Resource Library -- latest additions
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. This resource library is provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.
Wind energy facilities in Victoria
Source: Dept. of Planning and Community Development, Victoria, Australia
Amendments VC78 and VC82 implement the [Victoria State] government’s policy on wind energy facilities.
Amendment VC82
Amendment VC82, gazetted on 29 August 2011, amends the Victoria Planning Provisions and all planning schemes in Victoria to implement further aspects of the government’s policy on wind energy facilities. Amendment VC82 prohibits a wind energy facility in the following circumstances and locations:
- Turbines within two kilometres of an existing dwelling except where the planning permit application includes evidence of written consent from the owner of the dwelling to the location of the turbine.
- Areas of high conservation and landscape values including National and State Parks described in a schedule to the National Parks Act 1975 and Ramsar wetlands as defined under section 17 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999.
- Locations that feature a high degree of amenity, environmental value, or significant tourist destinations including the Yarra Valley and Dandenong Ranges, Mornington Peninsula, Bellarine Peninsula, Macedon and McHarg Ranges, Bass Coast and the Great Ocean Road region.
- Locations identified for future urban growth including land in the Urban Growth Zone and designated regional population corridors specified in the Regional Victoria Settlement Framework Plan in the State Planning Policy Framework.
The policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria has been updated to include the changes introduced by Amendment VC82. The guidelines are now a reference document in the Victoria Planning Provisions and planning schemes and address:
- What evidence is required to be provided to a responsible authority of the consent of an owner of a dwelling for a turbine proposed to be located within two kilometres of a dwelling. A written statement of consent form (DOC – 55 KB) may be used.
- Model permit conditions that should be considered by a responsible authority when issuing a planning permit for a wind energy facility.Appendix B of the Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria, August 2011 (PDF – 553 KB) contains model permit conditions.
Model permit conditions to be applied as appropriate (DOC – 123 KB)
A full copy of Amendment VC82 is available via Planning Scheme Amendments Online.
Advisory note 36 provides information about the changes made by Amendment VC82.
Advisory note 36: Amendment VC82 – Changes to wind energy facility provisions – August 2011 (PDF – 243 KB)
Amendment VC78
Amendment VC78, gazetted on 15 March 2011, amended the Victoria Planning Provisions and all planning schemes in Victoria to remove the Minister’s decision making powers regarding 30+ megawatt wind energy facilities. Councils are now the responsible authority for all planning permit applications for the use and development of land for the purpose of a Wind energy facility.
Amendment VC78 also made other changes to strengthen wind farm policy by promoting greater consideration of local amenity impacts, introducing additional application requirements, updating the New Zealand wind farm noise standard and introducing new guidelines – Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria (March 2011).
The DPCD will work with local government, the Municipal Association of Victoria and other agencies to support the transition and assist ongoing implementation. Expert advice will be available to councils; and in cases where a proposal straddles local government boundaries or presents particularly complex issues beyond the technical expertise or resource capacity of a council, the option to refer a project to the Minister for Planning is available.
A full copy of Amendment VC78 is available via Planning Scheme Amendments Online.
The advisory note ‘Amendment VC78 – Wind energy facility provisions – Clause 52.32′ provides information on the practical implementation arrangements for the amendment.
Advisory note 35: Amendment VC78 – Wind energy facility provisions – Clause 52.32, March 2011 (PDF – 533 KB)
Advisory note 35: Amendment VC78 – Wind energy facility provisions – Clause 52.32, March 2011 (DOC – 83 KB)
Wind energy facility guidelines
The Victorian Government’s ‘Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria’ (the Guidelines) has established a consistent approach to the development of wind energy facilities since 2002.
The latest August 2011 edition of the Guidelines ensures that the policy and technical assessment criteria are up to date.
Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities, August 2011 (PDF – 553 KB)
Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria, August 2011 (DOC – 155 KB)
Appendix B of the guidelines – Model permit conditions to be applied as appropriate (DOC – 123 KB)
Wind energy projects in Victoria
A summary of current and proposed wind energy projects in Victoria can be found at the Department of Primary Industries website at Wind Projects in Victoria
Planning permit conditions
Model planning permit conditions for wind energy facilities have been developed to assist all parties involved in permit applications for wind energy facilities. They are provided in Appendix B of the Policy and planning guidelines for wind energy facilities in Victoria, August 2011.
