Will Wave Power Sink Fremantle Wind Farm

wave power pods

Just days after Carnegie launched a world first in WA, they announced a $20 million loan facility that will go to part fund its CETO 6 project.

Carnegie is reported to be close to finishing conceptual design, ahead of schedule. The CETO 6 is planned to be 8km further off shore than the one they opened up last week. This new plant will produce 3x what the Perth array project does. The loan new loan facilities/arrangements, through CEFC and ARENA, has guaranteed Carnegie, capital and cash flow as it develops bigger more commercial units.

So with this new drive and real operational units functioning, funding, from state and federal government, clients for their product, hopefully we won’t have to see wind turbines littering our coast line.

I also feel safer knowing that Carnegie has a solid funding model, where I saw on FB pages councillors eluding to, rate payer funds possibly being used to fund the wind farm. Again their own personal ideology driving council direction, not the best interest of the rate payers their amenity or true representation.

I think people would be better putting solar panels on their own roofs, to help lower their own energy cost or carbon footprint. Then again the people who really need lower energy costs, or have medical needs for AC etc. and can’t afford the cost probably don’t have the money to invest in a community wind farm either? So while it sounds good its only for those who can afford it, the cashed up? I think sometimes the word community has just become another spin term for do what I want as it’s for the community, weather the community wants,needs it or not?

Well power generation I can see looks good to me.

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

6 comments

  1. freoishome says:

    Just like financial investment strategies you never put all your eggs in one basket when it come most other aspects of public life. This applies particularly to evolving technology, eg, video recording, TV lines per inch and pixels, mobile phones, etc. Non-fossil fuelled energy falls into this evolving technology, as there are many candidates but none to date showing that they can be dominant.
    Domestic solar panels are relatively inefficient and expensive, with rates of return from power companies being woefully low. Domestic Wind is problematic, as the wind turbines need very strong mounting, too substantial for most houses. Wave action is very promising, but one of the least trialled sources.
    When these are scaled up to community size sources efficiency rises and costs reduce significantly. So today we really need all three and possibly other technologies for Fremantle. So the Solar farm on the old tip site, Wind on North Mole and Offshore wave, could start to make a big impact on Freo energy supply.
    A significant value-add of having three different technologies in Freo is the knowledge and expertise that Freo could develop and become recognised for. The relative costs, efficiencies, reticulation, social impact, etc, all in one locale.
    Why shouldn’t the CoF be a stakeholder?
    Why shouldn’t local ratepayers be able to be direct investors?
    Why should this only be funded from multinationals, with profits going abroad, or State level utilities?
    I think the benefits of diversification are worthwhile.
    Paul

    • Mark says:

      Council already has a massive outstanding debt in backlogged maintenance.
      Council is constantly giving away services they should charge for, to profit making companies, at the expense of rate payers amenity
      Council is constantly happy to remove amenity from residents to profit private companies to increase their margins off set by resident’s loss?
      Council has a poor standing on transparency, especially where they can claim financially confidential, thus we the ratepayers will more than likely be kept in the dark, on financial based matters which would leave me to worry, about things like what rate would we pay for power would it be market rate or would council current ideology driven direction make them pay more than market prices to make their backing of the project a success.

      Paul if wish to invest your money please feel free, it’s your risk, unlike council investing where it becomes the ratepayer risk If u have seen the nature of large turbines accidents, fires, tower collapses, turbines throwing themselves apart, scattering debris for 100’sM I don’t think our port with cranes cargo ships, cruise ships, workers and ferries full of people are the best place for them. You may be prepared to take that risk, to further drive council ideology. But I wouldn’t, insurance would be another issue, an accident there in the port would shut the wind farm more than likely permanently, bit of a risk for a community funded project, possibly why big investment past it by, not worth the risk.

      Germany has a massive wind farm usage and has ambitious targets to increase more, causing a massive backlash across the country, it has huge noise complaints, is driving down housing and land prices, due to their impact on lifestyle and amenity. What was once seen as a great step forward is now being seriously questioned by the community. In Germany many are saying Wind turbines are not worth the damage or impact they have on the society.
      Not sure if I agree with your solar panel quote for domestic, as the power use is more important than just whacking panels on the roof hoping for a utility to pay you more than their own cost of production, not taking into consideration their massive infrastructure cost and maintenance.
      If you suit your panel installation to your usage you can make and time use of high electricity demand at times of your panels maximum output, having panels on your roof doesn’t mean you can run AC 24/7? Just a simple thing like west, north, east facing makes a different if it’s based around your usage as opposed to the original thought of letting the utility provider pay for it for you?

      • Diana Ryan says:

        I’m trying to source a recent work I’ve seen about why, of Germany’s 80m plus population, and after all this time, regulation and subsidies, still only 8% source “green energy”. The figure less surprised than shocked me.

        Nobody wins if only some people are taking part in, paying for, or are enabled to access cleaner energy sources and the rest……

        • Mark says:

          Considering Germany have the most expensive power in Europe, over 40% more expensive than France or the Netherlands.
          As they roll back Nuclear, to replace with renewables they have had to increase with coal and gas power reliance, to overcome the lack of base load from renewables and /or the lack of storage, thus leaving them with an increase in carbon emissions of almost 2% from 2011-2012.
          I have read that this year the German government will have to pay about $50 billion to subsidiaries, they are pouring money into the middle class to put up solar, but it’s the poor in Germany that are being hit hardest by the green drive for renewables.
          There are some really serious practical problems coming their way. Solar and wind power is erratic, which means that Germany will require storage capacity for some 20bn-30bn kilowatt-hours by 2050 Till the end of 2013 their storage capacity has grown by little more than 70m kilowatt-hours, long way to go?
          To make matters worse for Merkel, thou she was Europe’s most popular leader her policies hailed as saving the world from climate change have, in fact, increased CO2 emissions.
          By Ms Merkel caving in to minority demands from her ideology driven groups for all the country’s atomic reactors to be closed. Her decision is perhaps the most important economic call she has made. It is a disaster if price and cost are not controlled and the closure of nuc plants which is said to have been brought forward by more than a decade, so in that time frame base load or storage from renewables needs to sorted, fix the back lash from the middle class and poorer German’s over massive economically and social costs
          Easy right?
          Considering the Germans are getting rid of the Nuclear Power stations (safety concerns) the French and the Czechs are keeping theirs it didn’t solve the problem of being close to nuclear-power?

  2. The Mayor has alluded many times that the City of Fremanltle would buy the power generated in order to effectively guarantee or back the project. This is without even looking at the additional costs. This is the same guy that said it would be too expensive to have a weekly yellow lid bin pickup, but is now pushing for a third bin.

    Brad Pettitt doesn’t even look at the financial implications. When he opens his mouth. Fremantle will pay for it, regardless if it costs more. The ratepayers will be the ones picking up the bill. What’s more important to him is that Fremantle becomes even greener than it already is, cost doesn’t matter. Typical green/socialist political thinking.

  3. Paul T says:

    The world is getting warmer – dangerously so, and we have a responsibility to do what we can to stop that. Rich countries have a particular responsibility as much of our wealth stems from having exploited cheap but unsustainable fossil fuels -the environmental costs of which will ultimately be paid for by the rest of the world.

    From Wiki
    Germany’s renewable energy sector is among the most innovative and successful worldwide. Net-generation from renewable energy sources in the German electricity sector has increased from 6.3% in 2000 to about 30% in 2014.[1][2] For the first time ever, wind, biogas, and solar combined accounted for a larger portion of net electricity production than brown coal.

    There have been problems but far from being a failure Germany leads the way to a sustainable future.

%d bloggers like this: