The Letter from Mr Nick Wragg suggests that I am making false claims about wind farms, however I don't need to as the data is readily available and most people in South Gippsland are well aware the ones in this region are underperforming. Nick says that on average wind farms produce 30-35% of their maximum capacity which is what the Bracks Government and the wind industry use to calculate the number of households to be supplied with electricity and the amount of greenhouse gas that can be saved. It might have been legitimate to use this capacity factor range four or five years ago when we didn't know any better but data from operating wind farms in Australia now reveals that a much lower range should be used.

Nick Wragg is a victim of confusion over the capacity of wind turbines. A common confusion which arises from the exaggerated claims of the wind industry.

The wind industry claims to be able to generate power 30 to 35% of the time, but this is not a useful measure. Wind cannot be accurately predicted, so other sources of power have to be "on tap". Consequently, only 10% of the rated capacity of wind turbines is relied upon in planning overall power supply. [In Germany paradoxically it is even less because they have many more turbines.] Therefore, 90% of the rated capacity of wind turbines must be backed up by coal and other generators! Wind is a very costly form of power and makes little contribution in reducing greenhouse gases. The Bracks Government is wasting our money in promoting the development of wind turbines. There are other and much more effective answers.

Reg Brownell

 

I was pleased to see the letters from Andrew Chapman and Nick Wragg on windpower. They illustrate that there are different views on the productivity of wind turbines; but it is important that we all understand that there cannot be different facts; although sadly, some groups with specific political or commercial agendas, are not above trying to spin the facts to fit preconceived conclusions. Public debate is an excellent channel for bringing out the facts and, ultimately, drawing the right conclusions from them.

Windpower developers, despite some wonderfully pious statements to the contrary, are in business to make money. Beyond the absolute imperative of maintaining the subsidy awarded by Bracks to wind energy, the primary requirement in maximizing profit is for the developer to choose the windiest sites as close as possible to power transmission infrastructure. I think it is reasonable to presume that the developers are capable of this task.

So despite the developers having chosen windy sites, it is fact that the currently operating projects are not meeting claims for their output. In fact the output ranges from 15% to 22% of rated capacity with the average below 20%.

These numbers are very different to the 30 to 35% mentioned by Nick Wragg which is, coincidently, the number put out by the wind industry and the various government agencies.

I think the argument on output will abate as the proponents of windpower are led to recognise the facts and move to protect themselves from criticism, which seems to be gathering pace, albeit slowly, at this time.

There are a number of other unsatisfactory aspects of windpower including the very poor efficacy as a reducer of greenhouse gas; its destructive effects on the lives and land values of the surrounding communities that are literally forced to host these projects; and, of course, the harmful effect on landscape and wildlife. I invite Nick Wragg to write on these topics, perhaps one at a time, so that we may entertain, and ultimately inform, your readers.

Peter Mitchell

Beaufort, Victoria

 

Mr Wragge's letter (Star, date?), taking an earlier correspondent, Mr Andrew Chapman, to task, is unfortunately itself full of nonsense. I note that Mr Wragge quotes no sources to support his claims of a 30-35 % capacity factor for Victorian windfarms - he clearly has private, secret access to an unnamed authority, access he seems unwilling to share with the rest of us.

Let's be very, very clear. The windfarms along coastal Victoria achieve a best capacity factor of 22 - 26%. Perhaps Mr Wragge should read the annual reports of Stanwell Corporation where the Toora windfarm annual capacity factors are published: they range over 22 - 26% during the last four years. Perhaps Mr Wragge should have a look at what little other data is publicly available: a pathetic 19 % for the Wonthaggi wind farm. It might interest Mr Wragge that the two small windfarms in NSW have best achieved capacity factors of 22% and 15% respectively.

Perhaps this pathetic performance is why the wind industry is so secretive about the real performance of windfarms anywhere.

