Wind power in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
==POV concern==
Its tone is like a wind industry brochure and seems to have been written by PR hacks and contains corporate propaganda language such as the evasive and vacuous "wind power is well placed to grow and deliver" whatever that means.
The section 'Politics of wind power' is not supported or rounded by another section related to public opinion, that is democracy, and is therefore elitist and perhaps an indicator of the aspirational direction of view or participatory level of the contibutors. Where is the discussion about public support? Where are the details about consumer level choice? Where are the facts about the structure and operation of the market? Where is the information relating to opposition from local groups, traditional generators, neo-liberal thinktanks and others and their interconnections either actual or ideological? Where is the section related to comparison with other countries or alternatively international comparison on a section by section or issue by issue basis? What are the future development prospects? Why is there no section about a local windpower manufacturing industry and say export potential in the region or workforce skills availability and why is there a whacking great big table in the middle of this article. Articles in wikipedia are intended for a general audience and not as industry puff pieces or statistical table presentations.
--DG 08:18, 7 June 2010(UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.182.130 (talk)
It might be a good idea to include an analysis of the regular criticisms of wind power in Australia - or maybe include on another page or create a new page. Include something like;
Does wind energy increase the cost of electricity?
Is wind energy efficient?
Is wind energy reliable?
What amount of greenhouse emissions are displaced by wind power?
How much noise do wind turbines generate?
Do wind farms affect property values?
Are wind farms a risk to biodiversity?
I agree that it'd be a good idea to include an analysis of the UNIQUELY Australian criticisms of wind power in Australia, if there are any that is (any general criticisms belong in a general article either Wind power, or a general criticisms page linked from that and this article). But as for the criticisms you listed above, at the risk of sounding like a convert to the fanaticism of cheap, clean, efficient & renewable energy, I offer some starter answers to your questions:
Q.Increased cost of electricity? A. No way. From what I've read in wikipedia & elsewhere, wind power is between one third and one half the cost of Australia's currently dominant energy source (coal power). And that's before you include the grossly added costs of Carbon-Capture Geo-Sequestration (which I don't believe is viable in Australia yet, either technically or economically for some 15 years, while the wind never stops blowing Giga-Watts of energy over our heads).
Q.Efficient? A. Wind power is currently the most cost efficient energy capturing technology on Earth, due to it's very high EROEI value (about 20:1, compared to oil's 3:1). A German physicist, Albert Betz, determined in 1919 that a wind turbine can extract at most 59% of the energy that would otherwise flow through the turbine's cross section. The Betz limit applies regardless of the design of the turbine. (The most efficient fossil fuel plant is: a combined-cycle LPG Gas-turbine plant's eff of ~60% when at near 100% capacity. I don't have the eff. numbers on tidal, wave or geothermal, but solar's current max is 40.7% while at currently prohibitive prices of at least US$0.60/kW·hr, which is expected to become 42% @ US$0.08-0.10/kW·hr in a number of years). Actual wind energy extraction efficiency would not be wanted to be much higher than 30% for the sake of not "stilling" the air, so you shouldn't tax any turbine beyond 60% of it's capacity, rated at 50% efficiency, or 75% capacity @ 40% efficiency, and so on.
Q.Reliable? A. When linked to a national grid, as most turbines are, the wind will always be blowing more than enough power in at least half of the country to meet the needs of both halves.
Q.Greenhouse emission displacement? A. About 24 kt(CO2)/MW·yr (based on Mawson Station's Wind-Diesel setup and calc.), our national requirement for wind power is about 100-200 GW in capacity (2.4 - 4.8 Gt(CO2)/yr).
Q.Noise? A. Depends. If there's heavy load on the turbine (while average load is ~33% of capacity, heavy load approaches 50% capacity) and you put your ear to the tower wall, it'd sound like a city tram was passing you by, but at all other times, the turbine is so far up, you wouldn't hear it, unless you really wanted to listen for it, like the sound of your computer's CPU fan from your current distance to it.
Q.Property values? A. Not if the only value to the property is a completely empty sky-scape. Location, location, location. If you expect electricity where you live, would you expect there to be no power lines, power pylons, or telephone poles? Turbines are placed where there's high winds, and usually short distances to where there's high demand for energy. If you didn't need a turbine, by covering your roof with solar panels for example, then the power company couldn't sell you power, or justify paying to put a big turbine near your house (BTW, I wouldn't boy-cot wind power if I were you).
Q.Risk to biodiversity? A. None. Studies indicate that 1 bird per thousand per year, might be stupid enough to fly directly into: either a wind turbine, or the side of a building or any other structure or even a large tree to kill itself (the blades of large turbines CAN'T turn fast enough to surprise a bird, and the more people using wind power from that turbine, the higher the load, the slower the blades CAN turn (when it reaches ~100% capacity, it should stall completely)). So, if it's either stupid enough or suicidal enough to fly into a solid object, how could you expect that bird, or any other such species to survive natural selection?
I should be able to provide citations to just about everything written above (just ask). But like I said, your questions don't seem unique to Australia, and I think I may be repeating some of the responses to Wind power criticisms that I've read elsewhere on wikipedia (if you can't find it, feel free to write it). --202.168.102.9619:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I stand by my above statements for wind power being cheaper, more efficient & reliable, quieter, more valuable and less harmful than any and all other types of energy production, upon rechecking my sources for my calculation for question 4, I found the numbers (esp. those) given from Mawson station tend to vary quite a bit, most likely due to their setup being very small (not grid tied, and only needed intermittently for a seasonly highly-variable population size & energy reliance). So, allow me to try that question again...
Q4.Greenhouse emission displacement? A. Quote from Wind power#Ecology and pollution:"A study by the Irish national grid stated clearly that "Producing electricity from wind reduces the consumption of fossil fuels and therefore leads to emissions savings", and found reductions in CO2 emissions ranging from 0.59 tonnes of CO2 per MWh to 0.33 tonnes per MWh.52". Alternatively, based on the second introductory paragraph of Wind power in Australia, 1.3-2.3 kt(CO2)/MW·yr. Since our national requirement for wind power is about 78 ± 13 GW in capacity (in order to achieve a capacity factor of 35%, eg. we use 35% of 78 ± 13 GW = 27 ± 5 GW which is our current energy output according to the provided imageFile:Electricity gen.JPGElectricity output in 2005), then Australia's greenhouse emission displacement should become 84.5 - 209.3 Mt(CO2)/yr. Another calculation for Australia, based on the same image provided, Australia uses 238.74 ± 39.79 TW·h/yr, and based on the above Irish national grid statement, 0.33 - 0.59 t(CO2)/MW·h, this becomes 65.6535 - 164.3327 Mt(CO2)/yr (While the Irish national grid statement may be assuming a higher capacity factor (for a lower needed-capacity, perhaps through fewer turbines being better positioned), since both elements of the calculation are directly derived from final energy output (MW·h), this second conclusion should be the most accurate (but since it equates to 114.9931 ± 49.3396, or a 42.91% error margin, some more accurate measurements would be nice)).--202.168.102.9605:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks like it was intended to be some sort of biased political lobbying, although it has had enough edits now I can't tell if it was pro-wind energy or anti-environmental blight on the landscape. There really isn't much text beyond the huge partly-populated table. The real problem at present is a lack of wikilinks to places and wind farms, and any sort of content about the issues and history that would belong in this article not either wind power or a general energy in Australia article. --Scott DavisTalk13:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. (Template messages Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup, rewrite, expand, limited, context (introduction)). Its tone is like a wind industry brochure and seems to have been written by PR hacks and contains corporate propaganda language such as the evasive and vacuous "wind power is well placed to grow and deliver" whatever that means.
The section 'Politics of wind power' is not supported or rounded by another section related to public opinion, that is democracy, and is therefore elitist and perhaps an indicator of the aspirational direction of view or participatory level of the contibutors. Where is the discussion about public support? Where are the details about consumer level choice? Where are the facts about the structure and operation of the market? Where is the information relating to opposition from local groups, traditional generators, neo-liberal thinktanks and others and their interconnections either actual or ideological? Where is the section related to comparison with other countries or alternatively international comparison on a section by section or issue by issue basis? What are the future development prospects? Why is there no section about a local windpower manufacturing industry and say export potential in the region or workforce skills availability and why is there a whacking great big table in the middle of this article. Articles in wikipedia are intended for a general audience and not as industry puff pieces or statistical table presentations.
--Theo Pardilla 08:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Theo, I'm not sure why you are responding to a comment that is almost a year old. The article has changed much since then. It would be better to start a new section at the end of the page, where you give specific reasons for each of the tags you want to put on the article. Generalisations and rhetorical questions such as those above are of little use. The article certainly is not perfect, and is already assessed as being B class, which is the medium position on the quality scale. Johnfos (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been enjoying contributing to Wind power in Australia and feel the article has a lot of useful content now, but that it is rather uneven.
I'd like to suggest that it be split in two. The second article could be "Wind power development in Australia" and would cover the "bigger issues" such as future trends, economics, environment and government policies.
The first article would mainly relate to "technical and site-specific" issues. The large table would remain there and my thought is that discussion of issues such as wind resources and turbine efficiencies could be expanded.
This article is dominated by some quite large and unwieldy Tables in the
"Wind Farm projects and status by state" section. I propose that we split these Tables off into individual state articles, leaving only a list of the largest wind farms here... Johnfos (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object. How about also making a table in this article showing the total installed capacity of each state? Wongm (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already have that, in the "Installed and proposed capacity by state" section, and I would think that overview Table could stay here. Johnfos (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am reverting the article to the Santiago version.
The gross changes to the article were done without sufficient discussion and without setting up the state based articles or lists.
Such a dramatic change with 3 days for discussion is not acceptable, particularly in light of the links that would also require change or additional links on other pages
dinghy (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why one would object to making the new pages first, then removing the content from here. If you remove without adding the links right away then it is different. You can be bold and split out articles - discussion is not always necessary - provided it is uncontroversial. To meWind power in Australia suggests overall concepts, not a list of every single wind generator in the country. Wongm (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some months ago I decided to stop editing Energy policy of Australia because the article had gotten into such a mess, and I felt that I could contribute more effectively elsewhere. Now I think it's best if I don't edit this article anymore as well. There are just "too many cooks spoiling the broth". So I'm bowing out gracefully and will move on to other, more important, things. best wishes, Johnfos (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following discussions with User:Phanly (dinghy) I have finally completed the split now. All wind farm state data is in relevant state lists, which have been referred to in the text. Johnfos (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second thoughts - the state based lists could be merged into the List of wind farms in Australia article. These days the entrie East Coast is linked into one electrical grid, they aren't independent systems, and most wind farms are owned by various private companies headquartered in varying states. Is there anything wind power related that is really state specific, other than that it is locaated in state 'x'. State government subsidies seem to be only only state specific bit I can come up with. Wongm (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinstated the material which has been removed several times without discussion. The climate change based policy framework is relevant to wind power as one of the major underdeveloped alternatives in Australia. The international comparisons of installed capacity and proportions are relevant to understanding the stage and potential of wind farms in Australia. IMHO it ought not be removed again without discussion here and ideally some consensus being reached. dinghy (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this section of the text does not have something special with Australian wind turbines. That is a general discussion about how efficiency of wind turbines changes.
Merge info from "Wind power in South Australia" to this article
It's my understanding that Betz' Law, referred to in this article describes the limit imposed by extracting enough power from the wind that the wind must slow/stop. If the wind at the turbine is slowed too much, there is nowhere for the wind (yet to hit the turbine) to go. Thus the limit of 59.3%.
The reference in this article doesn't seem to mention that.
I don't know enough about it to correct it, but I'm pretty sure this is not quite the story. The Betz Law article on wikipedia doesn't seem to indicate the limit is due to those things mentioned in this article (friction etc). I think Betz' Law assumes a perfect lossless (zero friction etc) turbine.
I've updated most of the data taken from the Clean Energy Australia Report 2015 and updated it to data from the Clean Energy Australia Report 2016. Changes include updates to the introductory paragraph and the data within the state capacities table. I have also updated the value for total proposed projects in the introductory paragraph and have updated this data with reference to AEMO rather than the outdated information in Electricity Generation Major Projects 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.254.205 (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to 2018 from the Clean Energy Australia Report, the Clean Energy Council's project tracker (to March 2019). OpenNem and AEMO's WA Data Dashboard were used to update the wind power penetration percentage. The proposed wind projects include hybrid systems where the capacity of the wind component was known and only that capacity was included. For example, the 130 MW wind component of the 147.5 MW Badgingarra Wind/Solar Project was included. Turbine numbers were found manually from those described as commissioned in 2018 in the Clean Energy Australia Report 2019 via various sources.
Where some explanatory sentences referred to state wind capacity relative to Australia, they now refer to generation relative to Australia as they are the set of comparisons used in the updated Clean Energy Australia Report. MystBysc (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Further updates needed to include current operating projects such as Stockyard Hill (Vic) 530MW Moorabool (nth &sth) (Vic) approx 300MW. Also Projects in construction such as Clarke Creek stage1 ~500MW (QLD). 123.208.128.120 (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read on a official wikipedia page, that most articles should be long, but short.
but here is the deal, this page is really bad. This is not Wikipedia’s standard format. Rarely does overuse of infomation become a problem on Wikipedia, but this article is a major exception. I deleted thousands of letters. I try to respect past user’s edits and motives by leaving out some of their work, but some just got out of hand. I deleted a concise list of “benefits” that was basically about promoting about getting a job there. There were also not neutral language at all. At the front page it says “crucial”. This is supposed to be about wind power in Australia. However, compared to other articles, the article is way to much of a list. Also, it was infested with citation needed’s, some which haven’t been removed in years.
.svg){kind=logo}
