Obviously the representative from SA's advice was not heeded as the biggest windfarm in Australia get the nod. These sentinels are the future and before any naysayer mentions only when the wind blows has never been to these parts of Victoria.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/state-to-host-biggest-wind-farm-in-southern-hemisphere-as-turbines-win-final-approval-20211124-p59bnm.html

OR Bass Strait.

https://www.starofthesouth.com.au/

Mike.

The federal government dinosaurs, soon hopefully to be consigned to history as growth in wind and solar energy generation is driving out coal power from the electricity grid and slashing carbon emissions, and the federal government is now banking on renewable energy outstripping a Labor target it once warned would wreck the economy.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/renewable-energy-to-exceed-labor-s-wrecking-ball-target-as-electricity-prices-fall-20211130-p59dhc.html

Mike.

Europe is having some serious issues with energy atm. It doesn't help that they are at a geographic disadvantage:

Labor commits to reducing carbon emissions by 43% by 2030 if it wins the next election

The federal Labor Party announced on Thursday that it will take to the 2022 election a gas emissions reduction target of 43% by the end of the decade.

During Labor's climate policy presentation, opposition leader Anthony Albanese said this plan "will create jobs, cut power bills and boost renewables". The policy exceeds the forecasted 35% reduction announced by Prime Minister Scott Morrison at the Glasgow summit, but is less ambitious than the 45% cut the opposition promised in the 2019 election campaign.

Labor commits to reducing carbon emissions by 43% by 2030 if it wins the next election

The federal Labor Party announced on Thursday that it will take to the 2022 election a gas emissions reduction target of 43% by the end of the decade.

During Labor's climate policy presentation, opposition leader Anthony Albanese said this plan "will create jobs, cut power bills and boost renewables". The policy exceeds the forecasted 35% reduction announced by Prime Minister Scott Morrison at the Glasgow summit, but is less ambitious than the 45% cut the opposition promised in the 2019 election campaign.

Big business likes it, too:

Big business welcomes Labor’s industry-focused climate policy (theage.com.au)

Former ACTU President Jennie George has called out Albo's plan for 43% emissions cuts by 2030 as complete rubbish - she says in an opinion piece in the Australian that the promise of 600,000+ jobs in 'unbelievable' and that the coal workers and other people dependent on fossil fuels for a living deserve better.

The ALP is wedded to a fantasy that will probably cost close to a trillion dollars and will deliver nothing for Australian workers.

A very ambitious proposal for 1GW offshore windfarm off Portland to both power the Aluminium smelter and feed into the 500kV grid:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/alinta-proposes-1000mw-offshore-wind-farm-to-help-power-portland-smelter/

Labor's 2030 emissions policy already in trouble after its revealed they have confused wholesale and retail prices:

A very ambitious proposal for 1GW offshore windfarm off Portland to both power the Aluminium smelter and feed into the 500kV grid:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/alinta-proposes-1000mw-offshore-wind-farm-to-help-power-portland-smelter/

Not really ambitious at all. There are many GW's of power generated from operational wind farms in the North Sea, for example. It is hardly revolutionary:
List of offshore wind farms in the North Sea - Wikipedia

There is also a proposal for a 2.2 GW wind farm located off the South Gippsland coast, which would offset the closure of Yallourn PS in a few years time:  Overview — Star of the South

The same old RWNJ opponents keep asking the same questions, like what if they fall over, or what if a boat crashes into them, or what if they rust etc., totally oblivious to the fact that they have been operating successfully elsewhere on the planet (but clearly, outside of their own village) for decades.

Ambitious for some, maybe. Well overdue for others.

