[ exact phrase in "" • ~10 sec • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]

LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Letter to Clean Energy Council  

Credit:  Hamish Cumming, Sept. 3, 2012 ~~

On ABC radio 1602 9am today, your CEC representative spoke after me and tried to fob off my argument and say I was incorrect.

Could CEC please look at the attached three pieces of information and show me where you think I am wrong.

AEMO-5min-Aug10-4am

AEMO-5min-Aug7-1pm

You will see for a normal day at 4am and 1pm, the three main Victorian base load coal fired generators are no where near delivering full capacity of the coal they are burning.

The attached forecast demand curve for the same period shows that there is no demand beyond what could be easily supplied by the base load generators. There is no interconnect demand from other states either, or the base load generators would have been running at higher capacity. Go to the AEMO site and confirm for yourself there was no demand from anywhere during that period which could have caused a need for higher rates of electricity generation.

Yet, when you look at the Waubra wind farm, on both of the attached 5 minute generator outputs from the AEMO, you will see they show 122Mw and 167Mw going into the grid.

Waubra were being paid somewhere in the order of $15,000 per hour ($360,000 per day) when you include the REC’s green energy tariff and normal sale tariff they sell the power for. The electricity Waubra generated was not required and has already been paid for once through the cost structure of the base load power stations. Waubra generating just caused more steam to be vented as waste at the base load stations.

Please explain how you believe Waubra was actually abating GHG during these periods, as more coal was being burnt than demand could use.

Your spokesperson also claimed that two coal fired power stations have not been built purely because wind farms are operating.
Again please look at the demand requirements as publicly published by the AEMO. Show me where your imaginary demand is that the wind farms are supposedly covering. The figures show demand has not actually increased over the past few years as you claim, in fact drop in manufacturing demand has reduced overall demand in many cases, and in several states. Additional coal fired power stations have not been built because there is no requirement.

If you look closely at the figures you will see that 2000Mw may be able to be dropped off the base load grid, but this is nothing to do with wind farms at all, it is because gas fired peaking power stations such as Mortlake are coming on line.

If the CEC are going to try to say that people such as myself are wrong, and then CEC go on to make outrageous and unsubstantiated claims, then the CEC need to show actual generation and demand numbers in a real timeframe such as I have done for you now.

I await your comment, with fact and not just spin.

Regards,
Hamish.

Source:  Hamish Cumming, Sept. 3, 2012

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter