A recent Wind Farm Case Study shows the effects of wind power generation are not well understood by the public, politicians and specifically the greens, who are not only wilfully ignorant, but also dishonest. The whole subject is shrouded in a sacred climate mystique, a smoke and mirrors subject, with unjustified, unquantified, ill defined, un-costed and unjustified savings and supposed benefits for our society, under the mantra of saving CO2 emissions.
The video link below is about the operation of the Eva Creek Wind Farm in Alaska, which is a relatively recent wind farm as it came on line in 2012. By world standards this is a relatively small wind farm at 25 MW, but it illustrates well many of the problems with putting wind power generation into existing HV (high voltage) power grids.
EVA Creek Project Overview
Eva Creek History and Observations
The actual lecture is about 50 mins long, with questions afterwards. There are some good shots of the spectacular scenery of Alaska.
Wind Farm Case Study – KLO
Key learning outcomes summarised from this lecture:
Cheap money is used for finance (well below market rates) so that is probably equivalent to subsidies from our government funded clean energy foundation.
The plant operating entity in this situation is a not for profit organisation – so it in effect pays no tax.
Regulation costs are NOT included – this is an “add-on”, just to make the wind energy generators usable.
These hidden economic inputs result in a skewing of the true financial cost structure of wind energy.
This Wind Farm Case Study clearly shows that the Critical Point to note is what they call ‘regulation’ which means that there must be an equivalent power generation system (hydro, coal, gas turbine, interconnector) run in parallel with a wind farm to cover its loss when the wind speed drops off. That is why wind energy is unreliable and expensive, commonly referred to now as “intermittent” energy. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Real practical problems are encountered in controlling the power grid stability with unpredictable rates of increase/decrease of its wind generation capacity. This relates to “power system stability” – a whole new ball game of control complexity.
Availability of this new plant is 99%, however, future availability will fall as maintenance issues need to be addressed. In fact, the average “utilisation factor” of the wind turbines is just 34%. The question needs to be asked, would you spend $1mill on a new truck for a transport business if you only used it 34% of the time?
This then leads to another problem, that if your wind turbine only supplies electrical power for 34% of the day, what happens to consumers who need electrical power (Baseload power) 24 hrs a day?, 66% of the time. A commonly heard saying now is “if the wind don’t blow, ……….. the power don’t flow”!
The generating authority, therefore, needs to have additional generating plant running in parallel with the wind turbines, costing money to keep running, with no saleable power to export to customers! Really, how logically and economically ridiculous is this situation?
Considerable wind generation potential, in terms of dollars it could earn, are wasted because of the difficulty in controlling the power grid stability and fuel costs for load following gas turbine generators. Also, considerable wind power generating time is lost when wind speeds are too high, or too low, which means a loss of earnings in a true financial case.
The ‘load following plants’ have major problems starting after trip conditions, so this means there has to be a backup load following plant to keep the system grid stable which creates major control problems.
Gas turbine generators (with combined cycle backends) work best at almost full load, so they are less suitable for load following. Reducing gas turbine loads causes control of the gas turbine to be unstable, resulting in trip outs, maintenance problems, increased fuel cost and unreliability.
Small-scale steam driven plants are better for load following as they can regulate their output much quicker to follow wind farm output rise and fall in power generated.
The high load demand (morning and evening meal times) is typically out of phase with the wind energy available. Maybe we should alter meal times to suit the clean green wind power?
The lecture explains how gas fuel prices for gas turbine generating plants have a large effect on the cost of power generation in a mixed regime power generating grid. This would help explain the recent flurry of federal and state government energy ministers meeting and thrashing out a stabilisation of domestic natural gas prices. Now we know why there were squeals of pain!
Now that several state governments have sold off their natural gas reserves, and overseas investors devour up the resource to export it at a few cents per litre, Australians are left as beggars in their own country to source gas to run gas turbine generation plants, so that we can use the wonderful clean green cheap renewable energy.
