t cut the mustard never has, never will.”

    In light of the previous, namely “In empirical terms it doesn’t matter what anybody claims is possible: wind energy is growing rapidly while nuclear is going backwards. That’s reality.” it’s hard, nay, it’s really really hard to imagine how you could be more wrong,

    Clearly, you have a serious disconnect with reality. While psychosis is not common, and while not being curable, it can be to some extent moderated with various medications.

    Now, it behoves all of us to at least attempt to help you.

    Apparently (insofar as I’m not being personally familiar with the condition) it would seem prudent to avoid, or self-medicate prior to the following triggers (of psychotic experiences)

    – Falling asleep and waking: hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations, which are entirely normal
    – Bereavement, in which hallucinations of a deceased loved one are common
    – Severe sleep deprivation
    – Sensory deprivation and sensory impairment
    – caffeine intoxication
    – extremely stressful event

    As I say, it behoves all of us to at least attempt to help you.

    For example, “caffeine intoxication”. In his book “The Power of Habit”, Charles Duhigg reveals research to clarify that it is very hard to simply stop a bad habit. The habit cycle (cue-routine-reward) needs to be substituted with another routine for substantial and long-term results.

    So, next time you reach for another litre or two of Turkish coffee, change the routine, by reaching for a litre or three of green tea.

  37. Gerard

    To help you minimise some of those triggers mentioned above, let’s consider another one: – extremely stressful event

    There is solid research (references provided if needed) that we are, to some extent, unconsciously aware of forthcoming (especially stressful, or disturbing) events. Now, while this is cutting edge research, it’s fairly routine knowledge amongst artists, writers, poets and entrepreneurs … and women (you know, “women’s intuition”).

    As Terence Mckenna explained (btw, methinks he overdid the mushrooms thing a bit, but I digress), “Nothing is unannounced. If you are paying attention, stuff comes down the pike. First a little wave, then a medium wave, then the tsunami.”

    Now the challenge is to “pay attention”. As many intuitive folk will tell you, that takes some discipline — primarily, paying attention to the subtle urges, or the little voice in one’s head, and acting on it (since the action strengthens the connection, and, like a muscle that is worked, over time becomes stronger).

    But here’s the rub: that little voice or those subtle urges can often originate from habit, so it’s best not to pay heed to those. How to distinguish between the two?

    Ah, that’s for another time (pun at first unintentional, but you know, not bad, imo).

  38. Gerard

    – Severe sleep deprivation

    This one, obviously, would tie in with the caffeine addition. So my earlier post on habits, and how to change, should help this particular trigger.

    As well, trusting intuition … if you get the urge to rest, then by golly, rest. Don’t reach for another litre of Turkish coffee, or another half-dozen “monster” (or similar) super-caffeinated soft-drinks.

    Let go, chill, relax. Tune in, and be pre-aware of those upcoming “extremely stressful events”, the pre-awareness of which in itself will blunt the stress (shock) of the event.

    I’ll have more soon. In the meantime, try and get some rest.

  39. Gerard,

    In case the contextual relevance of my posts has been lost on you, we’re seeking to help you minimise your serious disconnect with reality, such that, as if by magic, you’ll wake one morning, and realise, “hey, wind farms are the way to go. I get it now.” or similar.

    Okay, another trigger that can initiate further instances of limiting and lamentable psychosis (in regards to your disconnect — your inability to be aware of the efficacy and validity of wind farms), is (as per above list) “– Bereavement, ”

    Now, again, there’s cutting-edge research to confirm that consciousness (or more appropriately, ‘mind’) extends beyond local space-time (and while not directly measurable, and thus not reducible to standard scientific methods) extends beyond one’s death.

    To be aware of the extensive (and the deeper atemporal nature of mind) puts one at ease in terms of the death of loved ones (for many reasons I won’t go into here).

    Putting all that together, if you were to lay off the coffee (and/or other drugs and medications), meditate, relax, and expand your awareness, I’m confident that one day, as if by magic, you’ll wake, and realise “hey, I get it now. Renewables are the reality. They’re the future. Yay.”).

