![wind-turbine[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/wind-turbine1.jpg?quality=83)
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Breitbart – Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, whose recently appointed a commissioner to handle complaints about wind farms, has just instructed the government Clean Energy Corporation not to subsidise any new wind farm projects.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald;
Tony Abbott has dramatically escalated his war on wind power, creating a new cabinet split and provoking a warning he is putting international investment at risk.
Fairfax Media can reveal the government has ordered the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation not to make any new investments in wind power projects.
Treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann have issued the so-called green bank with a directive to change its investment mandate, prohibiting new wind funding. It’s understood the directive was issued without the approval or knowledge of Environment Minister Greg Hunt, angering the minister.
The decision is another blow for the multibillion-dollar wind industry, which has just started to recover from the uncertainty created by the government’s Renewable Energy Target review. Analysts say $8.7 billion is expected to be invested in wind power in the next five years, while the corporation has invested about $300 million in wind projects to date.
The Australian Abbott government has twice been unable to muster the numbers in the senate, to pass legislation to abolish the commission. But they’ve done the next best thing – they’ve demanded the commission focus on developing new technology.
… The government has previously said it wants the corporation to focus on investing in innovative clean energy proposals and technologies rather than mature technologies that can be financed by mainstream lenders.
Senator Cormann and Mr Hockey amended the mandate for the first time earlier this year, directing the corporation to lift its targeted returns without lifting its risk profile.
The government has twice tried to abolish the corporation but has been blocked by the Senate. The bill to abolish the corporation is a potential double dissolution election trigger. …
Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey shares Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s concerns about wind turbines – in 2014 he described wind turbines as “utterly offensive”.
The wind industry has regularly claimed for years that their technology is close to cost parity with coal. So I expect the withdrawal of government subsidies for wind turbines will have no impact on future wind projects.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
At the recent 10th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE, one of the speakers , Wolfgang Muller,, General Secretary of European Institute for Climate and Energy reported on the German experience with wind turbines and solar panels . They have 72,000 MW of installed renewable energy, 35000 MW in wind turbines and 37,400 MW in solar panels. The combined performance is that 75% of the time the output is less than 20% of the nameplate capacity. 90 % of the time the wind turbine output is below 30% of the name plate capacity. The output of the solar panels is just as poor, with 55% of the time the output is blow 10% of capacity. Fortunately they have coal or nuclear backup and access to an international grid, otherwise blackouts and brown outs would be a frequent occurrence. Alarmists who propose to eliminate all fossil fuel usage and go entirely to renewables are misleading the public about what is practical or feasible even with batteries. If you cannot produce the power because of lack of wind or sun, batteries are of little help. Fossil fuel, hydro, or nuclear backup is absolutely necessary with renewable energies . The G7 leaders who recently came back from a summit in Europe proclaiming that the world should aim for fossil fuel free world by the end of this century, their goal appears to be just political nonsense . Even as they stated this proclamation , Germany, a senior G7 member is replacing all their 17 nuclear power plants with 23 new coal fired plants . So who is kidding the world about renewables and the feasibility of eliminating of fossil fuel. .
Information about world wide subsidies for various energy types
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Energy-Subsidies-and-External-Costs/
With electricity prices so high already in Australia , more subsidies is the last thing they need
.http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-electricity-prices-kwh
With electricity prices so high in Australia , more subsidies is the last thing that they need
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-electricity-prices-kwh
Wind powered turbines,
It’s now time to call them
Unnecessary solutions
To an imaginary problem.
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/when-the-turbines-are-slowing-in-the-wind/
The Abbott government is addressing all those green commitments made by the former Gillard government that were unfunded commitments reliant on continued borrowings. The Gillard government took Australia from a country of no federal debt to one that borrows $100 million a day, and now the Abbott government is having to deal with the consequences.
Climate change is not a global priority because climate has always changed and more interestingly, nobody even knows just how it will change in the future or when it will change. Abbott, however, has to deal with the present to ensure Australia can deal with the future by not allowing Australia to get even close to the debacle that Greece now finds it in. Hence, Abbott is showing fiscal responsibility by cutting unnecessary expenditure such as green subsidies.
“Tony Abbott has dramatically escalated his war on wind power, creating a new cabinet split and provoking a warning he is putting international investment at risk.”
—-
Question: Is it really “international investment” if you are giving them the funds from the national tax revenue collections to build the thing in the first place? It seems to me to be “national investment” with international stock ownership, which, by the by, is coming from those that like not having any risk in their portfolios.
Excellent. I wish the US would do the same.
“War on wind power” laugh out loud. These people invested money into a unsustainable boondoggle that was padded with beaucoup tax subsidies. Once the subsidies are removed, the project is no longer viable. Cry me a river.
They are worried about losing foreign investment? Ask someone from Ontario Canada how that wind energy is working for them. Samsung got a long term contract of about 20 years. Samsung was originally collecting about 85 cent per kilowatt hour when the average rate was about 5 cents per kwh. At times of surplus we shut idled the gas powered plants or sold the excess to the US at the 5 cent rate. We pay through the nose and lose when they sell it to the US. At the very onset, they warned Ontarians that the rate of electricity would go up 145% over several years. I think that the losing that particular foreign investment might be a good thing for Australia. I wish we could do the same. Congratulations to them on seeing through this alarmists’ scam.
Bill Gates has recently said much the same thing a few days ago.
In an interview with the UK Financial Times he said that current renewable technologies could only reduce global CO2 emissions at a “beyond astronomical” economic cost. And so he said the focus should be on much more R&D and innovation.
Financial Times report:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4f66ff5c-1a47-11e5-a130-2e7db721f996.html#axzz3fm3rywiJ
Australia has access to the same grid competitive, utility scale solar that has now reached competitive status without subsidy. This requires 1) recognition of the facts in real time and 2) effective communications on this situation and its obvious implications for changing government programs and mindsets. Otherwise the same out of date arguments will proceed from advocacy groups and the uncompetitive solar and wind players. Voters need regular updates on relative costs in renewable energy and information to judge uncompetitive players and their arguments.
Sandy of LIMOUSIN
This is a summary of what your post indicated. Not only is there a problem with the lack of wind but the units have mechanical problems and wear out prematurely , Why would anyone want to subsidize this failed industry
Wear and Tear Hits Wind Farm Output and Economic Lifetime
Posted on December 20, 2012 by Lochgelly in Environment with 2 Comments on Wear and Tear Hits Wind Farm Output and Economic Lifetime .
.
The Renewable Energy Foundation today published a new study, The Performance of Wind Farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark, showing that the economic life of onshore wind turbines is between 10 and 15 years, not the 20 to 25 years projected by the wind industry itself, and used for government projections.
The work has been conducted by one of the UK’s leading energy & environmental economists, Professor Gordon Hughes of the University of Edinburgh, and has been anonymously peer-reviewed. This groundbreaking study applies rigorous statistical analysis to years of actual wind farm performance data from wind farms in both the UK and in Denmark.
The results show that after allowing for variations in wind speed and site characteristics the average load factor of wind farms declines substantially as they get older, probably due to wear and tear. By 10 years of age the contribution of an average UK wind farm to meeting electricity demand has declined by a third.
This decline in performance means that it is rarely economic to operate wind farms for more than 12 to 15 years. After this period they must be replaced with new machines, a finding that has profound consequences for investors and government alike.
Regards the 100% claim for Danish windpower, this 2005 report sets that record straight. (I doubt if it has got windier there, since 2005.
This pdf also reports that there were 54 windless days in 2002 in Denmark. So much for Denmark always being windy.
And it then goes on to report that Denmark has NEVER USED ANY OF ITS WIND POWER. Trouble is, the wind is too variable, and it overwhelms the base-load power generation (even in 2005), so they export the power to Scandinavia and Germany. If you look at the interconnector balance graph in fig 13, all of Denmark’s excess wind power is exported (at a thumping great economic loss).
Since I doubt that any new energy-sinks have been devised since 2005, I’m sure that this is still the case – Denmark gives all its wind power away to its neighbours. (Hint – variable wind can be integrated with throttleable hydro, but Denmark does not have any large mountains. So the Scandinavians are laughing.)
http://incoteco.com/upload/CIEN.158.2.66.pdf
Ralph
Sorry, I forgot to point out that fig 6 shows in this pdf report shows that Danish load factors are actually worse than the UK. In 2005, Denmark was only averaging 20% load factor. Significantly less than this absurd Greeny claim of 100%.
You know, people who make such claims should be jailed, because this is fr@ud. If a bank said they were giving 20% interest rates, and then only averaged a 5% interest rate, the bank would be fined and the managers would be jailed.** These 100% load factor claims are no different. There are many people who will benefit financially from these fr@udulent claims, so they should be treated in the same fashion.
Ralph
** On second thoughts, recent experience shows that bank managers also get away with financial muurder.
“The wind industry has regularly claimed for years that their technology is close to cost parity with coal. So I expect the withdrawal of government subsidies for wind turbines will have no impact on future wind projects.”
How droll.
Do you suppose any wind power advocate will get your point?
The cost comparison between coal/fossil and wind /solar is not at par or equal. The cost comparisons leave out some extra costs that should be added to the turbine /solar option. As the GERMAN experience clearly shows, 75 % of the time the renewables produce less than 20% of the nameplate capacity. So back up power has to be purchased which comes from coal or nuclear. The capital cost to build and carry 75% of additional back-up power for renewables is not included. Also as the UK and Danish experience shows, the wind turbines have a lower useful life of 12-15 years due to excessive wear and tear. Coal plants last 40-60years. The median existing US coal fired generating station was built in 1966; A third was built in the 1950’s. This extra cost to replace prematurely failing turbines is also not included. The EPA seem to have stacked the regulations for coal so much that , it is now almost impossible to build a coal fired plant in US. Duke Energy Carolinas Cliffside project cost was estimated at $2 BILLION for two units in 2006. It is now estimated to be $ 1.8 BILLION for only one unit. New coal fired plants now cost about $3500/ kW. They used to be $1500-1800/kW. On shore Wind turbines run about $2500/kwh. Off shore turbines run about $ 6000/kw. Solar photovoltaic run about $4000/kw