The conditions are for guidance only and should be adapted depending on the individual circumstance of each wind energy proposal.
The manual Writing Planning Permits (February 2007) (PDF 209kb) includes conditions relevant to native vegetation including offset requirements.
Questions arising from the Auditor General’s 2011 Report on Renewable Energy Initiatives
Source: Stelling, Keith
Summary:
With comprehensive and detailed evidence gathered independently from inside the Ministry of Energy– much of it previously unavailable to the public– the Auditor General’s Report unambiguously challenges both the rationale and implementation of the Green Energy Act.
The Act has been promoted as a mechanism for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, increasing job opportunities, and creating a competitive business environment. However the Auditor General’s investigators found little evidence that these objectives have been or would be realized. Instead it suggests that the escalating electricity costs resulting from the addition of solar and wind power to the grid with their extravagant feed-in-tariffs are having the opposite effect.
The report emphasizes “that wind and solar renewable power will add significant additional costs to ratepayers’ electricity bills”. (p.89) However there will be additional costs because “wind and solar are not as reliable and require backup from alternative energy-supply methods such as gas-fired generation”. (p.89) Nevertheless, the public was led to believe increased costs would be minimal (1%). Surveys indicated that people were willing to pay only up to 5% more for renewable electricity.
The report indicates that the escalating increase of electricity prices will continue to gain momentum as rising costs for backup, connection of renewable energy projects, spilling hydro and nuclear, and payments to renewable energy producers not to produce electricity increase. The negative implications of increased electricity costs on employment and the economy in general further challenge the practicality of the Green Energy Act. The Auditor questions whether the estimate of the number of jobs that the government claims have been created by the Act is accurate and asks why those that are being lost are not being accounted for.
However the report goes beyond assessing the financial liability of imprudent expenses and overly generous feed-in-tariffs offered to energy producers. “No comprehensive business- case evaluation was done to objectively evaluate the impacts of the billion-dollar commitment. Such an evaluation would typically include assessing the prospective economic and environmental effects of such a massive investment in renewable energy on future electricity prices, direct and indirect job creation or losses, greenhouse gas emissions, and other variables”. (p.89) Alarmingly, decisions continue to be made piecemeal without overall cost and effectiveness evaluation. The investigators found that “the ministry’s internal audit service team … had not recently conducted any audit work on renewable energy initiatives”. (p.88)
The government’s adamant contention that there are no adverse health effects from industrial wind turbines is also questioned by the Auditor General who notes that the report by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health “was questioned by environmental groups, physicians, engineers, and other professionals, who noted that it was merely a literature review that presented no original research and did not reflect the situation in Ontario”. (p.119-120)
Even more worrying, is the lack of appropriate oversight and transparency. Decisions have been made by ministerial directive and directions, relying largely on the opinion of a single inexperienced minister, while circumventing both the recommendations regarding feasibility by expert energy professionals in the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) and frustrating the responsibility for oversight by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) to ensure that renewable energy resources are obtained in a cost-effective manner.
Detailed findings of the Auditor General’s investigations
1 Wind and solar will add significant additional costs to electricity bills
2 The government claim of 1% rise in electricity costs for renewable energy was inaccurate
3 $169 million in 2010 and $296 million in 2011 would need to be recovered from electricity ratepayers for the cost of connecting renewable energy
