Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Wind auction delivers renewable energy and economic benefits

By Canfan 6 February 2015 31

The ACT’s first wind energy reverse auction has resulted in a $50 million direct investment into the local economy and broader economic benefits in excess of $240 million, Minister for the Environment Simon Corbell announced today.

 “The auction has also delivered low renewable energy prices and enough renewable energy to provide for approximately 33% of Canberra’s electricity needs,” he said.

“The three successful wind farm projects, including one to be developed by a local Canberra company, are expected to be operational by 2017.

“Combined they will deliver almost 200 megawatts of renewable energy generation capacity for the territory, enough to power 107,000 Canberra homes, and will result in a 580,000 tonne reduction in the ACT’s carbon emissions each year, the equivalent of taking 157,000 cars off the road.

“Today’s announcement delivers the single largest step-change in emissions reductions of any jurisdiction in Australia.

“Through this auction the ACT Government has secured renewable energy at the lowest possible price.”

The pass through cost to consumers for the 200 megawatts is expected to peak at just $1.79 per household per week in 2020 before declining after.  This is part of total cost of reaching 90% renewable energy use which is estimated to peak at $4.67 per household per week in 2020 before declining after.

The successful projects are:

  • The Ararat Wind Farm, an 80.5 megawatt wind farm developed by RES Australia west of Ballarat in Victoria at a feed-in tariff price of $87.00 per megawatt hour 
  • The Coonooer Bridge Wind Farm, a 19.4 megawatt wind farm developed by Canberra company Windlab Limited west of Bendigo, Victoria, at a feed-in tariff price of $81.50 per megawatt hour
  • The Hornsdale Wind Farm, a 100 megawatt wind farm developed by Neoen south-east of Port Augusta in South Australia at a feed-in tariff price of $92.00 per megawatt hour

“The three successful projects will deliver a range of benefits for the ACT through a $50million economic stimulus package, including new jobs, a new national trades training centre, an innovation fund for small Canberra renewables businesses and a $7 million investment in new courses at the Canberra Institute of Technology and the ANU,” Corbell said.

“This is not just about sourcing renewable energy; this project will secure Canberra as the renewable energy capital, providing jobs and economic benefits for all Canberrans.

“Our location, our policies and the expertise of local small businesses and premier research institutions, make the ACT the leading jurisdiction in the nation for renewable investment.

“For example, as Windlab continues to grow in Australia and internationally, so too will Windlab’s Canberra headquarters. Windlab estimates its salaries and on-costs for ACT based staff over the next 20 years will exceed $240 million. This is from a company that was founded in Canberra only 12 years ago.

“Also, Neoen, a multinational company, will grow its investment in Canberra and will make the ACT the headquarters for its Asia-Pacific wind business.”

The auction outcome has also set a new benchmark for wind farm community engagement practices in Australia and should provide a strong incentive for new projects to engage with local communities in a more meaningful and co-operative manner, for the benefit of proponents and communities alike.

The 200 megawatt wind auction will deliver approximately 33 per cent of Canberra’s electricity supply from renewable sources by 2017. Together with the 40 megawatts of large-scale solar the territory is investing in, and the existing 44 megawatts of household solar installations, renewables will be powering 80 per cent of all Canberra’s household electricity needs.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
31 Responses to
Wind auction delivers renewable energy and economic benefits
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
dungfungus 8:58 am 16 Feb 15

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

Hope it wasn’t that cheap Melbourne champagne that seems to be very popular with the climate change crusaders.

All champagne is French

Melbourne is known as the Paris of the southern hemisphere but I am happy to accept that it was the genuine article from France (via Melbourne).
PS How many tonnes of carbon were emitted in getting it here?

As much as was necessary to get a refrigerated container from Champagne to Melbourne then a truck from Melbourne to Canberra. However, less than it took to get a bottle home in my luggage. Totally worth it BTW.

I know you’re not into the type of simple joie de vivre that Champagne can provide so let me put that into perspective. My carbon cost per glass is probably about the same as the carbon cost to get your Sunday morning bacon from Canada to Canberra.

Why do you ask?

I ask because I like to see the sort of rubbish you warmists come up with to justify your hypocrisy about condemning coal fired power stations while contributing to emissions of “pollution” yourself by indulging yourself with imported, non-essential luxuries (refrigerated no less)..
By the way, I don’t eat bacon.

JC 6:39 pm 15 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

pajs said :

dungfungus said :

mcs said :

dungfungus said :

When you say “pollution” what are you referring to, exactly?

Perhaps the pollution created by burning coal to produce electricity?

That was already stated – my question refers to is what is the make up of the pollution.

If you want to learn about the 51 substances emitted by electricity generation that are captured by the National Pollutant Inventory, go here: http://www.npi.gov.au/npidata/action/load/summary-result/criteria/anzsic-division/D/anzsic-sub-division/26/anzsic-group/261/industry-source/261/destination/ALL/source-type/INDUSTRY/subthreshold-data/Yes/substance-name/All/year/2013

If you want to learn about the greenhouse gases emitted by electricity generators, you could take yourself off to the Clean Energy Regulator’s site and have a look there.

If you want to try and argue that CO2 is not a pollutant because [something], well don’t bother. Unless you can explain why noise, light and low temperature water released into rivers from the base of dams are also not noise pollution, light pollution and thermal pollution. Or how ground level ozone pollution isn’t pollution because we need the ozone layer. Or further unlikely prospects.

Thanks for that – I didn’t really want to know all about the alleged pollutants, only what they were.
Having looked now at that link and seeing the quantities emitted I believe that there is no problem due to the small quantities involved relative to the capacity of nature to deal with them.
If you are looking for a real threat, look skyward where the contrails are.
Jet aircraft are spewing out lot’s of nasties also but they are tending to stay above the atmosphere. Funny how no one wants to talk about them but after all, not even the pure David Suzuki forgoes travelling first class by air when ever he sets of to flog his latest book on the global lecture circuit.
What will happen in 30 years time when the volume of air travel increases tenfold?
As for you last paragraph, I was never good at cryptic crosswords so I don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
Is it possible you have been helping rosscoact drink his Melbourne champagne?

You want to know what pollution from coal powered power stations is then to stay with my old man for a week or so. He lives in a town called Dora Creek right next to Erraring power station one of the biggest in NSW and the stench from it is not good at all. I feel ill after just a few days up there.

You might also fit in well with him some regards as he is all for coal not surprising it kept in employment for 45 years for the most part shipping coal to this very station (and others before it opened). Though he warned he is a unionist and labor through and through.

rosscoact 11:05 pm 14 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

Hope it wasn’t that cheap Melbourne champagne that seems to be very popular with the climate change crusaders.

All champagne is French

Melbourne is known as the Paris of the southern hemisphere but I am happy to accept that it was the genuine article from France (via Melbourne).
PS How many tonnes of carbon were emitted in getting it here?

As much as was necessary to get a refrigerated container from Champagne to Melbourne then a truck from Melbourne to Canberra. However, less than it took to get a bottle home in my luggage. Totally worth it BTW.

I know you’re not into the type of simple joie de vivre that Champagne can provide so let me put that into perspective. My carbon cost per glass is probably about the same as the carbon cost to get your Sunday morning bacon from Canada to Canberra.

Why do you ask?

Masquara 4:49 pm 14 Feb 15

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

Hope it wasn’t that cheap Melbourne champagne that seems to be very popular with the climate change crusaders.

All champagne is French

Only if you are an EEC toady …

dungfungus 3:23 pm 14 Feb 15

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

Hope it wasn’t that cheap Melbourne champagne that seems to be very popular with the climate change crusaders.

All champagne is French

Melbourne is known as the Paris of the southern hemisphere but I am happy to accept that it was the genuine article from France (via Melbourne).
PS How many tonnes of carbon were emitted in getting it here?

rosscoact 11:33 am 14 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

Hope it wasn’t that cheap Melbourne champagne that seems to be very popular with the climate change crusaders.

All champagne is French

dungfungus 7:58 am 14 Feb 15

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

Have you run out of steam watto? I was expecting a detailed answer by now.

I’m sorry I had better things to do. Plus I was also in hospital. As others have pointed out in this thread, but

its also a pretty well know fact that burning of coal produces pollution.

No problems watto, your fellow warmists have been filling in for you in answering some questions.
Sorry you have been crook. Hope it wasn’t that cheap Melbourne champagne that seems to be very popular with the climate change crusaders.

watto23 10:32 pm 13 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

Have you run out of steam watto? I was expecting a detailed answer by now.

I’m sorry I had better things to do. Plus I was also in hospital. As others have pointed out in this thread, but its also a pretty well know fact that burning of coal produces pollution.

dungfungus 9:49 pm 13 Feb 15

pajs said :

dungfungus said :

mcs said :

dungfungus said :

When you say “pollution” what are you referring to, exactly?

Perhaps the pollution created by burning coal to produce electricity?

That was already stated – my question refers to is what is the make up of the pollution.

If you want to learn about the 51 substances emitted by electricity generation that are captured by the National Pollutant Inventory, go here: http://www.npi.gov.au/npidata/action/load/summary-result/criteria/anzsic-division/D/anzsic-sub-division/26/anzsic-group/261/industry-source/261/destination/ALL/source-type/INDUSTRY/subthreshold-data/Yes/substance-name/All/year/2013

If you want to learn about the greenhouse gases emitted by electricity generators, you could take yourself off to the Clean Energy Regulator’s site and have a look there.

If you want to try and argue that CO2 is not a pollutant because [something], well don’t bother. Unless you can explain why noise, light and low temperature water released into rivers from the base of dams are also not noise pollution, light pollution and thermal pollution. Or how ground level ozone pollution isn’t pollution because we need the ozone layer. Or further unlikely prospects.

Thanks for that – I didn’t really want to know all about the alleged pollutants, only what they were.
Having looked now at that link and seeing the quantities emitted I believe that there is no problem due to the small quantities involved relative to the capacity of nature to deal with them.
If you are looking for a real threat, look skyward where the contrails are.
Jet aircraft are spewing out lot’s of nasties also but they are tending to stay above the atmosphere. Funny how no one wants to talk about them but after all, not even the pure David Suzuki forgoes travelling first class by air when ever he sets of to flog his latest book on the global lecture circuit.
What will happen in 30 years time when the volume of air travel increases tenfold?
As for you last paragraph, I was never good at cryptic crosswords so I don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
Is it possible you have been helping rosscoact drink his Melbourne champagne?

dungfungus 9:32 pm 13 Feb 15

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

gazket said :

The ACT will be paying for South Australian’s electricity . S.A. has a electricity shortage so none of that wind power will make it here to the ACT. Over that distance you may be able to charge up your phone.

There fore we are paying for nothing. You’re an idiot Corbell

tooltime said :

Can someone please explain to me how these wind businesses generate power about 1000km away and transport it to the ACT cheaper than say a locally built solar farm built at Braidwood or Williamsdale? Is it the cost of the land?

Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer tooltime.

Answered a week ago by myself in comment 4.

Do try to keep up Dungfungus.

I did check but missed your post. I will try and be a better dungfungus. In the meantime, apologies.

chewy14 12:09 pm 13 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

gazket said :

The ACT will be paying for South Australian’s electricity . S.A. has a electricity shortage so none of that wind power will make it here to the ACT. Over that distance you may be able to charge up your phone.

There fore we are paying for nothing. You’re an idiot Corbell

tooltime said :

Can someone please explain to me how these wind businesses generate power about 1000km away and transport it to the ACT cheaper than say a locally built solar farm built at Braidwood or Williamsdale? Is it the cost of the land?

Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer tooltime.

Answered a week ago by myself in comment 4.

Do try to keep up Dungfungus.

pajs 11:38 am 13 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

mcs said :

dungfungus said :

When you say “pollution” what are you referring to, exactly?

Perhaps the pollution created by burning coal to produce electricity?

