DEAR News Of The Area,

I MUST write to refute several pieces of misinformation appearing on Facebook as well as in more credible publications, particularly on energy matters.

In recent issues of NOTA, offerings have been made by electric power engineers, the profession in which I have just over 50 years experience.

I now add to their efforts.

First, I wish to correct impressions claimed on Facebook about the CSIRO’s economic evaluation of the proposed wind farm off our coast in respect of the effective capacity of wind turbines versus their nameplate rating.

It is true that wind turbines cannot generate energy for very long at their nameplate rating, because the wind is variable.

Onshore generation produces only about 30 percent of their maximum capacity, and offshore generation is typically 40 percent, with the newest units in Europe running at more like 50 percent.

In evaluating their production, the CSIRO has adopted 40 percent, the cautious figure upon which their economic study has been carried out.

It is therefore quite incorrect to state that because the energy production rate is lower than any theoretical maximum rate, that their economic calculations are up to three times overstated.

A second point that needs elucidation bears upon the argument made regarding nuclear generation, based either on ignorance or mischief, that Australia already has a functioning nuclear reactor, the unit at Lucas Heights.

There really is no comparison between that reactor and a power generating unit.

Its maximum capacity is 20 megawatts, this referring to the total heat produced when it is operating full bore.

If it could be used to generate electricity, it would generate only about six megawatts.

Its name reflects its operating principles, that is OPAL.

This stands for Open Pool Australian Light Water Reactor.

This means that the cooling water, separate from the reactor core, is open to the atmosphere so its operating temperature could rise to a maximum of 100 degrees celsius – except that the operators don’t allow it to rise to this temperature.

The oft-touted Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are rated at around 600 megawatts, produce about 200 megawatts of electric power and their cooling water operates at some 330 degrees celsius, needed to produce steam for the turbines actually doing the work.

They are about 25 percent larger than those in nuclear powered ships.

And while on the subject of stationary Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, there are very few in the world – perhaps less than ten and these are really only trial installations.

Returning to the discussions around off-shore wind turbines, this is how I see it.

The principle environmental problem may be and I stress “may”, that should Gould’s Petrels dive through the rotating blades from above while fishing, there is every chance that they may be struck and killed.

This is of course based upon overseas evidence of bird strike, where avoidance strategies bring about reductions of around 70 percent.

Perhaps not good enough yet?

It is pleasing to note that the esteemed scientists who have done almost all of the research into Gould’s Petrels to date are at the moment studying just where these birds do fish – this may not even be at the distance off-shore that the turbines would be located.

And if it is not, the birds are at no risk whatsoever.

But if they do fish there, we would be faced with a simple question, whose answers are admittedly awful – are we prepared to risk our grand-children’s future life outcomes for the sake of the birds?

Faced with these choices, I am afraid I would have to choose my grandchildren.

Regards,
Warwick Nichols,
Myall Coast.