A very ambitious proposal for 1GW offshore windfarm off Portland to both power the Aluminium smelter and feed into the 500kV grid:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/alinta-proposes-1000mw-offshore-wind-farm-to-help-power-portland-smelter/

Not really ambitious at all. There are many GW's of power generated from operational wind farms in the North Sea, for example. It is hardly revolutionary:
List of offshore wind farms in the North Sea - Wikipedia

There is also a proposal for a 2.2 GW wind farm located off the South Gippsland coast, which would offset the closure of Yallourn PS in a few years time:  Overview — Star of the South

The same old RWNJ opponents keep asking the same questions, like what if they fall over, or what if a boat crashes into them, or what if they rust etc., totally oblivious to the fact that they have been operating successfully elsewhere on the planet (but clearly, outside of their own village) for decades.

Ambitious for some, maybe. Well overdue for others.

They don't work: Bloomberg (Sept 2021)

Electricity prices soared to a record in Britain as a period of still weather is curbing wind power, exposing the U.K.’s reliance on intermittent renewables.

U.K. power for next day exceed 400 pounds ($553) a megawatt-hour at an auction on Monday, an all-time high. Wind generation is currently below normal, accounting for about 11% of all the electricity entering the grid. That’s leaving the market exposed to swings at a time five nuclear units are offline.

We don't have HV lines to France for reliable, back-up power from nuclear generators - so we're going to have blackouts later this decade. Nothing is more certain.

And it'll all be on the head of zealots like you who are completely clueless about how the world actually works but thing more unreliable energy is a great thing.

We don't have HV lines to France for reliable, back-up power from nuclear generators - so we're going to have blackouts later this decade. Nothing is more certain.

And it'll all be on the head of zealots like you who are completely clueless about how the world actually works but thing more unreliable energy is a great thing.

There we go again. Representative from SA's crystal ball gazing once more

Always good for a larf.

M.

We don't have HV lines to France for reliable, back-up power from nuclear generators - so we're going to have blackouts later this decade. Nothing is more certain.

And it'll all be on the head of zealots like you who are completely clueless about how the world actually works but thing more unreliable energy is a great thing.
There we go again. Representative from SA's crystal ball gazing once more

Always good for a larf.

M.

Mike, what's happened in Europe is fact - and it's a 'crystal ball' as to where we'll be in five or so years (especially if Labor get into office next year). Wind has been failing the UK now for nearly six months and they don't have a 'plan B', the greenies in this country seriously think it won't matter if we close coal-fired power stations.

It's the total lack of connection to reality that I always find unfathomable about you green fanatics.

A very ambitious proposal for 1GW offshore windfarm off Portland to both power the Aluminium smelter and feed into the 500kV grid:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/alinta-proposes-1000mw-offshore-wind-farm-to-help-power-portland-smelter/

Not really ambitious at all. There are many GW's of power generated from operational wind farms in the North Sea, for example. It is hardly revolutionary:
List of offshore wind farms in the North Sea - Wikipedia

There is also a proposal for a 2.2 GW wind farm located off the South Gippsland coast, which would offset the closure of Yallourn PS in a few years time:  Overview — Star of the South

The same old RWNJ opponents keep asking the same questions, like what if they fall over, or what if a boat crashes into them, or what if they rust etc., totally oblivious to the fact that they have been operating successfully elsewhere on the planet (but clearly, outside of their own village) for decades.

Ambitious for some, maybe. Well overdue for others.

It’s very ambitious of them to say it will power Portland smelter, more so, to feed into the grid too.

Average wind capacity factor is 25%, off shore is marginally better, but generally not greatly better than 33%, you can find individual turbine designs with double that, or plants that do a bit better than 50% reported over a three month period, published three months after they took the data - why the delay? Electrons are instantaneous.

1GW is the nameplate, Alcoa Portland pulls around 566MW nearly continuous. 33% capacity factor ain’t getting you near powering the smelter, let alone ‘feeding’ the 500kV network. 57% capacity factor is a VERY AMBITIOUS target for a wind turbine plant, at that, that’s 4MW back to the grid excess that’s going to amount to a imperceptible restriction to the inlet line at Mortlake.