4 Ontario consumers were not informed of true costs of green energy
5 The government was warned in 2007 that new wind power would create higher Green House Gas (GHG) emissions
6 Minister added $44 billion to FIT contract payments against OPA advice
7 Was the Samsung agreement made without economic or business case analysis and neither OEB nor OPA was consulted?
8 Normal due diligence process not followed; no formal Cabinet approval
9 Electricity ratepayers may have to pay $150 to $225 million a year to renewable energy generators not to produce electricity
10 Backup: Consumers have to pay twice for intermittent renewable energy
11 Cost and environmental impact of backup not analyzed
12 The extent of the backup requirement has been underestimated
13 Closing coal plants will require an increase of 5,000 MW of gas-fired generation
14 Minister suspended independent assessment that would ensure decisions were economically prudent and cost-effective
15 Billions committed to renewable energy without evaluating impact
16 Despite anticipated surpluses, renewable energy generators will get paid even though Ontario does not need their electricity
Loss of oversight and transparency in decision making
17 Ministerial directives bypassing OPA and OEB lead to loss of transparency, economic prudence and cost effectiveness
18 Many directions related to the procurement and pricing of renewable energy have been issued since 2008 in the absence of an approved IPSP, and the OEB has had no oversight role
19 There has been a lack of independent oversight on the reasonableness of FIT prices
20 If the IESO instructs wind generators to shut down under a surplus-power situation, the generators still get paid
21 There has been inadequate assessment of the potential costs of curtailing renewable energy
22 Adding more renewable energy would result in curtailment cost of paying renewable generators for not producing electricity from $150 million to $225 million a year
23 The lack of correlation between electricity demand and intermittent renewable energy has created operational challenges, including power surpluses and the need for backup power
24 Surplus base load generation caused by renewable energy will add more costs for electricity ratepayers
25 In 2010, 86% of wind power was produced on days when Ontario was already in a net export position
26 Export customers paid only about 3¢/kWh to 4¢/kWh for Ontario power; electricity ratepayers of Ontario paid more than 8¢/kWh for this power to be generated
27 From 2005 to the end of our audit in 2011, Ontario received $18 billion less for its electricity exports than what it actually cost electricity ratepayers of Ontario
28 The IESO requested that nuclear generators shut down or reduce electricity supply 205 times in 2009 and 13 times in 2010
29 Recommendation 5: Assess the operational challenges and the feasibility of adding more intermittent renewable energy into the system
Socio-economic Impacts
30 Promised “green” jobs have not been produced and existing jobs may be lost because of higher electricity prices
31 A majority of the jobs will be temporary
32 Analysis should consider both job-creation and job-loss impacts, and experiences of other jurisdictions with similar renewable energy initiatives
Environmental Concerns
33 Estimated reduction in greenhouse gases did not take into account the continuing need to run fossil-fuel backup
Health Concerns
34 CMOH report questioned
35 Academic research chair has produced no report
36 Ministry of Energy should measure impact of backup facilities and provide objective research on potential health effects of wind power
Wind and gas: Back-up or back-out – “That is the question”
Source: Méray, Nora
The focus of this study is to explore the effect that the deployment of a large share of wind energy has on the Northwest European power generation mix in the current market circumstances. The starting point of the study is that wind power is added to the power generation system with the aim to reduce CO2 emissions. Several other studies, papers and reports have been published on this subject which underline the complexity of the issue. Facts, projections and speculations from these studies have been assembled and analysed to give an as objective as possible overview on the foreseen effects of an increasing share of wind energy. As such, the study aims to give general insight in what would happen to the power mix if more wind energy were to be introduced, what the contribution to CO2 emissions reduction would be, and the potential role of natural gas and other fuels in handling long periods (> 4 hours) of low wind supply. The goal has not been to deliver an all-encompassing literature study, nor to calculate every scenario we could envisage, but rather to unravel some of the complexities related to back- up capacity required in an electricity system with a large share of variable power. …
Conclusion
Wind power has a low capacity credit (in NW Europe). This means that wind power does not significantly replace other generating capacity; alternative power sources need to be in place, together with new installed wind capacity for at least 80% of installed wind capacity, to ensure that there is sufficient back-up to meet market demand at times of reduced wind power supply. Most of this will have to come from conventional power plants. If hydro capacity from Norway is available, this back-up capacity could be reduced to approximately 70%.
Wind capacity will thus essentially be “surplus” to the necessary dispatchable system capacity, and thus costs of wind capacity will essentially come on top of the costs of the base conventionalcapacity. The extra costs of wind capacity can be reduced or compensated by the abated fuel and carbon costs from conventional generation.