That was already stated – my question refers to is what is the make up of the pollution.

If you want to learn about the 51 substances emitted by electricity generation that are captured by the National Pollutant Inventory, go here: http://www.npi.gov.au/npidata/action/load/summary-result/criteria/anzsic-division/D/anzsic-sub-division/26/anzsic-group/261/industry-source/261/destination/ALL/source-type/INDUSTRY/subthreshold-data/Yes/substance-name/All/year/2013

If you want to learn about the greenhouse gases emitted by electricity generators, you could take yourself off to the Clean Energy Regulator’s site and have a look there.

If you want to try and argue that CO2 is not a pollutant because [something], well don’t bother. Unless you can explain why noise, light and low temperature water released into rivers from the base of dams are also not noise pollution, light pollution and thermal pollution. Or how ground level ozone pollution isn’t pollution because we need the ozone layer. Or further unlikely prospects.

dungfungus 10:45 am 13 Feb 15

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

Have you run out of steam watto? I was expecting a detailed answer by now.

Let’s face it, detailed answers are just ignored so why bother. It really is simple and straightforward and if you don’t understand specific points you should as questions about those specific points.

If you don’t understand conceptually, then the answers are already in the thread.

I’ll settle for a simple answer then if you can stoop that low.

dungfungus 10:44 am 13 Feb 15

mcs said :

dungfungus said :

When you say “pollution” what are you referring to, exactly?

Perhaps the pollution created by burning coal to produce electricity?

That was already stated – my question refers to is what is the make up of the pollution.

rosscoact 10:29 am 13 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

Have you run out of steam watto? I was expecting a detailed answer by now.

Let’s face it, detailed answers are just ignored so why bother. It really is simple and straightforward and if you don’t understand specific points you should as questions about those specific points.

If you don’t understand conceptually, then the answers are already in the thread.

rosscoact 10:26 am 13 Feb 15

gazket said :

To me it seems like this.

The wind farms in VIC and SA will be getting paid twice for the electricity they generate. Once by ACT residents who won’t even see the electricity and again by VIC and SA residents who will actually use the electricity.

How do you see electricity?

mcs 9:28 am 13 Feb 15

dungfungus said :

When you say “pollution” what are you referring to, exactly?

Perhaps the pollution created by burning coal to produce electricity?

mcs 9:25 am 13 Feb 15

gazket said :

The ACT will be paying for South Australian’s electricity . S.A. has a electricity shortage so none of that wind power will make it here to the ACT. Over that distance you may be able to charge up your phone.

There fore we are paying for nothing. You’re an idiot Corbell

It is a national electricity market, as pointed out earlier in the discussion. Therefore, we are paying for the generation of that power, not so that we recieve the actual power generated by the windfarm itself. Here is a reasonably simple explanation of how the NEM works:

http://www.aemo.com.au/About-the-Industry/Energy-Markets/National-Electricity-Market

Whether the ACT should be paying the premium we do for the generation of wind power is another question, but it is not a case of ‘paying for nothing’ as you suggest.

It really is the simple economics of supply and demand. We are paying for x amount of power to be generated from windfarms, which forms part of the overall supply of power in the whole of the NEM, which, if the market operators are doing their job, should equal the amount of power being demanded by consumers of power. Where the actual power you ‘use’ at the end of the day is irrelevant per say.

dungfungus 7:16 am 13 Feb 15

gazket said :

The ACT will be paying for South Australian’s electricity . S.A. has a electricity shortage so none of that wind power will make it here to the ACT. Over that distance you may be able to charge up your phone.

There fore we are paying for nothing. You’re an idiot Corbell

tooltime said :

Can someone please explain to me how these wind businesses generate power about 1000km away and transport it to the ACT cheaper than say a locally built solar farm built at Braidwood or Williamsdale? Is it the cost of the land?

Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer tooltime.

gazket 6:45 pm 12 Feb 15

To me it seems like this.

The wind farms in VIC and SA will be getting paid twice for the electricity they generate. Once by ACT residents who won’t even see the electricity and again by VIC and SA residents who will actually use the electricity.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site