A plan to generate renewable energy by building wind power turbines on the top of a Hobart office block has been rejected by local planning authority the Hobart City Council.

They don't look that bad do they?

The news has spawned a fusillade of responses, both critical and supportive, from a strange brew of sources.

As the ABC’s Tony Eastley put it in his report on AM, “Tasmania prides itself on being clean and green, but controversy is never too far away.”

Writers to local newspapers described it as a “ridiculous decision” and noted how Tasmania “needs to become a leader in renewable energy”.

The knock-back evoked some quite personal responses such as one correspondent who said she was “deeply frustrated”, another stating “the Hobart City Council has rightly been held up to ridicule nationally and internationally for its decision” which was seen as being based on the “shallowest of aesthetic reasons.” 

Just as strong are those who see the proposed wind turbines as an “ugly, ad hoc plan” and “inappropriate in the urban environment either because of scale or noise.” One opponent wrote “ being green is about not screwing up our environment, including our natural and built environment.” 

The Tasmanian Government was hoping the turbines might get the go-ahead. The Minister Assisting the Premier on Climate Change, Lisa Singh, said “I think this is a lost opportunity by the council, which could have taken a national lead.”

Set against this localised decision is a broader landscape of the future of urban transportation systems in capital cities across Australia.  Advances in vehicle and associated technology mean that the very nature of those systems will depend on the increased availability of electricity. From a carbon reduction perspective, it would clearly be preferable if this was renewably-generated electricity.

In the opinion of scientists and technical engineers researching this future, one way forward is to re-invent Australia’s urban transportation system through greater use of hybrid, battery-electric and plug-in electric vehicles. Part of this future would have to include the utilisation of the urban structure itself to provide additional electricity capacity and generation opportunities.

At the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) Alternative Transport Fuels Symposium held at the RACV in Melbourne last year, delegates heard from a number of eminent scientists including a compelling presentation on sustainable urban mobility from renowned architect and urban planner Professor William Mitchell, Director of the Smart Cities Group at the MIT Media Laboratory in the USA.

Professor Mitchell’s futuristic view takes the often-traveled information superhighway as its metaphor and describes a “mobility Internet, integrated with energy and information networks.” Mitchell looks at “entire cities as virtual power plants” with a “smart distributed power generation system” composed of effective utilisation of “inexpensive, off-peak power and clean but intermittent power sources” to apply to the urban transportation task. These power sources would include wind, solar and others.

The future of urban vehicles in particular, for Mitchell, will be the City Car: a shared-use,  two-passenger, fully electric and robotised car that folds and stacks like the airport luggage carts that many people would be familiar with. Customers swipe their credit card, pick up a car from a stack, and deposit at another stack when finished. Recharging happens at each stack. Again, the urban electricity grid and supply is fundamental to this model.

Motorists have been changing their opinions in recent years about cars and the environment and what can be done to reduce their impact. Increasingly, alternative-powered vehicles are seen as a solution to our dependence on conventionally-fueled vehicles. This reflects what is happening in the international marketplace as well.

A national survey of motorists’ attitudes conducted for the Australian Automobile Association – of which RACT is a member – by ANOP Research Services Pty Ltd in 2007 showed that around eight in ten motorists (79%) claimed to be ‘concerned’ about the effect of motor vehicles on the environment, up from 64% in 2003.

In the same survey, motorists were asked about ‘realistic solutions’ to reduce the impact of cars on the environment. “Driving less” (12%) and “improving vehicle emissions” (13%) were favoured by some respondents, while “alternative fuels” (29%) and “improving public transport” (30%) were considered to be more important in addressing the impact. 

More motorists now suggest the development of “alternative cars” as a solution, with 43% of respondents nominating this as their number one realistic solution to reducing the effect of cars on the environment. We expect this number to have increased again in our next survey, due later this year.

Interestingly, this response is up from only 13% in the same survey in 2003, reflecting the significant advances in technology and innovative design in the area of alternative vehicles during this short period of time. Much of this development has been in the hybrid-electric and fully electric vehicle market. 

An example of this is Mitsubishi’s feasibility study of its first fully-electric production vehicle, the i MiEV (Mitsubishi innovative Electric Vehicle) currently underway in Australia. This latest-generation vehicle utilises a large-capacity lithium-ion battery system and a compact, high-output electric motor in place of a traditional petrol power train.

The i MiEV requires seven hours plugged in to a normal domestic household power supply for a full battery charge. Mitsubishi claims that the running costs are 33% lower than a comparable-sized petrol car.

But where will all the extra electricity required come from ?

At the 2008 ATSE Symposium the Director of the CSIRO’s Energy Transformed program, John Wright, estimated that vehicle kilometers travelled in Australia would increase from around 200 billion km to about 325 billion km by 2050. 

Of this, however, only 50 billion km would be traveled by solely internal combustion powered vehicles. According to Wright’s model, by 2050 at least 125 billion km (or 40%) would be traveled by 100% electric and plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles. 

Wright argued that electricity as a transport fuel “will steadily grow and in the very long term will become predominant.”

If the future of urban transportation is electrification of the wider fleet, and innovative electric urban vehicles - as many in the field argue it will be – then we will need to use our cities’ structures to generate, store and distribute electricity.

Like it or not, the angular blades and whirring revolutions of renewable energy generation mechanisms will more than likely become part of our future cityscapes.

Most commented

19 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Joel B1 says:

      07:56am | 06/08/09

      Hello! Hydro-Electric anyone?

      Clean, green and very very renewable (it hasn’t stop raining here in Tassie for the past 2 months). But ironically, not supported by the Tasmanian Greens…

    • eag says:

      08:13am | 06/08/09

      So it’s better to build wind generators on pristine land that should be heritage listed than on city buildings? Get real and start thinking logically and for the future.

    • Bill says:

      10:23am | 06/08/09

      If Bobby B had let them build that nice renewable green base load generator on the Franklyn it would have saves Gigga tonnes of c02 from burning brown coal in Victoria to power Tassie and take away the need for silly stunts like this that would make enough power for a kettle and a fridge. . sometimes
      The law of unintended consequences…

    • Rob - Tasmania - deplore the possibilities says:

      11:18am | 06/08/09

      You haven’t mentioned that there’s still a slim chance turbines could be built on top of the Marine Board Building on the waterfront as it comes under a different planning authority.

      The vocal reasons from the HCC aldermen that voted against the ANZ building turbines were;

      1.  They would disturb the view of the mountain, especially for tourists.
      - Firstly, tourists don’t spend much time in the “city”, they get out and about and actually go up the mountain and to many other locations that gives them a view of the mountain.

      -Secondly, the only people who will have their view of the mountain effected are PEDESTRIANS on the waterfront and in some parts of the city, if they wish to view the mountain they’d only have to take a few steps either way.

      2.  Turbines would increase the overall height of the building.  While this would probably mean the buildings overall height would be higher than the planning scheme allows, it would not make the total height of the ANZ building anywhere near the height of the AMP building, our tallest building (not very tall).  The planning scheme needs to be amended if you can’t build a structure to the same height of the tallest building in the “City”, it’s not as if it’s a skyscraper.

      3 They would be dangerous for skydivers, should they be blown off course in strong winds and can’t land on the domain.

      -  A recent skydiving accident made it obvious that, in the event of strong winds they shouldn’t be skydiving.

      And if they happen to get caught out they are still able to have some level of control to land, as they were able to land across the river on a school sports oval on this occasion.  If the wind was coming from a different direction they’d still be able to avoid the turbines, they could land at North Hobart Oval, in a carpark, on the unused Hobart wharf, at Marieville Esplanade or, worst case scenario, land in the river.

      Not to mention that the regular landing area for skydivers is right next to a helicopter landing pad, I’d much rather collide with a wind turbine turning at wind speed, than the rotor blades of a chopper that’s just made an emergency landing while I’m in the air - obviously that is very unlikely, but I wouldn’t be suprised if some of the council Aldermen use it as a reason to ban sky diving in the future.

    • fehowarth says:

      02:51pm | 06/08/09

      I cannot not believe there could be many skydivers in a city.  There would be many more dangerous spots than a turbine. In some Amerciam states they are allowing them on individual homes in built up areas.  The example shown actually fitted into the environment and looked OK.  They reported that there had been no birds killed.  This person had solar power as well.  Tall buildngs are a perfect spot for a turbine.  They do not have to be much higher than the building and with creative design, could add to the view.  Ever been on the top of a very tall building, very uncomfortable in the wind created by the buildings.  The wind also blows 24 hours a day..

    • Andrew says:

      05:18pm | 06/08/09

      Surely the real reason the council rejected the turbines is because they make the building appear as if it had 3 heads.  The project proponents should have realised that having an odd number of heads is considered very unlucky in Tasmania.

    • cat says:

      10:33pm | 06/08/09

      Why pussyfoot around with all these half-baked plans when nuclear is the answer? Everyone is saying ‘electric cars’,‘electric this’ or ‘electric that’...where’s all this continuous power coming from. Or should there be a nationwide calendar of ‘brown-outs’ so we can keep the country going? We already have a nuclear reactor(?) for medecine manufacturing somewhere around Sydney. I haven’t heard of it blowing a fuse!

    • Ben Payne says:

      11:51pm | 07/08/09

      Nuclear is not the answer, it is just the last ditch effort of the energy industry to keep the profits rolling in.

      The technology to create RENEWABLE energy is mature enough to supply our entire energy needs many times over, in such abundance that it would be criminal to charge for it, which is precisely the problem.

      If industry can’t make a profit from it, then they won’t do it, and the government won’t do it because industry pays them not to.

    • Peter says:

      04:18pm | 09/08/09

      Wind turbines may work in Tasmania and Victoria ,but in Queensland they are as useless as Solar power. Where we live on the Cooloola Coast the experts give us an average 4.5 days of sunlight per week . At 4.5 X 12 hour day gives us 54 hours a week. The balance 114 hours we have to rely on other sources (especially at night the peak time). The experts solar panel recommended would save us approx $250 per year, to buy and install the unit $9000. Therefore to pay its way it would have to last 36 years. So much for solar power. Wind turbines (dunlite ) have been on the market in Queensland since the 1950’s and due to the small amount of wind have been useless in country areas. No wind no power.

    • Vince Taskunas says:

      08:48pm | 27/08/09

      The Tasmanian Government is still trying:

      “Premier David Bartlett and Minister Assisting the Premier on Climate Change Lisa Singh today welcomed the decision by the Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority (SCWA) to grant a permit for wind turbines on the top of Hobart’s Marine Board building…”

      more at http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=27661

    • William Gray says:

      09:26am | 30/08/09

      I suggest anyone interested in the truth about wind turbines should read ‘The Great Wind Turbine Scam’ among thousands of well researched papers into this long outdated technology. More benign wind turbines (ie. vertical axis turbines) are being used to reduce impacts on wildlife and peoples’ amenity and are proven to be more productive in output. One of the reasons the more dangerous(in every way) blade turbines will continue to plague the environment is because companies such as Dupont have invested so much in this ‘industry’ and control much of the resin manufactured in making the blades. Interestingly much of this resin is oil based.

    • Bruce Lipscombe says:

      08:35pm | 15/09/09

      I read with interest the many posts re the turbines, as the designer of the proposed turbines I can assure you that over 2 years resarch has gone into ensuring the system will work, we do not use resin based products in the turbines and the wonderful errors in the many web sites still amaze me.
      The facts are. Tasmania is in one of the best locations on the planet for wind turbines- fact research it. The proposed turbines are utilizing recycled aluminium, the embodied energy is kept to a minimum, much of the development has been done in Australia, we have spent literally tens of thousands in testing (there are Australian Standards to be met) as well as the required work to ensure our client gets what they want.
      If someone can let me know of a better or easier way of generating renewable energy in Tasmania where we can get equal Government incentives (we get les RECS in Tasmania for Solar) I would welcome the opportunity to share it with our clients. I am also somewhat amazed that there are so many people who are able to quote the performance figures of the turbines without even speaking to us.
      I suggest people interested in “The Truth” invest in actual reseach not the internet variety.

    • Vince says:

      08:45pm | 09/12/09

      Finally, a middle way:
      A compromise has been reached to allow wind turbines on the top of the ANZ building in Hobart’s CBD.
      A mediation hearing in the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal has resulted in the a deal to lower the height from 17 to 11 metres.
      The Hobart City Council rejected the original application.
      More at -
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2765871.htm?site=hobart

    • Claicerie says:

      01:14am | 09/12/10

      Natural Medicine Ethics Forums   http://bigeastsportsforum.com/ - buy azithromycin This medication is available in several different forms including capsules, chewable, injectables, and even liquid. <a >zithromax antibiotic</a>

    • Unmabsanabe says:

      10:58am | 20/05/11

      Hello, Philosophy Of Homeopathic Medicine http://therevitolcellulitesolution.com/ - proscar propecia This medication is potent that women who are pregnant or may become pregnant are advised to not even touch broken or crushed due to the fear that the medicine may become absorbed into the skin and then cause unborn child harm. http://therevitolcellulitesolution.com/ - generic propecia

    • VieltyKeene says:

      09:25am | 29/06/11

      Drug Dosage Calcuations http://lakecitytrucks.com/ - generic cialis without prescription Its benefits can last for a length of thirty hours or more compared to Viagra. <a >purchase cialis online</a>

    • Pletuplilla says:

      04:38pm | 22/07/11

      Little Known Illegal Drugs http://secretariavirtualglobal.com/ - buy lorazepam no prescription Anxiety medications should be prescribed by a doctor and you should never give your medications to anyone else. <a >lorazepam cost</a>

    • sypeignisse says:

      02:09am | 26/09/11

      sypeignisse, http://thecutlife.com/ - lexapro no prescription The people around the patient should watch over the change of mood and behavioral symptoms carefully.  http://thecutlife.com/ - lexapro price

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

Found a TV meteorologist on Twitter with the last name Piotrowski. There's a whole newsroom of Piotrowskis out there

Paul Colgan

RT @businessinsider: Man Being Questioned For Boston Bombing Connection Shot And Killed By FBI by @paulszoldrahttp://t.co/OtypP2PRgI

Daniel Piotrowski

This is a must read @TheAtlantic. Whether you think you know everything or think you know nothing http://t.co/naoUutCoWF

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @JoshuaWithers: Have you seen the Australian version of Breaking bad? He get's cancer and Medicare covers his costs and the series ends.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter