There are few cardinal sins in politics – but campaigning on behalf of your opponent has to be one of them. So when news broke this week that the British Conservative Party MP Chris Heaton Harris had boasted on camera of providing resources and support to an opposition anti-wind farm candidate in order to “cause some hassle”, it was widely expected that the axe would fall.
But instead, as the story developed, it transpired that this was a trail that led to the very centre of the Conservative Party.
In the end, the manouverings came to naught – Labour won the by-election easily, the first time it has taken a seat from the Tories in a by-election since just before Tony Blair’s seismic 1997 general election victory.
Heaton-Harris was caught in an undercover sting by the environmental campaign group Greenpeace. He was bragging that he had backed the anti-wind farm election campaign of the blogger and self-publicist James Delingpole, a far-right commentator whose pantomime-villain outbursts are typically treated as undeserving of serious engagement. Among the climate-sceptic elements of the Conservative Party, however, Delingpole appears to have carved out a role for himself as the mouthpiece for views that they dare not air in public.
Delingpole stood down as a candidate in the Corby by-election several weeks ago, prior to the video emerging. But not before the energy minister, John Hayes, gave an interview declaring that “enough was enough” for on shore wind. This was seemingly in direct contrast to official government policy, which favours a range of renewable technologies as part of an increasingly low-carbon energy mix.
And in potentially even more serious developments, a second Greenpeace film appeared to show the Chancellor, George Osborne, implicated in a plot to withdraw government support for onshore wind. This is despite its huge value to the British economy as a fully operational low-carbon technology.
When David Cameron boldly proclaimed that his would be the “greenest government ever”, following his election in 2010, he must have known the boast would come back to haunt him. And, although the UK is (currently) a world leader in terms of legally binding carbon reduction targets, some members of the Conservative Party look like they are doing everything they can to ensure these targets are unlikely to be met.
The Conservative central command would like to paint anti-wind zealots like Heaton-Harris as existing on the lunatic fringe of the party. But increasingly, it is looking like the MPs who represent the rural constituencies where wind turbines are typically sited are having a disproportionate effect on the Conservative Party. Although there has been no formal shift in energy policy, the “mood music” around the environment on the British right is worrying.
To be clear: opposing the siting of a wind farm cannot be equated with climate change scepticism. But the willingness of Conservative party representatives to promote and publicise the views of hardline anti-environmentalists like James Delingpole does not send out a good signal. And opposing on-shore wind without suggesting an alternative policy for reducing levels of carbon dioxide is tantamount to dismissing the risks that climate change poses.
The relationship between climate change scepticism and political ideology has been documented repeatedly and consistently in the US, the UK and Australia. But how to address it is an altogether trickier question.
There is a proud tradition of conservation and respect for the natural environment in the history of British Conservatism. But the “conserve” part of conservatism currently seems to apply only to the hyper-local, with debate focusing on the aesthetics of wind-farms instead of the value of clean, green energy for the whole of the UK.
Ultimately, the Conservative Party will lose its hard-fought status as an (allegedly) moderate, modern, compassionate, centre-right group if it associates itself with the extreme views of individuals like Delingpole. If the Conservatives don’t want wind farms across the UK, their challenge is to identify and implement another set of policies that will allow Britain’s carbon targets to be achieved – with the consent of the electorate.
Despite the noises coming from climate-sceptic Conservative MPs, wind farms – and renewable technologies in general – are very popular with the public. They are certainly more popular than nuclear power or fossil fuels.
Few credible energy future scenarios see no role for on-shore wind. If the Conservatives have evidence to the contrary, they should speak up. If not, they need to find a way of convincing their voters that climate change is the biggest threat to the environment that they supposedly want to conserve so much – not the wind turbines that can provide clean, abundant energy for the future.
James Jenkin
EFL Teacher Trainer
'... the blogger and self-publicist James Delingpole, a far-right commentator whose pantomime-villain outbursts are typically treated as undeserving of serious engagement"
The Conversation proudly promotes its 'academic rigour'. Yet surely this is just ad hominem student newspaper stuff.
And I'm a leftie by the way.
Adam Corner
Research Associate, Understanding Risk at Cardiff University
Have you read any of Delingpole's blogs? Or the way he answers/responds to people on social media? That wasn't an off-hand comment - it is the most accurate description for him I can think of. My honest view is that his primary aim is to generate attention for himself - what he is arguing about is often of secondary importance. His whole approach is to goad/provoke people, he will then often retreat to say he was only 'joking' later on. So, yes, its a critical description, but in this case who he is is matters a great deal (re: credibility of mainstream political party like Conservatives), so I don't think its inappropriate to include comment on that
Sean Lamb
Science Denier
Generally I enjoy reading James Delingpole, although I don't share his political views. Somewhat like Mark Steyn or an intelligent Andrew Bolt.
Libertarian rather than far right is a better term for an Australian audience. IN the Australian context far right sounds like Anders Breivik or the Golden Dawn, whereas in British academic circles it merely means anyone further along the spectrum than Boris Johnson.
Mike Hansen
Mr
"And I'm a leftie by the way"
When did that conversion happen James?
Here you are 4 months ago whining that "any post that says a carbon tax is ineffective, the media should self-regulate, gay marriage shouldn't be legal, or regulation to help people lose weight or stop gambling is counter-productive, will receive negative ratings."
https://theconversation.edu.au/the-three-ps-of-climate-change-and-agriculture-7419
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Facebook
@James, Delingpole is what he is, not only a climate change denier and self publicist, he invents his own facts, you can find some of his inventive prose in The Australian (just search for Delingpole and windfarms).
Telling the truth about somebody is not an ad hominem attack.
Sean Lamb
Science Denier
Nothing leftwing about junk science Mr Hansen.
Nor is there anything leftwing about welfare for corporations and vested interests.
\From Mr Delingpole himself
"Here, roughly, is how the spoils will be divided among the troughers at Ovenden Moor. The landowner will be paid £401,000 pa, index-linked, for the next 25 years. The developer will get an income of around £2,679,300 pa, index-linked, over the same period. The vast bulk of this will come straight from the taxpayer in the form of compulsory subsidies, payable even if the turbines produce no power."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100189946/greenpeace-stunt-backfires-we-mustnt-laugh/
Oh my, what right wing extremism.
Mike Hansen
Mr
@Sean Lamb
"Nothing leftwing about junk science Mr Hansen."
Absolutely Sean. Which is why climate science denial is almost exclusively the province of the far-right conservative from Andrew Bolt, the Tea Party to the UKIP stopping off to pick up Delingpole on the way.
As to wind turbine corporations, profits and the free market - could not agree more - shame, shame, shame. Are you suggesting a dose of nationalisation or perhaps my preferred option, the community owned wind farm? That would be unusually progressive of you.
Chris Harper
Engineer
What is now called far right was, until about twenty years ago, called liberal democracy.
These days anyone who doesn't advocate the sort of big government high spending policies which are destroying European society is a far right winger.
Far right winger = someone who advocates sane economic management.
Mike Hansen
Mr
@Chris Harper
What is now called far right are people who live in a Fox News fantasy bubble where the Reagan/Thatcher neo-liberal unravelling of the post-war welfare state did not happen. Where the wide scale privatisation of state assets did not happen.
Outside that bubble where the rest of us live, Europe is a place where governments ran up huge deficits when they were forced to bail out the banksters after the GFC. Where right-wing governments across Europe are practising austerity polices and slashing welfare spending to the extent that even the IMF and the World Bank are starting to blanch. Where states like Spain, Italy, Ireland in the deepest trouble had the among the lowest proportion of govt. spending relative to GDP prior to the crisis.
Nothing sane about people who continue to advocate the same policies that caused the crisis in the first place.
Chris Harper
Engineer
@Mike Hanson
Sigh,
Well, at least you object to the bailouts, you are prepared to face reality to that extent at least. One of my big objections to wind power is it is a mechanism for transferring wealth from the poor to the wealthy, with no accompanying benefit to anyone else at all.
‘Far right wing’ is just a smear used by progressives, meaning ‘holds opinions with which I disagree’ or ‘does not wish to use violence to expropriate money from others’. It once meant something very different – something to do with socialist ideologies like Fascism.
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
Delingpole and the Conservatives co-hand-in-hand, probably literally.
"The relationship between climate change scepticism and political ideology has been documented repeatedly and consistently in the US, the UK and Australia. But how to address it is an altogether trickier question."
We could start by pointing out the hypocrisy of people who ridicule science for ideological or political ends but happily fly on aircraft, use cellphones and medical technology when it suits them.
The anti-intellectual attitude displayed by many conservatives needs to be ridiculed in the same way we laugh at flat Earth proponents.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Blair, same rules apply to those who think wind turbines are going to reduce CO2 emissions and save the planet from turning into Venus - they too seem to have a conspiratory nature of thinking.
Maybe it is best to extract the scientific facts from both spectrums of extreme and get working on real solutions that do reduce pollution, noise and chemical, and focus all the rest of the rant there.
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
George, everybody knows you are opposed to renewables, a denialist and have a penchant for pseudoscience – which is why you consistently misrepresent what scientists and renewable energy proponents do say.
PS wind turbines do reduce CO2 emissions. South Australia provides an excellent example but of course you would deny this demonstrated fact because the evidence challenges your delusions and undermines what you think is a cause of your hypochondria, namely, wind turbines.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Blair the AEMO report was based on theoretical figures.
As for your ranting insults, I really wish I could bother myself asking you to prove such allegation in the court room - at least that would teach you to put your dollars where your irrational anger won't hold.
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
George, I know you have an aversion to facts but I am talking about real-world examples such as Katherine South Australia. Coal has been relegated to third place after wind and gas. Anything we have reports from organisations such as Bloomberg who don't seem to agree with your claims and prospects for wind energy.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/wind-accounts-for-58-of-energy-use-in-south-australia-75810
Read morehttp://designbuildsource.com.au/australian-greenhouse-emissions-decline-as-renewables-replace…
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
Edit: please ignore the reference to Katherine, any inadvertent typo
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Blair, clearly you are out of touch with reality. I challenge you to provide a bit of evidence on how much CO2 emissions wind turbines actually save and you go off on mad rant of personal attacks.
So you can't elaborate on the fact that the AEMO is using theoretical figure?
You think that 18 months of trying to work out what that highly distressing noise that travels up to 100km away in the worst case scenario was "pseudo science".
And you also have the audacity to say "everyone knows...". I'm afraid to say YOU don't know what people in my neighbourhood know about my strong environmental attitudes.
No wonder why I am so in sync about the harm with wind turbines do to people, whereas you venerate them like idols.
Conversation terminated - no more responses to your posts!
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
George, it's all pretty simple to understand, even for somebody has dull and in denial as yourself. Electricity demand has dropped over recent years, renewable energy is making up a greater percentage of the electricity that is generated and coal plants are being closed or put off line for extended periods.
So, if less coal is being used to produce electricity, the coal that would have been burnt is not producing CO2. Even allowing for the increasing gas-fired electricity, and remember, the folks…
Read moreGeorge Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Blair, I see you enjoy to argue. but for the sake of your entertainment I will bother myself to reiterate what I have already said.
Given what you say, it seems that you still can't quote a study which clearly demonstrates that wind turbines are significantly reducing CO2 emissions.
And you say: "You do practice pseudoscience if you believe sound from a turbine, or turbines, can travel 100 km" I reiterate that is what my observations suggest. If you have any problem with people making observations, then you should go cloister yourself up and rote read dogmatic literature.
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
George, thank you for confirming your comprehension is as abysmal as your understanding of basic science.
If you had bothered reading my last post before making an idiot of yourself, you would have seen the quote taken from Pitt & Sherry's report (study) referenced in the accompanying link mentioning the falloff in emissions in part due to renewables replacing coal.
In short, you are wrong. Again.
As for your so-called "observations", you once again prove you are incapable of honestly and objectively assessing information which as I pointed out earlier is probably due to your hypochondria.
Explain the inverse square law. If you cannot that will be further evidence you fail to understand why it impossible for the sound from a turbine to travel 100 km.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
My my! Snappy Blair at it again!
Blair you say that the Pit report mentions that: "the falloff in emissions in part due to renewables replacing coal" Well what part is due to wind turbines?
And have you forgotten what Professor Colby (wind industry favourite) said on ABC radio “Infrasound or extremely low frequency sound travels very long distances; around the world really. And there is no evidence that infrasound is any greater in the vicinity of wind turbines than it is elsewhere [even though there is], and in fact out brains and our ears are designed not to respond to that at all [even though the research by Alec Salt suggests otherwise].”
And have you forgotten the wind industry detail aid graph that Chapman quoted once upon a time that shows that audible noise emissions from wind turbines go of to a point of infinity after about 30dBA?
Conversation over - you are wasting my time!
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
George, read the report.
The keyword is infra-sound, i.e. sound you cannot hear, so unless you have the appropriate measuring equipment you cannot detect it.
"And there is no evidence that infrasound is any greater in the vicinity of wind turbines than it is elsewhere [even though there is]"
Thank you for contradicting Sarah Laurie, you know the self appointed medical director and CEO of the Waubra Foundation who assures us infra-sound is generated by turbines, is transmitted around the…
Read morePeter Lang
Retired geologist and engineer
George,
You may find this new paper interesting and useful in your attempts to educate the population at large.
It is an excellent paper on PV, but has relevance to other renewables as well. It is balanced, objective, well written and covers a broad spectrum of the issues and costs for PV embedded in the electricity network. There is a lot in this paper and those who take the time to read it carefully will learn a great deal.
George, you also asked Blair to provide evidence of how much…
Read moreGeorge Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
No percentage reduction of CO2 emission from wind turbines quoted in the paper Blair? And you're the one talking of pseudoscience...
And by the way where does Sarah Laurie say that wind turbine low frequency stops and 10km, and where do I say it stops at 100km?
Pseudoscience Blair is the willing distortion of facts isn't it? I hope your concern for your wind industry investments is creating all the hatred and malice is it?
Peter Lang
Retired geologist and engineer
Sorry, I forgot to include the link to this excellent new paper on PV by Graham Palmer:
"Household Solar Photovoltaics: Supplier of Marginal Abatement, or Primary Source of Low-Emission Power?"
http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/4/1406
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Peter, thank you for an informative post, as opposed to the nasty insults from Blair.
It would be interesting to see whether the proportion of wind energy in the grid and CO2 emission savings are proportional or not.
The figures you provide suggest they aren't - more wind energy appears to be a self limiting exercise.
Peter Lang
Retired geologist and engineer
Yes. As wind penetration increases it becomes less effective at reducing emissions. The actual figures are very dependent on the grid but for a grid with a mix like Ireland and South Australia, you might say, roughly, wind is about 50% effective at 20% wind energy penetration (i.e. with wind supplying 20% of electricity).
Figure 1 here is from a paper by Herbert Inhaber which shows an analysis of many papers of studies of empirical data. Recent papers show that the rate of reduction in effectiveness is not as bad as this earlier paper estimated, but the paper shows the trend.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/05/21/co2-avoidance-cost-wind/
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
For somebody who isn't going to respond any more, you're as incapable of following up your claims as you are of understanding anything about renewable energy.
"And by the way where does Sarah Laurie say that wind turbine low frequency stops and 10km, and where do I say it stops at 100km?"
I didn't. She is suggesting that windfarm shouldn't be built any closer than 10 km to houses. Draw your own conclusions. You didn't say it stops at 100 km, for all I know, that vacuum between your ears as probably formed the notion that infra-sound an audible sound can travel 12 ly from a wind turbine, but you're just funny like that. When lacking the evidence, you just make it up or misrepresent other people's comments.
I think you know more about pseudoscience than me, you practice it on a daily basis. Thanks for the chuckles George.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Blair, for the sake of the fact that you keep introducing new matters - not really for your entertainment - just being a little polite my dear.
If you can't comprehend Sarah Laurie's position and mine, we aren't talking about the travel of infrasound, but the extend to which people are getting ill, vs the limit that my ears can hear low frequency noise.
So pseudoscience, is the approach of those who wilfully misunderstand, deride, attack and misconstrue statements for the sake of hiding the truth.
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
George, you still haven't answered my question. Can you explain the inverse square law? I suspect not as you have introduced red herrings in each subsequent response rather than address my question.
Have no fear I comprehend both Sarah Laurie's and your position on the matter of windfarms. You're both in denial, seeking the limelight at every opportunity and moonlighting as credible witnesses when in fact, you are both incapable of presenting a rational argument or understanding the terminology and the technology.
In short, you both enjoy making up BS for your own shortsighted purposes.
"So pseudoscience, is the approach of those who wilfully misunderstand, deride, attack and misconstrue statements for the sake of hiding the truth."
Exactly, that's what you have been doing on a consistent basis. Your own words describe your actions perfectly.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Blair, before I answer your question (which I need not answer anyway), do you know of the law of "diminishing returns"?
In case you don't, it is a point after which one achieves less and less by engaging in a certain activity - such as discussing wind turbines with certain people who don't listen to what you have to say!
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
George, thank you for demonstrating your ignorance regarding the inverse square law. As for diminishing returns, yes, you're an object example. The more you talk, the less you have to say.
He is a question even you might be able to answer. Do you agree with the science of climate change? Yes or no will do. I suspect you're a conspiracy theorist but I'm hoping you might be able to surprise me.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Blair, your question is a bit off topic, but do you see me publicly attacking or rejecting the science behind climate change? If you don't then why ask the question?
Do you see my blogging on right-wind political sites? Do you see me owing shares in any energy companies? Do you see me receiving any funding from the coal industry?
The obvious problem is my bitter experience with wind turbines PERIOD.
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
George, once again you fail to answer a very simple question. So you are a climate change denialist, ignorant about wind turbine technology and you don't have any basic understanding of the physics of sound. No wonder you are so confused.
Your bitter experience with wind turbines is a figment of your imagination, most people live with them quite happily – maybe because they aren't quite as self-centred as you are. Try thinking positively about the benefits of wind energy.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Conspiracy theories and paranoid associations Blair! Maybe your favourite professor might have an answer to that one.
Next time an large earthquake happens make sure you tell journalists that sound only travels 2km. And next time you hear a jumbo jet rumbling away at great distance, just remind yourself you are imagining because you against fossil fuels...
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
George, now you're lying – again. I've never said sound only travels 2 km, the distance it travels depends on the power and intensity of the sound, the medium conducting the sound and any obstacles between the source and the receiver.
But you would know that if you understood even basic concepts. Once again you resort to red herrings to try and cover your ignorance. Comparing a jet engine or earthquake with a wind turbine illustrates just how poor your reasoning and objectivity is.
And by the way, I'm not against fossil fuels per se, I just can't see the point of spending a fortune polluting the planet using a nonrenewable source of energy when we can look after the planet and have clean, renewable energy as well.
I realise it's a notion beyond your comprehension.
aligatorhardt
logged in via Twitter
Here in the US, we can follow the money to see that nuclear and coal industries send a great deal of campaign funds to conservative candidates. Opposition to renewable energy goes right along with protecting profit streams for coal and nuclear power. Wind power lowers the wholesale spot price of electricity due to the lack of fuel costs, and this cuts down the profit margin of coal and nuclear power.
Comment removed by moderator.
Peter Lang
Retired geologist and engineer
Good, rational policy requires getting rid of the massive subsidies for renewable energy. The sooner its done the better. I applaud moves that will bring this era of irrational energy policy to an end.
Leo Kerr
Consultant
Good rational policy Peter would require getting rid of the massive subsidies for energy generation in general - levelling the playing field and not externalising the costs to society and the environment as is currently the case with fossil fuel based energy systems.
Peter Lang
Retired geologist and engineer
"This is despite its huge value to the British economy as a fully operational low-carbon technology."
What total nonsense. Who is so gullible as to believe this rubbish?
Who amongst the Conversation's regular bloggers realise just how little CO2 emissions are avoided by wind generation and what the CO2 abatement cost is?
(see figure 6 here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/ )
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
The scenario Mr Lang has costed is 30% wind.
The LCOE for various generating technologies ($US/MWh. Source US DOE):
Wind 96.8; Nuclear 112.7; PV 156.9; Biomass 120.2; Solar Thermal 251.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
The EROEI for various technologies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI
Wind has the highest EROEI of all renewable technologies except hydro and is approx. double nuclear.
Peter Lang
Retired geologist and engineer
The figures Mr Murphy has quoted a re for technology costs only. They are not costs when embedded in the system and are not for Australia. For renewable energy they are highly misleading ans significantly understate the true costs.
EROEI is only of relevance to renewable energy advocates. It is irrelevant in comparison to nuclear because nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited and because the calculation is highly contentious.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
I strongly agree with Peter Lang on embedded costs. It is commonly states the wind energy lowers the wholesale price of electricity. Few ever discuss what happens when the wind stops blowing: sometimes the price rockets from $60/Mwatt to almost $2000/Mwatt.
It is at this point that the inefficient CSG powered open cycle gas stations make a ripping.
If the intermittency issue wasn't there, then the cost of cheap baseload coal and hydro electricity here in Australia would make matters simple for explaining price rises to the end consumer...
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
@Peter
What is misleading is to do a crude costing of a renewables scenario where no attempt has been made to cost optimise it and then try and pass it off as the cost of renewables.
Wind turbines produce 18 times as much energy in their lifetimes than they consume. And they produce electricity for around 10c/kWh. I don't see how you can say they are not a cost effective method of reducing greenhouse gases.
@George
You do know Peter is a nuclear booster. He doesn't want to build a wind farm near your town - he wants to build a nuclear reactor near your town. Would you prefer this?
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
RE: Gary Murphy's question.
Gary, even if Peter is a nuclear booster, the reality of the situation that I point out won't change.
However one massive 2Mwatt wind turbine can cause accoustic grief to surrounding residents up to 24 hours a day 365. In contrast one nuclear plant may produce 500-1000Mwatt with little accoustic grief - just the small potential for it to blow up and finish its broader surrounds once and forever. Both technologies are evil in my mind but there is another factor that…
Read moreGary Murphy
Independent Thinker
@George
Because they would want to put one up relatively close to the pumped hydro energy storage in the Snowy Mountains (Tumut) - but not too close to Canberra. Probably in the vicinity of Wagga Wagga. So long as you're OK with that.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Thank you for the warning Gary - a project for me to pursue after we solve this wind turbine menace which is already driving me crazy. But the proposed reactor for Tumut is still much much further away than the Lucas Heights reactor was from where I was living in Sydney.
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
@George
So you are opposed to a nuclear reactor in your backyard as well? Where/how do you propose we generate our electricity then?
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Gary, ever heard of solar panels or solar thermal? It seems that the worst options are the only options for you.
But no thanks I'm not turning my backyard under any circumstances into industrial sized electricity plant! I live in a rural zone with 160 acres of virgin bush.
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
@George
re solar:
If you are prepared to spend 40 c/kWh for electricity. (PV requires storage to be useful on a large scale).
