https://waikanaewatch.org/2025/02/25/a-big-australian-wind-farm-from-2001-is-shutting-down/
An ideal location but uneconomic to keep it running. And what to do with the >poluution it leaves behind?
More evidence of companies rushing into new technology without long term plans.
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 22:45:08 -0000 (UTC), TonySo I checked, and yes the decommissioning is happening - out of date
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2025/02/25/a-big-australian-wind-farm-from-2001-is-shutting-down/
An ideal location but uneconomic to keep it running. And what to do with the >>poluution it leaves behind?
More evidence of companies rushing into new technology without long term plans.
There does not appear to be much involved in restoring the land, or
any evidence that the farmland has been ruined.
Over 20 years of production without setting aside money for
maintenance and periodic replacement of materials - clearly the
business case for the project was very poor. Perhaps it was too remote
from users of the electricity - line losses can be a real issue. As
is typical of the biased website, no supporting material or references
are given. How can we be confident that any of the article is
actually true?
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 22:45:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2025/02/25/a-big-australian-wind-farm-from-2001-is-shutting-down/
An ideal location but uneconomic to keep it running. And what to do with the >>poluution it leaves behind?
More evidence of companies rushing into new technology without long term plans.
There does not appear to be much involved in restoring the land, or
any evidence that the farmland has been ruined.
Over 20 years of production without setting aside money for
maintenance and periodic replacement of materials - clearly the
business case for the project was very poor.
Perhaps it was too remote
from users of the electricity - line losses can be a real issue. As
is typical of the biased website, no supporting material or references
are given. How can we be confident that any of the article is
actually true?
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 22:45:08 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe only thing we can be confident about is that you have no idea what you are talking about - that is patently true since you have added nothing to this item. Go away you are a waste of bandwidth.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2025/02/25/a-big-australian-wind-farm-from-2001-is-shutting-down/
An ideal location but uneconomic to keep it running. And what to do with the >>poluution it leaves behind?
More evidence of companies rushing into new technology without long term >>plans.
There does not appear to be much involved in restoring the land, or
any evidence that the farmland has been ruined.
Over 20 years of production without setting aside money for
maintenance and periodic replacement of materials - clearly the
business case for the project was very poor. Perhaps it was too remote
from users of the electricity - line losses can be a real issue. As
is typical of the biased website, no supporting material or references
are given. How can we be confident that any of the article is
actually true?
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 13:24:18 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>Nobody criticised all wind power, just this failed project. You have still added nothing, How pathetic, all, you have done s taking an opportunity to be a dick.
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 22:45:08 -0000 (UTC), TonySo I checked, and yes the decommissioning is happening - out of date
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
An ideal location but uneconomic to keep it running. And what to do with the >>>poluution it leaves behind?https://waikanaewatch.org/2025/02/25/a-big-australian-wind-farm-from-2001-is-shutting-down/
More evidence of companies rushing into new technology without long term >>>plans.
There does not appear to be much involved in restoring the land, or
any evidence that the farmland has been ruined.
Over 20 years of production without setting aside money for
maintenance and periodic replacement of materials - clearly the
business case for the project was very poor. Perhaps it was too remote
from users of the electricity - line losses can be a real issue. As
is typical of the biased website, no supporting material or references
are given. How can we be confident that any of the article is
actually true?
design and connections, and possibly the site was not ideal. A bit
more about it here: >https://www.energybyte.com.au/end-of-era-for-pioneer-wind-farm/
Essentially the industry for generating power from wind has changed >significantly over those 26 years . . . Progress can be difficult, and
what was economic can become uneconomic. The problems of cleaning up
are similar to those from drilling platforms - New Zealand had at
least one case where permit holders walked away leaving clean-up to
the government.
It is not proof of foolishness at all - it is proof that scientific
advances can create redundancies and give better return on capital
than previous projects. To criticise all wind power for this closure
is like arguing that replacing a motor vehicle is evidence of a waste
of money when the previous vehicle was purchased.
On 2025-02-28, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 22:45:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
An ideal location but uneconomic to keep it running. And what to do with the >>>poluution it leaves behind?https://waikanaewatch.org/2025/02/25/a-big-australian-wind-farm-from-2001-is-shutting-down/
More evidence of companies rushing into new technology without long term plans.
There does not appear to be much involved in restoring the land, or
any evidence that the farmland has been ruined.
That maybe a matter of opinion. However the article was refering to the >concrete foundations (20,000t) Article does not say whether this is each or >total of the foundations.
Over 20 years of production without setting aside money for
maintenance and periodic replacement of materials - clearly the
business case for the project was very poor.
Agreed. However it is hard to set aside funds for replacement if you are not >earning a profit.
Perhaps it was too remote
from users of the electricity - line losses can be a real issue. As
is typical of the biased website, no supporting material or references
are given. How can we be confident that any of the article is
actually true?
Well, it does say it is from ABC (Australia).
On 2025-02-27, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://waikanaewatch.org/2025/02/25/a-big-australian-wind-farm-from-2001-is-shutting-down/Looks like we are entering the "long run" figures for wind power. No >profitable after 24 years of use.
An ideal location but uneconomic to keep it running. And what to do with the >> poluution it leaves behind?
More evidence of companies rushing into new technology without long term plans.
Will EV's follow along similar lines?
On 28 Feb 2025 01:37:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Very unlikely with battery life no longer than an IC engine. The rest of the vehicle equally similar.
On 2025-02-27, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Looks like we are entering the "long run" figures for wind power. No >>profitable after 24 years of use.An ideal location but uneconomic to keep it running. And what to do with >>>thehttps://waikanaewatch.org/2025/02/25/a-big-australian-wind-farm-from-2001-is-shutting-down/
poluution it leaves behind?
More evidence of companies rushing into new technology without long term >>>plans.
Will EV's follow along similar lines?
Quite possibly - that is after all probably quite a bit longer average
life than petroleum driven vehicles.
On 28 Feb 2025 01:50:52 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:The ebsite is significantly less biased than you.
On 2025-02-28, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 22:45:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
An ideal location but uneconomic to keep it running. And what to do with >>>>thehttps://waikanaewatch.org/2025/02/25/a-big-australian-wind-farm-from-2001-is-shutting-down/
poluution it leaves behind?
More evidence of companies rushing into new technology without long term >>>>plans.
There does not appear to be much involved in restoring the land, or
any evidence that the farmland has been ruined.
That maybe a matter of opinion. However the article was refering to the >>concrete foundations (20,000t) Article does not say whether this is each or >>total of the foundations.
Over 20 years of production without setting aside money for
maintenance and periodic replacement of materials - clearly the
business case for the project was very poor.
Agreed. However it is hard to set aside funds for replacement if you are not >>earning a profit.
Perhaps it was too remote
from users of the electricity - line losses can be a real issue. As
is typical of the biased website, no supporting material or references
are given. How can we be confident that any of the article is
actually true?
Well, it does say it is from ABC (Australia).
The original story may well be from the ABC, but the biased website is
the one referred to above..
https://waikanaewatch.org/2025/02/25/a-big-australian-wind-farm-from-2001-is-shutting-down/
An ideal location but uneconomic to keep it running. And what to do with the poluution it leaves behind?
More evidence of companies rushing into new technology without long term plans.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 05:50:42 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,633 |