Mr Wragge seems to have misread the German data, making the very mistake of which he accuses Mr Chapman: the likely firm capacity in Germany is all of 4%, while the overall capacity factor is a whopping 10 %. Perhaps this massive underperformance by wind is the reason why Germany, with its 20,000 or so wind turbines, is going cap-in-hand to its EU partners to beg that it might build 26 more coal-fired powerstations in the next 10 years or so. So much for the clean energy development in Germany.

Turning to firm capacity data: Mr Wragge might like to explain why Dr Macaulay of the NEM, in a recent presentation, has given a figure of 8% as the firm capacity for windfarms in South Australia. Also it would seem from the same source that the SA windfarms appear to have the best performance of the mainland windfarms.

Mr Wragge might also like to explain why the relatively small amount of installed windfarm capacity, as outline in another presentation from the NEM, is already causing massive instability problems for the Australian grid.

It seems that the person who really is confused, and, perhaps unwittingly, spreading misinformation, is Mr Wragge. The only contributors "to stunting our clean energy development", as Mr Wragge puts it, are in fact the subsidy collectors of the wind industry pushing the great wind energy con, and of course its supporters such as Mr Wragge.

Paul Miskelly

Taralga NSW

 

Toora Wind Farm is yet to operate at 25% of capacity Stanwells own figures show that the highest rate ever achieved for a single year was 24.1% and most years operates at around 21%. Wonthaggi was late last year according to company figures operating at only19% of capacity and that was when all six turbines were operating anybody who bothers to look will notice most of this year there has been five only In operation and recently I notice only four are working. As for the possibility of more than 52 Turbines being built at Bald Hills a new permit would be required as it was the last time the proponents sought to alter the number of turbines. Mr Newbold I feel sure is just trying to wind South Gippslanders up as he slinks away to greener pastures.

Don Jelbart, Tarwin Lower.

The Letter from Mr Nick Wragg suggests that I am making false claims about wind farms, however I don't need to as the data is readily available and most people in South Gippsland are well aware the ones in this region are underperforming.

Nick says that on average wind farms produce 30-35% of their maximum capacity which is what the Bracks Government and the wind industry use to calculate the number of households to be supplied with electricity and the amount of greenhouse gas that can be saved. It might have been legitimate to use this capacity factor range four or five years ago when we didn't know any better but data from operating wind farms in Australia now reveals that a much lower range should be used.

In South Gippsland, the Toora wind farm was forecast to achieve 40% of its maximum capacity, however Stanwell's Website reveals it was operating at only about 20% but after five of the 12 turbines broke down it would be a meagre 11%. The Wonthaggi wind farm company supplied power generation data for June last year which revealed it was producing only 19% of total capacity instead of the 33% stated by the company. During this period it drew more power from the grid than it produced for 16% of the time and produced less than 10% of its maximum capacity for 57% of the time Since then, one turbine has ceased operation further reducing output by about three percent.

The experience in South Gippsland, of underperforming wind farms, is not unusual as in NSW the Blaney wind farm long term output was only 22% of its maximum capacity whilst the Crookwell wind farm long term output fell as low as 14.7%. In SA the Lake Bonney wind farm performed so poorly that the company had to advise its investors. It is now fairly obvious that Bracks Government and the wind industry are significantly overstating the benefits of wind farms and a more realistic capacity factor range would be 14-22%. There is no guaranteed level of power output from wind farms so even with a figure as low as 8% of maximum capacity, conventional power generation backup is still required. The poor performance of wind farms is causing increasing concern amongst investors including the Queensland Government who announced it would be selling off its wind farms to fund useful renewable energy projects.

Wind farms seemed like a good idea at the time, but now with a better understanding we see they cannot provide any long term benefits and their negative impacts far outweigh any benefits. All governments should, like the Beattie Government, abandon wind farms and focus on worthwhile initiatives like assisting the installation of solar hotwater services. The reduction in electricity consumption and greenhouse gas production will be greater and more cost-effective in the long term.

Andrew Chapman