Wind gets clean bill of health, but no clear path to development

Just one hour after the National Health and Medical Research Council had given a clean bill of health to the nation’s wind farms, this story came through the Fairfax websites: Around 25,000 face masks are being distributed to residents in Morwell and Traralgon to filter out ash and smoke from the fire at the Hazelwood coal mine.

Nothing could better highlight the current absurdity of Australia’s energy debate. As fossil fuels continue to burn and pollute, a witch-hunt accommodated and encouraged by the new Abbott government has brought the large-scale renewable energy industry to a halt, and may do so on a more permanent basis. Small-scale renewables, such as rooftop solar and energy efficiency schemes, are also under attack.

The wind industry has been hit the hardest. Behind the scenes, the campaign is being orchestrated by fossil fuel interests, their media lackeys and self-appointed apologists who University of Sydney professor Simon Chapman describes as having all the qualities of the “anti-vaccine and antifluoride fruitcakes”.

As Chapman has noted in previous articles, the number of people claiming to be affected by wind farms is extremely small. US economists, on the other hand, have estimated the health impacts of coal-fired power stations in the US to be between 0.8 to 5.6 times its value added. The Australian government, meanwhile, is embarking on yet another Energy White Paper that takes little or no account of environmental impacts, which is at least consistent with its broader view of climate change.

Australia is not alone in having pollution thrown in the face of its citizens in the manner of Hazelwood. In the US, the Obama Administration – frustrated at not being able to impose a carbon price – is attempting Direct Action, but with bite, a creating a regulatory requirement to limit emissions.

This threatens hundreds of coal-fired power stations, but the fossil fuel lobby is fighting back. It is organising court action, and a templated response to fight state-based renewable targets. Meanwhile, a litany of disasters, from oil spills that closed 10kms of the Mississippi, to 1.5m of coal ash piling up on a North Carolina river, are highlighting the risks of fossil fuels, much as the Hazelwood coal fire is doing.

Sometimes the situation borders on the absurd, as well as the tragic. An explosion at a fracking well in rural Pennsylvania is reported to have killed one oil worker and sparked an inferno that roared for five days before it was extinguished. Oil company Chevron responded by offering free pizza – and a two litre bottle of fizzy drink – to neighbouring residents. “Chevron recognises the effect this has had on the community,” the company said in a letter accompanying the gift voucher.

Meanwhile, as Chapman notes in his report on the NHMRC study, Australia’s leading health review body found there is no reliable or consistent evidence that proximity to wind farms or wind farm noise directly causes health effects. This echoes every other investigation that has been conducted into the industry.

The study found that there was consistent but poor-quality evidence that proximity to wind turbines was associated with annoyance and, less consistently, with sleep disturbance and poorer quality of life.

But finding an association between wind farms and these health-related effects does not mean that wind turbines cause these problems. These associations could be due to selection or information bias or to confounding factors.

The study may well have given the industry a clean bill of health, but it is unlikely to deliver a clear path to development.

The anti-wind movement predictably seized on the NHMRC’s recommendation that more studies need to be conducted. And in the conservative Australian government, they will find an obliging partner.

The so-called “wind turbine syndrome” is just one of the issues that are thrown at the wind energy industry by its detractors and its competitors. The others are costs, reliability and integration into the grid, and wind energy’s ability to reduce emissions. All issues have been thoroughly debunked, but all are regularly parroted by Prime Minister Tony Abbott in the briefing notes prepared by his inner core of advisors.

There are several layers of strategy which deal with the issue of climate change that have been defined for governments by the deep-pocketed and deep-networks fossil fuel lobbies that prevail in the US, Australia and elsewhere: First you deny the science; then you accept the science but downplay its impacts; then you set no policy that reflects that supposed engagement; and then you urge less deployment of clean energy and more R&D, in the apparent expectation that it will become cost competitive.

It already is. But left to their own devices, the incumbent generators have no interest in building new wind farms because it will affect the value of their existing assets – already fully depreciated and many of which have been built over recent decades courtesy of historic subsidies and market protection, and whose power of incumbency is reinforced by the structure of the National Electricity Market.

The renewable energy target is designed to accelerate the transition to a clean energy future by providing a mechanism to facilitate that new investment in wind, solar and other renewables, and push ageing and dirty fossil fuel generation out the other side.

Australia’s falling electricity demand – courtesy of a proliferation of rooftop solar, energy efficient appliances and warm winters – would appear to provide the opportunity to make that policy a resounding success. The minimum target of 20 per cent, set a few years ago, could turn out to be more than 25 per cent.

But just as the first mandatory renewable target under the Howard government was branded “too successful” and brought to a sudden halt, the same fate awaits the current target.

This time, the government has not even bothered with hiring an “independent” person to head the review. Nearly a decade ago, the Howard government appointee Grant Tamblin, a former Liberal politicians who actually went against the script and found that renewables were a good thing and the target should be expanded. His advice was rejected.

The Abbott government has taken no chances this time round, appointing climate change sceptic (“I am not a denier”) Dick Warburton to head the panel. If Warburton does not even accept the science of climate change, let alone the need to phase out fossil fuels, he is unlikely to support policies that encourage renewables, whatever the facts about costs, system integration and health benefits are put in front of him.

The clean energy industry must be kicking itself. The new RET review is justified by the Abbott government because it is a statutory requirement.

It need not have been, the Climate Change Authority in the last review handed down in 2012 said a four-year spacing between reviews was essential to give the industry the certainty it required.

The Coalition, smarter than your average Labor bear, knew what they had to do to stop renewables in their tracks. They “endorsed” the CCA findings but insisted all along that another review should be held. Behind the scenes, the Coalition was saying there would be “trouble” if the legislation was changed.

The clean energy industry could have called its bluff, but blinked instead, and advised Labor not to incur the wrath of the new government by changing the legislation. It seems absurd now. From the moment it was clear that they would likely win the election, and a review would be inevitable, new wind energy developments have been brought to a halt, and this is flowing through to plans for large-scale solar. And the situation is likely to remain unchanged until the government has endorsed, or done otherwise with the Warburton review and formulated its energy white paper.

Comments

4 responses to “Wind gets clean bill of health, but no clear path to development”

  1. Chris Fraser Avatar
    Chris Fraser

    Given that planning and preparation to build large generator assets takes such a long time, i can agree with the CCA that RET reviews should only be taken every four years. We didn’t see the difficulty with two years because we thought there was enough climate anxiety that the bi-annual RET reviews would on a one-way ticket up towards 60% – achieved quicker as reviews were on the short interval. But now that’s been caught by a malevolent government who uses the short interval to damp down RET. If we want more clean energy growth we’ll have to wait until the good guys get back and very likely review up again.

  2. ideas man9 Avatar
    ideas man9

    The best plan of attack now is financial. Loaded with debt and overvalued assets making minimal returns sounds like a great time for an investment bank to short sell the generation companies and provide more competition in the way of additional generation. Just needs balls of steel and lots of capital

  3. Alen Avatar
    Alen

    Every there seem to be new job losses announced and now Abbott is paving the path for making even more losses a reality. In 2013 there were more solar jobs than in coal and gas combined, and it doesn’t take a genius to conclude that stuffing around with small-scale scheme (i.e. RET) will result in more mass losses. The CEFC should be ENCOURAGED to take on more project and thus create valuable jobs.

    I truly hope WA shows Abbott that the Government is not there for the select few to benefit but rather for the bettering in the majority of the population

    1. wideEyedPupil Avatar
      wideEyedPupil

      Hope so too.

      Really need Ludlam returned he’s one of the few in Parliament who can run a Senate Estimates Committee enquiry that gets through the coalition and bureaucratic smoke screens (I’m looking at you Senator for Hubris, Brandis)

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.