  40. Thanks Dr Steve, I await the epiphany. Google school of medicine and psychology is a wonderful thing. Are you describing your own condition? You should get to work on, Blair he is need of lots of help.

    1. The guy is seriously wacked in the head. I think I will just let him rant until the cows come home. Him and Blair should get together like minds in all.Maybe a civil union guys I will come as a witness.

      1. @Chris

        My apologies … we can help you as well, (well, at least we can try, but that will be a more difficult challenge, imo. Gerard at least knows he’s stupid. You’re still needing to learn to count, subtract etc, and learn English, but maybe I’m being too harsh, and English is not your native language. My bad, if that be the case).

        As for me being whatever. Could you be more specific? How so, specifically? What beliefs or statements have I made that are contrary to reality, and good science?

    2. Blair has demonstrably NOT shown any signs of psychosis. You on the other hand, have clearly done so — as per your ridiculous statements on wind farms.

    3. @Gerard

      “Are you describing your own condition?” It might be prudent to add ‘short attention span” as a symptom of psychosis, as per above, my statement of not being familiar with the condition.

      Not being familiar, I copied and pasted from the first website I found on the subject: wikipedia.

      Now, it is well known in various circles, academia especially, that if one wants to be taken seriously, one does NOT quote wikipedia, for obvious reasons.

      However, I did so deliberately (for various reasons — pasting exactly, so that Google would pick up the source).

      In any event you can quote any source on psychosis, and the results would largely be the same.

      You’re obviously not in touch with reality.

      And (I can’t speak for Blair) but we (as myself and others who are gobsmacked at your stupidity), do believe we should at least attempt to help.

  41. @Gerard, “I await the epiphany.”

    Uhm, sorry to say, that even though expectation is a powerful driver of achievement, in your case it will be countered by your disconnect with reality — in short, you’ll be waiting a long time.

    I think a gradual decrease in the triggers mentioned previously, especially coffee and whatever medications you’re on, would be a good start. And maybe eat some fish, or something that stimulates better thinking, so that you are at least aware of the stupidity of your statements concerning wind-farms.

    “In empirical terms it doesn’t matter what anybody claims is possible: wind energy is growing rapidly while nuclear is going backwards. That’s reality.”

    That’s a reality from which you are clearly disconnected, as revealed by your statements on the subject.

  42. “As world nuclear capacity is 370GW, wind is likely to overtake nuclear, in capacity terms, early in 2015.”

    Actual Danish capacity factors* (as of July, 2014) for their offshore windfarms is (combined) 46.2%.

    Assuming that’s above global average, and global is lower, say 36%.

    Nuclear (as per UK figures, average 2007 – 2012) is 62%.

    On that basis there’s a shortfall (wind to nuclear) as of end 2013 of
    111 GW)

    0.36 X 53 ~ 20GW (capacity factor) being added each year, so somewhere around 6 years for wind to overtake nuclear (in terms of capacity factor)

    These are very quick, rough calculations and some assumptions might extend or shorten that figure e.g. has not included the scheduled shutdown of nuclear plants as previously highlighted.

    Also does not include onshore windfarms, or solar and hydro. So probably 2-3 years best case, or 6 years worst case (as of end 2014).

    *Power station/windfarm Capacity factor = ratio of its actual output over a period of time, to its potential output

  43. The UBS report “…predicts that most large scale centralised plants could be gone within a decade. “Not all of them will have disappeared by 2025, but we would be bold enough to say that most of those plants retiring in the future will not be replaced.”

    A decade?

    Good by coal, nuclear, gas.

    Yippee ki-yay

    You beauty.


    1. ‘Yo – Yippee ki-yay’ I digress from the topic of the thread because I think you seem to be caught up in some sort of time warp or street language of Philadelphia thing. You ought to stop watching Rocky movies or playing with your punching bag – the punching bag seems to be winning as your mental cognition is suffering.

      1. Yes, Gerard, please digress … permanently.

        Your contributions here — while being entertaining insofar as they often entail an almost involuntary stimulus-response of “wow, no one can be THAT stupid. This is fascinating. What will the dill say next?” — are, at best, standard recalcitrant right-wing rants that offer no substance, no facts, no credibility. But the most egregious of all, no vision. Abso-f*^king-lutely no vision, whatsoever. And that is a concern, to realise you’re out there in the community, walking around unsupervised. Scary.

        Fortunately your comments will soon enough be ignored and forgotten amid the joy, excitement and ease with which stupid old technologies are made redundant.

        GOODBYE coal (and good riddance).

  44. “most large scale centralised plants could be gone within a decade.”

    You ripper.

    Go you good thing, go.

    Abso-f*^king-lutely wonderful.

    What a pearler

    Yippee ki-yay (as a courtesy to the Americans in the audience)

    Hip hip, hooray

  45. Why have one comment when you can three or more! Quality not quantity is something you should adopt. You have some way to go!

    1. “most large scale centralised plants could be gone within a decade.”

      You little ripper.

      Go you good thing, go.

      Abso-f*^king-lutely wonderful.

      What a pearler

      Yippee ki-yay (as a courtesy to the Americans in the audience)

      Hip hip, hooray

    2. Gerard,

      At least we don’t have to worry about quality when it comes to your commentary, your denial of the bleeding obvious and your double standards are becoming legend.

      1. @Blair

        While I have on (*cough*) occasion ‘shot the messenger’ and belittled the good fellows Gerard and Chris I think it behoves those of us with awareness, understanding and vision to stay on message — that wind-power and renewables will render dirty old technologies (coal and nuclear) redundant.

        And if within a decade, as the UBS report warns their clients, then as I’ve said earlier, “you little ripper.”

        Abso-f*^king-lutely wonderful.

        What a pearler

        Yippee ki-yay (as a courtesy to the Americans in the audience)

        Hip hip, hooray

      2. Steve,

        In regards to Gerard, I’m just calling it like I see it. He is a denialist of the first order – as you have no doubt realised – and he happily distorts any smidgen of information if he thinks it suits his purposes. It all gets a little tiring after a while dealing with somebody who is so negative and selfish.

      3. I mean, the UBS report has delivered a “massive smackdown” to poor ol’ Gerard, so he’ll still be disorientated, stunned as a mullet, as they say. He needs our compassion, and help.

        That said, that shouldn’t dissuade the likes of you and me celebrating the coming redundancies of coal stations.

        As per earlier:

        You little ripper.

        Abso-f*^king-lutely wonderful.

        What a pearler

        Yippee ki-yay (as a courtesy to the Americans in the audience)

        Hip hip, hooray

      4. I like this gem from you – “Except that turbines likely would not be working on a +40° day with a howling north-west in any case” on a day of highest consumption of electricity turbines are turned off. Kinda proves my point of the uselessness of wind. The coal fired power station will still be pumping out electricity to air condition your house and allow you to post on this site.

      5. Sorry to get your hopes up Gerard but the newer turbines can operate in high temperatures. The only limiting factor is (generally) gale force winds. But feel free to crow all you like, again, it highlights your failure to understand that even coal-fired power stations have to limit output on extremely hot days because the transmission lines don’t handle the load. It’s only because of gas peaking plants near Melbourne and now, windfarms that Melbourne doesn’t suffer more blackouts. The last two or three occasions when large chunks of Melbourne has lost power, we were happily enjoying the fruits of the local wind farm and in the 10 years since it has existed, power outages have all but disappeared. A nice change to the times before the existence of the Toora wind farm when power outages here were frequent. Far from being useless, the wind farm has stabilised the grid in this area and provided enhanced reliability.

        But here for your reading pleasure is some more information which undermines your gloating:

      6. Gerard

        What coal stations?

        They’re all done gone, in a few years.

        Besides, what’s with coal stations needing to power websites or homes? Many (e.g. Apple, Google, various server farms and others) are going fully solar.

        Try and keep up Gerard. That UBS smackdown has clearly left you dazed and incoherent. Try and get some rest.

        “most large scale centralised plants could be gone within a decade.”

        For you Gerard, doing a head in the sand, rip van winkle routine, when you wake up the above will read … “most large scale centralised plants have gone.”

        And you’ll be like, “Gee, what happened, I didn’t see that coming.”


      7. Besides, Gerard, if I recall correctly, is it not now policy to cut power to areas beset with bush fires.

        So what the hell have coal powered stations got to do with the price of fish (pun intended. If we keep a diggin and burning coal, price of fish will skyrocket, because there’ll be stuff all left in the increasingly acidic oceans). Least of all coral. Goodbye Barrier Reef (as was made clear on the 4Corners report).

        As you would argue: “Yeah, but ya know, Queenslanders don’t need no tourism jobs. They should all get proper jobs, in the mines.”

        Yee hah.

  46. You really are a delusional goose stevie. Under your theory Daylesford could disconnect themselves from the grid using Hepburn’s turbines. I would like to see that!

  47. UBS report “…predicts that most large scale centralised plants could be gone within a decade.”

    UBS ” Global financial advice and expertise that matters. Individuals around the world look to UBS to provide them with the advice, expertise and opportunities they need to protect and grow their wealth.”

    [Source: ]

  48. Gerard’s great grand-daddy — “those new-fangled noisy jalopies will NEVER replace good ol’ horse travel. No sirree”.

    Go back to sleep Gerard. Now there’s a good lad.

    1. My, my stevie you are a wind bag! But just a little repetitive. Communication addiction disorder could be an issue.

  49. Dear Gerard, I will have to defer to your far superior expertise in above mentioned matters — namely, being a wind bag, being repetitive etc. Truly you are the expert. I bow to you. Oh great one. Good to see you’re good at something, because analysis isn’t one of them.

  50. Hey Blair

    Did you notice that both Gerard and Chris never answered the question as to what sort of future they wanted?

    Obviously personal greed (personally benefiting from current fossil fuel jobs/exports) is the motive for their posts, despite whatever damage is done to the environment and ocean — their posts are like hoping to plug a proverbial dyke, methinks, with a little finger, while the dyke copiously (Chris, that means “abundantly”) overflows above them.

    Along with a subsequent “what just happened? Why am I standing here like a drowned rat? And why are all those people over there laughing at me?”

    For those who might have missed it, a recent UBS report warns their clients that “most large scale centralised plants could be gone within a decade.”


    1. Stevie, I am glad you have got the communication disorder under control (medication is obviously working again) . The future I see does have renewables in it. However, I think wind will only play a minor role because of its inherent problem of unreliability. Solar panels, geothermal and biomass will be important with the latter two as base load power being very important. Decentralised generation is also very important to reduce transmission loss.

      1. Blair

        Sorry, but I’m against vaccinations. The whole issue has been clouded in misinformation for decades.

        On the page linked to below, the graphs tell an extraordinarily obvious fact — that the great bulk of the fall in disease rates in the last 100 -150 years had very little to do with vaccination.

        That plus 30+ years of research by Prof. Michael Marmot and others confirming quite clearly that psycho-social factors are by far the major factor in disease and early mortality. Get the psycho-social issues sorted, and watch infectious diseases disappear — it’s no coincidence that high income people (in high-income suburbs) are the least likely to be vaccinated, compared to the general population.

        But I digress.

        Yes, Gerard is in it, up to his elbows. Won’t stop the obvious, but I’m guessing he’s paid to get on line and help spread misinformation (staffer for Tony Abbott, or Alan Jones?)

    2. Hi Steve,

      Yes, their cherry picking and selective criticisms would do the average creationist or anti-VAX crank proud.

      Most telling of all though is they offer no credible alternatives. Their posts are a quaint mix of self-interest, special pleading and a plethora of logical fallacies.

      If they really believe what they post, they need more help than they know.

    3. Stanford University’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering:

      “Interconnecting wind farms through the transmission grid is a simple and effective way of reducing deliverable wind power swings caused by wind intermittency. As more farms are interconnected in an array, wind speed correlation among sites decreases and so does the probability that all sites experience the same wind regime at the same time. The array consequently behaves more and more similarly to a single farm with steady wind speed and thus steady deliverable wind power.”

      Despite this silly ol’ myths perpetuate, for reasons … of (again) personal gain and greed.

