Offshore wind energy locations unveiled      


New Daily
Aug 5 2022

Energy Minister Chris Bowen has flagged six possible locations for offshore wind energy as the government looks to increase the amount of renewables in the grid. 

The government has proposed an area in the Bass Strait off Gippsland for a site for the offshore wind facility, along with parts of the Pacific near the Hunter and the Illawarra.

Further locations in the Southern Ocean near Portland, parts of the Bass Strait and the Indian Ocean near Perth and Bunbury have also been flagged.

Mr Bowen said the facilities would help Australia to reach 82 per cent renewable energy by the end of the decade.

“This is good news for these communities. A lot of jobs will also be created. These are areas undergoing economic change as our energy system transforms,” he said in Sydney

“We are way behind the game, way behind the rest of the would in producing wind off our coastline.”   


Mr Bowen said consultation for the offshore wind projects near Gippsland would begin straight away. Details for consultation for the other five sites would be announced in due course.

It’s estimated the Gippsland proposal would be enough to power 1.2 million homes in Victoria, with the industry to create up to 8000 jobs a year once fully operational.   

The announcement came a day after the Albanese government’s climate bill passed the House of Representatives.

The bill enshrined a 43 per cent reduction in emissions based on 2005 levels by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050.

It will be sent to a Senate committee, due to report back by the end of the month, before being debated in the upper house.

Mr Bowen said the bill’s passage was a step forward and he looked forward to it passing the Senate.   

“It is not symbolic, it is practice. There are 10 years of delay and dysfunction, this parliament is taking big steps for it to end,” he said .

“The passage of this bill sends a message to investors in renewable energy, transmission and storage around the world that Australia is open for business to become a renewable energy powerhouse.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said an “economy-wide transition” would be needed in order to cut down on Australia’s emissions.

He said more work was needed to be done to reduce emissions, particularly among the country’s biggest polluters.

“You have to have an economy-wide transition here. It will take effort. It’s not easy, but we can do it,” he told ABC Radio on Friday.

“While doing it, we can create economic activity, create jobs, particularly in our regions.”

While the opposition has warned the government’s emissions reduction target would lead to higher power bills for families, Mr Albanese said the changes would help to grow the economy.

He warned a lack of action in reducing emissions would have a negative impact on the country’s finances.

“Unless we do this transition, then Australia will actually suffer and shrink, so we also have the possibility of cleaner, cheaper energy, creating new industries,” he said.

More pointless environmental destruction for minimal benefit. 

AusGeoff wrote on Aug 6^th, 2022 at 8:35am:




Costs - to build and maintain -  and subsidies??



Funny how we are going back to windmills, the Knight Errant of the Sorrowful Countenance said to Sancho Panza.

Frank wrote on Aug 6^th, 2022 at 10:20am:


The prime contractor (yet to be formalised) will receive  $19.5 million
in Victorian government funding.  The overall costing for the Star of
The South project is $12 billion.

Compare this with the 4km West Gate Tunnel project cost of $10 billion,
and tell me which is a better return on taxpayer investment, with the
Victorian government putting in $2 billion of taxpayer's money.

The ill-fated West Gate Tunnel project should never have been greenlighted.
It's been roundly criticised by transport and urban planning experts for
overstating its benefits, increasing traffic in the inner city, and failing to
consider better alternatives.

AusGeoff wrote on Aug 7^th, 2022 at 1:01am:


No commonwealth funding and subsidies? No guaranteed price for the energy produced?

AusGeoff wrote on Aug 7^th, 2022 at 12:41am:


I certainly favour the retention of coal and gas fueled power  stations until their eventual replacement with nuclear.  It has been shown the so called 'renewables' are both inefficient and environmentally unfriendly.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-100-percent-renewable-e...

https://v16-webapp.tiktok.com/b32f84a02545a3d848189cc45c3e1aa3/62ef8828/video/to...

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/green-technologies-cause-ma...

These are just a few examples. The placing of wind turbines offshore is simply an out of sight out of mind attitude that will lead to unnecessary degradation of the marine environment.