The article clearly speculates up to 100% powered by the wind farm, etc. It does not say that the smelter will be 100% powered by the wind farm.

I get what you saying about nameplate capacity though. Some people are easily misled by it. Classic example, before Hazelwood shut (almost five years ago!) it was feared that the sudden loss of 1600 MW from the grid would result in disaster. In fact, Hazelwood struggled to make over 1000 MW at any one time in its last years of operation, and even when it was in its prime, it was very rare indeed for all eight units to be operating together.

The article clearly speculates up to 100% powered by the wind farm, etc. It does not say that the smelter will be 100% powered by the wind farm.

I get what you saying about nameplate capacity though. Some people are easily misled by it. Classic example, before Hazelwood shut (almost five years ago!) it was feared that the sudden loss of 1600 MW from the grid would result in disaster. In fact, Hazelwood struggled to make over 1000 MW at any one time in its last years of operation, and even when it was in its prime, it was very rare indeed for all eight units to be operating together.

Less than 1% is still up to 100% - such a statement/speculation is meaningless.

The reality is at its best the wind farm will struggle to supply even up to 50% of the smelter’s demand for excited electrons. I almost ‘never’ say ‘never’ in sentences relating to engineering, but this 1GW wind turbine outfit (even being off shore) will never attain 100% supply to a near continuous 566MW demand - NEVER!

The article clearly speculates up to 100% powered by the wind farm, etc. It does not say that the smelter will be 100% powered by the wind farm.

I get what you saying about nameplate capacity though. Some people are easily misled by it. Classic example, before Hazelwood shut (almost five years ago!) it was feared that the sudden loss of 1600 MW from the grid would result in disaster. In fact, Hazelwood struggled to make over 1000 MW at any one time in its last years of operation, and even when it was in its prime, it was very rare indeed for all eight units to be operating together.

Less than 1% is still up to 100% - such a statement/speculation is meaningless.

The reality is at its best the wind farm will struggle to supply even up to 50% of the smelter’s demand for excited electrons. I almost ‘never’ say ‘never’ in sentences relating to engineering, but this 1GW wind turbine outfit (even being off shore) will never attain 100% supply to a near continuous 566MW demand - NEVER!

It's also the fact that modern industrial processes normally need predictable and reliable power, not energy dependent on what the weather is like. Between April and September this year the UK experienced a quite severe 'wind drought' and the huge amounts of money sunk into wind power weren't paying their way - in fact they generated 32% less power than was predicted (CNBC).

Without nuclear imported from France they would have had serious problems keeping the lights on and as it was they used up all their gas reserves - completely - driving the price through the roof.

Anyway you couldn't say to an aluminium smelter "perhaps you can run X number of pots tomorrow but we're not sure, depends on the forecast", they just can't run that way.

Britain's wind farms continue to fail recently setting a new record for the cost of keeping the lights on, an extra 63 million pounds required to make up the shortfall in just one day - NetZero:

Wind farms were performing poorly yet again, delivering only 20% of their theoretical capacity.

The Balancing Mechanism, which ensures that supply and demand are in balance hour by hour, was forced to pay up to £4000/MWh to get the coal-fired Drax 5 unit to switch on, at the same time as paying wind farms to switch off...

...The annual cost of the so-called Balancing Mechanism has quintupled in just three years, reaching £1.8 billion in 2020/21 driven primarily by the vagaries of wind speed.

What happens when there's a 'wind drought' across eastern Australia? We don't have a HV undersea cable to France's reliable nuclear power plants (that they're building more of incidentally because of demand from Germany and the UK).

The article clearly speculates up to 100% powered by the wind farm, etc. It does not say that the smelter will be 100% powered by the wind farm.

I get what you saying about nameplate capacity though. Some people are easily misled by it. Classic example, before Hazelwood shut (almost five years ago!) it was feared that the sudden loss of 1600 MW from the grid would result in disaster. In fact, Hazelwood struggled to make over 1000 MW at any one time in its last years of operation, and even when it was in its prime, it was very rare indeed for all eight units to be operating together.