Given the current hysteria about power prices I don't think that is a realistic option.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Gary, amazing how accurate you are with solar PV costs. Let's tax dead raptors, noise emissions, blights on landscape etc and see how cheap wind energy becomes in comparison to solar...
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
@George
My numbers come from the US Department of Energy (see my first post). PV is ~15 c/kWh without storage. If you have to store half of it to use at night that adds 5-10c/kWh (Peter Lang will tell you it's a lot more). Solar Thermal is ~25c/kWh with built in storage.
They are wholesale prices. In Australia grid costs add ~20c/kWh.
Gives a retail price of 40-45 c/kWh for solar energy.
And yes you can put PV panels on your roof which bypasses the grid but you still need the grid for those difficult weeks in winter (unless you are willing to forego electricity for a couple of weeks in the middle of winter).
Paul Moonie
PhD student, solar energy
@ The Conversation: would this article be better suited to the "Politics + Society" section?
Jane Rawson
Editor, Energy & Environment at The Conversation
Paul, it's in both Environment & Energy and Politics & Society.
Paul Moonie
PhD student, solar energy
Thanks Jane, I'll take that as a "yes".
Jane Rawson
Editor, Energy & Environment at The Conversation
Just a note: we added a paragraph today to reflect the result of the by-election.
Alex Cull
logged in via Twitter
Look at the overblown rhetoric Dr Corner is employing. Chris Heaton Harris had "boasted on camera", was "bragging" but was caught in an "undercover sting" by the authorities - sorry, by Greenpeace. This is the language of organised crime; could the Mafia be involved, I wonder? And then the talk of a "far-right" commentator, an "anti-wind zealot" and the Conservative "central command" - you can practically hear the ominous sound of jackboots approaching in the distance. Reading this polemic, who would…
Read moreMike Hansen
Mr
So unable to rebut any of the facts as outlined by Adam Corner, you have resorted to the "mummy, mummy he is looking at me funny" defence.
Delingpole would be proud of you.
Alex Cull
logged in via Twitter
@ Mike, I think it'll be the wind farm supporters who might be starting to look anxiously mummy-wards, as the supply of pocket money begins to dwindle...
Alex Cull
logged in via Twitter
The UK's Energy Bill has just been published, and it turns out that households will fund £7.6 billions of green investment (lucky us!) But natural gas is not going to be phased out of electricity generation, thank goodness, and the 2030 carbon emissions target has been kicked into the long grass. So sense hasn't (completely) deserted the government.
Re the Corby by-election, the LibDems (the main drivers of green policy in the Coalition, and who wanted that 2030 target) came nowhere and lost their deposit. With 14.3% of the vote, and coming in third behind Labour and the Conservatives, were UKIP.
If the Conservatives start to appeal more to UKIP voters, who knows - they might be onto a winner!
Gerard Dean
Managing Director
Mr Corner,
You cite a poll reported in the British Guardian newspaper to claim that windfarms '.. are certainly more popular than nuclear power or fossil fuels'.
From my reading, the article, "UK public favours wind turbines over shale gas wells, poll finds" is about siting of various energy sources close to one's home rather than the energy itself eg: "More than two-thirds of people would rather have a wind turbine than a shale gas well near their home, according to a new opinion poll published on Tuesday."
British people may not want to live within 2 miles of a shale gas well, but they are addicted to driving 90 mph on their motorways and burning JetA1 fuel to fly to Ibiza and Florida for their holidays.
Summarising: You have taken the results of a stupid poll, then spun it to look like nobody likes fossil fuels, when in fact almost all of those polled are addicted to its use.
Lift your game.
Gerard Denier Dean
Adam Corner
Research Associate, Understanding Risk at Cardiff University
Look up any poll that compares attitudes to energy technologies in the UK and you will find that consistently, renewables come out higher than nuclear/fossil fuels on general favourability ratings. One example of very many is available at http://www.understanding-risk.org/ click through to Cardiff's last national survey and look at attitudes from 2005 onwards
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Adam, I could be a little ignorant over British politics, but unlike Australia, why would the conservatives be anti-wind? Britain does not have much coal for exploitation and has pursued wind power years earlier in an attempt to reduce reliance of energy imputs. I think the reason why British politicians are abandoning their hopes on wind power has more to do with the public outcry against wind. Note however that the Torries don't really use the health argument against wind turbines...
In case…
Read moreGerard Dean
Managing Director
Mr Corner says, ' Look up any poll that compares attitudes to energy technologies in the UK and you will find that consistently, renewables come out higher than nuclear/fossil fuels on general favourability ratings.'
And that proves what? Nothing other than British people are hypocrites like the rest of us when polled.
Of course they are going to say they prefer renewables over nuclear/fossil fuels.
