Wind home

On this page...

Edwards on wind power
Edwards on solar power
Errors in speech
Climate change damage
Nuclear power
Future generations

The author of these pages has no financial connection to either side of the wind power 'debate' and is entirely independent.

Senator Sean Edwards and renewable energy

One of the Wind Power Ethics pages*

I contacted (then Senator) Sean Edwards in mid-2013 and asked him whether he accepted anthropogenic climate change; he would not tell me; he didn't actually refuse to tell me, he just avoided answering.

He says he is not opposed to wind power, but he makes speeches and has statements on his Net pages that are ill-informed, possibly dishonest, and certainly strongly opposed to renewable power developments in Australia. He says that renewable energy is too expensive, but he is strongly supportive of nuclear power that is demonstrably more expensive than wind power. What are his motives? What is he hoping to achieve?

Climate change and ocean acidification are both largely caused by the release of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, much of which comes from the burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. Air pollution from the burning of coal causes serious diseases and kills millions of people annually world-wide. Senator Edwards' opposition to the development of renewable energy in Australia is highly unethical.

Written 2013/06/29, modified 2017/01/22 – ©
Contact: email daveclarkecb@yahoo.com (David Clarke)
As with all my pages, informed feedback is welcome. If you are disagreeing with some point please supply evidence in support of your argument.
Wind home

Wind energy opposition

About these pages

On other pages...
Liberal's war on renewables
How Liberals view wind power
Wind power opposition and climate science denial

Most of the links on this page lead to further explanation and supporting evidence.


Sundrop Farms, completed in 2016
Sundrop Farm
This inovative solar-powered operation produces tomatoes for the Australian market.
It is near Port Augusta in South Australia.

Local employment

When I first wrote this page, 2013, Senator Edwards had his home in a rural area only a couple of kilometres from me. At the time two of Senator Edwards' other neighbours (they live even closer to him than do I) were, or had been, employed in the wind industry. At that time I was expecting to have a local earth-moving contractor do some work for me. He was not easy to get because he was being kept busy on two of the local wind farms.

If Senator Edwards gets his way people like these will all be out of a job.

No level playing field

Senator Edwards talks about the cost of renewable energy, but he knows that there is not a fair competition. Fossil fuel electrical generation in Australia receives huge subsidies, the greatest of which being a license to dump its toxic wastes into the atmosphere at no cost to the operators but at huge costs to the planet.

Why does he oppose Australia's wind power

Is his motive to discredit the Labor Party (which is more supportive of renewables than is the Liberal Party) by criticizing the wind power that Labor has supported?

Why does he not say whether he accepts climate science?

Climate change and ocean acidification are the greatest environmental disasters facing the planet. Some people claim they are not happening or they are not caused by Mankind. Climate scientists are almost unanimous in their acceptance of anthropogenic climate change and there can be no doubt about the oceans becoming more acidic due to the carbon dioxide they are absorbing.

Senator Edwards would know that if he 'comes out' on the side of science he will alienate the voters who deny climate science. If he says he also denies climate science then he will alienate those voters who do accept the science. So, is he sitting on the fence in the hope that he will alienate the minimum number of voters?

Senator Edwards' home state, South Australia, is leading the country in wind power. In 2013 27% of the state's electricity was generated from the wind; this increased substantially with the completion of Snowtown Wind Farm Stage 2 in 2014 and is continuing to increase with the construction of Hornsdale Wind Farm. In late 2016 SA had 37% of the nation's wind power, but only 7% of the population.

According to the 2016 SA Renewable Energy Report from the Australian Energy Market Operator, SA had a total of 42% renewable energy generation in 2015-16. All this has been developed in the last 14 years; a remarkable achievement.

SA has huge potential for further solar and wind power development. Senator Edwards lived for many years in Mid North SA, the region that hosts more than a half of the state's wind power capacity. You might think that as a South Australian Senator with strong connections to such a place, at a time when changing from fossil fuels to renewables is top priority if the damage from climate change and ocean acidification are to be limited, Senator Edwards would be singing the praises of this wonderful local achievement, but no, all he can manage is negativity.

Does Senator Edwards subscribe to his one-time leader Tony Abbott's view that "climate change is crap"?

I inquired whether he accepted the science of anthropogenic climate change in mid February 2013, but received no reply. I emailed him again on 2013/06/28 stating that I realised he was opposed to wind power and asking whether he accepted the fact of anthropogenic climate change. His reply is below:

"Let's be very clear, I am not opposed to wind power. I also believe that we impact the planets environment and have a responsibility to ensure our impacts are minimised.

I am supportive of a profitable wind power industry which can support itself without massive subsidies from taxpayers all of which have created windfall profits for operators (many union backed superannuation funds too) leveraging government policy rather than basing the industry on sustainable market forces.

Let me reinforce; I am in favour of a vibrant market based renewable energy based on sustainable government policy which includes equity for all stakeholders which includes the Australian taxpayer."
A nice piece of political doublespeak, but again, he did not answer the question. I immediately put it to him again. No response at all. Why should he not answer? Surely it is a perfectly reasonable question and one for which the people in his constituency have a right to an answer?

He objects to subsidies for renewables, but apparently not to those that are given to the fossil fuel industry. He shows no sign at all of being concerned that coal-fired power stations cause climate change and ocean acidification, and kill many people and make many more seriously ill due to their air pollution. The fact that Australia is about the greatest greenhouse gas polluters among the developed nations in per-capita terms apparently is on no concern to Senator Edwards.

Wind home

Senator Edwards on wind power
Costs, subsidies, emissions; the truth

Emissions intensity on the Australian NEM
Emissions intensity
Emissions intensity (EI) from the four large states in the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM) and the average for the whole of the NEM, including Tasmania. (Tasmania's EI is off-scale at the bottom of this graph.)
Graph credit – Professor Mike Sandiford, University of Melbourne; data from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)
Note the very large decline in South Australia's EI; due almost entirely to the introduction of wind power.
Senator Edwards' Net site has an (undated) press release headlined "Wind Farms Should Not Receive Subsidies From Taxpayers". While it is true that renewable energy generaters receive a bonus for every megawatt-hour of power that they generate they do not receive subsidies from taxpayers.

Significantly Senator Edwards does not complain of the billions of dollars in subsidies and compensation going to the coal-fired power station operators and the fossil fuel industry.

Senator Edwards stated "We are paying more for our power because of the influence of the renewable energy proponents over the Federal/State Labor governments and the Greens." In fact there is good evidence that renewable energy is reducing the wholesale price of electricity.

On 11th July 2013 Sid Maher had an article in The Australian titled "Electricity market shrinks by 40pc as prices tumble". Mr Maher discussed the increased supply of renewable energy to the market. He quoted the Chief Executive of the Energy Supply Association of Australia (ESAA), Matthew Warren, as saying "One of the major effects of this increased supply of renewable energy in a shrinking national market is to suppress the wholesale price of electricity." Note, the generation of power from renewables, including wind, is suppressing wholesale power prices.

Senator Edwards will not say whether he accepts climate science. He shows no indication of caring about the ocean acidification that the burning of fossil fuels is causing, nor the many deaths and serious diseases caused by the air pollution from burning coal to generate power.

On 2013/06/29 the Clean Energy Regulator gave the volume weighted average market price for large-scale generation certificates (LGC) as $38.69/MWh. What this means is that, on top of whatever price the wind farmers can get for the electricity they generate on the open market, they get another $38.69 per megawatt-hour because the power is renewable. $38.69/MWh equals $0.03869/kWh – about 4¢/kWh. This is factored into the retail price of electricity. So if a quarter of the electricity is renewable, as in South Australia, about 1¢ is added to the approximately 25¢ that one pays for a kilowatt-hour of electricity; a 4% increase due to wind farms. (But one must remember that renewables are suppressing the wholesale price of electricity, so it is questionable if the retail price is increased by renewables at all.)

Wind home


Supporting arguments and evidence for most of my statements on this page can be found by following the links provided on this page. Most of the links connect to other pages of mine. Should you want to go direct to original and independent sources go to my page Wind Links, or use this link for matters concerning health and wind turbines, or this for matters concerning wind tubines and noise.


Senator Edwards conveniently neglects to mention the huge subsidies received by the fossil fuel industry.

International Monetory Fund (IMF) report July 2015

An IMF report on global subsidies to fossil fuels showed that in 2015 in Australia they amounted to US$15.65b for petroleum and US$10.45b for coal; this equals a total of about US$1100 per Australian per year.

IMF report May 2015

The IMF increased its previous estimate of the subsidies going to (mainly) fossil fuels. They put the figure at $5.3 trillion per year (or about $10 million per minute).

This is more than the total spending on health of all the world's governments and largely relates to polluters not paying the costs – social welfare, health, environmental and broader economic – imposed on governments for the burning of coal, oil and gas.



South Australia is where the Ediacaran blooming of life that occurred 575 million years ago was discovered. If one was to judge by Senator Edwards, who doesn't want to see renewables replace fossil fuels, one might think that SA hasn't come very far since then.

In a January 2017 poll, conducted by ReachTEL for GetUp, only 18% of respondents swallowed the line that recent electricity price rises were due to renewable energy. 58% put it down to privatization and lack of competition. Even most Liberal voters didn't swallow the message the Liberals and Murdoch media have been putting out! Which group was most likely to believe the bullshit? Old men who vote Liberal, like Senator Edwards!



What motivates Senator Edwards? I can only speculate, I don't even know if Senator Edwards accepts climate science, he won't tell me. I suspect that he has two motivations:
  1. In common with many of the big-party politicians, I suspect he owes a lot to the fossil fuel and mining industries for the campaign funding that they supply.
  2. It seems that Senator Edwards feels that if he can discredit the Australian wind farm industry, that largely owes its existence to the 20% by 2020 renewable energy target put in place by a Labor government, he discredits the Labor party and improves his standing among his fellow Liberals at the same time.


Senator Edwards, try putting the planet and South Australia first and the short-term interests of the Liberal Party second for a change.
There are a number of independent organisations that have stated that rises in electricity prices have very little to do with renewable energy, for example:

  1. A report from the Australian Energy Market Commission gave 3% as the "contribution to national price increases" from the Renewable Energy Target and that wholesale electricity prices have been falling during the period when most of Australia's wind farms were coming on-line (see here);
  2. The Australian Energy Market Operator, in their submission to the South Australian Parliamentary Committee on Wind Farm Developments in SA stated "Due to its economics in comparison to other forms of generation, wind power has emerged as the dominant new technology in meeting [the renewable energy] target".
Almost every nation that has wind farms is planning to build more.

Does Senator Edwards know what he is talking about?

In his Should not Receive Subsidies press release Senator Edwards says:
"We should not forget that the turbines have to be switched off when the weather is either too hot or the breezes too great."
Yes Sean, they lose perhaps 0.5% of potential because of high temperatures and extreme winds. Temperatures rarely go above the necessary 40° or so at 80 to 100m above ground level needed to shut the turbines down, and winds of more than 25m/sec are very rare.
"This form of renewable energy is a long way from being able to be a base-load supplier of power when it is needed most at peak demand."
Senator Edwards seems not to know that base-load and peak demand are two very different things. No power generation technology is well suited for both.
"... when the power is most required, you can't depend on wind farms to supply it."
Senator Edwards is stating the obvious here; of course wind power is only available when the wind is blowing. Gas fired generators have no trouble in filling in the gaps. The important thing about wind power is that when the wind is blowing it can, and does, displace fossil-fuel electricity.

Senator Edwards goes picking cherries

In an effort to shore-up their stance wind farm detractors search and search for statements about governments that have changed their minds and are not going to build more wind farms; they don't find many. Senator Edwards found a statement from Britain's Climate Change Minister declaring that "there would be no significant expansion of wind farms beyond those already in the pipeline".

What Senator Edwards did not say is that later the UK Prime Minister said that "There has been no change in the government's policy on renewable energy". Liberal Democrats boss Ed Davey said "The government is still committed to renewables including onshore wind". (See BBC) The Senator might be interested to know that England's 4th largest onshore wind farm was approved in early February 2013, after he wrote the statement above. In July 2013 Prime Minister Cameron launched the world's largest offshore wind farm, 175 turbines with a total installed capacity of 630MW.

Selecting evidence that suits your point of view, and ignoring conflicting evidence is called cherry picking. It is a sign of a dishonest investigator.

The Senator does not mention what we should do to combat climate change and ocean acidification if we were to drop wind power, nor does he mention that wind power in Australia has been very effective in reducing carbon dioxide emissions intensity (see the graph on the right above).

Senator Edwards finishes his press release by apparently regretting the fact that one of South Australia's coal-fired power stations was, in future, only to operate for six months of the year and the other to be closed-down indefinitely (largely due to the introduction of a significant amount of wind power).

Wind home

Errors (or lies) in Senator Edwards' speech of 2012/08/21

Wind generation overtakes nuclear in China
Nuclear and wind in China
Wind is overtaking nuclear, next to go will be coal and the fossil politicians who support it.
Graph credit Earth Policy Institute

One of Senator Edwards' favourites, exaggerating to cost of wind power

Senator Edwards started by repeating the oft-told lies about the cost of wind power and the subsidies it supposedly receives. Of course he entirely neglected to mention the subsidies received by the fossil fuel industry.

He makes much of South Australia's (retail) electricity prices having risen by around 40% since 2007 and implies that much of the blame for this is due to the Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) that are received by wind farmers. He neglects to point out that the RECs add about 1¢; about 4% to the retail price of electricity, nor does he mention that the Chief Executive of the Energy Supply Association of Australia (ESAA), Matthew Warren, has said:

"One of the major effects of this increased supply of renewable energy in a shrinking national market is to suppress the wholesale price of electricity."
(See more here.)

Wind turbines and houses in the tulip fields of North Holland
Turbine and house
Photo credit Normann Szkop
Note how close the turbine is to the house
The original photograph can be seen on Flickr
Canal, turbines and houses
Photo credit Normann Szkop
Four houses and two turbines close together
The original photo can be seen on Flickr

Turbines one kilometre from houses

Senator Edwards said that
"[South Australian] planning policies have allowed turbines to be erected only one kilometre from houses"
as if this was a terrible thing. (So far as I know, very few, if any, turbines have been erected in SA within one kilometre of houses other than those belonging to people who had a financial interest in the wind farm.)

Of course he did not mention that in Europe turbines are often erected much closer to homes than that; note in the photos on the right.

A fallacy

Senator Edwards said
"By law, electricity distribution companies have to take power generated from renewable energy before either coal or gas".
So far as I know this is simply false. Like all other generators attached to the national grid, wind farms have to submit a price to the grid operator. Generators who submit the lower prices win contracts.

Senator Edwards didn't do his homework

Senator Edwards spoke about the
"Snowtown II project, involving 90 turbines with blades a record 108 metres long."
In fact the entire rotor of some of the largest of the Snowtown II Wind Farm have rotors 108m in diameter, the blade lengths are less than half that.

Huge profits?

Senator Edwards pretends that the wind farm operators are making huge profits. For example:
"Renewable energy certificates are giving tremendous returns to the companies involved"
"On its website, Investec is offering a 5.3 per cent guaranteed return on fixed deposits for 90 days. That is much more generous than what Australia's big four banks or even government bonds are offering."
And yet Investec Bank was not going ahead with the proposed Hornsdale Wind Farm that Senator Edwards spoke about at the time. Why? If there was really so much money in building and operating wind farms I wonder if Senator Edwards could explain to us why Snowtown II was the only wind farm to be built in South Australia in several years? (This was as of November 2013; later Hornsdale was constructed, after receiving a contract to supply electricity to the ACT.)
Wind home

Unused wind power being wasted?

Senator Edwards gave the impression that a significant amount of wind-generated South Australian electricity cannot be used because of insufficient capacity in transmission lines. While it is true that there are a few occasions when the transmission lines do approach their maximum capacity, it is rare for wind power to have to be wasted rather than used.

I inquired of ElectraNet, the organisation that operates the high-voltage transmission lines in the eastern Australian grid, whether Senator Edwards had a point here. In answer I received the following from Rainer Korte (Executive Manager Asset Management)

"At times, parts of the network do experience congestion which restricts the amount of power that generators (including but not limited to wind) can inject into the network. The congestion can occur at various points on the network and may in fact be caused by limitations outside of South Australia. Limitations may also be temporary in nature, for example as they relate to outages of transmission network elements for maintenance.

ElectraNet actively assesses the level of congestion on its network to identify economic upgrades that promote delivering services to consumers at lowest long-run cost. Earlier this year, ElectraNet together with the Australian Energy Market Operator concluded that there were more than $190 million in net benefits to consumers from increasing the capability of the Heywood interconnector between South Australia and Victoria. This project will deliver an increase in the capability of the interconnector by 2016 and will relieve a lot of the congestion currently being experienced particularly by wind farms in the south east of South Australia.

Connection to the network is at the cost of the individual wind farms. At the time of connection, wind farms make their own assessment of the cost of connection and the likely impacts of congestion on their wind farms. Some congestion can be efficient as the cost of removing that congestion may be significantly higher than the cost of the congestion that occurs. An example of the decisions that generators may have when they consider connection is whether to connect to the 132 kV network or the 275 kV back-bone network. Connection to the 275 kV network comes at a higher cost but has lower levels of congestion. Early wind farms tended to make the lower cost connections to the 132 kV network. As more and more wind farms have connected at this level, the likelihood of congestion has increased. Wind farms are now increasingly connecting to the 275 kV network to reduce the level of congestion that they will face.

It is not possible for ElectraNet to accurately calculate the level of wind generation that is lost from congestion. We can identify congestion and for example, when interconnector power transfers are limited and the network elements causing this congestion. When this congestion occurs for exports from South Australia, it is limiting generation from South Australia reaching Victoria. However, that limitation applies to all generators and not just wind farms. ElectraNet is not able to separate out the effects to each wind farm and conventional generator. It is also important to note that most congestion across the interconnector occurs in the direction of Victoria to South Australia and this does not tend to restrict the output of most of the wind farms in South Australia."
The emphasises above were mine. It would seem that Senator Edwards is, at best, showing a bias against wind power in his comments on wind power being wasted due to congestion.
Wind home

Edited 2013/07/05

Senator Edwards on solar power

Levelised cost of energy
Cost of energy
The costs are in Australian dollars per megawatt-hour
STEG is Solar Thermal Electricity Generation
Graph credit: Bloomberg New Energy Finance
From a piece by Giles Parkinson in RenewEconomy:
"Stop the press!" Edwards said. "We have the manufacturing capacity to build solar plants. Great! We have the technology–I suppose we do, thanks for that. What the senator [Greens Senator Scott Ludlam] failed to mention was the cost, and the comparative cost."

Funny you should mention that Senator Edwards.

As we report today, Bloomberg New Energy Finance have released an analysis that shows wind energy – unsubsidised – is already cheaper than new build coal and gas fired generation in Australia. Solar PV will follow soon, and then will come solar thermal and other technologies.

The graph on the right shows that at the time of Senator Edward's comments the cost of electricity from new wind power was considerably cheaper than from new coal and solar thermal was comparable to new coal.

A 110MW solar power station at Crescent Dunes in Nevada is due to be completed early in 2014. The installation will have ten hours of heat storage, so that it will be able to provide power to suit the high demand periods and it is said to compete with new coal-fired power stations on cost. Senator Edwards' home state, South Australia, is ideal for similar developments, but it seems very unlikely that he will ever support anything so forward-thinking, environmentally friendly or positive.

It is a pity that Senator Edwards, who represents South Australia, a state that has made great strides recently in developing renewable energy, in a world in great need for more renewable energy, has such a low opinion of it. He could and should be proud of his state's achievements, but instead all he can seem to manage is negativity.

Wind home

Climate change damage and Senator Edwards

Climate change damage five kilometres from Senator Edwards' home in the Clare Valley
Dead red stringybark at Clare
Dead red stringybark Eucalyptus macrorhyncha in the Spring Gully Conservation Park near Clare

It is arguable that the exceptionally hot and dry summer that was responsible for the damage in the Sping Gully Conservation Park shown on the right may not have had anything to do with climate change. What is undeniable by any well informed and honest person is that exceptional weather events such as that of 2007/08 will become more common as climate change progresses unless we get serious about taking action such as replacing fossil fuel fired power stations with wind farms and other forms of benign renewable energy.

The red stringybark trees in the Clare area are in the coolest gullies and on the tops of the highest hills; they can be found nowhere else in South Australia. As temperatures rise and droughts become more common they will probably become locally extinct.

How many other species will follow?

Wind home

This section added 2017/01/18

Senator Edwards likes nuclear power

Cost of Energy Technologies, 2013
The X axis is costs in US$/MWh
Graph Credit, World Energy Council and Bloomberg New Energy Finance
More information on another page on this site.
Download the full WEA report
Note that the graph shows that solar PV costs fell substantially between 2012 and 2013; since the compilation of this graph they have continued to fall. Wind power costs have fallen substantially since 2013 (see the main text); nuclear power costs have steadily increased for many years.
Senator Edwards has an undated piece on his Net site titled A Nuclear South Australia.

