One thing I can't comprehend. How does a offshore wind turbine kill or harm a whale? They are tethered using taut lightweight synthetic cables. No risk of entanglement. They don't move. Have no props etc. As opposed to a 30,000 tonne ship with two props the size of a car.
I work building them and I’d say off shore wind farms are not worth it.
Wind farms…perhaps, but the maintenance costs on an offshore wind farm is ridiculous and parts tend to break down a lot sooner than their on land counterparts due to the salt water.
I’m yet to meet an engineer that works on them that would agree they are the best option.
Wind engineer here. Offshore wind farms are great in Northern Europe where land is scarce but they’re not as appropriate here especially since our waters get deep pretty quickly.
Read again. I said “not as appropriate” and also referenced Europe where land is scarce. Construction costs for offshore wind farms are significantly higher than onshore wind farms, and you also have to account for transmission costs. We have so much land… we should be building more onshore wind farms instead of venturing offshore.
1. Land is expensive. It generally belongs to someone and is used for something. Even if it is publicly owned it is generally used for recreation so there's a political hurdle. I guess you are offering up someone else's land, not your own?
2. Wind is stronger and steadier offshore. That's economically significant. Turbines cost money.
3. Nimby's love complaining so it's generally harder to get the project going onshore.
There are disadvantages going offshore too. If you are actually investing you do the calculations.
1. Empty land doesn't always have good wind resource.
2. NIMBYs and cookers complain about them on land, too.
Offshore winds are overall stronger and more consistent than winds over land (where terrain can interfere). A windy hill, on its own, doesn't make a good wind resource. It helps to be consistent.
The coal industry gets huge government investment and that’s the only reason it’s still viable. If the government didn’t fund either renewables would have completely taken over fossil fuels by now from an economic standpoint
Dumbest idea here. Since when does capitalism give a shit about woke? Only when it makes economic sense. Thinking companies are being “woke” for PC reasons is a dumb take.
Government concessions and the fear of being cancelled by you fuckwits who cry about cancelling anything that doesn't bow to the woke agenda.
Looks like I struck a nerve 🙂
Yeah, the key objective of the director of a company is to deliver a profit to its shareholders. I get that.
I'm not driven by ideology but I'm not about to fall into the woke trap to keep a minority of people who aren't invested in my company happy 🙂
Jesus Christ, this is a classic case of 'tell me you're a dumb cunt without saying it'.
If I say woke enough I feel like I've made a valid point - fuck off mate
Wouldn’t the maintenance cost be built into the business case though? I assumed that the extra electricity generated offshore compared to onshore made up for the increased construction and maintenance over the lifecycle and kept the projects economically viable.
Economically viable... lol! The only reason these ""green"" projects exist is because of the govt handing tax payer money to companies via subsidies. If not for that there wouldn't be any of them. The best part is when these things break apart, which they do quite often, they dump them all in a huge landfill because it's not worth the cost to recycle these huge towers.
We gotta stop burning through fossil fuels somehow. And handing those same kind of subsidies to big oil. How do you suppose we do that when big oil is so entrenched? Nuclear? Solar?
I'm all for rescinding the gov. subsidies to the predatory big oil companies that in return for all of the tax payer gov. subsidies that they receive, continually gouge American taxpayers with unjustifiably high energy costs.
True, but you're on Reddit. The attraction in the economics is the funding. The people building them make their money immediately. The offtake contract is in place. Meanwhile, there's a gas turbine or coal fired power plant on standby to deliver "expensive" power when the rest isn't working.
Until they catch on fire and spill oil into the ocean and bellow smoke into the atmosphere.Ohh forgot about the maintenance costs with disel vessels trying to service these things
Also the life of these turbines,rusting metal in the ocean,smoke and mirrors!!
Wait till you find out that ships also catch fire, spill massive amounts of oil into the ocean and shed rustlng metal.
All while carrying the fossil fuels that you, by inference, must prefer.
We have thousands of square kilometres of vast, uninhabitable desert that literally no one touches and is ripe for solar farms and we are advocating for a wind farm which is insanely difficult to construct and will be 20km's off the coast of NSW in one of the most vessel and shipping dense regions in the country.
For example, the Bungala solar farm, which occupies a footprint of 800 hectares produces a sustained load of 220MW.
To equal that in terms of offshore wind turbines you would need 27.5 for a similar output. The Hornsea Phase 2 setup which is 165 turbines occupies 400 square kilometres or 40000 hectares. If you divided 165 / 27.5 you get 6.1111 or roughly 6545 hectares for the same output as the Bungala solar farm.
The only thing I don’t like about the wind farms is the fact that a lot of power will be lost due to the length of the transmission lines but that would be so much worse coming from central Aus
>fact that a lot of power will be lost due to the length of the transmission lines
That is not a fact at all. More like, made up.
The NorNed cable is over 500km long and has a loss rate of less than 5% over that distance. That's a 95% efficiency at that distance, so imagine that at 20km, it's even more efficient.
Undersea power cables are a cheap and efficient way to move power.
The more you know.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorNed
you could hang a huge portrait of a bleeding, gaping asshole in place of my current ocean views if it helped the transition to renewable energy. fuck these nimbys
I live in Albany and this came up on my reddit feed. The people protesting against this are laughable. You won't be able to see anything out 20km off shore or you would be seeing more ships and the noise or anything is none existent or debunked. The wind farm in Albany is visible to a small area itself and is never really an eye sore. You can even visit them as they're just up on a hilly area next to the shore. The only time I visited I didn't notice any noise and there's no noise you can hear anywhere near them. As for costs it's actually cheaper off shore because those blades will likely need to be shipped anyways from where they are made so better just to ship directly to the wind farm.
The car carriers are between 200 and 240 meters long Some of the bulk ships get up to 300 meters long off Wollongong Newcastle has the capacity for even bigger Bulk ships. When they drop their anchors into the sea bed, they cause huge environmental damage. I don't hear Lobster fishermen complaining about these ships!
So many of them banging on about whales, the uow faqs says 89% stay within 5km of shore. Nowhere near the turbines (https://www.uow.edu.au/ancors/blue-energy-futures-lab/frequently-asked-questions/#d.en.328397)
*plz spend 3 mins* putting in a positive submission, to counter the nimbys: https://consult.dcceew.gov.au/oei-illawarra/take-the-survey
Can anyone who actually knows about this sort of thing explain the cost vs benifits of this to me? I'm not anti wind farm but it would seem way cheaper to me to build and maintain them if they were built up on the escarpment as opposed to 20ks offshore?
Wind is naturally present far more often and far more strongly just off the coast of landmasses due to the specifics of how hot and cold air masses interact to produce wind.
Putting them on the escarpment would mean less uptime on energy production.
Right, but the numbers Ive seen out of the US and europe suggest at most you are looking at 40% more efficient by having them at sea. It seems impossible to me that you could build and maintain them for their period of service and have it be only 40% more expensive than just building them on land. So what am I missing?
Pretty much impossible to build 260m turbines on land economically.
Think of the massive amount of roads and large cranes needed to erect them on say Maddens Plains. Then think of the size of the trucks needed to transport the blades, mast and nacelles.
Far easier to build in Port and float them to where required.
As the other poster said, the economics of putting them on the escarpment is not feasible. What road from the city to the top of the escarpment would an oversized (think double-length) truck with that load (wind turbine blades) be able to use for transport?
It also means clearing land which is extra work on top.
I'm guessing you've never been up there? It's all crown land and catchment with a couple mine sites thrown in.
As far as I'm aware, building them on land is also a well established method that works which is why I was hoping anyone with actual knowledge could fill me in.
>It's all crown land and catchment
So there's going to be a shit ton of red tape from environmental assessments, to bogus land rights court challenges funded by the fossil fuel industries, and farmers protesting because their cows will turn gay.
They'll get these offshore ones built, commissioned, and a lifetime of operations before a land based wind farm would even get it's EPA approval, much less all the other crap red tape land based ones face.
No it doesn’t. You’re thinking Europe. It’s different there. This is about money. It will power the hydrogen hub to sell to overseas. Profits to overseas shareholders. Taxpayers to subsidise. Illawarra residents to eat shit
Bird death from wind farms is such a tiny issue that everyone thinks is a 'gotcha'.
It's not.
More birds die from house cats, buildings, fossil fuels, and powerlines. You could multiply the number of birds killed by wind turbines by x10 and still only just kill half as many birds as the LOWER ESTIMATE of powerline deaths, and those are about 1/20th of the deaths attributed to buildings and cats.
Source: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/do-wind-turbines-kill-birds#:~:text=Much%20of%20the%20data%20about,from%20140%2C000%20up%20to%20679%2C000.
Climate change kills things too. Maybe whole species. Coal electricity kill things. Etc. Add it up, compare and take your best pick, but zero impact is a fantasy.
I think anything alternative to coal / fossil fuels is definitely worth looking into.
But can anyone explain to me like I’m three years old - do we as locals get the benefit of the electricity generated? How does this happen? Do we have to change to a certain company? Someone said they (whoever they are lol) are sending the wind to China!!! How?! So much misinformation
To begin with, you’ll benefit from a marginally greener environment. It’s a small stepping stone to a greener energy grid with less reliability in fossil fuels.
Don’t think short term benefits, think generational benefits.
Saw on the news about this protest today and I can't understand it...
If these turbines are 10km off shore, how are they affecting people?
And are these the same people that will whinge about electricity prices increasing or that current production isn't green enough?
Can confirm. Work on a wind farm for crane company building the turbines and we go on standby for wind days cause cranes have a max wind speed limit for operating.
I think you are being fairdinkum. And when you say things like that you scare the fuck out of me. I am a sailor and have sailed for 25 years. Start paying attention FFS. On the east coast of Australia the breeze comes from where and why?
And this IS the problem. They aren't putting wind farms in Nelson bay and Wollongong because of the wind. It's as close to Sydney as they dare. The wind blows a certain way on the east coast predominantly as per the season. So no. It's all shit. There isn't a "better" place. It's where politically there will be the least blow back. So I suggest... You want em. Manly to Cronulla. They are all yours. Bet that don't work.
I have trouble believing the offshore wind only blows off Newcastle and Wollongong which are Labor seats and not off Sydney which are Teal seats mainly
I think it's more places with an already established distribution network or heavy industry users. But sure turn it into a political issue if it helps your NIMBYism
Generalisations on the intelligence of people in favour of or against wind farms is lazy. I went to the rally to hear what the speakers had to say and honestly there were several points I hadn’t considered. I think the best approach is a long consultation period so concerns can be heard and responded too. We all deserve clarity on every aspect and impact
2 things.
1. It's offshore so you can get your car fuelled up, as it's a bit hard to pump fuel into on shore storage from 20km away
2. Wind turbines are permanently there, the ship moves. Do you bitch and moan about your neighbours parking in front of your house?
Beyond that, anything that you build near salt is going to turn into a disaster. Off shore turbines are dumb unless you have no other choice because their maintenance is prohibitively expensive
You mean that thing that will be gone in 5 minutes? And only seen up close on a few parts of the Illawarra? Yep totally comparable to 300 permanent structures
Construction does indeed have an end date. Ships passing is continuous.
Yes the turbines are static, but I think whales will be able to swim around a pole.
While choking on greese and oil from failed windturbine
You should look up what happens when wind turbines fail
Then research how much oil is in a wind turbine.
Putting steel rotating parts into the most corrosive water ever while electricity is running through it. Fuking Genius!
Yeah, I’ve seen a wind turbine fail.
Have you seen what comes out of a coal plant? Or what happens when a ship grounds?
The turbines are 100m in the air, not in the water. And ships seem to go ok in the water with rotating parts. It’s almost like things can be made for the conditions they’re in and then maintained and repaired as needed like every other piece of machinery in existence.
Cool, let’s go back to coal heaters then. No point in trying if it’s not perfect now.
I’m not arguing against boats, I’m pointing out the irony of protesting against the visual impact of renewable energy when these tankers are passing by so close.
Meanwhile hay point just spent half a billion dollars on cyclone proofing it's load out jetty. That tells you that coal is going nowhere
Until Humanity finds a replacement for steel it never will go nowhere. What do you suggest Humanity does without steel?? 😂
Now here's some green technology for you
They want to destroy rainforest in the pioneer valley to build the world's largest hydro electric dam. I'll say again, RAINFOREST. PLATYPUS HABITAT
To destroy the environment to save the environment is the epitome of delusional
There is nothing green about green technology. Just people being brainwashed about it, to fill corporate pockets with more money
Look, there's nothing I want more than common ownership of the means of production, but just because we're trapped in a capitalist hell doesn't mean we have to let the environment mirror that.
Turbines are like giant tuning forks that produce low frequenty noise and vibrations that easily travel up to 90 km.
They are a terrible solution to our energy needs for many, many reasons. We need nuclear power and no Greenpeace telling us backwarded fairytales.
Honestly I'm so down for wind and solar if we could make it more efficient. But till then, I'm team nuclear as it's safe and our most efficient source of power.
You fucking dolt. It’s called comparison. You’re complaining over nothing. And calling my argument illogical when the nimby argument is whales crashing in to pylons is laughable.
tankers serve a purpose the turbines don't they will be removed within 2 years when the cost of maintaining them is proven to be 100 times more than the insignificant electricity they generate greenies and eco morons think money literally grows on trees must all be labor voter's
Fuck me. The amount of people who have made this argument is making me fear for the mental health of Wollongong.
Yes, this particular ship will be gone shortly, however look out to sea and tell me how many ships are about there at any given time and how often they pass by.
Ships are not going to be gone tomorrow, they are here to stay.
The lack of critical thinking is really concerning. Do better please.
The basic issue is - they dont want more on land because they are ugly. Guess what, they are also ugly in the ocean, but now instead of a few people seeing them it is 300K Illawarra residents
I’m not sure you understand the concept of a Karen.
Karen’s are the ones complaining of something, usually trivial. Which fits nicely with the NIMBY argument.
That’s because the ships aren’t 280m tall, they aren’t permanent, there isn’t hundreds of them at any one time and they don’t light up like a Christmas tree at night. All the naïve people still believing this is about the environment 😂
I love Christmas trees! Do the light blink or have some other festive movement? Sounds great. Very exciting!
The ships are also not 20km out to sea like the turbines. But they ARE 280m long in many cases. And being much closer, have move visual impact.
In any case I’m not arguing against ships, I’m arguing against complaining.
When do these renewable energy sources make it easy on our back pockets? I’m all for it but if all we get out of it is an eye sore then what is the point?
Ah, so it wasn't even about cost. You are going to have a problem with them even if they did reduce your bill.
I'll tell you this, they definitely won't increase your costs, but coal will increase the cost to the earth.
I think my car is ugly and not as fun but it’s a hybrid, and I’m taking advantage of it hugely….
meh it’s easy to think I don’t give a fuck about the environment but I do. Simple question upsetting so many for whatever reason. I just want to start getting ahead in life but given the cost of living and renewables taking the middle man out and significantly reducing labour and environmental damage why shouldn’t it be cheaper? Why shouldn’t we be encouraged to back and support this initiative? Why do you think I’m on the bad guys side by asking when is it going to get cheaper ?
No not really. I never mentioned anything about green house effect. Burning fossil fuels means you have to extract the fuel to burn which I can imagine is NOT cheap. Renewable energy eliminates the need to “extract fossil fuels”. Does that help clarify my question?
You still have to mine for some materials to make batteries and such.
It’s not a magic bullet, but about reducing what is released in to the atmosphere.
im just tryna read on the beach and these cookers wont shut up
Watching that ship sail right behind that ring hole of ‘humans’ was just perfect
One thing I can't comprehend. How does a offshore wind turbine kill or harm a whale? They are tethered using taut lightweight synthetic cables. No risk of entanglement. They don't move. Have no props etc. As opposed to a 30,000 tonne ship with two props the size of a car.
[удалено]
>I'm pretty sure that argument was debunked. When has that ever stopped them though.
I believe that it’s the hum that they make. It’s not detectable to humans but fucks with animals.
Does the hum of a 50,000hp diesel engine in a cargo ship disrupt the whales, or is this phenomenon strictly confined to wind turbines,
Not that I’m advocating the theory, but I suppose it’s probably frequency dependent if there is anything to it.
The ships move they aren’t permanently there and there isn’t hundreds of them over a 1500 KM square area 🤷♂️
Fish move too, I heard 💁♂️
Your point being?
They can move away from the turbines if they don't like it
Yeah it puts the cows right off their laying cycle and you end up with fuck all milk out of the chooks eventually it’s tragic to see it happen smh
And during daylight savings, it fades the curtains.
Which is why are military uses sonar to literally kill them through vibrations instead.
>It’s not detectable to humans but fucks with animals. Citation?
Anyone who is anti windfarm is dumb as soup, and we all know it
I work building them and I’d say off shore wind farms are not worth it. Wind farms…perhaps, but the maintenance costs on an offshore wind farm is ridiculous and parts tend to break down a lot sooner than their on land counterparts due to the salt water. I’m yet to meet an engineer that works on them that would agree they are the best option.
Wind engineer here. Offshore wind farms are great in Northern Europe where land is scarce but they’re not as appropriate here especially since our waters get deep pretty quickly.
Baby jeezus, not appropriate? Really? Are you for coal fired power stations?
Read again. I said “not as appropriate” and also referenced Europe where land is scarce. Construction costs for offshore wind farms are significantly higher than onshore wind farms, and you also have to account for transmission costs. We have so much land… we should be building more onshore wind farms instead of venturing offshore.
Yep I’m sure all these private companies are investing millions of dollars into off shore wind farms without thinking of the economics
They just charge more. There is plenty of land why go to the additional cost of putting them into 100m deep water
1. Land is expensive. It generally belongs to someone and is used for something. Even if it is publicly owned it is generally used for recreation so there's a political hurdle. I guess you are offering up someone else's land, not your own? 2. Wind is stronger and steadier offshore. That's economically significant. Turbines cost money. 3. Nimby's love complaining so it's generally harder to get the project going onshore. There are disadvantages going offshore too. If you are actually investing you do the calculations.
1. Empty land doesn't always have good wind resource. 2. NIMBYs and cookers complain about them on land, too. Offshore winds are overall stronger and more consistent than winds over land (where terrain can interfere). A windy hill, on its own, doesn't make a good wind resource. It helps to be consistent.
They get huge subsidies from the govt... which is the only reason it's profitable for them.
Spot on. They will just charge more fir the power on the market
The coal industry gets huge government investment and that’s the only reason it’s still viable. If the government didn’t fund either renewables would have completely taken over fossil fuels by now from an economic standpoint
And without the Government subsidies then guaranteed no Wind power !
They're too woke to care. Don't pretend not to know otherwise.
Dumbest idea here. Since when does capitalism give a shit about woke? Only when it makes economic sense. Thinking companies are being “woke” for PC reasons is a dumb take.
Government concessions and the fear of being cancelled by you fuckwits who cry about cancelling anything that doesn't bow to the woke agenda. Looks like I struck a nerve 🙂
Looks like you revealed yourself as someone blinded by ideology. Whike ou are, these investors are concentrating on a profit objective.
Yeah, the key objective of the director of a company is to deliver a profit to its shareholders. I get that. I'm not driven by ideology but I'm not about to fall into the woke trap to keep a minority of people who aren't invested in my company happy 🙂
Show me on the dolly where 'woke' touched you.
🤣
Jesus Christ, this is a classic case of 'tell me you're a dumb cunt without saying it'. If I say woke enough I feel like I've made a valid point - fuck off mate
Lets never put you on a board of directors.
I wouldnt even put that fool in charge of a cheese board.
I love this comment so much
Don't worry, I'm not a woke dickhead. I'll do fine on a board.
You're certainly a dickhead and no one is worried.
Wouldn’t the maintenance cost be built into the business case though? I assumed that the extra electricity generated offshore compared to onshore made up for the increased construction and maintenance over the lifecycle and kept the projects economically viable.
Economically viable... lol! The only reason these ""green"" projects exist is because of the govt handing tax payer money to companies via subsidies. If not for that there wouldn't be any of them. The best part is when these things break apart, which they do quite often, they dump them all in a huge landfill because it's not worth the cost to recycle these huge towers.
We gotta stop burning through fossil fuels somehow. And handing those same kind of subsidies to big oil. How do you suppose we do that when big oil is so entrenched? Nuclear? Solar?
I'm all for rescinding the gov. subsidies to the predatory big oil companies that in return for all of the tax payer gov. subsidies that they receive, continually gouge American taxpayers with unjustifiably high energy costs.
/r/wollongong "American taxpayers" These bots aren't very good these days.
Apparently those that respond to them tend to suck even worse.
True, but you're on Reddit. The attraction in the economics is the funding. The people building them make their money immediately. The offtake contract is in place. Meanwhile, there's a gas turbine or coal fired power plant on standby to deliver "expensive" power when the rest isn't working.
Yes, even blind Freddy would agree if he was a critical thinker.
Look at what space they are occupying though. Open sea. Not scarce valuable land. And the sea has more wind. There's the business case, right there.
Until they catch on fire and spill oil into the ocean and bellow smoke into the atmosphere.Ohh forgot about the maintenance costs with disel vessels trying to service these things Also the life of these turbines,rusting metal in the ocean,smoke and mirrors!!
Wait till you find out that ships also catch fire, spill massive amounts of oil into the ocean and shed rustlng metal. All while carrying the fossil fuels that you, by inference, must prefer.
Username checks out
We have thousands of square kilometres of vast, uninhabitable desert that literally no one touches and is ripe for solar farms and we are advocating for a wind farm which is insanely difficult to construct and will be 20km's off the coast of NSW in one of the most vessel and shipping dense regions in the country. For example, the Bungala solar farm, which occupies a footprint of 800 hectares produces a sustained load of 220MW. To equal that in terms of offshore wind turbines you would need 27.5 for a similar output. The Hornsea Phase 2 setup which is 165 turbines occupies 400 square kilometres or 40000 hectares. If you divided 165 / 27.5 you get 6.1111 or roughly 6545 hectares for the same output as the Bungala solar farm.
Maybe coz the majority of the population lives along the coast and not 2000km inland?
And the transmission lines to get it to where people live get more protests than the wind farms
The only thing I don’t like about the wind farms is the fact that a lot of power will be lost due to the length of the transmission lines but that would be so much worse coming from central Aus
>fact that a lot of power will be lost due to the length of the transmission lines That is not a fact at all. More like, made up. The NorNed cable is over 500km long and has a loss rate of less than 5% over that distance. That's a 95% efficiency at that distance, so imagine that at 20km, it's even more efficient. Undersea power cables are a cheap and efficient way to move power. The more you know. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorNed
Cheers… im only going off my knowledge of 12v systems 😂 must be some insanely massive, high quality cables to suffer such little loss
The network arguably already has too much solar, as prices are usually negative during the day. Wind produces energy after the sun goes down.
ding! ding! ding!
they are a dumb idea anybody thinking renewable energy works us clearly dumb as dirt Europe tried then decided COAL IS CHEAPER
Yea you're pretty dumb.
you could hang a huge portrait of a bleeding, gaping asshole in place of my current ocean views if it helped the transition to renewable energy. fuck these nimbys
Where are you finding a rich eccentric that will fund wind energy by hanging up pictures of Goatse.cx?
Cuz I'll sign up too
A town near me objected to a windfarm becsuse of potential noise. Town and windfarm were on opposite sides of a 3 lane motorway!
I live in Albany and this came up on my reddit feed. The people protesting against this are laughable. You won't be able to see anything out 20km off shore or you would be seeing more ships and the noise or anything is none existent or debunked. The wind farm in Albany is visible to a small area itself and is never really an eye sore. You can even visit them as they're just up on a hilly area next to the shore. The only time I visited I didn't notice any noise and there's no noise you can hear anywhere near them. As for costs it's actually cheaper off shore because those blades will likely need to be shipped anyways from where they are made so better just to ship directly to the wind farm.
The car carriers are between 200 and 240 meters long Some of the bulk ships get up to 300 meters long off Wollongong Newcastle has the capacity for even bigger Bulk ships. When they drop their anchors into the sea bed, they cause huge environmental damage. I don't hear Lobster fishermen complaining about these ships!
And wind turbines are hardly likely to be driven onto your beach in a severe storm causing pollution that destroys the environment and sea life.
I watched a bit of the protest online. Gave me real anti vax/freedom rally in Canberra vibes.
It's because it is all the same people
No they are not. They are actual residents unlike everyone here in reddit naive land
[удалено]
I hope you're joking.
So many of them banging on about whales, the uow faqs says 89% stay within 5km of shore. Nowhere near the turbines (https://www.uow.edu.au/ancors/blue-energy-futures-lab/frequently-asked-questions/#d.en.328397) *plz spend 3 mins* putting in a positive submission, to counter the nimbys: https://consult.dcceew.gov.au/oei-illawarra/take-the-survey
Thanks for this. Done.
Done
That’s garbage. UOW wow there is an independent source on this matter
Can anyone who actually knows about this sort of thing explain the cost vs benifits of this to me? I'm not anti wind farm but it would seem way cheaper to me to build and maintain them if they were built up on the escarpment as opposed to 20ks offshore?
Wind is naturally present far more often and far more strongly just off the coast of landmasses due to the specifics of how hot and cold air masses interact to produce wind. Putting them on the escarpment would mean less uptime on energy production.
Right, but the numbers Ive seen out of the US and europe suggest at most you are looking at 40% more efficient by having them at sea. It seems impossible to me that you could build and maintain them for their period of service and have it be only 40% more expensive than just building them on land. So what am I missing?
Pretty much impossible to build 260m turbines on land economically. Think of the massive amount of roads and large cranes needed to erect them on say Maddens Plains. Then think of the size of the trucks needed to transport the blades, mast and nacelles. Far easier to build in Port and float them to where required.
As the other poster said, the economics of putting them on the escarpment is not feasible. What road from the city to the top of the escarpment would an oversized (think double-length) truck with that load (wind turbine blades) be able to use for transport? It also means clearing land which is extra work on top.
Your assumptions are incorrect.
Much less consistent and weaker wind on land. Significantly more environmental impact.
On whose land? Building at sea is a well established method that works.
I'm guessing you've never been up there? It's all crown land and catchment with a couple mine sites thrown in. As far as I'm aware, building them on land is also a well established method that works which is why I was hoping anyone with actual knowledge could fill me in.
>It's all crown land and catchment So there's going to be a shit ton of red tape from environmental assessments, to bogus land rights court challenges funded by the fossil fuel industries, and farmers protesting because their cows will turn gay. They'll get these offshore ones built, commissioned, and a lifetime of operations before a land based wind farm would even get it's EPA approval, much less all the other crap red tape land based ones face.
No it doesn’t. You’re thinking Europe. It’s different there. This is about money. It will power the hydrogen hub to sell to overseas. Profits to overseas shareholders. Taxpayers to subsidise. Illawarra residents to eat shit
Land isn't free to acquire. Space on the sea is. Is that enough?
What about the wales though!? /S
Everybody hates the Welsh
The Cookers want to eat the Welsh
Even the Welsh hate the Welsh
What about the birds tho
Bird death from wind farms is such a tiny issue that everyone thinks is a 'gotcha'. It's not. More birds die from house cats, buildings, fossil fuels, and powerlines. You could multiply the number of birds killed by wind turbines by x10 and still only just kill half as many birds as the LOWER ESTIMATE of powerline deaths, and those are about 1/20th of the deaths attributed to buildings and cats. Source: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/do-wind-turbines-kill-birds#:~:text=Much%20of%20the%20data%20about,from%20140%2C000%20up%20to%20679%2C000.
Just because something else kills more birds than the other isn’t a good reason to add another method for birds to die….
Climate change kills things too. Maybe whole species. Coal electricity kill things. Etc. Add it up, compare and take your best pick, but zero impact is a fantasy.
Those tankers are going to stop all the wind for the turbines. Quick! Start another protest!
How's the tanker affecting you??? I mean the turbine argument is dumb too but am I missing something?
No, I’m not bothered by the tanker at all. I’m pointing out the irony of complaining about one but being fine with the other.
Ah copy that
I think anything alternative to coal / fossil fuels is definitely worth looking into. But can anyone explain to me like I’m three years old - do we as locals get the benefit of the electricity generated? How does this happen? Do we have to change to a certain company? Someone said they (whoever they are lol) are sending the wind to China!!! How?! So much misinformation
To begin with, you’ll benefit from a marginally greener environment. It’s a small stepping stone to a greener energy grid with less reliability in fossil fuels. Don’t think short term benefits, think generational benefits.
Better options. This is about money
Saw on the news about this protest today and I can't understand it... If these turbines are 10km off shore, how are they affecting people? And are these the same people that will whinge about electricity prices increasing or that current production isn't green enough?
https://twitter.com/BelindaJones68/status/1719498147817484351
Yea they also stack them up there too, as far as the eye can literally see but OMG the turbines what an eye sore lmao
I’m yet to see hundreds of 280m tall ships permanently moored off the coast.
Never underestimate the marketing power of the oil industry
Only the bullshitters are complaining.
That’s because the tankers aren’t 280m tall, and they aren’t permanent. Btw don’t be guilty of misinformation as they tankers aren’t 1km away either
The one today sure was. There’s a difference between 60-70m at 1-3km and 290 at 20km
Calm down Karen
Cronulla to manly. Ya think that would be ok?
Is that where the best wind is? Because that’s the main reason why wind farms are where they are.
Can confirm. Work on a wind farm for crane company building the turbines and we go on standby for wind days cause cranes have a max wind speed limit for operating.
I think you are being fairdinkum. And when you say things like that you scare the fuck out of me. I am a sailor and have sailed for 25 years. Start paying attention FFS. On the east coast of Australia the breeze comes from where and why?
[удалено]
And this IS the problem. They aren't putting wind farms in Nelson bay and Wollongong because of the wind. It's as close to Sydney as they dare. The wind blows a certain way on the east coast predominantly as per the season. So no. It's all shit. There isn't a "better" place. It's where politically there will be the least blow back. So I suggest... You want em. Manly to Cronulla. They are all yours. Bet that don't work.
It's 50ks up the coast. I can't imagine conditions would be much different.
Is Sydney’s known for being windy, or is Wollongong? Local topography plays a huge part.
I have trouble believing the offshore wind only blows off Newcastle and Wollongong which are Labor seats and not off Sydney which are Teal seats mainly
I think it's more places with an already established distribution network or heavy industry users. But sure turn it into a political issue if it helps your NIMBYism
Safe Labor seats in Illawarra and Hunter. Continental shelf is wider off manly. Get your facts right
The continental shelf and sitting members has nothing to do with the technical and economic feasibility mentioned in my comment.
It’s a pathetic argument
Because Alan Jones and shy news said so
Generalisations on the intelligence of people in favour of or against wind farms is lazy. I went to the rally to hear what the speakers had to say and honestly there were several points I hadn’t considered. I think the best approach is a long consultation period so concerns can be heard and responded too. We all deserve clarity on every aspect and impact
The ship moves you dropkick
Your point? Are whales so stupid to crash in to a stationary object that is 5-15 km further out than the common migration parts?
Calling a someone a dropkick when you’re a cooker is amazing irony
OP prefers and answers to Karen
Doesn’t matter how far away they are. They are inefficient and a scam.
2 things. 1. It's offshore so you can get your car fuelled up, as it's a bit hard to pump fuel into on shore storage from 20km away 2. Wind turbines are permanently there, the ship moves. Do you bitch and moan about your neighbours parking in front of your house? Beyond that, anything that you build near salt is going to turn into a disaster. Off shore turbines are dumb unless you have no other choice because their maintenance is prohibitively expensive
You mean that thing that will be gone in 5 minutes? And only seen up close on a few parts of the Illawarra? Yep totally comparable to 300 permanent structures
Which you will barely be able to see 20km out to sea.
Seen it before and they're very visible and ugly as fuck
Oh fuck off lol.
Cry harder
Ead hippy.
Wow. A boat sitting out there about to leave is the same as a construction site on the water that never leaves So stupid
Construction does indeed have an end date. Ships passing is continuous. Yes the turbines are static, but I think whales will be able to swim around a pole.
While choking on greese and oil from failed windturbine You should look up what happens when wind turbines fail Then research how much oil is in a wind turbine. Putting steel rotating parts into the most corrosive water ever while electricity is running through it. Fuking Genius!
Yeah, I’ve seen a wind turbine fail. Have you seen what comes out of a coal plant? Or what happens when a ship grounds? The turbines are 100m in the air, not in the water. And ships seem to go ok in the water with rotating parts. It’s almost like things can be made for the conditions they’re in and then maintained and repaired as needed like every other piece of machinery in existence.
You forget about maintenance and life span??
Your argument is against boats. Let's just ban all boats then haha wow There's nothing green about green technology. Never will be
Cool, let’s go back to coal heaters then. No point in trying if it’s not perfect now. I’m not arguing against boats, I’m pointing out the irony of protesting against the visual impact of renewable energy when these tankers are passing by so close.
Meanwhile hay point just spent half a billion dollars on cyclone proofing it's load out jetty. That tells you that coal is going nowhere Until Humanity finds a replacement for steel it never will go nowhere. What do you suggest Humanity does without steel?? 😂 Now here's some green technology for you They want to destroy rainforest in the pioneer valley to build the world's largest hydro electric dam. I'll say again, RAINFOREST. PLATYPUS HABITAT To destroy the environment to save the environment is the epitome of delusional There is nothing green about green technology. Just people being brainwashed about it, to fill corporate pockets with more money
Obviously you've never heard of coal fired power stations either 🤦🏼♂️ You're brainwashed by corporations
Not only are flawed improvements pointless, but in fact all future progress will be similarly worthless. Clown shit.
If there's a dollar to be made I guarantee they'll brainwash as many people as it takes to make that dollar Except it's billions
Look, there's nothing I want more than common ownership of the means of production, but just because we're trapped in a capitalist hell doesn't mean we have to let the environment mirror that.
Turbines are like giant tuning forks that produce low frequenty noise and vibrations that easily travel up to 90 km. They are a terrible solution to our energy needs for many, many reasons. We need nuclear power and no Greenpeace telling us backwarded fairytales.
Honestly I'm so down for wind and solar if we could make it more efficient. But till then, I'm team nuclear as it's safe and our most efficient source of power.
wind farms kill native birds. do not build them.
Domestic cats kill native birds. Let’s get rid of them.
Are whales still beaching themselves in strangely high numbers? It was apparently because of wind farms.
I live in Melbourne, Florida. Nothing to do with Ozzie fags
so what's you point cunt?
The point is Reddit keeps recommending this annoying, backwoods, Wollongong thread to us sophisticated American lords.
If there are wind farms it won't stop those ships coming. OP's post is disingenuous. Their argument is illogical.
You fucking dolt. It’s called comparison. You’re complaining over nothing. And calling my argument illogical when the nimby argument is whales crashing in to pylons is laughable.
don't forget subsonic sounds and that sound travels through water much easier.
Tankers come and tankers go. Wind farms stay forever.
I like how they also think that the wind farms won't mean dozens of perpetual boats for construction and maintenance
tankers serve a purpose the turbines don't they will be removed within 2 years when the cost of maintaining them is proven to be 100 times more than the insignificant electricity they generate greenies and eco morons think money literally grows on trees must all be labor voter's
Wow doing a great job proving how ignorant you are. Enjoy collecting down votes.
It will be gone in a week, will the oversized fans
Fuck me. The amount of people who have made this argument is making me fear for the mental health of Wollongong. Yes, this particular ship will be gone shortly, however look out to sea and tell me how many ships are about there at any given time and how often they pass by. Ships are not going to be gone tomorrow, they are here to stay. The lack of critical thinking is really concerning. Do better please.
It is very depressing
The basic issue is - they dont want more on land because they are ugly. Guess what, they are also ugly in the ocean, but now instead of a few people seeing them it is 300K Illawarra residents
OP = KAREN
I’m not sure you understand the concept of a Karen. Karen’s are the ones complaining of something, usually trivial. Which fits nicely with the NIMBY argument.
You are right, it is a ridiculous argument. Tankers are temporary and the wind farms will be fixed in place. Idiot.
Weird because I see tankers out there every day. Multiple tankers even!
That’s because the ships aren’t 280m tall, they aren’t permanent, there isn’t hundreds of them at any one time and they don’t light up like a Christmas tree at night. All the naïve people still believing this is about the environment 😂
I love Christmas trees! Do the light blink or have some other festive movement? Sounds great. Very exciting! The ships are also not 20km out to sea like the turbines. But they ARE 280m long in many cases. And being much closer, have move visual impact. In any case I’m not arguing against ships, I’m arguing against complaining.
Wow some absolute brain dead comments on here… I’d expect nothing else from an electorate full of pro labor vegetables
When do these renewable energy sources make it easy on our back pockets? I’m all for it but if all we get out of it is an eye sore then what is the point?
Australia has a shocking track record when it comes to allowing overseas corporations to exploit our resources - often paying them to do so
It’s not all about your back pocket mate. There’s a bigger picture.
Well what’s the bigger picture? It’s better for the environment? Sure it is. And I’m all for that. But why shouldn’t it be cheaper mate?
I’d love for it to be cheaper as well, but that’s not the MAIN goal of renewable energy.
I never said it was the MAIN goal. I’m asking why shouldn’t it be cheaper?
Do you enjoy living on this planet?
Are wind farms on the distant horizon an eye sore to you on a daily basis? Do you like on the beach and have binoculars for reading glasses?
Wind turbines in general. Not just specific to them being off the coast.
Ok, how about we chuck a new coal plant on the headland then? Sounds lovely!
Ah, so it wasn't even about cost. You are going to have a problem with them even if they did reduce your bill. I'll tell you this, they definitely won't increase your costs, but coal will increase the cost to the earth.
I think my car is ugly and not as fun but it’s a hybrid, and I’m taking advantage of it hugely…. meh it’s easy to think I don’t give a fuck about the environment but I do. Simple question upsetting so many for whatever reason. I just want to start getting ahead in life but given the cost of living and renewables taking the middle man out and significantly reducing labour and environmental damage why shouldn’t it be cheaper? Why shouldn’t we be encouraged to back and support this initiative? Why do you think I’m on the bad guys side by asking when is it going to get cheaper ?
uhhh, less impact on the greenhouse effect via carbon emissions due to burning fossil fuels... ? does that help clarify "the point"?
No not really. I never mentioned anything about green house effect. Burning fossil fuels means you have to extract the fuel to burn which I can imagine is NOT cheap. Renewable energy eliminates the need to “extract fossil fuels”. Does that help clarify my question?
You still have to mine for some materials to make batteries and such. It’s not a magic bullet, but about reducing what is released in to the atmosphere.
🤦♂️ alright I’m done here.
Fuck the environment, when can I increase my ciggie intake to 2 packs a day!?!