Belgarion wrote on Aug 7^th, 2022 at 1:46pm:

Two of your links to the grandly-named Institute for Energy Research (IER) see
it often described as a front group for the fossil fuel industry, and is the most
prominent organisation questioning the existence and extent of anthropogenic
climate change.  It receives funding from the fossil fuel industry, and has accepted
financial donations from organisations in that sector such as the American
Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, the American Energy Alliance, and ExxonMobil.
So of course they're gonna bad mouth wind and solar farm electricity generation.

I'm not sure what you mean by "degradation of the marine environment".  Any
chance of some links?  Presumably you prefer open cut coal mining and fracking?

AusGeoff wrote on Aug 8^th, 2022 at 3:15am:


sure.



Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands – all members of the North Seas Energy Cooperation (NSEC) – have jointly signed the Esbjerg Declaration. Their plan is to transform the North Sea, which contains the 1.5 billion barrels of oil required to re-stabilise Europe against Russian aggression, into a useless ‘Green Hub’.


The enormous turbines are expected to be set a kilometre apart in a grid, driven into the seabed with concrete and steel platforms that weigh approximately 1,000 tons. Those in deep water include 60m structures with 3-4 anchor points. Even floating versions contain huge quantities of additional material, all of which require fossil fuels to create and maintain, the cost of which increases as governments constrict the industry.

During the public unveiling, no one bothered to ask if the cost of re-building the first half of the project had been factored in, given the lifespan of wind turbines means that those constructed for the 2030 deadline would have to be replaced by the time 2050 rolls around. 14,000 blades are estimated for decommission by 2023, with that figure increasing exponentially year-on-year.

During the public unveiling, no one bothered to ask if the cost of re-building the first half of the project had been factored in, given the lifespan of wind turbines means that those constructed for the 2030 deadline would have to be replaced by the time 2050 rolls around. 14,000 blades are estimated for decommission by 2023, with that figure increasing exponentially year-on-year.

Germany has the most wind turbines in the European Union, and their industry is drowning in legal challenges, predominately brought in the interests of protecting the local wildlife. The more wind turbines that are built, the more people hate them.

‘You have to have a grown-up conversation with citizens and treat them as adults and say, “Listen, the status quo has changed, we’re in a climate emergency, we have to make radical and fast changes to our systems,”’ said Patrick Devine-Wright, a social scientist and adviser to the IPCC.

And there it is. By declaring, without sufficient evidence, that there is a ‘climate emergency’, the norms of law, land ownership, and citizen rights are routinely swept away.

If you turn the conversation around on this argument and point out that solar and wind have enormous carbon footprints and cause wider environmental carnage with both their creation and swift decline, those pushing wind and solar become violently pale. If you follow up with the suggestion of nuclear power, they start gluing themselves to random bits of tarmac.

Why? Because nuclear is a quick and permanent solution. Instead of costing trillions in public money, the world’s energy can be secured with an accompanying rapid decline in mining.

‘Oh, but it’s expensive!’

What happened to ‘nothing else matters because this is a climate emergency’?

If we are in an emergency, then nuclear is the logical, scientific solution. If this is not an emergency, then it must be about money – an absolute truckload of it. Each skyscraper-sized spinning blade sticks out of the water as a white elephant, built on public cash, fear-mongering hashtags, the misguided tears of brainwashed children, and the vanity of politicians seeking public virtue in the absence of character.

As for the birds, the seas are set to become a nightmare of blood and feathers.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/do-north-sea-birds-dream-of-giant-spinning-mach...

The wind turbine rotating gracefully on the ridge line has long been the iconic
image of carbon free, renewable power. But on the horizon (just beyond that
ridge) is a problem that could put a sizeable dent in the wind industry’s clean,
sleek image. By 2050, it’s estimated that 43 million tonnes of decommissioned
turbine blades will reach their end of life and need to be managed through the
global waste stream.

Explainer: What happens to old wind turbines?

Like a couple of others here, I favour nuclear, but I can't see it ever taking off
in Australia due to its poor—but undeserved—bad image.

Nuclear power is already one of the most efficient types of energy available today.
An average capacity factor of 90% beats other energy forms by a substantial margin.
Natural gas produces an average of 50% while coal produces energy at 45%. Wind
power operates with a poor 32% efficiency.      Nuclear power offers a number of
benefits to consumers, but first and foremost is its high efficiency rating.

Baronvonrort wrote on Aug 9^th, 2022 at 11:53pm:

I have to disagree that offshore wind is "stupid".  Unfortunately it's
probably the best green energy solution we have, considering there's
no way the tree-huggers would ever okay nuclear power stations—
despite nuclear being not only cleaner than coal or gas, but also its
90% efficiency rating, versus wind's 35% efficiency.

Personally, I favour nuclear, but considering the opposition by the wider
public who're not technically educated, I can't see it ever happening.

AusGeoff wrote on Aug 9^th, 2022 at 4:57am:



Whenever there has been a nuclear power station disaster
the background causes were never even considered as a risk:
Chernobyl,
Fukushima.

However - they happened.

Now - what about nuclear reactors during a time of war?
We already see a bad situation unfolding in Ukraine -
fighting around nuclear power stations. 

Nuclear power stations are a huge risk from unforeseen events.

John Smith wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:35pm:


Your fear comes from ignorance. Once you understand the way the you have been lied to and manipulated by the anti-nuclear lobby over the years you will see that there is nothing to be afraid of. 

John Smith wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:35pm:



That's true:


Nuclear waste takes too long to decay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Some common nuclear waste half lives:

Plutonium 239 half life      24,110 years.
Americium 241 half life          432 years
Radium 226     Half life      1,600  years
Uranium 236  Half life   15 million years.
Plutonium 244 Half life   80 million years
Uranium 235  Half life  704 million years
Uranium 238 half life      4.5 billion years

Bobby. wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 4:50pm:


What is the half life of those elements when they're still in the ground before they're used?

Belgarion,
what about nuclear reactors during a time of war?
Is Ukraine safe?

Belgarion wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 5:34pm:


I agree totally.  Chernobyl was based on nuclear power generation
using 1948 technology, and should of course never have been built.
An inexperienced team and inadequate designs at the plant were
later found to be the cause of the disaster.

Unfortunately it's become the default safety "standard" by which the
tree-huggers judge current nuclear power stations. Last year, in China,
93 coal miners died, and 10 in the US—but you never hear the greenies
mentioning that in comparison to the zero deaths in nuclear power
stations during the past ten years, or even the single confirmed death
from Fukushima.


 

Belgarion wrote on Aug 10^th, 2022 at 5:34pm:


and yet 3 major incidents in the last 60 odd years a suggests that the chances are much much higher then what you pretend.

and lets not forget, a 4th major incident is brewing right at this moment in the Ukraine. One wayward missile, which in case you're interested occurs much more frequently than say, an alien invasions, and  we'll have another Chernobyl

223,478 views Aug 10, 2022

And how to protect yourself and family.
Existential threat to Europe.
Strikes close to a storage facility for spent fuel.

Belgarion wrote on Aug 11^th, 2022 at 1:02pm:



It was a rhetorical question -
of course there is no design that can withstand a war zone.

Belgarion wrote on Aug 11^th, 2022 at 3:59pm:



Don't be so cheeky.
There is a page full of 100s of videos there.
You haven't told me which one.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 11^th, 2022 at 5:12pm:



The wind is offshore due to the roaring 40s -

part of the circumpolar wind system.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 11^th, 2022 at 5:18pm:



The Victorian coast is at a bit over 38 degrees latitude.
Tassie is well inside the 40 degrees.
Hobart is 42.9 degrees South.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 11^th, 2022 at 5:31pm:



Because that's where there are almost constant high winds due
to the Antarctic circumpolar winds.
If you set up a wind turbine inland there can be hardly any wind for months.

Read up on Google about the roaring 40s.

lee wrote on Aug 11^th, 2022 at 5:39pm:


Really?
I bet it's only on the odd day here and there?

Johnnie wrote on Aug 11^th, 2022 at 5:45pm:



Tassie blocks a lot of wind so that west coast is very windy but
the east coast has less wind.
However it picks up again past Tassie due to the Earth's rotation.

Johnnie wrote on Aug 11^th, 2022 at 6:08pm:



In Victoria somewhere near Wilsons Promontory
would nearly always have high wind.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 11^th, 2022 at 5:41pm:


"King Island, in Bass Strait, generates 50 per cent of its energy from wind and solar power"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-02/king-island-looks-to-wave-power-as-third-...

"Australian firm Hydro Tasmania said Thursday the hybrid renewable energy system it installed on King Island was able to meet its entire electricity needs for nearly 33 hours.

Hydro Tasmania’s King Island Renewable Energy Integration Project (KIREIP) combines wind, solar and biodiesel systems along with energy storage technologies such as batteries, a diesel-based Uninterruptable Power Supply (D-UPS), a smart grid and advanced control systems. Their combined output is expected to be able to meet at least 65% of local electricity demand, while also offsetting over 95% of the island’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.  "

https://renewablesnow.com/news/australias-king-island-runs-on-100-renewable-powe...

As big as two Harbour bridges: The giant wind farms you’ll see from the coast
Brisbane Times
August 11, 2022



Dozens of wind turbines almost twice the height of the Sydney Harbour Bridge could soon be seen off the coast of Australia after the federal government last week named six areas it hopes to declare “suitable” for the industry after years of delay. 

As Australian governments dithered over drafting regulations for Australia’s offshore wind industry, a technological revolution swept the globe. Turbines that just a few years ago towered over the landscape became gigantic, sophisticated machines that could be built on barges and floated far offshore, pumping vast amounts of energy back to land via undersea cables.


“We are way behind the game, way behind the rest of the world in producing wind off our coastline. Again, we have a lot of catching up to do. Offshore wind is jobs-rich and energy-rich,” federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen said last week, announcing which sites around the country the government viewed as suitable for offshore wind.

In the years it has taken to draft and finally approve regulations for offshore wind, the industry has exploded across Europe, Asia and now parts of North America. As the industry spread across the globe, the machines it uses to generate electricity have grown in size.

The turbines expected to be installed off Gippsland, Wollongong and Newcastle will have blades longer than 100 metres long, scraping the sky 260 metres above the waves. The top of Sydney’s Harbour Bridge is 135 metres above sea level.

Bowen confirmed that the first project seeking approval would be the Star of South, which proponents hope to build off Gippsland. Should it go ahead as planned it would be one of the world’s largest, providing up to 20 per cent of Victoria’s energy.


Why so big?
Wind turbines have grown on average by 60 per cent over the past 20 years as their builders strive to make the most of the typically stronger and more consistent winds that can be found further from the ground.



Larger turbines generate energy more cheaply too, says Andy Evans, who was the co-founder and chief executive of Star of the South and who is now leading another offshore wind farm company, OceanEx.

A single 14-megawatt wind turbine of the sort now being built needs just a single connection to a substation and less maintenance than two 7-megawatt turbines that were typical just a few years ago. Maintenance at sea with crews ferried by boat or helicopter is expensive.

Evans confirmed that the project OceanEx is championing for 20 kilometres off the coast in the Hunter region will be visible from shore on clear days, while the turbines proposed for the Illawarra could be slightly closer.


Despite this, the industry has broadly maintained community support. Friends of the Earth spokesperson Cam Walker said, given the NSW proposals were fairly new, it was difficult to gauge opinion.

“We think there is wide support for the jobs that would come with the development of an offshore industry near cities like Newcastle and Wollongong, which have traditionally relied heavily on fossil fuels for employment and economic activity,” he said. “In Gippsland, we feel that there is solid support for the Star of the South project, which is the only one that has so far advanced in the planning process.”

RELATED ARTICLE
The Queensland government has backed another wind farm.
Renewables
Queensland poised to host massive wind farm precinct under $160m deal
Wollongong Lord Mayor Gordon Bradbery said the community welcomed energy sources that weren’t driven by fossil fuels and the proposed projects would bring significant economic benefits to the community. He added there had been some opposition within the community about the visual pollution, impact on shipping lanes and whale migrations. These will be addressed as the projects develop.

