Matthew, when I'm sitting in my house warmed by a wood burning heater this winter, I'll think of you and hope that you have indeed managed to move away from such devices and have found peace within 500m of a wind turbine. :)

Well I hope Andy that your neighbours sue you for the carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic fumes that you emit, the state bills you for the average annual $2000 of externalities that your woodheater causes and that you are charged for your share of the murder that are all the unneccessary deaths that woodsmoke particulates cause. Other than that your selfishness is duly noted.

As someone who has been forced to move away from my home because of neighbours' woodsmoke at great financial and emotional burden I can say that your attitude is pretty much a sickening kick in the guts.

It is an immoral act to heat a home with wood.

Nah. I dont think that'll happen, Matthew. You see wood heaters are the only affordable way to heat a house in winter where I live. So most houses in the town have one. You've used words like 'murder' and 'immoral' to describe the effects and users of wood heaters so I would guess that you'd like to drown us all in a sea of hyperbole and legislation. Grow up and come up with a practical solution - humans have burned wood since they discovered fire and it's going to take a lot more than your emotional and irrational outpourings to change that.

Don't be an ass Andy. My attitude to woodsmoke is not emotional and irrational. It has been learnt from bitter experience. Woodsmoke particulates can and do kill. Woodsmoke also makes some places unliveable. It does drive people from their homes. It does cause asthma and other respiratory diseases. Your town sounds like a nightmare of a place to live.

And have some sympathy. I lost my home to woodsmoke. I suffered a huge injustice. I very much view myself as a victim. I got no help from anyone. You seem to be blissfully ignorant of the damage that you are causing, the chronic diseases that it causes, and the deaths that result.

I do view burning wood as immoral, because causing such harm and distress to those around you is a damn mean thing to do. I don't go around physically assaulting people, but that is exactly what people who burn wood are doing to their neighbours.

We've got rid of asbestos, we've got rid of lead in petrol, and we're going to have to get rid of woodsmoke particulates in town. Every step is a step in the right direction.

I power my home with wind-powered heatpumps/ reverse cycle airconditioning (NZ/Aust terms). I am a helluva lot more ethical than you and your dirty, and as you admit, primitive, methods.

Learn some chemistry, Physics Teacher.

I recall several years ago a news item about the air pollution in Launceston in winter caused by woodfires. It's not surprising that this could happen considering Launceston is in a deep narrow valley and there is no gas supply. It was causing widespread serious health problems so the authorities decided to act.

Look Matthew I really strongly disagree with you, but I am ignorant of your circumstances ("Woodsmoke particulates can and do kill. Woodsmoke also makes some places unliveable. It does drive people from their homes.") so I am willing to listen - how did it drive you from your home, and how does it kill? Can you be more specific. As a chronic asthmatic, I am very careful about my preventative protocols etc and have never had an attack that I can attribute to woodsmoke in my town. Sure, I'm being a bit of a samrtarse, but surely you can see that your position appears to be driven by your own personal issues and it's a bit hypocritical to call me selfish when it appears that you would change everyone else's behaviour to meet your personal needs? (ps dont wanna learn chemistry - it does my head in :))

Hi Andy,
If you would like references regarding this I am happy to provide them.

The long and short of it is, air pollution is a major public health issue. WHO estimated ( 2004 ) that around 800,000 people die each year, and that is just the tip of a proverbial "clinical iceberg". Approx deaths from air pollution: 100,000 in USA, 168,000 in Europe ( CAFE ) and 29,000 UK ( COMEAP ).

The majority of health effects are mediated by small Particulates ( particulate matter ) produced by combustion of fossil fuels ( including wood ) but gaseous agents NOx and secondarily formed Ozone are also important ( the latter particularly for asthma ).

Interestingly the short term health effects were known to the early monarchs of England who legislated against burning smoky fuels in medieval London ( see King Edward I ).

More recently it has become apparent that the long term effects are far greater and result in lung and heart disease.

The cost - benefits of reduction are staggering - see US EPA ( estimates around $30 of benefit for each $1 invested ).

George, thanks for the heads up. I'll do a bit of follow up reading based on the above. In the meantime,Ii seems that the installation of modern, "catalytic” or "non-catalytic" stove designs would solve the problem.

All attempts by the industry to provide "clean" fires so far have been met with failure and fraud. They can get the level of particulates down to below what the standards say in the laboratory, but there are 4 issues with that:
1. Emissions are still not zero, and on some nights, where there is no wind they need to be zero and people still live downwind even on a windy night.
2. The standards still allow too much pollution, and the industry organisations have a proven record of trying to resist tightening of the standards. (The Australian Home Heating Association want the cosy pollution regime to continue for financial reasons, and they have had a history of harassing me and trying to shut me up).
3. Models sent to labs for testing may pass, but then the airholes have been different sizes on retail models (so they burn hotter, and dirtier), and yes that is fraud by the manufacturers in my opinion and
4.The average punter at home does not burn to laboratory conditions. They burn inefficiently, they burn wet and green. They burn rubbish. They burn plastic. They burn treated pine. They burn painted wood. Studies have repeatedly found arsenic and copper and chromium in Australian and New Zealand air. I do not trust people not to burn illegal things.

Instead gas fires, (even oil fires although a little dirtier than gas), and reverse cycle airconditioners on heat mode, plus encouraging decent insulation of houses, with a complete ban on solid fuel burning (including in closer settled rural areas) would make childhood asthma rates go down. (e.g. 6 times normal in NZ, which depends more on wood burning than most Australian States) lower the rate of deaths attributable to particulate pollution (estimated at 1100 annually in NZ) and give us fresh air to breathe. Air quality improving will mean towns become more viable. I'd rather live in a town, but have had to move to acreage for cleaner air. My situation is in no way unique.

There are also other reasons - with cleaner air you can put clothes on your clothes line instead of having to use the dryer. People can continue sports into the winter. Anecdotely I've heard of people giving up footy or rugby because of it. I've heard of people giving up jogging. I myself will ride my bike at night in summer, and in winter I give up, but it isn't the cold stopping me.

George Crisp. Thank you for the statistics. How interesting that none of the problems are due to CO2. Why are we trying to implement poliices that will spend trillions to tackle CO2 when clearly the real problem has nbothing to do with CO2? We waste all our wealth on fighting the wrong problem)s). How ofteh have we done that before?
- anti-nuclear
- ban DDT
- subnsidise and mandate renewable energy
- promote bio diesel (and cutting down tropical rain forest to grow it)
the list is long

Airborne paticulates, and sulphurous and nitrous oxides are problems.
Carbon dioxide is also a problem, but not for the same reasons.
DDT was a problem, and it still is in some parts of the world.

In the Peter Lang problem-calculus can you only have at most one thing that is a problem?

We waste all our wealth letting other people's and corporation's externalities steal from our common good and our common future.

Don't be an ass Matthew. The looney left invariably descend into the class warfare rhetoric of evil corporations. I wonder if these ideologically driven people even understand what wealth means or how human welfare is so dependent on it. I think not, despite the people who keep sprouting this nonsense being amongst the wealthiest people on the planet and preaching that others should suffer. 'Looney' is a very appropriate term fro these idelogues.

Peter, you've called me an ass, and the looney left. I think that is infantile. (It wasn't infantil when I asked Andy above not to be an ass. as he was being an unsympathetic ass). I am still asking the question from my experience, why were the profits of the members of the Australian Home Heating Association, ie the manufacturers of the woodburners more important than my health and comfort in my own home? That is what I was faced with. It wasn't fair. And I got treated like a third class citizen. That is a definite case of an "evil" coroporation making profits at the direct expense of the populace. I lost my home to those bastards. Too bloody right should the average person have a say against policy that directly affects them. They should be listened to and not dismissed as looney or "left".

And what was the point of what you replied to George above? It looks to me as you dismiss any argument without understanding it.

Matthew,

I was just quoting what yiun said to Andy up thread: "Don't be an ass Andy". I thoughy you'd understand the lingo.

What is your problem old man? I've made a statement (which is rather off-topic seeing the story is about windfarms) and related my experience in how dealing with woodsmoke pollution was horrible, and because of my experience and the science of particulate pollution it would be really a good idea to ban it, and now you are coming out of the closet as a global warming denier, ignoring the assymetry of the argument about calling people asses, and telling me I'm a card carrying member of the loony left. Well I can't be bothered dealing with yet another loony from the ill-informed 'right' with a bee in their bonnet, trying to make me read stuff not related to the topic, to reenforce their own world view.

I still think you were saying to George above that because people are complaining about particulate pollution that therefore they can't complain about CO2 and all this global warming malarkey is wrong? Were you really saying that? If so. wow!!

Odd too that in SA which has the highest wind penetration, the wholesale price of electricity decreased.

What do you mean by big time? Compared with what? Wind contributes near nothing, and costs a bundle. It is mandated and subsidised by taxpayers and electricity consumers. It is totally uneconomic without the regulatiosn that force it on us and the subsidies. All these are caused by beleif and faith that renewables must be "good". They are not.

Many argue that the growth rate is high. So what, if you double 1 cent, you get 2 cents. Tht's a hoigh growth rate, but it won't buy a cup of coffee, let alone sustain you. Like your comment, most of the comments supporting wind and renewables are just plain misleading. may I urge you to read this and understand it:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

35dB. Wouldn't it be nice if the neighbour's air conditioner, barking dogs and motor vehicles had to comply with that?

What a nonsensical argument. Decreased from what to what? How does it compare with other states? Cause and effect? Are you really a research officer if you make silly statements like that? It sounds more like a comment from a GetUp! one liner, or a zealot.

I've been contributing to a Blog site now for 4 years, with around 800+ Posts and most of those are with relation to electrical power generation.

Originally, the Kyoto protocol asked that CO2 emissions be lowered to a level 5% lower than what they were in 1990, something that no Country on the Planet has achieved.

As 40% of those total man made emissions come from the generation of electrical power, to comply means that those CO2 emitting plants must be closed down in part, and eventually. hopefully, in full.

To just comply with the lowering factor, in the U.S. alone, that means at least half of the total number of coal fired plants need to be closed.

They cannot be closed until there is viable power to replace that lost power.

To that end, the US especially, has ramped up the construction of renewable power plants, in the main Wind Plants.

Over those last 4 years I have been following this, they have in fact more than doubled the total Nameplate Capacity for Wind, in fact to a level that is equal to the total Nameplate Capacity of every Power Plant in Australia, of every source.

The amount of power actually being supplied to all consumers in the US from all that Wind Power has just crept over 2%.

So, then how many of those large scale coal fired plants have closed.

NOT ONE.

The only coal fired plants closing at all, are the tiny ones, and barely 5 Mid range plants of around 500MW in total have closed in that four years. The ONLY reason those plants have closed is that in the main, they are 60+years old, and have reached their time expiry dates.

While the total coal fired power Demand has decreased from 47% to 45% in that time, there has been a considerable ramping up of power being demanded from Natural Gas fired plants, used mainly to run when topping up power is required. They are not constructing more of them. The existing ones are being tasked to run for longer periods of time.

Why?

Because even with that ramping up of wind power, it is so variable that constant backup is required. Wind Power is currently running at about 25% Capacity Factor, and it's only crept up marginally each year from the 19% it was four years ago.

Total CO2 emissions have only this year started to fall, and by barely 1.7%.

Here in Australia, the 24 most recently constructed wind Plants have a total Nameplate Capacity of 2003MW. around the same size as ONE large scale coal fired Plant, and that is from 965 Towers.

There are times when those 965 towers are barely supplying 100 to 200MW, and the yearly average capacity factor is just a tick below 30%, in other words barely 600MW.

The same amount of power supplied from all 965 towers over a whole 12 month period is supplied by the ONE large scale coal fired power plant plant, Bayswater in 95 days.

Those 24 Wind Plants have cost in total $5.2 Billion, and around half of that is in the form of Government subsidies, both Federal and State.

Then, on top of that, the wholesale cost of the electricity that they provide is further subsidised by State Governments, because the actual extrapolated cost of the power they generate is so high, the providers cannot sell it at retail for what it costs to produce wholesale.

The State with the most number of Wind Plants South Australia, in fact pays more than double wholesale for its overall power mix than any other Mainland State, mainly because so much of its power comes from WInd. In fact, South Australia is a net importer of electrical power, from Victoria, because they do not generate enough power in South Australia to cover Demand.

