Firefighters, advocates rubbish 'bad faith' claims wind turbines affect firefighting

False claim, Capital Retro. Where have I said to ban fossil fuels?

I have consistently said the market is deciding, and that is overwhelmingly in favour of renewables with firming as the cheaper and less polluting option.

You do realise that at least for the next couple of decades gas peaking supply is specifically a part of the firming strategy? Its use will be low, so the effects are tolerable, while coal will be dead and gone from the electricity supply chain.

I shall post separately on the rest of your fantasy because it contains the next line of drivel to be expected from the anti-renewables lobby.

Regarding oil use, I am using sources of Exxon (the oil company), Hyma (a lubrication company), DCCEEW and others.

Contrary to Capital Retro, these are the sourced facts.

– The amount of oil in wind turbine tanks varies from about 300-1400 litres depending on size of turbine. (Exxon)

– Using automatic lubrication systems, oil use is about 150-600 litres per year. (Hyma)

– New synthetic oils are guaranteed for 10 years of use, against an accepted industry aim of 7 years, unlike early mineral oils which needed regular changes. (Exxon)

– Used lubricating oils are already cleaned and re-used in various applications, including lubrication. This is old news. (DCCEEW and several other sources)

Capital Retro, who, ever, proposed eliminating lubricating oils, which can be re-used after treatment anyway?

Can’t say I remember that issue.

But I do remember 28 September 2016 when those wind towers fell over in South Australia and plunged the state into blackout for days.

Can’t say I remember any “wind towers” falling over, perhaps you’ve got a link.

Here ya go chewy:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2025-02-06/wind-turbine-collapse-western-victoria-unacceptable/104903430

A worker at a Victorian wind farm was killed by a blade less than 12 months ago.

I don’t remember any deaths at the 2014 Hazelwood coal fire.

Could you name me two please Spiral?

Spiral is correct and desperate Penfold is of course wrong.

It’s amazing how intellectually lazy some people are FP, no thirst for knowledge or curiosity. Nice of you to help out.

As for the SA wind farm shocker, four of them including chief villains Snowtown and Hornsdale were fined millions for their failures.

The AEMO found the wind farms were responsible for the blackouts, despite years of denials and finger pointing anywhere and everywhere else. .

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-02/sa-wind-farms-ordered-to-pay-million-dollar-penalty/100262254

Futureproof,
Strange that isn’t South Australia, didnt happen in 2016 and didnt involve “wind towers”.

Penzero, I’ve got some reading material for you, perhaps you might comment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill

Btw you don’t even need to read the words, the pictures tell the story.

Its also good that Penzero has now provided another link showing that windfarms weren’t the cause of the South Australian blackout

“As part of the settled outcome, the Australian Energy Regulator withdrew formal allegations that the application of the settings was a “contributing cause” of the blackout”

It’s amazing how intellectually lazy some people are, no thirst for knowledge or curiosity. Nice to help you out.

The usual mendacity from Penfold.

Penfold wrote: “But I do remember 28 September 2016 when those wind towers fell over in South Australia and plunged the state into blackout for days.” and none of it is true, oh, except 28 September 2016 was a date when no wind towers “fell over” let alone “fall over and start a fire” as Penfold has also claimed.

As stated clearly in the article Penfold did not read and would rather you did not read either, those wind farms were fined for using certain operating procedures without approval, which meant the Energy Regulator was working with on false assumptions, which contributed to the blackout event. None of this has anything to do with the value of wind power of course. Penfold tries to smear, using falsehoods.

No wind turbines fell over. In his usual way, Penfold makes a false claim then changes the subject when he is shown to be wrong, making some other misleading claim as if to aver his original had some merit if obviously lacked. This is his standard practice, demonstrating that the best response to Penfold is to distrust his every word until he produces actual evidence; which he never does. He is a mouthpiece for interests which are not for the people.

Axon lovely to hear from you again. It’s a good thing you don’t live in South Australia because the multi-day blackout (in some areas) was very real indeed.

The ABC article stated quite clearly: “AEMO releases final report into SA blackout, blames wind farm settings for state-wide power failure”. It was pretty hard to miss, though it appears you did.

The 2016 wind farm catastrophe has even got its own Wikipedia page, feel free to search for it. But I may concede half a point – the wind turbines didn’t physically fall over, just metaphorically. Apologies for attempting some humour, not the right audience.

Fascinating that you appear to blame the energy regulator. Presumably the courts which fined the wind farms were also in cahoots.

Those dreamy wind turbines, they’re clearly fully faultless for, well, anything. Perhaps even the whoosh whoosh has been made up by all those scientists studying them. Oh, wait on, did someone say scientists ? 😊

Paragraph by paragraph.

Who said there was no blackout Penfold? Point it out. You cannot.

We know that electricity transmission towers (not wind towers) fell over in mini-tornadoes. We know, exactly as I said, that the energy regulator was operating on incorrect information (unapproved settings) which misinformation contributed to the blackout event. We know that the operators were sued for their non-contractual actions and paid recompense accordingly. We know that no blame was recorded against them. The simple chain is too complex to understand for Penfold, though others will not have that problem.

Your very belated claim of humour has zero credibility, like most of your claims. You really need not bother conceding that which you have already hopelessly lost.

The courts penalised non-contractual behaviour which contributed to problems managing the grid. No wind towers fell over as you claimed. The initial cause was collapse of transmission lines in an extreme weather event.

I can understand that Penfold is puzzled by notions of science and scientists. Climate scientists are in practically unanimous agreement about human-forced global warming, while epidemiologists agree there are no health impacts from wind turbines beyond the scope of ordinary noise regulation.

That post was so funny Axon it’s hard to know where to start. Perhaps the best place is to point out that epidemiology deals with diseases. It’s possible we can both agree that wind turbines, for all their faults, don’t cause disease. But your fallacious use of big medical and scientific terms is noted, almost brought a tear 🤣

With all those big words sometimes it’s hard to remember what you said, but when you posted that “none of that is true”, it made you sound like a denier of simple historical facts.

Perhaps I could recommend that you write letters to the ABC, the Federal Court, Justice White, the Australian Energy Market Operator and the people of South Australia to inform them that they’ve all got it wrong and only Axon has it right. If you could cc us all in would be great. Thanks !

As usual, Penfold is wrong just when he hopes he is right for once.

Epidemiology is the study and analysis of the distribution patterns and determinants of health and disease conditions in a defined population.

Notice “health”? Other relevant terms in different definitions include “mental health”, “obesity”, and “other disorders”. Penfold’s English is not up to snuff, like the rest of his rubbish.

What is it that you claimed about wind turbines, that they have health impacts? Despite attempting to cherry pick studies claiming some impact, the epidemiological view is that there are not health impacts. They are nothing but ordinary noise subject to ordinary noise controls.

None of his last paragraph does anything but try to evade that both that what I said is true, and not what Penfold purports it to be, and that Penfold’s two claims, that wind towers “fell over” in SA in 2016, and that wind towers “fall over and start fires” are false.

Penfold flails and fails.

How funny is it that Penzero attempts to berate others only to instantly out his continued ignorance by not even knowing what epidemiology is.

Cant make this stuff up, too funny again Penzero 😂😂😂👨‍🦯👨‍🦯👨‍🦯

Axon it’s hard to work out whether you’re talking to me or to someone else. Sometimes it’s “you”, sometimes it’s “his”, in the third person.

But regardless, sorry to burst your bubble again, or is it his bubble, but Epidemiology is “the branch of medical science that investigates all the factors that determine the presence or absence of diseases and disorders. Epidemiological research helps us to understand how many people have a disease or disorder, if those numbers are changing, and how the disorder affects our society and our economy.”

These clever scientists were very active during covid, in case you’ve forgotten. But none of their reports and analysis seemed too interested in wind farms or whoosh whooshes.

But perhaps as the incidence of whoosh whoosh increases and impacts society and obviously the economy, they might turn their attention to it.

Cherry picking fails again Penfold. Even your cherry-pick includes “disorders”.

Clever scientists also noticed the fact of human-forced climate change, and that renewables are the cheapest new build of electricity generation. Business investors agree.

By the way Penfold, your two claims, that wind towers “fell over” in SA in 2016, and that wind towers “fall over and start fires” in that context are false.

Thanks Axon, so you now argue that whoosh whoosh or injury by wind turbine is a disorder. Well at least you’ve made progress !

Thanks for providing more evidence showing the risk to aircraft is extremely low and easily manageable with planning.

Thats what you were trying to show right?

Couldn’t you find any Australian data CR? That is probably because there have never been any accidents in Australia involving planes hitting wind turbines.

Unlike the US, Australia has strict government enforced emergency management plans for wind farm operators to ensure aircraft can operate safely in these areas during emergencies.

Who was it talking about ducks and silly old geese?

In his desperate efforts to discredit anything scientific or proven, CR has kicked another own goal!

Good one CR!

Puzzling post Jack, could you explain how it is that wind turbines in Australia are able to avoid collisions with aeroplanes ?

We know they fall over and catch fire sometimes, is that how ?

I didn’t think this debate could get any more ludicrous from opponents of wind farms and anything science but along comes Penfold to prove me wrong!

At least he got one thing right, he is confused!

There are about 75,000 wind turbines in the USA compared to about 800 in Australia.

Given the rate Bowen is expanding their installation in Australia there is certain to be a similar trend to the USA.

It mystifies me why you are so defensive about wind turbines, chewy. Is there a vested interest involved you want to tell us about?

Capital Retro,
Your own link shows that the risk of accidents is extremely low, did you even read it?

Thousands of windfarms and a handful of crashes from small aircraft over a 20 year period. Surely no one is as obtuse as you are attempting to be?

It mystifies me why you are so defensive about opposing renewable energy, Retro. Is there a vested interest involved you want to tell us about or are do you just like parroting the discredited arguments of those that do?

Which bit of that article do you think contains different expert advice from now?

Was it this bit?

“Country Fire Service (CFS) media liaison officer Rachel Guy said wind turbine fires were rare.”

Or maybe this?

“The Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council’s Wind Farms and Bushfire Operations document says “wind farms are not expected to adversely affect fire behaviour, nor create major ignitions risks”.”

The only “different” opinion seems to be that of the non expert community member who is against a wind farm proposal near her house.

What a surprise.

Why do you think I used speech marks when I said “experts”, chewy?

In the past, bushfires have started where wind farms now sit and some of those fires burned all the way to south coast beaches.

At least the fire risk is only high on very windy days….

“Why do you think I used speech marks when I said “experts”, chewy?”

Because you’re making no sense as usual.

Glad we have now confirmed that the actual experts think that the risk of fire or ignition from windfarms is low.

In the “past” bushfires have started almost everywhere.

It must be a bit sickening for him, every day having to regurgitate whatever he just swallowed from Sky/Advance.

Axon, how do you deal with topics that ABC refuses to cover? Do you just pretend they don’t exist too?

I read widely and internationally across several countries Henry. How else do you think I recognise typical talking points? If you are watching the national broadcaster then congratulations; it is even better to read and to listen.

Henry he doesn’t. Remember renewables are cheaper. On some planet at least.

I get exposure to these through work and at home. What I’ve noticed is Australian news is badly filtered. I get more details and reports from watching news from other countries.

Axon I’ve got some reading material for you, perhaps you might comment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill

Btw you don’t even need to read the words, the pictures tell the story.

I understand your general problem Penfold, you never read the words.

Yes, renewables are cheaper. The relevant planet is Earth.

On Earth, including a component of it called Australia, renewables have now surpassed coal-fired electricity generation. The trend is continuing apace, especially in smaller countries not beholden to fossil interests, and in China which is coming to dominate the field.

Oh, sorry, you have to read more widely to discover those things. I doubt you will find it on the ABC nor on Sky/Advance.

You should add vertical to your reading Axon.

Forget the “typical” talking points because there is a lot of “real” talking points in the Sky.

Quick question Axon – if renewables are indeed cheaper, why is Albo introducing a new carbon tax ?

Simple economics would decree there’s no need. If renewables are cheaper.

Oh sorry, it’s called an “abatement incentive”.
C.2

https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/p2025-700922-appendices.pdf

Are you a bit of a dill, Penfold?

That is about pollution abatement, not the cost of electricity from renewables, nor any tax.

As Treasury wrote: “This method of estimating the marginal abatement incentive is a standard feature of many climate modelling exercises, and does not imply the adoption of a carbon pricing policy.”

Although, in his usual aim at his own feet, Penfold has drawn attention to the fact in C.2 that “disorderly transition” raises costs. What is disorderly transition? See Table C.1 where it is defined as: “Investor uncertainty limits the rollout of renewables”.

Penfold is trying to limit the rollout of renewables, and thus raise costs for industry, agriculture, and ordinary consumers. He never has a clue.

Well Axon sorry to mention science again but CO2 is a building block of life, hardly a “pollutant”. Too many groupthink sessions perhaps.

But switching to economics, why would Bowen want to make fossil fuels more expensive if renewables are cheaper ? Quite a quandary for the ideology isn’t it.

At least Jules was honest about it in 2011, well eventually.

Paragraph by paragraph

Practically everything which is a building block of life is deadly in excess, as is the case with CO2 which contributes to global warming. This is long understood by practically everyone, though fossil fuel lobbies and their hacks put self interest ahead of knowledge just like the tobacco industry did in the past.

No tax is proposed in that paper, but the fact is noted that opposition to switching to renewables increases the expected cost to agriculture, industry and consumers.

More irrelevance.

Out of curiosity Axon, how do you reconcile the fact that every single day you use and benefit from fossil fuels yet demonise them regularly.

Sorry to bring some reality to the table but the chances are you drive a car (fossil fuels whether ICE or EV), on a road (fossil fuels), post online (fossil fuel powered), pack a sandwich in glad wrap (fossil fuels), eat three meals (fossil fuels), see a doctor (you guessed, fossil fuels), pay a bill, catch a plane.

Which means Albo’s new carbon tax will be paid in part by – you guessed it – you !

Out of curiosity Penfold, how do you reconcile the fact that every single day you use and benefit from cheaper renewable energy yet demonise it regularly?

You may recall also that you wanted to demonise Chinese electronic components on mysterious security grounds but vanished when I asked about your computer and phone, to which you may add cars, postal service, foods and doctors, all of which benefit from cheaper renewables as well as Chinese-made electronics.

I also do not expect necessary absence of undesirable things, rather than their minimisation.

The short answer to your query is that I understand transitions rather than stasis.

So no reconciliation Axon ? That’s a shame, a little honesty can go a long away.

Speaking of honesty, did you know since the election of the Rudd government electricity prices have gone up 250%. Yes, 250% per the ABS CPI numbers. How’s that for those cheaper renewables.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/price-indexes-and-inflation/consumer-price-index-australia/latest-release

So there’s no need for any reconciliation there, renewables too expensive and Chinese stuff prohibited. Gotta practice what you preach after all, you should try it sometime 😊

As I said:

“I also do not expect necessary absence of undesirable things, rather than their minimisation.

The short answer to your query is that I understand transitions rather than stasis.”

It seems you understand less of Australian English than I imagined.

Shall we go around the block where you are debunked on GenCost again, Penfold? Or would you like to pay attention to the facts that wholesale electricity prices (roughly half the retail price) fall when renewables are on the grid, and that overwhelmingly private industry is investing in renewables with firming as the cheaper option compared with nuclear and coal, neither of which anyone wants to build in Australia for obvious financial reasons (they are uncompetitive).