Wind Farm

<html><body>
UBS Asset Management has sold their stake in Collgar Wind Farm, Western Australia's largest wind farms, to REST Industry Super.
REST had owned 40 percent of Collgar and have acquired UBS Asset Management's 60 percent stake.
The deal will make Collgar one of the largest Australian renewable energy projects directly owned by an Australian superannuation fund.
Rest has been involved with Collgar since construction began in 2010. 
Collgar generates, on average, between 40 and 50 per cent of the state’s renewable electricity. This is enough to power up to 170,000 average WA households per year and displace up to 690,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year. 
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
The acquisition was negotiated by Rest’s internal investment manager, Super Investment Management. 
</div>
</div>
</div>
 George Zielinksi, chief investment officer at Super Investment Management, said the project is expected to continue to generate sustainable cash flows.
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“Collgar Wind Farm is a premium infrastructure asset that has been delivering strong returns for Rest members", Zielinski said.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/6/24/Colgar%20Wind%20Farm%203.jpg" alt="">
"Renewable energy projects like this will continue to play an important role in Australia’s future.
“As an existing owner, Rest has been able to monitor and assess the wind farm’s operational performance since construction was completed in 2011. 
"Taking full ownership is a great opportunity to drive further value from the asset and strengthen Rest’s infrastructure portfolio. 
"We are confident it will help grow members’ retirement savings into the future.” 
Collgar is the largest wind farm in WA, built on 18,000 hectares of land with a total capacity of 206 Megawatts. 
Collgar generates, on average, between 40 and 50 per ent of the state’s renewable electricity, enough to power up to 170,000 average WA households per year and displace up to 690,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year. 
The project holds a five-star Global Real Estate Sustainable Benchmark (GRESB) rating for 2018.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

UBS sell controlling stake in Collgar Wind Farm, Western Australia's largest wind farm

<html><body>
DomaCom have been selected by developers CWP Renewables and Partners Group as their partner to implement the community co-investment initiative of Sapphire Wind Farm in rural New South Wales.
The Sapphire Wind Farm, in Kingsland New England in Northern New South Wales, will be an Australian first for its community co-investment.
DomaCom's <a href="https://domacom.com.au/" target="_blank">fractional property platform</a> will allow local community members to invest alongside institutional investors.
The platform allows multiple investors to aggregate their investments into an asset, typically a real estate asset, but now also renewable energy projects.
Andrew Dickson at CWP Renewables, the company behind developing and constructing the wind farm, said DomaCom is a great fir for the community co-investment initiative.
"Their online platform makes it very easy for people to establish and manage their investment," Dickson said, adding that after testing the community's interest late last year, he was surprised with the level of interest.
“With over $7.3m of pledges received so far from the local community, we are pleased to now be delivering on our promise to the community, to open up the project for co-investment.”
Ross Laidlaw from DomaCom said the company are excited about the partnership.
“We are very excited to be partnering with CWP Renewables and Partners Group in the Community Co-Investment Sapphire Wind Farm. DomaCom has been a pioneer in fractional investment in Australia now in its 5th year of operation.
"The Sapphire Wind Farm Community Fund is a clear demonstration of the vision of DomaCom taking large institutional assets and breaking them down into fractional components to allow retail investors to obtain exposure to an asset class not previously available.”
Construction of the wind farm began in January, and the final turbine was installed in October. 
Ben Haan from Partners Group, the investment fund manager that co-owns the project, said community investment is integral to the business.
"What we are pioneering at Sapphire will be applied to future Grassroots projects, allowing our communities to share the benefits and to invest in Australia’s renewable energy future," Haan said.
For more information on DomaCom <a href="https://domacom.com.au/" target="_blank">click here.</a>
 
</body></html>

DomaCom partner to offer co-investment in Sapphire Wind Farm

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/67244/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
While Australia’s energy market operator continues its investigation into South Australia’s recent state-wide blackout, there are important questions being asked. 
For instance, was extreme weather the only cause? Has South Australia replaced fossil fuels with renewables too quickly?
And is the Australia’s Renewable Energy Target (RET) too ambitious all together?
It is impossible to find answers without understanding how the energy market works, and how replacing one source of energy with another actually happens. 
<h2>How does the market work?</h2>
Most Australians (barring the Northern Territory and Western Australia) get their electricity through the National Electricity Market. 
Suppose all the energy users, at a particular day and time, switch on lights, computers, industrial machinery, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, traffic control equipment and more. Added together, they determine how much energy is needed or demanded at that very point in time. 
On the other side of the poles and wires, different independent electricity generators – thermal, hydro, wind, solar – are offering energy to the market, each at a price enabling them to recover costs and make a reasonable profit. This is called bidding. 
Contemporary electronic technology allows for the wholesale market to take electricity and bids every five minutes, and allocate amounts accepted from the successful bidders. And who are those successful bidders?
All current bids are ranked by unit price. Allocation starts from the lowest-price bidder, then the second lowest one, and continues on until the current demand is met. The last accepted bidder’s price becomes the spot market price, and allows other successful bidders to make more or less profit.
<h2>How do renewables affect the market?</h2>
The main incentive policy for wind farms in Australia is the Renewable Energy Target (RET), which legislates that 33 gigawatt hours of electricity must come from renewable sources by 2020. As part of the RET, large-scale renewable energy generators (solar and wind farms) receive credits (certificates) for electricity they generate, which are then purchased by retailers to meet the target. 
This market is separate to the National Electricity Market (NEM) and acts as a second income source for renewable energy generators.
With this in mind, we have modelled what happens when wind energy is phased into the market based on five minute electricity market data for several years.
The running (marginal) cost of wind generators is zero (because wind is free), unlike traditional thermal technology (which has to pay for coal and gas). Subsequently, wind generators recover their fixed costs and obtain profit in the difference between marginal cost and market price based on “more expensive” bids. 
In the long run, wind generation decreases the market price through the bidding process. So with an increase in the energy volume generated by wind, the traditional sources are pushed out from the market. The chart below illustrates this process for South Australia. 
<a href="/images/2016/10/25/image-20161019-20308-xt2ui.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h2><img src="/images/2016/10/25/image-20161019-20308-xt2ui.jpg" alt=""></h2>
Because their fixed costs can be recovered through the RET, wind generators can bid at near zero prices and completely eliminate traditional competitors. Therefore, wind generation can only naturally exist in the market if there are other, more expensive forms of generation to set the price. Otherwise wind farms could not recover their costs without the RET. 
This means that there is an optimal proportion of wind energy in the market, where more expensive thermal generators set the market price. 
If there is an optimum amount of wind energy in the market, this has important consequences for the RET. The target artificially increases the proportion of wind energy that can be sustained in the grid. While this may be the goal of the RET, without the incentive, wind capacity would eventually fall back to the market optimum. 
In practice, this would occur as wind farms reach their natural life of about 20 years and aren’t replaced. So the RET won’t maintain or increase wind energy in the market in the long term, unless the incentives continue indefinitely.
The current RET is legislated to 2030, with a target set for 2020. To encourage wind energy in the long term, it would be required, then, to support the RET by an ongoing financial inducement without a closing date. 
Without any financial inducement, wind farm developers would not increase capacity beyond the optimal point, and some thermal generation will continue to exist. Thermal generation can be completely excluded only if all the fixed costs of wind energy can be recovered through the RET. This is impractical and beyond the intentions of the policy. 
So as it stands, our modelling suggests the RET is not a good way to increase the amount of wind generation in the electricity network. However our conclusions are different for other renewable energy sources such as hydro, which also have near zero marginal costs but have much longer lifetimes.
Therefore, where and if possible, we need to use a mix of technology, rather than overemphasising wind generation technology.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gennadi-kazakevitch-90201" target="_blank">Gennadi Kazakevitch</a> is deputy head, Department of Economics, Monash University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gennadi-kazakevitch-90201" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Are wind farms messing up the electricity market?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The debate about wind farms is clearly not over yet.
Last week Australia’s National Heath and Medical Research Council awarded A$3.3 million to fund two new health studies: one to measure the effect of infrasound on sleep quality, balance, mood and cardiovascular health; the other to determine whether low-frequency sound from wind farms can disrupt sleeping patterns.
Given the past few years of prickly wind turbine politics, this has predictably caused quite a stir.
On one side, the usual suspects sought to capitalise on the NHMRC’s announcement. Independent senator John Madigan called for a moratorium on new wind farms, wanting all projects to be put on hold as a “precaution”.
Coalition senator Chris Back leapt to support his call, perhaps unsurprisingly given that he (along with Madigan and fellow senators Nick Xenophon, David Leyonhjelm and Bob Day) have been described by Sydney University public heath professor Simon Chapman as “sworn enemies of infrasound".
In contrast, many in the scientific community expressed their disappointment at what they see as a waste of millions of research dollars. They referred to studies from around the globe that have consistently failed to find solid evidence for a connection between infrasound and poor health.
However, funding further research on the possible health impacts of wind turbines is consistent with the NHMRC’s own conclusions in a February 2015 statement, which said:
"Given [people’s] reported experiences [of ill health] and the limited reliable evidence, NHMRC considers that further, higher-quality research is warranted."
So the nation’s largest, most respected and most trustworthy medical research funding body actually agrees that more research is a good idea.
<h2>Down tools?</h2>
Tempting though it is, this piece isn’t about rehashing the current evidence of the health impacts – real or imagined – of wind turbines. That’s been done already and will clearly continue for a while yet.
What’s more interesting, to me at least, is this appeal for a moratorium, and the more general question of how useful a tool it is for making decisions about overtly science-based issues.
Madigan’s call is a typical invocation of the precautionary principle. This asserts that if there are reasonable (that is, evidence-based, scientific) grounds to believe something new might be unsafe – or at least presents risks that unacceptably outweigh the potential benefits – then we should not proceed with the new thing.
On the surface, it’s hard to argue with that.
But when it comes to wind turbines, there is nothing to suggest that Madigan, Back and like-minded folks will consider any level of risk acceptable.
Imagine for a moment that these new studies find no statistically defensible evidence to link infrasound to human ill-health. Will those calling for a moratorium accept the results and declare wind turbines safe (or at least safe enough to lift a ban)?
I suspect not. It looks to me as if what they are actually demanding is “proof of safety”, rather than evidence of “acceptable risk”. This is, of course, impossible. To use an oft-quoted example, we can’t prove that orange juice is 100 percent safe, yet it remains defiantly on our supermarket shelves.
I’d wager a year’s salary that Madigan and friends would declare any “acceptable risk” results to be insufficient, too short-term, or generally just biased and inadequate, and demand that yet more research is done.
The naysayers are not looking for counter-evidence to their claims, most probably because there are things about wind farms that they simply do not like. If they have been unswayed by the research showing no evidence of harm so far, it seems unlikely two more studies will change their minds. 
But what about us down at the science end of town? As noted on The Conversation last year by my colleagues Jacqui Hoepner and Will Grant, “if a credible, scientifically rigorous study were to show a link between wind turbine operation and health effects, it should absolutely be taken seriously”. Agreed!
So for argument’s sake, let’s imagine that these new studies do end up producing empirically valid results that clearly suggest that infrasound from wind turbines can cause people harm. Would we science-loving citizens be prepared to bow our heads and accept the evidence; to admit that Madigan and his cohorts did the right thing by calling for a moratorium?
I’d like to think that I would. But I also imagine myself demanding more research, and I’m confident most other science-positive folks would, too. In our defence, though, we would of course be looking for evidence confirming the existence and likely extent of the harm, rather than seeking proof of some mythical, absolute guarantee of safety.
<h2>Precautionary tale</h2>
So what good will more, precautionary-principle-inspired science do? In reality, probably very little.
For one thing, practical, policy-related action can rarely wait for “all” the evidence to be in before decisions are made and actions taken (assuming such a magical, perfect-evidence situation could ever arise). Invoking the precautionary principle is not likely to simplify this situation.
Far from making decisions more evidence-based, the calls for a precautionary approach are liable to entangle us more deeply in the politics of decision-making. It’s blisteringly naïve to believe that when applied “correctly”, the precautionary principle will refocus warring factions’ attention on noble considerations like gathering sufficient, acceptable evidence and using this to guide us to the most objective solutions.
In fact, it’s arguments over what constitutes the right kind – and sufficient amounts – of evidence that lie at the heart of such disagreements, not what the evidence itself shows. Many people call for evidence-based policy – but when it’s the evidence itself that is up for debate, it’s important (as my colleague Will Grant has quipped) actually to have evidence-based evidence.
So how will this issue play out from here? Here’s my guess:
• a moratorium will probably not be called
• the new research projects will be conducted
• based on current available evidence, they will probably find little to support the idea that wind turbines located more than than 1,500 metres from humans have measurable negative health effects
• scientists will say “I told you so”
• Senators Madigan et al, should they still be around, will call for yet more research.
 
Rod Lamberts is deputy director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rod-lamberts-60" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Wind Farm

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Wind Farm

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News