Talk:Wind power in South Australia

New Impacts section

I'm all for having a balanced Impacts section based on reliable sources. But what we presently have is far from that. The link between wind power and electricity price increases is tenuous, and Electricity Prices in Australia: An International Comparison does not even mention wind power. So this discussion should be removed. The issue of electricity price increases is already covered in Energy in South Australia, and the issue fits in better there. Johnfos (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the installed capacity of wind power has grown so rapidly that it is now a major source of electricity in SA, discussion on price in this section would seem relevant. If the link between price increases and wind power is tenuous, then the article should say so and cite the sources, which in its current form it does. What's more, there is discussion on how wind power may have led to a decrease in wholesale prices, so the section is hardly unbalanced. I suggest the energy in SA article could perhaps use an expanded section on electricity prices if the material is available. Landscape goats (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the out-of-date statements about electricity prices (one unreferenced, and the other referenced to a tabloid newspaper article). Those statements are no longer true. I have replaced them with factual statements properly referenced to sources.

I note that several references implicating the rising share of wind generation in retail price rises have been removed. There has clearly been some controversy regarding high energy prices more generally in SA, and this is relevant context for any discussion about the impacts of wind power. I will be working to reinstate some of these references. I welcome input from other editors to ensure that the article remains balanced. Landscape goats (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a WP:GA article, but it is clear that the new Impacts section is not of GA quality, so I am moving it here, for further discussion and development:

The anti-wind propaganda to the effect that SA prices were "3rd-highest in the developed world" is wrong, and all it has to support it is a link to a tabloid article. How you can include crud in Wikipedia that references what would be at best a secondary source, if it weren't simply a faulty source, is beyond me. In any case, this is outdated and especially the bit about it predicting price increases is no longer the case, as you can see from the Australian Energy Market Commission: http://www.aemc.gov.au/Major-Pages/Price-trends "The 2013 price trends review has found that average market prices in South Australia are expected to decrease on average by 0.9% each year over three years from 2012/13 to 2015/16.."

Impact

The rapid development of wind power in South Australia has been linked to both positive and negative effects.

It has involved $2.8 billion in investment which is estimated to have created 3000 direct and indirect jobs. .

The emissions intensity of electricity generation in South Australia has been in decline, which has meant that, even though electricity demand has increased, the total emissions from generation has decreased.

With respect to the impact on electricity prices in South Australia, the effects of the rising share of wind power has been less clear. South Australia's wholesale electricity prices, which were once the highest in the country, are now the lowest. This decline in wholesale price has been attributed to the impact of wind power on the merit order effect, where relatively low cost wind power is purchased by retailers before higher cost sources of power. In spite of this, a study undertaken by the Energy Users Association of Australia found that retail electricity prices in South Australia are the third highest in the developed world behind Germany and Denmark, with prices likely rise to become the most expensive in the near future.

In July 2012, the Essential Services Commission for South Australia announced that it had approved further electricity retail price rises of 18%. It noted that the increases in prices were being driven by the introduction of a carbon tax by the Australian Government, the impact of feed-in tariffs for domestic solar panels and 'other network changes'. The Government stated that the price increase due to the Carbon Tax was approximately half of that experienced by other States due to the high installed capacity of wind and gas-fired generation. The Essential Service Commission of South Australia has determined that wind power adds just 0.366c per kWh to the average South Australian electricity bill. However the South Australian Opposition Leader, Isobel Redmond, linked the State's high prices to the Government's policy of promoting development of renewable energy, noting that Germany and Denmark had followed similar policies.

I still think we need to do better in terms of balance and reliability of sources. Johnfos (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I need more feedback if I'm to be of any help in improving this material. Why is it 'clear' that what is written is not of GA quality? What is unbalanced or unreliable about the sources cited? Landscape goats (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions and sorry for the slight delay in getting back here. I have been searching for some more recent info on SA wind power, to use in the article. I've also asked User:Mariordo to join us here, as he has a lot of experience with energy-related GAs... Johnfos (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I look forward to responses to my questions and to any new material that may be used to improve this section. Landscape goats (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In terms of sources one of the main things is to include full biblographic details where possible, not just a title. For material to be of GA quality it needs to be broad in coverage and balanced in viewpoint. The inclusion of some points based on the following material could broaden the discussion and help to bring out neglected positive aspects:

“There is much stronger public support for wind farms than media coverage of the issue would suggest, because a vocal minority who oppose wind farms secure the majority of media and political attention, according to new CSIRO research. A peer-reviewed study by Brisbane researchers investigated attitudes to nine wind farms in various stages of development in NSW, Victoria and South Australia, concluding there was a strong level of support from rural residents who do not seek media attention or political engagement to express their views. By contrast, more than half of all wind farm proposals had been opposed by members of the Landscape Guardian group, the report noted”. [1]

Brian and Jean Wilson are landholders at Clements Gap Wind Farm, SA. The closest wind turbine is 1km from their house. The local area experienced an unprecedented drought in 2006/07:

“This is the first time we have had another source of income not dependent on rainfall. Turbines have helped us to drought-proof the farm. The road tracks are also an asset both as fire breaks and giving us greater access to all parts of our property. It is a real benefit having the workers around, an extra set of eyes. They notify us if there is an injured animal, damaged fence or an open gate. More noise comes out of the trees than the turbines. The hills are as they have always been and the sheep love the shade of the turbines during the hot summer months.... I can’t see the downside of wind farms.” [2]

According to a recent SKM report:

"A typical 50 megawatt (MW) wind farm pays host farmers some $250,000 per year, is constructed by workers who spend up to $1.2 million locally, and contributes up to $80,000 annually to community projects, according to a landmark study into the economic benefits of wind farms". [3]

Also:

“More than $5 billion of capital investment in the wind industry was pumped into the South Australian economy last financial year creating 1824 direct and 222 ongoing jobs.” [4]

-- Johnfos (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I reinstated the impacts section and included some of the additional references suggested here. I will enter the additional bibliographic details in due course. I didn't use the last reference suggested (weeklytimesnow.com.au) because it is inconsistent with another reference used regarding the total capital investment. This issue may need looking into further. Also didn't use the crudineridgewindfarm.com.au reference since it seems to be published by a wind farm developer, which in this context is not really an independent third party source but an interested party. Some of the other references in the article, including some that I have introduced, are similarly dubious in my view. Any thoughts? Landscape goats (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The vignette recounting a landholder's positive experience with wind power reads well and follows nicely from the text about economic impacts. However I'm concerned about whether it is introducing a lack of balance. It raises the question about whether we should include a story from people who perceive they have been negatively impacted by a wind farm development. Additionally, it could be argued that the sources (the CEC and SKM) are interested parties. I'm considering removal or addition of material to restore balance but would appreciate some feedback and discussion first. Landscape goats (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the most important issue is to keep the neutral point of view, so if there is an opposing view on that views expressed by those folks, please go ahead and add it. I also agree that anecdotal evidence is not the more desirable content, but it seems there are not many high quality reliable sources about the specific topic of the article (such as from newspaper, magazines, academic papers,...) , so until such RS are available, it is OK to keep these acceptable but weaker sources. The most important thing is to have a balance criticism showing both sides of the issue, so the article can keep its GA status (but we have to be aware that these sources probable will not pass the standard for FA quality). I more issue is that by GA standards, the lead should have a summary reflecting these controversies, but I will suggest to wait until the "Impacts" section is finished to the satisfaction of participating editors, and then, produce such a brief summary.--Mariordo (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

Removal of a whole section by Landscape Goats has unbalanced the article. FYI, WP policy is that info which appears in the lead section must also appear in the body of the article.

The paragraph below provides useful 2014 info, some about retail prices of electricity. The situation is not as simple as you are making out.

In South Australia, which generates 27 per cent of its grid electricity from wind, one of its two coal-fired power stations has been shut down, apparently permanently, while the other has been restricted to operation for half the year. The writing is on the wall for coal power. The large contribution from wind has reduced the wholesale price of electricity and cut the revenue for coal power. Incidentally, the reduced wholesale price has not been passed on to retail customers. [5] -- Johnfos (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

How has removal of the renewable energy context section unbalanced the article? It still presents a point of view which is very favourable with regards to the development of a wind power industry in South Australia, does it not? I can support reinstatement of this section with some rewriting to make it a bit tighter and less repetitive. I do not support the text that you suggest above given that its source is a green pressure group. Landscape goats (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)