Advertisement

ACT Renewable Energy

By 4 April 2014 21

I’m one of those people who loves the look of wind farms.  To me, they signal change and technology stepping us forward to a more sustainable future.  Well, that and the rhythmic turning of the turbines is quite meditative.  That said, I don’t have one in my backyard, or over the road or even at the end of the street.  I don’t know what they sound like or how oppressive they are up close.

The ACT Government has set a target for 90% renewable energy use in the ACT within 6 years.  (I must confess I have scoured the AP2 report looking for our current % of renewable energy and can’t find it for comparison).  The report does clarify this ‘amount will be periodically reviewed in light of the extent to which the Territory is able to achieve the lower cost abatement, such as through energy efficiency or through transport and waste management’. (page 74)

Given the size of the Territory and obvious lack of wide open space, set on a hill in prime wind turbine positions, it isn’t really surprising that the ACT Government plans to source 200 megawats of power rom wind farms in NSW to meet this target.

The NSW shires are up in arms and think we should be sourcing this internally.  Katy Gallagher claims this isn’t possible, which makes me wonder a) how we could make this claim in the first place and b) what the problem really is if the investment in new wind farms is coming from the ACT and ultimately benefiting NSW.  But I guess that’s the question…  Is it really a benefit?

Please login to post your comments
21 Responses to ACT Renewable Energy
#1
MrPC7:12 pm, 04 Apr 14

There are plenty of good sites within the ACT for wind turbines. There’s space for hundreds of them (or more) atop the Brindabella Ranges. You could put a few more on Red Hill. Perhaps it’d be a good idea to get some built to avoid the perception of snobbery.

You could even replace the flag atop Parliament House with a turbine, for symbolic reasons only of course :-)

#2
Canfan8:18 pm, 04 Apr 14

Haha – I’m trying to think of other places we could put turbines – on top of all the government offices perhaps, maybe one on the high court, nat library, questacon etc – it could become a new addition to the tourist walk of Canberra!

#3
Pork Hunt8:45 pm, 04 Apr 14

MrPC said :

There are plenty of good sites within the ACT for wind turbines. There’s space for hundreds of them (or more) atop the Brindabella Ranges. You could put a few more on Red Hill. Perhaps it’d be a good idea to get some built to avoid the perception of snobbery.

You could even replace the flag atop Parliament House with a turbine, for symbolic reasons only of course :-)

The Brindies sound like a great place to put turbines as there are a couple of major power lines running through there thus giving easy access to the grid. However, it’s in a national park.

#4
Maya12310:35 pm, 04 Apr 14

“I don’t know what they sound like or how oppressive they are up close.”
I have stood under a wind turbine in high wind conditions and the sound was hardly audible. The wind in the trees was noisier. Don’t let anyone tell you they are noisy, because they’re not. I was very surprised how quiet the wind turbines are, and I was closer than most people get.

#5
Nylex_Clock5:26 am, 06 Apr 14

Pork Hunt said :

MrPC said :

There are plenty of good sites within the ACT for wind turbines. There’s space for hundreds of them (or more) atop the Brindabella Ranges. You could put a few more on Red Hill. Perhaps it’d be a good idea to get some built to avoid the perception of snobbery.

You could even replace the flag atop Parliament House with a turbine, for symbolic reasons only of course :-)

The Brindies sound like a great place to put turbines as there are a couple of major power lines running through there thus giving easy access to the grid. However, it’s in a national park.

I too think they look great. I used to live right near a railway line that carried coal all night – that was less pleasant than the sight of a wind farm. I also used to live right by a gas-fired power station. I thought that one looked pretty cool.

Anyway, nobody’s going to slap down a wind farm somewhere because they “reckon” it’s going to be a good place to put it. You want to maximise your investment, so you put your windfarm wherever you get the best wind.
This is a 5MB file, so not everybody is going to want to download it:
http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/energy-consumers/sustainable-energy/renewable/wind/sustain_renew_wind_atlas_poster.pdf

It shows the ACT is unfortunately not a good place to invest in a wind farm.

#6
davo1013:21 pm, 07 Apr 14

MrPC said :

There are plenty of good sites within the ACT for wind turbines.

Wind power requires wind so building turbines in the ACT is not such a good idea.

#7
gazket6:40 pm, 07 Apr 14

How come the excuse solar panels have to be set close to Canberra so they don’t loose as much voltage but wind turbines can be 100 km’s away.

Plenty of room for wind turbines on the Brindies, they could even patch it into the high voltage wires that already cross the Brindies and feed into the sub station at Parkwood.

Katy Gallagher has no brains. Her idea is liken to me installing water tanks and pumps in my neighbours yards and running a hose to my small yard where a tank won’t fit. Some how I don’t think that would go down well with the neighbours.

#8
gazket6:45 pm, 07 Apr 14

Nylex_Clock said :

Pork Hunt said :

MrPC said :

There are plenty of good sites within the ACT for wind turbines. There’s space for hundreds of them (or more) atop the Brindabella Ranges. You could put a few more on Red Hill. Perhaps it’d be a good idea to get some built to avoid the perception of snobbery.

You could even replace the flag atop Parliament House with a turbine, for symbolic reasons only of course :-)

The Brindies sound like a great place to put turbines as there are a couple of major power lines running through there thus giving easy access to the grid. However, it’s in a national park.

I too think they look great. I used to live right near a railway line that carried coal all night – that was less pleasant than the sight of a wind farm. I also used to live right by a gas-fired power station. I thought that one looked pretty cool.

Anyway, nobody’s going to slap down a wind farm somewhere because they “reckon” it’s going to be a good place to put it. You want to maximise your investment, so you put your windfarm wherever you get the best wind.
This is a 5MB file, so not everybody is going to want to download it:
http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/energy-consumers/sustainable-energy/renewable/wind/sustain_renew_wind_atlas_poster.pdf

It shows the ACT is unfortunately not a good place to invest in a wind farm.

Excuse me the link is called NSW resources and energy. Why would NSW test for ACT when it’s not in NSW jurisdiction ? That would be why the ACT is blue.

#9
dungfungus8:53 am, 08 Apr 14
#10
howeph10:48 am, 08 Apr 14

dungfungus said :

This will be the game changer for NSW and later, the ACT.
http://econews.com.au/news-to-sustain-our-world/cuts-fear-stalls-18bn-in-clean-energy-projects/

In what way do you mean it will be a game changer? And do you think it will be for the better or worse?

I agree with that article. The Renewable Energy Target has been a very successful policy. It has mobilised $10 billion in investment by private industry into renewable energy and there is another $18 billion already secured if the policy is left alone.

The climate change denying Abbott government is threatening the jobs, economic growth and clean energy that the investment will provide. Why does Abbott want to do this?

He says it is to lower electricity prices. But that would only work if renewable energy is a significant contributor to electricity price rises and the facts show that it is not.

His claim that “We support renewable energy but I accept that the way the system works at the moment is putting upward pressure on power prices” is very misleading. It implies that it is renewables that are pushing up retail prices. But we know from AEMO, the market regulator, that it is the network costs, the over investment in transmission infrastructure (poles and wires) that have caused the vast majority of recent retail price rises. This chart of NSW Household electricity bill increase from 2007/8 to 2012/13 from the “Electricity Network Regulatory Frameworks, Inquiry Report, Vol 1, Productivity Commission shows where the price increase has come from:

https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/26716/area14mp/537fx8nv-1372762459.jpg

So if it is not to bring down or keep prices lower, then why? Why destroy an entire industry? Who benefits?

#11
dungfungus11:04 am, 08 Apr 14

howeph said :

dungfungus said :

This will be the game changer for NSW and later, the ACT.
http://econews.com.au/news-to-sustain-our-world/cuts-fear-stalls-18bn-in-clean-energy-projects/

In what way do you mean it will be a game changer? And do you think it will be for the better or worse?

I agree with that article. The Renewable Energy Target has been a very successful policy. It has mobilised $10 billion in investment by private industry into renewable energy and there is another $18 billion already secured if the policy is left alone.

The climate change denying Abbott government is threatening the jobs, economic growth and clean energy that the investment will provide. Why does Abbott want to do this?

He says it is to lower electricity prices. But that would only work if renewable energy is a significant contributor to electricity price rises and the facts show that it is not.

His claim that “We support renewable energy but I accept that the way the system works at the moment is putting upward pressure on power prices” is very misleading. It implies that it is renewables that are pushing up retail prices. But we know from AEMO, the market regulator, that it is the network costs, the over investment in transmission infrastructure (poles and wires) that have caused the vast majority of recent retail price rises. This chart of NSW Household electricity bill increase from 2007/8 to 2012/13 from the “Electricity Network Regulatory Frameworks, Inquiry Report, Vol 1, Productivity Commission shows where the price increase has come from:

https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/26716/area14mp/537fx8nv-1372762459.jpg

So if it is not to bring down or keep prices lower, then why? Why destroy an entire industry? Who benefits?

What climate change?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/no-global-warming-for-17-years-8-months/

#12
howeph12:15 pm, 08 Apr 14

dungfungus said :

What climate change?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/no-global-warming-for-17-years-8-months/

This climate change:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

Source: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis” http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

#13
dungfungus2:12 pm, 08 Apr 14

howeph said :

dungfungus said :

What climate change?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/no-global-warming-for-17-years-8-months/

This climate change:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

Source: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis” http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

I haven’t noticed any of those changes since the 1950s so I simply do not believe the IPCC which afterall is part of the UN which has little credibilty these days. Even if there are measurable changes reported by scientists they have not impacted in any way that is different to the 50 years preceeding the last 60 odd years.

#14
howeph5:12 pm, 08 Apr 14

dungfungus said :

I haven’t noticed any of those changes since the 1950s so I simply do not believe the IPCC which afterall is part of the UN which has little credibilty these days. Even if there are measurable changes reported by scientists they have not impacted in any way that is different to the 50 years preceeding the last 60 odd years.

We know you are a denier of climate change. We’ve had this discussion many times and you are not going to change your mind. So let’s put that to one side.

Will you give your answers to the earlier questions:

“In what way do you mean it will be a game changer? And do you think it will be for the better or worse?”

and given renewable energy has a minor effect on retail energy prices…

“So if it is not to bring down or keep prices lower, then why? Why destroy an entire industry? Who benefits?”

#15
dungfungus7:44 am, 09 Apr 14

howeph said :

dungfungus said :

I haven’t noticed any of those changes since the 1950s so I simply do not believe the IPCC which afterall is part of the UN which has little credibilty these days. Even if there are measurable changes reported by scientists they have not impacted in any way that is different to the 50 years preceeding the last 60 odd years.

We know you are a denier of climate change. We’ve had this discussion many times and you are not going to change your mind. So let’s put that to one side.

Will you give your answers to the earlier questions:

“In what way do you mean it will be a game changer? And do you think it will be for the better or worse?”

and given renewable energy has a minor effect on retail energy prices…

“So if it is not to bring down or keep prices lower, then why? Why destroy an entire industry? Who benefits?”

It will be a game changer because government incentives and subsidies will be withdrawn or cut back.
It will be better for the taxpayers and worse for the handful of promoters of wind and solar electricity generation and the overseas manufacturers of wind turbines and solar panels.
As for destroying an industry, it never was an industry with the thousands of Green jobs Bob Brown was constantly carping on about never eventuating and most of the infrastructure (with high carbon manufacturing footprint) being imported.
As for the “minor effect on prices”, well that is a very academic point as on a day like today (no sun and no wind) where is the electricity that we all need around the clock going to come from?
And I am not a denier of climate change per se. It’s your adopted IPCC version that I reject.

