The Australian newspaper – and its environment editor, Graham Lloyd, in particular – have a vendetta against wind power, says Dave Clarke, who reviews their latest unbalanced report.
GRAHAM LLOYD, the ‘environment editor’ for The Australian has got together with Hamish Cumming, an opponent of the proposed Mortlake Wind Farm, to write a creative and imaginative piece about wind power and carbon dioxide emissions.
An environment editor who has a grudge against one of the world’s most successful forms of renewable energy must be quite a rare bird. But for an employee of the Murdoch News empire it is probably a wise career choice. Opposing the huge and powerful fossil fuel/mining industry would not be good for Lloyd’s future prospects in that system.
Lloyd relies heavily on what he calls Cumming’s ‘two year analysis of Victoria’s wind farm development’, but does not say where or how this analysis has been published, nor can I find it on the internet.
They claim that, while Victoria’s wind farms have displaced a significant amount of Victoria’s coal-fired power, this has not resulted in any less greenhouse carbon dioxide being generated by said coal-fired power stations. Lloyd and Cumming claim that when the wind blows and Victoria’s wind farms are generating at a high level, the coal-fired power stations cut back their generation, but go on polluting the atmosphere at the same rate as they would at full power. What they are implying, but not saying, is that the coal-fired power stations are so poorly designed, poorly managed, or simply so inherently inflexible that they cannot reduce their rate of pollution, even when they are generating less power!
Where Lloyd and Cumming get really creative and imaginative is in claiming that this is not any fault of the coal-fired power stations, but of the wind farms. Somehow we are to believe that the (alleged by Lloyd and Cumming) failure of Victoria’s coal-fired power stations to reduce their emissions in response to reduced demand on their generation is all to be blamed on the wind power industry.
Energy demand rises and falls all the time. Some of this is regular and predictable, some depends on factors like the temperature, and then there are the surprises that come from breakdowns in generators, the transmission system or industry. Generation must at all times match power consumption — that is a simple necessity of the way any electrical system works. All of this pre-dated the wind farms. Why should we believe that the Victorian power system coped with these variations in the past, but is now incapable of coping with a much smaller level of variability in wind power generation, especially when that variability is predictable because wind speeds can be predicted?
South Australia too
While most of Lloyd’s efforts were directed at Victoria, he also criticised South Australia’s wind power, unsurprisingly not mentioning that, largely because of SA’s wind power, one coal-fired power station had been entirely shut-down while the other would in future only run for six months each year. (See an article in Adelaide Now, 2012/04/18, by Miles Kemp and Cara Jenkin.)
Before the decision to shut-down the SA coal-fired power stations, in March 2012, Adelaide-based energy economics group EnergyQuest chief executive Dr Graeme Bethune produced a press release which stated, in part:
“… a massive 26% of South Australian electricity was generated [in 2011] by wind, up from 18% in 2010 and less than 1% five years ago. Since 2006-07 the share of gas in power generation has fallen from 58% to 49% but the big change has been in coal, which has fallen from 42% to 25%. Wind is effectively replacing coal.”
Yet Cumming claims that he has established that for SA’s wind power:
“…even with the continued expansion of wind farms in South Australia, the Australian Energy Market Operator’s figures show the abatement has risen to only about 4 per cent of the installed capacity.”
We are expected to believe this, with SA’s two coal-fired power stations shut down?
More imagination and creativity
Quoting Lloyd’s article:
“Cumming estimates the cost of greenhouse gas abatement [in SA] at $1,484 a tonne”.
Generating a megawatt-hour of electricity in a coal-fired power station results in around a tonne of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. From the EnergyQuest report mentioned above, we can see that 17% of the coal-fired power in SA has been replaced by wind power. 17% of $1,484 is $252, so if Cumming is right this $252/MWh cost of abatement would have been passed on to consumers — increasing the retail price of electricity by 25 cents per kWh.
As a South Australian I can assure readers that our electricity price has not gone up by anywhere near as much as 25 cents/kWh, and in fact informed commentators involved in the energy industry have told us that most of the price rise that there has been was due to infrastructure costs.

Changes in electricity generation and emissions: this graph shows that since about 2009 greenhouse emissions have decoupled from electricity generation; due largely to wind farms. (Source: Pitt & Sherry)
Netherlands report
Lloyd writes of an (unnamed) report being presented to The Netherlands Parliament claiming that wind farms will not abate the greenhouse gasses released in their construction “even across the total life of the wind farm”. He does not mention, of course, the many other reports that have shown full abatement in about the first six months.
Lloyd’s ‘evidence’ goes very much against the consensus
Lloyd prefers to accept Cumming’s assertions that wind turbines are not abating greenhouse gasses to the findings of various consultants around the world, presumably because Cumming’s figures agree with Lloyd’s preconceptions.
Wind power abates greenhouse gasses in the UK, why should we believe Lloyd and Cumming’s claims that, for some reason, it is not working in Australia. See Beyond the bluster: Why wind power is an effective technology by the UK Institute of Public Policy Research.
Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM), an engineering and consulting firm, produced a report in June 2012 that listed the CO2 abatement from Australia’s wind power installations.
In July 2006 consulting firm McLennan Magasanik Associates Pty Ldt produced a report which, in effect, stated that greenhouse CO2 emissions would be reduced by about one tonne for every megawatt-hour of wind power generated.
(This story was originally published on Dave Clarke’s blog Ramblings and has been republished with permission. You can contact the author at daveclarkecb@yahoo.com.)









11 Comments
The Australian newspaper continues its unprincipled assault on #renewable #energy. #AGW http://t.co/mxmBTuMx
Rupert Murdoch gave an inspiring speech to the troops in ’10 about how nuclear energy would be cheap and plentiful and to forget fads like wind farms etc. A few months later came the tsunami and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant meltdown.
I have friends in the Southern Highlands who are producing surplus energy via wind and solar. There is still the problem of visual pollution from the windmills but they report all chooks are healthy with no crossed eyes.
If you believe in wind power then review the article that was presented by Today Tonight. I personally know some of the people interviewed and can verify their integrity. It is worth watching.
http://www.todaytonightadelaide.com.au/?page=Story&StoryID=1394
What an outrageously unbalanced report. I think it’s hilarious that Today Tonight have Nick Xenophon on saying the “science won out”. Rubbish: there is no substantive peer reviewed scientific evidence for wind turbine syndrome – none – and as for local residents being jubilant, yes, I’m sure the ones who don’t like the look of wind turbines and aren’t making any money out of them are jubilant. But so much for combating carbon pollution. NIMBYism in the extreme. Xenophon is a shameful opportunist.
The reason studies like this Cummings thing are wrong is because they start by assuming an imaginary scenario in which Victoria has one coal power station, with one boiler, and one turbine. If that were the case, it would be very inflexible.
In reality, there are many generators in series. For example, Hazelwood has 4 boilers operating 8 generators. If a little wind power comes online (and Victoria only has a little, sadly) they can throttle back all 8 generators to some degree.
If the maximum output of a generator is around 200MW (as it is at Hazelwood), the optimum is probably in an operating range around 160-180MW, so it’s fairly easy to make a minor adjustment by reducing output slightly across all the generators as long as they remain within their optimum range.
If demand really drops (or if a large amount of wind was known to be coming on) they could drop one generator completely, so one of 4 boilers would be running only one generator.
I really don’t think the coal operators would like to keep burning the maximum amount of coal at all times regardless of demand. Brown coal is cheap, but they still have to pay for workers and equipment to dig it up.
Of course, in Victoria we also don’t rely on just our own power – there are imports from Tas, NSW and SA when necessary. The Victorian wind farms are probably displacing NSW black coal, if anything, as it is much more expensive. That’s why NSW power stations are running at low capacity – Bayswater was at 59% capacity last year.
Hah, Today Tonight wouldn’t know serious journalism if it got run over by it! Nick Xenophon should stick to his anti-gambling crusade (at which he is failing miserably) & leave renewable energy matters to those who *really* understand it. Communities that miss out on Wind Farms (often due to the bleating of a mere handful of discontents, whipped into a frenzy by the Wawbra Foundation), also miss out on significant-& ongoing-cash injections/jobs, which is a real tragedy for Regional Australia. Meanwhile, the same groups pushing the so-called “Wind Turbine Syndrome” wheelbarrow want everyone to ignore the heavy metals, methane & other toxic chemicals that come with coal or CSG mining operations!