Sources close to the electricity generation system in Queensland indicate that there have been several gas turbine generating turbines sitting idle or mothballed, because of the high cost, or scarcity of, natural gas to fuel them at present. This makes a mockery of the current Queensland government rushing headlong into a target of 50% renewable energy mix, in a few years time.
We have been CONNED by the renewable energy lobby, as they are the snake oil salesmen of the 21st century, ably supported by technically and financially illiterate politicians in both State and Federal parliaments.
Did you Know?
Additional background information can be found on the links below.
Now you’re not! | The unhappy state of Australia’s political satire
I’m willing to bet The Chaser team are disappointed that last night’s episode of the Election Desk was the last of the series. So much fruit for comedic picking has ripened over the last week they could probably run new episodes every day for the next month and not run out of material.
Then again it has been many years since The Chaser was in peak form, so it’s questionable as to whether they – or any other Australian satirists, for that matter – would do anything truly worthwhile with it.
It’s a real shame, because we are in the middle (or perhaps, more worryingly, just at the start) of another tumultuous period in Australian politics, and we need a good laugh more than ever.
The rise of satire-journalism
Over the last 20 years, satire has played an increasingly significant role in the political sphere. Apart from providing catharsis for disillusioned voters, it’s more and more shaping public perceptions of events.
Many observers argue satire has become important because traditional forms of journalism have fallen into a state of crisis, no longer fulfilling its role of holding powerful people and institutions to account.
In his excellent book From Cronkite to Colbert (2009), Geoffrey Baym described satirists like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as “neomodern”. They, and others like them, are actually attending to some fundamental concerns of journalism (searching for truth, a desire for accountability), even as they depart radically from many of its norms (objectivity, balance) at the same time.
Of course, another reason why satire has grown in significance in recent years is because it’s far more entertaining – and therefore so much more shareable – than most forms of political news.
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (2014-) has been outrageously successful in this way, with the long, informative, passionate segments about issues that matter that have become its hallmark. As it happens, its recent segment about the Brexit was not shown in the UK before the referendum, because it was considered to be too one-sided.
Another satirical format that has become popular in recent years (perhaps also thanks to its shareability) is the “fake news” story. Historically, The Onion has set the global standard.
Indeed, it is becoming harder and harder to distinguish between real news and fake news, so ludicrous has so much of modern politics become. Websites like Literally Unbelievable, which collates satire along with the reactions of people who believed it, and Facebook’s decision in 2014 to (temporarily) flag links to The Onion as “Satire”, demonstrate this all too clearly.
It’s not just un-media-savvy audiences being fooled. A litany of prominent public figures and media sources have been taken in by fake news, perhaps most notably when in 2012 Chinese newspaper The People’s Daily picked up an Onion report that Kim Jong-un had been voted “Sexiest Man Alive”.
Australian satire today
Australia does have a rich satirical history, as I’ve noted before, but its more recent output has arguably been somewhat second-rate. Most of the satirical websites I’ve mentioned follow a path well-trodden by The Onion.
At the risk of invoking the dreaded “I like your old stuff better than your new stuff”, The Chaser – although still popular – has lacked originality in recent years. Their presence at press conferences and photo-ops was once daring, catching politicians off-guard.
There was perhaps no better demonstration that the Coalition’s crusade on interest rates during the 2004 election was a scare campaign than Craig Reucassel asking Philip Ruddock (echoing the 2001 scare campaign on refugees) whether they alone would “decide what interest rates come to this country, and the circumstances in which they come?”
Now, too many of their cheap one-liners fall flat, and politicians have become wise to their antics (and often agree to guest appearances).
The one stand-out exception to this was Zoe Norton Lodge and Kirsten Drysdale’s wonderful stunt with David Leyonhjelm, which highlighted the senator’s hypocrisy when “free speech” is directed towards him, rather than an entire gender. It was The Chaser getting back to its edgy best.