The effectiveness of wind power to reduce CO2 emissions is directly related to the level of CO2 prices. In today’s energy market with low CO2 prices, new installed wind power tends primarily to replace gas-fired power, resulting in limited CO2 reduction, and thus becomes an expensive and less effective way of reducing CO2 emissions. …
Clingendael International Energy Programme
December 2011
Download original document: ‘Wind and gas: Back-up or back-out – “That is the question”’
Measuring the Performance of Wind Energy Projects
Source: Virginia Wind
Assuring the Success of the Commonwealth Energy Policy
The General Assembly has found that energy is essential to the health, safety, welfare and economy of the Commonwealth and that state government should facilitate the availability and delivery of reliable and adequate supplies of energy to industrial, commercial, and residential users at reasonable costs. The General Assembly has also enumerated energy objectives (§ 67-101), set forth a Commonwealth Energy Policy (§ 67-102), and directed development of a non-regulatory Virginia Energy Plan (§ 67-201). Among the objectives addressed by the Code is promotion of alternative energy sources, which, compared to traditional energy resources, may be less polluting of the Commonwealth’s air and waters. Alternative energy includes electricity generated through the use of wind turbines.
Although the Commonwealth has no experience with commercial-scale wind energy projects, the General Assembly has sought to promote the development of such projects through expedited environmental permitting by establishment of a Permit By Rule administered by the Department of Environmental Quality (§ 10.1-1197.6). In addition, the General Assembly has directed the State Corporation Commission to approve increased consumer electricity rates for utilities that demonstrate attainment of the Commonwealth’s
Renewable Portfolio Standard (§ 56-585.2). Fortunately, the General Assembly has also recognized the need to establish a procedure for measuring the implementation of the Commonwealth Energy Policy (§ 67-100). It makes sense to assure that the desired benefits of energy production are obtained, that harm to the public interests are minimized, and that future revisions of the Virginia Energy Plan are informed by experience and data.
The General Assembly may have been well-intentioned in promoting wind energy development in the mix of alternatives, but new information about the efficacy of commercial-scale wind energy generation indicates that objective prediction and verification of performance is warranted.
- The 2010 Virginia Energy Plan estimates the costs of new electricity generation sources, including wind generation facilities. Based on data provided for new facilities entering service in 2016, the cost of electricity generated with onshore wind projects will be 49% greater than the cost of electricity generated with conventional coal-fired power plants and 25% greater than the cost of electricity generated with nuclear power plants. (Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy 2010. The Virginia Energy Plan, www.dmme.virginia.gov/DE/VAEnergyPlan/VEP-2010.shtml)
- Although the National Research Council predicted in 2007 that onshore wind energy development may offset carbon emissions by a small amount, a 2010 report by Bentek Energy, LLC reached a different conclusion. Research presented in the report suggests that contrary to expectations and the objectives of Colorado’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, wind energy development has resulted in increased emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, and carbon. This undesirable result is attributed to the inefficient management of coal-fired power plants that is required to accommodate the variable and intermittent electricity generation achieved by wind turbine facilities. (Bentek Energy, LLC, 2010. How Less Became More: Wind, Power, and Unintended Consequences in the Colorado Energy Market, www.bentekenergy.com)
- A 2007 report by the National Research Council projected that U.S. onshore wind power development through 2020 will achieve no reduction in demand for electricity from other sources, will provide no reduction in sulfur and nitrogen emissions, and may offset carbon dioxide emissions by only 1.2 to 4.5% from the levels of emissions that would otherwise occur from electricity generation. The report further concluded that because the density of the onshore wind resource is less for the Mid-Atlantic region states than for the country as a whole, the benefits in terms of electricity supply and emissions reductions will be less than for the country as a whole. (NRC, 2007. Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, National Academy Press, www.nap.edu/catalog/11935.html)
Determination of both the projected and realized performance of wind energy generation projects is absolutely necessary in the proper administration of state incentives and licensing.
Wind energy generation projects must be subject to SCC licensing and the requirement to obtain a certificate of convenience and necessity.
SCC approval of wind energy generation facilities should further be conditioned upon provision of:
- analysis that objectively calculates the costs and benefits of proposed wind energy projects
- annual reports that document the performance of installed wind energy projects
These analyses and reports should be based on publically reviewable data and methods that quantify effects on the reliability of electricity service and costs to consumers, electricity generation on an annual and monthly basis and during peak demand periods, and reductions in air pollution obtained through displacement of electricity generation by traditional energy sources. Prior to issuance of any licensing action under Title 56, the SCC must verify that the data and calculations concerning these costs and benefits are credible and accurate and that proposed projects are necessary and in the public interest.
Finally, it is imperative that future periodic revisions of the Virginia Energy Plan incorporate knowledge and experience gained from existing wind energy projects and that plan revisions be subject to public review and comment.