@bccourtice. Hmmm, I was always led to believe that coal power stations are very inflexible, because they have limited options for “dialing down” their output-especially because the turbine & steam boilers have to be a certain size (in MW) in order to achieve maximum efficiency. Meanwhile, a gas turbine can be of sizes ranging from kW up to MW, thus allowing for much greater flexibility-& greater opportunities for more distributed generation! Truth is, you could shut down a single coal-fired power station in Victoria, & spread the capacity out amongst around 5-10 small scale gas plants, all run off waste gas from landfill, sewerage, or the byproducts of farming/forestry!
From talking to people who work for power companies and the IEEE lectures I’ve attended, changing the output of the traditional power stations is definitely not instantaneous. They have to predict the power consumption in advance, even without renewables. Adding wind and solar into the mix just makes it harder. However, I think many of these ‘problems’ are almost, or have been, solved. In addition to the solutions in the article and the comments, I have heard an idea where the batteries of our collective (future) electric cars will act as a distributed power storage system to smooth out any bumps in renewables. These will be coordinated by the ‘smart-grid’, and incorporate home generation. This info I heard at a lecture given by a engineer from the local power company!
i’m so happy for south australia, they’re leading the country as far as i know. dunno when their election is but they’d be crazy to dump that particular labor government i think.
Just watched the Today Tonight segment, thought I was watching Kath and Kim, hilarious script, great acting.
Re. “Netherlands report”
Nothing to worry about. A retired Dutch scientist, Dr. C. le Pair, decided to send an unsolicted report to the Dutch minister for Economic Affairs.
Like Hamish Cumming, Dr. Le Pair doesn’t seem to fully understand the difference between MW and MWh. The first graph in his report not only compares the height of a 3MW wind turbine with the height of a church tower in Utrecht (without explaining the relevance of this comparison), but also expresses the following measures of a 3MW wind turbine in units of MW:
- the nameplate capacity;
- the capacity factor;
- the net production according to the CBS (Dutch Bureau of Statistics);
- the saved fossil fuels according to his own calculations.
Maybe Dr. Le Pair tried to put too much into one graph. So I checked the summary to see if he really appreciated the difference between W and Wh. Apparently not. Some of his statements in the first few paragraphs (translated from the Dutch):
- “The average domestic electricity consumption was ~14GW.”
- “[..] the construction of a new wind park with a 100MW capacity produces 23MW of electricity on average.
- [..] this on average saves the fuel of 6.17MW of electricity generated with fossil fuels.”
Maybe I give up too easily, but this didn’t inspire me to read the rest of the report. So I didn’t.
BTW, I downloaded the second, amended edition of Le Pair’s report (original Dutch version) in which he admits to a significant miscalculation in the first edition. Apparently he originally miscalculated the central figure of his study (fossil fuel savings caused by wind energy) by a factor of 2.5.
Le Pair’s website, mostly in Dutch, can be found here: http://www.clepair.net
The page where you can find the Dutch and English versions of his report is: http://clepair.net/CBS-aug2012nl+eng.html
Thanks for your article Dave.
Interesting details about wind power generation in S.A.
One question I would like to know the answer to is that when the new infrastructure investments which last for x years when installed, have been installed and commissioned, why doesn’t the price of electricity reduce?
In effect the cost of the infrastructure has been gathered through an increased price and then paid for. Why does the price have to remain at its gathering level?
One of the other renewable energy sources is the sun. can’t do baseload? Not true.
Have a look at these Solar power plants in Spain, up and running and producing baseload power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Spain
The Climate change debate has noting to do with climate change. It has to do with retention of Cash Cows from old infrastructures which have close and cheap inputs (brown coal) and are extremely profitable but extremely polluting.
The debate from the brown coal producers is as dirty as the brown coal they burn. Science is a dirty word nowadays.
Well done #mediawatch for doing http://t.co/0vZStHAS on The Oz's dodgy windfarm story. IA covered this on 10 Sept: http://t.co/Q1EuRkLa
Tomorrows @australian has more anti #wind culture warring from "journalist" G. Lloyd http://t.co/n0JN6bzP