He gives the headline: "I want South Australia to become a nuclear powered state. Nuclear power is safe, it's cheap and it represents a phenomenal opportunity for the South Australian economy."

The graph on the right shows that in 2013 nuclear power cost more than the on-shore wind power that Senator Edwards complains about being so expensive. At that time, as shown on the graph, nuclear power was about US$90/MWh, on-shore wind about US$80.



The costs of wind and solar power are decreasing, nuclear is getting more expensive.
In January 2017 a price of US$49/MWh (Aus$65) was agreed for power from the proposed Silverton Wind Farm near Broken Hill in New South Wales.

Nuclear power is safe – most of the time. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima showed that when it goes wrong it can be disastrous. In December 2016 the ABC reported that the Fukushima clean-up would cost Japan Aus$250 billion. The Japanese people were going to face increasingly large electricity bills to cover the costs, and it was expected to be a significant burden on the Japanese economy for many years. And then there are the costs to the people and environment that you can't put in dollars.



Wind and solar (both photo-voltaic and thermal) are available at competative prices. It is true that wind power is only available when the wind blows and so is solar PV – there are storage options though.


At the end of 2016 Australia had 4.3GW of installed wind power. World wide (according to Wikipedia) there is 127GW of power and 740TWh of energy storage capacity as pumped hydro. Pumped hydro could 'even out' a lot of the variability of wind and solar power. It comes at a price of course, but given the advantages that renewable have over nuclear, and the price advantage that wind has, this is a price worth paying.

Other pages on this site concerning nuclear power

Why use nuclear power?
Nuclear power stations in war
Pros and cons of generation methods
At the time of Chernobyl we were told that the disaster was because of the deficiencies of the Soviet designed nuclear reactors, it could never happen in a Western nuclear power station. How wrong that was!

Nuclear power stations take around fifteen years to build, even longer when there is determined local opposition, and are cripplingly expensive to clean-up at the end of their useful life. The way economics works, costs that are expected to be incurred twenty or more years in the future are 'heavily discounted'; it will be the next generation who will have to pay those bills.

And can you imagine the devistation if a nuclear power station was bombed or hit with an intercontinental missile in a war? It would be just as bad as Fukushima.

A nuclear power station in SA will be on the coast; it must be, because it will need enormous amounts of water for cooling. It would ideally be within about a hundred kilometres of Adelaide to minimise the costs of transmission lines (about $1,000,000 per kilometre). Can you imagine the outcry from the communities that are near the proposed site?!

Port Augusta, at the northern end of Spencer Gulf has been mentioned as a posible site. After taking part in a 325km Walk for a Solar Thermal Power Station for Port Augusta (about 70 of us walked from Port Augusta to Adelaide) I'd be very sure that the people of that city would far prefer a solar thermal power station to a nuclear one.

Finally, nuclear power is not renewable.

Wind home

What will future generations think of Senator Edwards?

Whether or not Senator Edwards accepts the fact of anthropogenic climate change, climate scientists and the more informed of the world's population do accept it and know it to be a coming disaster.

I don't know if Senator Edwards has grandchildren, but suppose that he does and consider what might happen if they look into the history of climate change in fifty years time when everyone has seen how much harm it has done and is continuing to do. They will see that Australia was among the very worst of the climate polluters, while it had 0.3% of the world's population they will see that it produced 1.5% of the world's greenhouse gasses.

And perhaps they will look into their grandfather's part in climate change action. (It will still be on the Internet, if there is still an Internet.) They will find that Senator Edwards not only did not press for action to limit climate change, but actively opposed the introduction of renewable energy. How will they feel about their grandfather, one of the more outspoken Austraian Senators against climate change action?

I wonder if Senator Edwards gives any thought to how the people of the future will view his actions? Does it concern him?


Cherry picking
Costs of power
Climate change damage
Senator Edwards on solar power
Senator Edwards on wind power
Errors in speech of 2012/08/21
Future generations
Lack of knowledge of his subject
Nuclear power
Wind home
Wind home