    4. Steve, I’m afraid you’re seriously mistaken regarding vaccines. The only clouding is being committed by anti-vaccination organisations like the mob at the link you provided. They are no different to the deceptively named Australian Vaccination Network who were found to be deceptive in their claims and forced by the New South Wales government to change their name and be more open and honest regarding their stock in trade, namely their denial of the advantages of vaccines and of their effectiveness.

      Prof. Michael Marmot is a specialist in heart disease and associated conditions, not vaccination and in any case, if the people at the link you provided are anything like the AVN, I’ll bet dollars to donuts that his comments have been twisted to mislead. It’s the standard MO of anti-VAX cranks. Note they provide no references to original research

      It’s insane to suggest that vaccinations have not been directly responsible for a rapid and demonstrable decline in preventable deaths. I think with due respect that the WHO know a bit more about vaccinations than you, the VAX Info network (cough) or myself. I used to work in cancer research so perhaps I have a higher regard for the ethics and practices of medical researchers then most people.

      Do yourself a favour and listen to the relevant podcasts here: or learn more here

      But this is not the forum for discussing vaccinations. Feel free to email me at:

      I don’t know or care much for that matter whether Gerard and/or Chris are gullible shills promoting the propaganda of Abbott, Jones and their fellow flat Earthers. I know that the science is against them and that if they choose to ignore the evidence, they will be in for a rude shock, probably within the decade. I don’t care if they want to deny reality but their casual disregard for the generations to come clearly demonstrates their protestations are selfish and extremely suspect.

      1. Blair

        So those graphs are all fabricated. Fair enough. Can you link to the correct graphs?

        As for Marmot, don’t know what you know. I only know him as being the co-author of the World Health Organization’s “The Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts” (}

        And his research spanning 30+ years of analysis of disease and mortality rates and that pyscho-social factors account for around 66 – 75% the primary determinant.

        ““psycho-social factors are related to the vulnerability and defences that people have to disease, not to what disease you get. So that these factors affect the body’s defence systems and make you vulnerable to smoking and cholesterol and viruses and so on.” [Emeritus Prof. Len Syme, University of California]

        + many more similar.

        On this subject you’re welcome to your opinions. I’ve not seen any evidence to refute the primary determinacy of psycho-social factors in matters of health and longevity.

    5. I did answer the question idiot you didn’t answer my questions so have a read of previously posted comments and you will see.I have rooftop solar and a hybrid car steve so practise what you preach .But that is the problem with you hypocrites to busy listening to your own borbal.The OP was on turbines fires and after 120 comments by stevie Donaldson he hasn’t mentioned turbine fires at all just attacked anyone that has views different to himself.Im sure you and Blair are either brothers or lovers you’re so well suited.Nobody could possibly be that stupid unless you’re smoking something.

      1. Chris

        No, you emphatically did not answer the question. Having (or envisaging) a clean energy future does not mean having solar on your roof, or driving an electric car. While the roof-top solar might lessen demand, it is the big-scale issues that you have not answered – .e.g grid-scale solar and abundant windfarms to replace all coal-fired power stations?

        Wind farms are advancing as a major component (aka South Australia, not to mention overseas).

        So again, nice segue from grid to roof. Whoops, you’ll be confused thinking segue is a scooter, or some such. Sorry. I mean, you’ve nicely avoided the question.

      2. As for not answering your questions? Well, they might have slipped by me, insofar as I seem to have a blind spot when attempting to interpret … well, incoherent ramblings.

        You say, there was a question you asked, at some point?

        Ask away. But please try and be cogent, or offer some semblance of sense when framing your question(s).

  51. Uhm could someone explain the references to stevie Donaldson? I Googled Steve, and Stevie Donaldson and got a mish-mash of Facebook and LinkedIn results, some of whom are musicians, pastors, and heck knows what else.

    I must admit I do find it’s wickedly hard interpreting and responding to Chris and Gerry.

    1. Stevie Donaldson? Don’t know him, or her but I’m definitely not whoever that person is. Chris and Gerry seem to be suffering from more than one delusion. But I am told that paranoia does that. Go easy on them Steve, they know not what they do – or say 🙂

      As for me being remotely aligned with the church, that’s hilarious. If you knew my views on the church the question would not be entertained for more than a nanosecond. Cheers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s