****
South Australia is held up by the wind industry and its parasites as an Australian wind power “Supermodel” – as in this tissue of lies pitched up by Thai turbine-terrorists, RATCH: MEWF Newsletter May 2014.
RATCH’s goons have always had a “troubled” relationship with truth and reality, so you would be excused for setting the integrity bar just a little lower when they start with the usual lines about wind power being “free” etc, etc (see our posts here and here and here).
But it’s this wondrous piece of work that STT can’t let pass; as RATCH attempts to make a “case” for its proposed Mount Emerald QLD disaster with the following pile of utter bunkum:
Interesting Case Study
You may have seen or heard comments such as:
• “wind doesn’t work”,
• “it needs a lot of back-up generation for when the wind doesn’t blow”
• “doesn’t reduce CO2”
• “doesn’t replace fossil fuel generation”
These comments are not supported by what is actually happening on the electricity network. As an example, in July 2013, the Australian Electricity Market Operator (AEMO) released historical market information on the South Australian electricity network. South Australia has the greatest number of wind farms operating in Australia with 16 for a capacity of 1,200MW. When comparing figures from 2008-09 to 2012-13 some interesting facts arise:
• Generation from wind increased from 14% to 24% of South Australia’s energy production
• Generation from gas decreased from 50% to 47%
• Generation from coal decreased from 34% to 15%
• During this time no new plant was installed to provide back-up generation
• Wind power produces more electricity than coal
• Power pool prices have reduced from 5.1¢/kWh to 3.0¢/kWh (3¢/kWh is a 2011-12 value which does not include a carbon tax component, allowing direct comparison)
• Equivalent CO2 emissions have reduced from 8.1 million tonnes to 5.1 million tonnes
In our recent STT Mythbusters episode we managed to wallop most of the rubbish above in respect of wind farms connected to the entire Eastern Grid (see our post here).
Well, as RATCH is keen to point to “some interesting facts” about the situation peculiar to SA, STT’s just as keen to take them on; with a look at the FACTS laid out on a daily basis by windfarmperformance.info. The site draws its data from the wind power output data submitted to the AEMO every day, from every wind farm connected to the Eastern Grid, which includes all of the wind farms in SA.
So let’s have a look at some of SA’s recent wind power stats to see how RATCH’s “interesting facts” stack up. Oh, and if the graphs appear fuzzy, click on them, they’ll pop up in a new window, you can enlarge them and they’ll appear as sharp as a tack.
SA – 6 June 2014
Total wind farm output:
From 6am to 4pm (10hrs) – never more than 100 MW; generally less than 80 MW, falling to 70 MW during that period.
Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity:
From 6am to 4pm (10hrs) – never more than 8.3%; generally less than 6.6%, falling to 5.8% during that period.
Total demand (average): 1,450 MW.
Contribution to total demand as a percentage: 6.9%, falling to 4.8%.
SA – 5 June 2014
Total wind farm output:
From Midnight to 4pm (16hrs) – never more than 15 MW; generally less than 10 MW, falling to Zero for much of that period.
Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity:
From Midnight to 4pm (16hrs) – never more than 1.25%; generally less than 0.83%, falling to 0.0% during that period.
Total demand (average): 1,500 MW.
Contribution to total demand as a percentage: 1%, falling to 0.0%.
SA – 4 June 2014
Total wind farm output:
From 3am to midnight (21hrs) – never more than 90 MW.
From 6am to 3pm (9hrs) – never more than 40 MW; generally less than 20 MW, falling to 10 MW at 11am.
Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity:
From 3am to midnight (21hrs) – never more than 7.5%.
From 6am to 3pm (9hrs) – never more than 3.3%; generally less than 1.7%, falling to 0.83% during that period.
Total demand (average): 1,600 MW.
Contribution to total demand as a percentage:
From 3am to midnight (21hrs) – never more than 5.6%
From 6am to 3pm (9hrs) – never more than 2.5%; generally less than 1.25%, falling to 0.62% during that period.
SA – 3 June 2014
Total wind farm output:
From midnight to 5am (5hrs) – never more than 10 MW; generally Zero MW.
From 5am to 11am (6hrs) – rising from Zero to 100 MW.
From 4pm to 9pm (5hrs) – falling from 180 MW to 60 MW.
Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity:
From midnight to 5am (5hrs) – never more than 0.83%; generally 0.0%.
From 5am to 11am (6hrs) – rising from 0.0% to 8.3%.
From 4pm to 9pm (5hrs) – falling from 15% to 5%.
Total demand (average): 1,600 MW.
Contribution to total demand as a percentage:
From midnight to 5am (5hrs) – never more than 0.06%; generally 0.0%.
From 5am to 11am (6hrs) – rising from 0.0% to 6.25%.
From 4pm to 9pm (5hrs) – falling from 11.25% to 3.75%.
SA – 2 June 2014
Total wind farm output:
From 4am to midnight (20hrs) – never more than 130 MW.
From 6am to 3pm and 7.30pm to midnight (16.5hrs) – never more than 70 MW; generally less than 50 MW, falling to Zero by midnight.
Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity:
From 4am to midnight (20hrs) – never more than 10.8%.
From 6am to 3pm and 7.30pm to midnight (16.5hrs) – never more than 5.8%; generally less than 4.1%, falling to 0.0% by midnight.
Total demand (average): 1,600 MW.
Contribution to total demand as a percentage:
From 4am to midnight (20hrs) – never more than 8.1%.
From 6am to 3pm and 7.30pm to midnight (16.5hrs) – never more than 4.4%; generally less than 3.1%, falling to 0.0% by midnight.
SA – 1 June 2014
Total wind farm output:
From midnight to 12 Noon (12hrs) – never more than 150 MW; generally less than 100 MW, twice falling to 50 MW.
Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity:
From midnight to 12 Noon (12hrs) – never more than 12.5%; generally less than 8.3% MW, twice falling to 4.1%.
Total demand (average): 1,250 MW.
Contribution to total demand as a percentage:
From midnight to 12 Noon (12hrs) – never more than 12%; generally less than 8%, twice falling to 4%.
SA – 31 May 2014
Total wind farm output:
From 9.30am to midnight (14.5hrs) – never more than 100 MW; generally less than 40 MW.
Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity:
From 9.30am to midnight (14.5hrs) – never more than 8.3%; generally less than 3.3%.
Total demand (average): 1,600 MW.
Contribution to total demand as a percentage:
From 9.30am to midnight (14.5hrs) – never more than 6.25%; generally less than 2.5%.
SA – 29 May 2014
Total wind farm output:
From midnight to 7am and 10am to 10pm (19hrs) – never more than 160 MW; generally less than 130 MW, falling to 40 MW.
Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity:
From midnight to 7am and 10am to 10pm (19hrs) – never more than 13%; generally less than 10.8%, falling to 3.3%.
Total demand (average): 1,500 MW.
Contribution to total demand as a percentage:
From midnight to 7am and 10am to 10pm (19hrs) – never more than 10.7%; generally less than 8.7%, falling to 2.7%.
SA – 28 May 2014
Total wind farm output:
From midnight to 6pm (18hrs) – a collapse of 800 MW from 890 MW to 90 MW.
From 4pm to midnight (8hrs) – never more than 120 MW; generally less than 90 MW.
Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity:
From midnight to 6pm (18hrs) – a collapse from 74% to 7.5%.
From 4pm to midnight (8hrs) – never more than 10%; generally less than 7.5%.
Total demand (average): 1,600 MW.
Contribution to total demand as a percentage:
From midnight to 6pm (18hrs) – a collapse from 56% to 5.6%.
From 4pm to midnight (8hrs) – never more than 7.5%; generally less than 5.6%.
SA – 23 May 2014
Total wind farm output:
From 3am to midnight (21hrs) – never more than 120 MW; generally less than 100 MW; collapsing from 120 MW to Zero between 3pm and 10pm.
Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity:
From 3am to midnight (21hrs) – never more than 10%; generally less than 8.3%; collapsing from 10% to 0.0% between 3pm and 10pm.
Total demand (average): 1,500 MW.
Contribution to total demand as a percentage:
From 3am to midnight (21hrs) – never more than 8%; generally less than 6.7%; collapsing from 8% to 0.0% between 3pm and 10pm.
SA – 20 May 2014
Total wind farm output:
(Note the collapse from 300 MW to 55MW between midnight and 10am!)
From 9am to midnight (15hrs) – never more than 60 MW; generally less than 30 MW; collapsing to less than 20 MW between 5pm and 9pm.
Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity:
From 9am to midnight (15hrs) – never more than 5%; generally less than 2.5%; collapsing to less than 1.66% between 5pm and 9pm.
Total demand (average): 1,500 MW.
Contribution to total demand as a percentage:
From 9am to midnight (15hrs) – never more than 4%; generally less than 2%; collapsing to less than 1.3% between 5pm and 9pm.
For more South Australian wind power “FAILS” check out The Gambler.
Back to RATCH’s “Interesting Case Study”
Now that we’ve laid out the evidence, let’s return to RATCH’s 4 “strawmen” rhetoricals – the ones where it says: “You may have seen or heard comments such as”:
- “wind doesn’t work”,
- “it needs a lot of back-up generation for when the wind doesn’t blow”
- “doesn’t reduce CO2”
- “doesn’t replace fossil fuel generation”
What’s that they say about shooting fish in barrels?
We’ve thrown up 11 days (out of 18: 20 May to 6 June) on which – for hours on end – the total output from SA’s 1,203 MW of installed wind farm capacity struggled to top 100 MW (8% of capacity); on 9 of those days output fell below 50 MW (4% of capacity) and – for lengthy periods – fell to between Zero and 20 MW (1.67% of capacity); on 4 occasions output was Zero – and for lengthy periods (eg 5 June; 3 June; 23 May).
Assuming that the objective of SA’s wind farms is, in fact, to provide a meaningful supply of electricity to homes and business, then we’re more than happy to back the evidence and say “wind doesn’t work”. That’s 1 down.
On the days above, 1,200 to 1,800 MW of electricity was being consumed by South Australians and – for long stretches – wind power output contributed barely 5% towards satisfying that demand (or nothing at all). The balance of that power ALL came from conventional generation sources.
In SA that means the coal-thermal plant at Pt Augusta (despite RATCH’s claims, the 2 “Northern” Plants are still operating); the gas-thermal plant at Torrens Island; and (depending on the dispatch price) a number of Combined Cycle Gas plants.
RATCH’s (fictitious) claim that “Generation from coal decreased from 34% to 15%” ignores the fact that SA also imports mountains of cheap coal-fired power from Victoria’s La Trobe Valley, using the Heywood and Murraylink Interconnectors (with a combined notional capacity of 680 MW). When – as in the examples above – wind power output disappears for hours on end – SA routinely draws up to 600 MW from Victorian coal-fired plants to complement the output from its own coal and gas thermal plants.
And – when demand outstrips those base-load sources – SA has a fleet of highly inefficient (and therefore costly to run) Open Cycle Gas Turbines to cover the shortfall. SA’s ludicrous attempt to rely on wind power has resulted in South Australians paying the highest power prices in the world (see our posts here and here). And see page 11 of this paper: FINAL-INTERNATIONAL-PRICE-COMPARISON-FOR-PUBLIC-RELEASE-19-MARCH-2012 – the figures are from 2011 and SA has seen prices jump since then.
In dealing with the statement that wind power: “needs a lot of back-up generation for when the wind doesn’t blow” – we think the term “a lot” is a bit sloppy.
If the statement read: “wind power needs 100% of its installed capacity to be backed up 100% of the time for when the wind doesn’t blow” it would be right on the money – because it would then account for the numerous (and unpredictable) occasions when wind power output is ZERO (see above). That’s two down.
And we think the evidence has easily nailed the remaining two.
For the reasons detailed above, wind power “doesn’t replace fossil fuel generation” and – because it does not and will never “replace fossil fuel generation” it cannot and will never “reduce CO2” emissions in the electricity generation sector.
In fact, the need for coal/gas-thermal plants to ramp output up and down to cover the wild fluctuations in wind power output has led to an increase in CO2 emissions. Mountains of coal and gas are burnt to maintain “spinning reserve” for the sole purpose of covering massive, rapid and unpredictable collapses in wind power output like those seen above (eg 20 May; 23 May; 28 May; 31 May; 2 June; 3 June; and 4 June).
The result of trying to incorporate wind power into a coal/gas fired grid is increased CO2 emissions (see our post here and this European paper here; this Irish paper here; this English paper here; and this Dutch study here).
If the combined output from conventional generators fell below 5% on a single occasion, South Australians would be sitting freezing (or boiling) in the dark – public and media outrage would follow.
If the same happened again the following day, there would be a political outcry and the opposition would call for the Energy Minister’s head to roll.
And if conventional generators were producing nothing at all (for hours on end) 4 or 5 times each month – leading to social and economic chaos – after the Army Engineers had been sent in to restore a secure power supply – there would be a Royal Commission.
But – for some reason – the wind “industry” is just different: repeated and consistent failure seems to be its own reward.
STOP THESE THINGS 
Just to get you attention, let me say that I don’t care for the web site’s subtitle. They aren’t agriculture so they are not “farms.” And what is true about wind in Australia is true about wind around the globe. Don’t be a continental NIMBY!
In the U.S. where I live, a few Republicans (not to be confused with conservatives or with people who can apply math and physics to the real world) still justify support for wind subsidies by claiming that we need “diversity” in our electricity fuel “portfolio.” They liken it to the value of diversity in an investment portfolio. And yes, there is a small chance that in a grid emergency where controlled blackouts would otherwise be necessary, the wind happened to be blowing at the right times to prevent it. But the real question is how much of our “portfolio” should we invest in LOTTERY TICKETS for the sake of diversity. Another strong question is how much have we paid per unit of “grid security” (capacity value) with wind vs. other means of peak load guaranteed performance?
Lies, lies and more lies from Ratch. The game is up. No power station in Queensland is allowed to operate at the high noise levels Ratch is proposing for Mt Emerald. They should be ashamed – there are over 2,500 people living and working (including 800 incarcerated inmates) within 5km of the site.
Well done, STT for flashing out the criminal lies and deceptions from the wretched Ratch. Public comments are sought to the Mt Emerald IWT Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for which the ‘controlling provisions’ seems all about just saving flora and fauna to meet the objectives of the EPBC Act.
It must be questioned why such narrow focus is given prominence for public comment when the much, much more serious factors like consequences to human health and the electricity generation, fraudulent claims of IWT are treated as inconsequential. Is this so that the QLD Deputy Minister could conveniently ignore the real criminality of IWT and pathetically decide this project just in terms of saving Quolls and Sarus Cranes? Where all the damming evidences are simply glossed over? Where people do not matter? Where subversive national energy policies are forced upon Australians by government decree?
I hope I am wrong and that even if by vile crooked means the Federal Minister for the Environment endorses the EIS, the Mt Emerald Wind Farm must still be rightly disapproved and rejected when judged on the real world human issues.
So far, not a single IWT development has been annulled once the EIS is given the go-ahead. Wake-up, Australians, we have a parasitic tribe secretly directing this government from behind the curtains. That is the reason for the apparent idiotic, irresponsible treacherous government policies.
These so called renewable wind power plants take electricity from the grid to weirdly keep mechanisms turning over when there is no wind. The blades continue to turn at the same rate of revolution regardless of drop in wind strength. Who pays for the use of this “parasitic power”…I bet it’s not the wind company but consumers in our electricity bills. How much power does it take to turn three blades x ten turbines for say one hour? How much does it cost to keep them turning?
I have long wondered… does this parasitic power use then contribute to MW output totals, thus garnering more REC’s and more profit to shareholders? Particularly to the retailers that hold PPA’s, the power purchase agreements.
And how much energy is lost back and forth through the miles of high tensile wires and how much air pollution as noxious gases and fumes are created in this process?
Victorians may expect higher electricity costs when the interconnector provides a portal to SA’s pricey electricity, sourced from their OCGT’s or wind turbines. Benefiting electricity retailers who’ll profit during interstate high demand times when the price skyrockets into the thousands. Parasitic and symbiotic, more industrial wind turbines erected in attempt to meet a chaotic renewable energy target policy will never lower the cost of electricity, they don’t lower Co2 and because of their reliance on standard energy systems, what use are they?
…purely financial. So profits to be made from ignorant and bleeding consumers with no regard for woe or hardship caused.
Big business is more important than people I’ve been told. Odd isn’t it, when people are a country’s greatest resource and through condoned laissez faire, rural communities are being fractured in mind, body and spirit all over the world; from unwarranted exposure, before and after, living inside or near these industrial complexes that are not green, not clean and not sustainable.
This is just scratching the surface of RATCH’s lies. They want to clear the beautiful and wild Mount Emerald plateau which is a haven for the endangered northern quoll. How strange that WWF, ACF and other national green lobby groups aren’t howling for their blood?
Ratch appears to have a cog or two missing if it believes their claims are well founded.
You just have to wonder why they bother with so many people now aware and supported by facts that highlight the depth of lies these companies and their remaining supporters keep retching out in to the public arena.
The most simple minded person should be able to accept that if the wind doesn’t blow or is only a light breeze and with a need for electricity to operate our modern society then turbines operated by blades pushed around by the wind are not going to be any use, and that a more secure source of electrical energy is required.
Then of course there’s the fact that to supply enough electricity for a modern society by wind turbines you would think people would see that they would need to cover just about the whole land area and plenty of the ocean to even think it may be possible for them to producing enough – but on days when the wind isn’t blowing everywhere at a sufficient strength and direction these things will be rendered useless for purpose. So for their supporters and owners to keep shunting out their lies can be seen to be nothing more than wanting to keep the fictitious story alive.
Their concept, fantasy, is just that – but has proven to be a wonderful money maker for those who ‘talk the talk’ and have shown all you need to do is add the terms ‘green’ and ‘climate change’ in to that talk to be able to fool those who should know better.
If there was ever a case for a thorough examination and evaluation of any industry in modern history, it is the wind scam.
Nothing less than the highest level of discovery, from a legitimate, unbiased scientific perspective and realistic legal perspective will suffice.
Unfortunately, there are so many entities with their ‘snouts in the trough’ that this absolute corruption of planning process and common law will be fought against, to the hilt.
In the case of the CERES project on Yorke Peninsula, approval was given by the DAC and minister Rau 3 days before the incumbent government went into ‘caretaker’ mode.
In our political system ‘caretaker’ mode is a time when no important issues are approved.
Why was approval given when there remains 54 conditions of approval yet to be resolved, 5 of these needing ministerial approval? It seems obvious to anyone with an ounce of critical, objective analysis………A perversion and corruption of proper process.
Why do we, who’s lives will be detrimentally changed, have no legal right of reply to this decision? Why has the government given CERES Crown/ Major development status. This status was meant to support ‘critical development’
How on earth are windmills, which do not work on any critical, objective analysis be considered ‘critical’?
The CERES project was ‘signed off on’, from the moment former premier Rann announced it.
That is certainly the inference from local host parasites, in their more confident moments, as put to them by the developers.
I am confident this is the case with regard to other projects in Australia and around the world. WHY?
Why? I can only assume that the people that ride on the ‘wind’ gravy train lack integrity. There are many of them and like any parasites, they tend to believe that if they keep their heads down they may not be noticed.
I put the challenge to any of the wind weasels, my farmer neighbours (who are the aforementioned) and any morons from ruineconomy, yes2ruination and climate masturbator to give me a call.
Kind regards,
Martin Hayles
0428 542028
Yeah but no but yeah…
Seriously though, we really, really do sometimes have some power to sell, albeit in the middle of the night (why we’ll even pay you to take it).
I mean we have to to get our subsidised RECs somehow, now don’t we?
As you are mostly aware, our home is “off grid” and relies solely on solar with wind back up.
Now, we live in the midst of a wind “farm” at Lake Bonney in the south east of SA which is supposed to be a pretty windy spot otherwise why would Infigen bother to blight the area with a plague of subsidy thieves?
As is its wont this time of year, today the sky was overcast and as a consequence, the output from the stand alone solar panels was barely enough to charge the batteries to get us through the night.
But, hey! We have an unobtrusive little 500watt wind generator which should only need to run for 3 hours to charge our batteries. But…you guessed it, the wind went AWOL ALL DAY as it does on so many occasions. But this is supposed to be a windy area, so what went wrong?
One thing that isn’t shown on the wind capacity graphs is the times when the wind is non existent or insufficient to turn the turbines on and the turbines are actually sucking power out of the grid just to keep themselves alive. This can be seen on the raw data on the AEMO web site. The wind weasels term this “parasitic power” as if that somehow excuses it. When it is all said and done, because the turbines have to be 100% backed up and actually increase the CO2 emissions, ALL the power they produce is “parasitic”!
PS. It is just as well my wind generator was free. Perhaps I should call it “piglet” for I surely got sold a pup!
You are correct that the terminology for “parasitic” should apply to wind as it relies on the flexibility of the conventional generators on the grid ALL OF THE TIME. All generating technologies use power, and all use more than they produce from time to time (most notably during maintenance shutdowns or in the case of nuclear, refueling. The antonym of parasitic is symbiotic. Symbiosis is the feature of nuclear, coal, hydro, natural gas and geothermal which together in the right proportions offer the least cost electricity possible to fill continuous demand minimums and the daily and seasonal fluctuations of peak demand. Wind levers the latter against the former. Since the former is less expensive and cleaner than the latter, wind at high market shares has high indirect costs to the generation mix.
Well done STT. Another top article dispelling the lies that just seem to keep coming out of their mouths! One can only hope that the council & powers that be, making the decision on the Mt Emerald wind installation do their research & recognise the truth when they see it!!
Obviously some of the decrease in coal and gas generation is because of reduced electricity consumption. It would be interesting to see MW figures for each source of generation for 2008-09 and 2012-13 instead of the deceptive percentages they quote. Including MW figures for the electricity imported from Victoria for each source of generation that provided that. It would present a very different picture to what they would like people to believe.
Wind power proponents are obsessed with the term ‘generation’. They base all their arguments as to its success on ‘generation’ including arguments on cost. No national grid operates just on ‘generation’ and as is stated in the 2nd arm of section 7 of the National Electricity Law’ supply and delivery and distribution gets equal billing. It is the latter that causes all the problems for the grid when wind ‘generated’ power is forced into it by mandatory Renewable Energy Targets. The absolute distortion of the market caused then allows the wind industry to play the ridiculous game of distorted figures as outlined in this post. Once the totality of effect is added in and not limited to generation then Ratch’s figures are complete nonsense.