A better question would be:
- Given that you prefer renewables over nuclear/fossil fuels…
Read moreGeorge Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Gerard, one bit of revealing gossip surrounds a wind developer who engaged about 5 companies to do research about community attitudes to their wind farm. The developer chose only to make public mention of the most favourable result and most subjects lived 5-6km away and couldn't even see any of the wind turbines.
A quick examination of polling techniques usually reveals questions that were intended to ellicit the "politically correct" answer from poorly informed subjects - subjects whose knowledge of the area may be so scant that they wouldn't even know anything about wind turbines, apart from that they are those "big white things that we can see on the way to Canberra". Ask them how big wind turbines are, or how much electricity they produce and the most wildest guesses may come out. Ask them whether they are good for local jobs etc, then the common guess is "yes".
I don't think it is hypocrisy - it is almost complete ignorance.
Adam Corner
Research Associate, Understanding Risk at Cardiff University
you questioned the poll I linked to - I provided evidence to back up the statement I made about popularity of wind farms. So, 'the facts' I need to back up my argument that wind is rated more favourably than nuclear/fossil fuels are the 'meaningless polls' you sneer at. If you don't like polls, that's up to you - but I was responding to a specific criticism you made
Mike Hansen
Mr
@Adam Corner
Just so you know who you are under attack from.
George Papadopoulos believes that he can hear wind turbines from 35 km away.
"Tonight is not the worst night to date, but a bad night where the vibrational rumbling from the wind turbines 35km away is rather pronounced that I have put on some music to prevent me from going insane..."
https://theconversation.edu.au/wind-turbine-syndrome-a-classic-communicated-disease-8318
The fact that for George's claims to be true, a large…
Read moreGeorge Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Mike explain this one: People hearing and feeling the Moe earthquake 200km away in Ballarat. http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/125748/ballarat-feels-earthquake-tremors/
Mass hysteria do you think? Or perhaps you're reading physics books from the 14th century. I suggest you buy something more recent.
I can't understand why you think that 60 turbines down the horizon, with hundreds of tonnes of material spinning on towers can possibly be heard anywhere but 100m away!
Mike Hansen
Mr
@George
You are comparing a quake reported to be 9.9 kilometres deep with a wind turbine.
Where is all this energy coming from to vibrate the earth's crust for at least a 35K radius? If your crank claims were true, they would be an argument in favor of building more wind turbines so that we could tap this incredible source of energy.
If you have any scientific reference to back up your claims, now would be a good time to present it.
What is the connection? An earthquake is a sudden release of energy in the earth's crust.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Crank claims? Well Mike you do a lot more talking than listening sometimes. On previous comments sections I quoted links Cooper's paper where infrasound spikes around wind turbines, easily measureable to a radius of 7km - and of the one hertz range - massive sound waves which travel huge distances.
People around wind farms don't exclusively claim to hear the wind turbines - they feel the rattling of their homes and ground vibrations - try explain this to my neighbour who is having this problem…
Read moreMike Hansen
Mr
@George
That is how crankism works. I ask for evidence - you link to other crank anti-wind articles.
How about some peer reviewed science in scientific journals.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Mike if you want peer reviewed articles, then you'll have to wait - won't you! I'm not employed to that. But I can guarrantee you that even if I did, nothing will convince you anyway! Meanwhile it is always possible to satisfy your curiosity over my claims by investigating them.
On a different note have you read Nissenbaum paper suggesting a link between wind turbines and ill health? I'm sure you have, but again it is all crank to you.
I'm sure that in your mind cranks are the academics, doctors, politicians, journalists and whoever else that dares report anything negative about wind turbines.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Just one report off the hotplate RE Denmark and health/noise complaints: http://cphpost.dk/commentary/opinion/opinion-myth-denmark-corruption-free-country
An indirect mention is made by a retired high court judge who is writing this report. Says a lot about the claims of those who think that anglophone nations are the hub of anti-wind turbine mass hysteria!
Chris Harper
Engineer
George,
It's not even ignorance. It was revealed this week that the BBC has, for years, been knowingly and deliberately pursuing a disinformation campaign on issues of climate change and things associated - such as wind and other renewables.
Given that the line pursued by the ABC and others is effectively identical to that of the BBC what conclusion are we to draw?
Neil Gibson
Retired Electronics Engineer
Perhaps the Poms are looking across the channel to poor old Germany where the true failure of "green energy" is now horribly apparent. So far this November green energy sources have only fed in 7% of their nameplate capacity. You cannot run an industrial superpower with such Mickey Mouse generation.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/11/17/germanys-massive-renewable-energy-system-puts-out-only-7-of-its-rated-capacity-in-november/
Thank heavens that the French had the foresight to build so many nukes. The world slowly seems to be coming back to economic reason and even the dimwits we have in Canberra have now discontinued the solar subsidy.