Wind power is horrendously expensive, supplies marginal amounts of power on a sporadic basis, and on top of that Wind Plants will struggle to have a life span of 25 years.

In the main, most Australian coal fired power plants are older than 35 years.

Say whatever you want, Wind is not the answer, and if it is, then you're asking the wrong question.

Hope this helps!

Tony.

So, let me see if I have this right. South Australia's wholesale cost for electrical power decreased then, because of Wind Power.

The chart shown at this link is from the Federal Government's own Yearly Energy Paper, and this is the most recent Paper.

Note the orange highlighted number below the State Name.

http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/australia-power-costs-master.jpg

South Australia pays more for wholesale Power than any other State, and it would be even higher if they were not importing cheap coal fired power from Victoria.

Tony

Some misleading statistics you've provided there Tony. South Australia has historically had more expensive power. However, as they've installed more wind power, its wholesale price has reduced, by about 2% between 2005/06 and 2010/11. Moreover, in this same period, it has reduced its net imports of electricity from Victoria by almost 90%. Energy from wind has increased by a factor of 3 over this period, while its emission intensity from generation has reduced by 18%.
To restate, over this 5 year period, a 3-fold increase in electricity from wind has been associated by a 2% reduction in wholesale price of electricity, an 87% reduction in imports from Victoria and an 18% reduction in emission intensity.
http://www.aemo.com.au/planning/SASDO2011/documents/SASDO2011.pdf

David,

you can make your points and I can make my points.

What I find hard to justify is that the 24 most recently constructed Wind Plants in Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania, the ACT and NSW have cost $5.2 Billion in total, half of that ins Fed and State subsidies, and then the wholesale cost of electricity is also subsidised by State Governments as well.

Those 24 Wind Plants total out at 2003MW Nameplate Capacity, and deliver their power at around 600 to 700MW only, on an averaged year round basis. It's delivered not for the specific requirements for when it is needed but at varying levels throughout the day, sometimes probably as high as 1600MW, and sometimes stumbling along the bottom at around 100MW.

That's the total from 24 wind plants, or 965 towers. The average power of around a small medium traditional plant.

For $5.2 Billion.

Over the area of those mentioned States, it is currently providing around 2.8% to 3% of all Demand, and in some jurisdictions it is more as you say.

What immense cost (half subsidised by Governement) will it be to get that up to the hoped for 20%?

How long will it take?

There is currently 965 towers at those 24 wind plants.

965 Towers. $5.2 Billion.

Equivalent power of a (small) medium sized power plant on a sporadic basis.

And to top it off, they have an expected life span of only 25 years, and even that is the sanguine hoped for best case scenario.

That $5.2 Billion is in dollars already spent, and the costs are only going in the one direction, UP.

Hey if the problem is so dire, just shut down those CO2 emitting plants.

No one else has ...... anywhere.

In fact they are constructing those plants at an ever increasing rate.

Even with that much wind on stream already, not one coal fired plant has closed, and they won't either.

They have absolute cast iron contracts to deliver power, most out until the mid 2030's, and to close them would cost an absolute fortune in compensation. That aside, they won't close because there is nothing that can supply the power that they do on a constant and regular basis, something that Wind, no matter how many of them will never be able to do.

$5.2 Billion and 965 towers.

Tony.

Care to provide a source for your claim that half of that $5.2 billion is in State and Federal subsidies?

Thank you Anton for raising these issues. I have read about them before but it's great to see them put together in one succinct response. It seems that many respondents think wind farms are one of the 'silver bullets' (in terms of reducing co2 emmissions) whereas they are very far from being a faultless, practical practical replacement for 'conventional' energy production.

Andy, it is a misconception on your part to claim proponents of wind energy believe it alone is the silver bullet to CO2 reduction. We acknowledge that wind energy in conjunction with other renewables is what is required to achieve that end.

Blair, I did say 'one of the silver bullets'. As Anton has pointed out accurately and in some detail, wind turbines have got problems. They may not produce the CO2 of a coal power station but their energy production per dollar of investment is their achilles heel. The point is, are they an effective use of a limited budget available for renewables.