Less than 1% is still up to 100% - such a statement/speculation is meaningless.

The reality is at its best the wind farm will struggle to supply even up to 50% of the smelter’s demand for excited electrons. I almost ‘never’ say ‘never’ in sentences relating to engineering, but this 1GW wind turbine outfit (even being off shore) will never attain 100% supply to a near continuous 566MW demand - NEVER!

?

There will be times when that particular wind farm will operate at capacity - 1GW. There will be times when that wind farm operates at capacity, the smelter draws 566MW and the remaining 434MW will be fed into the grid.

I fully understand that the above scenario will not be a common occurrence - but NEVER? Seriously?

NEVER! that was not a typo.

I am not sure that any wind farm has ever delivered 100% of nameplate, ever - if any have it would be very infrequent and for very short periods of time - like a literal impulse.

It’s exceptionally rare that any farm has 100% of turbines available, that every turbine would be receiving sufficient wind to generate 100% of rating whilst 100% of turbines are operational would be … unlikely, very unlikely.

NEVER! that was not a typo.

I am not sure that any wind farm has ever delivered 100% of nameplate, ever - if any have it would be very infrequent and for very short periods of time - like a literal impulse.

It’s exceptionally rare that any farm has 100% of turbines available, that every turbine would be receiving sufficient wind to generate 100% of rating whilst 100% of turbines are operational would be … unlikely, very unlikely.

Yep, no prob, I was talking about instantaneous output when conditions allow it, not averaged out over a period of time or considerations like outages for maintenance etc.

I still don't think that it's too fanciful to suggest that at least some of the time, the wind farm will be able to supply the smelter and have some left over for the grid though.

Wind farms are becoming increasingly difficult to locate 'on-shore' which is why I guess they have to put them in the ocean - ABC

While environmental campaigners like Steve Nowakowski remain committed to renewable energy, a Background Briefing investigation has found growing community backlash over the locations chosen for projects in North Queensland.

Local conservation groups and peak climate bodies are sounding the alarm over plans to build green energy projects in forests that predate white settlement, along corridors bordering World Heritage Areas, and on properties previously targeted for conservation protection, rather than on cleared and degraded land.

If all current proposals were to be approved, an estimated 13,332 hectares of remnant vegetation would be cleared statewide. Around 90 per cent of the land clearing will be in North Queensland.

There are currently 48, large-scale renewable energy projects that have been completed, commenced or slated for Queensland, with some of the largest facilities to be built along the electricity transmission networks that traverse the Coral Sea coast.

These transmission lines provide convenient access to the national energy grid but sometimes cut through ecologically valuable land.

“We’ve got this big wall of steel coming through along the transmission line along the western side of the Great Dividing Range, hugging the western side of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area,” Steve says.

According to James Cook University adjunct professor and evolutionary biologist, Dr Tim Nevard, Far North Queensland is one of Australia’s most biodiverse regions and many of the sites chosen for wind farms are “wholly inappropriate”.

Of course they're inappropriately located - of course they're environmentally damaging. And that's not even acknowledging the fact that they kill native bird-life.

^ Just for a moment, let's disregard the recent banter between us and consider the following: You are pro-coal yet you are now pretending to care for the environment.

I read that article this morning, and the quote from Steve Nowakowski that got my attention, which you just happened to omit from your commentary because it doesn't suit your narrative, is “I thought, well, Mt Emerald, that’s the price we had to pay."

In fact I was thinking of linking the same article. Had I done so, I would have done the right thing and not selectively repeated the bits from the article that suited me. Instead, I would have provided the same link for people to judge its contents in their entirety, and offered an opinion that the land clearing is insignificant compared to what Queensland farmers do, every year.

Thanks for the segue. In 2020, Queensland lost almost 23000ha of forest cover, which was a vast improvement over the 179000ha from the previous year, but still. I am willing to bet that native bird life from deforestation or other land clearing has a far, far greater impact on bird life than a few windmills. Wouldn't you agree, Mr Environmentalist?

Queensland, Australia Deforestation Rates & Statistics GFW (globalforestwatch.org)

^ Just for a moment, let's disregard the recent banter between us and consider the following: You are pro-coal yet you are now pretending to care for the environment.

I read that article this morning, and the quote from Steve Nowakowski that got my attention, which you just happened to omit from your commentary because it doesn't suit your narrative, is “I thought, well, Mt Emerald, that’s the price we had to pay."

In fact I was thinking of linking the same article. Had I done so, I would have done the right thing and not selectively repeated the bits from the article that suited me. Instead, I would have provided the same link for people to judge its contents in their entirety, and offered an opinion that the land clearing is insignificant compared to what Queensland farmers do, every year.

Thanks for the segue. In 2020, Queensland lost almost 23000ha of forest cover, which was a vast improvement over the 179000ha from the previous year, but still. I am willing to bet that native bird life from deforestation or other land clearing has a far, far greater impact on bird life than a few windmills. Wouldn't you agree, Mr Environmentalist?

Queensland, Australia Deforestation Rates & Statistics GFW (globalforestwatch.org)

You're trying to shift the argument to something you think you can win.

Wind farms result in complex problems all on their own. The fact remains that the construction of wind farms is environmentally damaging, necessitates the construction of roads, kills apex predator birds, results in more HV lines scarring the landscape - all these facts you continue to deny.

And this is NOT going to save the planet anyway, as I've been posting these things are really very unreliable and don't produce useful energy when they're actually needed. A big, slow-moving high pressure system over Australia in the winter will see us have blackouts without proper base-load support and yet you idiots in the green movement are cheering it on like the numpties that you are.

NEVER! that was not a typo.

I am not sure that any wind farm has ever delivered 100% of nameplate, ever - if any have it would be very infrequent and for very short periods of time - like a literal impulse.

It’s exceptionally rare that any farm has 100% of turbines available, that every turbine would be receiving sufficient wind to generate 100% of rating whilst 100% of turbines are operational would be … unlikely, very unlikely.

Yep, no prob, I was talking about instantaneous output when conditions allow it, not averaged out over a period of time or considerations like outages for maintenance etc.

I still don't think that it's too fanciful to suggest that at least some of the time, the wind farm will be able to supply the smelter and have some left over for the grid though.

It is pretty fanciful, you don’t average 33% by spending a lot of time above 57%. Wind farms average 33% by spending most of their time struggling to achieve above 40%, whilst spending some time down around 20% and sometimes, much lower.

Equally, consider yourself a school teacher, you have a student average 33% for most of their tests and exams during year, then come the final most difficult exam of the year they suddenly achieve a perfect score, you wouldn’t predict that happening.

Your first thought likely wouldn’t be ‘wow, they must have studied really hard’, you would probably think they might have maybe cheated, that’s about the only way a wind farm will get to 100% output, basically the execs cheat the numbers.

Which is what I was alluding to earlier when I stated that considering electrons are instantaneous, it would seem odd that a wind generation company would need three months to compile numbers showing 80+% capacity factor in the preceding three months.

And this is NOT going to save the planet anyway, as I've been posting these things are really very unreliable and don't produce useful energy when they're actually needed. A big, slow-moving high pressure system over Australia in the winter will see us have blackouts without proper base-load support and yet you idiots in the green movement are cheering it on like the numpties that you are.

Ever the expert. I expect the dying dinosaur dirty fuel energy generating industry are your cheer squad.

Calling the renewable energy supporters and advocators idiots, when it's highly likely this is just your ill-informed opinion and it's unlikely you are in any way professionally involved in the dinosaur or renewable energy industry and only shows your lack of industry knowledge.

It's just your opinion representative from SA.

Mike.