|
|
I am not beholden to any company or lobby group (contrary to a
claim made by Ms Ward, for which she typically provided no evidence); see
About Me.
Wind energy opposition |
The preliminary bit
Any argument opposing wind power that does not take into account anthropogenic climate change (ACC) and ocean acidification (OA) is not a complete and sound argument. If human society does not quickly and greatly reduce our use of fossil fuels we will be condemning our children and grandchildren to living in a greatly inferior world to the one we have been privileged to enjoy. Those who oppose wind farms almost without exception either ignore or deny ACC and OA.Lyndsey Ward's first comment: Probably the most deluded post I have read from you yet!My response Readers please note. Lyndsey Ward has provided us with a classic and typical comment from an opponent of wind power. Totally unspecific, no supporting evidence, no relevance to the subject under discussion, and insulting. Advertisement...
The telling bit
Ms Ward's comment is on the left.
I have written responses to Ms Ward's statements in the boxes on the right.
|
|
You callously disregard those who suffer from living near industrial
turbines because you have slept under some and didn't hear anything and you
live many KMs from any so you have no real knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Here she was implying, on no basis whatsoever, that if there is wind power there cannot be any other sort of power. (This is an invalid argument of a type known as the straw man: see The Skeptics Guide.)
I pointed out that in the real world wind could be combined with solar PV, solar thermal, biofuels, hydro and there could be energy storage.
She went on to say: "There is no viable storage and probably never will be. All research so far shows it would be massively expensive and would need fossil fuels to be built."
The fact that it would require fossil fuels to be built is, of course, quite irrelevant. I remarked that Wikipedia says that energy storage worldwide in pumped hydro alone is 127GW (that is 127,000,000,000 Watts) of power and 740TWh (that is 740,000,000,000,000Wh) of energy in storage.
Totally ignoring the evidence provided, she went on to say:
"There is no viable storage for industrial wind energy..."
Electrical sub-stations, where electricity is transformed from one voltage to another, are also unavoidable; and sometimes noisy.
Ms Ward likes to blame wind farms for transmission lines and ignore the fact that if the wind farm was replaced with any other sort of power station a transmission line would still be needed.
|
|
|
Her response:
"Wrong. We have to keep conventional generation ticking over in readiness to take over. It is not as efficient when used that way. In addition wind farms, especially in Scotland, are built in very remote locations and need many miles of grid connection that are not included in emissions savings calculations."(She gave no evidence to support her claim about the grid connections in Scotland and the claimed lack of consideration in emissions calculations. In Australia wind farms have only been built when there is a nearby high-capacity transmission line.)
The claim that backup power requirements negate the emission saving of wind power is a fallacy that has been commonly used among those who are opposed to wind power, it was never convincing. No matter what type of power generation there may be on a power grid, there must always be a fall-back available; all generators, including coal-fired and nuclear, fail from time to time.
For example, there has been no increase in backup power in South Australia following the installation of substantial wind power in the years between 2003 and 2016.
Strong evidence that wind power does reduce emissions is given by the graph on the upper right that shows that emissions fell in SA by 29% since 2002. There were no wind farms in SA in 2002, by 2014 South Australian wind farms were generating about 37% of the state's power. The best emissions reduction performance from any other state was a decline of 8% from NSW.
The graph also shows a significant decline in Victorian emissions starting in 2012. This coincides with a doubling (from 514 to 1066 MW installed) of wind power in that state. The percentage of wind power in Victoria is much smaller than that in SA.
550 MW of installed wind power in Australia can be expected to reduce emissions by around 1.5 million tonnes per annum so it is not enough to explain the full drop in Victoria's emissions, but it would have been a contributing factor.
ReferencesBelow are a few references that readers might find useful. Other references are scattered through the text above. In all my pages I give reference to credible sources.Summary of main conclusions reached in 20 (or more) reviews of the research literature on wind farms and health: Quick summary. The original document can be downloaded from the Sydney eScholarship Repository site Ms Laurie's errors on wind turbines and health Wind power problems, alleged problems and objections Invalid arguments often used against wind power Ms Ward has much to say about the cost of wind power, in fact a report from the World Energy Council places it as similar to coal and gas and cheaper than nuclear.
Ms Ward says a lot about subsidies that wind power receives, she says nothing about the subsidies that fossil fuel companies get; in particular the license they have to dump their damaging emissions in our atmosphere at no cost to themselves. Ms Ward claims that wind turbines do not abate CO2 emissions. There is, in fact, very strong evidence that wind power reduces emissions. How could anyone with any common sense believe otherwise? After all, when wind farms put electricity into a power grid it usually replaced electricity that would otherwise be generated by the burning of fossil fuels. An example: the last two coal-fired power stations in my state, South Australia, closed down due to the state's wind farms. Ms Ward repeats the nonsense that the CO2 released from the cement used in the foundations of the turbines is significant – in fact it is abated in the first or second day of turbine operation. Ms Ward talks of the efficiency of wind turbines when apparently what she means is capacity factor, a very different thing. The Oxford English Reference Dictionary defines efficiency as: "The ratio of useful work performed to the total energy expended or heat taken in." In the case of wind, the 'energy expended' is free and there is no 'heat taken in', so it could be said, by that definition, that wind turbines are infinitely efficient. The capacity factor of wind farms in Australia averages around 35% higher than many conventional power stations. Miscellaneous pointsMs Ward talks of the cost of decommissioning of a wind farm. She neglects the fact that all power stations must be decommissioned at the end of their useful life and that the cost of decommissioning a nuclear power station is almost astronomical. A wind turbine does not leave radioactivity, it does not leave great fields full of ash as coal-fired power stations do; why would decommissioning a wind farm and restoring the land be expensive?Ms Ward talks of the copper in wind turbines and the fact that when some copper ores are smelted environmentally harmful sulphur dioxide is released. She fails to mention that, of course, copper is used in every type of power generator. Final wordIt is hard to accept that Ms Ward believes all the things she says. She must have done a fair amount of research, surely she saw the facts; or did she simply believe whatever she came across that fitted in with her preconceptions?If she doesn't believe her own propaganda, why does she hate wind turbines? We all have a right of free speech, or at least should have; but with that right comes the responsibility of telling the truth. |