#16
Walker3:20 pm, 09 Apr 14

dungfungus said :

howeph said :

dungfungus said :

I haven’t noticed any of those changes since the 1950s so I simply do not believe the IPCC which afterall is part of the UN which has little credibilty these days. Even if there are measurable changes reported by scientists they have not impacted in any way that is different to the 50 years preceeding the last 60 odd years.

We know you are a denier of climate change. We’ve had this discussion many times and you are not going to change your mind. So let’s put that to one side.

Will you give your answers to the earlier questions:

“In what way do you mean it will be a game changer? And do you think it will be for the better or worse?”

and given renewable energy has a minor effect on retail energy prices…

“So if it is not to bring down or keep prices lower, then why? Why destroy an entire industry? Who benefits?”

It will be a game changer because government incentives and subsidies will be withdrawn or cut back.
It will be better for the taxpayers and worse for the handful of promoters of wind and solar electricity generation and the overseas manufacturers of wind turbines and solar panels.
As for destroying an industry, it never was an industry with the thousands of Green jobs Bob Brown was constantly carping on about never eventuating and most of the infrastructure (with high carbon manufacturing footprint) being imported.
As for the “minor effect on prices”, well that is a very academic point as on a day like today (no sun and no wind) where is the electricity that we all need around the clock going to come from?
And I am not a denier of climate change per se. It’s your adopted IPCC version that I reject.

Someone forgot to tell Germany!

#17
Nylex_Clock3:34 pm, 09 Apr 14

dungfungus said :

It will be a game changer because government incentives and subsidies will be withdrawn or cut back.

Which government subisidies on fossil fuels are to be withdrawn or cut back?

#18
dungfungus8:44 am, 10 Apr 14

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

It will be a game changer because government incentives and subsidies will be withdrawn or cut back.

Which government subisidies on fossil fuels are to be withdrawn or cut back?

What subsidies are you talking about?

#19
dungfungus8:46 am, 10 Apr 14

Walker said :

dungfungus said :

howeph said :

dungfungus said :

I haven’t noticed any of those changes since the 1950s so I simply do not believe the IPCC which afterall is part of the UN which has little credibilty these days. Even if there are measurable changes reported by scientists they have not impacted in any way that is different to the 50 years preceeding the last 60 odd years.

We know you are a denier of climate change. We’ve had this discussion many times and you are not going to change your mind. So let’s put that to one side.

Will you give your answers to the earlier questions:

“In what way do you mean it will be a game changer? And do you think it will be for the better or worse?”

and given renewable energy has a minor effect on retail energy prices…

“So if it is not to bring down or keep prices lower, then why? Why destroy an entire industry? Who benefits?”

It will be a game changer because government incentives and subsidies will be withdrawn or cut back.
It will be better for the taxpayers and worse for the handful of promoters of wind and solar electricity generation and the overseas manufacturers of wind turbines and solar panels.
As for destroying an industry, it never was an industry with the thousands of Green jobs Bob Brown was constantly carping on about never eventuating and most of the infrastructure (with high carbon manufacturing footprint) being imported.
As for the “minor effect on prices”, well that is a very academic point as on a day like today (no sun and no wind) where is the electricity that we all need around the clock going to come from?
And I am not a denier of climate change per se. It’s your adopted IPCC version that I reject.

Someone forgot to tell Germany!

What has Germany got to do with this?

#20
IrishPete10:35 pm, 10 Apr 14

dungfungus said :

What has Germany got to do with this?

There’s a website called Google that I find quite useful, and another called Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany

#21
IrishPete10:37 pm, 10 Apr 14

dungfungus said :

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

It will be a game changer because government incentives and subsidies will be withdrawn or cut back.

Which government subisidies on fossil fuels are to be withdrawn or cut back?

What subsidies are you talking about?

If you don’t know what you are talking about, perhaps it’s best to stay silent. There are numerous direct and indirect subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and it’s not our job to be your teacher.

Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.