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
Measured over a whole week. That's some nice cherrypicking.
Here's a 6 month period. Germany got 26% of it's electricity from renewables:
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/26/germany-26-of-electricity-from-renewable-energy-in-1st-half-of-2012/
Neil Gibson
Retired Electronics Engineer
Unfortunately Germany industry needs full power every week. That is why they are building 20 new coal fired power stations. The green energy they do get (other than hydro which actually makes sense) costs a bundle and is inherently unreliable and also causes system instability.
I repeat - if it wasn't for the French nukes Europe would be in a complete mess trying to run modern power systems with sea breezes and pixie dust.
David Jones
Engineer
Neil,
we all understand that wind and solar generation is variable. The 7% sounds like a pathetic amount but is actually to be expected for periods like a week when you expressly search for low output.
Germany has a relatively poor solar resource and fixed PV probably only achieves 15% capacity factor across the year. For a period well past the equinox, going into European winter; what would you expect?
Germany also has a fairly ordinary and geographically restricted wind resource. They should be proud of what they have accomplished with meagre resources.
How much easier for Australia with virtually infinite and high quality renewable resources together with vast geographic diversity and a small population.
Gary Murphy
Independent Thinker
Yes - it needs to be backed up with gas for those difficult weeks.
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Facebook
@Mike, it's funny that George presumes you read 14th century physics books (they didn't exist then) when he seems to not understand why it is possible (and well understood) for earth tremors to be felt hundreds of kilometres away while it is equally impossible for any vibrations from a wind turbine to travel the same distance, or even 2 or 3 km away. But magical thinking and misrepresentation and the specialties of people like Delingpole and his sidekick in Oz, our dear George.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Blair you say: "while it is equally impossible for any vibrations from a wind turbine".
That attitude is called narrow mindedness!
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Facebook
No George, its basic physics. Do you seriously believe a turbine could operate if it shook so hard that the ground vibrated kilometres away from the source? Your hypochondria is getting in the way of your ability to reason. Maybe you should spend a little time talking to engineers and technicians who actually work on the turbines, he'd be surprised what you might learn. I did and I was. Give it a go.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Blair, I feel you are wasting my time and nothing more. If the engineers and technicians you speak to know so much about ground vibrations, then why was the wind industry negotiating to continue installing turbines with a mechanism within the tower to absorb vibrations and prevent them from going into the ground?
Read this: "But REG Windpower's development director, Matt Partridge, was hopeful of a breakthrough in finding a technical fix for the problem. "We're optimistic there will soon be a solution," he said.
One idea is to hang weights like pendulums inside turbine towers to deaden the vibrations from the blades. The MoD promised it would reassess its opposition if there were a proven technological solution."
from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/19/windfarm-secret-nuclear-weapon-testing
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
George, as usual you cherry pick my comments or quote me out of context, it says a lot about the lack of concern you hold for your diminishing integrity.
You say I'm wasting your time. Good. I consider that a community service.
It's pretty clear you have jumped onto the anti-wind turbines bandwagon with the same lack of regard for facts as the anti-vaccers ignore evidence while they try to pillory vaccine researchers. Your MO is the same as theirs - regurgitate nonsense in spite of the contradictory…
Read moreGeorge Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
Blair, in case it has missed your attention, the Independent article quotes the wind industry admitting to vibration issues - not the journalists fascination.
Yes you are wasting my time and I will not respond further on this matter. I think the matter is clear.
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
George, I read the article but what you seem to have missed is the following key point, "But according to the MoD, the swishing blades of wind turbines cause vibrations in the ground that can be detected by the sophisticated monitoring equipment at Eskdalemuir."
Nothing about damage, nothing about health concerns. Do you have any idea how sensitive seismometers are? I suspect not given you seem to think tiny vibrations picked up by sensitive equipment equals destructive vibrations that produce damage to structures.
I agree with you, the matter is clear, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
George Papadopoulos
logged in via LinkedIn
It's an article on military equipment - proves there is an issue out to at least 80km!
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Twitter
Proving once again that you, George, have no idea about the equipment or its sensitivity. You're grasping at straws trying to link this to your mythical health effects.
But in any case, this article is about the deceptive antics of the UK Tories and the dubious qualities of the bedfellows they sleep with in relation to renewable energy. Why can't you stay on topic?
Cameron Robertson
Storage Company Owner at Supercheap Storage Northern Beaches Facility
I think that is the only solution out for now and that is to find other sources that show Britain indeed can and will achieve the entire desired carbon storage and emissions targets without the wind farms. After which, then would the people be convinced and see the redundance of the wind farms. Else, I am sure that the number of people who are pro-wind farms is still going to be pretty high.