Andy, others here have refuted Anton's claims. His figures don't seem to square with reports from the International energy agency for Bloomberg but in any case, he ignores the fact that the energy source of wind farms is free while that of fossil fuel generators is increasing in cost. He also ignores the large subsidies provided to fossil fuel generators while focusing on the subsidies received by renewables. Finally, he ignores the long-term health costs from the pollutants resulting from fossil fuel fired energy.

Do a little research and you'll find the cost curve is reducing for wind while its increasing for fossil fuels. Depending on the figures you want to choose, parity is here now or only a matter of a few years away at most.

Do you have an answer to my question on sound levels at different distances from turbines?

No Blair, not yet - off the top of my head, thinking that the landscape and surrounding environment is not a lab perfect, reflectionless sound stage, I would say that the low frequency sound waves may be affected by constructive interference patterns and that at some distances their 'volume' may be louder than expected. Closer sites may be shielded in certain directions. I really am just taking an educated guess here and would certainly appreciate a 'proper' explanation from someone with more expertise in this area. What do you reckon?

Andy, I'm aware that landscape and buildings can focus or reflect sound but the quack who moonlights as the medical director of the Waubra Foundation along with some wind farm opponents claim that sound from turbines is far louder at 5 and 10 km from the source then it can be at 500 m.

If that was true, the inverse square law is BS. As far as I'm aware, nobody else has discovered this new physics that only wind farm opponents appear to have discovered.

Blair, I havent found the relevant statements at the Waubra Foundation site. They've got some statements their by different physicians raising issues (insomnia/sleep deprivation etc) concerning the turbines. On the surface of it, their concerns seem to be worth investigating. I'm not yet prepared to adopt Simon's position on them yet. (At the moment I feel it's a case of who's results you believe.) As to the inverse square law - yea, I'd love to see an explanation re that too - there's quite possibly some other factor(s) involved and I'd be really interested to hear them.

Andy, the comments about loudness at distance have come from various windfarm opponents, they have been echoed by the so-called medical director at different times but to my knowledge, it's never been categorically stated on the website.

There are approximately 16 studies that show there is no direct link between turbines and ill-health but I'd be quite happy to see yet another independent study conducted.

The problem is, or the problem will be that even if another independent study is conducted and if (as I suspect) the findings once again demonstrate no link between ill-health and turbines, the anti-Windies won't accept the findings. I have put this case to a number of windfarm opponents over the years and have yet to have one acknowledge they would cease their opposition.

The fact of the matter is that the alleged health issues are in most cases, an excuse to oppose the wind farms. Opponents are driven by ideology rather than any real evidence.

Their mindset is identical to proponents of alternative medicine or creationism, essentially, no amount of science demonstrating the fallacies of their beliefs will convince them.

Simon, you state "For 22 yrs I've lived 120m under the Sydney flight path, 50 metres from a busy rd and 150m from a railway line. I can hear the repetitive explosion of tourist fireworks from Darling Harbour every Saturday night. I sleep beautifully every night, as do 4 others in my family." So, clearly, Simon background noise doesnt bother you. You seem however, quite prepared to assume that because of this it shouldnt bother or cause distress to anyone else either. That's a fairly large and egocentric leap.

There is lot's wrong with your understanding.

Baseload is low cost but high value. It supplies the electricity to meet a modern society's constant demand. Baseload comprises about 75% of our electricity. We need it as cheaply as we can get it.

You also misunderstand flexibility. Baseload power stations can and do follow load, it is just that it is cheaper to turndown the wik on others like hydro and gas generators.

"“The electric system is more than just the delivery of energy—it is the provision of reliability. First, the system must have capacity, that is, the capability to furnish energy instantaneously when needed. The system also must have frequency control, retain stability, remain running under varied conditions, and have access to voltage control. Each of those essential services for reliability must come from a component on the system. Those components are not free, and they don’t just happen. They are the result of careful planning, engineering, good operating procedures, and infrastructure investment specifically targeting these items.”
http://www.eei.org/magazine/EEI%20Electric%20Perspectives%20Article%20Listing/2010-09-01-BASELOAD.pdf

Peter; Baseload power plant as defined in Wikipedia. "Baseload plant, (also baseload power plant or base load power station) is an energy plant devoted to the production of baseload supply. Baseload plants are the production facilities used to meet some or all of a given region's continuous energy demand, and produce energy at a constant rate, usually at a low cost relative to other production facilities available to the system."