I was in Newcastle, NSW AU on Wednesday night to give another lecture as part of the Australian speaking tour I’m doing. I had the pleasure of following David Stockwell in a presentation, and David Archibald followed me.
We were a bit late getting there due to airplane scheduling snafus, and as we rushed from the airport at 6:15 pm we passed the coal loading terminal at Newcastle. There, as if there was some madcap attempt at sustainability, was one of those huge wind turbines like I’ve seen on the US plains. I attempted to get a photo, but my camera misfired with bad focus due to the car window, and I missed the shot.
The next morning, on the way to the airport again at 6AM, the windmill was still there, just like it was before. My driver (Anthony#2 of Team Anthony) gladly pulled over to allow me to get this shot as dawn crept in. I was incredulous that the shot hadn’t changed.
Ummm. I thought windmills were all about generating electricity, not using it. So why put torches on it that run all night? Want to bet the lighting power is coming from coal? While the turbine probably generates more power than it uses most nights, it sure seems odd.
Of course, maybe the people that run it really didn’t want a wind turbine in their coal town, and this torch lighting is their form of silent protest. Or, maybe they are proud of it and felt it needed to be illuminated all hours of the night. Maybe the lights are to warn off birds and small planes. Nobody seemed to know. Whatever the reason, I couldn’t help but be amused.
I don’t wish to demean the proud hard working people in Newcastle in any way, I just thought this was very odd and worth noting. Thanks to everyone who attended our talk. A special thank you to the two protesters handing out flyers at the city hall telling everyone how wrong we are.
Too bad you didn’t stick around to see what you were protesting about, you might have found it interesting. The flyers handed out were obviously written without the benefit of knowing what was being presented that night. Kids, do your homework.
Here is what the Newcastle wind turbine looks like during the day, note the coal terminal in the background.
From the Newcastle City Photos Blog:
Newcastle’s only big wind turbine seems to be reaching up to the sky for the breezes to keep the city running during the approaching night! Is this the future of energy, ‘free’ renewable and non polluting. For a city which has been based on technology we are slow to move on from the old coal based power structure. People want their power but what is the cost? Later generations will have to put up with the results of our excessive use and pollution it causes.
Background on Newcastle from Hunter Valley Eguide:
Newcastle lies approximately 160 kilometres north of Sydney. Newcastle is the seventh largest city in Australia and is the largest city which is not a state or federal capital. It has a population of approximately 300,000. Newcastle was founded on 30th March 1804 as a penal settlement, so has a selection of buildings old by Australian standards, as well as beaches, surf, impressive coastal scenery, bushland and a well-known lake. It is also an important port, especially for the export of coal, of which resource some 70 million tonnes passes through the city annually.
Thanks to Anthony, Sue and many others who helped out in Newcastle. On behalf of David Stockwell, David Archibald, and myself, I thank you for your hospitality and efforts.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Question for a Meteorologist (and where-oh-where is our main resident one):
11:00 PM news, last night (June 18), weather report, WNEP-16 from Wilkes-Barre/Scranton (which is better “local” news than Harrisburg where I am in central Pennsylvania).
Weatherman said to ignore some stuff at a particular spot on the radar map, as they were ghosts caused by a windfarm.
Wait a minute, windfarms mess up radar? The system airports use to track weather and planes to get people to and fro undamaged? That is used to track dangerous weather like strong lightning storms and tornadoes to help keep people from getting killed?
I do know that TV stations and airports use differently-tuned radar systems, after all one is tracking assorted large clouds while the other precisely keeps track of small metallic flying objects. But are windfarms capable of messing up radar enough that, well, people could die because of it?
Roger Sowell:
If wind power were sensible then oil tankers would be sailing ships.
Nobody disputes that wind power “ works”. It has been used for millennia. But it was abandoned when the greater energy intensity and supply reliability of fossil fuels became available by use of the steam engine. Your comment to me June 18, 2010 at 1:09 pm proves that you attempt to misrepresent these issues.
In his above article, Andrew wrote, “I thought windmills were all about generating electricity, not using it.”
I responded to that at June 18, 2010 at 4:06 am by saying;
“If it were their purpose then they would not be built because no wind turbine provides any useful electricity to a grid at any time.”
And I explained that this results from the grid having to cope with the fact that wind turbines do not provide continuous power. I said a more full version of my explanation can be read at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
But at June 18, 2010 at 1:09 pm you have responded to my comment in the typical manner of a wind power PR Consultant by saying:
“Actually, wind-turbines work quite well where the wind blows. The technology works.
http://www.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/DailyRenewablesWatch.pdf”
That completely ignores the facts that
(a) nobody disputes “the technology works” (it has been used to generate electricity for over a century),
and, impotantly,
(B) “no wind turbine provides any useful electricity to a grid at any time” BECAUSE “ the wind does NOT blow all the time.
Richard
Thanks for the rescue RT – Mod
I’ll try to remember not to put an image inline.
Here’s a link to the chart (Source data archive and half-bakery are in the spreadsheet.)
BTW: The “payback” period is actually much longer than 20 years because the taxpayer-funded subsidy is “supply-side” and the cost of generating electricity by “conventional means” is closer to 5 cents/kWh. How much longer depends on actual consumption.
I wonder what the U.S. FAA regulations are in this case. I believe they do require lighting on tall structures. One would think that anti-collision lights would be required on the rotor tips for one that big. I am reminded of the recent video of a bird-strike event.
@ur momisugly Cohenite, good points.
Actually, with wind power, AGW and CO2 reduction is a late entry to the party. California has had wind-turbines for approximately 20 years, long before AGW was an issue. The driving force was to reduce oil imports. Per Pickens’ Plan, that continues to be the goal. After AGW dies and goes away (hopefully soon now), the important goal will be there still: reducing imports of oil from hostile nations that terrorize the world. Wind and solar and natural gas can do that, with sufficient changes to transportation vehicles such as natural gas engines and electric power systems.
@ur momisugly kwik and cohenite, re costs and subsidies. The costs were high initially but have come down as the technology matured. Subsidies helped the process of maturation. As to wind-energy subsidies being bad, why is that, kwik? Are you categorically opposed to all subsidies, or just those for wind? Note that there are literally hundreds of subsidies or tax deductions in the federal tax code, and state codes.
@ur momisugly Richard S. Courtney, you are arguing in circles. As I demonstrated above, the grid has no problem coping with fluctuations from wind-turbines. California is producing approximately 25,000 MWh per day into the grid. Some days it is 40,000 MWh. Apparently, to you, that is not “useful.” Interesting definition of “useful.” Also, I am no PR consultant.
Roger Sowell:
At June 19, 2010 at 8:51 am you say:
“@ur momisugly Richard S. Courtney, you are arguing in circles. As I demonstrated above, the grid has no problem coping with fluctuations from wind-turbines. California is producing approximately 25,000 MWh per day into the grid. Some days it is 40,000 MWh. Apparently, to you, that is not “useful.” Interesting definition of “useful.” Also, I am no PR consultant.”
I have not argued “in circles” but have made clear statements of fact and have referred you to full explanation of my points.
Intermittent supply of electricity that merely displaces supply from continuously operating power stations is NOT “useful”: it is an expensive bloody nuisance.
I did not say you are a PR Consultant. I said;
“you have responded to my comment in the typical manner of a wind power PR Consultant”.
That is true.
And California has suffered scheduled brownouts over many years. It is not an example that supports your erroneous assertions.
Richard
@ur momisugly Richard S. Courtney, re clear statements of fact. No, you have made erroneous statements of non-facts, easily and clearly rebutted.
Wind-energy in its current version is a bit like a man pushing a heavy wagon up a long hill (the power grid without wind-energy). Then some other people (wind-turbines) join in for a while and help him push. The energy the man expends is considerably less while the others pitch in to help. You may consider such reduction in energy expended useless, and you certainly have the right to hold that opinion. It is a curious thing to stubbornly maintain that a bit more than 1000 MW of electrical production is “useless.” By the way, Texas has quite a bit more than 1000 MW of wind-generated electrical power. Is that also “useless?”
Linking California wind-power to “scheduled brownouts,” whatever those are, is truly a stretch. California did have a brief period years ago when earlier regulations (not related to wind-energy) caused a shortage of generating capacity. There was also market manipulation by Enron and others – again, not related to wind-energy. There have been zero power supply shortages since both of those issues were corrected – installed more gas-fired power plants, and changed the pricing mechanism. Do you seriously believe what you just wrote?
The fact is, as I wrote in comments on an earlier WUWT post, that wind energy in California is never likely to be a problem for the grid because the grid provides enormous amounts of power and wind-energy is a relatively small amount of that. The grid here supplies roughly 300,000 GWh per year on average, and wind-energy is roughly 6,000 GWh of that, or about 2 percent. Your erroneous beliefs do not change the facts.
Roger Sowell:
At June 19, 2010 at 10:57 am you assert:
“@ur momisugly Richard S. Courtney, re clear statements of fact. No, you have made erroneous statements of non-facts, easily and clearly rebutted. ”
OK, then rebut my clear statements of fact. I like to be shown when I am wrong because then I learn. However, nobody can learn anything from your propogandist assertions that ignore my substantive point. I again remind you that my substantive point is
“Intermittent supply of electricity that merely displaces supply from continuously operating power stations is NOT “useful”: it is an expensive bloody nuisance.”
If that is “erroneous” and if that is “non-fact” which is “easily and clearly rebutted” then you should have no difficulty in refuting it. Please try.
Richard
@richard —
Only addressing the transmission lines: How much electricity, 24/7/365.25, do Hoover Dam and Palo Verde supply to California? Note that this is basically two lines, supplying a large proportion of Southern California’s electricity. Moreover, this is all along major routes anyway; Phoenix-LA and Vegas-LA both have several major highway rights-of-way along them.
You’ve said a) that the wind plants are spread out all over the state, and b) that one day they even supplied 40 GWh of power. OK. Spread out means high-voltage lines all over, each carrying, on the average, a trivial amount of power. But as I said, the lines have to have the full plate capacity of the plant, even though the best average number you came up with is about a fifth. Note now that the very best all these wonderful turbines (many of which have long been abandoned and are disintegrating) can produce is the equivalent of 1.6 GW of coal or gas plant, which can be placed in units of appropriate size close to the end users, and require around three orders of magnitude less real estate.
I also note that none of the California wind plants have been placed in Yosemite. In the East and Northwest, unfortunately we don’t have the vast areas of desert that you have in California. (You apparently love desert so much there that you’ve allowed the EPA to return the Central Valley to that condition.) If you have no appreciation for natural landscape, please don’t assume that nobody else does.
As to skittering useless power, read essentially any actual reports by European grid operators. Denmark and Germany have specifically stopped building new wind plants because their grids can’t take any more — and these are thoroughly modern grids — as confirmed by E.ON, one of the largest contractors over there. And the penetration in Germany is only around 5%.
Don’t be ridiculous. Wind power on an industrial scale is a crime against economics, physics, ecology, psychology, and aesthetics. It has to be stopped, now.
Hi Anthony, Just thought I might point out a couple of things about Newcastle that you’re probably not aware of…
-The turbine rarely works – has something to do with the low friction bearings on the front rusting up from being inactive for long periods. Salt air does it apparently.
-The CSIRO has a big research center near there – if you turned right at the T intersection instead of left, you would have seen the finest minds in Oz, being paid to cock about with paper fans, plastic straws & mirrors to produce expensive electricity.
-Behind the Town Hall, is the Civic Theater. There’s a big power meter on the wall there that tells us how much electricity is being used in the area, compared to the national average. It too is illuminated at all hours by a 1Kw lighting system…
-Not even most Novocastrians know of this, but on top of the hill there, was a big old dirty coal fired power plant. The building is still there in part, though the generators are now long gone 🙁 The company that owned it “NESCA” was the one responsible for financing & constructing many of the public facilities around the Newcastle area – like the Civic park & much of the foreshore area just to pick a couple of well-known points out of my head. Even though the company doesn’t technically exist anymore, the name still crops up in older parts of the city.
Craig Goodrich:
Surely, your comment at June 19, 2010 at 6:48 pm should be addressed to Roger Sowell, and not to me.
I agree all you say (as anybody can see from my above comments).
Richard
And in Ontario, Canada, the implementation of wind power has resulted in an extremely alarming erosion of freedom of speech (and possibly thought):
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/opp-calling-us-resisters-phone-calls-visits-background-checks-on-wco-members/
Here is a very apropos link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/7840035/Firms-paid-to-shut-down-wind-farms-when-the-wind-is-blowing.html
“The National Grid fears that on breezy summer nights, wind farms could actually cause a surge in the electricity supply which is not met by demand from businesses and households.
The electricity cannot be stored, so one solution – known as the ‘balancing mechanism’ – is to switch off or reduce the power supplied.
The system is already used to reduce supply from coal and gas-fired power stations when there is low demand. But shutting down wind farms is likely to cost the National grid – and ultimately consumers – far more. When wind turbines are turned off, owners are being deprived not only of money for the electricity they would have generated but also lucrative ‘green’ subsidies for that electricity.”
Insane.
Wally the walrus
Hi, I hope you aren’t one of those 3 million year old walruses that Exxon and those other ragbags pretend to be protecting in the Gulf of Mexico are you?
My point is..if there is a better way of doing things, then let’s do them. Arguing over how much co2 is here or there is a waste of time and energy. I am sorry that the arguement between the climate change believers and deniers has now split down the middle, with both sides suffering the same delusions and paranoias about world conspiracies to hide the ‘truth’. I am no scientist, and depend on what I see, hear, taste, touch, feel and think. I reckon it is unwise to carry on business as usual with an industry that enslaved the world to bring us light through a bulb. If there is another way a better way, a cleaner, greener way, then let’s do it now.
Hmmmm….let’s see here…If i were in a place where electricity was free, or had a negative value at night due to an excess of wind-energy, what would I do?
If I had to run an air conditioner, or a building heater, I would do the following. I would install a chilled water system to chill and then store very cold water that would then be circulated the next day. My chilled water system would operate only at night with the free or negatively-valued electricity. I might even install an ice-making system, or an industrial brine system.
For my building’s heat requirements, whether space heating or hot water demand, I would install a thermal storage system, perhaps employing a hot oil, that would only draw power at night with the free or negatively-valued electricity.
Both, or either system, would increase the grid load at night, thereby balancing the production and load.
I would then request (nay, demand) that my electric utility provide me with time-of-day metering so that my water chiller and oil heater would consume only the cheapest power, at night.
Perhaps this is too obvious.
A major university in Los Angeles, University of Southern California, did exactly that with the chilled water system. Oh dear, another existence proof!
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/10480.html
It might even be economically attractive to use the excess power at night to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen, then store the hydrogen for use as supplemental fuel in a gas or coal-fired power plant.
So many possibilities.
“Hugh Hunt says:
[…]
industry that enslaved the world to bring us light through a bulb.”
Hugh, what have you been writing your message on? On a computer?
@richard S Courtney (June 20, 2010 at 12:27 am) —
Apologies, you are quite right; the response should have been addressed to Roger. Thanks for your excellent posts.
@DirkH — Hugh uses a mechanical computer. Please don’t force him to reply a lot; it overworks the hamsters and PETA gets all upset.
“If it were their purpose then they would not be built because no wind turbine provides any useful electricity to a grid at any time. ”
Whisky, tango, foxtrot?
“Wind turbines are okay.
But;
It must show it is competitive in a free marked. If subsidies is neccessary, that in itself is proving its just not competitive.”
I don’t know about other countries, but there’s no free market here in energy. Everything is subsidized. If subsidies prove something isn’t competitive, there goes oil and coal!
Really, I’m surprised people haven’t caught on to something: power producers harp on about the possibility of turbines causing dangerous surges because their existing plants can’t be throttled down. So all the anti-green activists then start screaming about the evil windmills. Did everyone miss that the plants cannot be throttled up and down based on capacity and demand?
Your local power plant is likely going full-tilt, all the time, even when most people are asleep and the lights are out. We’re fighting to protect that daffy system? That’s insane.
Looks like the windmill isn’t even functioning! It’s a memorial to a failed experiment!
http://angryexile.blogspot.com/2010/06/rage-rage-against-lying-of-lights.html
regeya:
You have made two postings here. Your first is at June 21, 2010 at 11:14 am. It quotes me then says(in total);
“Whisky, tango, foxtrot?”
I have no idea what that obscure comment is supposed to mean and, therefore, I cannot addess it.
Your second comment is at June 21, 2010 at 11:19 am and includes this gem:
“Your local power plant is likely going full-tilt, all the time, even when most people are asleep and the lights are out. We’re fighting to protect that daffy system? That’s insane.”
No! It is not “insane”: it is very sensible if the system is to respond to fluctuations in power demand such that frequent power cuts are avoided.
The grid has to match its provision of power to the varying demand for power. Too little power supplied to the grid and the lights go out. But too much power supplied to the grid and components of the grid will fail (so the lights go out). If you know of any technology that could provide similar ability for the grid to match demand to the varying supply then please patent it because then you will make a fortune and the rest of us will benefit from cheaper electricity.
What is “insane” is adding the unpredictable variability of wind powr to the supplies to the grid. That requires even more thermal power plants to operate as a method to manage the additional risk of system failures. Indeed, additional power plants need to be constructed so they can operate to enable the wind farms to operate when wind power is more than 20% of anticipated peak demand from the grid.
Richard
[REPLY – He means, “What the . . . heck?” ~ Evan]
Perhaps the answer is fusion power. But I do recall hearing one social philosopher who was appalled at the idea of cheap fusion power because there would be “no limit to growth” and we would eventually end up with a ‘Blade Runner’ world of wall-to-wall urban areas with no space left over for free-living wild animals. He might see wind power as an advantage because it would only support a limited population.
Evan:
Thankyou for your explanation. If ‘regeya’ does mean what you suggest, then his/her obscure comment merely demonstrates that he/she failed to read my explanation before commenting on it. As I first said above at June 18, 2010 at 4:06 am and repeated several times above:
“Wind turbines operate intermittently: they only generate electricity when the wind is sufficiently strong but not too strong. So, they do not supply continuously available power to the grid. And thermal power stations take days to start up so they cannot be started and stopped so they have to keep operating during the times when wind turbines supply electricity. Hence, when wind turbines supply electricity to a grid they merely displace a thermal power station on to spinning standby (so the power station continues to operate with little if any reduction to its fuel consumption and emissions) or to operate at reduced output (so the power station operates at reduced efficiency that may increase – yes, INCREASE – its fuel consumption and emissions). I provide a more full explanation of this at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf”
Assuming your explanation is correct, then I have repeatedly addressed his/her point in above posts and I have done so again here.
Richard
1. Insects are attracted by light sources.
2. Insect impact (bug splatter) is also a major cause of aerodynamic efficiency losses in wind turbines.
So in alarmist-speak, the light is not only a negative forcing in the overall output of the turbine, but also “most likely” provides a negative feedback by increasing the insect density relative to ambient nighttime conditions.
Ooh, ooh! May I have a multi-million dollar grant to study this? Australia seems so nice. Pretty please?