I’ve never particularly enjoyed Shaun Micallef’s Mad as Hell, perhaps because, as one reviewer noted last year, “Micallef’s well-oiled machine is all shtick: a comedy show that just happens to use the news as a delivery mechanism for punchlines”. His 2007 program NEWStopia (which, crucially, was not filmed in front of a live studio audience) was a much better vehicle for that kind of comedy.
If there was one interesting thing thrown up by the media during the election period, it’s Sammy J’s Playground Politics, an off-the-wall blend of political humour in a style scarily reminiscent of Playschool. It gets us back to what Australian satirists have done so well in the past: being original, rather than blindly following the example set by others overseas.
Originally Published http://theconversation.com/now-youre-laughing-the-unhappy-state-of-australias-political-satire-61742
And, more importantly, what can be done about them?
We know bullying is a huge problem. Even the Prime Minister has admitted to having been a target as a boy, and Price Waterhouse Coopers research suggests the problem costs society $2.4 billion per annual school cohort.
The first step in addressing bullying is to realize that we as a society have been unwittingly promoting the view that people are fragile, are in need of constant reassurance, and must be protected against criticisms and so-called microaggressions.
Consider a report on the BBC website which states “A head teacher of a leading primary school has said young children should not have best friends because it could leave others feeling ostracized and hurt.”
Seriously? Children are being taught that their feelings are easily hurt and that they are easily offended and powerless to not be offended. Such thinking becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This needs to stop.
Malcolm Turnbull might be all smiles on school visits now, but he admits he was bullied during his own school days.
The second step in stamping out verbal bullying is to understand that bullies engage in bullying because of their own feelings of inadequacy and insecurities, despite the outward mask of confidence they wear.
People relate with others in accordance with how they relate to themselves.
Those who genuinely like themselves, not in a narcissistic way, but who can appreciate their own self-worth, genuinely like others and have no need to torment, attack, or harass them. They neither see themselves as inferior nor superior to others.
But this is not true for bullies, whose bullying behaviours are better seen as calls for help.
This is not to excuse any bully’s behaviour, but an understanding of the bully’s primary motivations provides clues on how to reduce their bullying behaviour.
Bullies typically continue their bullying behaviour when they are psychologically rewarded by seeing the fear and anguish in their victims. When these rewards stop, often so does the bullying.
Bullies feed off the targets’ defensive responses. If the bully throws verbal ‘mud’ and it does not stick, they generally move on to an easier target.
The third step is that, in addition to dealing with the bullies’ behaviour, there is also great benefit in helping targets of bullies understand what they can do to prevent themselves from being victims.
Immediately after reading that last sentence, some will protest: “You are blaming the victim” or “But targets shouldn’t have to do anything; it’s the responsibility of the bully to change his or her behaviour.”
The reality is, however, that bullies are generally not responsible people, and due to their own insecurities, are on the lookout for targets to tease and torment, even when there are laws that say they should not.
I am not blaming the targets of bullies.
I merely wish to empower them so that they no longer need to be fearful in the face of verbal attacks and taunts.
It would help kids if they better understood what motivates bullying behaviour and the best way to respond.
What I am suggesting is teaching children some psychological defence skills that will make them psychologically ‘Teflon coated’ and immune to the kind of verbal abuse that often leads on to physical abuse by the bully or even suicide for the bullied.
There are many non-defensive responses that the bully will certainly not find reinforcing. For example, when being teased, a simple and calm response such as, “Oh, why are you telling me that?” or, my personal favorite counter to an insult intended to upset me, “Thanks for that feedback, I’ll give it some thought” can turn the attention back to the bully.
These responses are much like the classic response of, “Is that all you’ve got?” to a flasher: He is quickly deflated.
I must emphasize that my assertion that children can benefit from learning effective skills to prevent themselves from being targets of bullying is in no way meant to replace the much-needed adult interventions aimed at stopping bullies through social and legal avenues or to lessen the culpability of the bully.
The reality is, however, that there are times when adults are not there, or their interventions are not effective.
As such it is an educational imperative to strengthen the inner resources of potential victims.
Of course, the strategies I’ve described don’t come easy to children who have grown up with the mistaken belief that other people’s opinions of them are more important to them than their own opinion of themselves.