“At the same time, I think in light of [the] climate change we are experiencing – and its impact on the Illawarra and NSW coastline – I think everyone is on the same page that anything that mitigates carbon emissions [is good],” he said.


For its part, a NSW Department of Planning and Energy spokesperson said the offshore wind industry had the potential to play a significant role in achieving net-zero by 2050.

The Newcastle council has issued a mayoral minute backing the Hunter proposal.

Why not just build them on land?
Despite the extra cost of building and maintenance, there are key advantages to harvesting wind at sea – even in countries like Australia that, unlike wind-power hotspots off the coasts of Europe, have land to spare.

Giant wind turbines could be installed offshore from popular coastal spots in NSW and Victoria.

A dose of reality for those who think that vast expanses of wind turbines will be a good thing.

https://www.greensfornuclear.energy/physical-footprint-comparison/

John Smith wrote on Aug 11^th, 2022 at 12:51pm:


The Lucas Heights NSW reactor was operational from 1958 to 2007, utilising highly
enriched uranium fuel, with not one single malfunction in those 50 years.  It was
superseded by the Open-pool Australian lightwater reactor, also in Lucas Heights,
with again no malfunctions in 16 years.

I agree that nuclear power stations can be an obvious target during warfare, and
that scenario could occur with the Russian attack on the Zaporizhzhia power plant.
At the moment, the Russians have 'only' shelled support building and offices, but I
guess the question is would they shell the reactor itself and effectively poop in their
own nest?

However, after that time, when the reactor was running under different conditions ...

Lucas Heights nuclear medicine production halts after workers exposed to unsafe radiation
By Bellinda Kontominas
Posted Mon 24 Jun 2019 at 8:33pm

Production has stopped at a newly opened nuclear medicine facility at Sydney's Lucas Heights after workers there were exposed to an unsafe dose of radiation.

The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) said three workers were "attended to by radiation protection personnel" after contamination was detected on the outside of a container holding 42 millilitres of Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) on Friday morning.

"Initial indications are that two of these workers received a radiation dose above the statutory limit," a spokesperson said.

"Early calculations indicate that the radiation dose received by two of the workers involved in medicine processing, was equivalent to that of a conventional radiation therapy treatment."

The spokesperson said manufacturing of Mo-99 ceased on Friday morning and an investigation was underway.

He said the workers were receiving ongoing support from ANSTO, including medical observation from an occupational physician.

The spokesperson said supplies of Mo-99 were being provided by alternative facilities at ANSTO while the investigation was underway.

The incident comes less than two weeks after ANSTO received a licence to begin supplying Mo-99 — the parent isotope of technetium-99m, used in 85 per cent of all Australian nuclear medicine.

It also follows a series of contaminations scares at the Lucas Heights facility in recent years — including one just two months ago in which three workers were exposed a chemical spill.

In August 2017 a worker was left with blisters on his hands and a higher risk of developing cancer after he dropped a vial of radioactive material and was contaminated through two pairs of gloves.

The event was deemed the most serious in the world in 2017, according to the International Nuclear Event Scale — the global grading system for nuclear incidents.

An independent review of the facility in October 2018 found it failed modern nuclear safety standards and should be replaced.

In the same week ANSTO confirmed five workers had received a dose of radiation at the facility, but that the amount of radiation was "less than a chest x-ray".

Posted 24 Jun 2019

Captain Nemo wrote on Aug 13^th, 2022 at 1:01pm:


Thanks for that link.  I hadn't heard about those incidents at Lucas Heights.   

It sounds like they were the result of operator error, rather than a reactor failure?

AusGeoff wrote on Aug 13^th, 2022 at 1:32pm:


The land requirements have not changed. If anything they have increased in the case of wind farms as the turbines have got bigger.

https://savethehuronmountains.org/2019/02/14/how-much-land-does-nuclear-wind-and...