A crucial part of any psychosocial self-defence education program will need to focus on helping children find ways to value their opinions of themselves more than the bully’s opinion of them and others’ opinions in general.
Children are more likely to do this when they see the significant adults in their lives model this. Adults, please remember this.
As Albert Einstein once said, “Arrows of hate have been shot at me too, but they never hit me, because somehow they belonged to another world with which I have no connection whatsoever.”
The AGL Coopers Gap Wind Farm shows just how gullible we all are! We are being systematically and financially attacked by unsustainable and unaffordable electricity costs from energy producers, facilitated by state and federal governments. Many of us cannot afford basic electricity in a nation blessed with abundant natural resources!
The RET (renewable energy targets) funded by taxpayers to the tune of $3billion per annum, is causing an ‘energy-crisis’ in this nation. But who is standing up and speaking up about this crisis and offering a solution for affordable energy? While we increase exports of coal and gas to China and India- some of the world’s most prolific polluters- to produce competitively priced goods – we slug our industries and citizens with higher energy prices to fund the ‘renewable energy monster’. Industries become uncompetitive, people lose jobs and an essential service becomes a luxury for many everyday Aussies. To be sustainable, renewables such as wind, solar and hydro must stand on their own two- feet economically!
Here are some comments on the latest ‘AGL Coopers Gap Wind Farm’ development
The PARF Fund (Powering Australian Renewables Fund) seems to be a commercial vehicle set up to capture Queensland’s Labor State Government renewable subsidy funds, to deliver their 50% renewable energy target. To date we have not seen any details of Labors proposed 50% RET, and what impact this will have on taxpayers. Prior to the Queensland state election, voters were not given details, before going to the ballot box. Neither has the Queensland Labor Government given any financial justification, based on facts and economic necessity, for pursuing a 50% renewable energy target. A similar renewable energy target has demonstrated its ability to wreak havoc on the South Australian economy, and now the newly elected Queensland Labor Government seems determined to replicate the South Australian disaster.
It is interesting to note the ‘justifications’ on the AGL web page for the Coopers Gap Wind Farm, demonstrate an interesting mix of pure fantasy and unadulterated misinformation.
The Coopers Gap Wind Farm output at maximum capacity (i.e. when the wind is blowing at about 35 – 45 Km/hr) is 453 MW, or enough to power 260,000 average domestic homes. However, what if your consumer mix is not all average homes, but a mix of light, medium and heavy industry, and homes? When the wind velocity falls off, another generating plant (coal or gas) is required to generate the drop-off and keep the power on. The benefit claimed by AGL (i.e. number of average residences powered by wind) is a fallacy, but an impressive number nonetheless, but a number which is totally irrelevant when considering the requirements of baseload electricity for industry.
123 wind turbines produce 453 MW power at maximum design wind velocity, which gives a unit wind turbine capacity of 3.68 MW (453 / 123) each. Yearly generating capacity of the Coopers Gap facility is given as 1,510,000 MW hrs. If the wind turbines were to operate 100% of the time, the theoretical maximum output would be 3, 965,126 MW hrs. (123 turbines x 3.68 MW x 24 hrs / day x 365 days). Utilisation factor is therefore (1,510,000 / 3,965,126) or 38%.This means that alternative coal or gas fuel generation is required for 62% of the time to keep the lights on, air conditioners operating, refrigeration operating in homes and supermarkets, smelting plants operational, commercial buildings illuminated, computers and security systems operational, hospitals fully functioning, traffic lights and street lights working etc. The question, therefore, needs to be asked; Would any commercially responsible company (i.e. not government subsidized) put in a plant that only produced a return 38% of the time??
ABC news and other local news outlets report the ‘benefits’ of The Coopers Gap Wind Farm as helping economically depressed rural farming areas, and the wind turbine royalty to each of the 12 farms greatly benefiting the economic viability of the area. No mention of the increase in consumer costs, and the resultant ‘ripple effect’ to businesses, farms and livelihoods. No mention of the geographic suitability of the site. Surely not a rational financial reason for placing a wind farm in an area??http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-08/struggling-farmers-looking-to-wind-farms-for-financial-security/9406376
Now for some additional information I believe is relevant to the efficient running of a power generation industry. In previous decades, various state governments had a power generation authority (ECNSW, QEGB, ETSA, SECV etc) who were tasked with owning and operating power generation utilities. These authorities, although slightly unwieldy and feather- bedded to a degree, had a core group of qualified professional engineers who could advise various state governments of industry needs with respect to electrical power generation and load demand. These generation authorities have long since been disbanded in the rush for imaginary cost savings and government efficiencies. There are now no qualified professionals regulating power generation and demand! Their function has now been usurped by under-educated, and virtue-signalling politicians supported by vocal special interest groups, who get the ‘green light’ to install renewable energy generating plantsthroughout the states and territories without regard to good electrical engineering practice – hence South Australia now has state-wide power outages and runaway power costs – some of the most expensive electricity in the developed world.
This high cost of renewables is a result of subsidies for the RET (renewable energy target) on the threat of climate catastrophism. Subsidies to one sector of energy generation skew the market and remove a level playing field for other electricity generators. Opportunistic companies then take advantage of easy-money subsidies and close viable and competitive energy producing plants and replace them with higher-cost renewables energy. It is a lazy ‘get-rich-quick’ business strategy!
This then results in a lack of investment in traditional power generation using our nation’s resource-rich supplies of coal and gas. Generating options such as HELO (high energy, low omissions) coal and natural gas-fired power stations which could deliver the cheapest market rate power to all Australians are being shelved in preference of subsidized unreliable, and unaffordable renewable energy production, while exporting our competitive natural resource advantage, overseas.
I have travelled extensively around Tasmania and viewed some of their wind turbine sites. In Tasmania, the highest wind speeds are typically in the southern coastal latitudes, known as the roaring 40’s in the days of sailing ships.
Area for new Coopers Gap Wind Farm
Sub-tropical areas are not usually known for year-round high-velocity prevailing winds. A typical wind turbine site in Tasmania is characterised by being a coastal area exposed to the prevailing westerly winds year-round. Two fine examples are Cape Grim and Cape Portland which have wind farms. Neither of the above 2 conditions is evident at the Coopers Gap Wind Farm, so one wonders if it is suitable for the purpose, or is it just a political expediency and virtue signalling to the climate change myth?http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-08/struggling-farmers-looking-to-wind-farms-for-financial-security/9406376
My experience along the Queensland coast is that for 75% of the time, this area is subject to SE trade winds ridging up the coastal strip, with the remaining 20% of the time wind coming from the NE off the Coral Sea. The remaining 5% of the time winds are cold and dry from the west, particularly during the month of August.
Wind Farms could be short-term expediency for cash-strapped technically– deficient and nervous politicians who succumb to the shrill cries of Greens protestors, every time an environmental impact study must be tabled. Not being discussed at any point, is the environmental and economic cost of producing wind turbines, which will be discussed in another article.
I am of the opinion the financial backers of Wind Farms rely on guaranteed power supply contracts, over a 20 yr wind farm lifespan. At the end of the term, the keys are handed over to others to maintain the infrastructure. What happens, therefore, when the average wind turbine lifespan is just 12 years? Is the shelf life sufficiently long enough to justify its huge economic and environmental cost? Who takes responsibility for removing these decommissioned monoliths?
So, when we are talking about halal foods it means any foods that can be eaten according to Islamic Sharia law. This means that for any food to be considered halal it must comply with the religious ritual and observance of Sharia law.
What is ‘halal certification’?
This means that food has been subjected to certification systems which guarantee to consumers that nothing in the food has any forbidden components. Halal certificates are issued, for a fee, by a certifying body. The opposite of halal is haram (forbidden).
Food can be forbidden in Islam if it includes:
Meat or any products from a forbidden animal, including pigs and any carnivorous animals or birds of prey
Meat or any products of an animal which has not been slaughtered in the correct manner in the name of Allah
Under Islamic law (Sharia) it is permissible (halal) to consume items that would otherwise be termed haram so long as it is a matter of survival and not just an act of disobedience.
Many big food manufacturers pay halal certification fees on their products and pass this cost on to us!Many non-Muslim Australians do not want to pay ‘halal taxes’ however most ‘halal certified’ products are not marked- meaning the consumer cannot easily identify products with the tax applied.
In Australia, the first halal certificate was issued in 1983.
The Australian Government did not regulate this business believing it should be ‘self-regulated’ rather than in government control. As a result, the ‘halal industry’ has spiralled out of control and has become a major revenue earner at our expense. Prior to 1983, and for over 1,300 years, Muslims have eaten foods not ‘halal certified’. Today, however, they demand halal certification, and we pay for something we don’t want and don’t need.
Halal Certification was initially applied to food but now applies to personal care products, utensils, fashion, medicines, clothing, shoes, pet foods, and packaging materials such as cans, drums and plastic bottles. The ‘halal industry’ now makes $ billions each year in revenue. These funds are used by the Muslim community to build mosques, Islamic schools and support Islamic ‘charities’.
The enquiry in 2016 failed to search for links between halal funds and Islamic terrorism, so the question remains whether halal revenue funds illegal or criminal activities.
There are many major companies whose products are ‘halal certified’. Some of these are well-established names such as Cadburys, Kraft, Sanitarium, Kellogg’s, Nestle and King Island Dairy.
The Australian and New Zealand Governments have been remiss in not regulating this ‘third-party’, religious honey-pot of gold! Many halal certifiers are ‘Not-For-Profit’ organizations, meaning no tax is paid on revenue. Being ‘un-regulated’ has allowed the industry to set its own certification fees, in many instances relevant to the businesses ability to pay, and not relevant to the cost of certification.
In contrast, in most predominantly Islamic countries, the government regulates both the fees and revenue from halal certification. This provides certainty in business, fairness in trade, removes price gouging, reduces turf wars and provides the government with an income stream. That fact our government has not seem fit to do likewise is a failure to act in the interests of the majority.
A Senate Enquiry into ‘Third Party certification of food’ was held in 2015. The panel consisted of politicians from both major political parties. At the end of the enquiry seven (7) recommendations were made to the government.
The Committee recommends that food manufacturers clearly label products which have received third-party certification.
The Committee recommends that the government, through the Department of Agriculture, consider the monitoring and compliance of halal certification of meat for export; and becoming the sole signatory on the government halal certificate.
The Committee recommends that the government, through bilateral and multilateral forums, promote greater acceptance of a ‘whole–of-country’, government-led halal certification system.
The Committee recommends that the government consider requiring certification bodies to register their operations under certification trademarks.
The Committee recommends that the government consider requiring that halal certification of goods in the domestic market comply with the standard agreed for export.
The Committee recommends that the halal certification industry consider establishing a single halal certification authority and a single national registered certified trademark.
The Committee recommends that meat processors clearly label products sourced from animals subject to religious slaughter.
Now several years later, the halal certification industry in Australia has grown. It is estimated that Australia is one of the world’s largest exporters of halal food products. In 2015, this was reported to be $13billion. Such is the lure of ‘easy halal certification money’ and no-regulation, Australia has become the ‘halal-honey-pot’ , hosting the worldwide Halal Expo each year.
Halal Certification is an excellent ‘religious-based- business- model’ especially lucrative in unregulated countries, where politicians and governments are afraid of being labelled ‘racist’
In Australia, Halal Certification revenue has not yet been found to fund terrorism, however, the concern remains
If Australian’s wish to ensure their money is not used for criminal related activities, they should start by avoiding halal certified goods, services and products.
Voters should contact their local federal MP and ask when the seven recommendations handed down by the Senate committee on 1st December 2015 will be adopted to deliver certainty, transparency and fairness for all